4. Management of spent nuclear fuel and
radioactive waste
| (24704)
8990/03
COM(03) 32
| Part II: Draft Council Directive (Euratom) on the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste.
|
| Legal base | Articles 31 and 32 Euratom (but see paragraph 4.6 below); consultation; QMV
|
| Document originated | 30 January 2003
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 3 June 2003
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 19 June 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report | None, but see paragraph 4.1 below
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared (see paragraph 4.9)
|
Background
4.1 As we report in paragraph 18 below, the Commission produced
in November 2002 a Communication, "Nuclear safety in the
European Union", in which it argued that the legal and
political conditions to establish a greater Community involvement
in nuclear safety matters had now been met. More specifically,
it suggested the need for coordinated action in two areas —
the safety of nuclear installations, and the management of spent
nuclear fuel and radioactive waste — particularly in the
light of the forthcoming enlargement. It has now followed up
that Communication by producing two legislative proposals. The
one concerned with the safety of nuclear installations in reported
upon in paragraph 8 below, whilst this paragraph deals with waste
management.
The current proposal
4.2 The Commission's basic rationale for action in this area is
set out in its Communication (and summarised in paragraph 18.6
below), but it has also sought in its introduction to this proposal
to highlight a number of considerations. In particular, it says
that there is a broad international consensus among technical
experts that disposal of the more hazardous waste by isolation
for extremely long periods of time, deep in stable geological
formations, is the most suitable option, but that the delay in
a number of Member States in identifying and authorising suitable
sites is a cause for concern, with the quantities of spent nuclear
fuel and waste held in interim storage at or near the surface
— and hence needing active management — continuing
to grow. The Commission adds that such delays cannot be justified,
and that Member States should therefore develop appropriate strategies
and programmes for the long-term management of all the waste types
under their jurisdiction, with the emphasis on the development
of repositories for the deep disposal of radioactive waste.
4.3 It has accordingly set out in this proposal a number of obligations
on Member States, which would have to:
- take all the necessary measures to ensure that spent nuclear
fuel and radioactive waste are managed in such a way that individuals,
society and the environment are adequately protected against hazards;
- ensure that the production of radioactive waste is kept to
the minimum practicable;
- designate a regulatory body to implement the necessary legislative
framework, and to provide the authority and resources required;
- ensure that adequate financial resources are available for
the safe management of waste, including any needs arising from
decommissioning, and that any financing schemes respect the "polluter
pays" principle;
- ensure the level of public information and participation needed
to achieve a high level of transparency on issues related to waste
management.
4.4 However, the main provision in the proposal would require
Member States to establish a programme for the management of nuclear
waste, covering all aspects and including a definite timetable
for each step of the disposal process. Where there is no suitable
alternative to disposal, and where a disposal option is not yet
available, Member States would be required:
- to authorise the development of appropriate disposal sites
no later than 2008, though in the case of high-level and long-lived
radioactive waste, this may be conditional upon a further period
of detailed underground study;
- in the case of short-lived and intermediate-level waste which
is to be disposed of separately from high-level and long-lived
waste, to give an authorisation for the operation of the disposal
facility no later than 2013;
- in the case of high-level and long-lived waste, to be disposed
of in a geological repository, to give an authorisation for the
operation of the disposal facility no later than 2018.
4.5 In parallel with this, the proposal would require the Commission,
in the light of regular reports from Member States, to identify
common areas of research and technical development which could
be coordinated at Community level, and to encourage cooperation
between Member States
The Government's view
4.6 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 19 June 2003, the Minister
for Environment and Agri-Environment at the Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Elliot Morley) says that there is established
Community competence with regard to the safety of radioactive
waste management, but that the Commission has not yet made a convincing
case for Community, rather than Member State, action as regards
the choice of long-term management options and timeframes. He
suggests that the proposal represents a major extension of the
Commission's nuclear legislative framework, away from recognised
basic safety standards to the wider technical operating process,
and does not appear to follow the subsidiarity provisions within
the Euratom Treaty. He also says that, although the Commission
has cited Articles 31 and 32 of that Treaty as the legal base
for the proposal, Articles 26 and 30 are also relevant, and that
his department shares the reservations expressed by some other
Member States regarding base proposed by the Commission.
4.7 The Minister is also concerned about the policy implications,
in that, although he considers the basic objectives of the proposal
to be reasonable, he feels that the details would cause major
practical difficulties for the UK's current radioactive waste
management policy review, in which it has been made clear that
all management options will be considered, with no presumption
in favour of deep disposal. He adds that a new Committee on Radioactive
Waste Management is being set up to examine these options and
bring forward recommendations, and the proposal's provisions on
disposal facilities and the time frames envisaged would run counter
to that process.
4.8 The Minister says that a partial Regulatory Impact Assessment
is being carried out, and is expected to be completed by mid-September.
In the meantime, although the financial implications have not
yet been assessed, very considerable costs, in the region of £10
billion, would be involved in the construction of a deep disposal
facility.
Conclusion
4.9 Even though we have yet to see the Regulatory Impact Assessment
which the Government will be providing, it is clear that this
proposal (like that considered in paragraph 8 below) raises major
issues, not only on policy grounds, but also in terms of the competence
claimed by the Commission in this area and the Treaty base it
has chosen. We are therefore minded to recommend that it should
be debated in European Standing Committee A, but wish first to
take oral evidence from a Minister on nuclear safety.
|
