Nuclear Transparency Watch

Consultation open: FRANCE Reactor Life-time extension beyond 40 years

27 February 2019

Consultation process open also to public outside of France until end March– still some questions remaining

Jan Haverkamp, 27 February 2019

In Europe, we are currently in an active debate about how the public should be involved in decisions around the extension of the lifetime of ageing nuclear power reactors beyond the their initial technical lifetime of 30 or 40 years: There are court cases on the issue in Belgium and the Netherlands; the European Court of Justice assesses questions from the Belgian High Court; the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee recently found the Netherlands in non-compliance with the Aarhus Convention for not organising public participation; Ukraine has been found in non-compliance with the Espoo Convention; and the Espoo Convention parties are deliberating in a special ad-hoc working group.

European citizens are now invited to give their views on the lifetime extension of France’s fleet of 900 MW reactors. In the coming years, each of these reactors will reach the age of 40 years. Comments can be given via the (French language) website: https://concertation.suretenucleaire.fr/projects

Because of the wider European debate, it is interesting to see what the nation with the most nuclear reactors in Europe is doing in this respect. Most of France’s nuclear fleet of 58 reactors was built in a relative short time period in the 1970s and 1980s and the entire fleet is now facing the end of its initial technical lifetime of 40 years. Under the obligations of the Aarhus Convention, any decision to prolong their lifetime should be preceded by meaningful public participation concerning environmental issues – this was recently confirmed during the case of the Dutch nuclear power station Borssele. The primary advisor to the European Court of Justice, advocate general Juliane Kokott came in the end of last year to the conclusion that the Espoo Convention and the EU EIA Directive in conjunction with the Aarhus Convention oblige Belgium to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment for the life-time extension of the Doel 1 and 2 nuclear reactors. The European Court is expected to come with its response later this year, and it is widely expected that this verdict will also make an EIA necessary for France’s fleet.

In a tradition of transparency, followed since 2005, the French nuclear regulator ASN (Autorité de sûreté nucléaire) has decided to organise a public consultation on the lifetime extension of nuclear reactors beyond 40 years in two stages: first a general consultation per group of reactor designs, followed by a reactor specific consultation with more detail. The first group is that of the 900 MW reactors, and the NPP Tricastin will be the first detailed case to follow.

ASN has asked the High Commission for Transparency and Information Concerning Nuclear Safety (Haute Commission pour la Transparance et l’Information sur la Sécurité Nucléaire – HCTISN) to organise the consultation on the 900 MW reactors, in order to guarantee independence. This consultation consists of an on-line part (only in French) where people can react on statements (and information) from EdF as well as add their own points of view. Regional hearings will also be held in the entire country with a focus on areas around these reactors (also only in French). The consultation is overseen by two from HCTISN independent guarantors, Marianne Azario and Isabelle Barthe, who can be reached by email garantes.concertation@sûreténucléaire.fr for any questions relating to the process of consultation. The local CLI’s – local information committees – play a crucial role in implementation.

It is clear that there are some fundamental weaknesses in this consultation set-up. It concentrates only on technical safety criteria and does not include a full environmental impact assessment as required under Espoo and the EIA Directive. France is one of the countries that vehemently tries to undermine this obligation within the Espoo Convention. It also does not provide all available environmental information for public scrutiny, as required under the Aarhus Convention, and therefore makes the whole process vulnerable for legal challenge.

Nuclear Transparency Watch is of the opinion, that on the basis of the Espoo and Aarhus Conventions and the EU SEA and EIA Directives, which are all implemented in French law, a Strategic Environmental Assessment should be an integral part of the general consultation, and a detail EIA of the following project procedure. This is, because the information and viewpoints gathered in these procedures will deliver crucial information to be used for the risk perception of the nuclear regulator. It will provide environmental, social and economic justification for or against longer lifetimes not only for the nuclear regulator, but also other political decision-makers involved, including decision-makers within the utility EdF.

At this moment, SEA and EIA procedures can still be included in the process. If this does not happen, the entire legitimacy of the public participation exercise will likely be challenged on the basis of lack of meeting international obligations.

Another important issue is the inclusion of viewpoints from outside of France. Many of France’s nuclear power plants are near borders, but even those in-land can have impacts far beyond France in case of a severe accident with emissions of radioactive content. Nuclear Transparency Watch member Brigitte Artmann asked the HCTISN whether the consultation is open to citizens of other countries. In its response, the HCTISN made clear that this is indeed the case and its consultation website also has an extensive explanation of the process in English, as well as a link to a 20 page English executive summary of the basic information delivered (the so-called Fulfilment Report).

For the rest, more detail information is only available in French and participation is only possible in the French language.

Nuclear Transparency Watch is of the opinion that that is not sufficient. With its 1970s choice for large scale development of nuclear power, France also took on itself the responsibility for all potential impacts, also those outside of France. Availability of material only in French is insufficient, but especially a possibility to submit viewpoints in other large European languages (at least English, German and Spanish) should be possible. By not giving that opportunity, the public consultation process does not fulfil the minimum criteria of non-discrimination in the Aarhus Convention and the obligation under the Espoo Convention to give equivalent access to public participation procedures for citizens in potentially impacted countries.

Nuclear Transparency Watch calls upon its members and others in civil society to participate in this consultation, while making clear that there should be broader possibilities under the obligations under Aarhus, Espoo, European and indeed French law.

New report for the European Parliament demands action on transboundary nuclear safety and nuclear liability

13 February 2019

by Jan Haverkamp, 13 February 2019

The petition committee of the European Parliament (PETI) received over the last years several large petitions expressing concern about transboundary nuclear issues in countries like Belgium, the Czech Republic, the UK, Hungary and others. In reaction to that, it asked the Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs of the European Commission’s Directorate General for Internal Policies of the Union to commission a study to address the issues raised in these petitions. The lead authors of that study, prof. Michael Faure from the Netherlands Maastricht University department of environmental law and the Rotterdam based Erasmus School of Law and Dr. Kévine Kindji of the Maastricht European Institute of Transnational Legal Research (METRO) at Maastricht University, produced a comprehensive overview of legal developments around transboundary nuclear issues, including a large chapter on the developments of environmental liability.

The study addresses the EU situation within the framework of international bodies and agreements like the IAEA and the Convention on Nuclear Safety, issues of public enforcement of international legal obligations on transboundary nuclear issues, addresses the tension between the EU Treaties and Euratom, covers citizen en NGO involvement in decision making, and comes with ten recommendations in which the European Union could improve the haphazard current situation with better regulatory oversight, harmonisation of rules, and improvement of the nuclear liability regime and implementation thereof.

The study gives a very good overview of the state of play of what is a very dynamic legal situation.

The study can be downloaded here.

New report by Greenpeace: The global Crisis of Nuclear Waste

30 January 2019

Authors: Pete Roche, Bertrand Thuillier, Bernard Laponche, Miles Goldstick, Hideyuki Ban and Robert Alvarez

Greenpeace commissioned some of the world’s leading experts on nuclear waste to produce an overview of the current status of nuclear waste across the world.

As the nuclear industry continues to struggle to compete in the rapidly evolving global energy market, the toxic legacy of decades of nuclear reactor operation and all the waste that continues to be produced to support it, remains a central element in any debate on the future of nuclear power, including decisions on nuclear reactor phase out.

For every year of nuclear reactor operation, nuclear waste volumes across the world will continue to be generated. Without exception, all countries reviewed were found lacking a no sustainable and safe solution for managing the vast volumes of nuclear waste. This includes high level spent fuel produced in all nuclear reactors, for which to date all efforts to find secure and safe permanent disposal options have failed.

Focusing on 7 major nuclearized countries (Belgium, France, Japan, Sweden, Finland, United Kingdom and United States), it shows that the multiple stages of the nuclear fuel cycle produce large volumes of radioactive wastes; and that no government has yet resolved how to safely manage these wastes.

The conclusion of the report is clear: underground repository research has failed as a solution.

Download the full report in English.

Download the full report in French.

Dr David Lowry unearths important information about the nuclear fall-out of Brexit on the loss of co-operation and the ownership of plutonium, by Jan Haverkamp

15 January 2019

NTW member Dr David Lowry is widely known for his stubborn and very effective work on nuclear transparency in the UK. Over the years, he has used all the tools in the legal toolbox to prevent important information being kept out of the public domain and in that way influenced many important nuclear debates in Britain. His instruments include access to information requests, but also parliamentarian questions and intensive on-line research. Dr David Lowry calls on NTW members and others following nuclear developments to more intensively use these instruments. That is an important call, because his work shows that the lack of transparency in the nuclear sector still enables politicians to hide the complexity of nuclear decision making, including issues around the true cost of nuclear energy, the important role of co-operation in nuclear medicine, the ongoing radioactive waste problem, and even the link between civilian and military nuclear sectors. Lowry’s work gives extremely good examples how to go about delivering more transparency in real life and we certainly will feature more of them here in the future. NTW also plans to set up a library where this kind of information will be stored so that other nuclear transparency activists can maintain access.

Last month, Lowry revealed key-information on the nuclear fall-out of the Brexit process on the loss of co-operation in the field of nuclear power, that he had obtained over parliamentarian questions. In a detailed blog including the full response from the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee in the British Parliament, Rachel Reeves, to the Energy Minister Richard Harrington, he sharply analysis how the industry bias of this MP leaves out important issues from the national debate and counters that with what a different Committee in the House of Lords has found on the subject and explanations and reactions from different other UK politicians, and adds background material.

A second blog addresses the thorny issue how title swaps of plutonium from reprocessing will be influenced by Brexit. Again, Lowry extensively quotes from official answers Green MP Caroline Lucas received on Parliamentarian questions from the relevant responsible politicians.

This surfaces, amongst others, that special fissile material (e.g. plutonium left over from reprocessing in Sellafield) is collectively owned by Euratom, “but the operator with the legal title to the material has an ‘unlimited right of use and consumption’ over it, subject to their complying with the obligations imposed on them by the Treaty.” The Business and Industry department (BEIS) continues that Euratom’s overview will cease after Brexit, claiming that “These provisions will not have any practical impact on the day to day management and use of the material.”

Lowry then continues to analyse how this is fundamentally wrong and illustrates that with how Swedish plutonium from its closed R-1 reactor in Oskarshamn, now in the UK after reprocessing in Sellafield, is to be transferred into UK ownership, one of several of such transfers. This opens for me from this side of the Channel the concern that without Euratom overview, it becomes unclear what the long-term fate of this plutonium stockpile will be. Will it end up in MOX, will it have to be disposed of in a for now non-existing disposal in the UK, or may it be diverted to the UK’s military programme? The background documentation that Lowry gives only increases the picture of a lot of high-brow talk but little assurances.

NTW and EEB leave European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF) and call for its termination

3 December 2018

On 28 November, Nuclear Transparency Watch (NTW) and the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) informed the European Council and the European Commission of their decision to suspend cooperation with and participation in the European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF). ENEF is presently a conference held every year in Bratislava or Prague, and was set up in 2007 by the European Council as a platform for discussion by all stakeholders about the future of nuclear energy in Europe. The ENEF conferences organised by the Czech Republic and Slovakia together with the European Commission. NTW and the EEB have participated in the Steering Committee of the forum, together with representatives from the EESC, Foratom, Eurelectric, the Commission and the two organising member states.

In the letter (1) the two organisations explain that ENEF is still not fulfilling its Council mandate and that civil society actors like representatives from NGOs, independent academics and others have basically been used as greenwash for a nuclear propaganda event from the Czech and Slovak governments. NTW and the EEB also call on other civil society actors to further boycott ENEF.

In 2015, the European Commission had invited NTW and the EEB to participate in the Steering Committee in an attempt to reform ENEF, in order to make it fulfil the Council’s mandate. It became soon clear that the format of panels followed by a few questions from the room was not the basis for a constructive discussion about all the factors that influence the role of nuclear energy in the European Union energy policies. Attempts to introduce more participative formats were met with scepticism by the Czech and Slovak organisers and part of the industry participants. NTW and the EEB lauded the attempts to attract more participants from civil society by covering travel and accommodation for those who could not afford it themselves, but this did not create sufficient balance against attempts from the Czech and Slovak organisers to create a nuclear promotion event, mainly for the own market. Press conferences lacked translation and focused only on local political issues, not on the role of nuclear energy and its myriad of problematic issues that were to be discussed in the forum. After three years of constructively trying to support the European Commission in its effort to create a real participative and transparent event with open discourse among participants, NTW and the EEB concluded that their efforts were a waste of energy and called on the Council and Commission to find other more inclusive and participative ways to assess the role nuclear power in the future of the Union.

The Commission’s failed attempt to improve ENEF came after Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth Europe and Sortir du nucléaire together with the French umbrella of nuclear information committees ANCCLI in 2007 attempted to support the creation a forum on the basis of inclusion of all stakeholders according to the mandate given by the Council. In 2009 the three NGOs decided to leave the Forum because also then they felt abused by the industry and the organising member states for nuclear propaganda purposes, whereas their input was marginalised in publications related to the forum. This led to the formation of an alternative organised by the European Commission, ANCCLI, Greenpeace, and others in the form of the round-tables on the implementation of the Aarhus Convention in the Nuclear sector (ACN), and annual counter conferences to ENEF in Prague and Linz organised by the government of Upper Austria and Czech and Austrian NGOs. Nuclear Transparency Watch grew out of the ACN round-tables with support from members of the European Parliament and the EEB. In the meantime, ENEF withered away as a Czech and Slovak industry event. The European Council asked the Commission to reform ENEF in 2015, and the Commission invited NTW and the EEB to help in the effort as members of the Steering Committee overseeing ENEF’s organisation. During that period, both organisations several times drew the attention of the Commission during Steering Committee meetings and in formal letters to issues that systematically block fair discourse in the Forum.

Jan Haverkamp, NTW vice-chair and representative in the Steering Committee of ENEF during the last three years: “The initial idea for ENEF is brilliant – a space where industry, governments, nuclear regulators, NGOs, politicians, academics and citizens can meet to seriously discuss issues that determine how nuclear power develops in Europe. A place where the top of the industry, of authorities can meet face to face with important critics from outside their bubble. An open and transparent discussion about all the issues around this technology can only improve the way in which policy making in the European Union can find answers on the challenges of climate change, security of supply, resource needs and environmental protection. But this has to be an honest discussion and not one where make belief and the limited needs of one branch of industry overshadow the overall picture, while pushing out sincere concerns. The host countries did everything they could to make ENEF look as one large confirmation of their very one-sided support policies for the nuclear industry. Such conferences happen already in many places and do not need to be funded by public money.”

David Lowry of the Institute for Resource and Security Studies sat as NTW’s invited expert in the 2018 ENEF conference in a panel on small modular reactor programmes. He noted: “I accepted to participate after one of our colleagues understandably refused to be put into a one critical versus five industry panel set-up. I was then surprised to find that the draft conclusions of the 2018 ENEF did not include any of the detailed criticism on small modular reactor programmes presented, despite the fact that most of the two hour post presentation discussion was taken up by these issues. The European Commission corrected that after NTW and the EEB pointed out this omission, but if every attempt from the side of civil society to be heard has to be this hard fought, it is not an open discussion between all stakeholders.”

Johan Swahn, director of the Swedish NGO Office for Nuclear Waste Review MKG and the EEB representative in the ENEF steering committee concluded: “Although good in its mandate, ENEF failed to deliver. It is time to move on and assure that the necessary discussions take place where they really can make a difference.”

As reasons for their suspension, NTW and the EEB highlighted the following issues:

The failure of ENEF to engage all Member States of the Union, including nuclear and non-nuclear countries, resulting in poorly informed one-sided positions on the issue of nuclear energy;
The failure to engage all stakeholders in the discussion, more specifically the failure to actively and systematically include nuclear regulators, stakeholders from other energy sectors than the nuclear one, stakeholders with a strategic bird-eye view on the overall Union and global energy policy developments;
The failure to generate wide interest in ENEF among other departments and Directorates of the European Commission than DG ENER’s nuclear ones, as well as other European institutions (incl. the European Parliament, the European Ombudsman, the EIB and others);
The failure of the organising Member States to position this platform for discussion on nuclear energy as a part of the overall Union energy policy developments;
The failure to elicit Europe-wide media interest in the discussions concerning issues relevant for the development of nuclear energy within context of the overall Union energy policies;
The failure to introduce discussion processes that allow all participants to exchange information, viewpoints and opinions in a way that facilitates cross-fertilisation.

(1)Letter to EU Commission and EU Council, 28/11

Finnish, Swedish and Russian environmentalists ask for attention to problems in Finland’s nuclear energy projects with petition

27 November 2018

Early November, five environmental and peace groups asked attention for a host of problems that is currently facing the nuclear energy policy of Finland.

Women against Nuclear Power and Women for Peace from Finland, Nuclear-free Gulf of Botnia and the Peoples’ Movement Against Nuclear Power And Weapons from Sweden together with the Public Council of the South Coast of the Gulf of Finland, Sosnovy Bor, Leningrad Oblast of NTW member Oleg Bodrov from Russia started a petition that highlights among others the cost overdraws and increase of construction time of the Olkoluoto 3 and Hanhikivi power plants, and the complications for the country’s high-level radioactive waste site Onkalo from the doubts about the viability of the KBS-3 waste containers under development in Sweden, which face a negative advice from that country’s environmental court. They call for a fundamental shift in orientation of Finland’s energy policy towards renewable energy sources.

The organisers call on organisations, networks and movements to join the petition before it will be delivered to the Finnish president, government and parliament in the start of 2019, and need to participate before the 15/12/18.

The petition is available here and more information can be obtained at ullaklotzer@yahoo.com.

Important Victory for Aarhus Convention In Nuclear: Borssele Findings ACCC

18 October 2018

On Friday 12/10/2018, the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC) communicated its final findings to the parties involved in the complaint launched by Greenpeace in 2014 on the design lifetime extension of the Borssele Nuclear Power Plant. The findings will be submitted for confirmation to the 7th session of the Meeting of Parties in 2021.This decision represents a major step in the implementation of the Aarhus Convention in Nuclear.

Find here the full analysis by Jan Haverkamp, vice-chair of Nuclear Transparency Watch, nuclear energy and energy policy expert for Greenpeace, who filed the complaint for Greenpeace Netherlands.

The findings in short:

The ACCC came to the conclusion that the Netherlands are in non-compliance with the Convention because they did not carry out proper public participation as obliged under art. 6(10) of the Convention. (point 82)

The ACCC concluded: “The Committee considers that the permitted duration of an activity is clearly an operating condition for that activity, and an important one at that. Accordingly, any change to the permitted duration of an activity, be it a reduction or an extension, is a reconsideration or update of that activity’s operating conditions. It follows that any decision permitting the NPP to operate beyond 2014 amounted to an update of the operating conditions.” (point 65)

The ACCC “considers it inconceivable that the operation of a nuclear power plant could be extended from 40 years to 60 years without the potential for significant environmental effects. The Committee accordingly concludes that it was “appropriate”, and thus required, to apply the provisions of article 6, paragraphs 2-9, to the 2013 decision amending the licence for the Borssele NPP to extend its design lifetime until 2033.” (point 71)This means that it can no longer be argued that nuclear life-time extensions or Long Term Operation has no environmental effects.

The Dutch government could not have made the covenant with the operator in 2006, that included the obligation for compensation payments in case of closure earlier than 2033, without previously having carried out public participation concerning environmental issues. That earlier closure is still possible because of nuclear safety is not sufficient. (point 76 – 78)

The authorities “must as a minimum provide the public concerned with access to the information listed in subparagraphs (a)-(f) of [art. 6(6)].” The authorities should have made “information on the environmental effects of such longer operation […] available to the public concerned.” An attachment submitted to parliament in 2006 does not amount to access to all available information for a procedure carried out in 2012-2013, i.e. more than six years later. (point 85)

The Netherlands must “take the necessary legislative, regulatory and administrative measures to ensure that, when a public authority reconsiders or updates the duration of any nuclear-related activity within the scope of article 6 of the Convention, the provisions of paragraph 2 to 9 of article 6 will be applied.” (Recommendations, point 89) This means that for every coming decision, this decision needs to be informed by public participation that concerns also the environmental impacts of longer operation of the NPP.

David Lowry received key UK information on SMRs heavily censored

4 October 2018

After he presented his critical analysis of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) on invitation of the organisers in the European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF 2018) in Bratislava, Slovakia, last June, David Lowry asked under the Freedom of Information act access to key-documentation on SMRs from the British government. After an initial refusal and subsequent appeal, the department responsible for nuclear policy, the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) delivered some of the information, but heavily edited and blacked out.

Dr. Lowry had asked access to the minutes and other papers from the previously secret independent Expert Financial Working Group (EFWG) on SMRs. Whereas SMRs are often claimed to be cheap by the industry, the Guardian [1] concluded from the papers Lowry received that companies involved are asking for large amounts of funding.

On request of the European Commission, Nuclear Transparency Watch already earlier published the background paper that accompanied Dr. Lowry’s presentation at ENEF 2018. [2]

He now asked Nuclear Transparency Watch to also publish the documentation on which the Guardian article was based:

– [Parts of the] BEIS cover letter with the argumentation to withhold part of the information from the public highlighted [3]

– The documentation received from BEIS [4]

NTW EVENT: Radioactive Waste Governance in Europe 01-02/10/2018

25 September 2018

Nuclear Transparency Watch together with the German office of Heinrich Böll Stiftung and the Greens/EFA organised an event in Berlin on 01-02/10, in the premisses of Heinrich Boll Stiftung.

Participants will discuss how Europe can find a sustainable solution to nuclear waste. The deep geological disposal of radioactive waste in underground containers is being pursued as an affordable and viable solution. For this method, one needs to identify a site and a safe containment technology, and achieve broad public acceptance – and none of these steps are easy.

In the last years there have been dynamic developments on nuclear waste disposal in Germany, France, and Sweden. In Germany, public opposition against disposal in Gorleben has resulted in a special commission tasked with finding a proper site. In France, the government has unilaterally opted for disposal in Bure, but is facing tough public resistance as well numerous technical issues. In Sweden, a broadly accepted site and storage concept was stopped last February in the Environmental Court due to its risky technological containment solution.

A special emphasis will be put on the recent policy developments in Sweden, Germany and France, but the workshop will also allow time to discuss nuclear waste concerns in other European countries.

The discussion will be based upon inputs by

Rebecca Harms (Member of the European Parliament for the German Greens/EFA),
Professor Andrew Blowers (expert on nuclear legacies and the role of citizens, UK), (1)
Johan Swahn (activist from the Office for Nuclear Waste Review, Sweden),
Sylvia Kotting-Uhl (Member of German Parliament for Bündnis 90/Die Grünen and of the German radioactive waste commission),
Delphine Pellegrini (French Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety Institute) and
Jan Haverkamp (Nuclear Transparency Watch Europe).

Download programme.

13th ENEF 04-05/06/18 Bratislava

11 June 2018

The 13th European Nuclear Energy Forum (ENEF) organised by the European Commission with two hosting countries (Slovakia and Czech Republic) took place in Bratislava on 04-05/06.

This event, which received the mandate from the European Council to be to be a “platform for broad discussion of the opportunities and risks of nuclear energy”, focused this year on the topics ‘Maintaining a critical level of nuclear safety expertise in Europe’ and ‘Small Modular Reactors’.

Members from Nuclear Transparency Watch evaluated this year’s ENEF critically. We will keep you informed about our evaluation of the event, but would like to give already access to the presentations from civil society representatives.

Rebecca Harms, MEP Greens/EFA and Vice-Chair of NTW made an opening speech on the first panel where she emphasised the importance to focus on radioactive waste and decommissionning rather than new build.

To watch her full presentation, see the Webstream of Day 2. (min 13’34”).

Dr David Lowry, independant researcher at Nuclear Waste Advisory Associates and member of NTW made a presentation on the second panel regarding the “Inconvenient Truths of Small Modular Reactors.” Download here his full paper.

Download the full ENEF2018 programme.

Webstream of Day 1

Consultation process open also to public outside of France until end March– still some questions remaining

Address