Nuclear Liabilities Financing Assurance Board

From Powerbase
Revision as of 15:00, 3 September 2012 by Melissa Jones (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search
Nuclear spin.png This article is part of the Nuclear Spin project of Spinwatch.

Background

The Energy Bill 2008 is intended to create a framework which the Government says will ensure that operators of new nuclear power stations have secure financing arrangements in place to meet the full costs of decommissioning and their full share of waste management costs. The Bill requires new reactor operators to have a Funded Decommissioning Programme (FDP), approved by the Secretary of State, in place before construction of a new nuclear power station begins.

The FDP must include:

  • provision for the steps necessary to decommission the installation and manage and dispose of hazardous waste
  • an estimate of the costs of taking those steps
  • aetails of any security to be provided in relation to those costs

A new nuclear power station operator must produce a Funding Arrangements Plan (FAP) which sets out how the operator will meet the identified costs over the expected lifetime of the new nuclear power station, but also show how costs would be met in the event of early decommissioning, i.e. should the nuclear power station stop generating earlier than expected and liabilities crystallise early.

The government will set up a new advisory body, the Nuclear Liabilities Financing Assurance Board (NLFAB), to provide advice to the Secretary of State on the suitability of the FAP, [1] and monitor the arrangements operators are making to ensure that funds are available to cover waste and decommissioning costs. [2]

Establishing NLFAB

At a meeting of global nuclear investors on 12th June 2008, the then Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, John Hutton, called for applications for membership of the NLFAB, to “give independent advice to the Secretary of State on the suitability of the financial element of the Funded Decommissioning Programmes for new nuclear power stations, to be submitted for approval by energy companies.” [3]

Adverts appeared in the Press on 1st July for the Chair of NLFAB and six Board members. Candidates with expertise in fund management, economics, nuclear engineering, decommissioning and waste management, legal finance and the actuarial or insurance profession were sought.

Calculating the costs

Discussions between the Government and stakeholders will be going on during the final quarter of 2008 on the methodology to be used to determine how the fixed costs of building a geological disposal facility should be apportioned to and shared between operators of new nuclear power stations; and on the Government’s cost model which will be used to estimate the total cost for waste management, disposal and decommissioning; and a methodology for establishing an indicative fixed unit price for the disposal of ILW and spent fuel. Then in the first half of 2009 the Government will publish for formal consultation detailed proposals on the cost model and methodologies. [4]

The Environment Agency, in its submission on the Funded Decommissioning and Waste Management Programme Guidance Consultation, suggested that the Agency is represented on the Board because waste disposal will contribute a large element of the overall costs. [5]

The Sceptics

Dieter Helm, Professor of Energy Policy at New College, Oxford, says the system proposed effectively means utilities will pay for the state to absorb the risks of handling nuclear waste in exchange for payments into a fund. “It’s a fixed-price contract for the Government to take the waste. The Government absorbs the final-end risk,” he says. [6] The Spectator said there is every risk that the public will end up footing the bill.

The Government has left open the possibility of subsidizing reactors, despite its disclaimers. It says in ‘extreme circumstances’ it is prepared to help meet the massive decommissioning and waste disposal costs — knowing full well that such extreme circumstances almost always attend decommissioning and waste disposal.

The Government has indicated the ‘fair share’ for waste ‘disposal’ will be calculated as the proportion of space a nuclear operator’s radioactive waste takes up in any repository. But this overlooks the hundreds of millions spent on research and development for a repository, representing a huge hidden subsidy. [7]

Foreign utility companies with reprocessing contracts with Sellafield appear to be paying around £201,000/m3 for intermediate-level waste. But if new reactor operators were to be charged the same it would cost them around £820 million per reactor. This fully commercial price would make disposal far too expensive, killing the prospects of any new reactors. Business models are assuming costs of only around £100m for waste management and decommissioning. [8]

Gordon Mackerron, former chair of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM), says this system proposed by BERR for funding decommissioning and waste management amounts to a hidden subsidy for new reactors. He attacks as “frankly not credible” Government assurances that new reactors would meet the full cost of waste management. The proposals to offer operators of nuclear reactors a fixed unit price for waste disposal is odd because we can only have a hazy idea at this stage what a waste repository will cost. [9]

Stephen Thomas of Greenwich University agrees the Government is failing to adhere to its pledge not to subsidise the industry. He says past experience of the accuracy of nuclear cost estimates, suggests that giving operators a fixed price now could prove costly to taxpayers more than 100 years into the future when this waste is actually being disposed of. [10]

Bankruptcy

And what happens if an operating company is unable to meet its commitments to the nuclear decommissioning fund? The Government has taken liabilities off the nuclear private sector before - British Energy passed on its £5.3bn liabilities bill to the taxpayer - and the Energy Act 2004 contains powers which allow the Secretary of State to direct the NDA to take over financing of nuclear waste liabilities for private nuclear companies in the future should they be unable to meet their obligations. [11]

People


References

  1. ↑ The Government Response to the Consultation on Funded Decommissioning Programme Guidance for New Nuclear Power Stations, Office for Nuclear Development, BERR, September 2008, Annexe C.
  2. ↑ J.Orr and A.Sparrow, ‘Ministers give nuclear power the green light’, The Guardian, 10 January, 2008.
  3. ↑ BERR, 'Hutton tells global nuclear investors to build in Britain’,, BERR Press Release, 12 June, 2008.
  4. ↑ The Government Response to the Consultation on Funded Decommissioning Programme Guidance for New Nuclear Power Stations, Office for Nuclear Development, BERR, September 2008, Annexe D.
  5. ↑ Environment Agency Response to the Consultation on Funded Decommissioning Programme Guidance for New Nuclear Power Stations, Office for Nuclear Development, May, 2008.
  6. ↑ R. Pagnamenta, ‘Key adviser says that UK’s new nuclear policy is flawed’, The Times, 28 January, 2008.
  7. ↑ I. Stelzer, Nuclear, but keep your hand on your wallet’ Nuclear Engineering International, The Spectator, 12 March, 2008.
  8. ↑ I. Jackson ‘Buried Costs’, 27 March, 2008.
    1. ^ Gordon Mackerron’s Response to ‘Consultation on Funded Decommissioning Programme Guidance for New Nuclear Power Stations’, May, 2008.
  9. ↑ Reference needed.
  10. ↑ S. Thomas, ‘This nuclear agenda is losing power’, The Guardian, June, 2008.
  11. ↑ J. Sauven, ‘Waste not want not’, The Guardian, 21 August, 2007.
  12. ↑ Nuclear Institute selects Babcock Director as new President, Babcock International Group website, Page last updated at 18 Jan 2011, acc 3 September 2012
Retrieved from "https://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Nuclear_Liabilities_Financing_Assurance_Board&oldid=175658"