2 Safety of nuclear installations
| (35063)
11064/13
+ ADDs 1-4
COM(13) 343
| Draft proposal presented for the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee under Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty, for a Council Directive amending Council Directive 2009/71/Euratom establishing a Community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations
|
| Legal base | See para 2.4 below
|
| Document originated | 13 June 2013
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 20 June 2013
|
| Department | Energy and Climate Change
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 2 July 2013
|
| Previous Committee Report | None, but see footnotes
|
| Discussion in Council | See para 2.4 below
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further developments awaited
|
Background
2.1 Although the responsibility for the safety of nuclear
installations rests with Member States and licence holders, Article
30 of the Euratom Treaty provides for the establishment of basic
standards for protecting the health of workers and the general
public against ionising radiation, and these are set out in Council
Directive 96/29/Euratom. Also, after a subsequent case in the
European Court of Justice had ruled[5]
that the Community also shared competences with the Member States
in areas covered by the Convention on Nuclear Safety, the Council
eventually adopted, after much tortuous discussion,[6]
Directive 2009/71/Euratom.
2.2 This establishes a Community framework for
the safety of nuclear installations. In particular, it requires
Member States to have a national legislative, regulatory and organisational
framework which establishes responsibilities for the adoption
of national safety requirements, the provision of a system for
the licensing of nuclear installations, and of a system of nuclear
safety supervision, and enforcement actions. Member States must
also establish a competent regulatory authority which is functionally
separate from any other body concerned with nuclear energy; such
a body must be given the resources necessary to fulfil its obligations
and licence holders should be required to demonstrate compliance
with national safety requirements, with this being verified through
assessment and inspections. Member States must also have in place
arrangements for the education and training of staff with nuclear
safety responsibilities; ensure that relevant information is made
available to workers and the general public; and provide regular
reports to the Commission on the implementation of the Directive.
2.3 Although the overall safety record of the
140 or so nuclear power plants within the EU is good, the European
Council decided in March 2011, in the wake of the Fukushima accident,
that these should each be subjected to a "stress test",
and that the EU should review its nuclear safety legislative framework
in the light of the lessons to be learned from that accident.
The Commission subsequently set out its conclusions in a Communication[7]
on October 2012, which said that the lessons learned from Fukushima
and from the stress tests needed to be reflected in the legislative
framework, notably as regards the differences between Member States
and the gaps in managing key safety issues. In particular, it
said that the Nuclear Safety Directive should be amended as regards
its procedures and framework, the role and means of regulatory
authorities, openness and transparency, and monitoring and verification.
The current proposal
2.4 The Commission has now produced this draft
Council Directive, which it has presented to the European Economic
and Social Committee for comments, and which (we understand) will
then be submitted to the Council in the autumn as a formal proposal
under Articles 31 and 32 Euratom. The Commission also says that
the proposed amendments would improve the current regulatory framework
by:
- strengthening the role and
effective independence of the national regulatory authorities;
- enhancing transparency on nuclear safety matters;
- strengthening existing principles, and introducing
new general nuclear safety objectives and requirements, addressing
specific technical issues across the entire lifecycle of nuclear
installations;
- reinforcing monitoring and exchange of experiences,
by establishing a European system of peer reviews; and
- establishing a mechanism for developing EU-wide
harmonised nuclear safety guidelines.
The Government's view
2.5 In her Explanatory Memorandum of 2 July 2013,
the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for
Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma) says that, as the proposal
has yet to be formally put to the Council, there are no immediate
impacts on current UK legislation, but that, should one be presented
as drafted, there could be a need to change the UK's nuclear safety
regime. She adds that it will also be necessary to ensure that
the competences of the Member States in this area are respected,
and that the degree of prescription in the proposal could result
in restrictions on the ability of Member States to act in accordance
with national circumstances, with some regulatory safety decisions
being taken centrally by the Commission, rather than by national
nuclear safety regulatory authorities.
2.6 The Minister says that the Government's position
is that safety remains a top priority, with measures being in
place to ensure that the lessons are learnt from the Fukushima
accident, and its view is that the focus of the Commission and
Member States should be on ensuring the proper implementation
of the current Nuclear Safety Directive. However, she says that,
where there is robust evidence to support the need for change,
the Government will work with the Commission and other Member
States to ensure that the EU nuclear safety regime is appropriately
enhanced, but she cautions that, notwithstanding the Commission's
wish to be seen to be taking firm and swift action, the proposal
fails to demonstrate sufficient evidence to support the need for
legislative changes. Instead, it would add considerable detail
and prescription to the existing arrangements, and restrict the
scope for interpretation and implementation, and would hence appear
to be inconsistent with the role of Member States as contemplated
by Article 33 of the Euratom Treaty in relation to implementation
of Directives.
2.7 More specifically, the Minister comments
that the proposal would result in an increased role for the Commission
in relation to peer reviews of Member States' nuclear safety regimes
and performance, giving it in practice the power to decide which
areas or topics are to be peer reviewed, should Member States
not agree this themselves, as well as the power to oversee and
drive the implementation of actions by Member States following
these reviews. She comments that this would appear to be politically,
rather than safety, driven.
2.8 She also notes that, although the proposal
seeks to ensure the independence of national nuclear safety regulators
— which is welcome in principle, and is in line with the
measures being taken to establish the UK regulator (the Office
for Nuclear Regulation) as a statutory corporation — the
proposal as drafted could undermine the principle which it is
trying to achieve. For example, it confuses the lines of accountability
for nuclear safety between regulators and national Governments,
and also appears to make national regulators accountable to the
Commission (which, by design or by accident, undermines the principle
of regulatory independence and the effectiveness of national nuclear
safety regulators). Consequently, this point in particular will
need to be addressed in order for the proposal to be acceptable.
2.9 The Minister says that the Government will
therefore work with the Commission and other Member States to
seek to ensure that, before the proposal is considered for adoption
by the Council, it is amended so that any new legislative requirements
are evidence-based, do not extend existing Commission competences,
and have the desired effect of putting in place proportionate
measures which are consistent with the concept of seeking continuous
improvements to nuclear safety.
Conclusion
2.10 As we understand it, this is a draft
Council Directive, which, in the light of the reactions of
the European Economic and Social Committee, will be followed by
a formal proposal to the Council in the autumn, and we would expect
that document to provide the main focus for scrutiny. However,
as this draft covers an area of some importance, and contains
a number of elements over which the Government has considerable
reservations, not least about the enhanced powers it would give
to the Commission, we are drawing it to the attention of the House.
We are also holding it under scrutiny until such time as the formal
proposal has been tabled.
5 Case C-29/99 Commission v. Council. Back
6
(24577) 8990/3: see HC 63-xxix (2002-03), chapter 8 (10 July 2003),
HC 42-iii (2003-04), chapter 3 (17 December 2003), HC 42-xxiii
(2003-04), chapter 4 (16 June 2004) and HC 19-iii (2008-09), chapter
3 (14 January 2009), (24951) 12386/04: see HC 42-xxxiii (2003-04),
chapter 7 (20 October 2004) and HC 19-iii (2008-09), chapter 3
(14 January 2009), (30232) 16537/08: see HC 19-iii (2008-09),
chapter 3 (14 January 2009) and HC 19-xx (2008-09), chapter 4
(17 June 2009). Back
7
(34290) 14400/12: see HC 86-xvi (2012-13), chapter 1 (24 October
2012). Back
|
