draft Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (amendment) regulations 2011
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
† Bacon, Mr Richard (South Norfolk) (Con)
† Barker, Gregory (Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change)
Bridgen, Andrew (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
† Carmichael, Neil (Stroud) (Con)
† Chapman, Mrs Jenny (Darlington) (Lab)
Donaldson, Mr Jeffrey M. (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
† James, Mrs Siân C. (Swansea East) (Lab)
† Jones, Graham (Hyndburn) (Lab)
† Lee, Jessica (Erewash) (Con)
† Reed, Mr Jamie (Copeland) (Lab)
† Reid, Mr Alan (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
† Rogerson, Dan (North Cornwall) (LD)
† Rotheram, Steve (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
† Roy, Mr Frank (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
† Vara, Mr Shailesh (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
† Whittaker, Craig (Calder Valley) (Con)
Alison Groves, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
The following also attended ( Standing Order No. 118(2) ) :
†Evans, Graham (Weaver Vale) (Con)
Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee
Tuesday 5 July 2011
[Andrew Rosindell in the Chair]
Draft Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2011
4.30 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2011.
May I say, Mr Rosindell, what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship for the first time?
The draft regulations amend some of the provisions for the regulation of radioactive substances in the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010, to provide a more modern, transparent and user-friendly system for the regulation of radioactive substances, while at the same time strictly applying the best standards of radiation protection. They apply to England and Wales and will considerably simplify the often complex system of regulation which has hardly changed over the past 50 years.
That will be particularly important for those users of radioactive substances who present a low risk to people and the environment—for example, the holders of clocks, watches and smoke detectors—while at the same time maintaining the necessary level of protection. Some people will be surprised at the number of items that contain nominally radioactive materials. We estimate that several thousand users will benefit from the changes, which are a good example of the coalition’s agenda to reduce the burden of regulation on business. I am pleased that the draft regulations have received a green light from the Regulatory Policy Committee.
During the development of the draft regulations, there has been substantial engagement with stakeholders who believe that the need to clarify and modernise the system is long overdue. Government have listened carefully to the views of experts, industry, public services, regulators and other interested parties throughout the process, and have received strong support for the new regime. Indeed, it has been clear throughout the stakeholder engagement process that there would be decreased confidence by users of the regulatory process if it were not modernised soon.
The draft regulations represent the final stage in amending the regulatory framework following a UK-wide review of regulation of radioactive substances. The aim of the regulatory regime is to license the use and disposal of radioactive substances such that the public and the environment are protected from the effects of ionising radiation. The initial stage of the review only extended to England and Wales, and involved changing the procedure of licensing to the common environmental permitting system by migrating the substantive provisions of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 into the 2010 environmental permitting regulations. That meant that
the users of radioactive substances could benefit from the streamlined and less burdensome common environmental permitting system.At an early stage in the review, it became clear that a logical, comprehensive and modern regime could be delivered only if the definitions of radioactive material and radioactive waste were amended, and if exemptions from the requirement for permits which are contained in 18 different statutory instruments were made more transparent and user-friendly. The main effect of the draft regulations is to change the boundaries that define whether a particular substance is outside the scope of legislation, capable of being exempt from full regulation or otherwise subject to normal permitting. The changes, where they have been necessary, have been made for three main reasons.
First, the current boundaries are sometimes in the wrong place. For example, an unconditional exemption for disposal is based on a blanket concentration value of 0.4 bq/g for all radionuclides. However, European legislation recognises that all radionuclides have a different radiotoxicity and, based on risk, has set out radionuclide-specific limits. If a user were trying to dispose of cobalt-60, the concentration value applied to such waste would now be 0.1 bq/g, whereas for the disposal of copper-64, it would be 10 bq/g.
Secondly, the exact position of the boundary is currently vague in a number of circumstances. For example, it is unclear whether displaying geological specimens in an exhibition at a museum would be exempt under the Radioactive Substances (Exhibitions) Exemption Order 1962; our provisions make it clear that such articles would be outside the scope of regulation. Finally, there are gaps in the boundaries because the current exemption orders are up to 50 years old, and technology in this sector continually advances. That means that situations which are proven to be of low risk are not exempted under the current legislation.
The new regime has filled those gaps to provide users and waste managers with a continuous set of boundaries. For example, a new exemption is included for inert krypton-85 gas, which is now used by the lighting industry in energy-efficient light bulbs with trivial dose consequences. That will provide a modern, simplified and proportionate—in other words, risk-informed—regulatory regime, which will result in efficiencies for users and regulators. It will be supported by comprehensive guidance for the first time since 1982. The net savings for users and regulators across the UK are estimated to be in the region of £11 million over the next 10 years. The main savings will arise because less administrative work will be required to demonstrate compliance with the regulations. It will enable the UK to demonstrate clearer compliance with the basic safety standards directive, made under the Euratom treaty.
Because we have now more explicitly implemented the levels for exemption from regulation in the directive, some exemption levels are more restrictive than in our current system and some are less so. However, that will not lead to any significant change to disposal practices in the nuclear industry sector, but will be of more benefit to the users of radioactive substances outside that sector. For example, there are additional exemption provisions for medical establishments to manage and dispose of their aqueous radioactive waste more efficiently and without unnecessary paperwork.
The subject matter of these regulations so far as relates to radioactive waste is a devolved matter, and Scotland and Northern Ireland have chosen to retain the 1993 Act, although they have agreed the need for modernisation in terms of the scope of regulation and the exemptions. The necessary legislation to achieve that is already in place in Scotland, ready to come into force in October, and Northern Ireland is amending its legislation with the intention that it should also come into force in October. Consistent regulation across the UK will therefore be maintained, which is very important for operators whose work crosses UK borders.
I turn now to one other matter being addressed in these regulations. The development of carbon capture and storage is a significant strand in the Government’s work to ensure that our climate change objectives are met. My Department is working to establish a licensing framework for carbon storage and to transpose the EU directive on geological storage of carbon dioxide. Two provisions that remain to be addressed are articles 32 and 37 of the directive.
Article 32 amends the water framework directive so as to permit the injection of carbon dioxide streams into geological formations which, for natural reasons, are permanently unsuitable for other purposes. That is a vital amendment, without which carbon dioxide storage in geological formations would be prohibited. Article 37 amends the integrated pollution prevention and control directive so as to include within its scope the capture of carbon dioxide streams from installations already within the scope of the directive. Accordingly, we propose an amendment to the 2010 regulations to transpose those articles of the relevant directive.
I hope that the Committee will agree that these regulations provide a much needed, modernised and transparent framework for the regulation of radioactive substances which improve implementation of environmental protection, and enable us to transpose the necessary articles of the directive required to take forward work on carbon capture and storage.
4.39 pm
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab): Before I begin, Mr Rosindell, may I ask whether it is in order for colleagues to take off their jackets?
The Chair: I am quite happy to permit that.
Mr Reed: Thank you, Mr Rosindell; my Whip will be most relieved.
These are issues of the utmost national interest. They are essentially political issues, but they ought not to be party political issues. In short, the Minister should be aware that there is scope for real agreement between him and me on a variety of issues.
I must declare an interest in the issues that we are discussing. I am a third-generation nuclear worker. I have a number of friends and family members who work in the nuclear industry, and indeed in the NHS, who will be affected directly by the regulation changes that we are discussing. More importantly, my constituency hosts all the nation’s low-level radioactive waste in the low-level waste repository, which takes materials from industry, from the NHS and from the nuclear industry. At Sellafield, which is also in my constituency, we treat
and store the majority of the United Kingdom’s intermediate and high-level nuclear waste, spent fuels and other valuable nuclear assets such as plutonium and uranium dioxide.The Radioactive Substances Act is well known to me and, I dare say, to my constituents. It is a piece of legislation that has served them and the national population well over many years. The changes to the regulations in the shape of this statutory instrument began life under the previous Government, and they are underpinned by a series of lengthy public consultations, which the Minister has mentioned, in which a number of expert groups have already been involved.
The purpose of these changes is essentially to provide a more modern, transparent and user-friendly system for the regulation of radioactive substances which presents a very low risk to people and the environment while maintaining the necessary level of public protection. They also transpose a series of EU directives about carbon capture and storage with almost immediate effect. With regard to CCS and the legislation relating to radioactive substances, the proposed changes seek to simplify existing systems.
A series of questions stem from the proposed changes, however, and the first is perhaps the most important. If the Minister is unable to provide me with answers today, for whatever reason, will he undertake to write to me? Even better, will he undertake to ensure that the appropriate Minister of State responds to these questions?
The main effect of the draft regulations is to change the boundaries, as the Minister pointed out, which define whether a substance is outside the scope of the legislation, capable of being exempt from full regulation or otherwise subject to permitting. Where boundaries are wrong and are subsequently changed, will the Minister confirm that such changes will not be made on the basis of a new or different risk assessment? Would those changes result in any change to the level of ionising radiation that is received by relevant workers, communities adjacent to radioactive disposal or storage facilities, or the general British public? Will the boundary changes, which are essentially a reclassification of materials, result in a change to the amount of radioactive materials, admittedly of very low levels, that are subject to what is known as “free release”? If there is a change, will the Minister tell us the volume? How will the material be disposed of, and where?
Free release means that materials can be diverted from purpose-built, licensed radioactive disposal facilities towards landfill, incineration and, of course, reuse, so it is important that we are fully equipped with the answers. In a similar vein, the low-level waste repository in my constituency should expect to see a change to its operating lifespan as a result of these changes and the changes to the type and quantity of materials sent there. Will the Minister explain what those changes will be?
The proposed changes to the legislation are also bound to have significant effects on the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. I will take this opportunity to point out the invaluable contribution that the NDA makes to my community and to the country in so many ways. It undertakes absolutely excellent work. When talking about the NDA in abstract terms, however, I have two more specific groups in mind: the taxpayer and the UK nuclear industry.
On the taxpayer, will the Minister tell me whether the proposed changes will result in the acceleration of the decommissioning programmes of the country’s civil and military nuclear fleet and its associated buildings? Will he detail, site by site, how such changes will affect their decommissioning programmes and their associated costs? On the face of it, changes to waste classification should make decommissioning quicker and cheaper, so, with regard to the second group, the UK nuclear industry—more accurately, the nuclear industry that operates within the UK—will the Minister detail, again site by site, contract by contract and pound by pound, how the proposed changes will affect the profit margins of management and operations contractors currently working within our decommissioning programme? Clearly those changes have the scope to change the schedule of works and the profitability of pre-existing contracts between private entities and the state. It is essential that those details are understood.
I am taken by the enlightened ambition concerning the future-proofing of the regulations, and I note that the proposed changes follow moves that have already taken place in Scotland. That opens the door to a significant number of issues in which I know the Minister, and the Department, will be as interested as I am. The Minister knows that in addition to finding ourselves in the midst of this extraordinary global economic crisis, we are also seized by significant constitutional anxiety at home. The new Scottish Government seek independence from the United Kingdom. That decision is the sovereign right of the Scottish people and nobody else, but some inconvenient details must be attended to.
Do the regulations allow for a commonly understood licensing regime for radioactive materials, so as to facilitate the return of Scottish radioactive materials from England—and in particular from my constituency—to Scotland in the event of Scottish independence? Clearly, radioactive materials from Scotland, whether at a very low, low, intermediate or high level, would cease to be classified as British waste in the event of Scotland’s independence. That waste would then become subject to the same laws that govern other non-British radioactive waste. Effectively, that means that the waste will have to be returned to its country of origin at the expense of the Scottish taxpayer, and that will require billions of pounds of expenditure in hotel costs, treatment, packaging, transportation, storage and/or disposal in Scotland. That money would represent a net income for the NDA in what would remain of the United Kingdom. Moreover, that would happen fairly quickly, given the revised ambition for an operating geological disposal facility by 2029. Although I pushed for 2025, I welcome that change wholeheartedly.
With that in mind, will the Minister tell us how the changes will affect the volume, type and amount of radioactive materials that will be transported under the NDA’s latest business plan? What changes will now occur as a result of the regulations to the volume and type of radioactive materials that will be moved from Scotland to England? I would be grateful if the Minister provided that information on a site-by-site basis with regard to materials sent to Sellafield, the low-level waste repository, and any declassified free release materials that are headed for landfill, incineration or re-use.
Will the Minister confirm that all the proposed changes are consistent with the ALARA principles—as low as reasonably achievable—and that the estimate of population exposure doses will not alter as a result of the changes? Will he also tell us how he expects the changes to affect the oil and gas industries? As he will know, one of the single largest components of background radiation dosage received by the population of Europe comes from normally occurring radioactive materials that are brought into close proximity to the population through oil and gas exploration and abstraction. Will the Minister publish an impact assessment to look at the effects of the changes on the oil and gas industry? Are the proposed changes consistent with our OSPAR commitments?
I am pleased to learn that the changes to the 2010 environmental protection regulations will be reviewed in 2015. The success criteria for that review cover the following: clarity of language and ease of use; legal robustness; comprehensiveness; proportionality; a reduction in the overall burden of regulation; and that businesses perceive that the exemption regime has been improved. Will the Minister consider adding to those criteria and include ionising radiation exposure to the population as a key measurement of success? That is not an issue of note as matters stand, but we all have a vested interest in ensuring that it remains that way, particularly with regard to normally occurring radioactive materials and the extremely promising but as yet fledgling CCS sector.
4.49 pm
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab): I am not a great expert on this subject, but I want to make a few brief comments regarding my constituency and my experiences, and perhaps the Minister will clarify some of his comments. I have two concerns. The first is about current access to information on two of the low-grade sites, and the second is about some of the Minister’s comments on NHS organisations, the disposal of low-grade waste and the desire not to have unnecessary paperwork.
My experience in my constituency is that we have some old coal mines, which the NHS used as a repository for low-grade radioactive material, and that there have been issues with that. Some of the waste was deposited many years ago. Access to information involves what has happened, what is happening and what will happen under the new regime. My experience of the NHS radioactive material down the coal mine involves a lot of scaremongering, press headlines about scorched earth or the earth heating up and all sorts of community groups bringing spurious concerns revolving around a planning application. Information would have been useful.
I am concerned by the Minister’s comment about reducing unnecessary paperwork. In my experience of my constituency, that would have been a retrograde step, because it would have led to less knowledge, when we need more knowledge about what is down the coal mines. Some of the history goes back 60 or 70 years. Back then, they did not keep the records that they do now, and there were not as many regulations about items placed in the coal mines. I have deep concerns about any “reduction of unnecessary paperwork”. Will the Minister clarify what he means?
The public want to know. For some reason, things become over-sensationalised and people worry, associating low-grade waste with the nuclear industry and wondering
whether nuclear waste will be placed in the coal mines—or any other repository, for that matter—because they are aware that there is already radioactive waste down there, and it might only be one small step to add something far more awful. I feel secure that that will not happen, but the public do not share my sense of security, and they worry.I ask the Minister to consider how information is provided to the public about what has gone on in the past, what is happening now and what changes he wishes to implement. There is a problem with low-grade waste and what goes on in some repositories. We must be clear about providing information to the public and not creating problems unnecessarily. The public must feel secure in what we are doing. I appeal to him to allay the concerns of some residents in my constituency that the new regime will not provide the information that they seek or make it easy to access.
4.53 pm
Gregory Barker: I think that I will struggle to answer all the questions asked by the hon. Member for Copeland, not least because I am effectively covering for the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), who I am sure would have answered every single one in minute detail, including site-by-site definitions. I cannot answer the site-by-site questions, but I will consider in detail and reflect on all the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised, and I will write to him and respond as best we can to the sensible—
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab): Will the Minister ensure that he writes to everyone on the Committee?
Gregory Barker: I am happy to do so, and I will place a copy of my letter in the House of Commons Library to ensure that it is freely accessible.
However, there are some points on which I can reassure the Committee. A question was asked about boundaries. Effectively, we do not anticipate that boundaries will change significantly. Some paperwork is inevitable and necessary, but we believe that there is scope to streamline it in the NHS and elsewhere. The regulations aim to minimise paperwork as far as possible, but I must emphasise that there will be absolutely no diminution in the standards that we expect, or any impact on public health and safety as a result. We are simply looking at modernising and streamlining, not reducing the level of protection.
Graham Jones: I welcome the Minister’s response and his assurance, but a second element is access to public information. If there is a diminution in paperwork, can we put in place greater transparency as part of that reduction in unnecessary paperwork? The two would go hand in hand together quite well.
Gregory Barker: Yes, in fact, the process shows that there has been a great deal of transparency in the way we arrived at the rules and in the stakeholder engagement
workshops. Transparency has underpinned our whole approach to getting to where we are now, and I anticipate that that high level of transparency in stakeholder engagement will be the hallmark of how we see the regulations going forward. That transparency will provide a great deal of public reassurance.The hon. Member for Copeland asked whether there will be any change in free release levels. There may be minor changes, but I assure him that they will be set at levels that continue to protect the public—at current safety levels. We are not changing the safety standards. If the levels are different, that will be for different radionuclides.
On radioactive waste routes, the regulations change not the waste rules, but only the degree and nature of the regulation. On informing the public, the proposals do not change the amount of information that will be released to the public. It will just be more streamlined and, I hope, more accessible. On access to public information, exempt wastes, by their nature, are not subject to regulation, so it is difficult to put them in the public domain.
The hon. Member for Hyndburn raised the matter of waste being placed in coal mines. There are no current disposals into old coal mines, and there is certainly no expectation that the proposals are likely to change disposal practices significantly.
Background radiation is specifically excluded from regulation. However, background is difficult to define, and the new guidance will attempt better to define the regulations.
Decommissioning time scales and costs were also raised, as were volumes of waste. We expect very little impact on decommissioning or decommissioning costs, but we can make further information available from our work on impact assessments to explain why we are confident of that. I will make that information available to the hon. Member for Copeland.
I return to the point I raised at the outset about boundaries, and whether radioactivity levels change where they are wrong. There will be changes up and down in terms of where we set the boundaries, but we will aim to enforce the same level of public health and safety protection as we currently have. The overall comfort that the public may take is that although we are streamlining a complex regulatory regime, the intention is not to reduce public safety one iota; it is simply to create a more effective, up-to-date and modern system.
Some points remain outstanding, but I will do a better job of responding to them if I write to the hon. Member for Copeland with the level of detail that his questions warrant. I will ensure that other members of the Committee receive a copy of my letter and that it is placed in the Library.
That the Committee has considered the draft Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2011.