  | |
| |
 |  |
 | |
 | |
 |  |
 | |
 | |
 | |
| |
 | |
 | |
|
|
Radioactive Waste
SNIFFER: Dose Implications of Very Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Disposal 2007
SNIFFER: Dose Implications of Very Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal 2007 Completed Project SNIFFER Code UKRSR09 Executive summary rtf 700KB SNIFFER site Full report pdf 2000KB SNIFFER site The Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research (SNIFFER), on behalf of Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), the Environment and Heritage Service (EHS) of Northern Ireland and the Environment Agency commissioned this research to review the practice of disposal of small amounts of radioactive waste with ordinary domestic or trade waste. This practice is referred to as the disposal of very low level waste (VLLW). Current VLLW disposal is in line with Government policy which promotes, when safe to do so, the disposal of low level radioactive waste by conventional methods such as incineration or disposal to landfill. The route is used extensively by the non-nuclear sector such as hospitals and universities and by a few small nuclear users. There have been substantial changes to conventional waste management practices in the past few years with the advent of legislation such as the Landfill Directive (Council Directive 1999/31/EC 1999), such that much greater emphasis is placed on diverting wastes from landfill. Consequently, conventional wastes are now increasingly subject to recovery, reuse or recycling. In particular, there has been a significant increase in the segregation of waste types at source, resulting in separate disposal routes for different waste types. Disposal of VLLW with ordinary conventional waste provides a valuable and cost effective option for many users of radioactive substances. It is a route which is routinely authorised by the UK environment agencies for the premises of the non nuclear sector without any need for specific radiological assessment. This project has saught to establish whether or not current practices of VLLW disposal remain an acceptable environmental option. The specific aims of the project have been to:
This committee produced their 4th report on radioactive waste on the 3rd June 2007. This report comes just after the CoRWM report and at a time when the government are considering the setting up of a successor to CoRWM to carry forward the process of site selection for geological disposal. The committee were quite critical of the "highly confusing" proposed remit for the new CoRWM and in particular what effect this might have on its independence. They also felt the relationship between the NDA and the new CoRWM should be clarified so that the NDA should not be in the position of responding to its own advice to government. The committee see the new CoRWM as being an independent strong overseeing body with more scientific, technological and social science expertise and not the advisory committee as envisaged by the government. The new CoRWM would be more in line with the permanent body which was recommended by the House of Lords committee in 1999 (1999 report Parliament site) to oversee implementation of the MRWS program. It should also have responsibility for the long term planning and coordination of the R&D for the MRWS programme. The research would be carried out by the new National Nuclear Laboratory. They recommend that the Learned Societies should be asked for help in
deciding the membership of the new CoRWM.
The committee hope to see the government publish the legal reasons for
implementing the merger between Nirex and the NDA.
Lastly, they urge the government to engage in a more open dialogue with local communities over the risks presented by current temporary storage of radioactive waste. In addition they recommend that this dialogue should include more information on "nuclear security". Abstract - This report examines the Government's proposals for radioactive waste management following the publication of the final recommendations of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) in July 2006. In particular, we focus on the institutional arrangements for implementing the next phase of the Government's Managing Radioactive Waste Safely (MRWS) programme. The Government accepted CoRWM's key recommendation that geological disposal currently presented the best available approach to long-term management of radioactive waste and gave a commitment to finding a suitable site for a geological repository not only by geological criteria but by a participative process. However, CoRWM's recommendations were made as part of a package which as a key component contained the setting-up of an independent body to oversee the programme. The Government have watered down this recommendation and plan to set up an independent advisory body, the "new CoRWM", instead. We therefore have serious concerns over the institutional framework for the next, implementation phase of the MRWS programme. We found the Government's proposals to be incoherent and opaque. The Government must acknowledge these deficiencies and seek to rectify them by establishing clearer lines of accountability and independent, expert scrutiny. We once again recommend, as we did in 1999, that the Government establish an independent, statutory body, independent of day-to-day Government control and accountable to Parliament, with overall responsibility for implementing the geological disposal programme. Failing that, we strongly urge the Government to give the new CoRWM greater independence and authority to scrutinise proposals for implementation. Its recommendations should be properly responded to, and its relationship with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority must be clearly defined and set out in the latter's governance arrangements. In 1999 we urged that progress in radioactive waste management should be "steady and measured". Instead we have had years of procrastination, followed by what now appears to be unseemly haste. This is not the way to inspire public confidence. The new CoRWM, if that is to be the body charged with providing independent scrutiny and advice, must be involved with all aspects of implementation from the outset. We therefore call on the Government to delay the publication of their forthcoming consultation document until the new CoRWM has been appointed and has had time to consider the proposals. In particular, any proposals regarding site selection must be given full and careful consideration, including by the new CoRWM, rather than being rushed through in a matter of months. Source and further information: House of Lords Science and Technology Committee 4th Report of Session 2006-07 Radioactive Waste Management: an Update, published 3 June 2007 UK Parliament site HPA: Assessment of Disposal of VLLW in Landfill Sites, 9 May 2007 The Health Protection Agency has carried out an assessment of the potential radiological impact of the disposal of large quantities of very low level solid radioactive waste (VLLW) from the nuclear industry in sites built to conventional landfill site standards. Q Q Chen, R Kowe, S F Mobbs and K A Jones. Radiological Assessment of Disposal of Large Quantities of Very Low Level Waste in Landfill Sites. RPD-020. ISBN: 978-0-85951-588-7. Access the report HPA site This work was funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Environment Agency to provide the UK government with information on potential radiation doses from the disposal of large quantities of VLLW, to assist policy development in this area. Although primarily for government and environment agencies, this report may also be useful to organisations considering options for the disposal of large quantities of waste with very low levels of radioactivity. Source: HPA press release HPA site Defra presentations, 19 April 2007
Contaminated Land
The CoRWM report — Dr Barrie Lambert, 11 October 2006 After two and a half years CoRWM, the committee set up to advise the government on what to do with the legacy of high and intermediate level radioactive waste, has reported. This 192 page complex and repetitive report includes 18 recommendations but in essence is unsurprising in that the basic thrust which is interim storage followed ultimately by geological disposal. Their suggestion for initial interim storage appears to be because of opposition to immediate underground disposal and in the hope that further research will "provide for the development of other options". The committee was set up in Nov 2003 with 13 members and has suffered a number of changes in personnel - the appointed chairperson left quite early on and was replaced and then in April 2005 one member was, controversially, dismissed and another resigned a month later. The committee's remit was to consider every likely option but they inherited 15 options from a report of the Information Needs Research Project commissioned by Defra. These options included such bizarre and unfeasible options such as disposal in ice sheets, disposal at sea, disposal in subduction zones, disposal in space and dispersal in the environment. However, these were included because they, apparently, had been considered "viable by the international scientific community." It then took the committee 15 months to reduce these options to 4 which were versions of long term interim storage, phased geological and ultimate geological disposal. The original remit was encapsulated in "a new approach" which instead of decide-announce-defend was to be based on "engagement with the public, stakeholders, expert knowledge and reflection on ethical issues". CoRWM thus spent some time and effort on public and stakeholder engagement (PSE) processes particularly in the detailed assessment of options within the framework of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). They also emphasise that their recommendations take into consideration the inter-generational i.e ethical, aspects of long term storage and disposal. Although they also report they took no position on the desirability of "new build", CoRWM points out that this could result in 3-5 times the activity to be stored. The committee were not asked to recommend sites for storage or disposal but, given that they reported that all HLW being considered is and will be located at Sellafield and that transport is considered undesirable, it is difficult to envisage another site. However, the committee do suggest that communities should be encouraged to volunteer to host the waste in some form of package deal which would " enhance the well being of the community". Dr Barrie Lambert CoRWM — Final recommendations, 31 July 2006 For over three decades, efforts to find solutions to the problem of long-term radioactive waste management in the UK have failed. Government initiated a fundamental review of policy and appointed the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) to take this forward. CoRWM has adopted an innovative approach, based on engagement with the public and stakeholders, expert knowledge and reflection on ethical issues. Consideration of these inputs has led to a set of interdependent proposals which recommend: (1) geological disposal as the end state; (2) the vital role of interim storage; and (3) a new approach to implementation, based on the willingness of local communities to participate, partnership and enhanced well-being. The proposals form a basis for Government to act upon without delay. — Source: CoRWM CoRWM's final recommendations CoRWM site CoRWM — Report from the two-day stakeholder forum, 7 & 8 June 2005 National Stakeholder Forum, 7 & 8 June 2005, Summary Report pdf CoRWM site
Nirex review of 1987-1991 site selection for a radioactive waste repository On 10 June 2005 Nirex (Nirex site) published an historic short-list of sites, compiled during the 1980s as possible locations for a radioactive waste repository. A technical note "Review of 1987-1991 Site Selection for an ILW/LLW Repository" dated June 2005 is available on the Nirex site. CoRWM — Phase 2 Consultation, ends 27 June 2005 In July 2005, the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) will be taking major decisions about its short list of long-term management options, and the ways these options will be assessed in the next phase of its work. CoRWM will be particularly seeking views on:
There is a CoRWM consultation document that forms the basis of this stage of their work. It is available on the CoRWM web site , as the 2nd Consultation Document 4th April to 27th June 2005 http://www.corwm.org.uk Or a hard copy can be obtained by phoning Chris or Sam on 0207 082 8496 /8491 /8470 (3 lines) CoRWM — Reports of the first stage of public and stakeholder consultation Report of the National Stakeholder Forum, 11 - 12 January 2005 pdf 500KB CoRWM site
All reports CoRWM site Formation of CoRWM (the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management) — the new radwaste committee For 50 years the UK Governments have not had a firm policy for the management and disposal of high and intermediate level radioactive wastes. A number of committees and agencies have had responsibilities to consider parts of the problem but even 22 years after the creation of NIREX (Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive), for example, there is no decision on how to deal with the wastes in the long term let alone where they will go. It is in this climate that the Government have set up an independent
committee (CoRWM) with funding and the secretariat backing of Defra to
assess the management options for these wastes and to interact with stakeholders
in this process. At the same time (July 2003) the Secretary of State for
the Environment has required NIREX to be more independent of the nuclear
industry and RWMAC (Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee) (which was set up in 1978 to carry out work on radioactive
waste issues commissioned by government ministers) is to be effectively
"put on ice" for 2-3 years. The remits of these three bodies clearly overlap
considerably - for instance the current mission of NIREX is "To provide
the UK with safe, environmentally sound and publicly acceptable options
for the long-term management of radioactive materials" - and there is already
confusion as to who is to do what and how. However, CoRWM has about 2 years
in which to examine all the options for the management of solid HLW and
ILW, thought not to decide on eventual disposal sites, and furthermore
to recommend an option or options to government. In undertaking this
task, CoRWM is required to engage as far as possible with the public and
stakeholders in the assessment of all the options for the management of
the waste streams from the more extreme (sending it in a rocket into outer
space) to the more reasonable (an underground or sub-surface repository).
Barrie Lambert
CoRWM the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management CoRWM is the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management. We are a new independent body appointed by UK Government Ministers. We are asked to review options for managing solid radioactive waste in the UK and recommend the option, or combination of options, that can provide a long-term solution, providing protection for people and the environment. Our priority task is to recommend what should be done with the wastes for which no long term management strategy currently exists; that is high and intermediate level waste now in storage or likely to arise over the next century or two, and some low level waste unsuitable for disposal at Drigg in Cumbria. About the committee, news items, meetings, working groups, quarterly reports, work programme - CoRWM CoRWM site. Accessed 9 Jun 2004 Developing UK policy for the management of radioactive waste - Royal Society (April 2002) This is the Royal Society's response to the DEFRA consultation document Managing Radioactive Waste Safely. Summary
Full report http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/files/statfiles/document-173.pdf (500KB)
Summary and Analysis of Responses to the Consultation on Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal January 2008
Defra site
Policy for the long term management of solid low level radioactive waste in the United Kingdom pdf 400KB Defra site
This policy amends or replaces relevant parts of the Review of Radioactive Waste Policy: Final Conclusions (Cm2919) White Paper published in July 1995. The policy covers all aspects of the generation, management and regulation of solid LLW and applies to the following organisations: those responsible for the production and management of wastes (waste producers and managers); the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority; the regulatory bodies; the Food Standards Agency; waste disposal facility operators; and regional planning bodies; and planning authorities.
The regulation of radioactive waste management on licensed nuclear sites (11/06) pdf HSE site
Radioactive Waste Policy Group (RWPG) Defra site.
Its terms of reference are: "To review and make recommendations on issues which arise in relation to radioactive waste management policy in the UK, radioactive discharges, and corresponding regulatory processes and arrangements". This remit is taken to include appropriate coordination of policy and regulatory initiatives. The Government White Paper "Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy (CM 2919) published in July 1995 set out the conclusions of the then Government's review of radioactive waste management policy. Since many of the policies in the 1995 White Paper would now be out-of-date and in need of revision, the RWPG, in a meeting in 2004, decided that a rolling summary of all the current components of the radioactive waste management policy in the UK should be developed and maintained within the Defra web pages. Accessed 22 September 2006 Radioactive waste management Defra site. Radioactive waste management involves dealing safely with the long-lived wastes from processes involving radioactivity. This waste comes from a number of sources, and ranges from paper towels used in hospitals to nitric acid solution formed as a result of reprocessing nuclear fuel. Radioactive waste is currently stored safely on site under licence from the Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and is subject to strict regulatory control. But the Government and the devolved administrations have not decided on the long-term management of solid long-lived radioactive waste and consider it vitally important to find a solution that is scientifically and technically feasible and one which has the support of the general public. Accessed 9 Jun 2004 ISOLUS Intrim storage of laid-up submarines University of Lancaster site. Consultation on radioactive waste management from decommissioned nuclear submarines, inc Final Report and MoD responses. Accessed 9 Jun 2004 Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee (RWMAC) reports
Radioactive waste - where next? (pdf 17KB Help) Prof Charles Curtis, Research Dean, University of Manchester & Chairman, RWMAC. - NRPB Chilton Seminar 2000 |
| About the SRP | Benefits of Membership | How to Join | Services | Journal
Related Sites | Members Only | Email Us | Home © The Society for Radiological Protection 1998-2008 |