15458/05 JPD/ab 1 DG C II

Transcription

1 COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 6 December /05 ATO 126 NOTE from: to: Subject: General Secretariat of the Council Delegations Second WPNS interim report Pursuant to the WPNS working plan, delegations will find attached for their information the above report covering the activities carried out in the second semester of 2005 by the three sub-groups established under the WPNS. This interim report was compiled from information provided, under their responsibilities, by the sub-groups. It does not repeat, for SG1 and 2, the general sections on the mandate and scope nor the general description of tasks that was provided in the 1st interim report (doc.10427/05). Given that the key products of this semester were already circulated as far as SG 1 (pre-study and questionnaire) and SG 2 (questionnaire) are concerned the report is fairly succinct for these two sub-groups /05 JPD/ab 1 DG C II EN

2 ANNEX Second Interim Report (2nd semester 2005) of the Ad hoc Working Party on Nuclear Safety (WPNS) I. INTRODUCTION, HORIZONTAL ISSUES AND TIMETABLE 1. This report outlines the progress made by each of the three sub-groups regarding their work programme as presented in the first interim report (doc /05). Although some slippage affected the completion of certain intermediate tasks by one or the other group, the three subgroups remain confident that they will be able to complete their final reports in time for having the consolidated WPNS report ready by the end of Among the horizontal issues that will need to be addressed at an early stage in 2006 in order to facilitate the preparation of the consolidated WPNS report, one can note: - That, bearing in mind the mandate given to WPNS, it could be useful (at least) for the chairpersons and rapporteurs to conduct a joint reflection on the content and format of the final report, leading to a common view well in advance of the time schedules for the 3rd interim report (June 2006). It could be noted in this respect that it should already be feasible to prepare a significant part of the final report by mid-2006, assuming that the mandate, scope, task description and methodologies are sufficiently fixed. - That needs for additional information, if any, should be identified and requests put forward to that effect. - That possible overlaps and/or gaps should be checked between the subject matter covered by the SGs. 3. In the light of the more detailed timetables provided by each sub-group, noting the caveats relevant to each of them (e.g. timely completion of questionnaire analysis, availability of WENRA and Commission report), the main steps in the overall timetable 1 remain more or less unchanged, namely: - June 2006: third interim status reports from the SGs, WPNS third interim status report, completion of SG3 tasks - September: SG3 final report to WPNS - Second half of 2006: completion of SG 1 and 2 tasks and final reports to WPNS - End of 2006: Final report of WPNS II. State of play of the tasks carried out by the three sub-groups II.1 Sub-group 1 SG1 completed its pre-study report on 20 October (circulated as doc /05). This report starts with an introduction recalling the broad issues investigated by SG1 and some orientations on what could be the meaning of and process leading to, harmonisation and how the final report could be structured. The pre-study report comprises five annexes containing a preliminary description of the context to be studied, including the mechanisms for achieving common approaches. They further include sections with preliminary comments on the processes and mechanisms of the context from the EU point of view, further study issues and relevant documents for the WPNS Subgroup 1 review. Finally there are lists of references and indications of tools needed for the data collection. 1 It is recalled that two formal WPNS meetings are foreseen in the first half of 2006: 1 March and 7 June /05 JPD/ab 2

3 As noted in the pre-study report, SG1 identified the need to collect additional data through a structured questionnaire to be addressed to Member (and Acceding) States and covering tasks 1, 3, 4 and 5. In broad terms, the SG1 questionnaire is composed of: - an introduction setting out the background to the questionnaire and providing instructions for filling in it, - questions concerning the Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) (task 1A), - questions concerning the IAEA Safety Standards (task 3A), - questions concerning the OECD/Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) documents (task 4A), - questions concerning the EC/Nuclear Regulators Working Group documents (task 5A) The finalised version (doc /05) of SG1 questionnaire was sent to Member States and Acceding States on 5 October. The time-schedule is the following: - 10 December 2005 deadline for Member States and Acceding States' answers January 2006: Meeting with SG 1 task leaders, chair and rapporteur to make the first assessment of answers from Member States - 1 March: WPNS meeting for status check, coordination and detailed planning for June: WPNS meeting for status check, coordination and interim report to the Austrian Presidency - December: final report to WPNS II.2 Sub-group 2 Since the first interim report, SG2 has worked on the questionnaire as decided during the WPNS meeting held on 10 June Indeed, for task 1B, 3B, 4B, and 5B, SG2 thought useful to issue a questionnaire to Member States in order to supplement information and facilitate the investigation of certain issues. In this respect, for spent fuel management, radioactive waste management, and decommissioning issues, SG2 took the same approach as SG1 for nuclear safety issues. A first version of SG2 questionnaire was issued and discussed by the WPNS in September. That version was different from the SG1 draft questionnaire, in terms of content and format. Differences, in terms of content, could be explained to a certain extent, insofar as the Joint Convention's review process is at a less advanced stage than the Convention on Nuclear Safety's review process and cannot provide the same level of feedback as SG1. Differences of formats were not acceptable. It was therefore decided to work further on those aspects of SG2 questionnaire. It was also decided to consider separately questions to be submitted to Member States, at a later stage and in the light of the review meeting of the Joint Convention to be held in May Accordingly, a revised draft questionnaire, in a format similar to SG1 one, was prepared. SG2 members met on 21 October to finalize SG2 questionnaire, with the aim to approximate it with SG1 questionnaire, and were able to reach a consensus on the structure and the detailed content of the questionnaire. In broad terms, the SG2 questionnaire is composed of: - an introduction similar to the corresponding part of SG1 questionnaire, setting out the background to the questionnaire and providing instructions for filling in it, - a few preliminary questions (main categories of radioactive waste generators, organizational framework) and a possibility, for the respondent, to make a general comment, with an aim to facilitate the understanding of his answers, 15458/05 JPD/ab 3

4 - questions concerning the IAEA Safety Standards (task 3B),also similar to the corresponding part of SG1 questionnaire (however questions with regard to principles/key issues selected from the Safety Requirements documents are added, notably because the review process for the Joint Convention is less advanced than for Convention on Nuclear Safety), - questions concerning the NEA documents (task 4B), the content of which is slightly different from the corresponding part of SG1 questionnaire, because the context of the radioactive waste management differs markedly from that of nuclear safety, - questions concerning the EC/Euratom documents (task 5B) - and in annex, a preliminary version of questions concerning the Joint Convention (task 1B). The finalised version (doc /05) of SG2 questionnaire was then sent to Member States and Acceding States on 23 November and outlined to the WPNS at its meeting on 25 November. On that basis the time-schedule could be the following: - 10 February 2006: deadline for Member States and Acceding States' answers - 15 June: questionnaire concerning the Joint Convention (and if necessary WENRA) - 31 July: deadline for replies - November: completion of sub-group's tasks II.3 Sub-group 3 1. Mandate and scope SG3's mandate and the scope are established in the WPNS Working Programme (doc. 5574/2/05). According to the Working Programme, the WPNS Action Plan (doc /04) as well as the task descriptions included in the Working Programme, SG3 s target is to carry out a study of financial arrangements for decommissioning of nuclear installations and the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste. The starting point of the whole exercise is established by the 2004 Council Conclusions (10823/04) inviting the Council to engage a wide ranging consultation to facilitate the choice of instrument(s) in the framework of the Euratom Treaty. They reaffirm the importance of adequate financial resources to support the safety of nuclear installations throughout their life and during their decommissioning. The Action Plan recalls that the actions that it lays down should lead to improved consistency and transparency of the Community approach in the fields of nuclear safety and safe management of radioactive waste. This applies to financial resources, which should be available when needed in such a way as to cover the decommissioning costs, taking into account strategies for decommissioning, as well as the costs for the safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste. It is thus SG3's understanding that the Action Plan asks Member States to exchange information on each other s approaches and assess the Commission s annual report to the Parliament on financing of dismantling and decommissioning. 2. Task definition The outcome of SG3's work should be a description of how financing has been organized in each country and how principles and targets are met, not a judgement nor an assessment on the adequacy of Member States systems themselves. The principle of the national responsibility will remain a corner stone /05 JPD/ab 4

5 SG3's final report should enable the Council to draw conclusions and estimate whether there are or will be problems from the economic point of view in the EU to dismantle and decommission the nuclear facilities safely and in due time. A special part of the work and the final report will be SG3's assessment of the Commission s future report to the Parliament concerning the same subject. The framework of the basic questions to be answered by SG3 work is depicted in the figure below. The figure s lay-out follows the Task group division TG 1-3 (see section 5 below): Status quo of Financial Arrangements for Dismantling and Decommissioning in EU How are the member states going to carry out DD? Are their plans clear, credible, covering and safe? Can DD from the economical point of view be started and completed when needed? Are the financial resources managed safely and can we be sure that the financial resources earmarked for DD are not used for non-acceptable purposes? 3. Progress achieved by the end of November 2005 and Working method So far SG3 has - agreed upon the task and main task definitions - fixed the three task groups and the division of the work - listed the main data sources (Commission and other fora) - decided to use the data collected by the Commission in 2005 as the main data source for the its work - received that main data mentioned above - started to elaborate the Commission data in the Task groups - made a draft for the future final report of Subgroup 3 - set a rough schedule for the future work aiming at a preliminary draft report by the end of June 2006 As regards its Working method SG3 proceeds along the following steps i) Identification and selection of relevant principles and criteria ii) Gathering and screening available data according to those principles and criteria iii) Confronting the outcome of this screening with the report of the Commission 15458/05 JPD/ab 5

6 iv) Identifying what and in which form the Subgroup 3 should report to WPNS/AQG Regarding step i): Relevant principles and criteria have already been identified by each three Task group, such as set in the WPNS 1st interim report (10427/05). An important milestone on the subject has been the Inter-institutional Statement of June 2003 (annex to the Directive 2003/54/EC of 23 June 2003 concerning the internal market in electricity, OJEU, L176.37). SG3's principles should be in line with those laid out in this Statement. Regarding step ii): Each Task group shall, for its own field, go through the available data from Member States and screen how those Member States apply those principles according to their own view of the matter. The idea is not to go through all the available data and give a general opinion or to make comments or to establish a general digest of each system in force in the Member States. This work is supposed to be done already by the Commission exploiting the Member States answers to its questionnaire for the Commission 2005 report; SG3 will not duplicate this work. (See also section 2 "task definition" above) Regarding step iii): This step concerns the Commission s future report and will be planned more in detail in the beginning of the year Regarding step iv): SG3 should have a clear idea of existing systems in Member States and set up its opinion on the Commission's Report. The subgroup would thus be ready, through its final report, to support the WPAQ in its work concerning the choice of instrument(s) in the framework of the Euratom Treaty, as requested by the 2004 Council conclusions. This last step (a preliminary report) is planned to be achieved by June 2006, or September at the latest. 4. Data The work is mainly based on existing data. All data sources used have to be listed and mentioned in the final report. Main part of the data has already been listed. The core data is the data collected by the Commission in 2005; most of that core data is already available to the subgroup. By the end of November 2005 each three Task groups has split available country data among its participants for screening. Each Task group picks the data necessary for its task from the common data sources and, when using other, own information or data, specifies it separately. This screening task should be fulfilled by the end of the year The future Commission s report to the Parliament and Council will also be assessed. That part of the screening work will be planned in January/February 2006, as mentioned before. Reports from other fora are to be used as data or a tool, especially to widen the aspects and points of view, to check and assess the sub-group's understanding and criteria. Additionally some systems outside the EU like for example those of the USA and Switzerland, will possibly be studied. That part of the work will be planned more in detail in January /05 JPD/ab 6

7 5. Tasks and Task groups 1, 2 and 3 Each Task group (TG) defines the principles, approach and problems, according to which it explores and analyses the data and picks up the part of the data relevant to its work; TG1 works on the dismantling and decommissioning strategies in the Member States, TG2 on adequacy and availability of the financial resources, TG3 on the transparency aspects Structure of the tasks By the end of November the main questions to be answered by each TG have been stated as seen in the figure below. TG1: Dismantling and Decommissioning Strategies - how is DD defined in the member states, what does it include? - are the definitions clear; is the legislation clear? - are all liabilities which are relevant regarding necessary financial provisions identified and taken into account? -are requirements for the system of financial provisions logical and compatible with DD definitions? - is the basis for estimation of liabilities sound, sustainable and reliable? TG2: Adequacy and Availability - do sufficient financial resources exist for all necessary measurements? - do they exist any time when possibly needed? - are they available any time when needed? - where is the money (assets), controlled by whom/which organ? - what kind of rules or control are there concerning use of the assets? TG3 Transparency and use of assets: - are assets collected and managed so, that identification of them is possible? - are the assets used in acceptable ways? - is the management system credible and is it visible at any moment? All that means that the work will be proceeding in parallel as regards the substance and the three TGs tasks. Each TG concentrates on its own main task, communicating when needed with the two other TGs. SG3 as a whole takes care that all necessary information flows from one TG to another. Especially TG1 will probably need information and/or cooperation from/with SG2 when finalizing its screening of the data. Progress achieved in Task groups work by the end of Nov 2005 TG 1 The sub-task defined for TG1 consists in providing basic information about strategies in the EU Member States and the candidate countries Bulgaria and Romania for decommissioning and dismantling (D&D) of Nuclear Power Plants including spent nuclear fuel and radwaste management. The information is relevant also for the TG2 subtask. TG1 has now discussed and finalized its data collection template /05 JPD/ab 7

8 Active data collection started in October. In a first round the data source selected comprises the answers of the Member States to a Commission's Questionnaire (EC Contract No. TREN/04/NUCL/S ). The work has been sub-divided between the TG1 members according to countries. Generally, all members focus on their home country first. Every member is responsible for min 1/max 2 countries additionally. TG1 work revealed so far that additional data sources would be needed. Some relevant documents were already identified by TG1. They will be assembled and made available for general use by SG3. First round data collection and internal quality assurance is intended to be complete end of November. The main portion of data collection based on all essential sources available should be finished by the end of TG 2 TG2 has divided the screening work by items so that each participant is responsible for certain specific questions and will pick up answers for those (see table below). Each member of TG2 responsible for an item should go through those questions to find out the rationale of the system of the country concerning this criteria. Other data than the Commission s questionnaire may obviously be used in this work, especially those provided by the TG1. This part of TG2's screening work is ongoing and will mainly, concerning Commission's data, be completed by the end of Table: Items to be screened and elaborated by TG2 Item Issues to be addressed Rhythm and period of constitution of the financial resources. Setting of financial resources during the operating period of the installation: launching of the constitution, checking and auditing method of this constitution; discretion in management of funds; etc. Security Sanctification Proportionality competition and To be sure that the amount and liquidity of the assets will be at the appropriate level when needed: which general management frame, which control, existence of a validation? Are the assets protected in case of bankruptcy or early closing or any other incident? Adequacy of the frozen resources for dismantling: not an improper amount. TG 3 In order to streamline TG3's work, a template has been developed for data collection. When developing the template, discussion on the correct handling of the terms has been carried out. A schedule and guidance for the approach and working method has been given by the task group leader to TG3 members. The main part (the first round ) of the screening should be completed this year /05 JPD/ab 8

9 Information relating to the financial provisions for D&D should be gathered on three main aspects: i) creation/establishment, for example - the nature (and legal personality) of the financial resources/funding system is to be recognized: internal/external/combination? - the existence of so called fall back option ( what, if assets are needed before that was planned ), general adaptation to new circumstances ii) management and use, for example - reporting systems, calculation methods etc - investment of the funds, requirements for minimum liquidity etc - conditions for the final use of the assets taking the decommissioning strategies into account etc iii) transparency - this aspect is connected to the aspects i) and ii) described above: - identification, visibility, accountability - verification, auditing and control of the funds 6. Summary of the schedule for the future work The main raw data will be collected and listed by the end of 2005 and screened roughly by the beginning of January Analysis of the data, other work and rough reporting of the Task groups will be done by the end of May Before that, by the end of March 2006, Task groups will provide each other with the information and results of their screening, necessary for the other Task groups and the whole SG3 work to proceed. In January the assessment of the Commission's future report to the Parliament will be planned in the SG3 and a schedule set for the working steps. Input and ideas for the SG s work from other fora s reports should be looked up and screened in the beginning of 2006, and the findings combined in the reporting during the spring. A draft of the final report is planned to be ready by the end of June 2006, to be finalized during the following months. The report is planned to be ready by the end of September /05 JPD/ab 9