Le paquet nucléaire[en][de] 

Nuclear safety is currently the responsibility of the Member States. In view of the enlargement, the Commission has on several occasions expressed its concerns about the safety of nuclear plants in some of the candidate countries. Five of the ten new Member States have older nuclear power plants based on the old, less safe, Soviet design.

In its memorandum for the nuclear package, the Commission therefore states that it is no longer possible to consider nuclear safety from a purely national perspective. It says that "only a common approach can guarantee that high nuclear safety standards will be maintained in an enlarged 25- or even 28-member Union".

On 6 November 2002, the Commission proposed two draft directives on the safety of nuclear power plants and the processing of radioactive waste. Following the opinion of the Article 31 group, the Commission revised the directive and published a new draft in January 2003.

The new proposals would give the Commission more supervisory power over the nuclear sector in all current and future EU Member States. The Commission's "nuclear package" consists of different legislative proposals:

1. A proposal for a  directive on the safety of nuclear installations , defining the basic obligations and general principles during operation and decommissioning, including:

• common safety standards and monitoring mechanisms, based on the internationally recognised principles of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and WENRA (Western European Nuclear Regulators' Association) rules;
• the requirement for all Member States to have an independent safety authority;
• a peer review system to inspect the inspectors: the Commission states that it has no plans to conduct on-the-spot safety inspections at nuclear installations and that there is no intention, under any circumstances, of setting up a corps of European inspectors;
• Community rules for the constitution, management and use of decommissioning funds to ensure that sufficient funds will be available to carry out decommissioning operations under conditions protecting the general public and the environment from ionising radiation.  

2. A proposal for a  directive on radioactive waste to produce a clear, transparent response in reasonable time to the issue of how to deal with radioactive waste, with the following elements:

• priority to geological burial of waste as the safest method of disposal known at present;
• obligation for all Member States to adopt, according to a pre-set timetable, national programmes for the disposal of radioactive wastes: decision on burial sites for highly radioactive wastes by 2008 at the latest and sites operational at the latest by 2018. For low-activity, short-life waste, arrangements must be ready at the latest by 2013;
• more support and more funding for research on waste management.   

In its accompanying  communication on nuclear safety in the EU , the Commission draws attention to the fact that the Green Paper on Energy Supply kept nuclear energy as option open to those Member States who would like it. It also explains the need for a comprehensive approach to nuclear safety 

The most contentious issues arising from the Commission's proposals concern the following questions: 

• Should the 'nuclear package' be legally binding?
• Does the package unfairly promote the nuclear sector? (This is of particular concern in the light of the nuclear phase-out in some countries)
• Does the proposal undermine the principle of subsidiarity?
• How should decommissioning be financed?
• Should there be a firm time table for decommissioning?  

On 8 September 2004, Energy Commissioner Loyola de Palacio, who is keen to see the legislation approved before the end of her term in October, proposed a new draft for the nuclear package. The new proposals present a watered down version, under which the Commission would take a much less powerful role on nuclear safety issues than initially envisaged. However, the directives would still be binding for Member States. 

De Palacio considers the directives "key instruments for ensuring greater transparency, rationalising the debate and dispelling public fears regarding this source of energy".

The  new proposals contain the following changes:

Nuclear Safety Directive

• Subsidiarity (Art. 4)  : This new article responds to Member States' concerns over interference from the Commission in national legislation by stating that the responsibility for nuclear safety rests with the national authorities and the operators. 
• Decommissioning funds (Art.9) : Member States are no longer required to provide securely ring-fenced funds for dismantling nuclear power stations. This proposal had met with strong opposition particularly from Germany. However, there is still an obligation to "ensure that adequate financial resources are available".
• National Regulatory Committee (Art. 12) : The Commission proposes setting up a regulatory committee, composed of national regulatory bodies and chaired by the Commission. This committee should define guidelines for national reports and assess them.  

Nuclear Waste Management Directive  

• Waste disposal programmes (Art. 4): The new proposals no longer speficy deep geological waste disposal as a legal requirement, but do require Member States to give priority to this treatment if possible.
• Timetable (Art. 5): Member States would be required to draft long-term national management programmes for radioactive waste but the original approach of a firm timetable has been abandoned. However, the Commission indicated it should have the power to act if it were not to receive these programmes. 

Member States were divided over the initial Commissions proposals. In a letter to Commission President Romano Prodi,  Germany and the  UK voiced their concerns, stating that they did not expect the initiative to lead to a real improvement in nuclear safety. They also emphasised their national competence in nuclear safety and the planning of nuclear plants, and they criticised the detailed regulations with regard to nuclear decommissioning funds proposed by the Commission, saying that they were inappropriate and incompatible with the principle of subsidiarity.  Sweden, Finland,  Lithuania, Slovenia the Czech Republic and Hungary  were also opposed to the package.

Initial reactions to the new Commission proposals of September 2004 do not indicate that the position of the opponents has changed dramatically. "We are struggling to find what is new in the proposals, so at this stage, the UK position remains the same. There is no evidence that the proposed system would improve nuclear safety in Europe, but there is a real danger that it might be damaging to the national systems in place. My understanding is that none of the opposing countries will move away from their stance, and others might reconsider their position, too," a  UK official told EurActiv. A  German official confirmed this, saying that the position of the German government had not changed. 

The  Parliament has in its report underlined the national responsibility for nuclear installation and called for a Regulatory Authority Committee, in which national regulatory bodies would be represented, to carry out reviews and horizontal controls in the area of nuclear safety. On the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste, the EP has underlined that certain methods of disposal of radioactive waste should be excluded for environmental reasons, including dumping at sea, disposal in under-sea repositories and disposal in space. While MEPs have welcomed the idea of setting deep geological disposals as an effective solution for high-level and long-lived radioactive waste, they disagree with the Commission's proposal for a single timetable for all Member States. The EP therefore suggests a two step approach towards the development of deep geological disposal sites.

FORATOM , the organisation representing the EU nuclear sector, says that a layer of standards at EU level in the area of nuclear safety would not add any value, as the IAEA's safety system was the only appropriate framework to make further progress. The industry also points out that any new legislation should reaffirm that primary responsibility for nuclear safety lies with the plant operators. On the issue of nuclear waste, FORATOM stresses that all radioactive waste is currently safely managed under independent regulatory control, but it welcomes the Commission's proposal for permanent solutions as the key for public confidence in the long-term future of nuclear energy in the EU.

EURELECTRIC , the European union of the electricity industry, challenges the Commission's legal capacity in the area of nuclear safety, calling for Member States to retain full national responsibility. A position paper points out that the safety of nuclear power plants in Europe is already excellent and has been steadily improving.

Greenpeace reacted with disappointment to the proposals from "nuclear power Commissioner" Loyola de Palacio, saying that the proposals are misleading. While ostensibly designed to increase nuclear safety, they hide their true purpose, which is to revitalise the nuclear industry. Greenpeace urges the EU not to subsidise the ailing industry, but to use taxpayers' money for clean energy instead.

Friends of the Earth also called for a suspension of the nuclear package, saying that it represents a co-ordinated effort to prepare the ground for the further development of atomic power in an enlarged EU. The organisation stated that the 1957 Euratom treaty needed radical reform, as it was out of date and undemocratic.