Proposal for a Council Directive (Euratom) on the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste
Date: 2003-01-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European standard, enlargement of the Union, irradiated fuel, nuclear power station, nuclear safety, radioactive waste, safety standard, waste management

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 30.1.2003
COM(2003) 32 final

2003/0021(CNS)
2003/0022(CNS)

Proposal for a

COUNCIL (Euratom) DIRECTIVE

Setting out basic obligations and general principles on the safety of nuclear installations

Proposal for a

COUNCIL DIRECTIVE (Euratom)

on the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste

(presented by the Commission)

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

Context

The  Treaty  establishing  the  European  Atomic  Energy  Community  (Euratom)  contains
provisions  allowing  the  Community  to  regulate  the  use  of  nuclear  energy  by  the  Member
States, in particular as regards nuclear safeguards (Chapter 7) and health protection (Chapter
3).

Pursuant  to  Article  2(b)  of  the  Euratom  Treaty,  the  Community  shall,  as  provided  in  this
Treaty: "establish uniform safety standards to protect the health of workers and of the general
public and ensure that they are applied." Chapter 3 of Title II of the Treaty, concerning health
protection,  contains  provisions  concerning  basic  standards  with  regard  to  protection  against
ionising radiation. This chapter has been used in the main with regard to radiation protection.
However,  health  protection  covers  both  radiation  protection  and  nuclear  safety.  These  two
disciplines have in fact a common objective, protection against ionising radiation.

The  Commission  has  actively  intervened  in  connection  with  the  harmonisation  of  nuclear
safety practices for over 25 years, in particular under the Council resolutions of 22 July 19751
and  18 June 19922  on  the  technological  problems  of  nuclear  safety.  Despite  these  efforts
towards  harmonisation,  however,  nuclear  safety  measures  still  differ  considerably  from  one
Member State to another.

Following the Chernobyl accident in 1986, which was undoubtedly the most serious accident
in  the  history  of  atomic  energy,  and  the  G-7  Summit  in  Munich  in  1992,  the  EU  began  to
concern  itself  with  the  safety  of  nuclear  installations  in  the  Central  and  Eastern European
countries and the Republics of the former Soviet Union.

The  forthcoming  enlargement,  its  first  stages  scheduled  for  2004,  bringing  in  Central  and
Eastern  European  countries,  is  without  precedent  in  the  history  of  the  building  of  the
Community. The history of these countries in the course of the 20th century and the nature of
their  economic  development  have  highlighted  in  particular  a  subject  which  received  little
attention in previous enlargements, namely the nuclear sector.

The work carried out in the Community framework in order to bring nuclear installations in
the candidate countries up to a high level of safety allowed a European perspective to emerge
in this context. This perspective, developed for the candidate countries, is universal.

The technical standards drawn up under the aegis of the International Atomic Energy Agency
make  an  important  contribution  to  improving  nuclear  safety.  They  reflect  an  international
consensus,  but  are  not  legally  binding.  Moreover,  the  Community  adoption  and  adaptation
processes are much quicker than the intergovernmental decision making mechanisms. This is
a problem with which the European Community has already been confronted in the maritime
and aviation spheres.

Protection from ionising radiation is also a concern after the end of the active life of a nuclear
installation. In practice, final shutdown of a nuclear installation marks the start of a new phase
with  the  objective  of  lifting  the  radiological  protection  restrictions  imposed  while  it  was  in

1 OJ No C 185 of 14 August 1975, p. 1.
2 OJ No C 172 of 18 June 1992, p. 2.

2

                                                
operation.  These  restrictions  are  due  to  the  presence  of  large  quantities  of  radioactive
materials in the form of structural materials , equipment, operational waste and spent fuel.

It  is  therefore  necessary  to  remove  these  materials  and  to  subject  them  to  the  treatment
appropriate  to  their  physical  characteristics  and  their  levels  of  radioactivity,  in  accordance
with  safety  standards  in  force.  All  activities  involved  in  decommissioning  produce  large
quantities  of  waste.  It  is  the  ultimate  management  and  disposal  of  these  wastes  which
accounts for the majority of the costs of decommissioning.

Decommissioning work therefore involves major  financial  resources.  In  order  to  avoid  risks
to human health and to the environment it is necessary to guarantee, at Community level, that
financial  resources  will  be  available  for  the  completion  of  decommissioning  work  in
conformity with safety standards. To this end, specific regulations must be put in place for the
creation of decommissioning funds, to which the operators of nuclear installations will have
to contribute throughout  the  active life of  the  installation. These regulations  must  guarantee
the availability and adequacy of funds at the time of decommissioning operations.

It  is  necessary  to  consider  nuclear  safety  in  a  Community  perspective  .  Only  a  common
approach can guarantee the maintenance of a high level of safety in nuclear installations, from
conception  to  decommissioning,  in  an  enlarged  EU.  The  legal  basis  for  action  of  this  kind,
complementing the basic standards provided for in Article 30, is Chapter 3 of Title II of the
Euratom Treaty.

The need for a global approach to nuclear safety in the enlarged EU

Along  the  lines  of  the  existing  national  systems,  a  Community  approach  to  the  safety  of
nuclear installations should comprise two aspects. On the one hand, a set of standards and, on
the other, a mechanism for the verification of compliance with the standards.

1. Common standards

A Community approach to the safety of nuclear installations does not necessarily entail laying
down  detailed  technical  safety  standards.  A  system  of  this  kind  should  not  duplicate  what
exists already within the Member States.

a)

Existing standards

There  exists  a  set  of  principles  which  can  constitute  the  basis  for  a  legally  binding
Community approach. These could be incorporated into a framework Council directive based
in  the  main  on  elements  contained  in  the  Nuclear  Safety  Convention  concluded  under  the
auspices of the IAEA. This Convention does not contain detailed technical rules. However, it
lays down a precise legal framework constituting the basis for a nuclear safety system. All the
Member States and the majority of the candidate countries (with the exception of Estonia and
Malta) are parties to the Nuclear Safety Convention

However, it should be noted that the Convention applies only to nuclear power stations. Given
the development of the European nuclear industry, it would be desirable to broaden the scope
to include  all nuclear  installations. However,  the  broadening of  the  scope  will  be  limited  to
nuclear  fuel  cycle  and  research  facilities  With  this  new  approach  it  was  not  considered
appropriate to include small users of radioactive materials, materials which consist essentially
of  sealed  sources.  Formalising  these  principles  in  a  Community  text  would  supplement  the
basic standards provided for in Article 30 of the Euratom Treaty so as to cover the safety of
nuclear installations.  Since the  Treaty entered into force, several directives have  revised the

3

standards, the last one dating from 13 May 1996 (Directive 96/29 Euratom)3. However, it will
not be a question of revising that directive, which lays down basic standard, but of drafting a
new directive to supplement them.

The  European  Court  of  Justice  confirmed  this  analyse  in  its  judgement  dated  10  December
2002 in case C-29/99. The Court declares on the one hand that “it is not appropriate, in order
to  define  the  Community’s  competencies,  to  draw  an  artificial  distinction  between  the
protection of the health of the general public and the safety of sources of ionising radiation.4”
The Court confirms on the other hand the technical competence of national safety authorities
to authorise the construction or operation of nuclear facilities. However the Court recognises
that this technical competence does not prevent the Community from legislating in this field.
The  Court  judgement  is  on  this  point  explicit  :  “Even  though  the  Euratom  Treaty  does  not
grant  the  Community  competence  to  authorise  the  construction  or  operation  of  nuclear
installations,  under  Articles  30  to  32  of  the  Euratom  Treaty  the  Community  possesses
legislative  competence  to  establish,  for  the  purpose  of  health  protection,  an  authorisation
system  which  must  be  applied  by  the  Member  States.  Such  a  legislative  act  constitutes  a
measure supplementing the basic standards referred to in that article.5” The "basic standard"
concept covers both radiation protection and the safety of nuclear installations.

Clearly,  such  a  Community  approach  to  safety  cannot,  ultimately,  be  restricted  simply  to
taking over the relevant provisions of the Convention on Nuclear Safety. However, the latter
can provide a starting point on which there should be agreement since all the Member States
have to implement them already, supplemented by other elements.

b) Evolving standards

Developing  common  standards  with  regard  to  the  safety  of  nuclear  installations  entails
revising them, and therefore, in accordance with Article 32 of the Euratom Treaty, a specific
procedure has to be followed. Article 31 provides that basic standards are to be worked out by
the Commission after obtaining the opinion of a group of persons appointed by the Scientific
and  Technical  Committee  from  among  scientific  experts  in  the  Member  States  and  after
consulting  the  Economic  and  Social  Committee.  After  consulting  the  European  Parliament,
the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, establishes the basic standards, acting by a
qualified majority.

In  practical  terms,  the  development  of  European  safety  standards  will  take  into  account  the
results of the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in the field of nuclear
safety. The IAEA has been working in this area for many years. It will also be necessary to
take  into  account  in  particular  the  results  of  the  work  of  the  Nuclear  Regulators  Working
Group (NRWG), and especially the common positions adopted it, together with the work of
the  Western  European  Nuclear  Regulators  Association  (WENRA)  with  regard 
to
harmonisation. The methodology worked out by the Commission and the Council to evaluate
the  safety  of  the  nuclear  installations  in  the  candidate  countries  will  also  be  an  important
element to be taken into consideration.

As this is an area in which there are already major national provisions, it is desirable that the
Commission should be able to benefit from the experience of safety experts in order to ensure
that  the  common  standards  evolve  in  a  harmonised  fashion.  To  this  end,  it  will  rely  on  the

OJ No L 159 of 29 June 1996, p.1.

3
4 Point 82 of the Judgement
5 Point 89 of the Jugement

4

                                                
Committee envisaged under Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty. The Community system will be
based  on  basic  obligations  and  general  principles.  It  will  establish  a  legal  framework
comprising  a  mechanism  allowing  an  evolution  .  One  of  the  first  tasks  of  the  Article  31
Committee will therefore be to work out a corpus of operational standards, on the basis of the
above  mentioned  studies  to  serve  as  a  common  reference  point.  On  the  basis  of  these
standards, verifications can be carried out within the Member States. To avoid any difference
of treatment between the current Member States and the new Member States, the legal regime
will need to be operational on the date of the enlargement of the Union, i.e. 1 May2004. That
date will mark the start of the practical application of this Community approach, which will
subsequently evolve.

The common standards are part of an ongoing process. The objective of the standards will be
to  ensure  the  maintenance  of  a  high  level  of  nuclear  safety  within  the  EU.  It  is  therefore
necessary that this system should rely on the expertise of the national safety authorities. The
Community system is complementary to national systems.

c) Regular reports

In  accordance  with  the  Nuclear  Safety  Convention  and  the  conclusions  of  the  Laeken
European  Council,  the  Member  States  will  be  obliged  to  transmit  reports  on  the  measures
taken  to  meet  their  obligations  and  on  the  state  of  safety  of  installations  under  their
supervision.  These  reports  will  be  examined  by  Member  States  and  the  Commission  in  the
framework of a “Peer Review” mechanism.

2. A system of independent verification

Establishing  a  system  of  independent  verification  is  an  essential  element  for  the  credibility
and  effectiveness  of  a  Community  approach  to  the  safety  of  nuclear  installations.  The
verification  system  should,  in  the  main,  be  based  on  the  technical  expertise  of  the  national
safety  authorities.  The  Community  system  would  address  the  way  in  which  the  safety
authorities carry out their tasks. It would not be part of its purpose to verify safety conditions
in nuclear installations on-site.

The Member States will be obliged to propose experts, specifying their expertise, to be called
upon by the Commission for independent verifications within the Member States. Clearly, the
Commission  alone  will  be  responsible  for  deciding  what  to  verify  and  deciding  on  any
subsequent action. To ensure the independence of the verifications, it is necessary that experts
from  one  Member  State  are  not  allocated  to  verification  activities  in  their  Member  State  of
origin.

On the basis of the reports following the verifications, the Commission will be able to make
observations  which  may  lead  to  the  necessary  measures  being  taken  to  ensure  safety  at
installations. The Commission will also be obliged to publish, every two years, a report on the
state of nuclear safety within the EU.

The Community approach is not an additional layer of control on nuclear  installations.  This
approach, qualitative by nature, implements a cross check of safety authorities that will allow
the Community to satisfy itself that the level of safety is the same in all Member States. This
system will also allow the granting of a Community stamp that should strengthen the public
confidence  on  safety  of  nuclear  facilities.  This  approach,  unique  at  this  time,  offers  the
advantage to organise verifications in a Community frame carried out by safety authorities. It
is based on a Peer review principle, regarding both the cross checks, and the examination of

5

the  regular  reports  under  Peer  reviews.  The  Community  will  in  no  way  substitute  for  the
safety authorities of the Member States.

II.

Adequate financial resources

Maintaining  a  high  level  of  safety  in  nuclear  installations,  during  their  active  life  as  in  the
decommissioning phase, requires adequate resources to be available.

Decommissioning  a  nuclear  installation  is  a  major  industrial  undertaking  which  can  take
many years. The cost of decommissioning operations can be very high. To deal with these it is
necessary that financial resources should be available. These will have to be provided for by
the  operator  during  the  active  life  of  the  nuclear  installation.  It  is  essential  that
decommissioning operations can take place in conformity with a high level of safety.

It is also essential to avoid any possibility that the decommissioning of a nuclear installation
will not be able to start as planned, is not carried out according to the appropriate procedures,
or is abandoned before completion due to a lack of resources.

The  consequence  of  such  a  situation  would  be  that  a  substantial  quantity  of  radioactive
material would not be monitored or managed in an acceptable way, with severe implications
for  radiological  safety.  Under  such  circumstances,  one  of  the  fundamental  objectives  of  the
Euratom Treaty would not be met. In fact, as already mentioned, the Community must, under
article 2 of  that Treaty,  “establish  uniform  safety  standards  to  protect  the  health  of  workers
and of the general public and ensure that they are applied”. The Community has adopted basic
standards  in  the  field  of  radioprotection6  for  this  purpose.  Chapter  3  of  the  Euratom  Treaty
therefore provides the legal base for Community action in this field.

At present, operators make use either of company resources or of contributions to externally
managed funds set up by various mechanisms for this purpose.

Even if reserves are set aside to enable decommissioning to be undertaken and to ensure the
management  of  radioactive  waste  and  of  spent  fuel  cells,  the  fundamental  question  is  to
ensure the availability of these resources in the long term, several decades hence. To this end,
the  creation  of  decommissioning  funds  independent  from  the  operators  and  specifically
earmarked for the decommissioning of their nuclear installations is the best option to achieve
the objective of decommissioning the installations in conformity with all the necessary safety
conditions. In the case where exceptional and duly justified reasons make such a separation of
funds impossible, the management of funds could continue to be undertaken by the operator,
provided  that  the  availability  of  assets  to  cover  the  costs  of  decommissioning  operations  is
guaranteed.

On the basis of regular information from Member States, to be provided every three years, the
Commission will produce a periodical report on the state of the funds and will undertake, if
necessary, measures to address irregularities which could either compromise  the  completion
of decommissioning or create distortions in the electricity market.

The  creation  of  external  funds,  managed  on  prudential  principles,  enables  the  long  term
availability of funds to ensure the maintenance of a high level of nuclear safety throughout the
decommissioning phase to be guaranteed.

6 COM 96/29 Euratom

6

                                                
The  need  to  harmonise  the  methodology  for  estimating  future  decommissioning  costs  has
already been  emphasised.  It  is  also  necessary  to  provide  for  transitional  measures  to  enable
the enterprises involved, where necessary, to minimise the impact of the transfer of significant
resources to external funds.

The Commission envisages a transitional period of [three years] after the entry into force of
the provisions  of measures undertaken  by  Member  States  as  a  result  of  the  adoption  by  the
Council of this Directive.

Conclusion

On  the  eve  of  an  unprecedented  enlargement,  at  a  time  when  there  are  vital  nuclear  safety
issues at stake, it is time for the Community to clearly shoulder its responsibilities with regard
to the safety of nuclear installations and adopt legally binding rules.

Enshrining the existing rules and principles in Community legislation will make it possible to
reconcile efficiency and speed of implementation. Having recourse, to some extent, to experts
from the national safety authorities to carry out the tasks connected with the verifications will
make it possible to provide undisputed technical expertise. Interlinking the national systems
and  the  Community  system  will  guarantee  the  maintenance  of  a  high  level  of  safety  for
nuclear installations in the enlarged EU.

It is also essential to guarantee that the final phase of the nuclear cycle should be managed in
accordance with radiological safety standards and on the basis of transparency in the  use of
financial resources. To this end, it is necessary to create a framework for national regulations.
Definition of criteria for the  creation and management of  funds  for the decommissioning of
nuclear installations will enable the maintenance of a high level of nuclear safety throughout
the  decommissioning  phase  to  be  guaranteed.  In  the  light  of  the  above  considerations,  the
Commission invites the Council to approve the proposal for a Directive attached.

7

2003/0021(CNS)

Proposal for a

COUNCIL (Euratom) DIRECTIVE

Setting out the basic obligations and general principles on the safety of nuclear
installations

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the  European  Atomic  Energy  Community,  and  in
particular Articles 31, 32 and 187 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission7, drawn up after obtaining the opinion of
a  group  of  persons  appointed  by  the  Scientific  and  Technical  Committee  from  among
scientific experts in the Member States, in accordance with Article 31 of the Treaty , and after
obtaining the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee8,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament9,

Whereas:

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

Article  2(b)  of  the  Treaty  stipulates  that  the  Community  shall,  as  provided  in  this
Treaty, establish uniform safety standards to protect the health of workers and of the
general public and ensure that they are applied.

Article  30  of the  Treaty stipulates  that basic  standards  shall  be  laid  down  within  the
Community for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against
the  dangers  arising  from  ionising  radiations.  Article  32  provides  for  the  basic
standards  to  be  supplemented  in  accordance  with  the  procedure  laid  down  in
Article 31.

Article  187  of  the  Treaty  stipulates  that  the  Commission  may,  within  the  limits  and
under  the  conditions  laid  down  by  the  Council  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of
this  Treaty,  collect  any  information  and  carry  out  any  checks  required  for  the
performance of the tasks entrusted to it.

Directive  96/29/Euratom  of  the  Council  10  lays  down  basic  safety  standards  for  the
protection  of  the  health  of  the  general  public  and  of  workers  against  the  dangers
arising from ionising radiation.

The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station in 1986 highlighted the need for
the Community to supplement the basic standards in force at the time with provisions

7 OJ C […], […], p. […].
8 OJ C […], […], p. […].
9 OJ C […], […], p. […].
10 OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p. 1.

8

                                                
applying  in  case  of  a  radiological  emergency.  Accordingly,  Council  Decision
87/600/Euratom11  established  arrangements  for  the  early  exchange  of  information  in
the  event  of  a  radiological  emergency  while  Council  Directive  89/618/Euratom12
imposed  obligations  on  the  Member  States  on  informing  the  general  public  in  the
event of a radiological emergency.

The  basic  standards  were  further  supplemented  by  Directive  92/3/Euratom  on  the
supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste between Member States and
into and out of the Community13 and by Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1493/93 of
8 June 1993 on shipments of radioactive substances between Member States14.

Although  the  radiation  protection  system  created  by  the  basic  standards  in  force
ensures  a  high  level  of  protection  for  the  health  of  the  population  based  on  current
scientific knowledge on this subject, this must be supplemented by strict application of
safety  standards  designed  to  anticipate  and  control  the  risks  of  exposure  for  the
population. In nuclear installations in particular, keeping up high safety standards at all
stages from conception to decommissioning by maintaining effective defences against
radiological 
radiological
risks  and  preventing  accidents  which  could  have 
consequences  is  a  sine  qua  non  in  order  fully  to  attain  the  objectives  of  health
protection set out in Article 2(b) of the Treaty.

Despite a degree of harmonisation, today the nuclear safety measures still vary widely
from one Member State to another. This diversity becomes even greater in view of the
forthcoming  enlargement  of  the  European  Union.  At  present,  this  diversity  of
standards  does  not  allow  the  Community  to  satisfy  itself  that  the  health  protection
requirements of Article 2(b) of the Treaty are always applied in the best possible way.
In order for the Community to ensure that the uniform safety standards as required by
this  provision  are  applied,  these  basic  standards  for  radiation  protection  must  be
supplemented  by  common  safety  standards  to  the  extent  necessary  to  eliminate
hazards to the life and health of the public.

As  well  as  during  the  active  life  of  a  nuclear  installation,  dangers  from  ionising
radiation  may  also  arise  as  a  result  of  decommissioning  operations.  In  order  to  deal
with the risks attached to the disposal of radioactive materials, it is necessary to ensure
the safe decommissioning of nuclear installations including the long-term management
of radioactive waste and of spent fuel.

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

(10) 

In  order  to  attain  the  Community  objectives  regarding  radioprotection  mentioned
above,  it  is  essential  as  a  first  stage  to  define  the  basic  obligations  and  general
principles on the safety of nuclear installations.

(11)  Safe decommissioning of nuclear installations, including the long-term management of
radioactive  waste  and  spent  nuclear  fuel,  calls  for  substantial  financial  resources.  In
order  to  avoid  any  danger  to  human  health  or  to  the  environment,  it  is  necessary  to
guarantee  at  Community  level  that  sufficient  financial  resources  will  be  available  to
complete decommissioning activities at nuclear installations in conformity with safety
standards.  To  this  end,  specific  rules  must  be  put  in  place  for  the  establishment  of

11 OJ L 371, 30.12.1987, p. 76.
12 OJ L 357, 7.12.1989, p. 31.
13 OJ L 35, 12.2.1992, p. 24.
14 OJ L 148, 19.6.1993, p. 1.

9

                                                
decommissioning  funds  to  which  operators  of  nuclear  installations  will  have  to
contribute regularly throughout the productive service life of the installations. In order
to  guarantee  the  availability  and  the  adequacy  of  funds  for  decommissioning
operations  it  is  necessary  to  set  up,  except  in  specific  and  properly  justified  cases,
funds with their own legal personality separate from the operator of the installation.

(12)  This Directive is consistent with the logic of the regime established by the Convention
on Nuclear Safety, which entered into force on 24 October 1996 and to which all the
Member  States  are  parties.  By  the  Commission  decision  1999/819  Euratom  the
European  Atomic  Energy  Community  acceded  to  the  Convention  on  31  January
200015.  Since  the  scope  of  this  Convention  is  limited  to  nuclear  power  plants,  this
Directive extends the principles laid down therein to all nuclear installations.

(13) 

In  the  same  context,  the  Joint  International  Convention  on  the  Safety  of  Spent  Fuel
Management  and  on  the  Safety  of  Radioactive  Waste  Management16,  which  entered
into  force  on  18  June  2001,  specifies  in  Article  26  that  each  contracting  party  shall
take  appropriate  steps  to  ensure  the  safety  of  decommissioning  of  a  nuclear  facility.
Such  steps  shall  ensure  that  …  qualified  staff  and  adequate  financial  resources  are
available. Article 22(ii) of the Convention calls on each Contracting Party to take the
appropriate  steps  to  ensure  that  adequate  financial  resources  are  available  to  support
the safety of  facilities for spend fuel  and  radioactive waste management  during  their
operating lifetime and for decommissioning.

(14) 

In order to  monitor  application of  rules  set  up  in  conformity  with  this  Directive,  the
Commission  must  be  able  to  check  the  manner  in  which  safety  authorities  carry  out
their  duties  and  to  meet  their  obligations  under  this  Directive  and  to  receive  reports
from the Member States indicating the measures which they have taken,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1
Subject matter and scope

In  order  to  ensure  the  protection  of  the  general  public  and  of  workers  against  the
1.
dangers  of  ionising  radiation  from  nuclear  installations,  this  Directive  sets  out  the  basic
obligations and general principles which allow the Community to satisfy itself by ensuring a
high level of safety of nuclear installations that the basic standards laid down under Article 30
of the Treaty are applied.

This  Directive  applies  to  all  nuclear  installations,  including  after  the  end  of  their

2.
operation.

For the purposes of this Directive:

15 OJ L 318, 11.12.1999, p. 20.
16 OJ C […], […], p. […].

Article 2

10

                                                
(1)
"Nuclear  installation”  means  any  civil  facility  and  its  land,  buildings  and  equipment
where  nuclear  materials,  within  the  meaning  of  Article  197  of  the  Euratom  Treaty,  are
produced, processed, used, handled or stored temporarily or permanently on such a scale that
consideration of safety is required. This definition applies until the moment it is released from
any radiological restrictions imposed upon it;

(2)  "Common  safety  standards"  means  all  the  rules  drawn  up  in  accordance  with  this
Directive on the basis of the general principles set out in Title III;

(3)
”Safety  authority"  means,  for  each  Member  State,  the  competent  authority,  or
authorities,  designated  by  the  Member  State  to  grant  licences  and  to  monitor  application  of
the regulations on siting, design, construction, commissioning, operation or decommissioning
of nuclear installations;

(4)
"Licence" means any authorisation granted by the safety authority to the applicant to
confer  the  responsibility  for  the  siting,  design,  construction,  commissioning,  operation  or
decommissioning of nuclear installations;

(5)
"Undertaking  responsible  for  the  nuclear  installation"  means  any  natural  or  legal
person operating a nuclear installation and legally responsible, under the national legislation,
for the practices employed in relation to any such installation,

“Final  shutdown  (of  a  nuclear  installation)"  means  the  status  in  which  a  nuclear

(6)
installation is no longer authorised to operate, by decision of the competent authorities;

(7)
"decommissioning" means all  steps  leading  to  the  release  of  a  nuclear  facility,  other
than  a  disposal  facility,  from  regulatory  control.  These  steps  include  the  processes  of
decontamination and dismantling;

(8)
"decommissioning fund" means financial resources intended specifically to cover the
expenditure  necessary  for  decommissioning  nuclear  installations,  including  long-term
management of the radioactive waste and spent fuel, while meeting the safety standards;

"spent fuel" means nuclear fuel that has been irradiated in and permanently removed

(9)
from a reactor core;

(10)
"conventional decommissioning waste" means the non-radioactive wastes produced in
the  course  of  decommissioning  activities  and  which  must  be  processed  and  disposed  of  in
accordance with the standards in force;

(11)
"radioactive  waste"  means  radioactive  material  in  gaseous,  liquid  or  solid  form  for
which no further use is foreseen by the member State or by  a natural or legal person whose
decision is accepted by the Member State, and which is controlled as radioactive waste by a
regulatory body under the legislative and regulatory framework of the Member State;

"radioactive (decommissioning) waste" means the radioactive wastes produced in the

(12)
course of decommissioning activities;

(13)
“Practice”  means  a  human  activity  that  can  increase  the  exposure  of  individuals  to
radiation  from  an  artificial  sourecs,  or  from  a  natural  radiation  source  where  natural

11

radionuclides are processed for their radioactive, fissile or fertile properties, except in the case
of an emergency exposure;

"reprocessing"  means  a  process  or  operation,  the  purpose  of  which  is  to  extract

(14)
radioactive isotopes from spent fuel for further use;

"decommissioning strategy" means the time plan for decommissioning activities, from

(15)
the final shutdown of the installation;

Article 3
Independence of the safety authority

Member State shall establish a safety authority. The safety authority shall be independent in
its  organisation,  legal  structure  and  decision-making  from  any  other  body  or  organisation,
whether private or public, concerned with the promotion or utilisation of nuclear energy.

Article 4
Role of the safety authority

The safety authority shall supervise and regulate safety in nuclear installations. It shall grant
licences  and  monitor  application  of  the  regulations  on  siting,  design,  construction,
commissioning, operation or decommissioning of nuclear installations.

Article 5
Safety in nuclear installations

Member States shall take all the measures necessary :

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

to  establish  and  maintain  effective  arrangements  in  nuclear  installations  against
potential  radiological  hazards  in  order  to  protect  individuals,  society  and  the
environment from harmful effects of ionising radiation from such installations;

to  prevent  accidents  with  radiological  consequences  and 
consequences should they occur;

to  mitigate  such

to implement all further measures to guarantee safety in nuclear installations; and

to ensure the long term management of all materials, including radioactive waste and
spent nuclear fuel , produced in the course of decommissioning, in accordance with
the  basis  standards  for  the  protection  of  the  general  public  and  of  workers  against
dangers arising from ionising radiation.

Article 6
Priority to safety

Member States shall take  all  appropriate measures  to ensure that  in the course of all

1.
practices directly related to nuclear installations due priority is given to nuclear safety.

12

2.
The measures for operational protection of the population pursuant to Article 44 of
Directive 96/29 Euratom take account of all aspects of the nuclear safety of installations

.Article 7
Obligations of undertakings

1.

2.

3.

Member States shall require the undertakings responsible for the nuclear installations
to operate them in accordance with the common safety standards applicable to them
and with the regulations laid down by the safety authority and any measures taken by
the same authority.

Member States shall require the undertakings responsible for the nuclear installations
to establish quality assurance programmes - the content and implementation of which
shall  be  submitted  to  the  safety  authority  for  verification  -  and  to  implement  them
with  a  view  to  providing  confidence  that  specified  requirements  for  all  activities
important to nuclear safety are satisfied throughout the life of a nuclear installations.

Member States shall take the necessary measures for the allocation of responsibility
for the decommissioning of nuclear installations, including in those cases where the
parties originally responsible are no longer able to meet their commitments.

Article 8
Inspection

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  nuclear  safety  inspections  are  carried  out  by  the  safety
authority  in  nuclear  installations,  including  during  their  decommissioning,  and  that  the
undertaking responsible for the nuclear installation submits to such inspections.

Article 9
Financial resources

(1) Member States shall take the appropriate steps to ensure that adequate financial resources

are available to support the safety of nuclear installations.

(2) Member States shall ensure that financial resources sufficient to  cover  decommissioning
costs  of  each  nuclear  installation,  taking  into  account  the  length  of  time  required,  are
available  as  decommissioning  funds  at  the  time  envisaged.  These  funds  must  meet  the
minimum criteria set out in the annex.

(3) In the case of nuclear installations whose main purpose is other than the sale of products
or services, in particular research reactors, Member States determine the means of meeting
the specific decommissioning resource requirements.

Article 10
Safety experts

1.

Member States shall take the appropriate steps to ensure that nuclear safety experts
are available for all nuclear safety-related activities.

13

2.

1.

2.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

1.

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  appropriate  curricula  are  established  and  that
opportunities  for  continuous  theoretical  and  practical  training  exist  for  the  staff
concerned.

Article 11
Operating incidents

Member States shall require the establishment of procedures approved by the safety
authorities  to  deal  with  operating  incidents  and  accidents  in  order  to  reduce  the
possible  effects  on  the  population  and  the  environment  of  any  radiological
emergencies resulting from operation of nuclear installations.

Member States shall require the undertaking responsible for the nuclear  installation
to notify the safety authority forthwith  of  any incidents  significant  to  safety  and  of
the corrective measures taken in response.

Article 12
Monitoring of application

In  order  to  ensure  the  maintenance  of  a  high  level  of  nuclear  safety  in  Member
States,  the  Commission  shall  carry  out  verifications  of  safety  authorities.  Member
States shall ensure that safety authorities comply with these verifications.

Member States shall send the Commission a list of experts, indicating their fields of
expertise, on whom the Commission shall call to carry out the verifications provided
for in paragraph 1.

The  experts  shall  obtain  prior  approval  from  the  safety  authorities  in  the  Member
State  where  the  verification  is  to  be  carried  out  before  they  may  carry  out  the
verifications  provided  for  in  paragraph  1.  Experts  shall  not  be  allocated  for
verifications within their Member State of origin.

Prior to the verification , the Commission shall inform the Member State concerned
of the verification , specifying the subject-matter, the purpose of the inspection, the
date on which it is to begin and the names of the approved experts.

The  Commission  shall  forward  the  verification  reports  to  the  Member  State
concerned which, within three months of receipt, shall indicate the measures taken to
remedy any shortcoming.

The  Commission  may  submit  comments  to  the  Member  States  or  request  further
information following verifications in order to clarify all or part of the reports.

Article 13
Reports

Member  States  shall  submit  a  report  to  the  Commission  every  year  from  the  date
provided  for  in  Article  15  paragraph  1  on  the  measures  taken  to  fulfil  their
obligations  under  this  Directive  and  on  the  safety  situation  in  nuclear  installations
located  on  their  territory.  The  Commission  shall  organise  meetings  with  Member
States in order to examine these reports.

14

2.

The Commission shall submit a report to the Council and to the European Parliament
every  two  years  from  the  date  provided  for  in  Article  15  paragraph  1  on  the
application  of  this  Directive  and  on  the  nuclear  safety  situation  in  the  Community,
based on the reports submitted by the Member States and the inspection reports.

Article 14
More stringent measures

Member States may apply more stringent measures than those laid down in this Directive. In
such a case they shall notify the Commission of the nature of these measures and the reasons
why they were taken.

Article 15
Implementation

1.

2.

3.

Member  States  shall  bring  into  force  the  laws,  regulations  and  administrative
provisions  necessary  to  comply  with  this  Directive  before  …[before  1  May  2004].
They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.

When  Member  States  adopt  these  provisions,  they  shall  contain  a  reference  to  this
Directive  or  shall  be  accompanied  by  such  a  reference  on  the  occasion  of  their
official  publication.  The  Member  States  shall  lay  down  the  manner  in  which  such
references shall be made.

Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions
of domestic law which they adopt in the field governed by this Directive.

Article 16
Entry into force

This Directive shall enter into force the twentiest day after its publication in the
Official Journal of the European Communities.

Article 17
Addressees

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, […]

For the Council
The President
[…]

15

ANNEX

The  following  minimum  criteria  shall  apply  to  the  decommissioning  funds  referred  to  in
Article 9 of this Directive:

1.
The  funds  shall  be  created  from  contributions  by  operators  of  nuclear  installations
during their operation, in order to reach a level of resources, at the time of the final shutdown,
sufficient to cover all expenses related to decommissioning as defined in paragraph 2.

2.
Contributions shall be made to the fund in line with the estimated  service  life of the
installation and with the decommissioning strategy chosen, in such a manner as to cover, in
particular,  decommissioning  of  the  installation;  safe,  long-term  management  of  the
conventional and radioactive wastes from decommissioning of the installation; and safe, long-
term  management  of  the  spent  fuel  from  nuclear  power  stations  and  of  the  wastes  from
reprocessing operations not already fully covered as an operational cost.

The  assets  of  the  funds  shall  be  managed  in  a  manner  ensuring  liquidity  compatible

3.
with the timetable for the decommissioning obligations and the costs set out in paragraph 2.

The assets of the funds are to be used only to cover the costs set out in paragraph 2 in
4.
line with the decommissioning strategy and may not be used for other purposes. To this end
the  decommissioning  funds  shall  be  duly  established  with  their  own  legal  personality,
separate from the operator of the installation. If exceptional and duly justified reasons make
such  legal  separation  impossible,  the  fund  could  continue  to  be  managed  by  the  operator,
provided that the availability of assets to meet the costs set out in paragraph 2 is guaranteed.

In the  case of a nuclear installation whose  operation will cease  before the  entry  into
5.
force of the  legislative,  regulatory  and  administrative provisions  set out  in  article  17  of  this
Directive;  or  within…  [period  to  be  decided]  of  the  entry  into  force  of  these  provisions,
approaches  other  than  the  creation  of  decommissioning  funds  as  required  by  this  Directive
may be taken.

6.
Member  states  shall  define  the  method  by  which  the  necessary  resources  for
decommissioning,  already  accumulated  by  the  operator  before  the  entry  into  force  of
measures  taken  to  implement  this  Directive,  shall  be  tranfered.  These  transfers  must  take
place within at least 3 years from the date envisaged in Article 15.

16

LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT

Policy area(s): Energy and transport (06)

Activit(y/ies):

TITLE  OF  ACTION:  COUNCIL  (EURATOM)  DIRECTIVE  SETTING  OUT  BASIC  OBLIGATIONS  AND

GENERAL PRINCIPLES ON THE SAFETY OF NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS

1.

BUDGET LINE(S)

The  commitment  will  be  charged  to  a  new  heading  to  be  created  when  the  ABB
structure  for  DG  TREN  is  fully  defined.  The  question  of  whether  to  charge  to  an
existing  heading  or  to  a  heading  to  be  created  will  be  reviewed  in  the  context  of
discussions about the APB 2004.

2.

2.1

OVERALL FIGURES

Total allocation for action (Part B): annual expenditure

The commitment will be charged to the heading referred to in point 1 against the 2004
financial year.

2.2

Period of application

Starting in 2004, ongoing.

2.3

(a)

Overall multiannual estimate of expenditure

Schedule of commitment appropriations/payment appropriations (financial intervention)
(see point 6.1.1)

euros

Commitments

Payments

2004

2005

2006

2007

39 000

52 000

52 000

52 000

2008 and
subs. years
52 000

Total 2004
to 2008

247 000

39 000

52 000

52 000

52 000

52 000

247 000

(b)

Technical and administrative assistance and support expenditure (see point 6.1.2)

Commitments

Payments

17

Subtotal a+b

Commitments

39.000

52.000

52.000

52.000

52.000

247.000

Payments

39.000

52.000

52.000

52.000

52.000

247.000

(c)

Overall  financial  impact  of  human  resources  and  other  administrative  expenditure
(see points 7.2 and 7.3)

597.500

604.000

604.000

608.800

608.800

3.023.100

Commitments/
payments

TOTAL a+b+c

Commitments

636.500

656.000

656.000

660.800

660.800

3.270.100

Payments

636.500

656.000

656.000

660.800

660.800

3.270.100

2.4

Compatibility with financial programming and financial perspective

New action.

2.5

Financial impact on revenue17

No  financial  implications  (involves  technical  aspects  regarding  implementation  of  a

measure).

3.

BUDGET CHARACTERISTICS

Type of expenditure

New

EFTA
contribution

Contributions
from
applicant
countries

Heading in
financial
perspective

Comp

Diff

YES

NO

NO

No 3

4.

LEGAL BASIS

Articles 31, 32 and 187 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community.

5.

5.1

DESCRIPTION AND GROUNDS

Need for Community intervention18

5.1.1

Objectives pursued

Pursuant to Article 2(b) of the Euratom Treaty, the Community shall, as provided in this
Treaty: "establish uniform safety standards to protect the health of workers and of the
general  public  and  ensure  that  they  are  applied."  Chapter  3  of  Title  II  of  the  Treaty,

17 For further information, see separate explanatory note.
18 For further information, see separate explanatory note.

18

                                                
concerning  health  protection,  contains  provisions  concerning  basic  standards  with
regard to protection against ionising radiation. This chapter has been used in the main
with regard to radiation protection.

The  Commission  has  actively  intervened  in  connection  with  the  harmonisation  of
nuclear safety practices for over 25 years. Despite these efforts towards harmonisation,
however,  nuclear  safety  measures  still  differ  considerably  from  one  Member  State  to
another.

It is necessary to consider nuclear safety in a Community perspective. Only a common
approach can guarantee the maintenance of a high level of nuclear safety in an enlarged
EU.

As  this  is  an  area  in  which  there  are  already  major  national  provisions,  it  is  desirable
that  the  Commission  should  be  able  to  benefit  from  the  experience  of  the  Member
States in order to ensure that the common standards evolve in a harmonised fashion. To
this end, it must rely on the Committee envisaged in Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty.

Establishing  a  system  of  independent  verification  is  an  essential  element  for  the
credibility  and  effectiveness  of  a  Community  approach  to  the  safety  of  nuclear
installations.  The  Commission  will  call  partly  on  its  own  staff  and  partly  on  experts
designated  by  the  safety  authorities  in  the  Member  States  to  conduct  theverifications.
Verifications will be carried out by safety authorities.

Decommissioning operations may also constitute potential threats to human health and
to the environment, not only now but also in the future, especially if necessary measures
relating to the radiological risks of such operations are not taken in good time.

Safe decomissionning of nuclear installations, including the long term management of
radioactive  waste  and  of  spent  nuclear  fuel,  requires  substantial  financial  resources
which must be guaranteed during the active life of nuclear installations.

It is necessary to guarantee at Community level that sufficient financial resources will
be available  for the completion of  decommissioning  activity at nuclear installations in
conformity with applicable safety standards.

In order to guarantee the availability of sufficient resources, specific rules must be put
in place for setting up decommissioning funds with a legal personality distinct from the
nuclear  operator.  Contributions  to  these  funds  will  be  made  on  a  regular  basis
throughout  the  active  life  of  the  installation  by  its  operator.  They  will  be  specifically
earmarked for decommissioning.

5.1.2 Measures taken in connection with ex ante evaluation

None.

5.2

Actions envisaged and budget intervention arrangements

The  beneficiaries  of  the  proposed  actions  will  be  the  operators  of  nuclear  installations  and  the
national  safety  authorities.  The  objective  of  this  proposal  is  to  introduce  basic  obligations  and
general principles for the safety of nuclear installations.

19

5.3

Methods of implementation

Direct management by the Commission using regular and outside staff.

6.

6.1

FINANCIAL IMPACT

Total financial impact on Part B (over the entire programming period)

(The method of calculating the total amounts set out in the table below must be explained by the
breakdown in Table 6.2.)

20

6.1.1

Financial intervention

Breakdown

2004

2005

2006

2007

Commitments (in €)

2008 and
subs. years

Total

Action 1 – Inspections in the
Member States

39 000

52 000

52 000

52 000

52 000

247 000

TOTAL 39 000

52 000

52 000

52 000

52 000

247 000

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008 and
subs. years

Total

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1. Technical and
administrative assistance,
support expenditure and IT
expenditure

(a)  Technical 
offices

assistance

(b)  Other 
administrative assistance:

technical  and

- intra muros:

- extra muros:

of  which  for  construction
and 
of
maintenance 
computerised  management
systems:

Subtotal 1

2. Support expenditure

(a) Training

(b) Meetings of experts

(c) Information and
publications

Subtotal 2

TOTAL

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6.2

Calculation of costs by measure envisaged in Part B (over the entire programming
period)19

Each  verification  is  to  be  conducted  by  two  experts  and  to  last  two  days  (daily
allowance:  €600  +  €2000  for  travel).  15  verifications  are  planned  in  2004  (cost:
€39 000) followed by 20 verifications per year thereafter (cost: €52 000 per year).

19 For further information, see separate explanatory note.

21

                                                
7.

7.1

IMPACT ON STAFF AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE

Impact on human resources

Staff to be assigned to management of the
action using existing resources

Description of tasks deriving from the
action

Types of post

Total

Number of
permanent posts

Number of
temporary posts

Officials or
temporary staff

A
B
C

Other human resources
Total

1
1
1

3

1

1

2

1

1
4

Safety expert
Administrator
Secretary

Seconded national safety expert

7.2

Overall financial impact of human resources

Type of human resources

Officials
Temporary staff

Other human resources

Amount
 (€ per year)

432 000

Method of calculation *

Average  cost  of  Commission  officials,
including overheads – from D4 BUDG

43 000

Seconded national expert

(specify budget line)

Total

475 000

The amounts are total expenditure for twelve months.

7.3

Other administrative expenditure deriving from the action

Budget line
(number and heading)

Overall allocation (Title A7)
A0701 – Missions
A07030 – Meetings
A07031 – Compulsory committees
A07032 – Non-compulsory committees
A07040 – Conferences

A0705 – Studies and consultations
Other expenditure (specify)

Information systems (A-5001/A-4300)

Other expenditure – Part A (specify)

Amount (€)

2004

2005 and
2006 (per
year)

2007  and
subs.
years

Method of calculation

32 500

39 000

39 000

40 000

40 000

44 800

+/- 10 missions/year + +/- 20
verifications (+/- 15 in 2004)
2 meetings per year of the
Article 31 Committee20

50 000

50.000

50.000

Decommissioning studies.

Total

122.500

129.000

133.800

The amounts are total expenditure for 12 months.

20 On the basis of 800 Euro per person, two participants per Member State and two meetings per year.

22

                                                
I.

Annual total (7.2 + 7.3)

II.

Duration of action

III.

Total cost of action (I x II)

€597 500 in 2004
€604 000 in 2005 & 2006
€608.800 
in 
subsequent years

2007  &

Indefinite

Human and administrative requirements will be covered within DG TREN’s total allowance in

the annual allocation procedure.

8.

8.1

FOLLOW-UP AND EVALUATION

Follow-up arrangements

Follow-up audits will be conducted.

8.2

Arrangements and schedule for evaluation

The Commission will seek the cooperation of the national authorities to remedy deficiencies.

Annual  reports  by  Member  states.  Meetings  with  Member  states  to  review  these  reports.
Evaluation report from the Commission to the Council and to the European Parliament every two
years.

9.

ANTI-FRAUD MEASURES

Normal Commission audit system.

23

IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM

THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL ON BUSINESS WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE
TO SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES (SMEs)

TITLE OF PROPOSAL

Council Directive on the introduction of common safety standards for nuclear installations

REFERENCE NO

THE PROPOSAL

1.

Taking  account  of  the  principle  of  subsidiarity,  why  is  Community  legislation
necessary in this area and what are its main aims?

The objective of the proposed directive is to introduce common safety standards for
nuclear  installations.  Although  a  start  has  been  made  on  harmonisation  of  safety
practices,  they  still  vary  widely  from  one  Member  State  to  another.  Action  by  the
Community  is  therefore  necessary.  The  prospect  of  enlargement  has  further
heightened the need for such action.

THE IMPACT ON BUSINESS

2.

Who will be affected by the proposal?

–  Which sectors of business?

The  whole  of  the  nuclear  industry  will  be  affected  by  the  proposal,  plus  the  safety
authorities in the Member States.

–  Which  sizes  of  business  (what  is  the  concentration  of  small  and  medium-sized

firms)?

The directive should apply only to large undertakings, not to small and medium-sized
firms.

–  Are there particular geographical areas of the Community where these businesses

are found?

Not  every  Member  State  has  nuclear  installations  on  its  territory.  However,
enlargement will add to the number of Member States using nuclear energy. By 2004
a total of 13 of the 25 Member States are  expected to  have nuclear power stations.
They are not sited in any particular geographical area but are located in Belgium, the
Czech  Republic,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Hungary,  Lithuania,  the  Netherlands,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

3.

What will business have to do to comply with the proposal?

24

To develop and apply procedures.

4.

What economic effects is the proposal likely to have?

–  on employment

None

–  on investment and the creation of new businesses

None

–  on the competitive position of businesses

None, since all businesses will be subject to the same measures.

5.

Does the proposal contain measures to take account of the specific situation of small
and medium-sized firms (reduced or different requirements, etc.)?

No

CONSULTATION

6.

List the organisations which have been consulted about the proposal and outline their
main views.

None

25

Proposal for a

COUNCIL DIRECTIVE (Euratom)

on the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste

26

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1.

FOREWORD

The  use  of  nuclear  energy  to  generate  electricity  results  in  the  production  of  spent
(i.e.  irradiated)  nuclear  fuel  and  radioactive  waste.  The  most  hazardous  and
radiologically  toxic  forms  of  this  material  are  presently  held  in  temporary  storage
facilities.  None  has  yet  been  disposed  of,  and  there  are  no  immediate  plans  for
disposal  in  any  Member  State.  In  the  meantime,  accumulations  of  this  material
continue to grow.

In the Commission’s recent Green Paper21 on the future security of energy supply in
the European Union (EU), the need to find acceptable solutions to the management
of  radioactive  waste  was  identified  as  the  principle  concern  affecting  the  nuclear
option.  Also  highlighted  was  the  need  for  maximum  transparency 
the
identification  of  solutions  and  that  further  research  was  an  essential  ingredient  in
resolving the outstanding technical issues and also in raising the level of public and
political confidence in the solutions. A recent EU-wide public opinion survey22 has
confirmed the importance of the radioactive waste issue in the eyes of the public.

in 

Irrespective  of  future  strategies  regarding  energy  production,  the  waste  that  exists
now  must  be  dealt  with  in  a  way  that  respects  the  basic  principles  of  protection  of
human health and the environment. Action must be taken very soon to ensure that the
responsibility and burden of managing the growing quantities of spent fuel and waste
held in temporary storage are not passed on to future generations.

Current policy in  most Member States and  candidate countries  does  not adequately
address these issues.

2.

SITUATION 
COUNTRIES

IN  THE  EU  MEMBER  STATES  AND  CANDIDATE

All Member States and candidate countries produce radioactive waste. The principal
activities giving rise to this waste are:

– 

– 

– 

nuclear  electricity  generation, including  back-end  nuclear  fuel-cycle  activities
and decommissioning of nuclear facilities;

the operation of research reactors;

the use of radiation and radioactive materials in medicine, agriculture, industry
and research;

21

22

COM(2000)769, 29 November 2000; “Towards a European strategy for the security of energy supply”,
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2001, ISBN 92-894-0319-5
Eurobarometer no. 56, 2001 – Europeans and Radioactive Waste
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy/nuclear/pdf/eb56_radwaste_en.pdf)

27

                                                
– 

processing of material containing naturally-occurring radioactivity.

Situation in the European Union

In total, about 40,000 m3 of radioactive waste are produced per  year in the EU as a
whole23,  the  majority  originating  from  activities  associated  with  nuclear  electricity
generation.

Though disposal of the less hazardous category of waste24 is now well established, it
is  currently  only  practised  in  five  Member  States  with  active  nuclear  power
programmes  (Finland,  France,  Spain,  Sweden  and  UK).  In  Germany,  disposal
operations have taken place in the past, but neither Belgium nor the Netherlands has
developed any disposal capabilities for this category of waste and both countries are
currently storing their accumulations in centralised national depots. Indefinite interim
storage is also practised in Member States without nuclear power programmes.

In  the  case  of  the  more  hazardous  waste25,  all  accumulations  are  being  stored  in
surface  or  near-surface  facilities  pending  the  availability  of  a  more  permanent
solution. No country in the world has yet implemented disposal of these wastes, and
the  degree  of  progress  towards  this  permanent  solution  varies  considerably  from
country to country. In the EU, Finland and Sweden are perhaps the most advanced,
with  long-established  programmes  for  the  development  of  deep  disposal.  Some
Member  States  are  reassessing  all  their  options  as  well  as  the  associated  decision-
making processes. Others, however, are following a policy of “wait and see”.

Situation in the candidate countries

In  those  candidate  countries  operating  Russian-designed  nuclear  power  plants  and
research  reactors,  spent  fuel  management  has  become  a  crucial  issue  in  the  last
decade  because  shipments back to Russia  for reprocessing  or  storage are  no  longer
possible. As a matter of urgency, these countries had to construct temporary storage
facilities  for  their  spent  fuel.  Little,  if  any,  progress  has  been  made  regarding
implementation of programmes for longer-term management and ultimate disposal of
this spent fuel.

Regarding the less hazardous operational waste from nuclear power plants, only the
Czech Republic and Slovakia have operational disposal sites. Several countries have

23

24

25

See reference in footnote 11 for more detailed information on waste arisings in the EU
Refer to Commission Recommendation of 15 September 1999 on a classification system for solid
radioactive waste (SEC(1999) 1302 final, 1999/669/EC, Euratom). The less hazardous category of waste is
usually classified as short-lived low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste. This can usually be disposed
of in regulated disposal sites either at or near the surface. After closure of the site, regulatory (or
institutional) control would normally be maintained for about 300 years to prevent human activities from
disturbing the waste while a radiological hazard persists.
See also reference in footnote 4. The more hazardous wastes are classified as high-level and long-lived
radioactive wastes. Spent nuclear fuel can be processed to remove waste materials, allowing the unused
uranium and plutonium to be recycled in the manufacture of fresh nuclear fuel. This process is known as
“reprocessing”. The highly active waste materials are usually fused into glass - “vitrification” - to leave
them in a form suitable for prolonged storage and, ultimately, disposal. This vitrified waste, or the spent
fuel itself if reprocessing is not practised, is regarded as high-level radioactive waste. This type of waste
remains hazardous for thousands of years.

28

                                                
Russian-style  repositories  for  institutional  (i.e.  non-fuel  cycle)  radioactive  waste.
However, these facilities often do not meet current safety standards. In some cases,
waste may have to be retrieved and disposed of elsewhere.

3.

CURRENT COMMUNITY AND INTERNATIONAL ACTIONS

The  overriding  principles  in  the  management  of  any  hazardous  waste  consist  of
maintaining high levels of public and worker safety and environmental protection. In
the  case  of  spent  nuclear  fuel  and  radioactive  waste,  these  management  principles
must  ensure  that  individuals,  society  and  the  environment  are  protected  from  the
harmful effects of ionising radiation.

In recent years, these principles have also been the focus of action at Community and
international level, involving research, legislative and policy initiatives.

Underpinning the harmonising of these fundamental principles are the  Basic  Safety
Standards for the protection of health of the general public and workers against the
dangers of ionising radiation, which provide a common and internationally approved
level of radiological protection throughout the EU. The  most  recent  revision  of  the
Basic Safety Standards dates from 199626, with implementation in national law by 13
May  2000.  Also  under  Chapter  3  of  Title  II  of  the  Euratom  Treaty  there  is  an
established Community system of supervision and control of international shipments
of  radioactive  waste27.  Under  the  environment  chapter  of  the  EC  Treaty,  the
environmental  impact  assessment  Directive  and  amendment  28,29  is  also  of
considerable relevance in the radioactive waste sector.

The approach adopted in the Community Plan of Action30 and the associated strategy
has  been  to  encourage  harmonisation  and  co-operation  amongst  Member  States  to
ensure  an  equivalent  and  acceptable  level  of  safety  throughout  the  EU.  The  most
recent report on the situation regarding radioactive waste management in the EU was
published  in  199931.  A  similar  report  on  the  candidate  countries  has  also  recently
been published by the Commission32.

the  Community’s  Euratom  Framework  Programmes, 

Within 
the  subject  of
radioactive  waste  management  has  been  and  remains  one  of  the  principal  topics  of
research. A key aspect is the support for research carried out in underground research
facilities, which provides knowledge of processes and data necessary to confirm the
feasibility  of  future  deep  repositories.  Advanced  techniques  for  the  chemical  and

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

Council Directive 96/29/EURATOM of 13 May 1996
Council Directive 92/3/EURATOM of 3 February 1992
Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985
Council Directive 97/11/EEC of 3 March 1997
Council Resolution (92/C 158/02) of 15 June 1992 on the renewal of the Community Plan of Action in the
field of radioactive waste.
Communications from the Commission to the Council “Communication and fourth report on present
situation and prospects for radioactive waste management in the European Union”, COM(98)799 of
11/01/1999.
“Radioactive Waste Management in the Central and East European Countries”, EUR19154, European
Commission report, July 1999, ISBN 92-828-7760-4

29

                                                
nuclear  separation  and  minimisation  of  long-lived  waste  (usually  collectively
referred to as “partitioning and transmutation”) are also important areas of research.

In addition, there are a number of international conventions that have a major role to
play in establishing common practice and levels of safety in the international arena.
The most important is the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management
and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management33 (referred to hereinafter as the
Joint Convention), opened for signature by the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) on 29th September 1997 and which entered into force on 18th June 2001. The
adhesion  by  both  the  European  and  Euratom  Communities  to  this  Convention  is
currently the subject of a proposal by the Commission34. In addition, the IAEA is in
the  process  of  completing  a  series  of  safety  documentation  on  radioactive  waste
management, including recommendations regarding safe disposal of all categories of
radioactive waste.

4.

NEED FOR FURTHER ACTION

Even  though  significant  quantities35  (almost  2,000,000  m3)  of  the  less  hazardous
categories of radioactive waste have been disposed of in the EU in the past, not all
countries have access to disposal sites. These wastes, which account for significantly
larger  accumulations  by  volume  than  the  more  hazardous  categories,  present  no
major  technical  challenges  regarding  their  disposal  but  nonetheless  require  close
supervision while in temporary storage.

In  the  case  of  the  more  hazardous  waste,  there  is  a  broad  international  consensus
amongst  technical  experts  that  disposal  by  isolation  deep  in  stable  geological
formations  is  the  most  suitable  management  option.  Through  a  system  of  multiple
containment barriers and a careful choice of host rock formation36, these wastes can
be  isolated  for  extremely  long  periods  of  time,  thus  ensuring  that  any  residual
radioactivity  escapes  only  after  many  thousands  of  years  and  at  concentrations
insignificant  compared  with  natural  background  levels.  Numerous  studies  have
confirmed that the  concepts being  considered today can, when realised, provide the
required  isolation  of the waste over these  very long time-scales.  Such  a  strategy  of
deep disposal greatly reduces the risk of accidental human intrusion and is essentially
passive  and  permanent,  with  no  requirement  for  further  human  intervention  or
institutional control.

However,  the  delay  being  experienced  in  a  number  of  Member  States  in  the
identification  and  authorising  of  suitable  disposal  sites,  in  particular  for  deep
geological  disposal,  is  cause  for  concern.  In  the  meantime,  the  quantities  of  spent
nuclear fuel and waste held in interim storage at or near the surface continue to grow.
These surface facilities require active measures such as monitoring and maintenance
to  ensure  a  high  level  of  safety  and  environmental  protection.  This  represents  an
unacceptable burden to pass on to future  generations that will  reap  no benefit from

33

34

35

36

Text available from IAEA – INFCIRC/546 (24 December 1997)
COM(2001) 520 final, 15 October 2001
See reference in footnote 11 for more detailed information on waste arisings in the EU
Suitable host rock formations may include crystalline and volcanic rocks, clays and salt formations.

30

                                                
the  electricity  generated  by  the  reactors  that  produced  the  waste.  Furthermore,
following  the  events  of  September  11th  2001,  the  possible  vulnerability  of  such
surface facilities to terrorist attack has also highlighted the need to act now.

Essential  research  and  technological  development  (RTD)  must  continue  in  order  to
investigate  fully  individual  sites  and  to  understand  the  relevant  geological,
geochemical,  and  hydrogeological  processes  and  the  long-term  performance  of  the
engineered containment barriers in the actual repository environment.

Disposal in deep geological formations can isolate radioactive wastes from man and
his environment for the very long periods required and will be needed for a number
of waste forms that already exist and others that will be generated in future. It is the
best  available  option  for  long  term  management  of  many  of  the  more  hazardous
forms  of  waste.  However,  it  is  important  that  the  bringing  into  operation  of
geological repositories must not be seen as the end of the road for radioactive waste
management.  Therefore,  progress  towards  disposal  in  deep  geological  formations
must not lead to a reduction in the level of RTD in other areas of radioactive waste
management, such as new technologies for minimising the quantities of such waste,
from which new options might conceivably emerge in the future.

The  financial  commitment  must  be  sustained,  indeed  increased  in  some  Member
States,  and  more  effective  co-operation  between  these  individual  programmes  is
needed, in recognition of the importance to the Union as a whole of progress in this
field. By providing a framework for improved co-operation and co-ordination in this
field, the overall cost-effectiveness will be improved together with the all-important
credibility and public acceptability of the RTD as a whole.

While the Community’s Framework Programme will  continue  to play  an important
role in promoting research in these fields, on its own it is unlikely to be sufficient to
guarantee  success.  Several  Member  States  do  have  their  own  RTD  programmes
funded either from national budgets or by the nuclear sector. However, at the present
time,  the  adequacy  of  these  individual  national  programmes  in  addressing  all  the
outstanding issues is not clear. It is likely that the financial commitment will have to
be significantly increased. The Commission will continue to encourage co-operation
between  the  Member  States  in  common  areas  of  research  and  technological
development.  In  addition,  the  Commission  intends  to  propose  to  the  Council  the
setting-up of a Joint Undertaking under Chapter 5 of Title II of the Euratom Treaty to
manage  the  funds  and  organise  the  research.  Industry  and  Member  States  would
participate on a voluntary basis in this Joint Undertaking, which would bring together
funding from the Joint Research Centre, Member States and industry.

5.

CONCLUSIONS

Further  delays  in  decisions  on  the  development  of  repositories  for  the  disposal  of
radioactive  waste  cannot  be  justified.  On  the  contrary,  there  is  a  sound  basis  on
ethical, environmental and nuclear safety grounds for the rapid development of these
facilities. Any delays that could be interpreted as passing on to future generations the
responsibility  for  disposing  of  our  wastes  should  be  avoided,  especially  since  such
delays, particularly in the case of the more hazardous wastes, may also increase the
potential risk of accidents and terrorist attacks.

31

Consequently,  Member  States  should  develop  appropriate  strategies  and  prepare
detailed programmes for the long-term management of all the waste types under their
jurisdiction. Though the Community as a whole should maintain the capacity to store
its  wastes,  the  emphasis  of  these  programmes  should  be  on  the  development  of
repositories  for  the  disposal  of  radioactive  waste.  Open  and  comprehensive  public
information and involvement together with respect for  the “polluter pays” principle
are crucial aspects of these programmes.

Member  States  should  ensure  that  the  necessary  RTD  is  carried  out  to  enable  the
deadlines for implementing their programmes to be met. For the further extended use
of nuclear energy it might also be beneficial to explore alternative technologies that
would produce less waste for possible application in the future.

While Member States should certainly aim to be self-sufficient in the management of
their own radioactive waste, there should be greater collaboration between Member
States,  especially  where  this  would  help  guarantee  or  reinforce  the  necessary  high
level of nuclear safety and environmental protection. An approach involving two or
more  countries  could  also  offer  advantages  especially  to  countries  that  have  no  or
limited  nuclear  programmes,  insofar  as  it  would  provide  a  safe  and  less  costly
solution  for  all  parties  involved.  However,  no  Member  State  should  be  obliged  to
accept imports of radioactive waste from other Member States.

6.

PROVISIONS OF THE PRESENT PROPOSAL

Preamble

The Euratom Treaty, in particular Articles 31 and 32, provides the legal basis for the
present proposal.

Article  2b  of  the  Euratom  Treaty  sets  out  that  the  Community  shall  “establish
uniform  safety  standards  to  protect  the  health  of  workers  and  of  the  general  public
and  ensure  that  they  are  applied”.  Article  31  of  the  Euratom  Treaty  lays  down  the
procedure for  establishing the standards  or  for supplementing  them  as  provided  for
by Article 32.

The validity of this legal basis is endorsed by the recent judgement of the Court of
Justice  (case  C-29/99,  delivered  on  10  December  2002)  regarding  Community
competence in the field of nuclear safety, which states that “it is not appropriate, in
order  to  define  the  Community's  competences,  to  draw  an  artificial  distinction
between the protection of the health of the general public and the safety of sources of
ionising radiation”. Within the context  of the present  proposal,  such  sources  would
include all radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel.

Purpose and Scope (Article 1)

The purpose of the Directive is to contribute to the establishing of best practice in the
management of  spent  nuclear  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  in  the  Member  States  that
reflect the fundamental principles of:

– 

protection  of  human  health  and  the  environment  both  now  and  in  the
future (point 1(a));

32

– 

– 

nuclear  safety  and  environmental  protection  through  application  of
precautionary and preventive measures (point 1(b));

public information, dialogue and, where appropriate, participation in the
decision-making  process  as  an  essential  aspect  of  the  application  of
governance in the radioactive waste sector (point 1(c)).

The  specific  nature  of  the  general  requirements  is  elaborated  in  Article  3.  More
specific  requirements  regarding  radioactive  waste  in  particular  are  presented  in
Articles 4 and 5.

Member  States  and  candidate  countries  have  different  policies  regarding  spent
nuclear  fuel.  Some  regard  it  as  waste,  others  regard  it  as  a  resource  from  which
valuable quantities of fissile and fertile material can be extracted, while a third group
have not  yet defined their policy.  In recognition of these differences, this Directive
does  not  refer  to  all  spent  nuclear  fuel  as  waste.  However,  the  provisions  of  this
Directive  apply  to  material  declared  as  waste  as  well  as  all  spent  nuclear  fuel
produced  within  the  EU  Member  States.  Irrespective  of  the  policy  adopted  by
Member  States  regarding  spent  nuclear  fuel,  this  material  must  be  subjected  to  an
equivalent level of control and supervision throughout the Member States.

In  accordance  with  the  Joint  Convention,  the  present  proposal  defines  radioactive
waste  as  material  in  solid,  liquid  or  gaseous  form.  The  programme  for  radioactive
waste management as defined under Article 4 of this proposal therefore also covers
the practice of environmental discharges. However, in a departure from the definition
in the Joint  Convention, the  term  disposal  as  defined  in  the  present  proposal  refers
only to the practice of emplacing solid or solidified waste, including in the form of
spent nuclear fuel, in a suitable repository.

Also  in  line  with  the  provisions  of  the  Joint  Convention,  waste  that  contains  only
naturally  occurring  radioactive  materials  is  excluded  from  the  scope  unless  such
waste  also  originates  from  the  nuclear  fuel  cycle.  This  means  that  waste  from  the
mining  and  milling  of  uranium  ore  is  covered  by  the  provisions  of  this  Directive,
whereas waste from, for example, oil extraction is excluded unless it is  declared  as
radioactive waste by the Member States in line with Title VII Article 40 of the Basic
Safety Standards (Directive 96/29/Euratom).

Definitions (Article 2)

Terminology used in this Directive has, where possible, been standardised with that
in the Joint Convention (though note reference to disposal in section 6.2 above).

General  requirements  for  the  management  of  spent  nuclear  fuel  and  radioactive

waste (Article 3)

The list of general requirements specifies measures to be taken by Member States in
order to achieve the stated purpose in Article 1 of the Directive. These measures can
be  considered  as  constituting  established  international  best  practice  in  the  field  of
spent  nuclear  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  management,  and  cover  such  aspects  as
public  health,  environmental  protection,  nuclear  safety,  financing  and  governance.
Such measures are a part of current policy in many Member States.

33

Programme for the management of radioactive waste (Article 4)

This programme addresses the root of the outstanding problems in the EU associated
with  the  management  of  present  and  future  stocks  of  radioactive  waste,  including
spent nuclear fuel if reprocessing is not foreseen. All Member States will be obliged
to  define  a  long-term  management  programme  for  this  material  that  respects  the
fundamental and internationally agreed principles of waste management. In line with
the reasoning given in Section 4 above, this programme should be oriented towards
disposal  of  waste  wherever  possible.  Long-term  indefinite  storage  at  or  near  the
surface  for  the  most  hazardous  waste,  in  facilities  requiring  permanent  active
measures such as regular maintenance and continuous monitoring and surveillance, is
in  the  long  run  unsustainable  and  passes  on  an  unacceptable  burden  to  future
generations.  The  Article  prescribes  dates  by  which  authorisation,  by  the  respective
national regulatory authorities, should be given both for the development of any new
disposal sites and the eventual start of operation of these facilities. In recognition of
the much greater time required for site studies in the case of deep disposal, the date
for start of operation of geological repositories is later than that for surface facilities.
The dates proposed in this Article have been determined on the basis of the present
situation in the Member States but also taking into account the need  for action. All
dates  are  subject  to  review  and  revision  by  the  Council  on  a  proposal  by  the
Commission.  The  Annex  to  the  Directive  provides  additional  information  on  the
typical steps required during development of new disposal facilities.

In  some  countries,  repositories  for  the  disposal  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste
are being designed in such a way that the emplacement could be more easily reversed
and  the material  recovered  for further processing  if  this  were  to  prove  feasible  and
beneficial.  One  of  the  advantages  of  the  “concentrate  and  confine”  method  of
disposal over that of “dilute and disperse” is that the waste remains isolated for very
long periods of time during which the emplacement of the waste packages could be
reversed, even though the economic costs of doing so would undoubtedly be high.

The provisions of this Article together with those for reporting under Article 7 also
address the other concerns identified in the Commission’s Green Paper related to the
need for greater transparency in dealing with these issues.

Export of waste is also specifically mentioned in the Article. It is recognised that for
certain  Member  States  with  very  limited  accumulations  of  waste,  export  to  other
countries probably represents the most viable option from the environmental, safety
and  economic  points  of  views.  However,  these  transfers  can  only  be  sanctioned
providing  the  very  strict  conditions  listed  in  the  Article  are  respected.  These
conditions include the limitations and criteria concerning export of radioactive waste
to third countries included in Euratom Directive 92/3. The proposal does not seek to
limit a country’s right to be self sufficient in all matters of management of its waste,
but does seek to encourage the sharing of facilities and services wherever possible.

Research  and  technological  development  in  radioactive  waste  management  (Article

5)

Specialised and in-depth research and technological development (RTD) is required
both  to  carry  out  in  a  timely  fashion  the  programme  for  the  management  of
radioactive waste and to achieve the general objectives of the proposed legislation. It
is the responsibility of Member States to ensure an adequate level of RTD funding.

34

In full respect of the “polluter pays” principle, this money may be raised through a
levy on nuclear electricity production, thus ensuring that the funding is proportional
to the amount of nuclear electricity produced. In view of the current levels of funding
in the Member States, the likely adequacy of this funding and the degree of progress
in  the  respective  radioactive  waste  management  sectors,  it  is  estimated  that  €0.5M
per terawatt-hour of nuclear electricity generated is sufficient to cover the necessary
RTD.  However, this level  of  research  funding  is  likely  to  diminish  in  the  future  as
countries  begin  to  implement  actual  disposal  options.  In  view  of  the  fundamental
importance of these RTD activities and in order to achieve the highest possible level
of  co-operation  and  co-ordination  between  activities  in  Member  States,  the
Commission  will  encourage  co-operation  between  the  Member  States  in  common
areas  of  research  and  technological  development  in  line  with  the  provisions  of
Chapter 1 of Title II of the Treaty. To this end specific tasks may be entrusted to one
or  more  Joint  Undertakings  to  be  established  under  Chapter  5  of  Title  II  of  the
Treaty. Such Joint Undertakings would be responsible for performing RTD in areas
of common interest.

Investments (Article 6)

The provisions laid down in Chapter 4 of Title II of the Euratom Treaty will be fully
applied  to  the  situation  regarding  investments  in  the  management  of  radioactive
waste. In this context, it is clear that further development in the nuclear sector should
only be supported if there has been significant progress towards the implementation
of a programme of  long-term  management  of all spent nuclear fuel and radioactive
waste.

Reporting (Article 7)

The  reporting  provisions  will  replace  those  that  existed  under  point  1  of  the
Community Plan of Action and will take fully into account the discussions under the
Joint  Convention.  Information  on  RTD  activities  constitutes  an  important  aspect  of
this  reporting.  Article  5  of  the  Euratom  Treaty  already  provides  a  basis  for  the
Member  States  to  communicate  to  the  Commission  the  information  on  relevant
research.

Implementation (Article 8)

In view of the need to make  rapid progress in this area, the implementation  should
take place as soon as possible. A date of 1 May 2004 could be proposed.

35

2003/0022(CNS)

Proposal for a

COUNCIL DIRECTIVE (Euratom)

on the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the  European  Atomic  Energy  Community,  and  in
particular Articles 31 and 32 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission37, drawn up after obtaining the opinion of
a  group  of  persons  appointed  by  the  Scientific  and  Technical  Committee  from  among
scientific experts in the Member States, in accordance with Article 31 of the Treaty, and after
obtaining the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee38,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament39,

Whereas:

(1) Article 30 of the Treaty requires basic standards to  be  laid  down  within  the  Community
for  the  protection  of  the  health  of  workers  and  the  general  public  against  the  dangers
arising from ionising radiation.

(2) Council Directive 96/29/Euratom40 lays down basic safety standards for the protection of

health of the general public and workers against the dangers of ionising radiation.

(3) Council  Directive  92/3/Euratom41  already  sets  up  a  supervision  and  control  system  of
shipments of radioactive waste between Member States and into and out of Community,
including a compulsory and common notification procedure for shipments of such waste,
and very  strict limitations and criteria  regarding  the  third  countries  to  which  radioactive
waste may be exported.

(4) Council  Directive  85/337/EEC42  on  the  assessment  of  the  effects  of  certain  public  and
private  projects  on  the  environment,  including  those  involving  disposal  and  long-term
storage of radioactive  waste, requests Member States to  adopt all measures  necessary to
ensure  that,  before  consent  is  given,  projects  likely  to  have  significant  effects  on  the
environment,  by  virtue,  inter  alia,  of  their  nature,  size  or  location  are  made  subject  to  a
requirement for assessment with regard to their effects.

(5) Existing community legislation does not provide for specific rules ensuring that at all time
spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste is safely managed in an effective and consistent

37

38

39

40

41

42

OJ C […], […], p. […]
OJ C […], […], p. […]
OJ C […], […], p. […]
OJ L 159, 29/06/1996, p. 1
OJ L 035, 12/02/1992, p. 24
OJ L 175, 05/07/1985, p. 40, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC, OJ L 073, 14/03/1997, p. 5

36

                                                
manner throughout  the European Union,  and  existing Community rules should  therefore
be supplemented.

(6) The  Commission  Green  Paper  “Towards  a  European  Strategy  for  the  security  of  energy
supply”43  stresses  that  a  satisfactory  solution  has  to  be  found  for  the  radioactive  waste
issue with maximum transparency.

(7) The Commission’s final report on the Green Paper44 stresses that rapid progress towards
lasting solutions to the management of radioactive waste can be assured by fixing precise
deadlines  at  Community  level  for  the  introduction  of  more  effective  radioactive  waste
disposal systems at national level.

(8) The International Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management  and on the
Safety  of  Radioactive  Waste  Management,  which  entered  into  force  on  June  18  2001,
aims  at  achieving  and  maintaining  a  high  level  of  safety  world-wide  in  spent  fuel  and
radioactive  waste  management  through  the  enhancement  of  national  measures  and
international co-operation.

(9) The production of nuclear energy generates spent nuclear fuel and radioactive wastes.

(10)  Radioactive waste is generated also in the use of radionuclides in medicine, research

and industry.

(11)  Releases  of  radionuclides  from  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  may  have

consequences beyond national borders.

(12)  Each Member State remains responsible for the management of all spent nuclear fuel

and radioactive waste under its jurisdiction.

(13)  The safe management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste would be enhanced

by greater co-operation and co-ordination between Member States.

(14)  The  Council  Resolution  of  15  June  199245  invited  the  Commission  to  develop  a
common approach and to work with Member States towards harmonisation at Community
level of radioactive waste management strategies and practices wherever possible.

(15)  There  is  a  very  broad  international  consensus  amongst  technical  experts  that,  on  the
basis of present knowledge, geological disposal is the most suitable method for long-term
management of the most hazardous forms of solid and solidified radioactive waste.

(16)  The  setting  of  deadlines  at  Community  level  for  the  implementation  of  appropriate
disposal  systems  will  ensure  that  undue  burdens  are  not  imposed  on  future  generations
while  at  the  same  time  respecting,  both  now  and  in  the  future,  the  basic  principles  of
radiation protection laid down in Chapter 1 of Directive 96/29/Euratom.

(17) 

In  the  field  of  research  and  technological  development  in  the  various  fields  of
radioactive  waste,  including  minimisation,  there  are  common  issues  facing  many

43

44

45

COM(2000)769
COM(2002)321 final
OJ C 158, 25/06/1992, p. 3

37

                                                
Members  States  that  can  be  beneficially  treated  at  Community  level  in  a  way  that
complements  the  research  and  development  co-ordinated  through  the  Community
Framework Programmes.

(18)  To  facilitate  the  necessary  research  and  technological  development  in  the  field  of
radioactive waste management, the Commission should encourage joint financing by the
Member States and, to that end, it is appropriate to make provision for the possibility of
entrusting  research  and  development  in  the  areas  of  common  interest  to  Joint
Undertakings.

(19)  The application of this Directive should be reviewed by means of regular reports from

the Member States,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1
Purpose and Scope

1.

This  Directive  establishes  requirements  for  the  safe  management  of  spent  nuclear
fuel and radioactive waste, so as:

(a)

(b)

to ensure that all spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste is safely managed so
that workers, the general public and the environment are adequately protected
from harmful effects of ionising radiation, both now and in the future;

to  achieve  and  maintain  a  high  level  of  safety  in  the  management  of  spent
nuclear  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  in  order  to  protect  human  health  and  the
environment  by  taking  all  necessary  precautionary  and  preventive  measures,
and  with  a  view  to  ensuring  adequate  levels  of  protection  are  achieved
throughout the Community in a consistent and effective manner;

(c)

to enhance effective public information and, where appropriate, participation in
order  to  ensure  the  required  transparency  in  the  relevant  decision-making
processes.

2.

This  Directive  shall  apply  to  all  stages  of  spent  nuclear  fuel  and  radioactive  waste
management.

The  Directive  does  not  apply  to  waste  that  contains  only  naturally  occurring
radioactive materials and that does not originate from the nuclear fuel cycle, unless it
is  declared  as  radioactive  waste  for  the  purposes  of  the  present  Directive  by  a
Member State.

38

For the purpose of this Directive:

Article 2
Definitions

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

“decommissioning” means all steps leading to the release of a nuclear facility, other
than a disposal facility, from regulatory control. These steps include the processes of
decontamination and dismantling;

“discharges” means planned and controlled releases directly into the environment, as
a  legitimate  practice,  within  limits  authorised  by  the  regulatory  body,  of  liquid  or
gaseous  radioactive  wastes  that  originate  from  regulated  nuclear  facilities  during
normal operation;

“disposal” means the emplacement of solid or solidified radioactive waste, including
spent fuel, in an appropriate facility without the intention of retrieval;

“geological disposal” means disposal in a geological repository;

“geological repository” means a disposal facility constructed in a geologically stable
rock stratum and at a depth such that, during the period over which the waste remains
a  radiological  hazard,  the  erosion  of  the  site  through  such  natural  processes  as
weathering  and  glaciations  can  be  ignored  and  the  probability  of  human  intrusion
into the repository is minimised even if institutional control over the site is lost;

“ionising  radiation”  means  the  transfer  of  energy  in  the  form  of  particles  or
electromagnetic waves of a wavelength of 100 nanometer or less or a frequency of 3
x 1015 Hertz or more capable of producing ions directly or indirectly;

“nuclear  facility” means  a facility and its associated land, buildings  and  equipment
where  radioactive  materials  are  produced,  processed,  used,  handled,  stored  or
disposed of on such a scale that consideration of safety is required;

“nuclear fuel cycle” means all stages in the cycle of production, use and treatment of
the  fuel  used  in  nuclear  reactors,  including  such  steps  as  mineral  extraction,
conversion, enrichment, fuel fabrication, energy production, interim storage of spent
fuel  and/or  reprocessing  followed  by  recycling  of  fissile  and  fertile  material  and
interim  storage  of  vitrified  and  other  radioactive  wastes,  conditioning  and
encapsulation of spent fuel and/or other radioactive wastes and, ultimately, disposal;

“radioactive waste” means  radioactive  material in gaseous, liquid  or  solid  form  for
which no further use is foreseen by the Member State or by a natural or legal person
whose  decision  is  accepted  by  the  Member  State,  and  which  is  controlled  as
radioactive  waste  by  a  regulatory  body  under  the  legislative  and  regulatory
framework  of  the  Member  State.  The  different  reporting  categories  of  solid
radioactive  waste  are  explained  in  Commission  Recommendation  of  15  September

39

1999  on  a  classification  system  for  solid  radioactive  waste,  SEC(1999)  1302  final,
1999/669/EC, Euratom46;

“radioactive  waste  management”  means  all  activities,  including  decommissioning
activities, that relate to the handling, pre-treatment, treatment, conditioning, storage,
or disposal of radioactive waste, excluding off-site transportation. It may also involve
discharges;

“regulatory  body”  means  any  body  or  bodies  given  the  legal  authority  by  the
Member State to regulate any aspect of the management of spent fuel or radioactive
waste including the granting of licences;

“reprocessing”  means  a  process  or  operation,  the  purpose  of  which  is  to  extract
nuclear material from spent fuel for further use;

“shipment”  means  all  of  the  operations  involved  in  moving  radioactive  waste  from
the  place  of  origin  to  the  place  of  destination,  including  transport,  loading  and
unloading for disposal or storage;

“spent (nuclear) fuel” means nuclear fuel that has been irradiated in and permanently
removed from a reactor core;

“storage” means the holding of radioactive  waste or  spent  nuclear  fuel in  a facility
that provides for its containment, with the intention of retrieval.

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

Article 3
General requirements for the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Member States shall take all necessary measures to ensure that spent nuclear fuel and
radioactive  waste  are  managed  in  such  a  way  that  individuals,  society  and  the
environment are adequately protected against radiological hazards.

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  the  production  of  radioactive  waste  is  kept  to  the
minimum practicable.

Member States shall take all the necessary legislative, regulatory and administrative
measures  and  other  steps  required  to  ensure  the  safe  management  of  spent  nuclear
fuel and radioactive waste.

Member  States  shall  establish  or  designate  a  regulatory  body  entrusted  with  the
implementation  of  the  legislative  and  regulatory  framework,  and  provided  with
adequate  authority,  competence  and  financial  and  human  resources  to  fulfil  its
assigned responsibilities.

Member States shall ensure that adequate financial resources are available to support
the safe management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste, including that from
decommissioning  activities,  and  that  financing  schemes  respect  the  “polluter  pays”
principle.

46

OJ L 265, 13/10/1999, p. 37

40

                                                
6.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Member States shall ensure that there will be effective public information and, where
appropriate, participation  in  order to  achieve a high level of transparency on issues
related  to  the  management  of  spent  nuclear  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  under  their
jurisdiction.

Article 4
Programme for the management of radioactive waste

Each Member State shall establish a clearly defined programme for radioactive waste
management that includes all radioactive waste under its jurisdiction and covers  all
stages of management. In the context of this programme, radioactive waste shall also
include all  spent  nuclear  fuel that is  not subject to reprocessing  contracts or,  in  the
case of research reactor fuel, take-back agreements.

The programme  shall  cover, in  particular,  all aspects  of  the  long-term  management
and,  in  the  case  of  solid  or  solidified  radioactive  waste,  disposal  with  a  definite
timetable for each step of the process.

Where there is no suitable alternative to disposal, and where such a disposal option is
not  yet  available,  Member  States  shall  integrate  the  following  decision  points  into
their programmes:

(a)

(b)

(c)

authorisation for development  of  appropriate  disposal  site(s)  to  be  granted  no
later than 2008. In the case of geological disposal of high-level and long-lived
radioactive waste, this authorisation may be conditional upon a further period
of detailed underground study;

in the case of short-lived low and intermediate-level radioactive waste, if this is
to be disposed of separately from high-level and long-lived radioactive waste,
authorisation  for  operation  of  the  disposal  facility  to  be  granted  no  later  than
2013;

in the case of high-level and long-lived radioactive waste, to be disposed of in
a geological repository, authorisation for operation of the disposal facility to be
granted no later than 2018.

Based on the regular reports by Member States and the Commission required under
Article 7, the Council may decide, on a proposal by the Commission, to modify the
dates referred to in paragraph 3 in the interest of enhanced nuclear safety within the
European Union.

The  programme  shall  pay  special  attention  to  the  general  requirements  listed  in
Article 3 and take into account the different steps in the disposal process described in
the Annex. In this context, indefinite surface or near-surface storage of spent nuclear
fuel  that  is  not  to  be  reprocessed  is  not  considered  a  suitable  or  sustainable
alternative to disposal.

The programme may include shipments of radioactive waste or spent fuel to another
Member  State  or  third  country  if  such  shipments  are  fully  in  compliance  with
existing  EU  legislation,  principally  Directive  92/3/Euratom,  and  International
commitments,  are  covered  by  firm  contracts  and  only  take  place  to  States  with

41

appropriate facilities that meet accepted norms and standards of the Member State of
origin and, in the case of material within the meaning of Article 197 of the Treaty,
are under adequate safeguards.

Article 5
Research and technological development in radioactive waste management

1.

2.

3.

The  programme  for  the  management  of  radioactive  waste  within  the  meaning  of
Article  4  of  this  Directive  shall  take  due  account  of  the  research  and  technological
development in the field of radioactive waste.

the  Commission  shall 

Based  on  the  regular  reports  by  Member  States  required  under  Article  7  of  this
Directive, 
identify  common  areas  of  research  and
technological development that could be co-ordinated at the Community level, taking
fully into account the activities under the research and training programmes adopted
pursuant to Article 7 of the Treaty.

The  Commission  shall  encourage  co-operation  between  the  Member  States  in
common areas of research and technological development in line with the provisions
of Chapter 1 of Title II of the Treaty. To this end specific tasks may be entrusted to
one or more Joint Undertakings to be established under Chapter 5 of Title II of the
Treaty.

Article 6
Investments

When  exercising  its  responsibilities  under  the  Treaty  and  in  particular  those  defined  under
Chapter  4  of  Title  II,  the  Commission  shall  take  into  consideration  the  progress  made  by
Member States towards meeting the targets set out in Article 4 for authorisation of a disposal
facility or disposal facilities for the different forms of radioactive waste.

Article 7
Reporting

1.

2.

3.

Every  three  years,  and  for  the  first  time  one  year  following  the  date  referred  to  in
Article 8 paragraph 1, each Member State shall submit a report to the Commission on
the  status  of  management  of  spent  nuclear  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  under  its
jurisdiction  and  the  progress  towards  application  of  this  Directive,  including  the
information referred to in the Annex if appropriate.

Pursuant  to  Article  5  of  the  Treaty,  the  report  shall  also  describe  all  research  and
technological development in the field of radioactive waste management that is being
carried out or is planned within the Member  State, including information regarding
costs, sources of financing and expected duration and dates of completion.

The  Commission  shall  integrate  the  information  contained  in  these  reports  into  a
status  report  on  the  management  of  spent  nuclear  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  in  the
European Union to be published every three years.

42

Article 8
Implementation

1.

2.

3.

Member  States  shall  bring  into  force  the  laws,  regulations,  and  administrative
provisions  necessary  to  comply  with  this  Directive  before  …[before  1  May  2004].
They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.

When  Member  States  adopt  these  provisions,  they  shall  contain  a  reference  to  this
Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official
publication. The methods  of making  such reference shall  be  laid  down  by  Member
States.

Member  States  shall  communicate  to  the  Commission  the  text  of  the  main  laws,
regulations or administrative provisions that they adopt in the field governed by this
Directive.

This Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day  following its publication in  the Official
Journal of the European Communities.

Article 9

Article 10

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, […]

For the Council
The President
[…]

43

ANNEX

Disposal of Radioactive Waste

It  is  envisaged  that  a  step-wise  approach  to  the  development,  technical  demonstration  and
implementation  of  a  radioactive  waste  disposal  system  will  be  both  necessary  and
unavoidable.

Recent  experience  has  shown  that  ultimate  success  will  depend  on  the  decision-making
processes being as transparent and open as possible. Therefore, all the steps to be taken should
be identified  as clearly as possible right at the  outset.  In  addition,  there  needs  to  be  a  well-
developed timetable with specific milestones.

A key element in the process is the siting of a repository. This is a complex and controversial
issue  that  requires  very  detailed  technical  work  and  extensive  discussions  and  consultations
with a wide variety of stakeholders, in particular local communities.

Important stages and milestones in the process would normally include:

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

selection of disposal principles and repository concept;

design evaluation (e.g. of alternative barrier materials, rock types etc.);

definition of system design and safety criteria for selected barriers;

adaptation of system to possible sites, design optimisation;

detailed site investigations at one or more possible sites;

authorisation for development of the chosen site (in the case of geological disposal,
authorisation  will  probably  be  conditional  on  a  further  period  of  more  detailed
underground  investigation,  entailing  the  prior  construction  and  operation  of  an
underground laboratory)

construction of repository;

authorisation  for  operation  of  repository  (possibly  initially  as  a  pilot  facility  in  the
case of geological disposal).

Depending  on  national  legislation  and  regulations,  there  may  be  other  identifiable
intermediate steps in the process. Particularly important will be the involvement of the local
communities  in  the  region  around  potential  and  selected  sites  and  sufficient  time  must  be
allowed  for  full  consultation  and  stakeholder  interaction  in  the  decision-making  process.  In
addition, selection of a site for high-level and long-lived radioactive waste will normally take
longer than for low and intermediate level short-lived radioactive waste because a wider range
of geological factors and engineered barriers needs to be investigated.

For  this  reason,  there  is  clearly  no  optimum  time  for  the  completion  of  the  above  process.
However, Member States shall set realistic and well-defined target dates for each stage in the
process.

44

Key  milestones  in  the  process  are  those  concerning  authorisation  for  development  of  a  site
and for operation of a facility. In this regard, Member States shall ensure that their schedules
for  management  of  radioactive  waste  and  spent  fuel  not  covered  by  reprocessing  contracts
respect the deadlines defined in Article 4 of this Directive.

45

LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT

Policy area(s): Nuclear safety

Activity(ies): Management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste

TITLE OF ACTION: COUNCIL DIRECTIVE ON THE MANAGEMENT OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL AND

RADIOACTIVE WASTE

1.

2.

2.1.

2.2.

2.3.

BUDGET LINE(S) + HEADING(S)

OVERALL FIGURES

Total allocation for action (Part B): € million for commitment

Period of application:

Overall multiannual estimate on expenditure

a) Schedule of commitment appropriations/payment appropriations (financial intervention)

€ million (to 3rd decimal place)

Year n

n + 1

n + 2

n + 3

n + 4

n + 5
and
subs.
years

Total

Commitments

Payments

b) Technical and administrative assistance and support expenditure(see point 6.1.2)

Commitments

Payments

Subtotal a+b

Commitments

Payments

c)  Overall  financial  impact  of  human  resources  and  other  administrative  expenditure

Commitments/
payments

0.072

0.072

0.072

0.072

0.072

0.072

46

TOTAL a+b+c

Commitments

Payments

2.4.

Compatibility with the financial programming and the financial perspective

X

Proposal compatible with the existing financial programming

(cid:1) This  proposal  will  entail  reprogramming  of  the  relevant  heading  in  the
financial perspective

(cid:1) This  may  entail  application  of  the  provisions  of  the  Interinstitutional
Agreement.

2.5.

Financial impact on revenue:

No financial implications (involves technical aspects regarding implementation

X
of a measure)

OR

(cid:1) Financial impact – the effect on revenue is as follows:

Note: All details and observations pertaining to the method of calculating the effect
on revenue should be included in a separate annex.

Budget line Revenue

€ million (to 1 decimal place)

Situation following action

Year n

n+1

n+2

N+3

n+4

n+5

Prior to
action
(Year
n-1)

a) Revenue in absolute terms

b) Change in Revenue

 (cid:1)

(Please state each budget line involved, adding the appropriate number of rows to the table
if there is an effect on more than one budget line)

3.

BUDGET CHARACTERISTICS

Type of expenditure

New

Comp/
Non-comp

Diff/
Non-diff

YES/
NO

EFTA
participation

Participation
applicant
countries

Heading
Financial
Perspective

YES/NO 

YES/NO

No           

47

          
          
          
          
          
4.

LEGAL BASIS

Euratom Treaty, in particular Articles 31 and 32.

5.

DESCRIPTION AND GROUNDS

5.1.

Need for Community intervention

Action is needed at the Community level to help avoid further delays regarding the
implementation  of  programmes  for  the  save  long-term  management  of  radioactive
waste and spent nuclear fuel in the Member States of the European Union.

5.2.

5.3.

Actions envisaged and arrangements for budget intervention

Methods of implementation

6.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

NONE

6.1.

Total financial impact on Part B - (over the entire programming period)

(The method of calculating the total amounts set out in the table below must be explained by
the breakdown in Table 6.2. )

6.1.1.

Financial intervention

Commitments in € million (to the 3rd decimal place)

Year N

N + 1

 N + 2

N + 3

N + 4

Total

N + 5 and
subs.
years

Breakdown

Action 1

Action 2

Etc.

TOTAL

6.1.2.

Technical  and  administrative  assistance,  support  expenditure  and  IT  expenditure
(Commitment appropriations)

Year N

N + 1

 N + 2

N + 3

N + 4

Total

N + 5 and
subs.
Years

1) 
administrative assistance

Technical 

and

Technical 

a) 
offices

assistance

48

b)  Other 
administrative assistance:

technical 

and

- intra muros :

- extra muros :

of  which  for  construction
and 
of
maintenance 
computerised  management
systems

Subtotal 1

2) Support expenditure

a) Studies

b) Meetings of experts

c) Information and
publications

Subtotal 2

TOTAL

6.2.

Calculation  of  costs  by  measure  envisaged  in  Part  B  (over  the  entire
programming period)47

(Where  there  is  more  than  one  action,  give  sufficient  detail  of  the  specific  measures  to  be
taken for each one to allow the volume and costs of the outputs to be estimated).

Breakdown

Commitments in € million (to the 3rd decimal place)

Type
of outputs
(projects, files )

Number of
outputs

Average unit
cost

(total for years
1…n)

Total cost

(total for years
1…n)

1

2

3

4=(2X3)

Action 1

- Measure 1

- Measure 2

Action 2

- Measure 1

- Measure 2

- Measure 3

Etc.

47 For further information, see separate explanatory note

49

                                                
TOTAL COST

If necessary explain the method of calculation

7.

IMPACT ON STAFF AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE

7.1.

Impact on human resources

Staff to be assigned to management of the
action using existing and/or additional
resources

Number of
permanent posts

Number of
temporary posts

0.3

0.3

Description of tasks deriving from the
action

If necessary, a fuller description of the
tasks may be annexed.

Total

0.3

0.3

Types of post

Permanent
officials 
Temporary staff

or

A

B

C

Other human resources

Total

7.2.

Overall financial impact of human resources

Type of human resources

Amount €

Method of calculation *

Officials

Temporary staff

Other human resources

32,400

0.3  m/y  x  108,000 
Headings A1, A2, A4, A5 and A7

(unit.  Cost)

(give budget line)

Total

32,400

The amounts are total expenditure for twelve months.

50

7.3.

Other administrative expenditure deriving from the action

Budget line

(number and heading)

Overall allocation (Title A7)

A0701 – Missions

A07030 – Meetings
A07031 – Compulsory committees (1)
A07032 – Non-compulsory committees (1)

A07040 – Conferences

A0705 – Studies and consultations

Other expenditure (state which)

Amount €

Method of calculation

5,000

20,000

c. 10-15 man-days of missions per year
(NEA, IAEA, Member States)

2  meetings  in  Brussels  per  year  of
group  of  experts  from  Member  States
(NB. meetings  will be instead of  those
currently being held)

-  publishing  of  Community  situation  report  in  the  field
of radioactive waste

15,000

one  such  report  is  foreseen  every  3
years, at a cost per report of c. €45,000

Information systems (A-5001/A-4300)

Other expenditure – Part A (state which)

Total

40,000

The amounts are total expenditure for twelve months.

(1) Specify the type of committee and the group to which it belongs.

I.

II.

III.

Annual total (7.2 + 7.3) 72,400

Duration of action indefinite

Total cost of action (I x II)

€

Years

72400
per
annum€

Human and administrative requirements will be covered within DG TREN’s total allowance
in the annual allocation procedure.

8.

8.1.

8.2.

FOLLOW-UP AND EVALUATION

Follow-up arrangements

Arrangements and schedule for the planned evaluation

9.

ANTI-FRAUD MEASURES

51