Corporate report

Regulatory scrutiny and engagement for geological disposal: annual report 2021 to 2022

Updated 22 October 2024

Foreword

The Environment Agency is the independent environmental regulator for the nuclear industry in England. Our activities are guided by our plan ‘EA2025 creating a better place’. This plan acts as our compass, enabling us and others to chart a course towards a healthier, greener and more prosperous country in 2025.

Our EA2025 plan sets out 3 main goals:

• a nation resilient to climate change
• healthy air, land and water
• green growth and a sustainable future

Our regulation of disposals of radioactive waste, including radioactive discharges to air and water, and disposal of solid waste to land, aligns with these goals. It helps ensure that these facilities are designed and operated in ways which minimise waste and protect the environment.

The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) is the UK’s independent nuclear regulator for safety, security and safeguards. Its mission is to protect society by securing safe nuclear operations. It also regulates the safety of transporting radioactive materials and works closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to ensure that the UK’s safeguarding obligations are met.

This is a joint Environment Agency and 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, safeguards and security that the law requires, and the public expects.

We have established agreements with Nuclear Waste Services (NWS), the organisation responsible for developing a GDF, to provide regulatory advice and to scrutinise its work. We are engaging with NWS early, before regulation starts, so that when a site is identified, NWS already clearly understands what it needs to do as part of the regulatory process. We also liaise with NWS 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 support communities that are considering hosting a GDF on matters relating to our respective areas of regulation.

We continue to regularly engage with NWS. This helps NWS understand what it needs to do to meet applicable legal requirements for environmental protection, safety, radioactive materials transport, safeguards and security. It also helps us better understand NWS’s work and lets us prepare in advance for any permit or licence applications we might receive from NWS, 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 on relevant aspects of the Safety Assessment Principles for Nuclear Facilities (SAPs)^{[footnote 3]}, the Security Assessment Principles for the Civil Nuclear Industry (SyAPs)^{[footnote 4]} and the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015.

Throughout this document ‘we’ refers to both the Environment Agency and ONR. Where comment is made on matters specific to one regulator, then ‘we (Environment Agency)’ or ‘we (ONR)’ is used.

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

Executive summary

This report summarises the work that the Environment Agency and the ONR carried out to scrutinise NWS’s work and our interactions with the public from April 2021 to March 2022.

NWS is currently carrying out ‘generic’ preparatory work for a GDF, as no sites have yet been identified. However, NWS is working with communities to seek their views on hosting a GDF. We are developing our relationships with the GDF working groups and community partnerships that have formed to date, and we are providing information on how we would regulate a GDF. To ensure that we are ready to assess any applications from NWS, we continued our preparatory work to develop the regulatory guidance necessary and to share and learn from other programmes overseas.

We advised NWS that we did not have a good overall view of its GDF Programme. In response, it provided a better understanding of its programme of work leading up to the submission of environmental permit applications for the drilling of deep site investigation boreholes. We noted our concerns that proposals to reduce funding in the short term could lead to increased risks to the GDF Programme later on, with the potential for wider resultant effects on the nuclear industry and government policy implementation.

During the reporting period Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) transitioned into NWS. We provided advice to NWS on its management of change arrangements and its use of the supply chain, and we are monitoring the ongoing organisational change that this brings.

We agreed with NWS a prioritised list of regulatory queries that we will advise on in the period leading up to the environmental permit applications for the drilling of deep site investigation boreholes. We provided advice on interpreting intrusive investigations in the context of an radioactive substances regulation (RSR) environmental permit.

Within this report we provide the status on our ongoing scrutiny for several other topic areas, including NWS’s developing safety case and GDF design, the assessment of non-radiological contaminants in the inventory for disposal, NWS’s borehole sealing trials, research and development, and its advice to waste producers on waste packaging and disposability.

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 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 5]}. 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 6]}.

Scottish Government policy does not support geological disposal. Rather, its policy advocates near-site, near-surface management of HAW, and long-term storage in a near-surface storage facility as 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. NWS, which is part of the NDA Group, is responsible for developing a GDF. NWS was created in January 2022 by the integration of Radioactive Waste Management (RWM - a subsidiary of NDA that was responsible for developing a GDF), Low Level Waste Repository Ltd (LLWR - also an NDA subsidiary) and the NDA’s Integrated Waste Management (IWMP) Programme.

The Environment Agency and 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. Regulatory control of a GDF is likely to be required for at least a century.

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.

We are engaging with NWS 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 NWS gives the right advice to waste producers, so that radioactive waste packaged at its sites is suitable for future disposal.

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

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

Alongside implementing a new organisational structure during 2021/22, NWS began developing its GDF Programme to reflect its transition from a science-based programme to a major capital programme. We worked with NWS to define a new regulatory engagement structure for 2022/23 onwards that more closely reflects the revised GDF Programme. As a result of these changes, our pre-application advice and scrutiny during the reporting period focused more on planning and organisational development aspects of the GDF Programme compared with previous years.

COVID-19 continued to impact our work during the reporting period. We had no in-person meetings with NWS – all engagement was online. However, we attended a number of public engagement events with GDF working groups in person. Disruption and staff availability due to the effects of the pandemic were a challenge for all organisations. However, we reprioritised and adapted our programme accordingly, and were able to progress most of our planned work.

2. Support to the siting process

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
• advise on matters relating to our respective areas of regulation

Our discussions with NWS about its plans and proposals for working groups and community partnerships are helping us support community discussions. As part of these preparations, we developed a communications and engagement plan which sets out our objectives. We also prepared leaflets, infographics and event stands for use at public exhibitions, which complement previously developed communications materials including:

• a short animation to explain the regulators’ role in geological disposal available on YouTube
• an overview of the regulatory processes that the Environment Agency and ONR will apply to the development, operation and closure of a GDF in England
• a summary of how the Environment Agency and ONR will work together to regulate a GDF

We (Environment Agency) also published a blog on GOV.UK on 1 December 2021^{[footnote 7]} about regulating a GDF to protect the environment. We also presented at the 2021 GDF Conference in December^{[footnote 8]} on our role in geological disposal.

To maintain our regulatory independence, we will not be a member of any working groups or community partnerships, and we will not be involved in any decision-making on siting.

We continued our engagement with the Copeland and Allerdale GDF Working Groups. We dialled into online webinars organised by both working groups and attended 4 Copeland GDF Working Group community engagement roadshows in September 2021. We produced an article about our regulation for the Allerdale GDF Working Group newsletter in October 2021.

The 2 working groups in Cumbria evolved into 3 community partnerships in the period November 2021 to January 2022: Mid Copeland GDF Community Partnership, South Copeland GDF Community Partnership and Allerdale GDF Community Partnership. We did not engage with any of the community partnerships in 2021/22 as their work focus was on forming the partnerships and recruiting members.

Theddlethorpe GDF Working Group formed in October 2021, and we wrote to the independent chair of the working group outlining our regulatory roles and the processes that will help protect people and the environment now and in the future^{[footnote 9]}. We offered our impartial participation in working group events such as at exhibitions, and advised how people could access our information online.

The Theddlethorpe GDF Working Group invited us to join them for an introductory meeting where we explained our roles and responsibilities. We also informally dropped into a community event in November 2021 to meet some of the working group members, prepared an article on regulation of a GDF for the December 2021 working group newsletter and attended 2 community events in March 2022.

GDF search areas in both Cumbria and Lincolnshire (Theddlethorpe) are focused on the inshore environment, that is the underground part of a facility would be located deep below the seabed up to the outer limit of UK territorial waters (around 22 km offshore). The host rock geology of interest in both areas is lower strength sedimentary rock. GDF surface facilities would be constructed on land.

We (Environment Agency) set up a new forum for nuclear stakeholders in Cumbria. We held the first meeting in November 2021 and expect to hold 2 or 3 meetings each year going forward. Attendees included representatives from the Cumbria working groups/ community partnerships, local government leads, non-governmental organisations and environmental groups such as the Cumbria Trust. Regulation of a GDF was discussed and garnered some debate around requirements for monitoring and retrievability. We shared notes of these meetings with attendees.

The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) published a position paper on policy, legal and regulatory issues for a GDF and associated radioactive waste management issues in May 2021^{[footnote 10]}. We commented on a draft version of this report. We (Environment Agency) met with CoRWM Sub-Group 3 (Planning and Regulation) in May and November 2021 and discussed its draft position papers on the implications of inshore siting of a GDF^{[footnote 11]} and GDF costs^{[footnote 12]}. We subsequently provided feedback on both papers to clarify our regulatory roles and highlight opportunities to improve the position papers^{[footnote 13]}, ^{[footnote 14]}.

3. Maintaining and enhancing regulatory capability

Engaging with NWS on geological disposal at an early stage helps us 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.

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

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 their capability over extended periods during design, construction and operation.

It should be recognised that regulatory responsibilities and requirements may change and evolve during the design, construction, operational, closure and post-closure periods of a GDF. There could also be unexpected changes in government policy on waste disposition routes. We give advice and scrutiny based on the latest knowledge, directions and legal requirements. We will maintain and enhance our capabilities to meet our responsibilities in regulating geological disposal, and work is underway to do this. This work includes engagement with other regulators and international programmes relevant to radioactive waste disposal.

3.1 Regulatory preparations

We continued to develop our programme of work so that we will be ready when we need to regulate geological disposal. Our programme is currently focused on the early stages of our staged regulation process, in particular our (Environment Agency’s) permitting of intrusive site investigations for a potential GDF location.

During this reporting period, we (Environment Agency) have:

• developed our work plan for finalising our guidance on staged regulation of a GDF and on how to apply for an RSR environmental permit for intrusive investigations. This work will be informed by our current review and update of the Guidance for Requirements for Authorisation (GRA)^{[footnote 1]}; in early 2022 we consulted on the updated requirements for the permitting of disposal facilities for solid radioactive waste with industry users, including NWS
• updated our Radioactive substances regulation (RSR): objective and principles, which will guide future development of, and revisions to, RSR guidance
• gained a better understanding of what an inshore GDF means for our regulation, which other regulatory bodies would be involved, and how we would interact with them
• contributed to the draft Environment Agency ‘State of the Environment Report’ on groundwater which featured a commentary on radioactive substances/waste, with specific reference to geological disposal

We (ONR) have kept NWS informed of the progress of the proposed amendments to the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 which will lead to the operation of the GDF becoming a prescribed activity as described in the Nuclear Installations Regulations. We have also continued to engage with NWS to provide advice and scrutiny, and to attend siting events to explain ONR’s regulation of a GDF.

3.2 Engagement with other regulators and international programmes

Our engagement with other regulators and international programmes relevant to geological disposal during 2021/22 continued to be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, we (Environment Agency) were able to contribute to a number of events virtually, including:

• attending the annual meetings of the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) Integration Group for the Safety Case (IGSC) and Forum on Stakeholder Confidence (FSC)
• organising a panel session ‘Dealing with Misinformation’ at the NEA Working Group on Public Communication of Nuclear Regulatory Organisations’ (WGPC) annual plenary meeting (a joint workshop with FSC) and contributing to the developing draft NEA report on ‘the characteristics of a trusted nuclear regulator’
• attending the final plenary meeting of the International Project on Demonstration of the Operational and Long-Term Safety of Geological Disposal Facilities for Radioactive Waste (GEOSAF Part III)
• attending the EURAD Uncertainty Management multi-Actor Network (UMAN) seminars on Management of Uncertainties Related to Site and Geosphere Characteristics
• attending the joint NEA and Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Japan international workshop on Utilisation of Underground Research Laboratories for Research and Development (R&D) Projects to enable us to better understand the breadth of current underground research laboratory collaborations internationally

ONR attended the Sixth International Conference on Geological Repositories (ICGR) virtually, which shares experience of international GDF programmes.

4. Geological disposal programme

We expect NWS to have a clear and comprehensive plan of work to implement geological disposal that meets regulatory requirements, and to demonstrate progress against it (GRA Requirement 4^{[footnote 1]}). We recognise that such a plan may also 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 scope of work.

This plan will give us confidence that NWS 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 NWS’s progress towards meeting our requirements.

We previously advised NWS that we do not have a good overall view of its programme^{[footnote 15]} and that it should demonstrate all it needs to achieve, by when, in a way that we and others can understand. We consider this to be a high priority if NWS wishes to progress geological disposal efficiently and successfully. In response to this concern, NWS arranged a GDF Programme planning workshop in April 2021 and a subsequent workshop on developing its regulatory submissions in September 2021. These workshops gave us a better understanding of NWS’s programme of work leading up to the submission of environmental permit applications for the drilling of deep site investigation boreholes at up to 2 sites.

During discussions, NWS noted that funding challenges for its work programme for the next few years were already delaying some of its technical studies and reducing supporting R&D. We expressed concerns that reducing funding in the short term could lead to increased risks to the GDF Programme later on, with resultant effects on the wider nuclear industry and government policy, including:

• increased potential for delays in first waste emplacement dates due to insufficient technical underpinning of the safety cases
• early withdrawal of potentially suitable sites
• loss of skills and capability in research and the supply chain

We (Environment Agency) further developed our tool to assess and track NWS’s progress in meeting our regulatory requirements for geological disposal. The tool makes use of the site environment review (SER), which is part of our approach to regulating operators who hold an RSR environmental permit. We will use the tool to capture progress and performance to support discussions between us and NWS. We will not use it as a direct means of determining future compliance. At this stage of development, the tool focuses on assessing NWS’s progress towards commencing intrusive investigations rather than fully implementing geological disposal. It defines strategic objectives and indicators for readiness for the following themes:

• environmental leadership and strategy
• programme planning and implementation
• organisational capability
• permitting and assessment
• facility and infrastructure design

We (Environment Agency) advised NWS to use the tracker tool to assess itself against the indicators for organisational readiness^{[footnote 16]}. This could then be used to establish a baseline against which future discussion and advice could be developed. We plan further engagement on this topic in 2022/23.

5. Organisational capability and development

The developer/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^{[footnote 1]}, Licence Conditions 17 and 36).

We (Environment Agency) need to be confident that NWS can comply with environmental permit requirements before we issue environmental permits for borehole investigations at a potential site, or sites.

We (ONR) recognise that NWS is not currently close to the point of licensing, and its organisation is being developed for the next tranche of work. Our focus is on providing advice on the management arrangements and processes needed to support a capable organisation in line with the requirements of our licence conditions. In particular, we have provided advice on the development of the intelligent customer capability. We will continue to work with NWS to ensure appropriate regulatory advice/oversight is provided regarding the development of the process for initial design of the GDF.

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

We continued with a programme of approximately quarterly engagement with NWS on the organisational development for its GDF Programme.

During the reporting period, RWM transitioned into the new NWS organisation. We (Environment Agency) are engaging with NWS and monitoring the organisational change that this brings. We shared our views with NWS that we see positive possibilities in bringing these organisations closer due to the long-established operational experience of LLWR Ltd. Sharing this experience will help in preparations to hold an environmental permit for intrusive investigations and for future regulated phases of the development of a GDF. We also hope it will form a good example of a mature and positive regulatory relationship/way of working.

We (Environment Agency) scrutinised NWS’s management of change arrangements supporting this move and provided advice to NWS^{[footnote 17]}. We recommended that NWS should:

1. Keep its organisational change risk assessment under review to ensure that the assessments remain current, and that necessary risk mitigations remain effective.
2. Use experience of the transition to NWS to consider the effectiveness of any measures that it has put in place in response to our previous advice (recommendations 2, 3, 4 and 5 of^{[footnote 18]}).

NWS is using the supply chain to support the development of its organisational and management arrangements for permitting. We (Environment Agency) scrutinised the framework for these arrangements as set out in a high-level schematic depiction of the arrangements and the implementation schedule. We provided advice on this^{[footnote 14]}, recommending that NWS considers using our permit readiness tracker tool (see section 4 - Geological disposal programme) to assess itself against the indicators for organisational readiness.

We (Environment Agency) engaged with NWS on its proposed arrangements for use of the supply chain in its organisational model, and provided feedback on the adequacy of these arrangements^{[footnote 19]}. We recommended that NWS should:

1. Provide regulators with information on the structure and remit of the proposed delivery partner organisations, and the framework of interactions with the NWS client organisation. We will need this ahead of any permit or licence application, so that we can fully assess sufficiency for compliance purposes.
2. Develop and embed intelligent customer capabilities within its organisation in accordance with regulators’ expectations of an ‘intelligent customer’ and provide regulators with detail on this, including NWS’s proposed assurance arrangements supporting the implementation of the process.

We (Environment Agency) continue to engage with NWS on using the forthcoming Rosemanowes borehole sealing trial (see section 7.1 - Borehole sealing trials) as an opportunity to scrutinise and advise on management and organisational arrangements relevant to developing the wider GDF Programme. We are also considering alternative opportunities, including the seismic survey work.

6. Regulatory requirements

NWS’s applications to develop a GDF must take full account of our environmental permitting requirements (GRA section 5^{[footnote 1]}) and the duties placed on operators of a licensed nuclear site (nuclear safety, security, safeguards, radioactive materials transport, and conventional health and safety).

NWS’s understanding and interpretation of the full range of relevant legislation and guidance should be consistent with our expectations (GRA Part 2^{[footnote 1]}, Licensing Nuclear Installations). It should also 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]}. Prior to this, for geological disposal, the developer will need to apply to us (Environment Agency) for an environmental permit to carry out intrusive investigations such as drilling boreholes.

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 20]}.

We want to establish a clear and common understanding with NWS of the requirements of permit and licence applications to make sure that any future applications take full account of our regulatory requirements.

6.1 Regulatory guidance

We (Environment Agency) worked with NWS to develop a prioritised list of regulatory topics on which it is seeking our advice. Areas of engagement planned for 2022/23 include:

• environmental permitting strategy
• demonstration of use of optimised techniques during intrusive site investigations
• regulation of groundwater in the context of a GDF

We (Environment Agency) advised NWS on interpreting intrusive investigations in the context of an RSR environmental permit^{[footnote 21]}. The Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR) 2016 make provision for us to regulate any form of intrusive site investigation for underground disposal of radioactive waste. However, under Schedule 23 of EPR 2016, we would seek to regulate only those activities that have the potential to compromise the integrity of a candidate GDF site to the unacceptable detriment of a future environmental safety case. We do not consider NWS will require an RSR environmental permit to carry out non-intrusive land-based geophysical surveys or to construct trial pits and/or boreholes in superficial deposits. However, we cannot rule out the need for an RSR environmental permit for geotechnical boreholes, and other permissions or consents that may be required, depending on the location and the nature of the activity.

6.2 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.

NWS issued its most recent generic Disposal System Safety Case (gDSSC) in 2016. Since then, we have engaged with NWS to assess progress against our advice and to help us understand its plans to develop the gDSSC and any future site-specific submissions.

NWS has prepared an Integrated Design and Safety Case Roadmap, which will support more detailed roadmaps, including those for the operational environmental safety assessment (OESA) and the ESC. 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 NWS’s engineering design and safety case development. We (Environment Agency) consider that the roadmaps provide useful information about NWS’s plans for developing its safety cases, but we advised that improved cross-referencing to the GDF Programme and other roadmaps would improve transparency^{[footnote 22]}.

NWS does not plan to publish another set of gDSSC documents. Instead, it will keep its generic safety case understanding up to date until it is superseded by site-specific submissions. NWS is determining how this will work in practice and what would happen if the number of changes starts to become unwieldy. We (Environment Agency) advised NWS to learn from the experience of maintenance of the LLWR ESC.

As siting progresses, and transition to the site-specific phase occurs, NWS will keep generic and site-specific requirements separately, but in the same system. NWS will slowly focus on specific site information as data emerge, ensuring that the generic knowledge base remains traceable throughout the process. The transition from generic to site-specific safety case will be a future area of regulatory interest at the appropriate time.

NWS is developing its Visualisation of System Information (ViSI) system to document the claims, arguments and evidence (CAE) underpinning its ESC. In late 2021/22, NWS provided our (Environment Agency) staff with access to a trial version of ViSI that contained draft CAE branches for operational environmental safety and criticality. This was so we could familiarise ourselves with the system and provide feedback on its usability. We will report the outcomes of our review in early 2022/23.

We (Environment Agency) engaged with NWS on its Initial Site Evaluation (ISE) rehearsal. NWS’s objectives for this project included:

• identifying all the constituent products that go into an ISE
• agreeing the scope and content of the products with the relevant/delivering function within NWS
• agreeing timescales for products and any dependencies on other work/data inputs
• recording any gaps, uncertainties and assumptions

The ISE rehearsal will be completed in 2022/23.

Regulatory Observation GDF_RO_006 on building confidence in data and modelling remains open. We expect NWS to set out a clear timeline for developing its digital strategy, including important project milestones, in its response, and to clarify how this will inform its modelling strategy.

NWS has yet to respond in detail to Regulatory Issue GDF_RI_015 on its fire safety outline/generic plans. Currently, we (ONR) expect this to be developed during 2023/24.

6.3 Design and system requirements

NWS provided us (Environment Agency) with an update on its progress in developing its GDF system requirements and setting up a design authority. We have requested further engagement on this topic in 2022/23, including a review of its first version of the GDF system requirements documents (including concept of operations, requirements table and functional breakdown). We also wish to understand NWS’s strategy for managing potential conflicts between mining safety, operational and post-closure requirements.

6.4 Inventory for disposal

We (Environment Agency) provided regulatory advice and comment on NWS’s 2019 Inventory for Geological Disposal (IGD)^{[footnote 23]}. We recommended that NWS should explain clearly in its IGD documents why there are differences between the IGD and the UK Radioactive Waste Inventory in order to improve transparency. We further recommended that it should work with the NDA to reconcile any discrepancies. NWS should also make sure that it updates the IGD promptly to accommodate new waste types and disposal options, and clarifies its criteria for deciding whether there is a need for a full or partial update of the IGD.

6.5 Non-radiological contaminant assessment

One of the objectives of the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) Regulations 2017 is to “prevent or limit the input of pollutants into groundwater”. This requirement is also implemented by Schedule 22 of EPR 2016.

NWS’s 2010 generic ESC did not address the need to protect groundwater bodies and the public’s health from non-radioactive substances in the inventory for disposal. We (Environment Agency) have engaged with NWS regularly since then to explain our regulatory expectations and to understand NWS’s work to address the matter.

We provided regulatory advice and comment on NWS’s report on ‘Further modelling of non-radiological pollutants in a geological disposal facility’^{[footnote 24]}. We consider that NWS has made valuable progress on its non-radioactive pollutant assessment, taking into account our earlier advice, and we agree with NWS’s recommendations for further work. We recommended that NWS should address the full potential non-radioactive component of its inventory for disposal, including considering waste in lead-lined containers, as a matter of urgency, to provide timely advice to waste packagers. NWS subsequently confirmed that it has a programme of work underway to improve its understanding of the non-radiological component of the inventory for disposal. We will engage further on this topic during 2022/23.

Regulatory Issue GDF_RI_013 on characterisation and assessment of the non-radioactive component of waste in the inventory for disposal remains open. We acknowledge that NWS has made progress on all the actions, and we closed 2 out of the 5 actions.

7. Site evaluation and characterisation

We (Environment Agency) expect NWS 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^{[footnote 1]}).

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

7.1 Borehole sealing trials

NWS’s borehole sealing R&D programme includes the use of laboratory scale and field trials to demonstrate that it can adequately seal site investigation boreholes before it commences drilling them. NWS’s objective for this work is to demonstrate that it has approaches, equipment and a toolkit of techniques and solutions that can be applied in the sealing of any borehole in a range of settings.

Following a field trial using existing shallow redundant boreholes drilled in lower strength sedimentary rock on the Harwell nuclear licensed site in 2020/21, NWS identified several deeper boreholes drilled in higher strength rock at Rosemanowes Quarry in Cornwall that it is assessing for use in a second field trial in 2022/23. NWS also has an ongoing programme of experiments at the Birchwood General Engineering Laboratory. Work during 2021/22 (phase 4 of the ongoing programme) included experiments using a high temperature, high pressure cell and an inclined rig. These experiments will help NWS understand how its downhole placement system for borehole sealing will operate at depths of up to 2km and how the bentonite properties may evolve on deployment at depths where there is increased pressure/temperature. This will inform the choice of bentonite.

We (Environment Agency) engaged with NWS on borehole sealing during 2021/22. This included:

• engagement on developing plans for the Rosemanowes field trial, including NWS’s surveys of selected boreholes; groundwater risk assessment; groundwater sampling and analysis; sealing fracture zones; communication and engagement with local stakeholders; contracting arrangements and contractor management; and capability development
• scope of further borehole sealing R&D
• visiting the Birchwood General Engineering Laboratory to observe 2 of the ongoing experiments

We (Environment Agency) reviewed NWS’s interim response to our letter on the scope of borehole sealing trials^{[footnote 25]} and provided NWS with further guidance that it should^{[footnote 26]}:

• consider whether its borehole sealing field trials as currently planned sufficiently support its proposed site characterisation programme (for example, consideration of a range of rock types, geometry, depth and units with significant groundwater flow)
• consider whether extending the technical scope and objectives of its borehole sealing field trials would be worthwhile and cost effective
• develop objectives for the borehole sealing field trials which define the features to be tested within each trial, identify contingencies and how the trials will contribute individually and cumulatively to build confidence in NWS’s overall technical and organisational capability
• discuss with the regulators how it could use the borehole sealing trials as a means of examining the capability of the organisation, as part of ongoing engagement on organisational development

7.2 Site investigation programme development

NWS presented its developing programme for site investigation activities to the Environment Agency in November 2021. We subsequently requested further information on the following topics:

• NWS’s developing site characterisation programme and plans for integrating the results from non-intrusive site investigations (for example, the outputs from the marine seismic survey that took place off the Copeland coast in summer 2022) and intrusive site investigations (for example, borehole drilling)
• challenges associated with borehole drilling in the inshore environment
• NWS’s plans for the development of site descriptive models for potential GDF locations
• management and governance arrangements for site characterisation data
• impacts associated with budget challenges to the GDF Programme
• an update on how NWS is addressing our advice on site characterisation (recommendations in^{[footnote 27]} and^{[footnote 28]})

We (Environment Agency) received information on these topics in February 2022, which we are using to plan our forward scrutiny activities for 2022/23.

8. NWS’s research and development

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

The developer or 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^{[footnote 1]}).

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

We expect NWS 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.

NWS 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.

Our engagement with NWS over the past few years has been focused on reviewing its Science and Technology (S&T) Plan and Programme and engagement on a number of specific technical areas (such as on borehole sealing, the impacts of non-radiological contaminants in the inventory for disposal and waste package voidage) to assure ourselves that NWS is appropriately managing its R&D activities.

As discussed in section 9 - Organisational capability and development, NWS is undergoing a period of organisational change. It updated us on the new structure of its Technical Directorate, team structure and governance arrangements in March 2022. We raised concerns that significant cuts to the R&D budget due to GDF Programme budgetary constraints would increase programme risk as a result of a reduction in information needed to substantiate future safety case claims and arguments (see section 4 - Geological disposal programme). We also noted a resultant impact on supply chain capability. There is a particular risk for GDF development in the Mercia Mudstone Group off the Cumbria coast as no existing international GDF underground research laboratories provide a good analogue for this potential host rock. We requested further engagement on prioritisation of the R&D programme and management of these risks.

We (Environment Agency) have previously provided advice on the 2020 S&T Plan^{[footnote 29]}, concluding that it provides a good overview of the R&D NWS plans to carry out over the next decade. NWS does not intend to publish future versions of the S&T Plan. Instead, it is maintaining a live version within the ViSI system. At a meeting in March 2022, we asked NWS to prepare annual ‘frozen’ versions of the change control summary and long-range graphics that provide an overview of the overall S&T programme to give an overview of significant changes and progress.

9. Waste packaging

Waste producers are responsible for appropriately characterising, treating and packaging HAW to meet the expected waste acceptance criteria of a GDF. The operator of a GDF will be responsible for making sure that the consigned waste is consistent with the eventual GDF waste acceptance criteria (along with the consignee); the design requirements; the environmental safety case; and the operational requirements, including transport and handling (GRA Requirement 13^{[footnote 1]}).

NWS uses a disposability assessment process to reduce risk in the waste conditioning and packaging process, and to make sure that wastes are compatible with the current geological disposal concept and designs. Through this process, NWS provides disposability advice to waste producers and potential waste producers on the packaging of their HAW.

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

We engage with NWS to build confidence that:

• HAW will be packaged in a way that is suitable for transporting to, and handling and disposing of, at a GDF in line with the safety case and with no, or minimal, reworking
• HAW will be conditioned to a safe, passive, transportable and disposable form as soon as is reasonably practicable
• NWS’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

9.1 Disposability assessment

NDA’s Disposability Risk Management (DRM) Group was set up to ensure an appropriate balance between competing requirements which can influence the choice and design of a waste package, and waste conditioning method, across its lifecycle (from waste retrieval and package loading at sites, through to onsite storage, transport to GDF and operational and post-closure performance). We have been reviewing the changes made to the way the DRM Group operates resulting from the creation of NWS. In the past, RWM implemented the disposability assessment process. However, the NDA is now leading the DRM work, supported by NWS and waste producers within the NDA Group. NWS retains control over arrangements for the disposability assessment process, which serves NDA and the wider industry.

NWS is also working directly with waste producers on tactical opportunities for continuous improvement to improve the effectiveness of delivery. Many of these are about embedding and adopting good practice already in use, such as early engagement and planning for the most effective approach to waste packaging submissions and assessment. NDA is leading on strategic work related to its role in understanding disposal risks across the NDA Group and the approach to lifecycle risk.

We have an open Regulatory Issue on assessment of innovative packaging proposals and their impact on the disposal system technical specification and safety case^{[footnote 30]}. Evidence NWS provided during 2021/22 allowed us to close an action on NWS’s procedures for assessing the implications of different waste packages on the disposal system safety case. A further action on clarity for the developing arrangements for NDA assessments of ‘net benefit’ for novel packaging proposals remains open, pending further information on how NWS interfaces with the DRM group process, its governance and its trial implementation.

We have another open Regulatory Issue on the sensitivity of waste packaging assessments to changes in the GDF design or significant factors in the safety case^{[footnote 31]}. We are considering NWS’s response to this issue.

We will engage further with NDA as owner of the DRM process and with NWS on implementation of the DRM process in 2022/23.

9.2 Disposability of high heat generating waste

NWS’s development of a high heat generating waste (HHGW) product specification has slowed and we will continue to challenge this. We will engage with NWS on its development towards an assessment process that will support nearer term site decisions, including its application of a trial use HHGW specification to disposability of spent fuel from Sizewell B.

9.3 Waste package voidage

We expect packaged HAW to contain minimal voidage^{[footnote 32]} in line with the expected waste acceptance criteria for a GDF. We are engaging with NWS to scrutinise its arrangements for the management of voidage in a GDF, its methodology for evaluating in-package voidage when assessing proposals from waste producers, and the implications of all sources of voidage on operational and post-closure safety.

In early 2022, NWS presented its programme of work that aims to develop thematic guidance for waste packagers on voidage and to carry out scoping work to establish the maximum acceptable levels of in-package voidage. We advised NWS that uncertainties about the consequences of voidage are significant, particularly the long-term effects, and we support the establishment of a decision-making framework on voidage in waste packages. We advised NWS that it needs to balance the delivery of best available techniques (BAT) during waste packaging and conditioning against the longer-term repository consequences of voidage. We will continue to engage on this topic with NWS and waste producers during 2022/23.

9.4 Waste package records and assurance

We are aware of significant changes to the HAW package records approval process and records governance within NDA, and we are awaiting an update on those changes. We have asked NWS for the opportunity to learn more about the approach and its impacts on HAW package records management. This engagement will take place in 2022/23.

We (ONR) have advised NWS of the need for clarity over waste acceptance criteria and to reduce the risk of future repackaging so far as is reasonably practicable. NWS is holding dialogue with duty holders to provide information on packages and contents based on their current knowledge.

10. Conclusions

During the reporting period RWM transitioned into NWS. We are monitoring the organisational change that this brings and have provided advice to NWS on management of change arrangements and use of the supply chain.

We advised NWS that we did not have a good overall view of its GDF programme. In response, it provided a better understanding of its programme of work leading up to the submission of environmental permit applications for the drilling of deep site investigation boreholes. We noted our concerns that proposals to reduce funding in the short term could lead to increased risks to the GDF Programme later on, with the potential for wider resultant effects on the nuclear industry and government policy implementation.

We agreed with NWS a prioritised list of regulatory queries that we will advise on in the period leading up to the environmental permit applications for the drilling of deep site investigation boreholes. We provided advice on interpreting intrusive investigations in the context of an RSR environmental permit.

NWS has made progress on outstanding Regulatory Observations and Regulatory Issues. However, during the reporting period we did not fully close any out. One Regulatory Observation on building confidence in data and modelling remains open. In addition, 5 Regulatory Issues on assessment of innovative packaging proposals, disposability assessments and endorsements sensitive to change, characterisation and assessment of the non-radioactive component of waste in the inventory for disposal, operational environmental safety assessment and approach to fire safety assessment remain open.

Our work in other areas is helping to inform NWS’s technical work underpinning its GDF Programme as well as our own continuing preparations for regulating geological disposal of radioactive waste in the future. We also developed our relationships with GDF working groups and community partnerships that have formed to date, providing information on how we would regulate a GDF.

Annex A: List of 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 Health, Safety, Security, Environment and Quality structure	Closed
GDF_RI_010	Disposability assessments and endorsements sensitive to changes	Open
GDF_RI_011	Waste package records	Closed
GDF_RI_012	Workforce capability plan	Closed
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

Regulatory Observation	Title	Status
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 Waste Isolation Pilot Plant incident	Closed
GDF_RO_006	Building confidence in data and modelling	Open
GDF_RO_007	Auditable evidence in support of an environmental safety case	Closed
GDF_RO_008	Defining waste package fissile levels	Closed

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 24 November 2022]. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰

2. ONR, March 2018. Technical Assessment Guide on Geological Disposal NS-TAST-GD-101. Revision 0. [Accessed 24 November 2022]. ↩

3. ONR, January 2020. Safety Assessment Principles for Nuclear Facilities ONR CM9 Ref 2019/367414. 2014 Edition, Revision 1. [Accessed 24 November 2022]. ↩

4. ONR, March 2022. Security Assessment Principles for the Civil Nuclear Industry. 2022 issue, version 1. [Accessed 24 November 2022]. ↩

5. Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (December 2018) Implementing geological disposal – working with communities. An updated framework for the long-term management of higher activity radioactive waste. [Accessed 24 November 2022]. ↩

6. Welsh Government (2015) Welsh Government policy on the management and disposal of higher activity radioactive waste. [Accessed 24 November 2022]. ↩

7. Environment Agency blog. Regulating a geological disposal facility to protect the environment. [Accessed 24 November 2022]. ↩

8. GDF Conference, 2021. GDF Conference 2021 [Accessed 24 November 2022]. ↩

9. Environment Agency and ONR, 2021. Regulators support to Theddlethorpe GDF Working Group. Letter to the chair of Theddlethorpe GDF Working Group EA reference GDF/SSRP/2021/02, ONR reference CM9: 2021/74932. ↩

10. CoRWM, 2021. Policy, legal and regulatory issues for a geological disposal facility (GDF) and associated radioactive waste management issues: CoRWM position paper. [Accessed 24 November 2022]. ↩

11. CoRWM, 2021. Implications of inshore siting of a GDF. Draft position paper, September 2021. ↩

12. CoRWM, 2021. GDF high level cost analysis. Draft position paper, April 2021. ↩

13. Environment Agency, 2021. Comments on CoRWM Position Papers: GDF cost estimates and fusion. Letter to CoRWM, August 2021. ↩

14. Environment Agency, 2021. Comments on CoRWM Position Paper on Inshore GDF (draft 9). Letter to CoRWM reference GDF/SSRP/2021/01, September 2021. ↩ ↩²

15. Environment Agency, 2020. Pre-application advice to RWM: Task 1: NWS’s programme for implementing geological disposal. Letter to RWM reference GDF/PAA/2020/02. ↩

16. Environment Agency, 2022. Pre-Application Advice to NWS: Task 1: Organisational Development. Management arrangements map and management of change. Letter to NWS reference GDF/PAA/2022/03. ↩

17. Environment Agency, 2022. Pre-application advice to RWM: Task 1: Organisational Development: Management arrangements map and management of change Letter to NWS reference GDF/PAA/2022/03. ↩

18. Environment Agency and ONR, 2021. Pre-application advice to RWM: Task 1: EA-ONR joint review of Organisation Development, Management System maturity and Management of Change (MoC) processes. Letter to NWS reference GDF/PAA/2021/01. ↩

19. Environment Agency, 2022. Pre-application advice to RWM: Task 1: Organisational Development: Supply Partner Strategy. Letter to RWM reference GDF/PAAS/2022/02. ↩

20. ONR, 2019. Licensing nuclear installations. [Accessed 24 November 2022]. ↩

21. Environment Agency, 2021. Pre-Application Advice to RWM: Task 1.4. Advice on the interpretation of intrusive investigation. Letter to RWM reference GDF/PAA/2021/06. ↩

22. Environment Agency, 2021. Pre-Application Advice to RWM: Task 2. Integrated design and safety case roadmap. Letter to RWM reference GDF/PAA/2021/04. ↩

23. Environment Agency, 2022. Pre-Application Advice to RWM: Task 2. The 2019 Inventory for geological disposal. Letter to RWM reference GDF/PAA/2022/01. ↩

24. Environment Agency, 2021. Pre-Application Advice to RWM: Task 2. Further modelling of non-radiological pollutants in a geological disposal facility. Letter to RWM reference GDF/PAAS/2021/05. ↩

25. RWM, 2021. Pre-application advice to RWM: Task 4: Scope of RWM’s borehole sealing field trials. Letter to Environment Agency reference LL 36929338. ↩

26. Environment Agency, 2021. Pre-application advice to RWM: Task 4: Feedback to RWM on its response to our letter (GDF/PAA/2020/03: Scope of RWM’s borehole sealing field trials). Letter to RWM reference GDF/PAAS/2021/07. ↩

27. Environment Agency, 2019. Pre-application advice to RWM: Task 4: Surface-based investigations generic programmes. Letter to RWM reference GDF/PAAS/2019/01. ↩

28. Environment Agency, 2019. Pre-application advice to RWM: Task 4: Information requirements for site investigation. Letter to RWM reference GDF/PAAS/2019/03. ↩

29. Environment Agency, 2021. Pre-application advice to RWM: Task 3: Assessment of RWMs Science and Technology Plan. Letter to RWM reference GDF/PAAS/2021/02. ↩

30. Environment Agency and ONR, 2022. Assessment of innovative packaging proposals and their impact on the Disposal System Technical Specification and Safety Case. Regulatory Issue GDF_RI_005. Assessment of NWS response (3). ↩

31. Environment Agency and ONR, 2020. Disposability assessments and endorsements sensitive to change. Regulatory Issue GDF_RI_010. RWM response (3). ↩

32. ONR, Environment Agency, Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Natural Resources Wales, 2021. The management of higher activity radioactive waste on nuclear licensed sites. Joint guidance from the Office for Nuclear Regulation, the Environment Agency, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Natural Resources Wales to nuclear licensees. Revision 2.1. [Accessed 24 November 2022]. ↩