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
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
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:
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?
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
Separate
regulations govern the domestic and international movement of radioactive
sources.
·
How
to ship radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel
These
shipments are regulated by the Transfrontier
Shipment (TFS) of Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel Regulations 2008.
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
·
·
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 and the Welsh Government 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 , 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) , 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 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 . 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 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 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) . 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