Nuclear Transparency Watch

Germany`s nuclear repository search – From the difficulties of the public to participate

27 February 2017

Statement from NTW member Brigitte Artmann, councilor Greens Fichtelgebirge, district of Wunsiedel

There is within Germany from different sides still criticism on the operation of the Commission for the Storage of High Level Radioactive Waste, which did not permanently exclude the Gorleben site, that has been considered for final disposal of German high-level radioactive waste, from future siting decisions. The Commission instead refers this issue to the German Government that is to draft a legal regulation on siting during 2017. This includes issues of transparency, among others about role of a strategic environmental assessment and related public participation questions.

The German regions want to have a say in the search for a repository for high radioactive waste. A series of workshops of the competent Commission for the Storage of High Level Radioactive Waste from the Federal Governmentand the Federal Council of Germany ended up with an unusually broad consensus of the participants. The participants demanded from politics and Commission to involve the public as widely and as early as possible in the forthcoming, decades-long search. Unfortunately a lot of this broad consensus wasn`t taken into account by the Commission. In addition the 111 persons that had sent comments during the final public consulting phase of the Commission`s report were not incorporated.

Download the statement of Brigitte Artmann raising this issue: NTW_Germany_s_nuclear_repository_search

More information:

– Website “Aarhus Konvention”: http://aarhus-konvention-initiative.de.

Statement of Dr. Roda Verheyen concerning the violation of the Aarhus Convention by German Law commissioned by the Aarhus Konvention Initiative., forwarded to the German Environmental Ministry in June 2016: http://aarhus-konvention-initiative.de/aarhus-stellungnahme-umweltrechtsbehelfsgesetz/

– Website of Friends of the Earth Germany BUND: “the search process for a repository site for highly radioactive nuclear waste – BUND’s criticism and demands”.

– The English summary of the report of the German Commission on the Storage of High- Level Radioactive Waste: Donwload

Joint Project conference on RWM in Budapest on 15 Deember 2016

23 February 2017

A one-day conference with international experts has focused on the Euratom directive on management of spent fuel and radioactive waste (Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom) in Budapest on 15 December 2016.

The status of implementation in EU member states and whether this directive will „solve“ the issue of waste disposal have been analyzed.

To illustrate the effectiveness or non-effectiveness of this directive, national cases were observed. Hungary was an example of a country (not the only one) still considering the export of spent fuel to the Mayak facility in Russia.

This conference also provided up-to-date information on the situation at Mayak and the Hungarian plans for spent fuel from Paks I and Paks II.

A report of the conference and speakers presentations are available on the Joint Project Website.

English summary of the Report of the German Commission on the Storage of High- Level Radioactive Waste

22 February 2017

After more than two years of work the German commission on nuclear waste disposal (“Endlagerkommission”) in July 2016 released its final report. In February 2017 a translation of the summary of the report has been made available. The report focuses on the importance of the safety of a final repository and on siting issues as well as recommending a repository solution that is reversible. The report recognises the importance of transparency in information and public participation and ends by giving a number of political and social recommendations.

The English summary of the report of the German Commission on the Storage of High- Level Radioactive Waste: Donwload

There is within Germany from different sides still criticism on the operation of the Commission, which did not permanently exclude the Gorleben site, that has been considered for final disposal of German high-level radioactive waste, from future siting decisions. The Commission instead refers this issue to the German Government that is to draft a legal regulation on siting during 2017. This includes issues of transparency, among others about role of a strategic environmental assessment and related public participation questions.

More information is available on:

– Website “Aarhus Konvention”: http://aarhus-konvention-initiative.de.
Statement of Dr. Roda Verheyen concerning the violation of the Aarhus Convention by German Law commissioned by the Aarhus Konvention Initiative., forwarded to the German Environmental Ministry in June 2016: http://aarhus-konvention-initiative.de/aarhus-stellungnahme-umweltrechtsbehelfsgesetz/

– Website of Friends of the Earth Germany BUND: “the search process for a repository site for highly radioactive nuclear waste – BUND’s criticism and demands”.

Conference TRANSPARENCY AND FUTURE OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT IN EUROPE

16 February 2017

7 February 2017, European Parliament, room 8F388, 9:00- 12:30
Co-hosted by:
– Victor Boştinaru (S&D)
– Rebecca Harms (Greens/ALE)
– Bendek Javor (Greens/ALE)
– Sirpa Pietikäinen (EPP)

Download: the program

An EU legal framework for waste management in Europe was created in 2011 with the adoption of the Council Directive on the management of radioactive waste and spent fuel (2011/70/Euratom). The Directive provides for close monitoring of national programmes for the management and final disposal of radioactive wastes. Member States have submitted their first report on the implementation of their national programmes in August 2015. The programmes need to include all waste management steps as well as financing measures. The goal is the safe and responsible radioactive waste management to protect workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation. Any undue burden on future generations should be avoided. The relevance of transparency and public participation is also reflected in the RWM Directive: “Every state has to include a transparency concept in its national programme. “

The aim of this conference is to give a real picture of the challenges in Europe for radioactive waste management. The conference will be the opportunity to have the perspectives of environmental NGOs by presenting the BEPPER report of Nuclear Transparency Watch¹ and the Joint Project Report which describe an effective transparency and public participation regimes in the area of spent fuel and radioactive waste management and its real application. The conference will also analyse national cases and the future of research on radioactive waste management.

(1) https://www.nuclear-transparency-watch.eu/a-la-une/new-publication-bepper-report.html

PROGRAM

“Opening speech”
– Victor BOŞTINARU, Member of the European Parliament (S&D)

Opening speech by Victor BOŞTINARU par nucleartransparencywatch

“Overview European of policy – results reporting under 2011/70/Euratom”
– Ioanna METAXOPOULOU, Head of unit, Dg energy, European Commission
Download I.Metxoupoulou

“Overview European of policy – results… par nucleartransparencywatch

POINT OF VIEW OF CIVIL SOCIETY

“Presentation of the NTW BEPPER project on transparency in RWM”
– Johan SWAHN, Director of MKG, member of NTW
Download: J.Swahn

“Presentation of the NTW BEPPER project on… par nucleartransparencywatch

“The Joint Project’s evaluation of the implementation of the waste directive”
– Gabriele MRAZ, Austrian Institute of Ecology
Download:G.Mraz

“The Joint Project’s evaluation of the… par nucleartransparencywatch

TESTIMONIES FROM THE FIELD

“Status of projects for high level waste – example of Bure in France”
– Benoit JAQUET, General Secretary of the CLIs of Bure

“Status of projects for high level waste… par nucleartransparencywatch

“Radioactive waste transport between Hungary and Russia”
– Benedek JAVOR, Member of the European Parliament and NTW
Download: B.Javor

“Radioactive waste transport between Hungary… par nucleartransparencywatch

EUROPEAN RESEARCH ON RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT

“The Research and Training Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community: contribution to the development of safe, long-term solutions for the management of ultimate nuclear waste”
– Rita LECBYCHOVA, Fission Energy Unit in DG RTD, European Commission
Download: R.Lecbychova

“The Research and Training Programme of the… par nucleartransparencywatch

“Transparency and civil society interaction in European research on radioactive waste issues ”
– Gilles HÉRIARD-DUBREUIL, Mutadis
Download: G.Hériard-Dubreuil

“Transparency and civil society interaction in… par nucleartransparencywatch

REFLEXIONS OF THE DAY

“Transparency from the point of view of civil society ”
– Jan HAVERKAMP, Greenpeace
Download: J.Haverkamp

“Transparency from the point of view of civil… par nucleartransparencywatch

“Political consequences ” & concluding remarks
– Rebecca HARMS, Member of the European Parliament (Greens/ALE)

“Political consequences ” & concluding remarks… par nucleartransparencywatch

Seminar “DECOMMISSIONING, A NEW CHALLENGE FOR NUCLEAR SAFETY”

15 February 2017

6 February 2017, Brussels, European Parliament

Download: The program

Context

The urgent problem of nuclear installations decommissioning
The decommissioning of nuclear facilities is one of the major challenges of the coming decades for Europe. A precise agenda of decommissioning is not available yet, but Europe will face a large number of closed down facilities. It is inevitable that facilities will stop, either because their planned lifetime comes to an end, otherwise because of economic, industrial or security reasons. According to statistics from the World Nuclear Association (association gathering producers of energy coming from nuclear power), 14 reactors have stopped operating as a result of an accident or a serious incident, 22 were shut down because of political choices and 97 were closed for economical profitability reasons.
Preparations should be made immediately to manage the massive decommissioning coming. The European Union has currently 131 nuclear plants in operation, 75% run for over 27 years, while the technical lifetime of a reactor ranges from 30-40 years, even though some will be extended to 50-60 years of operation. Europe has already several closed down reactors, but none of these plants have been completely decommissioned. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recognizes the final shutdown of 29 reactors in Britain, 28 in Germany, 12 in France, 4 in Bulgaria, four in Italy, two in Lithuania, one in the Netherlands, three in Slovakia, two in Spain, three in Sweden.

Decommissioning operations
When decision of shutting down a power plant is taken, there’s still a decision to make about the strategy to adopt: immediate dismantling (meaning starting the operations as soon as possible after a facilities’ shutdown), deferred dismantling (waiting for the natural radioactive decay) or an entombment (pouring concrete over the entire building). What are the strategies mainly chosen in Europe?
The term decommissioning covers the whole ranges of activities executed after the cessation of a facility: dismantling of structures, systems and components, soil remediation, recycling, confinement, removal and disposal of produced spent fuel and radioactive waste. Do European countries control the technical feasibility of such a process? What are the experience feedbacks? On which experiences can they rely on to face the massive decommissioning process to come?
The process of decommissioning is also confronted to territorial matters:
How can a territory be prepared for decommissioning? What are the possible projects of replacement? Will the European sites return to grass, a « green field » state which means to make the land available for a subsequent use, or to the status of « brown field », that allows an industrial reuse of the land? The final goal of decommissioning is a very important issue because it will have an impact on the general cost and on the quantity of waste to manage.

Safety matter
Decommissioning is a major safety issue. Decommissioning consists in deconstructing facilities that have been nuclear facilities and will remain so as long as they are not completely dismantled. This raises important issues in terms of safety and radioprotection of the workers of the sector as well as the whole population and the environment. Classical risks become significantly greater during decommissioning operations due notably of decommissioning operation of electrical installations as well as handling, carvings and deconstructions works carried out. How to evaluate the safety of the decommissioning process? What will be the immediate impact and long-term impacts on the health of workers? Will some epidemiological studies be considered?
The dismantling of a nuclear installation involves the creation of waste and effluents can be very different from those produced during the operational phase. The most harmful waste, spent fuel, has very strong safety issues. As for the waste of very low activity, which represents little danger, will be produced in much larger quantities. The decommissioning waste pose disposal, management and also of transport issues.

Financial matter
Moreover, apart from the technical, health and environmental related difficulties, cost and financing of such projects appear as essential elements. Large uncertainties exist about the costs and duration of a decommissioning that remain difficult to estimate. Several questions arise: how are achieved the assessments of decommissioning costs, and what are the results? Are the estimates made in Europe reliable and useful? Concerning financing, the “polluter pays” principle is the current basis; the funding responsibility leans primarily on the operator of the facility. What are the financing practices in Europe (co-financing, shared control, financial reserves)? Are the operators’ financial reserves sufficient? What happens in the case of an operator’s financial default, would the consequences fall upon the States, and thus on the taxpayers?

Transparency and public participation
Risk assessment related to decommissioning is mainly based on the operator’s techniques. It is therefore essential to have legal measures ensuring transparency of processes throughout the European Union. Are there control means independent from nuclear operators? Are the responsibilities of decommissioning clearly drawn and transparent?
Transparency is essential to involve the citizens to decommissioning projects. The social and environmental issues related to the decommissioning of nuclear plants pose many questions among people living nearby the sites. What are the conditions for effective information and public participation in decisions about a nuclear facility’s decommissioning?
Thanks to the European Union and the creation of the Aarhus Convention, it is possible to resort to participatory democracy to resolve some environmental issues, including those concerning nuclear installations. Will Environmental impact Assessment available for the public? Will public consultation be organized in the case of decommissioning process?

Objectives of this exploratory workshop

– To give participants a scientific background on decommissioning processes and challenges.
– To review the different practices in EU MS and give an overview of the situation in Europe.
– To assess the possibilities for public participation regarding policies responding to decommissioning.

Co-hosted by
Benedek Javor (Greens/ALE) Rebecca Harms (Greens/ALE) Jo Leinen (S&D)

PRESENTATIONS

Introduction: Benedek Javor, Member of the European Parliament

Opening speech Benedek Javor par nucleartransparencywatch

SESSION 1: European Landscape and overview of the process of decommissioning Moderator: Rebecca HARMS, member of the European Parliament

Rebecca Harms, opening speech of panel 1:

Rebecca Harms: Opening speech of panel 1… par nucleartransparencywatch

“Overview of European nuclear decommissioning activities”
by Paolo PEERANI, Head of the Nuclear Decommissioning Unit, JRC, European Commission
Download his presentation : 1.1 P.PEERANI

“Overview of European nuclear decommissioning… par nucleartransparencywatch

“Technical Aspects and management of risks”
by Dr. Veronika USTOHALOVA, senior researcher, Ökoinstitut
Download her presentation: 1.2-V_Ustohalova

“Technical Aspects and management of risks ” by… par nucleartransparencywatch

“Experience from Sweden”
by Johan ANDERBERG, Director of Radioactive Materials Dept., Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, Sweden
Download 1.3 J. Anderberg

“Experience from Sweden” by Johan ANDERBERG par nucleartransparencywatch

“Experience from Italy”
by Lamberto MATTEOCCI, Head-control of Nuclear activities, ISPRA, Italy
Download his presentation: L.MATEOCCI

“Experience from Italy” by Lamberto MATTEOCCI par nucleartransparencywatch

“Decommissioning and transparency. Blackout in the oldest Spanish nuclear Power Plant: Santa María de Garoña”
by Ramiro GONZALEZ VINCENTE, Minister of Government of Alava, Basque Country
Download his presentation

“Decommissioning and transparency… par nucleartransparencywatch

SESSION 2: Decommissioning costs: What are the costs? Who is responsible?

“Funding requirements for decommissioning and costs evaluation in Europe, figures of the PINC”
by Gerassimos THOMAS, Deputy Director-General, DG energy, European Commission
Download his presentation: G.Thomas

“Funding requirements for decommissioning and… par nucleartransparencywatch

” The cost aspects of decommissioning: its estimation and examples.”
by Dr. Paul DORFMAN, Honorary Senior Research Fellow at the University College of London
Download his presentation: 2.2-Paul-Dorfman

” The cost aspects of decommissioning: its… par nucleartransparencywatch

” Legislation on the financing of the decommissioning”
by Dr. Dörte FOUQUET, Head of BBH’s Brussels office, Becker Büttner Held
Download her presentation: 2.3 D. Fouquet

“Legislation on the financing of the… par nucleartransparencywatch

” Decommissioning costs and risks in France”
by Yves MARIGNAC, Director of Wise Paris, France

“Decommissioning costs and risks in France” by… par nucleartransparencywatch

“Nuclear decommissioning costs in Lithuania, Bulgaria, Slovakia”
by Phil WYNN OWEN, Member of the European Court of Auditors
Download his presentation: 2.5 – P. WYNN OWEN

“Nuclear decommissioning costs in Lithuania… par

SESSION 3: Control and transparency devices Moderator

” Key principles and use of international tools in Austria’s policy”
by Andreas MOLIN, Director of Directorate of General Coordination of Nuclear Affairs, Austrian Ministry of Environment
Download his presentation: 3.1-A.Molin

” Key principles and use of international tools… par nucleartransparencywatch

“Public participation in the decommissioning process in France”
by Philippe BIETRIX, CLI des Monts d’Arrée
Download 3.4-P.Bietrix

“The role of the European Union”
by Ioanna METAXOPOULOU, Head of unit, Dg energy, European Commission
Download 3.2-I.METAXOUPOULOU

“The role of the European Union” by Ioanna… par nucleartransparencywatch

“Transparency from the point of view of civil society”
by Jan HAVERKAMP, member of Nuclear Transparency Watch
Download 3-3 J.Haverkamp

” Transparency from the point of view of civil… par nucleartransparencywatch

Closing remarks: Jo Leinen (S&D)

Closing remarks by Jo Leinen, Member of the… par nucleartransparencywatch

Concerns on transparency and regulatory independence in Hungary

9 February 2017

A letter of NTW to the IAEA and the Convention on Nuclear Safety concerning the law changes in Hungary

On 9 February 2017, Nadja Zeleznik, Chair of Nuclear Trasparency Watch wrote to Mr. Ramzi Jammal (President of the 7th Review Meeting of the Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) ) and Mr. Yukiya Amano (Secretary General of the IAEA) about NTW concerns on the law changes in Hungary and the issue of regulatory independence.

NTW was informed about changes in the Hungarian energy legislation that undermine the independent position of the nuclear regulator, the Hungarian Atomic Energy Agency (HAEA). This situation could seriously compromise transparency during the construction of nuclear projects and nuclear waste management, as well as fundamentally impair nuclear safety.

This letter recommend to discuss this matter during the 7th Review Meeting of the Convention on Nuclear Safety.

Letter of Nadja Zeleznik, Chair of Nuclear Transparency Watch: download

Letter of Mr Jammal, President of the 7th Review Meeting of the Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) : download

Nuclear safety: ANCCLI denounces a system of governance that is deteriorating

1 February 2017

31 January 2017 – Press Conference of ANCCLI –

Nuclear safety: ANCCLI denounces a system of governance that is deteriorating.

Anomalies of the EPR vessel,
Financial capacities of the operators,
Report on the funding of ASN and IRSN,
Saturation of fuel storage pools,
Strike-through files concerning Creusot,
Extension of particular emergency plans (PPI)
Continued operation of the reactors,
Shutdown of reactors for safety reasons,
Astonishing press conference of the ASN and the IRSN on 5 December 2016,
The ANCCLI, the French federation of “Local Information Commissions” (CLI), denounces a system of governance that is degrading during its press conference of January 31, 2017.

Conclusions:

“The requirement of nuclear safety is not negotiable,” emphasizes Jean-Claude Delalonde, President of the ANCCLI.

“… Politicians must face their responsibilities, guilty that they would not take the decisions required by nuclear safety issues …”

“… If some are in denial behaviour in the face of safety requirements and others are ready to give up, ANCCLI remains vigilant and demands uncompromising safety …”

Download the press dossier of ANCCLI: Dossier de Presse_ANCCLI_Janvier 2017

THE BELGIAN NUCLEAR EMERGENCY DRAFT PLAN IS INADEQUATE AND INCOHERENT

17 January 2017

Nuclear Transparency Watch (NTW) has reviewed the draft “Nuclear and Radiological Emergency Plan for the Belgian Territory”, which was presented on 10 January 2017 to the subcommittee on Nuclear Safety of the Belgian Federal Parliament. NTW has written a position paper on the new plan for emergency preparedness and response (EP&R) to nuclear accidents. NTW’s main observation is the lack of public participation and consultation during the development of the plan. In addition, response measures are not scaled to face a severe nuclear accident.

NTW notes some positive evolutions such as a commitment to prepare the post-accidental phase that follows emergency, but regrets the lack of public participation in the elaboration of the new EP&R plan.The effectiveness of a nuclear emergency plan in case of a radiological crisis depends on its credibility with the public and the support of civil society. The credibility and support of the public can only be assured if all concerned citizens have been involved in advance, in a wide consultation process and in large-scale emergency exercises.

This plan has a lack of consistency. In theory, the plan claims to be an answer to a radiological contamination covering the entire territory of the country. But the emergency planning zone for evacuation is limited to only 10 km and the pre-distribution of iodine tablets is limited to 20 km (just like in the old plan). By not extending the zone for evacuation to 20 km (as proposed by the Belgian Superior Health Council) make the EP&R plan avoiding the preparation of the evacuation of the city of Antwerp with about half a million inhabitants, which would be expensive and complex. The plan does not take into account the high density of population around its nuclear power plants, up to 10 times higher than around the Fukushima 1 reactor site. In addition of the 7 Belgian reactors, the 13 commercial reactors near to the Belgian borders (6 in Gravelines, 2 in Chooz, 4 in Cattenom and 1 in Borssele) are not sufficiently addressed.

NTW has written a position paper on the Belgian EP&R draft plan. According to Dr Nadja Zeleznik, Chair of Nuclear Transparency Watch: “The main recommendation of NTW is that, before the new EP&R plan is finalised, a broad consultation process is set up with the most important stakeholder: civil society. NTW observes many deficiencies and weaknesses. NTW agrees with the recommendations of the Belgian Superior Health Council^{^[1]} and recommends that its advice would form the basis of the new EP&R plan”.

Position paper of NTW: available here

^{^[1]}https://www.nuclear-transparency-watch.eu/activities/nuclear-emergency-preparedness-and-response/the-recommendations-of-the-belgian-superior-health-council-a-real-opportunity-to-upgrade-safety-standards.html

EU nuclear decommissioning assistance programmes are over-budget and behind schedule

7 December 2016

A September 2016 report from the European Court of Auditors hilglights that Eight reactors across sites in three countries – Lithuania, Bulgaria and Slovakia –are years behind schedule in decommissioning and still require billions in funding. The decommissioning of these eight Soviet-designed nuclear reactors in Lithuania, Bulgaria and Slovakia was a condition for the countries’ EU accession.

This special report No 22/2016 is called “EU nuclear decommissioning assistance programmes in Lithuania, Bulgaria and Slovakia: some progress made since 2011, but critical challenges ahead”: http://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=37685.

The European court of auditors found that the EU funding programmes set up to assist with meeting this requirement have not created the right incentives for timely and cost-effective decommissioning. While some progress has been made, key infrastructure projects have experienced delays, and the critical challenges involved in working in the controlled areas still lie ahead.

The EU auditors said the reactor buildings at Bulgaria’s Kozloduy, Lithuania’s Ignalina and Slovakia’s Bohunice had yet to be dismantled and no solution had been found for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel.

Decommissioning costs vary according to the type and size of reactor, its location, the availability of disposal facilities and the condition of the reactor. The cost of final spent fuel depositories is also still largely unknown.

By 2020, EU support should have reached 3.8 billion euro. According to the European auditors, the estimated total cost of decommissioning will be at least 5.7 billion euro. That figure doubles if the cost of disposing spent fuel once and for all is included.

Other EU Member States face the same challenges. The report shines a spotlight on the challenges facing Germany and other nations within the bloc that are planning to retire their nuclear reactors.

According to EU Commission data, only three out of the 91 reactors shutdown in Europe have been fully dismantled. The only repository for spent fuel being dug deep underground in Europe has been under construction in Finland for nearly 40 years and won’t be ready until after 2020.

A working paper by the European Commission, seen by Reuters in February, showed that Europe was short of more than 118 billion euros needed to dismantle its nuclear plants and waste storage management[1].

[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-nuclear-idUSKCN0VP1S6

NEWSLETTER – autumn 2016

30 November 2016

Opinion – EURATOM	Report – European Nuclear Energy Forum
24.11 \|The Nuclear exception	03-04.10 \| The 11th ENEF
An opinion column of Benedek Javor	An opinion column of Philip Kearney

The idea at the founding of the EU was the creation of a common European market and grant equal access to Member States to scarce resources. The aim was to make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible” (Schuman Declaration). How it is applied? EURATOM and the Treaty of the Functioning of the EU provide different rules and conditions for nuclear energy compared to other sources of energy. What are the consequences?	Founded in 2007, the European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF) is meant to gather all relevant stakeholders in the nuclear field. This year, at the 11th ENEF in Bratislava, some NTW members have participated, there was an independent moderator and webstreaming. NTW is calling for more debate and civil society representatives. There is a need for a fundamental redesign of the format to be genuinely participative and interactive.


Article- The Civil Society ENGAGEMENT	Call- EP&R
12.11 \| The CLIs and ANCCLI in France	08.11 \| Do you want to join the EP&R network of NTW?
Example of civil society involvement in France	NTW is looking for national partners

Around the table, we have often operators, regulators and technical support organisations. But we are often missing a fourth pillar: the civil society. How is civil society organized? What is the influence of civil society?The experience of the “Local Information Commissions” (CLI) and their national federation, the ANCCLI, is an interesting example in Europe of the involvement of civil society on nuclear issues.	NTW wants to create a network of NGOs/independent experts to work on EP&R issues to have at least one national partner in each EU country to screen the national situation. We could together push for the emergence of national reports similar to the ones written by ACRO in France and Belgium. Many information will be shared. For example, a handbook will help our civil society partners on how to develop a methodology.


Event – EP&R	Event – Aarhus Convention
01.12 \| Seminar on Public Information	29-30.11 \| Roundtable Aarhus Convention & Nuclear
Seminar co-organised by NTW and the Commission	co-organised by ANCCLI, IRSN, ASN and the Commission

EU Member States are required to transpose into national law the 2013 Basic Safety Standards Directive by February 2018. The 1st December seminar will be dedicated to the topic of public information (Articles 70 and 71 of the BSS Directive (2013/59/Euratom) and Article 8 of the amended nuclear safety Directive (2014/87/Euratom)) on how to ensure good and effective information to the public in the preparatory and the emergency phases.	In the perspective of the revised Basic Safety Standards (BSS) Directive(2013/59/Euratom), this Aarhus Convention and Nuclear Roundtable, gathering all the concerned stakeholders, gives the opportunity to present the key results of different initiatives and to discuss them in the perspective of the Aarhus Convention with a specific focus on the transboundary issues, in order to draw recommendations.


Event – Radioactive Waste Management	Info – Nuclear Illustrative Programme
15.12 \| Nuclear spent fuel for export?	22.09 \| PINC doesn’t offer a comprehensive approach
Conference organised by The Joint Project and Energy Club Hungary	Opinion on the Nuclear Illustrative Programme (PINC) of the EESC

This one-day conference with international experts will focus on the new Euratom directive on management of spent fuel and radioactive waste (Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom). The status of implementation in EU member states and whether this directive will „solve“ the issue of waste disposal will be analysed. To illustrate the effectiveness or non- effectiveness of this directive, Hungary will be the national studied case.	As set out in Article 40 of the Euratom Treaty, the EESC is the single interlocutor of the Commission in drafting the nuclear illustrative programmes (PINC) for the EU. Its opinion is calling for substantial revisions to the communication notably to include sections on the competitiveness of nuclear power, related economic aspects, and public acceptability, liability for nuclear damages, transparency, and effective national dialogue.


NTW Board	NTW members
05.10 \| Change in the composition of NTW board	2016 \| New members at NTW
After three years, NTW has some changes in its composition	Welcome!

The changes occurred as a result of the resignation of Michèle Rivasi and Corinne Lepage. Dr. Nadja Zeleznik, coordinator of the EP&R WG of NTW and working for the Regional Environmental Center, has been elected as the new president for the remaining two years of this Board period. The Board also chose Jan Haverkamp, expert consultant on nuclear energy and energy policy for different NGOs as vice-president.	Nuclear Transparency Wacth is pleased to announce the recent arrival of new NTW members: Miroslav Gregoric, as qualified member, from Slovenia. He is a former director of Slovenian Nuclear Regulatory Authority and senior expert for the IAEA activities. And Daniel Meijers, NTW representative of Laka Foundation from Netherlands. Welcome!

Address