Problematic aspects of Directive 2011/70/Euratom

1. Problematic aspects of Directive 2011/70/Euratom Nuclear Energy Conference, Prague, 11 Apr. 2018 Gabriele Mraz, Austrian Institute of Ecology, Joint Project

2. Analysed materials and experiences • Joint Project – Nuclear Risk & Public Control: • Monitoring of the national waste management programmes of the Joint Project states (CZ, HU, BG, RO, PL, AT) • Event Dec 2016 in Budapest on problems with the implementation of Directive 2011/70/Euratom • Analysis of the first report of the European Commission on the implementation of Directive 2011/70/Euratom (2017) • Research on the multi-national repository (2018) • pulswerk GmbH (consulting firm of the Austrian Institute of Ecology): • Head of consortium „SEA nuclear waste management programmes“ since 2014: participation in transboundary Strategic Environment Assessments (SEA) for D, HU, CZ, IT by order of BMNT

3. Some problems with implementation of Directive 2011/70/Euratom • Multinational repository: desire and reality • Ultimate responsibility for legacies and exported material? • Long-term measures after closure of repositories are missing • „Significant changes“ of the national waste management programmes and their consequences • Transparency and participation are not sufficient

4. 1. Multinational repository – desire and reality • Half of EU member states have the option of a multinational repository in their waste management programmes, either as main option or dual track (together with national repository development) • What is a multinational repository? • A repository that is operated by several states cooperatively • For all types of nuclear waste that shall be disposed in a geological repository • Can include facilities for conditioning and interim storage • More than one site is possible • Other names: regional repository, shared repository, ER = European Repository • Multinational repositories are planned in the EU and globally

5. The European Repository Development Organisation (ERDO) • In the ERDO-Working Group only 5 member states are active • According to the website there are 6 members: Austria, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Slowenia. • Poland: „Ministry of Energy, due to the lack of progress in ERDO WG's work has decided to quit participation in the Group's work". • Romania was a founding member; but now it is only observer because the ERDO-WG is not operated by a relevant international organisations, and moreover no country has stepped forward as site host. • Former members: Ireland, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Lithuania • No country has stepped forward as host for a repository site. • No results for time-tables, criteria, liability etc. • ERDO-WG has not enough financial means

6. Conclusion multinational repository • “While the Directive allows shared disposal solutions to be developed, a policy based only on this option, without a clear path towards implementation, cannot be regarded as being in line with the aims of the Directive.” (EC report 2017*, p. 9) • Insufficient transparency: on the website of ERDO only a few documents are published, involved states also do not provide information • Participation? Until now, no debate with the public has been initialized • *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. Brussels, 15.5.2017, COM(2017) 236 final.

7. 2. Ultimate responsibility for legacies and exported material • Art 4(1): Every member state has the ultimate responsibility for management of spent fuel and radioactive waste generated in it. • Open question: radioactive waste that has been dumped into the Sea by BE, F, D, IT, NL, SE, UK: 35,8 million GBq (EC-Inventory report 2017, p. 49) (but no mentioning in SEA of Italy) • Open question: spent fuel that has been exported based on contracts before the Directive was in force (example HU: exports to Russia/Mayak – which is well known for its enormous environmental pollution) • = missing regulations in Directive 2011/70/Euratom

8. 3. Long-term measures after closure of repositories are missing • According to Directive 2011/70/Euratom Art 12 (1) e) national programmes have to include measures for the post-closure period of repositories • Depending on the type of repository measures are necessary up to one million years: • To avoid drilling into the sealed repository • To detect leakages and to repair them • “Of the Member States with nuclear programmes, only a few have presented detailed post-closure plans mainly for near-surface disposal facilities while post-closure measures for deep geological facilities are either not foreseen or not addressed.” (EC report 2017, p. 12) • Knowledge preservation is a problem that is as difficult to solve as technological and geological long-term safety.

9. 4. “Significant changes” in the national waste management programmes and their consequences • Art. 13 (1) “Member States shall notify to the Commission their national programmes and any subsequent significant changes.” • What are significant changes? • “Article 13.1 requires MS to notify any “significant changes” to the Commission, but there is no definition or explanation of what “significant” means, or how these changes should be reported, which has caused confusion amongst MS.” (ENSREG WG2 Summary Report 2017, p. 4)

10. Example SEA national waste management programme CZ • It is a significant change if the sites ETE und EDU are included in the site list for the repository search, this will lead to an update of the waste management programme. • But the building of new NPPs resulting in more nuclear waste is not seen as significant change. • Will there be another SEA if the programme is updated? A (transboundary) SEA will only be conducted in case of significant changes leading to (transboundary) effects. • Consultations report: www.umweltbundesamt.at/fileadmin/site/umweltthemen/umweltpolitische/SUP/Tschechien/REP0637.pdf

11. 5. Transparency and participation are not sufficient • The most important participation instrument is the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) according to Directive 2001/42/EC. • SEA = the only legally binding participation instrument focussing on environmental impacts • Out of 28 EU states nine have refused to make a SEA, two do not give information. Not all of the remaining 17 have conducted a SEA by now. • New ENSREG Guideline 2018 (p. 20): the national report shall include a description of possibilities of participation for the neighbouring countries. (ad Art. 10) • National programmes and national reports should be published promptly. • Peer review results should be made public.

12. Conclusions • It is positive to have the Directive • There are non-precise and/or missing regulations in the Directive RL 2011/70/Euratom -> an amendment is needed • Member states implement the Directive insufficiently -> more support and more sanctions are needed • Question of obligatory SEA (also in case of significant changes), publishing of national programmes, reports, peer review results, ERDO documents etc. -> transparency has to be increased, SEA has to be obligatory

13. Questions to the Commission/ DG Energy • Is an amendment of Directive RL 2011/70/Euratom planned? • Is better guidance foreseen for the next national reports (due in August 2018)? • Will the national reports and waste management programmes be published on the EC’s website? • When will the Opinions to the national programmes be available for the public? • When will the public conference on the implementation of the Waste Directive take place? • What are the results of the EC-Workshops of 7. Nov 2017?

14. Contact • Gabriele Mraz: mraz@ecology.at • More information on Joint Project : www.joint-project.org/