NUCLEAR FUEL REPROCESSING

HC Deb 08 December 1975 vol 902 cc192-204

11.22 p.m.

Dr. John Cunningham (Whitehaven)

I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce a debate on nuclear fuel reprocessing and possible overseas contracts. I do so for a number of reasons.

The first is my general interest in energy policy and the nuclear industry in particular. The second is that I am a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which is currently looking at the energy situation in the United Kingdom. Thirdly, British Nuclear Fuels, at Windscale, West Cumbria, is within my constituency. It employs there approximately 3,000 people and has an obvious influence on the whole community there. The fourth reason is that I am a sponsored member of the General and Municipal Workers' Union, the major union representing the people who work in this industry, and, as such, I declare an interest. My fifth reason is that the Secretary of State for Energy has called for a great public debate on the nuclear industry, and, in particular, on the issue of reprocessing and overseas work.

I do not think that anyone involved in the consideration of energy policy seriously disputes the present or future role that the nuclear industry will play in the United Kingdom. Certainly, the long-term nature of energy resources and the need to have a far-reaching energy strategy dictate that nuclear fuels and the nuclear industry should have an important role. No one disputes the role of coal, oil or gas, but several people have suggested that the so-called benign sources of energy generation could in some way replace nuclear energy. I doubt that myself, and I know that many other commentators feel the same. Recently the energy technology support unit in the Department of Energy published a document in which it said that no more than 6 per cent. to 8 per cent. of the United Kingdom's requirements at the end of the century could be provided in this way.

It is safe to say that nuclear energy generation will be with us for a long time. The Government would certainly say so, as they are committed to a programme based on nuclear fission, including the further development of the fast reactor. This is confirmed by Cmnd 5695 of July 1974.

The British nuclear industry has a long established and excellent record. The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority is recognised world-wide as a competent, progressive organisation. It acts in an advisory capacity for foreign Governments. It trades world wide with the United States of America, in Europe, and in the Far East. It works in reactor design and in the whole spectrum of nuclear activity. British Nuclear Fuels Limited, which was indeed separated from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority by the previous Labour Administration, works in uranium enrichment, in fuel manufacture and in fuel reprocessing. The industry as a whole spans more than 20 years and can look back with great credit on its record in that time.

Together with the development of the industry, we have seen the development of the checks and balances that have been necessary so that there can be not only public accountability but reassurance in what is acknowledged on all sides to be a very difficult industry and one which produces major problems in terms of the health and safety of its employees, problems of the environment and for the communities living in the vicinity of particular installations.

Mr. John Evans (Newton)

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that I have the headquarters of British Nuclear Fuels Limited in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend accept that the men and women who work on these projects are as concerned as anyone else about the protection of the earth and the environment? Indeed, I believe that these individuals would refuse to design such plants as the reprocessing plant if they, as scientists, engineers, designers and craftsmen, thought that there was any serious risk to the environment or mankind.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that this proposed development, which is an extension of plant which has been operating at Windscale for many years, will have to be built to reprocess spent fuel from Britain's own AGR and SGHWR nuclear reactors? Will he agree that this huge capital investment will bring considerable benefits to the whole of the North-West Region of England, and particularly to the construction industry, which badly needs it?

Will my hon. Friend also confirm that most of the world's leading nuclear scientists are strongly in favour of containing the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel to as few centres as possible, to prevent any possible proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that Windscale would be regarded by most of them as an ideal international centre?

Dr. Cunningham

I congratulate my hon. Friend on that formidable intervention. I was about to say that the industry has developed and along with it have developed the many checks and safeguards that have been necessary. The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate has licensed sites and installations. Then there is the National Radiological Protection Board and the Medical Research Council's radiobiology unit at Harwell. The Royal Commission on Environment Pollution is now sitting and is specifically looking into the problems of radiation hazards in the environment.

The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and British Nuclear Fuels Limited have their own safety administrations. All in all, there has been a tremendous oversight and control of the development of the industry, and rightly so.

In addition, international bodies are involved in nuclear safety. No one should underestimate the role played by the trade unions in these matters. I give credit to my union—the General and Municipal Workers' Union. No one should underestimate the vigilance of the unions in safeguarding the interests of the work forces they represent and the wider interests of the community.

In West Cumbria there is a local liaison committee specifically to deal with the wider aspects of the effect of the Wind-scale works on the community.

I want to talk now about the record of British Nuclear Fuels Limited in nuclear reprocessing, because it is important to establish exactly what the record is. Reprocessing is a well-established technology, based on chemical separation. The object is to recover chemically valuable uranium and plutonium which remain behind in nuclear fuel elements after they have been used in power stations. Uranium can then be used again to produce fuel for nuclear reactors, and plutonium will have a useful contribution to make in the future. It is also currently used as a prototype fuel in operations which may be rewarding in the future.

The used fuel elements are treated to recover these two chemical elements. The radioactive fission products produced during the life of the elements in reactors are also separated. It is these products which have been referred to as "nuclear waste", but it is important to emphasise that they form a small part of the total tonnage of the material reprocessed at Windscale.

Every tonne of fuel reprocessed produces only about 30 litres of fission product solution. In the last 24 years no less than 18,000 tonnes of fuel have been reprocessed at Windscale, producing approximately 700 cubic metres of concentrated fission products, or waste. At present, this waste is stored quite safely as a liquid in stainless steel tanks and is constantly monitored. There are rigorous safety procedures under the surveillance of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive, and there have been no incidents involving this form of storage. There have been no fatal accidents in the industry associated with radioactive material.

Mr. Robin F. Cook (Edinburgh, Central)

I should like to raise two points concerning the contract mooted in the Press. First, my hon. Friend has said that plutonium can be used as a fuel in reactors of the future. My hon. Friend will be aware that it can be used in nuclear explosives, and he will also be aware that the contract recently concluded with Japan provides for 40 tons to be returned to that country. Does he consider it prudent to negotiate for such a large amount of fissile explosive material to be returned to a country which is not a party to the non-proliferation treaty?

I accept what my hon. Friend says about safety of storage, but he will be aware that the contract provides for waste materials to come from Japan six years before the reprocessing plant is opened. Why do they have to come six years before we can commence the reprocessing?

Dr. Cunningham

I cannot promise to answer my hon. Friend's question. I must proceed with my argument.

About 17,000 tonnes of fuel elements taken from the United Kingdom's 11 Magnox power stations have been reprocessed at Windscale. In addition, since the mid–1950s, more than 60 shipments of fuel have been sent for reprocessing from overseas, principally from Italy—44; Japan—13; and Canada—three, on terms favourable to the United Kingdom balance of payments. This overseas business has involved the reprocessing of more than 700 tonnes of Magnox fuel at Windscale—about 5 per cent. of the total tonnage of material reprocessed there. There have been no incidents in transit.

By 1990 it is anticipated that BNFL will have reprocessed a further 22,500 tonnes of United Kingdom material. Over the same period of 15 years an additional 3,700 tonnes of spent fuel elements will have been reprocessed for overseas customers, under the terms of existing contracts. This figure might be increased by about 6,000 tonnes if the company were allowed to continue in the overseas business—a profitable field. Of this 6,000 tonnes, 4,000 would be attributed to the Japanese contract now being negotiated.

It is important to have these facts on record, because there has been considerable speculation, and the nature of the debate to date has been fraught with rumour and innuendo rather than dealing with the facts of the situation. This does not contribute to informed debate.

A number of years ago, shortly after I entered the House, I put down a number of Parliamentary Questions about overseas contracts in this field. They were met with a deafening silence in the national Press—the "Daily Dustbin" included. I was appalled to see that the Liberal Party has tabled an Early-Day Motion, No. 24, on the dumping of atomic waste, referring to dangerous gas-cooled nuclear power stations". It is an astonishingly inept and irresponsible motion from a party that purports to be a major political party. I regret, also, to see Early-Day Motions in the names of some of my hon. Friends concerning the question of the nuclear pollution of the environment, without any reference to myself, to the industry, or to the unions working in it.

When the chief executive of BNFL recently spoke in this building it was noticeable how few hon. Members bothered to attend and listen to the industry's case being so effectively put. I am delighted to say that the national Press, on the whole, has been fair in its treatment of the new contract, but if the "Daily Dustbin" wants a lesson in objective reporting of the nuclear industry, it should observe a little-known provincial newspaper called the Whitehaven News whose conduct in this matter has been excellent. Indeed, it has contributed greatly to the public debate in my constituency, and I applaud it for that.

I turn to the special significance of this contract. Domestic progress, as we have seen, will go ahead, and so will existing overseas work. There is wholehearted support for the contract from the major trade unions in the industry and all those associated with it. I have a list in my possession, but I do not think time will allow me to announce them all. However, it is true to say that every union associated with this work is in favour of the contract proceeding.

As we have heard, there are few alternatives to the nuclear industry. There should be an informed public debate and this contract should be explained to the public in its true light, rather than portrayed in the way that it has in some of the unfortunate Press coverage.

Mr. Patrick Jenldn (Wanstead and Woodford)

I should like to make it entirely clear that the Opposition warmly support the view that the hon. Gentleman takes about the importance of the processes at Windscale. Would the hon. Gentleman like to express an opinion on whether he thinks that there should be more information about the manner in which the information reached the Daily Mirror about the Japanese contract?

Dr. Cunningham

I am not sufficiently informed to comment on that matter. Regrettably, I was abroad when the first Daily Mirror articles were published, so I shall pass on to other matters without further comment.

Certainly nuclear waste presents problems in the environment and hazards to operatives in industry. These matters are the subject of great scrutiny and re- search, and great effort within the industry and in the agencies outside. It is probable that in future, disposal of nuclear waste as a glass will be effected as an industrial process.

I am much concerned with reprocessing, but I am also concerned with the effective use of some of the recovered materials. Nuclear reprocessing technology can play a much more effective part in the Non-Proliferation Treaty. I should certainly applaud that. Therefore, there are questions to be asked about the export of plutonium. However, that is not a major reason for not proceeding with the proposed contract. There has been some Government intervention on this. We are entitled to ask why. What are the Government trying to do, in possibly holding up this contract?

It has been suggested that we could take the matter to a Select Committee. Why? The facts are known. The Government should not interfere with BNFL any more. The Government established BNFL. They wanted BNFL to operate on a self-supporting financial basis. It cannot exist within the terms of the British industry alone; it needs to generate income from abroad, as it has been doing and as it will continue to do. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that the raison d'être for the BNFL will continue and its future will be assured.

10.40 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie)

I should like first to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) on having initiated this debate. He has done the whole House a valuable service.

I would like, first of all, to say that the Government welcome the interest that this debate shows in the important question of nuclear fuel reprocessing, and also the opportunity it gives the Government to explain what is being done and what is in prospect.

The primary purpose of British Nuclear Fuels' plant at Windscale, which employs some 3,500 persons, is to reprocess the irradiated fuel which arises from the United Kingdom's present and prospective nuclear power stations. Reprocessing is the operation of extracting uranium plutonium and fission products from this irradiated fuel. We have two reasons for undertaking it. First, the physical properties of fuel elements, particularly those used in Magnox reactors, are such that they cannot satisfactorily be stored indefinitely after they have been taken from the reactor. Secondly, we need to recover the unused uranium and the plutonium because of the energy which is locked up in them. The fuelling of a long-term nuclear programme, which we expect to include fast reactors, will require a supply of plutonium, so we need to isolate and accumulate it now.

The Windscale plants also undertake some reprocessing work for foreign countries—Italy and Japan, where the work involves largely the fuel from Magnox reactors which we sold to them, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, Canada, the Netherlands and Belgium. The plutonium arising from this work is returned to the countries concerned under international safeguards arrangements which are designed to ensure that it is used only for peaceful purposes. Wind-scale at present handles up to 1,500 tonnes of fuel annually, of which the foreign component is less than 8 per cent. The plant will need to be extended to deal with the increasing requirements of the home nuclear programme, whatever is done about the foreign business issue, to which I will refer later.

There is nothing mysterious about the reprocessing operation itself. Essentially, it is a chemical process. The problem is the intensely radioactive nature of the substances that have to be handled. Safety has to be preserved. So far as this is concerned, fuel in transit to the plant is subject to strict safety rules laid down by the Department of the Environment, and based on international standards. The site itself is licensed under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, and the plant and the work done there are subject to strict safety rules and requirements imposed and enforced by the independent Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, which is part of the Health and Safety Executive.

A main problem, which is rightly the subject of great public interest, is that of dealing with the comparatively small quantity of radioactive waste which is isolated during reprocessing and in particular those constituents of it which remain highly radioactive for a long period. These substances have at present to be stored in a liquid form. Like the other operations on the site, storage is subject to the strict safety requirements of the Nuclear Inspectorate. The liquid is, in practice, kept in special tanks made of thick stainless steel and encased in massive concrete chambers. Spare tanks are always available in case of emergency. Present holdings of waste include some which has arisen from foreign contracts already undertaken this would represent, by 1980, about 10 per cent. of total holdings.

I shall not attempt to minimise the problem of long-term storage of liquids of this kind, though the method has been used in the United Kingdom since the early 1950s without incident. British Nuclear Fuels, however, is developing a process, already tried and proved on a small scale, for converting this waste into a kind of glass which is very stable and virtually insoluble.

Dr. John A. Cunningham

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the fission product waste element of the waste products is reduced to about 0.1 per cent. of its activity within about 300 years, and that it is the transuranic actinides—a small proportion of the waste—which have much longer half-lives?

Mr. Eadie

I shall come to that matter, if my hon. Friend will let me explain. It is for his benefit, not mine, that I am trying to race through my reply.

For the longer term, research is going on into the possibility of ultimate solutions, in one of which the long-life elements in the waste could be isolated and in effect be burnt up in a reactor.

The question that is of great current interest is whether BNFL ought to undertaken more foreign business, and specifically whether a contract for the reprocessing of some 4,000 tonnes of Japanese fuel should be accepted. In this connection, I should emphasise two points which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has already made. First, these are still proposals, and new contracts will not be undertaken without the Government's agreement. Secondly, the proposal has been presented in the Press and elsewhere as a plan to allow other countries to dump waste here. This is quite wrong. The work that is being considered is the reprocessing of irradiated fuel.

This reprocessing, as I mentioned earlier, produces a small quantity of high-activity waste amounting to only 3 per cent., of the quantity of fuel going into the process, and the problem is what to do about this. In fact, the terms under which it is proposed that this work could be undertaken would eliminate the risk that we should be obliged to retain this waste in the United Kingdom indefinitely. As I said, BNFL is developing a solidification process. Once solidified, the waste could be transported safely.

The proposed contract includes an option which would allow BNFL to return the waste in solidified form to the country of origin. This option we would seek to support by appropriate intergovernmental understandings. As a long stop, the contracts would also provide that the whole obligation to reprocess the fuel could be cancelled should BNFL find itself unable to develop a process which would enable it to return the waste under the main options. The combination of these options, together with the fact that the timing of the start of reprocessing work is such that we shall know how we stand on the solidification process before we begin to produce any waste, means that we need not be at risk of having to retain the high-activity waste here.

That is a sketch of the safety and environmental considerations. It is also material that the reprocessing work can be commercially valuable. Earnings from past and current foreign reprocessing contracts are expected to amount to about £45 million by 1980, and the Japanese work would be worth some £400 million. These figures exclude earnings from the associated transport operations.

Foreign work also helps to provide employment in an area that has employment problems. In this connection, the House may like to know that the unions representing people employed at Wind-scale, who would be closely involved with the work and who live in the area, have strongly expressed the view that more foreign work can properly and safely be undertaken, and should be undertaken.

For the Government, the question is where the balance should lie. We have not yet made our decision. In doing so we shall take full account of the views which have been expressed here tonight.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) mentioned that there was a commitment by the trade union movement. I visited Windscale and had long consultations with the trade unions, after which I described the people engaged there as probably having the most protected environment of any industrial workers in the country. As a life-long trade unionist, I have always dreamed not only of a National Health Service but of an industrial national health service. The workers at Windscale are protected by the most elaborate medical equipment, which many workers in other industrial occupations would like.

I am seized of my hon. Friend's point. I had a meeting with representatives of the trade unions, who told me without exception. "We need jobs in this area. This contract would bring us jobs." They assured me that they were satisfied with the internal safety of the undertaking.

I turn to the question of new processing work, and I shall try to deal with employment implications.

Expansion at Windscale is not wholly dependent on more foreign business, but this would help. On present assumptions, total increase in Windscale employment to 1986 is estimated at 1,500–500 of which is dependent upon overseas work. In addition, 500 production workers would be required for continuous employment over the next 10 years.

Dealing with the general health record of Windscale workers, I wish to point out that the incidence of diseases that can be linked with radiation is no greater than the Registrar General's figures would indicate as normal for the population as a whole. No case of a causal connection between contraction of leukaemia, or other cancer, and employment at Wind-scale has yet been proven.

On the subject of accidents at Wind-scale, I would point out that in the last 10 years the only serious incident was the accidental release of radioactive ruthenium into one building in September 1973, when 35 men received some contamination, mostly slight. A report—Command 5703—said that no short-term harm was expected to any of these men and that the long-term risk associated with the highest level of internal contamination was estimated to be about one extra chance in 100 of contracting lung cancer. In the same period there were four conventional industrial injuries regarded as serious. As for other injuries involving radioactivity, seven plutonium workers at various times sustained minor contaminated wounds, giving rise to some uptake of plutonium.

I hope that I have dealt with many of the points raised. I reiterate that the Government are considering the matter and no doubt will report to the House in due course. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for initiating the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.