Clause
63
Interpretation
6.45
pm
Martin
Horwood:
I beg to move amendment No. 39, in
clause 63, page 50, line 14, at
end
insert—
‘“disposal”
for solid nuclear wastes (including nuclear materials declared as
waste) means emplacement in a long term storage
facility;’.
The
amendment seeks to define carefully “disposal”,
which is not currently in the list of words defined
in clause 63. “Disposal” is important because it crops up
earlier on in the Bill, in clause 41. It is one of the technical
matters, along with “treatment”, “storage”
and “transportation”, covered by the funded
decommissioning programmes. Such technical matters, which the funded
decommissioning programme must contain, include details of the steps to
be taken and estimates of the costs likely to be involved. That is
crucial and central to the whole programme of funded decommissioning
programmes.
We
might think that “disposal” was a fairly straightforward
concept, which just means getting rid of the nuclear waste. However,
nuclear waste does not really go away in that sense. We all know that
we cannot just dispose of it in landfill—or perhaps we are
dealing with a variation of landfill. I raised the matter during the
evidence sessions with Dr. Roxburgh, who gave evidence for the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority. He talked about waste disposal being
included along with the cost of
decommissioning—
“so
the complete life cycle cost would have to be
recovered”—
in
other words, recovered from the private operators. I asked, to be
clear:
“By
long-term life cycle, do you mean thousands of years in the future,
potentially?”
We are
talking about the complete life cycle of nuclear materials here. He
replied:
“In the
sense that once waste is placed in a deep geological repository, I
assume that it becomes a property of the Government, or at least that
it is on some sort of lease. That issue has yet to be
addressed”.
So, strangely, it suddenly
becomes rather unclear whether “disposal” in the terms of
the Bill as currently defined means disposal by and at the expense of
the private operators, or whether there is emerging some new kind of
public taxpayer liability, albeit a long distance into the future. I
asked Dr.
Roxburgh:
“So
you are expecting there to be no costs attached to that that will not
be covered.”
He
replied:
“You
will have to ask the Government about
that.”——[Official Report, Energy Public Bill
Committee, 5 February 2008; c. 59, Q112-114.]
That is what I am doing right
now.
Is
“disposal”, in the terms of the funded decommissioning
programmes, being interpreted—perhaps hopefully by the
Government—as simply taking the lorry to the gate of the
long-term storage repository? Or is it, as our amendment would make the
Bill clearly state, talking about emplacement within it? That is
critical, because the long-term storage repository is not simply a
neutral facility but something that the Minister himself described as
perhaps remaining uncapped and potentially accessible for as long as a
century. Potentially, I suppose, if future Governments, in a
century’s time, thought it was unsafe to cap it completely and
make it inaccessible. They might choose to leave the repository
uncapped and maintained at some minimum level long into the future. We
can imagine that, on the kind of time scales that we are talking about,
even a low level of maintenance could rack up quite a bill for the
taxpayer. Even the light bulb in a “Keep out” sign
maintained for thousands of years would add up to quite a substantial
cost to the public purse. These are serious
issues.
When
I was in legacy fundraising for Oxfam, occasionally people left
substantial gifts to Oxfam in their will. The legacies quite often came
with a little proviso that we, for instance, maintained a headstone in
perpetuity, because people wanted graves maintained. We are talking
about a different kind of grave here, but the risk is the same. Oxfam
always removed that provision, by deed of variation, from those wills,
because over time those costs build up—they add up to a
significant long-term storage liability, to take the analogy a bit
tastelessly far. I want to extend that principle to the Bill and make
it absolutely clear that the Government are not allowing the Bill, by a
small loophole of definition, not to mean actual disposal in the
long-term geological repository. The cost of doing that for new nuclear
power stations should be recovered from the operators, as was the
intention and as was the sense of the Government’s and the
Opposition’s
statements.
I know that
the Government think that the legacy programme bears some kind of
responsibility for the long-term repository, and that in some strange
way it is paid for by the taxpayer on a more reasonable basis, because
the legacy programme exists and we have to work out what to do with the
waste. That is true, but over a very long time that will even out
considerably. If the nuclear programme continues into the future, in
time, the original legacy programme waste will be a minor part of the
nuclear waste being disposed of. Therefore, before the Government go
down the path of building new nuclear power stations, it is important
to
establish the principle that the cost of very long-term storage will not
be borne by the taxpayer.
Malcolm
Wicks:
On at least two occasions I have had
the opportunity to specify what costs will be paid
for by the company. Let me approach the issue again. The Government are
tackling the waste issue, and we recognise the importance of continuing
to make progress on waste management and disposal. We set out, in the
nuclear White Paper, our policy for managing and disposing of waste
from new nuclear power stations. The Government believe that it is
technically possible to dispose of new higher-activity radioactive
waste in a geological disposal facility. That is a viable solution and
the right approach for managing waste from new nuclear power
stations.
The
Government consider that it would be technically possible and desirable
to dispose of both new and legacy waste in the same geological disposal
facilities. That should be explored through the Managing Radioactive
Waste Safely programme. We also consider that waste can and should be
stored in safe and secure interim storage facilities until a geological
disposal facility becomes
available.
In
the draft guidance on funded decommissioning programmes, we
acknowledged that operators would need certainty over the date when
they can pass the liability for their intermediate-level waste and
spent fuel over to the Government for disposal—that is the nub
of the question. To meet that need, we will agree a schedule with each
operator for when title to and liability for waste and spent fuel will
pass to the Government. That schedule will be based on a conservative
view of the estimated dates of availability of disposal facilities, and
it will not begin until the operator’s decommissioning programme
has been completed.
I
described earlier our approach to setting a fixed unit price for the
disposal of intermediate-level waste and spent fuel. I highlighted that
it was right and proper that the Government should bear the risk of
building a geological disposal facility, since we would need to do it
to dispose of our legacy waste regardless of the position on new build.
New build operators will have no influence over the project to deliver
the geological disposal facility, so it is right that they should not
bear the open-ended risks of delay to the
project.
Martin
Horwood:
Will the Minister give
way?
Malcolm
Wicks:
Let me proceed, as I think that it might help the
hon. Gentleman. My first few attempts have not helped him but this one
may.
It is equally
right and proper that operators pay for the certainty that they will
get over their costs for the disposal of intermediate-level waste and
spent fuel. The fixed unit price that operators pay will include a
significant risk premium to cover the risk that geological disposal
facilities will not be available according to the schedules agreed with
operators. Operators will be expected to dispose of low-level waste
promptly in the facility currently operating in west Cumbria or a
successor facility. We will not set a fixed unit price for the disposal
of low-level waste.
Let me emphasise something about
who owns waste once it is placed in a geological
repository. The Government will take title of the waste at a date or a
schedule agreed with the operator at the same time as their funded
decommissioning programme is approved and alongside setting a price for
the waste disposal service. We expect the schedule to be aligned to the
estimates for availability of disposal facilities, whatever those
estimates are at the time that operators come to the Government for a
firm view on a fixed price and would not begin until after the
operators’ decommissioning programme had been completed. The
issue is clear: up to a certain point in the process, the company must
meet the full costs. That has been much of the burden of our discussion
today. However, given that the waste will lie there for a very long
time, there will come a time when the title to that waste and the
responsibility for it passes from the company to the
Government.
Martin
Horwood:
I am grateful to the Minister for his
reply. I understood the earlier explanations about having a fixed unit
cost attached to bringing the waste to the Government and effectively
passing the title and the liability over to them. However, will that
cover the cost of long-term storage with regard to new nuclear? The
Minister suggested that the new nuclear industry should not bear any
part of the cost for the repository because it would be needed for the
legacy waste. I do not really accept that.
Let us imagine—and I hope
that this does not happen—that the new nuclear industry
continues for many years into the future. It could become the largest
contributor to that geological repository in terms of the overall
amount of waste being stored in it, and that will increase
exponentially over time if the nuclear industry continues. Why should
not the new industry contribute towards the cost of establishing that
repository as it will be for their use? It will be a public subsidy in
effect, as it will provide them with free, very long-term
storage.
There is also
the assumption that the repository will never be full and that it can
never run out of capacity for new nuclear waste. At this moment, we
have no idea where that repository will be or what form it will take.
Therefore, we have no idea whether that will be the case or whether, at
some stage in the future and having established the principle that the
Government will pay for repositories, public funds will yet again be
used to make a new repository entirely to cope with new nuclear
waste.
Mr.
Reed:
I think that what I will say might help the whole
Committee in its interpretation of the hon. Gentleman’s
amendment. It is to do with the amount of radioactive material that
will be stored from a new fleet of reactors in a future
repository. All the estimates, which are credible, reliable
projections, are that if we were to replace all of our current fleet
with a new fleet of nuclear reactors and those reactors were to run for
their lifetimes—the lifetimes in this period are assessed as 60
years, not 40 or 50—the overall waste inventory in the country
would increase by less than 10 per cent. The assessment and judgment is
that it would grow by approximately 8 per cent, so we would need 8 per
cent. more capacity within a repository.
Martin
Horwood:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his
technical knowledge on the issue. I assume that he talks about the
volume of waste in that respect. However, surely the important thing
when disposing of nuclear waste is not its volume, but its
radioactivity. I am not sure that that answer is very
reassuring.
Mr.
Reed:
In terms of cost, which is the issue that we are
addressing here, the volume is the all-important thing. In terms of the
repository, when we come to look at design safety, the radioactivity is
not that relevant.
Martin
Horwood:
I am grateful to the hon.
Gentleman— he reassures me to some extent. However, even 10 per
cent. of the cost does not seem to be unreasonable if that turned out
to be the situation. Why should not 10 per cent. of the cost of what, I
presume, is a very expensive exercise in building a long-term
geological repository be recovered from the nuclear
industry?
Malcolm
Wicks:
Act one is where we accept that we have a legacy
problem. I have still not worked out whether the Liberal Democrats
agree that we have such a problem and have to bear the costs of that
from public funds. In an era of new nuclear, we have said that, as far
as reasonably possible, we will do out utmost to ensure that the full
share of new nuclear waste is paid for by the companies—it is
not just about the decommissioning, and attendant costs.
I want the hon. Member for
Cheltenham to hear this point, as I think that it
will satisfy him. Given that the geological repository will need to be
larger than a repository for only the legacy of nuclear
waste—although, as he says, people can exaggerate how much space
is required—we have said that new build operators will pay a
contribution to the fixed costs of the geological repository as well as
the costs directly attributable to them. I hope that ensuring that
operators pay their full costs shows our good faith, but there will
come a time, if only for the sake of the important consideration of
national security, when the state will take over
responsibility.
Martin
Horwood:
My background is in business as well as charity.
The Government have the only facility available and a captive market of
nuclear companies wishing to dispose of their waste. Why stop at new
nuclear companies when private companies are producing waste at
existing nuclear power stations? Should the investors in those private
companies not be expected to contribute some of the cost of long-term
geological repositories?
The market price commanded
should be more than enough to guarantee that any long-term costs will
be more than covered. I am not clear from the technical advice given by
the hon. Member for Copeland exactly how much of the cost is expected
to be covered, or how the 10 per cent. will be calculated. It is
difficult to imagine how we could calculate the cost far into the
future. If the repository is to be maintained for 100 years or so, and
the nuclear industry continues, perhaps with other nuclear power
stations replacing the 60 years’ worth that we have immediate
plans to build, how can we have the idea that it should somehow
ultimately be a long-term Government liability? Why can we not make it
a liability on private companies?
Martin
Horwood:
I shall give way to the Minister if he has news
for
me.
Malcolm
Wicks:
Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that in
3 million years’ time, companies should still have a financial
liability? Despite his great background in business and charity, must
not common sense come into the debate at some
time?
Martin
Horwood:
Of course, if one is producing a product that
cannot be disposed of for 3 million years, one must be very careful
about the cost of doing so. That is all that I urge on the
Government.
The
Minister said that a risk premium might be included in the fixed unit
costs for disposal, but that that was to guard against the possible
unavailability of repositories. Presumably, the long-term costs of
maintenance have not been factored in. Dr. Roxburgh did not answer that
question for me, and nor has the Minister. What calculations have been
made about the likely long-term maintenance of any uncapped storage
repository, and is it intended that the costs should be entirely
recovered from the unit costs, either by way of
a bond or insurance premium or through some other financial mechanism?
We are simply trying to establish whether the Bill contains yet another
loophole to bring in a public taxpayer liability by the back door, or
whether we are taking every possible step to ensure that all the
long-term costs that might emerge will be met by the nuclear
industry.
The
Chairman:
The hon. Gentleman must indicate whether he
wishes to withdraw his amendment or press it to a
vote.
Martin
Horwood:
In the light of the lack of support from
Committee members of other parties, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Amendment
made: No. 2, in clause 63, page 50, line 18, at end insert
‘or Northern Ireland legislation’.—[Malcolm
Wicks.]
Clause
63, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Further
consideration adjourned.—[Alison
Seabeck.]
Adjourned
accordingly at five minutes past Seven o’clock till Thursday 6
March at Nine
o’clock.
| 
