INTRODUCTION

  This submission by the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee (RWMAC) concerns specifically the Environment Agency regulation of radioactive waste discharges, both liquid and gaseous, from licensed nuclear sites and other premises which use radioactive substances.

  RWMAC believes that the Select Committee should consider in particular:

—  whether the principles and objectives behind the regulation of such discharges are sufficiently well formulated and understood;

—  whether there is adequate explanatory material available for the public whom the regulatory procedures are designed to protect, and also the industry that must conduct its business in accordance with those procedures;

—  whether deficiencies in the formulation and understanding of the principles behind the regulation of discharges contribute to the protracted decision-making noted in respect of some of the major radioactive waste discharge authorisations;

—  whether the roles of the Environment Agency in regulating radioactive waste discharges and the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) in regulating the treatment and storage of historic wastes lead to regulatory tensions, and whether this situation could be better managed than at present.

  RWMAC has current concerns in respect of all the above issues. The Committee believes that some of these stem from the relationship that the Agency has with Government and in particular, the guidance that the Government provides to the Agency on the conduct of its work in regulating the management of radioactive wastes.

BACKGROUND

RWMAC

  RWMAC is a national advisory Committee whose terms of reference are:

  "To advise the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and, in relation to devolved matters, to advise the Transport and Environmental Minister in Scotland and the Assembly Secretary responsible for environmental policy in Wales, on the technical and environmental implications of major issues concerning the development and implementation of an overall policy for all aspects of the management of civil radioactive waste, including research and development, and on any such matters referred to it by these persons".

Radioactive discharges and their effect

  Discharges of radioactive materials are stated in terms of activity (in units of becquerels, where one becquerel equals one radionuclide disintegration, with its corresponding ionising radiation pulse, per second). The consequence of such discharges is that the radioactivity gives rise, through a number of pathways (inhalation, ingestion and direct exposure), to radiation doses to members of the public. There are various computer-based methods, as well as direct measurement methods, to support the estimation of radiation doses from discharge activities. Different radionuclides have different radiotoxicities and chemical properties, and thus lead to different radiation doses for comparable levels of activity. Exposure to radiation can increase the risk of cancer but both the exposures and increased risk associated with discharges are small compared to the corresponding effects of natural background radiation and medical radiation sources (see, for example, reference 1).

Control of Discharges

  Accumulation and disposal of radioactive waste are regulated under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 (RSA93). Disposal in this context includes the discharge of both liquid and gaseous wastes, as well as the management of solid waste. The Environment Agency has responsibility for such regulation in England and Wales (there are separate arrangements for Scotland and Northern Ireland).

  The Environment Agency's responsibilities cover the disposal of radioactive waste from licensed nuclear sites (ie sites licensed under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, notably nuclear power stations and associated fuel and waste processing plants). However, the management of radioactive waste on such sites is regulated by the NII. RSA93 is also used to control radioactive discharges from other smaller non-nuclear-sites such as hospitals.

The state of Government radioactive waste management policy

  Regulation of radioactive waste discharges must be carried out within the context of the Government's radioactive waste management policy.

  The most recent statement of Government policy was contained in the 1995 White Paper "Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy: Final Conclusions" (Cm 2919). This policy statement was prepared by the previous Conservative administration. It deals with policy for control of radioactive waste discharges, in radiation dose terms, in paragraphs 63 to 73.

  In July 1998 the UK signed up, at a meeting under the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic (the "OSPAR Convention") in Sintra, to a requirement that:

—  by 2000, the UK should work towards achieving further substantial reductions or elimination of discharges, emissions and losses of radioactive substances;

—  by 2020, the UK should reduce such discharges to levels where the resulting additional concentrations in the marine environment above historic levels are close to zero.

  Neither the Government nor the Environment Agency have explained the precise practical implications of this agreement for discharges regulation relative to the Cm 2919 policy statement. RWMAC believes that this is something that is necessary (see later in this submission).

  It should also be noted that the last set of guidance for users on the application of the legislation—"Radioactive Substances Act 1960, a Guide to Administration of the Act"—was published in 1982 and refers to the 1960 version of the Act which has been amended several times since. RWMAC has commented on this lack of current explanatory material in its advice to Government2.

RWMAC'S CONCERNS

Regulation of discharges of radioactive waste

  The policy set out in paragraphs 63 to 73 of Cm 2919 describes a regime for control of radioactive waste discharges based on resulting radiation doses to the public. As well as describing the concepts of radiation dose limits and constraints, Cm 2919 introduced the concept of a "threshold or lower bound for optimisation". This is the use of a radiation dose level (0.02 millisieverts per year) below which the regulators should not seek to secure further reductions in radiation exposure of members of the public provided that they are satisfied that the operator is using the best practicable means to limit discharges.

  However, wider considerations, not declared in Cm 2919, are now being applied to the determination of discharge authorisations. These are based on consideration of the discharges in terms of activity alone, and include the concept of "progressive reduction" (irrespective of dose considerations) and reduction to "close to zero levels" (as referred to in the OSPAR agreement context). It is also unclear how the Environment Agency decides on the limits it sets for some individual radionuclides. Full details of RWMAC's concerns are given in Reference 3.

  It is of course entirely legitimate for the present Government to change, or add to, the policy stated previously in Cm 2919. It is also right that the public should expect to see diminishing discharges in light of developing technology and improved procedures. Statements by Ministers have indicated the importance that they attach to this in relation to sites such as BNFL, Sellafield. However, the key need is for this apparent change in policy to be openly declared and explained for the benefit of the public and industry.

  In particular, the justification for seeking to reduce the quantities of radionuclides of low toxicity, which may save only very small radiation doses for substantial additional expenditure, needs to be rationalised. RWMAC is concerned that there could come a point where requiring industry to spend increasingly large sums of money to secure reductions in doses which are very small in relation to the variation encountered in natural background radioactivity becomes unjustifiable when considered in additional risk terms alone. Not least, there may be better alternative opportunities for use of this money to secure reductions in public radiation dose.

  While the Environment Agency is clearly seeking to improve its public consultation processes and to issue substantive consultation documents in respect thereof, which is to be welcomed, RWMAC believes that these should draw on a separate and free-standing statement (or possibly statements if more than one document proves to be necessary) of regulatory policy and procedures, so that it can be made clear as to how precisely final judgements have been arrived at. This may also rest on the Agency's interpretation of the terms "best practicable means" and/or "the precautionary principle" which would therefore need to be covered. Without such a clear underpinning principles statement, RWMAC questions whether the Agency can be consistently clear of what it is endeavouring to achieve in respect of the control of radioactive discharges.

  As Reference 1 indicates, the regulation of radioactive waste discharges is a potentially complex issue. This makes it all the more important to provide as clear as possible an explanation of its underpinning principles. Section 4 of Reference 3 gives a summary of RWMAC's thinking. Key questions that it gives rise to in the context of the Select Committee's enquiry are:

—  what guidance has the Government given to the Environment Agency on the principles to be used for determining radioactive waste discharge authorisations, and is this sufficient to allow the Agency to conduct its business in an effective and consistent manner?

—  is the control of radioactive waste discharges currently based on activity or radiation dose or some combination of both, and where is this explained for the benefit of the public whom the arrangements are designed to protect and the industry that needs to operate in a manner that delivers such protection?

—  how does the Environment Agency balance the needs to reduce discharge activity levels, radiation dose and costs to industry: what criteria does the Agency use for this and does this lead to consistent regulatory practice?

—  how does the Agency interpret and apply, the "threshold, or lower bound, for optimisation" introduced in Cm 2919? Is use of this threshold extant and is it being applied consistently by the Agency in all its authorisations? If not, what are the exceptions?

—  to what extent is the Agency's approach to the regulation of radioactive waste discharges underpinned by risk considerations and what are the criteria that it uses in respect of such risk assessment?

—  in what manner are the "best practicable means" and "precautionary principle" criteria applied?

—  is the Environment Agency clear as to the implications of the OSPAR Sintra agreement, and where is its understanding of this vis-a"-vis the Cm 2919 radiation-dose-based policy statement set out for the benefit of the public and the industry that are affected as a result?

—  if regulatory policy, procedures and objectives are not clearly set out and explained, can the public participate meaningfully in the consultation exercises that the Environment Agency carries out? RWMAC asserts that they cannot be expected to do so.

Availability of information on regulatory practice

  RWMAC's belief is that the principles behind any aspect of the Environment Agency's regulatory practice should be clear to those to whom it is applied and the public whom it is designed to protect. It should be rationally founded and based on the best available science. It should also be supported by the ready availability of suitable explanatory material for those who have a legitimate interest in it.

  It should certainly not be the case that understanding of regulatory procedures should be the sole prerogative of Environment Agency staff or Government officials, not least because this runs counter to one of the five key commitments of the Modernising Government White Paper of March 1999, namely "delivering public services to meet the needs of citizens, not the convenience of service providers".

  The ultimate test of whether or not regulatory practices have been rationally formulated and properly thought through is that they can be set down in a manner that is easily understandable to the public and industry. While individual Environment Agency consultation documents contain disaggregated statements of individual components of policy, RWMAC contends that these do not give a sufficient picture as to how the regulatory process is intended to work as a unified whole. RWMAC has yet to uncover such explanatory documentation in respect of radioactive waste discharge regulation and invites the Select Committee to seek to do so.

Other issues relating to the arrangements for discharge regulation

  There are other issues relating to the Environment Agency's practical arrangements for the regulation of radioactive waste discharges that the Select Committee might wish to pursue:

—  given the regionalised nature of the Environment Agency, is there adequate central guidance and direction to support consistent radioactive waste discharge regulation by all its staff?

—  what level of internal checking does the Agency carry out to ensure that regulatory practice is consistent (are such checks "independent")?

—  whether levels of staff with specific radioactive substances qualifications and expertise have diminished since the Agency was created (and with respect to HMIP previously) and, if so, what have been the practical consequences for regulation?

—  does the Agency have the necessary levels of resources and expertise to carry out the increased levels of public consultation in respect of discharge authorisations which it is currently considering?

  Any major administrative reorganisation is bound to result in some teething problems and it would have been unusual if the creation of the Environment Agency from a merger of existing bodies had avoided these completely. RWMAC is aware that the original internal arrangements for dealing with radioactive substances were subject to criticism but understands that considerable improvements were achieved relatively early on in the existence of the Agency. RWMAC has not investigated these issues directly, but suggests that the Select Committee might usefully consider whether there is scope for improvement in some or all of the above areas.

Relationship between the Environment Agency and the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate

  As part of the arrangements for the recent House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology's enquiry into the Management of Nuclear Waste, RWMAC was asked to comment on whether or not it was satisfied with the institutional arrangements for nuclear waste in the United Kingdom.

  RWMAC's response is contained in Reference 4. The Committee believed that the institutional responsibilities for the shorter-term, day-to-day regulation of nuclear waste in the UK were broadly acceptable. The Committee also expressed the view that liaison between various regulators, based on memoranda of understanding, generally worked well. However, RWMAC did express some concerns over the longer-term arrangements for management of such waste.

  Given the ongoing uncertainty concerning current Government policy for the long-term management of radioactive waste, which will not be resolved for some time, RWMAC perceives that there is a case for reviewing the interaction between the two regulatory bodies, notably in respect of the treatment and storage of radioactive waste. In particular, the NII can insist on certain timescales for the treatment and storage of historic wastes from licensed nuclear sites which may be in conflict with the constraints imposed on radioactive waste discharges by the Environment Agency. Ultimately, both regulators are seeking to balance risk and benefit to minimise potential harm. But without a clear regulatory framework in place conflict can, and appears to, arise.

  RWMAC therefore believes that this issue is now worth more formal review, taking into account the need to provide a consistent regulatory system that adequately safeguards the public interest and the perceptions of the owners of the waste.

REFERENCE

  1.  Living With Radiation (Fifth Edition). National Radiological Protection Board 1998.

  2.  Annex 6 of the Nineteenth Annual Report of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee. DETR. August 1999.

  3.  The Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee's Advice on Issues Which Need to be Addressed in the Guidance to be given to the Environment Agencies on the Principles for Determining Radioactive Waste Discharge. Authorisations: the "Principles Document". DETR. July 1998.

  4.  The Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee's Response to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology Report on the Management of Nuclear Waste. DETR May 1999.