Funding of municipalities' participation in issues regarding final disposal

Sara-Lena Bjälkö (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal in report FöU8 and for the rejection of the reservations.

Today we will debate the report Financing of municipalities' participation in issues regarding final disposal. The Government proposes that the nuclear waste fee shall finance more of the municipalities' costs for efforts in connection with the management and final disposal of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste.

Mr. Speaker! We have no positions that deviate from the committee's proposal in the report but would like to present some observations regarding this important area. We share the government's assessment that the nuclear waste fee cannot cover all the costs that the municipalities incur as a result of the review according to both the Nuclear Energy Act and the Environmental Code. We perceive the government's proposal as a positive announcement that entails a significant relief for the municipalities.

According to the submitted proposal, the nuclear waste fees shall, in addition to what applies today, also finance the municipalities' costs for measures in connection with the phased review of the final disposal of waste products. Furthermore, it is proposed that the municipalities receive compensation for their costs for the review of the program for comprehensive research and development activities that the permit holders are required to report every three years.

According to the government, the purpose of the proposals is to create better conditions for a comprehensive assessment and review of the environmental and safety consequences of the final repository and for public insight into the work.

Madam Speaker! Finally, the government proposes that the municipalities shall receive compensation for their costs for participation in the annual consultation on local environmental issues regarding facilities for final disposal that the operator SKB shall call for.

Madam Speaker! Today, six nuclear reactors are in operation in Sweden: three reactors in Forsmark, one reactor in Oskarshamn, and two reactors in Ringhals. We are now working intensively together with the government to change the legislation in order to create conditions for the market to expand nuclear power corresponding to the long-term need for power for the industry. It is a prerequisite for development and the needs that exist in connection with the climate transition that will take place in the near future.

Why is it not enough for the other energy sources—sun, wind, and water—for us to reach Sweden's climate goals? One might wonder. We do not have a shortage of electricity, Madam Speaker. We are net exporters. But what we lack in Sweden is predictable electricity. That is what limits, among other things, the industry.

Madam Speaker! Looking forward, we have an exciting development within nuclear energy. It is referred to as fourth-generation nuclear power. Things look bright regarding the management of nuclear waste. Today, there is a test reactor called Electra, which is a small lead-cooled reactor intended for research and education. It has a unique design where water cooling is replaced with pure liquid lead.

What is fantastic about Electra is that it can be powered by reused nuclear waste and has the potential to provide a safer and more sustainable electricity supply. Furthermore, according to energy research, it can reduce the need to store nuclear waste in the ground from 100,000 years to 1,000 years.

Madam Speaker! We shall act responsibly to guarantee a safe and long-term sustainable management of nuclear fuel and nuclear waste.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Heléne Björklund (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Defence's report 8 Financing of municipalities' participation in issues regarding final disposal.

I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 3 and note that we Social Democrats have a specific statement.

Discussing the final disposal of the radioactive waste from Swedish nuclear power is a very special debate. The spent nuclear fuel shall be stored in isolation in a final repository for perhaps 100,000 years to protect people and the environment from harmful radiation. The responsibility for this is national. But in the current situation, two municipalities take a very large responsibility for the final disposal issue. The decisions we in the Riksdag make on these issues shall therefore be interpreted and lived with for a long time to come.

I will refresh the history a bit. In 2011, Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB, SKB, applied to build a final repository for spent nuclear fuel in Östhammar municipality. Oskarshamn municipality also has a part in the issue regarding the final repository. Both municipalities have handled and decided on the issue in their respective municipal councils.

As late as 2022, the then government agreed to the establishment of the final repository in Forsmark. It is this that makes it necessary to adjust the legislation now. That is why the memorandum was submitted which has led to this committee report.

The starting point for the financing of nuclear power is that the costs for final disposal shall be covered by the one who generated the waste. It is therefore the reactor owners who pay fees to the authority called Kärnavfallsfonden. From there, the regulated costs are financed.

The government is now proposing many positive changes so that this nuclear waste fee shall finance more of the municipalities' costs. We view this very positively. But unfortunately, they do not go all the way. The government and, for all intents and purposes, the majority in the Committee on Defence propose that the nuclear waste fee shall finance certain but not all costs that the municipalities have according to the Nuclear Energy Act and the Environmental Code.

Final disposal of nuclear waste is, however, a state responsibility. It is not a municipal issue. It is an important issue for national security and is therefore always a state responsibility. In the current situation, it is the municipalities in Östhammar and Oskarshamn that take a large responsibility for the final disposal for a very long time to come. We believe that it should not affect them and their taxpayers financially.

This is about small municipalities. Östhammar has approximately 22,000 inhabitants and Oskarshamn barely 27,000. As a former chairman of the municipal executive board in a small municipality, I can imagine what a large and extensive work is ongoing daily in both these municipalities with their own knowledge building, information to the public, environmental impact assessments and much more. Östhammar's and Oskarshamn's municipalities can in no way have their own resources to be active parties in these types of complex issues. We therefore want to emphasize that no part of the costs for the final disposal of nuclear fuel shall be borne by the municipalities.

As the proposal is designed, there is a risk of boundary issues when the examinations according to the Nuclear Energy Act and the Environmental Code overlap. It can also be difficult to distinguish between what is knowledge-building to inform the public and what is to be produced as a basis for consultations. We therefore believe that it is reasonable that the compensation to the municipalities through the nuclear waste fee is further increased and covers all stages of the examination, including environmental impact assessments according to both the Nuclear Energy Act and the Environmental Code.

Madam Speaker! It is of central importance that we as a nation act responsibly and collectively to guarantee a safe and long-term sustainable management of nuclear fuel. I therefore move for approval of reservation 3.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Bouveng (M)

Madam Speaker! Today, the Riksdag is to decide on the Nuclear Waste Fund's financing of the municipalities' efforts for final disposal. The Moderate-led government's ambition with this bill is that the Nuclear Waste Fund should be able to cover more costs for activities by municipalities during the establishment of a final repository for spent nuclear fuel as well as the expansion of the final repository for low- and intermediate-level waste. These changes are proposed to enter into force as early as July 1 this year.

Madam Speaker! Now another step is being taken to enable the expansion of nuclear power in Sweden, where the handling of the spent fuel is a very important part. The municipalities' participation is important so that the public is given insight into the processes and so that the decisions and the solutions that are chosen can be anchored locally.

Madam Speaker! The previous government's decision to allow the final disposal of spent nuclear fuel and to expand the final repository for low- and intermediate-level waste means that the funding from the Nuclear Waste Fund now needs to be adjusted, just as another member said earlier, to ensure that the municipalities can continue to participate actively in the process surrounding the establishment of the repository.

Madam Speaker! The municipalities' right to compensation from the Nuclear Waste Fund has existed since 1996 and is regulated by law. The starting point for the financing of nuclear power is that the costs for final disposal shall be covered by those who have generated the waste – that is, the polluter shall pay. This means that those who have permits for nuclear activities that give rise to residual products shall pay so-called nuclear waste fees. These fees are paid into the authority Nuclear Waste Fund.

Madam Speaker! The Government has appointed Riksgälden to examine the municipalities' applications. In addition to what applies today, the municipalities will therefore be able to apply for funding of their costs for interventions in connection with the stepwise examination of the final disposal of residual products. It is an examination whose purpose is to deepen and strengthen the basis regarding, among other things, technical and scientific issues. The stepwise examination means that the level of detail in the radiation safety-related examination basis increases gradually and that the initial permit examination takes place on a basis that contains overall and conceptual descriptions of the facility and activity being examined.

The municipalities shall also be compensated for the review of the program for versatile research and development activities – the so-called FUD program – which the permit holders are obliged to report every three years. It is a program that is not only intended to conduct research on the canister that shall surround the waste in the final repository for spent nuclear fuel, the final disposal environment and the properties of the rock, but also to handle the transfer of information and knowledge to future generations. The Government further states in the bill that the municipalities' review of the FUD program can contribute to highlighting the local perspective in the development work and thereby ensure that the research and development activities conducted by the permit holders receive a versatile illumination.

I and with the bill, proposals have been submitted regarding support to non-profit organizations from the Nuclear Waste Fund. This concerns organizations that were initially granted support from the Nuclear Waste Fund and in later years state grants. The purpose of the support to the environmental organizations has been to facilitate the organizations' participation in the work with the final disposal of nuclear waste in order to ensure a multifaceted illumination of the issues and increase the public's insight into the process and confidence in the decisions. It has been very good!

After the government's decision to allow final disposal of spent nuclear fuel, the process is however in a new, very technical stage. Public access to the work can to a large extent be covered by the municipalities concerned, which now are given the opportunity for compensation for costs for information to the public. Member Björklund requested even higher compensation. I can only state that when the provision was introduced, the then S-government judged that the municipalities' costs according to the Nuclear Energy Act, where the municipalities are not the investigating authority, would not be financed by the nuclear waste fee. This government makes the same assessment as the then government, that is, that the municipalities' participation in the permit process according to the Nuclear Energy Act should also continue to be financed by the municipalities.

Furthermore, we can see that the municipalities' main efforts in the environmental assessments have been carried out within the framework of the permit assessment. These are efforts that are financed by the nuclear waste fee. I hope that with the entry into force of this new law, we have created good conditions for a comprehensive assessment and review of the final repository's environmental and safety consequences and for the public's insight into the work.

I vote in favor of the bill.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! This debate is about who should be able to participate and work with the final disposal of nuclear waste. It is an incredibly large project that Sweden must manage because we have had nuclear power and other activities that produce waste for a long time. This waste is dangerous for a long time and must therefore be stored very securely, buried in rock caverns and covered with, among other things, lead.

The final repository is financed by the nuclear power companies themselves. I have been on-site in Forsmark where the work on the plans has begun. It is indeed staggering when one thinks that it is planned for an ice age and much else before the waste is harmless. It is definitely not a landfill of any kind.

Vänsterpartiet agrees with several parts of the government's bill on changed conditions for nuclear waste municipalities to receive funds from the Nuclear Waste Fund. We do not, however, share the government's assessment that the nuclear waste fee should not finance financial support to non-profit organizations.

The former Ministry of the Environment wrote in a memorandum that the nuclear waste fee should be able to be used for financial support to non-profit organizations and their work during the time the final repository is planned and built. In the government's proposition, one deviates from the memorandum and makes the assessment that this should not be the case. It is unfortunate.

All large projects become better if several people, organizations and perspectives are involved in the work. Then one sees different opportunities and problems and can solve these together based on different knowledge and perspectives.

The government has now launched an attack against a number of organizations and institutions that all safeguard the democratic existence. This includes, among other things, cuts in folkbildning (non-formal education), withdrawn support for ethnic organizations, abolished support for consumer organizations, and a removed information support for organizations that work with aid. Vänsterpartiet argues that it is a serious development that risks having far-reaching consequences for democratic influence and engagement.

Non-profit organizations have, just as the government writes, long been involved in the issue of the management and final disposal of waste products from nuclear activities, among other things through the Environmental Organizations' Nuclear Waste Review, MKG. Between 2005 and 2017, there was an opportunity for these organizations to receive financial support from the nuclear waste fund for their work.

The current government, with the support of the Sweden Democrats, has removed the funds entirely from 2024. This means that all specific resources for independent review of nuclear waste issues have been scrapped. Instead, it is argued that organizations working with this should seek general support from the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Related to the matter is that the government has chosen to reduce the aforementioned funds and that there is also a large demand from other organizations. The effect has been that MKG has been forced to close its office.

The Government justifies its assessment in the bill by stating that the question of the location of the final repository for spent nuclear fuel is settled. Now, the Government argues, the work on the final repository enters a technical stage, and furthermore, the municipalities are considered capable of ensuring that the public is guaranteed transparency. Vänsterpartiet does not agree but considers that there should also in the future be funds available for environmental organizations and others engaged in the work with the final repository. The need for transparency and public support in the process is great.

Madam Speaker! I therefore move for approval of reservation 1.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mikael Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating the Committee on Defence's report, Financing of municipalities' participation in issues regarding final disposal.

The Centre Party welcomes the government's proposal to let the nuclear waste fees finance several of the municipalities' costs. But as we write in our reservation, we think it is far from sufficient.

The final repository is primarily a state matter, and costs associated with this should therefore not affect individual municipalities. The municipalities that currently handle this are Östhammar and Oskarshamn. They take on the great responsibility for the final repository here and now, but also for a long period ahead. It should not affect them financially. It is therefore reasonable that the compensation to the municipalities through the nuclear waste fee is further expanded and covers all stages of assessment, including environmental impact assessments according to both the Nuclear Energy Act and the Environmental Code.

Madam Speaker! As the proposal is designed, there is a great risk of boundary problems when the assessments according to the Nuclear Energy Act and the Environmental Code overlap, and it is difficult to distinguish between knowledge building to inform the public and producing a basis for consultation. The Nuclear Waste Fund's funds should be able to be used to inform the public about all planned repositories without time limitations because the final repository has no time limitation.

Everything concerning this shall not burden the municipalities. Therefore, they must, of course, receive coverage for the whole of it.

In view of that, I, Madam Speaker, move for the approval of reservation 3 and wish everyone a pleasant Ascension Day.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Emma Berginger (MP)

Madam Speaker! This matter concerns the funding of municipalities' participation in issues regarding final disposal. I would, however, like to begin by saying a few words about the Green Party's stance on nuclear power and the decision on final disposal.

Nuclear power will never solve the climate crisis. Nuclear power is many times more expensive than renewable energy and also takes an extremely long time to build. Nuclear power is both dirty and dangerous, from the mining and enrichment of uranium to the final disposal of the radioactive waste.

That is why the Green Party wants to phase out nuclear power as the production of renewable energy increases and energy use becomes smarter. We therefore want to invest heavily in expanding renewable energy production, not least offshore wind power, and intensify the work on energy efficiency.

Madam Speaker! In 2022, the government decided to allow a final repository for nuclear fuel, so-called high-level waste, from the nuclear power plants. The Green Party was critical of the decision as it is not ensured that the method allows for a safe storage of the nuclear waste for the time it poses a danger, that is to say, hundreds of thousands of years.

In addition to this, I want to remind you that the experiences from Ukraine show that nuclear power plants can potentially constitute a particular target and a tool for antagonists in war. The serious security policy situation should urge the government not to plan and work for new nuclear power.

Madam Speaker! Let me return to the bill that we have to deal with, which is not only about the municipalities' participation in issues regarding final disposal but also about the opportunities for civil society organizations to participate in this process. The Government proposes, in fact, that the nuclear waste fee should not finance financial support to non-profit associations for efforts in connection with the ongoing process for managing and disposing of spent nuclear fuel.

The Government's bill is based on a memorandum that has been sent out for consultation, but it deviates from the memorandum that the consulting bodies have had to comment on. The memorandum proposes that the nuclear waste fee shall also cover financial support to non-profit environmental organizations for efforts in connection with the phased review of facilities for final disposal of spent nuclear fuel and the annual consultations on local environmental issues for facilities for final disposal of spent nuclear fuel that the operator, according to the Government's decision on permit, shall convene.

An overwhelming majority of the referral bodies were positive or neutral towards the proposal that the nuclear waste fee should also include financial support to non-profit environmental organizations. Only the nuclear power industry was against the proposal.

The work of non-profit associations with issues regarding final disposal for spent nuclear fuel and other issues concerning radioactive waste is of great importance. The associations contribute to ensuring that issues are scrutinized and to providing the public with necessary insight. The public's right to participate in decision-making processes regarding final disposal is regulated in EU directives, which prescribe that member states have an obligation to ensure that the public is given appropriate opportunities to actively participate in the decision-making process regarding the licensing of nuclear facilities, in accordance with relevant legislation and international instruments.

The environmental organizations' efforts in the final disposal process have been made possible through the financial support they have been granted, initially from the nuclear waste fund and in more recent years through state grants.

Now the government refers environmental organizations to seek funds from the funds that Naturvårdsverket has for support of environmental organizations. The funds that can be obtained that way are much, much less than the previous support.

In its referral response, the Nuclear Waste Review of Environmental Organizations, MKG, points out with several organizations the importance of a sustainable, robust and clear long-term system to finance MKG's continued work of providing the input from civil society that is desirable in the Swedish nuclear waste system.

The Government argues that public scrutiny of the work on final disposal can be satisfied by the municipalities providing information. However, receiving information from an authority does not in any way correspond to the form of scrutiny that the public can actually obtain by allowing civil society organizations the opportunity to follow the issues.

I want to remind you that environmental organizations are seen as part of the public under the Environmental Code in their capacity as representatives of general environmental interests. The environmental organizations' contributions in the final disposal process have been made possible through the financial support they have been granted, initially as stated from the Nuclear Waste Fund. But now the government is pulling the rug out from under the environmental organizations' work on issues regarding final disposal.

Madam Speaker! That the government wants to make it more difficult for environmental organizations to follow and work with final disposal issues unfortunately follows a clear pattern: The government makes it more difficult for civil society organizations, especially civil society organizations that may have a different opinion than the government's. It is very concerning from a democratic perspective.

Therefore, I move for approval of the Green Party's reservation.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 15 May.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)