Select Committee on European Scrutiny Eighteenth Report


ANNEX 1

Letter to the Clerk of the European Scrutiny Committee from CORE, Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment

European Security Committee's Third Report 2004-05. 5. Control of shipments of radioactive waste and fuel.

We write in relation to the above Report which we have read with interest, specifically in respect of the Committee's deliberations on the expansion of the 92/3/Euratom Directive to include the import/export of spent fuel for reprocessing. We have noted the Minister's comments on this expansion of the Directive.

We believe there are compelling grounds for the Directive to be expanded to include spent nuclear fuel for reprocessing, primarily because its inclusion will provide the means for the UK's Regulators to properly regulate the import of radioactive materials from other Member States or countries. This is not currently the case, as evidenced by our own recent experience which we outline briefly below. More detail is provided in the attached letter which we sent to the CEO of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority earlier this year.

Outline:

(1) In April 2003, the UK imported the first of thirteen shipments of spent fuel from Italy. The fuel, from the Garigliano nuclear power station, had been contracted in 1980 for reprocessing at Sellafield. We objected to the shipment/s on the basis that, having abandoned its nuclear power programme in 1987, Italy was unable to honour the terms of the original contract — the requirement to take back the materials (plutonium and uranium) recovered via reprocessing at Sellafield for re-use by Italy as new nuclear fuel.

Our objection was also based on evidence from Italy of the increasing and well documented need for the country to rid itself of its stored spent fuel. This resulted from (a) the deteriorating condition of the stores in which it was being held and (b) the necessity, post 9/11, to enhance the security of its stored nuclear materials. We therefore concluded that the reprocessing of this fuel at Sellafield was not the prime and genuine reason for its export to the UK. Rather, it was an attempt by Italy to offload radioactive waste, under the guise of spent fuel onto another country. Confirmation that our conclusion was correct comes from a more recent event that we outline at (2) below.

We approached the UK's Environment Agency (as lead regulators in radioactive export/import issues) with our objections to this import. The Agency replied that as the import was designated as "spent fuel for reprocessing" (rather than radioactive waste), it was unable to investigate the matter. Had the material been classified in the first instance by Italy as radioactive waste, as we contend it should, the Agency would have been empowered under a number of conventions to investigate the import and either approve or disapprove of Italy's application. In summary, with existing conventions geared to radioactive wastes only, the Regulators are deprived of any means of investigating spent fuel imports — and whilst this remains the case, countries such as Italy will continue to use the loophole to bypass the conventions.

(2) In December 2004, the Italian authorities published new plans for dealing with a further volume of Italian spent fuel which has been languishing in deteriorating storage facilities for the past two decades. Unlike the Garigliano fuel in (1) above, this fuel has never been contracted for reprocessing, with plans for its long-term management and eventual disposal in Italy being well documented.

The new plan is to invite British Nuclear Fuels and its French counterpart Cogema within the next few weeks to tender for the work of reprocessing this fuel. Clearly, the problems of storing this fuel in Italy have worsened since our own investigations in 2003. Further, in announcing details of their new plan, the Italian authorities have openly admitted that they cannot re-use the materials recovered by reprocessing and hope to leave their plutonium and uranium stockpiled at Sellafield. The plan can now only be construed as a blatant attempt at waste-dumping by Italy, whose authorities can show no genuine need for the fuel to be reprocessed.

As before, the Environment Agency will be powerless to intervene in the plan because the material to be exported by Italy will be categorised as spent fuel and not radioactive waste, though the latter is a far more accurate description given the prevailing conditions in Italy. In 1997, the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee (RWMAC) advised Ministers of just such a situation. In its Report, the Committee warned that:

    "In the RWMAC's view, it is conceivable that a situation may arise where a foreign concern was willing to enter into a reprocessing contract, whether for irradiated or unirradiated fuel, with a United Kingdom company in order to rid itself of what it construed as a 'waste management' problem, possibly one of inadequate or hazardous storage "

We believe that this statement concisely captures the prevailing situation in Italy that has prompted the authorities to seek new reprocessing contracts. The point we make is that the expansion of the Directive to include spent fuel for reprocessing will provide the necessary regulatory framework for the Environment Agency to properly investigate any potential import such as that planned by Italy, and thereby reach a conclusion as to the validity of the exporter's intentions — as per RWMAC's advice.

Without this expansion of the Directive, we are concerned that BNFL and its Member State customers will continue, with impunity, to trade in the export/import of radioactive waste — under the guise of spent fuel for reprocessing. We ask therefore that copies of our letter and the attached letter to the NDA are made available to all members of the European Scrutiny Committee for their information and urgent consideration. Needless to say we will be happy not only to provide any further information the Committee members may need, but also to give oral evidence to the Committee if so required.

1 February 2005






 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 17 February 2006