Nuclear Transparency Watch

What is Energoatom celebrating today? The suppression of public debate on Ukrainian nuclear plans?

29 October 2015

While Energoatom has his press conference “̈Powering Ukraine: Steps towards EU-Ukraine Energy Integration in 2015” today (October 29) in Brussels, a Kiev court is ruling in the defamation case against the Ukrainian NGO NECU. The lawsuit was filed earlier this summer by the state-owned nuclear power plant operator Energoatom, and it was later joined by the governmental nuclear watchdog (SNRIU). Bankwatch has been warning against the risk of the prolonged operation of Ukraine’s Soviet-era nuclear power plants beyond their design lifetime. Details are available in Bankwatch August 28 press release.

In December, Ukraine’s nuclear regulator will be deciding on lifetime extensions for two reactors – one of them located about 250 km from the frontlines of the conflict in the east of the country. In the meantime, the EBRD and Euratom are still financing the so-called safety upgrades in these units, despite a letter from 27 MEPs calling on them to suspend the loans until Ukraine complies with its legal obligation (under the Espoo and Aarhus conventions) to consult citizens in neighbouring countries who could be affected by this project.

It seems that Kiev is quite consistent in suppressing public debate on its nuclear plans both at home and abroad.

Internship – Project Assistant

21 October 2015

Suggested start-date: January 2016
Suggested duration: 6 months
Location: Brussels

Please find the NTW’s internship offer

REQUIRED SKILLS
– Interest in nuclear affairs;
– Master’s degree or current master student in Political Science, Social Science, European Affairs, – Law, Communications, natural science or other related field;
– Excellent English (oral and written); Other language skills are an asset (in particular French);
– Strong administrative, communication, writing, proofreading and organizational skills;
– Ability to work independently; Be a proactive, problem solver and team player person.

MAIN FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Increasing NTW visibility within the European context; Monitoring and providing analysis of EU nuclear agenda, policies and legislation and all activities of European nuclear lobbies (industry).
COMMUNICATION: Promoting our work and events; emailing and correspondence with contacts and partners; Updating NTW website; Managing social media; Preparing press statements; Creating quarterly newsletters.
ORGANISATION: Taking part in meetings and taking minutes; Organising meetings in Brussels for NTW (General Assembly, MB, WGs, special events or workshops) and events in interaction with EU institutions (EP, EC, etc.); Preparing proposals and applications for funding; Assisting with updating the database and other tasks when necessary.

WHAT WE OFFER
A six-month internship at NTW Brussels office (Trone Area).
The intern will start ideally in January 2016 for a part-time internship (4/5).

REMUNERATION
The internship is remunerated. The amount depends on the situation of the applicant:
– The intern is a recent graduate who is seeking a first work experience.
– The intern is a current student and can deliver a memorandum of agreement (convention de stage) to be established between NTW and the intern’s university.

CONDITIONS
The intern needs to bring his/her own laptop with Microsoft office programs (Excel, Word, and PowerPoint).
The intern needs to live in Brussels and have a European Nationality or working permit in Benelux.

COLLABORATION
The intern will be placed under the responsibility of the Head of Operations of NTW based in Brussels. He/she may also have occasional links with other NTW members: the Chair, Management Board, working group leaders of NTW.

OPPORTUNITIES
This internship is a nice opportunity to have a first work experience:
– You will enhance your knowledge on Nuclear issues;
– You can play a key role in a growing association located in Brussels and help bolster its reputation in the context of EU Institutions and nuclear lobbies;
– You will get exposure as key player in European public policy;
– You will be part of a dynamic and international team;
– You will attend to events and conference of EU Institutions, NGOs and Social Platforms.

INTERESTED?
Applicants should send a CV and Covering Letter to Head of Operations, Marie-Alix Verhoeven by 20 November at latest: ma.verhoeven@nuclear-transparency-watch.eu

Please download the NTW’s internship offer

Aarhus hotline concerning EU financial support for lifetime extension of Ukraine’s nuclear reactors

22 September 2015

Lifetime extension of nuclear reactors in Ukraine

12 of Ukraine’s 15 reactors were designed to finish operations before 2020. Ukraine’s national energy strategy for 2030 envisages that all of the country’s 15 nuclear reactors will have their lifespan expanded. The Safety Upgrade Programme (SUP) includes safety modernisation measures for all 15 nuclear reactors in Ukraine and is partly necessary for the reactors’ for lifetime extension, as an independent expert’s review has shown.
The EBRD and Euratom are co-financing the EUR 600 million Upgrade Program. However, the reactors 1 & 2 at Rivne have already received a lifetime extension of 20 years beyond their 30 years design lifetime without the implementation of a proper environmental impact assessment (EIA) and a transboundary public consultation process in Ukraine and in neighboring countries, as prescribed by the Espoo and Aarhus conventions, both signed and ratified by Ukraine and all EU countries. Although such conduct has been assessed by the Espoo Convention implementation committee as a violation of this international treaty, Ukraine does not seem to be approaching the upcoming lifetime extensions differently.

A joint letter from MEPs

Since this is the matter of European safety, adherence to EU, international rules and transparency, Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are convinced that all EU policy makers should be informed and take action. At a meeting with campaigners from Nuclear Transparency Watch (NTW) and CEE Bankwatch Network on 1st July 2015 in the European Parliament, MEPs from six political groups have decided to join the call for freezing the loan proceedings until a proper transboundary EIA and public consultation are carried out. A joint letter signed by 27 MEPs was sent the same day to representatives of EBRD and Euratom.

NTW Is pleased to have an important number of MEPs signing the letter. The challenge to face nuclear issues is not only technical, it is also political. European Parliament’s role in the decision-making process under the Euratom Treaty is limited since it has only consultation powers. Nevertheless, it has consistently put emphasis on the importance of improving safety and has a crucial role to enhance European cooperation and transparency.

A reply from the European Commission

To this letter, MEPs have received a reply from the Vice-President of the European Commission, Mr. Katainen, one of the four addressees.

Participation of NTW at EESC workshop on Public participation in RWM

9 September 2015

On 7 september, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) organised with active involvement from the Commission’s Joint Research centre (JRC) a workshop on public participation in the area of Radioactive Waste Management.
On 19 July 2011 the European Commission adopted the Directive 2011/70/EURATOM, establishing a Community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste.
In 2014, the Energy – Transparency Centre of Knowledge – a joint initiative established by the Commission’s Joint Research centre (JRC) and DG ENER for promoting public participation in energy policy implementation, selected radioactive waste management as the area of interest for its pilot project. A vast survey was carried out, in order to collect data on initiatives and practices with regard to public participation in RWM across the EU.
One year after, this workshop was an opportunity for reviewing and providing critical assessment of the information gathered within that exercise. The event bourght together about 50 representatives of national/subnational authorities and agencies, Civil society (municipalities, NGOs) and nuclear industry as well as other key stakeholders.

Discover the two presentations made by NTW’s members:
– NTW: Working for Transparency and Public Participation in Radioactive Waste Management – Presentation by Philip Kearney
– Setting the scene: Radioactive waste management – its perception and acceptance – Presentation by Paul Dorfman

Newsletter – Summer 2015

20 July 2015

Newsletter – Summer 2015

NOTES – ENEF	OPINION – Hungary
26.05 \| Participation of civil society is essential	15.07 \| Recent developments on Paks-2
Notes from Michèle Rivasi	Opinion column of Benedek Jávor

This year, Michèle Rivasi, Chair of NTW, was invited as a speaker for the 10th European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF) meeting, which took place in Prague on 26-27 May 2015. This invitation shows a willingness to open dialogue with civil society. But future civil society participation in ENEF depends on significant restructuring and inclusion of civil society representatives at all levels.	Benedek Jávor, member of the European Parliament and of NTW, gives an overview of the building of the new Paks 2 nuclear power plant in Hungary. A closer look at this development shows a need for transparency, participation and dialogue. The lack of access to documents on Paks, for example, demonstrates that access to information is a prerequisite to have a productive debate.


CONFERENCE – Nuclear Safety	OPINION – Belgium
29.06 \| Third ENSREG Conference on Nuclear Safety	15.07 \| Transparency and Nuclear in Belgium
Conference organised by the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group	Opinion column of Jan Haverkamp

On 29-30 June 2015, the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group (ENSREG) organised its third conference on nuclear safety. The role of ENSREG is to help to establish conditions for improvement and common understanding in nuclear safety and radioactive waste management. Three NTW management board members – Jan Haverkamp, Nadja Zeleznik and Michèle Rivasi – made presentations which are available here.	When Belgium decided in 2003 that it wanted to change direction towards a clean energy future and phase out its nuclear fleet after 40 years of operation, it probably had not expected the difficulties it is currently facing. Its government has now decided to extend the lifetime of the 40 years old Doel 1 and 2 reactors, but it threatens to break international rules for transparency.


CONFERENCE – Ukraine/Espoo	INFO – Flamanville EPR reactor vessel
01.07 \| MEPs contest EU financial support for PLEX	17.06\| Call for an ad hoc pluralistic group of experts
Conference of NTW & Bankwatch on lifetime extension of Ukraine’s reactors	ANCCLI recommends that ASN appoints an ad hoc group of experts

27 Members of the European Parliament have signed a joint letter warning the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and Euratom to suspend the loan proceedings for nuclear units’ lifetime extension until a full transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and a public consultation are launched and carried out in accordance with international treaties to which Ukraine is a party.	On 7 April 2015, the French Nuclear Safety Authority has released initial information about the manufacturing defect found on the top and bottom caps of the EPR reactor vessel under construction at Flamanville. To address this issue, ANCCLI recommends the establishment of a pluralistic group of experts dedicated to examine this case. This kind of device has proven in the past.


BOOK – Nuclear power around the world	Interview – Johan Swahn
01.05 \| Atlas of nuclear power	19.06 \| Nuclear waste time bomb
Book by Corinne Lepage	Interview by Reuters

To address issues related to civilian nuclear energy programmes, Corinne Lepage chose to use the atlas format. This is a compilation of all the relevant facts and figures: Which states are producing nuclear energy? Where are the nuclear power plants? How do we manage nuclear waste? What is the state of current installations ageing? The atlas compares the practices at work in the United States, China, the Middle East and widely in Europe.	The world has 270,000 tonnes of used fuel stockpiled, much of it under water in ponds at nuclear power stations, adding to the urgency of finding a permanent storage solution for material that can remain toxic for hundreds of thousands of years. According to Johan Swahn, to prove a safety case, the most controversial issue is if water molecules, and not only oxygen, react directly with the copper surface.

FOLLOW US :

Nuclear Transparency Watch promotes the conditions for democratic transparency, effective public participation and safety in the nuclear sector.
contact: Marie-Alix Verhoeven | Head of Operations
+32 (0) 479 427 666 | ma.verhoeven@nuclear-transparency-watch.eu |If you no longer wish to receive this newsletter, kindly inform us

PARTICIPATION OF CIVIL SOCIETY IS ESSENTIAL

20 July 2015

10^th EUROPEAN NUCLEAR ENERGY FORUM, PRAGUE – MINUTES FROM OUR CHAIR

NTW is concerned about the reduction of ENEF to a single-interest group of industry experts

On 26-27 May 2015, the 10th European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF) meeting took place in Prague. ENEF was created in November 2007. It was initiated by the March 2007 European Council, when Member States suggested “that broad discussion should take place among all relevant stakeholders on the opportunities and risks of nuclear energy.” But difficulty was encountered in bringing all the key actors together. Indeed, civil society wasn’t always consulted as required. Since the beginning of ENEF, over 50% of the participants are from the industry and only two NGOs were initially invited. The rest of the participants are European Commission and national government representatives.

During the last five years, this restriction has affected the quality of debate and the credibility of ENEF as a place for discussion among all stakeholders. ENEF is facing challenges to be taken seriously and to shed its image as a pro-nuclear industry forum. ENEF is promoting nuclear energy while there are many related issues to consider: transparency, emergency preparedness and response, radioactive waste, ageing reactors, etc. At the 5^th plenary session of ENEF, all NGOs and nuclear-critical members of the European Parliament decided to leave the Forum. This was due to the lack of taking into consideration of civil society’s views in the Forum. Although NGOs got a lot of interesting information and networking opportunities, and got their voices heard by people who normally are not confronted in this way, inputs from NGOs were structurally marginalised. NGOs inputs were not reflected on their merits in papers produced by ENEF working groups, in conclusions from ENEF meetings and in the media coverage.

The conditions for participation of civil society

This year, Michèle Rivasi, President of NTW, was invited as a speaker for the 10^th plenary of ENEF. This invitation shows a willingness to open dialogue with civil society and to debate the future of nuclear energy without taboos. For this, it is necessary to allow a broad participation of civil society: elected officials, academics, NGOs and citizens. NTW, alone, cannot fully represent all these fundamental actors. It is NTW’s strong view that it is essential that more actors from civil society are involved at all levels in ENEF operations and that for NTW to continue to participate a restructuring on this basis is required:

1) It is essential to clarify the objectives of ENEF.
There is a lack of transparency and clarity about the Forum’s objectives: What are the objectives? Is it about promoting nuclear or about creating the conditions for a proper application of EU legislation to the nuclear sector? NTW is not established to promote or eject nuclear energy, but rather to promote quality and transparency of EU decision-making processes and thereby increase safety in nuclear matters.

2) Furthermore, it is necessary to clarify the rules concerning the governance of ENEF.
The Forum is still very opaque: How are agendas fixed? Who chooses the stakeholders and ensures plurality? Who appoints the moderators of ENEF meetings and working groups? How are the conclusions and decisions of the meetings made, and communicated? For NTW, a fair balance of power for communication with the media is essential. It is necessary to introduce transparency and to include civil society representatives in the Forum’s governance bodies, which need to be pluralistic. Civil society representatives should be included – on the same terms as all the other stakeholders – at all levels of the ENEF structure and be entitled to participate in the organization, agenda-setting, conclusions and communications of ENEF.

3) Finally, it is necessary to create conditions for effective participation of civil society.
It isn’t right that representatives of civil society must fund their travel and do not have access to translations. It is necessary to release resources to finance participatory and equitable governance.

These conditions are necessary to ensure that ENEF stays within its original mandate: to be a platform for discussion on the future of nuclear power, without taboos and open to ALL players. It is the only way for ENEF to play a credible role in shaping EU energy policy towards more sustainability.

Numerous examples demonstrate that such participation is possible

The approach adopted by NTW to organize round tables in the Emergency Preparedness and Response (EP&R) field is one example. It helps to mobilize civil society and the authorities together and to put on the agenda an update of EP&R arrangements. For example in Ukraine, organizing a roundtable on post-accident emergency has gathered scientists, representatives of Energoatom, the Minister of Health and NGOs around the same table.

Another example of the effectiveness of public participation is France where participation is based on local information committees (CLIs). The CLIs guarantee access to information and participation of stakeholders such as elected officials, NGOs and trade unions in discussions with operators and regulators. During the stress test process, the public via the CLIs could speak before the release of the French nuclear safety authority report (2012). Proposals and recommendations were supported by civil society. This participation has led to an investment of 10 billion euro in safety.

Moreover, these same CLIs are launching working groups on decommissioning and are themselves very pleasantly surprised by the interest of the public on this issue. Concerns vary from one territory to another. Some local actors are interested in safety, environment, waste, issues related to decommissioning, others are focusing on economic and social transition, what decommissioning generates. The local character of these issues has to be taken into account and could be easily supported by civil society.

Whatever the field, better debates and decision-making require broad participation. This participation is highly essential today for the European institutions given the growing distrust of the people toward Europe. On the issues of nuclear safety, civil society and local representatives have a fundamental legitimacy and right to participate in the debate.

As demonstrated during all nuclear accidents with consequences outside of the fence, ordinary citizens take in the end a large part of the burden of the consequences of safety flaws. “Civil society is indispensable to prevent political and economical reasons and short term industrial interests overshadowing the priority of safety.”

Michèle Rivasi, Chair of Nuclear transparency Watch

Recent developments on Paks2

20 July 2015

by Benedek Jávor

A new nuclear power plant with two blocks from Rosatom (VVER1200) is planned as an addition to the existing four-block nuclear power plant, Paks-1 that currently generates some 40% of the Hungarian energy production. According to the contract, Hungary signed with Russian Federation, the two reactors of the new plant will be operational by 2025 and will cost 12,5 billion EUR. 80% of the foreseeable capital cost is financed by an intergovernmental loan from Russia.

Although the Hungarian government states that everything is perfectly planned, the project is fiercely contested by experts, political stakeholders and the public both on the Hungarian and the European level. Some are infuriated by the lack of preliminary investigations, impact assessments, public consultation, lack of transparency and alternative scenarios and the centralization of the decision and the energy systems. From Europe, there are concerned voices due to lack of tendering, the obstacle the plant poses to restructure the Hungarian energy mix and to add renewables and also due to risk of corruption and illegal state aid. I organized a hearing together with Energiaklub and NTW on the issue in late March. You can find the summary here.

Since, I have been working on several issues related to the new nuclear power plant and I would like to share the latest developments:

STATE AID CASE

The NGO Energiaklub of Hungary submitted a complaint to the European Commission to start a non-notified state aid procedure in 2014. Recently Commissioner Vestager replied to our joint letter with Energiaklub and she states that the HU government formally notified the Paks 2 project to the Commission on 22/05/2015.The Hungarian government claims that financing Paks-2 is not a state aid, as they think the return of investment is more than favourable. The EC is currently waiting for further explanation from the Hungarian government and after receiving all the relevant data, the EC have 2 months to come up with its position.

Energiaklub has recently made an analysis, which claims exactly the opposite.

LEAKED PRELIMINARY DOCUMENTS FOR FEASIBILITY STUDY

Despite the fact that the District Court of Budapest ruled in a decision that Energiaklub could not have been given access to the preliminary and background docs for the new NPP as they did not exist according to the Hungarian government, I published a series of short documents that were given to me from the electricity management company MVM and from academia that indirectly prove the existence of the above mentioned documents and give also some insight to the weak points that have been raised by many people, some of whom are specifically connected to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The opinion from MVM states that there are elementary mistakes and out-dated data in the modelling and no appropriate modelling of the system integration. The grid integration is not modelled as needed. The work is not budgeted and planned, as would be needed at this stage of implementation. The documents affirm our hypothesis that the promoters do not actually know costs, they just have estimates. The costs are underestimated and exclude a series of additional investments needed for the operation of the NPP. External factors like the EU competition law are totally ignored in the analysis.

The first document from academia says that when Paks2 will operate with both blocks, it will be necessary to cut operation time for Paks 1. The document actually estimates that block 4 will be able to run for only 1000h/year, in other words 30-35% less production. It also states that a pumped storage facility will be needed for the grid system regulation and this has not been budgeted for.

The second is specifically about cooling water and highlights mistakes committed for the cold-water channel of Paks1. It states that the new NPP will cause serious nature protection problems and that excess heat will call for (partial) capacity reduction which will in itself hinder the 95% planned use of the new NPP and the financial prospective won’t be achieved. Furthermore, it is likely that nature protection standards are likely to rise in the coming 60 years and might lead to new situations like the one in the Rhône where drought threatens the cooling of nuclear plants.

The authenticity of the documents has been confirmed by both MVM and the Hungarian Academy of sciences.

PUBLIC HEARINGS ALL OVER EUROPE

Over the summer the international phase of the Environmental Impact assessment for Paks-2 is running and we expect public hearing in the concerned countries in the early autumn. So far dates for Germany (16/09), Ukraine (17/10) and Autria (23/09) have been fixed.

Benedek Jávor is a member of NTW and member of the European Parliament for Together – Dialogue for Hungary Alliance. He is first vice-chair of the Committee for Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and is a substitute member of the Committee of Industry, Research and Energy. Furthermore, Benedek is a founding member of the environmental NGO Védegylet (Protect the Future!) and holds a PhD. in biology.

THE FEDERAL NUCLEAR KINGDOM OF BELGIUM

20 July 2015

OR HOW TO UNDERMINE NUCLEAR TRANSPARENCY

When Belgium decided in 2003 that it wanted to change direction towards a clean energy future and phase out its nuclear fleet after 40 years of operation, it probably had not expected the mess it is currently facing. Or maybe it did. Politics in the kingdom can be messy.

Belgium followed France in building nuclear capacity when it noticed its coal mines could not be operated economically in the late 1960s. The oil crisis in the early 1970 further paved the way for a nuclear option. Seven reactors were built on two sites. Four of them in Doel, on the doorstep of the port town of Antwerp. The other three in Tihange on the Meuse river bank between Namur and Liège. But when the date of the first shut-downs was nearing, Belgium’s nuclear operators Electrabel / ENGIE and EdF together with their political fan-club indicated the government that switching off the oldest three reactors, Tihange 1, and Doel 1 and 2 in one year might lead to shortages on extreme winter days. Despite the existence of alternatives strategies, the Belgian government decided in 2013 to give Tihange 1 a life-time extension of another 10 years, while confirming the limited lifetime of 40 years for the others.

In the summer of 2012, two of the “newer” reactors, Tihange 2 and Doel 3, were found to have thousands of cracks in the form of hydrogen flakes in their reactor vessel. There was no documentation to explain this phenomenon and several tests remain inconclusive about the question whether these cracks have been there from the start or could have grown over time. As a result, both reactors are off-line and kept off-line until further investigations give more clarity.

Doel 1 and 2 were slated for closure in February 2015 and December 2015 respectively and Engie/Electrabel and the new pro-nuclear Belgian energy Minister Marie-Christine Marghem saw their chances. They saw non-availability of Tihange 2 and Doel 3 as a good excuse to grant also Doel 1 and 2 an extra life of 10 more years. Official reason was again a potential shortage in unprecedented cold periods in the coming winter.

For Tihange 1, a secret agreement was made in which Engie/Electrabel and EdF will have to give the state 70% of their windfall profits from this move. In return, the state guarantees that whatever happens politically, Engie/Electrabel and EdF will be able to run those reactors up to the final date in October 2025. If not, the state will pay them all lost profits. Of course, technical malperformance or radioactive risks can lead to a shutdown without payments. But whenever there is an accident elsewhere in the world and the Belgian government would like to follow Germany’s wise lead and shut down all reactors older than 32 years, this agreement could become very costly indeed. This political guarantee is the same trick that EdF also smuggled into its agreement with the British government for the construction of the Hinkley Point C power station. The people carry the financial risks for politicians that make choices involving nuclear risks. The Belgian government declared the whole agreement as confidential and thus opposed its publication. Even against the ruling of Belgium’s independent Commission on Access to Information, and against valid Belgian and European laws and the Aarhus Convention on access to environmental information, which give the public interest prevalence over limited commercial ones – apart from the fact that there is no real commercial information in this agreement anyway. A few courageous parliamentarians from the Greens then decided to quote the entire agreement in a resolution, and thus we were able to have a look at it.

One important thing that the government forgot is the fact that for a life-time extension also an environmental impact assessment (EIA) needs to be made under the same Aarhus Convention and the Espoo Convention on transboundary EIAs as well as European and Belgian law. If the Belgian minister would take into account this obligation, that could mean that Tihange 1 would not be able to operate until such an EIA would have been carried out – with Belgian and transboundary public participation, that can easily take a year. In this case, according to the terms of the agreement, the Belgian state has to pay the missed profits to Engie/Electrabel and EdF.

It explains why the Belgian government is fighting the legal obligation of an EIA with all means available, despite the legal opinions from the country’s highest legal institution, the Council of State. The legal advice that the Belgian government quotes comes from Engie/Electrabel and the Dutch nuclear lawyers office Stibbe. Those acknowledge the obligations, but give tips to the Belgian government to help it to escape its obligations.

In the Energy Union discussions, Belgium supports the European aim of having the safest nuclear fleet in the world. Everywhere it states that nuclear safety always will be priority number one. However, the recent developments give us serious concern that financial objectives may have predominance over safety objectives.

Tihange 1 and Doel 1 and 2 are already 40 years old, while their design lifetime was only 30 years. A recent study commissioned by Greenpeace [1] shows that they faced many issues in the EU stress tests and many others were conveniently moved under the carpet. Another [2] shows that they are situated next to large populations and their emergency preparedness and response provisions in case of large accidents are fully inadequate

Instead of continuing to flog these old horses to work, it is essential to respect transparency laws and to focus on nuclear safety. Belgium is not a Banana Kingdom.

[1] Critical Review of the Updated National Action Plans (NAcP) of the EU Stress Tests on Nuclear Power Plants, June 2015, Greenpeace

[2] David Boley’s study of the Belgian emergency and response situation , Janvier 2015, ACRO

OVERVIEW OF ISSUES AROUND BELGIAN NUCLEAR REACTORS

Belgium decided for a nuclear phase-out after 40 years of operation of its reactors in 2003. In 2013 it decided to grant Tihange 1 an extra 10 years to prevent generation shortages in case of extreme cold weather periods in the winters of 2015 / 2017.
The Belgian government made a secret agreement with operators Engie/Electrabel and EdF to cover the 10 years life-time extension. In this agreement, the nuclear operators receive a quasi profit guarantee, as well as the assurance that the life-time extension decision will not be reversed by another government.
In the summer of 2012, Electrabel discovered thousands of cracks in the reactor pressure vessels of the Tihange 2 and Doel 3 reactors. An initial assumption that these hydrogen flakes were caused during production and did not increase over time is still under debate. Currently the reactors are off-line, waiting more investigations, and it is not sure that they will ever restart.
In June 2015, with wired-up fears for generation shortages during extreme cold periods, the Belgian parliament passed a law granting also Doel 1 and 2 ten years life-time extension.
Few days after that decision, the Belgian grid operator published an assessment concluding that Belgium is well incorporated in the European electricity grid structure and has spare gas capacity available so there will be no risks for black-outs even in winter.
Under the Espoo Convention, the EU EIA Directive and Belgian law, an environmental impact assessment should be made for a nuclear plant life-time extension. The country’s highest legal body, the Council of State, confirmed this position in an advice to the Minister. Last April, NTW sent a letter to stress the importance of respecting international obligations to organise a full scale EIA and a cross border public participation process in advance of any final decision. The Minister did not respond to NTW’s request, but continues to refuse an EIA on the basis of legal assessments from operator Electrabel and the Dutch nuclear lawyers firm Stibbe.

Ir. Jan Haverkamp (1959) is board member of Nuclear Transparency Watch and expert consultant on nuclear energy and energy strategy for Greenpeace Central and Eastern Europe and the World Information Service on Energy (WISE).

Speeches made by NTW’s members at the third ENSREG conference

10 July 2015

On 29-30 June 2015, the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group (ENSREG) has organised its third conference on nuclear safety, which took place at the European Commission in Brussels. The role of ENSREG is to help to establish conditions for continuous improvement and common understanding in nuclear safety and radioactive waste management.

This year, NTW’s members have been invited as speakers. Discover the videos of Michèle Rivasi, Jan Haverkamp, Nadja Zeleznik and the EU Commissioner, Miguel Arias Canete, who welcomed the EP&R report of NTW and stated the European Commission’s willingness to work closely with the civil society.

Introduction by Michèle Rivasi of the panel “Public engagement – the benefits and challenges of openness and transparency”

Michèle Rivasi at ENSREG par nucleartransparencywatch

Speech of Jan Haverkamp: “Vital lessons from Fukushima not learned”

Jan Haverkamp at ENSREG par nucleartransparencywatch

Speech of Nadja Zeleznik: “One year of investigation on emergency preparedness and response in Europe”

Nadja Zeleznik at ENSREG par nucleartransparencywatch

Closing speech of European Commissioner for Climate Action and Energy, Miguel Arias Canete: “EU Strategy – the role of nuclear safety”

Miguel Arias Canete, EU commissioner at ENSREG par nucleartransparencywatch

MEPs and NGOs contest EU financial support for lifetime extension of Ukraine’s nuclear reactors

2 July 2015

27 Members of the European Parliament have signed a joint letter warning the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and Euratom to suspend the loan proceedings for nuclear units lifetime extension until a full transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and a public consultation are launched and carried out in accordance with international treaties to which Ukraine is a party.

Lifetime extension of nuclear reactors in Ukraine – The EBRD and Euratom are co-financing the EUR 600 million Nuclear Power Plant Safety Upgrade Program to modernise all 15 of the country’s operating nuclear reactors. The reactors 1 & 2 at Rivne have already received a lifetime extension of 20 years beyond their 30 years design lifetime without the implementation of a proper environmental impact assessment (EIA) and a transboundary public consultation process in Ukraine and in neighbouring countries, as prescribed by the Espoo and Aarhus conventions, both signed and ratified by Ukraine and all EU countries. Although such conduct has been assessed by the Espoo Convention implementation committee as a violation of this international treaty, Ukraine does not seem to be approaching the upcoming lifetime extensions differently.

“Spending millions of EU tax payer’s money on keeping open high risk and out-of-date nuclear power stations in Ukraine is utter madness. Ukraine’s nuclear authority (the SNRIU) has a record of ignoring safety risks and cannot be trusted. In 2013, the SNRIU extended the life of a reactor in the South Ukraine Power Plant until 2023, despite independent studies showing that safety limits have been breached by up to 10 times the acceptable levels! With war still raging in Ukraine, the EU approach to extending the lifetime of nuclear power plants in the country is like having a sword of Damocles hang over the heads of all European citizens”, said Dario Tamburrano, Member of the European Parliament (EFDD, Italy).

A joint letter from MEPs – Since this is the matter of European safety, adherence to EU, international rules and transparency, Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are convinced that all EU policy makers should be informed and take action. At a meeting with campaigners from CEE Bankwatch Network and Nuclear Transparency Watch (NTW) yesterday in the European Parliament, MEPs from six political groups have decided to join the call for freezing the loan proceedings until a proper transboundary EIA and public consultation are carried out. The joint letter signed by 27 MEPs has been sent today to the representatives of EBRD and Euratom.

“Euratom and the EBRD are also committed to apply the principles, standards and procedures established by international and European laws, namely the Aarhus Convention, the EU Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and the Espoo Convention. When tax-payers’ money is not used as it should have been, we must suspend payments. EU institutions should make sure that rights of its citizens are fully respected. The prolonged operation of nuclear reactors implies an increased risk of a severe nuclear accident with potentially devastating impacts on the environment and the people “, said Michèle Rivasi, Chair of NTW and Member of the European Parliament (Greens/ALE, France).

“Nuclear energy requires the highest levels of safety, and civil society plays an essential role in ensuring this. International rules for transparency should be respected”, added Jo Leinen, Member of the European Parliament (S&D, Germany) and of NTW

Ukraine is not the only country in this situation – Several European examples show that more has to be done to promote increased transparency and strengthen international rules on subsidies in Europe. In Belgium, the legislative proposal of the Energy minister to extend the lifetime of two 40 years old nuclear power reactors breaks the Espoo and Aarhus Conventions by ignoring the right of the public to participate in an environmental impact assessment and a public consultation involving also the neighbouring countries. Another example is Austria, where the government has the intention to take the commission to the European court of justice over state subsidies for UK-based two nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point. These subsidies – which Austria considers to be competition distorting, illegal state aid – are to be funded through levies on consumer bills.

Download the joint letter

Lifetime extension of nuclear reactors in Ukraine

A joint letter from MEPs

A reply from the European Commission

Address