Corporate report

Scrutiny of RWM's work on geological disposal - annual report 2019 to 2020

Updated 22 October 2024

Foreword

This is a joint Environment Agency and Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) publication that summarises our work relating to the geological disposal of radioactive waste.

As regulators for these wastes, we are working together to make sure that any future geological disposal facility (GDF) will meet the high standards for environmental protection, safety and security that the public expects.

We have established agreements with Radioactive Waste Management Limited (RWM), the organisation responsible for developing a GDF, to provide regulatory advice and to scrutinise its work.

We are engaging with RWM early, before regulation starts, so that when a site is identified RWM already clearly understands what it needs to do as part of the regulatory process.

We also liaise regularly with RWM to make sure that it gives the right advice to waste producers about packaging radioactive waste for future disposal at a GDF.

We have no regulatory role in selecting potential sites for a GDF. However, we will offer our support on matters relating to our respective areas of regulation to communities that are considering hosting a GDF.

We continue to speak openly with RWM to help it understand what it needs to do to meet environmental, safety and security regulations.

It also helps us better understand RWM’s work, and lets us prepare in advance for any permit or licence applications we might receive, so that we can respond promptly and knowledgeably.

We have set out our regulatory expectations for geological disposal, covering our respective remits.

The Environment Agency has issued its Guidance on Requirements for Authorisation (GRA).^{[footnote 1]}

ONR has issued a Technical Assessment Guide on Geological Disposal,^{[footnote 2]} and will draw upon relevant aspects of ONR’s Safety Assessment Principles for Nuclear Facilities.^{[footnote 3]}

Throughout this document ‘we’ refers to both the Environment Agency and ONR; where comment is made on matters specific to one regulator then ‘The Environment Agency’ or ‘ONR’ is used.

As independent regulators, we are committed to making our work open and transparent. This report will help us continue to do this.

Executive summary

Government policies in England and Wales state that higher activity radioactive waste (HAW) will be managed in the long term through geological disposal.

This is currently being progressed alongside ongoing interim storage of waste and supporting research.

RWM is the organisation responsible for implementing government policy on geological disposal of HAW and for providing advice on managing radioactive waste.

It is currently carrying out ‘generic’ preparatory work for a GDF, as no sites have yet been identified.

This report summarises the work that the Environment Agency and the ONR have carried out to scrutinise RWM’s work and our interactions with the public during 2019 to 2020.

Our oversight of RWM is helping it to better understand the regulatory requirements and the submissions it needs to make to apply for environmental permits and a nuclear site licence for geological disposal activities.

As we summarise in this report, RWM has progressed in a number of areas, but further work is still required. The main outcomes from our work during 2019 to 2020 are detailed below.

RWM must be ready as an organisation to apply for the permits it needs to begin site investigation work when the time comes.

We are pleased to note that in its Corporate Strategy 2019 RWM sets itself a strategic objective “to complete its cultural and capability development for major programme delivery by 2022”.

We recognise that RWM has implemented a number of significant organisational changes in a relatively short time.

However, RWM needs a clear plan in place to show how and when it will establish itself as an organisation suitable to hold an environmental permit, and subsequently a nuclear site licence.

We expect RWM to have a clear and comprehensive plan of work to implement geological disposal that meets regulatory requirements.

RWM has provided a large amount of new material that represents some progress towards providing the necessary information. However, work is still needed to present an integrated programme.

RWM must apply sound science and engineering to its work.

It will need a targeted, prioritised research and development (R&D) programme to address relevant uncertainties and to make sure it applies Best Available Techniques.

We consider that RWM’s systems and processes for R&D are suitable for this early stage. However, RWM should clarify in its research plans why each project is important in developing a safety case, and what impact completed projects have made, justifying any deferrals or delays.

In particular, we have asked RWM to consider whether it knows enough about the impacts of waste package voidage on a GDF and the development of a GDF in an evaporite geology.

Good progress has been made towards establishing a Research Support Office, but RWM needs to make sure it develops links with relevant engineering disciplines to understand more about operational safety challenges.

To meet the requirements of The Water Framework Directive and the Groundwater Directive, RWM must prevent hazardous substances, and limit the amount of non-hazardous pollutants, entering groundwater.

RWM’s 2010 generic Environmental Safety Case did not address this adequately.

The Environment Agency has since reached a common understanding with RWM of its regulatory expectations; RWM has made significant progress and has taken much of our advice into account.

RWM has significantly improved its Total System Model (TSM) for non-radiological contaminants in a GDF, aligned now with its TSM for radioactive substances.

RWM is also developing its disposability assessment advice for waste packagers on non-radiological contaminants.

This will cover approximately 100 hazardous substances and non-hazardous pollutants that may be present in the waste and, or introduced through the waste packaging and conditioning process (or both).

The Environment Agency considers RWM’s approach for deriving its list of potentially recordable radionuclides for GDF wastes is reasonably comprehensive at this early stage, but RWM still needs to resolve many areas of detail and practice.

RWM must consider how to address significant uncertainties. We emphasised that its guidance for waste producers should be balanced, without unnecessarily increasing the reporting and waste characterisation burden on waste producers.

RWM recognises its guidance will need to meet the needs of different audiences, including its own disposability assessment team, waste producers, and those involved in developing strategies for radionuclide data generation and recording.

The Environment Agency advised RWM on its work on site characterisation information requirements.

RWM needs to clarify how it will establish baseline conditions through its site characterisation work and demonstrate suitable arrangements to manage data and information quality.

We advised RWM to carry out a structured analysis of options for underground investigations.

To maintain its own capability, the Environment Agency took part in a number of international collaborative programmes, including the Nuclear Energy Agency’s Integration Group for the Safety Case (IGSC) and its Forum and its Forum for Stakeholder Confidence.

The Environment Agency also held a technical exchange meeting with the Swedish nuclear regulator and visited a number of facilities in Sweden, including an underground research laboratory.

Invited by the UK government, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) carried out a full scope Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) mission to the UK in October 2019 to peer review the nuclear and radiological safety framework.

The IRRS mission gave us the opportunity to have our regulatory framework reviewed by our peers from across the globe. The IRRS team made some findings related to progressing with strengthening the regulatory framework for a future GDF.

1. Introduction

Radioactive waste has been, and continues to be, produced from the UK’s historic and current nuclear power, research and defence programmes, as well as from industries, hospitals and universities that use radioactive material.

There is currently no route to dispose of higher activity radioactive waste (HAW), the most radioactive category of waste, so it is stored on existing nuclear sites until a solution can be found.

UK government policy for the long-term management of HAW in England is described in the 2018 policy document.^{[footnote 4]}

This sets out the framework for managing HAW through geological disposal, focusing on how a GDF would be implemented in England.

Similarly, the Welsh Government has adopted a policy of supporting geological disposal for the long-term management of HAW.^{[footnote 5]}

Scottish Government policy does not support geological disposal. It advocates near-site, near-surface management of HAW. Also that long-term storage in a near-surface storage facility is the primary long-term management option.

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) is responsible for implementing government policy on the long-term management of radioactive waste. Its subsidiary, RWM, is responsible for developing a GDF.

The Environment Agency and the ONR are responsible for making sure that any future GDF in England meets the high standards necessary to protect people and the environment when it is being developed, while it is operating, and after it has closed.

We will be responsible for granting the necessary environmental permits and nuclear site licence, and for our respective regulatory roles of environmental protection, safety, security, radioactive materials transport and safeguards.

Our regulatory partner Natural Resources Wales (NRW) has similar environmental protection responsibilities for Wales, and we keep them aware of matters arising and important outcomes from our work.

Regulatory control of a GDF is likely to be required for at least a century. We are engaging with RWM now to make sure that any future applications to develop a GDF take account of all permitting and licensing requirements.

We also want to make sure that RWM gives the right advice to waste producers, so that radioactive waste packaged at their sites is suitable for future disposal.

Discussions at this early stage will also help us prepare in advance for any permit or licence application we might receive from RWM, so that we can respond promptly and knowledgeably.

At this stage, before considering issuing permits or licence, we are providing regulatory advice rather than making regulatory decisions.

We have no regulatory role in selecting potential sites for a GDF. However, we will offer our support to communities that are considering hosting a GDF, and will advise on matters relating to our respective areas of regulation.

2. Support to siting process

We continue to liaise with RWM to make sure that our regulatory requirements are recognised in the plans and tools it is developing to locate potential sites for a GDF.

Our discussions with RWM about its plans and proposals for working groups are helping us prepare to support community discussions.

Our preparations to date include identifying staff to lead our support to working groups and sharing communications and engagement materials with them. These preparations will continue to ensure we are ready well in advance.

Ahead of discussions with specific communities, we have supported national stakeholder engagement through attendance at the Department of Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) forum of environmental non-governmental organisations.

NDA also invited us to its regional site stakeholder group meetings on waste management and geological disposal. We were able to provide information on our role as regulators and to respond to any relevant questions.

3. RWM’s geological disposal programme

We expect RWM to have a clear and comprehensive plan of work to implement geological disposal that meets regulatory requirements and to demonstrate progress against it (GRA §6.2.5 to 6.2.41).^{[footnote 1]} We recognise that such a plan may need to meet other stakeholder needs in addition to regulatory matters. However, these wider stakeholder needs are not part of our regulatory responsibilities and so do not form part of this work scope.

This will give us confidence that RWM understands what it needs to do to achieve its goals at each phase of its work. It will also enable us to plan and focus our scrutiny work and assess RWM’s progress towards meeting our requirements.

We have, for some years, advised RWM that there is not a good overall view of its programme. We stressed RWM should demonstrate all it needs to achieve, by when, in a way that we and others can understand.

We consider that this will be a high priority if RWM wishes to efficiently and successfully progress geological disposal.

Our engagement with RWM, over the period covered by this report, has proved fruitful.

RWM has provided a large amount of new material that demonstrates some progress towards providing the necessary information. However, more work is still needed to adequately present an integrated programme.

We will continue to engage with RWM to help it address our regulatory requirements. We will use the information gathered to monitor its progress and readiness.

4. Organisational capability

The developer and operator of a GDF should foster and nurture a positive organisational culture (promoting safety, security and environmental compliance) at all times.

It should also have a management system, organisational structure and enough resources to provide essential functions [GRA Requirement 4; Licence Conditions 17 and 36].

To issue environmental permits for borehole investigations at a potential site, or sites, we need to be confident that RWM can comply with those permits from the date we issue them.

RWM must also continue to develop its organisational structure and management systems so that it is capable of holding the necessary environmental permits and a nuclear site licence to construct and operate a GDF.

We have been monitoring RWM’s progress over recent years and have reported the outcomes of our inspections in previous annual reports.

We recognise that RWM has implemented a number of significant organisational changes in a relatively short time and that periods of organisational instability can prove challenging.

We want RWM to be ready to apply for the environmental permits it needs to begin its site investigation work. We are pleased to note that in its Corporate Strategy 2019 RWM set itself a strategic objective “to complete its cultural and capability development for major programme delivery by 2022”.

However, RWM needs a clear plan in place to show how and when it will establish itself as an organisation suitable to hold an environmental permit, and subsequently a nuclear site licence

RWM is developing an ‘integrated capability development plan’, which will address this. We will continue to advise RWM as it develops this plan.

We have advised RWM that matters highlighted in its Health, Safety, Security, Environment and Quality (HSSEQ) Strategy are of interest to us.

These include the need for suitable management arrangements; knowledge management; record keeping; qualified and experienced personnel; technical oversight capability; and quality assurance.

The Environment Agency will need to be confident that RWM is competent in these and other aspects before we can grant any environmental permits.

The Environment Agency will continue to provide advice to RWM on its ‘organisational development’ expectations of a permit holder.

ONR will also continue to advise RWM to make sure that its organisational development is in line with the expectations of a prospective holder of a nuclear site licence.

We consider that RWM’s Safety & Environment Management Prospectus^{[footnote 6]} is adequate for the current stage of the GDF programme. Together with its Organisational Baseline,^{[footnote 7]} this is adequate for making sure RWM has the necessary capability to implement its plan of work. However, we advised RWM to use the plan to help it appoint people to important organisational baseline roles.

In doing this, RWM needs to consider the competing demands for nuclear skills nationally over the next 2 decades, and the current age profile of experienced people, to establish what it needs to do to develop its own skills and experience.

We also advised RWM to identify all the management system, quality and environmental standards it needs to comply with.

Our engagement with RWM has given us a useful insight into its current approach, through its Transformation Programme, to become a safe and effective organisation through cultural change, increased organisational capability and improved ways of working.

We will continue to engage regularly with RWM and monitor progress. We plan to carry out an inspection during 2020 to 2021 focused on RWM’s management of change capability.

5. Regulatory requirements

RWM’s applications to develop a GDF must take full account of our environmental permitting requirements [GRA §5] and the duties placed on operators of a licensed nuclear site (nuclear safety, security, safeguards, radioactive materials transport, and conventional health and safety).

RWM’s understanding and interpretation of the full range of relevant regulations and guidance should be consistent with our expectations [GRA Part 2, Licensing Nuclear Installations], and it should be aware of new and emerging regulations.

An application for any environmental permit relating to a proposed disposal of solid radioactive waste must be supported by a suitable environmental safety case (ESC).^{[footnote 1]}

Similarly, any application for a nuclear site licence to construct and operate a GDF will need to be supported by adequate demonstrations of safety and security.^{[footnote 8]}

We want to establish a clear and common understanding with RWM of the requirements of the applications for permits and licences to make sure that any future applications take full account of our regulatory requirements.

5.1 Staged environmental regulation and permitting process

The Environment Agency will require an Initial Site Evaluation (ISE) to support an application for a radioactive substances activities environmental permit to start intrusive investigation work in the search area for a GDF.

At this stage, our main regulatory aim will be to make sure that any proposed intrusive site investigation will not compromise the integrity of a potential site to the unacceptable detriment of the long-term environmental safety case for a possible GDF.

We will also want to make sure RWM’s proposals can adequately collect information and data to support a decision to start underground operations and that RWM is able to appropriately manage any relevant subcontractors.

The Environment Agency will subsequently require a Preliminary Environmental Safety Evaluation (PESE) to support an application for a variation (change) to an environmental permit to allow underground operations to start ahead of a GDF being constructed.

At this stage, the Environment Agency would expect RWM to be able to demonstrate that underground operations would not compromise the integrity of a candidate site to the unacceptable detriment of the environmental safety case for a GDF.

The Environment Agency would also expect RWM to have a suitable work programme in place to collect information and data to support a decision to move to the next stage of development.

The Environment Agency will require further applications to support proposals for construction of disposal facility areas and to support decisions to allow disposal of radioactive wastes to begin.

RWM will need to address all environmental regulations relevant to the intrusive investigation work such as groundwater activities, waste operations, water discharge activities and water abstraction.

The Environment Agency could grant the necessary environmental permits to proceed with each stage of site investigation provided RWM has made an acceptable application, subject to any conditions or limits that might be imposed.

For sites not selected for further investigation, the Environment Agency would only accept a permit being surrendered (cancelled) once it is satisfied that any regulated areas have been returned to a satisfactory state.

We continue to engage with RWM to provide advice on our environmental regulations as necessary.

The Environment Agency met with RWM to discuss its permitting process and regulatory expectations for the ISE and PESE to support applications for environmental permits for radioactive substances activities.

This provided the opportunity for some initial discussion and clarifications, which concluded that further, more detailed discussions were needed.

A workshop was planned in March 2020 to discuss wider matters related to the environmental permitting of an intrusive site investigation programme, including considering other relevant environmental regulations. Unfortunately, the workshop was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This area will be progressed in the ongoing work programme.

5.2 Non-radiological contaminant assessment

The Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and the Groundwater Directive (2006/118/EC) require EU member states to protect groundwater against pollution and deterioration by preventing hazardous substances and limiting non-hazardous pollutants from entering groundwater.

RWM’s 2010 generic Environmental Safety Case^{[footnote 9]} did not adequately address the need to protect groundwater resources and the public’s health from the non-radioactive substances in the inventory for disposal. The Environment Agency has engaged with RWM regularly since then to share its regulatory expectations and to understand RWM’s work to address this. RWM has made significant progress, but some matters remain.

The Environment Agency advised RWM on its developing Total System Model (TSM) for non-radiological contaminants in a GDF. The latest version^{[footnote 10]} is significantly improved and RWM has taken much of our advice into account.

We are pleased that the non-radioactive contaminant TSM is now based on the TSM for radioactive substances, and that RWM intends that future versions will improve the consistency between the two.

We identified a number of areas that could be improved. These included:

• better understanding of the non-radioactive component of all waste streams in the inventory for disposal

• including the whole inventory for disposal

• developing an approach for assessing non-radioactive contaminants in an evaporite host rock^{[footnote 11]}

We also advised RWM of our concerns over its non-conservative treatment of organic contaminants in the source term and deep groundwater.

RWM is developing its disposability assessment advice for waste packagers on non-radiological contaminants.

This will cover approximately 100 hazardous substances and non-hazardous pollutants that may be present in the waste and, or introduced through the waste packaging and conditioning process (or both).

We advised RWM that our biggest concern is with waste that has already been packaged, in particular historical waste with records that may not reflect recent guidance.

Because we do not expect waste already packaged to be sampled and characterised, and we wish to avoid or minimise reworking, we advised RWM to review analogous waste streams and seek input from those involved in the processes that created (and packaged) the waste.

Where characterisation data are limited, RWM proposes to use inventory descriptions to identify materials and chemicals that may contain, or degrade and corrode to, non-radioactive contaminants of concern.

Improving the reporting of the non-radioactive component of the UK Radioactive Waste Inventory (UKRWI) was an important focus of the 2019 UKRWI and will remain the top priority for the 2022 UKRWI.

The aim is to get improved reporting in the 2022 UKRWI and for it to be established as business as usual by 2025.

The Environment Agency updated RWM on the potential impact of the Mercury Regulations on the disposability of radioactive mercury and mercury-contaminated waste.

Preliminary legal advice is that radioactive waste is not excluded from the scope of the Regulations. However, the discussion has broadened to a wider debate with Defra on exclusions from the Waste Framework Directive.

We are aware that a number of organisations are keen for advice on this and we will advise further when we can.

We will continue to work with RWM to provide clarity on our requirements for protecting groundwater at depths relevant to a GDF.

5.3 Recordable radionuclides

RWM maintains a list of radionuclides that waste producers must report against. The Environment Agency advised RWM on its proposed approach for re-deriving this list of potentially recordable radionuclides.^{[footnote 12][footnote 13]}

This is an important area of work, as the final output of this project will be an updated list of radionuclides that need to be considered when assessing the environmental, operational and transport safety of waste intended for disposal to a GDF.

We consider that RWM’s approach is reasonably comprehensive given the work is at an early stage, but RWM still needs to resolve many areas of detail and practice.

We advised RWM to consider how to address significant uncertainties. We emphasised that its guidance for waste producers should be balanced, without unnecessarily increasing the reporting and waste characterisation burden on waste producers.

RWM recognises its guidance will need to meet the needs of different audiences, including its own disposability assessment team, waste producers, and those involved in developing strategies for radionuclide data generation and recording.

We advised RWM that it should, as a minimum, consult with BEIS, NDA, Low Level Waste Repository Ltd and the National Inventory Forum.

Collaboration with NDA will be particularly important in making sure that the approach can be adapted to identify radionuclides relevant to possible alternative ways of managing some Intermediate Level Waste (ILW) streams.

We advised RWM to engage with us as it continues to develop and implement its approach.

5.4 Development of the disposal system safety case

Development of a safety case for a GDF is complex. It is recognised internationally that continual dialogue between the regulators and the developer, from the very early design stage, is essential. A safety case should contain the claims, arguments and evidence that support the safety of a GDF.

RWM issued its most recent generic Disposal System Safety Case (gDSSC) in 2016.^{[footnote 14]} Since then, we have engaged with RWM to assess progress against our advice^{[footnote 15]} and to help us understand its plans for future development of the gDSSC and site-specific submissions.

RWM intends to maintain the gDSSC in parallel with any site-specific submissions until it is confident enough that the gDSSC is no longer needed.

RWM is preparing an Integrated Design and Safety Case roadmap, which will support more detailed roadmaps, including those for the Operational Environmental Safety Assessment (OESA)^{[footnote 16]} and the Environmental Safety Case.^{[footnote 17]}

The Integrated Design and Safety Case roadmap provides a high-level framework for the main activities, which will form the basis for the future development of RWM’s Technical Programme.

We provided preliminary feedback on these documents. We particularly noted that RWM must ensure consistency between the OESA and Post-Closure Safety Assessment.

RWM has no current plans to publish another set of gDSSC documents. Instead, it will use its safety case tool, ViSI (Visualisation of System Information), to keep its generic safety case understanding up to date, supported by site-specific submissions, if and when required.

RWM has put the 2016 ESC claims, arguments and evidence into ViSI. We will continue to engage with RWM on its development and usability.

5.5 Conceptual security arrangements

RWM has advised ONR it is developing its conceptual security arrangements for a GDF. ONR has previously provided advice to RWM on producing a Generic Security Plan based on ONR’s Security Assessment Principles.^{[footnote 18]}

ONR welcomes RWM’s work in this area and advised RWM to develop its arrangements in accordance with ONR’s guidance,^{[footnote 8][footnote 19]} relating to security arrangements at various stages in the life cycle of a new installation.

ONR will continue to engage with RWM as it develops its security arrangements to ensure they meet our expectations for a nuclear security duty holder.

6. Site evaluation and characterisation

We expect RWM to have appropriate plans and procedures in place to carry out the site investigation and characterisation work needed to implement geological disposal, and to inform the safety cases, GDF design and construction (GRA Requirement 11).

At this stage, we want to make sure that RWM’s plans and actions for future site investigations are consistent with our permit requirements and would not compromise the integrity of potential GDF sites.

After considering RWM’s documents that set out information requirements for site characterisation and how to meet them,^{[footnote 20][footnote 21][footnote 22][footnote 23]} the Environment Agency provided advice and recommendations to RWM.^{[footnote 24]} Our main points were:

• We questioned whether RWM had carried out a comprehensive assessment that takes into account the full scope of submissions required under staged regulations, all potential host rocks, all relevant RWM work programmes, and a site-specific application, and whether it is auditable.

• When implementing geological disposal, RWM should consider when information is needed and at what stage during site characterisation it can be acquired, focusing on obtaining and providing more information at the early stages of site characterisation.

• RWM should provide assurance that its work programmes are appropriately informed and modified in response to learning from, and experience of, other relevant areas, including other major infrastructure projects.

• RWM should develop its geoscientific understanding, from desk-based site evaluation to field-based site investigations, in an integrated way involving the appropriate disciplines.

• RWM should clarify how it intends to develop baseline information for all site investigation activities and what ongoing monitoring it will carry out when implementing geological disposal.

• RWM should demonstrate and implement suitable arrangements to manage the quality and application of the data and information throughout its life cycle (from acquisition during site characterisation through to end use).

• RWM should carry out a structured analysis to support its approach for underground investigations.

The Environment Agency has continued to engage with RWM on its research on borehole sealing.

This has included observing RWM’s downhole placement system to load large-scale borehole experiments, and attending a project workshop at which the project team discussed our suggestion that a Claims, Argument and Evidence approach is useful for building confidence in borehole sealing.

We have also engaged with RWM on its proposals to demonstrate its borehole sealing capability in the field.

RWM first identified a candidate borehole located on Magnox Limited’s Harwell site.

We discussed with RWM, and its contractor, proposals for surveying the borehole to determine whether it was suitable to use in a field demonstration.

We advised RWM on matters related to environmental protection, including groundwater resources, and we visited the site during the surveying.

RWM identified another location in a different geological environment and began to explore feasibility. However, progress on this was stalled due to COVID-19 and we hope to pick this up in our ongoing programme.

7. Research and development

For work that supports the environmental safety case, the developer and operator needs to make informed judgements about the quality of the science being applied. It also needs to make sure it carries out timely scientific investigations to improve understanding.

The developer and operator needs to be aware of any scientific developments, both within and outside the UK, which may have a bearing on the environmental safety case for the facility [GRA Requirement 4, Applying sound science and good engineering practice].

7.1 Regulators’ expectations

We expect RWM to carry out a comprehensive research and development (R&D) programme, informed by wider national and international research or implementation programmes. RWM will need to identify and address in a timely manner those issues that require R&D to meet our requirements.

We expect RWM to have a targeted and prioritised R&D programme in place that addresses uncertainties and safety concerns that are important in producing a safety case.

RWM should be clear, through its management process, why the R&D is needed, what knowledge gap it is filling, and how knowledge gained is being used to fill this gap and to further develop the future R&D programme.

The Environment Agency’s engagement with RWM over the past few years has been focused on reviewing its Science and Technology (S&T) Plan and Programme, engagement through NDA’s Integrated Project Teams, reviewing RWM’s status reports as part of our overall assessment of RWM’s 2016 gDSSC, and ad hoc engagement on a number of technical areas (such as non-aqueous phase liquids, superplasticisers, colloids, and voidage).

To date, we have purposely limited the depth of our engagement on specific technical areas, in order to assure ourselves that RWM is operating the necessary procedures and has the right tools in place for its R&D activities.

Through our ongoing dialogue with RWM, we are determining how we might now better understand the details and effects of RWM’s R&D programme, for example:

• whether it is focused and achieving as expected
• what the year on year successes are
• how changes to the programme are being managed
• what gaps are being closed when the projects are completed

In the following sub sections (§7.2 & 7.3) the Environment Agency includes a number of initiatives it began this year.

ONR concludes that, at present, RWM is adequately engaged in R&D relating to operational safety at a GDF. Until disposal concepts are refined after sites are selected for characterisation, this remains at a relatively generic level.

Similarly, at present, there are no areas where ONR considers it should carry out independent research to verify RWM’s own research. Continued engagement with RWM and the international GDF community will ensure that ONR can respond appropriately to any new R&D needs in the future.

7.2 Improvements to RWM’s Science and Technology plan

We provided high-level feedback to RWM to inform its development of the next issue of its Science and Technology (S&T) Plan,^{[footnote 25]} anticipated in 2020 to 21.

We asked RWM to include information on projects completed since the last S&T Plan was published to track progress, and context to clarify why projects are important to developing the safety case.

RWM outlined its R&D prioritisation approach, which it uses to select and prioritise research projects, based on both the importance of the work and urgency with regards to the current point in the overall GDF programme against 6 main drivers.

We advised RWM to consider how it captures information on R&D projects it chooses not to progress and to justify its decisions.

We also advised RWM to include relevant timescales for projects it chooses to defer to make sure it reconsiders these at the appropriate time (either in years or at specific GDF programme milestone).

As part of its decision to defer R&D projects, we advised RWM to consider future financial provision to ensure it has funding available to implement these projects when deemed sufficiently high priority.

7.3 Environment Agency prioritisation exercise and audit template

The regulators should have (and be able to demonstrate) an understanding of the R&D RWM is carrying out in important areas, confidence that important areas are being investigated appropriately, and that the programme is prioritised.

The Environment Agency carried out a trial prioritisation exercise, focusing on a number of important areas of the 2016 S&T Plan. This allowed us to test whether we could identify areas that were urgent and important in terms of demonstrating environmental safety of geological disposal, or increasing our current knowledge.

The exercise did not aim to identify the R&D RWM should carry out, but it did identify 2 broad areas where R&D was scarce; namely ‘voidage’ and ‘evaporites’.

The Environment Agency will apply this prioritisation exercise again using a more up-to-date S&T plan, to focus its engagement and scrutiny going forward.

Together with the prioritisation exercise and as part of a package of methods to assess RWM’s S&T Plan, the Environment Agency also developed a ‘Technical Risk Audit Template’ to assess how RWM manages risk in carrying out projects that lead to a change in scientific or technical readiness levels.

The Environment Agency will trial this template in 2020 to 2021, and plans to use it as an assessment tool afterwards.

7.4 RWM’s Research Support Office

We recognise RWM made progress in 2019 towards establishing a Research Support Office (RSO) to “harness UK university capabilities through a collaborative, long-term relationship”.

We consider that RWM’s shift towards longer term collaborations should allow it to develop and share understanding across disciplines and institutions.

We agree with RWM that university-based research can make a significant contribution to RWM’s knowledge base and provide research focused on RWM’s needs.

However, we noted that the university departments and disciplines associated with the RSO focus on RWM’s traditional research areas related to post-closure safety. It will need to develop links with relevant engineering disciplines, for example, to build its knowledge base with respect to operational safety challenges and future research needs.

8. Waste packaging

The site sending radioactive waste to a GDF (consignor) is responsible for appropriately characterising, treating and packaging it.

But the operator of a GDF is responsible for making sure that the waste accepted for disposal is consistent with the environmental safety case and the operational requirements, including transport and handling [GRA Requirement 13].

RWM has developed a process of disposability assessment to minimise the risk that conditioning and packaging radioactive wastes results in packages incompatible with geological disposal. Through this process, RWM provides advice to waste producers on packaging their HAW.

We expect RWM to assess packaging proposals for HAW against clear and consistent published specifications. This to assure us that HAW is packaged suitably for handling and disposing of in a future GDF, and to share good practice in waste packaging to avoid duplication of effort.

We are engaging with RWM now to establish confidence that:

• HAW will be packaged in a way that is suitable for handling and disposing of in any future GDF, with no, or minimal, reworking, in line with the safety case

• RWM’s procedures, guidance, specifications, and limits encompass the full range of wastes destined for geological disposal and are likely to ensure compliance with permit requirements so that they are acceptable for disposal

In particular, we have advised RWM to make progress on establishing clear guidance for waste producers on endorsing packaging of High Heat Generating Waste such as spent fuel and vitrified products from Sellafield (High Level Waste).

Historically, RWM has been much more focused on assessing and endorsing Low Heat Generating Waste (Intermediate Level Waste).

We worked with RWM to agree an approach for it to address the remaining issues we have raised relating to its treatment of post-closure criticality and setting waste package fissile limits.

Our Regulatory Observation on fissile limits [GDF/RO/008, see Annex A] required RWM to engage with the nuclear industry to identify all waste streams that may be challenging from a post-closure criticality safety assessment standpoint and to develop a programme of work to improve packaging advice.

The aim of this work is to achieve the lowest practicable risk when balanced across the waste life cycle, ensuring RWM’s waste packaging advice does not drive less favourable approaches, yet maintaining safety and environmental performance. RWM has completed this for the majority of waste streams.

RWM’s transport safety specialists have also engaged with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on technical standards and guidance by liaising with UK industry transport groups (Transport Container Standardisation Committee and Radioactive Material Transport Users’ Committee).

RWM has been actively involved in the Member States’ consultation on revision to the IAEA’s Advisory Material for the IAEA Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material (SSG-26), led by ONR for the UK. The revised SSG-26 has been endorsed by the IAEA’s Commission on Safety Standards, and it is anticipated to be published shortly.

The Environment Agency has advised RWM on its work on waste package voidage.^{[footnote 26]} RWM is reviewing its approach to screening levels that could help inform decisions at sites regarding how much voidage is acceptable for each waste package.

9. Maintaining and enhancing regulatory capability

We anticipate that regulated activities will continue for around 150 years from the start of construction of a GDF, during its operation, through to its final closure. This means that regulators will need to maintain capability over extended periods.

While regulating geological disposal is similar to ongoing regulatory activities, it also has some differences and so it may be necessary to enhance regulatory capabilities in some areas at certain times.

The regulators will maintain and enhance their capabilities in order to meet their responsibilities in regulating geological disposal, and work is underway to do this.

This section provides an overview of work carried out in the reporting period.

9.1 Regulatory preparations

Liaising with RWM on geological disposal at an early stage will allow us to prepare for any environmental permit or nuclear site licence application that we might receive, so that we can respond promptly to what will be a first of a kind activity.

The Environment Agency has begun to develop a programme of work to be ready to regulate geological disposal. This work programme is in its early stages of development, but we have carried out work in the following areas:

• Liaising with others within the Environment Agency to make best use of learning from regulating other major projects such as the Thames Tideway Tunnel, HS2 and new nuclear power stations, and to help benchmark activities for regulating geological disposal.

• We have begun a strategic level review of how the Environment Agency provides advice to developers or operators of major projects and other sectors to help develop guidance for developers of geological disposal.

9.2 Integrated Regulatory Review Service mission

An IRRS team from the IAEA, comprising over 20 regulatory experts from across the world, led a mission to review the UK’s nuclear and radiological safety framework. IRRS missions help IAEA Member States strengthen and enhance the effectiveness of their regulatory infrastructure for nuclear, radiation, radioactive waste and transport safety. IRRS missions take place at the invitation of the host country and usually happen every 10 years, with a follow up mission within 4 years.

The review took place in October 2019 at the request of the UK government. It was hosted by ONR and involved considerable input from multiple government departments, the devolved administrations and regulators, including the Environment Agency.

This IRRS mission report^{[footnote 27]} includes 24 recommendations to further strengthen the UK’s nuclear and radiological safety framework for the relevant UK authorities and regulatory bodies to consider. The majority of the findings relate to enhancing regulatory bodies’ internal processes.

We welcome the IAEA’s final report. This first full scope mission to the UK gave us the opportunity to have our regulatory framework reviewed by our peers from across the globe.

We welcome the IAEA findings specific to the Environment Agency and these will help us continually improve and ensure people and the environment remain protected from radioactive substances activities in England.

ONR continues to work with BEIS to facilitate the necessary legislative amendments so that ONR can grant a nuclear site licence for a GDF in future. As part of this work, ONR plans to carry out a public consultation on a revised interpretation of the term ‘bulk quantities’ in the context of disposal.

In preparation for the IRRS mission, the Environment Agency identified that its guidance^{[footnote 1]} needed reviewing. We will use this review as an opportunity to address this specific IRRS mission finding.

9.3 Engagement with other regulators and international programmes

In June 2019, members of Environment Agency staff met with the Swedish nuclear regulator, SSM, as part of an ongoing programme of technical exchange visits to share experiences and learning on the regulation of geological disposal.

Environment Agency staff visited a number of facilities at Oskarshamn operated by SKB, including a copper canister laboratory, a centralised spent fuel storage facility and an underground research laboratory. SKB is the organisation in Sweden responsible for the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste.

The regulators take part in a number of international collaborative programmes to share experience with other countries. For example, during this period a number of Environment Agency staff were involved in the following Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) work:

• organising and co-chairing a topical day on ‘Updating the Safety Case’ at the 2019 annual meeting of the NEA’s Integration Group for the Safety Case (IGSC)

• organising and presenting at a joint ‘World Café’ session of NEA’s IGSC and Forum for Stakeholder Confidence on ‘Uncertainty in the real world’.

10. Conclusions

Our continued interaction with RWM is helping it to better understand the regulatory requirements and submissions it needs to make to obtain environmental permits and a nuclear site licence.

As summarised in this report, RWM has progressed in a number of areas, such as its work on site characterisation, modelling non-radiological contaminants and identifying relevant radionuclides, but further work is still needed.

RWM’s high-level and strategic ‘organisational development’ work needs a clear plan in place to show how and when it will establish itself as an organisation suitable for holding a permit, and subsequently a nuclear site licence.

Our work in other areas is helping to implement policy as well as our own continuing preparations for regulating geological disposal of radioactive waste in the future.

Annex A: Regulatory issues and observations

Regulatory issue	Title	Status
GDF_RI_001	Leadership and governance	Closed
GDF_RI_002	Organisational capability	Closed
GDF_RI_003	Control and assurance	Closed
GDF_RI_004	Organisational learning	Closed
GDF_RI_005	Assessment of innovative packaging proposals	Open
GDF_RI_006	Resolution of periodic review findings	Closed
GDF_RI_007	Assurance of packaging assessments and advice	Closed
GDF_RI_008	Board governance of important areas of risk/performance	Closed
GDF_RI_009	Corporate HSSEQ structure	Open
GDF_RI_010	Disposability assessments and endorsements sensitive to changes	Open
GDF_RI_011	Waste package records	Closed
GDF_RI_012	Workforce capability plan	Open
GDF_RI_013	Characterisation and assessment of the non-radioactive component of waste in the inventory for disposal	Open
GDF_RI_014	Operational environmental safety assessment	Open
GDF_RI_015	Approach to fire safety assessment	Open
GDF_RO_001	Protection against non-radiological hazards	Closed
GDF_RO_002	Optimisation	Closed
GDF_RO_003	Lessons from the Fukushima disaster	Closed
GDF_RO_004	Defining waste package fissile limits for disposal	Closed
GDF_RO_005	Lessons from the WIPP Incident	Closed
GDF_RO_006	Building confidence in data and modelling	Open
GDF_RO_007	Auditable evidence in support of an ESC	Open
GDF_RO_008	Defining waste package fissile levels	Open

Abbreviations

• BEIS - Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy

• Defra - Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs

• ESC - Environmental safety case

• GDF - Geological disposal facility

• gDSSC - Generic disposal system safety case

• GRA - Guidance on Requirements for Authorisation

• HAW - Higher activity radioactive waste

• HSSEQ - Health, safety, security, environment and quality

• IAEA - International Atomic Energy Agency

• IGSC - Integration Group for the Safety Case

• ILW - Intermediate Level Waste

• IRRS - Integrated Regulatory Review Service

• ISE - Initial Site Evaluation

• NDA - Nuclear Decommissioning Authority

• NRW - Natural Resources Wales

• NEA - Nuclear Energy Agency

• OESA - Operational Environmental Safety Assessment

• ONR - Office for Nuclear Regulation

• PESE - Preliminary Environmental Safety Evaluation

• R&D - Research and development

• RSO - Research Support Office

• RWM - Radioactive Waste Management Limited

• S&T - Science and technology

• TSM - Total System Model

• UKRWI - United Kingdom Radioactive Waste Inventory

• ViSI - Visualisation of System Information

References

1. Environment Agency and Northern Ireland Environment Agency. February 2009 Geological disposal facilities on land for solid radioactive wastes: Guidance on Requirements for Authorisation [Accessed 19 October 2020] ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

2. Office for Nuclear Regulation. March 2018 Technical Assessment Guide on Geological Disposal NS-TAST-GD-101. Revision 0 [Accessed 19 October 2020] ↩

3. Office for Nuclear Regulation. January 2020 Safety Assessment Principles for Nuclear FacilitiesONR CM9 Ref 2019/367414. 2014 Edition, Revision 1 (January 2020) [Accessed 19 October 2020] ↩

4. Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy. December 2018 Implementing geological disposal – working with communities. An updated framework for the long term management of higher activity radioactive waste (viewed on 14 August 2019) [Accessed 19 October 2020] ↩

5. Welsh Government. 2015 Welsh Government policy on the management and disposal of higher activity radioactive waste [Accessed 19 October 2020] ↩

6. RWM. 2017 ‘Safety & Environmental Management Prospectus’ (RWSP01) ↩

7. RWM. 2017 ‘Organisational Baseline Document’ (RWSP02) ↩

8. Office for Nuclear Regulation. 2019 Licensing Nuclear Installations [Accessed 19 October 2020] ↩ ↩²

9. RWM. 2010 Geological Disposal - Generic Environmental Safety Case main report Report no NDA/RWMD/021 [Accessed 19 October 2020] ↩

10. Nucleus. 2019 ‘Development of a Total System Model for Non-Radiological Pollutants in a GDF’ NDA Report NDA/RWM/161 ↩

11. Environment Agency. 2019 ‘Pre-application advice to RWM: Task 2: Development of a total system model for non-radiological pollutants in a GDF’ Letter to RWM reference GDF/PAA/2019/06 ↩

12. Environment Agency. 2019 ‘Pre-application advice to RWM: Task 2: Proposed approach to deriving a list of potentially recordable radionuclides’ Letter to RWM reference GDF/PAA/2019/04 ↩

13. Nucleus. 2019 ‘Proposed Approach to Deriving a List of Potentially Recordable Radionuclides’ Nucleus report NS3420/500/007, issue 3 ↩

14. Radioactive Waste Management. 2017 Demonstrating the safety of a geological disposal facility [Accessed 19 October 2020] ↩

15. Environment Agency and Office for Nuclear Regulation. 2011 Joint regulatory scrutiny of RWMD’s work relating to geological disposal of radioactive waste: Regulatory review of the generic disposal system safety case Issue 1 GENW1211BVDX-E-E [Accessed 19 October 2020] ↩

16. RWM. 2019 ‘Roadmap for the Development of the OESA’ RWM report LL32825470 ↩

17. RWM. 2019 ‘Roadmap for ESC Capability Development’ RWM report LL 31860816 ↩

18. Office for Nuclear Regulation. 2017 Security Assessment Principles for the Civil Nuclear Industry 2017 Edition, Version 0 [Accessed 19 October 2020] ↩

19. Office for Nuclear Regulation. 2020 Guidance on the Security Assessment of Generic New Nuclear Reactor DesignsCNS-TAST-GD-11.1 [Accessed 19 October 2020] ↩

20. Gough M. 2016 ‘Geological Disposal: Environmental Assessment Information Requirements from the RWM Site Characterisation Programme’ RWM Report Livelink no.: 22591634. Version 4. 13/12/16 ↩

21. Kendall H. 2016 ‘Geological Disposal: Safety Case Information Requirements from the RWM Site Characterisation Programme’ RWM Technical Note Livelink no.: 2267729. Version 11. 13/12/16 ↩

22. Johnson M, Clark A, Parkes A, Phiminster A. 2016 ‘Geological Disposal: Design Information Requirements from the RWM Site Characterisation Programme’ RWM Technical Note Livelink no.: 25622298. Version 14. 12/12/16 ↩

23. McLaverty R. 2016 ‘Meeting Information Requirements – Parameters, Data Acquisition, Interpretation and Modelling Techniques’ RWM Report v3.0. December 2016 ↩

24. Environment Agency. 2019 ‘Pre-application advice to RWM: Task 4: Information requirements for site investigation’ GDF/PAA/2019/03 ↩

25. Radioactive Waste Management 2016 ‘Science and Technology Plan’ NDA Report NDA/RWM/121 ↩

26. Environment Agency. 2020 ‘ Pre-application advice to RWM - Task 5: Managing Voidage in a GDF - Towards a methodology for evaluating voidage in waste packaging proposals’ Letter to RWM Reference GDF/PAA/2020/01 ↩

27. IAEA. 2020 Final report on the Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) mission to the UK IAEA-NS-IRRS-2019/06 - Rev. 1 [Accessed 19 October 2020] ↩