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

2. 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

3. Contents: • 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 • Peer reviews: overall picture. Need of cooperation with IAEA • Conclusion: Do we really know where we are going to?

4. 1. Values, scope and definitions Transparency Public information and participation 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 Safety in national arrengements Responsibility Towards future generations

5. 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

6. “Principles” National Policy “Infrastructure” National Framework 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. “Principles” National Policy “Infrastructure” National Framework 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

8. 2. General principles… (*) not present In the Joint Convention 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 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

9. “Principles” National Policy “Infrastructure” National Framework 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

10. 3. National framework (legislative, regulatory and organizational) Elements: A national programme (*); National arrangements for safety; A system of licensing, control (also post-closure) and enforcement actions Allocation of responsibility to the bodies involved; giving primary responsibility to the generators or license holder; National requirements for transparency (*); 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

11. Regulators: Functionally independent and given legal powers and resources License holders: Prime responsibility for safety Regular assessment/verification/improvement of safety Safety demonstration (“safety case”) – graded approach Integrated management system Adequate financial and human resources All parties involved: Education and training, R&D 4. Obligations for regulators and license holders

12. “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). 5. The decommissioning funds

13. 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” 6. Obligations on transparency (*) not present in the Joint Convention

14. Initiatives such as “E-Track”

15. “Principles” National Policy “Infrastructure” National Framework 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

16. 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” 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

17. 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) Contents of the national programmes

18. The concept of “interdependencies” in thenationalprogramme Source: 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

19. 8. Reporting and notification - Overallpicture • Nationalreports: • “MemberStatesshall 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”.

20. 8. Reporting and notification– Guidancedocuments so far National reports: National programmes:

21. 8. Peer reviews - Overallpicture • Member States shall periodically, and at least every 10 years… • Arrangeforselfassessments“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

22. 8. Peer-reviews – Guidancedocument in preparation Guidelines on the organization of peer-reviews under the Waste Directive: Work in preparation

23. 8. Peer-reviews –Need of cooperationwith 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 national programmes

24. 8. Peer-reviews –Need of cooperationwith IAEA “in construction”: Procedure being defined… A new type of missions needed…

25. 8. Reporting, notification and peer reviews (only) in theWasteDirective

26. + Nuclear Safety Directive IAEA Joint Convention IAEA Nuclear Safety Convention …

27. 9. Conclusions: PEER REVIEWS in the EU in future: • Underthe Nuclear WasteDirective– every 10 years: • IRRS (or similar) foraspectsrelated to safety regulator • ARTEMIS (or similar) forevaluation of nationalprogrammes • Underthe 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

28. 9. Conclusions:

29. 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?

30. Thankyou so much! Mercibeaucoup!¡Muchas gracias!