Wednesday 10 April 2019

How Brexit could permit extra nuclear waste imports into the UK


On 21st October 1975, the Daily Mirror front page had splashed across it the banner headline "Plan to make Britain World's nuclear dustbin" shock report on our lethal imports.
 
This so shocked Labour Government ministers that two left winger Cabinet members (both now deceased)  Peter Shore, the environment secretary, and energy secretary Tony Benn, [both having just lost the first Brexit referendum, having campaigned to leave] that they got together to change national policy and ban the import of radioactive waste, and insisted any imported to date must  be returned to the country of origin under a return-to-sender determination, which the Observer's former doyenne of environmental reporters, Geoff Lean, reported in January and February of 1976

On 23 January 2019 the regulations  pasted below were passed into law 'on the nod' in Parliament. Up until now, importing radioactive was into Britain was not permitted

( except in exceptional circumstances, such as removal of bomb-useable radioactive waste materials from unstable regions to stop terrorists getting their hands on it, as happened with an emergency airfreighting of such nuclear materials from Georgia to Scotland a decade ago).

 

But these new regulations will allow that to happen in future, commercially. This is what the then energy minister, Richard Harrington, revealed to MPs in a scrutiny committee session (in a so-called 'Delegated Legislation committee) on this week, full speech pasted below:

"The draft regulations set out a regime to ensure that radioactive waste and spent fuel are not shipped into or out of the UK without prior authorisation from the relevant competent authorities."

I considered this to be a significant change of policy, in light of the ministerial commitments made 43 years earlier that no radioactive waste could be imported into the UK, without being subsequently being shipped back to the country of origin.

 

Following enquiries made  of BEIS, the following response was provided by an official:

 

Did the UK come to an agreement with the EU to import radioactive waste for the first time?

  • The UK Government has not changed its policy on the import of radioactive waste for treatment and disposal in UK facilities.
  • The UK has put in place new ‘no deal’ regulations to regulate the shipment of radioactive waste, for treatment or processing, in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal.
  • These new “no deal” Regulations broadly replicate the 2008 Regulations of the same name. They will apply procedures for third countries to the EU27.

 

Has the UK previously imported radioactive waste from the EU?

  • The UK imports radioactive waste from the EU for the purposes of treatment or processing and returns this waste to the country of origin.
  • International laws prescribe that radioactive waste shall be disposed of in the country in which it was generated, except in specifically defined circumstances. This is in line with UK policy on the import or export of radioactive waste.

To clarify the meaning of this response, I submitted a Freedom of Information request to BEIS, which asked: Can you provide under the FOI Act 2000

 (1) details by year since 1989 of quantities by weight, volume, radiological content, country (ies) from which radioactive waste ( specifically not spent nuclear fuel) and its ownership respectively has been imported; (2) plant or plants in the UK where it was processed, and type of processing to which each consignment imported has been subjected; (3) whether ‘substitution’ applies to returned radioactive materials, and if so, specify which consignments this affects; (4) whether any radioactivity has been retained in the UK after 'processing'; and (5) what income is earned annually by the UK for this service provided to foreign owners of such waste imported to the UK?

After a delay of a month for which BEI S asked for more time to reply, I received their substantive answer yesterday. The answer is caveated by several references to  exclusion clauses in the 2000 FOI ACT which  permit ministers to keep secret inconvenient facts  from the public, but nonetheless does reveal for the first time details of the imports of radioactively contaminated metals  for decontamination and radioactive remediation treatment.

Amongst the information contained in the answer is the following revelation:

“I have assessed that disclosure of this information at this time would adversely affect the United Kingdom’s relations with countries with whom imports or exports of radioactive waste take place and would not be in the public interest, particularly if new regulations and arrangements are required to support the import or export of radioactive waste in the UK following the UK’s departure from the European Union” (emphasis added)

I have pasted the full answer below.

Nuclear Directorate
Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy
1 Victoria Street
London
SW1H 0ET
Dr David Lowry
drdavidlowry@hotmail.com
T
E
+44 (0)20 7215 5000 - Public enquiries
+44 (0)20 7215 6740 - Textphone (for those with hearing impairment) foi.requests@beis.gov.uk
www.gov.uk/beis
FOI2019/02691
09 April 2019

 

 Dear Dr Lowry,

Thank you for your email of 11 February where you requested the following information:

(1) details by year since 1989 of quantities by weight, volume, radiological content, country (ies) from which radioactive waste ( specifically not spent nuclear fuel) and its ownership respectively has been imported; (2) plant or plants in the UK where it was processed, and type of processing to which each consignment imported has been subjected; (3) whether ‘substitution’ applies to returned radioactive materials, and if so, specify which consignments this affects; (4) whether any radioactivity has been retained in the UK after 'processing'; and (5) what income is earned annually by the UK for this service provided to foreign owners of such waste imported to the UK?

We have considered your request in accordance with the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR), as the information that you have requested falls, in our view, within the definition of “environmental information”. Under the EIR, you have the right to:

• know whether we hold the information you require

• be provided with that information (subject to any exceptions under the EIR which may apply).

 

(1) details by year since 1989 of quantities by weight, volume, radiological content, country (ies) from which radioactive waste (specifically not spent nuclear fuel) and its ownership respectively has been imported

 

I can confirm that information falling within the scope of your request is held in part by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). The United Kingdom is required to report to the European Commission on the implementation of Council Directive 2006/117/EURATOM on the supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel. In line with the requirements of that Directive, the UK has submitted the reports on a triennial basis. The information contained in these reports does not detail quantities of radioactive waste by weight or volume. The most recent report published by the Commission concerning Member States’ implementation of Council Directive 2006/117/EURATOM is available here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52018DC0006

 

In order to comply with the requirements of Council Directive 2006/117/EURATOM, companies involved in the import and export of radioactive waste are required to provide this information to the relevant competent authorities (the respective environmental protection agencies of the UK), who are responsible for authorising imports and exports of radioactive waste to and from the UK.

Prior to the establishment of BEIS and its predecessor department, the Department for Energy and Climate Change, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was responsible for the reporting of imports of radioactive waste into the UK under Council Directive 92/3/EURATOM on the supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste between Member States and into and out of the Community. Those reports were provided to the Commission on a biennial basis as per the requirements of that Directive.

In considering whether to release the UK reports to the Commission which BEIS holds, I have assessed that the ‘international relations’ element of the exception in regulation 12(5)(a) of the EIR is applicable, on the basis that the United Kingdom reports information on the implementation of Council Directive 2006/117/EURATOM on the supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel to the European Commission in confidence. If the United Kingdom was to publicly disclose this information this could create the expectation that other EU Member States should also publicly disclose information relating to the import and export of radioactive waste, where currently this information is similarly provided to the European Commission in confidence. (emphasis added) I have therefore assessed that disclosure of this information would adversely affect the United Kingdom’s relations both with the European Commission and with countries with whom imports or exports of radioactive waste take place, which could affect the UK’s ability to import or export radioactive waste with other countries in future, as this information was never intended to be disclosed publicly.

In considering whether to disclose this information, I have assessed whether disclosing this information or not disclosing based on the exceptions set out above is in the public interest as required under the EIR. The department recognises there is a public interest in transparency and accountability with regards to disclosure of environmental information, because it supports the right of everyone to live in an adequate environment, and ultimately contributes to a better environment.

However, I have assessed that disclosure of this information at this time would adversely affect the United Kingdom’s relations with countries with whom imports or exports of radioactive waste take place and would not be in the public interest, particularly if new regulations and arrangements are required to support the import or export of radioactive waste in the UK following the UK’s departure from the European Union. In addition, the ability to import and export of radioactive waste to and from the United Kingdom to other countries is a key component of the United Kingdom’s nuclear decommissioning and clean-up programme, which generates significant volumes of radioactive waste that requires effective and responsible management. If by disclosing this information the radioactive waste which would usually be treated in other countries is disposed of without treatment in the UK, this would clearly not follow environmental best practice concerning the management of radioactive waste. Therefore, I have assessed that the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure of this information.

Therefore, I have assessed that the United Kingdom’s reports on the Application of Council Directive 2006/117/EURATOM on the Supervision and Control of Shipments of Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuels should not be disclosed as part of this request.

 

I have attached a spreadsheet which also falls within the scope of your request. This details current authorisations for the import of radioactive waste into the UK. In considering whether to release this information, I have assessed that the following exceptions in the EIR are applicable to some of the information, as indicated on the spreadsheet:

• 12(5)(e) (Confidentiality of Commercial or Industrial Information): I have assessed that the disclosure of the destination site and number of shipments planned under existing authorisations would adversely affect the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information of the companies involved in the import of radioactive waste into the UK. The information is commercial in nature because it relates to a commercial activity, as the companies involved in the imports and exports of radioactive waste operate on a commercial basis. The information was provided to BEIS with the expectation that it would be treated as confidential. There are a relatively small number of companies involved in the imports and exports of radioactive waste and public disclosure of this information could distort the market in which these companies operate, as well as potentially introduce a competitive advantage for one company over another if it was known publicly how many imports of radioactive waste into the UK are likely to take place in future.

 

In considering whether to disclose this information, I have assessed whether disclosing this information or not disclosing based on the exceptions set out above is in the public interest as required under the EIR. The department recognises there is a public interest in transparency and accountability with regards to disclosure of environmental information, because it supports the right of everyone to live in an adequate environment, and ultimately contributes to a better environment.

However, I have assessed that disclosing this information which is commercial in nature could distort the market as well as potentially introduce a competitive advantage for one company over another if it was known publicly how many imports of radioactive waste into the UK are likely to take place in future. If by publicly disclosing information which is commercial in nature the ability to import and export radioactive waste to and from the United Kingdom to other countries was constrained, this could impact the United Kingdom’s nuclear decommissioning and clean-up programme, which generates significant volumes of radioactive waste that requires effective and responsible management. If by disclosing this information the radioactive waste which would usually be treated in other countries was then disposed of without treatment in the UK, this would clearly not follow environmental best practice concerning the management of radioactive waste. Therefore, I have assessed that it is in the public interest that this information which is commercial in nature should be protected and that the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure of this information.

• 12(3) (Personal Information): Some information constitutes personal data and has been withheld. Regulation 13(1) of the EIRs provides an absolute exemption for personal data which then falls to be dealt with under the Data Protection Act (DPA) 2018. Personal data of third parties can only be disclosed in accordance with the data protection principles. In particular, the first data protection principle requires that disclosure must be lawful, fair and transparent and must comply with one of the conditions at Article 6(1) the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). We do not think that it is lawful, fair and transparent to release the contact details for individuals working for operators involved in the import of radioactive waste and do not think that any of the relevant conditions apply.

 

 

(2) plant or plants in the UK where it was processed, and type of processing to which each consignment imported has been subjected

I can confirm that information falling within the scope of your request is not held by BEIS. The United Kingdom is not required to provide details of the plant or plants and types of processing of radioactive waste in its reports on the implementation of Council Directive 2006/117/EURATOM on the supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel.

(3) whether ‘substitution’ applies to returned radioactive materials, and if so, specify which consignments this affects

 

The policy of waste substitution, which is only applied in the context of radioactive waste arising from the reprocessing of spent fuel, does not apply to any of the consignments of radioactive materials imported into the UK which were included in the United Kingdom’s reports on the implementation of Council Directive 2006/117/EURATOM on the supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel, or to the current authorisations for the import of radioactive waste into the UK listed in the attached spreadsheet. I can therefore confirm that information falling within the scope of your request is not held by BEIS.

(4) whether any radioactivity has been retained in the UK after 'processing'

 

I can confirm that the United Kingdom’s reports on the implementation of Council Directive 2006/117/EURATOM on the supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel includes imports of radioactive waste into the UK, which includes returns of radioactive waste following processing or treatment in another country. Where the purpose of the import is for disposal in the UK, this was done in line with UK Government policy concerning the import of radioactive waste, which states that waste may be imported for treatment and disposal in the UK if it is in the form of spent sources which were manufactured in the UK, or if it is waste from small users, such as hospitals, situated in EU Member States which produce such small quantities of waste that the provision of their own specialised installations would be impractical, or from developing countries which cannot reasonably be expected to acquire suitable disposal facilities. However, for the reasons set out in point (1) above, this information is not being disclosed as part of this request.

As set out in the attached spreadsheet, all current authorisations are for the return of wastes to the UK following processing or treatment in another country.

(5) what income is earned annually by the UK for this service provided to foreign owners of such waste imported to the UK?

 

I can confirm that information falling within the scope of your request is not held by BEIS. Information regarding income earned annually by the UK for services provided to foreign owners of such waste imported to the UK are held in contracts with the service providers which are commercially confidential and BEIS does not hold copies of these.

Appeals procedure

If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you have the right to ask for an internal review. Internal review requests should be submitted within two months of the date of receipt of the response to your original request and should be addressed to the Information Rights & Records Unit:

 

Information Rights & Records Unit

Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

1 Victoria Street

London

SW1H 0ET

Email: FOI.Requests@beis.gov.uk

Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF

Yours sincerely,

Nuclear Directorate

 

Tab

Table

 

SSM 2018 1531

Waste arising from smelting

metals

England Y 750 54.446 29/03/19 5

Return of treated

wastes to

[WITHHELD under

12 (5) (e) of the

EIRS]

TFSRW/2017/004

Treated and conditioned Ra

waste (Radium)

England Y 50 0 29/03/19 0

Return of treated

wastes from

2017/003

SSM 2016-4220

Slag, dust, blasting and

cutting residues from

treatment of metals

England Y 750 41.216 20/09/19 4

Return of treated

wastes to

[WITHHELD under

12 (5) (e) of the

EIRS]

TFSRW/2015/011

Treated and conditioned

Radium waste (from export of

dials)

England Y 50 0 20/10/19 0

Return of treated

wastes from

2015/010

TFSRW/2018/003

Treated and conditioned Ra

waste (Radium)

England Y 50 0 31/12/20 0

Return of treated

wastes from

2018/002

D/Aab 7-017 Wastes from metal smelting England Y 400 19.345 01/03/21 1

Return of treated

wastes from

[WITHHELD under

12 (5) (e) of t

BACKSTORY

 

Radioactive Waste: Imports: Written question - 221035




Q

Asked by Emma Dent Coad

(Kensington)

Asked on: 13 February 2019

Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

Radioactive Waste: Imports

Commons

221035

To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, what steps he has taken to monitor the import of nuclear waste to the UK after the UK has left Euratom.

A

Answered by: Richard Harrington

Answered on: 19 February 2019

Under any exit scenario, shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel will continue to be supervised and controlled by the respective environment agencies of the UK when the UK leaves the EU. The UK will continue to meet its obligations for the reporting of import and export of radioactive waste under the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, to which the UK is a Contracting Party, and as a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

In a deal scenario, the Withdrawal Agreement includes an agreement with the EU that provisions of Euratom will continue to apply in the UK during the implementation period until the end of 2020, including the movement of radioactive waste and spent fuel. If a deal is reached, future arrangements in relation to the movement of radioactive waste and spent fuel will be subject to negotiation with the European Union on our future relationship.

If the UK does not reach a deal with the EU, the Government has put in place regulations, the Transfrontier Shipment of Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel (EU Exit) 2019 Regulations, to regulate the shipment of radioactive waste. These Regulations broadly replicate the existing 2008 Regulations of the same name and will apply the current procedures for third countries to EU member states.

Draft Transfrontier Shipment of Radioactive Waste and spent fuel (EU Exit) Regulations 2018


 

22 January 2019



The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Sir David Amess

† Afriyie, Adam (Windsor) (Con)

† Bacon, Mr Richard (South Norfolk) (Con)

† Bruce, Fiona (Congleton) (Con)

† Burden, Richard (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)

† Burghart, Alex (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)

† Cadbury, Ruth (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)

† Chapman, Douglas (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)

Coffey, Ann (Stockport) (Lab)

† Hands, Greg (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)

† Harrington, Richard (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy)

† Harris, Rebecca (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

† Jones, Mr David (Clwyd West) (Con)

† Kyle, Peter (Hove) (Lab)

Phillipson, Bridget (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)

† Smith, Nick (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)

† Whitehead, Dr Alan (Southampton, Test) (Lab)

† Whittingdale, Mr John (Maldon) (Con)

Harriet Deane, Adam Evans Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

 

† attended the Committee

Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee

Tuesday 22 January 2019

[Sir David Amess in the Chair]

Draft Transfrontier Shipment of Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

2.30 pm


I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Transfrontier Shipment of Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.

I do not have to tell you this, Sir David, because you know it is true, but it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I have pointed that out on other occasions, but I reiterate my previous comments on the subject.


May I point out that not only is it an enormous pleasure for us all to be here under your chairmanship, Sir David, but that it is an unbridled pleasure for us all to be here once again with the Minister?


I am, unusually, speechless; I say only that if all parliamentary business were like the Statutory Instrument Committees we have sat on in the past couple of weeks, we would all be able to have a much longer break in February.

It is my duty and pleasure to introduce the draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 28 November. They are made under powers set out in section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and address specific inoperabilities arising from the UK’s withdrawal from Euratom. They will come into force on exit day, only in the event of there being no deal between the UK and the EU. I shall not comment further on that.

As I have said in the House, we are seeking a wide-ranging nuclear co-operation agreement with Euratom while putting in place the necessary measures to ensure that the UK industry can operate in all scenarios. The draft regulations are one such measure. They revoke and replace the Transfrontier Shipment of Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel Regulations 2008, which will become inoperable once the UK is no longer a member of the EU. The draft regulations introduce broadly equivalent procedures for the import, export and transit of radioactive waste and spent fuel into and out of the UK, but they reflect the UK’s independence of the Euratom community in such circumstances and apply to the whole UK.

The draft regulations set out a regime to ensure that radioactive waste and spent fuel are not shipped into or out of the UK without prior authorisation from the relevant competent authorities. They are vital to protect the public and the environment from the dangers of ionising radiation when radioactive waste and spent fuel is shipped into or out of the UK. They allow for the continuation of crucial nuclear activities such as the ​decommissioning of legacy sites and the return of radioactive waste to the relevant country of origin following the reprocessing of other nations’ spent fuel.

I will say just a few words about the background to the draft regulations. To put them in perspective, I should say that every year we make about 400 shipments of radioactive waste to Euratom member states. The majority of those shipments are of contaminated metals for treatment in Germany and Sweden. Hon. Members may be aware that we have ceased reprocessing other nations’ spent fuel, but we will need to return high-level waste arising from the last of the reprocessing contracts to its countries of origin—Australia, Japan, Germany and Italy. The draft regulations will allow for the return of that high-level waste, and they are of strategic importance to the UK’s fulfilling its reprocessing contracts and supporting the decommissioning and clean-up mission at Sellafield.

The 2008 regulations introduced a set of regulatory procedures for transfrontier shipments within Euratom and a separate set of procedures for shipments entering or exiting the community. When we leave the EU and Euratom, those regulations will become inoperable because they treat the EU as a single bloc that includes us. To ensure there is an operable regime after exit day, the draft regulations treat Euratom member states and all other countries in the same way.

There will be three operational changes for our operators shipping to and from Euratom member states. First, they will need to request authorisation from the relevant authority when importing a shipment from Euratom. The competent authorities are the Environment Agency, Natural Resource Wales, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency.

Secondly, UK operators will need to notify the relevant competent authorities when the shipment is completed. Thirdly, when importing from a Euratom state, UK operators will need to provide evidence that they have made an arrangement with the exporter that has been accepted by the exporter’s competent authority. That arrangement would oblige them to take back the radioactive waste or spent fuel if the shipment cannot be completed in accordance with the regulations.

To put the changes into context, I should say that they do not affect the entire nuclear industry, and at present only six UK operators have authorisations in place to ship radioactive waste. Were these not formal proceedings, I would ask you, Sir David, and others to estimate the total costs to all affected industry from these additional steps—they are far less than I thought. My Department’s officials have estimated that they are between £1,700 and £6,000 every three years, as well as a minor familiarisation cost for operators of £100 to £900 each.

The guidance for the regulations will be published online prior to coming into force, and our officials have been engaging regularly with the operators that will be affected to ensure that there is minimum disruption. As I say, it is de minimis, but it still needs to be done properly.

For the record, the instrument was drafted collaboratively between the officials in our Department, the devolved Administrations, the UK’s environment agencies, the Office for Nuclear Regulation and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. Although the legislative competence is reserved, ​we have been very collaborative about it. I thank the devolved authorities and all other partners for the help that they have given. Further engagements have taken place through stakeholder workshops, the Euratom industry forum and other industry events.

The regulations are vital to the success of our decommissioning programme and to the completion of our last few reprocessing contracts. The regulations will allow the UK to maintain the highest nuclear safety standards, while ensuring that the relevant UK operators can continue to operate, even in the unlikely event of a no-deal scenario.

2.37 pm


It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I will leave it at that, because I am concerned about the spread of so-called “pleasure creep”, where one has to put a number of nouns, adjectives and adverbs in front of the word “pleasure” to indicate that it really is a pleasure. I will be straightforward and stick to what I have just said.

The statutory instrument is essentially a very sensible piece of work to ensure that after exiting the EU we have in place the authorisation, certification and all other necessary arrangements to allow radioactive waste to transit properly—the Minister mentioned some 300 shipments a year. Previously, that was all done essentially under the aegis of Euratom; the question of having those arrangements, certainly as far as transfer to Euratom countries was concerned, did not come before us.

The Euratom arrangements also applied to trans-shipments that were not to Euratom countries but were under the aegis of Euratom as far as such trans-shipment arrangements were concerned. Trans-shipments to Japan, Australia and various other places were effectively covered by the fact that Euratom had an arrangement with those countries; we did not need a separate one. Now, we will have to have separate arrangements under all those circumstances, which is what this SI effectively does. It does so by revoking the 2008 regulations, and then—as is stated in the explanatory memorandum—largely replicates them

“by laying down broadly equivalent procedures”.

My comment to the Minister, which I have made on a number of other occasions when we have had these discussions about similar SIs, is that the broadly equivalent procedures seem to replicate quite well what would have happened under Euratom, given how the regulations are written. I would like the Minister to confirm that he is satisfied that that is the case. Obviously, I have not been able to compare regulation with regulation, but I assume that that is the basis of the “largely replicates” quote.


I confirm, as the shadow Minister has asked me to, that he is absolutely right: the new regulations broadly replicate the 2008 regulations, and there is no material difference at all.


I thank the Minister for that. That is exactly what I had anticipated he would say, and I am grateful that he was able to say it.

The second issue relates to the quantity and concentration of consignments that trigger the need to define a shipment ​as a transfrontier shipment under the terms of the SI. I am sure that the Minister will have been party to the translation of regulations determining that: those regulations have been changed from a 2008 Euratom Council directive to a more recent directive in order to get those definitions right. In so doing, at least some reference to Euratom Council directives appears to have been preserved, but I assume that reference is only for purposes of definition, not of jurisdiction. I guess that the Minister will be able to put my mind at rest on that point as well.


I confirm that the hon. Gentleman’s mind should be at rest on that point.


I thank the Minister for that. My final brief point follows from the one the Minister made about the total cost of these arrangements, which is indeed very modest: as he has said, it is between £1,700 and £6,000 every three years. Those extra costs arise from the fact that, on occasions, transfrontier shipments will have to accede to both the existing Euratom regime and the new regime being created in this country. If a cost went from Euratom to the new transfrontier shipment arrangements, then there would be no net cost; that additional cost arises only when the cost is being doubled up. That is my understanding of the situation.


That is my understanding of the situation as well. As usual, the shadow Minister has nailed this. That is exactly the case.


That is good. My observation—I think I am still under five minutes—is that the cost could be mitigated were we to make some kind of associate arrangement with Euratom in the future, perhaps in the long term. Obviously, the SI is predicated on the fact that we will have no arrangement with Euratom post 31 March, but if there is a longer associate arrangement—as was discussed a little while ago during the passage of the Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018—those costs would presumably not arise and that very modest additional cost would therefore be dissolved. That is just an observation about the future. I hope the Minister will be able to encourage the idea that we might have a future closer arrangement with Euratom, even though we will no longer be members of Euratom. I have just discussed one of the minor things that would be facilitated by such an arrangement.

I think hon. Members will have gathered from those remarks that we do not oppose the draft regulations. Indeed, we wish them success and hope they can be applied in the most expeditious way possible.

2.45 am


I reassure colleagues that I do not intend to detain the Committee for long. I just want to put on the record that for my first 12 years in this place I represented an operational nuclear power station at Bradwell-on-Sea. In the past 10 years, that power station has been being decommissioned, and that work has just successfully been completed. I pay tribute to all those who worked so hard to achieve that.

I do not think that power station required a great deal of transfrontier shipment, but there may be cause for that in the future. I remain strongly supportive of ​the Bradwell B project for a new nuclear power station. We have had a bit of a setback in the past few days with the news about the Japanese investment at Wylfa, but as far as I am aware—I went to the China General Nuclear reception a couple of days ago—Bradwell B remains very much on track, so there may be a need for transfrontier shipments there in the future.

I very much welcome the draft regulations. I just wanted to use this opportunity to say that I remain very supportive of a future generation nuclear programme in the UK.

2.46 pm


I thank the Minister for outlining the draft regulations so well, but we are concerned that we are breaking our link with Euratom. Some things in the EU seem to work very well, and that competence and collaboration will be sadly missed—but so be it.

Let me pose a few questions about the position in Scotland. Will the radioactive waste management policy currently under the auspices of the Scottish Government remain intact? Will the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament retain their current devolved competences? Will the draft regulations have effect from day one? I think that will be 1 April—probably timely for some people, given that it is April Fool’s day. Again, we need to deal with that.

Is the Minister in a position to outline future plans, beyond Euratom, to ensure the safe transfer of radioactive materials and technologies? That will affect all parts of the UK, including services such as the NHS. Will those plans be subject to meaningful negotiations and consultation with the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations?

2.47 pm


I rise very briefly to observe that Lakeside Energy from Waste in my constituency disposes of quite a lot of radioactive material. It seems to me important that, as a commercial business, it is able to accept goods from overseas rather than just from the NHS. I wonder whether the transportation of radioactive materials that result from hospital and laboratory activities is covered by the draft regulations, or whether that is outwith their scope.​

2.48 pm


I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. On the general point about Euratom, I hope the charges will disappear if we have the closest possible associate membership of Euratom, which, as the shadow Minister knows very well, is what we hope to have. That of course is all for negotiation. It is my sincere hope that we will have such close associate membership that there will not be a question of costs, but I cannot say that. If only we could say that the cost generally of our leaving the EU without a deal were as little as £6,000. The cost in this case is pretty small—it is symbolic, really—and we hope to have the closest possible future relationship.

I endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon said about Bradwell. I sincerely hope not only that the nuclear tradition there continues but that the site has a great future in providing employment and energy security for the country. I completely support what he said.

I reassure the Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, that we introduce the draft regulations in a spirit of complete co-operation with the Scottish Government and other devolved authorities, and that will continue. There is no change in jurisdiction, but some things extend beyond jurisdiction to our having a good working relationship in this field, and we have that. He made a specific point about the management of radioactive waste, which remains devolved. Nothing will change in that regard, although I must say, just so there is no confusion, that that is a separate issue from the frontier shipment of waste, which is what the draft regulations deal with. However, he made his point very reasonably, and luckily I was able to answer it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor asked about the medical side of things—radioactive waste from hospitals and so on. The draft regulations cover only radioactive waste and spent fuel; they do not concern medical radioactive material, so I can satisfy him on that point.

I think I have answered all the questions that were raised. I thank the shadow Minister for his support for this brief but important piece of delegated legislation.

Question put and agreed to.


 

Shipping radioactive nuclear waste in no deal Brexit scenario

The new rules largely replicate the current regulatory procedures that exist between the European Atomic Energy Community and third countries


 



https://www.energylivenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/pri-image-colour-1-180x180.jpg



 

https://www.energylivenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/radioactive.jpg

Image: Shutterstock

Operators may need to get new authorisations to ship radioactive waste or spent fuel if the UK leaves the EU without a deal.

The new rules largely replicate the current regulatory procedures that exist between the European Atomic Energy Community, Euratom and third countries and ensure the continuation of the regulation and authorisation of shipments.

In practice, it will result in three operational changes for UK industry:

·         Operators will need to request authorisation from the relevant competent authority in order to import radioactive waste and spent fuel from Euratom states

·         They will need to notify the relevant competent authority of the completion of shipments to Euratom states

·         When importing from a Euratom state, operators will need to provide evidence that they have made an arrangement with the exporter and which has been accepted by the exporter’s authority. It should confirm the exporter will take back the radioactive waste or spent fuel if the shipment cannot be competed in accordance with the regulations

The competent authorities in the UK are the Environment Agency in England, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Natural Resources Wales and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency.

The new documentation will be published next month.

UK issues coded warning to Brussels over nuclear waste


Britain highlights right to dispatch atomic material to Europe after Brexit

 

Andrew Ward in London and Alex Barker in Brussels

                  

Financial Times, July 19, 2017

                                      

 

 

                  

 

                             Britain has put the EU on notice that it has the right to return radioactive waste to the bloc after it leaves, in an attempt to increase the UK’s negotiating clout on the vexed issue of nuclear regulation.UK officials hope raising complex questions over what should happen to Britain’s stockpile of radioactive materials — some of which originate from EU countries including Germany, Italy and Sweden — will convince Brussels to take a co-operative approach to the nuclear issue.“It might just be a reminder that a boatload of plutonium could end up at a harbour in Antwerp unless an arrangement is made,” said one nuclear expert who has advised the government. Britain has imported spent nuclear fuel from the rest of Europe since the 1970s for reprocessing at the state-owned Sellafield plant in Cumbria — producing reusable uranium and plutonium, but also radioactive waste.A paper setting out the UK position for Brexit negotiations stressed the right “to return radioactive waste . . . to its country of origin”, in what one British official described as a coded warning to Brussels about the EU’s interest in reaching a consensus.The paper also highlighted the responsibility of EU countries for some “special fissile materials” — the most dangerous and tightly-regulated types of nuclear substances, including plutonium — derived from imported spent fuel. Almost one-fifth of the UK’s 126-tonne stockpile of civilian plutonium at Sellafield comes from overseas.

Nuclear regulation has become one of the knottiest issues in the early stages of negotiations about the UK exiting the EU because Britain must disentangle itself from the Euratom treaty governing the civilian use of atomic technology in Europe.

Leaders of the UK nuclear industry are lobbying the government to find a way of remaining part of Euratom or, if that proves impossible, to negotiate an extended transition deal to allow time to establish a new regulatory system.However, either of those options would require continued jurisdiction by the European Court of Justice — something Theresa May, UK prime minister, has so far resisted.

Those arguing for Mrs May to compromise have highlighted the threat of disruption to UK supplies of nuclear fuel, reactor parts and medical isotopes used in cancer treatments if Britain fails to reach a deal with Brussels.

However, UK negotiators are attempting to exert their own leverage by highlighting the potential costs to the EU of a disorderly British exit from Euratom.

While the EU position paper on Euratom deals with basic issues over ownership and separation, the UK response stresses the “strong mutual interest in ensuring close co-operation in the future”.

Similar tactics are being used by British diplomats across a range of areas in the first stage of divorce talks, from the status of the European Investment Bank to the EU’s ownership of radioactive testing kit at Sellafield.EU diplomats said they had noted the veiled threat on nuclear waste: one joked that they would have “the coastguard ready”.

Nuclear waste was among topics discussed by EU and British negotiators in Brussels on Tuesday, but an official involved declined to offer a detailed account. Francis Livens, director of the Dalton Nuclear Institute at Manchester University, said the UK’s right to return nuclear waste was already enshrined in commercial contracts under which spent fuel was imported to Sellafield.

However, plutonium extracted from the spent fuel posed a trickier problem, he added. A plant built at Sellafield to recycle the plutonium into new nuclear fuel was closed in 2011 after only a decade of operation because of technological flaws and weak demand. This has left the UK sitting on the world’s largest civilian stockpile of plutonium, stored as powder in flasks at a heavily guarded building at Sellafield.

A new plant would be required to either resume recycling of the plutonium into nuclear fuel or to turn it into a form that could be safely returned to its country of origin as waste. “We’re going to have to build something very expensive to deal with this plutonium whichever option we choose,” said Prof Livens.

Separating UK plutonium from that derived from imported spent fuel — and assigning responsibility for the costs of storing and eventually processing it — promises to be a complex challenge for Brexit negotiators. Under Euratom law, all special fissile material within the treaty area is considered commonly owned — including plutonium.“

Reprocessing is like a sausage machine. You put in some British fuel, then some Japanese, then some Belgian,” said Prof Livens. “You can’t point to a single atom and say, ‘that’s Belgian’.” The UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said negotiations would focus on the “legal ownership not physical location” of nuclear materials. What happens to materials once ownership has been settled “will be a matter for the owner and the UK to agree on commercial terms,” it added. David Davis, the UK Brexit secretary, has hinted at the potential for Britain to negotiate associate membership of Euratom. But, while Switzerland has such a deal covering research co-operation, an association agreement covering safeguarding of fissile materials or trade in nuclear materials would be legally unprecedented.

 

Brussels plans to saddle UK with EU nuclear waste

Britain’s impending split from Euratom indicative of complexity of Brexit

         

 

Arthur Beesley in Brussels and Andrew Ward in London

                  

Financial Times, May 4, 2017


         

 

                             Britain will be on the hook for large volumes of dangerous radioactive waste — some of it imported from the rest of Europe — under proposals by Brussels to transfer ownership of a range of nuclear materials to the UK after it leaves the EU.

Almost 130 tonnes of plutonium stored at Sellafield in Cumbria is among the nuclear material that would formally shift to UK control, according to draft documents issued by Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator.All “special fissile material” — forms of uranium and plutonium used in nuclear fuels and some of the resulting waste — within the EU are technically owned by Euratom, the pan-European regulator of civilian nuclear activity.

Mr Barnier’s provisional negotiating position calls for a Brexit agreement to “ensure, where appropriate, the transfer to the United Kingdom” ownership of “special fissile material” currently controlled by Euratom within the UK.

Such an agreement would make the UK legally responsible not only for its own nuclear material but also reprocessed spent fuel imported over several decades from Germany, Sweden and elsewhere for recycling at Sellafield.“

What was a joint European legacy now becomes a UK home brew, with potentially dire economic consequences for the UK given the sheer expense and weight of this radiological inventory,” said Paul Dorfman, honorary senior researcher at the Energy Institute at University College London.

                                               

                                                         

                                                                   What was a joint European legacy now becomes a UK home brew, with potentially dire economic consequences for the UK given the sheer expense and weight of this radiological inventory

                                                                  

                                                                             Paul Dorfman

                                                                  

                                                         

                                                         

                                               

                                      This view was dismissed by others who said the transfer of ownership would not make any practical difference because Euratom’s ownership existed only in theory.“Euratom has the right to sequester fissile material in extreme circumstances but it is a historical throwback reflecting the world as it was when the treaty was negotiated in the 1950s and there was a threat of nuclear war with the Soviet Union,” said Timothy Abram, professor of nuclear fuel technology at Manchester university.Mr Barnier’s proposal for the UK to assume “all rights and obligations associated with the ownership of [fissile] materials or property transferred” is seen in Brussels as a necessary housekeeping exercise to remove Euratom’s claim on nuclear fuel used in UK power stations as well as uranium isotopes used in radiotherapy.

But it highlighted the uncertainty facing Britain’s nuclear industry— responsible for about a fifth of domestic electricity generation — in the run-up to Brexit. Euratom is a separate legal entity to the EU but is governed by EU institutions and the UK government says it has no option but to leave both at the same time.A UK government spokeswoman said: “Leaving Euratom is a result of the decision to leave the EU as they are uniquely legally joined.”UK energy

of disruption after EU split

                  

                   She added: “The UK supports Euratom and will want to see continuity of co-operation and standards. We remain absolutely committed to the highest standards of nuclear safety, safeguards and support for the industry.”As well as nuclear fuel and reprocessed waste, the UK would also take ownership of Euratom property used to safeguard the material, such as inspection and monitoring equipment, according to the EU proposals.The negotiation directives, which are subject to the agreement of the 27 remaining member states, were published on Wednesday as Mr Barnier set out his hardline opening position for talks with London.Although formal ownership of imported waste would pass to the UK, Prof Abrams said it would not remove Britain’s right to compensation for the cost of reprocessing and storing it under the commercial terms agreed with the exporting countries.The UK has struck deals with Germany, France, Sweden and the Netherlands in recent years to take permanent responsibility for some of the plutonium derived from the reprocessing of imported spent fuel. The government said at the time that this was a mutually beneficial arrangement that removed the need to transport one of the world’s most radioactive materials back to the country of origin.Britain has been wrestling for years with the question of what to do with the roughly 126 tonnes of plutonium stored at Sellafield — the world’s largest civilian stockpile. About a fifth of it stems from imported nuclear waste. The plutonium is kept in sealed flasks in a heavily guarded building designed to withstand being hit by an aircraft and costs an estimated £80m a year to store and protect.The UK spent £1.4bn in the 1990s on a plant to recycle the plutonium into nuclear fuel but the Sellafield facility was beset by problems and closed in 2011. Various proposals have been floated to spend billions more on alternative approaches to recycling, although some people favour writing off the stockpile as waste.

 

 


 

 

 Brussels, 19.1.2018 SWD(2018) 4 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee on the implementation by the Member States of Council Directive 2006/117/EURATOM on the supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel Second Report {COM(2018) 6 final}

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 2

2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR SHIPMENT OF SPENT FUEL AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE ............................................................................................ 4

3. STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL PROVISIONS ................. 6

3.1. Transposition of the Directive ...................................................................................... 6

3.2. Standard document for the supervision and control of shipments ............................... 7

3.3. Competent authorities .................................................................................................. 7

3.4. Transmission ................................................................................................................ 7

3.5. Regular reports ............................................................................................................. 7

4. SHIPMENTS OF SPENT FUEL AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE IN 2012-2014 ..... 8

4.1. Issues reported by Member States when using the standard document ..................... 11

4.2. Information on significant conditions required by the Member States – export criteria implementation ................................................................................... 11

4.3. Information on significant cases of refusal to give authorisation/consent ................. 12

4.4. Cross check information ............................................................................................ 13

ANNEX I .................................................................................................................................. 14

ANNEX II ................................................................................................................................ 20

 

SHIPMENTS OF SPENT FUEL AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE IN 2012-2014

 

- 20 authorisations (67%) are linked to export of spent fuel; and

- 10 authorisations (33%) were granted for exports of radioactive waste.

 

The Directive requires shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel to take place only with prior informed consent of the competent authorities of all Member States involved, including transit Member States (see Article 9).

For the 2012-2014 period, of the 28 EU Member States, 20 Member States (about 71 %) reported authorised shipments within the scope of the Directive. Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta and Portugal did not declare authorisations issued in the framework of the Directive for the reporting period.

Member States reported 400 issued approvals21, which include 192 authorisations of Member State of origin and 208 consents to shipments22. Three of the reported authorisations (about 2% of the approvals) were not within the scope of the Directive (other type of material see Figure 2 below).

Five Member States (Sweden, Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Belgium) account for 74 % of the reported authorisations for 2012-2014. In the previous reporting period (2009-2011)3 14 Member States reported 161 authorisations within the scope of the Directive with 74% of authorisations related to shipments of radioactive waste and remaining 26% shipments of spent fuel.

In general, Member States' reports for 2012-2014 differ in terms of reporting format (including template), completeness and level of detail of the provided information. The different types of shipment are not always reported according to the definitions of the Directive (imports, exports and transits) or clearly distinguish the material transported (spent fuel from radioactive waste).

Inconsistencies were also identified when analysing and cross-checking different national reports regarding authorisations and movements across Member States. The Commission was in dialogue with some Member States in order to complete the information provided and these Member States were invited to reply to additional questions that were sent for clarification. The information received has improved the quality of the data; however some areas for interpretation still remain.

Concerning radioactive waste and spent fuel, from 192 shipment authorisations of Member States of origin 157 (81%) were related to shipment of radioactive waste and 32 (17%) to spent fuel.

19 Denmark, Lithuania, and Romania.

20 Within 6 months: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Greece, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia, Sweden, the United Kingdom; within 6-12 months: Austria, Belgium Croatia, Cyprus, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Malta, The Netherlands and Spain; later than 1 year: Italy.

21 Although the Directive does not define the term "approval" and clearly refers only to "authorisation", "consent" and "refusal", national reports from Member States do not always refer to the official definitions and often do not make the difference between authorisations and consents. Therefore, for the purpose of this report, the term “approval" is used to include both "authorisations" and "consents".

22 Authorisations are often given for several shipments to be carried out over a time period that may exceed the period covered by the present report (2012-2014). 

 

 

Table 1: Types of shipments and respective "Type Code” according to the standards document of Directive 2006/117/EURATOM Different possibilities for movements within, into and out of Community
Type code
Import
From a country external to EU (third country) to an EU Member State
IM
Import (IM) can be associated with movement from an EU Member State to another EU Member State, i.e. internal EU shipment
MM
Export
From an EU Member State to a country external to EU (third country)
ME
Export (ME) can be associated with movement from an EU Member State to another EU Member State, i.e. internal EU shipment
MM
Transit
From a country external to EU to a country external EU (third countries of origin and destination)
TT
Transit (TT) can be associated with internal EU movement, from an EU Member State to another EU Member State
MM

 

 

United Kingdom
(for England)
The Environment Agency
International Waste Shipments Team
Richard Fairclough House
Knutsford Road
Warrington WA4 1HT
Tel. +44 1925542265
Fax: +44 1925542105
Email: shipments@environment-agency.gov.uk
Internet: https://www.gov.uk/radioactive-waste-spent-fuel-or-sources
(for Nothern Ireland)
Chief Radiochemical Inspector
Northern Ireland Environment Agency
Industrial Pollution and Radiochemical Inspectorate
Klondyke Building
Cromac Avenue
Gasworks Business Park
Belfast BT7 2JA
Tel. +44 2890569299
Fax: +44 2890569263
Email: ipri@doeni.gov.uk
Internet: www.doeni.gov.uk/niea/
(for Scotland)
Radioactive Substances Unit
Scottish Environment Protection Agency
Strathallan House
Castle Business Park
Stirling FK9 4TZ
Tel. +44 1786457700
Fax: +44 1786446885

 

 



 

 

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Block, Alex (Communications & Partnerships) <Alex.Block@beis.gov.uk>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 17:09
Subject: RE: Will Brexit make the UK a Nuclear Waste Dustbin - again?
To:

 

I think there might be a bit of a misunderstanding about what those regulations mean.

 

  • These regulations outline the circumstances in which the shipment of radioactive waste into the UK under authorisations granted before EU Exit will be not be an offense.
  • Authorisations granted before exit day can have a lifespan of up to three years.
  • The UK imports radioactive waste from the EU for the purposes of treatment or processing and returns this waste to the country of origin.

 

From: Block, Alex (Communications & Partnerships)
Sent: 08 February 2019 13:23
To: Subject: RE: Will Brexit make the UK a Nuclear Waste Dustbin - again?

 

 

Please see the following briefing on your questions. I’ll come back to you on the highlighted regs below.

 

Did the UK come to an agreement with the EU to import radioactive waste for the first time?

  • The UK Government has not changed its policy on the import of radioactive waste for treatment and disposal in UK facilities.
  • The UK has put in place new ‘no deal’ regulations to regulate the shipment of radioactive waste, for treatment or processing, in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal.
  • These new “no deal” Regulations broadly replicate the 2008 Regulations of the same name. They will apply procedures for third countries to the EU27.

 

Has the UK previously imported radioactive waste from the EU?

  • The UK imports radioactive waste from the EU for the purposes of treatment or processing and returns this waste to the country of origin.
  • International laws prescribe that radioactive waste shall be disposed of in the country in which it was generated, except in specifically defined circumstances. This is in line with UK policy on the import or export of radioactive waste.

 

Radioactive waste, spent fuel or sources


European and UK regulations govern how you can move radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel into or out of the country.

Published 13 March 2014

From:


·                     Contents

  1. How to ship radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel
  2. Authorisation assessment and costs

Separate regulations govern the domestic and international movement of radioactive sources.

·                     How to ship radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel


You must follow the regulations. This includes having an authorisation to move the waste. It is illegal to ship radioactive waste or spent fuel without an authorisation. This can last for up to 3 years.

Apply to the Environment Agency for an authorisation using the authorisation of shipment of radioactive waste and spent fuel forms.

You must also submit a written assessment of all practicable options for management of the waste.


·                     Authorisation assessment and costs

The Environment Agency charges for all work they do in determining permit applications. You pay for the number of hours each individual application takes to process. The Environment Agency invoices you once their work is complete.

The Environment Agency will:

  • verify the capability of the intended receiving country to manage the waste safely
  • seek consent from the authorities of the countries involved – this step may take up to 3 months
  • consult with the Office for Nuclear Regulation if the export or import involves a nuclear licensed site

·                     If you import sealed or other relevant radioactive sources

You may need to make a declaration under EURATOM 1493/93. This may cover one or more shipments and they last up to 3 years.

You can get a declaration form from the Environment Agency International Waste Shipments team, which you complete and return to them. There are no charges for this.

For more help on exporting and importing radioactive waste, spent fuel or moving sources:

Email: askshipments@environment-agency.gov.uk

Published 13 March 2014

 

 

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO

THE TRANSFRONTIER SHIPMENT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE AND SPENT FUEL

REGULATIONS 2008

2008 No. 3087

1. This explanatory memorandum has been prepared by the Department of Energy and Climate

Change and is laid before Parliament by Command of Her Majesty.

This memorandum contains information for the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

2. Purpose of the instrument

2.1 These Regulations amend the current regulatory regime for the authorisation of

movements of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel between EU Member States and into and

out of the Euratom Community.

2.2 They extend the scope of regulation, which currently applies to radioactive waste, to cover

shipments of spent nuclear fuel that are sent for reprocessing (the recovery of reusable uranium

and plutonium). They provide a clearer and more certain timetable for the authorisation procedure,

by setting time limits for consent from other Member States and a “deemed consent” procedure in

cases where no response is forthcoming.

2.3 The Regulations make it an offence to ship radioactive waste or spent fuel into or out of

the UK unless in accordance with the provisions of an authorisation granted by the appropriate

competent authority. They will be administered in the UK by the relevant competent authorities –

the Environment Agency in England and Wales, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency in

Scotland and the Chief Inspector in Northern Ireland.

3. Matters of special interest to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

3.1 None.

4. Legislative Context

4.1 The new Regulations transpose Council Directive 2006/117/Euratom on the supervision

and control of shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel. They replace and revoke an existing

UK regulatory regime (The Transfrontier Shipment of Radioactive Waste Regulations 1993) that

currently covers radioactive waste shipments only.

4.2 A Transposition Note is attached at Annex 1.

5. Territorial Extent and Application

5.1 This instrument applies to all of the United Kingdom. It also applies to Gibraltar, which

will make similar Regulations.

6. European Convention on Human Rights

The Minister of State for Energy and Climate Change has made the following statement regarding

Human Rights:

2

In my view the provisions of the Transfrontier Shipment of Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel

Regulations 2008 are compatible with the Convention rights.

7. Policy background

􀁸􀀃 What is being done and why

7.1 Council Directive 2006/117/Euratom, which these Regulations transpose, replaces an

earlier Directive (92/3/Euratom) which applied to radioactive waste only. The main objectives of

the new Directive are:

􀁸􀀃 To bring shipments of spent nuclear fuel for reprocessing within the scope of the Euratom

control regime. This ensures consistency with the ‘Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent

Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management’, to which the

Euratom Community acceded on 2 January 2006.

􀁸􀀃 To incorporate technical aspects of other legislation, in particular the Basic Safety

Standards Directive Council Directive 96/29/Euratom, which lays down basic safety

standards for the health protection of the general public and workers against the dangers of

ionizing radiation.

􀁸􀀃 To ensure that exports of radioactive waste and spent fuel from the Euratom Community

are only made with the consent of the relevant authorities in the country of destination (the

previous Directive only required such countries to be notified, but the 1993 UK

Regulations went beyond this to require their consent).

􀀃

7.2 The activities addressed by these Regulations, namely the import and export of radioactive

waste and spent fuel, are limited in extent. Only a small number of businesses undertake these

activities and only a few applications for such shipments are received each year. However, there

are indications that, as more nuclear installations are decommissioned and dismantled, a greater

quantity of radioactive waste is likely to be sent overseas for specialist treatment that is

unavailable in the UK (including smelting of contaminated metals and return of radioactive waste

in the slag).

7.3 There are currently no plans to send UK spent fuel abroad for reprocessing; the Sellafield

(Cumbria) plant reprocesses spent fuel from UK reactors and for overseas customers. All of the

spent fuel covered by current overseas contracts is already at Sellafield and no new contracts are

in prospect at the present time. Consequently, the UK competent authorities do not expect to

receive any application for the shipment of spent fuel in the near future.

􀁸􀀃 Consolidation

7.4 Not applicable.

8. Consultation outcome

8.1 Public consultation on the draft Regulations was carried out between February and May

2008. A wide range of key stakeholders was consulted, including other Government Departments,

UK regulators and those UK companies directly affected by the revised Directive. Nine

consultation responses were received, a detailed analysis of which is available on the Defra

website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/radwaste-shipments/summaryresponses.

pdf.

8.2 Some of the responses raised important issues, which have been addressed in the drafting

of the Regulations. Other comments related to matters that were outside the scope of the transposition but were still recognised as being of importance to the industry and/or regulators.

These issues will be covered in guidance to the competent authorities (see below).

9. Guidance

9.1 Non-statutory guidance to the Environment Agency in England and Wales is in

preparation and will be issued before the commencement of the new regulatory regime. This will

cover issues such as minimising administrative burdens, the approach to be taken in cases of noncompliance

and interpretation of the Regulations with regard to ships passing through territorial

waters and calling at ports en route. The devolved administrations also intend to issue guidance to

their relevant regulators. In addition, the competent authorities will issue their own procedural

guidance to applicants under the Regulations.

10. Impact

10.1 An Impact Assessment is attached at Annex 2. As these Regulations put in place a

regulatory regime that is broadly similar to the current one, it is not expected to place significant

additional burdens on industry. The impact on the public sector is considered to be negligible.

11. Regulating small business

11.1 The legislation does not apply to small business.

12. Monitoring & review

12.1 Directive 2006/117/Euratom requires Member States to submit reports on its

implementation to the Commission by 25 December 2011 and every three years thereafter.

In addition, DECC will continue to liaise closely with the Environment Agency regarding the

implementation of the Regulations in England and Wales.

13. Contact

Dr Martin Hum at the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Tel: 020 7238 1739 or

martin.hum@decc.gsi.gov.uk can answer any queries regarding the instrument.

3

 

 

 

·          

·     How we regulate


o    Enforcement














§  Weapons


o    New reactors



§  Moorside

























§  Transport









·                     Joint regulatory guidance on radioactive waste management

What's new

Report on a joint ONR-SEPA inspection of RWM’s disposability assessment process for the management of HAW in Scotland

The disposal of higher activity radioactive radioactivity waste (HAW) is a devolved issue, and policies differ across the UK. The policies of UK Government [1] and the Welsh Government [2] are that HAW in England and Wales should be managed in the long-term through geological disposal, coupled with safe and secure interim storage until a geological disposal facility (GDF) is available. The Scottish Government does not support geological disposal. The Scottish HAW policy [3], published in 2011, states that the long-term management of HAW should be in near-surface facilities, as near to the site where the waste is produced as possible.

Radioactive Waste Management Limited (RWM) [4], a subsidiary of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), has been established to deliver a GDF and provide waste management solutions. As part of on-going work on nuclear sites to reduce hazards and enable decommissioning and clean-up of redundant facilities, HAW is being conditioned and packaged and placed in interim storage. To provide confidence that these HAW packages will be suitable for disposal in the GDF when it is available, RWM carries out formal assessments [5] of submissions from HAW producers for specific HAW conditioning proposals, as part of its disposability assessment process.

The RWM disposability assessment process is primarily for HAW packages to be disposed of in the GDF. However, the regulators (ONR and SEPA) and Scottish Government, have previously concluded, in 2007 and then re-affirmed in 2010, that HAW packages conditioned in anticipation of geological disposal are also suitable for long-term management in near-surface, near-site facilities, as required by government policy in Scotland. This position is reflected in the regulators’ joint guidance on the management of higher activity radioactive waste on nuclear licensed sites [6]. As such, Scottish HAW producers continue to use the RWM disposability assessment process to establish appropriate approaches for conditioning and packaging their HAW.

A joint ONR-SEPA project was carried out to review whether the regulators’ position was still valid i.e. that the RWM process was still appropriate for the management of Scottish HAW in line with Scottish HAW policy. The project involved inspections of RWM and two nuclear licensed sites in Scotland.

This report presents the findings and conclusions from that project. In summary, the project concluded that RWM’s disposability assessment process remains suitable for the long-term management of HAW in Scotland.


Regulation of higher activity radioactive waste management: Changes to the administration of cost recovery.

The Office for Nuclear Regulation, Environment Agency, Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Natural Resources Wales (the regulators) have been working together to regulate the management of higher activity radioactive waste on nuclear licensed sites since the publication of the first version of the Joint Guidance in 2005. Since then we have ensured that we have co-ordinated our programmes of work and that we provide clear and consistent messages to the nuclear industry.

In April 2017, an administrative change was made to the way that the regulators recover the costs for this work. Instead of ONR billing the sites for all the regulators combined work, each individual regulatory body now recovers its own costs directly from nuclear licensed sites.

This administrative change does not affect the way we coordinate our work on higher activity radioactive waste management. The regulators continue to work together to ensure that they provide effective, consistent regulation in a coordinated and timely manner.

The Position Statement on Regulatory Arrangements for the Management of Higher Activity Waste on Nuclear Licensed Sites [8] has been updated to reflect these changes to arrangements. Changes to the Joint Guidance documents have not been made at this time, as the new arrangements do not impact the guidance provided by the documents. Changes will be made in line with a scheduled update in future.

Revised documents published March 2015

This guidance has been reviewed in conjunction with the Environment Agency, Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Natural Resources Wales and has taken into account comments received since the previous updates in 2011.

Basic principles of radioactive waste management

This is an introductory document providing background information for those who may not be familiar with the subject of radioactive waste management on nuclear licensed sites. This document updates and replaces "Fundamentals of the management of radioactive waste" (originally published in 2007).

Joint Guidance on the management of higher activity radioactive waste on nuclear licensed sites

This guidance has been updated and replaces the guidance previously published in 2011, which consisted of:

  • Overview and glossary
  • Part 1: The regulatory process
  • Part 2: Radioactive waste management cases
  • Part 3: Technical guidance modules:
    • Part 3a: Waste management, characterisation and segregation
    • Part 3b: Conditioning and disposability
    • Part 3c: Storage of radioactive waste
    • Part 3d: Managing information and records relating to radioactive waste

The revised guidance brings all these documents together in one document.



Background

Following a consultation exercise in 2002 the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Scottish Executive and the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI) accepted a proposal from HSE, the Environment Agency (EA) and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), (collectively referred to as the regulators), aimed at improving the regulatory arrangements for conditioning Intermediate Level Waste (ILW) on nuclear licensed sites. The proposed arrangements aimed to bring the consideration of waste conditioning within the regulators' processes and were to be implemented through joint regulatory working arrangements. The regulators issued a Position Statement [11] in 2003, which explained the improved regulatory arrangements and was informed by the outcomes from a twelve month review of the regulators' proposal with key stakeholders. (The Position Statement details the improvements to the regulatory process and the reasoning behind these changes, and should be consulted if further information on this topic is required).

In the Position Statement, the regulators set out a joint commitment to produce guidance explaining the improved regulatory process for evaluating proposals from licensees to condition ILW on nuclear licensed sites. The original joint guidance was issued in 2005 to fulfil this commitment.

In 2006 the UK Government's response to recommendations by the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) established that deep geological disposal is the preferred route for the long-term management of radioactive waste that is not suitable for near-surface disposal. It also gave the responsibility for delivering the programme for a deep geological repository to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) [12]. The Scottish Government subsequently published its updated policy in 2011 that the long-term management of higher activity radioactive waste should be in near surface facilities, located as near to the site where the waste is produced as possible. In 2008 the Welsh Assembly Government reserved its position on geological disposal and neither supported not opposed the policy. In 2014 the Welsh Assembly Government launched a consultation on a possible review of its policy on higher activity radioactive waste.

In April 2013, Natural Resources Wales (NRW) took over the work of the Environment Agency for the environmental regulation of higher activity radioactive waste in Wales.

In response to these developments, and requests from nuclear industry representatives for more detailed guidance, the regulators revised their original 2005 joint guidance in 2011. The joint guidance has now been updated again to ensure that it remains consistent with the UK policy and regulatory positions, and developments in international standards.

On-going and future work

We will review this guidance on a periodic basis, however comments will be welcome at any time. Any such comments should be addressed to contact@onr.gov.uk. Please reference "Joint Guidance" in the title of the message.

 

Hansard, 12 March 1976

Volume 907

Mr. Hardy


asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he can now state whether British Nuclear Fuels Limited will be ​ permitted to take on further contracts from overseas customers for the reprocessing of irradiated nuclear fuel.

       

Mr. Benn

 

The Government have given full consideration to the safety and environmental implications of accepting more work of this kind, taking account particularly of the views which have been expressed in the recent extensive public discussion of the question. They have decided that the company may, subject to the negotiation of satisfactory terms, take on further work on the basis that the contracts will include terms to ensure that the company will have the option to return residual radioactive waste and will not be obliged to retain it in this country for long-term storage; and that suitable understandings in support of the return option are reached between the United Kingdom Government and the Government of the country concerned.

 

No comments:

Post a Comment