national waste programme environmental permit...

OFFICIAL

National Waste Programme Environmental Permit Review

A review of consignor environmental permits and authorisations to identify any barriers to the optimisation of available waste routes. NWP/REP/048 – Issue V0 April 2014

A company owned by UK Nuclear Waste Management Ltd

Old Shore Road, Drigg, Holmrook, Cumbria, United Kingdom, CA19 1XH Company Registration No. 05608448

A company owned by UK Nuclear Waste Management Ltd OFFICIAL

A company owned by UK Nuclear Waste Management Ltd

NWP/REP/048 – Issue V0 A review of consignor environmental permits and authorisations to identify any barriers to the optimisation of available waste routes. April 2014

Document Management

Rev. Issue Date Description Prepared by Checked by Approved

by

P01 03/02//2014 Draft for comment C Newton D Myerscough

H Kozich

V0 08/04/2014 Version 0 C Newton H Cassidy H Kozich

Name Role

Originator: C Newton

Waste Management Consultant (Studsvik)

Checker: H Cassidy

National Programme Implementation Manager

Approver: H Kozich Head of National Waste Programme

Environmental Permit Review

of 19 OFFICIAL

Doc Ref: NWP/REP/048

Issue: V0

Date: April 2014

Executive Summary The aim of this report is to respond to the recommendation from the 2012 JWMP to determine if and how

environmental permits / authorisations are preventing the use of available waste routes and / or constraining

waste management practices.

Environmental permits and authorisations were reviewed for all Low Level Waste producing sites, where the

most recent permit was available to Low Level Waste Repository (LLWR). The status of route availability was

established for each consignor, based on whether waste transfer to all LLWR framework disposal,

combustible and metallic treatment facilities was authorised under the permit.

For NDA sites it was found that most consigning sites had a multi-modal “Environmental Permitting

Regulations” style permit, which allowed consignment to any treatment / disposal site with its own suitable

permit. The only exception was Hunterston A, which has applied for a multimodal authorisation. In the interim

Hunterston A works within the constraints of its permit by careful management of waste arisings; and has an

agreement with the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), to enable transfer through the LLWR

permit to allow access to all available routes. Sellafield Ltds VLLW transfer volume is limited due to a

Radioactive Substances Compliance Assessment Report (RASCAR) from the Environment Agency (EA).

Sellafield are working with the EA and LLWR to increase VLLW waste diversions and save LLWR vault

space.

For non-NDA sites, fewer had multi-modal permits; however this did not necessarily constrain the smaller

waste producers. Consignors were found to have applied for multi-modal permits where they have identified

their older authorisations as limiting. The Scottish sites were found to be more limited by their authorisations,

but the major waste producers have established methods to utilise all available routes, with agreement from

SEPA.

Overall, no major constraints have been identified on waste management practices due to current consignor

permits and authorisations. Not all sites have multi-modal authorisations and some have found this to be

limiting, but not preventative. Where mode limited (by consignee, activity and volume), consignors have

agreed other methods with the regulator to gain access to alternative treatment and disposal routes.

To ensure environmental permits don’t prevent optimal waste management in future, the following

recommendations have been made:

Identify consignors who may increase their waste volume in future and require access to more

routes than currently permitted. Ensure they are aware of potential limitations so applications can be

made sufficiently early.

Learning from the experience of consigning sites that have utilised all routes with a limited permit

should be collated and disseminated to enable other similarly constrained sites to adopt the good

practice.

It is also noted that Sellafield are working with the EA to progress removal of the limitations currently applied

to their VLLW waste route as identified in their JWMP. This will enable this route to be optimised, and will

minimise the waste currently sent to LLWR that does not need to be.

of 19 OFFICIAL


Issue: V0

Date: April 2014

Glossary

EA Environment Agency

EPR Environmental Permitting Regulations

JWMP Joint Waste Management Plan

LA-LLW Low Activity Low Level Waste

LLW Low Level Waste

LLWR Low Level Waste Repository

NDA Nuclear Decommissioning Authority

RASCAR Radioactive Substances Compliance Assessment Report

RSA Radioactive Substances Act

RSR Radioactive Substances Regulation

SEPA Scottish Environmental Protection Agency

SLC Site Licence Company

TFSA Trans-frontier Shipment Authorisation

VLLW Very Low Level Waste

of 19 OFFICIAL


Issue: V0

Date: April 2014

Contents 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 6

1.1. Background .............................................................................................................. 6

1.2. Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 7

1.3. Scope ........................................................................................................................ 7

2. Current Waste Treatment and Disposal Options ............................................................... 8

2.1. Disposal .................................................................................................................... 8

2.2. Metallic Treatment .................................................................................................... 9

2.3. Combustible .............................................................................................................. 9

3. Current Routes Permitted for Consigning Sites .............................................................. 11

3.1. NDA Sites ................................................................................................................ 11

3.2. Non-NDA Sites ........................................................................................................ 13

4. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 16

5. References .......................................................................................................................... 17

APPENDIX 1 ................................................................................................................................ 18

of 19 OFFICIAL


Issue: V0

Date: April 2014

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

During the production of the Consolidated Joint Waste Management Plans (JWMP) in 2012, LLW Repository

Ltd identified constraints arising from several consignors environmental permits. These constraints were

preventing optimisation of Low Level Waste (LLW) management across the UK. This meant that waste

suitable for combustion was being compacted and disposed of to LLWR, due to limitations within consignor

permits. This resulted in the unnecessary disposal of waste to LLWR.

The consolidated JWMP recommended that:

“Site Licence Companies (SLCs) should review their environmental permits to determine the barriers

preventing optimised use of the available waste routes and how these barriers may impact waste disposal

activities”.

In 2010, the disposal of radioactive waste from nuclear sites became regulated under the Environmental

Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 (EPR) (Ref.2). These regulations replaced the

Radioactive Substances Act 1993 (RSA93) or Radioactive Substances Regulation (RSR). Under RSR,

authorisations for disposal and treatment had been limited to specific, named routes, e.g. disposal to LLWR;

and had activity and volume limits imposed. As identified in the JWMPs, this led to restrictions on optimising

LLW disposal and treatment because suitable, available waste routes were not permitted. For example,

metals that could be treated were only permitted to be disposed of at LLWR, and limiting combustible

material to one incinerator created constraints with the capacity of that route.

Permits under EPR10 have evolved from authorisations under RSR from being media and route specific to

allowing disposal/treatment to all holders of an environmental permit for the treatment/disposal type required.

These types of permits are referred to as multi-modal in this report. Multi-modal permits also impose no

activity, nuclide or volume limits (in most cases) and can allow waste to be shipped outside of the UK in

accordance with the conditions of an authorisation granted under the Transfrontier Shipment of Radioactive

Waste and Fuel Regulations 2008 (a Trans-frontier Shipment Authorisation (TFSA) must be in place).

For Scottish sites RSR still applies and authorisations had been media specific until recently; in other words

have been different authorisations for solid, liquid and gaseous waste. Authorisations can now been granted

that allow disposal/treatment to any permitted facility, without volumes and limits, similar to the multi-modal

permits in England & Wales.

Since the 2012 Consolidated JWMP was published, further disposal/treatment routes have become available

in the UK and internationally. Older permits / authorisations will not have this named as a permitted route.

This report sets out to respond to the recommendation from the 2012 JWMP and establish whether current

permits are still restraining waste management practices.

of 19 OFFICIAL


Issue: V0

Date: April 2014

1.2. Purpose

This report identifies the current disposal and treatment routes available for radioactive waste producers; and

those routes which are not permitted; through the review of environmental permits / authorisations for LLW

producing sites. Where routes are not permitted, the impact on waste management practices has been

investigated through discussions with the Service Delivery Team and their customers. Recommendations

have been made where any barriers to waste route optimisation have been identified.

1.3. Scope

Requests to obtain the most recent permits were sent out to all sites with an LLWR contract, and those who

have consigned waste through other LLWR contracts. The majority of sites (87%) responded to this request

and this report is based on the sites for which the latest permit (as of January 2014) was provided.

The report considers both Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) and non-NDA waste producers, and is

limited to LLW (solid and non-aqueous liquids) and lower waste categories.

of 19 OFFICIAL


Issue: V0

Date: April 2014

2. Current Waste Treatment and Disposal Options

This section details the available treatment and disposal routes that are available for consignors to use. The

routes have been divided into three principal categories: disposal (including supercompaction and VLLW

disposal), metallic waste treatment and combustible waste treatment.

Some of the treatment facilities have monthly and annual limits under their permits / authorisations. For

example, annual total activity limits by nuclide for landfill sites and monthly accumulation and emission

activity limits for incineration facilities. If a consignor is limited to one treatment facility, then they would be

more sensitive to route capacity. This is managed by LLWR and consignors by forward planning and

purchasing capacity in advance.

2.1. Disposal

Different waste disposal routes are available dependent on the radiological classification of the waste, as

described by Figure 1. Supercompaction is available at Sellafield (by Sellafield ltd) and Winfrith (via the

supply chain) for the purposes of reducing the volume of waste requiring disposal, after which the waste

would be disposed of at LLWR. The LLWR is the principal site in the UK for the disposal of solid LLW. There

are different waste routes available for the Dounreay site. DSRL is installing a new supercompactor to

enable the on-site supercompaction of solid LLW and is constructing a near-site disposal facility for the safe

disposal of its LLW.

For the management of Very Low Level Waste (VLLW) and Low Activity Low Level Waste (LA-LLW), there

are three landfill sites are on the LLWR framework. These are located at Lillyhall (FCC), Kingscliffe (Augean)

and Clifton Marsh (SITA). These sites have annual activity and volume permitted limits. Some waste

producers will be permitted to dispose of to an on-site location, but this is in the minority.

Figure 1: Disposal Routes

Super-Compaction

On-site Disposal

Landfill

DISPOSAL

Winfrith (Tradebe Inutec)

Sellafield

Dounreay

Clifton Marsh (SITA)

Kings Cliffe (Augean)

Lillyhall (FCC)

LLWR

Dounreay near-site disposal facility

of 19 OFFICIAL


Issue: V0

Date: April 2014

2.2. Metallic Treatment

A number of metallic treatment routes are available for different types of metallic waste, as depicted in Figure

2. Treatment routes on the LLWR framework include: - Lillyhall - UK (Studsvik), Nykoping - Sweden

(Studsvik), Beer Creek - USA (Energy Solutions), Siempelkamp - Germany (Energy Solutions). A treatment

facility is in place at Socodei - France (Nuvia), but cannot receive waste from the UK as the required National

agreements are not in place and the facility is currently non-operational. It should be noted that some sites –

such as Sellafield Ltd and RSRL Winfrith – have on-site metal treatment capability; but as these facilities are

not available to other organisations for use, these are excluded from the scope of this study.

The decontaminated metals will be recycled with any removed contamination being disposed of at LLWR. 2.3. Combustible

A number of facilities are available on the LLWR framework, including: Hythe - UK (Tradebe), Beer Creek –

USA (Energy Solutions), Colnbrook - UK (Energy Solutions & Grundon), BelgoProcess - Belgium (Energy

Solutions & BelgoProcess) and Ellesmere Port - UK (Veolia). Other, smaller incinerators, not on the LLWR

framework are also in use by non NDA estate waste producers.

Several nuclear sites – such as some Magnox Ltd sites – used to have their own incinerators, although most

of these have gone offline due to changes in the current market and requirements of legislation surrounding

waste incineration.

Incinerators generally have monthly and / or yearly permitted limits on aerial discharges, the waste

accumulation and output ash. Additional incineration facilities and permit modifications have increased the

route capacity, which has been an issue in the past.

Treatment routes are depicted in Figure 3.

Figure 2: Metal Treatment Routes

Studsvik Lillyhall MRF

Studsvik Nykoping

ES Bear Creek

ES Siempelkamp

Nuvia Socodei

LLWR

RecycleMETALLIC TREATMENT

of 19 OFFICIAL


Issue: V0

Date: April 2014

Figure 3: Combustible Routes

COMBUSTIBLE TREATMENT

Tradebe (Fawley Thermal Treatment Centre)

ES (Grundon Colnbrook)

ABnC (Veolia Ellesmere Port)

ES (Bear Creek)

Nuvia Socodei

ES (Belgoprocess)

Studsvik (Nykoping)

of 19 OFFICIAL


Issue: V0

Date: April 2014

3. Current Routes Permitted for Consigning Sites

The permits / authorisations received were reviewed to establish what routes were permitted, which routes

had limitations imposed (e.g. activity or volume) and what routes were not authorised under the permit. For

each site, the metals treatment, combustible treatment and disposal routes were reviewed against the routes

identified in Section 2.

Where treatment and disposal to any site holding a suitable permit is authorised, a route status of ‘All routes’

has been assigned. Where routes are permitted, but are volume, activity or consignee limited, they have

been assigned ‘Site/Activity/Vol limited’ status. Where no routes are permitted, the status ‘No routes’ has

been assigned. It should be noted that ‘No routes’ is in relation to the scope of the permit as opposed to a

route use by the consignor with agreement from the regulator.

3.1. NDA Sites

Most of the NDA waste producing sites with LLWR contracts have a multi-modal permit or an equivalent

authorisation. Figure 4 shows the number of NDA sites and the availability of the route. There is additional

detail in Table 1, which gives the route availability by site along with the type of permit (multi-modal or mode

limited).

Figure 4: Number of NDA Sites with Assigned Route Status

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Metal Routes Combustible routes Disposal routes

No

. of

ND

A S

ite

s

All routes Site/Activity/Vol limited No route

of 19 OFFICIAL


Issue: V0

Date: April 2014

Table 1: Permit Status of NDA Sites

Holding

Company Site Permit Type

Metal Treatment

Combustible Treatment

Disposal

Magnox Ltd Berkeley EPR Multimodal All routes All routes All routes

Magnox Ltd Bradwell EPR Multimodal All routes All routes All routes

Magnox Ltd Dungeness A EPR Multimodal All routes All routes All routes

Magnox Ltd Hinkley Point A EPR Multimodal All routes All routes All routes

Magnox Ltd Oldbury EPR Multimodal All routes All routes All routes

Magnox Ltd Sizewell A EPR Multimodal All routes All routes All routes

Magnox Ltd Trawsfynydd EPR Multimodal All routes All routes All routes

Magnox Ltd Wylfa EPR Multimodal All routes All routes All routes

Magnox Ltd Chapelcross RSA Multimodal All routes All routes All routes

Magnox Ltd Hunterston A RSA mode limited No route No route Site/Activity/Vol limited**

RSRL Ltd Harwell EPR Multimodal All routes All routes All routes

RSRL Ltd Winfrith EPR Multimodal All routes All routes All routes

Sellafield Ltd Sellafield EPR Multimodal All routes All routes All routes*

DSRL Ltd Dounreay No authorisation No route No route No route

LLWR LLWR EPR Multimodal All routes All routes All routes *Limits on on-site landfill only. **Permitted for Disposal to LLWR (and via Sellafield to LLWR) only

All RSRL and Magnox sites have a multimodal permit or authorisation, with the exception of Hunterston A.

Hunterston A has an RSA authorisation for one specified route: transfer for disposal at LLWR or treatment

(compaction) at Sellafield before final disposal at LLWR. However, based on a precedent set by

Chapelcross, nuclear liability transfer to the LLWR permit is possible, as agreed with the Scottish

Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA). SEPA have produced an authorisation variation which allows

direct transfer to the various treatment routes through LLWR’s permit. This includes transporting directly to a

treatment or disposal site, to avoid additional transport by going via LLWR for every transfer. This is a less

efficient process than if Hunterston A had a multi-modal permit, but it enables all LLWR framework routes to

be available. Hunterston A has applied for a multi-modal authorisation from SEPA. All other Magnox sites

have no limitations on their permits other than for on-site incinerators at three sites (although it should be

noted that these on-site incinerators have been withdrawn from service and hence these limitations no

longer apply).

Magnox have also performed their own review of the current position of permits and authorisations relating to

solid LLW treatment and disposal (Ref. 3). It concluded that, with the exception of Hunterston A, Magnox

sites are:

“…not constrained by permits and/or authorisations with regard to access to the available treatment &

disposal routes…”

of 19 OFFICIAL


Issue: V0

Date: April 2014

For Hunterston A, the Magnox report concluded that all routes are accessible, but limits on the volume and

activity of transferable waste are constraining waste management practices. Hunterston A is meeting these

constraints by careful management of waste arisings, until a multi-modal authorisation is granted.

Sellafield have a multi-modal permit, but currently have limitations imposed under a Radioactive Substances

Compliance Assessment Report (RASCAR) on the volume of VLLW that can be sent for treatment. Within

the Sellafield permit there are also on-site burial annual volume limitations and limits on combustible non-

aqueous liquids that can be sent to Tradebe Hythe. The limitations within the permit are not restricting waste

management activities, but the RASCAR imposed VLLW volume limits are. Currently waste that could be

diverted to combustible treatment routes is being disposed of at LLWR. Sellafield are working with the

Environment Agency (EA) and LLWR to remove limitations on the use of the VLLW route.

Dounreay do not have an authorisation for waste to leave site, although a multi-modal authorisation

application has been submitted to SEPA. Dounreay’s waste management strategy is focussed on disposal of

waste at a near-site disposal facility, which is currently under construction [Ref. x]. This strategy means that

the lack of a permit has not been a major constraint on waste management activities. As different disposal

routes may be needed in future, an authorisation has been requested. LLWR are working with Dounreay to

optimise waste routes for when authorisation is granted, to enable Dounreay to divert waste for treatment as

appropriate.

3.2. Non-NDA Sites

Non-NDA sites with LLWR contracts have also been assigned a route status as part of this study. The

number of sites against status for the main waste route categories is given in Figure 5. In addition, the

percentage of sites reviewed possessing multi-modal permits is given in Figure 6. None of the non-NDA sites

was noted to hold a RSA multi-modal authorisation.

A higher proportion of non-NDA sites were observed to have mode limited permits / authorisations than for

the NDA sites. All non-NDA sites have a disposal route available, but the combustible routes and metal

routes are more limited. Seven sites do not have a route for metal treatment and many sites have

combustible and disposal routes limited by consignee, volume or activity. However, based on discussions

between the consignors and LLWRs service delivery team, these limitations are not preventing optimal route

use. Not all routes are needed for some waste producers, as they do not produce suitable waste forms. This

picture becomes more evident when looking at the type and age of the permits held by non-NDA sites.

The graph in Figure 6 shows that nearly 60% of the non-NDA sites reviewed have a Multi-modal EPR permit.

Of the remainder, 33% are RSA mode limited permits, but 8% are newer EPR style permits that are still

mode limited. Three sites with RSA mode limited permits have applied for multi-modal authorisations,

including two Scottish sites.

All 5 non-NDA Scottish sites reviewed had RSA mode limited authorisations. The two EDF sites have

requested multi-modal authorisations from SEPA. These sites can consign to routes not covered in their

authorisations, by consigning under a letter of variation. Whilst this method has a longer turnaround time and

requires additional applications for additional transfers, all routes can be made available using this method.

of 19 OFFICIAL


Issue: V0

Date: April 2014

The other three sites are small consignors, who do not produce waste suitable for all routes. Authorisations

for these sites are not currently providing significant barriers to effective waste management owing to the

volume and types of waste produced. However, is these organisations increase their waste volumes in

future, the limitations in the authorisations could prove constraining. The experience of the EDF sites, who

have demonstrated that a letter of variation can be used to gain access to additional routes, should prove

useful to such waste producers if such changes in waste arisings and waste route needs occur.

Figure 5: Number of Non-NDA Sites with Assigned Route Status

Figure 6: Percentage of sites with Multi-modal and Mode-limited permits/authorisations

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

Metal Routes Combustible routes Disposal routes

No

. o

f N

on

-ND

A S

ite

s

All routes Site/Activity/Vol limited No route

59%

8%

33% 41%

EPR Multi-modal

EPR Mode Limited

RSA Mode Limited

Multi-Modal

Mode Limited

of 19 OFFICIAL


Issue: V0

Date: April 2014

It has been found that not all sites need a multi-modal permit for all routes to optimise waste management.

For example they may only produce very small volumes and / or a certain type of waste, e.g. combustible.

Some of these sites have also not consigned any waste to LLWR in recent years, so would not have a driver

to apply for a new variation.

One EPR permit categorised as ‘mode limited’ for this study is partially multi-modal, in that the producer is

authorised to transfer to any permitted landfill for disposal although other LLW treatment routes are not

specified in the permit. However this consignor does have access to the LLWR framework through other

means agreed with the Environment Agency.

This study has demonstrated that permit issues have not provided a significant barrier to effective waste

management for non-NDA sites. Lack of a multi-modal permit has resulted in more time consuming and less

efficient processes, but this is not seen as a major hindrance by waste producers. Sites that have found the

lack of a multi-modal permit restricting have applications for revised permits in progress. As found for NDA

sites, Scottish sites currently still have more limitations in their authorisations when compared to sites in

England & Wales.

of 19 OFFICIAL


Issue: V0

Date: April 2014

4. Conclusion

This report has presented the findings of a review of the Environmental Permits and Authorisations for waste

producers in the UK. This review has been undertaken to identify whether these permits / authorisations

pose barriers (through constraining access to waste routes) to effective waste management practice. This

study has considered the access to waste routes in the context of the permits / authorisations and has not

considered whether any of the permitted routes have actually been used by waste producers.

No major constraints have been identified on waste management practices due to current consignor permits

and authorisations. Not all sites have multi-modal authorisations and some have found this to be limiting, but

not preventative. Where mode limited (by consignee, activity and volume), consignors have agreed other

methods with the Regulator to gain access to all routes, whilst applying for a multi-modal variation.

In England and Wales all NDA sites have multi-modal permits and therefore have access to all available

LLW routes. Although not limited by its permit, Sellafield is volume limited under a RASCAR for VLLW.

Sellafield Ltd is working with the EA to remove this limitation. Not all non-NDA sites have multi-modal

permits, and are therefore more limited to what routes they can consign to. However, not all sites necessarily

need a multi-modal permit for all waste routes. If they have not consigned for a number of years or only

produce small volumes of a certain waste type, then a more limited permit is not necessarily constraining.

Scottish sites are more limited by their authorisations, with only Chapelcross having a multi-modal

authorisation. However, the major waste producers have found intermediate methods to utilise all available

routes, with agreement from SEPA. This has enabled transfers with the requirement for careful management

of waste accumulation, but has not prevented route use. To alleviate these remaining issues, the major

waste consignors have applied for multi-modal authorisations.

It should also be noted that although permitted route capacity has and continues to increase, forward

planning is still essential for optimal route use.

Sellafield Ltd is working with the EA to progress removal of the limitations currently applied to their VLLW

waste route as identified in their JWMP. This will enable this route to be optimised, and will minimise the

waste currently sent to LLWR that does not need to be.

Based on the conclusions of this study, the following actions are recommended:-

Identify consignors who may increase their waste volume in future and require access to more

routes than currently permitted. Ensure they are aware of potential limitations so applications can be

made early enough.

Learning from the experience of consigning sites that have utilised all routes with a limited permit

should be collated and disseminated to enable other similarly constrained sites to adopt the good

practice.

of 19 OFFICIAL


Issue: V0

Date: April 2014

5. References

[1] NLWS/LLWR/37, Consolidated Joint Waste Management Plan Report, Issue 2.1, August 2012.

[2] Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010.

[3] M/WF/GEN/REP/0002/13, Review of Magnox Environmental Permits Relating to Solid LLW

Management, Issue 1, July 2013.

of 19 OFFICIAL


Issue: V0

Date: April 2014

APPENDIX 1 The table below gives the reference and issue date for the permit and authorisations reviewed for this report.

Holding Company Site Reference Permit Date.

Capenhurst Nuclear Services

Capenhurst (Nuclear Services) EPR/DB3735DH 30/11/2012

Cristal Pigment UK Limited

Grimsby EPR/VP3490SZ/V001 08/11/2012

Doosan Power Systems Limited

Gateshead EPR/YP3193SW/V003 24/07/2012

DSRL Ltd Dounreay No authorisation

EDF Energy Nuclear Generation Ltd

Dungeness B EPR/SB3035DF/V002 30/04/2013


Hartlepool EPR/SB3935DU/V001 01/01/2013


Heysham 1 EPR/SB3535DY/V002 30/04/2013


Heysham 2 EPR/SB3835DL/V002 30/04/2013


Hinkley Point B EPR/CB3735DT/V002 30/04/2013


Sizewell B EPR/XB3539DH/V002 30/04/2013


Hunterston B RSA/A/0070022/VN02 June 2012


Torness RSA/A/0070116/VN01 May 2012

GE Healthcare Ltd Amersham EPR/PB3839DK/V001 10/09/2013

Low Level Waste Repository

LLWR (Drigg) EPR/YP3293SA/V001 12/11/2010

Magnox Ltd Berkeley EPR/ZP3893SG/V001 2012

Magnox Ltd Bradwell EPR/ZP3493SQ/V004 2013

Magnox Ltd Dungeness A EPR/ZP3293SR/V001 2011

Magnox Ltd Hinkley Point A EPR/ZP3693SL/V001 2012

Magnox Ltd Oldbury EPR/GB3435DG/V001 2011

Magnox Ltd Sizewell A EPR/ZP3193SW/V001 2012

of 19 OFFICIAL


Issue: V0

Date: April 2014

Holding Company Site Reference Permit Date.

Magnox Ltd Trawsfynydd EPR/GB3835/DE/V001 2011

Magnox Ltd Wylfa EPR/GB3235DL/V001 2011

Magnox Ltd Chapelcross RSA/N/1103066 2013

Magnox Ltd Hunterston A RSA/W/21042/VN01 2006

MoD AWE Aldermaston EPR/QB3535DR/V001 01/11/2012

MoD HMNB Devonport CE4350 01/04/2010

MoD RRMPOL Derby EPR/NB3430DM/V001 EPR/NB3230DP/V001

01/11/2013

MoD HMNB Clyde Letter 2000 2000

MoD HMNB Rosyth 11/04/VN01 2008

RSRL Ltd Harwell EPR/KP3593SH/V002 2012

RSRL Ltd Winfrith (RSRL) EPR/LB3035DM/V001 2013

Science and Technology Facilities Council

Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

EPR/TP3290SG/V002 2013

Sellafield Ltd Sellafield EPR/KP3690SX/V003 2012

Studsvik UK Ltd Studsvik (Gateshead) CA3548/CD4010 23/04/2009

The Active Collection Bureau Ltd

Maidstone EPR/NB2535DV 26/01/2012

Tradebe Inutec Winfrith (Tradebe Inutec) EPR/PP3890SE\V002 16/11/2011

Umicore Coating Services Ltd

Dundee RSA/E/134 24/05/2002

URENCO UK Ltd Capenhurst (URENCO) LB3139DN 30/11/2012

national waste programme environmental permit...

Documents