Transcript Document

Radioactive Waste
Issues in Planning
- A local authority perspective
Rob Murfin
Planning Officers Society
Head of Planning Services
Derbyshire County Council
The starting point – NPPF
Bottom up issues
• Focus on sustainable development & growth
What are the implications?
• Emphasis on local decision-making?
• Reduced national guidance ?
• Not control, but facilitation of development
• Genuinely plan-led
• Shift to opportunities, not barriers
NPPF – a year on
• Implications of shift from arguments around
impacts to that of benefits
• Equalising 3 legs of sustainable development
• Taken industry time to adopt to reemphasis
• More generic economic benefits now need to
be expanded and put into society and sector
based context.
Economic benefits – a new approach
• Argument “will undermine inward investment
because of image”
• Demise of RSS tier, decisions must be directly
consistent with national policy. No interpretation
via RSS need/apportionment
• NPPF arguments more info about economics
• Traditional counter “it will create 23 jobs”
NPPF generic Use of Evidence
Political confidence v crossing line to “advocate”
• Description of Strategic Context, fit with national,
strategic and sub-regional growth plans
• Market Context of the proposal
• Description of the Socio-economic Context
• Examples of business sectors and elements of society to
be “customers” and scale of demand
• Attempt assessment of the quantifiable Economic
Impact including direct, indirect and supplier chains
• Challenge organisational objectors (including PC) to at
least try to quantify alleged negative impact
Radioactive wastes
•
•
•
•
Start from “Schools and Housing” argument
General waste disconnect
“OK, but not needed here”
VLLW – exposes the issues of NPPF approach
DCLG Guidance on implementing the
Waste Framework Directive (Dec 2012)
New style guidance “expect WPAs to plan for the
sustainable management of wastes including:”
Municipal/household
Construction/demolition
Agricultural waste
Commercial/industrial
Low Level Radioactive
Hazardous waste
VLL radioactive specific “needs”
• Wealth of information out there
• Hard to distil from primary sources in day job*
• Key texts for non-expert to get going
*Micro-pig contextual framework scenario
NPPF = Plan positively
for low level radioactive waste???
Housing acceptance*
• Need to establish start part of role
• Accept that there will still be resistance
Spatial : often urban distribution…
Hospitals 250+ nuclear medicine centres, 670K procedures
PA. Last 10 years increase of 40%. Estimated 77% of small VLL
arisings
Pharmaceutical Industry Employs c68k. 40% directly involved
in research, 20% used radioactivity
Contaminated land Legacy from activities pre-dating control
of use/disposal. Processing of uranium ore during 1940/ 50s
to extract radium for paint, dials and watches
Universities 10,000 monitored workers
Oil/Gas Industry “Overboard discharge”* and reinjection of
material into the seabed subsurface of NORM
Scale: Very Low Volumes of Very Low
Level Waste
• Most sites produce less than 50 m3 pa
• Most areas unlikely to exceed 0.1% of nonradioactive directive waste
• Permit to use disposal routes under radioactive
waste regs is held by waste producers, not
operator of receiving disposal facility
• Any landfill or incinerator may have been
accepting low volume VLLW mixed in with the
other wastes
Features: waste
• Majority of LLW similar physical & chemical
nature to MSW or C&I waste streams
• Radioactivity additional to present in raw
materials - therefore is also in all types of waste
• Because of low risks/ small quantities, disposal
mostly been via facilities used for other wastes
• Reported reduction in “availability” of facilities
• Concern about continued availability of facilities
or need to transport waste over long distances
Key messages
• Plan provision, inc. imports to ensure plan is
consistent with national policy
• Confirm opportunities for disposal will be
assessed against positive policies, not just barriers
• Abolition of RSS = embrace cross boundary
working (DtC)
• Definition itself gives rise to public concern=
deterrent for operators to provide a disposal
service.
• May very well make a hard task even harder in
some parts of country
• VLLW clarity needed even if it means plans
and facilities “harder” to get through
• Linked issues ; reduce the fragility of
disposal arrangements and arrangements
needed to provide security of supply of
hydrocarbons
• “it is appropriate that local communities
should take greater responsibility for how
they deal with non-nuclear industry
arisings”
All this does not mean every WPA has
to have a LLW facility…
.. But does not mean defaulting
to disposal in Cumbria
or Oosoom District Council*
• No RSS, but “reality apportionment” evidence
cannot be ignored
• Government does not believe it is appropriate to
require operators of commercial waste facilities
to take particular wastes.
• Support provision of sufficient opportunities
within local planning strategies to meet the nonnuclear industry disposal needs
Challenge
• Non-nuclear industry distributed across UK,
although tends to be urban
• Small volumes of LLW are largely insufficient
to drive the provision of bespoke facilities or
via allocation process.
• Awareness of issue could be the problem?
• WPAs should actively state conditions when
LLW can go to given facilities
• NPPF– look for solutions, not restrictions