David PalkDevelopment ManagerSuffolk County Council

Outline of presentationPolicy & Strategy for management

of LLW Waste Planning Policy: PPS10Waste Development FrameworksSome issues for waste planners in

dealing with radioactive wasteExample from Suffolk Waste Core

Strategy

UK Policy & Strategy for management of LLRW 2007/2010Key elements in relation to planning

“All nuclear licensed sites should have a plan for the management of their LLW holdings and predicted future arisings….....”

Minimise waste arisings & deal with waste as far up the waste hierarchy as possible Avoid, Reduce arisings, Minimise arisings,

DisposalProximity principle should inform options

assessment but must be balanced with other considerations

UK Policy for management of LLRW 2007Decommissioning will generate more LLW

than can be accommodated at the LLWR near Drigg

Will need other ways to manage LLW including treatment and alternative disposal routes

Management of waste based on an assessment of all practicable options

“The Government sees no reason to preclude controlled burial of radioactive waste from nuclear sites from the list of options to be considered in any options’ assessment”

Interactions with Planning AuthoritiesStrategy should be used as guidance by

WPAs when preparing their WDFsWaste managers and facility operators should

recognise importance of early dialogue both for WDFs and planning applications

Recognise complementary nature of planning & pollution control regimes

Need for a sufficient evidence base about volumes, types and timing of such arisings on a region by region basis and reasonably foreseeable facilities that might be required

Planning Policy Framework

PPS 10 Planning for sustainable waste managementDrive waste management up the waste

hierarchyProvide a framework in which communities take

more responsibility for their own wasteHelp secure the recovery or disposal of waste

without endangering human health and without harming the environment

Enable waste to be disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations

Reflect the concerns and interests of communities

Waste Development FrameworksWPAs have a duty to produce a M&WDF. Must include a Core Strategy which will set the

spatial framework for dealing with waste development

May also produce a Site Allocation Development Plan Document identifying sites considered suitable for waste management uses

Form part of the Development Plan and planning applications must be determined in accordance with it unless material considerations indicate otherwise

Sticky Planning Issues

Uncertainty in assessing needUncertainty in operation of the “proximity”

principleAre LLW facilities “specialist” and if so what

are the ramifications of this?

Sticky Planning Issues

Uncertainty in assessing needWhat are we planning for? How much waste is

likely to arise? And when? Can this be disaggregated to individual WPA area or only to, say, regional level?

Now that the regional tier of planning has gone what mechanisms will be in place to address this issue?

Allied to quantities is type of facility. Are we planning for Storage? Treatment? Recycling? Incineration? Landfill? All of the above? Can this be done at individual WPA level?

Sticky Planning IssuesUncertainty in operation of the “proximity” principle

PPS 10 “Enable waste to be disposed of in one of the nearest appropriate installations”

Does that mean that waste must be dealt with as close to its source of origin as possible, or something different?

Is distance travelled the only criterion that needs to be considered?

Is LLRW different to other wastes in this respect? How does this sit with the assertion that communities

should take responsibility for its own waste?Is LLW a community waste or a national waste?

Sticky Planning IssuesAre LLW facilities “specialist” and if so what

are the ramifications of this?There may be a case for a limited number of

facilities that serve a national or regional need by virtue of

Specialist nature of the facility Limited amount of waste and therefore need for

only a few such facilities Limitations of where such facilities may be located

Does this apply to LLW management and if so

why?

Some policy optionsCounty self sufficiency i.e. will make provision for

wastes arising within the WPA area and perhaps accept that some limited cross boundary movement might be acceptable

For significant “import” of waste indicate that for this to happen it would need to be identified as the best option for dealing with that type and volume of waste

If seeking community benefits to reflect national or regional role of LLW facilities set these out in Policy

Could adopt a sequential approach with on site, adjacent to site, remote from site with preference to other nuclear sites

Restriction on origin of waste being managed

Suffolk Waste Core StrategyWDM19 Treatment, storage and disposal of low and

very low radioactive waste at Sizewell nuclear power stationsFacilities for the treatment, storage or disposal of

LLW or VLLW generated at Sizewell nuclear power stations will be acceptable within the Nuclear Licensed Areas at Sizewell where; a) This is consistent with national strategy for managing

LL and VLL RW and discharges and /or the decommissioning plans for the Sizewell stations, and;

b) The outcome of economic and environmental assessments justify it being dealt with on site, and;

c) facilities are located & designed to minimise adverse impacts on the environment

Only LL or VLL RW generated at Sizewell shall be treated, stored or disposed of in such facilities

Things to considerTalk to your SLCsTalk to neighbouring authorities especially if you

don’t have NI sitesLook at the LLW management plans for each siteTry to ascertain, how much, of what, by when?Think about what realistic options there are?Use available expertise including Stakeholder

GroupsThink about how the community will react and

engage them! If you decide you need policies covering LLRW make

sure you cover this at Issues & Options stageIf you don’t think you need policies say so but do

include some text in your Strategy to show you have thought about the issue

Things we could have done betterShould have engaged the Sizewell Stakeholder

group earlierShould have pushed a little harder to get

better information from SLCsDidn’t really address the Non NI issueHave only really addressed on site

managementHave ducked the landfill issueStill don’t have a really clear picture of what

the implications of decommissioning at Sizewell A is for the Waste Planning Authority