NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

EDF and NNB Genco (SZC)

Response to the EU Consultation on Technical Expert Group on Taxonomy

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited. Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084. Registered office: 90 Whitfield Street, W1T 4EZ Page 1 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

Document Control

This document is stored and approved in the Electronic Document and Records Management System (EDRMS).

Prepared by: Name: Joe McHugh (1) and Peter Bryant (2) Positions: (1) Technical Director, Hydrock Consultants Ltd. and (2) SZC Environmental Project Leader Verified by: Name: Peter Bryant Position: SZC Environmental Project Leader Approved by: Name: Chris Fayers Position: Head of Environment

© 2018 Published in the by NNB Generation Company (SZC) Ltd, 90 Whitfield Street, London, W1T 4EZ. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying and recording, without the written permission of the copyright holder NNB Generation Company (SZC) Ltd, application for which should be addressed to the publisher. Such written permission must also be obtained before any part of this publication is stored in a retrieval system of any nature. Requests for copies of this document should be referred to NNB Generation Company (SZC) Ltd, 90 Whitfield Street, London, W1T 4EZ. The electronic copy is the current issue and printing renders this document uncontrolled.

Revision History

Rev Status Amendment Prepared by Date 01 Draft Draft 1.1 Joe McHugh 16 August 2019 02 Draft Draft 2.1 Joe McHugh 30 August 2019 03 Draft Draft 3.1 Joe McHugh 5 September 2019 04 Draft Draft 3.2 Joe McHugh 6 September 2019 11 September 05 Draft Draft 4.1 Joe McHugh 2019 13 September 06 Draft Draft 4.2 Joe McHugh 2019

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited. Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084. Registered office: 90 Whitfield Street, London W1T 4EZ Page 2 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 6 1.1. Purpose ...... 6 1.2. Scope ...... 7 1.3. Summary of Conclusions ...... 8 1.4. Definitions ...... 9 1.5. References ...... 10 2. NUCLEAR SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ...... 15 2.1. International Nuclear Legislative and Regulatory Framework to secure DNSH ...... 15 2.2. Euratom Treaty and Directives, and their enforcement ...... 15 2.3. Other International Legal Requirements ...... 16 2.3.1. Convention on Nuclear Safety ...... 16 2.3.2. Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management/ Radioactive Waste Management ...... 16 2.3.3. Protection of the Environment Under Other European Legislation ...... 16 2.4. Overarching Radiation Protection Framework to show DNSH ...... 17 2.5. Learning from Experience, Leadership and Sharing Knowledge ...... 18 3. NUCLEAR IN RELATION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES ...... 19 3.1. Climate Change Mitigation ...... 19 3.1.1. Purpose of Mitigation in the Context of the Taxonomy ...... 19 3.1.2. TEG Criteria for Generation, Gas, Steam and Air Conditioning Supply ...... 19 3.1.3. Evidence for ’s Contribution to Climate Change ...... 19 3.1.4. The Importance of Nuclear Energy for the UK’s Decarbonisation Target ...... 20 3.1.5. Nuclear Energy Role in Electrification of Other Sectors to Contribute to Economy Wide Decarbonisation20 3.1.6. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Nuclear ...... 20 3.1.7. Nuclear for Hydrogen Production ...... 21 3.2. Climate Change Adaptation ...... 22 3.2.1. Meaning of adaptation ...... 22 3.2.2. TEG Criteria for Climate Change Adaptation ...... 22 3.2.3. Nuclear Power Stations are Resilient to Severe Weather ...... 23 3.2.4. Need for Climate Resilience and Impact of Decentralised Generation ...... 23 3.2.5. Assessment against TEG Criterion ...... 24 3.3. Sustainable Use and Protection of Water and Marine Resources ...... 24 3.3.1. Summary of Impacts from Discharges into the Environment ...... 24 3.3.2. Technical Assessment Criteria for Assessing DNSH ...... 24 3.3.3. Low levels and Reductions in Radioactive Discharges from the Nuclear Sector ...... 25 3.3.4. Reducing Impacts on Water Quality and Resources During HPC Construction ...... 25 3.3.5. Impacts from Discharges of Cooling Water and from Radioactive Discharges During Operation of HPC25

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 3 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

3.3.6. Assessment against TEG Criterion ...... 26 3.4. Transition to a Circular Economy, Waste Prevention and Recycling ...... 26 3.4.1. TEG Criterion for DNSH ...... 26 3.4.2. Applying the waste hierarchy ...... 27 3.4.3. Reducing HPC’s decommissioning waste through design and construction ...... 27 3.4.4. Management, Storage and Disposal of Higher Activity Wastes and Spent Fuel ...... 28 3.4.5. Managing Spent fuel and HLW at EDF power stations ...... 29 3.4.6. Recycling Rates for Non-Radioactive Wastes ...... 30 3.4.7. Observations on and Response to World Nuclear Waste Report ...... 30 3.4.8. Assessment Against TEG Criterion ...... 33 3.5. Pollution Prevention and Control ...... 33 3.5.1. TEG Criterion for DNSH ...... 33 3.5.2. Controls Under the Euratom Treaty ...... 33 3.5.3. Control of Environmental Impacts at HPC ...... 34 3.5.4. Verifications and Checks by Regulators and by the European Commission ...... 34 3.6. Protection of Healthy Ecosystems ...... 35 3.6.1. TEG Criteria for DNSH ...... 35 3.6.2. Consideration of EU Habitats and Birds Directives ...... 36 3.6.3. Radiological Protection of the Environment ...... 36 3.6.4. Protection of the Environment and Ecosystems Near HPC ...... 36 3.6.5. Assessment Against TEG Criterion ...... 37 3.7. Wider Sustainability Considerations Arising from Nuclear Power Developments ...... 37 3.7.1. Sustainability of HPC ...... 37 3.7.2. Observations on TEG References ...... 38 4. OTHER ISSUES REGARDING SUSTAINABILITY OF NUCLEAR POWER ...... 40 4.1. Land Take ...... 40 4.2. Sustainable and Ethical Standards Including Supply Chain ...... 41 5. CONCLUSIONS, FEEDBACK AND FURTHER WORK ...... 41 5.1. Conclusions ...... 41 5.2. Main Points for Feedback on TEG Report ...... 43 5.3. TEG Recommendations for Further Work ...... 44 APPENDIX A ...... 45 A.1. Extract from TEG Report On Nuclear Energy (pp 234-235) ...... 45 A.2. UK and EU Environmental Legislation Applicable to HPC and SZC Projects ...... 46 A.2.1. How to Mitigate Harm ...... 46 A.2.2. EDF’s Environmental Management System ...... 46 A.3. Foreword to Rules of Procedure for Euratom Article 31 Group of Experts ...... 54

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 4 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EDF Energy welcomes the EU’s Sustainable Finance Initiative and the principles that underpin the Taxonomy framework. International authorities such as the IPCC, OECD and IEA have all identified the major contribution both new nuclear energy and existing power stations can make to climate change mitigation by decarbonising power systems and supporting electrification of other sectors of the economy. This technical paper draws on a substantial body of evidence and shows that:  That there is a stringent regulatory and legislative framework ensuring that nuclear energy can “Do No Significant Harm”;  That the well-established safe management of nuclear waste today demonstrates that nuclear waste can be safely managed in the long-term; and  Recommends that the TEG enlist an existing group of radiation experts to further assess nuclear energy against the Taxonomy criteria. We support the work that the Technical Expert Group on sustainable finance (TEG) has undertaken to define and clarify those economic activities which are considered environmentally sustainable for investment purposes. As the TEG concluded, the evidence provided on the potential substantial contribution of nuclear energy to climate mitigation objectives is extensive and clear. Nuclear energy has a critical role to play alongside renewables in the transition to net zero. EDF Energy agrees that appraising nuclear energy is complex and it is understandable that the evaluation process has been challenging for the TEG. However, the TEG has only had access to very limited evidence upon which to draw its conclusions. In this technical note we address the TEG’s six environmental objectives in relation to nuclear power, and comment on the concerns raised by the TEG around the evidence for environmental harm from radioactivity and management of radioactive waste. The key points we draw to the TEG’s attention are:  Nuclear power, as with all sources of energy is strictly regulated in line with International, European and National treaties, directives, regulations and standards, to ensure “no significant harm” to workers, the public and the environment. The “unique” radiological element of nuclear energy is regulated in line with the principles set out by the International Commission on Radiological Protection, and incorporated in the International Atomic Energy Agency Basic Safety Standards, Euratom Basic Safety Standards Directive and National Legislation.  The Article 31 Group established under the Euratom Treaty, are responsible for developing the Euratom Basic Safety Standards Directive. Simply put they advise the European Commission, and implement the required directives to ensure that any practice involving radiation such as nuclear power or medical exposures are undertaken in such a way that ensures the “Do No Significant Harm” principle is met. Recognising the challenge TEG has faced in assessing nuclear energy, noting that “…nuclear energy is complex and more difficult to evaluate in the taxonomy context” it is recommended that the TEG or EC consults the Article 31 Group as the politically neutral, competent recognised experts in the DNSH elements of radiation protection.

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 5 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Purpose

To inform its 2018 action plan on financing sustainable growth, the European Commission (EC) established a Technical Expert Group (TEG) on sustainable finance. Action 1 of the action plan calls for an EU classification system for sustainable activities, i.e. an EU taxonomy. The EC proposes to enact legislation establishing a framework to facilitate sustainable investment (the taxonomy regulation). Within the framework of the proposed taxonomy regulation, the TEG was asked to recommend a list of activities that can make a substantial contribution to climate change mitigation or adaptation, while doing no significant harm (Do No Significant Harm, DNSH) to the other specified environmental objectives. The TEG was also tasked with developing technical screening criteria for each such activity to assist users in identifying whether or not the activity could be considered as doing no significant harm to the environmental objectives On 18 June 2019, the TEG published its technical report on EU taxonomy [Reference 1]. The TEG report sets out the basis for a future EU taxonomy in legislation. The TEG report contains:

 technical screening criteria for 67 economic activities across 8 sectors that can make a substantial contribution to climate change mitigation;  a methodology and worked examples for evaluating substantial contribution to climate change adaptation;  guidance and case studies for investors preparing to use the taxonomy. The TEG is inviting feedback from stakeholders on the proposed climate change mitigation activities, climate change adaptation principles and criteria, usability of the proposed taxonomy and future development of the taxonomy. The deadline for feedback is 13 September 2019. The TEG considered, briefly, the case for investment in nuclear energy projects to be included in the taxonomy. The full TEG statement is at Appendix A. The TEG’s key conclusions on nuclear energy are in bold below.

 Evidence on the potential substantial contribution of nuclear energy to climate mitigation objectives was extensive and clear. The potential role of nuclear energy in low carbon is well documented.  On potential significant harm to other environmental objectives, including circular economy and waste management, biodiversity, water systems and pollution, the evidence about nuclear energy is complex and more difficult to evaluate in a taxonomy context. Evidence often addresses different aspects of the risks and management practices associated with nuclear energy. Scientific, peer-reviewed evidence of the risk of significant harm to pollution and biodiversity objectives arising from the nuclear value chain was received and considered by the TEG. Evidence regarding advanced risk management procedures and regulations to limit harm to environmental objectives was also received... Despite this evidence, there are still empirical data gaps on key DNSH issues. … regarding the long-term management of High-Level Waste (HLW)… a safe, long-term technical solution is needed to solve the present unsustainable situation. A combination of temporary storage plus permanent disposal in geological formation is the most promising, with some countries are leading the way…. Yet nowhere in the world has a viable, safe and long-term underground repository been established. It was therefore infeasible for the TEG to undertake a robust DNSH assessment as no permanent, operational disposal site for HLW exists yet from which long-term empirical, in-situ data and evidence to inform such an evaluation for nuclear energy.

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 6 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

 Given these limitations, it was not possible for TEG, nor its members, to conclude that the nuclear energy value chain does not cause significant harm to other environmental objectives on the time scales in question. The TEG has not therefore recommended the inclusion of nuclear energy in the taxonomy at this stage…more extensive technical work is undertaken on the DNSH aspects of nuclear energy “… by a group with in-depth technical expertise on nuclear life cycle technologies and the existing and potential environmental impacts….” This EDF Energy paper compiles an evidence-based technical note in relation to nuclear power, with reference to the TEG’s six environmental objectives. It addresses and comments on the concerns raised by the TEG around the evidence for environmental harm from radioactivity and management of radioactive waste, and in some cases corrects and elaborates on the statements and claims made in the TEG Report’s underpinning references. The intention is to use this paper as a basis for EDF to respond to the call for feedback on the TEG taxonomy report, and provide a position paper on factors influencing the sustainability of nuclear power generation. In relation to the latter, this paper includes issues that were not raised in the TEG report but which are important in considering the overall sustainability of nuclear energy.

1.2. Scope

The proposed EU regulation identifies six environmental objectives for the purposes of the taxonomy, i.e.: I Climate change mitigation II Climate change adaptation III Sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources IV Transition to a circular economy, waste prevention and recycling V Pollution prevention and control VI Protection of healthy ecosystems For an action to meet the definition of an ‘environmentally sustainable economic activity’ and thus be considered taxonomy-eligible, it must: 1. contribute substantially to one or more of the environmental objectives 2. do no significant harm to any other environmental objective 3. comply with minimum social safeguards (under the draft regulation, these are defined as ILO core labour conventions). 4. comply with the technical screening criteria. This paper considers the attributes of nuclear energy in relation to each of the six environmental objectives and wider aspects of the sustainability of nuclear energy. The TEG report cites several references, including some peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, but also some reports which are less credible and are tendentious, which make observations, allegations and claims about wider aspects of the sustainability of nuclear power. This EDF Energy paper includes and cites factual material including reports by authoritative international bodies and relevant, peer-reviewed articles from respected scientific journals, providing objective evidence when responding to and countering these claims and allegations.

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 7 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

EDF Energy has extensive experience of construction and operation of modern nuclear power plants, and has made thorough assessments of their environmental impacts. In this paper we have drawn on that experience, most recently for C which has been approved by the UK and EU authorities and is under construction. The sister project Sizewell C (SZC) is at an earlier stage, but will be very similar to the Hinkley Point C design. For instance, SZC broadly replicates the Hinkley design, with an identical Nuclear Island, and amends constrained only to site- specific areas such as: Intake and Outfall Systems; Local Environmental Considerations and Coastal Defence.

1.3. Summary of Conclusions

The conclusions in the TEG report are based on the very limited evidence provided to the TEG, some of which has not been peer-reviewed, of nuclear power and its effects on the environment. Much of the important scientific evidence, EU regulatory requirements and work of authoritative international organisations such as the IAEA. OECD/NEA and even the Euratom experts in the EC’s Directorate-General for Energy, has not been reflected. Nuclear power, as with many other major sources of energy, is strictly regulated in line with International, European and National treaties, directives, regulations and standards, to ensure “no significant harm” to workers, the public and the environment. The “unique” radiological element of nuclear energy is regulated strictly in line with the principles set out by the International Commission on Radiological Protection, and incorporated in the International Atomic Energy Agency Basic Safety Standards, Euratom Basic Safety Standards Directive, international Conventions and National Legislation. These standards and legal requirements are rigorously enforced by independent regulatory bodies. The TEG’s concerns over High Level waste and spent nuclear fuel management are misplaced. High Level waste and spent nuclear fuel are being stored safely at nuclear facilities, ready for transfer for recycling/ reprocessing, or for future disposal in future geological facilities or for management by alternative methods. Safely storing waste does not require a GDF to be available. The methods being used today to store waste above ground could be extended indefinitely to safely store waste in the long term. These arrangements comply with strict EU legislation and are rigorously regulated by independent national bodies and subject to very high levels of governance and accountability. EDF shows in this paper that there are strong arguments, supported by extensive, clear, scientific and authoritative evidence, that nuclear power meets each of the DNSH criteria. Those arguments and evidence show very clearly that under the treaties, guidelines, regulations and legislation in place and followed, the nuclear energy lifecycle does not and will not cause significant harm to the sustainability objectives. On the basis of the existing evidence base and regulation of nuclear activity that is considered in the analysis in this paper, nuclear power is a sustainable and taxonomy-eligible technology. In summary, we shown in this paper that nuclear energy and the nuclear sector:

 provides safe, reliable, low carbon, stable and flexible electricity supply;  together with renewables, is well suited to support a secure, decarbonised electricity system;  has a strong independent nuclear regulatory framework, under the Euratom Treaty and other international law, ensuring that the nuclear facilities do not significant harm to people and the environment;  through developments such as Hinkley Point C deliver very substantial socio-economic benefits to local and regional communities;  has very low radioactive discharges low and they continue to reduce substantially;

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 8 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

 modern designs such as the EPR use nuclear fuel efficiently, reducing both impacts from mining of natural uranium and the amount of radioactive waste;  has a very well-developed learning network across the national and international boundaries, for sharing operating experience and good practice especially on safety related issues;  recycles much of its waste; overall, volumes of conventional and radioactive waste generated from nuclear power are small and contribute very little to the overall waste stocks that need to be managed;  stores its spent fuel and High-Level Waste safely and securely at well-regulated nuclear facilities  is showing good progress in EU countries in sustainable management of radioactive waste, and in establishing future geological repositories for High Level Waste and spent fuel, as required by the relevant Euratom Directive. In 2015 Finland’s regulators granted a construction permit for an HLW repository - the operating licence application will be submitted in 2020;  can make a substantial and key contribution to hydrogen generation;  requires much less land lower than for other sustainable energy technologies;  underpins and supports low carbon in many EU countries which rely heavily on nuclear energy, and they would be at a financial and competitive disadvantage if they were precluded from nuclear investments. Recognising the challenge the TEG has faced in assessing nuclear energy, as it noted that “nuclear energy is complex and more difficult to evaluate in the taxonomy context” EDF recommends that the TEG or EC consults and seeks advice from the Euratom Article 31 Group or an equivalent group which comprises politically neutral, independent, very competent experts in the DNSH elements of radiation protection. The Article 31 Group advises the European Commission on the Basic Safety Standards Directive, which specifies strict requirements to ensure that any practice involving radiation such as nuclear power or medical exposures are undertaken in such a way that ensures the “Do No Significant Harm” principle is met. The Article 31 group is thus well placed to help the TEG develop a set of suitable criteria for taxonomy eligibility, based on EU legal requirements. EDF itself is ready to contribute its expertise and long experience of modern nuclear energy developments to this process.

1.4. Definitions

Term / Abbreviation Definition ASN Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire, France BAT Best Available Techniques CCC Committee on Climate Change DNSH Do No Significant Harm EC European Commission EDRMS Electronic Document and Records Management System ENSREG European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group ERICA Environmental Risk from Ionising Contaminants: Assessment and Management ES Environmental Statement HLW High Level Waste

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 9 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

Term / Abbreviation Definition HPC Hinkley Point C HRA Habitats Regulations Assessment IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection IEA International Energy Agency IPCC Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ONR Office for Nuclear Regulation, UK OSPAR Oslo and Paris Commission/Convention SZC Sizewell C

TEG Technical Expert Group

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Oslo and Paris Commission/Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of OSPAR the North-East Atlantic WANO World Association of Nuclear Operators UKCP18 UK Meteorological Office Climate Change Projections 2018

1.5. References

Ref Title EU Technical Expert Group on Sustainable Finance: Financing a Sustainable European Economy. 1 Taxonomy Technical Report, June 2019 European Commission 2018. EU 2050 Strategic Vision "A Clean Planet for All. A European strategic 2 long-term vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate neutral economy”. IPCC, 2018 Global Warming of 1.5°C. Masson-Delmotte et al. Special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global 3 greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. International Energy Agency, May 2019. 4 “Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System” AEA report for EDF, 2011. AEAT/ENV/R/ED56902. 5 Life Cycle Assessment of the carbon footprint of the planned Hinkley Point C . IAEA, December 2018. Toolkit for hydrogen production https://www.iaea.org/topics/non-electric- 6 applications/nuclear-hydrogen-production

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 10 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

Ref Title Office for Nuclear Regulation, Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales 2019. Use of UK climate 7 projections 2018 (UKCP18) by GB Nuclear Industry. European Environment Agency, 2019. Adaptation challenges and opportunities for the European energy 8 system. Building a climate-resilient low-carbon energy system. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/adaptation-in-energy-system OSPAR Commission, 2016. Fourth Periodic Evaluation of Progress Towards the Objective of the OSPAR 9 Radioactive Substances Strategy. Tierney KM et al, “Nuclear reprocessing-related radiocarbon (14C) uptake into UK marine mammals”, 10 Marine Pollution Bulletin 124 (2017) 43–50. EDF, October 2011. Sustainability Statement in support of Application for Development Consent Order 11 for Hinkley Point C. Environment Agency, 2011.Generic design assessment of 12 UK EPR design by AREVA NP and Electricité de France SA. Decision Document. 13 Xerri, C, IAEA, 2019. Presentation on Circular Economy in the Context of Nuclear Decommissioning. European Commission, 2017. Commission Staff Working Document. Inventory of radioactive waste and spent fuel present in the Community's territory and the future prospects Accompanying the Report from 14 the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on progress of implementation of Council Directive 2011/70/EURATOM and an Inventory of radioactive waste and spent fuel present in the Community's territory and the future prospects. World Nuclear Waste Report (WNWR), Focus Europe, for The Greens/EFA Group 7 December 2018, 15 available on: https://rebecca-harms.de/files/1/4/14p1u61xrvc0/attc_RiBS6hfU8CMhUiD1.pdf Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety, Germany, 2018. 16 Report of the Federal Republic of Germany for the Sixth Review Meeting of the Parties to the Joint Convention on Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Management. 17 Waste Isolation Pilot Plant website, https://wipp.energy.gov/ Posiva Website: General Time Schedule for Final Disposal. 18 http://www.posiva.fi/en/final_disposal/general_time_schedule_for_final_disposal#.XVV3oeRYa70 19 OECD/NEA, 2000. Radiological Impacts of Spent Fuel Management Options, A Comparative Study. IAEA 2018. Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive 20 Waste Management. Sixth Review Meeting of the Contracting Parties ,21 May to 01 June 2018, Vienna, Austria FINAL SUMMARY REPORT JC/RM6/04/Rev.2 Eurostat waste statistics explained https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- 21. explained/index.php/Waste_statistics Tromans, S, 2010. Nuclear Law. The Law Applying to Nuclear Installations and Radioactive Substances in 22 its Historic Context. European Council, 2013. COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2013/59/EURATOM, laying down basic safety standards 23 for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation.

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 11 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

Ref Title International Commission on Radiological Protection, 2014. ICRP Publication 124: Protection of the 24 Environment under Different Exposure Situations. Pentreath RJ et al.; Ann ICRP. 2014 Jan;43(1):1-58. Ivica Prlić, Ana Mostečak, Marija Surić Mihić, Želimir Veinović, and Luka Pavelić Radiological risk 25 assessment: an overview of the ERICA Integrated Approach and the ERICA Tool use. Arh Hig Rada Toksikol 2017; 68:298-307. EDF, 2011. Environmental Statement for Hinkley Point C project, in support of Application for 26 Development Consent Order. 27 EDF, 2019. Hinkley Point C Realising the socio-economic benefits. UK Statutory Instruments 2010 No. 2844. Justification Decision (Generation of Electricity by the EPR 28 Nuclear Reactor) Regulations 2010. Verbruggen A., Laes, E. Lemmens, S., 2014. Assessment of the actual sustainability of nuclear fission 29 power, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 32, 16–28. 30 Wood, M and Beresford N, The Biologist 63(2) p16-19 Deryabina T. G., et al. 2015. Long-term census data reveal abundant wildlife populations at Chernobyl. 31 Current Biology 25(19), R824–R826 (2015). Nomura, S, Oikawa, t, and Tsubokura M, 2019. Low dose from external radiation among returning 32 residents to the former evacuation zone in Minamisoma City Fukushima Prefecture. Journal of Radiological Protection, vol 39 548-563. Directive 2009/71/EURATOM establishing a Community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear 33 installations and its amendment, Directive 2014/87/Euratom, establishing a Community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations. 34 Japan Times, April 3 2017 “Lifting Fukushima evacuation orders”. Wakeford R, 2016. Chernobyl and Fukushima – where are we now? 35 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0952-4746/36/2/E1 36 NEA and IAEA, 2016. Uranium 2016: Resources, Production and Demand. MacKay, DJC, 2009. Sustainable Energy - without the hot air. 37 http://www.inference.org.uk/sustainable/book/tex/sewtha.pdf

UK Government 2016. Hinkley Point C Funded Decommissioning Programme 38 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hinkley-point-c-funded-decommissioning-programme

World Nuclear Association 2019. Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities. https://world- 39 nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/decommissioning-nuclear-facilities.aspx

40 OECD/NEA 2012. Nuclear energy and Renewables. System effects in low carbon electricity systems.

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 12 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

Ref Title IAEA Mandate, Statute A1-A2. 41 https://www.iaea.org/about/statute Cheng VKM. and Hammond GP , Life-cycle energy densities and land-take requirements of various 42 power generators: A UK perspective Journal of the Vol 90, 2017, 201-213. 43 EDF Energy 2018. Supply Chain Company Policy, July 2018. 44 EDF Energy January 2019. Sustainable Business Company Policy. Bonou, A, Laurent, A and Olsen L, 2016, Applied Energy volume 180, 327-337. “Life cycle assessment of 45 onshore and offshore wind energy-from theory to application”. EDF Energy NNB GENERATION COMPANY (HPC) LTD HPC PCSR3: CHAPTER 13 – HAZARDS PROTECTION 46 SUB-CHAPTER 13.1 – EXTERNAL HAZARDS PROTECTION https://www.edfenergy.com/file/3863680/download Environment Agency 2013. Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 Application 47 by NNB Generation Company Limited (NNB GenCo) to carry on a water discharge activity at Hinkley Point C Power Station EPR/HP3228XT/A001 Decision document. 48 IAEA, 2019 Safety Standards Series No. SSR-1 Site Evaluation for Nuclear installations. OECD NEA iLibrary Radioactive Waste management. 49 https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/nuclear-energy/radioactive-waste-management_19900325 ICRP, 201X. Radiological protection of people and the environment in the event of a large nuclear 50 accident: update of ICRP Publications 109 and 111. ICRP Publication 1XX. Ann. ICRP 4X(X). Euratom, 2007, Group of Scientific Experts referred to in Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty Rules of Procedure. 51 https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/rules_of_procedure_article_31_group_of_experts_ as_adopted_30_june_2017.pdf Environment Agency, 2013. Environmental permits granted for Hinkley Point C. 52 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hinkley-point-decisions-on-environmental-permit- applications-for-a-proposed-new-nuclear-power-station Environment Agency 2015.Environmental performance report for the nuclear sector in England and Wales. 53 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/576927/ LIT_10616.pdf IAEA Nuclear Energy Series NW-T-1.24 “Options for Management of Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste 54 for Countries Developing New Nuclear Power Programmes” IAEA, 2018. Nuclear Energy Series NW-T-1.14 “Status and Trends in Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste 55 Management” IAEA, 2016 Nuclear Power and Sustainable Development 56 https://www.iaea.org/publications/11084/nuclear-power-and-sustainable-development

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 13 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

Ref Title European Academies Science Advisory Council 2014, “Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel and its 57 Waste”. Holmes, J et al. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research- reports/management-spent-nuclear-fuel-and-its-waste Cefas, Radioactivity in Food and the Environment report, 2018. 58 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/75073 0/Radioactivity_in_food_and_the_environment_2017_RIFE_23.pdf EC, 2007, 20.12.2007.COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION Application of Article 35 of the 59 Euratom Treaty Verification of the operation and efficiency of facilities for continuous monitoring of the level of radioactivity in the air, water and soil Report, 1990-2007 Department of Energy and Climate Change. Decision on application for construction 60 of Hinkley Point C. 19 March 2013. European Commission. Overview of EU radiation protection legislation. 61 https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/overview-eu-radiation-protection-legislation Nuclear Industry Safety Directors Forum, 2015. Operating experience and Learning. A Guide to good 62 practice. ASN France, 2018. ASN Opinion 2018-AV-0300 of 11 January 2018 concerning the safety options file 63 presented by Andra for the Cigeo project for deep geological disposal of radioactive waste. Brook BW, Alonso A, Meneley DA, Misak J, Blees T, van Erp JB, 2014. “Why nuclear energy is 64 sustainable and has to be part of the energy mix”, Sustainable Materials and Technologies vols1-2, pp 8- 16. Brook BW and Bradshaw CJA, 2014. Key role for nuclear energy in global biodiversity conservation, 65 Conservation Biology vol 29 702-712. BEIS, 2012. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/european-commission-gives-all-clear-to-hinkley-point- 66 c EDF. Environmental Product declarations for Sizewell and Torness nuclear power plants. 67 https://www.edfenergy.com/sites/default/files/sizewell_epd_full.pdf and Torness https://www.edfenergy.com/sites/default/files/torness_epd_report_final.pdf Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, 2018. Position Paper: Why Geological Disposal? 68 CoRWM doc 3521 Scottish Government, 2011. Scotland’s higher activity radioactive waste policy, 69 https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-higher-activity-radioactive-waste-policy-2011/pages/2/ Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, 2009. Meeting the Energy Challenge. A White Paper on nuclear power. 70 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/22894 4/7296.pdf

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 14 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

2. NUCLEAR SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

2.1. International Nuclear Legislative and Regulatory Framework to secure DNSH

There is an extensive range of national and international legislation, backed up by strict regulation, monitoring and assessment to ensure that the commercial nuclear power sector Does No Significant Harm. In this section we describe the overall framework of International Treaties and Conventions, mechanisms to ensure very high standards of environmental protection are achieved, maintained and enforced, the long established and evidence-based Radiation Protection Framework, and how the nuclear industry is an exemplar in learning from experience and sharing best practice on safety and environment. Since the 1950s, nuclear energy and its associated activities have been subject to a high degree of regulation. There is a substantive body of international law and policy on regulation of nuclear installations, radiological protection, liability and insurance, transport, waste management and non-proliferation which ensure that the risks from nuclear energy are kept to a very low level (Reference 22). From the industry’s inception, it was recognised that the risks arising from nuclear installations do not affect simply the state which makes use of the technology but may have serious or consequences for other countries. In addition, nuclear technology needs to be carefully controlled and safeguarded so that nuclear materials are not diverted to non-peaceful uses. Also, there is a need to consider the intergenerational aspect of dealing responsibly and safely with waste materials, some of which can present hazards over very long-time scales. Therefore, it is not surprising that strong efforts have and are being made to undertake detailed scientific studies and provide international control regimes to mitigate these risks. A range of competent international organisations play a significant role in nuclear regulation, with a key role for the European Commission’s experts in its Directorate General for Energy, using powers established under the Euratom Treaty, as described in section 2.2.

2.2. Euratom Treaty and Directives, and their enforcement

The European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom), unlike other international organisations such as the IAEA and NEA, has power to set and enforce binding radiation protection standards, and this is closely connected to nuclear safety. The Treaty was signed in 1957 and came into force on 1 January 1958. Chapter 3 of the Treaty covers Health and Safety, Chapter 4 concerns Investment, Chapter 7 Nuclear Safeguards. Particular Treaty Articles concern setting up of independent expert groups to advise the Commission (Article 31) on basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the public and ensure they are applied, powers for the Commission to inspect and verify environmental monitoring arrangements (Article 35), assessment of transboundary effects of planned and unplanned radioactive releases (Article 37), and scrutiny of nuclear investments (Article 41). Relevant Directives and Regulations made under the Euratom Treaty are concerned with basic safety standards for protection against ionising radiation, management of spent fuel and radioactive waste, transfrontier shipments of radioactive sources, radioactive waste and spent fuel, nuclear safety, high activity sealed sources, maximum levels of radioactivity in drinking water and in foodstuffs and other legal instruments, together with relevant guidance on these. Reference 61 has an overview and summary of the applicable Euratom legislation. The Basic Safety Standards Directive applies widely to all forms of radiation exposure. Its provisions include a system of enforcement, requiring Member States to establish a system of inspections to enforce the provisions of the Directive and initiate corrective actions where necessary. In the UK, the appropriate regulatory authorities carrying out inspections and enforcement at nuclear sites are the Office for Nuclear Regulation, working together with the

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 15 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

environment agencies in England, Wales and Scotland. In France, the regulatory body is the Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire (ASN). The Euratom Treaty confers on the Community a number of powers with the objective of encouraging investment in the nuclear sector. Article 40 requires the Commission to publish periodically illustrative programmes indicating nuclear energy production targets and all the types of investment required for their attainment (Reference 22). Article 41 of the Treaty requires that those engaged in the industrial activities should communicate to the Commission investment projects relating to new installations and also replacements and conversions which fulfil certain criteria. In 2012, under Article 41, the European Commission provided a favourable view on EDF’s investment plans for Hinkley Point C, concluding that it “fulfils the objectives of the Euratom Treaty and contributes to develop a sustainable national energy mix” (Reference 66). The European Commission is also a member of and liaises closely with other international bodies including the International Commission on Radiological Protection, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the OECD Nuclear Energy, the Oslo and Paris Commission. All these bodies influence and, in some cases, have a role in the regulation of safety and environmental protection in the industry.

2.3. Other International Legal Requirements

2.3.1. Convention on Nuclear Safety

The Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) was agreed in recognition that it in the interest of all countries to achieve high standards of nuclear safety, compare different approaches and have independent experts review progress and make constructive comments. The Convention commits Contracting Parties and Member States which operate civil nuclear power plants to maintain a high level of safety by establishing fundamental safety principles to which states would subscribe. The Convention obliges parties to submit detailed reports on the implementation of their obligations for “peer-review” at meetings, at IAEA headquarters, every 3 years. This peer-review to drive improvements and disseminate good practice is the main innovative and dynamic element of the Convention.

2.3.2. Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management/ Radioactive Waste Management

The Joint Convention is a key legal instrument to address the issue of spent fuel and radioactive waste management safety on a global scale. It establishes fundamental safety principles and creates a similar “peer-review” process to the CNS. The Joint Convention applies to spent fuel resulting from the operation of civilian nuclear reactors and to radioactive waste arising from civilian applications. In addition, it covers planned and controlled releases into the environment of liquid or gaseous radioactive effluents from regulated nuclear facilities. The Joint Convention and the CNS are “incentive” Conventions, encouraging the sharing of reports and experience and driving improvements through peer-reviews of practices.

2.3.3. Protection of the Environment Under Other European Legislation

The nuclear industry must comply with other EU requirements outside of Euratom. Most of the applicable environmental legislation is made under non-Euratom European Treaties, for example the Habitats and Birds Directives and requirements for Environmental Impact Assessments of projects. In this respect nuclear power developments are not substantially different from other major energy projects in the EU.

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 16 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

2.4. Overarching Radiation Protection Framework to show DNSH

The management of radiological hazards from nuclear power generation, radioactive waste management or natural radioactivity arising from mining of materials for wind turbines or solar panels is based on the same internationally accepted framework set by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), which is incorporated into international, European and National laws. This framework is summarised in Figure 1. Before deciding whether a practice such as nuclear power is even considered for a development, it must first of all be shown that there is a net benefit to the economy, environment and society, and the benefits outweigh any radiation detriments. This is the principle called Justification.

Once the national authorities, which in the UK means the relevant Secretary of State in the government, have assessed the practice as being justified, then a rigorous process is undertaken to ensure:  firstly, that any radiological impact / risks to workers, members of the public and the environment are below legally established Limits, to ensure there is no significant harm, and

 secondly that the impacts/ risks have been reduced to a

level where they are as low as they reasonably can be,

where the costs and societal impacts of reducing the

impacts further would be disproportionate to the

benefits – this is called the principle of Optimisation.

The chart in Figure 2 gives some context and scale to radiation doses. and radiation dose limits, in units of milliSieverts (mSv). It shows that the strict regulatory regime for nuclear power and associated radioactive waste and spent fuel management Figure 1 (above): ensures that they do not significant harm to the public and the Schematic process for assessing Do No environment, and that the radiation doses from nuclear power Significant Harm for practices involving and from radiative waste management are very much lower radiation exposure. than legal limits and from natural background radiation.

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 17 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

Figure 2 (Above): Summary of the doses (in mSv) from Nuclear Power and Radioactive Waste Management in context of the Radiation Protection Regulatory Framework

2.5. Learning from Experience, Leadership and Sharing Knowledge

Following the 1986 Chernobyl accident in the Soviet Union, several contributory factors were identified including of contributory factors including insufficient management control, inappropriate use of procedures, human error and design problems. This led nuclear operators worldwide to work together to ensure such an accident could never happen again. As a result, the World Association of Nuclear operators (WANO) was formed and came into being in 1989 with a main purpose of facilitating the exchange of and learning from operating experience, particularly on nuclear safety, throughout the international nuclear community. WANO is not a regulatory body. Its mission is “To maximise the safety and reliability of nuclear power plants worldwide by working together to assess, benchmark and improve performance through mutual support, exchange of information, and emulation of best practices”. In the US, there is an equivalent organisation, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO). Through these bodies, the commercial barriers that might prevent the sharing of information on safety issues are removed. As a result, the nuclear industry achieves a unique level of collaboration on safety issues and sharing of best practice and learning. In the UK, the Nuclear Industry Safety Directors’ Forum has published a guide to good practice in this area (Reference 62). There is regulatory underpinning for this learning in the Office for Nuclear Regulations (ONR’s) Safety Assessment Principles covering leadership and management for safety. One of the foundation elements is that lessons should be learned from internal and external sources to continually improve leadership, organisational capability, safety decision making and safety performance.

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 18 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

3. NUCLEAR ENERGY IN RELATION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES

3.1. Climate Change Mitigation

3.1.1. Purpose of Mitigation in the Context of the Taxonomy

In November 2018, the European Commission presented its strategic long-term vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate-neutral economy by 2050. Reaching net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050 (climate neutrality) is considered an appropriate EU contribution to limiting the global temperature increase to well below 2 degrees Celsius and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius, in line with the Paris Agreement objectives. The TEG’s key mandate is to develop a sustainability framework focussed on reducing GHG emissions (i.e. mitigating emissions) in order to limit the earth’s temperature, rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The UK has become the first major economy to legislate for net zero emissions target by 2050.

3.1.2. TEG Criteria for Electricity Generation, Gas, Steam and Air Conditioning Supply

In its section on “Why electricity generation is included in the taxonomy” the TEG report states the following: “Electricity generation is responsible for over a quarter of EU greenhouse gas emissions. Ambitious emissions reductions in this sector are vital to decarbonisation. The taxonomy work on electricity has attempted to recognise this finding with suitably ambitious requirements within a model of supporting a transition to the EU’s emission reduction goals. An overarching, technology-agnostic emissions threshold of 100g CO2e / KWh is proposed for electricity generation. This threshold will be reduced every five years in line with a trajectory to net-zero CO2e in 2050. For electricity generation we have generally required using an ISO 14044-compliant Life Cycle Emissions (LEC) analysis to prove eligibility – that is that the life cycle impacts for producing one KWh of electricity are below the declining threshold of 100gCO2e”.

3.1.3. Evidence for Nuclear Power’s Contribution to Climate Change

As the TEG report acknowledges, there is clear evidence on the potential substantial contribution of nuclear energy to climate change mitigation objectives. The potential role of nuclear energy in low carbon energy supply is well documented. In its “A Clean Planet for All” Communication in 2018 (Reference 2), the EC confirmed that together, renewables and nuclear power will form the backbone of a carbon-free European power system by 2050. In July 2019, the European Investment Bank (EIB) published a draft lending policy which sets out how the EIB’s activities can help the EU meet its climate change targets and rapidly phase out fossil fuels. In this policy, the EIB states that nuclear will be needed alongside renewables to reach net zero emissions and consequently nuclear activities are eligible for lending from the EIB. The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report Global Warming of 1.5°C (Reference 3) also recognises that nuclear power has an important role to play if the world is to keep global warming to below 1.5 degrees. In its report, the IPCC featured four model pathways for limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre- industrial levels, all of which included increases in nuclear power generation by 2050, ranging between 59% and 501%.

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 19 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

Also, the absence of nuclear power would be hugely detrimental to the challenge of mitigating the effects of climate change. According to the International Energy Agency report “Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System”(Reference4), a steep decline in nuclear power would threaten energy security and climate goals, and could result in billions of tonnes of additional carbon emissions “Without an important contribution from nuclear power, the global energy transition will be that much harder” said IEA’s executive director, Dr Fatih Birol. There are three key reasons why nuclear energy is needed: 1) from a taxonomy point of view, to reduce GHG emissions; 2) to help to manage the risks from intermittency of renewables in the generation mix, during the transition to net zero, and 3) facilitating the growth of other technologies such as hydrogen production. In California, a bill has recently been proposed by a state legislator to amend the state’s constitution and allow nuclear energy to qualify as a ‘renewable’ energy source. The amendment would allow nuclear to count towards the states climate change goals which are considered very challenging without nuclear. It is hoped the amendment will allow an existing nuclear power plant (Diablo Canyon) to stay open beyond its current closure date of 2025 and could support investment in new nuclear projects.

3.1.4. The Importance of Nuclear Energy for the UK’s Decarbonisation Target

The UK’s decision to set a legally binding target followed advice from the Committee on Climate Change (the CCC is an independent public body formed to advise the UK on tackling and preparing for climate change) that reaching net zero emissions by 2050 was possible. To achieve the 2050 target, the CCC identified an important role for low- carbon ‘firm’ power (i.e. non-intermittent). The CCC included around 40% firm low carbon power in its 2050 net zero scenario to meet net zero while maintaining security of supply and keeping costs low. Recognising the importance of new nuclear projects to meet the requirement for low-carbon firm power to help meet the 2050 target, the UK Government has launched a public consultation to develop a new financing model to attract new investors to nuclear project and finance a fleet of new nuclear projects.

3.1.5. Nuclear Energy Role in Electrification of Other Sectors to Contribute to Economy Wide Decarbonisation

Scenarios for deep decarbonisation of the economy typically require electrification of activities in other parts of the economy such as transport, heat and industry. As a result, deep decarbonisation is likely to result in significant increases in electricity demand. This additional demand will have to be met with low carbon electricity. For example, the CCC net zero scenario showed electricity demand doubling by 2050 to support electrification. This will need a fourfold increase in the UK’s low carbon electricity generation from today’s level. Nuclear can make a major contribution to electrification. As well as helping to meet the large increase in low carbon output required, the ‘firm’ baseload profile means it can be relied on to generate when needed by the underlying activity. The importance of balancing low carbon power supply with demand increases as electrification increases as it will increase the disruption caused by a loss of power. In the UK, a power cut in August 2019 caused significant disruption and costs to the economy. The disruption and costs would likely have been larger with greater electrification. Avoiding disruptions such as this are also likely to be important to maintaining public support for the transition to net zero.

3.1.6. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Nuclear

The Life Cycle Assessment of the carbon footprint of Hinkley Point C (Reference 5) indicates that, from a full lifecycle perspective, the greenhouse gas emissions associated with 1 kWh of electricity generated from Hinkley Point C

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 20 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

were calculated to be 4.8 g CO2e/kWh. This is less than 5% of the TEG’s criterion for taxonomy eligibility of 100 g

CO2e/kWh. The largest contributor to the life cycle in terms of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) emissions was the construction stage, from the emissions embedded in the main construction materials. The greatest impact is associated with steel and concrete use, and to a lesser extent the electricity and fossil fuels use. As a near-replica of HPC it is expected that Sizewell C will have a similar, very low carbon foot print. [We note that the TEG has recommended that, along with other high GHG- emitting manufacturing activities, the manufacturing of cement – a key component of concrete – be included in the taxonomy. – with “best in class” technical screening criteria. This is professed to be on the basis that while such industries are critical to the economy, in general they need to significantly enhance their environmental performance beyond the industry average. In this context, it seems incongruous not to have recommended the inclusion of nuclear power - a very low GHG emitter – in the taxonomy. The assessment of HPC is consistent with the published range of nuclear carbon intensity by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with studies of the operation plants at SZB and Torness in the UK (Reference 68). The very low GHG emissions from nuclear energy stand comparison with well accepted renewable technologies such as wind generation. For comparison, a 2016 study in a peer-reviewed article (Reference 45) considered the environmental impacts related to the provision of 1 kWh to the grid from in Europe, based on four representative power plants onshore (with 2.3 and 3.2 MW turbines) and offshore (4.0 and 6.0 MW turbines) using 2015 state-of-the-art technology data provided by Siemens Wind Power. The emissions of greenhouse gases

amounted to less than 7 g CO2-eq/kWh for onshore and 11 g CO2-eq/kWh for offshore wind. Comparing the emissions from modern new nuclear build with these figures, the greenhouse gas emissions from HPC would be lower than the equivalent figures for both onshore and offshore wind energy

3.1.7. Nuclear for Hydrogen Production

In its recommendations for next steps towards the future taxonomy, the TEG recommends the inclusion of the manufacturing of electrolysis equipment and related key components, based on the potential of hydrogen use to play a major role in the decarbonisation of several industrial sectors. Developing clean hydrogen as a fuel will be key to low carbon mobility in some economic sectors. The TEG also recommends the manufacture of hydrogen itself be included in the taxonomy. Although the TEG has not yet recommended a GHG emissions metric per unit of hydrogen produced, it is likely that nuclear power plants could make a substantial contribution in ensuring hydrogen is produced in a sustainable manner: high volume, high quality and virtually no GHG emissions (Reference 6). The IAEA has also published a “toolkit” on hydrogen production. EDF Energy’s R&D department is leading a consortium to deliver the innovative “Hydrogen to Heysham (H2H)” project which is looking at generating low carbon, low cost, local hydrogen from Heysham Power Stations on the Lancashire coast. The consortium brings together the teams from EDF Energy R&D, Heysham Power Stations, Lancaster University, Atkins, European Institute for Energy Research (EIFER) and EDF Group’s Hydrogen subsidiary Hynamics. It is funded as part of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s £20 million Hydrogen Supply programme. A feasibility study will be completed by September 2019; and the second phase (subject to selection by the UK government) will be the pilot demonstration, starting in 2020 and running for two years. EDF is the early stages of considering SZC as a hub to generate electricity, hydrogen and make other contributions to counter the impacts of climate change.

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 21 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

3.2. Climate Change Adaptation

3.2.1. Meaning of adaptation

As described in the TEG report, adaptation is context- and location-specific and requires the use of a process-based approach to determine if an activity contributes to adaptation and broader system’s climate resilience. The TEG followed a two-step process to demonstrate that an activity contributes to a substantial reduction of the negative effects of climate change:

 Assessing the expected negative physical effects of climate change on the underlying economic activity that is the focus of resilience-building efforts, drawing on robust evidence and leveraging appropriate climate information;  Demonstrating how the economic activity will address the identified negative physical effects of climate change or will prevent an increase or shifting of these negative physical effects.

3.2.2. TEG Criteria for Climate Change Adaptation

The TEG report states that “To be eligible for the EU taxonomy, the economic activity must meet the following qualitative screening criteria: The criteria below are in relation to electricity generation by hydropower”:

Screening criterion A1. Reducing The economic activity must reduce all material physical climate risks to the extent material physical possible and on a best effort basis. climate risk The activity integrates physical and non-physical measures aimed at reducing - to the A1.1 extent possible and on a best effort basis - all material risks that have been identified through a risk assessment. The above-mentioned assessment has the following characteristics: • considers both current weather variability and future climate change, including uncertainty; A1.2 • is based on robust analysis of available climate data and projections across a range of future scenarios; • is consistent with the expected lifetime of the activity. Criterion A2: Supporting system The economic activity must not adversely affect adaptation efforts of others. adaptation The activity does not lead to increased climate risks for others or hamper adaptation A2.1 elsewhere, for example, upstream flood defence causing increased risk downstream in a river basin. A2.2 The activity is consistent with sectoral, regional and/or national adaptation efforts

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 22 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

3.2.3. Nuclear Power Stations are Resilient to Severe Weather

Nuclear power generation, particularly at coastal locations, makes a significant contribution to climate change adaptation by providing large scale, stable, flexible electricity supply in a way that is much less sensitive to weather fluctuations. Nuclear power plants are designed, constructed and operated so as to withstand unlikely external events such as severe weather; even if the weather becomes more extreme as a result of climate change, considerable safety margins will be maintained. The decision as to where to site a new reactor is partly based on a conservative analysis of the reactor design’s resistance to a changing climate and the associated weather events. Safety cases for nuclear plants need to consider how safety will be ensured in relation to such events in the future even if they are highly unlikely at the present time; in the UK, even events which have a probability of occurrence of 1 in 10,000 years need to be considered in the nuclear safety case. The UK nuclear regulators have set out their position on nuclear safety and severe weather events by reference to UKCP18 (Reference 7), which is the most recent set of climate model projections for the UK produced by the UK Meteorological Office and partners. UKCP18 provides information on temperature, precipitation, wind, sea level rise and storm surge. For duty holders in the nuclear industry, the impacts of climate change on hazard magnitude and frequency for some natural hazards are required to be assessed over the lifetime of nuclear sites, for example as part of periodic safety reviews. Adapting to climate change projections is a key part of the way in which nuclear safety is assured. IAEA’s safety standard on Site Evaluation for Nuclear Installations, published in 2019, requires that the external hazards and their characteristics shall be assessed in terms of their potential for changing over time and the potential impact of these changes shall be evaluated (Reference 48). The Pre-Construction safety report for Hinkley Point C addresses how safety will be ensured at the station in relation to a range of external hazards, including extreme weather conditions such as very high and low ambient air temperatures, storm surges, severe flooding, lightning strikes, wind generated missiles and tornadoes. (Reference 46) The electricity generated by nuclear power plants is important in managing the consequences of severe weather events. Maintaining electricity supply or quickly restoring supply is fundamental to limit the consequences of such events to the surrounding communities and wider society. As such nuclear power plants are part of countries’ key critical infrastructure. Electricity output from nuclear energy is reliable and changes very little in relation to varying weather conditions. Having this reliability is of key importance when the low carbon generation mix contains a large amount of intermittent renewable generation (which is weather -dependent), as it reduces reliance on gas fired generation or energy storage. As discussed earlier, nuclear can make a major contribution to electrification of other economic activities such as heating, transport and in industry. As the level of electrification of an economy increases, the disruption caused by a loss of electricity supply increases. The climate resilience and security of supply benefits of nuclear are therefore likely to increase as electrification increases.

3.2.4. Need for Climate Resilience and Impact of Decentralised Generation

The European Environment Agency has observed, in its report “Adaptation challenges and opportunities for the European energy system. Building a climate-resilient low-carbon energy system” (Reference 8) that new low-carbon technology developments [such as wind and solar] may lead to structural changes to the energy market, in particular to growth in decentralised energy solutions. These can create adaptation challenges if decisions affecting the

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 23 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

management of complex infrastructure are taken by a decentralised group of new market actors rather than centrally by more experienced actors. At the same time, decentralised actors can be more flexible and are more knowledgeable about the local situation, including “specific adaptation needs and options”. To adapt the electricity supply system most effectively, and most cost effectively, there needs to be a balance between sources of diffuse and more centralised generation and supply such as nuclear power stations. Experience in France, which has a high proportion of nuclear in its generation mix, is that nuclear electricity can be supplied flexibly in accordance with demand. Having a generation mix containing both renewables and nuclear will be highly beneficial in the transition to a resilient low carbon electricity supply system.

3.2.5. Assessment against TEG Criterion

As indicated above for HPC, the risk assessment and approval process for new nuclear power stations is designed to ensure that all material physical climate risks are reduced to the extent possible. Nuclear power stations are normally located remotely from centres of population. The assessments consider both current weather variability and future climate change, including uncertainties and extremes of weather, and is based on robust analysis of available climate data and projections across a range of future scenarios, which is peer-reviewed. They take into account the expected lifetime of the power station over its construction, generation and decommissioning stages.

3.3. Sustainable Use and Protection of Water and Marine Resources

3.3.1. Summary of Impacts from Discharges into the Environment

Radioactive discharges from modern nuclear power stations are extremely low. For Hinkley Point C, the impact of the discharges at the permitted limits has been assessed thoroughly and would be less than 1% of the UK and European statutory legal radiation dose limit for members of the public. The nuclear sector is working very hard to reduce these discharges even further, as recognised by international organisations such as OSPAR.

3.3.2. Technical Assessment Criteria for Assessing DNSH

The DNSH assessment criterion for this category is that the activity must not be detrimental to a significant extent to good status of Union waters, including freshwater, transitional waters and coastal waters, or to good environmental status of marine waters of the Union. One of the references cited in the TEG report, i.e. the article by Tierney et al (Reference 10 in this paper) reports the finding of enriched carbon 14 levels in marine mammals (harbour porpoise and grey seals) in the Irish Sea and in the West of Scotland from transfer through the marine food web. The article shows that the activity concentrations are related to nuclear fuel reprocessing activities at . However, the conclusions in the article make clear that the Carbon 14 activities presented do not pose any radiological risk to the individual mammals. This is underpinned by assessments for example using the ERICA modelling tool (Reference 25), whose development was led and spearheaded through EU sponsored research. It is important to note that the existing and planned nuclear power developments in the UK are going ahead on the basis that the future spent nuclear fuel will be stored and will not be reprocessed. Reprocessing of spent oxide fuel at Sellafield has ceased and all nuclear fuel reprocessing at the site is due to cease in 2020. Whether or not spent nuclear fuel is reprocessed, the stringent controls on radioactive discharges and the associated in-depth assessments and monitoring of their impact, as required by the Euratom Treaty and its Directives, will ensure that the radiological risks to humans and to the environment from nuclear energy will be very low.

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 24 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

3.3.3. Low levels and Reductions in Radioactive Discharges from the Nuclear Sector

Overall, radioactive discharges from nuclear installations in the EU are low and their environmental and human health impacts, measured through environmental monitoring and detailed assessments, are very much below UK and EU radiation dose limits as set out in the Euratom Basic Safety Standards Directive. In recent years the nuclear industry has gone even further, making significant reductions in radioactive discharges into the environment, by applying Best Available Techniques (BAT). Periodic Evaluations of progress in reducing discharges are made by the Oslo and Paris Commission (OSPAR) for the North East Atlantic area, which includes many EU countries. The fourth Periodic Evaluation, published in 2016, (Reference 9) reported that there is clear evidence of progress made by Contracting Parties towards the OSPAR Strategic objectives for the nuclear sector:

 In 35 out of 53 assessments for Contracting Parties across the nuclear sub-sectors, there was evidence that substantial reductions in discharges have taken place compared to the baseline period.  In another 5 assessments there was some evidence for a substantial reduction.  None of the assessments showed any evidence for any increase in any discharges.

3.3.4. Reducing Impacts on Water Quality and Resources During HPC Construction

Nuclear power construction projects are very large-scale programmes. In accordance with the high standards of safety and environmental protection which are expected and required in the nuclear sector, considerable effort is devoted to ensuring full compliance with legal requirements, and nuclear construction’s record of compliance standards comparison with the best of other large construction endeavours. During construction of Hinkley Point C, movement of heavy plant, stripping and exposure of soil areas, ground excavation and stockpiling of fill materials could generate sediment-laden surface water runoff. The release of sediment is managed (Reference 11) by adapting watercourse buffer zones and restricting access for plant movement; adopting relevant good practice guidance; and using silt trap/oil interceptors suitable for the proposed facilities. To avoid environmental accidents and spillages and minimise their effects, fuels and chemicals are stored in bunded areas, refuelling only takes place in designated areas and plant is regularly maintained. Established incident management procedures are in place to ensure rapid and effective mitigation and prevent any significant environmental impacts. There is extensive monitoring to ensure full compliance with environmental permits. EDF is introducing a range of measures to manage and where possible reduce water demand including design of facilities to use less water, monitoring water use, for example using water from water management zones for dust suppression.

3.3.5. Impacts from Discharges of Cooling Water and from Radioactive Discharges During Operation of HPC

Impacts from discharge of cooling water from HPC will be controlled through environmental permits granted by the Environment Agency for Construction Water Discharge Activity and Operational Water Discharge Activity. When considering EDF’s applications, the Environment Agency assessed the impact of the water discharge activity in relation to a wide range of legislation, including the Habitats Directive and the Water Framework Directive. It assessed potential impacts on the Severn Estuary SAC, SPA and Ramsar designated European conservation sites. It was satisfied that there would be no adverse impact on the integrity of the designated sites as long as certain

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 25 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

mitigation and monitoring measures were put in place. These requirements were included within the water discharge permits, or were communicated to other authorities who ensured they were adopted. In its assessment under the Water Framework Directive, the Agency concluded that the proposed water discharge activity would not cause the current status of the WFD waterbodies to deteriorate, nor prevent them from achieving their objectives. (Reference 47). Discussion on the impacts of HPC on ecosystems is set out in section 2.6. EDF’s experience in minimising impacts at HPC will be transferred across and applied in the future Sizewell C project. As indicated above, the impact of radioactive discharges from HPC will be very low indeed. The Environment Agency assessed the maximum impact to a member of the public (known as the radiation 'dose') of discharges at the permit limits for Hinkley Point C to be 8.4 micro sieverts, which is less than 1% of the EU public dose limit in the Euratom Basic Safety Standards Directive (Reference 23).

3.3.6. Assessment against TEG Criterion

From the evidence above. it can clearly be seen that the development of nuclear energy is not detrimental to a significant extent to the achievement of good status of EU waters, including freshwater, transitional waters and coastal waters, or to good environmental status of marine waters, and thus it satisfies this TEG Taxonomy criterion.

3.4. Transition to a Circular Economy, Waste Prevention and Recycling

3.4.1. TEG Criterion for DNSH

In summary, meeting this TEG criterion requires that the activity does not lead to significant inefficiencies in the use of materials in one or more stages of the life-cycle of products, including in terms of durability, reparability, upgradability, reusability or recyclability of products; and does not lead to a significant increase in the generation, incineration or disposal of waste. In the text below we show that the nuclear sector applies the waste hierarchy, and radioactive waste volumes are much lower than for other types of waste. The sector continues to reduce its wastes through good design and efficient operation. Waste management in the nuclear sector is of key importance; it is highly regulated and subject to in depth governance. In several EU countries, there is long experience of safe operation of spent fuel management, storage and radioactive waste disposal facilities. In Reference 14, the EC reported that, as of 2013, more than 54 000 tonnes of spent fuel were stored in the European Union. The “World Nuclear Waste Report (WNWR)” (Reference 15) for the Greens/EFA Group in the European Parliament, was made available to the TEG, even though it has not been subjected to peer-review. This WNWR report sets out a range of criticisms of the nuclear sector’s management of radioactive waste. EDF responds to this flawed report in section 3.4.6 below and indicates in the next sections how nuclear power meets the TEG criteria. High Level Waste and spent nuclear fuel can be and is being safely stored above ground in secure facilities for decades, without causing harm to people or to the environment. This process could be continued indefinitely to safely store the waste without moving it to a geological disposal facility. Above ground storage has benefits in allowing radioactive decay and cooling of the spent fuel and HLW. The availability of geological disposal facilities cannot be said to be the determining factor in the taxonomy-eligibility of nuclear energy.

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 26 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

3.4.2. Applying the waste hierarchy

Recently, Christophe Xerri in IAEA has shown that the nuclear sector contributes to the circular economy through careful waste management, life cycle analysis, and efforts to reduce and recycle wastes, with further opportunities as existing nuclear facilities start to be decommissioned. Modern nuclear power reactors produce much less waste per unit of power than earlier designs. In this section we show how this effort to minimise waste at the design stage has paid dividends in making nuclear power stations more efficient, easier to manage, and simpler to decommission at the end of their lives. The UK Environment Agency (EA) 2011 decision document (Reference 12) on the Generic Design Assessment of the EPR comments on the use of BAT to minimise disposals of spent fuel. The document noted that the Flamanville 3 design of EPR took into account experience and feedback from operating Pressurised Water Reactors (PWRs) in France and Germany and incorporated improvements in environmental performance. With regard to waste and fuel these include:

 a more efficient use of natural uranium resources;  a significant reduction in the quantity (volume, mass) of long-lived radioactive waste resulting from the fuel and its cladding owing to its: o neutronic design (large core, neutron reflector); o and the fuel management performance (high burn up). There is less use of nuclear materials to produce the same amount of energy, reducing both the consumption of natural uranium and the quantity of waste produced by irradiation, for the same amount of energy produced. Also, high burn up of the fuel saves approximately 7 per cent of the natural uranium resource required compared with current fuel for a given amount of energy produced. The increased burn up rate leads to a reduction in radiotoxic materials of around 14 per cent and a reduction of high activity long lived waste such as cladding of around 30 per cent. Building on the Flamanville 3 design, the UK EPR fuel design for HPC has improvements in manufacturing and quality. There is a worldwide programme of research and development, including manufacturing and human aspects. The UK EPR fuel AFA 3G assemblies have shown high operational reliability. The EA stated that “EDF and AREVA have demonstrated BAT in the fuel design and in order to minimise the amount of spent fuel for disposal”. Spent nuclear fuel is not classified as a waste material in the UK and in France because some of the materials within it have the potential to be extracted and re-used as a fuel. However, its radioactive content and its level of heat generation mean that for the purposes of storage and disposal it can be thought of as being similar to HLW.

3.4.3. Reducing HPC’s decommissioning waste through design and construction

By considering decommissioning from the design stage, the volume of radioactive waste can be reduced substantially and thus ensure there is more certainty over its final funding. Examples include:

 Selection of construction materials - where practicable materials will be selected, to minimise the activation of certain elements which give rise to high levels of radiation, including cobalt, silver, and antimony.

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 27 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

 Reuse of soil – applying the waste hierarchy, during construction the project is balancing balance cut/fill which will ultimately allow reuse of some 8 million cubic metres of soil that would otherwise have required offsite disposal.  Optimisation of neutron shielding - neutron shielding is utilised between the core and reactor vessel. This will reduce the depth of irradiation of the concrete of the reactor compartment;  Plant design - design facilitates decontamination during decommissioning;  Prevention of contamination spread - containment, ventilation and segregation are utilised to prevent contamination spread

3.4.4. Management, Storage and Disposal of Higher Activity Wastes and Spent Fuel

Not all radioactive wastes need long-term management. By volume, the great majority of wastes arising from nuclear power have low levels of radioactivity and can be safely managed and disposed of without long term controls. It is only the Higher Activity Wastes (Intermediate Level Waste and High-Level Waste) and Spent Fuel that require long term storage solutions. It should be noted that spent nuclear fuel is not classified as a waste material in the UK and in France because some of the materials within it have the potential to be extracted and re-used as a fuel. However, its radioactive content and its level of heat generation mean that for the purposes of storage and disposal it can be thought of as being similar to High Level Waste. Almost 5% of the new nuclear fuel used today and 10% of the French nuclear power fleet of reactors use reprocessed fuel; with further technologies being developed, this amount is likely to increase in the future While, as noted in the TEG report, a final repository for spent nuclear fuel is not yet operating, spent fuel and High- Level Waste are being stored safely above ground in dedicated facilities at many nuclear sites, which ensure there is no significant risk to the public or the environment. Safely storing waste does not require a GDF to be available. The design of these surface facilities is relatively simple with the radioactivity and radiation being controlled using shielding and immobilisation. The methods being used today to store waste above ground could be extended indefinitely to safely store waste in the long term without a GDF. Alternatively, the spent fuel could be reprocessed or near surface permanent disposal for suitable types of waste could be used. Good progress is being made in the development of GDFs including operation of research and development facilities, including underground facilities, which are often a key part of the development of such repositories. The EC report “Progress on Implementation of Council Directive 2011/70/EURATOM. Commission Staff Working Document, 15 May 2017” (Reference 14) states that: “Under the Directive, Each Member State programme shall include the research, development and demonstration activities needed in order to implement solutions for safe long-term management of spent fuel and radioactive waste (see Article 12(1) f of the Directive). To date the research programmes in the EU are at different level stage of implementation depending on the status of implementation of their national programmes. Member States have long experience in national and international projects (including EC research framework programmes) that cover various aspects of predisposal and disposal. Four Member States currently operate five underground research laboratories for spent fuel, HLW and ILW disposal and four more Member States plan to develop such laboratories after 2020-2030 period to support the national geological disposal projects”. The progress made in several countries shows that geological disposal is definitely feasible, and there is high confidence that one, and perhaps several, geological repositories for spent fuel and High-Level Waste will be available in the next decade. Finland and Sweden both have operating geological repositories for intermediate level

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 28 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

radioactive waste, which have been receiving these wastes for over 20 years. In the USA, since 1999, a Deep Geological Disposal Facility has received long lived radioactive wastes which contain uranium and plutonium (Reference 17). There is considerable experience of operating geological repositories for Higher Activity Wastes, which shows that they are effectively managed and do not cause significant environmental harm. In Finland, regulators have granted a construction licence for an HLW geological repository. Final disposal via the access tunnel and other underground structures is planned to begin in 2022. In Sweden, the licensing process for the Spent Fuel Repository in Forsmark and the encapsulation plant in Oskarshamn continues. The Ministry of the Environment and Energy will make a for a future decision on behalf of the Swedish government. Before the Government decide on the matter, the local municipalities concerned will also be consulted since they have the right of veto. In France, the Cigeo geological disposal project is making good progress, and the French Regulatory body ASN has expressed its satisfaction with the safety documents and technological maturity (Reference 63). In the unlikely event that a Geological Disposal Facility for Spent Fuel is not fully constructed there are several alternative options for Spent Fuel Management in the long term, including:

 Reprocessing of Spent Fuel - Uranium and plutonium can be reused as nuclear fuel for reactors, while the fission and activation products are waste products, are immobilised (vitrified) and stored for further handling and disposal as Higher Activity Wastes. There is long experience, in the UK and France and other countries, of successful reprocessing programmes.  Storage on the Surface - Spent Fuel is primarily stored safely in surface-based facilities. Two types of technologies are used i.e. Wet Storage, where the fuel is stored in a water-based pool, or Dry Storage where the waste is stored in some form of cask or vault. There is no reason that storage in these types of facilities could not continue to safely contain Spent Fuel, see references 54, 55, 56 and 57. There is extensive experience of safe, secure long-term storage of spent fuel at many locations in the EU and elsewhere. The rate of progress towards a geological repository is not a determining factor in the sustainability of nuclear power.  Near Surface disposal – the higher activity waste is disposed of under controlled conditions below ground in a facility with engineered barriers providing the main containment. References 68 and 69 provide more information on the waste disposal and storage strategic options and factors influencing the preferred choice by individual countries. Whether or not spent fuel and radioactive waste are stored or disposed of, their governance and regulation is subject to extremely rigorous and comprehensive governance, accountability and regulation. This is underpinned by European legislation, international conventions and directives, and regular reporting.

3.4.5. Managing Spent fuel and HLW at EDF power stations

Sizewell B is a Pressurised Water Reactor on the North Sea coast in the UK which has been operating safely for 24 years. After removal from the reactor during a planned maintenance shutdown, the spent fuel is stored safely and securely in the station facilities, under both wet and dry conditions. A dry fuel store is a method of storing used nuclear fuel that has already been cooled in the used fuel pond. The fuel is loaded into a metal canister which is then welded shut, and then placed within a large, leak-tight steel and concrete cask. The containment of radiation is so comprehensive using these methods that it is safe for workers to walk and operate around the used fuel pool and casks. At HPC, the entire lifetime arisings of spent fuel will be stored in a purpose-built dry fuel store, which has a footprint of about 5% of the overall site area. The fuel will be stored safely for the 60-year lifetime of the station and for a

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 29 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

period beyond the end of generation, to allow cooling and radioactive decay. The store has been designed with a high degree of containment, to prevent radioactivity escaping into the environment. The outcome of a very rigorous safety assessment, which has been independently reviewed and considered by regulators, shows that the probability of a radioactive release is extremely low.

3.4.6. Recycling Rates for Non-Radioactive Wastes

Most of the waste that the nuclear industry generates is non-radioactive. Non-radioactive waste is divided into 3 categories: hazardous, inert and non-hazardous waste. Hazardous waste is harmful to people and the environment and has to be disposed of using a specific technical treatment or sent to a specialist landfill site. Examples include asbestos, solvents, oil and pesticides. Inert waste has no hazardous properties and does not undergo any significant physical, chemical or biological transformations. Sand is an example of inert waste. Non-hazardous waste, although it doesn’t have any hazardous properties, is not inert and could present challenges if not dealt with properly as it may biodegrade. Examples of non-hazardous waste include paper, cardboard and plastic. The UK Environment Agency’s 2015 environmental performance report for the nuclear sector (Reference 53) reported that for the nuclear industry in England and Wales, 97.1% of inert waste was recycled. Eighty-four per cent of non-hazardous waste was recycled. The industry has a good track record of applying the waste hierarchy and has successfully taken opportunities to improve waste management practices.

3.4.7. Observations on and Response to World Nuclear Waste Report

The “World Nuclear Waste Report (WNWR)” (Reference 15) which was produced for the Greens/EFA Group in the European Parliament, is cited in the TEG report, even though it has not been subjected to peer-review. This report’s conclusions are summarised below (in bold), with comments following each conclusion. 1. The analysis reveals that European countries differ significantly in their practices on how to classify nuclear wastes. It is correct that individual countries have different approaches to radioactive waste management and to radioactive waste classification. However, the waste classification does not prescribe how wastes can be safely managed; waste management is underpinned by detailed nuclear safety and environmental cases, which are tailored to the requirements of the wastes and the management and disposal sites to ensure compliance with the international Basic Safety Standards (Reference 48). In Germany for example, the federal regulatory authority has stated that disposal in deep geological formations is intended for all types of radioactive waste. Accordingly, there is no need to differentiate between waste containing radionuclides with comparatively short half-lives and waste containing radionuclides with comparatively long half-lives. Thus, there are no measures or precautions required in order to separate the radioactive waste produced – see Germany report to Sixth meeting of Contracting Parties to the Joint Convention, 2018 (Reference 16). 2. The analysis shows that a large amount of nuclear wastes has occurred in Europe. In most categories, future waste from decommissioning existing nuclear power plants will exceed the already large amounts of radioactive wastes present in Europe. However, there is no fully operational High-Level Waste repository in the world, and none is expected in the foreseeable future. The amount of radioactive wastes is very small compared to the volume of conventional, i.e. non-radioactive wastes that are generated in Europe. Experience from decommissioning nuclear power stations after they have permanently shut down shows that most wastes from decommissioning do not pose significantly different challenges when

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 30 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

compared to wastes arising from operating sites; about 99% of the radioactivity is associated with the spent fuel which is removed following permanent shutdown. On HLW repositories, the last statement is factually incorrect – a deep repository for transuranic waste has been in operation in the USA for two decades (Reference 17) and an HLW repository is under construction in Finland (Reference 18) and is expected to become operational in the 2020s. In France the responsible organisation, ANDRA, plans to submit an application to create a geological repository for HLW, known as the Cigeo project. In 2018, the French nuclear safety authority, ASN, gave its opinion i.e. that “the project has on the whole reached satisfactory technological maturity at the safety options stage, and the safety options file is documented and substantiated and constitutes a significant step forward”. (Reference 63). The safety documents demonstrate that as the repository elves in the very long-term future, predicted radiation doses and risks to people will be far below international norms and risk values. This opinion allows ANDRA to take the next step and apply to ASN to establish the future repository as a nuclear facility. In Sweden, the waste management organisation SKB has submitted an application for management and final disposal of the Swedish spent fuel. This application has been considered by the regulatory body SSM and by the Land and Environment Court. Both these bodies made their respective statements to the Swedish Government, which will make the final decision on licensing of the repository under the Swedish Environmental Code. 3. Nuclear waste in its different forms is dangerous for various reasons. High-Level Waste (HLW) in the form of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) or vitrified waste from reprocessing contains more than 90% of the radioactivity in nuclear wastes. Spent nuclear fuel especially in wet storage, is extremely dangerous. Transferring the SNF into dry storage should be safety priority. Immediately following removal from a nuclear reactor, spent nuclear fuel is normally stored under water for at least five years. This allows the short-lived radioactive isotopes to decay and the heat generated to dissipate. Modern types of cladding on nuclear fuel elements are stable in contact with water and there is extensive operating experience showing that wet fuel storage over a period of several decades is safe. After this period of storage under water, the spent fuel is often transferred to dry storage in casks. The safety case for spent fuel management must show that wet storage does not present unacceptable risks to workers, the public or the environment. At the current time, Higher Activity Wastes and Spent Fuel are primarily stored in dedicated facilities on the surface designed to ensure the safe storage of the wastes whilst ensuring there is no risk to the public or the environment, until such a time that a permanent disposal facility is available. The design of these surface facilities in general are relatively simple with the radioactivity of the waste / fuel controlled via appropriate shielding and immobilisation and / or containment of the waste, for instance in concrete or metal casks, and / or buildings. These techniques being used today could be applied to for long term safe management of the Spent Fuel and Higher Activity Waste on an extended and indefinite basis, with occasional renewal of the facilities as required. In the UK, the 2 New Nuclear Builds (Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C) will place Spent Fuel and High Level Waste initially under water for a period of cooling before moving them into to shielded containers for storage, whilst Intermediate Level Waste will not require cooling and will simply be stored in robust containers within a shielded store. Both of these methods ensure the radiation from the Higher Activity Waste and Spent Fuel is contained and shielded such that there is no risk to the public and the environment. It should be noted that due to the nature of radioactive decay the Higher Activity Waste and Spent Fuel is at its most radioactive and hazardous at the point that it is removed from the reactor / generated. Over time the radioactivity decreases significantly (e.g. over the 40 years after it is unloaded from the reactor the radioactivity of spent fuel is estimated to decrease to about one thousandth of the level it was when it was removed). Both Higher Activity Wastes and Spent fuel is safely being managed today, using the techniques described above, at the point that the that they are most radioactive and dangerous, this provides a strong evidence base to demonstrate safe management of Higher Activity Waste and Spent Fuel.

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 31 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

4. The practice of nuclear fuel reprocessing creates more forms of highly dangerous radioactive wastes, proliferation problems, high exposures to workers and the public, and radioactive contamination of the air and seas. Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel allows the unused Uranium isotopes, and the Plutonium in the fuel to be separated and if desired, to be reused in future nuclear power generation, for example in Mixed Oxide (MoX) fuel. Recycling the Uranium and Plutonium in this way in consistent with the waste hierarchy, reduces the amount of uranium ore that would otherwise need to be mined and milled, and the amount of uranium to be converted and enriched. Countries and utilities consider a range of factors when making decisions on whether or not to reprocess spent fuel. A comparative study of the radiological impacts of spent fuel management options by OECD/NEA (Reference 19) concluded that the differences between the open (once through) and reprocessing fuel cycle options are small from the standpoint of radiological impact and that it was not justifiable to draw definitive conclusions from the small differences in collective and individual radiological impacts. The same stringent and exacting regulatory standards and regime apply to reprocessing sites as to other nuclear facilities such as operating nuclear power reactors, requiring that risks and radiation exposures to workers, the public and the environment are kept as low as reasonably achievable. In the UK, the annual and very detailed report on radioactivity in the environment gives a detailed assessment of radioactivity in food and the environment in the UK and the public’s exposure to radiation (Cefas, 2018). It includes the assessment of radioactivity at sites involved in nuclear fuel production and reprocessing, research establishments, nuclear power production (including both operational and decommissioning sites), defence establishments, radiochemical production, legacy sites and certain industrial and landfill sites. The highest radiation dose to a member of the public in 2017 was 0.25 mSv, which is 25% of the annual UK and EU radiation dose limit in the EU basic Safety Standards Directive. 5. The analysis reveals an astonishing lack of quantitative and qualitative information on risks associated with nuclear wastes. This statement is factually inaccurate and shows that the authors of the WNWR have not undertaken very much in- depth research or analysis into nuclear wastes. Their report is superficial and does not bear scrutiny. It should carry little weight. There is a very large amount of information on the safety of countries’ nuclear wastes in the reports submitted every 3 years to meetings of the Contracting Parties under the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. The sixth meeting under the Convention in 2018 considered reports from 72 countries and Contracting Parties, including the EU (Reference 20). These country reports are subject to peer-review and questions by experts from the other Contracting Parties. The meetings conclude with, for each country, comments on the status of waste management and issues and topics to be addressed before the next meeting, thus acting as an incentive for improvements in safety. The reports are available in several languages. In addition, the OECD iLibrary has a large compilation of reference materials and publications, which are freely available, on radioactive waste management (Reference 49). The publications in this series of analytical reports and conference proceedings focus on the development of strategies for safe, broadly acceptable management of sustainable and all types of radioactive waste and materials. 6. Finally, the very long timeframes involved of tens of thousands of years remains the key factor distinguishing nuclear wastes from other kinds of wastes. Not all radioactive wastes need very long-term management. By volume, the great majority of wastes arising from nuclear power have low levels of radioactivity and can be safely managed and disposed of without long term controls. To help to put the radioactive waste arisings from nuclear power in perspective, it is worth comparing amounts of radioactive waste with arisings of hazardous, non-radioactive waste. Hazardous waste may pose an

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 32 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

elevated risk to human health and to the environment if not managed and disposed of safely. According to Eurostat Waste Statistics, among the overall waste generated in the EU-28 in 2016, 100.7 million tonnes (4.0 % of the total) were classified as hazardous waste (Reference 21). Waste is generally considered hazardous if it (or the material or substances it contains) to humans or the environment. Examples of hazardous waste include: asbestos, chemicals such as brake fluid or print toner, batteries, solvents, pesticides, oils such as car oil and equipment containing ozone depleting substances, like fridges. This annual arising of hazardous waste is much higher than the volume of radioactive waste that needs to be managed. It should be noted that, unlike radioactive waste which will decay, waste such as asbestos remains hazardous in perpetuity.

3.4.8. Assessment Against TEG Criterion

Nuclear power generation applies the waste hierarchy rigorously and generates very little waste volumes compared to other activity sectors. Most of the waste arising in the nuclear industry is non-radioactive. The great majority of inert and non-hazardous waste is recycled. Spent fuel is being stored safely at nuclear facilities, ready for transfer for recycling/ reprocessing, or for disposal in future geological facilities or by an alternative method. These arrangements all comply with EU legislation and are rigorously regulated by national bodies and subject to very high levels of governance and accountability. From the outset i.e. the design stage, and before regulatory permissions are granted, there needs to be provisions and plans made and approved, to cover the full costs of decommissioning the power station at the end of its life and for managing the waste and spent fuel that will arise. In most countries the operator or owner is responsible for the decommissioning costs. The total cost of decommissioning depends on the sequence and timing of the various stages of the programme. Deferment of a stage tends to reduce its cost, due to decreasing radioactivity, but this may be offset by increased storage and surveillance costs. Financing methods for decommissioning vary from country to country Even allowing for uncertainties in cost estimates and applicable discount rates, decommissioning contributes a small fraction of total electricity generation costs. In the USA many utilities have revised their cost projections downwards in the light of experience. The evidence above shows that nuclear power generation meets this TEG criterion.

3.5. Pollution Prevention and Control

3.5.1. TEG Criterion for DNSH

To satisfy the TEG criterion on Pollution Prevention and Control, the activity needs to avoid high emissions to air, water and land and have a level of environmental performance that is based on BAT principles. The nuclear sector’s emissions, both radioactive and non-radioactive, are low and are subject to stringent environmental permits which require the use of Best Available Techniques. The impacts of radioactive emissions and discharges are far below legal limits, background levels of radiation and orders of magnitude below a level that could cause human harm. See for example the environmental permits granted for Hinkley Point C by the UK Environment Agency (Reference 52).

3.5.2. Controls Under the Euratom Treaty

In general, environmental impacts from the nuclear power industry are controlled under similar, and in many cases the same European legislation that applies to other technology sectors. However, the pre-eminent legislative bases for nuclear regulation are the provisions of the Euratom Treaty, and EU directives and regulations made under this

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 33 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

Treaty. While, inter alia, the Treaty sets the task of the Community to raise the standard of living in Member States… by creating the conditions necessary for the speedy establishment and growth of nuclear industries, and to facilitate nuclear investment, its provisions are extremely important in the development of Community Laws and standards. The scope of these laws and standards is very wide, relating to nuclear safety, radioactive waste movements, notification of accidents, transboundary effects arising from plans for the disposal of radioactive waste, emergency procedures, and investments in nuclear energy developments. Article 30 of the Treaty requires basic standards to be laid down for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiations. In this context, the expression ‘basic standards’ is defined to mean the maximum permissible doses compatible with adequate safety, maximum permissible levels of exposure and contamination, and the fundamental principles governing the heath surveillance of workers (Reference 22).

3.5.3. Control of Environmental Impacts at HPC

At Hinkley Point C, in addition to a radioactive substances environmental permit, EDF has been granted environmental permits under UK law, which implement EU Directives, controlling water discharges from construction and operation, combustion activities from standby diesel generators, flood defence and land drainage consents, and trade effluent discharge consents – see Appendix 2. Marine licences have been granted by the appropriate marine regulatory authorities, permitting jetty and harbour construction, and disposal of dredgings. (see Appendix A 2). Similar legislative controls, implementing EU requirements, apply at nuclear power stations in other EU countries. EDF has a well-developed environmental management system for ensuring compliance with these permits in order to prevent pollution from its activities.

3.5.4. Verifications and Checks by Regulators and by the European Commission

The Euratom Basic Safety Standards Directive: Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom (Reference 23) lays down basic safety standards for the protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation. Member States must have brought into force their laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the new Basic Safety Standards Directive by 2018. The Directive covers protection of: workers, the public and medical patients. In the UK the implementing legislation provides for UK specialist environmental regulatory bodies to issue environmental permits which limit radioactive discharges and control radioactive wastes so that the public radiation exposures are kept well within the radiation dose limits in the Directive. These environment agencies undertake regular inspections and scrutinise nuclear sites’ compliance with the stringent requirements to prevent pollution, set out in these environmental permits. In addition to this national regulatory scrutiny, the EC undertakes checks on the monitoring of radioactive discharges from nuclear sites into the environment. Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty requires that each Member State shall establish facilities necessary to carry out continuous monitoring of the levels of radioactivity in air, water and soil and to ensure compliance with the basic safety standards. This Article also gives the European Commission (EC) the right of access to such facilities in order that it may verify their operation and efficiency. The main purpose of verifications performed under Article 35 of the Euratom Treaty is to provide an independent assessment of the adequacy of monitoring facilities for:

 Liquid and airborne discharges of radioactivity into the environment by a site (and control thereof).  Levels of environmental radioactivity at the site perimeter and in the marine, terrestrial and aquatic environment around the site, for all relevant pathways.  Levels of environmental radioactivity on the territory of the Member State.

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 34 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

The EC reported (Reference 59) that on the basis of these verifications of radioactive discharges and environmental monitoring around nuclear facilities in EU member states that levels of radioactivity in the air, water and soil were adequately monitored and controlled. The European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group (ENSREG) is an independent, expert advisory group created in 2007 following a decision of the European Commission. It is composed of senior officials from the national nuclear safety, radioactive waste safety or radiation protection regulatory authorities and senior civil servants with competence in these fields from all 28 Member States in the European Union and representatives of the European Commission. ENSREG’s role is to help to establish the conditions for continuous improvement and to reach a common understanding in the areas of nuclear safety and radioactive waste management. The Table below shows the nuclear industry’s environmental permit compliance., compared to other industry sectors in England. It is taken from the Environment Agency nuclear sector plan report for 2015, which is the latest year that data is available. In that year the nuclear sector had no serious breaches of environmental permit conditions. Performance in earlier years showed comparable performance.

Comparison with other industries Serious breaches of Number of permits, % serious breaches in England permit in 2015 2015 to permits Industry sector Nuclear 0 38 0.0 Water 262 23561 1.1 Chemicals 11 444 2.5 Waste 122 22205 0.5 Mineral products 0 33 0.0 Farming 13 1209 1.1 Food and drink 16 356 2.5 Paper and textiles 2 70 2.9

In general, the nuclear industry has an excellent record of environmental compliance.

3.6. Protection of Healthy Ecosystems

3.6.1. TEG Criteria for DNSH

The TEG report indicates that to meet this criterion, the activity must not be detrimental to any significant extent to the good condition of ecosystems. The Birds and Habitats Directives, sometimes jointly called “Nature Directives”, are the principal EU legislation and are the cornerstones of the EU’s biodiversity policy; the heart of European nature conservation is the protection of biodiversity. When comparing the impact on biodiversity of different technologies it is worth noting that in their evaluation of a range of different scenarios for future energy production, Brook and Bradshaw (Reference 65) concluded that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same costs-benefit analyses, in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes as before accepting or dismissing them.

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 35 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

As described above, there is considerable scientific evidence and extensive legislation, regulation and monitoring to ensure that the radiological impact of nuclear power on ecosystems is far below the level that would do any significant harm.

3.6.2. Consideration of EU Habitats and Birds Directives

As for other major infrastructure projects, nuclear power developments need to meet the requirements of relevant UK and EU legislation on protection of sensitive environmental sites and important ecological areas and habitats. The UK Government Secretary of State’s decision to grant development consent for Hinkley Point C considered at some length the application of the Habitats Directive, i.e. Council Directive92/43/EC, and Council Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild birds (the Birds Directive). The Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) concluded that the HPC project would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of any European site. Similar Assessments under these Directives are in progress for the Sizewell C project in the UK.

3.6.3. Radiological Protection of the Environment

Over the past 2 decades, under the auspices of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), and other international bodies, radiation protection science and the radiation protection framework measures have developed so that there are clear objectives in relation to radiation protection of the environment, in so far as it relates to the protection of animals and plants (biota) in their natural environment (Reference 24, ICRP 114). This approach is consistent with the methods used for assessing the impact from other, non-radioactive substances. As part of this scientific framework, the ERICA tool (Reference 25) was specifically developed for assessment of radiation effects on the environment i.e. non-human biota. ERICA (Environmental Risk from Ionising Contaminants: Assessment and Management) is a tool which provides an integrated approach to scientific, managerial and societal issues concerned with the environmental effects of contaminants emitting ionising radiation, with emphasis on biota and ecosystems. The ERICA project was cofounded by the European Union as part of the 6th Framework Programme (FP EUROATOM). The project was carried out between 2004 and 2007 as the collective work of 15 institutions in seven European countries. ERICA is often used to assess radiation doses for Habitats Regulations Assessments.

3.6.4. Protection of the Environment and Ecosystems Near HPC

In 2013, the UK government’s Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change considered the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) for Hinkley Point C as part of the application from EDF for planning and development consent for the power station. In his decision letter (Reference 60) The Secretary of State noted that the HRA concluded that the HPC project would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of any European site. He noted that the mitigation effects required by the development consent order and by the EA’s environmental permits will ensure that there are no adverse effects on site integrity. He concluded that there would be no adverse effects on any European site as a result of HPC alone and in combination with other plans and projects. Similar Habitats Regulations Assessments are underway around the Sizewell C site. The large volumes of cooling water intakes and discharges from nuclear and other types of power stations can affect fish populations in local water bodies. To mitigate the effects of this on fish in the Bristol Channel, the design of Hinkley Point C includes a fish return system, and intakes designed and located to reduce the number of fish entering the intakes. Similar fish protection arrangements are being designed as part of the Cooling Water system,

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 36 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

for SZC, to maximise dilution and dispersion, and avoid recirculation and any in-combination effects with nearby operational sites. Following best practice and using Best Available Techniques, to minimise environmental impact, these protection arrangements have the following benefits:

 reduction of waste; by minimising the intake of fish at the source and by reducing waste to landfill  sustainable use of water resource;  minimising potential adverse effects on fish communities where feasible to do so. In addition, reducing fish ingress increases the efficiency of the cooling water flow through the system, thereby reducing any potential generation losses as a direct result of mass ingress events. Effective intake design and fish protection measures can result in overall reduction in ‘catch’ rates for fish, and reduces the exposure of some fish species to adverse effects of entrainment through cooling water systems. Using this best practice, helps to manage both marine environmental risks and risks to neighbouring power stations from marine ingress events such as blockage in the cooling water system from marine debris.

3.6.5. Assessment Against TEG Criterion

Extensive and detailed assessments of nuclear power developments, including HPC, show that they are designed, constructed and operated to avoid significant harm to ecosystems and to European sites, in compliance with the relevant EU Directives. This evidence confirms that future nuclear power developments will be capable of meeting this criterion.

3.7. Wider Sustainability Considerations Arising from Nuclear Power Developments

3.7.1. Sustainability of HPC

The Environmental Statement (ES) (Reference 26) submitted in support of the application for development consent for Hinkley Point C details the environmental impacts of that development. As set out in the ES, the impacts fall into several categories: socio economic, transport, noise and vibration, air quality, effects on soils and land use, geology and land contamination, groundwater, coastal hydrodynamics and geomorphology, marine and terrestrial ecology, radiological, landscape and visual, historic environment, amenity and recreation and navigation. Socio economic aspects are a major consideration. The EDF report on realising the socio-economic benefits of HPC (Reference 27) sets out that to date, the project has delivered 6500 job opportunities, with 50% of workforce recruited locally, £108 million of community investment, 420 apprentices trained on the site, £1.5 billion spent directly in the local economy. Sixty four percent of the value of the contracts has been to UK based companies. The support for local communities has included funding for education, health, training, transport, housing and tourism. The benefits of Hinkley Point C will last for many decades after construction ends. Its reliable power will provide secure low carbon supply in an energy system with much higher levels of intermittent wind power. HPC will increase intellectual nuclear capital and UK competitiveness and will benefit follow on projects at Sizewell C and Bradwell B. Much of the investment in skills has been made and does not need to be repeated, thus helping to lower future construction costs, with knock on benefits to consumers. EDF is helping its supply chain take advantage of these opportunities in the future. EDF undertook a Sustainability appraisal of the Hinkley Point C project and produced a Sustainability Statement (Reference 11) to support its application for a Development Consent order for the project. Key findings of the Sustainability appraisal are:

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 37 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

 The target objective to minimise greenhouse gas emissions will be significantly exceeded by the project;  The objective to create employment opportunities will be significantly exceeded;  Objectives related to human health and wellbeing will be exceeded particularly during the operation of Hinkley Point C. As a requirement of European Law, specifically the Euratom Basic Safety Standards Directive (Reference 23), Member States need to consider whether classes or types of practice causing exposure to ionising radiation are justified, in terms of their overall economic, social or other benefits in relation to the health detriments they may cause. In 2010, and following consultation, the UK government issued a legal instrument, the Justification Decision (Generation of Electricity by the EPR Nuclear Reactor) Regulations 2010 (Reference 28), confirming that the EPR reactor was justified.

3.7.2. Observations on TEG References

There are many peer-reviewed and respected, reputable and objective studies of the environmental effects of nuclear power that could be used to assess DNSH. The sources and studies cited by the TEG are very limited in their scope and on their own, do not form a sound basis for evaluating the taxonomy- eligibility of the complex issues involved in nuclear energy. One of the references cited in the TEG report, i.e. the article by Verbruggen et al “Assessment of the actual sustainability of nuclear fission power”, (Reference 29) makes allegations and claims about nuclear energy, shown below in summary form as bold typeface. EDF’s responses to these claims are below: Nuclear fission plants hold the danger of causing irreversible damage to their environments in the case of nuclear catastrophes (e.g. Chernobyl, Fukushima). The level of hazard at operating nuclear power plants is high and the accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima show the very serious consequences when the nuclear reactors are damaged. However, we query whether the damage is irreversible, and indeed whether it is causing serious damage to the environment. At Chernobyl, the evacuation and absence of people has created an environment where wildlife can thrive. Published articles by Wood and Beresford (Reference 30), and Derebinya et al (Reference 31) show evidence of the return of many medium and large animal species to the exclusion zone around the site, including European badger, Eurasian beaver, elk, Eurasian lynx, grey wolf, raccoon dog, red deer, red fox, roe deer brown bear, European bison and wild boar, and an abundant mammal community. The strict international nuclear safety regulatory framework, including the EU Nuclear Safety Directive (Reference 33) helps to ensure that there are many safeguards to prevent nuclear accidents and limit their consequences. It should be noted that around Fukushima, there were no deaths attributable to radiation exposure, and studies have concluded that evacuation was unnecessary. At Fukushima, the Japanese government and authorities have indicated that remediation following the accident is making steady progress and is entering a new stage with the lifting of most evacuation orders to the former evacuation zones around the plant (Reference 34). Some foodstuffs are being exported from the evacuation area. Reference 32 reports on radiation measurements and lifestyle surveys for external radiation exposures among the returning evacuees. While caution is needed because of small sample sizes, the authors of the scientific study reported that external doses are very low and by scientific consensus would be associated with a very low likelihood of physical effects. Lifetime doses above the natural background, are also expected to be very low. part of the learning from the accident, the International Commission on Radiological Protection has been considering the effectiveness of nuclear emergency arrangements and is consulting on an update to its guidance (Reference 50). Both the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents resulted from failures to properly appreciate the risk of a major accident: at Chernobyl, in the Soviet era, an irresponsible experiment was performed on an inherently unstable

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 38 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

design of reactor, and at Fukushima, insufficient attention was paid to defense in depth so that equipment failed that should have remained operational when the tsunami struck. These matters were known beforehand, but in neither instance were they acted upon. Learning the lessons, effective internal governance and external regulation of companies that run hazardous installations are essential to avoid major accidents (Reference 35); these requirements are a key part of the international framework for nuclear energy. The once- through fission cycle cannot expand its activities significantly because it will hit the limits of cheap uranium sources; its future depends on a fast transition to breeder plants in the second half of this century. But the future of the breeder cycle remains unclear. The authoritative NEA and IAEA publication “Uranium 2016: Resources, Production and Demand” (Reference 36) indicates that “Regardless of the role that nuclear energy ultimately plays in meeting future electricity demand, the uranium resource base described in this publication is more than adequate to meet projected requirements for the foreseeable future”. If in the very long term, more nuclear fuel resources are needed, the uranium and plutonium in spent nuclear fuel could be recycled either as mixed oxide fuel or in breeder reactors. And there are alternative resources for nuclear fission from uranium, for example use of thorium resources If uranium ore runs low, thorium will probably become the dominant nuclear fuel (Reference 37). Nuclear fission power prices do not include all the present risks and long-term costs. In some countries this is true. For EDF ‘s new nuclear power projects in the UK, the methodology, before prices are agreed, includes a full assessment of risks and costs. In 2007, following consultation, the UK government issued a White paper on the role of nuclear power in meeting the energy challenge and the UK’s carbon reduction (Reference 70). The paper concluded that “It will be for energy companies to fund, develop and build new nuclear power stations in the UK, including meeting the full costs of decommissioning and their full share of waste management costs”. However, once a power plant is closed, only costs and risks remain, without benefits. This observation applies to most power plant projects, including on and offshore wind installations, regardless of technologies. Plants have a finite life beyond which it is not economically feasible to operate them. EPR power plants have a design life of 60 years. Once the spent fuel (containing over 99% of the radioactivity) is removed from a decommissioned nuclear power plant, the risks are significantly reduced. For nuclear plants in the UK a funded decommissioning plan is a prerequisite before plants are allowed to be built. (Reference 38) Decommissioning costs and disposal of the associated wastes contribute only a small fraction of the total costs of nuclear electricity generation (Reference 39). Existing plants are facing challenges in security, reliability and vulnerability, to which they are responding only partially. This observation would not apply to new projects which are being considered for the taxonomy. The designs of new nuclear power plants are very thoroughly assessed to ensure that they are secure and reliable. The stringent regulatory regime for existing and new nuclear power plants ensures that they pose very low risks to workers, public and the environment. By impeding the fast transition to highly efficient and renewable low-carbon energy systems, nuclear power expansion prolongs the unsustainable lock-in, most detrimental to the earths vulnerable climate. This statement does not recognise, as an OECD/NEA has demonstrated, that nuclear energy, as a low carbon provider of flexible backup capacity in systems with significant shares of intermittent renewables, plays an important role in meeting policy goals. This advantage should be recognised. Including nuclear power in the future low carbon electricity generation system will benefit the more intermittent, non-dispatchable technologies, offsetting their higher system costs (Reference 40).

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 39 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

In terms of politics, nuclear power decision-making is characterized by private and/or governmental technocracy, in which democratic steering and control take up a subordinate position. Since technocracy can capture its regulators, it can also manipulate deliberative forums and public engagement in order to endorse the incumbent policy rather than encouraging sustainable development policy. The European Nuclear Safety Directive 2009/71/Euratom, and its amendment 2014/87 Euratom, (Reference 33) comprise provisions relating to the establishment of a national legislative and regulatory framework for nuclear safety of nuclear installations, to the organisation, duties and responsibilities of the competent regulatory authorities, to the obligations of the licence holders, to the education and training of all parties’ staff, and to the provision of information to the public. Concerning the organisation of the competent regulatory authorities, the Directive includes the separation principle i.e. that the competent regulatory authorities must be functionally separate from any other body or organisation concerned with the promotion or utilisation of nuclear energy. In addition, Member States shall arrange at least every ten years for periodic self-assessments of their national framework and competent regulatory authorities and invite an international peer-review of relevant segments of their national framework and/or authorities. Outcomes of any peer-review shall be reported to the Member States and the Commission. There is a need for a global independent agency to review nuclear power issues with a focus on society’ best interests. This agency could also serve to qualify the nuclear regulatory institutions setup in various countries. Today, neither the proponents nor opponents of nuclear power appear to be engaged in open scientific debate about the merits and potential role of nuclear power in a low-carbon energy future. Existing energy system transition forums have side-lined the nuclear question or accepted the superficial view of nuclear energy as a ready-to-use, highly productive low-carbon electricity source. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is the appropriate autonomous international organisation within the United Nations system. IAEA was set up in 1957. In line with its ‘Atoms for Peace and Development’ mandate and statute (Reference 41), located within the UN family, it supports countries in their efforts to reach the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set out in the United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Many countries use nuclear science and technology to contribute to and meet their development objectives. The International Basic Safety Standards on Radiation Protection are sponsored by IAEA, and by the several other international organisations i.e. EC, FAO, ILO, OECD/NEA, PAHO, UNEP and WHO. IAEA also has a key role in promoting a strong and sustainable global nuclear safety and security framework in Member States, working to protect people, society and the environment from the harmful effects of ionizing radiation. For example, its Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) helps States strengthen and enhance the effectiveness of their regulatory infrastructure for nuclear, radiation, radioactive waste and transport safety. This service offers an integrated approach to the review of common aspects of any State’s national, legal and governmental framework and regulatory infrastructure for safety. The IRRS regulatory review process provides a peer-review of both regulatory technical and policy issues. An IRRS review of the UK’s institutions will be made in autumn 2019. 4. OTHER ISSUES REGARDING SUSTAINABILITY OF NUCLEAR POWER

4.1. Land Take

In their article “Life-cycle energy densities and land-take requirements of various power generators: A UK perspective” Cheng and Hammond (Reference 42) compared the energy densities and spatial footprints of a range of conventional and renewable power generation technologies. They concluded that the nuclear fuel cycle (both with diffusion and centrifuge enrichment) has the highest energy density, with bioenergy plants having the lowest. Renewables clearly produce “dilute electricity” in the sense of having an energy density that is much less than conventional fossil-fuelled and nuclear generation. A comparison table from that article is shown below.

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 40 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

Table 1: A comparison of the spatial footprints per unit of output from various power generators (CHENG AND HAMMOND, 2017) Cheng and Gagnon et al. Energy system EWG (km2/TWh) Hammond (Km2/TWh) (km2/TWh) 4.00 3.63 – – 0.09 – Nuclear 0.50 0.48 0.30 Wind 72.00 2.33–116.66 1.15–44.17 PV 45.00 13.50–27.00 16.17–20.47 533–2200.00 1320–2200.00 470.00

4.2. Sustainable and Ethical Standards Including Supply Chain

EDF Energy’s Policy Standards require that its Supply Chain Functions shall be compliant with all relevant legislation and regulations (Reference 43), i.e.:

 EDF Energy’s Supply Chain shall be compliant with the 10 Principles of the United Nations Global Compact; and  EDF Energy shall not tolerate any form of illegal activity (such as Modern Slavery, fraud, bribery or tax evasion) within its Supply Chain; and  EDF Energy and its Supply Chain shall have appropriate defence mechanisms in place against the incorporation of non-conforming, counterfeit, suspect and fraudulent items in the Goods and Services supplied to EDF Energy; and  EDF Energy shall seek to measure and reduce the environmental impact of its Supply Chain.  EDF’s 3 Strategic sustainability goals for its business (Reference 44) are: o Better Lives: Innovating to transform people's lives with skills and job opportunities o Better Experience: Innovating to help all customers manage energy better; and o Better Energy: Innovating to lead the UK's transition to safe, low-carbon energy. For Hinkley Point C, and in future for Sizewell C, all major (Tier 1) suppliers are required to have an Environmental Management System, to have a strategy for limiting emissions from delivery of goods and services, to monitor their emissions and to set targets for their progressive reductions to be reported to EDF. 5. CONCLUSIONS, FEEDBACK AND FURTHER WORK

5.1. Conclusions

Modern nuclear technology is sustainable and should be included in the taxonomy. EDF Energy supports the European Commission’s goal of creating a sustainable finance initiative which supports technologies that can help Europe decarbonise its economy. However, all technologies have risks attached and should be assessed on an equal, fair and consistent basis, i.e. there should be a “level playing field” (Reference 64).

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 41 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

The TEG Report proposes an “over-arching, technology-agnostic emissions threshold of 100g CO2e/KWh for electricity generation. This threshold will be reduced every 5 years in line with a trajectory to net-zero CO2e in 2050”. The TEG report indicates that renewables meeting the criteria have a key role in decarbonisation. When considered objectively against the same criteria as renewables, nuclear energy will very easily meet the emissions threshold even as it reduces under the trajectory. Nuclear power should be included as an important part of this initiative, and assessed in a neutral way without bias. The TEG stated that for nuclear energy the evidence is complex and more difficult to evaluate in a taxonomy context, including potential significant harm in the categories of circular economy and waste management, biodiversity, water systems and pollution. It said that there are still empirical data gaps on key DNSH issues for nuclear power, which in its view prevent its inclusion in the taxonomy of technologies suitable for future environmentally sustainable activities and investments. The evidence in this paper, which is based inter alia on real experience at Hinkley Point C, and future plans for Sizewell C, addresses the TEG concerns about the six environmental objectives, including the underpinning references in the TEG report. While all technologies have varying degrees of risks, modern nuclear power plants, developed and operated under the rigorous independent regulatory regime required by the Euratom and EU treaties, will make a very large contribution to mitigating the effects of climate change, will not cause significant harm, and will deliver very important socio-economic benefits. As a dispatchable technology, nuclear power can operate together with non- dispatchable renewables in offsetting the latter’s higher system costs. Excluding nuclear from the taxonomy framework will alter and affect the technology-agnostic “level playing field” for a stable, sustainable energy mix in the future. EDF Energy therefore strongly believes the decision to not include nuclear at this stage in the taxonomy should be reconsidered by the TEG, taking account of the evidence in this paper and elsewhere, and using expert advice.

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 42 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

5.2. Main Points for Feedback on TEG Report

Although in its report the TEG considered nuclear energy for its low carbon credentials, it excluded nuclear power projects from the list of recommended taxonomy-eligible technologies and no framework against which it can be assessed has been provided. Only very limited evidence of selective studies on nuclear energy, was made available to the TEG, which concluded that there are still empirical data gaps on key DNSH issues. In this report we have set out extensive and authoritative independent evidence showing that nuclear power plants have a strong, sustained and continuously improving record of performance in relation to the TEG sustainability criteria. That evidence shows very clearly that under the treaties, guidelines, regulations and legislation in place and followed in the EU, the nuclear energy lifecycle does not and will not cause significant harm to the sustainability objectives. There are strong arguments, supported by clear evidence, for including nuclear power projects in the group of sustainable and taxonomy-eligible technologies, because:

 it provides safe, reliable, low carbon, stable and flexible electricity supply;  together with renewables, it is well suited to support a secure, decarbonised electricity system;  there is a strong independent nuclear regulatory framework, under the Euratom Treaty and other international law, ensuring that the nuclear facilities do not significant harm to people and the environment;  nuclear power developments such as Hinkley Point C deliver very substantial socio-economic benefits to local and regional communities;  radioactive discharges from the nuclear sector in Europe are low and continue to reduce substantially;  modern nuclear power designs such as the EPR use nuclear fuel efficiently, reducing both impacts from mining of natural uranium and the amount of radioactive waste;  there is a very well-developed learning network across the national and international nuclear sector, for sharing operating experience and good practice especially on safety related issues;  The industry recycles much of its waste; overall, volumes of conventional and radioactive waste generated from nuclear power are small and contribute very little to the overall waste stocks that need to be managed;  Spent fuel and High-Level Waste are stored safely and securely at well-regulated nuclear facilities  good progress has been made in EU countries in sustainable management of radioactive waste, and in establishing future geological repositories for High Level Waste and spent fuel, as required by the relevant Euratom Directive. In 2015 Finland’s regulators granted a construction permit for an HLW repository - the operating licence application will be submitted in 2020;  future nuclear projects can make a substantial and key contribution to hydrogen generation;  land required for nuclear projects is significantly lower than for other technologies;  many EU countries rely heavily on nuclear energy as an important source of low carbon electricity generation and would be at a financial and competitive disadvantage if they were precluded from nuclear investments. Excluding nuclear projects from the future taxonomy will hugely increase the difficulty in decarbonising the energy system, threatening energy security and climate goals. Allowing nuclear power to decline could result in billions of tonnes of additional carbon emissions.

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 43 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

5.3. TEG Recommendations for Further Work

The TEG recommended that “more extensive technical work is undertaken on the DNSH aspects of nuclear energy in future, by a group with in-depth technical expertise on nuclear life cycle technologies and the existing and potential environmental impacts across all objectives”. Recognising the challenge the TEG has faced in assessing nuclear energy, as it noted that “…nuclear energy is complex and more difficult to evaluate in the taxonomy context”, EDF recommends that the TEG or EC consults and seeks advice from the Euratom Article 31 Group as politically neutral, independent competent recognised experts in the DNSH elements of radiation protection. This Group advises the European Commission on the Basic Safety Standards Directive, which specifies strict requirements to ensure that any practice involving radiation such as nuclear power or medical exposures are undertaken in such a way that ensures the “Do No Significant Harm” principle is met. As a highly regarded and established body with expertise in the safety and sustainability of nuclear energy, it could assist the EC or TEG address the more complex issues associated with nuclear power. By virtue of the very high standing of its members, and their qualification in the fields of radiation protection and public health, the Group of scientific experts referred to in Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty (the “Group”) advises the Commission on preparing the basic radiation protection standards of the EC. Moreover, the Treaty itself requires the Commission to consult the Group when revising and supplementing the basic standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation (Articles 31 and 32 of the Euratom Treaty). Thus, when putting forward proposals concerning the basic standards, the Commission convenes the Group so that it may formally obtain an expert opinion to enable it to guide its decisions and make the requisite choices. Such decisions are collectively given by the Group whose members, each being appointed on a personal basis, speak on their own behalf and act independently of all external influence. The Foreword to the Rules of Procedure for the Article 31 Expert Group is shown in Appendix A 3. This indicates that the Commission may convene the Group not only on the occasions specifically laid down in the Treaty, but also whenever it considers such action to be necessary. Involving the Group in the development of the taxonomy would add considerable value. For example, they could be asked to make suggestions as to what would be a sensible set of DNSH criteria for nuclear power developments, based on existing EU regulations and on ‘best in class’ performance. In addition, EDF itself is ready to contribute its expertise and long experience of modern nuclear developments.

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 44 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

APPENDIX A

A.1. Extract from TEG Report On Nuclear Energy (pp 234-235)

TEG deliberations on nuclear energy The TEG assessed nuclear energy as part of its review on energy generation activities. Nuclear energy generation has near to zero greenhouse gas emissions in the energy generation phase and can be a contributor to climate mitigation objectives. Consideration of nuclear energy by the TEG from a climate mitigation perspective was therefore warranted. The proposed taxonomy regulation and thus TEG’s methodology for including activities in the taxonomy explicitly includes two equally important aspects, Substantial Contribution to one environmental objective and Do No Significant Harm (DNSH) to the other environmental objectives. In making its recommendations, the TEG used evidence and expert opinion from others, but ultimately was mandated to make recommendations about the inclusion of economic activities and screening criteria in the taxonomy. Evidence on the potential substantial contribution of nuclear energy to climate mitigation objectives was extensive and clear. The potential role of nuclear energy in low carbon energy supply is well documented265,266. On potential significant harm to other environmental objectives, including circular economy and waste management, biodiversity, water systems and pollution, the evidence about nuclear energy is complex and more difficult to evaluate in a taxonomy context. Evidence often addresses different aspects of the risks and management practices associated with nuclear energy. Scientific, peer-reviewed evidence of the risk of significant harm to pollution and biodiversity objectives arising from the nuclear value chain was received and considered by the TEG 267, 268, 269. Evidence regarding advanced risk management procedures and regulations to limit harm to environmental objectives was also received. This included evidence of multiple engineered safeguards, designed to reduce the risks. Despite this evidence, there are still empirical data gaps on key DNSH issues. For example, regarding the long-term management of High-Level Waste (HLW), there is an international consensus that a safe, long-term technical solution is needed to solve the present unsustainable situation. A combination of temporary storage plus permanent disposal in geological formation is the most promising, with some countries are leading the way in implementing those solutions. Yet nowhere in the world has a viable, safe and long-term underground repository been established270,271. It was therefore 235 infeasible for the TEG to undertake a robust DNSH assessment as no permanent, operational disposal site for HLW exists yet from which long-term empirical, in-situ data and evidence to inform such an evaluation for nuclear energy. Given these limitations, it was not possible for TEG, nor its members, to conclude that the nuclear energy value chain does not cause significant harm to other environmental objectives on the time scales in question. The TEG has not therefore recommended the inclusion of nuclear energy in the taxonomy at this stage. Further, the TEG recommends that more extensive technical work is undertaken on the DNSH aspects of nuclear energy in future and by a group with in-depth technical expertise on nuclear life cycle technologies and the existing and potential environmental impacts across all objectives. References: 265 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen,

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 45 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA; 266 International Atomic Energy Agency, Climate Change and Nuclear Power 2018, IAEA, Vienna (2018); 267 NEA Issue Brief: An analysis of principal nuclear issues No. 3, January 1989. The disposal of high-level radioactive waste. https://www.oecd-nea.org/brief/brief-03.html. More recently: Preservation of Records, Knowledge and Memory (RK&M) Across Generations: Developing a Key Information File for a Radioactive Waste Repository, OECD 2019 NEA No. 7377; 268 Verbruggen A., Laes, E. Lemmens, S., Assessment of the actual sustainability of nuclear fission power, renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 32(2014)16–28; 269 Tierney Kieran M., Graham K.P. Muira, Gordon T. Cook, Johanna J. Heymans, Gillian MacKinnona, John A. Howeb, Sheng Xua, Andrew Brownlowc, Nicholas J. Davisonc, Mariel ten Doeschatec, Rob Deavilled, Nuclear reprocessing-related radiocarbon (14C) uptake into UK marine mammals, Marine Pollution Bulletin 124 (2017) 43– 50; 270 World Nuclear Waste Report (WNWR), Focus Europe, 7 December 2018, available on: https://rebecca- harms.de/files/1/4/14p1u61xrvc0/attc_RiBS6hfU8CMhUiD1.pdf; 271 Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) on America’s Nuclear Future, Report to the Secretary of Energy, January 2012.

A.2. UK and EU Environmental Legislation Applicable to HPC and SZC Projects

A.2.1. How to Mitigate Harm

The TEG supplementary report “Using the Taxonomy” describes how to identify practices and criteria through which harm to environmental objectives can be mitigated. The TEG stated that “the vast majority of the screening criteria build from existing EU regulations. Companies and issuers with compliance and environmental management procedures in place should find it straightforward to demonstrate that they meet these requirements”.

A.2.2. EDF’s Environmental Management System

EDF‘s environmental management system ensures compliance with a very wide range of UK and EU environmental requirements, listed in Table A 2.1. The EDF Energy, Legal and Regulation Policy and associated Legal and Regulatory Practice and Guidelines, commits the company to comply with all applicable laws and regulations. Key legislation and regulatory requirements are provided in the Legal Register held within the IMS. Using the IMS, users are able to identify the relevant management arrangements through which compliance with the legislation and regulatory requirements recorded in the Legislation Register can be demonstrated. Table 2: Legislation and Guidance with which EDF NNB must comply and which is addressed in its environmental management system. No Title 1 Clean Air Act 1993 2 The Air Quality (Standards) Regulations 2010 3 The Dark Smoke (Permitted Periods) Regulations 1958

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 46 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

No Title 4 The Clean Air (Height of Chimneys) (Exemption) Regulations 1969 5 The Clean Air (Emission of Grit and Dust from Furnaces) Regulations 1971 6 The Motor Fuel (Composition and Content) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 7 The Environmental Protection (Controls on Ozone-Depleting Substances) Regulations 2011 8 Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Regulations 2015 9 The Sulphur Content of Liquid Fuels (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 10 Ozone Depleting Substances (Qualifications) Regulations 2015 11 12 The Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency Scheme Order 2010 (as amended) 13 The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Regulations 2012 14 The Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme (ESOS) Regulations 2014 15 Directive 98/69/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 relating to measures to be taken against air pollution by emissions from motor vehicles and amending Council Directive 70/220/EEC (as amended in 2009) 16 Water Resources Act 1991 (as amended) 17 Water Industry Act 1991 18 Directive 2006/11/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community 19 Water Act 2003 and 2014 20 The Water Resources (Abstraction and Impounding) Regulations 2006 21 The Trade Effluents (Prescribed Processes and Substances) Regulations 1989 22 The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2003 23 The Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC 24 Land Drainage Act 1991 25 The Water Framework Directive (Standards and Classification) Directions (England and Wales) 2015 26 EU Directive 2013/39/EU: Amending Directives 2000/60/EC and 2008/105/EC as regards priority substances in the field of water policy 27 The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2014 (as amended) 28 The List of Wastes (England) Regulations 2005 29 The Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2005 30 The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2013 (as amended) 31 The Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991 32 The Landfill Tax Regulations 1996 (as amended)

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 47 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

No Title 33 The Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 2007 (as amended) 34 The Waste Batteries and Accumulators Regulations 2009 35 The Controlled Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2012 (as amended) 36 The Controlled Waste (Registration of Carriers and Seizure of Vehicles) Regulations 1991 (REVOKED by Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011) 37 Council Regulation (EU) No 333/2011 of 31 March 2011 establishing criteria determining when certain types of scrap metal cease to be waste under Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 38 Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice Version 2 (2011) 39 The Site Waste Management Plans Regulations 2008 (REVOKED - ALTHOUGH WILL CONTINUE TO USE SWMP) 40 Control of Major Accident Hazard Regulations 2015 41 Planning (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 2015 (as amended) 42 The Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Use of Transportable Pressure Equipment (Amendment) Regulations 2011 43 The Environmental Protection (Disposal of Polychlorinated Biphenyls and other Dangerous Substances) (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 (as amended) 44 The Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 (as amended) 45 The Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001 46 The Contaminated Land (England) Regulations 2006 47 The Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2012 (as amended) 48 The Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2009 49 The Nitrate Pollution Prevention Regulations 2008 (as amended) 50 EU Regulation 528/2012/EU: Concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products 65 The Sites of Special Scientific Interest (Appeals) Regulations 2009 (as amended) 66 Hinkley Point C Development Consent Order Application 67 The Hedgerows Regulations 1997 68 The Marine Licensing (Licence Application Appeals) Regulations 2011 69 The Marine Licensing (Notices Appeals) Regulations 2011 70 The Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (as amended) 71 The Surface Waters (Shellfish) (Classification) Regulations 1997 72 The Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 (as amended) 73 Town and Country Planning Act 1990

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 48 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

No Title 74 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (as amended) 75 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 76 The Environmental Information Regulations 2004 77 The Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) Regulations 2015 (as amended) 78 The Anti-Pollution Works Regulations 1999 79 The Environmental Civil Sanctions (England) Order 2010 80 Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 laying down the obligations of operators who place timber and timber projects on the market 81 Marine Licensing (Exempted Activities) Order 2011 82 Environmental Protection Act 1990 83 The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2011 84 The Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 85 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 86 The Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation) (England) Regulations 2012 87 Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 88 Conservation of Seals Act 1970 89 The Plant Health (England) Order 2005 (as amended) 90 Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 91 Considerate Constructor Scheme 92 Electricity Act 1989 93 Ragwort Control Act 2003 94 The Regulatory Reform (Deer) (England and Wales) Order 2007 95 Energy Act 2013 96 Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993 97 The Statutory Nuisance (Appeals) Regulations 1995 98 The Control of Noise (Codes of Practice for Construction and Open Sites) (England) Order 2015 99 Nuclear Installations Act 1965 100 The Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and Public Information) Regulations 2001 101 The Transfrontier Shipment of Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel Regulations 2008 102 The Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 2004 103 Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (CLR11) (2004)

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 49 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

No Title 104 Understanding your Environmental Responsibilities - Good Environmental Practices (2013) 105 Groundwater Protection: Principles and Practice (GP3) (2013) 106 Good Practice Guide for Handling Soils (2000) 107 ISO 14001:2004 108 BS14686:2003 Hydrometric Determinations — Pumping Tests for Water wells — Considerations and Guidelines for Design, Performance and Use (reviewed 2015) 109 Clearance and Exemption Principles, Processes and Practices for Use by the Nuclear Industry (2006) 110 ISO/IEC 17025:2005 General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories (reviewed 2010) 111 ISO 5667-11:2009 Water quality - Sampling - Part 11: Guidance on Sampling of Groundwaters (reviewed 2014) 112 Performance Standards and Test Procedures for Continuous Water Monitoring Equipment (2010) 113 Performance Standards and Test Procedures for Portable Water Monitoring Equipment (2010) 114 Minimum Requirements for the Self-Monitoring of Flow (2014) 115 Statutory Nature Conservation Agency Protocol for Minimising the Risk of Injury to Marine Mammals from Piling Noise (2010) 116 The Noise Emission in the Environment by Equipment for use Outdoors Regulations 2001 (2001/1701) 117 The Decommissioning of the UK Nuclear Industry’s Facilities (2004) 118 Policy for the Long-Term Management of Solid Low-Level Radioactive Waste in the United Kingdom (2007) 119 Implementing Geological Disposal. A Framework for the Long-Term Management of Higher Activity Radioactive Waste (2014) 120 UK Strategy for Radioactive Discharges (2009) 121 Waste strategy for England 2007 122 Guidance on Applying the Waste Hierarchy (2011) 123 Waste Core Strategy Development Plan Document up to 2028 (2013) 124 Environmental Sector Plan for the Nuclear Industry (2009, Issue 2) 125 Safety Assessment Principles (2014) 126 Management of Radioactive Materials and Radioactive Waste on Nuclear Licensed Sites (2013) 127 Radioactive Substances Regulation - Environmental Principles (2010) 128 The Management of Higher Radioactive Waste on Nuclear Licensed Sites (2011)

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 50 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

No Title 129 Good Practice Guidance for the Management of Contaminated Land on Nuclear Licensed and Defence Sites (Safegrounds, 2009) 130 Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites (2009) 131 The First Soil Action Plan for England: 2004 - 2006 (2004) 132 Agricultural Land Classification of England and Wales. Revised Guidelines for Grading the Quality of Agricultural Land (1988) 133 An Ecological Risk Assessment Framework for Contaminants in Soil (2008) 134 Managing Concrete Wash Wasters on Construction Sites: Good Practice and Temporary Discharges to Ground or to Surface Waters (2011) 135 Bat Surveys. Good Practice Guidelines (2012) 136 Bats and Lighting in the UK (2009) 137 Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines (2001) 138 The Offshore Chemicals (Amendment) Regulations 2011 139 BS 5930:1999 + A2 2010 Code of Practice for Site Investigation 140 BS 10175:2011 (2013) Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites 141 BS 12457:2002 (1-3) Characterisation of waste - Leaching – Compliance test for leaching of granular waste materials and sludges 142 BS 5228-1:2009 + A1 (2014) and BS 5228-2:2009 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites (2014) 143 BS 1377:1990 (1-9) Soils for civil engineering purposes 144 BS 3882:2015 Specification for Topsoil 145 CIRA C692 Environmental good practice on site (third edition) (2010) 146 CIRIA C697 The SuDS Manual 147 BS4428:1989 Code of Practice for General Landscaping Operations 148 BS 6472:2008-2 Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings 149 BS EN 61672-1:2003 Electroacoustics. Sound level meters. Specifications 150 Interim Advice Note 116/08 – Nature Conservation Advice in Relation to Bats (2008) 151 COM (2006)231 Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection 152 C532 Control of water pollution from construction sites. Guidance for consultants and contractors (2001) 153 BS EN 590 :2013 - Automotive fuels. Diesel. Requirements and test methods (British Standard) 154 Develop a management system: environmental permits 155 Risk assessments for specific activities: environmental permits 156 Energy efficiency standards for industrial plant to get environmental permits 157 European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 51 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

No Title 158 Shipping radioactive waste and spent fuel after a no deal Brexit 159 Marine Strategy Regulations 2010

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 52 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

Table 3: Hinkley Point C has been granted the permits. consents and licences listed below.

No Title Permit - Hinkley Point C - Construction Water Discharge Activity (CWDA) 1 EPR/JP3122GM/V003 2 Permit - Hinkley Point C - Radioactive Substances Regulation (RSR) EPR/ZP3690SY 3 Permit - Hinkley Point C - Combustion Activity (CA) Permit EPR/ZP3238FH Permit - Hinkley Point C - Operational Water Discharge Activity (OWDA) Permit 4 EPR/HP3228XT Flood Defence Consent - Hinkley Point C - SA 3457 & SA 3458 (temporary culverts and 5 archaeological trenches) Land Drainage Consent - Hinkley Point C - LDCA2037 (Modifications to the surface water 6 drainage network on the site) Land Drainage Consent - Hinkley Point C - P/ST/2013/03 (Early Works WMZ's and 7 drainage at HPC) 8 Land Drainage Consent - Hinkley Point C - LDCA2027 (temporary crossings 11 and 12) 9 Land Drainage Consent - Hinkley Point C - P/SL/2011/21 (archaeology) Land Drainage Consent - Hinkley Point C - P/SL/2011/20 (security fencing and access 10 track) 11 Hazardous Waste Registration - Hinkley Point C Main Development Site - NWN638 Land Drainage Consent - HPC Associated Developments (Sydenham Manor Estate) - 12 P/BP/2012/47 (North East Bridgwater Development Sports Pitches) Land Drainage Consent - Hinkley Point C - LDCA2126/OWC (Design 2 of WMZ's and 13 drainage ditch) Land Drainage Consent - Hinkley Point C - P/SL/2014/21 (Design 2 for WMZ's and 14 drainage to Holford Stream) Land Drainage Consent - Hinkley Point C - LDCA2085 (construction of the northern and 15 southern roundabouts) Land Drainage Consent - HPC Associated Developments (Highways -Sandford Corner) - 16 LDCA2078 – (outfall of surface water into Pennymoor Brook) Land Drainage Consent - HPC Associated Developments (J23) - P/BP/2015/06 17 (Ecology work - GCN fence ditch crossing) Trade Effluent Consent - HPC Associated Developments (Sydenham Manor Estate) – 18 For discharge of trade effluent into public sewer 19 Waste Exemption - Hinkley Point C - YF0933YT (U13 and T6 - General site maintenance) 20 Waste Exemption - Hinkley Point C - WF0037QZ (U1 - Use of waste in construction) Waste Exemption - HPC Associated Developments (Sydenham Manor Estate) - KF0036QQ 21 - U12, T6, T23 (Management of vegetation waste)

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 53 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

No Title Waste Exemption - HPC Associated Developments (J24) - KF0636QF - U12, T6, T23 22 (Management of vegetation waste) Waste Exemption - HPC Associated Developments (J23 Park and Ride) - BF0703BM - U13, 23 T6 (Management of vegetation waste) Hazardous Waste Registration - HPC Associated Developments (Sydenham Manor Estate) 24 - OLR262 Hazardous Waste Registration - HPC Associated Developments (J24 Park and Ride) - 25 OLR234 Marine licences: main site licence covering all works on site at HPC including seawall and Jetty, works at 26 Combwich Wharf and all offshore works i.e. placement of heads and undertaking dredging; marine seawall GI licence to inform design of seawall; marine licence for jetty construction works; NRW dredge disposal licence; jetty dredge disposal licence.

A.3. Foreword to Rules of Procedure for Euratom Article 31 Group of Experts

THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY (EURATOM) Article 31 Rules of Procedure approved by the Group of Experts, Group of Scientific Experts referred to in Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty RULES OF PROCEDURE FOREWORD It is laid down in Article 31 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy community (the “Euratom Treaty”) that a Group of scientific experts shall be attached to the Commission and shall have advisory status. By virtue of the very high standing of its members, and their qualification in the fields of radiation protection and public health, the Group of scientific experts referred to in Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty (the “Group”) is called upon to assume the all-important function of adviser to the Commission on preparing the basic standards to be established by the latter. Moreover, the Treaty itself requires the Commission to consult the Group when revising and supplementing the basic standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation (Articles 31 and 32 of the Euratom Treaty). Thus, when putting forward proposals concerning the basic standards, the Commission convenes the Group so that it may formally obtain an expert opinion to enable it to guide its decisions and make the requisite choices. Such decisions are collectively given by the Group whose members, each being appointed on a personal basis, speak on their own behalf and act independently of all external influence. The Commission may convene the Group not only on the occasions specifically laid down in the Treaty, but also whenever it considers such action to be necessary. A schedule of at least two meetings a year should permit the Commission to keep up a fruitful dialogue with the Group, whilst periodically requesting exchanges of view and guidance on any major problem affecting radiation protection. If necessary, additional meetings can be held or matters can be dealt in written procedure. The members of the Group are appointed for a term of five years,

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 54 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED NNB-301-TEM-000016 Version 4.2

renewable, by the Scientific and Technical Committee set up in compliance with Article 134 of the Treaty. The Group thinks it useful to adopt the following Rules of Procedure, the objective being to formalize the conduct and conclusion of its work, and to standardize certain procedures. These Rules of Procedure are available to the public. Finally, it should be noticed that even if Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty refers to the Group, the specific tasks under Article 37 are carried out in practice by a separate group of experts. Because of the particular nature of those tasks, these Rules of Procedure will not be applied but there will be special Rules concerning work under Article 37. For convenience the appropriate articles of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community relating to the Group are given here. Article 31 The basic standards shall be worked out by the Commission after it has obtained the opinion of a group of persons appointed by the Scientific and Technical Committee from among scientific experts, and in particular public health experts, in the Member States. The Commission shall obtain the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on these basic standards. After consulting the European Parliament the Council shall, on a proposal from the Commission, which shall forward to it the opinions obtained from these Committees, establish the basic standards; the Council shall act by a qualified majority. Article 32 At the request of the Commission or of a Member State, the basic standards may be revised or supplemented in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 31. The Commission shall examine any request made by a Member State. Article 37 Each Member State shall provide the Commission with such general data relating to any plan for the disposal of radioactive waste in whatever form as will make it possible to determine whether the implementation of such plan is liable to result in the radioactive contamination of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State. The Commission shall deliver its opinion within six months, after consulting the group of experts referred to in Article 31. The Scientific and Technical Committee, set up in compliance with Article 134 of the Euratom Treaty, is responsible for appointing the members of the Article 31 Group. Very soon, following the entry into force of the Treaty, the Scientific and Technical Committee became aware that, in view of the specific tasks required by Article 37, the expertise required to carry out such tasks, was different from that required under Articles 31 and 32. It therefore decided to set up a different Group of experts to advise the Commission in relation to Article 37 of the Treaty.

NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited Registered in England and Wales. Registered No. 6937084 Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1 X 7EN Page 55 of 55

Template No. NNB-301-TEM-000016 NOT PROTECTIVE MARKING