Useful documents

“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.”