Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

Background
The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) issued an invitation to submit evidence for its study of environmental planning on 31 March 2000.

In setting out the key themes for their study, the RCEP explained that:

"The aim of the study is to assess whether the various regimes at different levels, for the setting and achieving of environmental goals, provide an effective, accountable and transparent way of protecting the environment...

The scope of the study goes much wider than land use planning (although that aspect is central) and will encompass other environmental planning regimes, such as pollution control, air quality, waste, water, agri-environmental and biodiversity..

The Commission does not expect those responding to address all of the questions - many of the respondents may wish to comment on only a few of the issues below. The list of questions is not intended to be exhaustive and respondents are welcome to address other issues relevant to the key themes that they wish to draw to the Commission's attention".

RWMAC's position
The Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee (RWMAC) is the independent committee that advises the UK Government, including the devolved administrations for Scotland and Wales, on the technical and environmental implications of major issues concerning the development and implementation of overall policy for all aspects of the management of radioactive waste.

As such, RWMAC does not have a specific remit in the planning area. However, the Committee does see fit to offer comment from time to time when planning considerations impinge on radioactive waste management issues. In this light, the Committee is writing to offer its views on four issues covered in the specific questions posed by the RCEP.

Implications of long-term risks
Question Ih, posed by the RCEP under the environmental sustainability heading, was:

"What are the implications of long-term risks, such as those posed by climate change or persistent waste, for environmental planning?"

The problems associated with such wastes, and the risks associated with them, are that they raise wide-ranging and controversial issues which it is unrealistic to expect to be resolved within the context of the planning system alone. In RWMAC's August 1999 response to the "Modernising Planning" consultation ^[1], it was stated:

"RWMAC does not believe that discussion and assessment of complex technical data should be left to the stage of a planning application and inquiry in respect thereof. Rather, it sees the process of obtaining consensus on the interpretation of such data as something that needs to be pursued throughout the whole policy development and implementation process".

In RWMAC's view, this is the only way in which any government will be able to formulate a policy which will enjoy the acceptance of the public at large. The Committee feels that the debate of these wider, controversial, issues needs to be concluded before the planning system cuts in to consider the more detailed and site-related issues associated with specific proposals for the disposal or storage of radioactive waste. Some ideas on how this might be done are set out in RWMAC's report on the achievement of consensus ^[2].

The planning system and land remediation
There are three questions posed by RCEP in relation to the planning system and land remediation on which RWMAC feels it can usefully comment. The questions encompass issues raised in RWMAC's recent advice to Ministers on MoD radioactively contaminated land ^[3] (although the Committee believes some of these issues may also be relevant in a wider context). The three questions are:

-	question 2c "Should the land use planning system be responsible for helping deliver policy targets in other areas.?"
-	question 3a "Does the current system need "fixing"? What gaps, unnecessary duplication and conflicts existing in the present arrangements for environmental planning?"
-	question 5e "How adequate is the knowledge base, including the location and availability of expertise, the provision of training for practitioners, and the accessibility and quality of data?"

In the DETR consultation paper entitled "Control and Remediation of Radioactively Contaminated Land" ^[4], the Government appears to be relying on the planning system to ensure that radioactively contaminated land is remediated to a standard appropriate to the proposed new use. RWMAC believes that the planning system is not an appropriate means of delivering this objective, particularly for land that has been part of the defence estate (but also for land in civilian ownership). The reasons for this view are as follows:

• the primary focus of the planning system is on the future use of land. Proposals are viewed in the light of the policies and sites allocated in the development plans and other material considerations. It is the character of the proposed development which determines the need for an EIA, the choice of statutory consultees, and the reasonableness of conditions. There is no statutory requirement to consider on site contamination per se.

• whereas any competent local planning authority (LPA) has some idea of the history of civilian land use in its area, it will be far from certain what has happened on land controlled by the MOD because of Crown immunity, not to mention considerations of national security. The formulation and adequacy of conditions are dependent on accurate information, which may not be in the possession of the LPA and for which it will tend to be reliant on others, notably the applicant and, possibly, the environment agencies.

• LPAs do not possess the expertise in-house to set remediation standards: according to PPG23 it is not their job.

• as land uses evolve, and remediation standards improve, it is essential that accurate records be kept for future reference. LPAs will always be the first port of call for developers, but boundaries change and the corporate memory may be lost. LPA records should be backed up by a national register operated by the environment agencies or the Land Registry.

[In short, therefore, RWMAC does not believe that "where a change of use is involved, the current planning system alone can ensure an adequate standard of clean-up ^[3]".]

The role of the environment agencies
Question 3e asks, "Are the mandates and procedures of the pollution control bodies appropriate to their environmental planning responsibilities? Are these responsibilities appropriate?"

RWMAC's views, as they relate to MoD land, are to be found in paragraphs 6.35 and 6.36 of its report ^[3]. The report sets out what would appear to be some misconception on the part of Defence Estates, the body responsible for the management of the MoD estate, about the extent of the statutory responsibilities of the environment agencies. In practice, these responsibilities might need to be adjusted to meet the objective of satisfactory remediation of all MoD radioactively contaminated land. Meanwhile, the involvement of the environment agencies' inspectors in remediation work varies from region to region, as well as with the views and work priorities of individual inspectors. Some standardisation of approach would therefore seem desirable. Whether legislation would be necessary required is yet another issue.

Standards of remediation for radioactively contaminated land Question 5e has already been referred to above : "How adequate is the knowledge base, including the location and availability of expertise, the provision of training for practitioners, and the accessibility and quality of data?" It goes on : "How far are any of these elements in the knowledge base constrained by lack of resources or suitable institutions, and, if appropriate, how could that be remedied?"

Discussion on the problems associated with the practical application of remediation standards for radioactively contaminated land is to be found in various places in the RWMAC Report ^[3]: the Executive Summary, paragraph 21 and paragraphs 6.39 - 6.43, and Annex 4.

Whilst the science of radioactivity is well understood, its practical application to the remediation of radioactively contaminated land is pragmatic. The "standards" used are based on the requirements of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 (RSA93) and its associated Exemption Order provision. Less than 0.37 becquerels per gram of radium-contaminated soil ^[5] is not classified as radioactive waste under the terms of RSA93, so the tendency is to remove everything with an activity above that level. Given the range of available assessment procedures for radioactively contaminated land and the uncertainties associated, post-remediation, with its long-term future use, RWMAC itself believes that the formulation of a transparent, risk-based, system of standards is required in order to deal with all likely situations of radiation exposure of the public. This risk-based remediation standards system needs to be geared to the type of radioactive waste, the characteristics of potential users, and the length of time to which they would be exposed to any contamination. These are a few of the many practical issues, which would have to be faced in devising any meaningful national standards.

RWMAC therefore considers the lack of agreed standards for remediation of radioactively contaminated land to be a serious omission in current arrangements. What is required to make up this shortfall is to make the optimum use of existing knowledge, to commission additional research where needed, and to provide the political will to resolve this. Some additional resources may be required, but these should not be significant.

References
^[1] The Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee's response to the Modernising Planning consultation paper "Streamlining the processing of major projects through the planning system", August 1999 (to be published).

^[2] The Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee: Advice to Ministers on the Establishment of Scientific Consensus on the Interpretation and Significance of the Results of Science Programmes into Radioactive Waste Disposal, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, May 1999.

^[3] The Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee's Advice to Ministers on the Ministry of Defence's Arrangements for Dealing with Radioactively Contaminated Land (to be published August 2000).

^[4] Control and Remediation of Radioactively Contaminated Land: A Consultation Paper, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions et al, London, February 1998.

^[5] Radium-226 (used historically by MoD for luminising) is virtually the only radionuclide found on MoD sites outside those where nuclear operations are carried out (for more detailed discussion, see⁴).

Back to Index of evidence to the Environmental Planning Study