Challenges in LLW Management: a Local Government Perspective

1
Challenges in LLW Management a Local Government
Perspective Fred Barker, Executive Director,
NuLeAF SAFESPUR FORUM 29 April 2009
2
Introduction to NuLeAF

• Established in 2003 a Special Interest Group of
  the Local Government Association
• 103 member authorities in England and Wales
  including those with nuclear sites
• Steering Group meets quarterly to oversee work
  programme and approve proposed initiatives

3
Overall Aims

• to identify, where possible, a common local
  government viewpoint on nuclear legacy management
  issues
• to represent that viewpoint, or the range of
  views of its member authorities, in discussion
  with national bodies
• to seek to influence policy and strategy for
  nuclear legacy management in the interests of
  affected communities and
• to develop the capacity of its member authorities
  to engage with nuclear legacy management.

4
LLW Strategic Objectives

• To seek to ensure that LLW Strategy is developed
  and implemented in ways that can inspire local
  authority and public confidence
• In the context of implementation of the waste
  hierarchy and subject to suitability of the
  nuclear licensed site in question, to encourage
  development of local or regional LLW management
  facilities at existing nuclear sites, rather than
  at non-nuclear sites.

5
A Key Challenge

• NuLeAF supports the need to preserve LLWR
  capacity rigorous application of the waste
  management hierarchy and opening up new disposal
  routes.
• But the challenge of WHERE to site facilities is
  critically important to local government.
• Illustrate the point by reviewing the pros and
  cons of On-Site Disposal (OSD) v landfill.

6
The Case for OSD of LLW

• Springfields local stakeholder preference for
  on-site disposal, not disposal to landfill at
  Clifton Marsh (no LLW transport, use of a
  purpose-designed facility and confidence in
  nuclear site management)
• Hinkley SLC considers on-site disposal to be a
  simple and sustainable approach, offering a
  significant financial saving against the
  baseline (disposal to LLWR). A facility could
  accommodate all LLW from final site clearance
  (a significant LLWR capacity saving).

7
Disadvantages of OSD

• Requires an increase in short-term funding to
  secure the financial savings
• May be perceived by some local stakeholders as
  incompatible with their preferred end uses for
  the site
• May be a delay to de-licensing the OSD
  footprint beyond final site clearance

8
The Case for Disposal to Landfill

• Contribution to multiple disposal routes
• Conforms with Government policy on a
  risk-informed approach
• Avoids increase in short-term funding for OSD
• Transfer of long-term risks to the supply chain

9
Disadvantages of Disposal to Landfill

• Risks local community and local authority
  opposition (local transport, lack of confidence
  cf OSD, bucks trend away from landfill use,
  adverse socio-economic impacts)
• Wider impact on public attitudes to the nuclear
  industry
• Uncertainties of relying on supply chain
  (particularly if concerted local opposition)
• Can only take a proportion of LLW (10-30 at
  Magnox sites)

10
NuLeAFs Preferred Approach

• View on balance of pros and cons will depend on
  your stakeholder perspective and the sites in
  questions
• NuLeAFs view a national organisation
  representing local authority interests is that
  where practicable OSD is preferable
• We think NDA should encourage SLCs to examine the
  potential for facilities on or adjacent to their
  sites, before considering other sites (including
  landfill)

11
Local Authority Planning

• Local planning policy the main material
  consideration in judging planning applications
  could encourage concentration of facilities at or
  adjacent to existing sites
• Local applications for authorisation to dispose
  to landfill the local planning authority will
  want to check the original planning permission
  and conditions
• Renewal or extensions to planning permissions for
  landfill planning authorities may wish to
  re-visit conditions (to ensure that only waste
  types specified in the application are disposed
  of)

12
Role of Public Acceptability

• NDA mission is to deliver safe, sustainable and
  publicly acceptable solutions. This implies
• NDA should give a high level of consideration to
  public acceptability in the development and
  implementation of LLW strategy
• NDA will need to carefully assess what proportion
  of consultation responses can genuinely be taken
  as broad support for its proposed strategy, and
  how to revise that strategy if broad support for
  aspects of it does not exist

13
Finally, Some Questions

• If the management of LLW becomes dispersed in
  more communities, will this lead to more
  widespread understanding and acceptance of things
  radioactive, or stir up wider opposition?
• How can a path be taken that gives appropriate
  weight to public acceptability?
• Should NDA spend more in the short term to fund
  OSD, which is likely to achieve longer term
  savings and wider stakeholder confidence?