Draft National Policy Statement for Geological Disposal Infrastructure

Lord Teverson Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

I must apologise to the Grand Committee for not putting my name down in time and therefore speaking briefly in the gap. I was very interested in the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, about London. I was trying to tie up in my mind whether it was anything to do with the nine-month postponement of the Elizabeth line and the tunnelling equipment under London. Maybe that is not the connection.

I was going to start by congratulating the Government because, going back to 2011, the National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation (EN-6), which I am sure the Minister is well aware of, stated:

“Geological disposal of higher activity waste from new nuclear power stations is currently programmed to be available from around 2130”,


so at the moment we have 112 years to solve this problem. I expect it will probably be solved at the same time as the smart meter programme, but we will see.

I question whether the technology and the science in this area are moving on to such an extent that we need to invest in this type of facility, or certainly on the scale that is talked about. A Canadian company is looking at using high-level nuclear waste in small modular reactors for further energy generation. There is also the science of transmutation, where a particle accelerator is used to bombard with neutrons some of this higher-activity waste and break it down into other elements that have much shorter radioactive lives. This science is bound to move on at some pace. Nuclear fusion can also use some of these by-products, which we hope will come on stream with the ITER project in 10, 20 or perhaps 30 years. That is really important.

Paragraph 3.2.15, on page 25 of the document, referring to the spent fuel and radioactive waste directive, states:

“To the extent that these obligations under the Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Directive cease to be legally binding on the UK following its departure from the EU”.


Surely that is a mistake. Surely the withdrawal Act means the legality of that will remain in place. It is important to have the assurance, despite the other international obligations, that those Euratom obligations under the directive will remain in place. That clarification would be extremely useful.

The other area, from a macro point of view, that I want to understand is the Government’s estimate of what the facility will cost and, perhaps more importantly, who will pay for it. What will ensure that, as with other decommissioning in the past, the public purse does not pay for what will be an extremely expensive facility?

Lastly, in our new position as “Global Britain”, will we be inviting other countries to export their nuclear waste to this facility, which will become far easier if Brexit happens next year?