Outcome of Proceedings of the Working Party on Atomic Questions of 19 Nov. on the Nuclear Package (link)

December 3, 2003

Brussels, 02 Dec 2003

Full text of Document 15496/03
Suite of documents 15496/03

Subject: - Nuclear package
- High activity sealed radioactive sources

I. Nuclear package

1. Proposal for a Council Directive on basic obligations and general principles on the safety of nuclear installations

The Working Party examined the revised Presidency text (doc. 14692/03 ) for the draft Directive. Apart from the question of the nature of the envisaged instrument (binding or not), the following questions were raised:

- Should the definition of installation be turned into a closed definition, with an exhaustive list of installations, and should it exclude mining activities which are covered under the Convention on Nuclear Safety ?

- Should not all categories of sealed sources be excluded ? Is this exclusion consistent with the definition of nuclear materials within the meaning of Art. 197 EAEC ?

- Is the definition of nuclear safety not duplicating Art.6 and is nuclear safety always used with the same meaning throughout the text ?

- Is it appropriate to describe the role of regulatory bodies as "approving" quality assurance programmes (Art.8(2)) ?

- Is it clear that Art. 11(1) only require the presence of safety experts at nuclear installations? Is it not excessive to require that Member States ensure that training is provided (instead of made available) to staff (Art. 11(2)) ?

- Would it not be justified to have more detailed provisions on the financial resources ?

- Is it sufficiently clear that Art.12 should also cover the establishment of emergency plans for Member States without nuclear installation ?

- Should it not be required that Member States ensure adequate public participation in order to achieve a high level of transparency ?

- Could the role of the Regulatory Authorities Committee (RAC) be clarified as well as the role of the Commission in this committee ? Could it be limited simply to managing the peer review ? Could the NRWG become the RAC ?

- Could it be arranged to have a reporting cycle consistent with that of the Convention on Nuclear Safety ?

The Commission representative confirmed its Institution's support to the text, including as regards the exclusion of mining activities and Art.10 and indicated that the Commission does not intend to submit new proposals on financial resources.

2. Proposal for a Council Directive on the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste

The Working Party examined the revised Presidency text (doc. 14693/03 ) for the draft Directive. Apart from the question of the nature of the envisaged instrument (binding or not), the following questions were raised:

- Should the draft Directive consistently refer to safe management of waste, including in its title ?

- Is it appropriate to have more exemptions under the proposed Directive than under the Joint Convention ?

- Should a reference be made to the possibility of setting up joint undertakings, either in a recital (17), or in the operative part along the lines of the original Commission proposal ?

- Should the topic of "regional" repositories (recital 18) as well as the related issue of "import bans" be elaborated in more detail under Art. 4 on the national waste management programmes ?

- Should it be specified that geological disposal is only relevant for spent fuel and high level waste ?

- Should it be required that the "regulatory body" referred to in Art. 3(4) be independent as is the case under the draft Directive on "Basic obligations" ?

- Should the reference to "polluter pays" principle be deleted, as it is not defined under the EAEC Treaty, bearing also in mind that the objective of the draft Directive is to avoid pollution ?

- Do "firm contracts" in Art. 4(4) correspond to "bilateral of regional agreements" or should they be added ?

- To what extent should the dates to be included in the national programmes pursuant to Art. 5(2) be considered binding or indicative, at Community as well as at national level ?

- Should it be clarified, in Art. 6(3) that observations from the peer review process should not give rise to any compulsory measures to be taken by Member States ?

- Should possible alternatives to deep geological disposal, such as partition and transmutation, be also referred to in Art. 6(4) ?

- Is a transposition period of one year sufficient, in Art. 7(1) ?

- Does the Joint Declaration on the application of the Euratom Treaty (OJ C 241, 29.8.1994, p. 382), made in the context of the accession of A/FIN/S, give rise to any particular considerations in respect of the draft Directive as it stated in the Declaration that it is the

[...]

Council Register

You've reached your article limit.

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most Commented

James Fryer illustration (27 July 2017)

It is not Luddism to be cautious about destroying an academic publishing industry that has served us well, says Marilyn Deegan

Hand squeezing stress ball
Working 55 hours per week, the loss of research periods, slashed pensions, increased bureaucracy, tiny budgets and declining standards have finally forced Michael Edwards out
Jeffrey Beall, associate professor and librarian at the University of Colorado Denver

Creator of controversial predatory journals blacklist says some peers are failing to warn of dangers of disreputable publishers

Kayaker and jet skiiers

Nazima Kadir’s social circle reveals a range of alternative careers for would-be scholars, and often with better rewards than academia

hole in ground

‘Drastic action’ required to fix multibillion-pound shortfall in Universities Superannuation Scheme, expert warns