It will be “illegal” for US companies to collaborate on atomic power projects like Moorhouse after Brexit unless a new nuclear co-operation agreement is signed, the NIA (Nuclear Industries Association) has warned in a new paper.
The paper, which has been published on the same day that the European Commission has set out the steps for the UK’s withdrawal from Euratom (European Atomic Energy Community), outlines the NIA’s priority areas for negotiations on how this process should happen.
The paper says that withdrawal from Euratom could also invalidate any bi-lateral agreement the UK had entered into with third countries since joining the pan-European nuclear community in 1973.
These agreements, which are underpinned by the assumption that the Euratom safeguards are in place. will have to be redrafted to acknowledge the UK’s new regime covering the movement of nuclear materials and nuclear licensed facilities.
“If the UK has not replaced the Euratom safeguards regime with its own system by the time it left Euratom, normal business could be disrupted right across the nuclear industry,” it warns.
The report warns that, given the amount that needs to be concluded over the next 22 months to meet the deadline for the Article 50 process, there is a risk that new arrangements will not be in place.
If Britain has been unable to sign a S123 Agreement, which is the pre-requisite for atomic power deals between the UK and the US, before formally leaving Euratom, continued collaboration on nuclear projects between the two countries will be “illegal” under American law.
This would have a knock-on impact on the already troubled Moorside project, which it says is currently dependent on the ongoing collaboration between the UK and the US due to the choice of a Westinghouse AP1000 reactor for the Cumbrian power plant by its developer NuGeneration
It says a new S123 agreement is “imperative” for Horizon Nuclear Power’s projects at Wylfa Newydd and Oldbury, both of which will use US fuel in their Japanese designed Advanced Boiling Water model reactors.
The existing Pressurised Water Reactor at Sizewell B, which is scheduled to operate until at least 2035, also relies on an international supply chain for specialised maintenance because it is based on a US design.
In order to minimise the risk of a “cliff edge” departure, which would leave the UK no longer covered by the existing arrangements governing the nuclear industry, the paper urges the government to agree an implementation period in order to allow enough time for negotiating and completing new arrangements with EU member states and third countries.
Until new arrangements are in place, ministers should consider allowing the UK to remain a member of Euratom, it also says.
The key steps outlined by the NIA are:
- Replacing the Nuclear Co-operation Agreements (NCA) with key nuclear markets; the Euratom Community, United States, Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan and South Korea
- Clarifying the validation of the UK’s current bilateral nuclear co-operation agreements with Japan and other nuclear states
- Setting out the process for the movement of nuclear material, goods, people and services
- Agreeing a new funding arrangement for the UK’s involvement in Fusion 4 Energy and wider European Union nuclear R&D programme
- Maintaining confidence in the industry and securing crucial investment
Tom Greatrex, Chief Executive of the Nuclear Industry Association, said: “The government now need to get down to the work of putting such arrangements in place, including a prudent approach to ensuring there are transitional arrangements in place, to avoid a gap in regulation. That would not be in the interests of the EU, the UK or the industry globally.”
The EU negotiating guidelines state that any fissile material, which belongs to UK companies, should be on British soil when the country has quit the Euratom community.