Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on:the Draft proposal for a Council Directive (Euratom) setting out basic obligations and general principles on the safety of nuclear installations, andthe Draft proposal for a Council Directive (Euratom) on the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste(COM(2003) 32 final — 2003/0021 (CNS) — 2003/0022 (CNS))
Date: 2003-03-26
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: nuclear fuel, nuclear power station, nuclear safety, radioactive waste, waste management

C 133/70

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.6.2003

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on:

— the ‘Draft proposal for a Council Directive (Euratom) setting out basic obligations and

general principles on the safety of nuclear installations’, and

— the ‘Draft proposal for a Council Directive (Euratom) on the management of spent nuclear

fuel and radioactive waste’

(COM(2003) 32 final — 2003/0021 (CNS) — 2003/0022 (CNS)) (1)

(2003/C 133/15)

On 30 January 2003 the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty, on the above-mentioned draft proposals.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 13 March 2003. The rapporteur
was Mr Wolf.

At its 398th plenary session on 26 and 27 March 2003 (meeting of 26 March) the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 88 votes to one with one abstention.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
Nuclear energy currently accounts for about 15 %
of primary energy consumption (and 35 % of electricity
consumption) in the EU and does not produce any climate-
harming gases. But its use is controversial owing to concerns
about radioactive contamination resulting from industrial
accidents and final disposal, and the Member States have
differing views on the matter. The safety of nuclear installations
and disposal of radioactive waste are therefore key tasks, also
with a view to public health protection. The importance of
this issue has already been mentioned in the Commission’s
Green Paper ‘Towards a European strategy for the security of
energy supply’ (2) and in the Committee’s opinion on that
Green Paper (3).

1.2.
One aim of the Euratom Treaty signed in 1957 (which
founded the European Atomic Energy Community) was to
provide the (European) Community with an alternative source
of domestic energy and to counteract the growing dependence
on oil imports from the Middle East (4). Under the Euratom
Treaty, the Community must among other things establish
uniform safety standards to protect the health of the general
these are applied
public and workers, and ensure that

( 1) The Commission documents also contain a Communication from
the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on
nuclear safety in the European Union, which because of its
importance has also been taken into account in the Committee’s
opinion.

( 2) COM(2000) 769 final.
( 3) OJ C 221, 7.8.2001, p. 6.
( 4) Green Paper, COM(2000) 769 final, p. 40.

(Article 2b and Article 30). The current provisions on protec-
tion of health of workers and the general public against the
dangers of ionising radiation are set out in Council Directive
96/29/Euratom (5).

1.3.
Following on from the above obligation and in the
run-up to future EU enlargement, the Commission has present-
ed the current draft proposals for two directives (Euratom) of
the Council, one concerning the safety of nuclear installations
and the other the management of spent nuclear fuel and
radioactive waste.

The Committee has been asked to give its opinion on

1.4.
these directives under Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty.

2. Objectives and content of the Commission’s draft

directives

2.1.

Establishment of basic obligations and general principles on
the safety of nuclear installations

The purpose of this directive is to provide for a package of
measures that will enable the Community to ensure —
by extending and supplementing existing agreements and
regulations — that each Member State respects common
principles, and regulations based on those principles, and to
oversee their monitoring by the Member States. The Member

(5) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p. 1.

6.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 133/71

States are still
to be free to apply more rigorous rules
themselves if required. The package proposed by the Com-
mission also requires that adequate financial resources be made
available by the Member States so that measures can be taken
to ensure the safety of nuclear installations during their active
life and to cover the costs of subsequent decommissioning.
Decommissioning is to be financed through decommissioning
funds.

The Committee has on several occasions (1) drawn
3.2.
attention to the energy problem for which no long-term
solution has been found, stressing the important role of
nuclear energy. Because people have enjoyed a satisfactory
energy supply for decades, public awareness of the importance
of having a long-term, sustainable energy supply may decline.
The risks and effects of a future energy shortage may also be
underestimated.

2.2. Management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste

The aim of this directive is to require Member States to ensure
the use of best practice — with respect to protection of the
general public — for sustainable disposal of radioactive waste
from spent nuclear fuel and other sources. The directive also
contains proposals for setting a mandatory timetable, under
which all the Member States must provide so-called permanent
disposal sites; this does not exclude the possibility of joint
measures by several Member States. With current know-how,
this means storage in special geological formations, which
enclose the radioactive waste with its very long life for the
requisite length of time, thereby keeping it away from people
and the biosphere, in order to ensure protection of public
health. The Commission also emphasises that research and
development in this area must be continued and stepped up
by the Community and the Member States, and that maximum
transparency is called for in identifying solutions in order to
build public confidence.

3. General comments

Both (a) energy supply and its integration into the
3.1.
single market, politically endorsed by the Member States, and
(b) by the very nature of things, the consequences of any
accidents involving nuclear installations and radioactive con-
tamination, are cross-border issues that affect the interests of
all the Member States and have even broader implications. It is
therefore sensible and logical to treat
the two issues as
Community responsibilities. The Committee accordingly also
fundamentally welcomes the Commission’s initiative with
respect to safety of nuclear installations and the disposal of
radioactive waste, and the objectives of the proposed directives.
The Committee attaches particular importance to the safety of
nuclear installations in the accession countries and their
integration into a European regulatory framework. However,
the Committee is very critical of some points of substance of
the proposed directive, and feels that certain questions need to
be clarified.

3.3.
Even though the safety level of nuclear installations in
the current Member States is high, Community rules on the
safety of nuclear installations and disposal of nuclear waste
and spent fuel are particularly important not least because of
the divergent positions of the individual Member States on the
use of nuclear energy.

3.4.
The Committee therefore recommends that given the
importance of this matter and despite possible conflicts, the
Commission should show determination and persistence,
while remaining sufficiently flexible and allowing sufficient
time (2) for discussion among stakeholders in society as well as
between the Community institutions and between the Member
States. It should also be made clear that the measures proposed
by the Commission do not affect the differing basic stances of
the individual Member States on nuclear energy — and there
mutual respect for those stances.

There could be disagreement over the legal basis for
3.5.
the measures proposed by the Commission as a Community
responsibility, namely the existing treaties and in particular
Article 2b (3) and Article 30 of the Euratom Treaty. Although
in its ruling of 10 December 2002 (4) the European Court of
Justice supports the line taken by the Commission and the
Committee also fully endorses it, the Committee recommends
that Community responsibility for the safety of nuclear
installations and disposal of spent nuclear fuel should also be
explicitly laid down at an appropriate point.

(1) See opinions on the Green Paper (OJ C 221, 7.8.2001, p. 6) and

on research needs (OJ C 241, 7.10.2002, p. 3).

(2) The Committee regrets the fact that the Commission has given it
an unreasonably tight deadline to produce an opinion on this
important matter.

(3) ‘In order to perform its task, 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.’
(4) Case C-29/99.

C 133/72

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.6.2003

However,

3.5.1.
the Committee is not convinced that
the Community’s responsibility for financial reserves for
decommissioning nuclear installations can also be derived
therefrom. The Commission’s proposal on this matter is simply
an administrative and organisational arrangement that sets out
the way in which decommissioning is to be financed and
therefore does not have implications for the practicalities of
health protection.

following to Article 12(1) of the draft directive: ‘In order to
ensure the maintenance of a high level of nuclear safety in
the Commission shall monitor safety
the Member States,
authorities in line with the common safety standards set out
in Article 7(1), when these come into force’.

4. Specific comments

Although the Committee, as made clear above, endorses the
Commission’s basic concerns, it would like to clarify certain
points and make some critical comments.

4.1.
As far as the safety of nuclear installations is concerned,
the Committee recommends that no new, separate definitions
and rules be drawn up, but that the definitions and rules of the
Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) be
used as a general reference framework and that the Community
should check that these are fully and rigorously applied (in
accordance with the Commission’s proposed measures) by the
Member States. However, the Committee also recommends
that the Community be involved in further developing these
IAEA guidelines with expertise and commitment. This would
also represent a welcome contribution to the global concern
about safe and responsible use of nuclear energy. The Com-
mittee also welcomes the Commission’s intention to take into
account the findings of WENRA (1) and NRWG (2), too.

4.2.
The Committee believes that the directives on safety of
nuclear installations and their monitoring procedures should
make it clear that the current remit of Member States’ safety
authorities will remain unchanged and that the operators of
nuclear installations will also continue to bear sole responsi-
bility for safety. This last requirement is also consistent with
the polluter-pays principle, which the Committee considers to
be very important.

to result

Also the checks provided for by the Commission are
4.3.
not
in the inspections of nuclear installations
becoming more onerous, but should focus on checking and
establishing whether the Member States and their authorities
have carried out their monitoring tasks properly, in line with
common safety standards when these come into force. The
Commission could, when it deems necessary, carry out prior
verifications (3). The Committee thus recommends adding the

As regards implementing the procedures provided for
4.4.
in the directive or recommended by the Committee and the
timetable for implementation, it is still necessary to clarify and
ensure that nuclear installations in the Member States already
in operation or planned will not be unfairly restricted,
discriminated against or impeded, provided they meet the very
high standards currently laid down in the current Member
States. A balance must be struck between the principles of
maintaining acquired rights and providing planning and legal
certainty on the one hand and ensuring maximum safety on
the other. The Committee notes that the Commission proposal
is not clear or definite on this important point. The Committee
recommends that another sentence be added to Article 7(1) of
the draft directive, as follows:
‘Member States shall require
the undertakings responsible for the nuclear installations to
operate them in accordance with the common safety stan-
dards .... The timetable for introducing common safety stan-
dards and implementing provisions shall be set out in future
updates of the present Directive.’

4.5.
In addition, the resulting technical provisions are to be
formulated and monitored in such a way as to stimulate and
promote (i) the innovative further development of nuclear
installations and their safety concepts and (ii) competition
based on the principles of the single market in the search for
the best technical solutions and concepts. The objective is both
to maintain the safety standards referred to in point 4.3 and to
ensure ongoing scientific and technological development of
nuclear installations, their safety concepts and disposal pro-
cedures, in order to guarantee optimum protection of public
health and to minimise risk.

4.5.1.
In this connection the Committee thinks that the
vague ‘adequately protected’ used in Article 1(1)(a) should be
made more specific by adding ‘in accordance with the objec-
tives of Council Directive 96/29/Euratom (4)’.

( 1) Western European Nuclear Regulators Association.
( 2) Nuclear Regulators’ Working Group.
( 3) In line with prevailing safety practice, particularly in the case of

the accession countries.

(4) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p. 1.

6.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 133/73

4.6.
The Committee basically endorses the Commission’s
concern to ensure that the necessary funding is available for
decommissioning nuclear installations. However, it feels that
most of the Member States already have effective systems
for achieving this. Moreover, the decommissioning funds
proposed by the Commission may leave operators or the
Member States too little flexibility in choosing the most
economical way of achieving this goal.

4.6.1.
Notwithstanding the uncertain legal basis (cf. 3.5.1)
for Community responsibility in respect of this specific matter
of funding, the Committee recommends also for the sake of
the subject-matter that Member States continue to have sole
responsibility. Furthermore, it recommends that operators be
allowed to choose the most economical method of obtaining
sufficient and secure funding within the Member States in
line with Community competition law. In this context, the
decommissioning funds proposed by the Commission should
be seen as only one option. The Committee also notes that
here too, as mentioned in point 4.4, a balance between
the principles of maintaining acquired rights and providing
planning and legal certainty on the one hand and ensuring
maximum safety on the other must be taken into account.

site on its own territory, although there is no reason to exclude
the possibility of a voluntary joint undertaking or voluntary
establishment of a final storage facility by one or more
neighbouring Member States. Such joint undertakings should
be included in the programmes for the management of
radioactive waste by both or all partner states concerned. In
this connection the Committee refers to Council Directive 92/
3/Euratom (1), which stipulates that imports of radioactive
waste into a Member State are permitted only with the
permission of that Member State. While this provision relates
to supervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste,
the Committee recommends, for the sake of full clarity, that
Article 4(1) state explicitly that no Member State shall be
obliged to import or export radioactive waste if this is in
breach of its national legislation.

4.9.
As noted in point 4.1 above, the Committee also feels
with respect to the question of disposal that the definitions of
the individual Member States should be harmonised, but that
if at all possible, the definitions and technical regulations of
the IAEA should be resorted to. Before introducing technical
definitions or regulations that diverge from the IAEA system,
the priority should be to try and close or eliminate any
shortcomings of the IAEA system.

4.6.2.
The Committee supports the Commission’s proposal
with regard to Article 2(10) that ‘conventional waste’, i.e. non-
radioactive waste from decommissioning work, should be
treated and disposed of in accordance with relevant existing
provisions. The Committee therefore considers the disposal of
such waste not to be covered by points 4.6 and 4.6.1.

4.10.
The Committee believes that it is necessary to ensure,
by applying minimum procedural standards, that authorisation
procedures are transparent and that they adequately involve
those potentially concerned. The Committee is pleased to note
that this is already set out in Council Directive 97/11/EC (2) (of
27 March 1997) and recommends that the Member States
follow this procedure if they are not already doing so (3).

4.7.
The Commission’s proposed directives for disposal of
nuclear waste envisage definite timetables for authorisation of
the various sites; in particular, they stipulate that in Member
States where spent fuel has to be disposed of, authorisation for
operation of the final storage facility must be granted by 2018
at the latest. The Committee shares the Commission’s view
(highly
that
radioactive) spent nuclear fuel that is not to be reprocessed
cannot be regarded as a suitable or sustainable alternative to
underground final storage.

indefinite surface or near-surface storage of

4.11.
The Committee explicitly welcomes the fact that the
Commission also intends to continue providing support for
research on the safety of nuclear installations and disposal
of radioactive waste and coordinating research across the
Community. It stresses once again (4) that these programmes
should be promoted adequately and on a broad basis. It
considers that they make an important contribution to achiev-
ing optimum protection of public health and therefore also
calls upon the Member States to address this issue properly
and more thoroughly in their national research programmes.

The Committee nevertheless thinks that, despite the
4.8.
apparently generous time frame (2018), the timetable pro-
posed by the Commission might be too tight for the Member
States, including the accession countries, to not just find a
solution but also win political acceptance for it. Finding a
satisfactory solution quickly will increase the level of safety
attainable. Basically, every Member State operating nuclear
installations should provide at least one suitable final storage

(1) OJ L 35, 12.2.1992, p. 24.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
(3) The Committee also refers to the Espoo Convention of 25.2.1991,
in force since 10.9.1997, a UN convention that is binding under
international law.

(4) OJ C 260, 17.9.2001, p. 6 and OJ C 241, 7.10.2002, p. 3.

C 133/74

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.6.2003

5. Conclusions

The Committee:

— reaffirms the basic obligation of the Member States and
the Community to guarantee the safety of nuclear
installations and the disposal of radioactive waste;

— fundamentally endorses the Commission’s initiative to
achieve this, in particular also with a view to harmonising
regulatory systems and in anticipation of enlargement;

— does not question the remit of the Community in this
area, which at present is implicitly legitimised by its
responsibility for protecting the health of the general
public and workers, but does question its responsibility
for the proposed decommissioning funds;

— recommends that the current remit of the Member States
and their safety authorities should remain unchanged,
and that operators of nuclear installations should also
continue to bear sole responsibility for their safety
(polluter-pays principle);

— recommends that no new technical regulations and
definitions be introduced, but rather that respect for IAEA
guidelines be ensured and that the Community contribute
to the further development of those guidelines;

— recommends that rules be interpreted and monitoring of
their application prescribed in such a way as to: stimulate
and promote innovative development of the various
safety and disposal concepts and competition between
them;

Brussels, 26 March 2003.

— agrees with the Commission’s view that the highly
radioactive waste produced in each Member State should
if possible be permanently stored in suitable geological
formations, without excluding the possibility of a volun-
tary sharing of tasks with neighbouring Member States.
However, it recommends that the timetable for authoris-
ation of such final storage sites by the Member States
should be made more flexible and be adapted to the
specific circumstances of the Member States;

— supports the Commission’s objective of ensuring that
sufficient funding is available from the Member States for
decommissioning nuclear facilities, but recommends that
the Member States retain sole responsibility for this task;

— recommends clarifying and ensuring, by amending
Articles 7(1) and 12(1), that the implementation of the
procedures provided for in the directive or recommended
by the Committee and the timetable for implementation
will not unfairly restrict, discriminate against or impede
nuclear installations already in operation or planned
insofar as they satisfy the current Member States’ high
safety standards, and that the principles of maintaining
acquired rights and providing planning and legal certainty
are therefore also respected on a balanced basis;

— supports the Commission’s intention to vigorously pro-
mote research relating to safety of nuclear installations
and disposal of radioactive waste in the future and to
coordinate such research across the Community and
considers this to be a very important factor for optimum
protection of public health in the future. It also calls on
the Member States to address this issue properly and
more thoroughly.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH