THE NUCLEAR WASTE DIRECTIVE : CONTENTS AND SOME REFLECTIONS ON ITS PEER-REVIEW MECHANISM

THE NUCLEAR WASTE DIRECTIVE: CONTENTS AND SOME REFLECTIONS ON ITS PEER-REVIEW

MECHANISM

Inter Jura Congress - INLA

21st October 2014, Buenos Aires

Nuria Prieto Serrano

Contents:1. Values, scope and definitions2. General principles, including the export control regime3. The national framework4. Obligations for regulators and license holders5. The decommissioning funds6. Obligations on Transparency7. The national programmes8. Reporting and notification: overall picture. Guidance

documents so far9. Peer reviews: overall picture. Need of cooperation with

IAEA10.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

Towards future generations

Safetyin national

arrengements

Transparency

Public information and

participation

1. Values, scope and definitions

Scope: All stages of management – from generation to disposalExceptions: •Non-civilian RW•Waste arising from Mining activities → Directive 2006/21/EC•Authorized releases

Definitions: in line with Joint Convention and EURATOM law

6Source: 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

National Policy

National Framework

National Programme

“Principles”

“Infrastructure”

“Solutions”

7Source: 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

National Policy

National Framework

National Programme

“Principles”

“Infrastructure”

“Solutions”

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

… including the export control regimeDisposal 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

(*) not present In the Joint Convention

9Source: 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

National Policy

National Framework

National Programme

“Principles”

“Infrastructure”

“Solutions”

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 actions4.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 (*).

To be maintained and improved → Operational experience to be taken into account

(*) not present In the Joint Convention

4. Obligations for regulators and license holders Regulators:

Functionally independent and given legal powers and resources

License holders:1.Prime responsibility for safety2.Regular assessment/verification/improvement of safety3.Safety demonstration (“safety case”) – graded approach4.Integrated management system5.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”

15Source: 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

National Policy

National Framework

National Programme

“Principles”

“Infrastructure”

“Solutions”

7. The national programmes

• 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

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”

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

18Source: ENSREG Final Guidelines for MS Reports to the Waste Directive http://www.ensreg.eu/sites/default/files/HLG_p(2014-27)_137%20Final%20guidelines%20for%20MS%20Reports%20to%20the%20Waste%20Directive.pdf

8. Reporting and notification - Overall picture

19

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”.

8. Reporting and notification– Guidance documents so far

20

National reports:

National programmes:

8. Peer reviews - Overall picture

21

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

8. Peer-reviews – Guidance document in preparation

22

Guidelines on the organization of peer-reviews under the Waste Directive: Work in preparation

8. Peer-reviews –Need of cooperation with IAEA

23

Two Memoranda of Understanding:

Amendmentsto this one “in construction”to include a new type of peer-reviews to national programmes

ENSREG and IAEA

EU Commission and IAEA

A new type of missions needed…

24

8. Peer-reviews –Need of cooperation with IAEA

“in construction”:Procedure being defined…

8. Reporting, notification and peer reviews (only) in the Waste Directive

25

26

+Nuclear Safety DirectiveIAEA Joint ConventionIAEA Nuclear Safety Convention…

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 + review cycles of Nuclear Safety 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!