Examination of Witnesses (Questions 360-376)
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
AND HEALTH
AND SAFETY
EXECUTIVE
13 JUNE 2006
Q360 Mr Weir: But equally, when we
had the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency here, it seemed clear to
me that no-one was exactly certain what waste there was on some
of the existing sites and I am concerned that there is a potential
problem with these sites. There is no deep storage site that has
yet been identified. Is it not the case that that needs to be
done before we create more waste?
Dr Weightman: As I say, I think
that is outside my area of competence. My role is to ensure that
waste is stored safely.
Mr McHugh: I think this probably
is one of the key issues for the question of justification for
nuclear reactors, what would happen to the spent fuel and the
radioactive waste which would be created. We have not talked about
the justification yet, but that would be a decision for the Secretary
of State for Trade and Industry to take. That is a very important
question which needs to be addressed as part of the justification,
what will happen to the spent fuel.
Q361 Mr Weir: Do you think fuel reprocessing
should play any part in the future nuclear programme?
Dr Weightman: Again, that is a
policy decision. What I am about is making sure we secure safety
on behalf of the public.
Q362 Mr Weir: It is not entirely
a policy decision. One of the types of reactors that has been
mentioned, especially in the area of pre-licensing reactors, is
the fast breeder reactor that destroys much of the fuel as it
goes through. If we are creating nuclear waste, is something like
a fast breeder reactor a runner, if you like, for a new nuclear
programme to ensure there is less waste produced in the future?
Dr Weightman: Not in the foreseeable
future. There are two aspects to the fast breeder reactor. It
can generate new fuel; that is the breeding bit, but also you
can use some of the neutrons to transmute some of the nuclides
around that, but that technology will not be anywhere near developed
in the foreseeable future.
Mr Bates: It is worth saying as
well that the generators appear to be moving away from wanting
reprocessing, perhaps because of its costs and the question of
value of the output of reprocessing. It is not like there is a
big market demand and they are having to assess, looking forward,
that is, to new nuclear, whether there will be a big reprocessing
component to that. It does not appear to be that that is the way
they want to go.
Q363 Mr Weir: Given that reprocessing
could mean, as I understand it, less waste, does the Environment
Agency not have any view on whether that is preferable to creating
more waste?
Mr McHugh: In terms of volume
it creates more waste; low level waste and intermediate level
waste from the spent fuel.
Q364 Mr Weir: Is it less radioactive
than the waste that would be created by the other reactors?
Mr McHugh: You create different
types of high level waste. You create high level waste in the
form of what are called fission products and you separate out
the plutonium created in the reactor and the uranium and plutonium
that you may or may not be able to recycle in fast breeder reactors.
Mr Bates: Reprocessing stands
or falls on whether the value of the recovered products, the recovered
uranium and plutonium, outweigh, both environmentally and economically,
the costs of the process which involves an expansion of the volume
of waste—more discharges, more complexity, more risk.
Q365 Judy Mallaber: Can we move on
to the question of public confidence? I am very conscious of this
because we had a very difficult couple of years in my constituency,
about which you will know, regarding the disposal of low level
nuclear waste arising from a Rolls-Royce marine operation in Derby.
At one point myself and my then MEP, Philip Whitehead, were mediating
between the Environment Agency, who were actually the good guys,
and the local campaign groups to get people in the same room,
the level of tension over even an issue like that was that high.
I am interested in how you see your roles evolving in ensuring
public confidence if there is a decision to go ahead with new
nuclear build and public confidence in the regulatory process.
Maybe you could speak on that as I know you have considerable
experience in dealing with problems at a local level.
Mr McHugh: The subject we are
debating is highly controversial and highly contentious, as you
found in your constituency. We publish a lot of information for
members of the public when we are going through changes in our
regulatory permits, in our authorisations, and we are just doing
that with some of the British Energy sites. We try a range of
different methods to engage with people at the local level particularly
through, for example, drop-in sessions, surgeries, as well as
consultations and traditional means such as paper and things going
out on the website. We find generally that we are regarded as
being a firm but fair regulator in sessions that are open to free
discussion. A lot of people do not know a lot about the subject
and a lot of our job is trying to communicate the risks of the
radioactive waste disposals which would arise. I am sure that
is the case for HSE as well in relation to nuclear safety risks.
It is a very technical subject to get the message across on in
a simple form. We try lots of different methods to communicate
and to engage with people to ensure that they have a better understanding
of the way in which we regulate and which risks are controlled.
Is that what you were trying to get to?
Q366 Judy Mallaber: I just wondered
if you had any plans in place now, given how difficult it has
been even in what should have been an easy situation in my constituency.
Dr Weightman: Perhaps I can add
something there. It is a very complex question and for me it is
clear that I have the responsibility to ensure that the public
trust the nuclear regulatory system. That is not the same as saying
that I have not got a role to promote nuclear energy or the use
of nuclear energy. It is for me to focus on the nuclear regulatory
system. For me it is not something that is a given because I am
a technical expert (if I was) or our body is a technical expert.
We have to earn that trust and I think society has changed and
you can see this right through society, the way in which experts
are viewed in court cases and elsewhere. You very much have to
earn that trust, and with that trust comes confidence. For me
it is about being open, it is about being transparent in what
we are doing and listening to people, what their fears are, and
trying to explain what we are doing in relation to securing high
levels of nuclear safety on nuclear-licensed sites. For me it
is not something where I can say, "I am an expert; therefore
trust me". I have to earn that trust. We have to earn that
trust as a body and we do that by being open and transparent about
how we go about our business. For example, for many years we have
supported local liaison committees around nuclear licensed sites
with our local site inspector who looks after the site (but who
is not locally based). He will put forward a report and be there
to answer questions for anybody who wants to ask questions around
that. Similarly, when we go onto sites we talk to workers and
workers' representatives to make sure we understand and listen
to what their fears and concerns are on the sites.
Mr McHugh: Can I come back about
the process that we might follow in relation to pre-licensing?
One process which might be appropriate would be for the applicant
in effect to place as much information as possible in the public
domain and seek comments on it which would be fed back to the
regulatory bodies so that there could be as much transparency
about the process as possible in relation to the pre-licensing
decisions that we would be making. We want it to be as open and
transparent as possible in the pre-licensing process. It would
not be something we would do in private. We want to engage with
people as much as possible about what is planned for pre-licensing
arrangements.
Q367 Chairman: The border has featured
briefly in our discussions. Obviously, waste management is a devolved
matter. Are there any problems or issues that we should be aware
of about the implications of the regulatory process because of
the devolved nature of some of the issues, or is it in practice
not an issue?
Mr McHugh: Again, we work closely
with our counterparts in Scotland, with SEPA. The Scottish Executive
have fully devolved powers in this area in terms of environment.
They have intervened in relation to a low level waste decision
in relation to Dounreay, for example, so the Scottish Executive
can make decisions. I do not get the impression that it is not
coordinated but the devolved administrations have separate powers
and can choose to find solutions which are right for Scotland.
Dr Weightman: For ourselves health
and safety is not a delegated power and we have close liaisons
with SEPA, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.
Q368 Chairman: So there are similar
arrangements?
Dr Weightman: Yes.
Q369 Chairman: The pre-licensing
process—you have got the powers necessary to do that. You
do not need new legislative powers to do that?
Dr Weightman: That is right.
Q370 Chairman: There is no change
there. So when you produce your conclusions for your consultation
you can go ahead and do whatever you need to do if the Government
tells you to do it?
Dr Weightman: Yes, if we get requested
to do it, and the vendors or whoever comes forward with a safety
case to assess.
Q371 Chairman: Let me end by asking
you an overall question about your approach to this review. We
are told that this is fundamentally a nuclear review; that is
what somebody has said anyhow. I presume that pleases you in the
Nuclear Inspectorate because you are going to have a lot more
shiny new reactors to inspect, are you not?
Dr Weightman: Both professionally
and personally I am neutral on it. It does not matter to me. I
have enough business in front of me with the acceleration of decommissioning
to address. There is increased activity at the Atomic Weapons
Establishment with the £1.05 billion investment over the
next three years which we also regulate. There is a lot happening
out there. Whether there is a shiny new reactor or not I am completely
neutral about.
Q372 Chairman: But with regard to
these four issues the Government is asking you to respond to them
on—gas storage; demonstration of carbon capture and storage;
renewable issues; and nuclear—is there not a relative workload
waiting in those? Are any of them going to be more important and
is there more pressure from the Government on some of them? Are
some of them taking more of your time to deliver answers to because
they are more complex? I imagine the nuclear one is a very complex
one to answer.
Dr Weightman: The simple answer
is yes, it obviously has taken more time because they have also
asked questions around pre-licensing and we have looked at what
the issues might be around that, and we have engaged with stakeholders
to get their views as well, and that obviously takes time and
resources to do.
Mr Philpott: On the other issues,
we have done a similar exercise and we have looked at the health
and safety implications of greater use of gas storage and so on,
but it is not for us to decide whether there is greater reliance
on that or not. We have identified what the issues are and we
will report to Government by 30 June.
Q373 Chairman: But the Environment
Agency is not quite so neutral because, as I read your evidence
to this Committee, and we are talking about looking at three issues,
saying, you are pretty dubious about nuclear, you will reluctantly
accept gas and get really excited about microgeneration, so presumably
you will be pretty upset if there is nuclear new build.
Mr Bates: That is not the intention.
Right at the very beginning of that document the words "technology
neutral" should jump out. We favour many of the mechanisms
and ideas that were put to you by Dieter Helm in the last session,
or at least the principle by which he is working, which is that
Government should establish an objective and then set up a market
that rewards or penalises and then brings forward according to
how good particular technologies are at achieving those objectives,
so some kind of long term value placed on carbon, something that
reflects energy security objectives along the lines of his capacity
market or something similar. That is the way we think it should
go. In the case of renewables there is perhaps additional justification
for some of the technologies associated with innovation policy
in which we are dealing with technologies that are not yet mature.
In that case you need something quite technology specific to drag
them towards market but I think you will see in our work some
scepticism about whether that justification has been overplayed
in the case of some renewables that are in effect mature technologies
and are over-rewarded in the current Renewables Obligation. On
energy efficiency, we would like to see it played on a level playing
field with supply side measures because it is fantastically cost
effective but there are all kinds of quite specific barriers in
the way of that happening and therefore we need quite a specific
approach to removing those barriers so that we have a proper level
playing field that can expose the true economics of demand side
measures.
Q374 Chairman: The specific concern
about nuclear was that if the Government subs nuclear it could
in effect crowd out the other low carbon technologies. We have
heard from the industry that they do not want subsidies; they
prefer solutions such as Dieter Helms'. There do not need to be
subsidies. Do you think there will not be?
Mr Bates: That is not for us to
say. We have put forward our advice. We are supposed to give advice
to the Government. Our advice is to set the objectives and reward
the technologies that help to meet those objectives without being
specific about what the technologies are. If they do that and
it all works well then the right technologies will be those that
come forward to meet the objectives that we have.
Q375 Chairman: Do you feel the Energy
Review has been conducted in a neutral way and you are happy about
the way in which your evidence has been listened to by Government?
Mr Bates: The advice that we put
forward is very much aimed at creating a technology-neutral framework
for energy policy. There is a lot of agreement around that. I
know Ofgem, the regulator, put forward similar views. Quite how
the Energy Review team itself is working through the practicalities
of dealing with that and delivering to what is a very aggressive
timetable by anybody's judgment is another matter, but what we
are hoping is that they will use fairly sound environmentally
economic practices when they shape the market that will deliver
on these very important objectives.
Q376 Chairman: And was the Prime
Minister technology neutral at the CBI dinner?
Mr Bates: No. He was not technology
neutral and he may not be listening to our advice.
Chairman: On that note, unless my colleagues
have anything else to ask you we will declare the session closed
and express our gratitude to you for your time and trouble. Thank
you very much.
| 
