Corporate report

Scrutiny of RWM's work on geological disposal - annual report 2020 to 2021

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 support communities that are considering hosting a GDF on matters relating to our respective areas of regulation.

We continue to speak openly with RWM. This helps RWM 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 from RWM, 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]}.

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

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.

RWM is currently carrying out ‘generic’ preparatory work for a geological disposal facility (GDF), as no sites have yet been identified. However, discussions are ongoing between RWM and interested communities.

This report summarises the work that the Environment Agency and ONR carried out to scrutinise RWM’s work and our interactions with the public during 2020 to 2021. Coronavirus (COVID-19) impacted our work during this reporting period. We had no in-person meetings with RWM – all engagement was online. Disruption and staff availability due to the effects of the pandemic were a challenge for all organisations.

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 several areas, but further work is still required. In particular, RWM is not yet ready as an organisation to hold the necessary permits for site investigation. It has made progress this year, but further work is still required.

Main outcomes from our work during 2020 to 2021

We advised RWM that it needs to improve the visibility of its overall work programme for implementing geological disposal. We (Environment Agency) developed a tracking system to help us assess RWM’s progress in meeting our regulatory requirements for geological disposal.

RWM continued to improve towards becoming an organisation that meets our requirements to hold an environmental permit and site licence. However, with significant organisational change and growth underway, we are concerned with:

• the apparent immaturity of RWM’s culture improvement programme
• the need to develop its management system in line with the changes

We consider though that there is enough time to address these matters before it applies for its first environmental permit and site licence.

We (Environment Agency) are satisfied with RWM’s approach and progress towards documenting the claims, arguments and evidence underpinning its environmental safety case (through its Visualisation of System Information (ViSI) system). But we are yet to determine the success of its implementation.

RWM is updating its procedures for building confidence in its data and modelling to address our (Environment Agency) advice, but the matter is yet to be fully resolved.

RWM has made progress in updating its list of radionuclides that need to be considered when assessing the environmental, operational and transport safety of geological disposal. We (Environment Agency) are confident that RWM is taking our advice into account appropriately.

RWM has made considerable progress to address our (Environment Agency) advice to demonstrate compliance with the requirements to protect groundwater from non-radioactive hazardous substances and non-hazardous pollutants in the inventory for geological disposal. But more work is required to fully address our concerns.

RWM’s proposed borehole sealing trials could potentially add value and could help build confidence, but we (Environment Agency) were critical of the level of ambition of the scope and conduct of the planned trial at Harwell. RWM is addressing our concern in its plans.

We (Environment Agency) continue to provide advice and clarification to RWM on several aspects of environmental permitting, and identify areas of uncertainty to address through our ongoing work

We offered our support to Copeland GDF Working Group and Allerdale GDF Working Group and attended introductory meetings with both working groups – we subsequently supported several Copeland Working Group engagement activities.

We (Environment Agency) contributed to forthcoming International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) guidance on regulatory review and assessment of geological disposal.

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 HAW, the most radioactive categories 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 geological disposal facility (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. Scottish Government policy advocates near-site, near-surface management of HAW, and 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 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 a licence, we are providing regulatory advice rather than making regulatory decisions.

COVID-19 impacted our work during the reporting period. We had no in-person meetings with RWM – all engagement was online. 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 RWM about its plans and proposals for working groups are helping us prepare to support community discussions. As part of these preparations, we produced a short animation on YouTube to explain the regulators’ role in geological disposal.

Regulating the geological disposal of radioactive waste

The animation complements other information we have developed to assist us in discussions with interested stakeholders, for example:

• 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

Following the formation of Copeland GDF Working Group in November 2020 and Allerdale GDF Working Group in January 2021, we wrote to the independent chairs of each working group ^{[footnote 6] [footnote 7]} outlining our regulatory roles and the processes that will help protect people and the environment now and in the future. We offered our impartial participation in working group events such as exhibitions, and to give access to our materials online. However, we stressed that, to maintain our regulatory independence, we would not be a formal member of either working group, and not be involved in decision-making.

Both working groups invited us to join them for introductory meetings where we explained our roles and responsibilities. We also supported online webinars organised by Copeland Working Group and produced an article on regulation for its newsletter.

We provided feedback independently on the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management’s (CoRWM’s) draft position paper on regulation ^{[footnote 8]} to clarify our regulatory roles and highlight opportunities to improve the position paper.

3. 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.

Engaging with RWM 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 differences and so it may be necessary to enhance regulatory capabilities in some areas at certain times.

We will maintain and enhance our capabilities to meet our responsibilities in regulating geological disposal, and work is underway to do this.

3.1 Regulatory preparations

We (Environment Agency) continued to develop our programme of work so that we will be ready when we need to regulate geological disposal. Our programme is in its early stages of development, but during this reporting period we have:

• completed a strategic level review of how we advise developers or operators of major projects and other sectors to improve our guidance for developers of geological disposal
• identified the need to clarify some areas of regulatory uncertainty, such as the meaning of intrusive investigations in Schedule 23 of the Environmental Permitting Regulations

3.2 Engagement with other regulators and international programmes

We (Environment Agency) participated in the IAEA’s meeting on guidance on preparing for and conducting regulatory reviews and assessments of geological disposal programmes. The aim of this project is to prepare a guidance document that helps regulators prepare for and conduct regulatory reviews and assessments of geological disposal programmes. We have advised on an early draft of the document and have drafted an annex on ‘Environment Agency preparations for geological disposal in England’. The IAEA project is focused on post-closure assessment, therefore this is an Environment Agency (not ONR) piece of work.

4. 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 Requirement 4 [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 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 (Environment Agency) advised RWM that there is not a good overall view of its programme ^{[footnote 9]} and that it should demonstrate all it needs to achieve, by when, in a way that we and others can understand. We (Environment Agency) consider this to be a high priority if RWM wishes to efficiently and successfully progress geological disposal.

In response, RWM hosted an initial GDF programme planning workshop with regulators, which gave us a useful high-level overview of RWM’s GDF programme. We agreed that further meetings would be required to enable us to understand the detail and to then assess RWM’s progress towards carrying out its programme.

At the workshop, we (Environment Agency) shared our developing tracker for assessing RWM’s progress towards implementing geological disposal. We continued to develop the tool and are planning to trial it next year.

Following the workshop, we (Environment Agency) advised RWM on the timescales for determining a radioactive substances activity permit for surface-based investigations and underground investigations ^{[footnote 10]}. This included the following points.

The time it takes us to determine any permit depends on several factors, such as:

• whether statutory time limits for permit determination apply
• the technical complexity of the application
• the quality of the submission
• the quality of pre-application engagement
• the degree of public interest
• interaction with other permitting, consenting and licensing processes

Because this is a major and complex project, the statutory timescales for permit determination are unlikely to apply. No set determination period applies to an application for the grant or transfer of a permit from a nuclear site licensee in relation to a radioactive substances activity.

We believe 18 months for determining an application for a radioactive substances activity permit for surface-based investigation is achievable in a best-case scenario. However, this will need efficient pre-application engagement and will remain subject to a wide range of uncertainties, including the degree of public interest. Further engagement with RWM will help us judge whether this assumption is realistic. Given the inherent uncertainty at this point, we advised RWM to include some contingency time should our determination exceed 18 months.

We consider an assumption of 18 months for determining the radioactive substances activity permit for underground investigation is unrealistic given the likely technical complexity of the submission, and the potential public interest. Presently, we cannot confirm exactly how long it will take to determine this application, however, further engagement will help RWM improve these estimates.

5. Organisational capability

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 [1], 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 capability 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 note that the NDA is planning to bring RWM and the Low Level Waste Repository (LLWR) together into a Waste Division from January 2022. RWM will remain a separate legal entity on that date, but it is likely that there will be changes in the future. We are engaging with RWM to understand the impact of these changes on the future organisational capability and management system.

5.1 Organisational development

As a result of an inspection in 2014 we raised concerns over RWM’s corporate structure and supply chain management (GDF_RI_009 – see Annex A). We asked RWM to:

• review its corporate structure and implement changes
• review its programme of supply chain audits
• take appropriate action to ensure the audit programme is consistent with RWM’s strategy for commissioning and controlling work done by the supply chain

Since then, RWM has integrated its quality function with its health, safety, security and environment (HSSE) function to bring all associated aspects of assurance under a single Director for Health, Safety, Security, Environment and Quality (HSSEQ). It has demonstrated a clear commitment to ensuring that the function is adequately resourced and given suitable importance.

In the context of effective supply chain management, we advised RWM to maintain an ‘Intelligent Customer’ capability to know what is required and to fully understand the need for a contractor’s services at any level of the supply chain. We noted, in particular, that RWM should be capable of specifying requirements, supervising the work and technically reviewing the output before, during and after implementation. We pointed RWM to relevant guidance ^{[footnote 11] [footnote 12]}. We consider RWM has made sufficient progress since the original inspection in 2014 for us to close the regulatory issue (RI).

During the reporting period, we also closed an RI on RWM’s workforce capability plan (GDF_RI_012 – see Annex A). We asked RWM to develop and maintain a formal plan setting out how it intends to meet and maintain the necessary competences to ensure operational and environmental safety of its undertakings.

RWM has demonstrated to us that it understands what is required at this stage of the project to determine and maintain the skills needed. This was demonstrated through:

• its response to the RI
• our assessment of RWM’s management system (MS), organisational design, management of change (MoC) process and its cultural improvement programme (see section 5.2)

Therefore, we closed the RI, but RWM’s organisational development will continue to be a significant ongoing area of work for RWM and regulatory focus.

We (Environment Agency) advised RWM on its organisational development and capability to address potentially multiple matters of environmental compliance regarding its activities as part of the site investigation phase. We (Environment Agency) will continue to discuss these matters so that we:

• are all clear on the scope of the permits and permissions that RWM might need from us during this phase
• are all clear on the level of organisational capability that we will expect to see
• establish the scope and content of our first site investigation permits

We (Environment Agency) are committed to implementing a robust, proportionate approach to regulating the activities required for the site investigation phase.

5.2 RWM’s management of change and management system maturity

We assessed the maturity of RWM’s MS, organisational design, MoC process and its cultural improvement programme. RWM’s MoC process is particularly important given that the organisation is currently going through a significant change programme.

RWM recognises that it needs to update its systems and processes to deliver its GDF programme. RWM is embarking on an ‘Enhanced Management System’ project to ensure its management system is suitable and adequate to support the changes necessary for a rapidly expanding organisation. The work is led by RWM’s HSSEQ Director and should be completed during 2022. We note that this is not without risk as planning for such transformation can put a strain on the leadership and existing workforce trying to absorb the growth. We advised RWM to embed its revised MoC process early in what is an ambitious change programme.

We are concerned with the apparent immaturity of RWM’s culture improvement programme. However, given that RWM does not anticipate applying for the first environmental permit until 2025 at the earliest, we consider there should be sufficient time for RWM to develop both its MS and culture to the level we would expect of a permitted organisation.

We summarised our findings, together with recommendations, in a letter to RWM ^{[footnote 13]}. We will continue to consider RWM’s transformation processes through our ongoing scrutiny work.

6. Regulatory requirements

RWM’s applications to develop a GDF must take full account of our environmental permitting requirements (GRA Section 5 [1]) 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 [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 the Environment Agency for an environmental permit to undertake surface-based 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 14]}.

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.

We continue to liaise with RWM to make sure that it understands the regulatory permissions it will need, and the associated application requirements, to implement geological disposal.

6.1 RWM permitting workshops

We (Environment Agency) held a series of meetings with RWM to discuss RWM’s progress towards establishing the activities, resources and capability needed to get the necessary permits and then to carry out site investigation.

Through the discussions, we (Environment Agency) identified areas of uncertainty in environmental permitting for site investigation which we need to consider further. We needed to clarify, as a matter of highest priority, the interpretation of intrusive investigations based on the definition in Schedule 23 of the Environmental Permitting Regulations. We have started work to address this matter.

We (Environment Agency) also provided written clarification to RWM ^{[footnote 15]} that an applicant (for example, RWM) cannot be a Competent Authority, as defined under Regulation 7 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.

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.

RWM issued its most recent generic disposal system safety case (gDSSC) in 2016. Since then, we have engaged with RWM to assess progress against our advice and to help us understand its plans to develop the gDSSC, and any site-specific submissions, in the future. 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 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 RWM’s Technical Programme. We (Environment Agency) have commenced a review of roadmaps, which we will complete in the financial year 2021 to 2022.

RWM currently does not plan to publish another set of gDSSC documents. Instead, it will keep its generic safety case understanding up to date, supported by site-specific submissions, when required.

RWM is developing its ViSI system to document the claims, arguments and evidence underpinning its ESC.

RWM’s progress on developing ViSI has allowed us to close GDF_RO_007 (Annex A). This placed an action on RWM to establish a programme, process and methodology to systematically document the claims, arguments and evidence underpinning its ESC. We consider that RWM’s work on ViSI addresses this specific action and that ViSI has the potential to appropriately manage the ESC claims and arguments. However, it will be a few years before RWM fully implements ViSI. In the meantime, we will continue to engage with RWM on its development and address any further, more specific matters once we see RWM’s implementation and use of ViSI. We plan to review the functionality and usability of ViSI during the financial year 2021 to 2022.

RWM has also provided us with an interim response to GDF_RO_006 (Annex A) on building confidence in data and modelling. We are pleased that RWM is taking our advice into account in updating its procedures. However, we will not close this RO until RWM has fully developed its digital strategy and modelling strategy roadmap.

We raised both regulatory observations detailed in this section in response to findings from our review of the 2016 gDSSC ^{[footnote 16]}.

6.3 Recordable radionuclides

RWM maintains a list of radionuclides that waste producers must report against. 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 (Environment Agency) have previously advised RWM on its proposed approach for re-deriving the list of potentially recordable radionuclides. We discussed how it intends to address our advice and we are confident that RWM is taking this into account appropriately. It will be some time before RWM has fully implemented changes as a result of its review of recordable radionuclides and before waste producers can get data for any new data fields. Therefore, we accept that the approach will not be fully implemented until the 2025 UK Radioactive Waste Inventory (UKRWI). We advised RWM to keep NDA informed of any potential implications from this work on assessment of new treatment or disposal routes for some HAW.

6.4 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 from entering groundwater
• limiting non-hazardous pollutants from entering groundwater so they do not cause pollution

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

We (Environment Agency and NRW) reviewed RWM’s progress and developments relevant to demonstrating compliance with the requirements for groundwater protection. This included progress on related assessments. We agreed some topics and approaches on which RWM wants more advice from us. We are currently considering RWM’s report on further modelling of non-radioactive contaminants in a GDF and will complete our assessment of it early in the financial year 2021 to 2022. At this time, we can report that we are pleased that RWM is taking much of our advice into account to improve the robustness of its non-radiological pollutant assessment.

We (Environment Agency) also advised RWM on the regulation of persistent organic pollutants and on the latest Joint Agency Groundwater Directive Advisory Group’s (JAGDAG) list of hazardous substances and non-hazardous pollutants.

RWM’s interim response to GDF_RI_013 (Annex A) on characterisation and assessment of the non-radioactive component of waste in the inventory for disposal has allowed us to close out actions which required RWM to:

• ensure that the 2019 UKRWI includes data fields for all the hazardous substances and non-hazardous pollutants that it needs to support the ESC
• publish guidance for waste producers on the waste characterisation data pertaining to the hazardous substances and non-hazardous pollutants in waste destined for geological disposal

Three further actions on RWM aimed at improving its understanding of the non-radioactive component of the inventory for disposal and engaging with us on groundwater protection requirements still need to be resolved. We will continue to engage with RWM on these matters and the RI remains open.

6.5 GDF design – borehole disposal

We requested a briefing from RWM on borehole disposal as a potential alternative concept for the disposal of HAW. We concluded that significant challenges remain to be addressed before borehole disposal (BHD) could be considered a sufficiently mature technology for deployment in the UK for large portions of the HAW inventory.

RWM has no planned research on BHD. However, NDA asked RWM to review a report by the company Deep Isolation on the feasibility of its BHD concept for the UK. Regulators did not participate in this review, but we (Environment Agency):

• attended, as observers, 3 workshops hosted by RWM on specific aspects of the Deep Isolation borehole disposal concept
• advised RWM on a draft of its review on matters relating to policy, licensing and permissioning

7. 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 [1]).

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.

7.1 Borehole sealing trials

RWM’s borehole sealing research and development programme includes the use of field trials to demonstrate that it can adequately seal site investigation boreholes before it commences drilling them. RWM identified existing redundant boreholes on the Harwell Nuclear Licensed Site that were suitable for use in a field trial.

We (Environment Agency) reviewed RWM’s proposals to seal the redundant boreholes and considered that, given the low potential for wastes to be generated or the environment impacted, the work did not require a specific environmental permit to be issued. However, we (Environment Agency) provided advice to RWM ^{[footnote 17]} on the scope of RWM’s borehole sealing field trials, summarised as follows:

• the inclusion of field trials in RWM’s programme of work on borehole sealing has the potential to add significant value and could help build confidence in RWM’s competencies
• the scope of the field trials is less complex and challenging than what could be required in RWM’s site investigation programmes
• RWM relies heavily on its contractors to scope, design and carry out the work
• disappointment that the work does not currently look to capitalise on other opportunities to add value

We (Environment Agency) and RWM met to discuss and clarify the advice and recommendations. RWM told us it had already acted on our letter, for example, by commissioning additional experimental work. It also said that it was considering extending the scope of the next field trials and that it will use the discussions to inform its response.

Planning permission for the sealing work at Harwell was granted in November and shortly afterwards work began on constructing the drilling pad. The drilling rig was deployed in January 2021. We (Environment Agency) visited the site to view the work whilst it was underway. During the work, some matters arose which RWM needed to respond to, and which impacted on its work. These included the inadvertent release of a quantity of chemical used to produce a drilling fluid, which was contained in a lined bund within the drill pad and was removed without causing any impacts to the local environment. There were also challenges emplacing seal materials due to instability of the borehole wall following the removal of casing, which required additional seal material to be emplaced.

RWM plans to complete the sealing activities early in the financial year 2021 to 2022 and to document the results after this, as part of its ongoing research, development and demonstration.

8. RWM’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 [1]).

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.

8.1 RWM’s science and technology plan

Through our engagement with RWM we have maintained an overview of RWM’s science and technology (S&T) plan as it has developed and heard in more detail about some of the work being carried out. RWM has demonstrated that it has addressed much of our previous advice relating to its developing S&T plan. RWM provided a useful overview of its international collaboration with operators of underground research laboratories (URLs) in Europe. This gave us confidence that RWM is appropriately leveraging and contributing to large multidisciplinary R&D projects that will benefit its programme.

We (Environment Agency) provided further advice on the current S&T plan ^{[footnote 18] [footnote 19]}. We concluded that it provides a good overview of the R&D RWM plans to carry out over the next decade and that it is a useful tool to help RWM explain its planned R&D to others. The S&T plan should help RWM focus its R&D as it progresses from generic to site-specific research. We consider the S&T plan is particularly useful in demonstrating those areas in which RWM considers no further research is required during the generic phase. The document demonstrates good application of technical and scientific readiness levels (TRL and SRL). We noted that we would expect a progressive shift from SRLs to TRL as research moves towards a more site-specific focus. ONR supported these conclusions from the Environment Agency assessment. We also noted that the current S&T plan ^{[footnote 18]} is now aligned with RWM’s GDF programme tranches and was prepared using the ViSI tool.

9. 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 [1]).

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 suitably packaged for handling and disposing of in a GDF. We also expect RWM 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 transporting to, and handling and disposing of, at a GDF with no, or minimal, reworking in line with the safety case
• an important regulatory objective of the disposability assessment process is to ensure that waste producers package wastes today so that risks on operational sites are minimised
• 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

9.1 High Heat Generating Wastes

RWM published its Low Heat Generating Waste (LHGW) Level 2 Waste Package Specifications (WPS) in November 2020. We discussed with RWM its approach for developing the equivalent Level 2 WPSs for High Heat Generating Wastes (HHGW). We recognise that developing the specifications for HHGW can only progress so far because of uncertainties associated with site geology and disposal concepts, which can only be resolved once site selection decisions are made. RWM’s main aim over the next few years is to produce a ‘requirements document for precursor products’ (rather than HHGW Level 2 WPSs). This will define the requirements to allow HHGW to be packaged and stored in a way that does not rule out future options for managing the waste.

We expect to be consulted as RWM progresses this work.

9.2 Disposability assessment

Through our engagement with RWM we agreed that decision-making about waste management should be based on a full lifecycle analysis of risk, but there are questions about how this lifecycle assessment of risk should be demonstrated. NDA established a new group called the Disposability Risk Management (DRM) Group to ensure an appropriate balance between competing requirements which can influence the choice and design of a waste package across its lifecycle (from package loading at sites, through to onsite storage, transport to GDF and operational and post-closure performance). We consider that this is a move in the right direction.

We consider the DRM Group is a positive development, but uncertainty over governance and implementation needs to be resolved. We want to be more actively involved and informed of the work of this group and will achieve this through our engagement with the NDA’s Integrated Waste Management Programme.

RWM has made some changes to the package assurance processes, such as periodic review and records assessment, and is considering changes to its disposability assessment process. We discussed these with RWM and how the work of the DRM Group may affect the operation of RWM’s disposability assessment process. We advised RWM to produce a concise summary of changes to the disposability assessment process for wider dissemination (regulators and the industry).

9.3 Criticality

We consider RWM has satisfactorily engaged with industry to identify challenging waste streams with fissile content. RWM has also identified how its methodology could be applied to ensure there’s consistency with the revised IAEA transport regulations and guidance, including where revisions may be necessary. RWM has developed suitable programmes of work to address these matters. We have therefore closed the associated regulatory observation (GDF_RO_008 Annex A). However, we will monitor the adequacy of RWM’s approach to setting package fissile limits during implementation through our ongoing engagement with waste producers and RWM, and determine whether further actions are necessary.

10. Conclusions

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

RWM has made progress in several areas, such as its:

• borehole sealing field trials
• work on non-radiological contaminants and hazardous pollutants
• recordable radionuclides

However, further work is still needed.

Our biggest challenge in the medium term will be to determine RWM’s readiness as a competent organisation to hold the necessary permits for its initial investigations, in the face of significant change and with the establishment of NDA’s Waste Division.

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: list of regulatory issues and observations

Regulatory issues

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	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 observations

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 WIPP Incident	Closed
GDF_RO_006	Building confidence in data and modelling	Open
GDF_RO_007	Auditable evidence in support of an ESC	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 15 October 2021]. ↩ ↩²

2. ONR, March 2018. Technical Assessment Guide on Geological Disposal NS-TAST-GD-101. Revision 0. [Accessed 15 October 2021]. ↩

3. ONR, January 2020. Safety Assessment Principles for Nuclear Facilities ONR CM9 Ref 2019/367414. 2014 Edition, Revision 1. [Accessed 15 October 2021]. ↩

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.[Accessed 15 October 2021]. ↩

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

6. Environment Agency and ONR, 2020. Siting Support and Regulatory Preparations: Regulator’s support to Copeland GDF Working Group. Letter to M Cullinan. Environment Agency Reference: GDF/SSRP/2020/02 ONR Ref: CM9 2020/31236. ↩

7. Environment Agency and ONR, 2020. Siting Support and Regulator Preparations: Regulator’s support to Allerdale GDF Working Group. Letter to J Manners-Armstron. Environment Agency Reference: GDF/SSRP/2021/01 ONR Ref: 2021/4063. ↩

8. Environment Agency, 2020. Siting Support and Regulatory Preparations: Comments on CoRWM Position Paper on Regulation (Draft1). Letter to CoRWM reference GDF/SSRP/2020/01. ↩

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

10. Environment Agency, 2021. Pre-application advice to RWM: Task 1.8: Advice on Radioactive Substances Activity (RSA) permit determination timescales for surface-based investigation and underground investigation for a geological disposal facility. Letter to RWM reference GDF/PAA/2021/03. ↩

11. ONR, April 2019. Licensee Core Safety and Intelligent Customer Capabilities. NS-TAST-GD-049. [Accessed 15 October 2021]. ↩

12. Environment Agency, April 2010. RSR: Management arrangements for nuclear sites. [Accessed 15 October 2021]. ↩

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

14. ONR, 2019. Licensing Nuclear Installations. [Accessed 15 October 2021]. ↩

15. Environment Agency, 2020. Pre-application advice to RWM: Task 1: Competent Authority for Habitats Regulations Assessments. Letter to RWM reference GDF/PAA/2020/04. ↩

16. Environment Agency, 2018. Pre-application advice and scrutiny of Radioactive Waste Management Limited: Joint regulators’ assessment of the 2016 generic Disposal System Safety Case. [Accessed 15 October 2021]. ↩

17. Environment Agency, 2020. Pre-application advice to RWM – Task 4: Scope of RWM’s borehole sealing field trials. Letter to RWM Reference GDF/PAA/2020/03. ↩

18. RWM, 2020. Science and Technology Plan. NDA/RWM/167 dated October 2020. ISBN 978-1-84029-600-6. ↩ ↩²

19. Environment Agency, 2021. Pre-application advice to RWM – Task 3: Assessment of RWM’s Science and Technology Plan. Letter to RWM Reference GDF/PAA/2021/02. ↩