6 CONTROL OF SHIPMENTS OF RADIOACTIVE
WASTE AND FUEL
(a)
(26138)
14686/04
COM(04) 716
|
Draft Council Directive on the supervision and control of shipments of
radioactive waste
|
(b)
(27149)
5058/06
COM(05) 673
|
Amended draft Council Directive on the supervision and control of
shipments of radioactive waste
|
| Legal base | Articles 31 and 32 Euratom; consultation; QMV
|
| Document originated | (b) 21 December 2005
|
| Deposited in Parliament |
(b) 11 January 2006 |
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration |
(a) Minister's letters of 9 February 2005 and May 2005 (undated)
(b) EM of 24 January 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report |
(a) HC 38-iii (2004-05), para 5 (12 January 2005)
|
| To be discussed in Council
| No date set |
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information required
|
Background
6.1 Community measures for protecting the general public and workers
from ionising radiation include Directive 92/3/Euratom, which
provides for the supervision and control of shipments of radioactive
waste between Member States and into and out of the Community.
For movements within the Community, a system of prior authorisation
allows the Member State of destination to object to any such transfers,
subject to tacit consent being deemed to have been given in the
absence of any response within a specified period (unless the
country concerned has previously notified the Commission that
it does not accept such a procedure, in which case its express
approval is always required). However, in the case of waste sent
to third-countries, the authorities there are simply informed
that such a shipment is proposed, and their consent is not required.
6.2 In the light of the SLIM[11]
exercise, the Commission proposed in November 2004 (document (a))
a number of changes, many of which were relatively minor. However,
they would also have removed the right of a Member State receiving
waste to opt out of the tacit approval approach (so that, if it
does not give an explicit reply regarding a particular consignment,
it will in future be deemed to have approved it), and brought
the arrangements for third-countries into line with those applying
to Member States of destination, thus providing that such countries
should have the right to give or withhold their consent. The main
change, however, would require shipments of spent fuel intended
for reprocessing, and thus not hitherto considered as waste, to
be subject to the procedures laid down in the Directive.
6.3 As our predecessors noted on 12 January 2005, the Government
considered that most of the changes proposed would have no major
implications. However, it believed that, since shipments of spent
fuel for reprocessing have a further use and are thus not waste,
the implications of this needed to be considered further. In particular,
it was concerned that such a step could impose a new burden on
the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), and that the costs
could be substantial.
6.4 Since the Government had said that it would be providing a
Regulatory Impact Assessment, our predecessors decided to await
this before taking a view on this proposal. However, they also
asked whether the Government's reservations over extending this
measure to spent fuel for which there is a further use meant that
it considered any controls over the movements of fuel for reprocessing
were unnecessary, or whether it simply believed that such movements
should be subject to similar restrictions to those proposed, but
under some other legislative heading. They also asked whether,
in that event, the Government considered such controls should
be imposed at national, Community or international level.
Minister's letter of 9 February 2005
6.5 Since the Department of Trade and Industry is responsible
for matters relating to the management of spent fuel, these points
were addressed in a letter of 9 February 2005 from the then Minister
for Energy and e-Commerce (Mr Mike O'Brien), which said that the
Government's view was that trans-boundary movements of spent fuel
is properly supervised and controlled under a number of existing
international, Community and national rules and regulations, which
he described as constituting "a robust system of regulation,
which provides high standards of safety". Consequently, the
Government saw no benefit or need for Member States to comply
further with the provisions in the proposed Directive, which he
said did not add any radiological protection benefits.
6.6 In the meantime, however, our predecessors had received a
letter (Annex 1) from Mr Martin Forwood, Campaign Coordinator
for Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment (CORE). This
suggested that there were "compelling reasons" for the
Directive to be expanded to include spent nuclear fuel for reprocessing,
notably in order to enable UK authorities to regulate properly
the import of radioactive materials from other Member States,
which it claimed was currently not the case. In view of this,
our predecessors decided to invite the Minister's comments before
reporting to the House, and their Chairman wrote accordingly to
the Minister on 23 February 2005.
Minister's undated letter of May 2005
6.7 Following the General Election, this letter was dealt with
by the present Minister for Energy (Malcolm Wicks), but, as it
was unaccountably treated as a constituency matter, his (undated)
reply in May did not reach us, and we have therefore only now
been able to consider it. Essentially, the Minister reiterates
the view expressed by his predecessor, saying:
"The Government takes the view that the transboundary
movement of spent fuel is already suitably supervised and controlled
through existing international, Community and national rules and
regulations. These were set out in the annex to my predecessor's
letter of 9 February. These measures constitute a comprehensive
regulatory system, which provides for high standards of safety.
In view of the existing measures, we are not persuaded that there
would be benefit in Member States having to comply further with
the provisions of the proposed Directive nor do the proposals
add any radiological protection benefits.
"Mr Forwood also raises the issue of possible
new reprocessing contracts with Italy. I would like to take this
opportunity to assure you and the Committee that any proposals
for new reprocessing contracts will be subject to public consultation
and will require approval by the Secretary of State. In the event
that any such proposal was received, the Government would look
in detail not just at the circumstances of the specific case,
but, under the terms of the Bergen declaration, would also review
the range of issues which would be involved in increasing the
current volume of fuel to be reprocessed through the Thermal Oxide
Reprocessing Plant (THORP). Decisions would be taken in the best
interests of the UK as a whole, in light of advice from the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority (NDA) and approval would only be given
if the contract was consistent with clean up plans for Sellafield,
would make a positive return for the tax payer and was consistent
with the UK's environmental objectives and international obligations.
"We continue to apply the policy for the
return of wastes from the reprocessing of foreign spent fuel set
out in the July 1995 White Paper "Review of Radioactive
Waste Management Policy: Final Conclusions" (Cm 2919).
This states that the wastes resulting from the reprocessing of
foreign spent fuel should be returned to the country of origin
and that the high level waste should be returned as soon as possible
after vitrification. On 13 December 2004 the Government announced
that it is to give authorisation for the substitution of High
Level Waste for Intermediate Level Waste resulting from the reprocessing
of overseas spent fuel. This will allow for the earlier return
of wastes from reprocessing."
Amended proposal
6.8 The Commission has now produced an amended proposal
(document (b)), which takes into account the opinion of the European
Economic and Social Committee and initial discussions in the Atomic
Questions Group. However, according to the Explanatory Memorandum
of 24 January 2006 which we have received from the Minister of
State (Environment and Agri-Environment) at the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Elliot Morley), its scope
and main provisions do not differ from those in the original proposal.
As before, the Minister has promised to provide a Regulatory Impact
Assessment, though — in contrast to his comments on the
original proposal — he has now stated that the extension
of the scope of the Directive to cover spent fuel should not imply
considerable costs to Member States or nuclear operators, adding
that, for the UK, it is expected that all imports of spent fuel
under existing processing contracts will have been completed before
the new Directive comes into effect.
Conclusion
6.9 Before we take a view on these two documents,
we will await the promised Regulatory Impact Assessment, where
we hope that the Minister will clarify why his current view of
the likely costs to the UK differs from that in the Explanatory
Memorandum which he provided on 22 December 2004 on the original
proposal. In the meantime, we are somewhat belatedly drawing to
the attention of the House the letter from CORE and the Government's
response to the points it raises.
11 Aimed at providing Simpler Legislation for the Internal
Market. Back
|
