Debate in the Industry Research and Energy committee of the European parliament, on the 23 of January 2014, with the rapporteur Romana Jordan.
Debate on the revision of the nuclear safety… par nucleartransparencywatch
Debate on the revision of the nuclear safety directive in the ITRE committee (Video)
French Nuclear Safety Authority Opinion concerning the proposed revision of the European directive on nuclear safety
Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia to get more aid to decommission nuclear plants
Press release of the European Parliament on line
PLENARY SESSION Press release – Energy − 19-11-2013
EU financial aid to help Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia to complete the decommissioning of the Kozloduy, Ignalina and Bohunice nuclear power plants in the next EU budget period (2014-2020) was approved by MEPs on Tuesday. These power plants are “too dated and could not be cost-effectively upgraded to meet the minimum required safety standards” says rapporteur Giles Chichester (ECR, UK).
The new regulation will extend EU financial support given to Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia in order to complete the decommissioning of their nuclear power plants (Kozloduy units 1 to 4, Ignalina units 1 and 2 and Bohunice V1 units 1 and 2). The term “decommissioning” covers all the activities taking place after reactors are shut down: removal and the final disposal of spent fuel elements, decontamination, dismantling and/or demolition of the nuclear installations, disposal of remaining radioactive waste materials, and environmental restoration of contaminated sites.
Budget and conditions
To qualify for the €860 million* total aid available (€260 million for Kozloduy, €400 million for Ignalina, and €200 million for Bohunice), the three countries will need to meet certain conditions, including fully transposing the Nuclear Safety Directive into their national laws and submitting detailed decommissioning plans to the European Commission. MEPs suggest that these plans should include information on the anticipated projects, specific milestones and “co-financing proportions including details on how this national funding will be secured in the long term”.
Evaluation
“It should be ensured by the Commission that the conditions for an effective, efficient and economical use of EU funds is in place. Objectives must be aligned with the budget made available and to the establishment of meaningful performance indicators, which can subsequently be monitored and reported on as necessary for the programme implementation as a whole”, stresses Parliament’s rapporteur Giles Chichester.
MEPs propose that the Commission should review the performance of the three decommissioning programmes and assess their progress by the end of 2017. If the Commission decides to review the total budget for the decommissioning programmes, it should not jeopardise safety standards at the nuclear power plants, say MEPs.
The resolution was approved by 554 votes to 17, with 72 abstentions.
* The agreed budget is 860 million (in 2011 figures), which will be adjusted to inflation during the programme. The most recent adjustments put the figure at €969 million (€293 million for Kozloduy, €451 million for Ignalina and €225 million for Bohunice).
Procedure: Consultation
Complaint to the European Commission about radioactive waste export from Hungary to Russia
Nuclear Transparency Watch sent a letter addressed to Mr Oettinger, the European Commissionner for Energy concerning illegal radioactive waste export from Hungary to Russia.
It is a first step in order to monitor nuclear activities and improve transparency in this sector !
We received an acknowledgement of receipt and two months later a reply from the European Commission.
However, this reply does not give us the answers we are entitled to wait for. That’s why we decided to send a new letter to the European Commission asking to be more precise and in order to clarify the issue.
| Action | Date | Condition |
| First complaint sent by letter to the European Commission | 26/11/2013 | Sent |
| Acknowledgement of receipt from the European Commission | 19/12/2013 | Received |
| Telephone reminder | 11/02/2014 | ok |
| Reply from the European Commission | 26/02/2014 | Received |
| New letter to have more precisions | 03/04/2014 | Sent |
| Waiting for a response. | 16/05/2014 | Still waiting |
Letter sent to Mr Oettinger : Radioactive waste export from Hungary to Russia
Brussels, 26 November 2013
Dear Mr. Oettinger,
Nuclear Transparency Watch has been informed that the Hungarian nuclear energy operator MVM is currently preparing the export of high-level nuclear waste from the INES 3 incident in 2003 in the Paks 2 unit to Mayak in Russia. We have been informed that the contracts for this export foresee transfer of ownership of this waste to Rosatom/ TVEL or another institution in Russia, and do not foresee any return of the waste for final disposal in Hungary or another EU country.
The 2011/70/EURATOM Directive of 19 July 2011 states the following:
Art. 4(1): Member States shall establish and maintain national policies on spent fuel and radioactive waste management.
Without prejudice to Article 2(3), each Member State shall have ultimate responsibility for management of the spent fuel and radioactive waste generated in it.
Art. 4(2): Where radioactive waste or spent fuel is shipped for processing or reprocessing to a Member State or a third country, the ultimate responsibility for the safe and responsible disposal of those materials, including any waste as a byproduct, shall remain with the Member State or third country from which the radioactive material was shipped.
Art. 4(4): Radioactive waste shall be disposed of in the Member State in which it was generated, unless at the time of shipment an agreement, taking into account the criteria established by the Commission in accordance with Article 16(2) of Directive 2006/117/Euratom, has 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.
Nuclear Transparency Watch has been informed that the shipment of this high-level waste to Mayak will not be for the purpose of reprocessing with consecutive return of the reprocessing products and waste by-products to Hungary, but for a transfer of the waste, including transfer of ownership of the waste, to Rosatom / TVEL or another institution in Russia.
Nuclear Transparency Watch has been informed that even in case the new owner would decide to reprocess the waste, waste produced as by-product as well as retrieved products for which no further use can be found will remain in Russia and under ownership of the new owner, i.e. out of the ultimate responsibility of MVM.
Nuclear Transparency Watch is aware of the fact that neither Rosatom / TVEL nor any other Russian institution, nor Russia as state has a licensed and operating final disposal facility for high-level waste. The agreement(s) made between MVM and Rosatom / TVEL or another Russian institution therefore cannot provide any insurance concerning final disposal of this waste or products and by-products of reprocessing in case the new owner would use that option.
The operations of Rosatom / TVEL in Mayak include temporary storage of high-level wastes, but no operational final disposal that would fulfil EU quality standards. As far as we have been informed, the agreement between MVM and Rosatom / TVEL or another institution does not foresee repatriation of the waste to Hungary in case Rosatom / TVEL or any other institution in Russia fails to provide such a final disposal.
Nuclear Transparency Watch is furthermore aware of the dismal track record of Rosatom / TVEL’s Mayak operations and the historical and current exposure of the surrounding population to unacceptable levels of radioactivity and lack of sufficient care and compensation for the effects of historical exposures. Given that track record, Nuclear Transparency Watch has severe concerns about whether even temporary storage or processing and consecutive storage of the waste would fulfil EU standards.
Nuclear Transparency Watch is not convinced that MVM or Hungary will be able to execute its ultimate responsibility for care of this waste in case the new owners or Russia fail to fulfil EU quality standards, nor is Nuclear Transparency Watch convinced that MVM or even the Hungarian Armed Forces would be able to repatriate the waste in case EU quality levels would be flouted by the new owners or Russia.
With that, Nuclear Transparency Watch is convinced that MVM and Hungary under this plan are giving up their ultimate responsibility for this waste.
Nuclear Transparency Watch hereby asks the European Commission the following:
1. Is the European Commission informed as prescribed in art. 4.4 of the Directive of this planned export of high level radioactive waste?
2. Given the above, what is the opinion of the European Commission concerning the legality of this export?
3. Given the fact that this export means a de facto transfer of ultimate responsibility of high-level radioactive waste from an EU Member State to a third state, which steps will the European Commission take to prevent this waste export?
With regards,
Mrs. Michele Rivasi, Chair
Nuclear Transparency Watch (NTW)
Aahrus Convention
The Aarhus Convention establishes a number of rights of the public (individuals and their associations) with regard to the environment. The Parties to the Convention are required to make the necessary provisions so that public authorities (at national, regional or local level) will contribute to these rights to become effective. The Convention provides for:
- the right of everyone to receive environmental information that is held by public authorities (“access to environmental information“). This can include information on the state of the environment, but also on policies or measures taken, or on the state of human health and safety where this can be affected by the state of the environment. Applicants are entitled to obtain this information within one month of the request and without having to say why they require it. In addition, public authorities are obliged, under the Convention, to actively disseminate environmental information in their possession;
- the right to participate in environmental decision-making. Arrangements are to be made by public authorities to enable the public affected and environmental non-governmental organisations to comment on, for example, proposals for projects affecting the environment, or plans and programmes relating to the environment, these comments to be taken into due account in decision-making, and information to be provided on the final decisions and the reasons for it (“public participation in environmental decision-making“);
- the right to review procedures to challenge public decisions that have been made without respecting the two aforementioned rights or environmental law in general (“access to justice“).
Download the text on Aarhus Convention
The launch of Nuclear Transparency Watch
Lancement de Nuclear Transparency Watch par EurodeputesEE
Bruxelles, European parliament, 7th November 2013
Press conference for the launch of the network Nuclear Transparency Watch
Japanese energy policy
The Japanese government has delayed a planned announcement on the country’slong-term energy strategy amid signs of rising public concern about a return to nuclear power.
Hungary – Nuclear deal between Russia and Hungary
Russian nuclear power company Rosatom will expand Hungary’s only nuclear power plant, more than doubling its capacity in the biggest construction project in Hungary’s post-Communist history. Read this article
France – Greenpeace activist trial
Trial of the 29 activists from Greenpeace who entered a French nuclear Power Plant at Tricastin in Southern France. They wanted to denounce the security failures of nuclear power plants.