3 Decommissioning the Joint Research Centre's
nuclear research facilities
| (25699)
9818/04
SEC(04) 621
| Commission Communication: Decommissioning of nuclear installations and waste management — Nuclear liabilities arising out of activities of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) carried out under the Euratom Treaty
|
| Legal base | — |
| Document originated | 19 May 2004
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 1 June 2004
|
| Department | Trade and Industry
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 22 June 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | None, but see footnote
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
3.1 The Commissions Joint Research Centre (JRC) has a number of
ageing nuclear research facilities, and its original management
policy was one of keeping them in a state of safe conservation
(abeyance). However, the Commission considers such an approach
to be very costly, and, in a Communication[9]
in March 1999, it proposed a long-term action programme, costing
some €450 million,[10]
under which obsolete installations would be decommissioned, with
priority being given to the site at Ispra in Italy,[11]
at a cost of €25.4 million over the following four years.
The Commission also proposed that this work should be funded,
not by additional resources, but by transferring credits from
research and development to a newly-created budget heading.
3.2 As our predecessors noted in their Report of
21 July 1999, the UK accepted that the decommissioning of obsolete
nuclear installations needed to be addressed, but had expressed
serious reservations about this proposal. This was partly because
of the suggestion that money targeted for research should be diverted
to cover decommissioning costs, but, more importantly, because
it considered that the Commission had failed to justify its conclusion
that decommissioning, rather than maintenance and surveillance,
is the cheaper option. However, they cleared the document on
1 December 1999, after they had been told by the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State for Science and Innovation at the Department
of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville) that the JRC
Board of Governors had supported the Commissions view that immediate
action on decommissioning should be taken at Ispra, and that
the Research Council was being asked to agree that the Commission
should undertake further work to produce a long-term plan, based
on an in-depth technical analysis of each site by an independent
panel, with a separate budget line being established to fund this
work. A subsequent supplementary Explanatory Memorandum from
the Minister also confirmed the Government's belief in the importance
of such a plan, based on a proper technical evaluation, and, where
appropriate, a comparison of costs for individual installations
between decommissioning and a strategy of continued abeyance.
The current document
3.3 The Commission has now produced this further
Communication on the subject, which deals with the implementation
of the programme between 1999 and 2003, and sets out an action
plan for the longer term. This makes it clear that the Commission
intends to maintain its original approach, and to decommission
all the existing installations to the point where all nuclear
material, waste and activated or contaminated equipment has been
taken out, and all traces of residual radioactivity in the buildings
have been removed so that they can be used for other purposes.
This process has already begun at Ispra (where the installations
have been obsolete for a number of years), but, since those at
Petten, Geel and Karlsruhe are still in operation, the Commission
does not expect their decommissioning to start before 2015, and
possibly not until 2025. The Communication also makes it clear
that the costs of the decommissioning programme have risen sharply
since the original evaluation, and that, although estimates vary,
are now likely to be in excess of €1.1
billion, of which 56% would arise at Ispra, 34% at Karlsruhe,
6% at Petten, and 4% at Geel.
The Government's view
3.4 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 22 June 2004,
the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science and Innovation
at the Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)
simply says that there is a clear need to decommission obsolete
nuclear installations at these JRC sites, and to have decommissioning
plans in train for the closure of those installations which are
still in use. He adds that the proposals made here appear to
provide an acceptable way forward in dealing with this issue,
and that there are no direct financial implications for the UK
arising from them.
Conclusion
3.5 Although we accept the need for action to
deal with these sites, we are of course not ourselves in a position
to judge the respective merits of decommissioning and an approach
based on abeyance. However, we note that, whereas the Government
had earlier insisted on an in-depth evaluation at each site, with
a comparison being made where appropriate between the costs of
decommissioning and abeyance, it now appears willing to go along
with the decommissioning programme outlined by the Commission.
If so, we would like to know the reason for this. Similarly,
the Minister's Explanatory Memorandum gives no indication whether
the UK accepts that the significant increase in the estimated
cost of the programme is justified, or whether its previous concerns
that funds earmarked for research were being diverted to this
programme have been addressed satisfactorily. Pending further
information on these points, we are holding the document under
scrutiny.
9 (20239) 8245/99; see HC 34-xxvii (1998-99), para
5 (21 July 1999), HC 23-ii (1999-2000), para 11 (1 December 1999)
and HC 23-x (1999-2000), para 7 (1 March 2000). Back
10
This sum was divided between historical liabilities (€230
million) and future liabilities (€223 million). Back
11
The other sites are at Petten in the Netherlands, Geel in Belgium,
and Karlsruhe in Germany. Back
|
