COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying document to the  revised proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE (Euratom)
Date: 2010-11-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: civil defence, environmental protection, irradiated fuel, nuclear research, nuclear safety, radiation protection, radioactive waste, underground storage of waste, waste management

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 3.11.2010 
SEC(2010) 1289 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying document to the 

revised proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE (Euratom) 

on the Management of Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT  

COM(2010) 618 
SEC(2010) 1290 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

2. 

Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties .............................................. 5 

Organisation and timing............................................................................................... 5 

Consultation and expertise ........................................................................................... 5 

Problem identification and analysis ............................................................................. 8 

2.1. 

The problem that requires action.................................................................................. 8 

2.1.1.  Overview ...................................................................................................................... 8 

2.1.2.  Management of spent fuel and radioactive waste in the EU...................................... 11 

2.1.3.  Legislative framework in force governing the management of radioactive waste and 

spent fuel .................................................................................................................... 12 

2.1.3.1.  Legislative framework at EU level............................................................................. 12 

2.1.3.2.  Regulatory instruments at international level (IAEA) ............................................... 14 

2.1.4.  Concept development at NEA/OECD level ................................................................ 16 

2.1.5.  Conclusions and problem definition .......................................................................... 18 

2.2.  Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent? .................................................. 18 

2.3. 

Underlying drivers of the problem............................................................................. 19 

2.3.1. 

Socio-political: need for political commitment and sufficient public information and 
participation in the decision-making ......................................................................... 20 

2.3.2.  Need for sufficient scientific and technical resources................................................ 20 

2.3.3.  Need for sufficient financial resources ...................................................................... 21 

2.4. 

Foreseen evolution of the problem............................................................................. 23 

2.4.1.  National frameworks.................................................................................................. 23 

2.4.2.  Management of spent fuel and radioactive waste...................................................... 23 

2.4.3.  Financing ................................................................................................................... 24 

2.4.4.  Environmental impact ................................................................................................ 24 

2.4.5.  Economic impact........................................................................................................ 25 

2.4.6. 

Social impact.............................................................................................................. 26 

2.5. 

Community right to act .............................................................................................. 27 

2.5.1.  Euratom Treaty legal basis ........................................................................................ 27 

2.5.2.  Competence recognised by the Council of the European Union, by the European 

Parliament and by European Economic and Social Committee................................ 27 

EN 

2 

   EN 

2.5.3. 

Subsidiarity ................................................................................................................ 28 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

4.4. 

4.5. 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

Objectives................................................................................................................... 30 

General policy objectives........................................................................................... 30 

Specific objectives ..................................................................................................... 30 

Consistency with other policies and objectives ......................................................... 31 

Policy options............................................................................................................. 31 

Policy option 0: consists in keeping the current situation unchanged ("do nothing").31 

Policy option 1: consists in strengthening the internationally accepted principles and 
requirements, laid down in the IAEA Safety Standards and the Joint Convention5, for 
management of radioactive waste and spent fuel throughout the Community, by 
rendering them both legally binding and enforceable at EU level............................. 31 

Policy option 2 goes beyond policy option 1 by establishing in addition specific 
requirements for national programmes for radioactive waste and spent fuel 
management throughout the Community................................................................... 33 

Other options discarded at an early stage................................................................... 35 

Instruments................................................................................................................. 35 

Analysis of impacts .................................................................................................... 36 

Policy option 0 ........................................................................................................... 36 

Policy option 1 ........................................................................................................... 36 

5.2.1.  Environmental impact ................................................................................................ 36 

5.2.2.  Economic impact........................................................................................................ 37 

5.2.3. 

Social impact.............................................................................................................. 37 

5.2.4.  Administrative burden and other impacts .................................................................. 37 

5.3. 

Policy option 2 ........................................................................................................... 38 

5.3.1.  Environmental impact ................................................................................................ 38 

5.3.2.  Economic impact........................................................................................................ 38 

5.3.3. 

Social impact.............................................................................................................. 39 

5.3.4.  Administrative burden and other impacts .................................................................. 39 

6. 

7. 

Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 39 

Monitoring and Evaluation ........................................................................................ 41 

ANNEX 1: COMPARATIVE TABLE, IAEA Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel 

Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management – Euratom 
legislative instrument (Directive) covering the Management of Radioactive Waste 
and Spent Fuel (Policy options 1 and 2 of the Impact Assessment) .......................... 43 

EN 

3 

   EN 

ANNEX 2: CONSULTATION AND EXPERTISE ................................................................ 51 

ANNEX 3: NATIONAL APPROACHES FOR MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE 

WASTE AND SPENT FUEL IN THE EU................................................................ 69 

ANNEX 4: WASTE AND SPENT FUEL IN STORAGE AT THE END OF 2004 ............... 79 

Disclaimer: This report commits only the Commission's services involved in its preparation 
and does not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission 

Lead DG: DG ENER 

Other involved services: SG, LS, DG RTD, DG JRC, DG ENV, DG SANCO, DG ECFIN, 
DG CLIMA 

Agenda Planning or WP reference: 2010/ENER/021 

EN 

4 

   EN 

1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

1.1. 

Organisation and timing 

The  elaboration  of  a  revised  proposal  for  legislation  on  the  management  of  spent  fuel  and 
radioactive waste is included in the Commission's agenda planning 2010 and the Commission 
action is planned to be adopted in October 2010 (item 2010/ENER/021). 

The Directorate-General for Energy is the lead service on addressing the management of spent 
fuel  and  radioactive  waste  in  the  EU.  For  the  purpose  of  elaborating  the  current  Impact 
Assessment,  an  Inter-Services  Steering  Group  was  established  with  representatives  of  DG 
ENER,  SG,  LS,  DG  RTD,  DG  JRC,  DG  ENV,  DG  SANCO,  DG  ECFIN  and  DG  CLIMA. 
The Group met twice - in November 2009 and in June 2010. Three draft Impact Assessments 
were elaborated and commented within the Group. 

The  Impact  Assessment  Board  has  assessed  the  draft  Impact  Assessment  submitted  to  their 
attention in June and July 2010 and issued opinions on 16 July 2010 and 7 September 2010.  

In line with these opinions, the draft impact assessment has been revised, in particular to 

–  better explain, in the problem definition section, the nature of the implementation problems 
with  the  current  international  framework  (see  sections  2.1.1,  2.1.3.2,  2.1.5,  4.2  and  4.3, 
annex 1),  

–  better  explain  the  scale  of  the  risks  involved,  the  costs  of  storage  and  disposal  of 
radioactive  material,  and  how  funding  requirements  for  these  costs  could  affect 
competition in the electricity market (see sections 2.3.3 and 2.4.5).  

–  explain  more  clearly  how  binding  EU  rules  could  address  the  problem  and,  in  addition, 
analyses the subsidiarity aspects in greater detail (see sections 2.1.3.2, 2.1.5, 2.5.3, 4.2 and 
4.3, annex 1).  

–  explain  more  clearly  what  would  be  required  from  Member  States  under  the  different 

policy options (see sections 2.1.3.2, 2.5.3, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, annex 1) 

–  reformulate the section on social impacts to address issues concerning health and safety at 
work  associated  with  storage  and  disposal  activities  (see  sections  2.4.6,  1.2,  2.1.3.1  and 
2.2) 

–  explain in more concrete terms how funding for future storage might distort competition in 
the internal market (see section 3.3.), and how the proposed options will improve this (see 
section 5) 

–  explain how the EU enforcement regime would work in practice (see sections 4.2. and 4.3.) 
and clarify the subsidiarity aspects of the proposed mechanisms for improving compliance 
(see section 2.5.3.). 

1.2. 

Consultation and expertise 

In  2003,  the  Commission  proposed  two  Council  Directives  (Euratom)  dealing  respectively 
with  the  safety  of  nuclear  facilities  and  with  the  management  of  spent  nuclear  fuel  and 

EN 

5 

   EN 

radioactive  waste  and,  in  2004,  resubmitted  to  the  Council  amended  proposals1.  After  long 
discussions, the Council called in its June 2004 Conclusions2 for an “extensive consultation” 
with stakeholders before any instrument in this field was developed in the framework of the 
Euratom Treaty. 

Throughout  the  elaboration  process  of  the  2003/2004  proposals  for  a  Council  Directive 
(Euratom)  on  the  management  of  spent  nuclear  fuel  and  radioactive  waste1,  a  wide 
consultation on the value of a legislative framework covering the management of spent fuel 
and  radioactive  waste  management  legislation  was  carried  out  at  the  initiative  of  the 
Commission.  This  consultation  was  in  addition  to  the  consultations  resulting  from  the 
legislative  procedure  provided  for  in  the  Euratom  Treaty  (the  opinions  of  the  Group  of 
Experts set up by Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty and of the European Economic and Social 
Committee). 

Following the June 2004 Council Conclusions2, additional extensive stakeholders and public 
consultations have been carried out at EU level in compliance with the General Principles and 
Minimum  Standards  for  Consultation  of  Interested  Parties  by  the  Commission3.  Many 
contributions from different stakeholders have been received by the Commission, including: 

–  A  detailed  contribution  from  the  Group  of  European  Nuclear  Safety  Regulators 
(ENSREG),  specifically  set  up  to  advice  the  Commission  on  nuclear  safety  and  waste 
management  matters.  It  is  of  key  importance  in  view  of  the  specific  competence  of 
ENSREG, which represents the national regulatory or safety authorities competent for the 
safety of nuclear installations and for the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste 
management,  coming  from  the  Member  States  with  and  without  nuclear  power 
programmes. This contribution was prepared by a dedicated working group, discussed and 
approved at  the Plenary  Meeting  of ENSREG on 4  June 2010. It contains  key  principles 
and  guidelines  as  a  basis  for  the  Commission  to  prepare  legislation  on  management  of 
radioactive waste and spent fuel management; 

–  replies  to  an  open  public  consultation  on  "Approaches  for  a  possible  EU  legislative 
proposal  on  the  management  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste"  via  an  on-line 
questionnaire on the European Commission website ("Your Voice in Europe"); 

–  the  results  of  the  Special  Eurobarometer  surveys  on  European  citizens'  attitudes  towards 

radioactive waste and nuclear safety; 

–  a position paper "Contribution to the Stakeholder Consultation Process for a Possible EU 
Instrument  in  the  Field  of  Safe  and  Sustainable  Spent  Fuel  and  Radioactive  Waste 
Management"  elaborated  under  the  auspices  of  the  European  Nuclear  Energy  Forum 
(ENEF), which was founded in 2007. The forum brings together relevant stakeholders in 
the  nuclear  field,  such  as  the  governments  of  all  27  EU  Member  States,  the  European 
Institutions  including  the  European  Parliament  and  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee, the nuclear industry, electricity consumers and representatives of civil society; 

1 

2 

3 

Initial  2003  Commission  proposal  (COM  2003/32  final)  and  revised  2004  version  (COM  (2004)526 
final. 
June 2004 Council conclusions on Nuclear Safety and Safe Management of Spent Fuel and Radioactive 
Waste, 10823/0.   
COM(2002)704. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
 
–  the  Technology  Platforms  for  Sustainable  Nuclear  Energy  (SNE  –  TP)  and  for 

Implementing Geological Disposal (IGD – TP); 

–  "Collective opinion of the Club of Agencies in the consultation process for a possible EU 
instrument  in  the  Field  of  Safe  and  Sustainable  Spent  Fuel  and  Radioactive  Waste 
Management".  The  Club  of  Agencies  is  a  group  of  European  radioactive  waste 
management  organisations,  set  up  to  exchange  information  on  all  aspects  of  radioactive 
waste management; 

–  the reports of the Council Working Party on Nuclear Safety (WPNS) after consulting the 
EU Member States on the safety of nuclear installations and of spent fuel and radioactive 
waste management in 2005 and 2006. 

A  dedicated  study  of  Regulations  Covering  Radioactive  Waste  Disposal  in  EU  countries, 
finalised  in  2006,  made  recommendations  to  the  Commission  as  to  how  waste  disposal 
regulations might be better harmonised between the Member States. 

The consultations show that there is a broad consensus at the EU level on the following: 

–  There is a need for EU legislation on the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste in 

the long term and its regulation; 

–  Each Member State is responsible for its own spent fuel and radioactive waste management 
policy.  That  policy  should  respect  the  fundamental  principles  for  management  of 
radioactive  waste  developed  under  the  auspices  of  the  International  Atomic  Energy 
Agency (IAEA)4, should be based on scientific and technological progress, and should be 
implemented  through  transparent  processes  enabling  the  public  to  be  properly  informed 
and to be involved in decision making; 

–  Cooperation  both  between  Member  States  and  at  international  level  could  facilitate  and 
accelerate  decision  making,  through  providing  access  to  expertise  and  technology;  EU 
Member  States  should  seek  to  continuously  improve  their  management  of  spent  fuel  and 
radioactive waste in order to ensure a high level of safety at all times. The internationally 
accepted  principles  for  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  management,  laid  down  in  the 
IAEA  Safety  Standards  and  in  the  Joint  Convention5,  form  a  common  framework  for 
achieving and maintaining a high uniform level of safe management of radioactive waste 
and spent fuel throughout the Community; 

–  Each  Member  State  should  put  in  place  a  national  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste 
management  programme  for  transposition  of  its  national  policy  into  clear  provisions  for 
implementation,  including  timeframes  and  milestones,  and  for  subsequent  decision-
making. Such programmes should take a long-term view, cover all types of spent fuel and 
radioactive waste and describe all the stages of implementation. It should be a key tool for 
openness and transparency; 

–  Following  30  years  of  research,  debates  and  peer  reviews,  it  is  broadly  accepted  at  the 
technical  level  that  deep  geological  disposal  represents  the  safest  and  most  sustainable 

4 

5 

The  Principles  of  Radioactive  Waste  Management,  Safety  Fundamentals,  Safety  Series  No.  111-F, 
Vienna, 1995. 
Joint  Convention  of  the  Safety  of  Spent  Fuel  Management  and  on  the  Safety  of  Radioactive  Waste 
Management, http://www-ns.iaea.org/conventions/waste-jointconvention.htm. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
option for the end-point of the management of high level waste and spent fuel considered 
as  waste,  and  that  movement  towards  the  implementation  of  deep  geological  disposal 
should be pursued; 

–  The storage of spent fuel and radioactive waste, including long-term storage at or near the 

surface, is an interim solution but not a true alternative to disposal; 

–  The financing of all stages of management of spent fuel and radioactive waste should be 

the responsibility of the producers of spent fuel and radioactive waste; 

–  Peer  reviews  of  radioactive  waste  management  programmes  are  an  excellent  means  of 
building on experience, confidence, trust and should lead to a steady improvement in the 
management of radioactive waste and spent fuel in the European Union. 

Some stakeholders recognise the potential benefits of sharing facilities for the management of 
spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  if  based  upon  a  voluntary  agreement  between  the  Member 
States concerned. 

In the framework of the open public consultation, Greenpeace and other environmental non-
governmental  organisations  expressed  their  opinions  on  possible  European  legislation  on 
spent fuel and radioactive waste management. In general, they support legal initiatives which 
increase  safety  and  transparency  and  ensure  the  application  of  the  "polluter-pays-principle", 
conditional  upon  the  phasing-out  of  nuclear  power.  However,  in  contrast  to  the  majority  of 
stakeholders, they reject the idea of disposal of radioactive waste as the end point and suggest 
instead monitored long-term storage.  

One  direct  reply  to  the  open  consultation  was  also  received  from  a  Trade  Union  (ver.di, 
Germany) supporting binding legislation, but requesting to include in the legislative proposal 
a  prohibition  on  the  export  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  to  non-EU  Member  States 
coupled with an obligation to use only reprocessing plants sited within EU. In addition, as a 
contribution  to  the  2010  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  (EESC)  Conference  on 
Nuclear  Energy6,  Trade  Unions  (CGT  Mines/Energy,  CES)  underlined  that  as  a  matter  of 
respect for future generations all radioactive waste must be processed and solutions be found. 
They requested more democratic processes and more national and transnational transparency. 

More detailed information about the stakeholders and public consultations, as well as of the 
external expertise is given in Annex 2. The opinions expressed in the public consultation have 
been taken into account in this Impact Assessment.  

2. 

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS  

2.1. 

The problem that requires action 

2.1.1.  Overview 

All Member States have radioactive waste. Radioactive waste and spent fuel are generated in 
many beneficial activities, such as nuclear power production and radioisotope applications in 
medicine,  industry,  agriculture,  research  and  education.  Their  specific  nature  (content  of 

6 

EESC  Conference  "Nuclear  energy:  opportunities  and  risks,  View  of  European  Civil  Society  and 
Stakeholders", 30 November 2009, Brussels. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
radionuclides) requires arrangements for the protection of human health and the environment 
against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation. 

In general, radioactive waste means radioactive material for which further use is not foreseen. 
The  management  of  radioactive  waste  includes  all  activities  that  relate  to  its  processing, 
storage and disposal.  

Spent fuel is generated by the operation of nuclear reactors. There are two options for spent 
fuel management: spent fuel reprocessing to recover plutonium and uranium for possible re-
use, or direct disposal of spent fuel if the spent fuel is considered as waste. Regardless of the 
option  chosen,  radioactive  waste  separated  through  reprocessing  or  spent  fuel  regarded  as 
waste need to be disposed of. 

Radioactive wastes are categorised into low-, intermediate-, and high-level waste depending 
on their level of activity. A distinction can also be drawn between short-lived and long-lived 
radioactive wastes.7 The most hazardous and long-lived radioactive wastes, such as high level 
waste  separated  during  spent  fuel  reprocessing  or  spent  fuel  considered  as  waste,  require 
containment and isolation from humans and living environment for many tens of thousands of 
years whereas short-lived waste requires such containment and isolation for a period of up to 
three hundred years. 

Following the internationally agreed principles and as recently confirmed in the 2008 Council 
Resolution on radioactive waste and spent fuel management8, the ultimate responsibility for 
the safety of spent fuel and radioactive waste management rests with the Member States. This 
is fully in line with the obligations imposed on Member States in Chapter III of the Euratom 
Treaty concerning health and safety. 

Those  who  benefit  today  from  the  use  of  nuclear  energy  and  other  applications  of 
radioisotopes should take care of the spent fuel and radioactive waste they generate, as well as 
the waste expected from decommissioning of existing nuclear installations.  

Given  its  longevity,  radioactive  waste  introduces  a  new  time  dimension  in  the  field  of 
radiation  risk  management.  Both  safety  and  ethical  issues  are  associated  with  this  need  for 
long-term  risk  management.  The  current  generation  has  to  plan  the  management  of 
radioactive  waste  considering  the  possible  future  evolution  up  to  several  hundred  years  or 
even many thousands of years according to its own safety standards and thus to hand over a 
safe legacy. Then it is up to future generations to continue or to reconsider the approach taken 
by the current generation. 

Whatever  the  future  of  nuclear  power  and  other  nuclear  non-power  applications,  the 
implementation  of  disposal  as  the  end  point  of  managing  radioactive  waste  is  needed  for 
assuring both safety and sustainability, as only disposal provides workers, the general public 
and the environment with protection from the  hazards that  the radioactive waste  could pose 
over time. 

7 

8 

Commission  Recommendation  of  15  September  1999  on  a  classification  system  for  solid  radioactive 
waste, OJ L 265, 13.10.1999, p.37. 
17438/1/08 REV1, 17.12.2008, "… Member States are responsible for their radioactive waste and spent 
fuel as well as for their associated national management policy; and that Member States shall set up a 
national radioactive waste and spent fuel management programme." 

EN 

9 

   EN 

                                                 
Disposal should not be confused with storage. Temporary storage of spent fuel and high level 
waste  is  an  important  stage  in  their  overall  management  for  technological  reasons  (heat 
removal and radiation protection). Storage is also needed until such time as disposal facilities 
become  available.  However,  storage  cannot  replace  disposal  as  the  end  point  of  the 
management  of  radioactive waste  and spent fuel considered as waste. In the long term only 
disposal can guarantee protection against potential hazards, as it will eliminate the permanent 
and continuous human activities, such as control, retrieval and repackaging which otherwise 
would be required for an undefined storage time. Disposal with its passive safety means will 
minimise or remove the need for human action.  

As  will  be  shown  in  this  Impact  Assessment,  the  current  situation  of  spent  fuel  and 
radioactive  waste  management  in  EU  Member  States  is  not  satisfactory,  especially  with 
regard to long-term management and disposal, due to the following facts: 

–  existing EU legislation does not cover all aspects of this issue,  

–  the  corresponding  existing  international  convention  shows  weaknesses  as  to  verification 

and enforcement5, 

–  the international convention does not require national programmes for the management of 

all types of radioactive waste and spent fuel from generation through to disposal. 

The potential cross-border impacts of unplanned radioactive releases into the environment as 
demonstrated by the Chernobyl disaster, as well as economic and social considerations require 
setting  high  standards  and  providing  means  beyond  the  scope  and  nature  of  the  existing 
means.  

An EU initiative is required to ensure in a transparent, verifiable and enforceable manner the 
conditions that Member States implement the obligations set out in the existing international 
convention. 

Furthermore, beyond the requirements of this convention, an EU initiative should ensure that 
Member States develop and implement national programmes for the management of all types 
of  radioactive  waste  and  spent  fuel,  from  generation  to  disposal.  This  will  be  reflected  in 
Policy Option 2 of this Impact Assessment. 

The  overall  objective  of  the  initiative  should  be  the  achievement  of  a  sustained  political 
commitment  for  the  safe  management  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste,  enhancing  the 
protection of workers and the general public against the dangers of ionizing radiation beyond 
national borders and thus avoiding undue burdens on future generations. 

This Impact Assessment does not cover: 

–  waste arising from extractive industries that may be radioactive, including uranium mining 
and milling waste, since in general it is regulated under the Treaty on the Functioning of 
the  European  Union  and  the  aspects  specific  to  radioactivity  are  regulated  under  the 
Euratom Treaty (see 2.1.3.1); 

–  authorised  releases  (discharges),  since  they  are  covered  by  the  existing  legislation  under 

the Euratom Treaty, including the Basic Safety Standards Directive (see 2.1.3.1); 

EN 

10 

   EN 

–  radioactive  waste  and  spent  fuel  which  are  outside  the  scope  of  the  Euratom  Treaty  (not 

managed within civilian activities)9. 

2.1.2.  Management of spent fuel and radioactive waste in the EU10 

All  Member  States  generate  radioactive  waste,  irrespective  of  whether  they  have  a  national 
nuclear  power  programme  or  not.  About  85  000  m3  of  radioactive  waste  are  produced 
annually in the EU, mainly short-lived low and intermediate level waste, as well as very low 
level waste. About 280 m3 are high level waste (i.e. vitrified residues from the reprocessing of 
spent fuel) and 5 100 m3 are long-lived low and intermediate level waste. 

Fig.1. General data for radioactive waste in the EU [not including spent fuel] 10 

Fourteen out of the 27 Member States have nuclear power plants in operation, and a further 
two have nuclear power plants which are being decommissioned.11. Each Member State is at 
liberty  to  define  its  fuel  cycle  policy;  it  may  consider  spent  fuel  as  a  valuable  resource  for 
reprocessing, or consider it as waste for direct disposal. Some general data about current and 
expected quantities of spent fuel are presented below. 

9 

10 

11 

The use of nuclear energy for military purposes falls out of the scope of the Euratom Treaty: See ECJ, 
Commission v United Kingdom C-61/03, C-65/04. 
Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council:  Sixth  Situation  Report  on 
Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel Management in the European Union, COM(2008)542 final and Draft 
Commission  Staff  Working  Document,  Sixth  Situation  Report  "Radioactive  Waste  and  Spent  Fuel 
Management  in  the  European  Union",  Brussels,  8  September  2008,  SEC(2008)2416,  COM(2008)542 
final 
14  Member  States  have  nuclear  power  plants  in  operation  -  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Czech  Republic, 
Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and 
the UK; Italy and Lithuania have only nuclear power plants under decommissioning. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Fig.2. General data for spent fuel in the EU10 (in tonnes Heavy Metal) 

The amount of the annual production of spent fuel in the EU is about 3 600 tonnes (Heavy 
Metal),  of which  at least 1 500 tonnes can be currently considered as being placed in long-
term storage for possible direct disposal as waste. 

Some Member States have only very small quantities of spent fuel originating from research 
reactors. Generally the management of the spent fuel is covered  by  ‘take-back’  agreements, 
under which the spent fuel is returned to the country of origin. 

World-wide, there are at present no facilities for disposal of high level waste, including 
spent fuel considered as waste.  

The accumulated high level waste and spent fuel subject to direct disposal are stored either in 
special  centralised  facilities  or  at  the  sites  of  operating  nuclear  power  plants.  A  similar 
situation exists for other long-lived waste.  

While  short-lived  waste  is  generally  disposed  of  in  surface  or  near-surface  (underground) 
facilities in Member States, there are also Member States which have no disposal facilities for 
this type of waste, which arises not only from the nuclear power sector, but also from nuclear 
non-power  applications,  such  as  applications  of  radioisotopes  in  medicine,  industry  and 
research. As for disused sealed sources, most countries have arrangements in place whereby 
‘take-back’  provisions  must  be  incorporated  into  the  supply  contract.  Nevertheless,  disused 
sealed sources which cannot be accepted in facilities routinely used for disposal of short lived 
waste need special disposal solutions. 

The financing of spent fuel and radioactive waste management is based on the "polluter-pays-
principle"  and  funding  mechanisms  are  in  place  or  are  under  preparation  in  many  Member 
States.10,12  

More  detailed  information  about  the  management  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  in 
Member  States,  in  particular  policies,  practices  and  financing,  is  presented  in  Annex  3  and 
details on MS radioactive waste in Annex 4. 

2.1.3.  Legislative framework in force governing the management of radioactive waste and 

spent fuel 

2.1.3.1.  Legislative framework at EU level 

The management of spent fuel and radioactive waste has been addressed at EU level mainly 
through  a  variety  of  legislative  instruments  for  radiation  protection  under  chapter  III  of  the 
Euratom  Treaty  (see  2.5.1).  Existing  European  legislation  does  not  cover  consistently  all 
activities  and  facilities  related  to  the  management  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste.  Nor 
does  it  cover  other  aspects,  such  as  national  policies  and  their  implementation,  public 
information and public participation in the decision making process. 

At present, the Euratom Treaty based legislation covers the following aspects: 

12 

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: Second Report on 
the  use  of  financial  resources  earmarked  for  the  decommissioning  of  nuclear  installations,  spent  fuel 
and radioactive waste, SEC(2007) 1654. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

                                                 
–  Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty requires Member States to provide the Commission with 

general data relating to any plan for the disposal of radioactive waste; 

–  Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for 
the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising 
from  ionizing  radiation13,  whose  provisions  have  been  supplemented  by  more  specific 
legislation, such as, for example, medical application of ionising radiation14, information in 
case of radiological emergency15 or protection of outside workers16. This Directive applies 
to  all  practices  which  involve  a  risk  from  ionizing  radiation  emanating  from  an  artificial 
source or from a natural radiation source in cases where natural radionuclides are or have 
been  processed  in  view  of  their  radioactive,  fissile  or  fertile  properties,  including  all 
activities of spent fuel and radioactive waste management; 

–  Council Directive 2006/117/Euratom of 20 November 2006 on the supervision and control 
of  shipments  of  radioactive  waste  and  spent  fuel17  lays  down  a  Community  system  of 
supervision and control of transboundary shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel; 

–  Council Directive 2009/71/Euratom of 25 June 2009 establishing a Community framework 
for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations18, imposes obligations on the Member States 
to  establish  and  maintain  a  national  framework  for  nuclear  safety.  This  Directive  only 
applies to spent fuel storage facilities and to storage facilities for radioactive waste that are 
on the site and are directly related to other nuclear installations. Thus, it does not cover all 
types of facilities or aspects of the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste. 

In addition, there are EU Directives dealing with environmental assessment19, implementing 
the Aarhus Conventions rights20 and on the management of waste from extractive industries21. 

Also the following non-binding Recommendations apply to the management of spent fuel and 
radioactive waste: 

13 
14 
15 

16 
17 
18 
19 

20 

21 

OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p.1. 
Council Directive 97/43/Euratom, OJ L180, 9/07/97, p. 22. 
Council Decision 87/600/Euratom (OJ L371, 30/12/87, p. 76.); Council Directive 98/618/Euratom (OJ 
L 144, 15/5/1998, p. 1.). 
Council Directive 90/641/Euratom (OJ L 349, 13.12.1990, p. 21.). 
OJ L 337, 5.12.2006, p. 21. 
OJ L 172, 2.7.2009, p. 18. 
Directive  85/337/EEC  on  the  assessment  of  the  effects  of  certain  public  and  private  projects  on  the 
environment, as amended by the Directive 97/11/EC, by the Directive 2003/35/EC and by the Directive 
2009/31/EC (OJ L140, 5.6.2009, p. 114.); Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council  of  27  June  2001  on  the  assessment  of  the  effects  of  certain  plans  and  programmes  on  the 
environment (OJ L197, 21.07.2001 p. 30.). 
Directive  2003/4/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  28  January  2003  on  public 
access  to  environmental  information  and  repealing  Council  Directive  90/313/EEC  (OJ  L  41, 
14.02.2003);  Directive  2003/35/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  26  May  2003 
providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating 
to  the  environment  and  amending  with  regard  to  public  participation  and  access  to  justice  Council 
Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (OJ L 156, 25.06.2003 p. 17.). 
Directive  2006/21/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  15  March  2006  on  the 
management  of  waste  from  extractive  industries  and  amending  Directive  2004/35/EC  provides  for 
measures, procedures and guidance on the management of waste from extractive industries (OJ L 102, 
11.04.2006,  p.  15).  While  this  Directive  covers  the  management  of  waste  from  extractive  industries 
which may be radioactive, it does not cover such aspects as are specific to radioactivity which are a 
matter dealt with under the Euratom Treaty. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

                                                 
–  Commission Recommendation of 6 December 1999 on the Application of Article 37 of the 

Euratom Treaty22   

–  Commission  Recommendation  of  24  October  2006  on  the  management  of  the  financial 
resources  for  the  decommissioning  of  nuclear  installations,  spent  fuel  and  radioactive 
waste23. The focus lies on the adequacy of funding, its financial security and transparency 
in its use, and ensuring that funds are only used for the intended purposes; 

–  Commission Recommendation 2008/956/Euratom of 4 December 2008 on criteria for the 

export of radioactive waste and spent fuel to third countries24. 

2.1.3.2. 

Regulatory instruments at international level (IAEA) 

IAEA Standards 

One of the missions of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is the development 
of safety standards for the protection  of  human  health and the environment against ionizing 
radiation25. These standards, developed in cooperation with Euratom, OECD/Nuclear Energy 
Agency (NEA) and other international organizations, are revised periodically.  

Although  they  do  not  have  a  direct  legally  binding  nature,  most  of  the  States  have  adopted 
these standards in their national legal framework, and they are binding as regards the IAEA's 
own activities and the States' activities in operations assisted by the IAEA. Furthermore, they 
have provided the basis for all Codes of Conduct and Conventions under IAEA auspices. 

The 1995 IAEA publication "The Principles of Radioactive Waste Management"4 defined the 
objective  of  radioactive  waste  management  and  the  associated  set  of  internationally  agreed 
principles,  which  provided  a  common  basis  for  the  development  of  more  detailed  IAEA 
Safety Standards and a basis for national radioactive waste management programmes. These 
principles underlie the general safety requirements  of the  Joint Convention on the Safety of 
Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. 

In  2006  the  IAEA  updated  its  entire  corpus  of  standards  and  published  the  Fundamental 
Safety  Principles26,  which  were  jointly  sponsored  by  Euratom,  OECD/NEA  and  other 
international  organisations.  In  the  preparation  of  this  document,  all  the  safety  principles 
established in earlier Safety Fundamentals publications, including those in radioactive waste 
management, were considered and consolidated into a coherent and consistent set of ten new 
principles. Some of the earlier principles that were found to be more appropriately expressed 
as  requirements  have  been  established  as  such  in  Safety  Requirements  publications27,28. 
During this transformation a full correspondence between the new requirements (respectively 
the earlier The Principles of Radioactive Waste Management4) and the current Fundamental 
Safety Principles is provided26. 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 

28 

OJ L324, 16.12.1999, p. 0023. 
OJ L 330, 28.11.2006, p. 31. 
OJ L338, 17.12.2008, p. 69. 
Article III of the IAEA's Statute, para A6. 
Fundamental Safety Principles, Safety Fundamentals No SF-1, IAEA, Vienna, 2006. 
Predisposal Management of Radioactive Waste, General Safety Requirements Part 5, No. GSR Part 5, 
IAEA, Vienna, 2009. 
Safety of Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities, Specific Safety Requirements, SSR 5, IAEA, Vienna, 
2010, to be published. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

                                                 
As  stated  by  the  Joint  Sponsoring  Organisations  in  the  Preface  of  the  2006  Fundamental 
Safety  Principles,  "Application  of  the  Fundamental  Safety  Principles  will  facilitate  the 
application of international safety standards and will  make for  greater consistency between 
the  arrangements  of  different  States.  It  is  therefore  desirable  that  all  States  adhere  to  and 
advocate  these  principles.  The  principles  will  be  binding  on  the  IAEA  in  relations  to  its 
operation  and  on  States  in  relation  to  operation  assisted  by  IAEA.  States  or  sponsoring 
organisations may adopt the principles, at their own discretion, for application to their own 
activities." 

The  Fundamental  Safety  Principles  were  reflected  in  Directive  2009/71/Euratom  on  nuclear 
safety. 

All  EU  Member  States  are  members  of  the  IAEA  and  participate  in  the  development  and 
adoption of the IAEA’s Standards. 

Joint Convention 

The  Joint  Convention  on  the  Safety  of  Spent  Fuel  Management  and  on  the  Safety  of 
Radioactive Waste Management (Joint Convention) was adopted in 1997 under the auspices 
of the IAEA and entered into force on 18 June 2001 with the following objectives: 

–  to  achieve  and  maintain  a  high  level  of  safety  worldwide  in  spent  fuel  and  radioactive 
waste  management,  through  the  enhancement  of  national  measures  and  international  co-
operation, including where appropriate, safety-related technical co-operation; 

–  to ensure that during all stages of spent fuel and radioactive waste management there are 
effective  defences  against  potential  hazards  so  that  individuals,  society  and  the 
environment  are  protected  from  harmful  effects  of  ionizing  radiation,  now  and  in  the 
future,  in  such  a  way  that  the  needs  and  aspirations  of  the  present  generation  are  met 
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs and aspirations; 

–  to  prevent  accidents  with  radiological  consequences  and  to  mitigate  their  consequences 

should they occur during any stage of spent fuel or radioactive waste management. 

Euratom  and  all  EU  Member  States  with  exception  of  Malta  are  Contracting  Parties  to  the 
Joint Convention. 

This Convention is the first legally binding international treaty on the safety of spent fuel and 
radioactive  waste  management.  Nevertheless,  from  the  point  of  view  of  its  enforcement  the 
Joint Convention represents an incentive instrument, as it does not entail any sanctions for 
non-compliance. The Convention is not designed to ensure the fulfilment of obligations by 
the Contracting parties through control and sanction but is based on their common interest in 
achieving  the  objectives  of  the  Convention.  Failure  to  carry  out  obligations  under  the  Joint 
Convention  (e.g.  submission  of  reports)  has  been  observed  on  several  occasions  by  the 
Commission. 

In  addition,  the  Joint  Convention  does  not  require  the  development  of  national 
programmes  for  the  long-term  management  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste,  even 
though  this  is  regarded  as  a  key  requisite  for  the  successful  implementation  of  national 
policies. Consequently, it also lacks specific requirements as to the elements of such national 
programmes; only the development of a national waste programme guarantees planning and 
implementation of disposal facilities (repositories). 

EN 

15 

   EN 

Furthermore,  the  Joint  Convention  does  not  cover  transparency  and  public  involvement  in 
decision making, which today are considered essential for ensuring that the public's concerns 
are addressed, particularly at the local level.  

Membership of the Joint Convention entails three basic commitments - preparing and making 
available a National Report for review, submitting its National Report to peer review by the 
other Contracting Parties, and attending the review meetings.  

–  National Reports have to be submitted well before (typically half a year before) the three-
yearly  Review  Meetings.  They  shall  include  a  self-assessment  of  the  steps  and  measures 
already taken and progress made in implementing the Convention's obligations, following 
general  reporting  guidelines.  The  report  shall  also  address spent  fuel  management  policy 
and  practices,  radioactive  waste  management  policy  and  practices,  as  well  as  the  criteria 
used to define and categorize radioactive waste.  

–  Contracting Parties may ask written questions on general or specific aspects of the Reports 
submitted by other Contracting Parties, to be answered in writing before a fixed deadline.  

–  Finally,  Contracting  Parties  have  to  attend  the  Review  Meeting,  present  their  National 
Report in Country Group sessions and answer further oral questions. The main outcome of 
the oral discussion is recorded summarising in a few bullet points developments since the 
last  Review  Meeting,  highlights,  good  practices  and  challenges  identified  during  the  oral 
session.  

The  Joint  Convention  does  not  contain  provisions  on  public  information  or  public 
participation concerning all aspects of radioactive waste management. The Review meetings 
are not open to observers or to the public. It is at the discretion of a Contracting Party to make 
the  Report,  the  questions  received  and  answers  provided  as  well  as  the  rapporteur’s  report 
publicly available on their national WEB page.  

Beyond  the  lack  of  enforceability  and  the  lack  of  specific  requirements  for  national 
programmes,  transparency  and  involvement,  the  practical  implementation  of  the  Joint 
Convention  Process  also  shows  weaknesses.  Identified  weaknesses  include  the  following: 
concentrating  mostly  on  formal  compliance  with  the  Joint  Convention  stipulations;  review 
meetings  are  much  too  formal  and  superficial  screening  processes  of  submitted  national 
reports; contracting Parties often tend to demonstrate their own self-perceived excellence; the 
review meeting peer review process is often approached in a spirit of self-defence; States do 
not  always  approach  review  meetings  in  a  way  which  would  provide  real  opportunities  for 
improvement. 

It can be concluded that the Joint Convention is only an incentive instrument based on Peer 
Reviews. Infringements cannot be followed up as foreseen in EU infringement procedures. 

2.1.4.  Concept development at NEA/OECD level 

The  Nuclear  Energy  Agency  (NEA)  at  the  Organisation  for  Economic  Co-operation  and 
Development (OECD) seeks to assist its member countries in developing safe, sustainable and 
societal  acceptable  strategies  for  the  management  of  all  types  of  radioactive  materials,  with 
particular  emphasis  on  the  management  of  long-lived  waste  and  spent  fuel  and  on 
decommissioning  of  disused  nuclear  facilities  mainly  through  its  Radioactive  Waste 
Management Committee. The Committee is a unique multinational committee of specialists at 
the  forefront  in  addressing  both  the  technical  and  societal  requirements  for  durable  and 

EN 

16 

   EN 

sustainable  waste  management  and  decommissioning  solutions.  It  provides  a  forum  where 
policy  makers,  regulators  and  implementing  organisations  can  discuss  issues  of  common 
interest and develop solutions that meet the diverse needs of its participants. 

In  its  "Collective  Statement  on  Moving  Forward  to  Geological  Disposal  of  Radioactive 
Waste"29  and  in  respect  of  the  high  level  waste  and  spent  fuel  considered  as  waste,  the 
Committee states that: 

"Disposal of these wastes in engineered facilities, or repositories, located deep underground 
in  suitable  geological  formations  is  being  developed  worldwide  as  the  reference  solution  in 
order  to  protect  humans  and  the  environment  both  now  and  in  the  future.  Engineered 
geological  disposal  is  thus  seen  as  the  radioactive  waste  management  end-point  providing 
safety without the need of renewed human intervention (…). 

The  overwhelming  scientific  consensus  worldwide  is  that  geological  disposal  is  technically 
feasible.  This  is  supported  by  extensive  experimental  data  accumulated  for  different 
geological  formations  and  engineered  materials  from  surface  investigations,  underground 
research facilities; by the current state of the art in modelling techniques; by the experience 
in operating underground repositories for other classes of waste; and by the advances in best 
practice for performing safety assessment of potential disposal systems. 

Disposal  can  be  accommodated  in  a  broad  range  of  geological  settings,  as  long  as  these 
settings are carefully selected and matched with appropriate facility design and configuration 
and engineered barriers (…). 

Delaying  work  on  geological  disposal  –  i.e.  by  adopting  a  "wait  and  see"  strategy  –  would 
require  increasingly  more  demanding  care  for  the  waste  and  its  storage  facilities.  Moving 
forward with implementation of geological disposal is, thus, desirable from the point of view 
of  both  ethics  and  safety.  Sufficient  information  now  exists  to  take  the  first  steps  and  put  a 
plan in place commensurate with the current generation's responsibility". 

Despite  this  statement,  no  country  in  the  world  has  yet  a  disposal  facility  in  operation  for 
high-level waste and spent fuel considered as waste, though many countries with significant 
civil nuclear power programmes are carrying out investigations and research with a view to 
implementing solutions at some stage in the future. In all cases, geological disposal is the only 
end-point option that is being actively pursued.  

As regards the EU, there is a good likelihood of disposal facilities for high level radioactive 
waste  in  Finland,  Sweden  and  France being  in  operation  by  2025  (see  Annex  3). In  third 
countries,  implementation  schedules  are  less  advanced,  and  in  the  USA  additional 
investigations  have  been  ordered  by  the  President.  It  is  important  to  note  that  a  number  of 
countries  with  stalled  geological  disposal  projects  have reviewed  all  options  as  part  of a 
broad-based  stakeholder  consultation and/or  associated  expert  solicitation,  and  geological 
disposal emerged from those processes as the only practicable long-term management strategy 
(e.g. Switzerland, Canada UK, Germany). 

29 

ISBN 978-92-64-99057-9. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

                                                 
2.1.5.  Conclusions and problem definition 

All  Member  States  generate  radioactive  waste  and  have  to  ensure  that  it  is  managed 
appropriately in order to ensure the protection of human health and the environment against 
dangers arising from ionizing radiation and to avoid leaving the waste for future generations. 
Waste  management  has  to  cover  spent  fuel  and  all  types  of  radioactive  wastes  for  all 
management stages from generation through to disposal.  

The  implementation  of  disposal  as  the  end  point  of  managing  the  existing  and  future 
radioactive waste is needed for assuring both safety and sustainability. The storage of spent 
fuel  and  radioactive  waste,  including  long-term  storage  at  or  near  the  surface,  is  an  interim 
solution but not a true alternative to disposal. The safe long-term management of spent fuel 
and radioactive waste is of key importance for protecting the health of European workers and 
the  general  public.  To  that  end  all  Member  States  need  to  develop  national  programmes 
covering in particular also the transit from interim storage to disposal.  

Key  decisions  have  still  to  be  taken  in  most  Member  States  for  managing  spent  fuel  and 
radioactive  waste  up  to  the  end  point,  especially  for  the  planning  and  implementation  of 
disposal. A "wait-and-see" policy should be avoided.  

In  this  context,  the  existing  international  framework  is  not  sufficient,  in  particular  since  it 
does  not  entail  any  sanctions  for  non-compliance  and  does  not  require  the  development  of 
national programmes for the long-term management of spent fuel and radioactive waste. 

An  EU  initiative  could  clearly  contribute  to  the  overall  effort  to  address  safety  and  public 
health concerns related to the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste. This 
could be achieved by: 

–  creating  the  conditions  for  implementation  of  the  existing  international  agreements  to 
which  Member  States  have  already  subscribed,  in  particular  by  introducing  EU 
infringement procedures in case of non-compliance, and 

–  going beyond the provisions of the international framework, by requiring the development 
of national programmes for the long-term management of spent fuel and radioactive waste. 

2.2.  Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent? 

The management of spent fuel and radioactive waste inevitably affects: 

–  workers  exposed  to  ionising  radiation  in  the  field  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste 

management; 

–  European  citizens,  who  (according  to  the  special  Eurobarometer  studies)  are  concerned 
about  the  risks,  related  to  radioactive  waste,  in  particular  the  possible  effects  on  the 
environment and health. This is particularly the case for: 

–  citizens living near potential or selected disposal sites. In Finland and Sweden, where the 
projects for geological disposal of spent fuel are most advanced and the public is not only 
well  informed  but  also  involved  in  the  decision-making  process,  more  than  60%  of  the 
citizens  consider  deep  geological  disposal  the  most  appropriate  solution  for  long-term 
management  of  high  level  waste  whilst  support  at  municipality  level  is  even  higher. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

However, overall in the European Union, public opinion on deep underground disposal is 
rather divided; 

–  Governments,  who  are  responsible  for  formulation  and  implementation  of  their  national 
policies  for  long-term  management  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste.  Legal  and 
organisational frameworks are needed for implementing the national policy; 

–  national regulators, who have to guarantee the safety of spent fuel and radioactive waste at 

all times; 

–  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  producers,  including  operators  of  nuclear  power  plants, 
who are responsible for ensuring the safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste 
within their premises, and who should cover all costs for spent fuel and radioactive waste 
management up to disposal. Spent fuel and radioactive waste management costs, including 
for disposal, have to be seen as part of the cost of electricity production and should not lead 
to distortion of competition; 

–  waste  management  organisations,  who  are  responsible  for  the  safe  management  of  spent 

fuel and radioactive waste in the long term, including planning and implementation; 

–  research  and  technical  support  organisations,  who  provide  the  needed  scientific  and 
technical  support,  including  for  technical  solutions,  safety  case  preparation  and  safety 
assessment.  International  cooperation  makes  sense  only  in  the  context  of  a  sufficiently 
extensive national programme, otherwise mutual benefits are difficult to realise; 

–  consumers, who pay the price of electricity or of other nuclear non-power applications (e.g. 
in medicine, industry). The price they pay should reflect the full costs (including costs for 
disposal). 

2.3. 

Underlying drivers of the problem 

The  underlying  drivers  of  the  problem,  as  well  as  possible  impacts  are  illustrated  in  the 
following  schema  and  are  described  below  and  in  the  baseline  scenario  provided  in  chapter 
2.4. 

Increasing efforts 
for ensuring safety 
and knowledge preservation

Distortion of competition

Burdens on future generations

Increased risks induced by
political, economical or 
social disruptions

Potential consequences

Wait-and-see policies

Potential drivers

Need for political commitment

Need for public information
and participation

Need for scientific, technical 

and financial resources

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
2.3.1.  Socio-political: need for political commitment and sufficient public information and 

participation in the decision-making 

In recent decades there has been a growing awareness that socio-political aspects need to be 
considered  when  discussing  the  long-term  management  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste 
and  the  implementation  of  disposal  systems  in  particular.  This  has  been  underlined  in 
different Eurobarometer surveys over the years30. Experience gained in a number of countries 
demonstrates that political commitment and public confidence are crucial when attempting to 
make progress in this regard. 

The  implementation  of  geological  disposal  requires  a  long-term  political  commitment, 
modern governance concepts, building on a step-by-step approach and early involvement of 
national  and  local  stakeholders,  to  ensure  sound  consultations  and  broad  acceptance.  Such 
modern  governance  concepts  have  successfully  laid  the  foundation  of  the  Finnish  and 
Swedish  approaches.  In  contrast,  other  countries  may  be  technically  equally  advanced,  but 
have  not  made  much  progress  towards  implementation,  mainly  for  reasons  of  political  will 
and/or public acceptance. 

The  views  and  political  power  of  the  citizens  determine  policy  in  a  democratic  society.  To 
date, the principal factor limiting progress of national programmes has been the lack of public 
support and confidence, mainly due to an insufficient involvement in the early stages of the 
decision-making processes at national and local level. If there is no national policy on spent 
fuel  and  radioactive  waste  management,  public  acceptance  of  disposal  solutions  is  low  and 
vice versa. This might explain why the political willingness and motivation to take decisions 
in this field are often weak. 

Although  there  is  a  widespread  recognition  that  the  critical  path  towards  implementation  of 
disposal  facilities  is  now  determined  by  the  need  for  public  confidence  rather  than  by 
technical  issues,  it  has  to  be  pointed  out  that  geological  disposal  is  a  complex  and 
multidisciplinary  issue.  From  a  technological  standpoint,  geological  disposal  does  not 
represent  an  insurmountable  challenge,  although  the  long-time  scales  involved  imply  that 
inevitably there are uncertainties in the models and in the data to be used in the performance 
and safety assessment of the facilities. It is important to gain the trust of public, stakeholders 
and  decision-makers  that  geological  disposal  can  be  demonstrated  to  be  a  safe  long-term 
waste  management  solution:  a  lack  of  early  public  and  stakeholders'  involvement  in  the 
process  undoubtedly  leads  to  delays  in  implementation  in  relation  to  the  plans  initially 
foreseen. 

Also,  the  idea  of  shared  repositories,  recognised  as  being  potentially  beneficial  for  Member 
States with small nuclear programmes, requires political and public acceptance in the Member 
States concerned. 

2.3.2.  Need for sufficient scientific and technical resources 

In  quite  a  number  of  Member  States  there  are  still  deficits  in  the  scientific  and  technical 
resources  related  to  the  development  of  waste  management  programmes,  in  particular  with 
regard to the identification of suitable geological disposal as the end point. 

30 

Special Eurobarometer 271 "Europeans and nuclear safety" EC, February 2007; Special Eurobarometer 
324 "Europeans and nuclear safety", EC, March 2010; Special Eurobarometer 297 "Attitudes towards 
radioactive waste", EC, June 2008. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

                                                 
Studies  funded  under  the  European  Research  Framework  Programmes  have  contributed  to 
progress in these areas through cooperation, joint programmes and transfer of knowledge and 
technology. The newly created Technological Platform for Implementing Geological Disposal 
is a tool supporting confidence-building in the safety and implementation of deep geological 
disposal facilities.  

2.3.3.  Need for sufficient financial resources 

The  timely  planning  and  implementation  of  all  steps  necessary  for  the  safe  management  of 
spent fuel and radioactive waste up to disposal strongly depends on careful and continuously 
updated  cost  assessments  and  ensuring  the  necessary  financing.  In  accordance  with  the 
polluter-pays  principle,  nuclear  operators  should  set  up  adequate  funds  on  the  basis  of  the 
revenues obtained from their nuclear activities. These funds should be properly managed and 
protected, in order to make sure that they are available when costs arise. 

The financial provisions for the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste should also 
take  into  account  radioactive  waste  produced  outside  commercial  activities.  Therefore,  all 
Member  States,  independent  of  whether  they  produce  nuclear  energy,  should  ensure  that 
adequate financial resources will be available when needed for the management of all types of 
radioactive  waste.  For  this  reason,  it  is  necessary  that  cost  estimations  and  financial 
provisions cover all types of radioactive waste.  

Interim  storage  and  especially  disposal  imply  important  cost  depending  on  the  chosen 
technical solutions, the category and volume of the radioactive waste as well as the foreseen 
periods of operation. National programmes therefore have to aim at an optimisation between 
all  parameters,  also  considering  radioactive  doses  to  workers  and  the  overall  objective  to 
avoid  undue  burdens  and  risks  for  future  generations.  Given  the  long  implementation  and 
operation times, considerations have also to take into account the uncertainties as to long-term 
political and social factors. Cost estimates should be transparent enabling stakeholders and the 
public to see boundary conditions and coverage.  

Concrete  cost  data  for  interim  storage  and  geological  disposal  is  available  only  for  a  few 
Member States. The data provided in the tables below is intended to give an indication of the 
order of magnitude of these costs. 

Interim Stores for spent fuel and high level waste 

Bulgariai 

Lithuaniaii 

4iv 

2v 

Spainiii 

9vi 

Capacity (no of nuclear 
power reactor units 
covered by storage 
capacity)  

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
Investment cost (mio €) 

125 

193 

Operating cost (mio €/yr) 

not known 

not known 

540 

3-9vii 

i Source: EBRD 
ii Source: EBRD 
iii Source: data provided by the web-page of Spanish Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade 
www.emplazamientoatc.es (costs of building CIS) and by ENRESA (estimated operational costs). 
iv On-site interim store, start of operation 2011, operating time 50 year 
v On-site interim store, start of operation 2010, operating time 50 years 
vi Central interim store, start of operation planned 2015, operating time 60 years 
vii Depending on operating phase 

Geological disposal projects 

Capacity  (no  of  nuclear  power 
reactor  units  covered  by  disposal 
capacity) 

Investment costiii (mio €) 

Total operating cost (mio €) 

Operating cost (average, mio/yr) 

Swedeni 

10 

2,035 

1,870 

41iv 

Finlandii  

5 

870 

2,140 

24v 

i Source: Technical Report-09-23: Plan 2008 - Cost starting in 2010 for the radioactive residual products from 
nuclear power, basis for fees and guarantees in 2010 and 2011, Reference case, SKB, 2008,  
ii Source: Assessment of Financial Provisions for Nuclear Waste Management - Long-Term Perspective from 
Finnish Viewpoint, Eero Patrakka, Jussi Palmu, Kimmo Lehto, Posiva Oy, Finland, Euradwaste 2008,  
iii Incl. above ground facilities, sealing and closure 
iv incl waste canisters, 90 years of operation  
v 46 years of operation 

Expressed in terms of electricity generating cost, disposal cost as deducted from the Swedish 
and  Finnish  estimates  range  between  0.14-0.16  Euro  cents/kWh  or  3.5-4.0  percent  of  the 
assumed  total  generating  cost  of  4  Euro  cents/kWh  (the  actual  figure  is  commercially 
protected sensitive information).31 

In  conclusion,  the  costs  of  interim  storage  appear  to  be  significantly  lower  than  those  of  a 
geological repository. This is in particular true for countries with relatively small amounts of 
radioactive waste, which are aiming to run disposal facilities for only a short period of time in 

31 

An analysis by the United Kingdom Department of Trade and Industry showed that waste management 
and  decommissioning  costs  for  nuclear  power  plants  represent  only  3%  of  overall  nuclear  generation 
costs  ["The  role  of  nuclear  power  in  a  low  carbon  UK  economy",  May  2007,  DTI/Pub 
8519/4k/05/07/NP. URN 07/970]. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
order to minimise costs. However, these pure cost considerations are neglecting safety risks 
which are increasing over time and may result in considerable damages. 

Compared  to  storage,  disposal  with  its  passive  safety  features  through  technical  and 
geological  barriers  does  not  require  human  action  and  thus  enhances  safety  by  orders  of 
magnitude. 

The timely collection of sufficient funds is a crucial factor for successful implementation of 
disposal: the case of Finland, with concrete commitment of all actors concerned and a timely 
accumulation  of  the  funds,  demonstrates  this.  In  the  Finnish  case,  where  licensees  are 
responsible  for  long-term  waste  management,  the  assets  required  for  the  management  of 
wastes produced in nuclear power plants are collected in advance  from  the  waste  producers 
and  transferred  to  the  State  Nuclear  Waste  Management  Fund.  An  external  fund  serves  as 
reserve for future costs. The Fund does not pay for the waste management activities but only 
ensures the safekeeping of the money corresponding to the costs of the remaining measures.  

One way to reduce costs and to avoid long-term interim storage is by increasing cooperation 
in support of national approaches through the development of shared facilities for spent fuel 
and radioactive waste management. While shared repositories might look appealing in terms 
of  economy  of  scale,  it  is  clear  that  a  Member  State  must  be  willing  to  host  such  a  centre. 
Furthermore,  Member  States  could  delay  taking  their  decisions  due  to  the  expectation  that 
other Member States might construct a joint repository.  

The  R&D  cooperation  between  Finland  and  Sweden,  which  does  not  involve  sharing  of 
repositories, is a good example of how costs can be reduced through cooperation.  

2.4. 

Foreseen evolution of the problem 

2.4.1.  National frameworks 

In  the  absence  of  Community  rules  in  the  field  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste 
management, differences and gaps in national legal frameworks are expected to remain. This 
applies  for  instance  for  the  requirement  for  strong  and  independent  regulatory  bodies, 
provided with sufficient financial and qualified human resources. Without an EU legislative 
instrument,  most  of  the  Member  States  would  not  face  the  obligation  to  develop  national 
policies and implementing programmes for disposal. 

2.4.2.  Management of spent fuel and radioactive waste  

The  management  of  low  and  intermediate  level  short-lived  waste  is  now  at  the  level  of 
industrial  maturity.  Seven  of  16  Member  States  with  nuclear  power  plants  in  operation  or 
under  decommissioning  currently  operate  disposal  facilities  to  deal  with  this  category  of 
waste.  Although  siting  has  proven  to  be  a  challenge  in  some  Member  States,  it  is  expected 
that  disposal  facilities  will  be  commissioned  by  about  2020  in  most  Member  States  with 
nuclear power plants. However, most countries without nuclear power programmes still need 
to develop disposal facilities for this type of waste.  

The  implementation  of  geological  disposal,  as  the  safest  and  most  sustainable  end-point  of 
managing high level waste and spent fuel considered waste, as well as other long-lived waste 
will  continue  to  constitute  the  main  challenge  for  the  years  to  come.  Some  Member  States 
already took well-defined political decisions and schedules – Finland, Sweden and France. It 
is likely that by 2025 these countries will have operational deep geological disposal facilities. 
Germany,  as  well  as  Belgium  and  the  UK  will  possibly  follow.  Many  other  Member  States 

EN 

23 

   EN 

will probably not set any targets dates for operational geological disposal facilities, nor will 
they establish concrete national programmes for their development and implementation. 

As a consequence, there is a danger that the question of disposal is left open as a hostage to 
speculation concerning future societal, scientific or technological developments. 

Long-term interim storage will require continuing and even increasing efforts to ensure safety, 
including  technical  means,  preservation  of  knowledge  and  financing.  Due  to  the  ageing  of 
materials  (e.g.  radioactive  waste  packages,  buildings  and  systems)  there  are  continuous  and 
increasing  needs  of  maintaining  the  store  structure  and  all  infrastructure  for  handling  and 
inspecting  packages,  the  adequate  control  of  the  store  environment  (e.g.  temperature, 
humidity etc), the monitoring of packages for possible degradation, security, protection of the 
site  from  natural  events,  repackaging  of  waste  items  when  judged  necessary,  staff  training, 
regulatory inspections and securing financing.  

Finally, it is expected that without EU action a comprehensive national strategy and detailed 
planning with clear allocation of responsibilities will continue to be missing in most Member 
States or to be not elaborate enough. Therefore, there might be further delays in the planning 
and implementation of all steps of the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste until 
disposal unless an obligation to set up comprehensive national programmes is introduced in 
all EU Member States. 

2.4.3.  Financing 

It is expected that in the absence of comprehensive national programmes, covering all waste 
types and all management stages from generation through to disposal, a sufficiently detailed 
basis  for  estimating  long-term  cost  as  input  to  build  up  adequate  waste  management  funds 
will continue to be difficult or even impossible.  

2.4.4.  Environmental impact 

For the purposes of the current Impact Assessment the analysis mainly addresses the safety-
related impact, i.e. the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the 
dangers  arising  from  ionising  radiation  emanating  from  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste, 
including  contamination  of  water,  air  and  soil.  Other  important  aspects  of  environmental 
protection  go  beyond  the  scope  of  the  Euratom  Treaty  (e.g.  biological,  chemical  and  other 
hazards that may be associated with spent fuel and radioactive waste management).  

As  described  in  chapter  2.4.,  long-term  interim  storage  requires  continuous  and  even 
increasing  human  action,  oversight  and  financing.  Given  the  long  time-spans  involved, 
uncertainties  increase  as  to  political  commitments,  financing,  keeping  of  know-how, 
occurrences of social conflicts, etc. As a consequence, there is an ever increasing risk for a 
degradation or even disruption of the degree of safety of long-term interim storage facilities 
and  the  implementation  of  disposal  with  potential  negative  impacts  on  the  environment  in 
case of failing waste packages and containment structures. Cross border effects are possible as 
well,  for  instance  in  case  surface  and  ground  water  systems  become  contaminated.  It  is 
impossible to quantify the likelihood and extent of such risks as it would require speculations 
about future political, economical and societal developments. In this context it is worth noting 
that insurance companies only offer very limited protection against environmental damages of 
this kind. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

In  addition,  unjustified  extension  of  the  duration  of  long-term  interim  storage  unduly 
increases  the  overall  risk  of  accidents  incl.  airplane  crashes,  fires,  natural  events  (e.g. 
earthquakes, flooding), terrorist attacks etc, potentially resulting in damaged waste packages 
and  storage  buildings  and  subsequent  releases  of  radioactivity  to  the  environment,  affecting 
workers,  the  general  public  and  the  environment.  If  plants  are  designed,  secured  and 
maintained  properly,  such  risks  are  normally  low  but  cannot  be  completely  neglected, 
especially when assuming adverse economical, political or societal developments. 

In  conclusion,  without  EU  action  there  is  an  increasing  risk  of  a  negative  environmental 
impact over time. This will place undue burdens and threats on future generations. 

2.4.5.  Economic impact 

As demonstrated in chapter 2.3.3., the costs of disposal of radioactive waste and spent fuel, if 
regarded  as  waste,  are  in  the  order  of  several  billion  Euros,  equivalent  to  3.5-4.0%  of  the 
electricity  production  cost  in  the  case  of  Finland  and  Sweden.  The  absence  of  national 
frameworks and programs with appropriate funding systems and cost estimates ensuring the 
availability of adequate funds for spent fuel and radioactive waste management when needed 
will  bring  along  the  potential  for  significant  distortions  of  the  internal  electricity  market.  In 
countries  without  disposal  projects,  electricity  companies  might  have  undue  commercial 
advantages over their competitors in other Member States. For instance, in the latter Member 
States,  the  contribution  of  special  levies  for  the  purpose  of  funding  the  management  of 
radioactive  waste  could  lead  to  differences  in  electricity  prices  and  thus  influence  cross-
border trade and competition in the EU electricity internal market. 

The lack of a funding system might lead to a situation where tax payers would have to pay for 
the management of waste produced and left by the previous generations, possibly in the order 
of billions of Euros, violating the polluter-pays principle. This can be especially the case in 
case  polluters  have  ceased  to  exist  at  the  time  additional  funding  is  needed  and  the 
responsibility has been passed to the State.  

The lack of adequate and timely funding, combined with a lack of political commitment and 
oversight by regulatory authorities, might lead to a situation in which the activities required to 
ensure the safety of storage and disposal installations are no longer ensured. In the worst case, 
this might result in accidental releases of radioactivity to the environment as described before. 
Depending on the extent of the release, remediating the consequences might entail high cost, 
including  the  clean-up  of  contaminated  areas  and  the  treatment  of  induced  negative  health 
impacts  on  workers  and  citizens.  As  many  environmental risks cannot be insured, it is very 
likely that the consequence of such releases have to be covered by tax payers. In the absence 
of  concrete  figures  for  such  events,  the  cost  of  current  remediation  activities,  although  not 
necessarily directly comparable, might serve as examples. The remediation of uranium mining 
legacies from the former GDR German Wismut mine is paid by the state and is estimated at a 
total  of  6.2  billion  Euros.  Preliminary  cost  estimates  for  the  retrieval  of  radioactive  waste 
packages from the endangered German Asse salt mine were of the order of 3.5 billion Euros. 

As  shown  in  chapter  2.3.3.,  the  costs  of  long-term  interim  storage  are  considerably  lower 
when  compared  to  a  geological  repository.  This  has  to  be  contrasted  with  the  potential 
economic risk such an approach will entail. As set out before, it would become increasingly 
costly  and  difficult  to  ensure  the  necessary  know-how,  expertise,  scientific  and  technical 
infrastructure  for  operating  and  maintaining  long-term  interim  storage  facilities  and  to 

EN 

25 

   EN 

continuously maintain and improve safety. This would be particularly true for countries which 
decide on a phase-out policy.  

In  conclusion,  the  continuation  of  the  current  situation  has  a  potential  for  a  significant 
negative  economic  impact  with  cost  and  risks  increasing  over  time,  putting  significant 
economic burdens on future generations and potentially leading to a distortion of competition. 

2.4.6.  Social impact 

The  social  impact  of  the  different  options  relates  primarily  on  risks  to  workers  and  other 
people  that  may  be  exposed  to  or  otherwise  come  in  contact  with  nuclear  waste  and 
radioactive material.  

More  specifically  and  as  explained  in  section  2.2,  these  issues  particularly  affects  workers 
exposed to ionising radiation in the context of spent fuel and radioactive waste management, 
but  also  citizens  at  local  or  regional  level  living  more  or  less  close  to  sites  for  managing 
radioactive waste and spent fuel. 

As explained above in 2.4., an unjustified extension of the duration of interim storage of spent 
fuel and radioactive waste instead of disposal requires continuous human actions for control, 
maintenance, repackaging of waste etc. Such activities are connected with workers’ exposure 
to  radiation  and  although  being  in  accordance  with  the  basic  safety  standards  for  radiation 
protection, they do not comply with the fundamental protection principles of justification and 
optimisation,  as  disposal  with  its  passive  safety  feature  would  avoid  such  exposures  once 
waste  packages  have  been  emplaced  and  shielded  appropriately  (e.g.  by  backfilling  of 
repository drifts).  

Additional radiation doses might occur for workers in case of remediating the consequence of 
accidents,  fires,  natural  events,  degradation  of  waste  packages  etc.  In  case  of  unplanned 
radioactive releases to the environment, also the health of the general public might be affected 
by the contamination of waters, soils and air. As stated previously, the potential extent of such 
effects is very difficult to predict but could reach significant dimensions. 

Therefore a key objective of this initiative is to ensure that workers and the general public are 
protected  against  dangers  arising  from  ionizing  radiation  now,  in  the  future  and  beyond 
national  borders  without  imposing  undue  burdens  on  future  generations  and  compromising 
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (see section 3.2 below). 

As  regards  the  protection  of  workers  and  other people  that  may  be  exposed  to  or  otherwise 
come in contact with nuclear waste and radioactive material, the report has taken into account 
the existing health and safety at work legislation (see section 2.1.3.1 - Basic Safety Standards) 
and also the comments from relevant sectoral social partners (see section 1.2, in particular the 
contributions  received  from  trade  unions  during  the  open  consultation  process  and  a  recent 
conference organized by the European Economic and Social Committee). 

EN 

26 

   EN 

2.5. 

Community right to act 

2.5.1.  Euratom Treaty legal basis32 

Civil nuclear activities are regulated in the European Union by the Euratom Treaty, signed in 
1957. The Euratom Treaty contains provisions allowing the Community to regulate the use of 
nuclear energy by the Member States, in particular those governing health protection (Chapter 
3) and nuclear safeguards (Chapter 7). 

The  competence  of  the  European  Atomic  Energy  Community  to  regulate  in  the  field  of  the 
health protection against ionizing radiation is explicitly recognised by the Euratom Treaty. In 
particular,  several  Articles  of  the  Euratom  Treaty  mandate  the  Community  to  establish  "… 
safety  standards  to  protect  the  health  of  workers  and  of  the  general  public…"  Based  on  the 
landmark  ruling  of  the  European  Court  of  Justice  in  the  Case  C-29/99,  the  existing  basic 
safety  standards  aiming  mainly  at  the  protection  of  the  health  of  workers  and  the  general 
public against the dangers arising from ionizing radiations can be "supplemented" in the sense 
of the Euratom Treaty with safety requirements governing the safe management of radioactive 
waste and spent fuel. This competence has been already put in practice. 

The  adopted  legislation  under  the  Euratom  Treaty,  covering  aspects  of  spent  fuel  and 
radioactive waste management, is described under section 2.1.3.1 above. 

2.5.2.  Competence  recognised  by  the  Council  of  the  European  Union,  by  the  European 

Parliament and by European Economic and Social Committee 

As  regards  radioactive  waste  and  spent  fuel  management,  the  Council  and  the  European 
Parliament called for a European framework as follows: 

–  In  its  Conclusions  of  10  November  2009  on  the  Report  by  the  ENSREG33,  the  Council 
"Calls on … the Commission to continue their cooperative work within ENSREG,…, with 
the  prospect  of  developing  a  Community  approach  in  this  field,  …;  further  invites  the 
Commission  to  make  full  use  of  ENSREG  expertise  in  the  case  of  proposals  for  legally 
binding  instruments  in  the  field  of  safe  management  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste 
being considered"; 

–  In 2007 the European Parliament, in its Resolutions, states that it "regrets the absence of a 
legislative  corpus  on  harmonised  standards  for  nuclear  safety,  the  management  of 
radioactive waste"34 and "calls on the Commission and the Member States to finally make 
progress on the issue of final disposal"35 

–  In the 2007 Report on Assessing Euratom – 50 Years of European nuclear energy policy36, 
the  European  Parliament  "invites  the  Commission  to  review  the  relevant  drafts  of  its 
legislative  proposal  and  submit  new  proposals  for  Directives  on  the  safety  of  nuclear 

32 

33 
34 

35 

36 

The Lisbon Treaty, which entered into force on 1 December 2009, amends the Euratom Treaty by its 
Protocol No 2. The Euratom  provisions continue to have their full legal effect and Euratom keeps its 
own legal personality. The amendments are only intended to adapt the Euratom Treaty to the new rules 
laid down in the Lisbon Treaty, in particular in the institutional and financial fields. 
14471/09 ATO 107. 
European Parliament resolution on Assessing Euratom – 50 Years of European nuclear energy policy of 
10 May 2007. 
European  Parliament  Resolution  of  24  October  2007  on  conventional  energy  sources  and  energy 
technology (2007/2091(INI)). 
A6-0129/2007. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

                                                 
facilities, on waste management, and on closure and decommissioning of nuclear facilities 
taking  into  account  the  ‘polluter-pays’  principle".  It  also  "urges  the  Commission  and 
Council to look into this question with all due speed" and asks to be consulted in this work; 

–  The  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee:  "see  an  urgent  need  for  Member  States 
utilising nuclear power to put in place national plans for management of nuclear fuel and 
radioactive  waste.  Anything  else  is  to  be  seen  as  irresponsibly  passing  on  the  present 
generations' obligations to next generations"37 

2.5.3.  Subsidiarity 

Some  Member  States  have  established  plans  for  the  disposal  of  radioactive  waste.  All  EU 
Member  States  are  members  of  the  IAEA  and  participate  in  the  adoption  of  the  IAEA’s 
standards.  Nevertheless,  (as  explained  in  2.1.3.2.)  these  standards  are  not  enforceable,  and 
their  incorporation  into  national  legislations  is  voluntary.  Moreover,  the  Joint  Convention 
does  not  entail  any  sanctions  for  non-compliance.  The  IAEA  Standards  and  the  Joint 
Convention  therefore  do  not  guarantee  a  consistent  and  coherent  approach  to  safety  at  EU 
level.  The  existing  European  legislation  (described  in  2.1.3.1.)  does  not  cover  all  activities 
and facilities related to the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste in the long term, 
nor  does  it  cover  aspects  such  as  national  policies  and  their  implementation,  public 
information  and  public  participation.  To  sum  up,  the  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste 
management  at  present  remains  a  national  responsibility  and  the  actions  at  national  level  in 
most  Member  States  are  not  sufficient  to  achieve  progress  up  to  the  end  point  of  this 
management. 

The development of EU legislation on spent fuel and radioactive waste management would be 
a logical step following the unanimous adoption by all 27 EU Member States of the Directive 
2009/71/Euratom  establishing  a  Community  framework  for  the  nuclear  safety  of  nuclear 
installations.  While  the  nuclear  safety  of  on-site  storage  facilities  for  spent  fuel  and  some 
radioactive waste is covered by this Directive, all other facilities for spent fuel and radioactive 
waste management, such as treatment, encapsulation and disposal facilities remain out of its 
scope of application. Hence, there is a need to supplement the existing Community framework 
on nuclear safety with a similar one for safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste 
to  cover  all  activities  and  facilities  related  to  the  management  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive 
waste in the Community38. 

The  basic  approach  for  proposing  a  Community  framework  on  spent  fuel  and  radioactive 
waste  management  should  be  similar  to  the  one  followed  with  the  nuclear  safety  Directive. 
This  Directive  is  anchored  on  the  competence  existing  in  the  Member  States'  regulatory 
authorities, as well as on the internationally endorsed principles of the Convention on Nuclear 
Safety and of the IAEA Safety Fundamentals26. In addition, Member States retain the right to 
impose  at  national  level  more  stringent  safety  measures  than  those  provided  for  in  the 
Community legal framework.  

37 
38 

Opinion on PINC, 2007. 
Such  a  two-step  approach  has  been  used  at  IAEA  level  with  the  consecutive  development  of  the 
Convention on Nuclear Safety and the Joint Convention on Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on 
the  Safety  of  Spent  Fuel  and  Radioactive  Waste  Management.  It  is  stated  in  the  preamble  (ix)  of  the 
Nuclear  Safety  Convention  that  "Affirming  the  need  to  begin  promptly  the  development  of  an 
international convention on the safety of radioactive waste management as soon as the ongoing process 
to develop waste management safety fundamentals has resulted in broad international agreement".  

EN 

28 

   EN 

                                                 
The new approach for a Community framework on radioactive waste management is based on 
the same principles and fully addresses the concerns expressed by EU Member States vis-à-
vis  the  earlier  proposal  submitted  by  the  Commission  in  2003/4,  which  has  not  found  a 
majority  in  Council  since.  That  proposal  was  made  as  part  of  a  package  of  Directives  on 
nuclear  safety  and  waste  management.  It  was  especially  criticized  for  non-respect  of  the 
subsidiarity principle as it was very descriptive:  

First,  the  "package"  proposal  contained  a  common  unique  EU  funding  system  building  on 
segregated external funds for decommissioning, not taking national specificities into account. 
Second,  it  foresaw  tight  and  uniform  deadlines  for  the  start  of  the  disposal  operation, 
following a "one size fits all" approach. As an example, the year 2018 was given as deadline 
for  having  an  operational  deep  geological  disposal  facility,  a  deadline  which  even  the  most 
advanced  Member  States  with  already  well  established  disposal  programmes  could 
impossibly achieve (Finland is planning to have its deep geological repository operational in 
2020,  Sweden  in  2023).  Third,  it  was  imposing  Commission  inspections  on  national 
regulators  by  a  Community  body  of  inspectors  which  was  seen  by  Member  States  as  a 
violation of the subsidiarity principle. Fourth, there was insufficient stakeholder consultation 
before proposing the Directive.  

In  contrast,  the  revised  approach  does  not  contain  any  excessive  measures  that  might  be 
contrary  to  the  subsidiarity  principle.  Unlike  the  2003/4  proposals,  there  is  ample  room  for 
flexibility in respect of national specificities, such as the timing of disposal, and should new 
challenges  arise,  a  substantial  margin  of  discretion  for  the  Member  States  in  the  practical 
implementation. However, the Commission – in line with the internal market and competition 
principles – would have the power to intervene with the objective to amend the national waste 
management  programme  and  thus  would  prevent  a  potential  distortion  of  competition.  The 
responsibility  for  safety  inspections  remains  fully  with  national  regulators.  Instead  of  being 
excessively descriptive and detailed, the new approach builds on the competence existing in 
Member  States'  regulatory  authorities  and  on  the  internationally  endorsed  principles  of  the 
Joint Convention and IAEA standards.  

Policy option 2 includes the obligation for Member States to set up national programmes for 
spent fuel and radioactive waste management with specific requirements including contents, 
scope, implementation and review. This requirement, while being very effective in bringing 
countries that lag behind in this field up to the level of the leading ones, allows for a lot of 
flexibility in devising the national plans provided that the main principles, such as coherence, 
are fulfilled. In this, it contrasts sharply with the tight and uniform deadlines for the start of 
the  disposal  operation  featured  in  the  2003/4  proposals  mentioned  before.  The  additional 
administrative  burden  would  be  low  for  Member  States  which  already  apply  the  pertinent 
provisions of the Joint Convention.  

The  added  value  of  making  these  principles  legally  binding  for  EU  Member  States  is  that 
there  would  be  legal  certainty  about  these  rules'  enforceability:  Concerned  citizens  and 
organisations that feel unsafe about the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste could 
turn  to  the  Commission,  which  could  start  investigations  or  infringement  procedures  if 
justified. Ultimately, cases could be brought to the European Court of Justice. 

It can be concluded that the safety of spent fuel and radioactive waste management is clearly 
an area where it makes sense to complement national legislation by legislation at EU level due 
to  its  cross-border  aspects  (e.g.  through  contamination  of  air,  soil  and  water).  Protection 

EN 

29 

   EN 

beyond  national  borders  is  an  internationally  accepted  principle  laid  down  in  the  Euratom 
Treaty (particularly Article 37 in respect of disposal of radioactive waste).  

It  should  be  underlined  that  the  IAEA  is  supporting  this  EU  approach  as  model  for  third 
countries and regions. 

To  sum  up,  the  development  of  an  EU  legislative  framework  in  the  field  of  spent  fuel  and 
radioactive waste management is in line with the subsidiarity principle, in particular since it 
provides added value compared to national and international approaches without any undue or 
excessive interference with national competences. 

3. 

OBJECTIVES 

3.1. 

General policy objectives 

The  general  policy  objective  is  to  achieve  and  maintain  the  management  of  spent  fuel  and 
radioactive  waste  as  an  integral  part  of  the  safe  and  sustainable  use  of  nuclear  energy  for 
nuclear power production and of ionising radiation in medicine, industry, agriculture, research 
and education. 

In  particular  this  entails  establishing  a  common  framework  aiming  at  achieving  and 
maintaining  a  high  uniform  level  of  safe  management  of  radioactive  waste  and  spent  fuel 
throughout the Community by recalling internationally accepted safety principles (such as laid 
down  in  the  IAEA  Safety  Fundamentals39  and  the  Joint  Convention40),  and  providing 
requirements for the establishment of national programmes for the management of radioactive 
waste and spent fuel, including development of repositories. 

In the EU and worldwide there is a growing recognition of the need for a responsible use of 
nuclear  energy,  covering  safety  and  security.  This  was  recently  highlighted  at  the  highest 
political levels, in particular at the Paris conference on access to civil nuclear energy, held in 
Paris  on  8-9  March,  the  Washington  nuclear  security  summit  on  12-13  April,  and  the  Non 
Proliferation Treaty Review Meeting in New York, held in May this year. 

The Common Position of the European Union for the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties 
to  the  Treaty  on  the  Non-Proliferation  of  Nuclear  Weapons41  clearly  underlined  "the 
importance of continuing international cooperation in order to strengthen nuclear safety, safe 
waste management, radiological protection and civil nuclear liability and calling upon states 
that have not yet done so to accede to all the relevant conventions as soon as possible and to 
implement fully the ensuing commitments". 

3.2. 

Specific objectives 

The specific objectives in respect of achieving the general policy objective are: 

–  to  achieve  a  sustained  political  commitment  for  the  long-term  management  of  spent  fuel 

and radioactive waste; 

39 
40 

41 

Fundamental Safety Principles, Safety Fundamentals No. SF-1, IAEA, Vienna, 2006. 
Joint  Convention  on  the  Safety  of  Spent  Fuel  Management  and  on  the  Safety  of  Radioactive  Waste 
Management. 
Council Decision 2010/212/CFSP. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

                                                 
–  to  ensure  that  workers  and  the  general  public  are  protected  against  dangers  arising  from 
ionizing radiation now, in the future and beyond national borders, without imposing undue 
burdens  on  future  generations  or  compromising  the  ability  of  future  generations  to  meet 
their own needs; 

–  to ensure a transposition of the political decisions into clear provisions for implementation 
of all steps on radioactive waste and spent fuel management from generation to disposal; 

–  to  achieve  and  maintain  continuing  improvement  of  the  management  system,  based  on 

stepwise decision-taking and social acceptance; 

–  to ensure adequate, available when needed, and transparently managed financial resources 

in accordance with the polluter-pays principle. 

3.3. 

Consistency with other policies and objectives 

The  specified  objectives  are  consistent  with  one  of  the  key  objectives  of  the  Europe  2020 
Strategy  for  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth42  which  aims  at  a  "Resource  efficient 
Europe". This objective requires a gradual shift towards a low-carbon economy. 

In view of the role of the nuclear power production, representing today 2/3 of the low-carbon 
electricity  produced,  along  with  renewable  energies  and  carbon  capture  and  storage,  the 
current proposal will contribute to achieving the European goals for clean energy and fighting 
climate change. The safe and sustainable management of spent fuel and radioactive waste is 
as important for the existing spent fuel and radioactive waste accumulated over decades as it 
is for the future use of nuclear power, including long-term operation of the existing nuclear 
power plants and construction of new ones. 

The specified objectives are fully in line with those of the Basic Safety Standards Directive43 
and  of  other  legislation  in  the  area  of  radiation  protection  and  nuclear  safety,  and  thus  in 
general with the public health and environmental protection policies. 

They  are  also  consistent  with  the  internal  market  and  competition  objectives.  Constructing 
disposal facilities requires important investment. Without a Community framework for spent 
fuel and waste management the diversified situation in the European Union would continue, 
where some Member States are already planning and making financial provisions for disposal 
facilities, but others have even not started to do so. Such a situation clearly leads to distortion 
of competition (see also 5.3.). 

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

4.1. 

Policy  option  0:  consists  in  keeping  the  current  situation  unchanged  ("do 
nothing"). 

This is the business-as-usual scenario, presented in chapter 2.4.  

4.2. 

Policy option 1: consists in strengthening the internationally accepted principles 
and  requirements,  laid  down  in  the  IAEA  Safety  Standards  and  the  Joint 

42 
43 

COM(2010)2020. 
OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p. 1. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

                                                 
Convention5,  for  management  of  radioactive  waste  and  spent  fuel  throughout 
the Community, by rendering them both legally binding and enforceable at EU 
level. 

This  option  consists  in  establishing  at  EU  level  general  requirements  for  a  Community 
framework for spent fuel and radioactive waste management, as well as of a set of associated 
requirements for implementation at national level (national framework). The legislation would 
have  the  structure  as  shown  below,  i.e.  general  requirements  and  implementation 
requirements, including 

–  the generation of radioactive waste to be kept to the minimum practicable, in terms of both 
its  activity  and  volume,  by  means  of  appropriate  design  measures  and  operating  and 
decommissioning practices, including recycle and reuse of conventional materials; 

–  the  interdependencies  among  the  different  steps  in  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste 

generation and management to be taken into account; 

–  to avoid actions that impose reasonably predictable impacts on future generations greater 

than those permitted for the current generation; 

–  to aim to avoid imposing undue burdens on future generations; 

–  an acceptable level of protection of human health, air, water and soil to be provided now 

and in the future, taking into account the possible effects beyond national borders; 

–  appropriate means for information for consultation of stakeholders to be established; 

The  associated  requirements  for  a  national  framework  for  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste 
management  allocate  responsibilities  and  provide  for  coordination  between  relevant  state 
bodies in the long term, including: 

–  formulation  of  a  national  policy  or  strategy  for  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste 

management in long term; 

–  adoption of a national programme for implementation of the national policy or strategy on 

spent fuel and radioactive waste management; 

–  adoption  of  national  requirements  for  safety  of  the  management  of  spent  fuel  and 

radioactive waste, including for the approach to safety; 

–  provision  of  a  system  of  licensing  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  management 
inspections, 

institutional  control, 

regulatory 

activities  and 
documenting and reporting, and enforcement actions; 

facilities,  appropriate 

–  a clear allocation of responsibilities of the bodies involved in the different steps of spent 

fuel and of radioactive waste management; 

–  establishment and maintaining of a competent regulatory authority in the field of the safety 

of spent fuel and radioactive waste management; 

–  ensuring  that  the  prime  responsibility  for  safety  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste 

management rests with the licence holder; 

EN 

32 

   EN 

–  arrangements for education and training providing necessary expertise and skills; 

–  assurance  of  adequate  financing,  taking  due  account  of  the  responsibilities  of  radioactive 

waste producers to cover all costs for radioactive waste management; 

–  provisions for quality assurance; 

–  ensuring public information and participation in decision-making; 

–  provisions for peer reviews of the national framework and competent regulatory authority. 

This option revises the approach taken by the 2004 amended proposal for a Directive on the 
management of spent fuel and radioactive waste1, considering relevant recent developments, 
such  as  new  European  legislation,  recommendations  of  the  Council  and  the  European 
Parliament, development of the concept of geological disposal and related policy (shift from a 
priority option to the safest and most sustainable one), as well as lessons learned in respect of 
subsidiarity and proportionality. 

This  policy  option  would  facilitate  a  Community  control  on  key  safety  aspects  of  the  spent 
fuel and radioactive waste management. If, for example, a Member State had not established a 
clear allocation of  responsibilities of the bodies involved in the different  steps of spent fuel 
and  radioactive  waste  management,  or  if  it  had  not  established  a  competent  regulatory 
authority  in  this  field,  the  Commission  could  take  enforcement  actions  (infringement 
procedures) to request the achievement of these requirements by the Member State. 

However,  the  enforcement  under  policy  option  1  could  not  easily  be  extended  to  missing 
elements of the national programme – which is the core of spent fuel and radioactive waste 
management  –,  as  policy  option  1  does  not  define  the  scope  and  content  of  such  a  national 
programme.  Thus,  policy  option  1  is  lacking  a  clear  benchmark  for  an  infringement 
procedure. 

4.3. 

Policy  option 2 goes  beyond policy option 1 by establishing in addition  specific 
requirements  for  national  programmes  for  radioactive  waste  and  spent  fuel 
management throughout the Community. 

This option includes the approach proposed by policy option 1. In addition, it foresees a third 
set  of  conditional  requirements  for  scope,  contents  and  review  of  national  programmes  for 
spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  management.  The  national  programme  may  be  a  reference 
document  or  a  set  of  documents  and  it  should  be  regularly  updated.  A  deadline  for  the 
establishment  of  the  national  programmes  is  foreseen.  Legislation  would  include  the 
requirements set out below.  

The national programme should cover all types of spent fuel and radioactive waste, within the 
scope of the revised proposal, all the stages of their management from generation to disposal, 
and should include: 

–  inventory  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  –  to  cover  existing  and  foreseen  spent  fuel 

and radioactive waste arising in order to guide solutions; 

–  plans  and  technical  solutions  for  management  of  all  types  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive 

waste from generation to disposal; 

EN 

33 

   EN 

–  plans for the period after closure of disposal facilities, including institutional control; 

–  skills and programmes for research and development; 

–  time schedule - specifying the main milestones and time schedule and defining indicators 

for achievements; 

–  cost assessment of all activities up to disposal; 

–  financing  of  the  programme,  including  the  principles  and  obligations  to  cover  all  costs 

related to the spent fuel and radioactive waste management; 

–  scope  of  responsibilities  and  decision-making  process  –  providing  the  continuity  in  the 

long term; 

–  legal framework - providing information which may be used to review the adequacy of the 
existing legal framework to cover future activities in order to plan future developments as 
necessary. 

It also contains provisions for peer reviews comparing the arrangements for establishment and 
implementation of the national programmes on spent fuel and radioactive waste management 
and identifying best practices. 

Draft  national  programmes  would  have  to  be  sent  for  comment  to  the  Commission  before 
adoption.  

This option would permit to request from Member States not only the fulfilment of the safety 
requirements described in option 1 (for example, the establishment of a competent regulatory 
authority),  but  also  the  design  and  periodic  review  of  national  programmes  for  the 
management  of  their  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste.  This  would  lead  to  improvements  in 
Member  States'  planning  solutions  for  the  management  of  their  spent  fuel  and  radioactive 
waste, including institutional control after disposal.  

The drafting and  regular  update  of  national  programmes  would be  a  mandatory  element  of 
the  proposal.  Given  its  detailed  requirements,  it  provides  the  Commission  with  a  clear 
benchmark for the initiation of enforcement measures against Member States failing to draft, 
review and update them, or against Member States whose national programmes did not cover 
the mandatory elements.  

In  practice,  the  enforcement  regime  under  this  policy  option,  in  addition  to  the  elements 
already described for policy option 1, would be as follows: 

–  Each Member State would have to develop by a given deadline a national spent fuel and 

waste management programme which has to cover all elements as outlined above.  

–  Each Member State is obliged to notify its draft national programme to the Commission by 

a given deadline. 

–  In case a Member State does not submit to the Commission a national programme by the 
given  deadline  or  disregards  Commission  requirements  to  cover  missing  mandatory 
elements, the Commission could open infringement proceedings. 

EN 

34 

   EN 

4.4. 

Other options discarded at an early stage 

The  option  of  reinforcing  a  multilateral  and  international  approach  through  the  IAEA 
was  considered  as  an  option  of  poor  effectiveness.  As  it  is  mentioned  above,  the  Joint 
Convention  is  the  first  legally  binding  international  treaty  on  the  safety  in  spent  fuel  and 
radioactive  waste  management,  but  represents  only  an  incentive  instrument  and  thus  cannot 
entail any sanctions for non-compliance (see 2.1.3.2.). Amending the Convention would be a 
lengthy  and  very  complex  process  as  it  would  require  consensus  between  56  Contracting 
Parties in an intergovernmental procedure. 

In a context of renewed interest in nuclear energy, the IAEA fully supports the EU's move to 
make the international safety standards legally binding and enforceable. By providing binding 
legal force to some key aspects of the main international nuclear safety standards, including in 
the area of nuclear waste management, Europe becomes a real model for the rest of the world. 
The  IAEA  and  the  Commission  are  committed  to  promote  such  regional  approach  in  other 
parts of the world. 

4.5. 

Instruments 

The  possible  instruments  for  implementation  of  the  developed  policy  options  and  their 
effectiveness are considered below. 

The  option  of  using  a  non-binding  instrument  is  considered  ineffective  and  inconsistent 
because of the following considerations: 

–  Recommendations already exist at EU level, formulated in Conclusions and Resolutions of 

the Council and the Parliament (see 2.5.2.); 

–  The same considerations for poor effectiveness as those mentioned above in respect of the 

option of strengthening multilateral international approach through IAEA (see 4.4.). 

The  options  of  proposing  a  binding  instrument  include  amending  the  Nuclear  Safety 
Directive,  through  a  revision  of  the  2004  amended  proposal  for  a  Council  Directive 
(Euratom)1, or the development of a new instrument. 

The  option  of  amending  the  Nuclear  Safety  Directive  is  considered  ineffective.  First  of  all, 
this Directive has not yet been transposed into Member States' legislation (due by July 2011). 
During  the  negotiations  on  this  Directive  the  possibility  of  including  all  spent  fuel  and 
radioactive waste  management facilities  in  its scope (as  nuclear  installations) was  discussed 
and rejected by all Member States in view of its objectives. Also at the international level, two 
Conventions  deal  separately  with  the  safety  of  nuclear  installations  (the  Convention  on 
Nuclear  Safety)  and  with  the  safety  of  the  management  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste 
(the  Joint  Convention).  The  Nuclear  Safety  Directive  aims  at  strengthening  internationally 
accepted  safety  principles  laid  down  the  IAEA  Safety  Standards  and  the  Convention  on 
Nuclear Safety, and the reporting under this Directive respects that under the Nuclear Safety 
Convention44. Another consideration is that this Directive is focused only on nuclear safety. 
Even if such an amendment is possible, it could not include the requirements in respect of the 

44 

"Article 9. Reporting: 1. Member States shall submit a report to the Commission on the implementation 
of this Directive for the first time by 22 July 2014, and every three years thereafter, taking advantage of 
the review and reporting cycles under the Convention on Nuclear Safety". 

EN 

35 

   EN 

                                                 
political  and  social  aspects  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  management,  including  for 
sustainability. In this context, such an approach could not achieve the specified objectives nor 
would it be the consistent with other policies and objectives, as described in section 3.3. 

A revised proposal for a Directive  based on the 2004 amended proposal is considered the 
most relevant approach, in view of the above and of the fact that the developed policy options 
revise the approach taken by the 2004 amended proposal for a Council Directive (Euratom) 
on the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste1. 

5. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

5.1. 

Policy option 0 

The analysis of the impact of this option is presented above in 2.5. 

5.2. 

Policy option 1 

5.2.1.  Environmental impact 

Policy  option  1  would  provide  benefits  in  the  short  term,  providing  Member  States  a 
framework  for  a  uniform  approach  to  safety  at  EU  level.  It  would  cover  all  activities  and 
facilities  related  to  the  management  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  management  and 
would provide an outline reference for the elements of their national frameworks. 

As  an  important  factor,  it  would  strengthen  national  regulatory  authorities  by  ensuring  that 
they  are  provided  with  sufficient  human  and  financial  means  to  successfully  carry  out  their 
duties.  They  would  furthermore  be  provided  with  a  driving  role  in  implementing  common 
European rules on the safety of spent fuel and radioactive waste management. 

Policy  option  1  brings  added  value  with  regard  to  the  requirements  for  national  policies, 
adoption  of  national  requirements  for  their  implementation  and  the  clear  allocation  of 
responsibilities.  It  would  overcome  approaches  being  based  mainly  on  long-term  storage 
without plans and solutions/concepts for disposal. 

Long-term  interim  storage  with  its  inherent  risks  could  therefore  still  be  part  of  national 
programmes,  but  in  the  context  of  more  endurable  national  commitment  towards  safe  long-
term solutions reducing the environmental risks linked to "wait-and-see" approaches. 

Within this framework the subsidiarity principle would be fully respected by recognising the 
sovereign  right  of  Member  States  to  decide  on  their  spent  fuel  management  policy  and  to 
regulate the safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste. 

Another  environmental  aspect  concerns  the  sustainable  use  of  materials  (resources)  via  the 
requirement to keep the generation of radioactive waste to the minimum practicable in terms 
of  activity  and  volume.  This  should  be  done  by  means  of  appropriate  design  measures, 
operating  and  decommissioning  practices,  including  recycle  and  reuse  of  conventional 
materials. This aspect is also connected to the economic and social impacts. 

In  conclusion,  policy  option  1  would  have  a  positive  environmental  impact  at  least  for  the 
shorter  term.  In  the  longer  term,  unjustified  delays  in  the  decision-making  process  and  the 

EN 

36 

   EN 

implementation of long-term interim storage cannot be excluded under this policy option (see 
2.5.1.). 

5.2.2.  Economic impact 

the  objectives  of 

the 
Strengthening 
management of the financial resources for the decommissioning of nuclear installations, spent 
fuel  and  radioactive  waste  management24  would  provide  benefits  as  it  guarantees  financing 
for the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste in accordance with the polluter-pays-
principle. 

the  existing  Commission  Recommendation  on 

However  as  policy  option  1  does  not  have  detailed  requirements  for  the  content  of  national 
programmes, there is no benchmark available against which the content provided by the MS 
could  be  checked,  and  more  specifically  financing  of  disposal  facilities  may  completely  be 
missing which would lead to a clear distortion of competition. 

The requirements of policy option 1 would provide improved planning security and long-term 
perspectives  for  all  parties involved,  facilitating  financial  planning  and  ensuring  know-how, 
expertise, as well as a scientific and technical infrastructure. 

They would furthermore help to reduce the long-term political, economical or social financial 
risks linked to "wait-and-see" approaches potentially leading to the consequences described in 
2.4.5 above. 

Policy  option  1  is  anchored  on  the  competence  existing  in  the  Member  States'  regulatory 
authorities, as well as on the internationally endorsed principles for spent fuel and radioactive 
waste management which underlie in the Joint Convention and of the IAEA Safety Standards. 
The Member States have to fulfil their obligations under this Convention. On the basis of the 
analysis of their national reports under the Joint Convention, no additional burden is expected 
to be imposed on the Member States. 

In conclusion, policy option 1 would have a positive economical impact at least for the shorter 
term.  In  the  longer  term,  unjustified  delays  of  the  decision-making  process,  and  the 
implementation of long-term storage with its potential negative economic impacts cannot be 
completely excluded under this policy option (see 2.4.5.). 

5.2.3.  Social impact 

A  uniform  approach  to  safety  at  EU  level  and  in  particular  the  strengthening  of  national 
regulatory authorities would further enhance the protection of workers and the general public 
as required in the Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety 
standards  for  the  protection  of  the  health  of  workers  and  the  general  public  against  the 
dangers arising from ionizing radiation.12 

In  the  longer  term,  unjustified  delays  in  the  decision-making  process  and  long-term  storage 
with  its  potential  negative  health  impact  on  workers  and  the  general  public  cannot  be 
excluded under this policy option. 

5.2.4.  Administrative burden and other impacts 

This  policy  option  makes  existing  obligations  from  the  Joint  Convention  on  the  Safety  of 
Spent  Fuel  Management  and  on  the  Safety  of  Radioactive  Waste  Management  enforceable 

EN 

37 

   EN 

within the EU framework. Therefore, no increase in administrative burdens for industry is to 
be expected. 

As far as Member States are concerned, there may be a very limited additional burden due to 
the  new  requirement  of  reporting  to  the  Commission,  but  advantage  can  be  taken  of  the 
already  obligatory  reporting  under  the  Joint  Convention.  The  obligation  to  invite  a  peer 
review regularly will incur some additional costs to those Member States which have not yet 
introduced  the  practice  of  inviting  peer  reviews  as  they  will  have  to  carry  out  a  self-
assessment  beforehand.  A  certain  limited  administrative  burden  will  result  from  the 
implementation of the Directive into national law. 

On  the  whole,  the  additional  administrative  burden  will  be  very  limited  and  will  only  fall 
upon the Member States and the Commission. An estimation of the resulting costs is difficult 
as they depend on the individual situation and concrete implementation. 

5.3. 

Policy option 2 

5.3.1.  Environmental impact 

This policy option, with its specific requirements concerning the national programmes, such 
as for milestones and timeframes, would ensure planning and implementation of all steps of 
spent fuel and radioactive waste management, including timely disposal, as well as continuing 
improvement  of  the  management  system,  based  on  a  stepwise  decision  making.  Unjustified 
delay  would  be  prevented  through  providing  indicators  for  implementation.  Furthermore,  it 
would  ensure  state-of-the-art  solutions,  as  the  national  programmes  shall  be  reviewed 
regularly  and  updated  according  to  the  evolution  of  managerial,  social,  economic,  technical 
and  scientific  aspects.  Thus  it  would  ensure  the  safety  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste 
management now, in the future and beyond national borders without imposing undue burdens 
on future generations. 

Compared  to  policy  option  1,  policy  option  2  would  provide  positive  environmental  impact 
even in the long term from the point of view of both safety and sustainability. 

5.3.2.  Economic impact 

Developing disposal facilities involves significant investments as shown in chapter 2.3.3. This 
has to be seen vis-à-vis the substantial increase in safety and thus a much better protection of 
workers, public and environment in the long term. 

This  option  would  provide  benefits  through  its  detailed  requirements  for  national 
programmes.  Among  others,  the  national  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  management 
programme  has  to  provide  a  detailed  cost  estimate  for  all  waste  management  steps  up  to 
disposal  including  the  associated  activities,  such  as  research  and  development.  The  national 
waste  management  programme  has  also  to  provide  information  on  the  financing  of  the 
programme.  The  national  programme  is  therefore  the  basis  for  a  corresponding  fund 
collection regime. Should a national programme consider only long-term interim storage, but 
no disposal, a utility would save a considerable amount of money which it could then use for 
other investment and to strengthen its market position in relation to a competitor in another 
Member State where funding of a disposal facility is foreseen as a mandatory element. Such a 
situation would be a clear distortion of competition. As shown in chapter 2.3.3., such a cost 
advantage  could  be  in  the  order  of  3.5-4.0  percent  of  the  assumed  total  generating  cost. 
Keeping  the  national  programmes  updated  and  subject  to  peer  reviews  would  increase  the 

EN 

38 

   EN 

transparency  and  quality  of  the  funding  mechanisms  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste 
management and decommissioning, and thus would further help to prevent market distortions. 
In conclusion, this policy option would ensure that the electricity price reflects the full costs 
and all producers are equally treated. It would create a level playing field in which all actors 
involved have similar obligations and rights, managed in a transparent way. 

The requirement to provide the underlying assumptions behind the calculations of the costs of 
the solutions proposed, as well as a time cost profile, would improve the cost/benefits analysis 
of the activities proposed and the assessment of the needs of financing through benchmarking, 
transparency, and monitoring on EU level. Furthermore, this requirement would guarantee the 
allocation of responsibilities for undertaking cost assessment. 

In  conclusion,  policy  option  2  would  provide  a  positive  economic  impact,  even  over  the 
longer term. 

5.3.3.  Social impact 

In  addition  to  the  positive  short-term  impact  offered  by  policy  option  2,  this  policy  option 
would  entail  a  better  protection  of  workers  and  the  general  public  against  the  dangers  of 
ionising radiation. This would occur in the long term by avoiding an unjustified prolongation 
of interim storage of spent fuel and radioactive with its need for continuous human actions for 
control,  maintenance,  repackaging  of  waste,  etc.  It  would  ensure  that  the  fundamental 
protection principles of justification and optimisation are applied in accordance with the basic 
safety standards for radiation protection.  

The policy option would also much better protect workers and the general public in the long 
term against additional radiation exposure that might occur as consequence of accidents, fires, 
natural events, degradation of waste packages etc..  

In conclusion, policy option 2 would guarantee positive social impact in the long term. 

5.3.4.  Administrative burden and other impacts 

In principle, what has been said for policy option 1 applies here too (please see under 5.2.4.). 
In  addition,  policy  option  2  includes  the  obligation  for  Member  States  to  set  up  national 
programmes  for  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  management  with  specific  requirements 
including contents, scope,  implementation  and  review. The  additional administrative burden 
would  be  low  for  Member  States  which  already  implement  the  pertinent  provisions  of  the 
Joint Convention, although it lacks detailed requirements to this end. Member States which do 
not  yet  have  a  national  programme  have  a  larger  burden  to  bear,  but  this  is  justified  by  the 
benefits of having such a programme about what to do with one's radioactive waste. 

6. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

By comparing the individual impacts per option, the following conclusions can be drawn from 
the Impact Assessment: 

Policy option 0 cannot be accepted, taking into consideration the fact that the absence of a 
Community approach to spent fuel and radioactive waste management would be prejudicial to 
EU  citizens  and  to  the  interest  of  the  Member  States.  Despite  a  certain  degree  of 
harmonisation,  not  all  Member  States  have  policies  on  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste 
management in the long term that reflects the existing legal and institutional frameworks in 

EN 

39 

   EN 

this  area.  The  existing  approaches  and  practices  on  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste 
management still vary from one Member State to another and this diversity of measures does 
not allow the Community to satisfy itself that the relevant requirements of the Euratom Treaty 
are applied in the most effective way in the long term. 

Policy option 0 does not address the underlying problem of the 'wait-and-see' policy. It entails 
the  risk  of  negative  economic,  social,  and  environmental  impacts  increasing  over  time  and 
will put undue burdens and threats on future generations. This policy option is therefore not at 
all effective in achieving the objectives. 

Policy option 1 was considered for strengthening the principles and requirements of the main 
international instruments adopted at IAEA level (such as the IAEA Safety Standards and the 
Joint  Convention)  for  management  of  radioactive  waste  and  spent  fuel  throughout  the 
Community. It makes the internationally accepted principles and requirements for radioactive 
waste  and  spent  fuel  management  legally  binding  and  enforceable  at  EU  level.  Such  an 
approach  will  contribute  to  improving  the  safety  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste 
management at EU level and in particular to the establishment of equal requirements for the 
safety of all spent fuel and radioactive waste management facilities. 

However,  policy option 1 does not fully tackle the underlying problem of  the 'wait-and-see' 
policy  since,  in  the  longer  term,  unjustified  delays  to  the  decision-making  process  and 
unjustified  long-term  storage  cannot  be  excluded  under  this  policy  option.  Policy  option  1 
would only have positive economic, social, and environmental impacts for the shorter term.  

Policy  option  1  would  also  not  provide  clear  and  detailed  requirements  for  the  content  of 
national programmes and thus is lacking a benchmark for an infringement procedure in case 
of essential elements missing in the programmes submitted to the Commission.  

Thus  this  policy  option  is  not  effective  as  it  does  not  fully  contribute  to  achieving  the 
objectives on long term. 

Policy option 2 goes beyond option 1 with additional specific requirements for the national 
programmes  for  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  management,  including  contents,  scope, 
implementation and review, assures achievement of the general policy objective, as defined in 
this  Impact  Assessment.  This  option  increases  the  transparency  in  the  decision-making 
process not only on the formulation of the national policies, but also in their implementation 
through national programmes. The economic, social, and environmental impacts are positive 
in particular in the long run. The administrative burdens  are expected to be low in Member 
States  which  already  comply  with  the  provisions  of  the  Joint  Convention.  In  summary,  this 
policy option is very effective in achieving the objectives. In addition, it is strongly supported 
by the stakeholders and the general public through: 

–  the  key  principles  and  guidelines  provided  by  the  Group  of  European  Nuclear  Safety 

Regulators; 

–  the position paper "Contribution to the Stakeholder Consultation Process for a Possible EU 
Instrument  in  the  Field  of  Safe  and  Sustainable  Spent  Fuel  and  Radioactive  Waste 
Management" elaborated under the European Nuclear Energy Forum; 

–  the "Collective opinion of the Club of Agencies in the consultation process for a possible 
EU  instrument  in  the  Field  of  Safe  and  Sustainable  Spent  Fuel  and  Radioactive  Waste 
Management"; 

EN 

40 

   EN 

–  the  open  public  consultation  "Approaches  for  a  possible  EU  legislative  proposal  on  the 

management of spent fuel and radioactive waste". 

It also complies in the utmost degree with the conclusions and resolutions of the Council and 
position of the European Parliament. This policy option is also the only one that provides for 
an adequate and responsible policy, providing not only for a high level of safety but also for 
beneficial effects on the environmental, social and economic levels. 

Following  the  successful  adoption  of  the  Council  Directive  2009/71/Euratom  on  nuclear 
safety in June 2009, it will constitute the second pillar of the most advanced legal framework 
for safe use of nuclear energy. 

Only  policy  option  2  makes  the  internationally  accepted  principles  and  requirements  for 
radioactive waste and spent fuel management legally binding and enforceable at the EU level 
and introduces an obligation to set up coherent national programmes for Member States which 
have not yet done so. Furthermore, policy option 2 provides clear and detailed requirements 
for the content of national programmes, offering a benchmark for an infringement procedure 
in case of missing mandatory elements.  

It also makes these obligations enforceable through the clear and strong control mechanisms 
of the EU (e.g. infringement proceedings by the Commission, referral to the European Court 
of Justice (ECJ) in case of non-compliance, obligation of Member States to comply with ECJ 
rulings). 

In  the  framework  of  the  above  considerations,  Policy  option  2  appears  to  be  the  preferred 
one, as it addresses the problem in an effective way, guarantees achievement of the political 
objective and complies with the stakeholders and public expectations to the highest extent. 

It can be concluded that option 0 increases the risks over time, option 1 reduces the risks 
and option 2 eliminates them to the extent possible with reasonable expected economic, 
social, environmental and administrative impacts. 

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The indicators of progress towards meeting the objectives are: 

–  status  of  implementing  the  requirements  for  a  national  framework  for  spent  fuel  and 
radioactive  waste  management,  allocating  responsibilities  and  providing  for  coordination 
between relevant state bodies in the long term, specified in 4.2, and 

–  status  of  implementing  the  requirements  for  scope,  contents  and  review  of  national 

programmes for spent fuel and radioactive waste management, specified in 4.3. 

Member States would report to the Commission on the implementation of these requirements, 
taking advantage of the review and reporting cycles under the Joint Convention on the Safety 
of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, and thus no 
additional administrative burden is expected. In addition, Member States would submit draft 
national programmes to the Commission for comment before adoption.  

EN 

41 

   EN 

On the basis of the Member States' reports and their notifications of national programmes, the 
Commission  will  submit  a  report  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  on  progress 
made. 

EN 

42 

   EN 

ANNEX 1: COMPARATIVE TABLE 

IAEA Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management – 
Euratom legislative instrument (Directive) covering the Management of Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel (Policy options 1 and 2 of the 
Impact Assessment) 

Criteria  

Joint Convention 

Euratom legislative instrument (Directive) 

- Policy options 1 and 2 of the IA -  

I. Main criterion 

Legal 
enforceability 

•  Legally binding instrument ("pacta sunt servanda" - see 
Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the 
Treaties). 

•  However, in terms of enforcement, the Joint Convention 
does  not  provide  any  tools.  It  does  not  contain 
sanctions,  penalties  or  other  types  of  mechanisms  (e.g. 
financial or technical assistance). 

•  "Incentive" character of the Joint Convention (explicitly 
acknowledged  in  its  Preamble  (vi)),  similar  to  the 
Convention on Nuclear Safety. 

•  The  Joint  Convention  relies  on  the  common  interest  of 
all  Contracting  Parties  to  achieve  its  objectives.  It  is 
designed  to  obtain  compliance  bona  fide  through 
voluntary cooperation and "peer pressure" rather than by 
means of control and sanction. 

•  Fundamental  role  of  the  peer-review  mechanism  that 
entails  the  following  fundamental  obligations  for  the 

•  Legally binding for the EU Member States – as to the result 
to  be  achieved  but  leaving  to  the  national  authorities  the 
choice  of  form  and  methods  (see  Art.  288(3)  TFEU, 
applicable to Euratom Treaty. 

•  In  terms  of  enforcement,  the  founding  Treaties  (and  the 
jurisprudence  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the  EU)  offer  clear 
and  strong  control  mechanisms  for  ensuring  the  correct 
transposition and further implementation of a Directive.  

•  The  Commission  has  several  control  prerogatives  (for 
fulfilling  its  responsibility  of  monitoring  the  implementation 
of Community acquis. 

General: 

–  Commission  right  to  issue  recommendations  on  the 
draft  national 
to 
transpose Community acquis adopted on the basis of 
Articles  31  and  32  of  the  Euratom  Treaty  within  3 
months  from  their  notification.  The  Member  States 

legislative  measures  aiming 

EN 

43 

EN 

 
  
Contracting Parties: 

–  To  submit  in  advance  to  all  other  Contracting 
Parties  a  National  Report  describing  how  it 
the  Joint 
the  obligations  of 
implements 
Convention; 

–  To seek clarification on the National Reports of 
other  Contracting  Parties  through  a  system  of 
written questions and answers; and 

–  To  present  and  discuss  its  National  Report 
during  a  Review  Meeting  comprising  country 
group sessions and plenary sessions. 

•  Very 

for 

significant  margin  of  discretion 

the 
Contracting  Parties'  self-assessments  (according  to  the 
IAEA Guidelines regarding National Reports under the 
Joint Convention "each Contracting Party has the right 
to  submit  a  National  Report  with  the  form,  length  and 
structure  it  believes  necessary  to  describe  how  it  has 
implemented its obligations under the Convention"). 

•  The  other  Contracting  Parties  have  to  rely  on  the 
accuracy and completeness of the information provided 
by  each  Contracting  Party  and  in  its  answers  to  the 
questions asked. 

•  Several  weaknesses  of  the  peer-review  process  have 
been identified in terms of effectiveness and efficiency.  

should  not  adopt  the  national  measures  until  the 
Commission has sent its recommendations or before 
the  3  months'  timeframe  elapses  (see  Article  33(3 
and  4)  of  the  Euratom  Treaty  and  the  Commission 
Recommendation on the application of Article 33 of 
the Euratom Treaty). 

/  have  not  properly 

–  Commission  right  to  open  infringement  procedures 
against the Member States that failed to transpose a 
Directive 
transposed  or 
implemented  the  provisions  of  a  Directive.  This 
stages,  possibly 
procedure  comprises 
culminating with the referral of the case to the Court 
of  Justice  of  the  EU  (see  Articles  258  and  260 
TFEU, applicable to the Euratom Treaty). 

several 

–  Commission competence to issue a reasoned opinion 
in  case  of  an  action  brought  by  a  Member  State 
against another Member State to the Court of Justice 
of  the  EU  for  failure  to  fulfil  an  obligation  under 
Community  law  (see  Article  259  TFEU,  applicable 
to the Euratom Treaty. 

Specific 

–  In  addition  to  the  control  competencies  above, 
generally applicable to all Directives, in the specific 
case  of  a  Directive  governing  the  management  of 
spent fuel and radioactive waste (as proposed under 
Policy  option  2),  a  notification  mechanism  to  the 
Commission  of  the  national  programmes  can  be 
envisaged.  

EN 

44 

EN 

 
  
 
•  It  should  be  also  noted  that  a  Member  State  can  bring  an 
action  before  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the  EU  (after  bringing 
the  matter  before  the  Commission)  against  another  Member 
State for failure to fulfil an obligation (see Article 259 TFEU, 
applicable to the Euratom Treaty).  

•  The Court of Justice of the EU has several competencies: 

–  Right  to  determine  whether  a  Member  State  has 
fulfilled  its  obligations  under  EU  law  in  actions  for 
failure to fulfil obligations. If the Court finds that an 
obligation  has  not  been  fulfilled,  the  Member  State 
must  bring  the  failure  to  an  end  without  delay.  If, 
after a further action is brought by the Commission, 
the  Court  of  Justice  finds  that  the  Member  State 
concerned  has  not  complied  with  its  judgment,  it 
may  impose  on  it  a  fixed  or  periodic  financial 
penalty.  However, 
transposing  a 
Directive are not notified to the Commission, it may 
propose  that  the  Court  impose  a  pecuniary  penalty 
on  the  Member  State  concerned,  once  the  initial 
judgment  establishing  a  failure  to  fulfil  obligations 
(see  Article  260  TFEU, 
has  been  delivered 
applicable to the Euratom Treaty). 

if  measures 

–  Right to clarify a point concerning the interpretation 
of  EU  law.  The  Court's  reply  is  not  merely  an 
opinion,  but  takes  the  form  of  a  judgment  or 
reasoned  order.  The  national  court  to  which  it  is 
addressed is, in deciding the dispute before it, bound 
by  the  interpretation  given.  The  Court's  judgment 

EN 

45 

EN 

 
  
problem 

likewise binds other national courts before which the 
same 
raised. 
It  is  thus  through  references  for  preliminary  rulings 
that any European citizen can find clarification of the 
interpretation  of  EU  rules  which  affect  him  (see 
Article  267  TFEU,  applicable  to  the  Euratom 
Treaty).  

is 

as 

an 

instance 

the  Case  8/81,  according 

•  Directives  have  a  direct  effect  for  European  citizens,  as 
recognised in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the EU 
(see  for 
to  which 
"Particularly  in  cases  in  which  the  Community  authorities 
have, by means of a Directive, placed Member States under a 
duty to adopt a certain course of action , the effectiveness of 
such  a  measure  would  be  diminished  if  persons  were 
prevented from relying upon it in proceedings before a court 
and  national  courts  were  prevented  from  taking  it  into 
consideration 
law. 
Consequently,  a  Member  State  which  has  not  adopted  the 
implementing  measures  required  by  the  Directive  within  the 
prescribed  period  may  not  plead,  as  against  individuals,  its 
own  failure  to  perform  the  obligations  which  the  directive 
entails. Thus, wherever the provisions of a Directive appear, 
as far as their subject-matter is concerned, to be unconditional 
and sufficiently precise, those provisions may, in the absence 
of  implementing  measures  adopted  within  the  prescribed 
period, be relied upon as against any national provision which 
is  incompatible  with  the  Directive  or  in  so  far  as  the 
provisions  define  rights  which  individuals  are  able  to  assert 
against the State". 

element  of  Community 

EN 

46 

EN 

 
  
II. Additional criteria 

Specificity of 
content for the 
EU 

Consultation of 
stakeholders 
and citizens in 
the elaboration 
and adoption 

EN 

•  Generally 

applicable  worldwide  principles 

and 
requirements  in  the  area  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive 
waste  management  (nibs.  according  to  the  latest  status 
there  are  56 
of  ratifications  of  29  April  2010, 
Contracting Parties to the Joint Convention). 

–   

•  Based  upon,  endorsing  and  fully  recognising  the  generally 
the  Joint 

requirements  of 

worldwide  principles  and 
Convention. 

•  In  addition,  possibility  to  go  beyond  these  international 
requiremenents and include provisions specifically addressed 
to the EU Members States, e.g: 

–  Requirements  to  adopt  national  programmes  for  the 
management of spent fuel and radioactive waste and 
notify them to the Commission (element specific for 
policy option 2; 

–  Provisions 

related 

to 

transparency  and  public 

involvement; 

–  Provisions  transforming  the  voluntary  international 
peer-review  system  into  a  legally  binding  EU 
requirement. 

•  Need to ensure consistency with the Nuclear Safety Directive. 

•  No  possibility  for  all  stakeholders  and  citizens  to 
express  their  views  during  the  elaboration  of  the 
Convention. 

•  Stakeholders and citizens are consulted and directly involved 
throughout the entire decision-making process leading to the 
adoption of a Directive, through various mechanisms e.g: 

•  Drafted by a Group of Legal and Technical Experts. 

–  Eurobarometer surveys; 

47 

EN 

 
  
 
process 

•  Adopted  on  5  September  1997  by  a  Diplomatic 

Conference of States convened by the IAEA. 

Transparency 

•  The  Joint  Convention  does  not  comprise  provisions  on 

public information.  

to 

and 

•  Moreover, as regards the Review process, although the 
Contracting  Parties 
the  Joint  Convention  are 
encouraged to publish their National Reports (as well as 
from  other 
questions 
Contracting  Parties  and  responses  thereto),  there  is  no 
formal obligation in this sense. Contracting Parties have 
the  ultimate  responsibility  of  deciding  whether  or  not 
the  information  supplied  is  to  be  deemed  confidential. 
The only document that is formally intended to be made 

comments 

received 

–  Open  public 

Internet 

the 
Commission  Communication  on  General  Principles 
and  Minimum  Standards 
for  Consultation  of 
Interested Parties by the Commission);  

consultation 

(see 

–  Expert groups (e.g. WPNS, ENSREG); 

–  Platforms for stakeholders' dialogue (e.g. ENEF); 

–  Opinion  of  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee  (represents  civil  society,  employers  and 
employees)  on  the  Commission  proposal  (see  the 
Article  31  of  the  Euratom  Treaty  special  legislative 
procedure); 

–  Opinion  of  the  European  Parliament  (represents  the 
EU’s citizens and is directly elected by them) on the 
Commission  proposal  (see  the  Article  31  of  the 
Euratom Treaty special legislative procedure). 

•  Following the model of the Nuclear Safety Directive, one of 
the requirements of a Directive dealing with the management 
of spent fuel and radioactive waste would be related to public 
information.  Consequently,  Member  States  would  have  the 
obligation to ensure that the information on the management 
of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  is  regularly  made 
available to the public. 

•  Secondly,  as  in  the  Nuclear  Safety  Directive,  a  Directive  on 
the  management  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  would 
require  Member  States  to  submit  regular  implementation 
reports to the Commission (taking advantage of the reporting 

EN 

48 

EN 

 
  
 
the  Summary  Report  of 

the  meeting, 
is 
public 
presenting  major 
issues,  possibly  by  combining 
significant  points  made  in  the  Rapporteurs'  reports  that 
summarized  the  country  group  discussions  (see  the 
IAEA  Guidelines  regarding  the  Review  Process  under 
the Joint Convention). 

under  the  Joint  Convention).  Based  on  these  reports,  the 
Commission would submit an overview report to the Council 
and  the  European  Parliament  on  progress  made  with  the 
implementation of the Directive.  

•  Thirdly, the Directive would require Member States to report 
the outcomes of the international peer-reviews not only to the 
Commission,  but  also  to  all  the  other  Member  States, 
whenever these are available. 

•  One  of  the  objectives  envisaged  by  a  Directive  would  be  to 
the  decision-making 

the  public  participation 

in 

ensure 
process. 

•  In  the  case  of  EU  legislation,  if  needed,  the  amendment 
procedure  is  internal  to  the  EU  (does  not  depend  on  the 
consent of third countries). 

Public 
participation in 
the decision-
making process 

Amendment 
procedure 

•  The  Joint  Convention  does  not  comprise  provisions  on 

public participation.  

•  The Convention provides for an amendment procedure, 
which  would  require  consensus,  or,  in  its  absence, 
convening  a  Diplomatic  Conference  which  requires 
two-thirds  majority  vote  of  the  Contracting  Parties 
present and voting at the meeting, provided that at least 
one  half  of  the  Contracting  Parties  are  present  at  the 
time of voting) (see Article 41 of the Joint Convention). 

•  In  the  light  of  the  above,  due  to  the  required  quorum 
rules, the EU has no command of the amendment of the 
Convention 
theoretical  case  when  new 
evolutions  at  EU  level  would  arise  and  require  an 
amendment or the introduction of additional provisions 
in the Joint Convention). 

the 

(in 

EN 

49 

EN 

 
  
 
Conclusions of the comparative table 

Criteria  

Joint Convention 

Legal enforceability 

Specificity of content for the EU 

Consultation of stakeholders and citizens in the elaboration and 
adoption process 

Transparency 

Public participation in the decision-making process 

Amendment procedure 

- 

- 

- 

+ 

- 

- 

Euratom legislative 
instrument 
(Directive) 

- Policy options 1 
and 2 -  

+ 

+ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

EN 

50 

EN 

 
  
ANNEX 2: CONSULTATION AND EXPERTISE 

1. Stakeholders consultation 

1.1.  High Level Group on Nuclear Safety and Waste Management (ENSREG) 

The  High  Level  Group  on  Nuclear  Safety  and  Waste  Management45  was  established  on  17 
July 2007 by a Commission decision (2007/530/Euratom)46. The Group composed of senior 
officials  from  national  regulatory  or  safety  authorities  competent  on  the  safety  of  nuclear 
installations  and  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  management  and  a  Commission's 
representative,  later  adopted  the  acronym  ENSREG  (European  Nuclear  Safety  Regulators 
Group).  The  Group's  mandate  is  to  advise  and  assist  the  Commission  in  progressively 
developing a common understanding and eventually Europeans rules in the field of the safety 
of  nuclear  installation  and  the  safety  of  the  waste  management.  Its  establishment  was 
endorsed  by  the  European  Council47  and  supported  by  the  Council48  and  the  European 
Parliament49. The first conclusions and recommendations of the Group were reflected in the 
Council Resolution of 16 December 2008 on Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Management. 

In July 2009 the first ENSREG's report50 was submitted to the Commission, and transmitted 
to the European Parliament and the Council in September. It was reflected by the Council in 
its Conclusions of 10 November 200951. In its report, the Group encourages "the development 
of a national programme for waste management in each EU Member State and the adoption of 
an  instrument  defining  the  basics  of  and  guidelines  for  the  contents  of  such  programmes  in 
Europe",  underlines  "the  importance  for  the  EU  to  promote  improvement  of  regulatory 
effectiveness  and  to  provide  leadership  on  peer  reviews",  and  recommends  that  "the 
Commission  should  promote  wider  use  of  best  practices".  In  respect  of  the  management  of 
spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste,  the  report  is  based  on  seven  documents  dealing  in  details 
with different aspects of the issue and providing conclusions and recommendations52: 

–  Identification of difficulties and challenges for progress in spent fuel and high-level waste 

management; 

–  Better use of the Joint Convention process in the European Union; 

–  Guidelines for the content and objectives of national programmes for the management and 

the safety of radioactive waste and spent fuel; 

–  International peer reviews and regulatory effectiveness; 

–  Identification and enhanced use of best practices in the context of continuous improvement 

in waste safety in the EU countries; 

45 
46 
47 
48 

49 

50 
51 
52 

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/ensreg/ensreg_en.htm 
OJ L 195/44 of 27.07.2007 
European Council of 8-9 March 2007 
Council Conclusions of 8 May 2007 on Nuclear Safety and Safe Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel 
and Radioactive Waste, 8784/07 
European Parliament resolution on Assessing Euratom – 50 Years of European nuclear energy policy of 
10 May 2007 
Report of the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group, July 2009 
Council conclusions on the report by the Europeans Nuclear Regulators Group, 10 November 2009  
http://circa.europa.eu/Members/irc/tren/nuclear_safety_and_waste/library?l=/general_archive/public 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
                                                 
–  Better exchange of information on waste safety experience; 

–  Waste safety reviews of new nuclear power plants. 

In June 2010, ENSREG sent to the Commission a detailed contribution, which contains key 
principles and guidelines as a basis for the Commission to prepare legislation on radioactive 
waste  and  spent  fuel  management.  This  contribution  was  prepared  by  a  dedicated  working 
group,  discussed  and  unanimously  adopted  at  the  plenary  meeting  of  ENSREG  on  4  June 
2010. 

1.2.  European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF) 

The  European  Nuclear  Energy  Forum  (ENEF)53  is  another  initiative  of  the  European 
Commission  endorsed  by  the  EU  heads  of  state  and  government  in  March  200747.  It  is  a 
unique  platform  for  a  broad  discussion  on  the  opportunities  and  risks  of  nuclear  energy, 
including  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  management,  as  well  as  on  transparency  issues. 
Founded  in  2007,  ENEF  gathers  all  relevant  stakeholders  in  the  nuclear  field,  such  as 
governments  of  all  27  EU  Member  States,  European  Institutions  including  the  European 
Parliament  and  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee,  nuclear  industry,  electricity 
consumers and the civil society. 

The  Conclusions  of  the  second
plenary  meeting  (May  2008)  emphasised  the  Forum's  strong 
support  for  the  adoption  of  European  legislation  on  waste  management  based  on  common 
fundamental  safety  principles  stating  furthermore  that  "if  it  succeeds  in  adopting  such  a  legal 
framework, Europe can become a real model also for possible nuclear newcomers, ensuring that 
they  take  all  necessary  measures  for  ensuring  the  highest  safety  and  security  levels  before 
developing nuclear infrastructure". 

The  fourth  plenary  meeting  (May  2009)  underlined  in  its  conclusions  that  "guidance  for 
national  roadmaps  and  European  actions  for  the  successful  implementation  of  geological 
waste repositories concentrating on the possible drivers for advancing the issue in the EU will 
continue  to  be  in  the  focus  of  the  Forum".  Roadmap  to  Successful  Implementation  of 
Geological Disposal in the EU, EUR 24301 EN54, was elaborated under the Forum and sent to 
the Commission "as a stakeholder contribution" to this Impact Assessment in December 2009. 
The  document  is  based  to  a  large  extent  on  the  positive  progress  that  has  been  made  in  a 
number of Member States and one of its main conclusions is that it is essential "to take the 
necessary  political  and  technical  decisions  and  develop  a  roadmap  for  the  long-term 
management of radioactive waste, including specific routes, milestones and endpoints". It also 
concludes that the EU can provide an added value in the interest of the European citizens and 
that  the  EU  institutions  should  have  a  role  in  proposing  instruments  for  establishment  of 
national  programmes  for  the  safe  long-term  management  of  spent  fuel  and  all  types  of 
radioactive  waste,  with  clearly  defined  milestones  and  disposal  routes,  ensuring  the 
presentation  of  these  programmes  to  the  public  and  where  appropriate  to  international  peer 
review, and in ensuring an equivalent high level of safety in radioactive waste management in 
all Member States through a set of common rules and research-based approaches. 

During the elaboration of the Roadmap paper, two NGO's - Sortir du Nucléaire and Friends 
of  the  Earth  commented  the  draft  document  before  leaving  the  Forum.  They  felt  that 

53 
54 

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/forum/forum_en.htm 
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/forum/risks/waste_disposal_en.htm 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
geological disposal would not avoid the burden on future generations and that the best way to 
lessen it, in the current state-of-the-art, was stopping producing nuclear waste by phasing out 
nuclear  energy.  They  underlined  the  importance  of  proper  funding  by  waste  generators,  a 
proper investigation of repository sites, reviewed by independent experts, and the involvement 
of citizens in the decision-making process while at the same time doubting the suitability of 
geological disposal as long-time solution without suggesting alternative solutions. As to EU 
legislation,  Friends  of  the  Earth  suggested  deadlines  for  implementing  waste  management 
solutions. 

A  position  paper  "Contribution  to  the  Stakeholder  Consultation  Process  for  a  Possible  EU 
Instrument  in  the  Field  of  Safe  and  Sustainable  Spent  Fuel  and  Radioactive  Waste 
Management" was elaborated under the Forum in April 201054. It states that "the EU needs to 
develop  a  common  legislative  framework  governing  the  management  of  spent  fuel  and 
radioactive  waste….  Taking  into  account  the  broad  range  of  situations  in  this  matter  in  the 
different  MS,  we  support  the  adoption  of  a  legally  binding  EU  instrument".  The  document 
justifies  the  need  of  a  legally  binding  instrument  at  EU  level,  as  well  as  the  scope  and 
essential  elements,  including  national  programmes,  technology  and  financing,  of  such  an 
instrument.  In  respect  of  the  final  solutions,  it  is  stressed  that  "Technical  solutions  exist  for 
the  final  disposal  of  all  types  of  radioactive  waste  (LLW,  ILW,  HLW  and  spent  fuel  if 
regarded  as  waste).  While  the  implementation  of  such  solutions  is  progressing  well  for  low 
and  intermediate  level  waste  in  most  MS,  the  implementation  of  geological  disposal  is  still 
posing  a  challenge  in  many  MS,  although  this  is  recognised  as  the  only  proven,  practicable 
solution  for  the  disposal  of  HLW  and  spent  fuel,  if  regarded  as  waste.  Therefore,  the  EU 
instrument must clearly require deep geological disposal for high level waste and spent fuel, if 
regarded as waste, as part of the national programme if applicable". 

1.3.  Technology Platforms 

The  Sustainable  Nuclear  Energy  Technology  Platform  (SNE  –  TP)55  was  launched  in 
September  2007.  It  aims  at  promoting  the  research,  development  and  demonstration  of 
European  nuclear  fission  technologies  and  gathers  more  than  70  organisations  (research 
organisations,  utilities,  vendors,  technology  providers,  technical  safety  organisations, 
universities, consultancy companies and non-governmental organisations). 

In  May  2009,  the  first  edition  of  the  Strategic  Research  Agenda  (SRA)  was  produced  as  a 
result of the contributions from nearly 200 scientists and the engineers from some 70 member 
organisations  of  SNE-TP  and  the  feedback  obtained  from  an  open  public  consultation.  The 
objective of the SRA is to provide decision makers as well as the scientific community with 
clearly  identified  technological  road-maps  for  fission  technologies.  It  is  stated  in  the  SRA 
that: 

–  "Several  EU  countries  have  implemented  commercially  available  solutions  which  allow 

handling low and intermediate level waste"; 

–  "The  present  solution  for  high  level  waste  is  to  properly  condition  them  inside  isolating 
and  protecting  packages  that  are  then  disposed  of  in  a  deep  underground  geological 
repository"; 

55 

SNETP, Strategic Research Agenda, May 2009, www.SNETP.eu 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
                                                 
–  "there is a clear consensus today that a sustainable nuclear fuel cycle is mainly linked to 
the durability of the solutions addressing the two following issues: optimum use of natural 
resources,  nuclear  waste  minimization.  These  two  objectives  must  be  pursued  while 
maintaining  or  increasing  at  the  same  time  the  safety  and  the  economic  competitiveness 
and ensuring the non-proliferation of the technologies". 

The Implementing Geological Disposal Technology Platform (IGD – TP)56 was launched 
in  November  2009,  as  a  tool  to  support  the  confidence-building  in  the  safety  and 
implementation of deep geological disposal solutions. It will facilitate access to expertise and 
technology, interact with the stakeholders, and communicate the results to the benefit of all of 
Europe.  The  vision  of  the  platform  members  (waste  management  organisations)  is  that  by 
2025, the first  geological disposal facilities for  spent fuel, high  level  waste,  and  other  long-
lived radioactive waste will be operating safely in Europe. Their commitment is: 

–  to  build  confidence  in  the  safety  of  geological  disposal  solutions  among  European 

citizens and decision-makers; 

–  to  encourage  the  establishment  of  waste  management  programmes  that  integrate 
geological  disposal  as  the  accepted  option  for  the  safe  long  term  management  of 
long-lived and/or high level waste; 

–  to  facilitate  access 

to  expertise  and 
the field of geological disposal for the benefit of Member States. 

technology  and  maintain  competences 

in 

1.4.  Club of Agencies 

The  Club  of  Agencies  is  a  group  of  European radioactive  waste  management organisations, 
set  up  to  exchange  information  on  all  aspects  of  radioactive  waste  management.  As  waste 
management  belongs  to  the  core  of  their  activities,  the  Club  is  very  much  interested  in  the 
developments on the subject of a possible EU instrument on waste management. In May 2010 
a  collective  opinion  of  the  Club  of  Agencies  was  sent  to  the  Commission  as  a  stakeholder 
contribution to the consultation process to this Impact Assessment, and is presented below. 

56 

IGDTP, Vision document, October 2009, www.igdtp.eu 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
                                                 
EN 

55 

   EN 

 
 
1.5.  Working Party on Nuclear Safety (WPNS) 

In 2005  and 2006  the  Council  Working Party on Nuclear Safety (WPNS) consulted the  EU 
Member States on the safety of nuclear installations and of spent fuel and radioactive waste 
management, and considered the various approaches taken up by Western European Nuclear 
Regulators  Association 
for  Economic  Co-operation  and 
Development / Nuclear Energy Agency  (OECD/NEA), Joint Convention57, the International 
Atomic  Energy  Agency  (IAEA)  Safety  Standards  etc.  The  Council  Conclusions  of  8  May 
200758  acknowledged  the  great  commitment  of  the  stakeholders  in  the  WPNS  and  its  final 
their  recommendations  and 
report  and 

three  sub-groups  reports, 

(WENRA),  Organisation 

in  particular 

the 

57 

58 

Joint  Convention  of  the  Safety  of  Spent  Fuel  Management  and  on  the  Safety  of  Radioactive  Waste 
Management, http://www-ns.iaea.org/conventions/waste-jointconvention.htm 
Council Conclusions of 8 May 2007 on Nuclear Safety and Safe Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel 
and Radioactive Waste, 8784/07 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
conclusions59. The Council sets out that each EU Member State should be urged "to establish 
and  keep  updated  a  national  programme  for  the  safe  management  of  radioactive  waste  and 
spent  fuel  that  includes  all  radioactive  waste  under  its  jurisdiction  and  covers  all  stages  of 
management". It also supported the establishment of a High Level Group at EU level aimed at 
furthering  a  common  approach  in  the  safety  of  nuclear  installations  and  of  spent  fuel  and 
radioactive waste management. 

1.5.  Confrontations Europe 

Confrontations Europe is a non-for-profit civil society organisation which gathers companies’ 
managers, unionists, territorial players, members of the civil society, politicians, intellectuals 
and  students  from  numerous  countries  in  Europe,  all  committed  to  one  idea:  active 
participation of civil society for building of Europe. In 2008 the organisation welcomed the 
revised  proposal  for  a  Council  Directive  setting  up  a  Community  framework  for  nuclear 
safety and expressed their hopes "for a similar framework to manage nuclear waste"60. 

2. Public consultation 

2.1.  Open  public  consultation  "Approaches  for  a  possible  EU  legislative  proposal  on  the 
management of spent fuel and radioactive waste 

The public consultation was carried out over a period of eight and half weeks, from the 31st of 
March to the 31st of May 2010. In total 510 responses were received. It was published on the 
website  "Your  voice  in  Europe"  and  announced  to  a  range  of  key  stakeholders  and  EU 
Institutions.  The  General  Principles  and  Minimum  Standards  for  Consultation  of  Interested 
Parties  by  the  Commission61  were  respected  in  the  elaboration  and  presentation  of  this 
questionnaire. 

The questions presented covered the following areas: 

–  The  characteristics  of  the  respondents  and  the  specific  identification  of  the  participating 

public authorities and radioactive waste management organisations,  

–  The respondents' perception of the issue of spent fuel and radioactive waste management in 
their country of residence together with the main challenges to be addressed in this area, 

–  Their  preferred  approach  towards  EU  legislation  in  this  area  and  in  particular,  whether 
binding or non-binding legislation would result in the greater improvement of the national 
situation, 

–  Two options for possible binding EU legislation: 

•  Option  1:  Strengthening  the  international  principles  and  requirements  laid  down 

by the IAEA Safety Standards and the Joint Convention, 

59 
60 

61 

15475/2/06 REV2 
Nuclear  revival,  nuclear  safety:  challenges  for  the  European  Union,  Proceedings  of  two  symposiums, 
numero 26, Paris, Brussels, 2008 
COM(2002)704 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Option  2:  Additional  action  over  and  beyond  that  of  option  1,  adding  some 
specific requirements to be considered in the Member States' national programmes 
for the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste. 

Regarding option 1, the respondents were asked to identify, in their view, the most important 
principles and requirements for spent fuel and radioactive waste management. For option 2, a 
list  of  possible  contents  for  the  national  programmes  was  presented,  with  the  respondents 
being invited to identify their preferences. 

–  The  means  by  which  binding  legislation  could  be  implemented  and  in  particular  how 

national reports and peer reviews might contribute to this process 

–  The possible impacts of binding legislation. 

–  Additional proposals and comments. 

Almost  all  of  these  questions  were  presented  in  a  multiple  choice  format,  facilitating  a 
quantitative analysis. Only the section on additional proposals and comments was presented 
as an open question (intended for a qualitative analysis). 

Profile of the respondents 

The majority of respondents to the questionnaire were individuals (428), with the remainder 
being organisations or public authorities (82). Represented among the collective were, NGOs 
(35), Public Authorities (15), Waste Management Organisations (8), Producers of Radioactive 
Waste (11), Technical Services (3) and Others (10).  

For  the  individuals,  the  majority  (63.3%)  could  be  defined  as  interested  citizens  having  no 
direct  professional  involvement  in  radioactive  waste  issues,  and  75.4%  of  these  considered 
themselves  to  be  "very  well"  or  "fairly  well"  informed  regarding  spent  fuel  and  radioactive 
waste policy in their country.  

It was notable that 31.1% of the total responses emanated from Italy. 

Contents of the answers – quantitative data 

A  significant  majority  of  the  individual  respondents  (69.6%)  considered  that  the  measures 
taken in their country for ensuring the safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste 
were  insufficient.  They  felt  that  in  this  regard,  the  main  challenges  to  be  address  in  their 
countries were:  

–  the lack of transparency,  

–  the  lack  of  a  permanent  and  safe  solution  for  the  disposal  of  high  level  waste  and  spent 

fuel,  

–  and the insufficient involvement of the public in decision-making processes.  

These were also the three main concerns highlighted by NGOs. 

For  the  public  authorities,  in  addition  to  the  challenges  identified  above,  an  important 
concern was the current absence of a comprehensive national program. For radioactive waste 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
management organisations, producers of radioactive waste and technical organisations, 
another  important  challenge  to  be  addressed  was  the  lack  of  clear  political  direction  and 
decisions62. 

As a means to tackling the challenges identified above, 74.8% of the individual respondents 
believed  in  the  need  for  a  common  approach  within  the  EU.  Of  this  group  77.6%  favoured 
binding legislation in the form of an EU Directive as the preferred implementation route.  

71%  of  individuals  also  considered  that  legal  certainty  would  be  enhanced  should  the 
principles  of  the  IAEA  Safety  Fundamentals  and  the  Joint  Convention  be  integrated  into 
Community legislation.  

Radioactive  waste  management  organisations,  radioactive  waste  producers  and  technical 
service organisations responded similarly, with 75% supporting binding legislation. 

The NGO response also showed strong support for binding legislation (88.6%), while support 
from public authorities (66.7%) was also very strong. 

The  first  policy  option  presented  for  Community  action  was  a  strengthening  of  the 
internationally  accepted  principles  and  requirements  laid  down  by  the  IAEA.  The 
questionnaire  identified  a  series  of  main  principles  and  requirements  and  requested  the 
respondents to identify those actions which they felt were important to be complied with. 

82% of individuals agreed on the fact that, as a fundamental principle, Member States should 
protect future generations from the dangers of ionising radiation effectively.  

Likewise, 63.3% of the individual respondents agreed that transparency arrangements should 
be implemented. Other requirements that were identified as "very important" were; ensuring 
the  effective  independence  of  the  regulatory  authority,  applying  the  polluter  pays  principle 
and actively involving the public in the decision making process. 

These  opinions  were  similar  to  those  of  the  NGOs  and  public  authorities,  although  public 
authorities also regarded ensuring financial resources as paramount. 

Radioactive  waste  management  organisations,  radioactive  waste  producers  and 
organisations  providing  technical  services,  considered  the  establishment  and  maintenance 
of a national framework to be the most important issue to be addressed. 

The  second  policy  option  proposed  additional  elements  and  issues  as  supplements  to  the 
existing  IAEA  principles  and  requirements,  which  would  be  implemented  through  the 
national  programmes  for  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  management.  In  this  regard,  the 
respondents were asked which issues they felt should be included in the national programmes.  

The  majority  of  the  individuals  answered  that  national  programmes  should  include  an 
assignment of roles and responsibilities, and inventories of radioactive waste and spent fuel. 
They also considered that the proposal of plans and technical solutions as well as a description 

62 

Please note that in the questionnaire "lack of political decisions" and "lack of political, solution oriented 
leadership"  were  identified  as  two  different  challenges.  The  challenge  in  the  first  case  is  that  no 
decisions  are  taken  at  all.  In  the  second  case,  decisions  may  be  taken,  but  they  are  not  carried  out 
effectively due to a failure in leadership or management. 

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
                                                 
of the decision making processes were also among the elements that should be included in the 
plans. The same priorities were highlighted by public authorities.  

The  NGOs  additionally  highlighted  the  issue  of  remedial  actions  for  legacy  waste  and  the 
identification  and  achievement  of  significant  milestones  as  key  issues,  while  radioactive 
waste  management  organisations,  radioactive  waste  producers  and  technical  service 
organisations  focused  on  the  cost  assessments  and  the  identification  and  achievement  of 
significant milestones achieved, as being important. 

When  individual  respondents  were  asked  for  their  opinions  on  how  to  ensure  compliance 
with binding EU legislation in the Member States: 

–  50.7% were  in  favour  of  organising periodic international peer-reviews on the regulatory 

system, 

–  47.2% were in favour of examining the national programmes through peer-reviews,  

–  44.2%  supported  reporting  to  the  Commission  and  Member  States  on  the  results  of  the 

peer-reviews,  

–  37.1% welcomed the idea of describing the implementation of the legislative instrument in 

the national reports to be submitted at the Joint Convention's review meetings,  

–  while a minority (31.3%) supported reporting to the Commission separately, in addition to 

the Joint Convention's reports.  

The NGOs expressed a desire (54.3%) to report separately to the Commission while public 
authorities  (20%),  and  radioactive  waste  management  organisations,  radioactive  waste 
producers and technical service organisations (37.5%) showed less support for this idea. 

Radioactive waste management organisations, radioactive waste producers and technical 
service  organisations  were  more  reluctant  towards  the  proposal  for  peer  reviews  on  the 
regulatory system, preferring instead that they should be organised at the national programme 
level. 

Some possible impacts of binding Community legislation were considered. 

Many individual respondents agreed that the main outcomes would be: 

–  An enhanced safety and better management of radioactive waste and spent fuel,  

–  Enhanced legal certainty,  

–  The avoidance of unjustified delays for disposal solutions,  

–  And increased public involvement in the decision making process. 

NGOs were in general agreement with this view, adding that there would be an enhancement 
in the political will with regard to national decision-making,  

Radioactive waste management organisations, radioactive waste producers and technical 
service  organisations  also  highlight  similar  themes,  while  public  authorities  were 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
concerned  about  the  substantial  additional  human  and  financial  resources  that  would  be 
required  in  order  to  establish  such  national  programmes  and  to  comply  with  the  associated 
new obligations. 

Comments and suggestions to the open question 

Regarding  the  open  question,  186  suggestions  and  opinions  were  received,  128  of  them 
coming  from  individuals,  26  from  NGOs  and  the  remainder  (32)  from  authorities,  waste 
management organisations, waste producers, technical services and others. 

Many  of  the  comments  received  from  individual  respondents  expressed  an  outright 
opposition  to  nuclear  energy  (57).  Many  suggestions  indicated  a  desire  for  increased 
transparency  and  involvement  of  the  public  in  the  decision-making  processes  as  a  pre-
requisite to achieve the necessary confidence in radioactive waste management (24). 

Some questioned the acceptability of disposal of radioactive waste as an acceptable solution 
(14) and underlined the polluter-pays principle at EU level (14).  

A number of respondents expressed serious concerns that safe radioactive waste management 
could not be assured at the national level and as such it was an issue to be handled at the EU 
level (14).  

Other common suggestions received were: 

–  the need to increase the activities of research and development in the area (12),  

–  the need to increase safety and security (9),  

–  and  the  need  to  introduce  a  ban  on  the  export  of  radioactive  waste  from  the  EU  to  third 

countries (5). 

The  NGOs  shared  some  of  the  views  expressed  by  individuals,  mainly  the  fundamental 
opposition towards nuclear energy (13), and the need to apply the polluter pays principle (14) 
and improved transparency arrangements (9).  

6 NGOs expressed their disagreement with the idea of disposal of nuclear waste in geological 
repositories  as  an  end-point  for  radioactive  waste  management.  Instead,  they  suggested  an 
increase in research into long-term storage alternatives should be prioritised. 

Other concerns included  

–  the need to increase nuclear safety by applying the best available technologies (8) 

–  the need to ensure the effective independence of regulatory bodies and/or the radioactive 

waste management organisations (4)  

–  and the need to take into consideration the documents on radioactive waste management, 

produced by the European Nuclear Energy Forum ENEF (4). 

Other  concerns  voiced  by  Radioactive  waste  producers,  radioactive  waste  management 
organisations, national authorities and others were  

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
–  the need to improve the provision of adequate information (7),  

–  and  the  problem  of  an  overload  of  work  and  a  duplication  of  tasks  at  IAEA  and  EU 

instances (5). 

Some of the answers received are represented in the following charts –the values reflected in 
these  charts  refer  to  the  total  amount  of  answers  received,  without  differentiating  among 
individuals, NGOs, public authorities, etc. 

What are the main challenges related to the spent fuel and radioactive 
waste management with which your country is still confronted?

Lack of a permanent and safe solution for the disposal of high level waste and spent fuel

Insufficient involvement of the public in the decision-making process

Lack of transparency

Lack of political, solution oriented leadership

Lack of political decisions

Lack of a comprehensive national programme covering all types of radioactive waste and all
management stages with clear milestones and endpoints

Lack of a permanent and safe solution for the disposal of low and intermediate level waste

Lack of independence of the regulatory authority

Lack or little progress in the implementation of geological disposal for high level waste and
spent fuel subject to direct disposal
Lack of legislative framework providing appropriate arrangements for a high level of safety
of spent fuel and radioactive waste management

Lack of adequate financial resources for implementing disposal solutions

Insufficient technical infrastructure

Insufficient scientific infrastructure

Insufficient dedicated training

None of the above

5,7%

No opinion

1,4%

52,7%

50,8%

47,6%

41,0%

40,4%

39,2%

36,3%

31,6%

27,6%

26,9%

21,6%

20,8%

18,8%

17,3%

Do you consider that a common approach of all the 27 EU MSs is 
needed for tackling the challenges?

What would be your preferred instrument of Community
intervention?

No opinion 8,2%

No 17,6%

No opinion 3,9%

None of the above 7,5%

Non-binding 
recommendation 10,8%

Yes 74,1%

Binding legislation (e.g. 
Directive) 77,8%

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
 
 
Option 1 - Which are the fundamental principles and requirements 
that MSs should comply with under this policy option?

To effectively protect future generations from the dangers of ionising radiation

To implement transparency arrangements

To ensure the effective independence of the regulatory authority

To apply the "polluters pay" principle

To actively involve the public in the decision-making process

To provide to the regulatory authority the necessary legal, human and financial resources in order to
fulfil its functions
To establish and maintain a competent regulatory authority in the area of spent fuel and radioactive
waste management

To establish and maintain a national legislatie, regulatory and organisational framework for spent
fuel and radioactive waste ('national framework')

To ensure that the licence holder has the prime responsibility for the safety of radioactive waste and
spent fuel management

To ensure verifications of compliance with legal obligations

To ensure adequate financial resources for the safe management of spent fuel and radioactive
waste

To ensure appropriate expetise and training to all the parties concerned

To ensure enforcement of legal requirements

To ensure the establishment and implementation of quality assurance programmes

To foresee geological disposal as the endpoint for high level waste and spent fuel, if regarded as
waste

To establish and maintain a dedicated organisation at national level for the management of
radioactive waste and spent fuel, if regarded as waste for direct disposal

Other

7,6%

None of the above

No opinion

1,8%

1,2%

82,5%

64,5%

64,3%

59,4%

59,2%

54,7%

54,5%

52,7%

49,2%

47,3%

47,1%

46,1%

43,9%

41,2%

36,5%

33,5%

Option 2 - Which elements should be included in the national 
programme for spent fuel and radioactive waste management?

Inventories of radioactive waste and spent fuel

Roles and responsibilities

Plans and technical solutions

Decision-making process

Cost assessment

Financing system

Time-table

Remedial actions for legacy waste

Skills and programmes for research and development

Main milestones

Disposal routes

Success indicators

Other

5,9%

No opinion

None of the above

4,3%

3,3%

66,9%

66,5%

55,3%

54,3%

50,2%

44,7%

43,1%

41,8%

40,4%

39,6%

39,0%

32,4%

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
 
 
As to potential impacts, which of the following would you expect?

Enhanced safety of the management of radioactive waste and spent fuel in
the EU

Enhanced legal certainty

Enhanced public involvement in the decision making

Enhanced political will for national decision making

Enhanced international cooperation

Avoidance of unjustified delays of disposal solutions

Avoidance of long-term risks due to potential political or financial
disruptions

Increased public trust in the safe management of radioactive waste and
spent fuel

Avoidance of long-term risks due to loss of knowledge

Increased trust in the use of radioactive materials and nuclear technology

Substantial additional human and financial efforts to comply with
reporting obligations under binding EU legislation

Substantial additional human and financial efforts to establish national
programmes

56,3%

51,4%

45,5%

44,3%

43,9%

43,7%

42,7%

42,5%

33,5%

26,9%

20,4%

17,5%

Potential lower standards compared to current situation

12,0%

None of the above

2,9%

Other

5,1%

No opinion

2,9%

Additional opinions received 

A  number  of  individual  contributions  have  been  received  in  response  to  the  open  public 
consultation. 

Greenpeace sent opinions to the open consultation through their different Campaigns in UK, 
Germany, the Netherlands, France, Greenpeace Nordic and EU Unit. Their comments can be 
summarized as follows: 

–  Criticism  towards  the  questionnaire  for  being  too  simplified  and  having  deadlines  for 
responses  which  were  too  short  (Greenpeace  UK-EU).  Greenpeace  UK  also  suggested 
some amendments that could be made to the questions. 

–  Outright opposition to nuclear power generation with the pre-condition for any discussion 
on  a  solution  for  radioactive  waste  management  being  the  immediate  termination  of  any 
nuclear  power  activity,  thus  stopping  the  generation  of  new  radioactive  waste.  In  this 
regard, Greenpeace UK highlighted that it is not acceptable to couple the development of 
"final solutions" for radioactive waste with the social acceptance for nuclear new build. 

–  Opposition  to  spent  fuel  reprocessing  and  all  related  activities,  including  transport  of 

reprocessed material or of spent fuel for reprocessing (Greenpeace NL and EU Unit). 

–  Application of the environmental principles of the EU Treaty and secondary legislation63

 to 
the  management  of  radioactive  waste,  which  would  result  in  an  abandonment  of  the 
nuclear power generation (Greenpeace EU Unit).  

63 

The  legislation  referred  to  is:  Directive 2006/12/EC  on  conventional  waste,  Directive 91/689/EEC on 
hazardous  waste,  Directive  2008/105/EC  on  environmental  quality  standards  in  the  field  of  water 
policy,  Directive  2008/1/EC  on  integrated  pollution  prevention  and  control,  Directive  2002/95/EC  on 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
–  In  particular,  the  environmental  rights  of  public  information,  public  participation  and 
access  to  justice  should  be  guaranteed  in  any  legal  instrument  dealing  with  radioactive 
waste management (Greenpeace EU Unit). 

–  Emphasis  should  be  given  to  the  polluter  pays  principle  and  all  aspects  dealing  with 
decommissioning  funds.  This  was  particularly  highlighted  by  Greenpeace  UK,  who 
enclosed a series of questions addressing the issue of nuclear decommissioning funding (in 
the UK in particular). 

–  The  request  for  the  radioactive  waste  to  be  kept  at  its  place  of  origin  (in  the  sites  and 
countries where it is generated), thus minimising the transport of spent fuel or radioactive 
waste.  This  would  require  two  legislative  changes:  a  ban  of  any  radioactive  material 
exports  from  the  EU  (Greenpeace  EU  Unit),  and  a  prohibition  on  the  development  of 
regional repositories within the EU (Greenpeace NL). 

–  The  various  Greenpeace  Campaigns  strongly  encouraged  the  Commission  to  disregard 
geological  repositories  as  a  possible  disposal  solution  for  radioactive  waste.  Instead,  EU 
initiatives  should  focus  on  the  research  and  development  towards  the  improvement  of 
intermediate  storage  solutions,  applying  the  best  available  technique  and  ensuring  the 
retrievability of radioactive waste at any time. 

–  The Greenpeace EU Unit and the Belgian Campaign also stressed the importance of having 
fully accountable and independent authorities involved in radioactive waste management. 
This  would  include  not  only  national  nuclear  regulators,  but  also  radioactive  waste 
management organisations, which, in the view of Greenpeace should also be functionally 
independent and separate from radioactive waste producers. 

–  Adopt EU common definitions for radioactive waste in accordance with the EU definition 
for conventional waste, i.e. considering all the residues from enrichment and reprocessing 
activities  as  "radioactive  waste"  (Greenpeace  France,  Belgium  and  EU  Unit).  The 
Greenpeace  EU  Unit  emphasised  that  radioactive  waste  should  not  be  treated  in  a  less 
stringent manner than other hazardous waste.  

Friends  of  the  Earth  Europe  agrees  in  general  terms  that  the  EU  needs  to  play  a  role  in 
radioactive waste policies, and an EU initiative in this regard offers the possibility to improve 
the  current  situation.  They  stress  the  need  for  transparency  and  to  ensure  the  polluter  pays 
principle  and  consider  that  the  minimum  requirements  for  the  proposal  should  be,  a  clear 
methodology  applied  when  preparing  final  radioactive  waste  solutions  (be  it  geological 
disposal or not); a ban on exports of radioactive waste; a ban on reprocessing, partitioning and 
transmutation  before  disposal;  and  the  phase-out  of  nuclear  power  as  a  precondition  to  the 
search for nuclear waste solutions. 

Fairlie  Community  Council,  which  is  an  association  of  neighbours  close  to  the  nuclear 
power plants Hunterston A and B (UK), expressed their objection to the proposal to dispose 
of  intermediate  level  waste,  rather  than  store  and  monitor  it.  They  opposed  any  radioactive 
materials going into landfill and the transport of external waste to Hunterston. 

the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment and the 
Community Strategy Concerning Mercury {SEC(2005) 101} 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
Nuclear Free Local Authorities from the UK and Ireland rejected the concept of geological 
disposal  and  called  for  a  phase  out  of  nuclear  power  generation,  radioactive  waste 
minimisation, reduction of the transports of radioactive material and ban of any discharges of 
nuclear  origin  in  the  environment.  The  Shetland  Islands  Council  sent  a  separate  letter 
echoing  the  views  of  Nuclear  Free  Local  Authorities,  in  particular  with  their  opposition  to 
geological disposal. 

Radiation Free Lakeland, a NGO based in Cumbria (UK), expressed its concern about the 
safety of the radioactive waste management at Sellafield and its opposition to the disposal of 
radioactive waste. 

The Scottish Councils’ Committee on Radioactive Substances (SCCORS) stated that "Any 
Directive provisions requiring the adoption of deep geological disposal policies would be in 
conflict with current Scottish Government policies" and stressed the importance of applying 
the polluter pays principle to radioactive waste management. 

The  Swedish  NGO  Office  for  Nuclear  Waste  Review,  MKG,  indicated  that  the  Swedish 
radioactive waste management policy should not be regarded as a model for the EU due to the 
existence of a number of unresolved challenges. They stressed the importance of relying upon 
independent regulators, the need to comply with the polluter pays principle and to implement 
transparency arrangements, as well as their concerns regarding the consideration of geological 
disposal as an end-point for radioactive waste management. 

The  NGOs  Terra  Mileniul  III  from  Romania  and  Energia  Klub  from  Hungary  issued  a 
common opinion in favour of developing EU binding legislation on spent fuel and radioactive 
waste  management,  highlighting  in  general  terms  the  same  principles  indicated  above 
(polluter pays, transparency, etc.). They also expressed their opposition to the deep geological 
disposal of radioactive waste. 

A letter by a member of the Royal College of Physicians of London64 stressed the fact that 
neither storage nor disposal should be imposed at EU level as long as the issue of high level 
waste management remained unresolved. 

The company ENEL strongly supported the development of EU legislation in the domain of 
spent fuel and radioactive waste management, stressing the point that neither the IAEA safety 
standards nor the Joint Convention were directly enforceable within the EU. Member States' 
national programmes should aim to strengthen these standards with disposal as their ultimate 
goal  and  should  report  to  the  Commission,  including  any  progress  made.  Adequate  public 
communication  should  be  ensured  through  independent  monitoring.  The  decommissioning 
funds  should  be  managed  through  contributions  by  the  operators,  "fixed  in  a  transparent 
manner  by  an  independent  body  and  regularly  reviewed  during  the  lifetime  of  the  nuclear 
plant  following  continuous  consultations  with  nuclear  operators".  Finally,  for  the  sake  of  a 
clear assignment of responsibilities, "it should be established when the "title to" and "liability 
for" an operator’s waste should be transferred to the Government or other bodies". 

The  waste  management  organisation  TVO  Finland  also  sent  a  letter  in  this  frame,  which 
provided an example of  how the  radioactive waste (in the particular case of waste from the 

64 

Dr Carl Iwan Clowes, FFPH Royal College of Physicians, London. This letter does not represent the opinion of the whole College 

of Physicians. 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
                                                 
nuclear power plant Olkiluoto 3) could be managed in a way that would satisfy the needs and 
requirements of all parties involved. 

The nuclear industry represented by FORATOM submitted a paper on the wider context of 
the  Public  Consultation  “Towards  a  new  Energy  Strategy  for  Europe  2011-2020”. 
FORATOM  expressed  its  support  to  the  current  debate  on  future  EU  legislation  on 
radioactive waste management taking into account the existing arrangements for ensuring safe 
radioactive waste management, both at national and international level, that in the opinion of 
FORATOM,  have  until  now,  delivered  excellent  results.  The  upcoming  EC  legislative 
proposal  should  aim  to  provide  an  EU  legal  framework  for  all  Member  States  and  should 
therefore encourage progress to be made in this area. Whilst several technical solutions for the 
management of spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste exist, there is a consensus on the 
need for deep geological repositories. 

2.2. 

Special Eurobarometer surveys 

The Eurobarometer is a major policy instrument that enables citizens’ views to be taken into 
account in the framing of EU policies and initiatives. In order to examine European citizens’ 
attitudes  towards  radioactive  waste,  DG  TREN  launched  a  special  Eurobarometer  survey  in 
2008.  It  was  carried  out  in  February  and  March  2008  and  the  report  was  published  in  June 
200865.  Almost  27  000  EU  citizens  in  all  the  27  Member  States  were  interviewed  face-by-
face. This survey is a follow-up to three previous surveys conducted in 1998, 2001 and 2005. 
It reveals that an overwhelming majority of European citizens sees an urgent need to finding 
solutions  for  management  of  high-level  waste now,  rather  than  leaving  it  unsolved  for  later 
generations.  European  citizens  consider  the  Member  States  to  be  fully  responsible  for  the 
management of their own radioactive waste according to a management plan specifying fixed 
deadlines and clearly want to be directly informed and given an opportunity to be involved in 
the decision-making process. At the same time they clearly want the EU to play an active role 
in managing radioactive waste through monitoring of national practices and programmes and 
development of harmonised and consistent methodologies. 

A new Special Eurobarometer on nuclear safety was carried out in 2009 and the report was 
published in April 201066. The results reveal that the issue of radioactive waste management 
remains a major concern associated with the use of nuclear energy, and that a large majority 
of  Europeans  believe  it  would  be  useful  to  have  European  legislation  regulating  waste 
management within the European Union and their national territory. 

3. External expertise 

A  dedicated  study  on  Regulations  Covering  Radioactive  Waste  Disposal  in  EU  Countries67 
finalised  in  2006  has  been  considered  in  the  preparation  of  the  current  Impact  Assessment. 
The consultant, DECOM (Slovakia), provided assistance in order to advise the Commission 
on  how  waste  disposal  regulations  might  be  better  harmonised  between  the  Member  States. 
The  advice  given  is  based  upon  a  review  and  comparison  of  policies,  legislation  and 
regulation,  as  well  as  discussions  with  and  feedback  from  regulatory  representatives  in 
Member States. The approaches of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Western 
European  Nuclear  Regulators  Association  (WENRA),  Organisation  for  Economic  Co-

65 
66 
67 

Special Eurobarometer 297 (2008) 
Special Eurobarometer 324 (2010) 
TREN/04/NUCL/S07.39027 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
                                                 
operation  and  Development  /  Nuclear  Energy Agency  (OECD/NEA)  and  Working  Party  on 
Nuclear Safety (WPNS) were also considered. The specific goals were to identify key issues 
of  interest  to  national  stakeholders,  to  consider  whether  increased  harmonisation  in  the 
relevant areas would be beneficial, to propose any special Commission initiatives that would 
help  resolving  any  open  issues  and  to  provide  specific  suggestions  for  input  to  potential 
legislation. 

The  study  recommended  to  the  EU  to  consider  harmonisation  of  national  policies  and 
strategies  for  radioactive  waste  management  at  general  level,  such  as  a  requirement  each 
Member State to have a clearly defined policy and means of implementing it within a defined 
programme  with  realistic  timescales.  In  respect  of  "the  need  for  an  overarching  Waste 
Directive", the conclusion and recommendation of that study is that the requirements should 
focus  on  ensuring  adequate  safe  and  secure  storage  facilities  are  available  for  all  waste 
arising,  that  disposal  programmes  continue  to  move  ahead  and  that  protected  funds  are 
accumulated in order to finance the repositories when they are needed. 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 3: NATIONAL APPROACHES FOR MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE AND SPENT FUEL IN THE EU68 

Table 1. National policies and practices (the information is valid to the end of 2008) 

country 

Austria 

Belgium 

VLLW (if applicable) & LILW 

Interim storage of conditioned waste (LILW) at the 
Research Center Seibersdorf. Study in 2001 concluded 
that surface disposal was not an option in view of the 
presence of long-lived waste. However, in view of the 
small quantities a regional solution is the preferred option 

Interim storage of conditioned waste at the Belgoprocess 
site in Dessel pending the availability of a disposal site. 
Surface disposal repository planned for Dessel, with 
construction commencing around 2011. 

Bulgaria 

Processing of all waste. Construction of a national near-
surface repository for LILW-SL (both institutional and 
from NPP) by 2015. The repository should assure storage 
of waste not suitable for near surface disposal.  

Czech Rep. 

Treatment and conditioning of all waste, disposal in one 
of the operation disposal sites or safe storage of waste 
that can not be deposited in the existing repositories.  

HLW / SF 

- 

Storage at the Belgoprocess site of returned vitrified waste from reprocessing at La 
Hague. SF is now being stored in AFR facilities on NPP sites – current policy is a 
moratorium on further reprocessing contracts. However both open and closed fuel 
cycle scenarios are considered. Underground research continuing at the HADES 
facility at Mol concerning the concept of deep geological disposal in clay. 
Construction of a deep geological repository would not start before 2025, with 
possible operation around 2040. The WMO is a member of ARIUS and participated in 
the SAPPIERR project. 

Transfer of SF for storage and reprocessing in Russia with HLW return, under terms 
of 1995 agreement. SF can be declared waste if a disposal route is available. Storage 
of SF in reactor ponds and wet store at Kozloduy. Dry store to be commissioned 
around 2009, which can store both SF and HLW (after return from Russia). Decision 
on HLW disposal concept around 2012. Bulgaria participated in the SAPIERR project. 

Long term interim storage of all SF pending the availability of a disposal route. The 
national management strategy does not foresee a deep geological disposal site in 
operation before 2065. Six possible locations have been identified. It is anticipated a 
deep repository will accommodate all the waste that can not be deposited in near-
surface repositories, SF once it is declared as waste and HLW from decommissioning. 

68 

EN 

Sixth Situation Report on Radioactive Waste and Spent Fuel Management in the European Union, COM(2008)542 final and SEC(2008)2416 

69 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
country 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

VLLW (if applicable) & LILW 

HLW / SF 

Interim storage of conditioned waste at Risø National 
Laboratory. Repository concept under development. 
"Basis for Decision" outlining development expected to 
be approved. 

All waste from the decommissioning of Paldiski and from 
institutional sources is conditioned for long-term storage 
at Paldiski pending the availability of a disposal route. 

Routine disposal of operational NPP waste in 
underground (intermediate depth) repositories at the two 
NPP sites. 

International solution being sought for small amount of SF remaining in line with 
earlier solutions regarding SF from research reactors. 

None (all SF from the Paldiski training reactors was returned to Russia) 

SF stored in AFR facilities on NPP sites. The Decision in Principle by the Finnish 
Parliament in 2001 endorsed the selection of Olkiluoto as the site for the development 
of a deep disposal facility, subject to approval by the regulatory authorities. The 
repository is planed for operation around 2020. Posiva is now constructing the 
underground research facility Onkalo, which is planned to be part of the planned 
repository.  

Routine disposal of short-lived LILW at the Centre de 
l’Aube facility. Centre de Morvilliers opened in 2003 for 
disposal of VLLW. Long-term storage of conditioned 
LILW-LL pending development of disposal solution 

Routine reprocessing of most, but not all, SF. Unreprocessed SF is stored at La Hague. 
Deep geological disposal of HLW, based on investigations in Bure underground 
laboratory. Decision on a site expected by 2015, with operation of a repository by 
2025. 

In line with its objective to dispose of this waste in deep 
geological formations, the Federal Government is not 
pursuing any plans for near-surface repositories. After the 
dismissal of court cases against the licence issued for the 
Konrad repository in 2002, covering non-heat developing 
waste, work has started to transform the former iron ore 
mine into a repository. Disposal operations are planned to 
start at the end of 2013. 
Wastes are stored at the NCSR Demokritos and in users’ 
premises under GAEC inspection. 

Returned vitrified waste following reprocessing of SF at La Hague or Sellafield is 
stored at Gorleben. Final transport of SF for reprocessing took place in 2005. No 
further contracts are allowed All new generated SF is placed in dry stores adjacent to 
NPPs, until availability of deep geological repository.  

The Federal Government is aiming to establish a repository in deep geological 
formations for the disposal of all kinds of waste, including spent fuel assemblies, by 
the year 2030.  

SF return to supplier state 

EN 

70 

EN 

 
  
country 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

VLLW (if applicable) & LILW 

HLW / SF 

Institutional LILW-SL waste still to be disposed of at 
Püspökszilágy, though spare capacity is limited. An 
underground repository (200m) for NPP operational and 
decommissioning LILW waste is under construction at 
Bátaapáti, to be operational by 2008. 

Long term interim storage of all SF in AFR facility pending the availability of a 
disposal route. The reference scenario is domestic direct disposal in deep geologic 
repository, although other scenarios are kept open. The current target is to finalize 
URL by 2012, with possible SF/HLW repository operation by the end of the 2040's 
(candidate site at Boda). PURAM is a member of ARIUS and participated in the 
SAPIERR project. 

The small quantities of waste are stored on site by users. 

- 

Wastes to be conditioned and stored at point of origin. A 
national disposal facility is foreseen for VLLW and 
LILW-SL. As yet no timetable for implementation, 
although the stated aim of decommissioning all facilities 
by 2020 will require the availability of a disposal option.  
Wastes  from  decommissioning  of  Salaspils  will  be 
is  currently  being 
disposed  of  at  Baldone,  which 
expanded. LLLW-LL stored pending availability of deep 
repository  (national  or  regional);  Latvia  participated  in 
the SAPIERR project. 

VLLW  disposal  facility  currently  under  construction. 
Confirmed site for disposal of LILW-SL at Stabatiškė, in 
the  vicinity  of  the  Ignalina  NPP.  The  design  work  is  to 
start  in  2008,  the  construction  in  2012,  and  the  near-
surface repository is to be  commissioned in 2015. Initial 
investigations  for  an  intermediate-depth  repository  for 
waste not acceptable for near-surface disposal. 

All  remaining  SF  stored  in  NPP  ponds  and  will  be  exported  for  reprocessing.  A 
centralised  store  for  the  HLW  returned  is  envisaged.  In  principle  HLW  and  any 
remaining  SF  will  be  disposed  of  in  a  deep  geological  disposal.  Italy  participated  in 
the SAPIERR project and participates in SAPIERR II. 

SF from the research reactor at Salaspils is planned to be moved out of Latvia in the 
framework of USA–IAEA–Russia co-operation project and proposed Latvia–Russia 
governmental Agreement on co-operation in the spent fuel management. 

SF categorized as radioactive waste. Storage in dry store for at least 50 years prior to 
disposal  in  deep  geological  repository.  Some  initial  investigations  have  taken  place. 
Lithuania participated in the SAPIERR project and participates in SAPIERR II. 

The 
Netherlands 

Long-term  interim  storage  of  conditioned  waste  at  the 
COVRA  facility  in  Borssele.  (Near)  surface  disposal 
option not considered. 

Portugal 

Interim storage at the DPRSN facility at Sacavém. 

All  SF  to  be  reprocessed  and  vitrified  wastes  returned  and  stored  in  the  HABOG 
facility at Borssele. Current policy is long-term interim storage (100 years) prior to a 
definitive decision. Participated in the SAPIERR project and participates in SAPIERR 
II. 

Small quantities of HLW stored at Sacavém. All research reactor spent fuel returned to 
USA. 

EN 

71 

EN 

 
  
country 

Poland 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

VLLW (if applicable) & LILW 

HLW / SF 

Disposal  of  Institutional  LILW  at  the  Różan  facility, 
together  with  interim  storage  of  long-lived  waste.  Some 
siting  activities  have  taken  place  for  a  replacement 
repository, but have stalled due to lack of local support at 
the concerned sites. 

SF  is  in  temporary  pond storage  at  Swierk  from  research  reactors.  Placement  of this 
material into dry storage is underway, financed by state budget and under PHARE. 

Disposal  of  institutional  short-lived  waste  at  Baita  Bihor 
site.  NPP  operational  wastes  to  be  disposed  of  in  near 
till  2014. 
surface  repository,  planned 
Conditioning of LL-LILW and storage minimum 50 years 
prior to deep geological disposal together with SF. 

to  be  built 

Open  fuel  cycle,  SF  considered  as  radioactive  waste.  Six  years  wet  storage  at  NPP, 
followed by minimum 50 years in Spent Fuel Dry Store. Deep geological disposal in a 
national  repository  that  should  be  available  around  2050.  Regarding  the  SF  from 
research reactors – return to the country of origin and/or deep geological disposal in 
the national repository. 

All suitable wastes are sent to the Mochovce facility for 
disposal (both institutional and NPP operational waste). 
VLLW disposal facility under consideration. Wastes not 
suitable for Mochovce stored pending availability of deep 
geological repository. 

Storage of SF for 50 years followed by deep geological disposal. Other alternatives are 
also considered. A proposal for back-end fuel-cycle policy is expected in 2007. As yet 
there is no timetable for repository development. Slovakia was represented in the 
SAPIERR study and is represented in SAPIERR II as well. 

All waste currently being stored – mainly at Krško NPP – 
pending the availability of a national repository. The site 
should be determined around 2008, with operation around 
2013. 

All SF is currently stored in the AR pond at Krško NPP – there is sufficient space for 
the  projected  reactor  lifetime.  Current  plans  include  operation  of  a  dry  store  from 
2023, with an operational deep geological repository around 2065, although export is 
also considered. 

Routine  disposal  of  VLLW  and  short-lived  LILW  at  the 
El Cabril facility. VLLW repository at El Cabril available 
since July 2008. LILW-LL stored pending availability of 
a deep geological repository. 

The  GRWP  in  force  considers  as  a  basic  element  of  the  reference  scenario  an  open 
cycle strategy. 

Since 1982 all SF is currently stored in AR fuel ponds; except at Trillo NPP, where a 
dry  cask  AFR  storage  has  operated  since  2002.  Some  vitrified  waste  is  due  to  be 
returned from France around 2010 by the reprocessing of the SNF from Vandellos 1 
(Gas  Cooled  Reactor).  GRWM  plan  assumes  the  availability  of  a  central  SF  store 
around the same time and a HLW / SF repository around 2050. 

EN 

72 

EN 

 
  
country 

Sweden 

United 
Kingdom 

VLLW (if applicable) & LILW 

HLW / SF 

Routine disposal either in surface facilities at nuclear sites 
(VLLW)  or  in  SFR-1  underground  facility  close  to 
Forsmark  NPP 
(LILW-SL).  Planned  disposal  of 
decommissioning  waste  in  an  extension  to  SFR-1  with 
operation  in  2020.  A  repository  for  LILW-LL  will  be 
sited in about 2035. 

Routine  disposal  of  LLW  at  the  Low  Level  Waste 
Repository near to the village of Drigg in Cumbria. Plans 
exist for surface repository at Dounreay for LLW wastes 
from  that  site.  LILW-LL  is  stored  at  the  sites  of 
production  and  is  being  progressively  conditioned  into  a 
form  suitable  for  long-term  management.  LILW-LL  will 
be disposed of in a deep geological repository. 

All  SF  is  stored  centrally  in  the  CLAB  facility  at  Oskarshamn.  The  WMO  is 
proceeding  with  detailed  site  investigations  at  two  possible  deep  disposal  sites,  with 
the approval of the local municipalities and the government. Site selection is expected 
around 2008, with repository operation around 2018. 

All  remaining  Magnox  fuel  will  not  be  reprocessed  until  2016  or  later.  AGR 
reprocessing  contracts  will  be  fulfilled  by  2011,  leaving  3500  te  AGR  and  1200  te 
PWR fuel in storage. Since 2006, official policy for HLW is deep geological disposal, 
together with the appropriate long-term storage.  

EN 

73 

EN 

 
  
Table 2. National financing schemes for radioactive waste (the information is valid to the end of 2008) 

country 

basis for allocation of charges to waste 
producers 

mechanisms for financing longer term liabilities69 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech Rep. 

A price list updated annually, and approved 
by  the  regulatory  authority,  includes  the 
actual 
of  waste  management 
(transport,  treatment,  conditioning,  interim 
storage)  payable  to  Nuclear  Engineering 
Seibersdorf GmbH 

cost 

‘Polluter  pays’  principle:  Costs  are  waste 
category  specific  and  proportional  to  the 
volume within each category. 

Since the beginning of 2003, all holders of radioactive waste and orphan sources for disposal are 
obliged to make contributions to a fund for final disposal. Users have to pay this fee to WMO. 
WMO  regularly  transfers  the  collected  fees  to  the  Federal  Ministry  of  Agriculture,  Forestry, 
Environment  and  Water  Management,  where  this  fund  has  been  separately  set  up  for  the 
exclusive purpose of the later final disposal of the conditioned radioactive waste. 

 WMO  is  responsible  for  the  management  of  all  radioactive  waste  in  Belgium  and,  all 
radioactive waste has to be transferred from the producer or owner to WMO. Upon transfer, the 
producer or owner pays to WMO the amount which covers the future management costs. These 
provisions are managed by WMO. 

SF  management  cost  included  in  NPP 
operation.  Waste  management  activities 
carried  out  by  SERAW;  budget  is  covered 
by national fund. 

Segregated external funds were created in 1999 to cover decommissioning and waste liabilities. 
Under the 2003 Regulation funds are collected from radioactive waste producers and managed 
by  the  Ministry  of  Economy  and  Energy  in  a  dedicated  fund.  Funds  allocated  to  cover  the 
annual activity programme. Some activities are financed by EU under PHARE and also through 
the Kozloduy International Decommissioning Support fund (KIDSF). 

into 

Payments  are  made 
the  Nuclear 
Account  and  cover  all  of  activities 
connecting with SF and waste disposal and 
repository  operation.  Small  producers  pay 
on acceptance of their waste for disposal. 

State-controlled  segregated  fund  –  the  Nuclear  Account  –  receives  contributions  from  waste 
producers including the nuclear operator who pays levies according to the average production of 
electricity. Each producer pays according to his share of the total waste and the estimated costs 
of the WMO’s activities, which are updated according to economic or waste management policy 
changes.  The  WMO  is  responsible  for  collecting  these  charges,  monitors  the  adequacy  of  the 
reserve and approves any withdrawal. 

A segregate decommissioning reserve is created. 

Denmark 

Fees  charged  for  items  received  from 
outside Danish Decommissioning 

State  support  as  the  major  costs  will  arise  as  a  result  of  the  decommissioning  of  the  research 
facilities at Risø. 

69 

WMO means Waste Management Organisation 

EN 

74 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
country 

basis for allocation of charges to waste 
producers 

mechanisms for financing longer term liabilities69 

Estonia 

Finland 

Payment is made by waste producers at the 
time  of  transfer  of  their  waste  into  interim 
storage.  At  present,  no  distinction 
in 
charges is made between different types of 
waste. 

State  pays  for  “historical  waste”  liabilities  such  as  the  former  soviet  nuclear  naval  training 
facility  at  Paldiski  and  its  implementation  were  entrusted  to  the  Estonian  Radioactive  Waste 
Management Agency (A.L.A.R.A.). 

The  nuclear  power  companies  and  the 
operator  of  the  research  reactor  present 
annual  cost  estimates 
future 
management  of  nuclear  wastes  and  ensure 
that  funds  are  deposited  with  the  State 
Nuclear Waste Management Fund. 

the 

for 

According to the Nuclear Energy Act the licence holder has an obligation to take responsibility 
for all nuclear waste management measures and their appropriate preparation (including 
decommissioning costs), and shall cover all the related expenses. This is done by gathering 
adequate funds for future investments in an independent Finnish State Nuclear Waste 
Management Fund. 
To guarantee against the insolvency of the nuclear utilities, they shall provide securities to MTI 
for the part of financial liability which is not covered by the Fund. 

France 

Unit  volume  (or  commercial  tariff  for 
specified  packages)  on  delivery 
for 
disposal.  

For  VLLW  and  LILW-SL  disposal  is  financed  through  commercial  contracts  between  the 
producer  and  ANDRA.  For  LILW-LL  and  HLW  waste  producers  build  up  provisions  on  the 
basis of an evaluation by ANDRA. 

Germany 

the  cost 

State  bears 
initial 
development  of  repositories.  These  costs 
are  recovered  through  contributions  (cost 
per unit volume) or advanced payments. 

the 

for 

The regulatory situation and organisation of nuclear decommissioning and waste management in 
France underwent profound change in 2006 with the adoption new legislation on nuclear waste 
research and management. ANDRA has to set up an internal restricted fund in order to finance 
the storage of long lived high and medium level wastes. The fund will be fed by contributions 
from the nuclear operators under bilateral conventions. The nuclear operators will set up internal 
restricted funds covered by dedicated assets managed under separate accountability. 

For  privately  owned nuclear  facilities  i.e. NPPS provisions are  allocated to the foreseen  costs. 
Provisions for management of radioactive waste from operation are made according to the waste 
generated. 

For publicly owned facilities costs are finance d through the annual public budget. 

EN 

75 

EN 

 
  
country 

basis for allocation of charges to waste 
producers 

Hungary 

Official  tariff  list  set  by  ministerial  decree 
for small producers. 

Official current estimate € 7 000 / m3 forms 
basis  of  estimate  for  waste  management 
liabilities. 

mechanisms for financing longer term liabilities69 

The Central Nuclear Financial Fund, a separate Treasury account made up of the contributions 
the  nuclear  power  plant  operator,  will  cover  all  future  waste  management  and 
of 
decommissioning  costs.  Annual  payments  into  the  fund  by  Paks  Nuclear  Power  Plant  are 
proposed  by  the  Minister  supervising  the  Hungarian  Atomic  Energy  Authority  (HAEA). 
Payments are based upon submittals prepared by the PURAM and approved by the HAEA and 
by the Hungarian Energy Office. 

ENEL  transferred  its  long-term  liabilities  fund  for  decommissioning  and  waste  management 
(about €750 million) to SOGIN on its creation. As these were judged insufficient an additional 
levy per kWh, adjusted every 3 years has been implemented. The levy is fixed by the National 
Authority for the Electricity and Gas on the basis of Sogin’s annual program of activities. 

Fees  collected  by  BAPA  for  management 
services as well directly from state budget. 

Natural  resource  tax  payable  on  radioactive  substances  imported,  which  generate  waste 
requiring  disposal  in  Latvia.  Additional  disposal  vault  and  storage  facility  at  Baldone  funded 
under PHARE. 

NPP  operator  contributes  to  the  national 
fund  for  the  decommissioning  of  Ignalina 
NPP.  Other  waste  producers  contribute 
through charges to the finances of RATA. 

NPP  operator  and other  waste  producers  contribute  through  charges  to  the  finances  of  RATA, 
which  is  responsible  for  managing  all  waste  according  to  the  national  strategy.  There  are  also 
national  and  international  funds  for  the  decommissioning  of  Ignalina  and  management  of  the 
wastes.  The  NPP  decommissioning  fund  is  financed  through  a  levy  of  6%  on  the  price  of 
electricity  sold.  It  co-finances  waste  management  activities  with  the  Ignalina  International 
Decommissioning Support Funds. 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

The Netherlands 

For LILW: treatment, volume and radiation 
level  of  conditioned  waste.  For  HLW: 
reserved capacity (volume).  

For waste management and final disposal funding the operators pay volumetric fees to Central 
Organisation for Radioactive Waste (COVRA). COVRA then takes over full title of the waste 
(i.e. ownership and liability). 

Poland 

Funds  available  through  state  budget  or 
from services carried out by RWMP. 

No arrangements currently for some long-term activities These will be provided from the state 
budget as required. 

Portugal 

Part of estimated cost per item of waste. 

None. Portugal has no relevant activities or installations in the nuclear field. 

EN 

76 

EN 

 
  
country 

basis for allocation of charges to waste 
producers 

Romania 

Annual  allocation  of  charges  to  waste 
producers (to cover operational costs of the 
new WMO called ANDRAD). 

Slovakia 

NPP  operational  wastes  management 
funded from operating budget. 

mechanisms for financing longer term liabilities69 

The Government Ordinance 31/2006 defines two segregated funds; one for spent fuel and 
radioactive waste management and the second one for decommissioning of nuclear facilities. 
The funding mechanism is scheduled by the end of 2007 (plan: pay a fee based on a certain 
amount per MWh of electricity delivered). 
the  mid-nineties.  The  State  Fund  for 
A  national  fund  has  steadily  built  up  since 
Decommissioning  of  Nuclear  Installations  and  Management  of  Spent  Fuel  and  Radioactive 
Wastes  restructured  in  2004.  The  fund  is  managed  by  the  Ministry  of  Economy.  Annual 
contributions  by  NPP  operators  are  as  a  levy  on  the  electricity  price  to  the  end  user.  The 
contributions  are  reviewed  at  five  year  intervals.  There  is  co-funding  of  activities  with  the 
Bohunice International Decommissioning Support Fund. 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Small  waste  producers  (medicine,  industry 
and  research)  pay  ARAO  for  services 
provided  on  the  basis  of  a  price  list 
established by government decree. 

The  Fund  for  the  Decommissioning  of  the  Krško  NPP  is  financed  through  a  levy  on the  kWh 
electricity  production.  The  purpose of the  Fund  is  to  collect  money  as  a  levy on the produced 
electricity for future decommissioning and for the disposal of radioactive waste and spent fuel. 
The  Fund  operates  as  an  independent  legal  entity  and  its  work  is  overseen  by  a  Supervisory 
Committee. 

The National up-front Fund for the 
activities contemplated in the General Plan 
for RWM and Decommissioning is being 
done through incomes collected during the 
facilities lifetime based on cost estimations. 

Costs estimations are subjected to annual 
revision by the Government. 

According to the Royal Decree 5/2005 an updated financing system has been set up. 

The revenues transferred to the Fund arise from: 
The amounts collected via the supply and access tariffs for the entire electricity sales. 
Billing  to  NPPs  licensees  for  the  amount  resulting  from  multiplying  the  gross  KWh  monthly 
generated by each plant by a specific unit value, applicable to waste and SF originated beyond 
31st March 2005. 
Idem  to  2  referring  to  the  Juzbado  Fuel  Assemblies  Manufacturing  Plant  by  annual 
contributions. 
Billing to the licenses of radioactive installations outside the nuclear cycle via tariffs approved 
by the MITyC. This case invoicing is done when the waste is collected by ENRESA.  

EN 

77 

EN 

 
  
 
country 

basis for allocation of charges to waste 
producers 

mechanisms for financing longer term liabilities69 

Sweden 

Costs  for  operational  LILW  disposal  are 
paid  for  directly  by  producers.  Costs  for 
management  of  spent  fuel  and  long-lived 
LILW  are  levied  on  power  generators  (i.e. 
waste  producers)  by  means  of  fees  on 
generated electricity. 

The  Nuclear  Waste  Fund  administrated  by  a  special  Board  and  invested  with  the  Swedish 
National Debt Office, though SSM (regulator) advises Government, on the basis of an estimate 
made by SKB, regarding the size of the fees and must approve the main disbursements. The fees 
are reviewed annually. Additional guarantees are requires to cover early closure of NPPs (< 25 
years operation) and unforeseen and unforeseen waste management costs. The funds are set up 
as  external  segregated  funds  with  considerable  oversight  especially  with  respect  to  fund 
investment. 

United Kingdom  Charges  are  levied  by  waste  managers  on 
waste producers for disposal of Low Level 
Radioactive Waste (LLW). For higher level 
wastes,  no  charges  are  levied  at  present, 
there being no disposal facilities available  

Historic  liabilities  (previously  owned  by  BNFL  and  the  UKAEA)  assumed  by  NDA  will  be 
funded through a combination of continued commercial operation of some facilities and the state 
budget. The NDA’s strategy for dealing with radioactive waste is dependent on the outcome of 
reviews initiated by the UK Government. British Energy has its own segregated fund to cover its 
own liabilities. 

EN 

78 

EN 

 
  
 
ANNEX 4:  WASTE AND SPENT FUEL IN STORAGE AT THE END OF 2004 

Quantities of spent fuel and waste in storage at end of 2004 

Country 

VLLW 
(m3) 

LILW 
– SL 
(m3) 

LILW 
– LL 
(m3) 

HLW
(m3) 

SF 
(te 
HM) 

comments 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech Rep. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

128 
000 

- 

1800 

200 

- 

- 

Any remaining SF will be shipped to USA 
under 'take back agreement'  

13 000 

4 000 

444 

7 636 

4510 

- 

4 

1 100 

125 

400 

1 

1 940 

40 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

2 675  Does 

not 
contaminated wastes 

include 

200  m3 

radium-

943  Does not include liquid wastes (7 400 m3) 

891 

- 

- 

1 416 

The small amount of SF is considered as 
LILW-LL 

Mainly from decommissioning of former 
submarine training centre at Tammiku 

98 700 

92 600 

1 851  8 279 

In addition probably around 3 000 te at NPP 

128 761 

2 000 

3 109  HLW 

includes  448  m3  untreated  heat-
generating wastes. LILW includes 47 500 m3 
untreated wastes and intermediate products. 

840 

Total vitrified waste to be returned 

Greece 

Hungary 

Italy 

Latvia 

- 

- 

70 

1 214 

- 

- 

8 000 

17 000 

8 000 

- 

- 

- 

Lithuania 

26 000 

57 900 

760 

The 
Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

- 

- 

- 

- 

8550 

30 

1000 

472 

Slovakia 

4 000 

15 000 

Slovenia 

- 

2362 

4 

- 

11 

50 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

5 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Spain 

5760 

30230 

1146 

13 

- 

740  Liquid waste awaiting processing (4 700 m3) 

not included 

247 

- 

Small quantities of sealed sources only 

1 820  Does not include liquid wastes 

2 

0.6  Does not include liquid wastes (300 m3) 

- 

767 

770 

313  LILW-SL includes some LILW-LL 

3 195  HLW  currently  stored  in  France;  LILW-LL 
666 m3 stored in France and the rest stored on 
site 
its 
decommissioning.  VLLW  also  stored  on  site 
at Vandellos 1 from its decommissioning 

at  Vandellos  1  NPP 

from 

EN 

79 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quantities of spent fuel and waste in storage at end of 2004 

Country 

VLLW 
(m3) 

LILW 
– SL 
(m3) 

LILW 
– LL 
(m3) 

HLW
(m3) 

SF 
(te 
HM) 

Sweden 

3 940 

7 881 

4 900 

- 

4 930 

comments 

United 
Kingdom 

- 

2 000 

105 
000 

1 200  8 000 

ILW and HLW include waste arising from the 
reprocessing of fuel for foreign customers 

EN 

80 

   EN