Here is below an article reporting the outcomes of NTW organisation Laka’s actions towards more compliance to criteria of the Aarhus Convention namely “access to information” and “access to justice”. It also relates directly to the BEPPER report and the “access to funding”. … [Read More]
European legal texts
Options for EU Treaty Change in the Energy Field.
Options for EU Treaty Change in the Energy Field.
The conference underscored the need to give renewables a favourable treatment in the EU Treaties, similar to the one granted to nuclear power in the Euratom Treaty.
Leaked delegated regulation of the European Union on the ‘Taxonomy’ related to nuclear & gas
A delegated regulation from the European Union on the ‘Taxonomy’ related to nuclear & gas leaked very recently
(cf. Germany hits out at Brussels plan to label nuclear and gas ‘green’ – POLITICO & LEAK: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green – EURACTIV.com).
Nuclear Transparency Watch has decided to publish it as well in the name of Transparency:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-sXSZUnFGU7UyhhGlOcwM9gdR1OOENeE/view?usp=sharing
Joint Project Nuclear Waste Report v3_1
Gabriele Mraz, December 2019
In the Joint Project, European NGOs and research institutions cooperate since 2003 on safe and sustainable energy issues with a focus on nuclear policies in Central and Eastern Europe. One of our topics is nuclear waste – an unsolved and dangerous problem which will stay with us for a minimum of one million years. For more information see http://www.joint-project.org/.
In 2011 the “Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom establishing a Community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste” introduced an EU-wide regulation to solve the nuclear waste problem. Since the very first steps, the Joint Project is keeping a close watch on the implementation of this Nuclear Waste Directive. We continuously monitor the implementation on national and EU level and participate in Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA). We also organized events for the interested public and a discussion with European Commission representatives.
In our regularly updated assessment report (LINK) we inform not only on the status of implementation of the Nuclear Waste Directive, but also on problems with transparency, on limits of public participation and on many other problems that became obvious during the first years of implementation.
New report for the European Parliament demands action on transboundary nuclear safety and nuclear liability
by Jan Haverkamp, 13 February 2019
The petition committee of the European Parliament (PETI) received over the last years several large petitions expressing concern about transboundary nuclear issues in countries like Belgium, the Czech Republic, the UK, Hungary and others. In reaction to that, it asked the Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs of the European Commission’s Directorate General for Internal Policies of the Union to commission a study to address the issues raised in these petitions. The lead authors of that study, prof. Michael Faure from the Netherlands Maastricht University department of environmental law and the Rotterdam based Erasmus School of Law and Dr. Kévine Kindji of the Maastricht European Institute of Transnational Legal Research (METRO) at Maastricht University, produced a comprehensive overview of legal developments around transboundary nuclear issues, including a large chapter on the developments of environmental liability.
The study addresses the EU situation within the framework of international bodies and agreements like the IAEA and the Convention on Nuclear Safety, issues of public enforcement of international legal obligations on transboundary nuclear issues, addresses the tension between the EU Treaties and Euratom, covers citizen en NGO involvement in decision making, and comes with ten recommendations in which the European Union could improve the haphazard current situation with better regulatory oversight, harmonisation of rules, and improvement of the nuclear liability regime and implementation thereof.
The study gives a very good overview of the state of play of what is a very dynamic legal situation.
The study can be downloaded here.
New report by Greenpeace: The global Crisis of Nuclear Waste
Authors: Pete Roche, Bertrand Thuillier, Bernard Laponche, Miles Goldstick, Hideyuki Ban and Robert Alvarez
Greenpeace commissioned some of the world’s leading experts on nuclear waste to produce an overview of the current status of nuclear waste across the world.
As the nuclear industry continues to struggle to compete in the rapidly evolving global energy market, the toxic legacy of decades of nuclear reactor operation and all the waste that continues to be produced to support it, remains a central element in any debate on the future of nuclear power, including decisions on nuclear reactor phase out.
For every year of nuclear reactor operation, nuclear waste volumes across the world will continue to be generated. Without exception, all countries reviewed were found lacking a no sustainable and safe solution for managing the vast volumes of nuclear waste. This includes high level spent fuel produced in all nuclear reactors, for which to date all efforts to find secure and safe permanent disposal options have failed.
Focusing on 7 major nuclearized countries (Belgium, France, Japan, Sweden, Finland, United Kingdom and United States), it shows that the multiple stages of the nuclear fuel cycle produce large volumes of radioactive wastes; and that no government has yet resolved how to safely manage these wastes.
The conclusion of the report is clear: underground repository research has failed as a solution.
Download the full report in English.
Download the full report in French.
PINC: the real picture
NTW ANALYSIS ON PINC 2016
On 4th April 2016 the European Commission published its latest communication on the Nuclear Illustrative Programme (PINC). The European Commission is required to regularly develop new Pinc outlining the goals of the nuclear sector. She has just published its first report since the accident at Fukushima Daiichi.
BACKGROUND
PINC is a communication of the European Commission, presented under Article 40 of the Euratom Treaty for the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee. PINC is a periodically (roughly every 7 years) issued overview from the European Commission indicating what kind of investments are foresees in the nuclear sector in the upcoming period.
The last PINC was published on the 05/04/2016. [1]It is the first report since Fukushima in 2011, and thus aims to focus on the investments related to post-Fukushima safety upgrades and to the safe operation of existing facilities. It’s presented as a « basis for discussion and aims to include all stakeholders, especially civil society, in the discussion on nuclear energy trends and related investments for the period up to 2050 ». [2]
PINC does not indicate how much money the European Commission or the European Union or Euratom as governance structures are going to invest in nuclear. It gives over-all estimates in the sector. PINC furthermore does not give hard figures, but only soft estimates.
INVESTMENTS FOR NEW BUILD?
European Industry Group Calls For comprehensive subsidies For New Build. For Foratom, the European Commission (EC) should establish clear guidelines on investment for nuclear new build in the forthcoming PINC. In a 2015 position paper[3], Foratom said more than 100 nuclear reactors would need to be commissioned over the next 35 years if Europe was to maintain at least the current capacity of nuclear generation. Asked about the eventual cost of such a major new build effort, Mr Ivens, Foratom’s institutional affairs director, said the required investment would probably be between €500bn and €800bn, based on recent estimates[4].
But the cost of new-build are escalating and underestimated. Without lifetime extensions, around 90% of the EU’s existing nuclear reactors would be shut down by 2030. But even with lifetime extensions, 90% of existing nuclear electricity production capacity will need to be replaced before 2050. This will cost €350-500 billion, estimates the Commission.
The PINC analyses different financing models in several EU Member States and underlines the understatement of the year by speaking about projects in the EU, which have experienced delays and cost overruns. The Finnish Olkiluoto and French Flamanville projects are both at over three times their original budgets and years behind schedule.
The Commission admits that the costs of new-build projects “are in the high range” of what analysts expected. Hinkley Point C tops the charts with €6.755 per KWe (vs. a €5.290 per KWe average for a “first of a kind” twin unit). There is a “historical trend of cost escalation”, the Commission concludes. Even in France, construction costs per MWe in 1974 were three times lower than those of units connected to the grid after 1990.
WHICH INVESTMENTS ARE FORESEEN FOR NUCLEAR PLANT LIFE-TIME EXTENSIONS ?
Upgrades for plant life-time extensions beyond the initial foreseen technical lifetime of reactors (of 30 or 40 years, depending on design), with safety upgrades “as far as reasonably practicable”, are supposed to need between 45 and 50 Bln Euro until 2050. This is a strange figure, because only France already will need to invest around 100 Bln Euro in the upgrade of its fleet until 2030, while closing down a third of it. Greenpeace furthermore had to conclude after the post-Fukushima stress tests that many important upgrades proposed for existing nuclear reactors were bogged down by “more studies” or delayed because of economic reasons.
DECOMMISSIONING AND WASTE FUNDS
It is the back-end of the fuel cycle – waste management and decommissioning – that is going to claim a rising share of investments in the years ahead. More than 50 of the EU’s 131 reactors are likely to be shut down by 2025, and there are still many unkowns. Only 3 reactors in Europe have so far been completely decommissioned – all of them in Germany. The European commission wants Europe to become leader in decommissioning technology and experience.
Member States expect to need a total of 253 Bln Euro for decommissioning and waste until 2050 – 123 Bln Euro for decommissioning and 130 Bln Euro for spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste management. This does not include costs expected after 2050, which could be more than this amount, because most countries only expect to start implementing radioactive waste depositories after 2050. Currently, there is only 150 Bln Euro aggregated in dedicated funds.
RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DECOMMISSIONING: LARGELY UNKNOWN TERRAIN
About Nuclear waste, Member States will need to move from research to action on geological disposal. The first facilities are expected to be up and running in Finland, Sweden and France between 2020 and 2030 (Finland is in the lead with a due date of 2023). Almost all other Member States are at the “preliminary studies” stage. Public acceptance remains a challenge. The projected costs of long-term geological storage depositories run from less than half a billion in Slovenia and Croatia to over €20 billion in France, according to PINC. It all adds up to €68 billion, or nearly half of the total estimated waste management costs of €142 billion out to 2050. For these, the average result of €3.23 per MWh is more than double what was estimated in recent studies, the Commission notes. Over a third of the total costs are for France.
The other half of the end-of-life equation, decommissioning, is largely unknown terrain. Experience is rare: although 89 reactors had been permanently closed in Europe as of October 2015, only three have been fully decommissioned and all three were in Germany. Worldwide, only 13 more have been decommissioned; all of them in the US. The costs are difficult to estimate. The Commission comes up with a total cost of €126 billion for decommissioning out to 2050. Some will argue that real costs are likely to be far higher. Estimates of decommissioning costs per unit also vary “significantly” between Member States, from €0.20 billion in Finland to €1.33 billion in Lithuania. Germany and the UK are at the high end (€1.06 billion and €0.85 billion, respectively) while France is at the low end (€0.32 billion). Decommissioning costs vary according to reactor type and size, location, the proximity and availability of disposal facilities, the intended future use of the site and the condition of the reactor at the time of decommissioning. Although decommissioning might gradually become cheaper, the cost of final waste depositories is largely unknown and costs could also grow, rather than shrink, over the many decades in question.
Among EU member states still operating nuclear plants, only Britain’s operators have enough dedicated assets to cover the expected costs, 63 billion euros, according to the PINC. But the UK government has taken over all financial responsibility for”legacy” waste and facilities, i.e everything except new build.Does the Commission state that we have to keep nuclear energy in order to be able to collect funds for the decommissioning and RWM? In Sweden nuclear energy is already non-competitive with the present low electricity prices. Raising the nuclear waste fees will make the situation even worse. However, starting to phase out the reactors will likely lead to higher electricity prices so that the remaining reactors can pay higher fees. So a phase-out strategy will likely maximize the collected funds.
In Europe, the finally collected funds won’t reach a level where the government will not have to step in towards the end. France, which operates Europe’s largest fleet of nuclear plants, is heavily underfunded. It has earmarked assets only worth 23 billion euros, less than a third of 74.1 billion euros in expected costs. In Germany, an extra 7.7 billion euros is needed on top of the current 38 billion euros.
TO REMEMBER :
• 90% of the nuclear fleet in the EU will have to be replaced in 2030 with other capacity (be it nuclear, fossil or renewable) or efficiency if there is no life-time extension. This follows the phase-out rate in the Greenpeace e.a. Energy [R]evolution Scenario
• The Commission hopes that standardisation of designs will push down construction prices of new nuclear.
• Euratom Member States share the recognition of “the need to ensure the highest possible standards for the safe and responsible use of nuclear power and the protection of citizens from radiation.” PINC furthermore states: “For those Member States choosing to use nuclear, the highest standards of safety, security, waste management and non-proliferation have to be ensured across the whole fuel cycle.”
• The European Commission wants to secure that no country becomes completely dependent of one nuclear fuel element provider (Russia)
• The European Commission hopes that between 2020 and 2030 the first deep geological disposal sites for radioactive waste will go into operation in Finland, Sweden and France. It fails to mention that this is still not sure because of technical and regulatory challenges
• The European Commission opens up the possibility for Member States to develop shared nuclear waste repositories. This is a dangerous development that may entice some Member States (e.g. Hungary, Slovenia, the Netherlands, Lithuania) to slow down the development of their own nuclear waste management in order to wipe it under the carpet somewhere else.
• The European Commission condemns countries depending only on temporary storage facilities for nuclear waste: “Interim storage is, however, provisional and should not postpone the development of permanent solutions.”
• There is a gap of 123 Bln Euro for decommissioning and waste funds until 2050.
[1] http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/1-2016-177-EN-F1-1.PDF
[2] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1202_en.htm
[3] http://www.foratom.org/newsfeeds/377-foratom-on-pinc-maintaining-nuclear-s-current-capacity-to-reach-eu-energy-goals-2050.html
[4] http://www.nucnet.org/all-the-news/2016/02/08/european-industry-group-calls-for-clear-eu-state-aid-guidelines-for-new-build
PARTICIPATION OF CIVIL SOCIETY IS ESSENTIAL
10th EUROPEAN NUCLEAR ENERGY FORUM, PRAGUE – MINUTES FROM OUR CHAIR
NTW is concerned about the reduction of ENEF to a single-interest group of industry experts
On 26-27 May 2015, the 10th European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF) meeting took place in Prague. ENEF was created in November 2007. It was initiated by the March 2007 European Council, when Member States suggested “that broad discussion should take place among all relevant stakeholders on the opportunities and risks of nuclear energy.” But difficulty was encountered in bringing all the key actors together. Indeed, civil society wasn’t always consulted as required. Since the beginning of ENEF, over 50% of the participants are from the industry and only two NGOs were initially invited. The rest of the participants are European Commission and national government representatives.
During the last five years, this restriction has affected the quality of debate and the credibility of ENEF as a place for discussion among all stakeholders. ENEF is facing challenges to be taken seriously and to shed its image as a pro-nuclear industry forum. ENEF is promoting nuclear energy while there are many related issues to consider: transparency, emergency preparedness and response, radioactive waste, ageing reactors, etc. At the 5th plenary session of ENEF, all NGOs and nuclear-critical members of the European Parliament decided to leave the Forum. This was due to the lack of taking into consideration of civil society’s views in the Forum. Although NGOs got a lot of interesting information and networking opportunities, and got their voices heard by people who normally are not confronted in this way, inputs from NGOs were structurally marginalised. NGOs inputs were not reflected on their merits in papers produced by ENEF working groups, in conclusions from ENEF meetings and in the media coverage.
The conditions for participation of civil society
This year, Michèle Rivasi, President of NTW, was invited as a speaker for the 10th plenary of ENEF. This invitation shows a willingness to open dialogue with civil society and to debate the future of nuclear energy without taboos. For this, it is necessary to allow a broad participation of civil society: elected officials, academics, NGOs and citizens. NTW, alone, cannot fully represent all these fundamental actors. It is NTW’s strong view that it is essential that more actors from civil society are involved at all levels in ENEF operations and that for NTW to continue to participate a restructuring on this basis is required:
1) It is essential to clarify the objectives of ENEF.
There is a lack of transparency and clarity about the Forum’s objectives: What are the objectives? Is it about promoting nuclear or about creating the conditions for a proper application of EU legislation to the nuclear sector? NTW is not established to promote or eject nuclear energy, but rather to promote quality and transparency of EU decision-making processes and thereby increase safety in nuclear matters.
2) Furthermore, it is necessary to clarify the rules concerning the governance of ENEF.
The Forum is still very opaque: How are agendas fixed? Who chooses the stakeholders and ensures plurality? Who appoints the moderators of ENEF meetings and working groups? How are the conclusions and decisions of the meetings made, and communicated? For NTW, a fair balance of power for communication with the media is essential. It is necessary to introduce transparency and to include civil society representatives in the Forum’s governance bodies, which need to be pluralistic. Civil society representatives should be included – on the same terms as all the other stakeholders – at all levels of the ENEF structure and be entitled to participate in the organization, agenda-setting, conclusions and communications of ENEF.
3) Finally, it is necessary to create conditions for effective participation of civil society.
It isn’t right that representatives of civil society must fund their travel and do not have access to translations. It is necessary to release resources to finance participatory and equitable governance.
These conditions are necessary to ensure that ENEF stays within its original mandate: to be a platform for discussion on the future of nuclear power, without taboos and open to ALL players. It is the only way for ENEF to play a credible role in shaping EU energy policy towards more sustainability.
Numerous examples demonstrate that such participation is possible
The approach adopted by NTW to organize round tables in the Emergency Preparedness and Response (EP&R) field is one example. It helps to mobilize civil society and the authorities together and to put on the agenda an update of EP&R arrangements. For example in Ukraine, organizing a roundtable on post-accident emergency has gathered scientists, representatives of Energoatom, the Minister of Health and NGOs around the same table.
Another example of the effectiveness of public participation is France where participation is based on local information committees (CLIs). The CLIs guarantee access to information and participation of stakeholders such as elected officials, NGOs and trade unions in discussions with operators and regulators. During the stress test process, the public via the CLIs could speak before the release of the French nuclear safety authority report (2012). Proposals and recommendations were supported by civil society. This participation has led to an investment of 10 billion euro in safety.
Moreover, these same CLIs are launching working groups on decommissioning and are themselves very pleasantly surprised by the interest of the public on this issue. Concerns vary from one territory to another. Some local actors are interested in safety, environment, waste, issues related to decommissioning, others are focusing on economic and social transition, what decommissioning generates. The local character of these issues has to be taken into account and could be easily supported by civil society.
Whatever the field, better debates and decision-making require broad participation. This participation is highly essential today for the European institutions given the growing distrust of the people toward Europe. On the issues of nuclear safety, civil society and local representatives have a fundamental legitimacy and right to participate in the debate.
As demonstrated during all nuclear accidents with consequences outside of the fence, ordinary citizens take in the end a large part of the burden of the consequences of safety flaws. “Civil society is indispensable to prevent political and economical reasons and short term industrial interests overshadowing the priority of safety.”
Michèle Rivasi, Chair of Nuclear transparency Watch
Debate on the revision of the nuclear safety directive in the ITRE committee (Video)
Debate in the Industry Research and Energy committee of the European parliament, on the 23 of January 2014, with the rapporteur Romana Jordan.
Debate on the revision of the nuclear safety… par nucleartransparencywatch