EUROPEAN DIARY:EU proposals to control the safety of nuclear plants have foundered before; a more modest approach may have more success, writes Jamie Smyth
AMID ALL the hype surrounding the launch of the European Commission's €200 billion economic recovery package last week barely anyone noticed that Brussels moved to strengthen nuclear safety rules in Europe.
On Wednesday the commission published a proposal for a nuclear safety directive, which aims to establish basic obligations and general principles for the safety of nuclear installations while enhancing the role of national regulators. "This directive will benefit EU citizens by improving their safety and giving them legal certainty," said energy commissioner Andris Piebalgs in a brief statement issued on a day when most of Europe's media were focusing elsewhere.
There was no press conference with the commissioner and the launch was brought forward by a day at the last minute, which is unusual for a media-savvy commission that wants to show it cares for public safety.
Ever since the Chernobyl nuclear reactor in the Ukraine exploded in 1986 spewing radioactive dust all across Europe nuclear energy has been a hot topic. The disaster sparked a rethink of the potential risks of using nuclear energy, eventually prompting some states such as Italy and Germany to phase out their nuclear plants and shift to other energy sources.
But in recent years the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change and growing fears over the EU's reliance on Russia oil and gas has brought nuclear energy back in vogue. Finland is currently building the first new nuclear reactor in Europe in several years while Britain is mulling plans to commission a whole new suite of nuclear plants.
So why is Brussels acting coy about its plans to boost safety for European citizens? Footnote one on the bottom of the commission press release perhaps offers a clue. It refers to a previous commission proposal for a directive on the safe management of the spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste launched in 2004. This directive would have given the Union comprehensive powers over states' nuclear safety policies, particularly the way they dispose of highly toxic spent nuclear fuel.
"A Community intervention is indispensable to guarantee the maintenance of a high level of nuclear safety within the enlarged European Union," outlined the 2004 directive, which was first discussed under the Irish presidency of the EU in 2004.
But giving Brussels legally binding oversight powers over member states' nuclear facilities was vociferously opposed by national capitals, which had already shot down a previous commission proposal on nuclear safety launched a year earlier.
"Nuclear power proved just too strategic an industry for member states to want to hand over authority to Brussels, and the proposal ran into the sand, which is where it has stayed," noted Nuclear Engineering Internationalmagazine, one of the few media organisations to cover the launch of the proposed nuclear safety directive last week.
It is hardly surprising that the commission is a little hesitant to crank up its PR machine on the issue given that two previous efforts have been shot down in the council of ministers. There are also questions over whether the new proposal will be accepted this time and whether it has been watered down so much it can actually improve the safety of nuclear plants in Europe - some of which the commission admit fall below international safety standards.
Greenpeace energy campaigner Jan Haverkamp says the new directive would do nothing to reduce the risk of nuclear accidents. "Even though the commission highlights in its proposal that countries are allowed to adopt stronger safety rules than those mandated, EU countries that have the lowest nuclear safety standards will have no incentive to make any improvements," he said in a brief note on the proposed legislation issued last week.
The big change in the new proposal compared to the 2004 proposal is that the primacy of national regulators for the nuclear industry is underlined. In other words, national regulators rather than European regulators will be scrutinising national nuclear facilities - a situation that many green campaigners feels enables governments to cover up poor safety standards.
But not all green campaigners are so dismissive. Minister for the Environment John Gormley said governments would have to provide adequate resources to support the safety of nuclear installations and to cover decommissioning costs, as well as make suitable arrangements for the management of waste if the new directive is accepted.
The proposal also attempts to beef up the independence of national regulators, which the commission fears in some states simply rubber-stamp government decisions on nuclear energy. It calls for adequate resources to be given to regulators, which should face peer review every 10 years. EU states would also have to respect the International Atomic Energy Agency safety guidelines under the directive creating a common reference framework for national nuclear safety systems.
The low-key launch accorded to the proposal suggests it could yet fall foul of nuclear industry lobbying. But if the industry and pro-nuclear states are serious about rebuilding the brand image of nuclear energy as a clean alternative to fossil fuels perhaps it will be a case of third time lucky for the nuclear safety directive.