THE NUCLEAR WASTE DIRECTIVE:
CONTENTS AND SOME REFLECTIONS
ON ITS PEER-REVIEW MECHANISM
Nuria Prieto Serrano
Inter Jura Congress - INLA
21st October 2014, Buenos Aires
Contents:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Values, scope and definitions
General principles, including the export control regime
The national framework
Obligations for regulators and license holders
The decommissioning funds
Obligations on Transparency
The national programmes
Reporting and notification: overall picture. Guidance
documents so far
9. Peer reviews: overall picture. Need of cooperation with
IAEA
10. Conclusion: Do we really know where we are going to?
3
1. Values, scope and definitions
• Supplementing the Directive 2013/59/EURATOM on Basic Safety
Standards
• “Sister” of the Nuclear Safety Directive 2009/71/EURATOM (last
amendment in 2014).
Values: Article 1, triple pillar
Responsibility
Safety
Transparency
Towards future
generations
in national
arrengements
Public information
and participation
1. Values, scope and definitions
Scope: All stages of management – from generation to disposal
Exceptions:
•Non-civilian RW
•Waste arising from Mining activities → Directive 2006/21/EC
•Authorized releases
Definitions: in line with Joint Convention and EURATOM law
National Policy
“Principles”
National Framework
“Infrastructure”
National Programme
“Solutions”
Source: NAPRO Guidelines for the establishment and notification of National Programmes,
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/forum/risks/doc/waste_disposal/docs/napro_guide_web.pdf
6
National Policy
“Principles”
National Framework
“Infrastructure”
National Programme
“Solutions”
Source: NAPRO Guidelines for the establishment and notification of National Programmes,
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/forum/risks/doc/waste_disposal/docs/napro_guide_web.pdf
7
2. General principles…
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ultimate responsibility of the State
Waste minimization
Consideration of the interdependencies
Safety in the long term with passive safety features
Graded approach
Polluter pays (*)
Evidence-based and documented decision-making process
(*) not present
In the Joint Convention
… including the export control regime
Disposal of RW in the MS in which it was generated
“Shared” repositories in the EU possible
→ Possible exception: export to a third country for disposal, if:
• Party to the Joint Convention
• To installation in operation, authorized to receive that RW
• With equivalent levels of safety as those of the Directive
Further exceptions: GTRI, return of radioactive sources to manufacturer
National Policy
“Principles”
National Framework
“Infrastructure”
National Programme
“Solutions”
Source: NAPRO Guidelines for the establishment and notification of National Programmes,
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/forum/risks/doc/waste_disposal/docs/napro_guide_web.pdf
9
3. National framework
(legislative, regulatory and organizational)
Elements:
1.A national programme (*);
2.National arrangements for safety;
3.A system of licensing, control (also post-closure) and
enforcement actions
4.Allocation of responsibility to the bodies involved; giving
primary responsibility to the generators or license holder;
5.National requirements for transparency (*);
6.A financing scheme for SF and RW management (*).
(*) not present
In the Joint Convention
To be maintained and improved
→ Operational experience to be taken into account
4. Obligations for regulators and license holders
Regulators:
Functionally independent and given legal powers and
resources
License holders:
1. Prime responsibility for safety
2. Regular assessment/verification/improvement of safety
3. Safety demonstration (“safety case”) – graded approach
4. Integrated management system
5. Adequate financial and human resources
All parties involved:
Education and training, R&D
5. The decommissioning funds
“available when needed (…), taking due account of the
responsibility of SF and RW generators”
→ Commission Recommendation on the management of
financial resources for the decommissioning of nuclear
installations, SF and RW (2006/851/Euratom).
6. Obligations on transparency
Public information
In particular from regulatory body
“provided that this does not jeopardize other interests such
as, inter alia, security”
Public participation (*)
“the public be given the necessary opportunities to participate
effectively in the decision- making process regarding SF and
RW management”
(*) not present in the
Joint Convention
Initiatives such as “E-Track”
National Policy
National Framework
National Programme
“Principles”
“Infrastructure”
“Solutions”
Source: NAPRO Guidelines for the establishment and notification of National Programmes,
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/forum/risks/doc/waste_disposal/docs/napro_guide_web.pdf
15
7. The national programmes
Recital 28: “Member States should establish
national programmes to ensure the transposition of
political decisions into clear provisions for the timely
implementation of all steps of spent fuel and
radioactive waste management from generation to
disposal. It should be possible for such national
programmes to be in the form of a single reference
document or a set of documents”
• Covering all types of SF and RW and all stages of SF and RW
management from generation to disposal
• Being regularly reviewed and updated
• Being reported to the EU Commission for the first time by 8/2015
• Being subject to peer-review every 10 years
Contents of the national programmes
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Overall objectives of the national policy
Significant milestones and clear timeframes
Inventory - present amounts and future prospects
Concepts, plans and technical solutions from generation to disposal
Concepts and plans after closure of a disposal facility – institutional
control
Research, development and demonstration
Responsibilities and key performance indicators to monitor progress
Cost assessment
Financial scheme(s)
Transparency policy or process
International agreements (if any)
The concept of “interdependencies” in the national
programme
Source: ENSREG Final Guidelines for MS Reports to the Waste Directive
http://www.ensreg.eu/sites/default/files/HLG_p(201427)_137%20Final%20guidelines%20for%20MS%20Reports%20to%20the%20Waste%20Directive.p
df
18
8. Reporting and notification - Overall picture
National reports:
“Member States shall submit a report to the Commission a report
on the implementation of this Directive for the first time by 23 August
2015, and every 3 years thereafter, taking advantage of the
review and reporting under the Joint Convention”.
The Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the
Council:
• a report on progress made with implementation
• an inventory of present and future prospects
National programmes:
• “Member States shall notify to the Commission their national
programmes and any subsequent significant changes”
• “Member States shall for the first time notify to the Commission
the content of their national programme (…) as soon as possible,
but not later than 23 August 2015”.
19
8. Reporting and notification– Guidance documents so far
National reports:
National programmes:
20
8. Peer reviews - Overall picture
Member States shall periodically, and at least every 10 years…
• Arrange for self assessments “of their national framework,
competent regulatory authority, national programme and its
implementation”.
• Invite peer-reviews “of their national framework, competent
regulatory authority and/or national programme”.
The outcomes of any peer review shall
be reported to the Commission and the
other Member States, and may be
made available to the public where
there is no conflict with security and
proprietary information
21
8. Peer-reviews – Guidance document in preparation
Guidelines on the organization of peer-reviews
under the Waste Directive: Work in preparation
22
8. Peer-reviews –Need of
cooperation with IAEA
ENSREG
and
IAEA
Two Memoranda of Understanding:
EU
Commission
and
IAEA
Amendments
to this one “in construction”
to include a new type
of peer-reviews to
23
national programmes
8. Peer-reviews –Need of cooperation with IAEA
A new type of missions needed…
“in construction”:
Procedure being
defined…
24
8. Reporting, notification and peer reviews
(only) in the Waste Directive
25
+
Nuclear Safety Directive
IAEA Joint Convention
IAEA Nuclear Safety Convention
…
26
9. Conclusions:
PEER REVIEWS in the EU in future:
• Under the Nuclear Waste Directive – every 10 years:
• IRRS (or similar) for aspects related to safety regulator
• ARTEMIS (or similar) for evaluation of national programmes
• Under the Nuclear Safety Directive (as amended in
2014):
• On“relevant segments of national framework and competent
regulatory authorities” every 10 years
• Basis: IRRS or similar
• On “a specific topic related to nuclear safety of the relevant
nuclear installations on their territory” (“topical peer review”)
every 6 years
• Basis: WENRA
• Additional in case of accident
+ review cycles of Joint Convention
27
9. Conclusions:
Do we really know where we are going to?
• The Waste Directive does not prescribe a type of peer
reviews…
• … but in fact there seems to be no alternative to IAEA
missions (IRRS and ARTEMIS)
IAEA regime strengthened through EURATOM
Need to reflect:
• on the role and powers of IAEA in respect of EURATOM law
• on the need for rationalization of resources
• “An increase of peer-reviews results on a proportional
increase of safety”: is it true?
29
Thank you so much!
Merci beaucoup!
¡Muchas gracias!