EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 3.11.2010 
SEC(2010) 1289 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying document to the 
 
revised proposal for a CO UNCIL DIRECTIVE (Euratom) 
on the Management of Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste 
 
  
IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
 
COM(2010) 618 
SEC(2010) 1290 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Procedural issues and consulta tion of interested parties.............................................. 5 
1.1. Organisation and timing............................................................................................... 5 1.2. Consultation and expertise ........................................................................................... 5 2. Problem identification and analysis ............................................................................. 8 2.1. The problem that requires action.................................................................................. 8 2.1.1.  Overview ...................................................................................................................... 8 
2.1.2.  Management of spent fuel and radioactive waste in the EU ...................................... 11 
2.1.3.  Legislative framework in force governing the management  of radioactive waste and 
spent fuel .................................................................................................................... 12 
2.1.3.1. Legislative framework at EU level ............................................................................. 12 
2.1.3.2.  Regulatory instruments at international level (IAEA) ............................................... 14 
2.1.4.  Concept development at NEA/OECD level ................................................................ 16 
2.1.5.  Conclusions and problem definition .......................................................................... 18 
2.2. Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent? .................................................. 18 2.3. Underlying drivers of the problem............................................................................. 19 
2.3.1.  Socio-political: need for political commitment and suffi cient public information and 
participation in the decision-making ......................................................................... 20 
2.3.2.  Need for sufficient scie ntific and technical resources ................................................ 20 
2.3.3.  Need for sufficient financial resources ...................................................................... 21 
2.4. Foreseen evolution of the problem............................................................................. 23 2.4.1. National frameworks.................................................................................................. 23 2.4.2.  Management of spent fuel and radioactive waste ...................................................... 23 
2.4.3.  Financing ................................................................................................................... 24 
2.4.4.  Environmental impact ................................................................................................ 24 
2.4.5.  Economic impact ........................................................................................................ 25 
2.4.6.  Social impact .............................................................................................................. 26 
2.5. Community right to act .............................................................................................. 27 2.5.1.  Euratom Treaty legal basis ........................................................................................ 27 
2.5.2.  Competence recognised by the Council of the European Union, by the European 
Parliament and by European Economic and Social Committee ................................ 27 
EN 3   EN 2.5.3.  Subsidiarity ................................................................................................................ 28 
3. Objectives.................................................................................................................. . 30 
3.1. General policy objectives........................................................................................... 30 3.2. Specific objectives ..................................................................................................... 30  
3.3. Consistency with other policies and objectives ......................................................... 31 4. Policy options............................................................................................................. 3 1 
4.1. Policy option 0:  consists in keeping the curren t situation unchanged ("do nothing").31 
4.2. Policy option 1:  consists in strengthening the inte rnationally accepted principles and 
requirements, laid down in the IAEA Sa fety Standards and the Joint Convention
5, for 
management of radioactive waste and spent fuel throughout  the Community, by 
rendering them both legally binding a nd enforceable at EU level............................. 31 
4.3. Policy option 2  goes beyond policy option 1 by esta blishing in addition specific 
requirements for national programmes fo r radioactive waste and spent fuel 
management throughout the Community................................................................... 33 
4.4. Other options discarded at an early stage................................................................... 35 4.5. Instruments............................................................................................................... .. 35 
5. Analysis of impacts.................................................................................................... 36 5.1. Policy option 0 ........................................................................................................... 36 
5.2. Policy option 1 ........................................................................................................... 36 
5.2.1.  Environmental impact ................................................................................................ 36 
5.2.2.  Economic impact ........................................................................................................ 37 
5.2.3.  Social impact .............................................................................................................. 37 
5.2.4.  Administrative burden and other impacts .................................................................. 37 
5.3. Policy option 2 ........................................................................................................... 38 
5.3.1.  Environmental impact ................................................................................................ 38 
5.3.2.  Economic impact ........................................................................................................ 38 
5.3.3.  Social impact .............................................................................................................. 39 
5.3.4.  Administrative burden and other impacts .................................................................. 39 
6. Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 39 7. Monitoring and Evaluation ........................................................................................ 41 ANNEX 1: COMPARATIVE TABLE, IAEA Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel 
Management and on the Safety of Radi oactive Waste Management – Euratom 
legislative instrument (Directive) coveri ng the Management of Radioactive Waste 
and Spent Fuel (Policy options 1 and 2 of the Impact Assessment) .......................... 43 
EN 4   EN ANNEX 2: CONSULTATION AND EXPERTISE ................................................................ 51 
ANNEX 3: NATIONAL APPROACHES FO R MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE 
WASTE AND SPENT FUEL IN THE EU................................................................ 69 
ANNEX 4: WASTE AND SPENT FUEL IN STORAGE AT THE END OF 2004 ............... 79 
Disclaimer:  This report commits only the Commission's services involved in its preparation 
and does not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission 
Lead DG:  DG ENER 
Other involved services:  SG, LS, DG RTD, DG JRC, DG ENV, DG SANCO, DG ECFIN, 
DG CLIMA 
Agenda Planning or WP reference : 2010/ENER/021 
EN 5   EN 1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
1.1. Organisation and timing 
The elaboration of a revised proposal for legislation on the management of spent fuel and 
radioactive waste  is included in the Commission's  agenda planning 2010 and the Commission 
action is planned to be adopted in October 2010 (item 2010/ENER/021). 
The Directorate-General for Energy is the lead service on addressing the management of spent 
fuel and radioactive waste in  the EU. For the purpose of el aborating the current Impact 
Assessment, an Inter-Services  Steering Group was established with representatives of DG 
ENER, SG, LS, DG RTD, DG JRC, DG EN V, DG SANCO, DG ECFIN and DG CLIMA. 
The Group met twice - in November 2009 and in June 2010. Three draft Impact Assessments were elaborated and comme nted within the Group. 
The Impact Assessment Board has assessed the draft Impact Assessment submitted to their 
attention in June and July 2010 and issued  opinions on 16 July 2010 and 7 September 2010.  
In line with these opinions, the draft impact a ssessment has been revised, in particular to 
– better explain, in the problem definition secti on, the nature of the implementation problems 
with the current international framework (see sections 2.1.1, 2.1.3.2, 2.1.5, 4.2 and 4.3, annex 1),  
– better explain the scale of th e risks involved, the costs of storage and disposal of 
radioactive material, and how  funding requirements for these costs could affect 
competition in the electricity ma rket (see sections 2.3.3 and 2.4.5).  
– explain more clearly how binding EU rules could address the problem and, in addition, 
analyses the subsidiarity aspects in gr eater detail (see sections 2.1.3.2, 2.1.5, 2.5.3, 4.2 and 
4.3, annex 1).  
– explain more clearly what would be require d from Member States under the different 
policy options (see sections 2.1.3.2, 2.5.3, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, annex 1) 
– reformulate the section on social impacts to ad dress issues concerning health and safety at 
work associated with storage and dispos al activities (see se ctions 2.4.6, 1.2, 2.1.3.1 and 
2.2) 
– explain in more concrete terms how funding for future storage might distort competition in 
the internal market (see sect ion 3.3.), and how the pr oposed options will improve this (see 
section 5) 
– explain how the EU enforcement regime woul d work in practice (see sections 4.2. and 4.3.) 
and clarify the subsidiarity aspects of the proposed mechan isms for improving compliance 
(see section 2.5.3.). 
1.2. Consultation and expertise 
In 2003, the Commission proposed two Council Di rectives (Euratom) dealing respectively 
with the safety of nuclear facilities and w ith the management of spent nuclear fuel and 
EN 6   EN radioactive waste and, in 2004, resubmitte d to the Council amended proposals1. After long 
discussions, the Council called in its June 2004 Conclusions2 for an “extensive consultation” 
with stakeholders before any instrument in th is field was developed in the framework of the 
Euratom Treaty. 
Throughout the elaboration process of the 2003/2004 proposals for a Council Directive 
(Euratom) on the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste1, a wide 
consultation on the value of a legislative fram ework covering the management of spent fuel 
and radioactive waste management legislatio n was carried out at the initiative of the 
Commission. This consultation wa s in addition to the consu ltations resulting from the 
legislative procedure provided for in the Eu ratom Treaty (the opinions of the Group of 
Experts set up by Article 31 of the Euratom Treat y and of the European Economic and Social 
Committee). 
Following the June 2004 Council Conclusions2, additional extensive stakeholders and public 
consultations have been carried out at EU level in compliance with the General Principles and Minimum Standards for Consultation of Interested Parties by the Commission
3. Many 
contributions from different stakeholders ha ve been received by the Commission, including: 
– A detailed contribution from the Group of  European Nuclear Safety Regulators 
(ENSREG), specifically set up to advice the Commission on nuclear safety and waste 
management matters. It is of key importan ce in view of the sp ecific competence of 
ENSREG, which represents the national regulato ry or safety authorities competent for the 
safety of nuclear installations and for the ma nagement of spent fuel  and radioactive waste 
management, coming from the Member Stat es with and wit hout nuclear power 
programmes. This contribution was prepared by a dedicated working group, discussed and 
approved at the Plenary Meeting of ENSREG on  4 June 2010. It contains key principles 
and guidelines as a basis for the Commission to prepare legislati on on management of 
radioactive waste and sp ent fuel management; 
– replies to an open public consultation on "A pproaches for a possible EU legislative 
proposal on the management of spent fuel  and radioactive wast e" via an on-line 
questionnaire on the European Commission website (" Your Voice in Europe "); 
– the results of the Special Eurobarometer surv eys on European citizens' attitudes towards 
radioactive waste and nuclear safety; 
– a position paper "Contribution to the Stakehol der Consultation Proce ss for a Possible EU 
Instrument in the Field of Safe and Sust ainable Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste 
Management" elaborated under the auspices  of the European Nuclear Energy Forum 
(ENEF), which was founded in 2007. The forum br ings together relevant stakeholders in 
the nuclear field, such as the governments of  all 27 EU Member States, the European 
Institutions including the Eu ropean Parliament and the European Economic and Social 
Committee, the nuclear industry, el ectricity consumers and repres entatives of civil society; 
                                                 
1 Initial 2003 Commission proposal (COM 2003/32 final) and revised 2004 version (COM (2004)526 
final.  
2 June 2004 Council conclusions on Nuclear Safety an d Safe Management of Spent Fuel and Radioactive 
Waste, 10823/0.  
3 COM(2002)704. 
EN 7   EN – the Technology Platforms for Sustainabl e Nuclear Energy (SNE – TP) and for 
Implementing Geological Disposal (IGD – TP); 
– "Collective opinion of the Club of Agencies in the consulta tion process for a possible EU 
instrument in the Field of Safe and Sust ainable Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste 
Management". The Club of Agencies is a group of European radioactive waste 
management organisations, set up to exchange  information on all as pects of radioactive 
waste management; 
– the reports of the Council Working Party on Nu clear Safety (WPNS) after consulting the 
EU Member States on the safety of nuclear in stallations and of spen t fuel and radioactive 
waste management in 2005 and 2006. 
A dedicated study of Regulations  Covering Radioactive Waste Disposal in EU countries, 
finalised in 2006, made recommendations to the Commission as to how waste disposal 
regulations might be better harmonised between the Member States. 
The consultations show that th ere is a broad consensus at the EU level on the following: 
– There is a need for EU legislation on the mana gement of spent fuel and radioactive waste in 
the long term and its regulation; 
– Each Member State is responsible for its own spent fuel and radioac tive waste management 
policy. That policy should respect the funda mental principles for management of 
radioactive waste developed under the auspic es of the International Atomic Energy 
Agency (IAEA)4, should be based on scientific and t echnological progress, and should be 
implemented through transparent processes enab ling the public to be properly informed 
and to be involved in decision making; 
– Cooperation both between Member States and at  international level could facilitate and 
accelerate decision making, through providing access to expertise and technology; EU 
Member States should seek to continuously improve their management of spent fuel and 
radioactive waste in order to en sure a high level of safety at all times. The internationally 
accepted principles for spent fuel and radioa ctive waste management, laid down in the 
IAEA Safety Standards and in the Joint Convention5, form a common framework for 
achieving and maintaining a high uniform level of safe management of radioactive waste 
and spent fuel throughout the Community; 
– Each Member State should put in place a na tional spent fuel and radioactive waste 
management programme for transposition of it s national policy into clear provisions for 
implementation, including timeframes and milestones, and for subsequent decision-making. Such programmes should take a long-ter m view, cover all types of spent fuel and 
radioactive waste and describe all the stages of implementation. It should be a key tool for 
openness and transparency; 
– Following 30 years of research, debates and peer reviews, it is broadly accepted at the 
technical level that deep geol ogical disposal represents the safest and most sustainable 
                                                
 
4 The Principles of Radioactive Waste Management, Safety Fundamentals, Safety Series No. 111-F, 
Vienna, 1995. 
5 Joint Convention of the Safety of Spent Fuel Ma nagement and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste 
Management, http://www-ns.iaea.org/conv entions/waste-jointconvention.htm. 
EN 8   EN option for the end-point of the management of  high level waste and spent fuel considered 
as waste, and that movement towards the implementation of deep geological disposal 
should be pursued; 
– The storage of spent fuel and radioactive wast e, including long-term storage at or near the 
surface, is an interim solution but no t a true alternative to disposal; 
– The financing of all stages of management of  spent fuel and radioactive waste should be 
the responsibility of th e producers of spent fuel and radioactive waste; 
– Peer reviews of radioactive waste manageme nt programmes are an excellent means of 
building on experience, confidence, trust and should lead to a stea dy improvement in the 
management of radioactive waste and spent fuel in the European Union. 
Some stakeholders recognise the potential benefi ts of sharing facilities for the management of 
spent fuel and radioactive waste if based upon a voluntary agreement between the Member 
States concerned. 
In the framework of the open public consulta tion, Greenpeace and other environmental non-
governmental organisations expressed their opi nions on possible European legislation on 
spent fuel and radioactive waste management. In  general, they support legal initiatives which 
increase safety and transparency and ensure th e application of the "polluter-pays-principle", 
conditional upon the phasing-out of nuclear power. However, in co ntrast to the majority of 
stakeholders, they reject the idea of disposal of  radioactive waste as th e end point and suggest 
instead monitored long-term storage.  
One direct reply to the open consultation was also received from a Trade Union ( ver.di , 
Germany) supporting binding legisla tion, but requesting to include  in the legislative proposal 
a prohibition on the export of spent fuel and ra dioactive waste to non-EU Member States 
coupled with an obligation to use only reproces sing plants sited within  EU. In addition, as a 
contribution to the 2010 European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) Conference on Nuclear Energy
6, Trade Unions (CGT Mines/Energy, CE S) underlined that as a matter of 
respect for future generations all radioactive wa ste must be processed and solutions be found. 
They requested more democratic processes and more national and transnational transparency. 
More detailed information about the stakeholders and public cons ultations, as we ll as of the 
external expertise is given in  Annex 2. The opinions expressed in the public consultation have 
been taken into account in this Impact Assessment.  
2. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS  
2.1. The problem that requires action 
2.1.1.  Overview 
All Member States have radioactive waste. Radi oactive waste and spent fuel are generated in 
many beneficial activities, such as nuclear pow er production and radioiso tope applications in 
medicine, industry, agriculture, research and education. Their specific nature (content of 
                                                 
6 EESC Conference "Nuclear energy: opportunities and risks, View of European Civil Society and 
Stakeholders", 30 November 2009, Brussels. 
EN 9   EN radionuclides) requires arrangements for the prot ection of human health and the environment 
against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation. 
In general, radioactive waste means radioactive material for which further use is not foreseen. 
The management of radioactive waste includes all activities that relate to its processing, 
storage and disposal.  
Spent fuel is generated by the operation of nucl ear reactors. There are two options for spent 
fuel management: spent fuel reprocessing to recover plutonium and ur anium for possible re-
use, or direct disposal of spent fuel if the spen t fuel is considered as waste. Regardless of the 
option chosen, radioactive wast e separated through reprocessing or spent fuel regarded as 
waste need to be disposed of. 
Radioactive wastes are categorised into low-, intermediate-, and high- level waste depending 
on their level of activity. A distinction can also  be drawn between shor t-lived and long-lived 
radioactive wastes.7 The most hazardous and long-lived radioactive wastes, such as high level 
waste separated during spent fuel reprocessing or spent fuel considered as waste, require 
containment and isolation from humans and living environment for many tens of thousands of 
years whereas short-lived waste requires such c ontainment and isolation for a period of up to 
three hundred years. 
Following the internationally agreed principles  and as recently confirmed in the 2008 Council 
Resolution on radioactive waste and spent fuel management8, the ultimate responsibility for 
the safety of spent fuel and radioactive waste management rests with the Member States. This 
is fully in line with the obligations imposed on Member States in Chapter III of the Euratom 
Treaty concerning health and safety. 
Those who benefit today from the use of nuclear energy and other applications of 
radioisotopes should take care of the spent fuel and radioactive waste they generate, as well as 
the waste expected from decommissioning of existing nuclear installations.  
Given its longevity, radioactive waste introdu ces a new time dimension in the field of 
radiation risk management. Both safety and ethical issues are a ssociated with this need for 
long-term risk management. The current ge neration has to plan the management of 
radioactive waste considering the possible future evolution up to several hundred years or 
even many thousands of years according to its own safety standards and thus to hand over a safe legacy. Then it is up to future generations to continue or to reconsider the approach taken 
by the current generation. 
Whatever the future of nuclear power a nd other nuclear non-power applications, the 
implementation of disposal as the end point of managing radioactive waste is needed for 
assuring both safety and sustainability, as only di sposal provides workers, the general public 
and the environment with protection from the hazards that the radioactive waste could pose 
over time. 
                                                
 
7 Commission Recommendation of 15 September 1999 on a classification system for solid radioactive 
waste, OJ L 265, 13.10.1999, p.37. 
8 17438/1/08 REV1, 17.12.2008, "… Me mber States are responsible for their radioactive waste and spent 
fuel as well as for their associated national manage ment policy; and that Member States shall set up a 
national radioactive waste and spent fuel management programme." 
EN 10   EN Disposal should not be confused with storage. Temporary storag e of spent fuel and high level 
waste is an important stage in their overall  management for techno logical reasons (heat 
removal and radiation protection). Storage is also needed until such time as disposal facilities 
become available. However, storage cannot replace disposal as the end point of the management of radioactive waste and spent fuel  considered as waste.  In the long term only 
disposal can guarantee protection against potential hazards, as it will eliminate the permanent and continuous human activities,  such as control, retrieval and repackaging which otherwise 
would be required for an undefined storage time. Disposal with its passive safety means will 
minimise or remove the need for human action.  
As will be shown in this Impact Assessment, the current situation of spent fuel and 
radioactive waste management in EU Member States is not satisfact ory, especially with 
regard to long-term management and di sposal, due to the following facts: 
– existing EU legislation does not c over all aspects of  this issue,  
– the corresponding existi ng international convention shows weaknesses as to verification 
and enforcement
5, 
– the international convention doe s not require national programmes for the management of 
all types of radioactive waste and spent fuel from generation through to disposal. 
The potential cross-border impacts of unplanned ra dioactive releases into  the environment as 
demonstrated by the Chernobyl disaster, as well as  economic and social considerations require 
setting high standards and providing means beyond the scope and nature of the existing 
means.  
An EU initiative is required to ensure in a tr ansparent, verifiable and enforceable manner the 
conditions that Member States implement the ob ligations set out in th e existing international 
convention. 
Furthermore, beyond the requirements of this conve ntion, an EU initiative  should ensure that 
Member States develop and implement national programmes for the management of all types 
of radioactive waste and spent fuel, from gene ration to disposal. This will be reflected in 
Policy Option 2 of this Impact Assessment. 
The overall objective of the init iative should be the achieveme nt of a sustained political 
commitment for the safe management of spen t fuel and radioactive waste, enhancing the 
protection of workers and the general public against the dang ers of ionizing radiation beyond 
national borders and thus avoiding u ndue burdens on future generations. 
This Impact Assessment does not cover: 
– waste arising from extractive industries that may be radioactive, including uranium mining 
and milling waste, since in general it is re gulated under the Treaty on the Functioning of 
the European Union and the aspects specific  to radioactivity ar e regulated under the 
Euratom Treaty (see 2.1.3.1); 
– authorised releases (discharge s), since they are covered by  the existing legislation under 
the Euratom Treaty, including the Basic Sa fety Standards Directive (see 2.1.3.1); 
EN 11   EN – radioactive waste and spent fuel which are ou tside the scope of the Euratom Treaty (not 
managed within civilian activities)9. 
2.1.2.  Management of spent fuel and radioactive waste in the EU10 
All Member States generate radioactive waste,  irrespective of whether they have a national 
nuclear power programme or not. About 85 000 m3 of radioactive waste are produced 
annually in the EU, mainly short-lived low and in termediate level waste, as well as very low 
level waste. About 280 m3 are high level waste (i.e. vitrifie d residues from the reprocessing of 
spent fuel) and 5 100 m3 are long-lived low and intermediate level waste. 
 
Fig.1. General data for radioactive waste in  the EU [not in cluding spent fuel] 10 
Fourteen out of the 27 Member States have nuclear power plan ts in operation, and a further 
two have nuclear power plants which are being decommissioned.11. Each Member State is at 
liberty to define its fuel cycle policy; it may consider spent fuel as a valuable resource for 
reprocessing, or consider  it as waste for direct disposal. So me general data about current and 
expected quantities of spent fuel are presented below. 
 
                                                 
9 The use of nuclear energy for mil itary purposes falls out of the scope of the Euratom Treaty: See ECJ, 
Commission v United Kingdom C-61/03, C-65/04. 
10 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: Sixth Situation Report on 
Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel Management in the European Union, COM(2008)542 final and Draft 
Commission Staff Working Document, Sixth Situation Report "Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel 
Management in the European Union", Brussels, 8 September 2008, SEC(2008)2416, COM(2008)542 
final 
11 14 Member States have nuclear power plants in  operation - Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, 
Finland, France, Germany, Hungary,  the Netherlands, Romania, Slovaki a, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and 
the UK; Italy and Lithuania have only nuclear power plants under decommissioning. 
EN 12   EN Fig.2. General data for spent fuel in the EU10 (in tonnes Heavy Metal) 
The amount of the annual product ion of spent fuel in the EU  is about 3 600 tonnes (Heavy 
Metal), of which at least 1 500 tonnes can be currently considered as  being placed in long-
term storage for possible di rect disposal as waste. 
Some Member States have only very small quantit ies of spent fuel originating from research 
reactors. Generally the management of the spen t fuel is covered by ‘take-back’ agreements, 
under which the spent fuel is retu rned to the country of origin. 
World-wide, there are at present no facilities for disposal of high level waste, including 
spent fuel considered as waste.   
The accumulated high level waste and spent fuel subj ect to direct disposal are stored either in 
special centralised facilities or at the site s of operating nuclear power plants. A similar 
situation exists for other long-lived waste.  
While short-lived waste is generally disposed of in surface or near-surface (underground) 
facilities in Member States, there are also Memb er States which have no disposal facilities for 
this type of waste, which aris es not only from the nuclear powe r sector, but also from nuclear 
non-power applications, such as applications of radioisotopes in medicine, industry and 
research. As for disused sealed sources, most countries have arrangements in place whereby 
‘take-back’ provisions must be incorporated into the supply contract. Nevertheless, disused 
sealed sources which cannot be accepted in facili ties routinely used for disposal of short lived 
waste need special disposal solutions. 
The financing of spent fuel and radioactive wa ste management is based on the "polluter-pays-
principle" and funding mechanisms are in plac e or are under preparation in many Member 
States.10,12  
More detailed information about the management  of spent fuel and radioactive waste in 
Member States, in particular policies, practi ces and financing, is presented in Annex 3 and 
details on MS radioactive waste in Annex 4. 
2.1.3.  Legislative framework in force governing th e management of radioactive waste and 
spent fuel 
2.1.3.1.  Legislative framework at EU level  
The management of spent fuel and radioactive waste has been addressed at EU level mainly 
through a variety of legislative instruments for radiation protect ion under chapte r III of the 
Euratom Treaty (see 2.5.1). Existing European le gislation does not cove r consistently all 
activities and facilities related to the manageme nt of spent fuel and radioactive waste. Nor 
does it cover other aspects, such as natio nal policies and their implementation, public 
information and public participation in the decision making process. 
At present, the Euratom Treaty based le gislation covers the following aspects: 
                                                 
12 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: Second Report on 
the use of financial resources earmarked for the decommissioning of nuclear installations, spent fuel 
and radioactive waste, SEC(2007) 1654. 
EN 13   EN – Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty requires Memb er States to provide the Commission with 
general data relating to any plan for the disposal  of radioactive waste; 
– Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards  for 
the protection of the health of workers and the general public  against the dangers arising 
from ionizing radiation13, whose provisions have been supplemented by more specific 
legislation, such as, for example, medi cal application of ionising radiation14, information in 
case of radiological emergency15 or protection of outside workers16. This Directive applies 
to all practices which involve a risk from i onizing radiation emanating from an artificial 
source or from a natural radiation source in cas es where natural radion uclides are or have 
been processed in view of their radioactive,  fissile or fertile properties, including all 
activities of spent fuel and radioactive waste management; 
– Council Directive 2006/117/Eurato m of 20 November 2006 on the supervision and control 
of shipments of radioac tive waste and spent fuel17 lays down a Community system of 
supervision and control of tr ansboundary shipments of radi oactive waste and spent fuel; 
– Council Directive 2009/71/Euratom of 25 June 2009 establishing a Community framework 
for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations18, imposes obligations on the Member States 
to establish and maintain a national framework for nuclear safety. This Directive only applies to spent fuel storage facilities and to storage facilities for radioactive waste that are 
on the site and are directly related to  other nuclear inst allations. Thus, it does not cover all 
types of facilities or aspects of the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste. 
In addition, there are EU Directives dealing with environmental assessment
19, implementing 
the Aarhus Conventions rights20 and on the management of waste from extractive industries21. 
Also the following non-binding Recommendations a pply to the management of spent fuel and 
radioactive waste: 
                                                 
13 OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p.1. 
14 Council Directive 97/43/Euratom, OJ L180, 9/07/97, p. 22. 
15 Council Decision 87/600/Euratom (OJ L371, 30/12/87, p. 76.); Council Directive 98/618/Euratom (OJ 
L 144, 15/5/1998, p. 1.). 
16 Council Directive 90/641/Euratom (OJ L 349, 13.12.1990, p. 21.). 
17 OJ L 337, 5.12.2006, p. 21. 
18 OJ L 172, 2.7.2009, p. 18. 
19 Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the eff ects of certain public and private projects on the 
environment, as amended by the Directive 97/11/EC, by the Directive 2003/35/EC and by the Directive 
2009/31/EC (OJ L140, 5.6.2009, p. 114.); Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the 
environment (OJ L197, 21.07.2001 p. 30.). 
20 Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public 
access to environmental information and repea ling Council Directive 90/313/EEC (OJ L 41, 
14.02.2003); Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 
providing for public participation in respect of th e drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating 
to the environment and amending with regard to  public participation an d access to justice Council 
Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (OJ L 156, 25.06.2003 p. 17.). 
21 Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the 
management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC provides for 
measures, procedures and guidance on the management of waste from extractive industries (OJ L 102, 11.04.2006, p. 15). While this Directive covers the management  of waste from extractive industries 
which may be radioactive, it does not cover such aspects as are specific to radioactivity which are a 
matter dealt with under the Euratom Treaty.  
EN 14   EN – Commission Recommendation of 6 December 1999 on the Applicat ion of Article 37 of the 
Euratom Treaty22  
– Commission Recommendation of  24 October 2006 on the management of the financial 
resources for the decommissioning of nuclear installations, spent fuel and radioactive 
waste23. The focus lies on the adequacy of funding , its financial secur ity and tran sparency 
in its use, and ensuring that funds ar e only used for the intended purposes; 
– Commission Recommendation 2008/956/Euratom of  4 December 2008 on criteria for the 
export of radioactive waste and spent fuel to third countries24. 
2.1.3.2.  Regulatory instruments at in ternational level (IAEA) 
IAEA Standards  
One of the missions of the International Atom ic Energy Agency (IAEA) is the development 
of safety standards for the pr otection of human hea lth and the environment against ionizing 
radiation25. These standards, developed in cooperati on with Euratom, OECD/Nuclear Energy 
Agency (NEA) and other international or ganizations, are revised periodically.  
Although they do not have a direct  legally binding nature, most of the States have adopted 
these standards in their national legal framewor k, and they are binding as regards the IAEA's 
own activities and the States' activities in opera tions assisted by the IAEA. Furthermore, they 
have provided the basis for all Codes of Conduct and Conventions under IAEA auspices. 
The 1995 IAEA publication "The Principles of Radioactive Waste Management"4 defined the 
objective of radioactive waste management and th e associated set of internationally agreed 
principles, which provided a common basis for the development of more detailed IAEA 
Safety Standards and a basis for national radioactive waste management programmes. These 
principles underlie the general safety requiremen ts of the Joint Conven tion on the Safety of 
Spent Fuel Management and on the Safe ty of Radioactive Waste Management. 
In 2006 the IAEA updated its entire corpus of standards and published the Fundamental 
Safety Principles26, which were jointly sponsored by Euratom, OECD/NEA and other 
international organisations. In the preparation of this document, all the safety principles 
established in earlier Safety Fundamentals publi cations, including those in radioactive waste 
management, were considered and consolidated in to a coherent and cons istent set of ten new 
principles. Some of the earlier principles that were found to be  more appropriately expressed 
as requirements have been established as such in Sa fety Requirements publications27,28. 
During this transformation a full correspondenc e between the new requirements (respectively 
the earlier The Principles of Radioactive Waste Management4) and the current Fundamental 
Safety Principles is provided26. 
                                                 
22 OJ L324, 16.12.1999, p. 0023. 
23 OJ L 330, 28.11.2006, p. 31. 
24 OJ L338, 17.12.2008, p. 69. 
25 Article III of the IAEA's Statute, para A6. 
26 Fundamental Safety Principles, Safety Fundamentals No SF-1, IAEA, Vienna, 2006. 
27 Predisposal Management of Radioactive Waste, Gene ral Safety Requirements Part 5, No. GSR Part 5, 
IAEA, Vienna, 2009. 
28 Safety of Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities, Specific Safety Requirements, SSR 5, IAEA, Vienna, 
2010, to be published. 
EN 15   EN As stated by the Joint Sponsoring Organisa tions in the Preface of the 2006 Fundamental 
Safety Principles, "Application of the Fundamental Safet y Principles will facilitate the 
application of international safety standards and will make for greater consistency between 
the arrangements of different States. It is th erefore desirable that all States adhere to and 
advocate these principles. The principles will  be binding on the IAEA in relations to its 
operation and on States in relation to operati on assisted by IAEA. States or sponsoring 
organisations may adopt the principles, at thei r own discretion, for application to their own 
activities." 
The Fundamental Safety Principles were refl ected in Directive 2009/ 71/Euratom on nuclear 
safety. 
All EU Member States are members of the IA EA and participate in the development and 
adoption of the IAEA’s Standards. 
Joint Convention 
The Joint Convention on the Safety of Spen t Fuel Management and on the Safety of 
Radioactive Waste Management (Joint Convent ion) was adopted in 1997 under the auspices 
of the IAEA and entered into force on  18 June 2001 with the following objectives: 
– to achieve and maintain a high level of safety worldwide in spent fuel and radioactive 
waste management, through the enhancement of  national measures and international co-
operation, including where appropriate, sa fety-related technical co-operation; 
– to ensure that during all stages of spent fuel and radioactive waste management there are 
effective defences against potential haza rds so that individuals, society and the 
environment are protected from harmful effect s of ionizing radiation, now and in the 
future, in such a way that the needs and as pirations of the pres ent generation are met 
without compromising the ability of future gene rations to meet their needs and aspirations; 
– to prevent accidents with radiological consequences and to mitigate their consequences 
should they occur during any stage of spen t fuel or radioactive waste management. 
Euratom and all EU Member States with excep tion of Malta are Contr acting Parties to the 
Joint Convention. 
This Convention is the first legally binding intern ational treaty on the safety of spent fuel and 
radioactive waste management. Ne vertheless, from the point of view of its enforcement the 
Joint Convention represents an incentive instrument, as it does not entail any sanctions for 
non-compliance. The Convention is not designed to ensu re the fulfilment of obligations by 
the Contracting parties through control and sanc tion but is based on their common interest in 
achieving the objectives of the Convention. Fail ure to carry out obligations under the Joint 
Convention (e.g. submission of reports) has been observed on several occasions by the 
Commission. 
In addition, the Joint Convention does not require the development of national 
programmes for the long-term management of spent fuel and radioactive waste , even 
though this is regarded as a key requisite for the successful implementation of national 
policies. Consequently, it also lacks specific requ irements as to the elements of such national 
programmes; only the development of a nati onal waste programme guarantees planning and 
implementation of disposal  facilities (repositories). 
EN 16   EN Furthermore, the Joint Conven tion does not cover transparency  and public involvement in 
decision making, which today are considered esse ntial for ensuring that the public's concerns 
are addressed, particularly  at the local level.  
Membership of the Joint Convention entails th ree basic commitments - preparing and making 
available a National Report for review, submitti ng its National Report to peer review by the 
other Contracting Parties, and attending the review meetings.  
– National Reports have to be submitted well be fore (typically half a year before) the three-
yearly Review Meetings. They shall include a self-assessment of th e steps and measures 
already taken and progress made in implemen ting the Convention's obligations, following 
general reporting guidelines. The report shall also address spent fuel management policy 
and practices, radioactive waste management policy and practices, as well as the criteria 
used to define and categor ize radioactive waste.  
– Contracting Parties may ask writ ten questions on general or sp ecific aspects of the Reports 
submitted by other Contracting Parties, to be answered in writing before a fixed deadline.  
– Finally, Contracting Parties have to attend the Review Meeting, present their National 
Report in Country Group sessions and answer fu rther oral questions. The main outcome of 
the oral discussion is recorded summarising in  a few bullet points developments since the 
last Review Meeting, highlight s, good practices and challeng es identified during the oral 
session.  
The Joint Convention does not contain provi sions on public information or public 
participation concerning all aspe cts of radioactive waste mana gement. The Review meetings 
are not open to observers or to the public. It is at the discretion of a Contracting Party to make 
the Report, the questions receiv ed and answers provi ded as well as the rapporteur’s report 
publicly available on thei r national WEB page.  
Beyond the lack of enforceability and the l ack of specific requirements for national 
programmes, transparency and involvement, the practical implementation of the Joint 
Convention Process also shows weaknesses. Identified weaknesses include the following: 
concentrating mostly on formal compliance with  the Joint Convention stipulations; review 
meetings are much too formal and superficial screening processes of submitted national reports; contracting Parties often tend to demonstrate their own self-perceived excellence; the review meeting peer review process is often appr oached in a spirit of self-defence; States do 
not always approach review m eetings in a way which would provide real opportunities for 
improvement. 
It can be concluded that the Joint Convention is only an ince ntive instrument based on Peer 
Reviews. Infringements cannot be followed up as  foreseen in EU infringement procedures. 
2.1.4.  Concept development at NEA/OECD level 
The Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 
Development (OECD) seeks to assist its member  countries in developi ng safe, sustainable and 
societal acceptable strategies for the management of all types of radioactive materials, with 
particular emphasis on the management of  long-lived waste and spent fuel and on 
decommissioning of disused nuclear faciliti es mainly through its Radioactive Waste 
Management Committee. The Committee is a unique  multinational committee of specialists at 
the forefront in addressing both the technical and societal requirements for durable and 
EN 17   EN sustainable waste management and decommissi oning solutions. It provides a forum where 
policy makers, regulators and implementing orga nisations can discuss issues of common 
interest and develop soluti ons that meet the diverse needs of its participants. 
In its " Collective Statement on Moving Forward to  Geological Disposal of Radioactive 
Waste"29 and in respect of the high level waste a nd spent fuel considered as waste, the 
Committee states that: 
"Disposal of these wastes in engineered faci lities, or repositories, located deep underground 
in suitable geological formations  is being developed worldwide as the reference solution in 
order to protect humans and the environmen t both now and in the future. Engineered 
geological disposal is thus seen as the r adioactive waste management end-point providing 
safety without the need of renewed human intervention (…). 
The overwhelming scientific consensus worldwide is that geological disposal is technically 
feasible. This is supported by extensive exp erimental data accumulated for different 
geological formations and e ngineered materials from su rface investigations, underground 
research facilities; by the current state of th e art in modelling techni ques; by the experience 
in operating underground repositori es for other classes of waste; and by the advances in best 
practice for performing safety assessme nt of potential disposal systems. 
Disposal can be accommodated in a broad range  of geological settings, as long as these 
settings are carefully selected and matched w ith appropriate facility design and configuration 
and engineered barriers (…). 
Delaying work on geological disposal – i.e. by adopting a "wait and see" strategy – would 
require increasingly more dem anding care for the waste and it s storage facilities. Moving 
forward with implementation of geological disposal  is, thus, desirable from the point of view 
of both ethics and safety. Sufficie nt information now exists to take the first st eps and put a 
plan in place commensurate with the current generation's responsibility". 
Despite this statement, no country in the worl d has yet a disposal facility in operation for 
high-level waste and spent fuel considered as waste, though ma ny countries with significant 
civil nuclear power programmes are carrying out invest igations and research with a view to 
implementing solutions at some stage in the future . In all cases, geologi cal disposal is the only 
end-point option that is being actively pursued.  
As regards the EU, there is a good likelihood of disposal facilities for high level radioactive 
waste in Finland, Sweden and France being in operation by 2025 (see Annex 3). In third 
countries, implementation schedules are le ss advanced, and in the USA additional 
investigations have been ordered by the Presiden t. It is important to note that a number of 
countries with stalled geologica l disposal projects have review ed all options as part of a 
broad-based stakeholder consulta tion and/or associated expert  solicitation, and geological 
disposal emerged from those processes as the on ly practicable long-term  management strategy 
(e.g. Switzerland, Canada UK, Germany). 
                                                 
29 ISBN 978-92-64-99057-9. 
EN 18   EN 2.1.5.  Conclusions and problem definition 
All Member States generate radioactive wast e and have to ensure that it is managed 
appropriately in order to ensure the protecti on of human health and the environment against 
dangers arising from ionizing radiation and to avoid leaving the waste for future generations. 
Waste management has to cover spent fuel a nd all types of radioactive wastes for all 
management stages from generation through to disposal.  
The implementation of disposal as the end point of managing the existing and future 
radioactive waste is needed for assuring both sa fety and sustainabilit y. The storage of spent 
fuel and radioactive waste, including long-term storage at or near the surface, is an interim 
solution but not a true alternativ e to disposal. The safe long-term management of spent fuel 
and radioactive waste is of key importance for protecting the health of European workers and 
the general public. To that end all Member St ates need to develop national programmes 
covering in particular also the transi t from interim storage to disposal.  
Key decisions have still to be  taken in most Member States  for managing spent fuel and 
radioactive waste up to the end point, especially for the planning and implementation of 
disposal. A "wait-and-see" policy should be avoided.  
In this context, the existing international framew ork is not sufficient, in particular since it 
does not entail any sanctions for non-compliance and does not require the development of national programmes for the long-term manageme nt of spent fuel a nd radioactive waste. 
An EU initiative could clearly contribute to the overall effort to address safety and public 
health concerns related to the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste. This 
could be achieved by: 
– creating the conditions for implementation of the existing international agreements to 
which Member States have already subscr ibed, in particular by introducing EU 
infringement procedures in case of non-compliance, and 
– going beyond the provisions of the international framework, by requiring the development 
of national programmes for the long-term manage ment of spent fuel and radioactive waste. 
2.2. Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent? 
The management of spent fuel and ra dioactive waste inevitably affects: 
– workers exposed to ionising radiation in the field of spent fuel and radioactive waste 
management; 
– European citizens, who (according to the sp ecial Eurobarometer studies) are concerned 
about the risks, related to radioactive wast e, in particular the possible effects on the 
environment and health. This is  particularly the case for: 
– citizens living near potential or selected dispos al sites. In Finland and Sweden, where the 
projects for geological disposal of spent fuel are most advanced and the public is not only 
well informed but also involved in the decisi on-making process, more than 60% of the 
citizens consider deep geological disposal the most appropriate solution for long-term 
management of high level waste whilst suppor t at municipality level is even higher. 
EN 19   EN However, overall in the European Union, pub lic opinion on deep underground disposal is 
rather divided; 
– Governments, who are responsible for formul ation and implementation of their national 
policies for long-term management of spen t fuel and radioactive waste. Legal and 
organisational frameworks are needed for implementing the national policy; 
– national regulators, who have to guarantee the sa fety of spent fuel and radioactive waste at 
all times; 
– spent fuel and radioactive waste producers, including operators of nuclear power plants, 
who are responsible for ensuring the safe mana gement of spent fuel and radioactive waste 
within their premises, and who should cover all costs for spen t fuel and radioactive waste 
management up to disposal. Spent fuel and ra dioactive waste management costs, including 
for disposal, have to be seen as part of the cost of electricity production and should not lead 
to distortion of competition; 
– waste management organisations, who are resp onsible for the safe management of spent 
fuel and radioactive waste in  the long term, including pl anning and implementation; 
– research and technical support organisations , who provide the needed scientific and 
technical support, including fo r technical solutions, safety case preparation and safety 
assessment. International cooperation makes se nse only in the context of a sufficiently 
extensive national programme, otherwise mutu al benefits are difficult to realise; 
– consumers, who pay the price of electricity or  of other nuclear non-power applications (e.g. 
in medicine, industry). The pri ce they pay should reflect the full costs (including costs for 
disposal). 
2.3. Underlying drivers of the problem 
The underlying drivers of the problem, as well as possible impacts are illustrated in the 
following schema and are described below and in  the baseline scenario provided in chapter 
2.4. 
Increasing efforts 
for ensuring safety 
and knowledge preservationDistortion of competition
Burdens on future generations
Need for political commitment
Need for scientific, technical 
and financial resourcesNeed for public information
and participationIncreased risks induced by
political, economical or 
social disruptions
Potential consequences
Wait-and-see policies
Potential drivers
 
EN 20   EN 2.3.1.  Socio-political: need for political commit ment and sufficient public information and 
participation in the decision-making 
In recent decades there has been a growing awareness that socio- political aspects need to be 
considered when discussing the long-term mana gement of spent fuel and radioactive waste 
and the implementation of disposal systems in  particular. This has been underlined in 
different Eurobarometer surveys over the years30. Experience gained in a number of countries 
demonstrates that political commitment and publ ic confidence are crucial when attempting to 
make progress in this regard. 
The implementation of geological disposal requires a long-term political commitment, 
modern governance concepts, bu ilding on a step-by-step appro ach and early involvement of 
national and local stakeholders, to ensure s ound consultations and broad acceptance. Such 
modern governance concepts have successfu lly laid the foundation of the Finnish and 
Swedish approaches. In contrast , other countries may be tec hnically equally advanced, but 
have not made much progress towards implemen tation, mainly for reasons of political will 
and/or public acceptance. 
The views and political power of  the citizens determine policy in a democratic society. To 
date, the principal factor limiting progress of na tional programmes has been the lack of public 
support and confidence, mainly due to an insuffic ient involvement in the early stages of the 
decision-making processes at natio nal and local level. If there is no national policy on spent 
fuel and radioactive waste management, public acceptance of disposal solutions is low and 
vice versa. This might explain why the political  willingness and motivation to take decisions 
in this field are often weak. 
Although there is a widespread recognition that the critical path towards implementation of 
disposal facilities is now determined by th e need for public confidence rather than by 
technical issues, it has to be pointed out that geological dispos al is a complex and 
multidisciplinary issue. From a technological standpoint, geological disposal does not 
represent an insurmountable challenge, althoug h the long-time scales involved imply that 
inevitably there are uncertainties in the models and in the data to be used in the performance 
and safety assessment of the facilities. It is important to gain the trust of public, stakeholders and decision-makers that geological disposal ca n be demonstrated to be a safe long-term 
waste management solution: a lack of early public and stakeholders' involvement in the 
process undoubtedly leads to de lays in implementation in relation to the plans initially 
foreseen. 
Also, the idea of shared reposit ories, recognised as being pote ntially beneficial for Member 
States with small nuclear programmes, requires political and public acceptance in the Member 
States concerned. 
2.3.2.  Need for sufficient scientific and technical resources 
In quite a number of Member States there are still deficits in the scientific and technical 
resources related to the development of waste management programmes, in particular with 
regard to the identification of suitabl e geological disposal  as the end point. 
                                                
 
30 Special Eurobarometer 271 "Europeans and nuclear safety" EC, February 2007; Special Eurobarometer 
324 "Europeans and nuclear safe ty", EC, March 2010; Special Eu robarometer 297 "Attitudes towards 
radioactive waste", EC, June 2008. 
EN 21   EN Studies funded under the European Research Framework Programmes ha ve contributed to 
progress in these areas through cooperation, join t programmes and transf er of knowledge and 
technology. The newly created T echnological Platform for Impl ementing Geological Disposal 
is a tool supporting confidence-building in th e safety and implementation of deep geological 
disposal facilities.  
2.3.3.  Need for sufficient financial resources 
The timely planning and implementation of all st eps necessary for the safe management of 
spent fuel and radioactive waste up to dispos al strongly depends on car eful and continuously 
updated cost assessments and ensuring the nece ssary financing. In accordance with the 
polluter-pays principle, nuclear operators shoul d set up adequate funds on the basis of the 
revenues obtained from their nuclear activitie s. These funds should be properly managed and 
protected, in order to make sure that they are available when costs arise. 
The financial provisions for the management of  spent fuel and radio active waste should also 
take into account radioactive waste produced outside commercial activities. Therefore, all 
Member States, independent of whether they  produce nuclear energy, should ensure that 
adequate financial resources will be available wh en needed for the management of all types of 
radioactive waste. For this reason, it is ne cessary that cost esti mations and financial 
provisions cover all types of radioactive waste.  
Interim storage and especially disposal im ply important cost de pending on the chosen 
technical solutions, the category and volume of the radioactive wa ste as well as the foreseen 
periods of operation. National programmes theref ore have to aim at an optimisation between 
all parameters, also considering radioactive doses to workers and th e overall objective to 
avoid undue burdens and risks for future ge nerations. Given the long implementation and 
operation times, considerations have also to take  into account the uncertainties as to long-term 
political and social factors. Cost estimates s hould be transparent enablin g stakeholders and the 
public to see boundary conditions and coverage.  
Concrete cost data for interim storage and ge ological disposal is available only for a few 
Member States. The data provided in the tables below is intended to give an indication of the 
order of magnitude of these costs. 
Interim Stores for spent fuel and high level waste 
 Bulgariai Lithuaniaii Spainiii 
Capacity (no of nuclear 
power reactor units 
covered by storage 
capacity)  4iv 2v 9vi 
EN 22   EN Investment cost (mio €) 125 193 540 
Operating cost (mio €/yr) not known not known 3-9vii 
i Source: EBRD 
ii Source: EBRD 
iii Source: data provided by the web-page of Sp anish Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade 
www.emplazamientoatc.es (costs of  building CIS) and by ENRESA (estimated operational costs). 
iv On-site interim store, start of operation 2011, operating time 50 year 
v On-site interim store, start of operation 2010, operating time 50 years vi Central interim store, start of operation planned 2015, operating time 60 years 
vii Depending on operating phase 
 
 
Geological disposal projects 
 Swedeni Finlandii  
Capacity (no of nuclear power 
reactor units covered by disposal capacity) 10 5 
Investment costiii (mio €) 2,035 870 
Total operating cost (mio €) 1,870 2,140 
Operating cost (average, mio/yr) 41iv 24v 
i Source: Technical Report-09-23: Plan 2008 - Cost starting in 2010 for the radioactive residual products from 
nuclear power, basis for fees and guarantees in 2010 and 2011, Reference case, SKB, 2008,  ii Source: Assessment of Financial Provisions for Nucl ear Waste Management - Long-Term Perspective from 
Finnish Viewpoint, Eero Patrakka, Jussi Palmu, Kimmo Lehto, Posiva Oy, Finland, Euradwaste 2008,  
iii Incl. above ground facilities, sealing and closure iv incl waste canisters, 90 years of operation  
v 46 years of operation 
 
Expressed in terms of electricity generating cost , disposal cost as deducted from the Swedish 
and Finnish estimates range between 0.14-0.16 Euro cents/kWh or 3.5-4.0 percent of the 
assumed total generating cost  of 4 Euro cents/kWh (the actual figure is commercially 
protected sensitive information).31 
In conclusion, the costs of interim storage app ear to be significantly lower than those of a 
geological repository. This is in particular true for countries with relatively small amounts of 
radioactive waste, which are aimi ng to run disposal facilities fo r only a short period of time in 
                                                 
31 An analysis by the United Kingdom Department of Trade and Industry showed that waste management 
and decommissioning costs for nuclear power plants re present only 3% of over all nuclear generation 
costs [" The role of nuclear power in a low carbon UK economy ", May 2007, DTI/Pub 
8519/4k/05/07/NP. URN 07/970]. 
EN 23   EN order to minimise costs. However, these pure co st considerations are neglecting safety risks 
which are increasing over time and may result in considerable damages. 
Compared to storage, disposal with its pa ssive safety features through technical and 
geological barriers does not re quire human action and thus e nhances safety by orders of 
magnitude. 
The timely collection of sufficient funds is a cr ucial factor for successful implementation of 
disposal: the case of Finland, w ith concrete commitment of al l actors concerned and a timely 
accumulation of the funds, demonstrates this. In the Finnish case, where licensees are responsible for long-term waste management, the assets required for the management of 
wastes produced in nuclear pow er plants are collected in ad vance from the waste producers 
and transferred to the State Nuclear Waste Ma nagement Fund. An external fund serves as 
reserve for future costs. The Fund does not pa y for the waste management activities but only 
ensures the safekeeping of the money correspondi ng to the costs of the remaining measures.  
One way to reduce costs and to avoid long-term  interim storage is by increasing cooperation 
in support of national approaches through the deve lopment of shared facilities for spent fuel 
and radioactive waste management. While shared  repositories might look appealing in terms 
of economy of scale, it is clear that a Member  State must be willing to host such a centre. 
Furthermore, Member States could delay taking  their decisions due to the expectation that 
other Member States might construct a joint repository.  
The R&D cooperation between Finland and Sw eden, which does not involve sharing of 
repositories, is a good example of how co sts can be reduced through cooperation.  
2.4. Foreseen evolution of the problem 
2.4.1.  National frameworks 
In the absence of Community rules in the field of spent fuel and radioactive waste 
management, differences and gaps in national le gal frameworks are expected to remain. This 
applies for instance for the requirement for strong and independent regulatory bodies, 
provided with sufficient financial and qualified human resources. Without an EU legislative 
instrument, most of the Member States woul d not face the obligation to develop national 
policies and implementing programmes for disposal. 
2.4.2.  Management of spent fuel and radioactive waste  
The management of low and intermediate leve l short-lived waste is now at the level of 
industrial maturity. Seven of 16 Member States  with nuclear power plants in operation or 
under decommissioning currently operate disposal facilities to deal w ith this category of 
waste. Although siting has proven to  be a challenge in some Member States, it is expected 
that disposal facilities will be commissione d by about 2020 in most Member States with 
nuclear power plants. However, most countries  without nuclear power programmes still need 
to develop disposal facilities for this type of waste.  
The implementation of geological disposal, as the safest and mo st sustainable end-point of 
managing high level waste and spent fuel consider ed waste, as well as other long-lived waste 
will continue to constitute the main challeng e for the years to come. Some Member States 
already took well-defined politic al decisions and schedules – Fi nland, Sweden and France. It 
is likely that by 2025 these countries will have op erational deep geologica l disposal facilities. 
Germany, as well as Belgium and the UK will possibly follow. Many other Member States 
EN 24   EN will probably not set any targets dates for operati onal geological disposal facilities, nor will 
they establish concrete nati onal programmes for their de velopment and implementation. 
As a consequence, there is a danger that the ques tion of disposal is left open as a hostage to 
speculation concerning future societal, scie ntific or technological developments. 
Long-term interim storage will require continuing and even increasing efforts to ensure safety, 
including technical means, pr eservation of knowledge and fina ncing. Due to the ageing of 
materials (e.g. radioactive waste packages, build ings and systems) there are continuous and 
increasing needs of maintaining the store stru cture and all infrastructure for handling and 
inspecting packages, the adequate control of  the store environment (e.g. temperature, 
humidity etc), the monitoring of packages for po ssible degradation, secu rity, protection of the 
site from natural events, repackaging of wa ste items when judged necessary, staff training, 
regulatory inspections a nd securing financing.  
Finally, it is expected that without EU acti on a comprehensive national strategy and detailed 
planning with clear allocation of responsibilitie s will continue to be missing in most Member 
States or to be not elaborate enough. Therefore, there might be further delays in the planning 
and implementation of all steps of the manageme nt of spent fuel and radioactive waste until 
disposal unless an obligation to  set up comprehensive national programmes is introduced in 
all EU Member States. 
2.4.3.  Financing 
It is expected that in the absence of comp rehensive national programmes, covering all waste 
types and all management stages from generatio n through to disposal, a sufficiently detailed 
basis for estimating long-term cost as input to build up adequate waste management funds 
will continue to be difficult or even impossible.  
2.4.4.  Environmental impact 
For the purposes of the current Impact Assessmen t the analysis mainly addresses the safety-
related impact, i.e. the protecti on of the health of workers a nd the general public against the 
dangers arising from ionising ra diation emanating from spent fuel and radioactive waste, 
including contamination of water, air and so il. Other important aspects of environmental 
protection go beyond the scope of the Euratom Treaty (e.g. biological , chemical and other 
hazards that may be associated with spent fuel and radioactive waste management).  
As described in chapter 2.4., long-term inte rim storage requires continuous and even 
increasing human action, oversig ht and financing. Given the long time-spans involved, 
uncertainties increase as to political co mmitments, financing, keeping of know-how, 
occurrences of social conflicts, etc. As a conse quence, there is an ever increasing risk for a 
degradation or even disruption of the degree of safety of long-term interim storage facilities 
and the implementation of disposal with poten tial negative impacts on the environment in 
case of failing waste packages and containment st ructures. Cross border effects are possible as 
well, for instance in case su rface and ground water systems become contaminated. It is 
impossible to quantify the likeli hood and extent of such risks as it would requi re speculations 
about future political, economical and societal developments. In this context it is worth noting 
that insurance companies only offer very limite d protection against environmental damages of 
this kind. 
EN 25   EN In addition, unjustified extension of the duration of long-term interim storage unduly 
increases the overall risk of accidents incl. ai rplane crashes, fires, natural events (e.g. 
earthquakes, flooding), terrorist at tacks etc, potentially  resulting in damaged waste packages 
and storage buildings and subseque nt releases of radioactivity to the environment, affecting 
workers, the general public and the environment. If plants are designed, secured and 
maintained properly, such ri sks are normally low but cannot be completely neglected, 
especially when assuming adverse economical , political or soci etal developments. 
In conclusion, without EU actio n there is an incr easing risk of a negative environmental 
impact over time. This will place undue burdens and threats on future generations. 
2.4.5.  Economic impact 
As demonstrated in chapter 2.3.3., the costs of dis posal of radioactive wa ste and spent fuel, if 
regarded as waste, are in the order of several billion Euros,  equivalent to 3.5-4.0% of the 
electricity production cost in the case of Finland and Swed en. The absence of national 
frameworks and programs with appropriate f unding systems and cost estimates ensuring the 
availability of adequate funds for spent fuel and radioactive waste management when needed 
will bring along the potential for significant distorti ons of the internal el ectricity market. In 
countries without disposal pr ojects, electricity companie s might have undue commercial 
advantages over their competitors in other Member  States. For instance, in the latter Member 
States, the contribution of sp ecial levies for the purpose of  funding the management of 
radioactive waste could lead to differences in  electricity prices a nd thus influence cross-
border trade and competition in the EU electricity internal market. 
The lack of a funding system might lead to a si tuation where tax payers would have to pay for 
the management of waste produced and left by th e previous generations, possibly in the order 
of billions of Euros, violating the polluter-pays principle. This can be especially the case in case polluters have ceased to exist at th e time additional funding is needed and the 
responsibility has been passed to the State.  
The lack of adequate and timel y funding, combined with a lack of political commitment and 
oversight by regulatory authorities, might lead to  a situation in which the activities required to 
ensure the safety of storage and disposal inst allations are no longer ensured. In the worst case, 
this might result in accidental releases of radi oactivity to the environment as described before. 
Depending on the extent of the release, remedia ting the consequences might entail high cost, 
including the clean-up of contam inated areas and the treatment of induced negative health 
impacts on workers and citizens. As many envir onmental risks cannot be insured, it is very 
likely that the consequence of su ch releases have to be covere d by tax payers. In the absence 
of concrete figures for such events, the cost  of current remediation activities, although not 
necessarily directly comparable , might serve as examples. The remediation of uranium mining 
legacies from the former GDR German Wismut mi ne is paid by the state and is estimated at a 
total of 6.2 billion Euro s. Preliminary cost estimates for the retrieval of radioactive waste 
packages from the endangered German Asse salt  mine were of the order of 3.5 billion Euros. 
As shown in chapter 2.3.3., the costs of long-te rm interim storage are considerably lower 
when compared to a geological repository. This  has to be contrasted  with the potential 
economic risk such an approach will entail. As set out before, it would become increasingly costly and difficult to ensure the necessary know-how, expertise, scientific and technical 
infrastructure for operating and maintaining long-term interim storage facilities and to 
EN 26   EN continuously maintain and improve safety. This w ould be particularly true for countries which 
decide on a phase-out policy.  
In conclusion, the continuation of the current  situation has a potential for a significant 
negative economic impact with cost and risk s increasing over time, putting significant 
economic burdens on future generations and poten tially leading to a distortion of competition. 
2.4.6.  Social impact 
The social impact of the differe nt options relates primarily on risks to workers and other 
people that may be exposed to or otherwis e come in contact with nuclear waste and 
radioactive material.  
More specifically and as explained in section 2.2, these issues particularly affects workers 
exposed to ionising radiation in  the context of spent fuel an d radioactive waste management, 
but also citizens at local or regional level liv ing more or less close to sites for managing 
radioactive waste and spent fuel. 
As explained above in 2.4., an unj ustified extension of the duration of interim storage of spent 
fuel and radioactive waste instead of disposal  requires continuous human  actions for control, 
maintenance, repackaging of waste etc. Such activities are connected with workers’ exposure 
to radiation and although being in accordance with the basic safety standards for radiation 
protection, they do not comply with the fundament al protection principles of justification and 
optimisation, as disposal with its passive sa fety feature would avoi d such exposures once 
waste packages have been emplaced and sh ielded appropriately (e.g. by backfilling of 
repository drifts).  
Additional radiation doses might occur for worker s in case of remediating the consequence of 
accidents, fires, natural events, degradation of  waste packages etc. In case of unplanned 
radioactive releases to the environment, also th e health of the general public might be  affected 
by the contamination of waters, soils and air. As stated previously, the po tential extent of such 
effects is very difficult to predict but could reach signi ficant dimensions. 
Therefore a key objective of this initiative is to  ensure that workers a nd the general public are 
protected against dangers arising from ioni zing radiation now, in the future and beyond 
national borders without impos ing undue burdens on future ge nerations and compromising 
the ability of future generations to meet  their own needs (see section 3.2 below). 
As regards the protection of workers and other people that may be exposed to or otherwise 
come in contact with nuclear waste and radioact ive material, the report has taken into account 
the existing health and safety at  work legislation (see sectio n 2.1.3.1 - Basic Safety Standards) 
and also the comments from relevant sectoral so cial partners (see section 1.2, in particular the 
contributions received from trade unions durin g the open consultation process and a recent 
conference organized by the Europe an Economic and Social Committee). 
EN 27   EN 2.5. Community right to act 
2.5.1.  Euratom Treaty legal basis32 
Civil nuclear activities are regulated in the Eu ropean Union by the Euratom Treaty, signed in 
1957. The Euratom Treaty contains  provisions allowing the Commun ity to regulate the use of 
nuclear energy by the Member States, in particul ar those governing health  protection (Chapter 
3) and nuclear safeguards (Chapter 7). 
The competence of the European Atomic Energy Community to regulate in the field of the 
health protection against ionizing radiation is explicitly recognised by the Euratom Treaty. In particular, several Articles of the Euratom Tr eaty mandate the Community to establish "… 
safety standards to protect the health of wo rkers and of the general public…" Based on the 
landmark ruling of the European Court of Just ice in the Case C-29/99, the existing basic 
safety standards aiming mainly at the protectio n of the health of wo rkers and the general 
public against the dangers arisi ng from ionizing radiations can be  "supplemented" in the sense 
of the Euratom Treaty with safe ty requirements governing the safe  management of radioactive 
waste and spent fuel. This competence has been already put in practice. 
The adopted legislation under the Euratom Tr eaty, covering aspects of spent fuel and 
radioactive waste management, is described under section 2.1.3.1 above. 
2.5.2.  Competence recognised by the Council of the European Union, by the European 
Parliament and by European Economic and Social Committee 
As regards radioactive waste and spent fuel  management, the Council and the European 
Parliament called for a European framework as follows: 
– In its Conclusions of 10 November 2009 on the Report by the ENSREG
33, the Council 
"Calls on … the Commission to continue thei r cooperative work w ithin ENSREG,…, with 
the prospect of developing a Community appro ach in this field, …; further invites the 
Commission to make full use of ENSREG expe rtise in the case of proposals for legally 
binding instruments in the field of safe mana gement of spent fuel and radioactive waste 
being considered"; 
– In 2007 the European Parliament , in its Resolutions, states that it "regrets the absence of a 
legislative corpus on harmonised standards for nuclear safety, the management of 
radioactive waste"34 and "calls on the Commission and the Member States to finally make 
progress on the issue of final disposal"35 
– In the 2007 Report on Assessing  Euratom – 50 Years of Euro pean nuclear energy policy36, 
the European Parliament "invites the Commission to review the relevant drafts of its legislative proposal and submit new proposals for Directives on the safety of nuclear 
                                                
 
32 The Lisbon Treaty, which entered into force on 1 December 2009, amends the Euratom Treaty by its 
Protocol No 2. The Euratom provisions continue to have their full legal effect and Euratom keeps its own legal personality. The amendments are only intended to adapt the Euratom Treaty to the new rules 
laid down in the Lisbon Treaty, in particular in the institutional and financial fields. 
33 14471/09 ATO 107. 
34 European Parliament resolution on Assessing Euratom – 50 Years of European nuclear energy policy of 
10 May 2007. 
35 European Parliament Resolution of 24 October 2007 on conventional energy sources and energy 
technology (2007/2091(INI)). 
36 A6-0129/2007. 
EN 28   EN facilities, on waste management, and on closur e and decommissioning of nuclear facilities 
taking into account the ‘polluter-pays’ princi ple". It also "urges the Commission and 
Council to look into this question with all due speed" and asks to  be consulted in this work; 
– The European Economic and Social Committee: "see an urgent need for Member States 
utilising nuclear power to put in place nationa l plans for management of nuclear fuel and 
radioactive waste. Anything else  is to be seen as irres ponsibly passing on the present 
generations' obligations to next generations"37 
2.5.3.  Subsidiarity 
Some Member States have established plans fo r the disposal of radioactive waste. All EU 
Member States are members of the IAEA and participate in the adoption of the IAEA’s 
standards. Nevertheless, (as explained in 2.1.3 .2.) these standards are not enforceable, and 
their incorporation into nati onal legislations is voluntary. Moreover, the Joint Convention 
does not entail any sanctions for non-complia nce. The IAEA Standards and the Joint 
Convention therefore do not guara ntee a consistent and coherent approach to safety at EU 
level. The existing European le gislation (described in 2.1.3.1.)  does not cover all activities 
and facilities related to the management of sp ent fuel and radioactive waste in the long term, 
nor does it cover aspects su ch as national policies and their implementation, public 
information and public participation. To su m up, the spent fuel and radioactive waste 
management at present remains a national respon sibility and the actions at national level in 
most Member States are not sufficient to ach ieve progress up to the end point of this 
management. 
The development of EU legislation on spent fu el and radioactive waste management would be 
a logical step following the unanimous adoption by all 27 EU Member States of the Directive 
2009/71/Euratom establishing a Community framew ork for the nuclear safety of nuclear 
installations. While the nuclear safety of on-site storage facilities for spent fuel and some 
radioactive waste is covered by this Directive, all other facilities for spent fuel and radioactive 
waste management, such as treatment, encapsula tion and disposal facilities remain out of its 
scope of application. Hence, there is a need to supplement the existing Community framework 
on nuclear safety with a similar one for safe ma nagement of spent fuel and radioactive waste 
to cover all activities and facilities related to  the management of spen t fuel and radioactive 
waste in the Community38. 
The basic approach for proposing a Community  framework on spent fu el and radioactive 
waste management should be similar to the one followed with the nuclea r safety Directive. 
This Directive is anchored on the competen ce existing in the Member States' regulatory 
authorities, as well as on the in ternationally endorsed principl es of the Convention on Nuclear 
Safety and of the IAEA Safety Fundamentals26. In addition, Member Stat es retain th e right to 
impose at national level more stringent safety  measures than those provided for in the 
Community legal framework.  
                                                 
37 Opinion on PINC, 2007. 
38 Such a two-step approach has been used at IAEA level with the consecutive development of the 
Convention on Nuclear Safety and the Joint Convention on Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on 
the Safety of Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Management. It is stated in the preamble (ix) of the Nuclear Safety Convention that "Affirming the need to begin promptly the development of an 
international convention on the safety of radioactive waste management as soon as the ongoing process 
to develop waste management safety fundamentals ha s resulted in broad international agreement".  
EN 29   EN The new approach for a Community framework on radioactive waste management is based on 
the same principles and fully addresses the c oncerns expressed by EU Member States vis-à-
vis the earlier proposal submitted by the Commission in 2003/4, which has not found a 
majority in Council since. That  proposal was made as part of  a package of Directives on 
nuclear safety and waste management. It was especially criticized for non-respect of the 
subsidiarity principle as it was very descriptive:  
First, the "package" propos al contained a common unique EU funding system building on 
segregated external funds for decommissioning, not taking national spec ificities into account. 
Second, it foresaw tight and un iform deadlines for the start of the disposal operation, 
following a "one size fits all" approach. As an  example, the year 2018 was given as deadline 
for having an operational deep geological dispos al facility, a deadline which even the most 
advanced Member States with already we ll established disposal programmes could 
impossibly achieve (Finland is planning to have its deep geological repository operational in 
2020, Sweden in 2023). Third, it was imposi ng Commission inspections on national 
regulators by a Community body of inspectors which was seen by Member States as a 
violation of the subsidiarity pr inciple. Fourth, ther e was insufficient stakeholder consultation 
before proposing the Directive.  
In contrast, the revised approach does not c ontain any excessive measures that might be 
contrary to the subsidiarity principle. Unlike the 2003/4 proposal s, there is ample room for 
flexibility in respect of  national specifici ties, such as the timing of  disposal, and should new 
challenges arise, a substantial margin of disc retion for the Member States in the practical 
implementation. However, the Commission – in lin e with the internal market and competition 
principles – would have the power  to intervene with the objective to amend the national waste 
management programme and thus would preven t a potential distortion of competition. The 
responsibility for safety inspec tions remains fully with nationa l regulators. Instead of being 
excessively descriptive and detailed, the new approach builds on the competence existing in 
Member States' regulatory authorities and on the internationally endorsed principles of the 
Joint Convention and IAEA standards.  
Policy option 2 includes the obligation for Memb er States to set up national programmes for 
spent fuel and radioactive waste management w ith specific requirements including contents, 
scope, implementation and review. This requiremen t, while being very e ffective in bringing 
countries that lag behind in this field up to th e level of the leading ones, allows for a lot of 
flexibility in devising the nati onal plans provided that the main principles, such as coherence, 
are fulfilled. In this, it contrasts sharply with the tight and uniform deadlines for the start of the disposal operation featured in the 2003/ 4 proposals mentioned before. The additional 
administrative burden would be low for Member  States which alrea dy apply the pertinent 
provisions of the Joint Convention.  
The added value of making these principles legally binding for E U  M e m b e r  S t a t e s  i s  t h a t  
there would be legal certainty about these rules' enforceability: Concerned citizens and 
organisations that feel unsafe about the manage ment of spent fuel and radioactive waste could 
turn to the Commission, which c ould start investigations or infringement procedures if 
justified. Ultimately, cases could be brought  to the European Court of Justice. 
It can be concluded that the safety of spent fu el and radioactive waste management is clearly 
an area where it makes sense to complement nati onal legislation by legislation at EU level due 
to its cross-border aspects (e.g. through contam ination of air, soil and water). Protection 
EN 30   EN beyond national borders is an in ternationally accepted principl e laid down in the Euratom 
Treaty (particularly Article 37 in respect of disposal of radioactive waste).  
It should be underlined that the IAEA is supporting this EU  approach as model for third 
countries and regions. 
To sum up, the development of an EU legislat ive framework in the field of spent fuel and 
radioactive waste management is in line with the subsidiarity principle, in particular since it 
provides added value compared to national and international approaches without any undue or 
excessive interference w ith national competences. 
3. OBJECTIVES  
3.1. General policy objectives 
The general policy objective is to achieve and maintain the management of spent fuel and 
radioactive waste as an integral part of the safe and sustainable use of nuclear energy for 
nuclear power production and of ionising radiation in medicine, industry, agricu lture, research 
and education. 
In particular this entails establishing a common framework aiming at achieving and 
maintaining a high uniform level of safe mana gement of radioactive waste and spent fuel 
throughout the Community by recalling internationally accepted safety  principles (such as laid 
down in the IAEA Safety Fundamentals39 and the Joint Convention40), and providing 
requirements for the establishment of national pr ogrammes for the management of radioactive 
waste and spent fuel, including development of repositories. 
In the EU and worldwide there is a growing re cognition of the need for a responsible use of 
nuclear energy, covering safety and security. This was recently highli ghted at the highest 
political levels, in particular at the Paris conf erence on access to civil nu clear energy, held in 
Paris on 8-9 March, the Washington nuclear security summit on 12-13 April, and the Non 
Proliferation Treaty Review Meeting in  New York, held in May this year. 
The Common Position of the European Union for the 2010 Review Confer ence of the Parties 
to the Treaty on the Non-Pro liferation of Nuclear Weapons41 clearly underlined "the 
importance of continuing intern ational cooperation in order to strengthen nuc lear safety, safe 
waste management, radiological protection and civil nuclear lia bility and calli ng upon states 
that have not yet done so to ac cede to all the releva nt conventions as so on as possible and to 
implement fully the ensuing commitments". 
3.2. Specific objectives 
The specific objectives in respect of ach ieving the general po licy objective are: 
– to achieve a sustained political commitment for the long-term management of spent fuel 
and radioactive waste; 
                                                 
39 Fundamental Safety Principles, Safety Fundamentals No. SF-1, IAEA, Vienna, 2006. 
40 Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste 
Management. 
41 Council Decision 2010/212/CFSP. 
EN 31   EN – to ensure that workers and the general public  are protected against dangers arising from 
ionizing radiation now, in the future and beyond national borders, without imposing undue 
burdens on future generations or compromising the ability of future generations to meet 
their own needs; 
– to ensure a transposition of the political deci sions into clear provisi ons for implementation 
of all steps on radioactive wa ste and spent fuel management from generation to disposal; 
– to achieve and maintain continuing improve ment of the management system, based on 
stepwise decision-taking and social acceptance; 
– to ensure adequate, available when needed, and transparently managed financial resources 
in accordance with the polluter-pays principle. 
3.3. Consistency with other policies and objectives 
The specified objectives are cons istent with one of the key objectives of the Europe 2020 
Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth42 which aims at a "Resource efficient 
Europe". This objective requires a gra dual shift towards a low-carbon economy. 
In view of the role of the nuclear power pr oduction, representing today 2/3 of the low-carbon 
electricity produced, along with renewable en ergies and carbon captur e and storage, the 
current proposal will contribute to achieving the European goals for clean energy and fighting climate change. The safe and sustainable manage ment of spent fuel and radioactive waste is 
as important for the existing spent fuel and radioactive waste accumulated over decades as it is for the future use of nuclear power, includi ng long-term operation of the existing nuclear 
power plants and construction of new ones. 
The specified objectives are fully in line with those of the Basic Safety Standards Directive
43 
and of other legislation in the area of radiation protection a nd nuclear safety, and thus in 
general with the public health and environmenta l protection policies. 
They are also consistent with the internal market and competition objectives. Constructing 
disposal facilities requires important invest ment. Without a Community framework for spent 
fuel and waste management the diversified situ ation in the European Union would continue, 
where some Member States are already planning and making financial prov isions for disposal 
facilities, but others have even not started to do so. Such a situa tion clearly leads to distortion 
of competition (see also 5.3.). 
4. POLICY OPTIONS  
4.1. Policy option 0:  consists in keeping the current situation unchanged ("do 
nothing"). 
This is the business-as-usual scen ario, presented in chapter 2.4.  
4.2. Policy option 1:  consists in strengthening the in ternationally accepted principles 
and requirements, laid down in the IA EA Safety Standards and the Joint 
                                                 
42 COM(2010)2020. 
43 OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p. 1. 
EN 32   EN Convention5, for management of radioactive waste and spent fuel throughout 
the Community, by rendering them both legally binding and enforceable at EU 
level. 
This option consists in establishing at EU level general requirements for a Community 
framework for spent fuel and radioactive waste ma nagement, as well as of  a set of associated 
requirements for implementation at national leve l (national framework). The legislation would 
have the structure as shown below, i.e.  general requirements and implementation 
requirements, including 
– the generation of radioactive waste to be kept  to the minimum practicable, in terms of both 
its activity and volume, by means of appropr iate design measur es and operating and 
decommissioning practices, including recycl e and reuse of conve ntional materials; 
– the interdependencies among th e different steps in spent fuel and radioactive waste 
generation and management to be taken into account; 
– to avoid actions that impose reasonably pred ictable impacts on future generations greater 
than those permitted for the current generation; 
– to aim to avoid imposing undue burdens on future generations; 
– an acceptable level of protection of human heal th, air, water and soil to be provided now 
and in the future, taking into account the possible e ffects beyond national borders; 
– appropriate means for information for consulta tion of stakeholders to be established; 
The associated requirements for a national fram ework for spent fuel and radioactive waste 
management allocate responsibilities and provi de for coordination between relevant state 
bodies in the long term, including: 
– formulation of a national policy or strate gy for spent fuel and radioactive waste 
management in long term; 
– adoption of a national programme for implementa tion of the national policy or strategy on 
spent fuel and radioactive waste management; 
– adoption of national requirements for safety  of the management of spent fuel and 
radioactive waste, including for the approach to safety; 
– provision of a system of lic ensing of spent fuel and ra dioactive waste management 
activities and facilities, appropriate inst itutional control, regulatory inspections, 
documenting and reporting, and enforcement actions; 
– a clear allocation of responsibil ities of the bodies involved in the different steps of spent 
fuel and of radioactive waste management; 
– establishment and maintaining of a competent regulatory authority in the field of the safety 
of spent fuel and radioactive waste management; 
– ensuring that the prime responsibility for sa fety of spent fuel and radioactive waste 
management rests with the licence holder; 
EN 33   EN – arrangements for education and training pr oviding necessary expertise and skills; 
– assurance of adequate financing, taking due acc ount of the responsibil ities of radioactive 
waste producers to cover all costs for radioactive waste management; 
– provisions for quality assurance; 
– ensuring public information and pa rticipation in decision-making; 
– provisions for peer reviews of  the national framework and competent regulatory authority. 
This option revises the approach taken by th e 2004 amended proposal for a Directive on the 
management of spent fuel and radioactive waste1, considering relevant recent developments, 
such as new European legislation, recomm endations of the Council and the European 
Parliament, development of the concept of geolog ical disposal and relate d policy (shift from a 
priority option to the safest and most sustainable one), as well as  lessons learned in respect of 
subsidiarity and proportionality. 
This policy option would facilita te a Community control on key safety aspects of the spent 
fuel and radioactive waste management. If, for example, a Member State had not established a 
clear allocation of respons ibilities of the bodies involved in the different steps of spent fuel 
and radioactive waste manageme nt, or if it had not estab lished a competent regulatory 
authority in this field, the Commission c ould take enforcement actions (infringement 
procedures) to request the achievement of  these requirements by the Member State. 
However, the enforcement under policy option 1 could not easily be extended to missing 
elements of the national programme – which is the core of spent fuel and radioactive waste 
management –, as policy option 1 does not define  the scope and conten t of such a national 
programme. Thus, policy option 1 is lacking a cl ear benchmark for an infringement 
procedure. 
4.3. Policy option 2  goes beyond policy option 1 by esta blishing in addition specific 
requirements for national programmes fo r radioactive waste and spent fuel 
management throughout the Community. 
This option includes the approach  proposed by policy option 1. In addition, it foresees a third 
set of conditional requirements for scope, cont ents and review of na tional programmes for 
spent fuel and radioactive waste management . The national programme may be a reference 
document or a set of documents and it shou ld be regularly updated. A deadline for the 
establishment of the nationa l programmes is foreseen. Legislation would include the 
requirements set out below.  
The national programme should cover all types of spent fuel and radioactive waste, within the 
scope of the revised proposal, a ll the stages of their management  from generation to disposal, 
and should include: 
– inventory of spent fuel and ra dioactive waste – to cover exis ting and foreseen spent fuel 
and radioactive waste arising in order to guide solutions; 
– plans and technical solutions for management of all types of spent fuel and radioactive 
waste from generation to disposal; 
EN 34   EN – plans for the period after closure of disposal facilities, including in stitutional control; 
– skills and programmes for re search and development; 
– time schedule - specifying the main milestone s and time schedule a nd defining indicators 
for achievements; 
– cost assessment of all ac tivities up to disposal; 
– financing of the programme, including the prin ciples and obligations to cover all costs 
related to the spent fuel and radioactive waste management; 
– scope of responsibilities and decision-making process – providing the continuity in the 
long term; 
– legal framework - providing information which ma y be used to review the adequacy of the 
existing legal framework to cover future activitie s in order to plan future developments as 
necessary. 
It also contains provisions for peer reviews comparing the arrangements for establishment and 
implementation of the national programmes on sp ent fuel and radioactive waste management 
and identifying best practices. 
Draft national programmes would have to be  sent for comment to the Commission before 
adoption.  
This option would permit to reque st from Member States not onl y the fulfilment of the safety 
requirements described in option 1 (for example,  the establishment of a competent regulatory 
authority), but also the design and periodi c review of national programmes for the 
management of their spent fuel and radioactiv e waste. This would l ead to improvements in 
Member States' planning solutions for the management of their spent fuel and radioactive waste, including institutiona l control after disposal.  
The drafting and regular update  of national programmes would be a mandatory element of 
the proposal. Given its detailed  requirements, it provides the Commission with a clear 
benchmark for the initiation of enforcement measur es against Member States failing to draft, 
review and update them, or against Member St ates whose national programmes did not cover 
the mandatory elements.  
In practice, the enforcement regime under this  policy option, in addition to the elements 
already described for policy opt ion 1, would be as follows: 
– Each Member State would have to develop by  a given deadline a national spent fuel and 
waste management programme which has to cover all elements as outlined above.  
– Each Member State is obliged to notify its draft national programme to the Commission by 
a given deadline. 
– In case a Member State does not submit to the Commission a nati onal programme by the 
given deadline or disregards Commission requirements to cover missing mandatory 
elements, the Commission could open infringement proceedings. 
EN 35   EN 4.4. Other options discarded at an early stage 
The option of reinforcing a multilateral and intern ational approach through the IAEA 
was considered as an option of poor effectiveness. As it is mentioned above, the Joint Convention is the first legally binding interna tional treaty on the safety in spent fuel and 
radioactive waste management, but represents only an incentive instru ment and thus cannot 
entail any sanctions for non-compliance (see 2.1.3.2.). Amending the Convention would be a 
lengthy and very complex process as it woul d require consensus between 56 Contracting 
Parties in an intergovernmental procedure. 
In a context of renewed interest  in nuclear energy, the IAEA fully supports the EU's move to 
make the international safety standards legally  binding and enforceable.  By providing binding 
legal force to some key aspects of the main inte rnational nuclear safety standards, including in 
the area of nuclear waste management, Europe be comes a real model for the rest of the world. 
The IAEA and the Commission are committed to promote such regional approach in other parts of the world. 
4.5. Instruments 
The possible instruments for implementation of the developed policy options and their 
effectiveness are considered below. 
The option of using a non-binding instrument  is considered ineffective and inconsistent 
because of the following considerations: 
– Recommendations already exist at EU level, fo rmulated in Conclusions and Resolutions of 
the Council and the Parliament (see 2.5.2.); 
– The same considerations for poor effectiveness as those mentioned above in respect of the 
option of strengthening multilateral intern ational approach through IAEA (see 4.4.). 
The options of proposing a binding instrument include amending the Nuclear Safety 
Directive, through a revision of the 2004 amended proposal for a Council Directive 
(Euratom)
1, or the development of a new instrument. 
The option of amending the Nuclear Safety Directiv e is considered ineffective. First of all, 
this Directive has not yet been transposed into Member States ' legislation (due by July 2011). 
During the negotiations on this Directive the po ssibility of including all spent fuel and 
radioactive waste management facilities in its scope (as nuclear installations) was discussed and rejected by all Member States in view of its  objectives. Also at the international level, two 
Conventions deal separately w ith the safety of nuclear inst allations (the Convention on 
Nuclear Safety) and with the safety of the ma nagement of spent fuel and radioactive waste 
(the Joint Convention). The Nuclear Safety Di rective aims at strengt hening internationally 
accepted safety principles laid down the IA EA Safety Standards and the Convention on 
Nuclear Safety, and the reporting under this Dir ective respects that under the Nuclear Safety 
Convention
44. Another consideration is that this Directive is focused only on nuclear safety. 
Even if such an amendment is possible, it coul d not include the requireme nts in respect of the 
                                                 
44 "Article 9. Reporting:  1. Member States shall submit a report to the Commission on the implementation 
of this Directive for the first time by 22 July 2014, and every three years thereafter, taking advantage of 
the review and reporting cycles unde r the Convention on Nuclear Safety". 
EN 36   EN political and social aspects of spent fuel and radioactive waste management, including for 
sustainability. In this context, such an appro ach could not achieve the specified objectives nor 
would it be the consistent with  other policies and objectives, as described in section 3.3. 
A revised proposal for a Directive based on the 2004 amended proposal  is considered the 
most relevant approach, in view  of the above and of the fact that the developed policy options 
revise the approach taken by the 2004 amende d proposal for a Council Directive (Euratom) 
on the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste1. 
5. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS  
5.1. Policy option 0 
The analysis of the impact of th is option is pres ented above in 2.5. 
5.2. Policy option 1 
5.2.1.  Environmental impact 
Policy option 1 would provide benefits in the short term, providing Member States a 
framework for a uniform approach to safety at  EU level. It would cover all activities and 
facilities related to the management of spen t fuel and radioactive waste management and 
would provide an outline reference for th e elements of their national frameworks. 
As an important factor, it would strengthen na tional regulatory author ities by ensuring that 
they are provided with sufficient human and fi nancial means to successfully carry out their 
duties. They would furthermore be provided with a driving role in implementing common 
European rules on the safety of spent fuel and radioactive waste management. 
Policy option 1 brings added va lue with regard to the requirements for national policies, 
adoption of national requirements for their implementation and the clear allocation of 
responsibilities. It would overcome approaches being ba sed mainly on long-term storage 
without plans and solution s/concepts for disposal. 
Long-term interim storage with its inherent ri sks could therefore stil l be part of national 
programmes, but in the context of more endur able national commitment towards safe long-
term solutions reducing the environmental ri sks linked to "wait-and-see" approaches. 
Within this framework the subsidiarity princi ple would be fully respected by recognising the 
sovereign right of Member States to decide on their spent fuel management policy and to 
regulate the safe management of sp ent fuel and radioactive waste. 
Another environmental aspect concerns the sust ainable use of material s (resources) via the 
requirement to keep the generation of radioac tive waste to the minimum practicable in terms 
of activity and volume. This should be don e by means of appropriate design measures, 
operating and decommissioning practices, in cluding recycle and reuse of conventional 
materials. This aspect is also connect ed to the economic and social impacts. 
In conclusion, policy option 1 would have a positive environmental impact at least for the 
shorter term. In the longer term, unjustified delays in the decision-making process and the 
EN 37   EN implementation of long-term interim storage can not be excluded under th is policy option (see 
2.5.1.). 
5.2.2.  Economic impact 
Strengthening the objectives of the existing Commission R ecommendation on the 
management of the financial resources for the decommissioning of nuclear  installations, spent 
fuel and radioactive waste management24 would provide benefits as it guarantees financing 
for the management of spent fuel and radioac tive waste in accordance with the polluter-pays-
principle. 
However as policy option 1 does not have deta iled requirements for th e content of national 
programmes, there is no benchmark available against which the conten t provided by the MS 
could be checked, and more specifically financi ng of disposal facilitie s may completely be 
missing which would lead to a clear distortion of competition. 
The requirements of policy option 1 would provi de improved planning security and long-term 
perspectives for all parties involved, facilitating financia l planning and ensuring know-how, 
expertise, as well as a scientif ic and technical infrastructure. 
They would furthermore help to reduce the long -term political, economical or social financial 
risks linked to "wait-and-see" approaches potentia lly leading to the consequences described in 
2.4.5 above. 
Policy option 1 is anchored on the competence existing in the Member States' regulatory 
authorities, as well as on the internationally en dorsed principles for sp ent fuel and radioactive 
waste management which underlie in the Joint C onvention and of the IAEA Safety Standards. 
The Member States have to fulfil their obligat ions under this Convention. On the basis of the 
analysis of their national repor ts under the Joint C onvention, no additional burden is expected 
to be imposed on the Member States. 
In conclusion, policy option 1 would have a positi ve economical impact at least for the shorter 
term. In the longer term, unjustified delays  of the decision-making process, and the 
implementation of long-term storage with its potential negative economic impacts cannot be 
completely excluded under this policy option (see 2.4.5.). 
5.2.3.  Social impact 
A uniform approach to safety at EU level an d in particular the strengthening of national 
regulatory authorities would furt her enhance the protection of workers and the general public 
as required in the Council Di rective 96/29/Euratom of 13 Ma y 1996 laying down basic safety 
standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public  against the 
dangers arising from ionizing radiation.12 
In the longer term, unjustified delays in the decision-making process and long-term storage 
with its potential negative health impact on workers and the general public cannot be 
excluded under this policy option. 
5.2.4.  Administrative burden and other impacts 
This policy option makes existing obligations from the Joint Convention on the Safety of 
Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of  Radioactive Waste Management enforceable 
EN 38   EN within the EU framework. Therefore, no increase in administrative burdens for industry is to 
be expected. 
As far as Member States are concerned, there may be a very limited additional burden due to 
the new requirement of reporting to the Comm ission, but advantage can be taken of the 
already obligatory reporting under the Joint C onvention. The obligation to invite a peer 
review regularly will incur some  additional costs to those Member States which have not yet 
introduced the practice of inviting peer reviews as they will have to carry out a self-assessment beforehand. A certain limited ad ministrative burden will result from the 
implementation of the Directive into national law. 
On the whole, the additional administrative bur den will be very limite d and will only fall 
upon the Member States and the Commission. An es timation of the resulting costs is difficult 
as they depend on the individual situ ation and concrete implementation. 
5.3. Policy option 2 
5.3.1.  Environmental impact 
This policy option, with its spec ific requirements concerning the national programmes, such 
as for milestones and timeframes, would ensure  planning and implementation of all steps of 
spent fuel and radioactive waste management, in cluding timely disposal, as well as continuing 
improvement of the management system, base d on a stepwise decision making. Unjustified 
delay would be prevented th rough providing indicators for im plementation. Furthermore, it 
would ensure state-of-the-art solutions, as  the national programme s shall be reviewed 
regularly and updated according to the evolutio n of managerial, soci al, economic, technical 
and scientific aspects. Thus it would ensure th e safety of spent fuel and radioactive waste 
management now, in the future and beyond nati onal borders without imposing undue burdens 
on future generations. 
Compared to policy option 1, policy option 2 w ould provide positive environmental impact 
even in the long term from the point of view of both safety and sustainability. 
5.3.2.  Economic impact 
Developing disposal facilities i nvolves significant investments as  shown in chapter 2.3.3. This 
has to be seen vis-à-vis the substantial increase in safety and thus a much better protection of 
workers, public and environment in the long term. 
This option would provide benefits thro ugh its detailed requirements for national 
programmes. Among others, the national spen t fuel and radioactive waste management 
programme has to provide a detailed cost es timate for all waste management steps up to 
disposal including the associated  activities, such as research and development. The national 
waste management programme has also to pr ovide information on the financing of the 
programme. The national programme is ther efore the basis for a corresponding fund 
collection regime. Should a nationa l programme consider only l ong-term interim storage, but 
no disposal, a utility would save  a considerable amount  of money which it could then use for 
other investment and to strengthen its market position in relation to a competitor in another 
Member State where funding of a disposal facility  is foreseen as a mandatory element. Such a 
situation would be a clear di stortion of competition. As shown in chapter 2.3.3., such a cost 
advantage could be in the order of 3.5-4.0 per cent of the assumed total generating cost. 
Keeping the national programmes updated and s ubject to peer reviews would increase the 
EN 39   EN transparency and quality of the funding mechan isms of spent fuel and radioactive waste 
management and decommissioning, and thus would further help to prevent market distortions. 
In conclusion, this policy option would ensure th at the electricity pri ce reflects the full costs 
and all producers are equally trea ted. It would create a level playing field in which all actors 
involved have similar obligations and rights, managed in a transparent way. 
The requirement to provide the underlying assumptions behind the calculations of the costs of 
the solutions proposed, as well as a time cost pr ofile, would improve the cost/benefits analysis 
of the activities proposed and the assessment of  the needs of financing through benchmarking, 
transparency, and monitoring on EU level. Furt hermore, this requireme nt would guarantee the 
allocation of responsibilities fo r undertaking cost assessment. 
In conclusion, policy option 2 would provide a positive economic impact, even over the 
longer term. 
5.3.3.  Social impact 
In addition to the positive short-term impact  offered by policy option 2, this policy option 
would entail a better protection of workers and the general public ag ainst the dangers of 
ionising radiation. This would occur in the long term by avoiding an unjustified prolongation 
of interim storage of spent fuel and radioactiv e with its need for continuous human actions for 
control, maintenance, repackaging of waste, etc. It would ensure that the fundamental 
protection principles of justific ation and optimisation are applied in accordance with the basic 
safety standards for radiation protection.  
The policy option would also much  better protect workers and th e general public in the long 
term against additional radiation exposure that might occur as consequence of accidents, fires, 
natural events, degradation of waste packages etc..  
In conclusion, policy option 2 would guarantee positive social impact in the long term. 5.3.4.  Administrative burden and other impacts 
In principle, what has been said for policy option 1 applies here t oo (please see under 5.2.4.). 
In addition, policy option 2 in cludes the obligation for Memb er States to set up national 
programmes for spent fuel and radioactive wast e management with specific requirements 
including contents, scope, implementation a nd review. The additiona l administrative burden 
would be low for Member States  which already implement the pertinent provisions of the 
Joint Convention, although it lacks detailed requirements to this  end. Member States which do 
not yet have a national programme  have a larger burden to bear , but this is justified by the 
benefits of having such a programme about what to do with one's radioactive waste. 
6. C
OMPARING THE OPTIONS  
By comparing the individual impacts per option, the following conclusions can be drawn from 
the Impact Assessment: 
Policy option 0  cannot be accepted, taking into consideration the fact that the absence of a 
Community approach to spent fuel and radioact ive waste management would be prejudicial to 
EU citizens and to the interest of the Member States. Despite a certain degree of harmonisation, not all Member States have po licies on spent fuel and radioactive waste 
management in the long term th at reflects the existing legal and institutional frameworks in 
EN 40   EN this area. The existing approaches and pr actices on spent fuel and radioactive waste 
management still vary from one Member State to  another and this diversity of measures does 
not allow the Community to satisfy itself that the relevant requirements of the Euratom Treaty are applied in the most effective way in the long term.  
Policy option 0 does not address th e underlying problem of the 'wa it-and-see' policy. It entails 
the risk of negative economic, social, and environmental impacts increasing over time and 
will put undue burdens and threats on future gene rations. This policy option is therefore not at 
all effective in achieving the objectives. 
Policy option 1  was considered for strengthening the pr inciples and requirements of the main 
international instruments adopted at IAEA level (such as the IAEA Safety Standards
 and the 
Joint Convention) for management of radio active waste and spent fuel throughout the 
Community. It makes the internationally accepted principles and requirements for radioactive 
waste and spent fuel management legally bindi ng and enforceable at EU level. Such an 
approach will contribute to improving the sa fety of spent fuel and radioactive waste 
management at EU level and in particular to the establishment of equal requirements for the 
safety of all spent fuel and radioa ctive waste management facilities. 
However, policy option 1 does no t fully tackle the underlying problem of the 'wait-and-see' 
policy since, in the longer term, unjustified delays to the decision-making process and 
unjustified long-term storage ca nnot be excluded under this policy option. Policy option 1 
would only have positive economic, social, and e nvironmental impacts for the shorter term.  
Policy option 1 would also not provide clear a nd detailed requirements for the content of 
national programmes and thus is  lacking a benchmark for an in fringement procedure in case 
of essential elements missing in the programmes submitted to the Commission.  
Thus this policy option is not effective as it does not fully contribute to achieving the 
objectives on long term. 
Policy option 2  goes beyond option 1 with additional spec ific requirements for the national 
programmes for spent fuel and radioactive waste management, including contents, scope, 
implementation and review, assures achievement of  the general policy objective, as defined in 
this Impact Assessment. This option increase s the transparency in  the decision-making 
process not only on the formulati on of the national policies, but  also in their implementation 
through national programmes. The economic, soci al, and environmental impacts are positive 
in particular in the long run. The administrative burdens are e xpected to be low in Member 
States which already comply with the provisi ons of the Joint Convention. In summary, this 
policy option is very effective in  achieving the objectives. In a ddition, it is strongly supported 
by the stakeholders and th e general public through: 
– the key principles and guideli nes provided by the Group of  European Nuclear Safety 
Regulators; 
– the position paper "Contribution to the Stakeholder Consultati on Process for a Possible EU 
Instrument in the Field of Safe and Sust ainable Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste 
Management" elaborated under the Eu ropean Nuclear Energy Forum; 
– the "Collective opinion of the Club of Agencies  in the consultation process for a possible 
EU instrument in the Field of Safe and Su stainable Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste 
Management"; 
EN 41   EN – the open public consultation "Approaches for a possible EU legislative proposal on the 
management of spent fuel and radioactive waste". 
It also complies in the utmost degree with th e conclusions and resolu tions of the Council and 
position of the European Parliament. This policy option is also the only one that provides for 
an adequate and responsible policy, providing not  only for a high level of safety but also for 
beneficial effects on the environmen tal, social and economic levels. 
Following the successful adoption of the Co uncil Directive 2009/71/Euratom on nuclear 
safety in June 2009, it will constitute the second  pillar of the most advanced legal framework 
for safe use of nuclear energy. 
Only policy option 2 makes the internationa lly accepted principles and requirements for 
radioactive waste and spent fuel management le gally binding and enforceable at the EU level 
and introduces an obligation to set up coherent  national programmes for Member States which 
have not yet done so. Furthermore, policy optio n 2 provides clear and detailed requirements 
for the content of national progr ammes, offering a benchmark for an infringement procedure 
in case of missing mandatory elements.  
It also makes these obligations enforceable through the clear and strong control mechanisms 
of the EU (e.g. infringement proceedings by th e Commission, referral to the European Court 
of Justice (ECJ) in case of non-compliance, oblig ation of Member States to comply with ECJ 
rulings). 
In the framework of the above considerations, Policy option 2  appears to be the preferred 
one, as it addresses the problem in an effectiv e way, guarantees achievement of the political 
objective and complies with the stakeholders an d public expectations to  the highest extent. 
It can be concluded that option 0 increases the risks over time, option 1 reduces the risks 
and option 2 eliminates them to the extent  possible with reasonabl e expected economic, 
social, environmental and administrative impacts.  
7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
The indicators of progress toward s meeting the objectives are: 
– status of implementing the requirements fo r a national framework for spent fuel and 
radioactive waste management, allocating resp onsibilities and provi ding for coordination 
between relevant state bodies in the long term, specified in 4.2, and 
– status of implementing the requirements fo r scope, contents and review of national 
programmes for spent fuel and radioac tive waste management, specified in 4.3. 
Member States would report to the Commission on the implementation of these requirements, 
taking advantage of the review and reporting cycles under the Jo int Convention on the Safety 
of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, and thus no 
additional administrative burden is expected. In addition, Memb er States would submit draft 
national programmes to the Commission for comment before adoption.  
EN 42   EN On the basis of the Member Stat es' reports and their notificati ons of national programmes, the 
Commission will submit a report to the Council  and the European Parliament on progress 
made. 
 
EN 43   EN ANNEX 1: COMPARATIVE TABLE 
IAEA Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Manage ment and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management – 
Euratom legislative instrument (D irective) covering the Management of Radioactive  Waste and Spent Fuel (Policy options 1 and 2 of the 
Impact Assessment) 
Criteria  Joint Convention Euratom legislative instrument (Directive) 
- Policy options 1 and 2 of the IA -  
I. Main criterion  
Legal 
enforceability • Legally binding instrument (" pacta sunt servanda " - see 
Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties). 
• However, in terms of enforcement, the Joint Convention 
does not provide any tools . It does not contain 
sanctions, penalties or other types of mechanisms (e.g. 
financial or technical assistance). 
• "Incentive" character  of the Joint Convention (explicitly 
acknowledged in its Preamble (vi)), similar to the 
Convention on Nuclear Safety. 
• The Joint Convention relies on the common interest of 
all Contracting Parties to ach ieve its objectives. It is 
designed to obtain compliance bona fide  through 
voluntary cooperation and "peer pressure" rather than by 
means of control and sanction. 
• Fundamental role of the peer-review mechanism  that 
entails the following fundame ntal obligations for the • Legally binding for the EU Member States – as to the result 
to be achieved but leaving to the national authorities the choice of form and methods (see Art. 288(3) TFEU, applicable to Euratom Treaty. 
• In terms of enforcement, the founding Treaties (and the 
jurisprudence of the Court of  Justice of the EU) offer  clear 
and strong control mechanisms for ensuring the correct 
transposition and further im plementation of a Directive .  
• The Commission  has several control prerogatives (for 
fulfilling its responsibility of monitoring the implementation 
of Community acquis.  
General : 
– Commission right to issue recommendations on the 
draft national legislative measures  aiming to 
transpose Community acquis  adopted on the basis of 
Articles 31 and 32 of the Euratom Treaty within 3 months from their notification. The Member States 
 
EN 44   EN Contracting Parties: 
– To submit in advance to all other Contracting 
Parties a National Report describing how it implements the obligations of the Joint Convention; 
– To seek clarification on the National Reports of 
other Contracting Parties through a system of written questions and answers; and 
– To present and discuss its National Report 
during a Review Meeting comprising country 
group sessions and plenary sessions. 
• Very significant margin of discretion for the 
Contracting Parties' self-assessments (according to the IAEA Guidelines regarding National Reports under the 
Joint Convention " each Contracting Party has the right 
to submit a National Report with the form, length and 
structure it believes necessary to describe how it has implemented its obligations under the Convention").  
• The other Contracting Parties have to rely on the 
accuracy and completeness of the information provided 
by each Contracting Party and in its answers to the 
questions asked.  
• Several weaknesses of the peer-review process have 
been identified in terms of effectiveness and efficiency.  
 should not adopt the national measures until the 
Commission has sent its recommendations or before the 3 months' timeframe elapses (see Article 33(3 and 4) of the Euratom Tr eaty and the Commission 
Recommendation on the applic ation of Article 33 of 
the Euratom Treaty).  
– Commission right to open infringement procedures
 
against the Member States that failed to transpose a Directive / have not properly transposed or 
implemented the provisions of a Directive. This 
procedure comprises several stages, possibly culminating with the referra l of the case to the Court 
of Justice of the EU (see Articles 258 and 260 TFEU, applicable to the Euratom Treaty).  
– Commission competence to issue a reasoned opinion
 
in case of an action brought by a Member State 
against another Member Stat e to the Court of Justice 
of the EU for failure to fulfil an obligation under Community law (see Article 259 TFEU, applicable to the Euratom Treaty.  
Specific
 
– In addition to the control competencies above, 
generally applicable to all Directives, in the specific case of a Directive govern ing the management of 
spent fuel and radioactive waste (as proposed under Policy option 2), a notification mechanism to the 
Commission of the national programmes can be 
envisaged.  
 
EN 45   EN • I t  s h o u l d  b e  a l s o  n o t e d  t h a t  a  M e m b e r  S t a t e  can bring an 
action  before the Court of Justic e of the EU (after bringing 
the matter before the Commission) against another Member 
State for failure to fulfil an obligation  (see Article 259 TFEU, 
applicable to the Euratom Treaty).  
• The Court of Justice of the EU has several competencies: 
– Right to determine whether a Member State has 
fulfilled its obligations unde r EU law in actions for 
failure to fulfil obligations . If the Court finds that an 
obligation has not been fulfilled, the Member State must bring the failure to an end without delay. If, after a further action is  brought by the Commission, 
the Court of Justice finds that the Member State concerned has not complied with its judgment, it 
may impose on it a fixed or periodic financial 
penalty. However, if me asures transposing a 
Directive are not notified to the Commission, it may 
propose that the Court impose a pecuniary penalty on the Member State concerned, once the initial judgment establishing a failu re to fulfil obligations 
has been delivered (s ee Article 260 TFEU, 
applicable to the Euratom Treaty). 
– Right to clarify a point c oncerning the interpretation 
of EU law . The Court's reply is not merely an 
opinion, but takes the form of a judgment or reasoned order. The national court to which it is addressed is, in deciding th e dispute before it, bound 
by the interpretation given. The Court's judgment 
 
EN 46   EN likewise binds other national courts before which the 
same problem is raised. It is thus through references for preliminary rulings that any European citizen can  find clarification of the 
interpretation of EU rules which affect him (see Article 267 TFEU, applicable to the Euratom Treaty).  
• Directives have a direct e ffect for European citizens
, as 
recognised in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the EU 
(see for instance the Case 8/81, according to which "Particularly in cases in which the Community authorities have, by means of a Directive, placed Member States under a 
duty to adopt a certain course of  action , the effectiveness of 
such a measure would be diminished if persons were prevented from relying upon it in proceedings before a court and national courts were prevented from taking it into consideration as an element of Community law. Consequently, a Member State which has not adopted the 
implementing measures required by the Directive within the 
prescribed period may not plea d, as against individuals, its 
own failure to perform the obl igations which the directive 
entails.  Thus, wherever the provisio ns of a Directive appear, 
as far as their subject-matter is concerned, to be unconditional and sufficiently precise, those provisions may, in the absence 
of implementing measures adopted within the prescribed 
period, be relied upon as against any national provision which 
is incompatible with the Directive or in so far as the 
provisions define rights which i ndividuals are able to assert 
against the State ". 
 
EN 47   EN  
II. Additional criteria  
Specificity of 
content for the 
EU • Generally applicable worldwide principles and 
requirements in the area of spent fuel and radioactive waste management (nibs. according to the latest status of ratifications of 29  April 2010, there are 56 
Contracting Parties to the Joint Convention). 
–  • Based upon, endorsing and fully  recognising the generally 
worldwide principles and requirements of the Joint Convention. 
• In addition, possibility to go beyond these international 
requiremenents and include provi sions specifically addressed 
to the EU Members States , e.g: 
– Requirements to adopt nati onal programmes for the 
management of spent fuel and radioactive waste and notify them to the Commission (element specific for policy option 2; 
– Provisions related to transparency and public 
involvement; 
– Provisions transforming th e voluntary international 
peer-review system into a legally binding EU requirement. 
• Need to ensure consistency with the Nuclear Safety Directive. 
Consultation of 
stakeholders 
and citizens in 
the elaboration 
and adoption • No possibility for all stakeholders and citizens to 
express their views during the elaboration of the 
Convention. 
• Drafted by a Group of Legal and Technical Experts. • Stakeholders and citizens are consulted and di rectly involved 
throughout the entire decision-mak ing process leading to the 
adoption of a Directive , through various mechanisms e.g: 
– Eurobarometer surveys; 
 
EN 48   EN process 
 • Adopted on 5 September 1997 by a Diplomatic 
Conference of States convened by the IAEA. – Open public Internet consultation (see the 
Commission Communication on General Principles 
and Minimum Standards for Consultation of Interested Parties by the Commission);  
– Expert groups (e.g. WPNS, ENSREG); 
– Platforms for stakeholde rs' dialogue (e.g. ENEF); 
– Opinion of the European Economic and Social 
Committee (represents civil society, employers and employees) on the Commission proposal (see the 
Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty special legislative 
procedure); 
– Opinion of the European Parliament (represents the 
EU’s citizens and is directly elected by them) on the Commission proposal (see the Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty special le gislative procedure). 
Transparency • The Joint Convention does not comprise provisions on 
public information.  
• Moreover, as regards the Re view process, although the 
Contracting Parties to the Joint Convention are 
encouraged to publish their National Reports (as well as 
questions and comments received from other Contracting Parties and res ponses thereto), there is no 
formal obligation in this sense . Contracting Parties have 
the ultimate responsibility of deciding whether or not 
the information supplied is to be deemed confidential. The only document that is formally intended to be made • Following the model of the Nuclear Safety Directive, one of 
the requirements of a Directive dealing with the management 
of spent fuel and radioactive waste would be related to public 
information . Consequently, Member States would have the 
obligation to ensure that the information on the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste is regularly made available to the public. 
• Secondly, as in the Nuclear Safe ty Directive, a Directive on 
the management of spent fuel  and radioactive waste would 
require Member States to submit regular implementation reports to the Commission (taki ng advantage of the reporting 
 
EN 49   EN public is the Summary Re port of the meeting, 
presenting major issues, possibly by combining significant points made in the Rapporteurs' reports that summarized the country group discussions (see the IAEA Guidelines regarding the Review Process under the Joint Convention). under the Joint Convention). Based on these reports, the 
Commission would submit an overv iew report to the Council 
and the European Parliament on progress made with the implementation of the Directive.  
• Thirdly, the Directive would requi re Member States to report 
the outcomes of the international peer-reviews
 not only to the 
Commission, but also to all the other Member States, 
whenever these are available. 
Public 
participation in 
the decision-
making process • The Joint Convention does not comprise provisions on 
public participation.  • One of the objectives envisaged by a Directive would be to 
ensure the public participa tion in the decision-making 
process . 
Amendment 
procedure • The Convention provides for an amendment procedure, 
which would require consensu s, or, in its absence, 
convening a Diplomatic C onference which requires 
two-thirds majority vote of the Contracting Parties 
present and voting at the mee ting, provided that at least 
one half of the Contracting Parties are present at the 
time of voting) (see Article 41 of the Joint Convention). 
• In the light of the above, due to the required quorum 
rules, the EU has no command of the amendment of the 
Convention (in the theoretical case when new evolutions at EU level would arise and require an amendment or the introduction of additional provisions in the Joint Convention). • In the case of EU legislati on, if needed, the amendment 
procedure is internal to the EU  (does not depend on the 
consent of third countries). 
 
 
EN 50   EN Conclusions of the comparative table  
Criteria  Joint Convention Euratom legislative 
instrument 
(Directive) 
- Policy options 1 
and 2 -  
Legal enforceability - + 
Specificity of content for the EU - + 
Consultation of stakeholders and citizens in the elaboration and 
adoption process - + 
Transparency + ++ 
Public participation in the decision-making process - + 
Amendment procedure - + 
 
EN 51   EN ANNEX 2: CONSULTATION AND EXPERTISE 
1. Stakeholders consultation 
1.1. High Level Group on Nuclear Safety and Waste Management (ENSREG) 
The High Level Group on Nuclear Safety and Waste Management45 was established on 17 
July 2007 by a Commission decision (2007/530/Euratom)46. The Group composed of senior 
officials from national regulator y or safety authorities competent on the safety of nuclear 
installations and of spent fuel and radioa ctive waste management and a Commission's 
representative, later adopted the acronym ENSREG  (European Nuclear Safety Regulators 
Group). The Group's mandate is to advise a nd assist the Commissi on in progressively 
developing a common unders tanding and eventually Europeans ru les in the field of the safety 
of nuclear installation and th e safety of the waste management. Its establishment was 
endorsed by the European Council47 and supported by the Council48 and the European 
Parliament49. The first conclusions and recommendati ons of the Group were reflected in the 
Council Resolution of 16 December 2008 on Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Management. 
In July 2009 the first ENSREG's report50 was submitted to the Commission, and transmitted 
to the European Parliament and the Council in September. It was reflected by the Council in 
its Conclusions of 10 November 200951. In its report, the Group en courages "the development 
of a national programme for waste management in each EU Member State and the adoption of 
an instrument defining the basics of and guide lines for the contents of such programmes in 
Europe", underlines "the importance for the EU to promote improvement of regulatory 
effectiveness and to provide leadership on peer reviews", and recommends that "the 
Commission should promote wider use of best practices". In  respect of the management of 
spent fuel and radioactive waste, the report is based on seven documents dealing in details 
with different aspects of the issue an d providing conclusions  and recommendations52: 
– Identification of difficulties and challenges for progress in spent fuel and high-level waste 
management; 
– Better use of the Joint Convention process in the European Union; 
– Guidelines for the content and objectives of  national programmes for the management and 
the safety of radioactive waste and spent fuel; 
– International peer reviews and regulatory effectiveness; 
– Identification and enhanced use of best practi ces in the context of continuous improvement 
in waste safety in the EU countries; 
                                                 
45 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/ensreg/ensreg_en.htm 
46 OJ L 195/44 of 27.07.2007 
47 European Council of 8-9 March 2007 
48 Council Conclusions of 8 May 2007 on Nuclear Safety and Safe Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel 
and Radioactive Waste, 8784/07 
49 European Parliament resolution on Assessing Euratom – 50 Years of European nuclear energy policy of 
10 May 2007 
50 Report of the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group, July 2009 
51 Council conclusions on the report by the Europeans Nuclear Regulators Group, 10 November 2009   
52 http://circa.europa.eu/Members/ir c/tren/nuclear_safety_and_waste/library?l=/general_archive/public 
 
EN 52   EN – Better exchange of informati on on waste safety experience; 
– Waste safety reviews of new nuclear power plants. 
In June 2010, ENSREG sent to  the Commission a detailed cont ribution, which contains key 
principles and guidelines as a basis for the Commission to prepare legislation on radioactive 
waste and spent fuel management. This cont ribution was prepared by a dedicated working 
group, discussed and unanimously adopted at the plenary meeting of ENSREG on 4 June 
2010. 
1.2. European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF) The European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF)
53 is another initiati ve of the European 
Commission endorsed by the EU heads of state and government in March 200747. It is a 
unique platform for a broad discussion on th e opportunities and risks of nuclear energy, 
including spent fuel and radioactive waste ma nagement, as well as on transparency issues. 
Founded in 2007, ENEF gathers all relevant stak eholders in the nuclear field, such as 
governments of all 27 EU Member States, Eu ropean Institutions including the European 
Parliament and the European Economic and So cial Committee, nuclear industry, electricity 
consumers and the civil society. 
The Conclusions of the second 
plenary meeting (May 2008) emphasised the Forum's strong 
support for the adoption of European legislation on waste management based on common fundamental safety principles stating furthermore that "if it succeeds in adopting such a legal 
framework, Europe can become a real model also for possible nuclear newcomers, ensuring that 
they take all necessary measures for ensuring the highest safety and security levels before developing nuclear infrastructure".
 
The fourth plenary meeting (May 2009) underlin ed in its conclusion s that "guidance for 
national roadmaps and European actions for the successful implementation of geological 
waste repositories concentrating on  the possible drivers for advanc ing the issue in the EU will 
continue to be in the focus of the Foru m". Roadmap to Successful Implementation of 
Geological Disposal in the EU, EUR 24301 EN54, was elaborated under the Forum and sent to 
the Commission "as a stakeholder contribution" to this Impact Assessment in December 2009. 
The document is based to a larg e extent on the positive progre ss that has been made in a 
number of Member States and one of its main c onclusions is that it is essential "to take the 
necessary political and technical decisions  and develop a roadmap for the long-term 
management of radioactive waste, including speci fic routes, milestones and endpoints". It also 
concludes that the EU can provide  an added value in the interest of the European citizens and 
that the EU institutions should have a role in proposing instruments for establishment of 
national programmes for the sa fe long-term management of spent fuel and all types of 
radioactive waste, with clea rly defined milestones and di sposal routes, ensuring the 
presentation of these programmes to the public and where appropriate to  internatio nal peer 
review, and in ensuring an equiva lent high level of safety in ra dioactive waste management in 
all Member States through a set of comm on rules and research-based approaches. 
During the elaboration of the Roadmap paper, two  NGO's - Sortir du Nucléaire and Friends 
of the Earth  commented the draft document before leaving the Forum. They felt that 
                                                 
53 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/forum/forum_en.htm 
54 http://ec.europa.eu/ener gy/nuclear/forum/risks /waste_disposal_en.htm 
 
EN 53   EN geological disposal would not avoid the burden on future generations and that the best way to 
lessen it, in the current state-of-the-art, wa s stopping producing nuclear waste by phasing out 
nuclear energy. They underlined the importa nce of proper funding by waste generators, a 
proper investigation of repository sites, review ed by independent experts, and the involvement 
of citizens in the decision-making process whil e at the same time doubting the suitability of 
geological disposal as long-time solution withou t suggesting alternative solutions. As to EU 
legislation, Friends of the Ea rth suggested deadlines for implementing waste management 
solutions. 
A position paper "Contribution to the Stakehol der Consultation Process for a Possible EU 
Instrument in the Field of Safe and Sust ainable Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste 
Management" was elaborated under the Forum in April 201054. It states that "the EU needs to 
develop a common legislative framework governing the manage ment of spent fuel and 
radioactive waste…. Taki ng into account the broad range of situations in this matter in the 
different MS, we support the adoption of a le gally binding EU inst rument". The document 
justifies the need of a legally binding instru ment at EU level, as well as the scope and 
essential elements, including national progra mmes, technology and financing, of such an 
instrument. In respect of the final solutions, it  is stressed that "Technical solutions exist for 
the final disposal of all types of radioac tive waste (LLW, ILW, HLW and spent fuel if 
regarded as waste). While the implementation of  such solutions is progressing well for low 
and intermediate level waste in most MS, the im plementation of geological disposal is still 
posing a challenge in many MS, although this is recognised as  the only proven, practicable 
solution for the disposal of HLW and spent fuel , if regarded as waste. Therefore, the EU 
instrument must clearly require deep geological disposal for high level waste and spent fuel, if 
regarded as waste, as part of th e national programme if applicable". 
1.3. Technology Platforms The Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform (SNE – TP)
55 was launched in 
September 2007. It aims at  promoting the research, devel opment and demonstration of 
European nuclear fission technologies and gath ers more than 70 organisations (research 
organisations, utilities, vendor s, technology providers, tec hnical safety organisations, 
universities, consultancy companie s and non-governmental organisations).  
In May 2009, the first edition of the Strategi c Research Agenda (SRA) was produced as a 
result of the contributions from nearly 200 scie ntists and the engineers from some 70 member 
organisations of SNE-TP and the feedback obt ained from an open public consultation. The 
objective of the SRA is to provide decision makers as well as the scientific community with clearly identified technological road-maps for fission technologies . It is stated in the SRA 
that: 
– "Several EU countries have implemented co mmercially available solutions which allow 
handling low and intermediate level waste"; 
– "The present solution for high level waste is to properly condition them inside isolating 
and protecting packages that are then di sposed of in a deep underground geological 
repository"; 
                                                
 
55 SNETP, Strategic Research Agenda, May 2009, www.SNETP.eu 
 
EN 54   EN – "there is a clear consensus today that a sustai nable nuclear fuel cycle is mainly linked to 
the durability of the solutions addressing the two following issues: optimum use of natural 
resources, nuclear waste minimization. Thes e two objectives must be pursued while 
maintaining or increasing at the same time the safety and the economic competitiveness 
and ensuring the non-proliferation of the technologies". 
The Implementing Geological Di sposal Technology Platform  (IGD – TP)56 was launched 
in November 2009, as a tool to support th e confidence-building in the safety and 
implementation of deep geological disposal soluti ons. It will facilitate access to expertise and 
technology, interact with the stakeholders, an d communicate the results to  the benefit of all of 
Europe. The vision of the platform members (w aste management organisations) is that by 
2025, the first geological disposal facilities fo r spent fuel, high level waste, and other long-
lived radioactive waste will be operating safely in Europe. Their commitment is: 
– to build confidence in the safety of geol ogical disposal solutions among European 
citizens and decision-makers; 
– to encourage the establishment of wast e management programmes that integrate 
geological disposal as the accepted option for the safe long term management of 
long-lived and/or high level waste; 
– to facilitate access to e xpertise and technology and ma intain competences in 
the field of geological disposal for the benefit of Member States. 
1.4. Club of Agencies The Club of Agencies is a group of European radioactive waste management organisations, 
set up to exchange information on all aspects of radioactive waste management. As waste 
management belongs to the core of their activitie s, the Club is very much interested in the 
developments on the subject of a possible EU  instrument on waste management. In May 2010 
a collective opinion of the Club of Agencies wa s sent to the Commission as a stakeholder 
contribution to the consultation process to this  Impact Assessment, and is presented below. 
                                                
 
56 IGDTP, Vision document, October 2009, www.igdtp.eu 
 
EN 55   EN 
 
 
EN 56   EN 
 
1.5. Working Party on Nuclear Safety (WPNS) 
In 2005 and 2006 the Council Working Party on Nuclear Safety (WPNS) consulted the EU 
Member States on the safety of nuclear installa tions and of spent fuel and radioactive waste 
management, and considered the various approa ches taken up by Western European Nuclear 
Regulators Association (WENRA), Orga nisation for Economic Co-operation and 
Development / Nuclear Energy Agen cy (OECD/NEA), Joint Convention57, the International 
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Safety Standards etc. The Council Conclusions of 8 May 2007
58 acknowledged the great commitment of the stakeholders in the WPNS and its final 
report and the three sub-group s reports, in particular their recommendations and 
                                                 
57 Joint Convention of the Safety of Spent Fuel Ma nagement and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste 
Management, http://www-ns.iaea.org/c onventions/waste-joi ntconvention.htm 
58 Council Conclusions of 8 May 2007 on Nuclear Safety and Safe Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel 
and Radioactive Waste, 8784/07 
 
EN 57   EN conclusions59. The Council sets out that each EU Member State shou ld be urged "to establish 
and keep updated a national programme for the safe management of radioactive waste and 
spent fuel that includes all radioactive waste u nder its jurisdiction and covers all stages of 
management". It also supported the establishmen t of a High Level Group at EU level aimed at 
furthering a common approach in the safety of nuclear installations and of spent fuel and 
radioactive waste management. 
1.5. Confrontations Europe Confrontations Europe is a non- for-profit civil society organisation whic h gathers companies’ 
managers, unionists, territorial players, members of the civil society, politicians, intellectuals 
and students from numerous countries in Europe, all committed to one idea: active 
participation of civil society for building of  Europe. In 2008 the organisation welcomed the 
revised proposal for a Counc il Directive setting up a Comm unity framework for nuclear 
safety and expressed their hopes "for a si milar framework to manage nuclear waste"
60. 
2. Public consultation 
2.1. Open public consultation  "Approaches for a possible EU legislative proposal on the 
management of spent fuel and radioactive waste 
The public consultation was carried out over a pe riod of eight and half weeks, from the 31st of 
March to the 31st of May 2010. In total 510 responses were received. It was published on the 
website " Your voice in Europe " and announced to a range of key stakeholders and EU 
Institutions. The General Princi ples and Minimum Standards fo r Consultation of Interested 
Parties by the Commission61 were respected in the elaboration and presentation of this 
questionnaire. 
The questions presented covered the following areas: – The characteristics of the re spondents and the specific identif ication of the participating 
public authorities and radioactive waste management organisations,  
– The respondents' perception of the issue of spen t fuel and radioactive waste management in 
their country of residence togeth er with the main challenges to  be addressed in this area, 
– Their preferred approach towards EU legislat ion in this area and in particular, whether 
binding or non-binding legislation would result in the greater improvement of the national 
situation, 
– Two options for possible binding EU legislation: 
• Option 1: Strengthening the international principles and requirements laid down 
by the IAEA Safety Standard s and the Joint Convention, 
                                                
 
59 15475/2/06 REV2 
60 Nuclear revival, nuclear safety: challenges for the European Union, Proceedings of two symposiums, 
numero 26, Paris, Brussels, 2008 
61 COM(2002)704 
 
EN 58   EN • Option 2: Additional action over and be yond that of option 1, adding some 
specific requirements to be considered in the Member States' national programmes 
for the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste. 
Regarding option 1, the respondents were asked to identify, in their view, the most important 
principles and requirements for spent fuel a nd radioactive waste management. For option 2, a 
list of possible contents for the national pr ogrammes was presented, with the respondents 
being invited to identify their preferences. 
– The means by which binding legi slation could be implemente d and in particular how 
national reports and peer reviews mi ght contribute to this process 
– The possible impacts of binding legislation. 
– Additional proposals and comments. 
Almost all of these questions were presente d in a multiple choice format, facilitating a 
quantitative analysis. Only th e section on additional proposals  and comments was presented 
as an open question ( intended for a qualitative analysis ). 
Profile of the respondents  
The majority of respondents to  the questionnaire were indivi duals (428), with  the remainder 
being organisations or public authorities ( 82). Represented among the collective were, NGOs 
(35), Public Authorities (15), Waste Management  Organisations (8), Producers of Radioactive 
Waste (11), Technical Servic es (3) and Others (10).  
For the individuals , the majority (63.3%) could be define d as interested c itizens having no 
direct professional involvement in radioactive waste issues, and 75.4% of these considered 
themselves to be "very well" or "fairly well" informed regarding spen t fuel and radioactive 
waste policy in their country.  
It was notable that 31.1% of the to tal responses emanated from Italy. 
Contents of the answers – quantitative data  
A significant majority of the individual  respondents (69.6%) consid ered that the measures 
taken in their country for ensuring the safe ma nagement of spent fuel and radioactive waste 
were insufficient. They felt that in this regard , the main challenges to be address in their 
countries were:  
– the lack of transparency,  
– the lack of a permanent and safe solution fo r the disposal of high level waste and spent 
fuel,  
– and the insufficient involvement of the public in decision-making processes.  
These were also the three ma in concerns highlighted by NGOs . 
For the public authorities , in addition to the challenges  identified above, an important 
concern was the current absence of a comprehensive national program. For radioactive waste 
 
EN 59   EN management organisations , producers of radioactive waste and technical organisations , 
another important challenge to be addressed wa s the lack of clear political direction and 
decisions62. 
As a means to tackling the challe nges identified above, 74.8% of the individual respondents  
believed in the need for a common approach within the EU. Of this group 77.6% favoured 
binding legislation in the form of an EU Directive as the preferred implementation route.  
71% of individuals  also considered that legal cert ainty would be e nhanced should the 
principles of the IAEA Safety Fundamentals and the Joint Convention be integrated into 
Community legislation.  
Radioactive waste management organisations , radioactive waste pr oducers and technical 
service organisations responded similarl y, with 75% supporting binding legislation. 
The NGO  response also  showed strong support for binding le gislation (88.6%), while support 
from public authorities (66.7%) was also very strong. 
The first policy  option  presented for Community acti on was a strengthening of the 
internationally accepted principles and re quirements laid down by the IAEA. The 
questionnaire identified a series of main pr inciples and requireme nts and requested the 
respondents to identify those act ions which they felt were important to be complied with. 
82% of individuals  agreed on the fact that, as a fundamental principle,  Member States should 
protect future generations from the dange rs of ionising radiation effectively.  
Likewise, 63.3% of the individual  respondents agreed that tran sparency arrangements should 
be implemented. Other requirements that were identified as "very important" were; ensuring 
the effective independence of the regulatory au thority, applying the poll uter pays principle 
and actively involving the public in  the decision making process. 
These opinions were similar to those of the NGOs  and public authorities , although public 
authorities also regarded ensuring financial resources as paramount. 
Radioactive waste management organisations , radioactive waste producers and 
organisations providing technical services , considered the establishment and maintenance 
of a national framework to be the mo st important issue to be addressed. 
The second policy option  proposed additional elements and issues as supplements to the 
existing IAEA principles and requirements , which would be implemented through the 
national programmes for spent fuel and radioa ctive waste management. In this regard, the 
respondents were asked which issues they felt sh ould be included in the national programmes.  
The majority of the individuals  answered that national pr ogrammes should include an 
assignment of roles and responsibilities, and in ventories of radioactive waste and spent fuel. 
They also considered that the proposal of plans and technical solutions as  well as a description 
                                                 
62 Please note that in the questionnaire "lack of political decisions" and "lack of political, solution oriented 
leadership" were identified as two different challenges. The challeng e in the first case is that no 
decisions are taken at all. In the second case, d ecisions may be taken, but they are not carried out 
effectively due to a failure in leadership or management. 
 
EN 60   EN of the decision making processes were also among th e elements that should be included in the 
plans. The same priorities were highlighted by public authorities .  
The NGOs  additionally highlighted th e issue of remedial actions for legacy waste and the 
identification and achievement of signi ficant milestones as key issues, while radioactive 
waste management organisations , radioactive waste producers  and technical service 
organisations  focused on the cost assessments and the identification and achievement of 
significant milestones achiev ed, as being important. 
When individual respondents were asked for their opinions on how to ensure compliance 
with binding EU legislati on in the Member States: 
– 50.7% were in favour of organi sing periodic international p eer-reviews on the regulatory 
system, 
– 47.2% were in favour of examining the na tional programmes through peer-reviews,  
– 44.2% supported reporting to th e Commission and Member Stat es on the results of the 
peer-reviews,  
– 37.1% welcomed the idea of describing the implem entation of the legisl ative instrument in 
the national reports to be submitted at the Joint Convention's review meetings,  
– while a minority (31.3%) supporte d reporting to the Commission separately, in addition to 
the Joint Convention's reports.  
The NGOs  expressed a desire (54.3%) to report separately to the Commission while public 
authorities (20%), and radioactive waste management organisations , radioactive waste 
producers  and technical service organisations  (37.5%) showed less su pport for this idea. 
Radioactive waste management organisations , radioactive waste producers  and technical 
service organisations  were more reluctant towards th e proposal for peer reviews on the 
regulatory system, preferring in stead that they should be orga nised at the national programme 
level. 
Some possible impacts of binding Comm unity legislation were considered. 
Many individual respondents  agreed that the main outcomes would be: 
– An enhanced safety and better management  of radioactive waste and spent fuel,  
– Enhanced legal certainty,  
– The avoidance of unjustified de lays for disposal solutions,  
– And increased public involvement in  the decision making process. 
NGOs  were in general agreement with this view , adding that there would be an enhancement 
in the political will with rega rd to national decision-making,  
Radioactive waste management organisations , radioactive waste producers  and technical 
service organisations also highlight similar themes, while public authorities  were 
 
EN 61   EN concerned about the substantial additional hu man and financial resources that would be 
required in order to establish such national programmes and to comply with the associated 
new obligations. 
Comments and suggestions to the open question  
Regarding the open question, 186 suggestions and opinions we re received, 128 of them 
coming from individuals, 26 from NGOs and the remainder (32) from authorities, waste 
management organisations, waste producer s, technical services and others. 
Many of the comments received from individual respondents  expressed an outright 
opposition to nuclear energy (57). Many sugges tions indicated a desire for increased 
transparency and involvement of the public in the decision-making processes as a pre-
requisite to achieve the necessary confiden ce in radioactive waste management (24). 
Some questioned the acceptability of disposal of radioactive waste as an acceptable solution 
(14) and underlined the polluter-pay s principle at EU level (14).  
A number of respondents expresse d serious concerns that safe radioactive waste management 
could not be assured at the national level and as such it was an issue to be handled at the EU 
level (14).  
Other common suggestions received were: 
– the need to increase the activities of rese arch and development in the area (12),  
– the need to increase safety and security (9),  
– and the need to introduce a ban on the export of radioactive waste from the EU to third 
countries (5). 
The NGOs  shared some of the vi ews expressed by individuals, mainly the fundamental 
opposition towards nuclear energy (13), and the need  to apply the polluter pays principle (14) 
and improved transparency arrangements (9).  
6 NGOs expressed their disagreement with the id ea of disposal of nuclear waste in geological 
repositories as an end-point for radioactive waste management. Instead, they suggested an 
increase in research into long-term st orage alternatives should be prioritised. 
Other concerns included  – the need to increase nuclear safety by a pplying the best availa ble technologies (8) 
– the need to ensure the effective independen ce of regulatory bodies an d/or the radioactive 
waste management organisations (4)  
– and the need to take into consideration the documents on radioactive waste management, 
produced by the European Nuclear Energy Forum ENEF (4). 
Other concerns voiced by Radi oactive waste producers, radioactive waste management 
organisations, national authorities and others were  
 
EN 62   EN – the need to improve the provision of adequate information (7),  
– and the problem of an overload of work a nd a duplication of tasks at IAEA and EU 
instances (5). 
Some of the answers received are represented in  the following charts –the values reflected in 
these charts refer to the total amount of an swers received, without differentiating among 
individuals, NGOs, public authorities, etc. 
What are the main challen ges related to the spent fuel and radioactive 
waste management with which your country is still confronted?
1,4%5,7%17,3%18,8%20,8%21,6%26,9%27,6%31,6%36,3%39,2%40,4%41,0%47,6%50,8%52,7% Lack of transparency
Lack of a permanent and safe solution for the disposal of high level waste and spent fuel
Insufficient involvement of the public in the decision-making process
Lack of political, solution oriented leadership
Lack of political decisions
Lack of a comprehensive national programme covering all types of radioactive waste and all
management stages with clear milestones and endpoints
Lack of a permanent and safe solution for the disposal of low and intermediate level waste
Lack of independence of the regulatory authority
Lack or little progress in the implementation of geological disposal for high level waste and
spent fuel subject to direct disposal
Lack of legislative framework providing appropriate arrangements for a high level of safety
of spent fuel and radioactive waste management
Lack of adequate financial resources for implementing disposal solutions
Insufficient technical infrastructure
Insufficient scientific infrastructure
Insufficient dedicated training
None of the above
No opinion
 
Do you consider that a common appr oach of all the 27 EU MSs is 
needed for tackling the challenges?
No opinion 8,2%
Yes 74,1%No 17,6%
What would be your preferred instrument of Communit y
intervention?
Binding legislation (e.g. 
Directive) 77,8%Non-binding 
recommendation 10,8%None of the above 7,5%No opinion 3,9%
 
 
EN 63   EN 
Option 1 - Which are the fundamental principles and requirements 
that MSs should comply with under this policy option?
1,2%1,8%7,6%33,5%36,5%41,2%43,9%46,1%47,1%47,3%49,2%52,7%54,5%54,7%59,2%59,4%64,3%64,5%82,5%To effectively protect future generations from the dangers of ionising radiation
To implement transparency arrangements
To ensure the effective independence of the regulatory authority
To apply the "polluters pay" principle
To actively involve the public in the decision-making process
To provide to the regulatory authority the necessary legal, human and financial resources in order to
fulfil its functions
To establish and maintain a competent regulatory authority in the area of spent fuel and radioactive
waste management
To establish and maintain a national legislatie, regulatory and organisational framework for spent
fuel and radioactive waste ('national framework')
To ensure verifications of compliance with legal obligations
To ensure that the licence holder has the prime responsibility for the safety of radioactive waste and
spent fuel management
To ensure enforcement of legal requirements
To ensure adequate financial resources for the safe management of spent fuel and radioactive
waste
To ensure appropriate expetise and training to all the parties concerned
To ensure the establishment and implementation of quality assurance programmes
To foresee geological disposal as the endpoint for high level waste and spent fuel, if regarded as
waste
To establish and maintain a dedicated organisation at national level for the management of
radioactive waste and spent fuel, if regarded as waste for direct disposal
Other
None of the above
No opinion 
Option 2 - Which elements should be included in the national 
programme for spent fuel and radioactive waste management?
66,9%
66,5%
55,3%
50,2%54,3%
44,7%
43,1%
41,8%
40,4%
39,6%
39,0%
32,4%
5,9%
4,3%
3,3%Inventories of radioactive waste and spent fuel
Roles and responsibilities
Plans and technical solutions
Decision-making process
Cost assessment
Financing system
Time-table
Remedial actions for legacy waste
Skills and programmes for research and development
Main milestones
Disposal routes
Success indicators
Other
No opinion
None of the above
 
 
EN 64   EN 
As to potential impacts, which of the following would you expect?
2,9%5,1%2,9%12,0%17,5%20,4%26,9%33,5%42,5%42,7%43,7%43,9%44,3%45,5%51,4%56,3%Enhanced safety of the management of radioactive waste and spent fuel in
the EU
Enhanced legal certainty
Enhanced public involvement in the decision making
Enhanced political will for national decision making
Enhanced international cooperation
Avoidance of unjustified delays of disposal solutions
Avoidance of long-term risks due to potential political or financial
disruptions
Increased public trust in the safe mana gement of radioactive waste and
spent fuel
Avoidance of long-term risks due to loss of knowledge
Increased trust in the use of radioactive materials and nuclear technology
Substantial additional human and fi nancial efforts to comply with
reporting obligations under binding EU legislation
Substantial additional human and financial efforts to establish national
programmes
Potential lower standards comp ared to current situation
None of the above
Other
No opinion
 
Additional opinions received  
A number of individual contribu tions have been received in response to the open public 
consultation. 
Greenpeace  sent opinions to the open consultation through their different Campaigns in UK, 
Germany, the Netherlands, France, Greenpeace No rdic and EU Unit. Their comments can be 
summarized as follows: 
– Criticism towards the questionnaire for be ing too simplified and having deadlines for 
responses which were too short (Greenpe ace UK-EU). Greenpea ce UK also suggested 
some amendments that could be made to the questions. 
– Outright opposition to nuclear power generation with the pre-condition for any discussion 
on a solution for radioactive waste manageme nt being the immediate termination of any 
nuclear power activity, thus stopping the generation of new radioactive waste. In this 
regard, Greenpeace UK highlighted that it is not acceptable to couple the development of 
"final solutions" for radioactive waste with  the social acceptance for nuclear new build. 
– Opposition to spent fuel reprocessing and all related activities, including transport of 
reprocessed material or of spent fuel fo r reprocessing (Greenpeace NL and EU Unit). 
– Application of the environmental principles of the EU Treaty and secondary legislation63 to 
the management of radioactive waste, wh ich would result in an abandonment of the 
nuclear power generation (Greenpeace EU Unit).  
                                                 
63 The legislation referred to is: Directive 2006/12/ EC on conventional waste, Directive 91/689/EEC on 
hazardous waste, Directive 2008 /105/EC on environmental quality st andards in the field of water 
policy, Directive 2008/1/EC on integrated pollution prevention and control, Directive 2002/95/EC on 
 
EN 65   EN – In particular, the environmen tal rights of public information, public participation and 
access to justice should be guaranteed in any legal instrument dealing with radioactive 
waste management (Greenpeace EU Unit). 
– Emphasis should be given to the polluter pays  principle and all as pects dealing with 
decommissioning funds. This was particularly highlighted by Greenpeace UK, who enclosed a series of questions addressing th e issue of nuclear d ecommissioning funding (in 
the UK in particular). 
– The request for the radioactive waste to be ke pt at its place of or igin (in the sites and 
countries where it is generated) , thus minimising the transport of spent fuel or radioactive 
waste. This would require two legislative ch anges: a ban of any radioactive material 
exports from the EU (Greenpeace EU Unit) , and a prohibition on the development of 
regional repositories within the EU (Greenpeace NL). 
– The various Greenpeace Campaigns strongly encouraged the Commission to disregard 
geological repositories as a po ssible disposal solution for ra dioactive waste. Instead, EU 
initiatives should focus on the research a nd development towards the improvement of 
intermediate storage solutions , applying the best available technique and ensuring the 
retrievability of radio active waste at any time. 
– The Greenpeace EU Unit and the Belgian Campai gn also stressed the importance of having 
fully accountable and independent  authorities involve d in radioactive waste management. 
This would include not only national nuclear  regulators, but also  radioactive waste 
management organisations, which, in the view  of Greenpeace should also be functionally 
independent and separate from  radioactive waste producers. 
– Adopt EU common definitions for radioactive waste in accordance with the EU definition 
for conventional waste, i.e. considering all th e residues from enrichment and reprocessing 
activities as "radioactive waste" (Gree npeace France, Belgium and EU Unit). The 
Greenpeace EU Unit emphasised that radioact ive waste should not be treated in a less 
stringent manner than other hazardous waste.  
Friends of the Earth Europe agrees in general terms that the EU needs to play a role in 
radioactive waste policies, and an EU initiative in this regard  offers the possibility to improve 
the current situation. They stress the need for tr ansparency and to ensure the polluter pays 
principle and consider that the minimum requirements for the proposal should be, a clear 
methodology applied when preparing final radi oactive waste solutions (be it geological 
disposal or not); a ban on exports of radioac tive waste; a ban on repr ocessing, partitioning and 
transmutation before disposal; and the phase-out  of nuclear power as a precondition to the 
search for nuclear waste solutions.  
Fairlie Community Council , which is an association of neighbours close to the nuclear 
power plants Hunterston A and B (UK), expres sed their objection to the proposal to dispose 
of intermediate level waste, rather than st ore and monitor it. They opposed any radioactive 
materials going into landfill and the tran sport of external waste to Hunterston. 
                                                                                                                                                        
 
the restriction of the use of certain hazardous subs tances in electrical and el ectronic equipment and the 
Community Strategy Concerning Mercury {SEC(2005) 101} 
 
EN 66   EN Nuclear Free Local Authorities from the UK and Ireland reject ed the concept of geological 
disposal and called for a phase out of nuc lear power generation , radioactive waste 
minimisation, reduction of the transports of radio active material and ban of any discharges of 
nuclear origin in the environment. The Shetland Islands Council  sent a separate letter 
echoing the views of Nuclear Free  Local Authorities, in partic ular with their opposition to 
geological disposal. 
Radiation Free Lakeland , a NGO based in Cumbria (UK), expressed its concern about the 
safety of the radioactive waste management at Sellafield and its opposition to the disposal of 
radioactive waste. 
The Scottish Councils’ Committee on Radioactive Substances (SCCORS)  stated that "Any 
Directive provisions requiring th e adoption of deep geological di sposal policies would be in 
conflict with current Scottish Government policies" and stressed the importance of applying the polluter pays principle to radioactive waste management. 
The Swedish NGO Office for Nuclear Waste Review, MKG,  indicated that the Swedish 
radioactive waste management policy should not be  regarded as a model for the EU due to the 
existence of a number of unresolved challenges.  They stressed the importance of relying upon 
independent regulators, the need to comply with  the polluter pays principle and to implement 
transparency arrangements, as well as their c oncerns regarding the cons ideration of geological 
disposal as an end-point for radioactive waste management. 
The NGOs Terra Mileniul III  from Romania and Energia Klub  from Hungary issued a 
common opinion in favour of developing EU bindi ng legislation on spent fuel and radioactive 
waste management, highlighting in general te rms the same principles indicated above 
(polluter pays, transparency, etc.). They also  expressed their opposition to the deep geological 
disposal of radioactive waste. 
A letter by a member of the Royal College of Physicians of London
64 stressed the fact that 
neither storage nor disposal should be imposed at  EU level as long as the issue of high level 
waste management remained unresolved. 
The company ENEL  strongly supported the development of  EU legislation in the domain of 
spent fuel and radioactive waste management, stre ssing the point that neither the IAEA safety 
standards nor the Joint Convention were directly  enforceable within the EU. Member States' 
national programmes should aim to strengthen these standards with  disposal as their ultimate 
goal and should report to the Commission, in cluding any progress ma de. Adequate public 
communication should be ensured through in dependent monitoring. The decommissioning 
funds should be managed through contributions by the operators, " fixed in a transparent 
manner by an independent body an d regularly reviewed during the lifetime of the nuclear 
plant following continuous consul tations with nuclear operators ". Finally, for the sake of a 
clear assignment of responsibilities,  "it should be established when  the "title to" and "liability 
for" an operator’s waste should be transfe rred to the Government or other bodies". 
The waste management organisation  TVO Finland  also sent a letter in this frame, which 
provided an example of how the radioactive wast e (in the particular case of waste from the 
                                                 
64 Dr Carl Iwan Clowes, FFPH Royal College  of Physicians, London. This letter does not  represent the opinion of the whole College  
of Physicians. 
 
EN 67   EN nuclear power plant Olkiluoto 3)  could be managed in a way th at would satisfy the needs and 
requirements of all parties involved. 
The nuclear industry represented by FORATOM  submitted a paper on the wider context of 
the Public Consultation “ Towards a new Energy Strategy for Europe 2011-2020 ”. 
FORATOM expressed its support to the curre nt debate on future EU legislation on 
radioactive waste management taking into account  the existing arrangements for ensuring safe 
radioactive waste management, both at national and international level, that in the opinion of 
FORATOM, have until now, de livered excellent results. The upcoming EC legislative 
proposal should aim to provide an EU legal framework for all Member States and should 
therefore encourage progress to be made in this  area. Whilst several technical solutions for the 
management of spent fuel and high-level radioa ctive waste exist, there is a consensus on the 
need for deep geological repositories. 
2.2. Special Eurobarometer surveys The Eurobarometer is a major policy instrument th at enables citizens’ views to be taken into 
account in the framing of EU policies and initia tives. In order to examine European citizens’ 
attitudes towards radioactive waste, DG TREN launched a special Eurobarometer survey in 
2008. It was carried out in
 February and March 2008 and the report was published in June 
200865. Almost 27 000 EU citizens in all the 27 Member States were interviewed face-by-
face. This survey is a follow-up to three previous surveys conducted in 1998, 2001 and 2005. It reveals that an overwhelming majority of European citizens sees an urgent need to finding 
solutions for management of high-level waste now, rather than leaving it unsolved for later 
generations. European citizens consider the Memb er States to be fully responsible for the 
management of their own radioactive waste acco rding to a management plan specifying fixed 
deadlines and clearly want to be  directly informed and given an  opportunity to be involved in 
the decision-making process. At the same time they  clearly want the EU to play an active role 
in managing radioactive waste through monitoring of national practices and programmes and 
development of harmonised and consistent methodologies. 
A new Special Eurobarometer on nuclear safety  was carried out in 2009 and the report was 
published in April 2010
66. The results reveal that the issu e of radioactive waste management 
remains a major concern associated with  the use of nuclear energy, and that a  large majority 
of Europeans believe it would be useful to have European  legislation regulating waste 
management within the European Union and their national territory. 
3. External expertise 
A dedicated study on Regulations  Covering Radioactive Waste Disposal in EU Countries67 
finalised in 2006 has been considered in the pr eparation of the current Impact Assessment. 
The consultant, DECOM (Slovaki a), provided assistance in orde r to advise the Commission 
on how waste disposal regulations might be better harmonised between the Member States. 
The advice given is based upon a review and comparison of policies, legislation and 
regulation, as well as discussions with and f eedback from regulatory representatives in 
Member States. The approaches of the Intern ational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Western 
European Nuclear Regulators Association (WENRA), Organisati on for Economic Co-
                                                 
65 Special Eurobarometer 297 (2008) 
66 Special Eurobarometer 324 (2010) 
67 TREN/04/NUCL/S07.39027 
 
EN 68   EN operation and Development / Nuclear Energy Agency (OECD/NEA) and Working Party on 
Nuclear Safety  (WPNS) were also considered. The specific goals were to identify key issues 
of interest to national stakeholders, to c onsider whether increased harmonisation in the 
relevant areas would be benefi cial, to propose any special Comm ission initiatives that would 
help resolving any open issues and to provide specif ic suggestions for input to potential 
legislation. 
The study recommended to the EU to consider  harmonisation of national policies and 
strategies for radioactive waste management at  general level, such as a requirement each 
Member State to have a clearly defined policy and means of implementing it within a defined 
programme with realistic timescales. In resp ect of "the need for an overarching Waste 
Directive", the conclusion and recommendation of that study is that the requirements should 
focus on ensuring adequate safe and secure st orage facilities are available for all waste 
arising, that disposal programmes continue to  move ahead and that protected funds are 
accumulated in order to finance the repositories when they are needed. 
 
EN 69   EN ANNEX 3: NATIONAL APPROA CHES FOR MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE AND SPENT FUEL IN THE EU68 
Table 1. National policies and practices (the information is valid to the end of 2008)  
country VLLW (if applicable) & LILW HLW / SF 
Austria Interim storage of conditioned waste (LILW) at the 
Research Center Seibersdorf. Study in 2001 concluded 
that surface disposal was not an option in view of the presence of long-lived waste. However, in view of the small quantities a regional solution is the preferred option - 
Belgium Interim storage of conditioned waste at the Belgoprocess 
site in Dessel pending the availability of a disposal site. Surface disposal repository planned for Dessel, with construction commencing around 2011. Storage at the Belgoprocess site of returned vitrified waste from reprocessing at La 
Hague. SF is now being stored in AFR f acilities on NPP sites – current policy is a 
moratorium on further reprocessing contracts. However both open and closed fuel cycle scenarios are considered. Underground research continuing at the HADES 
facility at Mol concerning the concept of deep geological disposal in clay. 
Construction of a deep geological reposito ry would not start before 2025, with 
possible operation around 2040. The WMO is a member of ARIUS and participated in the SAPPIERR project. 
Bulgaria Processing of all waste. Construction of a national near-
surface repository for LILW-SL (both institutional and from NPP) by 2015. The repository should assure storage of waste not suitable for near surface disposal.  Transfer of SF for storage and reprocessi ng in Russia with HLW return, under terms 
of 1995 agreement. SF can be declared waste if a disposal route is available. Storage 
of SF in reactor ponds and wet store at Kozloduy. Dry store to be commissioned 
around 2009, which can store both SF and HL W (after return fro m Russia). Decision 
on HLW disposal concept around 2012. Bulgaria participated in the SAPIERR project. 
Czech Rep. Treatment and conditioning of all waste, disposal in one 
of the operation disposal sites or safe storage of waste 
that can not be deposited in the existing repositories.  Long term interim storage of all SF pending the availability of a disposal route. The 
national management strategy does not foresee a deep geological disposal site in 
operation before 2065. Six possible locations ha ve been identified. It is anticipated a 
deep repository will accommodate all the waste that can not be deposited in near-surface repositories, SF once it is declared as waste and HLW from decommissioning. 
                                                 
68 Sixth Situation Report on Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel Management in the European Union, COM(2008)542 final and SEC(2008)2 416 
 
EN 70   EN country VLLW (if applicable) & LILW HLW / SF 
Denmark Interim storage of conditioned waste at Risø National 
Laboratory. Repository concept under development. 
"Basis for Decision" outlining development expected to be approved. International solution being sought for sm all amount of SF remaining in line with 
earlier solutions regarding SF from research reactors. 
Estonia All waste from the decommissioning of Paldiski and from 
institutional sources is conditioned for long-term storage at Paldiski pending the availability of a disposal route. None (all SF from the Paldiski training reactors was returned to Russia) 
Finland Routine disposal of operational NPP waste in 
underground (intermediate depth) repositories at the two NPP sites. SF stored in AFR facilities on NPP sites. The Decision in Principle by the Finnish 
Parliament in 2001 endorsed the selection of Olkiluoto as the site for the development 
of a deep disposal facility, subject to approval by the regulatory authorities. The repository is planed for operation around 2020. Posiva is now constructing the 
underground research facility Onkalo, which is  planned to be part of the planned 
repository.  
France Routine disposal of short-lived LILW at the Centre de 
l’Aube facility. Centre de Mo rvilliers opened in 2003 for 
disposal of VLLW. Long-term storage of conditioned 
LILW-LL pending development of disposal solution Routine reprocessing of most, but not all, SF.  Unreprocessed SF is stored at La Hague. 
Deep geological disposal of HLW, based on investigations in Bure underground 
laboratory. Decision on a site expected by 2015, with operation of a repository by 
2025. 
Germany In line with its objective to di spose of this waste in deep 
geological formations, the Federal Government is not pursuing any plans for near-s urface repositories. After the 
dismissal of court cases against the licence issued for the Konrad repository in 2002, covering non-heat developing 
waste, work has started to transform the former iron ore 
mine into a repository. Disposal operations are planned to 
start at the end of 2013. Returned vitrified waste following reproc essing of SF at La Hague or Sellafield is 
stored at Gorleben. Final transport of SF for reprocessing took place in 2005. No 
further contracts are allowed All new genera ted SF is placed in dry stores adjacent to 
NPPs, until availability of deep geological repository.  
The Federal Government is aiming to est ablish a repository in deep geological 
formations for the disposal of all kinds of waste, including spent fuel assemblies, by 
the year 2030.  
Greece Wastes are stored at the NCSR Demokritos and in users’ 
premises under GAEC inspection. SF return to supplier state 
 
EN 71   EN country VLLW (if applicable) & LILW HLW / SF 
Hungary Institutional LILW-SL waste still to be disposed of at 
Püspökszilágy, though spare capacity is limited. An 
underground repository (200m) for NPP operational and decommissioning LILW waste is under construction at Bátaapáti, to be operational by 2008. Long term interim storage of all SF in AFR facility pending the availability of a 
disposal route. The reference scenario is domestic direct disposal in deep geologic 
repository, although other scenarios are kept open. The current target is to finalize URL by 2012, with possible SF/HLW repository operation by the end of the 2040's (candidate site at Boda). PURAM is a me mber of ARIUS and participated in the 
SAPIERR project. 
Ireland The small quantities of waste are stored on site by users. - 
Italy Wastes to be conditioned and stored at point of origin. A 
national disposal facility is foreseen for VLLW and LILW-SL. As yet no timetable for implementation, although the stated aim of decommissioning all facilities by 2020 will require the availability of a disposal option.  All remaining SF stored in NPP ponds and will be exported for reprocessing. A 
centralised store for the HLW returned is  envisaged. In principle HLW and any 
remaining SF will be disposed of in a deep geological disposal. Italy participated in the SAPIERR project and participates in SAPIERR II. 
Latvia Wastes from decommissioning of Salaspils will be 
disposed of at Baldone, which is currently being expanded. LLLW-LL stored pending availability of deep 
repository (national or regiona l); Latvia participated in 
the SAPIERR project. SF from the research reactor at Salaspils is planned to be moved out of Latvia in the 
framework of USA–IAEA–Russia co-operati on project and proposed Latvia–Russia 
governmental Agreement on co-operatio n in the spent fuel management. 
Lithuania VLLW disposal facility  currently under construction. 
Confirmed site for disposal of LILW-SL at Stabatišk ė, in 
the vicinity of the Ignalina NPP. The design work is to start in 2008, the construction in 2012, and the near-surface repository is to be commissioned in 2015. Initial 
investigations for an intermediate-depth repository for 
waste not acceptable for near-surface disposal. SF categorized as radioactive waste. Storage in  dry store for at least 50 years prior to 
disposal in deep geological repository. Some  initial investigations have taken place. 
Lithuania participated in the SAPIERR project and participates in SAPIERR II. 
The Netherlands Long-term interim storage of conditioned waste at the 
COVRA facility in Borssele.  (Near) surface disposal 
option not considered. All SF to be reprocessed and vitrified w astes returned and stored in the HABOG 
facility at Borssele. Current policy is long-te rm interim storage (100 years) prior to a 
definitive decision. Participated in the SA PIERR project and participates in SAPIERR 
II. 
Portugal Interim storage at the DPRSN facility at Sacavém. Small quantities of HLW stored at Sacavém. All research reactor spen t fuel returned to 
USA. 
 
EN 72   EN country VLLW (if applicable) & LILW HLW / SF 
Poland Disposal of Institutional LILW at the Ró żan facility, 
together with interim storage of long-lived waste. Some 
siting activities have taken place for a replacement repository, but have stalled due to lack of local support at the concerned sites. SF is in temporary pond storage at Swierk from research reactors. Placement of this 
material into dry storage is underway, financed by state budget and under PHARE. 
Romania Disposal of institutional short-lived waste at Baita Bihor 
site. NPP operational wastes to be disposed of in near surface repository, planned to be built till 2014. Conditioning of LL-LILW and storage minimum 50 years 
prior to deep geological disposal together with SF. Open fuel cycle, SF considered as radioac tive waste. Six years wet storage at NPP, 
followed by minimum 50 years in Spent Fuel Dry Store. Deep geological disposal in a national repository that should be av ailable around 2050. Regarding the SF from 
research reactors – return to the country of origin and/or deep geological disposal in 
the national repository. 
Slovakia All suitable wastes are sent to the Mochovce facility for 
disposal (both institutional and NPP operational waste). 
VLLW disposal facility under consideration. Wastes not 
suitable for Mochovce stored pe nding availability of deep 
geological repository. Storage of SF for 50 years followed by deep  geological disposal. Other alternatives are 
also considered. A proposal for back-end fuel-c ycle policy is expected in 2007. As yet 
there is no timetable for repository devel opment. Slovakia was represented in the 
SAPIERR study and is represented in SAPIERR II as well. 
Slovenia All waste currently being stored – mainly at Krško NPP – 
pending the availability of a national repository. The site should be determined around 2008, with operation around 
2013. All SF is currently stored in the AR pond at  Krško NPP – there is sufficient space for 
the projected reactor lifetime. Current plans include operation of a dry store from 2023, with an operational deep geological  repository around 2065, although export is 
also considered. 
Spain Routine disposal of VLLW and short-lived LILW at the 
El Cabril facility. VLLW repository at El Cabril available since July 2008. LILW-LL stored pending availability of a deep geological repository. The GRWP in force considers as a basic el ement of the reference scenario an open 
cycle strategy. 
Since 1982 all SF is currently stored in AR fuel ponds; except at Trillo NPP, where a 
dry cask AFR storage has operated since 2002.  Some vitrified waste is due to be 
returned from France around 2010 by the reprocessing of the SNF from Vandellos 1 
(Gas Cooled Reactor). GRWM plan assumes the availability of a central SF store around the same time and a HLW / SF repository around 2050. 
 
EN 73   EN country VLLW (if applicable) & LILW HLW / SF 
Sweden Routine disposal either in  surface facilities at nuclear sites 
(VLLW) or in SFR-1 underground facility close to 
Forsmark NPP (LILW-SL). Planned disposal of decommissioning waste in an extension to SFR-1 with operation in 2020. A repository for LILW-LL will be sited in about 2035. All SF is stored centrally in the CLAB facility at Oskarshamn. The WMO is 
proceeding with detailed site investigations at two possible deep disposal sites, with 
the approval of the local municipalities and the government. Site selection is expected 
around 2008, with repository operation around 2018. 
United Kingdom Routine disposal of LLW at the Low Level Waste 
Repository near to the village of Drigg in Cumbria. Plans exist for surface repository at Dounreay for LLW wastes 
from that site. LILW-LL is stored at the sites of 
production and is being progr essively conditioned into a 
form suitable for long-term management. LILW-LL will be disposed of in a deep geological repository. All remaining Magnox fuel will not be  reprocessed until 2016 or later. AGR 
reprocessing contracts will be fulfilled by  2011, leaving 3500 te AGR and 1200 te 
PWR fuel in storage. Since 2006, official policy for HLW is deep geological disposal, 
together with the appropriate long-term storage.  
 
EN 74   EN Table 2. National financing schemes for radioactive waste (the information is valid to the end of 2008) 
country  basis for allocation of charges to waste 
producers  mechanisms for financin g longer term liabilities69 
Austria A price list updated annually, and approved 
by the regulatory authority, includes the actual cost of waste management (transport, treatment, conditioning, interim storage) payable to Nuclear Engineering 
Seibersdorf GmbH Since the beginning of 2003, all holders of radioactive waste a nd orphan sources for disposal are 
obliged to make contributions to a fund for fina l disposal. Users have to pay this fee to WMO. 
WMO regularly transfers the collected fees to th e Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, 
Environment and Water Management, where th is fund has been separately set up for the 
exclusive purpose of the later final dispo sal of the conditioned radioactive waste. 
Belgium ‘Polluter pays’ principle: Costs are waste 
category specific and proportional to the 
volume within each category.  WMO is responsible for the management of all radioactive waste in Belgium and, all 
radioactive waste has to be tran sferred from the producer or owner to WMO. Upon transfer, the 
producer or owner pays to WMO the amount which covers the future management costs. These 
provisions are managed by WMO. 
Bulgaria SF management cost included in NPP 
operation. Waste management activities carried out by SERAW; budget is covered by national fund. Segregated external funds were created in 1999 to cover decommissioning and waste liabilities. 
Under the 2003 Regulation funds are collected from radioactive waste producers and managed 
by the Ministry of Economy and Energy in a dedicated fund. Funds allocated to cover the 
annual activity programme. Some activities are fina nced by EU under PHARE and also through 
the Kozloduy International Decommissioning Support fund (KIDSF). 
Czech Rep. Payments are made into the Nuclear 
Account and cover all of activities connecting with SF and waste disposal and 
repository operation. Small producers pay 
on acceptance of their waste for disposal. State-controlled segregated fund – the Nuclear Account – receives contributions from waste 
producers including the nuclear operator who pays levies according to the average production of electricity. Each producer pays according to his sh are of the total waste and the estimated costs 
of the WMO’s activities, which are updated according to economic or waste management policy 
changes. The WMO is responsible for collecting these charges, monitors the adequacy of the 
reserve and approves any withdrawal. 
A segregate decommissioning reserve is created. 
Denmark Fees charged for items received from 
outside Danish Decommissioning State support as the major costs will arise as a r esult of the decommissioning of the research 
facilities at Risø. 
                                                 
69 WMO means Waste Management Organisation 
 
EN 75   EN country  basis for allocation of charges to waste 
producers  mechanisms for financin g longer term liabilities69 
Estonia Payment is made by waste producers at the 
time of transfer of their waste into interim storage. At present, no distinction in charges is made between different types of waste. State pays for “historical waste” liabilities such as the former soviet nuclear naval training 
facility at Paldiski and its implementation were  entrusted to the Estonian Radioactive Waste 
Management Agency (A.L.A.R.A.). 
Finland The nuclear power companies and the 
operator of the research reactor present annual cost estimates for the future 
management of nuclear wastes and ensure 
that funds are deposited with the State Nuclear Waste Management Fund. According to the Nuclear Energy Act the licence holder has an obligation to take responsibility 
for all nuclear waste management measures a nd their appropriate preparation (including 
decommissioning costs), and shall cover all the related expenses. This is done by gathering 
adequate funds for future investments in an independent Finnish State Nuclear Waste 
Management Fund. 
To guarantee against the insolvency of the nuclear  utilities, they shall provide securities to MTI 
for the part of financial liability which is not covered by the Fund. 
France Unit volume (or commercial tariff for 
specified packages) on delivery for disposal.  For VLLW and LILW-SL disposal is financed  through commercial contracts between the 
producer and ANDRA. For LILW-LL and HLW waste producers build up provisions on the basis of an evaluation by ANDRA. 
The regulatory situation and organisation of nuc lear decommissioning and waste management in 
France underwent profound change in 2006 with the adoption new legislation on nuclear waste 
research and management. ANDRA has to set up an in ternal restricted fund in order to finance 
the storage of long lived high and medium leve l wastes. The fund will be fed by contributions 
from the nuclear operators under b ilateral conventions. The nuclear operators will set up internal 
restricted funds covered by dedicated assets managed under separate accountability. 
Germany State bears the cost for the initial 
development of repositories. These costs are recovered through contributions (cost 
per unit volume) or advanced payments. For privately owned nuclear facilities i.e. NPPS prov isions are allocated to  the foreseen costs. 
Provisions for management of radioactive waste from operation are made according to the waste 
generated. 
For publicly owned facilities costs are fina nce d through the annual public budget. 
 
EN 76   EN country  basis for allocation of charges to waste 
producers  mechanisms for financin g longer term liabilities69 
Hungary Official tariff list set by ministerial decree 
for small producers. The Central Nuclear Financial Fund, a separate Treasury account made up of the contributions 
of the nuclear power plant operator, will cover all future waste management and 
decommissioning costs. Annual payments into the fund by Paks Nuclear Power Plant are 
proposed by the Minister supervising the Hungarian Atomic Energy Authority (HAEA). Payments are based upon submittals prepared by the PURAM and approved by the HAEA and 
by the Hungarian Energy Office. 
Italy Official current estimate € 7 000 / m3 forms 
basis of estimate for waste management 
liabilities. ENEL transferred its long-ter m liabilities fund for decommi ssioning and waste management 
(about €750 million) to SOGIN on its creation. As  these were judged insufficient an additional 
levy per kWh, adjusted every 3 years has been implemented. The levy is fixed by the National 
Authority for the Electricity and Gas on the basis of Sogin’s annual program of activities. 
Latvia Fees collected by BAPA for management 
services as well directly from state budget. Natural resource tax payable on radioactive substances imported, which generate waste 
requiring disposal in Latvia. Additional disposal  vault and storage facility at Baldone funded 
under PHARE. 
Lithuania NPP operator contributes to the national 
fund for the decommissioning of Ignalina NPP. Other waste producers contribute through charges to the finances of RATA. NPP operator and other waste producers contribut e through charges to the finances of RATA, 
which is responsible for managing all waste accord ing to the national strategy. There are also 
national and international funds for the decomm issioning of Ignalina and management of the 
wastes. The NPP decommissioning fund is financed through a levy of 6% on the price of electricity sold. It co-finances waste management activities with  the Ignalina International 
Decommissioning Support Funds. 
The Netherlands For LILW: treatment, volume and radiation 
level of conditioned waste. For HLW: 
reserved capacity (volume).  For waste management and final disposal funding the operators pay volumetric fees to Central 
Organisation for Radioactive Waste (COVRA). CO VRA then takes over full title of the waste 
(i.e. ownership and liability). 
Poland Funds available through state budget or 
from services carried out by RWMP. No arrangements currently for some long-term activities These will be provided from the state 
budget as required. 
Portugal Part of estimated cost per item of waste. None. Portug al has no relevant activities or installations in the nuclear fi eld. 
 
EN 77   EN country  basis for allocation of charges to waste 
producers  mechanisms for financin g longer term liabilities69 
Romania Annual allocation of charges to waste 
producers (to cover operational costs of the new WMO called ANDRAD). The Government Ordinance 31/2006 defines tw o segregated funds; one for spent fuel and 
radioactive waste management and the second one  for decommissioning of nuclear facilities. 
The funding mechanism is scheduled by the end of 2007 (plan: pay a fee based on a certain 
amount per MWh of electricity delivered). 
Slovakia NPP operational wastes management 
funded from operating budget. A national fund has steadily built up since the mid-nineties.  The State Fund for 
Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations and Management of Spent Fuel and Radioactive 
Wastes restructured in 2004. The fund is managed by the Ministry of Economy. Annual contributions by NPP operators are as a levy on the electricity price to the end user. The 
contributions are reviewed at five year inte rvals. There is co-funding of activities with the 
Bohunice International Decommissioning Support Fund. 
Slovenia Small waste producers (medicine, industry 
and research) pay ARAO for services provided on the basis of a price list established by government decree. The Fund for the Decommissioning of the Krško NPP is financed through a levy on the kWh 
electricity production. The purpose of the Fund is to collect money as a levy on the produced electricity
 for future decommissioning and for the dispo sal of radioactive waste and spent fuel. 
The Fund operates as an independent legal entity and its work is overseen by a Supervisory 
Committee. 
Spain The National up-front Fund for the 
activities contemplated in the General Plan for RWM and Decommissioning is being 
done through incomes collected during the 
facilities lifetime based on cost estimations. 
Costs estimations are subjected to annual 
revision by the Government. 
 According to the Royal Decree 5/2005 an updated financing system has been set up. 
The revenues transferred to the Fund arise from: 
The amounts collected via the supply and access tariffs for the entire electricity sales. 
Billing to NPPs licensees for the amount resulting from multiplying the gross KWh monthly 
generated by each plant by a specific unit value,  applicable to waste and SF originated beyond 
31
st March 2005. 
Idem to 2 referring to the Juzbado Fuel Assemblies Manufacturing Plant by annual contributions. Billing to the licenses of radioactive installations  outside the nuclear cycle via tariffs approved 
by the MITyC. This case invoicing is done when the waste is collected by ENRESA. 
 
 
EN 78   EN country  basis for allocation of charges to waste 
producers  mechanisms for financin g longer term liabilities69 
Sweden Costs for operational LILW disposal are 
paid for directly by producers. Costs for management of spent fuel and long-lived LILW are levied on power generators (i.e. waste producers) by means of fees on 
generated electricity. The Nuclear Waste Fund administrated by a sp ecial Board and invest ed with the Swedish 
National Debt Office, though SSM (regulator) advises Government, on the basis of an estimate made by SKB, regarding the size of the fees a nd must approve the main disbursements. The fees 
are reviewed annually. Additional guarantees are re quires to cover early closure of NPPs (< 25 
years operation) and unforeseen and unforeseen waste management costs. The funds are set up 
as external segregated funds with considerable  oversight especially with respect to fund 
investment. 
United Kingdom Charges are levied by waste managers on 
waste producers for disposal of Low Level 
Radioactive Waste (LLW). For higher level wastes, no charges are levied at present, there being no disposal facilities available  Historic liabilities (previously owned by BNFL and the UKAEA) assumed by NDA will be 
funded through a combination of continued commerc ial operation of some facilities and the state 
budget. The NDA’s strategy for dealing with radio active waste is dependent on the outcome of 
reviews initiated by the UK Government.
 British Energy has its own segregated fund to cover its 
own liabilities. 
 
 
EN 79   EN ANNEX 4: WASTE AND SPENT FUEL IN  STORAGE AT THE END OF 2004 
Quantities of spent fuel and waste in storage at end of 2004 
Country VLLW 
(m3) LILW 
– SL 
(m3) LILW 
– LL 
(m3) HLW
(m3) SF 
(te 
HM) comments 
Austria - 1800 200 - - Any remaining SF will be shipped to USA 
under 'take back agreement'  
Belgium - 13 000 4 000 444 2 675 Does not include 200 m3 radium-
contaminated wastes 
Bulgaria - 7 636 - - 943 Does not include liquid wastes (7 400 m3) 
Czech Rep. - 4510 4 - 891  
Denmark - 1 100 125 - - The small amount of SF is considered as 
LILW-LL 
Estonia - 400 1 - - Mainly from decommissioning of former 
submarine training centre at Tammiku 
Finland - 1 940 40 - 1 416  
France 128 
000 98 700 92 600 1 851 8 279 In addition probably around 3 000 te at NPP 
Germany - 128 761 2 000 
 3 109 HLW includes 448 m3 untreated heat-
generating wastes. LILW includes 47 500 m3 
untreated wastes and intermediate products. 
    840  Total vitrified waste to be returned 
Greece - 70 - - -  
Hungary - 1 214 - - 740 Liquid w aste awaiting processing (4 700 m3) 
not included 
Italy 8 000 17 000 8 000 - 247  
Latvia - - - - - Small quantities of sealed sources only 
Lithuania 26 000 57 900 760 - 1 820 Does not include liquid wastes 
The Netherlands - 8550 5 2  
Poland - 30 4 - 0.6 Does not include liquid wastes (300 m3) 
Portugal - 1000 - - -  
Romania - 472 11 - 767  
Slovakia 4 000 15 000 50 - 770  
Slovenia - 2362 - - 313 LILW-SL includes some LILW-LL 
Spain 5760 30230 1146 13 3 195 HLW currently stored in France; LILW-LL 
666 m3 stored in France and the rest stored on 
site at Vandellos 1 NPP from its 
decommissioning. VLLW also stored on site 
at Vandellos 1 from its decommissioning 
 
EN 80   EN Quantities of spent fuel and waste in storage at end of 2004 
Country VLLW 
(m3) LILW 
– SL 
(m3) LILW 
– LL 
(m3) HLW
(m3) SF 
(te 
HM) comments 
Sweden 3 940 7 881 4 900 - 4 930  
United 
Kingdom - 2 000 105 
000 1 200 8 000 ILW and HLW include waste arising from the 
reprocessing of fuel for foreign customers