TOP

Nuclear Transparency Watch

Prevent and anticipate through transparency and participation

Transparency and Public participation

Hybrid event on Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)

🚨Check out Nuclear Transparency Watch latest video on an hybrid event dedicated to cross-cutting views on Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)☢️:

Thanks to Alexis Geisler-Roblin who moderated this event, complementary contributions were shared by speakers from the French 🇫🇷 national agency for radioactive waste management l’ANDRA, from the new French 🇫🇷 regulator and technical support organisation l’ASNR, from the environmental NGO – member of NTW – Friends of the Earth Estonia 🇪🇪 and from the NGO based in the USA 🇺🇸 Nuclear Information and Resource Service.
The event address key questions such as perspectives on projects, waste management or regulations aspects. You will find below the presentations provided by the 4 speakers:
SMRs globally and in Estonia by Madis Vasser (FoE Estonia)
SMRs and waste in France by Virgine Wasselin (ANDRA)
Adaption to the regulatory framework in France by Philippe Dupuy (ASNR)
👉 for more info from ASNR on this click here (only in French for the moment)
US-Nuclear-Regulations by Tim Judson (NIRS)
👉 for more info from NRIS on this click here

Fourth NEA Stakeholder Involvement Workshop in Paris

NEA Stakeholder Involvement Workshop

The Summary Report from the Third NEA Stakeholder Involvement Workshop on Optimisation in Decision Making, which took place in Paris from 5–7 September 2023, where NTW was actively involved, has now been published.

The report captures the key findings from the discussions, including case studies, practical reflections, and proposals on how to facilitate optimisation in decision making through meaningful stakeholder involvement. It also outlines the next steps toward a generic framework for optimised decision making in the nuclear sector and beyond.

A Fourth NEA Stakeholder Involvement Workshop, will take place in Paris on 15–17 October 2025.

In preparation for the workshop, the NEA will be hosting a series of preparatory webinars. The third and final webinar is set to take place on 7 May 2025 and is now open for registration.

Continued participation and contributions will help in contributing for the next workshops.

Background

In fact, the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) will hold its Fourth NEA Stakeholder Involvement Workshop on Optimisation in Decision Making: From Insight to Action on 15-17 October 2025 in Paris, France

The workshop is the latest in a series of events that began in 2017 and seeks to foster dialogue and collaboration among diverse stakeholders in the nuclear sector.

The Third NEA Stakeholder Involvement Workshop on Optimisation in Decision Making, held in September 2023, brought together 120 participants from 23 countries, including representatives from regulators, operators, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), civil society and indigenous communities. Discussions centred on creating a framework for decisions that are optimised, inclusive and sustainable. The next event in the series will feature further discussion on developing a practical framework for optimised decision making.

Preparatory webinars

In the lead-up to the October 2025 event, the NEA has hosted two preparatory webinars exploring key factors that contribute to power imbalances and their mitigation when engaging stakeholders in nuclear decision making. Each webinar attracted approximately 50 participants, offering focused discussions. A third webinar is planned for 7 May 2025 to further equip participants with tools to support meaningful stakeholder engagement.

What to expect

The three-day Fourth NEA Stakeholder Involvement Workshop will feature:

  • plenary presentations by leading experts;
  • open dialogues to facilitate meaningful discussion; and
  • moderated panel discussions offering diverse perspectives.

Participants will include representatives from government bodies, industry, academic and research institutions, NGOs, international organisations and civil society to foster a broad and inclusive dialogue. The workshop outcomes will be compiled into a publicly available report, contributing to the ongoing discourse on the role of stakeholder engagement in the optimisation of decision making in the nuclear sector.

Opportunity to engage

The NEA is looking for case studies on the practical application of approaches and tools for stakeholder engagement, building on trust and ensuring transparency.

Contributions are welcome: the NEA can be contacted at stakeholder2025@oecd-nea.org

Find this article and more information on NEA home page: https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_99778/fourth-nea-stakeholder-involvement-workshop-to-be-held-in-paris

Why 68% of Ukrainians Oppose the Completion of the Khmelnytskyi Nuclear Power Plant – panel discussion

A sociological study on Ukrainian public opinion regarding nuclear energy was conducted by the research agency Info Sapiens at the request of NGO Ecoaction and the Heinrich Böll Foundation, Kyiv Office – Ukraine.
The results of this study will be presented during an online event on March 20. The discussion will also cover key technological, economic, and environmental risks associated with the completion of Units 3 and 4 at the Khmelnytskyi Nuclear Power Plant. Recently, the Ukrainian Parliament approved draft  law No. 11392, which provides for the purchase of russian equipment from Bulgaria for this project.

Experts, politicians, and civil society will discuss the implications of these construction plans.

Registered participants will receive a link to the Zoom meeting prior to the event. The discussion will be conducted in Ukrainian with simultaneous translation into English: https://forms.office.com/pages/responsepage.aspx?id=WHBqOCUHH0a19D8oug9wnjW-88x2cJJPpgPK6CWpDvxURDJVR1dHS09DUlVEN1dHSkZXN1FPOUZLUi4u&route=shorturl

Date: March, 20th, 11 a.m. EET (10 a.m. CET)
Place: online via ZOOM

Speakers:

  • Inna Sovsun, Member of the Parliament of Ukraine
  • Olha Lyashchuk, project coordinator at NGO Ecoclub
  • Anastasia Shurenkova, researcher at InfoSapiens agency
  • Yuriy Nikolov, journalist and co-founder of the project Nashi Hroshi (Our Money)

Moderator Artem Kolesnyk, energy policy expert at NGO Ecoaction

ECOSENS OPEN STAKEHOLDER WEBINAR: “Sustainability Assessment of Nuclear Power: Checking Contentious Indicators”

📆 Wednesday 12 March 2025, 13:30-16:30 CET an open stakeholder webinar will take place an on:
“Sustainability Assessment of Nuclear Power: Checking Contentious Indicators” ☢️
Prior registration is needed at this link – Working language English 🇬🇧.
This event is part of the activity of the Horizon Europe 🇪🇺 ECOSENS-project.eu which has developed and demonstrated a methodology for the lifecycle sustainability assessment of key energy technologies driving Europe’s Green Transition.

In 2024 this assessment revealed a lack of consensus on 8 nuclear indicators.

👉 Here after the formal invitation for the event:

Aarhus Convention and Nuclear roundtable on information and public participation

🗓️ 21 – 22 January 2025 : NTW 🇪🇺 🔎 co-organised a roundtable on “Aarhus Convention and Nuclear”(ACN) ☢️ with the European Commission (DG ENER) 🇪🇺 in Luxembourg 🇱🇺 in coordination with ANCCLI, the EEB (European Environmental Bureau) and the ENSREG (European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group).

🔽 Topic “Implementation of the Nuclear Safety Directive (NSD): transparency, public participation and role of the civil society in the independence of nuclear regulation” 👥

🔽 Objective Identify the challenges and the best practices to implement the 3 pillars of the Aarhus Convention, enhancing a pluralistic dialogue with a large panel of countries and stakeholders represented 🎯

🔽 Reflexions Access to a transparent information is an absolute necessity to ensure an effective public participation to the decision-making processes as well as long-term engagement. Initiatives like this roundtable are essential to build trust and enable safety culture where fruitful dialogue in the frame of the Aarhus Convention are possible 🤝

➡️ 📄 ACN roundtable report ⬅️


🔷 Agenda

🔷 Day 1

Implementation of the Nuclear Safety Directive (NSD) with respect to the provisions on transparency and public participation

– 2022 COM Progress Report on the NSD implementation and later developments – Lenka Budinova / Amelia Paula Chirtes (DG ENER.D3)
– Reflection from Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC) – Jerzy Jendrośka (Vice-chair ACCC)
– Reflection from Österreichisches Ökologie-Institut – Gabriële Mraz

Practical experiences of public participation under the Aarhus Convention and the Nuclear Safety Directive

● Nuclear regulators as facilitative authorities for access to public participation (Aarhus Article 3(2) and NSD Article 8(4))
● Role of public participation to support independent regulatory decision-making
● Concrete examples from civil society

– European Commission – Adam Daniel Nagy (DG ENV.E4)
– Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee – Jerzy Jendrośka
– Nuclear regulators – Christoph Quintin (ASN – France)
– Nuclear regulators – Štepan Kochánek (SÚJB – Czechia)
– Civil society – Pauline Boyer / Roger Spautz (Greenpeace France)

🔷 Day 2

Practical experiences with transparency & access to information under the Aarhus Convention and the Nuclear Safety Directive

Nuclear regulators and licence holders as facilitative authorities for access to information (Aarhus Article 3(2) and NSD Article 8(1))
● Provision of information without clearance as an element of regulatory independence
● Concrete examples from civil society
● Issues around relations between regulators and civil society, compared to other stakeholders (e.g. information access for licensees, industry players, government institutions, democratic representatives, e.a.)

– Nuclear regulators – Maryna Surkova (FANC – Belgium)
– Nuclear regulators – Matjaž Podjavoršek (SNSA – Slovenia)
– Civil society – Michal Daniška (Chceme zdravú krajinu, Slovakia)
– Civil society – Patricia Lorenz (Global2000, FoE Europe)

Nuclear energy and civil society conference at the European Parliament

🗓 17.10 : Nuclear Transparency Watch (NTW) was invited at the European Parliament in Brussels 🇪🇺 for a conference on nuclear energy ☢ in Europe from a civil society 👥 perspective.

📄 Based on the Aarhus Convention and on the Environmental Democracy principles, this event co-organised by NTW with the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and the member of NTW and Italian MEP, Dario Tamburrano (The Left) was introduced with a presentation from Yves Marignac (Institut Négawatt) on the management of nuclear risks in nuclear energy transition scenarios:

20241017-NTW-NuclearEnergyEurope-YvesMarignac

The roundtable introducing the debate welcome the following speakers: ⤵
☑ Luke Haywood (Policy Manager on Climate and Energy policy at the European Environmental Bureau)
☑ Lorelei Limousin (Campaigner at Greenpeace Brussels)
☑ Dario Tamburrano (Member of the European Parliament)
☑ Nadja Zeleznik (Chair of Nuclear Transparency Watch)

The main safety concerns reported in the presentation from Yves Marignac were related to the following topics:
1️⃣ Lifetime extensions of nuclear power plants
The oldest operating European reactor is 55 years old and located in Beznau (Switzerland) therefore, there aren’t any experience for programme of lifetime extension to 80 or 60 years.
2️⃣ New reactors
Sovereignty concerns on Europe’s capacity to provide reactors were reported with questions related to the industrial and financial
capacities to manage many projects.
3️⃣ Fuel and waste management
New nuclear implies enrichment and fuel fabrication capacities as well as adjusted storage and disposal capacities.
4️⃣ Evolving concerns
Finally, the impacts of the climate change and of a rising geopolitical instability needs to be considered.

Jean Claude Delalonde, Chair of ANCCLI, recalled that: “… recently in France, civil society via ANCCLI 👥 was heard by parliamentarians on 2️⃣ laws related to nuclear issues ☢: one on the acceleration of procedures & the other on the reorganization of safety. This is a major step forward, and it’s vital that political decision-makers are able to hear the voices of civil society before forging their decisions. This is as true in France 🇨🇵 as it is in Europe 🇪🇺 …”

In fact, NTW was established in 2013 following a call of members of the Parliament praising for Transparency and Public Participation in nuclear energy to improve the safety. It has been recognized that an early involvement of civil society can help decision making, this is why this conference will hopefully lead to another ones involving many other MEP and Civil Society Organisations representatives.

 

Transboundary participation and safety concerns

In the frame of the Consultation on the 4th periodic review of France’s 1300 MWe nuclear reactors, NTW provided the following statement:

Insufficient transboundary participation and the risk of French Nuclear Power Plants (NPP) for European countries.

Note: ANCCLI being a founder member of NTW and a member of the HCTISN it didn’t associate to this statement for obvious deontological reasons.

Insufficient transboundary participation and the risk of French Nuclear Power Plants (NPP) for European countries

The safety objectives for the continued operation of 1300 MWe reactors is to move towards the safety levels of the latest reactors (EPR). To date, 1300 MWe reactors have not achieved the highest levels of safety, and concerns persist about corium and the ability to dissipate heat in the event of core meltdown, as well as the safety of fuel pools.

The ASN guidelines regulating protection against flooding are outdated for a possible extension[1]. There are remaining doubts whether the Hardened Safety Core’s design against flooding events considered adequately the effects of climate change. In fact, regarding impacts of climate change in general, Patrick Lejuste (IRSN) said during the consultation that he was “very pessimistic” adding that “there are a lot of unknowns”[2]. Also, design basis earthquakes need to be defined not only on deterministic methods as this is no longer state-of-the-art[3].

Nuclear risk resulting from the French NPP fleet should not be underestimated and could probably impact other country in Europe. Calculations from the project flexRISK show a contamination risk in consequence of a severe accident in the old French NPP fleet for all over Europe.

The extension of reactor operation and, more generally, the arrival of new reactors (EPR) cannot be achieved without a thorough review of waste and fuel management, some links of which are under strain.

The risk to humans and environment resulting from severe accidents and from nuclear waste management has to be assessed and presented to the public, also from other European countries in a transboundary Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). The lifetime extension program constitutes a prominent part of the French energy policy and therefore falls in the scope of SEA Directive 2001/42/EC; moreover, as the French Multi-Annual Energy Plan also was not subjected to a transboundary SEA but only to a voluntary consultation.

If transboundary comments are appreciated, an English version of the consultation website and of all documents should be offered, too. Furthermore, NTW is concerned by the absence of consultation guarantors reported several times in order to ensure a real participatory process agreed on[4].

To preserve the trust and fruitful consultations of the participatory process, much greater access to resources must be possible for members of civil society such as local residents, NGO volunteers or young people.

We demand a transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for every lifetime extension of an old NPP beyond the originally foreseen lifetime of 40 years, especially in the lights of the new developments in the framework of the Espoo and Aarhus Convention which clarified the EIA obligation for NPP life-time extensions.

[1] https://www.umweltbundesamt.at/fileadmin/site/publikationen/rep0915.pdf 4.4.3, p.39.

[2] https://concertation.suretenucleaire.fr/media/default/0001/01/89713121a30d81cd976bcbca2ed8f218b79cd88f.pdf

[3] Results from the expert statement of the Austrian Government to the consultation.

[4] https://concertation.suretenucleaire.fr/media/default/0001/01/89713121a30d81cd976bcbca2ed8f218b79cd88f.pdf

Synthesis of the NTW’s results in EURAD

As an NGO dedicated to ensure and increase transparency and public participation in nuclear safety and security in all fields of nuclear activities[1], Nuclear Transparency Watch (NTW) found it relevant to be involved in the European Joint Programme on Radioactive Waste Management (EURAD).

When EURAD started in 2019, the programme was foreseen to include activities and Interactions with Civil Society (ICS) in the perspective of the Aarhus Convention[2]. Therefore, it was understood that Civil Society (CS) could contribute to enhancing decisions on safety and security of Radioactive Waste Management (RWM)[3].

ICS activities in EURAD were structured based on a so-called “double wing” model[4] that was established and tested during the previous European projects SITEX II[5] and JOPRAD[6] following a specific vision and development plan[7]. This model allowed regular exchanges in between 13 CS experts involved in various EURAD Work Packages (WPs) and 22 CS larger group members attending yearly ICS workshops as described in the figure here below.

Figure 1 – Structure of ICS activities in EURAD

The yearly ICS workshops organised by the CS experts for the CS larger group were based on the results obtained by the CS experts from their work for the WPs labelled as “strategic studies” (ROUTES[8] and UMAN[9]) and their work for the WP PMO[10] which included:

  • Interactions with R&D technical WPs.
  • Interactions with all stakeholders.
  • Evaluation of the CS contribution to EURAD.
  • CS coordination, organisation, integration, and reporting.

Figure 2 – ICS workshop n°6 in Ljubljana (April 2024)

Between 2019 and 2024, 17 deliverables were published by the CS experts on various topics by stimulating interactions with the CS larger group and with the technical partners of EURAD [11]. Moreover, NTW has organized 17 workshops, participated to 30 EURAD events and contributed in around 40 EURAD documents. This iterative process helped to identify and deepen the knowledge in the main areas of concern for CS towards RWM.

First and foremost, the importance of sharing a culture for safety and security was underlined as a cornerstone for any fruitful pluralistic interaction on RWM. Therefore, based on previous studies such as SITEX II[12] a charter for fruitful interactions was established and used as an evaluation tool for the ICS activities in EURAD[13]. It was also considered relevant to update the existing studies on safety culture with more concrete examples of ways and situations where it can be enhanced[14]. Developing the “double wing” model into a “third wing model” was one of the propositions made[15], another was to continue the diversification of ways for CS to participate  using existing tools such as the Pathway Evaluation Process (PEP)[16] – allowing pluralistic views on various RWM scenarios which had already proven to be very effective considering the feedback – or with new tools such as a visualisation tool designed by CS to be used as an interactive support enabling knowledge sharing and public participation[17].

Finally, to sustain and improve the Aarhus Convention pillars approved by the European Union[18] and the addition proposed by NTW in the BEPPER report[19], the concept of intergenerational stewardship[20] was studied as a means to maintain a safety culture through time until a final safe enough solution is found. This implies a recognition that the problem remains to be solved going against abandonment and amnesia.

Now that EURAD (2019-2024) is finished, a second phase of the programme (EURAD 2) is under final agreement with EC with NTW again foreseen as the coordinator for all CS organisations – which makes it important to share and evaluate the results of the first EURAD programme. This is why NTW has provided the following feedback for the evaluation of Euratom Research and Training Programme (2021-2025) which encompasses EURAD to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the Programme in the eyes of CS:

As an NGO involved in the Joint Programme on RWM EURAD, NTW has benefited from funding to represent civil society in the programme, in accordance with the first 2 pillars of the Aarhus Convention (access to information, access to participation) to help ensure the development of transparency and safety.

Results were obtained (e.g., production of deliverables on Transparency & Public Participation (T&PP) or Interaction with the Civil Society (ICS)) that envision better ways for interaction of different stakeholders involved in decision making procedures and research. Progress (e.g., double wing model of interaction and involvement in strategic studies) was made in understanding how to approach uncertainties through a shared culture for safety and security and what this could mean in the perspective of intra- and intergenerational stewardship.

However, there is still the need of sufficient structural and material support to develop a sustainable citizen engagement in a trustworthy environment independent from nuclear industry’s influence. Therefore, referring to the obligations under the Aarhus Convention art. 3(2), 3(3) and 3(4), it is necessary to include funds to develop civil society engagement structures to enhance civil society participation from a wider perspective and also in future research and training concerning the development of nuclear technology, including management of radioactive waste.

This is key to develop and implement processes, tools, knowledge, and relations that were previously established in the EURAD programme. If this is not continued, engagement towards transparency, public participation but also safety and security will suffer, as recognized by all stakeholders, who emphasized that participation of civil society in these research programmes is indeed indispensable in increasing safety.

List of publications per work packages in which NTW’s has been involved 

PMO

ROUTES

UMAN

MODATS

[1] Nuclear Transparency Watch statutes:
https://www.nuclear-transparency-watch.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/NTW-statutes-2024-ENG.pdf

[2] Adopted on 25 June 1998, the Aarhus Convention is created to empower the role of citizens and civil society organisations in environmental matters and is founded on the principles of participative democracy. See: https://aarhus.osce.org/about/aarhus-convention

[3] EURAD – D1.14 Mid-term evaluation ICS activities and interactions EURAD participants and Civil Society: https://www.ejp-eurad.eu/publications/eurad-d114-mid-term-evaluation-ics-activities-and-experimental-model-interaction

[4] EURAD – D1.13 List of CS group members:
https://www.ejp-eurad.eu/publications/eurad-d113-list-cs-group-members

[5] SITEX-II is the acronym for “Sustainable network for Independent Technical Expertise of Radioactive Waste Disposal – Interactions and Implementation” (2015-2017). Its overall objective was the practical implementation of the sets of activities issued by the previous European research program SITEX (2012-2013). See: http://sitexproject.eu/

[6] JOPRAD is the acronym for « Joint Programming on Radioactive Waste Disposal” (2015-2017). The objective was to prepare a proposal for setting up of a Joint Programming that bring together at the European level, aspects of R&D activities implemented within national research programmes where synergy is identified. See: http://www.joprad.eu/about-joprad/rationaleobjectives.html

[7] The EURAD vision and EURAD deployment plan are two of the founding documents of EURAD.
All the funding documents are available here: https://www.ejp-eurad.eu/publications.

[8] https://www.ejp-eurad.eu/implementation/waste-management-routes-europe-cradle-grave-routes

[9] https://www.ejp-eurad.eu/implementation/wp10-understanding-uncertainty-risk-and-safety-uman

[10] https://www.ejp-eurad.eu/implementation/interaction-civil-society

[11] See the list of deliverables published in the Appendix.

[12] https://igdtp.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/SITEX-II_D4.1-Conditions-and-means-for-developing-SITEX-network_FINAL.pdf

[13] https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1WJW5URedhv4-Bvj5XeQAZscIYoocOHJ1/edit#slide=id.p1

[14] https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1IgDUkKpokcO0HIMn6ufBugfthjsXYaJN/edit#slide=id.p1

[15] https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1TK6e0og1-z-m-xiUOuf0c2_0Qh0gGJ3l/edit#slide=id.p1

[16] https://www.sitex.network/projects/

[17] https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/18kSmg9VybMynwHDRAtL7uKBtW9KrJjxW/edit#slide=id.p1

[18] Access to information, access to public participation and access to justice.

[19] Access to resources. See: https://www.nuclear-transparency-watch.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/NTW_Transparency_in_RWM_BEPPER_report_December_2015.pdf

[20] https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1hl4Za69yMx60DGuqEJ53qTxew4_OTUmr/edit#slide=id.p14

Evaluation of Euratom Research and Training Programme 2021-2025

The contribution of Nuclear Transparency Watch for the Evaluation of Euratom Research and Training Programme 2021-2025 is available here: https://t.co/1jSf4zGPx2

As an NGO involved in the Joint Programme on RWM EURAD, NTW has benefited from funding to represent civil society in the programme, in accordance with the first 2 pillars of the Aarhus Convention (access to information, access to participation) to help ensure the development of transparency and safety.

Results were obtained (e.g., production of deliverables on Transparency & Public Participation (T&PP) or Interaction with the Civil Society (ICS)) that envision better ways to interact with different stakeholders involved in decision making procedures and research. Progress (e.g., Double wing model of interaction and involvement in strategic studies) was made in understanding how to approach uncertainties through a common shared culture of safety and what this could mean in the perspective of intra- and intergenerational stewardship.

However, there is still insufficient structural and material support to develop sustainable, trustworthy (from industry’s interests) independent citizen engagement. Therefore, referring to the obligations under the Aarhus Convention art. 3(2), 3(3) and 3(4), it is necessary to include funds to develop civil society engagement structures to enhance civil society participation from a wider perspective and also in future research and training concerning the development of nuclear technology, including management of radioactive waste.

This is key to develop and implement processes, tools, knowledge, and relations that were previously established in the EURAD programme. If this is not continued, engagement towards transparency, public participation but also safety will suffer, as recognized by all stakeholders, who emphasized that participation of civil society in these research programmes is indeed indispensable in ensuring safety.

This contribution was developed by the European Environmental Bureau, Jan Haverkamp, Kobor Joseph, Colin Wales and other members of NTW Management Board.

Nuclear safety put to the Common test

In this article named, Nuclear safety and the Common, the authors, Gilles Hériard-Dubreuil and Julien Dewoghelaëre have provided a study on the notion of Common in relation of the nuclear safety in the French context. This article has been published with other articles on the notion of Common in the frame of a collective publication named “Dynamiques du Commun” (2021).

The introduction is reported below, while the full article is accessible there.

“Civil nuclear power generation activities are associated with very significant risks for humans and the biosphere. They also give rise to the production of dangerous radioactive materials, the presence of which must be envisaged for very long periods, and even infinite from the perspective of a human life itself.

From the very beginning, these activities have been the subject of strong political opposition from various groups within the populations of the producing countries and at international level. These confrontations involve pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear players, with a relatively indifferent public in the background, with the exception of periods of concern caused by the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents. The opposition to these activities is based on the rejection of exposure to nuclear risks and their potential consequences at national and international level. The possibility of safe management of nuclear activity is a central object of controversy.

This contestation also concerns the technical, economic and social relevance of the choice of nuclear power generation, particularly in the current context of energy transition. Nuclear activities are facing a deterioration in their economic model, with a sharp rise in productivity requirements, combined with stricter European regulations restricting state aid and increased financial and economic transparency5, which in Europe is limiting the public support from which this activity has historically benefited.

The European context today is characterised by a wide disparity in energy choices, particularly where nuclear power is concerned. Only some European countries are involved in nuclear production, often in connection with military nuclear activities. Some of these countries have decided to withdraw from nuclear power at different times. They are planning a transition to other forms of energy production. But phasing out nuclear power does not mean phasing out nuclear safety, which remains a long-term or even very long-term issue for these countries. Ultimately, nuclear safety is an issue for all European countries. Indeed, serious nuclear accidents are always of a cross-border nature and the management of radioactive materials, although a national responsibility, remains a common safety issue for Europe’s neighbours.

Nuclear safety requires a wide range of technical, scientific, economic, social and political conditions to be met. As a result, safety is highly vulnerable to changes in the economic climate affecting the industry, in an unstable international context that differs in many respects from that which prevailed in the second half of the last century. A systemic deterioration6 in nuclear safety and security conditions could result from these profound changes in the national and international context. The ability of dyadic governance between State and Market to support nuclear safety requirements in an unfavourable economic climate is questionable. At European level, this situation is a new factor which tends to make nuclear safety a common issue for the peoples of Europe.

A study of the governance of nuclear activities since their inception reveals a profound evolution, the most recent stage of which, in Europe, is based on the societal recognition of nuclear safety as a common problem (with, in particular, an increase in the power of the European institutions on this issue), over and above the diverse positions of the Member States with regard to nuclear energy. Favoured in particular by the Aarhus Convention (1998), this development has the seeds of a gradual recomposition of nuclear safety governance, with the institutional components of safety interacting in a Common dynamic: 1) the operator (the Market), 2) the State and its institutions and 3) civil society. This move towards triadic governance could ultimately bring about a political rebalancing of the negotiation processes that govern the establishment of nuclear safety rules and standards.”

 

 

Address

  • Nuclear Transparency Watch
  • 38, rue Saint Sabin
  • 75011 PARIS
  • FRANCE