14 Protection against ionising radiation
| (33082)
14450/11
+ ADDs 1-3
COM(11) 593
| Draft Council Directive laying down safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from ionising radiation
|
| Legal base | Article 31 Euratom; QMV
|
| Department | Energy and Climate Change
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 2 July 2013
|
| Previous Committee Reports | HC 428-xli (2010-12), chapter 4 (9 November 2011) and HC 428-lii (2010-12), chapter 9 (29 February 2012)
|
| Discussion in Council | See para 14.5 below
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
14.1 Ionising radiation occurs naturally, but can also be
produced artificially, and workers, medical patients, and members
of the public are liable to be exposed to dangerous emission levels,
whilst, on the other hand, the use of radioactive substances and
radiation generators is an essential part of work activity in
many areas. Because of this, basic standards for the protection
of workers and the general public have been laid down in EU legislation
since 1959, but the Commission says that, over time, a number
of inconsistencies have arisen, other provisions are now obsolete,
recent scientific progress has not been fully reflected, and the
legislation does not fully cover natural sources or the protection
of the environment.
14.2 It therefore put forward in September 2011
this draft Directive which would bring all the existing measures
into a new Basic Safety Standards Directive. We noted in our Report
of 9 November 2011 that the Government had commented that the
proposal would make a number of significant changes, going beyond
mere simplification, and that it also believed that, whilst the
current regime provided a balance between essential business usage,
occupational risks and wider concerns regarding ionising radiation,
the proposal would establish requirements which were disproportionate,
and which would require significant changes to the UK regulations.
14.3 We reported further to the House on 29 February
2012, when we noted that the Government had concluded that the
general support for the proposal in Brussels made it unlikely
that a legally binding EU instrument would be rejected, and that
a significant number of issues would need to be resolved, particularly
as this was the first opportunity for the newer Member States
to negotiate conditions for radiological protection. In particular,
the Government identified the following specific issues:
- whilst the proposal seeks to
establish the uniform implementation by Member States of basic
safety standards, the UK's regulatory regime differs significantly
from those of other Member States;
- the definition of radiation contractor has been
extended to include work in lower-risk areas, resulting in increased
recording and reporting, without any significant health benefit;
- whilst justification is currently required for
changes to a "type of practice", it would in future
arise when "altering a radiation source", which would
be grossly disproportionate to the risks addressed;
- the dose limit for the lens of the eye would
be significantly reduced (by a factor of 7.5), which could have
significant impact on medical radiologists and specific nuclear
industry practices;
- mandatory licensing requirements would be extended
to non nuclear radiation industries, whereas the UK considers
that the existing arrangements provide the necessary protection;
- whereas it is possible and sensible to minimise
the risk from ionising radiation to achieve an acceptable level
of protection, there would be a requirement that factors causing
exposure should be eliminated, which may not always be
possible or desirable due to disproportionate costs;
- any "person" who discovers an "orphan"
radioactive source would be required to report it to the competent
authority, but, as such a source might not be recognised by the
public, the provision is unenforceable;
- the scope of the basic safety standards would
be extended to cover the environment and non-human species, and,
whilst UK environmental legislation already gives effect to this,
there is a legal question as to whether such an extension is
legally robust under the EURATOM Treaty, rather than the Lisbon
Treaty;
- the method proposed for harmonising the assessment
of radiation emitted by building materials is incompatible with
the UK regulatory approach; and
- the proposal would remove direct references to
individual radiological monitoring documents, a tool used mainly
by the nuclear industry to manage the doses of radiation contractors,
thus requiring the introduction of new arrangements, which would
not provide any added health benefits.
14.4 The Government also sought, in advance of
a full Impact Assessment, to provide an initial checklist, which
suggested that widening the definition of radiation contractor
could result in £19 million one-off costs and £3 million
a year, whilst the corresponding figures for extending the licensing
requirements to non-nuclear radiation industries would be £4
million and £1 million respectively. However, the checklist
also suggested that additional costs could arise from the more
prescriptive and inflexible language used in the proposal, with
(for example) the elimination of all risk likely to cost around
£2.5 billion a year for five years.
Minister's letter of 2 July 2013
14.5 We have now received from the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Energy and Climate
Change (Baroness Verma of Leicester) a letter of 2 July 2013,
indicating that a text acceptable to the UK has now been agreed,
with many of the overly prescriptive provisions which would have
resulted in disproportionate costs having been removed, and Member
States having been given as much flexibility as possible in the
way in which they implement the Directive. Thus, references to
"uniform implementation" have been qualified in the
text so that where appropriate Member States have scope to implement
the Directive in accordance with established practices; provisions
dealing with justification of practices have been amended to ensure
a proportionate response to addressing the risks in line with
current UK practice; and in particular references to "elimination
of all risk" — which would have been impossible in
practice, as it would have involved stopping any use of ionising
radiation, and would potentially have represented by far the
major cost of the original proposal — have been removed,
allowing Member States to take a proportionate approach to managing
low risk activities.
14.6 As a result, the Minister says that much
of the proposal now reflects current UK legislation, with only
two elements now giving rise to additional costs — the reduction
in the organ dose limit for the lens of the eye to a value 7.5
times lower than the existing occupational dose limit (which brings
the Directive in line with new scientific evidence), and would
involve around £4m in one off costs and the equivalent of
approximately £1m annually thereafter (equivalent respectively
to about £20,000 and £4,500 per business), and the extension
of licensing requirements to non-nuclear radiation industries
which will involve around £4 million in one off costs and
less than the equivalent of £1m annually thereafter. She
also points out that these measures will bring additional health
benefits, and that simplification of the EU legislative regime
is to be welcomed in itself.
Conclusion
- We are grateful to the Minister
for this update, and have noted that the main elements in the
original proposal which gave rise to concern — including
those regarded as overly prescriptive, and likely to give rise
to disproportionate costs — have now been amended or removed,
and that consequently the Directive is essentially consistent
with current UK practice. In view of this, we see no need to hold
the document under scrutiny, and we are accordingly clearing it.
|
