Abstract

Introduction I attended the meeting of the OSPAR Commission as a representative ofthe Uranium Institute, which has NGO observer status. The OSPARConvention (1992) entered into force in 1998: the Convention updates,merges and replaces its two parent Conventions, i.e. the Oslo Convention(1972) and the Paris Convention (1974). A principal objective of theConvention is the prevention of marine pollution of the North EastAtlantic. This was the third Annual Meeting of the OSPAR Commission, whichconsists of 15 European nations and the European Community. In addition,there are several inter-governmental organisations (IGOs) andnon-governmental organisations (NGOs) which are observers. Summary of proceedings regarding radioactive substances The Annual Meeting of the Commission was combined with a meeting of theRAD sub-group which addresses radioactive substances. Key items on theagendas of both meetings were: (i) The NEA study on the radiological comparison of options for spent fuelmanagement - reprocessing/recycle versus dry store. (ii) The forward implementation of the radioactive substances strategy. (iii) The Irish andDanish proposed a resolution/decision on the cessation of reprocessing. The NEA study (Radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel managementoptions - a comparative study) was accepted by all parties as the bestand most authoritative study possible, and it received wide support.Those parties in favour of reprocessing emphasised that on a globalbasis it showed distinctly that there were no significant radiologicaldifferences between recycle and dry store (doses from radon releasedduring uranium mining offset doses from reprocessing discharges), andthat the overall radiological impacts are low. As the report itselfsaid, a decision on which is the most appropriate option will depend ona range of other factors including costs, energy security, etc. Thoseagainst reprocessing noted that it confirmed once again thatreprocessing gave much higher discharges to sea than the dry storeoption. No surprises here! After considerable discussion, the Irish and Danish draft resolutionswere significantly amended by a twin-track approach. Track One was aprogramme for the more detailed implementation of the OSPAR strategy,which received unanimous support. This involves submitting nationalplans and baselines, etc, building up to the ministerial meeting in2003. Track Two contained the residual anti-reprocessing motion,although without any reference to cessation of (or moratorium on)reprocessing, and requiring the authorities for reprocessing sites toreview the discharge authorisations with a view to implementing anon-reprocessing option. This received support from all countries exceptthe UK and France, who both abstained from the vote on the grounds thatthe decision went beyond the competence of OSPAR - i.e. it strayed intoareas of national competence on advice to regulators, and it focused onprocesses, not discharges. The decision will not be binding on France orthe UK. The Commission also agreed a progress report on implementing the OSPARstrategy for radioactive substances, which gives an overview of nationalprogress to date and priority work for the future. Prioritisingdischarge reductions on the basis of dose is one of the points which isemphasised. New terms of reference for the RAD sub-group were agreed. The group isnow called the Radioactive Substances Committee. The next meeting was scheduled to be inTromso, Norway, in January 2001. The next full meeting of the Commissionis 25-29 June, 2001 (Spain). This will not be at ministerial level: thenext ministerial meeting will be in 2003. On the Friday morning there was a press launch of the Quality StatusReport, which is aimed at giving an overview of the environmental healthof the North East Atlantic area. The main concerns are fishing stocksand hazardous substances (organotin anti-fouling treatments andendocrine disrupters), together with climate change. Listed amongstother important issues was meeting public concerns about discharges andeffects of radioactive substances. This topic received virtually nomention in the scientific presentation of the report, although theDanish Environment Minister, Svend Auken, did note that any releases ofradioactive substances were unacceptable to the Danish public and manyothers, and offered `friendly advice' to the UK and France thatreprocessing is not sustainable. He hoped his words would strengthen thehands of the Environment Ministries in these countries. No doubt there is still some way to go on this topic!

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.