Examination of Witnesses (Questions 340-359)
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
AND HEALTH
AND SAFETY
EXECUTIVE
13 JUNE 2006
Q340 Judy Mallaber: You "endeavour
to" does not mean you achieve it.
Dr Weightman: I think it is for
others to judge but I believe we do. We have worked on it over
the years and it is a lot better than it was in the past.
Mr McHugh: I agree with that.
It is not unique. In other high hazard industries the HSE and
the Environment Agency share responsibilities for the COMAH regime
covering major accident hazards.
Q341 Chairman: I am sorry; I did
not hear that.
Mr McHugh: The HSE and the Environment
Agency collaborate and work closely together as joint competent
authorities for regulating other high hazard industries under
what is called COMAH, the Control of Major Accident Hazards. As
Mike has indicated, the key to it is working together closely
and we have been working very hard on that in recent years. We
are publishing joint guidance, for example, for the industry,
doing team inspections, working as closely together as possible,
sharing business plans, et cetera.
Q342 Judy Mallaber: Would it be better
to have one regulator, a super-regulator, rather than split those
responsibilities?
Dr Weightman: There are pros and
cons, I think. As a nuclear regulator we gain something by being
part of HSE. There would be opportunities gained from being part
of another body as well but it is a balance.
Mr McHugh: The standards we apply
to the nuclear industry for environmental performance are no different
from those which would apply to other industries in terms of the
environment. We report, for example, on other industries' environmental
performance. If you have put it into a nuclear specific regulator
you would lose some of that.
Mr Philpott: I was just going
to make a slightly wider point to say that we are cooperating
with each other in investigating the Buncefield incident where
HSE and the Environment Agency are joint investigators. We have
produced together three reports now which set out some issues
around what caused the incident and that is a demonstration of
how we can cooperate together effectively.
Q343 Judy Mallaber: Is there any
danger that things can slip between you in an area like this which
is so important we get right? Are there potential dangers about
having that split?
Mr McHugh: My experience is that
the industry complains the other way round, of us duplicating
rather than something falling between the cracks, and we do our
best to make sure that there is no duplication but that nothing
is overlooked.
Dr Weightman: I would say yes,
the complaint really is about overlapping rather than things getting
through the cracks but we are not complacent about it. That is
why we have very close liaison between our people, not only at
policy level, at senior level, but also at site level, so there
are very close connections there. They will talk to each other
about aspects relating to the site to cover the point you are
making.
Q344 Judy Mallaber: Do people in
the industry argue that you should come together rather than be
separate bodies or is it not something that comes up?
Mr McHugh: It was an issue several
years ago and, as part of one of the Environment Agency's reviews
by our sponsoring Department, Defra, it looked at that issue,
whether there should be a single nuclear regulator, and came down
with the decision that there should not be but that HSE and the
Environment Agency should be working closely together, which is
what we have been doing over the past few years.
Q345 Judy Mallaber: What are the
weaknesses in doing that? When does it not work? You said you
endeavour to do that. Do you fail to do it sometimes and, if so,
in what kinds of circumstances?
Dr Weightman: At a local level
there might be one or two issues that come to light with not quite
understanding what the other's position is, but we have mechanisms
through what is called a memorandum of understanding by which
those can be escalated up through the line management chain to
resolve the issue. I must admit that over the last few years I
cannot recall any that escalated up that chain.
Mr McHugh: Nor can I.
Q346 Mr Bone: Would you know whether
France has one regulator or a series of regulators?
Dr Weightman: It is just changing
its regulatory system at the moment to put it on a more formal
legal basis with a separate nuclear regulator. Their security
regulator is separate and they do not have as close a liaison
with the nuclear safety regulator as we do in the UK.
Mr McHugh: It is slightly more
complicated on the environment side. I understand there is a different
regulator for radioactive protection generally in France.
Dr Weightman: That radioactive
protection has just been brought together with the nuclear regulator
but in our case it is already there because it is part and parcel
of our regulation sites anyway.
Q347 Roger Berry: If I may turn to
the issue of the availability of sites for nuclear new build,
to what extent will the ability to use existing nuclear sites
speed up the regulatory process?
Dr Weightman: Clearly we understand
the sites and the aspects of the sites more than any new site;
therefore we would have a better start than if we had to start
with a different site. It would be easier for us with an existing
site.
Mr McHugh: I agree with that point,
that existing sites are well characterised in terms of geography,
demographics, situation, et cetera. We would not seek to be any
less rigorous if there were an existing site compared to a new
site. We would apply the same standards.
Q348 Roger Berry: To what extent
is the timetable for decommissioning of existing power stations
critical in terms of the site periods for any possible new build,
or can you as of today identify sites that would be available
very quickly?
Dr Weightman: I think you could
identify sites that would be available fairly quickly because
some of the land owned by the licensees is fairly extensive around
the footprint of the existing facilities on that site.
Q349 Roger Berry: The Sustainable
Development Commission, the independent advisory body to the Government
on environment issues, cast doubts when they gave evidence on
the availability of existing sites because of issues like coastal
erosion and rising water levels. Have you made any assessment
of the availability of existing sites as yet or are you waiting
for the private sector to decide whether or not to build?
Dr Weightman: The simple answer
is no, we have not made any assessment of existing sites yet because
we have not been asked by Government or anybody to look at a specific
site for a specific new reactor. It would be part of their case
that we would require them to present to us to demonstrate that,
given all those factors and taking them into account, that site
was suitable for that particular facility with the particular
defence arrangements in place against that external hazard.
Q350 Roger Berry: Mr Philpott earlier
referred to a request from the Minister, Malcolm Wicks, for information
by 30 June, I think it was. Did that include any requests about
an assessment of the availability of existing sites?
Mr Philpott: No, it did not, specifically.
Mr McHugh: There will be environmental
issues at some of those sites, for example, as you mentioned,
coastal erosion, flood risks and even water abstraction in relation
to existing nuclear sites being in relatively shallow areas, and
one thinks about Morecambe Bay, for example. There will be a wide
range of issues which are relevant to where any nuclear power
stations are sited.
Q351 Roger Berry: Can I come back
to Mr Philpott's answer? I am reluctant, obviously, to ask you
to comment on the wisdom of the Minister excluding that question
from what appears to be quite a long list of questions about the
nuclear sector, but can you give us some indication of the range
of questions you are being asked to provide answers to by the
end of the month?
Mr Philpott: I read them out previously.
Q352 Roger Berry: Could you remind
me how extensive the list was?
Dr Weightman: Would it help if
we passed a copy of the letter to the Clerk?
Roger Berry: It would; that is the most
efficient way. Chairman, I would be happy with that.
Q353 Chairman: Can I just question
the Environment Agency a bit more on this because the flood risk
and coastal erosion issues are very much mainstream Environment
Agency issues? Will there be existing sites that can be used,
in your judgment?
Mr McHugh: If I can approach it
in a different way, for flood risk and flood defences at nuclear
sites the responsibility is with the operator as a condition of
the HSE licence to maintain those defences to a high standard.
If there were to be new build on those existing sites it would
be for the operator to defend those sites to the appropriate standards
and to bear those costs. It is a matter not of saying, "You
cannot use these sites", but rather, "If you choose
this site you will need to defend the site to this standard and
bear the costs". The HSE reviews the safety of nuclear sites
every 10 years and that includes the flood risks, so over the
period that we are talking about for the changes in coastal erosion
there will be periodic reviews of the risks and whether defences
need to be maintained and strengthened.
Q354 Chairman: But there is no insuperable
obstacle that you are aware of? There may be some commercial issues
for the company but there are no regulatory obstacles?
Mr Bates: Many of the sites have
to be defended during the decommissioning process of the existing
stock of reactors anyway, so there is already a flood risk/coastal
inundation challenge to be faced there.
Q355 Mr Weir: I am interested in
the issue of waste management and I appreciate you are England
and Wales only, but there are similar problems on both sides of
the border regarding waste management, and on many of the existing
stations which might be places where new stations might be built
there is already waste storage. Some of these sites have had problems
with that waste storage and seepage into the surrounding seas,
for example. What would you be looking for by way of environmental
considerations for such sites dealing with existing waste before
allowing any new build on such sites? Would they have to be cleared
of existing waste, for example?
Mr McHugh: I think we were talking
in the discussion we had earlier about building on land which
was relatively uncontaminated which was owned by British Energy.
In terms of developing existing sites where there is existing
contamination, there would need to be a risk assessment of the
long term health, safety and environmental risks of building on
those sites. The Government generally is encouraging build on
brownfield sites rather than greenfield sites.
Q356 Mr Weir: But, given that some
of these sites already have problems with waste storage and presuming
any new reactor is going to create more waste, and there may be
arguments there about how much they will create, what sort of
weight would you give to the safety record of seepage from existing
sites in considering new build adjacent to those sites, if you
like?
Mr McHugh: We are probably talking
about different types of operators that would be running a new
site compared to an existing site. The existing sites, certainly
civil nuclear sites, are under the control of the Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority and their contractors and they are not involved in new
build.
Q357 Mr Weir: But presumably if they
control the sites they are going to have to come to some sort
of deal, if you like, with the new generator to allow building
on that site?
Dr Weightman: Can I assist the
Committee there? NDA own sites as well. There are some operating
reactors on the sites they own, Magnox reactors, and on some of
these sites they do have waste stores. I think the site you may
possibly be thinking about is Dounreay, with the problems with
the shaft and particles on the beach there—
Q358 Mr Weir: It is not the only
one.
Dr Weightman: —and I think
that is a specific issue there concerned with past practices.
In terms of wastes on existing sites we have been pushing hard
for some years now to make sure it is pacified and put into modern
standard stores and that is an ongoing process where the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority is assisting to encourage some of that.
Any new waste arising would have to be in stores to modern standards
which have a very high degree of containment standards around
them.
Q359 Mr Weir: The Government has
set up CoRWM to look at long term disposal of waste and the interim
report suggests deep burial as the way forward and presumably
that would mean removing the waste from the existing sites to
a deep burial storage site, wherever that may be. How much progress
do you think the Government needs to make on identifying a site
for disposal of that waste before proceeding with new build, given
it is going to create new waste once new generators are up and
running?
Dr Weightman: I think that is
more of a policy decision rather than for me as a simple engineer
to answer. I would tend to make sure that any waste generated
was safely stored for the foreseeable future until such a long
term waste disposal management facility was in place. We already
are pushing to have waste stores and we need to make sure that
they are adequately safe for decades to come because we have not
got sites yet for the out-turn of the CoRWM work. That is a continuing
process and something that we would adhere to in any generation
of new waste.
| 
