COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Progress of implementation of Council Directive 2011/70/EURATOM Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT on progress of implementation of Council Directive 2011/70/EURATOM and an inventory of radioactive waste and spent fuel present in the Community's territory and the future prospects - THIRD REPORT
Date: 2024-05-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Energy, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, application of EU law, nuclear fuel, nuclear policy, nuclear safety, radioactive pollution, radioactive waste, waste management

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 22.5.2024  SWD(2024) 123 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Progress of implementation of Council Directive 2011/70/EURATOM Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT on progress of implementation of Council Directive 2011/70/EURATOM and an inventory of radioactive waste and spent fuel present in the Community's territory and the future prospects - THIRD REPORT {COM(2024) 197 final} - {SWD(2024) 127 final}  
 
 
Contents 

1. 

Introduction 

3 

2.  National policies and frameworks for the safe and responsible management of spent fuel 
4 
and radioactive waste 

2.1.  National policies 

2.1.1.  General considerations 

2.1.2.  Radioactive waste import and shared disposal policies 

2.1.3.  National policy developments 

2.2.  National programmes 

2.3.  National legal and organisational frameworks 

2.4.  Regulatory framework and competent regulatory authorities 

2.5.  License holders 

3. 

Implementation of national programmes 

3.1.  Progress monitoring and KPIs 

3.2. 

Implementation status 

3.3.  Self-assessments and international peer reviews 

4.  Cost assessments, financing mechanisms and available resources 

5.  Expertise, skills, R&D 

5.1.  Expertise, skills 

5.2.  Research and development 

6.  Transparency and public participation 

4 

4 

6 

9 

9 

14 

15 

21 

23 

23 

25 

34 

38 

45 

45 

45 

47 

1 

 
 
 
 
List of abbreviations and acronyms 

ARTEMIS 

Integrated  review  service  for  radioactive  waste  and  spent  fuel 
management, decommissioning and remediation programmes 

DGR 

DSRS 

EIA 

Deep Geological Repository 

Disused Sealed Radioactive Source 

Environmental Impact Assessment 

ENSREG 

European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group 

EU 

HLW 

IAEA 

ILW 

IRRS 

KPI 

LILW 

LLW 

LTO 

European Union 

High-Level Waste 

International Atomic Energy Agency 

Intermediate-level waste 

International Regulatory Review Service 

Key Performance Indicators 

Low- and Intermediate-Level Waste 

Low-Level Waste 

Long Term Operation 

NORM 

Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material 

PP 

RAW 

SF 

Nuclear Power Plant 

Radioactive Waste 

Spent Fuel 

VLLW 

Very Low-Level Waste 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
1. Introduction 

This  Staff  Working  Document  expounds  the  Commission’s  assessment  of  European  Union 
implementation  of  Council  Directive 
(EU)  Member  States’  notifications  on 
2011/70/Euratom  on  responsible  and  safe  management  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste 
(the “Directive”).1 The information used to carry out the assessment derived from the national 
programmes  for  the  management  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste2,  and  the  national 
reports on the implementation of the Directive.3 

the 

This  document  provides  background  information  related  to  the  main  findings,  progress, 
challenges,  and  trends  presented  in  the  Third  Commission  Report  COM(2024)  197  to  the 
Council  and  the  European  Parliament  on  progress  of  implementation  of  Council  Directive 
2011/70/Euratom  and  an  inventory  of  radioactive  waste  and  spent  fuel  present  in  the 
Community's territory and the future prospects. 

All  Member  States  submitted  their  third  national  reports  to  the  Commission  by  October 
2021.4  As  part  of  their  national  report  three  Member  States  have  also  notified  to  the 
Commission their Joint Convention reports5 for the 7th Joint Convention review meeting held 
in June-July 2022. Furthermore, during the reporting period nine Member States also notified 
to the Commission their updated national programmes.  

Consistently with previous reporting cycle, the Commission has given particular attention to 
assess the progress made by the Member States in implementing the Directive, with the aim 
to provide the Council and European Parliament with a comprehensive overview of spent fuel 
and radioactive waste management in the EU. 

1  

2  

3  

4  

5  

Council  Directive  2011/70/Euratom  of  19  July  2011  establishing  a  Community  framework  for  the 
responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste, OJ L 199, 2.8.2011, p. 48. 

Article 13(1) and Article 15(4) of the Directive. 

Article 14(1) of the Directive. 

As  per  the  Directive,  the  deadline  for  submission  of  national  report  was  23  August  2021.  The  UK 
formally  withdrew  from  the EU  on 31  January  2020.  Although,  the  Union  law,  including  the  Euratom 
legislation,  continued  to  be  applicable  during  the  transitional  period  from  1  February  to  31  December 
2021 – the UK authorities have not provided national report covering 2018-2021 period. 

Reports under  Article 32 of the  Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the 
Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. 

3 

 
 
 
 
2. National policies and frameworks for the safe and responsible 

management of spent fuel and radioactive waste 

In order to achieve the Directive’s overarching objective, which is to ensure the responsible 
and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste to “avoid imposing undue burdens 
on  future  generations”  6,  Member  States  must  establish  and  maintain  a  national  legislative, 
regulatory  and  organisational  framework  for  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  management. 
The framework must include the adoption of a national programme for the implementation of 
national spent fuel and radioactive waste management policies7. 

2.1. National policies 

2.1.1.  General considerations 

Member  States  are  required  to  establish  and  maintain  national  policies  for  the  long-term 
responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste. 

Each  Member  State  bears  ultimate  responsibility  for  the  management  of  the  spent  fuel  and 
radioactive  waste  generated  in  it.  It  is  up  to  the  Member  States  to  set  the  optimal  policies 
based on national specificities and needs (e.g. whether to reprocess or dispose of spent fuel, 
or whether to build a single disposal facility for all radioactive waste or a number of facilities 
for different waste types). 

All  Member States have enshrined the principles defined in  Article 4(3) of the Directive  in 
their legislation to serve as the basis of their national policies. These principles are: 

•  Keeping the generation of radioactive waste to a minimum;  

•  Ensuring  that  the  interdependencies  between  all  steps  in  spent  fuel  and  radioactive 

waste management are taken into account;  

•  Safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste and passive safety features for 

long term safety;  

•  Graded approach in implementation of measures for spent fuel and radioactive waste 

management;  

•  The costs for the management of spent  fuel and radioactive waste shall be borne by 

those who generated those materials;  

•  Evidence-based and documented decision-making processes in all stages of spent fuel 

and radioactive waste management.  

6  

7  

Article 1(1) of the Directive. 

Article 5(1)(a) of the Directive. 

4 

 
 
All Member States have enshrined in their laws and regulations that the prime responsibility 
for the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste generated in their territory rests with 
the  license  holder,  and  in  those  cases  in  which  that  is  not  feasible  (for  instance  due  to 
disappearance  or  bankruptcy  of  the  license  holder),  it  is  the  State  which  bears  the  ultimate 
responsibility. The practical implementation of this principle is reflected in the obligations of 
the  licensees,  including  bearing  the  costs  of  that  management,  and  in  the  establishment  of 
national waste management organisations.  

Comprehensive national policies for the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste are 
established in the majority of the Member States.  

Management of spent fuel from nuclear power plants 

After use in a reactor, nuclear fuel is considered spent or used and must be removed from the 
reactor for subsequent safe management, which includes first interim storage (in wet or dry 
storage) for a number of years, followed by reprocessing or direct disposal. Hence, broadly 
speaking,  national  authorities  have  two  technical  options  to  decide  upon:  reprocessing  or 
disposal.  

Nearly all Member States have set out a policy of interim storage until a deep disposal facility 
will become available for direct disposal, while France and the Netherlands have continued to 
reprocess spent fuel. 

Until a few years ago, a number of Member States used to reprocess spent fuel too, however, 
they  have  mostly  shifted  to  the  direct  disposal  option.  Nonetheless,  a  few  Member  States 
declared that they have not necessarily discarded reprocessing as an option for the future. 

The owners of the reprocessed spent fuel are responsible for disposal of the resulting waste, 
with  one  exception:  between  1988  and  2014,  Hungary  shipped  most  of  its  spent  fuel  from 
research reactors and nuclear power plants to the Russian Federation.  Initially Hungary was 
not  obliged  to  take  back  the  resulting  waste,  until  the  applicable  contract  was  amended  in 
1994; afterwards, Hungary  committed to take back the  radioactive waste  resulting  from  the 
reprocessing of the spent fuel in the Russian Federation. 

Management of spent fuel from research reactors 

In  general  terms,  the  policy  for  the  management  of  spent  fuel  from  research  reactors  is  to 
send it back to the supplier, especially in the case of highly enriched uranium fuel, under the 
Global Threat Reduction Initiative. 

When  that  is  not  possible,  spent  fuel  from  research  reactors  is  managed  like  the  one  from 
nuclear power plants. 

Management of radioactive waste 

In line with international standards and practices, and depending on the nature of radioactive 
waste  and  countries’  specificities,  national  policies  for  safe  radioactive  waste  management 

5 

 
are articulated around safe interim storage and disposal in near surface, intermediate depth, or 
deep geological facilities.  

Management of disused sealed sources 

Generally, the policy for the management of disused sealed sources is to ship them  back to 
the country of origin. When that is not possible, they are stored and disposed of when suitable 
disposal facilities are or become available. 

Although progress is being made, there are still a few Member States that have not defined 
their policy to manage all their radioactive waste or spent fuel in the long term.  In general, 
most of the Member States that have not clearly defined their policies have in any case taken 
some  fundamental  decisions  so  the  absence  of  policies  for  some  waste  classes  does  not 
jeopardise the progress of implementation of their national programmes. For example, some 
countries  that  have  not  yet  taken  the  decision  of  reprocessing  or  not  their  spent  fuel,  have 
decided  that  the  direct  disposal  of  spent  fuel  is  a  fundamental  decision  that  orientates  the 
ongoing  work.  Progress  is  ongoing  in  several  of  these  countries  to  define  a  policy  for  all 
types  of  waste,  usually  on  the  basis  of  detailed  technical  assessments  or  advice  by  waste 
management organisations or specialised bodies. 

2.1.2.  Radioactive waste import and shared disposal policies 

Although the Directive requires that the radioactive waste be disposed of in the Member State 
in which it was generated, it introduces conditions under which the radioactive waste may be 
disposed of in another Member State or in a third country (Article 4(4) of the Directive)8.  

Most  of  the  Member  States  prioritise  disposing  of  their  radioactive  waste  and  spent  fuel  in 
their  territory,  however  the  export  of  radioactive  waste  for  disposal9  into  another  Member 
State or a third  country  is  considered  a pursuable option  by most Member States without  a 
nuclear programme, or the ones with research reactor(s) and relatively small quantities of low 
level waste (LLW), intermediate level waste (ILW), or disused radioactive sources. While 12 
Member  States  consider  regional  or  shared  disposal  facilities  as  an  option  in  parallel  to 
developing their own disposal solutions, about three quarters of Member States ban import of 

8  

According to Article 4(4), one of the conditions is that at the time of shipment an agreement must have 
entered into force between the Member State concerned and another Member State or a third country to 
use  a  disposal  facility  in  one  of  them.  The  contents  of  such  an  agreement  must  be  notified  to  the 
Commission prior to the shipment. As of today, the Commission has not received any such notification. 
More information on shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel can be found in the fourth report on 
Member  States  implementation  of  Council  Directive  2006/117/EURATOM  on  the  supervision  and 
control of shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel:  

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52023DC0077 

.9  

Disposal is defined in Article 3(3) of the Directive as “the emplacement of spent fuel or radioactive waste 
in a facility without the intention of retrieval”. 

6 

 
 
radioactive  waste/spent  fuel  for  disposal.  Table  1  broadly  classifies  national  policies  about 
import of radioactive waste for disposal and search for shared solutions. 

7 

 
 
 
Table 1. Policies for radioactive waste import and shared disposal. 

Import for disposal 

Shared solution for disposal 

Not prohibited nor authorised 

Option 

Decided10 

Prohibited 

Prohibited 

Prohibited 

Not indicated 

Not indicated 

Prohibited 

Prohibited 

Not indicated  

Prohibited 

Prohibited 

Prohibited 

Not indicated 

Prohibited 

Not indicated  

Prohibited 

Not prohibited nor authorised 

Prohibited 

Prohibited 

Not considered/ discarded 

Option 

Option 

Option 

Not considered/ discarded 

Option 

Not considered/ discarded 

Not considered/ discarded 

Not considered/ discarded 

Prohibited 

Not considered/ discarded 

Option 

Not considered/ discarded 

Not applicable 

Option 

Not considered/ discarded 
Decided9 

Option 

Option 

Not prohibited nor authorised 

Not considered/ discarded 

Prohibited 

Prohibited 

Prohibited 

Option 

Not considered/ discarded 

Not considered/ discarded 

Not prohibited nor authorised 

Not considered/ discarded 

Not indicated 

Prohibited 

Option 

Option 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

10  

Agreement between Luxembourg and Belgium. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.3.  National policy developments 

National  reports  generally  provide  information  on  developments  of  national  policies, 
however in around one third of the reports the information on the practical implementation of 
the policy principles is limited.  

A few Member States have modified or further defined their national policies in this reporting 
cycle. 

Denmark  has  defined  a  dual  track  for  the  management  of  spent  fuel,  which  consists  of 
exploring  the  viability  of  exporting  it  for  disposal  abroad,  up  to  the  moment  a  decision  is 
taken on the deep geological disposal facility. 

Italy  has  adopted  a  similar  approach;  the  Italian  national  programme  states  that  due  to  the 
small  amount  of  high-level  radioactive  waste  (including  spent  fuel)  to  be  disposed  of,  the 
solution of creating a geological repository on national territory appears excessive, as well as 
economically non-viable. Therefore, during a transitional period when high-level radioactive 
waste will be stored in the national repository, the most appropriate solution will be identified 
for its disposal in a geological repository, also taking into account opportunities offered in the 
framework of any international agreements that may come about during the said period.  

Ireland decided in 2018 not to implement a disposal facility, relying on shipping back disused 
sources,  and  on  storage  of  institutional  waste  until  the  radioactivity  levels  decay  below 
release  limits.  Contrary  to  its  initial  plans,  Ireland  has  decided  in  2021  that  a  centralised 
storage facility is no longer necessary.  

Spain  has  considered  to  extend  the  temporary  storage  of  spent  fuel  in  individual  storage 
facilities at the nuclear power plant sites in case a centralised spent fuel and high-level waste 
storage facility will not be built eventually.  

Croatia and Slovenia have not reached an agreement on a common solution for the disposal 
of short-lived low- and intermediate-level waste from the operation and decommissioning of 
the Krško nuclear power plant co-owned by the two countries, and thus Croatia will have to 
dispose of its share in its territory. For the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent 
fuel from the power plant the search continues for a joint solution. 

Portugal indicated its plans to reconsider use of its storage facility as disposal. 

Although  the  legislation  in  Lithuania  does  not  allow  the  import  of  radioactive  waste  for 
disposal,  and  states  that  the  radioactive  waste  and  spent  fuel  produced  in  Lithuania  will  be 
disposed of in a national facility, its national programme does not rule out the possibility of 
accepting foreign waste or spent fuel into its future deep geological disposal facility. 

2.2. National programmes 

Member States are required to establish national programmes for spent fuel and radioactive 
waste management, which define the measures,  timeframes and milestones for the practical 

9 

 
implementation of national policies. They were also required for the first time to notify these 
programmes to the Commission before 23 August 2015. 

Whereas  in  2015  some  national  programmes  were  still  draft  versions,  now  all  27  Member 
States  have  legally  approved  national  programmes.  The  majority  of  the  programmes  was 
adopted  in  2015,  while  the  Spanish  programme  dates  back  to  2006,  and  the  Italian 
programme was adopted in 2019. 

In the first and the second Commission reports it was noted that one Member State’s national 
programme has been drawn-up in 2006 and therefore some of the reported information  was 
outdated. In the third national report the Member State presented updated information on the 
spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  management  activities,  as  well  as  an  updated  inventory  of 
the spent fuel and radioactive waste. 

As  regular  reviews  and  updates  of  national  programmes  are  due,  the  Commission  expects 
Member  States  to  submit  their  updated  programmes,  as  per  Article  13(1)  of  the  Directive. 
Since 2015 almost half of the Member States have updated their national programmes; in this 
reporting  cycle  nine  Member  States  notified  their  updated  national  programmes,  partly 
modifying the strategy and the timelines for the activities. In most cases, updates resulted in 
pushing  the  various  implementation  milestones  forward  by  several  years,  mostly  reflecting 
current delays in the implementation of the national programmes.  

Two out of the nine have been revised to take account of significant changes in the national 
framework  and  strategy.  One  of  them  has  been  modified  to  exclude  the  construction  of 
national  disposal  or  storage  facilities,  storing  disused  radioactive  sources  or  possibly 
emerging radioactive waste instead at the premises of the users – including private entities – 
until  they  can  be  exported.  There  are  ongoing,  but  so  far  unsuccessful  efforts  to  reach  an 
agreement with a third country for this purpose. Other non-nuclear power countries have also 
based their policy on the export of their small inventory of disused radioactive sources, but 
this  is  the  only  case  in  which  a  national  storage  facility  is  not  foreseen.  Another  Member 
State whose national programme used to contain no disposal solution plans introduced plans 
for a disposal facility.  

The remaining national programmes were amended either according to the revision frequency 
established by their national framework or in response to the letters of formal notice of non-
compliance with the Directive sent by the Commission.  

It is expected that a similar number of national programmes will be updated during the next 
3-years period. 

The majority of the Member States have defined in their legal framework the responsibilities 
for  review,  update  and  implementation  of  the  national  programmes,  as  well  as  specific 
arrangements, deadlines and conditions for such review and update (see Table 2). Incentives 
for reviewing and updating the national programmes are most often infringement procedures, 
recommendations of IAEA IRRS and/or ARTEMIS peer-review missions, national decisions 

10 

 
to  change  to  the  national  policy  or  national  programme,  as  well  as  the  establishment  of  a 
fixed  period  for  review  and  update  in  some  cases.  These  review  and  update  mechanisms 
constitute  an  important  tool  towards  continuous  improvement  of  national  programmes  and 
frameworks. 

Article  11(2)  of  the  Directive  requires  Member  States  to  regularly  review  and  update  their 
national  programmes.  Two  thirds  of  the  Member  States  have  established  in  their  national 
framework a fixed maximum period of time to carry out the review or update of the national 
programme. However, there are already cases where Member States were not able to respect 
those deadlines, primarily due to lengthy or delayed approval or adoption procedures. As of 
mid-2022, seven Member States failed to review and update national programmes within the 
defined  time  frame.  Out  of  those  seven,  three  Member  States  updated  their  national 
programme  with  a  delay  not  exceeding  two  years.  The  remaining  four  Member  States  still 
have not updated their national programmes as envisaged in their national legislations. 

Some national programmes detail activities only for a specific timeframe, mostly covering a 5 
to  10-year  period.  By  the  end  of  this  period  Member  States  are  expected  to  prepare  and 
legally approve the updated national programme for the subsequent period. However, in two 
such cases Member States were not able to timely adopt updated versions. Such situations do 
not  ensure  continuity  of  the  national  programmes  and  should  be  rectified  in  the  shortest 
possible term. Member States are encouraged to optimize planning and adoption processes to 
prevent such cases and to ensure continuity of national programmes. 

Overall, almost all national programmes cover all types of radioactive waste and spent fuel 
generated  in  the  Member  States’  territory,  however,  concrete  plans  from  generation  to 
disposal, including deep geological disposal for spent fuel and high-level waste are included 
only  in  one-third  of  the  programmes.  There  are  still  Member  States  with  operating  nuclear 
power plants that have not yet taken a final decision on the long-term management option for 
their spent fuel, keeping several options open (e.g. search for shared disposal, reprocessing or 
direct  disposal).  Notwithstanding,  most  Member  States’  default  strategy  is  to  proceed  with 
the direct disposal of spent fuel. 

In  the  previous  report  the  Commission  noted  that  Member  States  with  nuclear  power 
programmes  focus  on the management  of spent  fuel  and radioactive  waste generated in  the 
nuclear  industry,  and  provide  much  less  detail  (or  no  detail  at  all)  on  the  management  of 
institutional radioactive waste. The situation has not changed since the previous report. 

Figure  1  and  Table  2  provide  an  overview  of  all  organisations  in  Member  States  that  are 
responsible for developing the programme for managing radioactive waste and spent fuel, the 
entity  approving  it,  as  well  as  well  as  the  frequency  of  their  (national)  review  and  update 
requirements. In some cases, the same entity is responsible for developing and approving the 
programme, which is not considered best practice. 

11 

 
Figure 1 – Timeline of latest national programmes’ releases and expected next reviews. 

12 

ATBEBGCYCZDEDKEEELESFIFRHRHUIEITLTLULV MT NLPLPTROSESISK 
 
 
Table 2. Member States' National Programmes under Directive 2011/70/Euratom – Reference date: June 2023. 

Organisation developing the programme 

Organisation approving 

Latest issue 

Review and update 

MS 

AT 

BE 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

CY  Minister of Labour, Welfare and Social Insurance (MLWSI), Radiation Inspection and Control Service (RICS),  

MLWSI 

Inter-ministerial working group led by the Federal Ministry of Sustainability and Tourism 

National Programme Committee (⁕) 

BG  Ministry of Energy 

Department of Labour Inspection (DLI) 

CZ  Ministry of Industry and Trade  

Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety 

Danish Health Authority 

Federal Government 

Federal Council of Ministers 

The Council of Ministers 

Government 

Federal Cabinet 

Ministry of Health 

Ministry of Environment, with participation of A.L.A.R.A. AS, Radiation Monitoring Bureau, QPRE OÜ and experts. (†) 

Ministry of the Environment 

Greek Atomic Energy Commission (EEAE) 

ENRESA (•) 

Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment, and Ministry of Social Affairs and Health in cooperation with the Radiation and Nuclear 
Safety Authority 

Minister responsible for the EEAE (Ministers for 
Finance and for Development and Investment) 

Government (‡) 

Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment  

The Ministry of Ecological Transition (assisted by the PNGMDR steering committee) and the Nuclear Safety Authority 

Government 

State Office for Radiological and Nuclear Safety (DZRNS) 

HU  Ministry of Innovation and Technology 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications (DECC). 

Ministry of Ecological Transition 

Ministry of Energy together with other stakeholders 

The Minister for Health 

LV   Minister for Environmental Protection and Regional Development 

MT   Radiation Protection Commission 

NL  Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management 

PL 

PT 

Ministry of Energy 

Portuguese Environment Agency (APA) 

RO 

Nuclear and Radioactive Waste Agency (ANDR) 

SE 

SI 

SK 

Swedish Radiation Safety Authority 

Agency for Radioactive Waste Management (ARAO) and Slovenian Nuclear Safety Administration (SNSA) (⁑) 

The administrative board of the National Nuclear Fund for decommissioning nuclear installations and managing spent nuclear fuel and 
radioactive waste (‘NNF’) 

Government of the Republic of Croatia  

Government after SEA completion  

Government  

Prime Minister 

Government 

The Minister for Health 

Council of Ministers 

Radiation Protection Commission 

Parliament 

Council of Ministers 

Council of Ministers 

Government 

Ministry of the Environment 

National Assembly 

Government 

2018 

2015 

2015 

2015 

2019 

2015 

2020 

2019 

2020 

2006 

2022 

2017 

2018 

2016 

2021 

2019 

2021 

2015 

2017 

2019 

2016 

2020 

2017 

2022 

2015 

2016 

2015 

No period 

No period 

Every 5 years 

Every 10 years 

Every 10 years 

No period 

No period 

Every 10 years 

Every 3 years 

Every 4 years 

Every 10 years 

Every 5 years 

No period 

Every 5 years 

No period 

Every 3 years 

Every 10 years 

No period 

Every 10 years 

No period 

Every 10 years 

Every 4 years 

No period 

Every 5 years 

Every 10 years 

Every 10 years 

Every 6 years 

(⁕) Comprised of representatives from the Federal Public Service responsible for Energy, the Belgian Agency for Radioactive Waste and Enriched Fissile Materials (ONDRAF/NIRAS) and Synatom. 

(†) The plan has been coordinated with the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications, and the Ministry of Finance. 

(•) The legal basis requires Empresa Nacional de Residuos Radiactivos S.A. (ENRESA) to submit to the Ministry for the Environmental Transition and the Demographic Challenge every 4 years, or whenever so required by the Ministry, a draft update of the 
programme. 

(‡) Upon proposal by Ministry for the Environmental Transition and the Demographic Challenge, being heard the CSN and relevant Autonomous Communities. 

(⁑) ARAO provides the expert basis for the revision of the Programme and based on this, SNSA prepares a draft National Programme which is adopted by National Assembly. 

13 

 
 
 
2.3. National legal and organisational frameworks 

Member  States  are  required  to  establish  and  maintain  a  national  legislative,  regulatory  and 
organisational  framework  (‘national  framework’)  for  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste 
management  that  allocates  responsibility  and  provides  for  coordination  between  relevant 
competent bodies (Article 5(1) of the Directive). 

Member  States  were  required  to  transpose  the  Directive  by  23  August  2013.  All  Member 
States had communicated to  the Commission  their transposition measures and declared  full 
transposition by the time of the first Commission report to the European Parliament and the 
Council.  During  the  conformity  assessment  of  the  latest  notified  legal  measures  the 
Commission  concluded  that  the  transposition  in  five  Member  States  is  incomplete.  Some 
Member States already have indicated additional measures to ensure full transposition. 

In the third national reports Member States listed the legal arrangements and the provisions 
for  the  national  framework,  with  a  very  general  summary  of  the  issues  addressed  in  the 
updated arrangements. While some details were provided on how those legal provisions are 
implemented  in  practice,  some  Member  States  simply  listed  new  or  amended  legal  acts 
without  specifying  what  were  the  actual  impacts  of  those  changes  (e.g.  whether  or  not  any 
new  or  amended  legal  acts  modified  the  allocation  of  responsibilities  or  the  coordination 
between relevant competent bodies).  

National  legal  and  organisational  frameworks  in  Member  States  with  nuclear  power  plants 
are generally well-structured and advanced since relevant national laws predate the Directive. 
As  of  the  end  of  the  reporting  period  Member  States  had  completed  transposition  of  the 
Council Directives 2014/87/Euratom (Nuclear Safety Directive) and 2013/59/Euratom (Basic 
Safety  Standards  Directive).  About  half  of  the  Member  States  have  reported  that  they 
included  the  provisions  of  the  Basic  Safety  Standards  in  their  national  frameworks,  and 
further  defined  the  functions  of  the  regulatory  authorities,  national  waste  management 
organisations, as well as other licensing related topics.  

topics  addressed  during 

A few Member States have clarified financial aspects and safety aspects of radioactive waste 
management.  Other 
include  nuclear  security, 
requirements of the amended Nuclear Safety Directive, alignment of the national framework 
with IAEA standards or WENRA Safety Reference Levels, and obligations of license holders 
relative  to  public  information  and  involvement,  safety  of  radioactive  waste  management, 
radiation protection issues, radioactive sources, etc.  

the  updates 

Most  Member  States’  national  framework  prescribes  updating  and  improving  the  national 
framework  as  per  Article  5(2)  of  the  Directive  and  establishes  the  responsibilities  of 
stakeholders.  In  general,  improvements  of  the  national  framework  are  mainly  triggered  by 
international peer reviews (i.e. IAEA IRRS and ARTEMIS peer-review services). Due to the 
COVID  pandemic  affecting  international  travel,  few  Member  States  could  host  an  IRRS 
and/or ARTEMIS peer-review missions during the reporting period. The improvements of the 

14 

 
national  framework  originated  by  the  outcomes  and  recommendations  of  these  reviews  are 
expected to be implemented in the following reporting period. Overall, about one third of the 
Member  States  reported  that  IAEA  IRRS  and  ARTEMIS  peer-review  missions’  outcomes 
and  recommendations  triggered  the  update  of  legal  and  other  administrative  and  regulatory 
arrangements.  

Member States without nuclear power programmes benefitted the most from the international 
peer reviews. Occasionally, international peer-review missions have even contributed to the 
development of the national framework.  

All  Member  States  have  established  laws  or  regulations  requiring  that  the  operating 
experience,  insights  gained  from  the  decision-making  process  and  the  development  of 
relevant  technology  and  research  be  taken  into  account.  However,  most  Member  States 
provided  very  little  or  no  detail  on  how  the  development  and  review  of  the  national 
framework takes into account operating experience or research in practice. 

2.4. Regulatory framework and competent regulatory authorities 

Member States are required to establish and maintain a competent regulatory authority in the 
field  of  safety  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  management.  This  authority  must  be 
functionally separated from any other body or organisation concerned with the promotion or 
utilisation  of  nuclear  energy  or  radioactive  material,  or  with  the  management  of  spent  fuel 
and  radioactive  waste.  The  authority  must  have  the  legal  powers,  as  well  as  human  and 
financial resources necessary to fulfil its obligations (Article 6 of the Directive). 

All  Member  States  established  national  competent  authorities  and  defined 
their 
responsibilities and legal powers (see Table 3 below). The majority of Member States opted 
for  one  competent  authority,  while  others  preferred  to  set  out  two  or  more  organisations 
which  have  competences  and  regulatory  functions  in  different  aspects  of  spent  fuel  and 
radioactive waste management. Occasionally, there are regional regulatory authorities (such 
is the case of Germany), along with federal or national ones. The Commission noted that the 
national  reports  did  not  provide  sufficient  information  on  the  local/regional  competent 
authorities  (when  applicable)  dealing  with  radioactive  waste  management.  Whenever 
regulatory  functions are  assigned  more than one  organisation (including local/regional),  the 
Commission expects Member States to provide information on how authorities interact with 
each other to ensure safe management of radioactive waste and spent fuel. 

In order to strengthen regulatory supervision, three Member States have introduced changes 
to their competent regulatory authorities during the reporting period, such as the creation of 
new authorities, reorganisation of existing ones or consolidation of functions. 

Functional independence 

Most  of  the  Member  States  declared  the  independence  of  their  regulatory  authorities  from 
any other organisation or body (i) promoting or using nuclear energy or (ii) managing spent 

15 

 
fuel  and  radioactive  waste.  In  most  cases,  functional  or  administrative  independency  was 
established in the relevant national law. The regulatory authority is in some cases embedded 
in a ministry, and in others it is an autonomous body which reports to the national parliament, 
the council of ministries, or the government. 

Most  of  the  Member  States  have  successfully  demonstrated  that  the  competent  regulatory 
authority  is  functionally  independent.  Since  the  previous  Commission  report  four  Member 
States have implemented specific measures to ensure and strengthen functional independence 
of their competent regulatory authority. However, further efforts are needed in this domain by 
a  few  Member  States.  In  general  terms,  regulatory  authorities  in  countries  without  nuclear 
power programmes are often part of the state’s central administration and  are usually small, 
proportionate to the size of the managed radioactive waste inventories. 

Technical and financial capacity 

In  addition  to  the  functional  and  administrative  independence,  technical  and  financial 
capacity are also necessary elements for the effective independence of a regulatory authority 
capable of implementing its responsibilities. Most Member States’ national reports provided 
information  on  measures  for  ensuring  technical  and  financial  independence.  For  instance, 
such  measures  included  ensuring  adequate  human  resources  and  sufficient  funding  by  law, 
establishing fees to the licensees, negotiation of the budget.  

Human resources 

The national reports of 19 Member States contained information on the human resources of 
the  competent  authority  by  indicating  the  actual  number  of  staff.  However,  in  a  number  of 
cases  information  was  limited  to  a  generic  statement  that  resources  were  sufficient,  or  no 
information  was  provided. There were  a  few  cases  when Member States  indicated only  the 
number  of  positions  allocated  to  the  regulatory  authority  without  specifying  how  many  of 
these were actually filled. A few Member States expressed concerns due to the high turnover 
rate of the staff and related challenges in knowledge preservation, training of new staff, and 
build-up  of  competence  despite  their  total  staff  numbers  remaining  stable  since  the  last 
reporting period. 

Staffing requirements to fulfil regulatory functions were usually not clearly indicated, thus in 
most  of  the  cases  it  was  difficult  to  assess  the  adequacy  of  human  resources  based  on  the 
information provided in the third national reports. Moreover, the majority of Member States 
indicated the total number of staff in the regulatory authority without specifying how many of 
them  actually  deal  with  safety  of  radioactive  waste  and  spent  fuel  management  activities. 
This  would  be  important  as  a  large  number  of  regulatory  authorities’  employees  does  not 
automatically  guarantee  that  sufficient  human  resources  are  allocated  to  the  safety  of 
radioactive waste and spent fuel management activities. 

16 

 
Some  Member  States  provided  very  limited  information  on  their  competent  regulatory 
authorities  in  their  national  reports,  much  less  than  their  Joint  Convention  reports  (e.g.  on 
financial and human resources, mechanisms to maintain competence, etc.). 

All Member States face challenges with respect to maintaining adequate human resources in 
the  long-term,  as  confirmed  also  by  recent  IAEA  ARTEMIS  international  peer-review 
missions. 

In most Member States staff numbers remained stable during the reporting period, while in a 
few  cases  staff  increased.  However,  such  increases  do  not  necessarily  reflect  an  actual 
improvement  of  the  regulatory  authority’s  human  resources  situation  as  they  might  have 
taken place after staff cuts or hiring bans. 

Although  it was  already  indicated in  the previous Commission  report, demonstration of the 
technical  independence  of  the  competent  regulatory  authorities  still  requires  further 
improvements.  Only half of the Member States  provided information  on the competence of 
their staff, availability of technical support organisations or other experts' support as well as 
on  the  mechanisms  in  place  to  maintain  staff  competence.  A  few  Member  States  have  not 
reported any information on competences of their staff or on mechanisms in place to maintain 
staff competence. Half of the Member States have clearly or partially reported  the financial 
resources available to their competent regulatory authorities. A few Member States provided 
information on how the management of the regulatory authority is appointed or dismissed, to 
show that management is not subject to undue influence while fulfilling its mission.  

17 

 
Table 3. National Competent Authorities for spent fuel and radioactive waste management (⁕) 

MS 

AT 

Competent authority 

Responsibilities for spent fuel and radioactive waste 

Reporting to 

Federal Ministry for Climate Action, the Environment, Energy, 
Mobility, Innovation and Technology (BMK) 

The responsibility for the safety of radioactive waste management and for its regulatory control.  

Federal Government 

BE 

Federal Agency for Nuclear Control (FANC) 

With regard to the safety of disposal facilities, the competent regulatory authority, i.e. the AFCN/FANC, retains 
all of its prerogatives 

Ministry of Home Affairs 

BG 

CY 

Nuclear Regulatory Agency of the Republic of Bulgaria 
(BNRA) 

BNRA has been assigned responsibility for all regulatory matters concerning radioactive waste and spent fuel 
management facilities 

Council of Ministers 

Radiation Inspection and Control Service – Department of 
Labour Inspection (RICS/DLI) 

The MLWSI, acting through RICS/DLI, is the sole regulatory authority on radiation and nuclear safety and has 
the responsibility for the administration of relevant legislation and authorisation of all facilities, sources, 
activities and practices involving exposure to ionising radiation, including radioactive waste and DSRS 
management. 

Ministry of Labour, Welfare and Social 
Insurance (MLWSI) 

CZ 

State Office for Nuclear Safety (SUJB) 

State administration and supervision of the utilization of nuclear energy and ionizing radiation and in the field 
of radiation protection 

Prime Minister 

The Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) 

DE 
(†) 

Establishment and maintenance of a register on the radiation exposure of occupationally exposed persons and 
on high-activity sealed radioactive sources, determination of the radiation exposure of individuals for medical 
reasons. 

Federal Ministry for the Environment, 
Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety 
(BMU)  

Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management 
(BASE) 

Länder 

DK 

The Danish Health Authority  

The Danish Emergency Management Agency  

EE 

The Environmental Board 

The Environmental Inspectorate 

- Supervision of the site selection procedure 
- Public participation in the site selection procedure 
- Granting of approvals and permits under mining, water and nuclear law in approval procedures pursuant to 
§9b AtG for disposal facilities 
- Plan and approval for, and licensing of disposal facilities 
- Licensing of storage facilities and transport of nuclear fuel 
- Government custody of nuclear fuel 
- Long-term documentation of all documents and data relevant for storage and disposal 
- Task-related research 

Licensing and supervision of nuclear installations and facilities. 

Authorised to establish limits and conditions for operation and decommissioning, to issue terms necessary to 
ensure compliance and to access nuclear facilities at any time. The nuclear installations at the Risø site, 
including the national storage facilities for radioactive waste, are subject to oversight and inspection by the 
Nuclear Regulatory Authorities. 

takes part in drawing up and implementing policies, development plans and programmes, it processes and issues 
radiation practice licences, assesses the radiation safety of planned and ongoing radiation practices, maintains 
radiation-related databases and cooperates with the Environmental Inspectorate to arrange supervision of 
radiation practice licences.  

coordinates and executes supervision of all areas of environmental protection and the use of natural resources, 
as well as conducts proceedings in environmental violations. 

Federal government 

Minister of Health 

Minister of Defence 

Ministry of the Environment 

EL  Greek Atomic Energy Commission (EEAE) 

Control, regulation and supervision in the fields of nuclear energy, nuclear technology, radiological, nuclear 
safety and radiation protection. 

Minister of Development and 
Investments 

ES 

The Nuclear Safety Council (CSN) 

Reporting on nuclear safety and radiological protection and authorisations to nuclear and radioactive 
installations as well as carrying out inspection and control and issuing Instructions, which take the form of 
mandatory rules 

Parliament 

FI 

Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK) 

STUK is responsible for controlling that the Radiation Act and other regulations based on the Act are followed. 
STUK grants safety licences for the use of radiation. The regulatory rights of STUK are described in the 
Radiation Act. STUK has the authority to issue binding regulations, which have replaced some of the lower 
level government decrees related to nuclear and radiation safety. 

Ministry of Economic affairs and 
Employment  

Ministry of Social Affairs and Health 

Staff (year) 

No data 

~160 (2018) 
~150 (2021) 

94 (2017) 
~100 (2021) 

5 (2018) 
6 (2020) 

209 (2014)  
215 (2020) 

No data 

No data 

No data 

No data 

355  
[18 in the Radiation 
Safety Dept.] 

175 (2020) 
[122 inspectors, 15 
involved in radiation 
supervision] 

75 (2018) 
75 (2021) 

448/214 (2017) 
424/223 (2020) 
[Total staff/ Nuclear 
Safety and Radiological 
Protection Corps] 

326 (2017) 
350 (2020) 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

FR 

Competent authority 

Responsibilities for spent fuel and radioactive waste 

Reporting to 

The Parliament, the Government and Nuclear Safety Authority 
(ASN) 

Regulates, authorises, controls and helps the public authorities to manage emergencies, participate in the public 
information 

Parliament (•) 

Radiological and nuclear safety 

Ministry of Interior 

HR  Ministry of Interior 

Civil Protection Directorate 

HU  Hungarian Atomic Energy Authority (HAEA) 

IE  Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications 

(DECC), assisted by the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) 

IT 

National Inspectorate for Nuclear Safety and Radiation 
Protection (ISIN) 

The Minister of Ecological Transition (presently Minister of the 
Environment and Security of Energy Supply) 

LT 

State Nuclear Power Safety Inspectorate (VATESI) 

The supervisory and administrative regulatory competence relating to nuclear safety and physical protection 
regarding nuclear installations, radioactive waste disposal facilities as well as nuclear and radioactive materials 
lies with the HAEA in Hungary. The Atomic Energy Act authorises the HAEA to perform is supervisory 
activity. 

The EPA is an independent public body and the competent authority in Ireland with responsibility for ensuring 
that people and the environment in Ireland are protected from the harmful effects of ionising radiation. 
The EPA is empowered to regulate radioactive material including practices involving radioactive waste, and 
radiation sources through an authorisation system of licences and registrations. 

ISIN is entrusted with functions and duties related to technical regulation, implementation of licensing 
procedures, technical assessments, control and supervision of nuclear installations no longer in operation and in 
decommissioning, as well as of research reactors, of facilities and activities related to management of 
radioactive waste and spent fuel, of nuclear materials, of the passive physical protection of nuclear materials 
and facilities, of the use of ionizing radiation sources and of the transport of radioactive materials, issuing in 
this case, the certifications foreseen by the current legislation. 

The Minister of Ecological Transition, the authority which grants the licence/authorization for nuclear activities 
(from the design and construction to the decommissioning and waste disposal) and for relevant major practices 
involving the use of ionizing radiations. Authorizations are granted on the bases of the technical advice, to be 
considered binding, provided by ISIN. 

Regulation and supervision of nuclear safety, radiation safety of nuclear energy activities involving sources of 
ionizing radiation, physical security of nuclear installations, nuclear materials and/or nuclear fuel cycle 
materials and accountancy and control of nuclear materials as well as supervision of requirements arising from 
international nuclear weapon non-proliferation obligations of Republic of Lithuania. 

Staff (year) 

500 (2018) 
529 (2020) 

Planned 30 (2021) 
[Actual number 
unknown] 

167 (2017) 
181 (2019) 

The Minister for Innovation and 
Technology. 

Government  

No data 

Government and the Parliament 

Less than 60 (2018) 
Less than 60 (2021) 

Government and the Parliament 

The Cabinet of Government and the 
President 

Radiation Protection Centre (RPC) 

LU 

Radiation Protection Division (RDP) 

Regulatory control over the exposure of humans and the environment and practices except those with sources of 
ionising radiation within nuclear energy field. 

Ministry of Health 

All matters pertaining to protection against ionising and non-ionising radiation, nuclear safety and radioactive 
waste management safety. 

Minister for Health 

LV 

Radiation Safety Centre of the State Environmental Service 
(VVD RDC) 

The VVD RDC ensures national supervision and control in the area of radiation and nuclear safety, and also 
organises and coordinates training of the personnel whose work is related to radiation safety in order to increase 
the level of radiation safety in the country. 

Ministry of Environmental Protection 
and Regional Development 

MT  Radiation Protection Commission (RPC) 

The national competent body for radiation protection and nuclear issues 

Ministry of Tourism and Consumer 
Protection 

NL  Authority for Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection (ANVS) 

The Authority is the competent authority in matters of nuclear safety, nuclear security, radiation protection, 
transport safety, and waste management and emergency preparedness and response. 

Ministry of Infrastructure and Water 
Management 

PL  National Atomic Energy Agency (PAA) 

The central government administrative authority responsible for nuclear safety and radiation protection. 

Minister for Climate Matters 

PT 

The Portuguese Environment Agency (APA) 

The Inspectorate-General for Agriculture, Sea, Environment and 
Spatial Planning (IGAMAOT) 

Licensing, evaluating, monitoring and inspecting facilities and activities relating to the management of spent 
fuel and radioactive waste (encompassing all phases, from initial choice of siting to decommissioning) 

Ministry of Environment and Climate 
Action 

RO  National Commission for Nuclear Activities Control (CNCAN)  Regulation, licensing, and control of all nuclear activities 

Prime Minister, through the General 
Secretariat of the Government 

19 

66 (2018) 
60 (2021) 

59 (2018) 
58 (2021) 

9 (2018) 
9 (2021) 

No data 

1 (2018) 
2 (2021) 

130 (2018) 
[141 planned] 
126 (2021) 
[+18 external staff] 

123 (2017)  
[incl. 26 inspectors] 
110 (2019) 
[incl. 26 inspectors] 

20 (2020) 

12 (2020) 
[inspectors] 

88 (2017) 
[Number of positions 
170] 
No data (2020) 

 
 
MS 

SE 

Competent authority 

Responsibilities for spent fuel and radioactive waste 

Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM) 

SSM is authorised to supervise spent fuel management and radioactive waste management in the areas of 
nuclear safety and security, radiation protection and nuclear non-proliferation.  

SI 

Slovenian Nuclear Safety Administration (URSJV) 

Nuclear safety of facilities and the safety of industrial radiation sources 

Reporting to 

Ministry of the Environment 

Ministry of Environment and Spatial 
Planning 

Slovenian Radiation Protection Administration (URSVS)  

Radiation protection in medicine and veterinary practice, medical surveillance of exposed workers, surveillance 
of workplaces, dosimetry and dose registers and education in the area of radiation protection 

Ministry of Health 

SK  Nuclear Regulatory Authority of the Slovak Republic (ÚJD SR)   State regulatory activities in the field of nuclear safety of nuclear installations, including management of 

radioactive waste, spent fuel and other parts of the fuel cycle, as well as transport and management of nuclear 
materials including their control and record keeping system. 

The Government and subsequently to the 
National Council 

Public Health Authority (ÚVZ SR) 

Supervision over radiation protection in nuclear installations. 

Ministry of Health 

Staff (year) 

302 (2017) 
305 (2020) 

44 (2017) 
44 (2020) 

No data 

126 (2017) 
128 (2020) 

30 (2017) 
40 (2020) 

(⁕) The data does not include staff of separate technical support organisations that exist in some Member States. 

(†) Germany as a federal state, the “regulatory body” consists of  authorities of the Federation and the Länder  – the regulatory structure comprised of BMU, BASE, BfS and the Land Ministries. The Federal Office for Economic Affairs and Export Control 
(BAFA) is responsible for the import and export of radioactive materials. 

(•) In particular to the Parliamentary Office for the Evaluation of Scientific and Technological Choices (OPECST) and parliamentary committees. 

20 

 
 
 
2.5. License holders 

License  holders  are  primarily  responsible  for  the  safe  management  of  spent  fuel  and 
radioactive waste present in the Member States’ territory under Article 7 of the Directive. 

their  national  reports  Member  States  provided  very 

In 
the 
implementation  of  Article  7;  generally,  a  summary  of  legal  requirements  without  any 
explanation on how those requirements were implemented in practice, especially during the 
reporting period.  

information  on 

little 

The reporting was somewhat more informative on matters related to Articles 7(2) and 7(3) of 
the  Directive.  About  half  of  the  Member  States  provided  information  on  periodic  safety 
reviews  and safety improvements as well as on safety assessments during licensing process 
that took place during the reporting period. 

Human and financial resources 

Most of the Member States stated that license holders are legally required to provide for and 
maintain adequate financial and human resources to fulfil their obligations with respect to the 
safety  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  management.  However,  in  most  cases  no 
information was disclosed on the actual human and financial resources of the license holders 
as  well  as  how  they  developed  over  time.  Only  few  Member  States  reported  on  the  actual 
status of human resources, like the number of staff. In some cases, generic information was 
provided on how competence and skills were managed (this information was mostly linked to 
Article 8). Thus, it is difficult to assess whether Member States  were able to guarantee that 
license holders ensured sufficient human and financial resources. 

Waste management organisations 

The presence of dedicated radioactive waste management organisations is a common feature 
(actually,  in  all  nuclear  power  and  most  of  non-nuclear  power  Member  States).  Waste 
management organisations are  typically  public entities,  with  few exceptions where they  are 
established  by  nuclear  power  plant  operators.  In  both  cases,  funding  of  spent  fuel  and 
radioactive waste management activities is based on the principle that the generators of spent 
fuel and radioactive waste cover the costs associated with the management of these materials. 
Some  of  these  organisations  also  deal  with  decommissioning  of  shut  down  nuclear 
installations.  In  some  cases,  the  Member  State  will  take  over  the  responsibilities  for  a 
disposal facility from the radioactive waste management organisation after the closure of that 
disposal facility.  

The  list  of  the  radioactive  waste  management  organisations  as  of  mid-2022  in  the  EU  is 
provided in  Table 4.  Since the publication of the second Commission  report, no significant 
changes took place. 

21 

 
Table 4. Radioactive waste management organisations in the EU 

MS 

Radioactive waste management organisation 

Type 

Responsibilities 

AT  Nuclear Engineering Seibersdorf GmbH (NES) 

Public/private  Collection, processing, conditioning and temporary storage of radioactive waste, decontaminating installations and laboratories. 

BE  Belgian Agency for Radioactive Waste and Enriched Fissile 

Public 

Managing radioactive waste from all sources, managing spent fuel when declared as radioactive waste, incl. disposal.  

Materials (ONDRAF/NIRAS) 

BG 

State Enterprise for Radioactive Waste (SE RAW) 

CZ  Radioactive Waste Repository Authority (SÚRAO) 

Public 

Public 

Management of radioactive waste and spent fuel, outside the facilities where it is generated; and decommissioning.  

Operation of all low and intermediate level waste repositories; Monitoring of the now closed Hostim repository, Development of deep geological repository for 
disposal of HLW and spent fuel. 

DE 

Federal Company for Radioactive Waste Disposal (BGE) 

Public/private 
(⁕) 

In July 2016, Bundesgesellschaft für Endlagerung mbH (BGE) was founded as a private-law entity under the sole ownership of the Federal Government; its remit 
is to act as a project sponsor for the planning, construction, operation and decommissioning of final repositories. Operator  responsibilities were transferred to 
BGE on 25 April 2017 

Federal Company for Radioactive Waste Storage (BGZ) 

Private (†) 

DK  Danish Decommissioning (DD) 

EE  AS A.L.A.R.A. 

EL  National Committee for Radioactive Waste Management (EEDRA)  

Public 

Public 

Public 

Interim storage of irradiated fuel elements and radioactive waste generated by the operators referred to in the Act reassigning responsibility for nuclear waste 
management. Since August 2017, BGZ has operated the centralised interim storage facilities in Ahaus and Gorleben. On 1 January 2019, responsibility for the 
12 decentralised  interim  storage  facilities  at  the  sites  of  the  German  nuclear  power  plants  were  transferred  to  BGZ. On  1 January 2020, responsibility  for  the 
12 interim storage facilities for low-level and intermediate-level radioactive waste at the nuclear power plant sites (as referred to in the Act) was also transferred. 

Decommissioning  and  receiving,  handling  and  storage  of  radioactive  waste.  Also  licensed  operator  for  all  radioactive  waste.  The  adoption  of  Parliamentary 
Resolution B90/2018 extended the tasks of Danish Decommissioning to also include contributions to establishing a long-term solution for radioactive waste. 

Management and storage of radioactive waste, incl. management and decontamination of former Paldiski nuclear site and Tammiku radioactive waste repository. 

Collegiate body with advisory and supportive role to the Minister on the implementation of the practical aspects of the national policy and national framework and on 
the coordination of the bodies involved in RW management. EEDRA can be interpreted as having a WMO-like role in the country by being independent from the 
waste producers, maintaining its autonomy in relation to the regulatory authorities due to its diverse composition, and having a flexible, optimal and effective form. 

ES  National radioactive waste company (ENRESA) 

Public (‡) 

Management of radioactive waste and spent fuel. Decommissioning nuclear plants.  

FI 

POSIVA 

Private (•)  

Posiva is responsible for the preparations and later implementation of spent fuel disposal for its owners TVO and FPH.  

FR  National agency for management of radioactive waste (ANDRA) 

HR  Radioactive Waste Management Centre (RWMC) 

HU 

Public Limited Company for Radioactive Waste Management 
(PURAM) 

Public 

Public 

Public 

IT 

Company for the Nuclear Installations Management (SOGIN)  

Public 

LT 

State Enterprise Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant 

LV 

Latvian Environment, Geology and Meteorology Centre (LEGMC) 

NL  Central Organisation For Radioactive Waste (COVRA) 

PL 

Radioactive Waste Management Plant (ZUOP) 

PT 

Instituto Superior Técnico (IST)  

RO  Nuclear and Radioactive Waste Agency (ANDR) 

Public 

Public 

Public 

Public 

Public 

Public 

SE 

Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company (SKB) 

Private (⁑) 

SI 

Agency for Radwaste Management (ARAO) 

SK  Nuclear and Decommissioning Company (JAVYS) 

(⁕) Public with private legal personality. 

Public 

Public 

(†) Private law entity under the sole ownership of the Federal Government. 

(‡) State-owned company CIEMAT (80%) and SEPI (20%). 

(•) Owned by the NPP operators Teollisuuden Voima Oyj and Fortum Power & Heat Oy. 
(⁑) Reactors licensees. 

Long-term management of radioactive waste. 

Coordination, preparation and development of the Programme of the Krško NPP decommissioning and the Programme of the Krško NPP radioactive waste disposal. 

Management of all types of radioactive waste, decommissioning of nuclear facilities, as well as activities related to research and development. 

Treatment and conditioning into certified form of all liquid and solid wastes, ready to be delivered to the National Repository; perform all the actions needed for 
managing spent fuel; contribute to the decommissioning of all nuclear facilities owned by other licensees; implement the single phase decommissioning strategy 
in all nuclear installations, reactors and fuel cycle facilities. Implementer responsible for the siting, construction and operation of the National Repository. 

Assigned as sole entity which is responsible for safe management of all the Lithuanian radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, defined major requirements for 
the preparation of the final closure plan of the disposal facility. 

Processing, reprocessing, storage for an extended period of time (long-term storage) and disposal of radioactive waste. 

Implementing the Dutch policy with regard to radioactive waste in the Netherlands. Treatment and storage of all radioactive waste and spent fuel. 

Collection,  segregation,  and  treatment,  conditioning  and  interim  storage/final  disposal  of  all  radioactive  waste  arising  in  the  country.  Operating  the  National 
Radioactive Waste Repository in Różan. 

Collecting, segregating, conditioning and storing solid and liquid radioactive waste. 

Coordination of the safe management of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, including final disposal, at national level. 

Planning  and  construction  of all  facilities  required  for  the  management  of  spent  nuclear  fuel  and  radioactive  wastes  as  well  as  for  research  and  development 
programmes necessary for the provision of such facilities. 

Collecting, transporting, treating, storing and disposing of low and intermediate level waste and for the disposal of HLW. Management of the closed uranium mine. 

Management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste. Decommissioning of the nuclear power plants. 

22 

 
3. Implementation of national programmes 

3.1. Progress monitoring and KPIs 

In  order  to  achieve  the  Directive’s  overarching  objective,  among  other  elements,  Member 
States  must  adopt  national  programmes  for  the  implementation  of  national  spent  fuel  and 
radioactive waste management policies. The content of the national programme is outlined in 
Article 12 of the Directive, which states that: “The national programmes shall set out how the 
Member  States  intend  to  implement  their  national  policies  referred  to  in  Article  4  for  the 
responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste to  secure the aims of 
this Directive, and shall include all of the following: (a) the overall objectives of the Member 
State’s  national  policy  in  respect  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  management;  (b)  the 
significant milestones and clear timeframes for the achievement of those milestones in light 
of the over-arching objectives of the national programme; (…) (g) the responsibility for the 
implementation  of  the  national  programme  and  the  key  performance  indicators  to  monitor 
progress towards implementation”. 

Together  with  the  objectives  and  the  milestones,  to  which  they  are  closely  connected  but 
from which they must be distinguished, the key performance indicators (KPIs) constitute an 
essential  element  of  the  national  programme,  which  enable  to  monitor  progress  towards  its 
implementation, the implementation of the national policy and, ultimately, towards achieving 
the  Directive’s  overarching  objective  of  avoiding  undue  burdens  on  future  generations. 
towards  national  programme 
Moreover,  as  KPIs  allow  monitoring  of  progress 
implementation, they are also an important tool for ensuring transparency towards the general 
public11. 

The application of KPIs is representing a challenge for the Member States. In order to support 
the Member States in addressing it, the Commission contracted a study, which was presented 
to  the  Member  States’  regulatory  authorities  and  relevant  stakeholders  during  a  workshop 
held in February 2021. The final report12 of this study identified qualities of a good KPI and 
provided  indications  on  how  relevance,  completeness  and  soundness  of  the  KPIs  could  be 
assessed.  It  suggested  that  for  assessing  the  soundness  of  the  KPI,  the  Commission  should 
take  into  consideration  whether  (i)  the  KPI  is  clearly  defined,  (ii)  its  underlying  data  is 

11  

12  

Article 10 of the Directive provides in fact that “Member States shall ensure that necessary information 
on  the  management  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  be  made  available  to  workers  and  the  general 
public. This obligation includes ensuring that the competent regulatory authority inform the public in the 
fields of its competence”. 

European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Energy,  Study  on  key  performance  indicators  for 
monitoring implementation of national programmes on safe and long-term management of spent fuel and 
the  European  Union,  2022, 
radioactive  waste: 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2833/052078 

report,  Publications  Office 

final 

of 

23 

 
 
auditable, (iii) it indicates thresholds for the adoption of steering actions, (iv)  it is regularly 
updated and (v) reassessed. For the relevance and completeness assessment, the Commission 
should  determine  whether  (i)  the  KPI  is  relevant  for  the  implementation  of  the  national 
programme and (ii) it covers the national programme’s essential steps and challenges. 

Having these general indications in mind and building on the results of the study mentioned 
above, KPIs should: 

•  cover the key objectives and milestones of the national programme; 
•  allow  for  the  measurement  of  progress  towards  the  achievement  of  the  national 

programme's key objectives and milestones; 

•  be regularly updated; 
•  be subject to a review process; 
•  be reported to the Commission every three years; 
•  enable  the  Commission  to  adequately  report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the 

Council on the progress in the implementation of the national programmes. 

In its first report13 on the implementation of the Directive, the Commission noted that “most 
Member  States  have  not  clearly  defined  key  performance  indicators”.  During  the  reporting 
period, the Commission asked for clarifications and engaged in a dialogue with the Member 
States  with  the  aim  of  encouraging  them  to  develop  their  own  KPIs  to  monitor  progress 
towards the implementation of their national programme. 

The  second  implementation  report14  identified  the  definition  of  KPIs  as  one  of  the  main 
challenges  of  implementation  related  to  the  national  programmes,  referring  to  KPIs  as  “an 
important  tool not  fully exploited thus  far”. The report also  stressed that  “…over a third of 
the  Member  States  have  not  defined  key  performance  indicators  in  line  with  the  Directive” 
and  that  the  Commission  “called  on  these  Member  States  to  comply  with  the  relevant 
requirements”. 

The situation has not changed significantly since the second implementation report. Although 
during  this  period  nine  Member  States  have  notified  to  the  Commission  their  updated 
national  programmes,  nonetheless  only  in  one  case  KPIs  are  in  line  with  the  criteria  listed 
above.  In  the  same  time  period,  the  Commission  has  received  a  few  draft  national 
programmes notified under the Article 33 of Euratom Treaty, some of which show interesting 
developments in the application of KPIs. 

13  

14 

Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on progress of implementation 
of Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom and an inventory of radioactive waste and spent fuel present in the 
Community's territory and the future prospects - COM(2017) 236 final. 

Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on progress of implementation 
of Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom and an inventory of radioactive waste and spent fuel present in the 
Community's territory and the future prospects – Second report – COM(2019) 632 final. 

24 

 
 
Hence, generally speaking, Member States have to make further significant efforts to set out 
KPIs. Around half of the Member States use milestones and timeframes as means to measure 
the  progress  of  implementation.  This  approach  may  allow  monitoring  the  fulfilment  of 
specific  goals,  however  it  cannot  replace  a  set  of  well-defined  KPIs  which  provide  more 
appropriate means to monitor the progress and drive changes. One third of the Member States 
still  have  not  defined  any  KPIs  in  their  national  programmes.  KPIs  are  important  tools  not 
only  to  monitor  implementation  progress  but  as  well  to  communicate  the  progress  to  the 
citizens,  especially  given  the  long-term  nature  of  most  radioactive  waste  and  spent  fuel 
management programmes. 

Concerning  reporting  of  the  implementation  progress  in  the  third  national  reports  –  the 
situation remains broadly unchanged. Most of the Member States have reported progress in 
the  implementation  of  national  programmes  mainly  by  describing  what  has  been  achieved 
since the last report, and many Member States have updated their milestones and timeframes. 
However,  even  in  those  cases  where  KPIs  were  defined,  KPIs  were  not  used  as  reporting 
tools  in  national  reports.  All  Member  States  are  expected  to  define  KPIs  in  their  national 
programmes and report on the status of these indicators in the periodic national reports so that 
the progress of implementation of the national programmes, and the progress of radioactive 
waste  management  and  spent  fuel  in  the  EU  at  large  can  be  properly  assessed  and 
communicated to the general public. 

3.2. Implementation status 

Except for a few countries, national reports clearly indicated the progress made since the last 
report. However, in a few cases, information on the physical advancements is either missing 
or unclear. 

As  a  general  consideration,  apart  from  very  few  cases,  the  implementation  of  national 
programmes was delayed in a range from a few months up to 5 years. Delays are due in part 
to  the  recent  pandemic,  in  part  by  lengthier  than  expected  licencing  procedures,  in  part  by 
changes in the policy, and in part by political decisions. Delays, however, did not put at risk 
the  safety  of  the  population.  In  one  case  there  had  been  no  progress  due  to  lack  of  funds. 
Some  special  attention  should  be  given  to  this  case  as,  if  the  situation  persists,  it  could 
generate concerns over the safety of radioactive waste management. 

A  number  of  countries  have  not  reported  clear  timelines  or  have  not  defined  a  long-term 
strategy making it difficult to assess whether there were delays in the implementation of the 
programme. In some cases, this is due to the fact that the national programme was only valid 
for a short timeframe and included milestones within that timeframe, but the programme was 
not updated as planned, therefore resulting in a time period with no timelines defined.  

Most countries have plans for storage and disposal of all kinds of radioactive waste, however 
the decisions on the disposal of HLW and SF are in most some cases still pending.  

25 

 
The construction of disposal facilities was delayed in most countries and about one third of 
the countries still have no clear strategy for the final disposal of all radioactive waste. While 
there  are  no  warning  signals  on  the  capacities  for  safe  storage  for  the  existing  radioactive 
wastes, some concerns remain for the waste arising in the future.  

During the reporting period two Member States have shipped their spent fuel from research 
reactors to the United States for disposal. A few Member States have shipped spent fuel for 
reprocessing abroad. Since the second Commission report one Member State completed  the 
return of by-products from spent fuel reprocessing. Six Member States are expected to return 
by-products from spent fuel reprocessing in the coming years (Table 8). 

Storage facilities 

Construction,  modernisation  and  extension  of  storage  facilities  for  all  types  of  waste  is 
progressing in most countries according to plans, but with some delays. 

For  Cyprus,  the  construction  of  a  national  storage  facility  is  planned,  but  the  status  of  the 
progress on its establishment is not clear from the report. 

While in two Members States facilities for storage of vitrified High-Level Waste are already 
in  place,  implementation  progress  of  storage  facilities  in  three  Member  States  raise 
significant  concerns  over  the  possibility  to  have  in  place  appropriate  storage  facilities  to 
accommodate these wastes in time for their return. Member States shipping their spent fuel 
for reprocessing to the Russian Federation face additional risks and uncertainties. 

Deep Geological Repositories (DGR) 

Three Member States have progressed decisively on the realisation of disposal facilities for 
High-Level Waste and/or Spent Fuel. 

Significant progress15 has been made on the construction of a DGR for spent fuel in Finland 
where the disposal operations are scheduled to start in 2024. In Sweden, the DGR for spent 
fuel  is  now  at  the  construction  licence  review  phase.  In  France,  activities  on  the  DGR  for 
High-Level Waste are well under way also at the Cigéo site.  

Although all other countries with HLW or SF have included in their national programme the 
siting and building of a DGR, only four countries (apart from Finland, Sweden and France) 
have started any research on the siting. No concrete actions were reported by other countries 
on this point.  

Most  countries  decided  to  keep  the  option  for  solutions  shared  with  other  countries  and 
consider the DGR as a last resort in case no other solution is practicable. As a consequence, 
the related preparatory and siting activities stagnated and were pushed further into the future. 

15  

Compared  to  initial  plans  a  delay  of  approximately  4  years  was  recorded  due  to  licencing  procedures. 
Notwithstanding the Finnish DGR will represent the first-of-a-kind on a global scale. 

26 

 
 
The envisaged dates for the commissioning of the repositories are currently ranging between 
the 2050s and 2070s, with the exception of the Netherlands that scheduled the possible DGR 
to  be  commissioned  not  before  2130.  A  few  Member  States  have  already  postponed 
milestones for the site selection and/or or commissioning of their DGR and a few others are 
planning to do the same. Two Member States indicated plans to construct a DGR, but have 
not indicated any timeframes. The absence of concrete steps forward for the disposal of SF 
and/or HLW is a concern, in particular for those countries that have plans for building new 
reactors.  

Figure 2 - Planned start of operation of deep geological facilities 

Disposal of VLLW and LILW 

As  already  mentioned  for  storage  facilities,  progress  in  the  implementation  of  disposal 
facilities  for  other  radioactive  waste,  or  enlargement  of  existing  ones,  are  progressing 
according to plans although with some delays in most of the countries (Table 5). 

It is to be noted that not all countries have in place concepts and plans for the final disposal of 
radioactive waste. Two countries have decided they need no disposal facility on their territory 
as they plan to export all disused sources and radioactive waste to other countries. The same 
solution  is  still  considered  by  other  countries  with  only  a  very  limited  amount  of  disused 
sealed  sources  and  radioactive  waste.  A  few  countries  have  delayed  any  decision  on  final 
disposal solutions. Among these also a country with a nuclear power plant. For a few other 
countries, the plans are only at a conceptual phase. 

Special attention needs also to be paid to the consequence of the failure to reach an agreement 
between Slovenia and Croatia on the common management of short-lived radioactive waste 
from the Krško NPP in Slovenia. In 2019 the Intergovernmental Commission16 stated that a 
joint solution to the disposal of Short-Lived Low- and Intermediate-Level Waste from Krško 
NPP  was  not  possible.  Following  this  conclusion,  Slovenia  and  Croatia  must  take  care  of 
their share of radioactive waste by 2025. There appear to be significant delays for Croatia to 
be ready to accept the transfer of its portion of RAW from Krško NPP starting in 2023 and 

16  

Intergovernmental  Commission  responsible  for  the  implementation  of  the  agreement  between  the 
Government of the Republic of Slovenia and the Government of the Republic of Croatia on Regulation 
of the Status and Other Legal Relations Regarding the Investment, Exploitation and Decommissioning of 
the Krško NPP. 

27 

 
 
 
completed in  2025 as currently scheduled and needed to  free space on the Krško NPP site. 
Some delays on the construction of a LILW disposal facility are present also on the Slovenian 
side. 

Decommissioning 

The decommissioning of shutdown nuclear installations is ongoing in several Member States 
and plans were reported for those installations which are still operating (Table 7). 

Decommissioning of shutdown nuclear power plants generates large amounts of materials. A 
very  large  share  of  those  materials  is  typically  released  from  regulatory  control  as  non-
radioactive  and  recycled  or  reused.  The  residual  part  is  managed  as  radioactive  waste  ad 
mostly  belongs  to  the  categories  Very-Low-Level  and  Low-Level  Waste,  with  minor 
quantities  of  Intermediate-Level  Waste.  The  progress  in  decommissioning  is  inherently 
linked to the availability of disposal sites for such type of waste. 

In general terms, and except for a few cases, the implementation of the national programmes 
is progressing according to schedule. In some cases, a few milestones have been met earlier, 
in other cases they have been delayed without jeopardising the overall implementation in the 
longer term. 

28 

 
 
MS 

Status 

Site 

Commissioning 

Table 5. Near surface and intermediate depth disposal facilities (⁕) in EU (†) 

Operations 
(years) 

Closure 

Institutional 
Control  
(years) 

Responsible 
organization 

Comment 

AT 

2045 

BE  Licensing 

Dessel 

2027 [2023] (‡) 

50 

2127 [2123] (‡) 

300 

BG  Operations 

Novi Han 

Construction  Radiana / Kozloduy 

CY 

CZ  Operations 

Dukovany 

Closed 

Hostim / Beroun 

Operations 

Bratrstvi / Jáchymov 

Operations 

Richard / Litoměřice  

DE 
(•) 

Construction  Konrad 

Remediation 
planned 

Asse II / Remlingen  

Closing 

Morsleben 

DK  Planned 

EE  Planned 

2019-2023 

EL 

ES  Operations 

El Cabril 

Operations 

El Cabril 

FI  Operations 

Lovisa 

Operations 

Olkiluoto 

Planned 

Planned 

Hanhiviki (Pyhäjoki) 

Hanhiviki (Pyhäjoki) 

FR  Operations 

Closed 

Vendeuvre-Soulaines - Aube 
district; Centre de L'Aube 

Digulleville - Manche district; 
Centre de La Manche 

Operations  Morvilliers -Cires 

HR  Planned 

Čerkezovac 

HU  Operations 

Püspökszilágy 

Operations 

Bataapati 

IE  Not planned 

IT 

Siting 

1964 

2024 

1995 

1959 

1974 

1974 

2027 

1967 

1971 

2073 

2040 

1992 

2008 

1977/ 2005/ 2019 

1992 

2035 

2037 

1992 

1969 

2003 

2058 

1976 

2008 

2026 

ONDRAF/ 
NIRAS 

SERAW 

To be available by 2045. No decision on the disposal solution. 

Surface disposal for LLW (Category A). In Sept. 2019 FANC declared 
licence application complete. Licence was expected in 2023. 

LLW, ILW (institutional waste). 
Converted to storage. Planned decommissioning by 2025. 

SERAW 

LILW surface disposal 

No decision on the disposal solution 

300 

SÚRAO 

Capacity sufficient for all RAW from NPPs Dukovany and Temelín, 
incl. LTO 

Ongoing 
(at least 50 y more) 

SÚRAO 

Closed. Final sealing 1997. 

120 

120 

SÚRAO 

SÚRAO 

BGE 

BGE 

Capacity until 2020 for NORM waste. 
Closing to start in 2025. 

First phase of refurbishment started in 2018; second phase is planned 
for 2020-2022 

LLW and ILW. Retrieval of waste planned. BGE since April 2017. 
At least 511 m or 725 - 750 m below surface. 

Closure under licensing. BGE since April 2017 

No later than 2073 

A.L.A.R.A. AS  Concept for low and intermediate level waste disposal to be decided  

300 

60 

Not foreseen 

ENRESA 

ENRESA 

FORTUM 

Not foreseen 

TVO 

No decision yet on the disposal solution 

LLW and ILW 

VLLW 

Lovisa NPP 
LLW and ILW in granite bedrock at 110 m depth  

Olkiluoto NPP. LLW and ILW in granite bedrock at 60-95 m depth.  
Planned to be extended in 2030 for all LILW from OL 1-3. 

FVO 

Hanhikivi, VLLW 

Hanhikivi, LILW 

95 

5 

2086 

2090 

1964 

2025 

> 2025 

Until 1978 

Until 1998 

In progress 

2050 

2040 

2040 

2068 

2080 

2040 

2139 

Later than 2050 

300 

ANDRA 

Low level waste and intermediate level waste-short lived 

1994 

2028 

2065 

2067 

2084 

300  
(since 2003) 

ANDRA 

ANDRA 

VLLW disposal facility. Saturation in 2028 

Not before 2058. LILW 

PURAM 

PURAM 

Radioactive Waste Treatment and Disposal Facility (RWTDF) 
Institutional waste 

National Radioactive Waste Repository (NRWR) 
Waste nuclear power plants 

Policy is based on storage of DSRS at the premises of the user until 
return or export 

SOGIN 

National repository 

150 

50 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Status 

Site 

Commissioning 

Operations 
(years) 

Closure 

LT  Operations 

Ignalina NPP  

Operations 

Ignalina NPP 

Planned 

Licensing 

Ignalina NPP 
B25/NSR 

Ignalina NPP 
B20/BWR 

2038 

2038 

2021 

2022 

2027  
[2021-2023] 

Decision in 2025 
[2022] 

2021 

2028  
[2023] 

LU  Not planned 

LV  Operations 

Baldone 

1962 

MT 

NL  Not planned 

PL  Operations 

Różan 

Planned 

Site selection 2022 [2018] 

1961 

2032 
[2030] 

2033-2152 

2038-2040 [2025-
2029] 

2153-2163  
[2144-2155] 

Institutional 
Control  
(years) 

30 active 
100 passive 

Active 100 Passive 
200 

Responsible 
organization 

Comment 

Ignalina NPP  

Industrial landfill for VLLW disposal 

Ignalina NPP  

Landfill disposal facility – VLLW 
Planned to be released from institutional control by 2038 

Ignalina NPP 

Near Surface Repository for Short Lived LILW 

Ignalina NPP 

Conversion of bituminised waste storage facility into a disposal facility 

Policy is to send all RAW to Belgium for treatment and disposal 

LEGMC 

Radon type surface disposal 
Also used for storage 

No decision yet on the disposal solution 

RWMP 

Closing of the NRWR depends on the start of operation of the NNRWR 

RWMP 

NNRWR 

IST 

ANDR 

Pavilhão de Resíduos Radioativos  
Surface storage facility licensed as disposal facility in 2016 

ANDR 

DFDSMA 

SKB AB 

SKB AB 

SFR (low and intermediate level waste) 
Extension of operations requested in 2014 

SFL (long lived low and intermediate level waste) 
License application to be submitted in 2030 

2040 

2100 [2090] 

2070-2074 

100 active 
200 passive 

100 active 
200 passive 

30 

30 

30 

30 

Forsmarks 
Kraftgrupp AB 

Forsmark NPP (VLLW) 

OKG AB 

Oskarshamm NPP (VLLW) 

Ringhals AB 

Ringhals NPP (VLLW) 

AB SVAFO 

Studsvik (VLLW) 

ARAO 

LILW 

Until 2080 

several decades 
active 
200-300 passive  

JAVYS 

LLW. Existing facility; extension recently finished. 

JAVYS 

VLLW. Module 1 (A1) in operation since 07/16; Module 2 (V1) 
construction finished in 2017 

PT  Operations 

CTN/IST 
campus 

RO  Operations 

Baita-Bihor 

1986 

Planned 

Saligny 

2028 [2021] 

SE  Operations 

Forsmark 

1983-1988 

Planned 

2045 

Operations 

Forsmark 

Operations 

Oskarshamm 

Operations 

Ringhals 

Operations 

Studsvik 

SI 

Planned 

Vrbina 

SK  Operations  Mochovce 

Operations  Mochovce 

Later date (not 
specified) 
[2020-2021] 

1999 

2016 

(⁕) The terms near surface, intermediate depth and deep geological disposal are used in the meaning of IAEA Safety Guide GSG-1 “Classification of Radioactive Waste”, 2009. 

(†) Dates in square brackets indicate information from the 2nd national reports. 

(‡) Commissioning 4 years after start of construction; closure 104 years after start of construction. 

(•) Asse II salt mine remediation is planned around 2033. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Siting / Site 

Commissioning 

Operation 
(years) 

Closure 

Institutional 
Control 

Cost  
[EUR billion (†)] 

Responsible 
organization 

Comment 

BE  Not indicated 

~2050 

Minimum 100 

~2150  

3.2 (2012) 

ONDRAF/NIRAS 

Planned start of disposal of B cat. waste in ~2065 and of C cat. waste in ~2105. 

Table 6. Deep Geological Disposal Facilities (⁕) in EU Member States. 

BG  Dates not yet defined (‡) 

CZ 

2025 [2022] 

DE  By 2031 

DK  Not specified 

2065 

> 2050 

< 2073 

Not available 

4.1 (2011) 

7.7 

0.3  

SERAW 

SURAO 

BGE 

Site  selection  ongoing.  According  to  the  draft  of  Policy  update  2021  -  selection  of  the  final  and 
backup site is by 2030. 

Danish 
Decommissioning 

(DKK 2.3 billion) 

ES 

2016-2050 

2050-2069 

3.0 (2005) 

ENRESA 

FI 

Eurajoki (Olkiluoto) 

2024 

2120 

Not foreseen 

5.0 (2020) 

POSIVA 

Hanhikivi 

FR  Bure (Cigéo) 

2035 

more than 100  

> 2125 

25 (2016) 

HR 

2050 (start of siting) 

2060-2095 

HU  Site selection ongoing 

2064 

20 

2084 

Not established 

1.8  

FVO 

ANDRA 

Fund (•) 

PURAM 

Data  from  the  6th  GRWP  (2006).  In  the  draft  7th  GRWP,  commissioning  of  DGR  is  planned  in 
2073. 

Cost  includes  the  disposal  of  spent  fuel,  the  construction,  operation  and  closure  of  the  overall 
facility, Posiva’s R&D expenses, property taxes and the costs of regulatory control. 

Fennovoima has withdrawn construction licence application for the planned Hanhikivi 1 NPP 

100 year reversibility; concept for submission for authorization. 

Disposal facility in Croatia or Slovenia (2060-2095) 

(HUF 745 278.5 million) 

LT 

2047 [2033] 

2068 [2066] 

2068-2074 

NL 

PL 

RO 

2044 

SE 

SI 

SK 

Forsmark 

2086 [2045-2055] 

First stage (2013-2016) 
Site selection in 2030 

2130 

2055 

2035 [2032] 

2093 [2065] 

2065 

50 

100 

10 

40-60 

2075-2079 
[2072] 

2180 

2150 

2.5 (2004) 

Ignalina NPP 

2.05 (2017) 

COVRA 

Decision will be taken around 2100. 

Not foreseen 

2.8 

2.39 

ZUOP 

ANDR 

Deep Radioactive Waste Repository. Timeframes not yet defined 

SKB AB 

License application to build disposal approved by the Government in 2022. 

2103 [2075] 

No data 

Not available 

2105-2115 

Not foreseen 

3.7-4.4 (2014) 

ARAO 

JAVYS 

EUR 3.7 billion / EUR 4.4 billion depending of NPP operations 40 / 60 years respectively. 

(⁕) The terms near surface, intermediate depth and deep geological disposal are used in the meaning of IAEA Safety Guide GSG-1 “Classification of Radioactive Waste”, 2009. 

(†) Otherwise specified. 

(‡) Dates in square brackets indicate information from the 2nd national reports. 

(•) Fund for Financing the Decommissioning of the Krško Nuclear Power Plant and the Disposal of Krško NPP Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Reactors/Units 

Operation 

Shutdown  

Decommissioning 

Comments 

Table 7. Schedule for Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants in EU Member States (†) 

Doel (unit 1) 

Doel (unit 2) 

Doel (unit 3) 

BE 

Doel (unit 4) 

Thiange (unit 1) 

Thiange (unit 2) 

Thiange (unit 3) 

Kozloduy (unit 1) 

Kozloduy (unit 2) 

Kozloduy (unit 3) 

Kozloduy (unit 4) 

Kozloduy (unit 5) 

Kozloduy (unit 6) 

Dukovany (units 1-4) 

Temelin (units 1-2) 

Dukovany (unit 5) 

Temelin (unit 3) 

BG 

CZ 

1975 

1975 

1982 

1985 

1975 

1983 

1985 

1974 

1975 

1980 

1982 

1987 

1991 

2025 

2025 

2022 

2035 

2025 

2023 

2035 

2002 

2002 

2006 

2006 

2047 

2051 

1985 ÷ 1987 (*) 

2000 ÷ 2002 (*) 

planned 

planned 

2038 ÷ 2047 

2060 ÷ 2062 

no data 

no data 

End of operation dates by Phase-out Law of 31/01/2003 modified by the law of 28/06/2015. 

End of operation dates as established by the Phase-out Law of 31/01/2003 modified by the 
law of 28/06/2015.  

ongoing 

ongoing 

ongoing 

ongoing 

Decommissioning end date 2030 

Decommissioning end date 2030 

Decommissioning end date 2030 

Decommissioning end date 2030 

Life time extension 

Life time extension 

Life time extension 

60 years operation 

60 years operation 

60 years operation 

DE 

36 reactors shutdown 

1962 ÷ 1989 

1971 ÷ 2021 

3 completed, others ongoing 

1968 ÷ 1972 

2006 and 1989 

Ongoing 

2 reactors undergoing decommissioning  
(José Cabrera and Vandellos I) 

ES* 

1 reactor shutdown (Santa María de Garoña) 

7 operating reactors (*) 

FI 

Olkiluoto (unit 1) 

Olkiluoto (unit 2) 

Olkiluoto (unit 3) 

Loviisa (unit 1) 

Loviisa (unit 2) 

Hanhikivi 

FR 

56 operating reactors and 9 shutdown reactors and EPR Flamanville 

HU 

IT 

LT 

NL 

PL 

RO 

Paks (units 1-4) 

Paks (units 5-6) 

Caorso 

Enrico Fermi (Trino) 

Garigliano 

Latina 

Ignalina (unit 1) 

Ignalina (unit 2) 

Dodewaard 

Borssele 

New build 

Cernavoda (unit 1)  

1971 

2017 

1983-1988 

2027 ÷ 2035 

1979 

1982 

2022 

1977 

1981 

2038 

2038 

2080 

2030 

2030 

Cancelled 2022 (*) 

1977 ÷ 1999 

1982 ÷ 1987 

2026 ÷ 2027 

2027 ÷ 2078 

2032 ÷ 2037 

1990 

1990 

1982 

1987 

2004 

2009 

1978 

1964 

1964 

1963 

1983 

1987 

1968 (*) 

1973 (*) 

2033 

1996 

2070-2080 

2070-2080 

2080-2090 

2030-2035 

2030-2035 

After 2030 

Operating lifetime of 50 years 

2061 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

20 years LTO 

Planned 

Decommissioning end date 2038 

Decommissioning end date 2038 

1997 (*) 

After 2045 

2033 

2096 

2049 

32 

2049 ÷ 2056 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS 

Reactors/Units 

Operation 

Shutdown  

Decommissioning 

Comments 

Cernavoda (unit 2) 

Cernavoda (units 3-4)  

Barsebäck (units 1-2) 

Forsmark (units 1-3) 

SE 

Oskarshamn (units 1-3) 

Ringhals (units 1-4) 

Ågesta 

Krško  

SI 

Bohunice V1 (units 1-2) 

Bohunice V2 (units 1-2)  

SK 

Bohunice A1 

Bohunice (unit 3) 

Mochovce (units 1-2) 

Mochovce (units 3-4) 

2007 

Planned 
2024 ÷ 2025 

2059 

2059 ÷ 2066 

2075 ÷ 2076 

2075 ÷ 2083 

1975 
1977 

1980 
1981 
1985 

1972 
1975 
1985 

1976 
1975 
1981 
1983 

1964 

1983 

1978 (*) 
1980 (*) 

1984 (*) 
1985 (*) 

1972 (*) 

2029 

1998 (*) 
1999 (*) 

Planned 2022-2023 

1999 
2005 

2040 
2041 
2045 

2017 
2015 
2045 

2020 
2019 
2041 
2045 

1974 

2043 

2006 
2008 

2045 

1979 

2061 

2061 

Started in 2020 

Units 1 and 2 under way.  
Planned to end in 2028 

Units 1 and 2  
planned to start in 2023 

2020 ÷ 2024 

2043 

2011 ÷ 2027 

2033 

2066 ÷ 2083 

Possible LTO to 60 years 

(†) At the time of reporting to the Commission (2018). 

(*) Information from other sources to the Commission than the national programmes/reports 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 8. Return of By-products from Spent Fuel Reprocessing to EU Member States 

MS 

BG 

CZ 

DE 

IT 

NL 

ES 

Type of material 

Timeframe 

Return  of  HLW  from  Kozloduy  NPP  spent  fuel  reprocessing  in 
Russia 

After 2025 

Return of residual waste from highly enriched Uranium (LRV-15 
reactor) sent to Russia 

First batch in 2024 
Second batch in 2033 

2022 ÷ 2025 

According  to  current  planning,  the  return  of  the  CSD-B  waste 
from France is scheduled for 2022. From 2024, the return of the 
CSD-C waste (152 casks) is planned. 
In  November  2020,  six  casks  containing  vitrified  high-level 
radioactive waste from reprocessing of spent fuel from Germany 
in Sellafield (United Kingdom) were shipped to the Biblis spent 
fuel storage facility. In 2024 and 2025, the remaining casks from 
the  United Kingdom are to be returned to the spent fuel storage 
facilities Brokdorf and Isar (seven casks each). 

Almost  all  spent  fuel  from  NPPs  was  shipped  to  the  United 
Kingdom  and  France.  The  return  of  radioactive  waste  from 
reprocessing is planned by 2025. 

By 2025 

Part  of  vitrified  HLW  from  France  received  and  additional 
expected to be returned. 

At the latest in 2052 

Products from reprocessing that need to be returned to Spain are 
vitrified  HLW  located  in  France  (spent  fuel  from  Vandellos  I 
NPP) 

2026 

3.3. Self-assessments and international peer reviews 

Periodically and at least every 10 years, Member States shall arrange for self-assessments of 
their  national  framework,  competent  regulatory  authority,  national  programme  and  its 
implementation,  and  to  invite  an  international  peer  review  of  their  national  framework, 
competent regulatory authority and/or national programme (Article 14(3) of the Directive). 

The aim is to ensure that high safety standards are achieved in the safe management of spent 
fuel  and  radioactive  waste.  The  Member  States  define  the  scope,  timing  and  type  of 
international peer reviews in line with Article 14(3) of the Directive. As the Directive had to 
be transposed in 2013, for the first time by 202317 self-assessments must be carried out and 
international peer reviews must be invited. A Member State must report the outcome of these 
international peer reviews to the Commission and the Member States. The results may also be 
made available to the public unless there is conflict with security and proprietary information. 
The  majority  of  Member  States  addressed  periodic  self-assessments  and  international  peer 
reviews in a general way in their national programmes and reports. 

17   With a mission to NL to take place in November 2023, and another mission to BE in December 2023, all 
Member States will have their self-assessments and international peer reviews carried out until the end of 
2023. 

34 

 
 
 
Services for international peer reviews 

While Member States are free to choose and devise the international peer reviews, the IAEA 
offers  relevant  services  in  this  area  that  have  been  the  main  method  for  carrying  out 
international peer reviews for more than a decade.  

Major advantages of carrying out the reviews under the same system are the guarantee of a 
higher  level  of  consistency,  as  well  as  the  keeping  of  pools  of  trained  experts.  For  these 
reasons, the Commission has been consistently supporting the IAEA in setting up, developing 
and maintaining this kind of services. 

Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS)18 

The  IRRS  steers  and  drives  the  Member  States  in  strengthening  and  enhancing  the 
effectiveness  of  their  regulatory  infrastructure  for  nuclear,  radiation,  radioactive  waste  and 
transport  safety.  The  IRRS  is  a  tool  to  review  the  competent  regulatory  authorities  in  a 
broader sense than the requirements of the Directive; while the setting up of IRRS predates 
the adoption of the Directive, it provides relevant results in line with the Directive. 

In  all  Member  States  a  self-assessment  of  the  competent  authorities  was  established  and 
carried out via IRRS. While the majority of Member States reported IRRS missions,  only a 
few Member States provided details on the self-assessment outcomes related to spent fuel and 
radioactive  waste  management.  IRRS  mission  reports  are  generally  publicly  available, 
however  only  few  Member  States  reported  details  of  follow-up  actions  addressing  the 
outcomes of these reviews for achieving higher level of safety. Accordingly, in comparison to 
the  previous  reporting  cycle,  no  improvement  is  noted;  Member  States  should  give  further 
attention to the implementation of this Article in future reports to the Commission.  

Integrated  Review  Service 
Decommissioning and Remediation (ARTEMIS)19 

for  Radioactive  Waste  and  Spent  Fuel  Management, 

When the Directive entered into force, dedicated international peer review services were not 
available; therefore, since 2014 the Commission has been supporting the IAEA in developing 
a  self-assessment  tool  based  on  the  IAEA  safety  standards  and  best  practices  to  enable  EU 
Member  States  to  fulfil  their  periodic  self-assessment  obligation  (Article  14(3)  of  the 
Directive).  ARTEMIS is  an integrated  expert peer review service for  radioactive waste and 
spent fuel management, decommissioning and remediation programmes. 

By the end of 2022, 18 missions had been carried out in the EU Member States, in spite of 
schedule  disruptions  due  to  the  COVID  pandemic  restrictions  to  travel.  All  remaining 
missions (9) – to be invited in the EU Member States by August 2023 – have been actually 

18  

19  

https://www.iaea.org/services/review-missions/integrated-regulatory-review-service-irrs  

https://www.iaea.org/services/review-missions/integrated-review-service-for-radioactive-waste-and-
spent-fuel-management-decommissioning-and-remediation-artemis  

35 

 
 
invited20 and will be carried out in the course of 2023. Thus, at the end of 2023, all Member 
States  will  have  gone  through  the  first  round  of  self-assessments  and  international  peer 
reviews. 

In addition to the full scope review missions, Germany and Latvia requested the ARTEMIS 
follow-up missions in 2022 and 2024 respectively.  

The  Commission  Services  are  closely  following  developments  and  execution  of  ARTEMIS 
peer-review services by IAEA not only by having regular meetings with the IAEA, but also 
by attending the review missions as observer. 

Synergies of international peer review services 

Member States ensure compliance with the Article 14(3) requirements through the IRRS and 
ARTEMIS peer-review missions of the IAEA.  Although IAEA worked around and avoided 
overlaps  between  the  ARTEMIS  and  the  IRRS  review  services,  this  creates  challenges  in 
some cases which require further considerations.  

Synergies  between  the  ARTEMIS  and  IRRS  missions  were  explored  in  several  ways.  The 
peer-review  mission  to  Spain  (in  2018)  was  the  first,  and  so  far,  the  only  occasion  when  a 
joint/combined IRRS and ARTEMIS peer-review mission was requested by a host country. 
Despite some (limited) advantages of the joint mission, numerous challenges emerged when 
trying to integrate IRRS and ARTEMIS peer-reviews.  

Based  on  this  experience,  most  of  the  Member  States  decided  to  proceed  with  separate 
missions,  i.e.  one  followed  up  by  the  other  shortly  after  (preferably  IRRS  first,  ARTEMIS 
second).  This  approach  is  named  “back-to-back  missions”.  To  avoid  overlaps  between  the 
missions,  the  IAEA  has  started  developing  additional  guidelines  for  back-to-back  missions. 
The first back-to-back mission took place in Slovenia in May 2022. 

Reporting 

According  to  Article  14(3)  Member  States  are  required  to  report  the  outcomes  of  the 
international peer reviews to the Commission and the other Member States.  

All  ARTEMIS  and  IRRS  reports  are  published  on  the  IAEA  website  in  due  time  after  the 
completion  of  a  mission.  However,  it  should  be  noted  that  only  five  Member  States  have 
reported  to  the  Commission  the  outcomes  of  conducted  international  peer-reviews  of  their 
national 
its 
implementation in the reporting period. 

regulatory  authority,  national  programme  and 

framework,  competent 

20  

https://www.iaea.org/services/review-missions/calendar   

36 

 
 
 
 
Table 9. Recent and planned international peer reviews as per Article 14(3) of the Directive. 

MS 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

National programme and/or  
National framework 
[ARTEMIS] 

Competent regulatory authority 

[IRRS] 

2022 

2023 

2018 

2022 

2023 (†) 

2019; 2022 (*)(†) 

2022 (†) 

2019 

2023 

2018 (•) 

2022 (†) 

2018 

2023 

2022 

2021 

2023 

2022 

2018 

2019; 2024 (*) 

2022 

2023 

2017 

2023 (†) 

2022 (†) 

2023 

2022 (‡) 

2023 

2018 

2013; 2017 (*); 2023 

2013; 2016 (*); 2024 (†) 

2017 

2013; 2017 (*); 2023 (†) 

2019; 2023 (*)(†) 

2021 (†) 

2016; 2019 (*) 

2012; 2017 (*) 

2008; 2011 (*), 2018 (•) 

2012; 2015 (*); 2022 (†) 

2014; 2017 (*); 2024 (†) 

2015; 2019 (*) 

2015; 2018 (*) 

2015 

2016 

2016; 2020 (*) 

2018 

2019; 2024 (*) 

2015; 2020 (*) 

2014; 2018 (*); 2023 

2013; 2017 (*); 2023 

2022 (†) 

2011; 2017 (*); 2023 

2012; 2016 (*); 2022 

2011; 2014 (*); 2022 (‡) 

2012; 2015 (*); 2022 

(*) 

Follow-up mission. 

(†)  When  no  information  was  provided  in  the  3rd  national  report  or  that  information  was  outdated,  data 

were retrieved on the IAEA website. 

(‡) 

(•) 

Back-to-back mission IRRS-ARTEMIS. 

Combined mission IRRS-ARTEMIS. 

37 

 
 
 
4. Cost  assessments, 

financing  mechanisms  and  available 

resources 

Article 9 of the Directive requires Member States to ensure adequate financial resources for 
the implementation of their national programmes. In addition, Article 12 (h) and (i) require 
each  Member  State  to  have  an  estimate  of  the  national  programme  costs  and  financing 
schemes in force to ensure the financial resources. 

Almost  all  Member  States  provided  information  on  the  cost  assessments  of  their  national 
programmes, although the estimates vary widely in terms of the methodology, assumptions, 
completeness  of  data,  scope  and  the  time  frames.  Two  Member  States  (having  only 
institutional  waste)  did  not  provide  any  cost  assessment.  Some  cost  estimates  were  not 
updated since the first reporting period in 2015, however, half of the Member States, mainly 
those  with  nuclear  power  programmes,  updated  their  cost  estimates  recently.  Nevertheless, 
these  updates  did  not  always  completely  reflect  cost  developments  during  the  last  decades. 
Some Member States added new elements to their overall cost assessment, but did not update 
the price level  on which those calculations  were  based, e.g. in  some cases  the updated cost 
assessment still calculated based on price levels from early 2000. As a cost estimate serves as 
a basis for providing sufficient funding for the implementation of the national programme, it 
is important to periodically review and when necessary, update it. 

In  2020  the  Commission  carried  out  a  study  on  methodologies  of  cost  assessment  and 
financing  mechanisms  for  radioactive  waste  and  spent  fuel  management  in  use  in  the 
European Union. The study demonstrates that despite the wide range of approaches, methods 
and practices in cost assessment of radioactive wastes and spent fuel in the Member States, 
there  are  also  many  similarities.  While  in  most  Member  States  operators  perform  a  cost 
assessment (mostly every year), ministries or regulatory bodies review the cost calculations. 
Most  Member  States  use  a  combination  of  several  methods,  however,  all  include  a 
deterministic approach.  

In the first Commission report the total cost of spent fuel and radioactive waste management 
in EU was estimated at around EUR 250 billion (2017). In the second Commission report, the 
Commission’s  estimate  was  higher,  at  around  EUR  300  billion21  (2019).  The  total  reported 
cost estimate remains at the same level. 

The majority of Member States provided information  on the financing schemes in force for 
the  implementation  of  national  programmes.  There  are  considerable  differences  in  the 
schemes  used  by  different  countries  with  a  few  Member  States  relying  on  a  fee  levied  on 
electricity generation, others on payments based on characteristics of the waste and some on 

21  

These figures do not include the UK. 

38 

 
 
state  budget.  There  were  no  changes  reported  during  the  reporting  period  related  to  the 
financing schemes.  

About  half  of  the  Member  States  provided  information  on  the  status  of  the  funds  for  spent 
fuel and/or radioactive waste management, although with varying levels of detail (Table 10). 
A few Member States reported electricity levy modifications to ensure sufficient payments to 
the  fund  following  a  cost  assessment  update.  In  the  majority  of  cases,  Member  States  only 
applied corrective measures (e.g. by increasing payments to the fund) when it became clear 
that the performance of the funds was below expectations. However, there were cases when 
Member States acted proactively by periodically reviewing changing market conditions and 
adjusting payments to the fund based on the predicted future performance of these funds. 

Overall, very little indications were reported on the performance of the funds. Sufficient and 
timely  availability  of  funding  is  crucial  for  the  timely  implementation  of  the  national 
programme. Member States are encouraged to regularly assess the performance of their funds 
in order to proactively react to any changes in the performance of funds or to take corrective 
measures timely when needed. 

Smaller  (without  nuclear  power)  national  programmes’  implementation  is  funded  mostly 
from the state budget. However, from the national reports it seems that the necessary funding 
for the implementation  of the national  programmes is  not  always ensured, and this leads to 
delays. The Member States that are funding the implementation of their national programmes 
solely from the state budget are encouraged to ensure the sufficient and timely allocation of 
resources for the timely implementation of the programme. 

Limited information has been reported on the funds' investments and management to ensure 
sufficient availability of funds when needed in the future. 

39 

 
No data 

≥ 2150 

until 2030 

No data 

2015 – 2100 

2080 

No data 

2018 – 2050 

No data 

Member 
State 

Estimated total costs 
EUR million (⁕) 
(year) 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

No data 

13 836 
(2020) 

3 897 
(2015) 
[information from NP 2015] 

0.5 
(2016) 

5 020 
[CZK 123.5 billion] 

66 900 
(2012)  

DK 

455 

EE 

124 

EL 

1.54 
(2020) 
[partial and preliminary cost estimations] 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

23 044 
(2019) 

6 500 
(2012) 
[For 5 reactors (LO1-2, OL1-3)] 

110 500 
(2014) 

900 
(2015) 

5 300 
(2015) 

IE 

No data 

Table 10. Estimated total cost of spent fuel and radioactive waste management based on EU Member States' programmes. 

Timeframes 

Assumptions 

Notes 

- 

No final decision yet on the final disposal scenario 

The seven existing commercial nuclear reactors will be operated for 40 years; 
B and C type waste will be disposed of in Boom Clay at 200 metres depth (financial hypothesis only); 
spent fuel from commercial reactors will be reprocessed (contractual hypothesis); 
geological disposal of category B waste will start in 2047; 
geological disposal of category C waste will take place over the period 2100–2110 

Decommissioning of NPP: EUR2020 6 085 million 
Management of spent fuel: EUR2020 7 751 million 
Not included: management of the spent fuel and radioactive 
waste of future nuclear installations. 
Does not account for substantial changes in the hypothesis. 

No assessment of the overall costs of the programme has been made beyond 2030. 
Included: decommissioning, spent fuel processing and storage for Kozloduy NPP units 1-4 and 5-6. 
Not included: costs for the geological disposal for HLW and long-lived ILW. 
Kozloduy NPP units 5 and 6 operations extended until 06.11.2027 and 03.10.2029 respectively. 

Cost estimation (by IAEA) of repatriation of DSRS only; no further cost estimations reported 
(‘application waste’; ‘decommissioning’; ‘other storage/disposal options for legacy and new DSRS’) 

Annual costs for RAW management are financed by State funds 
and fees collected from waste producers. 

Overall cost estimation for the implementation of the Concept for 2015-2100 period (in case of no new 
NPPs) 

(1 CZK = 0.041 EUR) 

EUR 34 billion for NPP waste (excluding disposal costs), Asse – EUR 5 billion; Morsleben – EUR 
2.4-4.7 billion; Konrad – EUR 7.5 billion and new geological disposal facility – EUR 7.7 billion; 
+EUR 2.2 billion for site selection procedure; public radioactive waste management – EUR 6 billion; 
Gorleben site – EUR 2 billion (EUR 40 million/year for 50 years until 2065) all at 2012 prices. 

No updated info in the 3rd report - 

Costs related to the implementation of Parliamentary Resolutions B48/2003 and B90/2018. 
DKK 1.120 billion for B48/2003, DKK 2.271 billion for B90/2018. 

(1 DKK = 0.134 EUR) 

Cost estimation for exporting nuclear material: ~ EUR 400 000. 
Cost estimation for running the IPRETEA Radioactive Waste and Sources Management Facility of 
NCSR Demokritos: ~ EUR 100 000 per year 
Cost estimation for obligations related to the EEDAPRA objectives: ~ EUR 40 000 per year. 
Preliminary analysis of the cost of the possible extension of the operations of the IPRETEA as a 
disposal facility: ~ EUR 1 000 000. 

Shortcomings in cost assessment and funding, are to be 
addressed in next update of the national programme in 2023 

The national programme 2020 does not provide further details 
on the underlying basis and hypotheses for the cost assessments. 
For the disposal facility, not clear whether only constructions 
costs are included or other costs as well. 
No indications on decommissioning costs of GRR-1. 
No indication on when those estimations were made. 

2100 

Open cycle, present fleet, closure of all operating nuclear power plants by 2035. 

2023-2115 

2135 

After 2043 

2064 

No data 

EUR 3.5 billion for geological disposal; EUR 1 billion for decommissioning of 5 reactors (LO1-2, 
OL1-3); EUR 0.1 billion for near surface disposal; EUR 2.5 billion for R&D, interim storage, and 
taxes. 

Including institutional control; EUR 5.1 billion for legacy sites recovery; EUR 45 billion for 
decommissioning; EUR 25 billion for geological disposal. 

Immediate decommissioning of the Krško NPP after shut-down in 2043. Include: waste management, 
spent fuel and decommissioning. 

HUF 1 650 402 million (2015) for: decommissioning of 4 NPP Units in operation; decommissioning of 
spent fuel interim storage facility (ISFS); radioactive waste disposal facilities; HLW disposal facility; 
PURAM operating costs, supervision fees, fund management and support to local governments. 

40 

Arrangements and costs for waste management incl. shipment 
abroad are borne by the waste producers in line with polluter 
pays principle 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

Estimated total costs 
EUR million (⁕) 
(year) 

IT 

LT 

19 500 
(2021) 

5 323 
(2016) 

2138  

LU 

EUR 15948 per year  

2029 

Timeframes 

Assumptions 

Notes 

2030 (excluding geological 
disposal) 

EUR 1.5 bn for siting and construction of the Technological Park 
EUR 7.88 bn for complete decommissioning of the 4 NPPs and of the nuclear fuel cycle facilities are 
given as estimate in the 3rd NR compared to 6.5 bn estimated in the NP 

The estimate was EUR 18.1 billion in 2015. 
Due to delays, estimated costs were increased in 2017 by EUR 
0.7 billion and in 2020 by additional EUR 0.7 billion 

2021-2030 period: EUR 1.001 billion, mainly Ignalina NPP decommissioning 
2031-2038 period: EUR 0.922 billion, mainly Ignalina NPP decommissioning 
2038-2138 period: EUR 3.4 billion, mainly implementation of deep geological repository and further 
decommissioning activities 

Only orphan sources and materials considered. Costs for shipment to Belgium and interim storage.  
The government states it is capable of covering any additional cost. 

Not clear if the final disposal in Belgium is charged. 

LV 

8.9  
(2014) 

2015-2020 

2015-2020 

Overall costs of the whole RAW management programme (EPG2020, Table 7, II, 2.1). 
EUR 3.1 million. 
Budget allocated for maintenance and decommissioning of Salaspils nuclear reactor. EUR 5.8 million. 

- 

MT 

0.433 - 0.901 

Total 10-years cost 

NL 

2 050  
(2017) 
+ EUR 13 million per year 

2130 

PL 

16 000 

Up to 2152 

PT 

EUR 200 000 / 250 000 per year 

Annual 

Total unconditioned volume of waste approx. 1.5 m3 
Depending on chosen option (§9), total costs vary between 432 800 EUR (= option ‘export of waste’) 
and 901 200 EUR (= option ‘bore hole disposal’); costs for ‘deep geological disposal’, option 
estimated. 

2.05 (2017) for the deep geological repository 
The cost of the above-ground management of radioactive waste at COVRA is estimated at approx. 
EUR 13 million per year (excluding transport and processing costs) 

The costs were evaluated on the basis of data for other countries and presented PLN in prices of 2018. 
(The closure of NNRWR is planned for 2163) 

No SF or HLW. 
RAW (VSLW, VLLW, LLW, ILW) costs includes; reception, sorting, conditioning, storage and 
disposal in near surface disposal at PRR 
Annual costs for RAW management is financed by State funds and fees collected from waste 
producers. 

a) Pre-storage activities for SF and RAW – EUR 123.7 million + EUR 5.7 million per year  
b) Decommissioning cost estimation (4 NPP) – EUR 1 860 million 
c) Final disposal cost estimation for SF and RAW – EUR 2 880 million + EUR 0.165 million per year 

EUR 4 864 million 
+ EUR 5.865 million EUR per year 

RO 

SE 

10 560 
(2019) 

Remaining basic costs, 
from and including 2021 

Based on 50+6 years of NPPs operation period. 
SEK 110.0 billion 

SI 

185.835 

SK 

1 237 
(2019) 

(⁕) Otherwise specified. 

2016-2025 
After 2025 - Not covered  
(except decommissioning 
of Krško NPP) 

Details on financial provisions, mechanisms, costing profiles etc. are not provided 

2027 

No new information. 
Total estimated decommissioning costs for V-1 NPP (expressed in the price level of 2019) 

41 

(1 SEK = 0.096 EUR) (23/01/2022) 

For the longer term, only costs related to the construction and 
operation of the Vrbina LILW disposal facility are available 
which are EUR 327 million. 
New cost estimate (2020) for decommissioning of Krško NPP is 
EUR 417.6 million (Slovenia pays 50%) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS  Financial mechanisms 
(organisation) 

Instalments 

Funds accumulated,  
billion EUR (year) 

Comments 

Table 11. Financing mechanisms and accumulated funds by Member State 

AT  Operation fee (NES) 

Disposal fee (transferred from NES to the State) 

BE  Long-term Fund (NIRAS/ONDRAF) 

Medium-term Fund (NIRAS/ONDRAF) 
Insolvency fund (NIRAS/ONDRAF) 

BG  Radioactive Waste Fund  
(Ministry of Energy) 

Nuclear Facilities Decommissioning Fund 
(Ministry of Energy) 

CY  Legal provisions: polluter-pays principle = 
license holder; State responsible for orphan 
DSRS 

Fees upon transfer of the radioactive waste to 
NES 

Financed by financially liable entities (waste 
producers, Federal State for historical nuclear 
liabilities, …) 

No info 

No info 

Annual fees 

Annual fees 

No info 

0.073 (2020) 
(BGN 0.149 bn) 

0.851 (2020) 
(BGN 1.668 bn) 

No info 

CZ  Nuclear Account Fund 

Fees 

Licence holders are obliged to create financial 
reserves for the future decommissioning of their 
nuclear facilities or other facilities containing 
significant or very significant ionising radiation 
sources 

Fee for interim storage and disposal (⁕); 
recently established Waste Management Fund 

Decommissioning reserves 

DE  Fund (Nuclear Power Plants) 

Fees from radioactive waste producers 

DK  Primarily Danish State budget  

EE  State budget 

EL  Deposit fund (2018) 
State budget 

ES  Fund for the financing of activities included in 

Annual fees 

the General Radioactive Waste Plan (ENRESA) 

FI 

State Nuclear Waste Management Fund 

Annual fees 

EUR 1 million (2018) 

No info 

2.621 (2020) 

FR  Portfolio of dedicated assets under the 

Licensees create a portfolio of dedicated assets 

55.9 (31/12/2015) 

responsibility of the license holder 

HR  Fund for Financing the Decommissioning of 

Annual fees 

Krško NPP and disposal of NPP RAW and SF 

HU  Central Nuclear Financing Fund  

(Ministry of Innovation and Technology) 

Annual fees from license holders and from 
Government funds (for license holders financed 
by Government) 

IE  Radioactive Waste Management Fund  

(for orphan sources) 

0.25 (2017) 

0.8 (2015) 

EUR 60 000 (2021) 

42 

CZK 55 (= EUR 2.23) per MWh(e) generated by NPPs  
CZK 30 (= EUR 1.22) per MWh(t) generated by research reactors 
For the disposal of SF/RAW from reprocessing there is one-off fee which amounts 
to CZK 145000 (=EUR 5890) per m3 and it is increased by 2% every year 
CZK 28.4 bn (=EUR 1.15 bn) (2016) 

Dukovany NPP (2014): CZK 22.355 billion (EUR 0.91 billion);  
Temelín NPP (2015): CZK 18.372 billion (EUR 0.75 billion); 
Spent Fuel storages (2015): CZK 65 million (EUR 2.64 million); 
Other installations (2015): CZK 482 million (EUR 19.58 million). 

24.1 from NPP operators paid in (2017) 

No updated info in the 3rd national report 

Included EU funds for Kozloduy NPP units 1-4. 
Recognised insufficiency of fund to date. 

Included EU funds for Kozloduy NPP units 1-4. 
Recognised insufficiency of fund to date. 

Setting out fees for waste/DSRS management services was 
expected by 2020; still pending. 
Included: disposal, decommissioning, R&D. 

Established by the Atomic Act to cover the costs of all activities 
related to both radioactive waste management and (future) 
disposal of spent fuel. 

Funds must be accumulated in the required amount and in a 
timely manner in compliance with timetables approved by the 
SÚJB and according to the decommissioning technology to be 
utilised. 

Financed through reserve funds 

Shortcomings in cost assessment and funding are to be 
addressed in next update of the national programme in 2023 

Deposit fund primarily meant for orphan sources and legacy 
waste; no clear information on funding mechanisms for other 
waste but most probably to be financed by State budget  

costs at 31/12/2019 EUR 4.616 bn 

Based on 5 reactors 

No updated information; data from previous assessment. 
When sold, the assets must cover the entire estimated cost. 

For reactor’s operations extended until 2043, estimate 
EUR 0.62 billion 

Fund to cover the costs for management of waste, spent fuel and 
decommissioning; HUF 246 386 million, 2015 (0.0032HUF/€) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS  Financial mechanisms 
(organisation) 

Instalments 

Funds accumulated,  
billion EUR (year) 

Comments 

Annual fee applied on the electricity bill for 
decommissioning. 
Fund from former utility ENEL transferred to 
SOGIN. 

No info 

No info 

No info 

The national programme cost is until 2030 and excludes 
geological disposal. ISIN is authorised to apply and collect by 
license holders for the exploitation of its regulatory functions. 

IT 

LT 

State pays for state owned facilities.  
SOGIN manages the funds for waste 
management. 

Ignalina Programme (EU funded), 
International Ignalina Decommissioning 
Support Fund (EU funded),  
State Budget, 
Reserve (Stabilisation) Fund,  
Ignalina NPP own funds 

LU  Government will provide necessary resources 
for ‘orphan waste’. No funds created 

LV  Mainly State budget and generators’ fees 

MT  Each owner of a source will need to pay a fee 

for disposal to the government 

Fees charged by RPC but paid to the Financial 
Ministry  

NL  COVRA  

PL  Polluter pays; 

Costs of MARIA reactor paid by the State 
budget; 
Two funds (one for RAW management and one 
for decommissioning) planned when the new 
built programme is established 

Fees charged to license holders 
(incl. all estimated costs for processing, storage, 
research and geological disposal) 

The RWMP collects charges on the services 
provided from producers of RAW in 
accordance with a price list approved by the 
Ministry of Energy. 
For NPP waste, both funds receive quarterly 
contributions from the operator on the basis of 
the electricity generated and from revenues 
from investing fund resources. 

No info 

No info 

0.101462 (2020) 

No info 

PT  Disposal revenue; General state budget and 

Fees charged to licensees 

No info 

IST budget 

RO  Waste Disposal Fund  

(ANDR) 

Decommissioning Fund 
(ANDR) 

Annual fees 

Annual fees 

State budget 

- 

SE  Nuclear Waste Fund 

Fee per delivered kWh 

Studsvik Legacy Fund 

SI 

Slovenia and Croatia governments established a 
Decommissioning Fund for NEK. 
Other nuclear installation are funded by 
Slovenian Government 

Slovenia’s share of the funds for NEK are being 
collected through levy for the kWh delivered to 
the Slovenian grid (in 2020 increased from 
EUR 0.003 to EUR 0.0048/ kWh). 

EUR 1.4 per MWh per NPP 
0.168 (2007-2020) 
(data from NP2022) 
1 RON = 0.20 EUR (05/08/2022) 

EUR 0.6 per MWh per NPP 
0.088 (2007-2020) 
(data from NP2022) 
1 RON = 0.20 EUR (05/08/2022) 

EUR 7.44 bn (2020) 
EUR 0.061 bn (2020) 

EUR 0.195 bn (2016) 

43 

Financing mechanism (still) under revision to address the 
insufficiency of funds 

Financing mechanism (still) under revision to address the 
insufficiency of funds 

All costs related to the Baita Bihor repository;  
Cost for decommissioning of 2 research reactors; 
Costs for institutional RAW management from RATEN ICN 
and IFIN-HH. 

1 SEK = 0.096 EUR (23/01/2022) 

In January 2022, the payments to the Slovenian NEK fund was 
further increased to EUR 0.012 per kWh. The increase is in 
response to the revised fund performance projections. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MS  Financial mechanisms 
(organisation) 

Instalments 

Funds accumulated,  
billion EUR (year) 

Comments 

SK  National Nuclear Fund 

EBRD and SIEA (implementation of V-1 NPP) 

1.853 (2020) (according to nuclear world.org) 

No new info in NR 

(⁕) NPP operators continue to be responsible for the entire management and financing of decommissioning, dismantling and proper packaging of the radioactive waste until interim storage. 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
5. Expertise, skills, R&D 

5.1. Expertise, skills 

All parties in Member States have to make arrangements for education and training for their 
staff,  as  well  as  research  and  development  activities  to  cover  the  needs  of  the  national 
programme in order to obtain, maintain and to further develop necessary expertise and skills 
for spent fuel and radioactive waste management (Article 8 of the Directive). 

Compared to the last reporting period a clear improvement is noted: nearly all Member States 
have set out national legal requirements for training and education of staff involved in spent 
fuel  and  radioactive  waste  management.  This  is  a  positive  outcome  after  a  number  of 
infringement procedures which led to the resolution of legal issues in the transposition of the 
Directive’s training and education requirements. 

On  the  other  hand,  further  improvements  are  needed  insofar  as  information  was  not 
systematically  provided  on  the  actual  implementation  of  those  legal  requirements  on 
education and training. Around one third of the Member States did not report any training and 
education activities for regulators and/or licensees. More than half of the Member States have 
not  indicated  any  change  of  education  and  training  arrangements.  In  general,  training  and 
education of the regulatory authority staff is better defined compared to license-holders’ staff. 

National schemes and arrangements remained unchanged and are summarised below: 

•  Post-graduate courses at universities;  

•  Training centres (basic and specialised, some at nuclear power plants); 

•  Training programmes or plans (i.e. at national, facility, or organisational entity level); 

•  Regular self-assessments of staff and needs analysis; 

•  Specialised, regular training for different levels of staff (e.g. on-the-job training with 

experienced staff); 

•  Specialised courses (e.g. for newcomers or experienced staff). 

5.2. Research and development 

Each  Member  State  national  programme  shall  include  the  research,  development  and 
demonstration activities that are needed to implement solutions for the management of spent 
fuel and radioactive waste (see Article 12(1)(f) of the Directive). 

In the third national reports very little information was provided by the Member States on the 
research, development and demonstration activities planned to support implementation of the 
solutions  needed  for  long-term  safe  management  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste. 
Research  and  development  activities  to  build  national  radioactive  waste  and  spent  fuel 
management  competences  were  reported  by  around  half  of  the  Member  States.  Only  six 

45 

 
Member States (mainly with large and medium nuclear programmes) reported on the progress 
of  their  research  and  development  activities/programmes  achieved  since  the  last  reporting 
period  (or  using  KPIs).  The  rest  of  the  Member  States  did  not  report  any  information  or 
reported in generic terms.  

Not surprisingly, mainly the countries without a nuclear power programme have difficulties 
to  fulfil  the  research  and  development  requirements  of  the  Directive,  while  Member  States 
with  a  nuclear  power  programme  have  in  general  more  developed  formal  arrangements  for 
training and education, and advanced  research and development  activities. It  is  notable that 
international  exchange  of  experience  through  peer  reviews,  workshops,  conferences  and 
technical visits has been recognized by Member States as a useful tool, especially by the ones 
without a nuclear power programme. It is worth mentioning the Joint European Programme 
EURAD  which  contributes  to  establishing  the  basics  of  an  RD&D  programme  for  the 
management of radioactive waste and promotes collaborative research between participants. 
Almost all Member States participate in this programme. 

Most  of  the  other  Member  States  with  smaller  nuclear  programmes  presented  the  research 
and development activities and timeframes concerning final disposal of ILW, HLW and spent 
fuel in very general terms. Nearly half of the Member States have not reported any details or 
confirmed that they do  not  have a specific research programme defined.  It  should be noted 
that the Member States with only disused radioactive sources in their inventories do not plan 
to  develop  specific  research,  development  and  demonstration  programmes,  but  rely  on 
participating in, or following the results of international programmes or projects (e.g. through 
the  International  Atomic  Energy  Agency  and  European  Commission)  that  are  in-line  with 
their  radioactive  waste  management  needs.  Nevertheless,  a  few  of  these  Member  States, 
recognising the importance of research plan to conduct their own research, development and 
demonstration activities and to describe them in future reviews of their national programmes. 

Overall,  the  situation  remained  unchanged,  i.e.  the  research  programmes  in  the  EU  are  at 
different implementation stages, depending on the national radioactive waste and spent fuel 
management  programmes’  implementation  status.  Only  a  few  Member  States  have 
established  comprehensive  research,  development  and  demonstration  programmes  that 
support  the  implementation  of  the  national  programme.  Several  of  these  Member  States 
periodically  review  and  update  their  research  programmes  and  are  among  those  Member 
States  that have made significant  progress  in  developing deep geological  disposal  facilities. 
Usually,  these  Member  States  carry  out  a  national  research  programme  and  are  actively 
participating  in  international  research  initiatives,  such  as  Euratom  research  programmes.  In 
addition, they participate, drive, and promote international cooperation and exchange forums 
that have been established at  European and international level. Member States  with  smaller 
programmes  report  participation  in  international  research  initiatives  as  well.  Reporting  is 
usually limited to the list of international projects where they take part in. Member States are 
encouraged not only to list international R&D projects in their national reports, but to provide 
information on the expected impact of those projects on the implementation of their national 
programmes. 

46 

 
6. Transparency and public participation 

National  frameworks  must  include  the  national  policy  and  process  for  transparency  (see 
Article 10 of the Directive). Member States have to ensure that the necessary information on 
the  management  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  is  made  available  to  workers  and  the 
general public (including information from the competent regulatory authority) and that the 
public is  given the necessary opportunities to  participate effectively  in  the decision-making 
process regarding spent fuel and radioactive waste management in accordance with national 
legislation and international obligations. 

All  Member  States  provided  information  in  their  national  programmes  and  reports  on  the 
policy and regulatory arrangements governing transparency and referred to the obligation to 
inform  the public as well  as  the  consultation  and participation  mechanisms.  Member States 
reported no significant changes in these policy and regulatory arrangements. 

Information on activities related to radioactive waste and spent fuel management is publicly 
available  in  all  Member  States.  Mostly  institutional  websites  are  primary  sources  of 
information;  typically,  relevant  information  is  found  on  the  websites  of  the  regulatory 
authorities  and  waste  management  organisations.  Key  documents  (including  national 
programmes, national reports, international evaluations, and annual reports) on strategies and 
their implementation are usually public. Countries with nuclear power plants use generally a 
diversity  of  information  channels  and  techniques,  including  adapted  products  that  are 
understandable by a broad audience. Long-term decisions, such as the siting and construction 
of geological repositories, are often accompanied by nationwide information campaigns. 

Some Member States regularly provide information using other media or through information 
or  visitor  centres.  In  a  few  cases  regular  meetings  with  the  general  public  were  reported. 
Several  Member States  reported  that documents concerning licensing procedures of nuclear 
and radioactive waste facilities are public and easily accessible on the authorities' websites. In 
some cases, every official record of the regulators activities is systematically published. 

A  few  Member  States  provided  descriptions  or  recent  examples  of  how  their  transparency 
policy is implemented in practice, especially as concerns effective participation practices. 

Almost  all  Member  States  reported  on  consultation  mechanisms  set  out  in  national 
frameworks.  Public  consultation  is  required  for  political  decisions  with  environmental 
implications,  including  those  related  to  radioactive  waste  management.  Consultation  most 
often  takes  place  as  part  of  strategic  environmental  assessments,  environmental  impact 
assessments and/or during the licensing of activities. In some countries the adoption of new 
legislation with environmental effects is also subject to public consultation. 

In  many  cases,  national  reports  and  national  programmes  either  did  not  provide  any 
description of participation or offered generic explanations. The actual impact of the public 
participation in the decision making was usually not explained. 

47