Procedure completed, awaiting publication in Official Journal
2013/0340(NLE) Community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations
Lead committee dossier: ITRE/7/14357
Legal Basis Euratom Treaty A 031, Euratom Treaty A 032
| Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Opinion | ENVI | ||
| Lead | ITRE | JORDAN Romana (PPE) | CORREIA DE CAMPOS António Fernando (S&D), PANAYOTOV Vladko Todorov (ALDE), RIVASI Michèle (Verts/ALE), TOŠENOVSKÝ Evžen (ECR), RANSDORF Miloslav (GUE/NGL) |
| Opinion | JURI | REGNER Evelyn (S&D) |
Legal Basis Euratom Treaty A 031, Euratom Treaty A 032
Subjects
Activites
- #3327
-
2014/07/08
Council Meeting
-
2014/07/08
End of procedure in Parliament
-
2014/07/08
Act adopted by Council after consultation of Parliament
-
2014/04/02
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
-
T7-0274/2014
summary
The European Parliament adopted by 438 votes to 154, with 37 abstentions, in the framework of a special legislative procedure (consultation of Parliament) a legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 2009/71/EURATOM establishing a Community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations. Parliament approved the Commission proposal subject to the following amendments: Objectives: Members stated that the amending directive should aim to: (i) ensure that Member States saw to it that nuclear installations were designed so as to limit unauthorised radioactive releases to a minimum; (ii) promote and enhance nuclear safety culture. Definitions: the report proposed that the definitions be aligned as much as possible with the terminology used by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in order to allow for a consistency with globally defined standards and procedures. To allow for consistency with IAEA definitions, the definition ‘abnormal event’ was deleted and replaced with the definition of "incident" meaning any unintended event, including operating errors, equipment failures, initiating events, accident precursors, etc the consequences or potential consequences of which are not negligible from the point of view of protection or safety. ‘Severe accident' means accident conditions more severe than a design basis accident and involving significant core degradation. Competent regulatory authority: the national framework must require that the competent regulatory authority: is legally separate from any other public or private entity concerned with the promotion or utilisation of nuclear energy or electricity production; establishes a transparent regulatory decision-making process, founded on objective and verifiable safety-related criteria; has its own appropriate budget allocations, and provisions for the adequate generation of new and management of existing knowledge, expertise and skills; employs an appropriate number of staff, all of whom, in particular politically appointed board members; possess the necessary qualifications, experience and expertise to fulfil its obligations and that have access to external scientific and technical resources. Persons with executive responsibility within the competent regulatory authority should be appointed according to clearly defined procedures and requirements for appointment. They may be relieved from office during their term especially if they do not comply with the requirements of independence set out in this Article or have been guilty of misconduct under national law. The competent regulatory authority must be able to carry out enforcement actions, including penalties and provide appropriate conditions for the research and development activities needed to develop the necessary knowledge base and to support the management of expertise for the regulatory process. Member States also called for licence holders to provide for and maintain adequate financial and human resources to fulfil their obligations with respect to nuclear safety of a nuclear installation, including during and after its decommissioning. Transparency: Parliament recommended ensuring a widespread and transparent communication process including, where appropriate, by regular information and consultation of citizens. The Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters is recalled in this regard. The process should also cover significant information such as siting, construction, extension, commissioning, operation, operation beyond design service life, final shutdown and decommissioning. The public should be given early and effective opportunities to participate in the environmental impact assessment of nuclear installations Safety objectives for nuclear installations: Members recommended that nuclear installations should be designed, sited, constructed, and decommissioned with the objective of preventing accidents and radioactive releases and, should an accident occur, mitigating its effects and preventing radioactive releases and large, long-term, off-site contamination. The frequency of external natural and man-made hazards should be minimised and their impact and their impact should be as low as reasonably practicable. The cumulative risks associated with the presence nearby of other hazardous (Seveso III-type) industrial installations should also be taken into account in the national framework. Peer Reviews: Parliament suggested that Member States should at least every eight years (instead of 10) arrange for periodic self-assessments of their national framework and competent regulatory authorities. The topic of the first topical peer review should be decided not later than 3 years after entry into force of the directive. The Nuclear Safety Regulator Group (ENSREG) which had the experience of the European stress tests exercise and was composed of all Union nuclear safety regulators and the Commission should be closely involved in the selection of the topics subject to regular peer reviews, in the organisation of those topical peer reviews and in ensuring their follow-up. The results of the topical peer reviews should be used to foster discussions in the nuclear community which potentially could lead to the development of a set of harmonised Community nuclear safety criteria in the future. The European Parliament should be regularly informed about the results of the peer reviews as well as about related measures and plans.
-
T7-0274/2014
summary
-
2014/03/25
Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
-
A7-0252/2014
summary
The Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, in the framework of a special legislative procedure (consultation of Parliament) adopted the report by Romana JORDAN (EPP, SI) on the proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 2009/71/EURATOM establishing a Community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations The committee approved the Commission proposal with the following amendments: Objectives: the amending directive must aim to: i) ensure that Member States saw to it that nuclear installations were designed so as to limit unauthorised radioactive releases to a minimum; (ii) promote and enhance nuclear safety culture. Definitions: the report proposed that the definitions be aligned as much as possible with the terminology used by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in order to allow for a consistency with globally defined standards and procedures. To allow for consistency with IAEA definitions, the definition ‘abnormal event’ was deleted and replaced with the definition of "incident". ‘Severe accident' means accident conditions more severe than a design basis accident and involving significant core degradation. Competent regulatory authority: the national framework must require that the competent regulatory authority: · is legally separate from any other public or private entity concerned with the promotion or utilisation of nuclear energy or electricity production; · establishes a transparent regulatory decision-making process, founded on objective and verifiable safety-related criteria; · has its own appropriate budget allocations, and provisions for the adequate generation of new and management of existing knowledge, expertise and skills; · employs an appropriate number of staff, all of whom, in particular politically appointed board members; possess the necessary qualifications, experience and expertise to fulfil its obligations and that have access to external scientific and technical resources. Persons with executive responsibility within the competent regulatory authority shall be appointed according to clearly defined procedures and requirements for appointment. They may be relieved from office during their term especially if they do not comply with the requirements of independence set out in this Article or have been guilty of misconduct under national law. The competent regulatory authority must be able to carry out enforcement actions, including penalties and provide appropriate conditions for the research and development activities needed to develop the necessary knowledge base and to support the management of expertise for the regulatory process. Transparency: the report recommended ensuring a widespread and transparent communication process including, where appropriate, by regular information and consultation of citizens. The process shall also cover significant information such as siting, construction, extension, commissioning, operation, operation beyond design service life, final shutdown and decommissioning. The public shall be given early and effective opportunities to participate in the environmental impact assessment of nuclear installations Safety objectives for nuclear installations: Members recommended that nuclear installations should be designed, sited, constructed, and decommissioned with the objective of preventing accidents and radioactive releases and, should an accident occur, mitigating its effects and preventing radioactive releases and large, long-term, off-site contamination. Peer Reviews: the report strengthened the provisions of periodic self-assessments and stated that at least every 6 years, a system of topical peer reviews must take place. The topic of the first topical peer review shall be decided not later than 3 years after entry into force of the directive. The Nuclear Safety Regulator Group (ENSREG) which had the experience of the European stress tests exercise and was composed of all Union nuclear safety regulators and the Commission should be closely involved in the selection of the topics subject to regular peer reviews, in the organisation of those topical peer reviews and in ensuring their follow-up. The results of the topical peer reviews should be used to foster discussions in the nuclear community which potentially could lead to the development of a set of harmonised Community nuclear safety criteria in the future. The European Parliament should be regularly informed about the results of the peer reviews as well as about related measures and plans.
-
A7-0252/2014
summary
-
2014/03/18
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
-
2013/11/18
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
-
2013/10/17
Legislative proposal published
-
COM(2013)0715
summary
PURPOSE: to amend Directive 2009/71/EURATOM establishing a Community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations with a view to improving nuclear safety and to take account of the lessons learned from the Fukushima accident in Japan. PROPOSED ACT: Council Directive. ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the Council adopts the act after consulting the European Parliament but without being obliged to follow its opinion. BACKGROUND: the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan in 2011 renewed attention worldwide on the measures needed to minimise risk and ensure the most robust levels of nuclear safety. Based on a mandate from the European Council in March 2011, the Commission, together with the European Nuclear Safety Regulator Group ('ENSREG'), carried out Union wide comprehensive risk and safety assessments of nuclear power plants ('stress tests'). The results identified a number of improvements which could be implemented in nuclear safety approaches and industry practices in the participating countries. Moreover, the European Council also mandated the Commission to review the existing legal and regulatory framework for the safety of nuclear installations and propose any improvements that may be necessary. The European Council also stressed that the highest standards for nuclear safety should be implemented and continuously improved in the EU. IMPACT ASSESSMENT: the Commission analysed the challenges of ensuring sufficient levels of nuclear safety in the EU. It defines the general and specific objectives for enhancing the prevention and mitigation of nuclear accidents. LEGAL BASIS: Articles 31 and 32 of the Euratom Treaty. CONTENT: the proposal strengthens the existing provisions of the Nuclear Safety Directive 2009/71/EURATOM with the overall aim of continuously improving nuclear safety and its regulation at EU level. Its main elements are as follows: Objectives: a new objective is proposed. It aims at ensuring the avoidance of radioactive releases during all stages of the lifecycle of nuclear installations (siting, design, construction, commissioning, operation, decommissioning). The national safety requirements should cover all stages of the lifecycle of nuclear installations. Competent regulatory authority: the proposal defines strong and effective benchmark criteria and requirements to guarantee the effective independence of regulators. New requirements include ensuring effective independence in decision-making, own appropriate budget allocations and autonomy in implementation, clear requirements for the appointment and dismissal of staff, avoidance and resolution of conflicts of interests, and staffing levels with the necessary qualifications, experience and expertise. The core task of the competent regulatory authority to define national nuclear safety requirements is added to the existing catalogue of regulatory competencies. Transparency: the proposal provides that both the competent regulatory authority and the licence holder are required to develop a transparency strategy, which covers information provision under normal operating conditions of nuclear installations as well as communication in case of accident or abnormal event conditions. The role of the public is fully acknowledged through the requirement that it effectively participates in the licensing process of nuclear installations. Nuclear Safety Objectives: the current Nuclear Safety Directive does not include specific requirements for the different stages of the lifecycle of nuclear installations. The amendments seek to: introduce general safety objectives for nuclear installations which reflect the progress achieved at the level of WENRA in developing safety objectives for new NPPs; provide more detailed provisions are laid down for different life-cycle phases of nuclear installations; provide methodological requirements concerning the siting, design, construction, commissioning, operation and decommissioning of nuclear installations. On-site emergency preparedness and response: the new proposed measures give indications on the planning and organisational measures that should be provided by the licence holder. As an example of new requirements, an on-site emergency response centre is required for a nuclear installation, sufficiently protected against the effects from external events and severe accidents, including radiological ones, and equipped with the necessary material to mitigate the effects of severe accidents. Peer-reviews: new provisions are set out on self-assessments and peer-reviews of nuclear installations based on nuclear safety topics selected by the Member States jointly and in close coordination with the Commission. Each Member State has to define a methodology for the implementation of the technical recommendations from the peer review process. Should the Commission identify substantial deviations or delays in the implementation of the technical recommendations from the peer review process, the Commission should invite the competent regulatory authorities of Member States not concerned to organise and carry out a verification mission to get a full picture of the situation and inform the Member State concerned about possible measures to remedy any identified shortcomings. In case of an accident with off-site consequences, a special peer review should be arranged. BUDGETARY IMPLICATION: the proposal has no budgetary implications for the EU budget.
- DG {'url': 'http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy/index_en.htm', 'title': 'Energy'}, OETTINGER Günther
-
COM(2013)0715
summary
Documents
- Legislative proposal published: COM(2013)0715
- Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A7-0252/2014
- Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T7-0274/2014
| Amendments | Dossier |
| 193 |
2013/0340(NLE)
2014/02/19
ITRE
184 amendments...
Amendment 100 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 3 – paragraph 15 Amendment 101 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 3 – paragraph 16 a (new) 16a. 'design extension conditions' are accident conditions that are not considered for design basis accidents, but that are considered in the design process of the facility in accordance with best estimate methodology, and for which releases of radioactive material are kept within acceptable limits. Design extension conditions could include severe accident conditions.
Amendment 102 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 3 – paragraph 17 a (new) 17a. 'verification' means an investigation process while we make sure that products of the phase of system, system component, method, calculation tool, computer program, development and production meet all requirements of the previous phase.
Amendment 103 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point a Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 4 – paragraph 1 1. Member States shall establish and maintain a national legislative, regulatory, administrative and organisational framework (hereinafter referred to as the ‘national framework’) for
Amendment 104 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point d a (new) Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 4 – paragraph 2 (da) paragraph 2 is replaced by the following: "2. Member States shall ensure that the national framework is maintained and improved
Amendment 105 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point a (a) is legally and functionally separate from any other public or private entity concerned with the promotion or utilisation of nuclear energy or electricity production;
Amendment 106 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point a is functionally and legally separate from any other public or private entity concerned with the promotion or utilisation of nuclear energy or electricity production;
Amendment 107 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point d (d) has its own appropriate budget allocations, with autonomy in the implementation of the allocated budget. The financing mechanism and the budget allocation process shall be clearly defined in the national framework
Amendment 108 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point d a (new) da) employs staff with the necessary qualifications, experience and expertise in senior administrative posts (directorates-general and sub-directorates-general), without their having occupied, for at least the previous ten years, a position of high responsibility in any other public or private entity concerned with the promotion, production or utilisation of nuclear energy;
Amendment 109 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point e (e) employs an appropriate number of staff with the necessary qualifications, experience and expertise
Amendment 110 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Directive 2009/71/EURATOM Article 5–paragraph 2 – point e (e) employs an appropriate number of staff
Amendment 111 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point e (e) employs an appropriate number of staff with the necessary qualifications, experience and expertise, provides them with continuous training and can guarantee their independence should any conflict of interest arise;
Amendment 112 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Directive 2009/71 Euratom Article 5 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. The competent regulatory authority shall be a member of an independent and autonomous European umbrella organisation for safety and control that needs to be set-up, the sole objective of which is to secure overall safety. The umbrella organisation shall be composed of independent and technically suited experts and receive sufficient competences and powers to create measures or perform actions that guarantee the highest nuclear safety achievable in the Union.
Amendment 113 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Directive 2009/71/Euratom, Article 5 – paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Persons with executive responsibility within the competent regulatory authority shall be appointed according to clearly defined procedures and requirements for appointment. They may be relieved from office during their term especially if they do not comply with the requirements of independence set out in this Article or have been guilty of misconduct under national law. An appropriate cooling-off period for posts with a potential conflict of interest shall be defined.
Amendment 114 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Directive 2009/71 EURATOM Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point b (b) to require the licence holder to comply with national nuclear safety requirements and the terms of the relevant licence; if the licence holder were not to comply with the safety requirement, the regulatory authority has the possibility to make the licence holder to cease his activities;
Amendment 115 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point e (e) to carry out enforcement actions, including penalties in accordance with Article 9a and suspending the operation of a nuclear installation in accordance with the
Amendment 116 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 7 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point f (new) (f) to provide appropriate conditions for the research and development activities needed to develop the necessary knowledge base and to support the management of expertise for the regulatory process.
Amendment 117 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point a Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 6 – paragraph1 1. Member States shall ensure that the national framework requires that the
Amendment 118 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point a Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 6 – paragraph 1 1. Member States shall ensure that the national framework requires that the
Amendment 119 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 6– paragraph 2 Member States shall ensure that the national framework in place requires licence holders, under the supervision of the competent regulatory authority, to regularly assess and verify, and continuously improve
Amendment 120 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 6– paragraph 2 2. Member States shall ensure that the national framework requires licence holders, under the supervision of the competent regulatory authority, to regularly assess and verify, and continuously improve,
Amendment 121 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point b Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 6 – paragraph 2 2. Member States shall ensure that the national framework requires licence holders, under the supervision of the competent regulatory authority, to regularly assess and verify, and
Amendment 122 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point d Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 6 – paragraph 4 4. Member States shall ensure that the national framework requires licence holders to establish and implement management systems which give due priority to nuclear safety, including promotion and enhancement of nuclear safety culture, and are regularly verified by the competent regulatory authority.
Amendment 123 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point f Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 6 – paragraph 5 5. Member States shall ensure that the national framework requires licence holders to provide for and maintain adequate financial and human resources,
Amendment 124 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 7 Member States shall ensure that the national framework requires all parties to make arrangements for education, continuous training and exercise for their staff having responsibilities relating to the nuclear safety of nuclear installations and to on-site emergency preparedness and response arrangements, in order to build up, maintain and to further develop up-to- date and mutually recognised expertise and skills in nuclear safety.
Amendment 125 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 7 Member States shall ensure that the national framework requires all parties to make arrangements for education, training and exercise for their staff and sub-contractors having responsibilities relating to the nuclear safety of nuclear installations and to on-site emergency preparedness and response arrangements, in order to build up, maintain and to further develop up-to-date and mutually recognised expertise and skills in nuclear safety.
Amendment 126 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 Member States shall ensure that up to date and timely information in relation to nuclear safety of nuclear installations and related risks is made available to workers and the general public, with specific consideration to those living in the vicinity of a nuclear installation. A comprehensive and transparent communication process must be arranged by regularly informing and consulting EU citizens.
Amendment 127 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 Member States shall ensure that up to date
Amendment 128 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 The obligation established in the first subparagraph includes ensuring that the competent regulatory authority and the licence holders, within their fields of responsibility, develop, publish and implement a transparency strategy covering
Amendment 129 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8 – paragraph 1– subparagraph 2 The obligation established in the first subparagraph includes ensuring that the competent regulatory authority and the licence holders, within their fields of responsibility, develop, publish and implement a transparency strategy covering, inter alia, information on normal operating conditions of nuclear installations,
Amendment 130 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 The obligation established in the first subparagraph includes ensuring that the competent regulatory authority and the licence holders, within their fields of responsibility, develop, publish and implement a transparency strategy covering, inter alia, information on normal operating conditions of nuclear installations, non-mandatory consultation activities with the workers and the general public and communication in case of
Amendment 131 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 The obligation established in the first subparagraph includes ensuring that the competent regulatory authority and the licence holders, within their fields of responsibility, develop, publish and implement a transparency strategy including consultation processes covering, inter alia, information on normal operating conditions of nuclear installations, non- mandatory consultation activities with the workers and the general public and communication in case of
Amendment 132 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 3. Member States shall ensure that the public shall be given early and effective opportunities to participate in the
Amendment 133 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 9 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8 – paragraph 3 3. Member States shall ensure that the public shall be given early and effective opportunities to participate in the
Amendment 134 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 Directive/2009/71/Euratom Article 8a – paragraph 1 – introductory part 1. Member States shall ensure that the national framework requires that nuclear installations
Amendment 135 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8a – paragraph 1 – introductory part 1. Member States shall ensure that the national framework requires that nuclear installations
Amendment 136 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8a – paragraph 1 – introductory part 1. Member States shall ensure that the national framework requires that nuclear installations are designed, sited, constructed, commissioned, operated and decommissioned with the objective of
Amendment 137 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8 a – paragraph 1 – introductory part 1. Member States shall ensure that the national framework requires that nuclear installations are designed, sited, constructed, commissioned, operated and decommissioned with the objective of
Amendment 138 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8 a – paragraph 1 – point a a) practically eliminating the occurrence of all accident sequences which would lead to
Amendment 139 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8 a – paragraph 1 – point b b)
Amendment 140 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8 a – paragraph 2 2. Member States shall ensure that the national framework requires that the objective set out in paragraph 1 applies to
Amendment 141 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8 a – paragraph 2 2. Member States shall ensure that the national framework requires that the objective set out in paragraph 1 applies to new reactors and shall be considered as a target for existing nuclear installations to the extent reasonably achievable.
Amendment 142 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 Directive 71/2009/Euratom Article 8 a – paragraph 2 2. Member States shall ensure that the national framework requires that the objectives set out in paragraph 1 appl
Amendment 143 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8a – paragraph 2 2. Member States shall ensure that the national framework requires that the objective set out in paragraph 1: (a) applies to
Amendment 144 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8 b – paragraph 1 – point a (a) sited so that due consideration is provided to avoid,
Amendment 145 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8 b – paragraph 1 – point a a)
Amendment 146 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8 b – paragraph 1 – point b – point i i) radiation doses to workers and the general public do not exceed prescribed limits
Amendment 147 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8 b – point b – Point ii ii) the occurrence of abnormal events is
Amendment 148 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 iii) the potential for escalation to accident situations is
Amendment 149 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8 b – point b – Point iv iv) harmful consequences of abnormal events and design basis accidents, should they occur nonetheless, are mitigated to ensure that they induce no off-site radiological
Amendment 150 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8 b – point b – point v v) external natural and man-made hazards are avoided
Amendment 151 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8 b – point b – point v (v) external natural and man-made hazards are avoided, where possible, and their impact is
Amendment 152 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 Directive 2009/71 Euratom Article 8c –paragraph 1– point a (a) regularly evaluates the radiological impact of a nuclear installation on workers, the general public and
Amendment 153 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8 c – paragraph 1 – point a a) regularly evaluates, and at least once every five years, the radiological impact of a nuclear installation on workers, the general public and air, water and soil, in both normal operating and in both operating and accident conditions;
Amendment 154 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8 c – paragraph 1 – point b b) defines, documents and re-assesses regularly, and at least every
Amendment 155 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8 c – paragraph 1 – point b (b) defines, documents and re-assesses regularly and at least every
Amendment 156 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8 c – paragraph 1 – point c seeks to ensure
Amendment 157 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8 c – paragraph 1 – point f (f) carries out a specific safety review for nuclear installations which the competent regulatory authority considers to be close to the limit of their operating lifetime as originally foreseen, and
Amendment 158 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8 c– paragraph 1 – point f f) carries out a specific safety review for nuclear installations which the competent regulatory authority considers to be close to the limit of their operating lifetime as originally foreseen, and for which an extension of the lifetime is requested. Where an extension of the lifetime is granted, the time periods established in subparagraphs 1(a) and 1(b) shall be reduced to two years.
Amendment 159 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8 c– paragraph 2 2. Member States shall ensure that the national framework requires that the granting or the review of a licence to construct and/or operate a nuclear installation should be based upon an appropriate site- and installation-specific safety assessment following an inspection by the national authority.
Amendment 160 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8 d – point a – introductory part a) prepares and regularly updates, at least once every five years, an on-site emergency plan which shall:
Amendment 161 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8 d – point a – point ii ii) be co-ordinated with all other bodies involved and shall draw on lessons learned from the feedback of experience from severe events, should they occur, including as regards evacuating local populations;
Amendment 162 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8 d – point a – point iii a (new) iiia) takes into consideration cumulative risks associated with the presence nearby of other hazardous (Seveso III-type )industrial installations;
Amendment 163 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 f) arranges for an on-site emergency response centre, sufficiently protected against natural hazards and radioactivity to ensure its habitability throughout a crisis management period;
Amendment 164 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8 d – point f a (new) fa) authorises, enables and promotes public participation and the involvement of non-governmental organisations active in the field of nuclear safety;
Amendment 165 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8d – point g (g) takes
Amendment 166 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 10 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8 d – point g g) takes protective measures in case of an emergency in order to
Amendment 167 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e – paragraph 1 Member States shall at least every ten years arrange for periodic self-assessments of their national framework and competent regulatory authorities and invite an international peer review of relevant segments of their national framework and competent regulatory authorities with the aim of continuously improving nuclear safety. Outcomes of any peer review shall be reported to the Member States, Parliament and the
Amendment 168 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e – paragraph 1 1. Member States shall at least every ten years arrange for periodic self-assessments of their national framework and competent regulatory authorities and invite an international peer review of relevant segments of their national framework and competent regulatory authorities with the aim of continuously improving nuclear safety.
Amendment 169 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e – paragraph 1 1. Member States shall at least every ten years arrange for periodic self-assessments
Amendment 170 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e – paragraph 1 1. Member States shall at least every
Amendment 171 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8 e – paragraph 1 1. Member States shall, at least every
Amendment 172 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8 e – paragraph 2 – introductory part 2. Member States
Amendment 173 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e – paragraph 2 – introductory part 2. Member States, with the support of the competent regulatory authorities,
Amendment 174 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e – paragraph 2 – introductory part 2. Member States, with the support of the competent regulatory authorities, shall periodically arrange, and at least every
Amendment 175 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e – paragraph 2 – introductory part Member States, with the support of the competent regulatory authorities, shall periodically arrange, and at least every six years, a system of topical peer reviews and agree on
Amendment 176 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e – paragraph 2 – point a Amendment 177 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Amendment 178 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e– paragraph 2 – point a (a) jointly and in close coordination with the Commission select one or more specific topics related to the nuclear safety of nuclear installations.
Amendment 179 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 71/2009/Euratom Article 8e– paragraph 2 – point a (a) jointly and in close coordination with the Commission select one or more specific topics related to the nuclear safety of nuclear installations.
Amendment 180 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e– paragraph 2 – point a (a) jointly and in close coordination with the Commission select one or more specific topics related to the nuclear safety of nuclear installations. Should Member States fail to jointly select at least a topic within the time frame specified in this paragraph, the Co
Amendment 181 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e– paragraph 2 – point a a) jointly
Amendment 182 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Amendment 183 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e– paragraph 2 – point b Amendment 184 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e – paragraph 2 – point b (b)
Amendment 185 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e – paragraph 2 – point b (b) based on these topics, perform in close collaboration with licence holders, ENSREG, national assessments and publish the results;
Amendment 186 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e – paragraph 2 – point c Amendment 187 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e – paragraph 2 – point c Amendment 188 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e – paragraph 2 – point c c) jointly define a methodology, arrange and carry out a peer review (including by independent experts drawn from civil society) of the results of the national assessments referred to in point (b),
Amendment 189 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e – paragraph 2 – point c (c) jointly define a methodology, arrange and carry out a peer review of the results of the national assessments referred to in point (b), to which the Commission is invited to participate as an observer;
Amendment 190 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e – paragraph 2 – point c (c)
Amendment 191 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e – paragraph 2 – point d Amendment 192 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e – paragraph 2 – point d Amendment 193 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e – paragraph 2 – point d d) publish immediately the results of the peer reviews referred to in point (c).
Amendment 194 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e – paragraph 2 – point d a (new) (da) the topic for the first topical peer review shall be decided no later than three years after the entry into force of this Directive.
Amendment 195 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e – paragraph 3 3. Each Member State subject to the peer review referred to in paragraph 2 shall arrange for the planning and mode of implementation on its territory of relevant technical recommendations resulting from the peer-review process
Amendment 196 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e – paragraph 3 3. Each Member State subject to the peer review referred to in paragraph 2 shall arrange for the planning and mode of implementation on its territory of relevant
Amendment 197 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e – paragraph 3 3. Each Member State subject to
Amendment 198 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e – paragraph 3 3. Each Member State subject to the peer review referred to in paragraph 2 shall arrange for the planning and mode of implementation on its territory of relevant technical recommendations resulting from the peer-review process and shall
Amendment 199 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e – paragraph 3 Each Member State subject to the peer review referred to in paragraph 2 shall arrange for the planning and mode of mandatory implementation on its territory of relevant technical recommendations resulting from the peer-review process and shall inform the Commission thereof.
Amendment 200 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e – paragraph 3 a (new) The Commission shall consistently ensure, using all the instruments at its disposal for the purpose, that the recommendations on improving nuclear safety which emerge from the stress tests and the peer review are implemented immediately and shall examine very carefully the economic soundness of the upgrading measures in the light of the potential hazard; the Commission shall ensure that the costs of improvement measures are borne in full by the operators of nuclear installations and not by tax-payers.
Amendment 201 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e – paragraph 4 Amendment 202 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e – paragraph 4 Amendment 203 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e – paragraph 4 Amendment 204 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e – paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 205 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e – paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Upon information by the Commission and within three months, the national authority shall instruct the license holder to implement the relevant safety measures identified in the peer review process. The national authority shall impose penalties in accordance with Article 9a if within an additional 6 months the license holder fails to demonstrate a clear progress in the implementation of such measures.
Amendment 206 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e – paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Upon receipt of a request for extension of the operating lifetime of a nuclear installation beyond originally foreseen, the Member State shall invite within six months a peer review of the installation concerned in accordance with paragraph 2.
Amendment 207 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e – paragraph 5 Amendment 208 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e – paragraph 5 5. In case of an accident
Amendment 209 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e – paragraph 5 5. In case of an accident
Amendment 210 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8f – Title Amendment 211 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8f Amendment 212 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8 f Based on the results of the peer reviews performed in accordance with Article 8e(2) and the resulting technical recommendations, in line with the principles of transparency and continuous improvement of nuclear safety, Member States shall, with the support of the competent regulatory authorities, jointly develop and establish guidelines on the specific topics referred to in Article 8e(2)(a). The Commission shall ensure that mandatory EU-wide nuclear safety standards are in force, at the latest, three years after the entry into force of this Directive.
Amendment 213 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 14 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 9 a Amendment 214 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 14 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 9a The Member States shall lay down by consensus the rules on penalties applicable to
Amendment 215 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 14 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 9 a The Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. The penalties provided for must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive, and may consist of a ‘per day’ fine or the suspension of operations at the nuclear installation concerned by way of a national regulatory authority injunction. The Member States shall notify those provisions to the Commission by [insert date – this date must correspond to the deadline for transposition set out in Article 2 of this proposal] at the latest and shall notify it without delay of any subsequent amendment affecting them.
Amendment 32 #
Draft legislative resolution Citation 2 – having regard to
Amendment 33 #
Proposal for a directive Title 1 Proposal for a
Amendment 34 #
Proposal for a directive Title 1 Proposal for a
Amendment 35 #
Proposal for a directive Citation 1 Having regard to the Treaty
Amendment 36 #
Proposal for a directive Citation 1 Having regard to the Treaty
Amendment 37 #
Proposal for a directive Citation 2 Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
Amendment 38 #
Proposal for a directive Citation 2 Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
Amendment 39 #
Proposal for a directive Citation 3 Amendment 40 #
Proposal for a directive Citation 4 a (new) Having regard to the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, which was signed by the European Community and all the EU Member States in 1998,
Amendment 41 #
Proposal for a directive Citation 4 b (new) Having regard to the implementation of the Aarhus Convention in the context of nuclear safety, as brought about by the ‘Aarhus Convention and Nuclear’ initiative, which requires Member States to publish key information concerning nuclear safety and to involve the public in the decision-making process,
Amendment 42 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 1 (1) Article
Amendment 43 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 1 a (new) (1a) Nuclear power is an energy source and the Union and the Member States should treat nuclear energy on the same basis as other energy sources under the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union.
Amendment 44 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 2 (2) Article 153
Amendment 45 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 6 (6) Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom of 19 July 2011 establishing a Community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste33 imposes obligations on the Member States to establish and maintain a national framework for spent fuel and radioactive waste management. The European Parliament resolution of 14 March 2013 on risk and safety assessments (‘stress tests’) of nuclear power plants in the European Union and related activities recalls that the hazards of nuclear waste were once again highlighted by the Fukushima nuclear accident and calls on the Commission to support the open and unbiased identification of the best facilities for storing radioactive waste as safely as possible; __________________ 33 OJ L 199, 2.8.2011. p. 48.
Amendment 46 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 7 (7) Council Conclusions of 8 May 2007 on nuclear safety and safe management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste34 highlighted that “nuclear safety is a national responsibility exercised where appropriate in an EU-framework. Decisions concerning safety actions and the supervision of nuclear installations remain solely with the operators and national authorities”. The European Parliament resolution of 14 March 2013 on risk and safety assessments (‘stress tests’) of nuclear power plants in the European Union and related activities calls for the definition and implementation of binding nuclear safety standards. __________________ 34 Adopted by the Coreper on 25 April
Amendment 47 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 8 a (new) (8a) Reminds that the Fukushima disaster again made painfully clear that there is no such thing as a zero risk nuclear plant; therefore there is no way to prevent with certainty severe accidents happening in the future within or outside the borders of the Union.
Amendment 48 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 9 (9) The Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan in 2011 renewed attention worldwide on the measures needed to minimise risk and ensure the most robust levels of nuclear safety. Based on a mandate from the European Council in March 201136, the Commission, together with the European Nuclear Safety Regulator Group ('ENSREG'), carried out Union wide comprehensive risk and safety assessments of nuclear power plants ('stress tests'). The results identified a number of
Amendment 49 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 9 (9) The Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan in 2011 renewed attention worldwide on the measures needed to
Amendment 50 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 9 a (new) (9a) Emphasizes that the stress tests only cover the assessment of specific previously agreed risks and that risks such as secondary events, material deterioration, human errors, specific flaws inside the reactor vessels and many others were not taken in to account, therefore underlines that even succeeding for the stress tests does not guarantee the safety of a nuclear plant;
Amendment 51 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 9 b (new) (9b) Stresses that when the results of the stress tests are not followed by appropriate measures, they lose most of their value; reminds however that the decision on whether to act upon negative results from the stress tests or not, lies solely and entirely with the Member States; if they base their analysis on other elements than solely reaching the maximum achievable safety when deciding on which actions to take, the beneficial objective of the stress tests shall be undermined;
Amendment 52 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 15 (15) A strong and independent competent regulatory authority is a fundamental condition of the European nuclear safety regulatory framework. Its independence and the exercise of its powers impartially and transparently are crucial factors to ensure a high level of nuclear safety. Objective regulatory decisions and enforcement actions should be established without any undue external influence that might compromise safety, such as pressures associated with changing political, economic or societal conditions, or pressures from government departments or any other public or private entities. The negative consequences of the lack of independence were evident in the Fukushima accident. The provisions of Directive 2009/71/Euratom on functional separation of competent regulatory
Amendment 53 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 15 (15) A strong and independent competent regulatory authority is a fundamental condition of the European nuclear safety regulatory framework. Its political, legal, administrative and financial independence and the exercise of its powers impartially and transparently are crucial factors to ensure a high level of nuclear safety. Objective regulatory decisions and enforcement actions should be established without any
Amendment 54 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 17 (17) When undertaking infrastructure projects that could affect the nuclear safety of nuclear installations,
Amendment 55 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 21 (21) The consequences of a nuclear accident can go beyond national borders, therefore close cooperation, coordination and information exchange between regulatory authorities of neighbouring countries or of countries in the same region, irrespective of whether they operate nuclear installations or not, need to be
Amendment 56 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 22 (22) In order to ensure that the proper skills are acquired and that adequate levels of competence are achieved and maintained, all parties should ensure that all staff (including sub-contractors), having responsibilities relating to the nuclear safety of nuclear installations and to the on-site emergency preparedness and response arrangements, undergo a continuous learning process. This can be achieved through the establishment of training programmes and training plans, procedures for periodic review and updating of the training programmes by know-how exchanges between countries within and outside the EU as well as appropriate budgetary provisions for training.
Amendment 57 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 23 (23) Another key lesson learned from the Fukushima nuclear accident is the importance of enhancing transparency on nuclear safety matters. Transparency is also an important means to promote independence in regulatory decision making. Therefore, the current provisions of Directive 2009/71/Euratom on the information to be provided to the public
Amendment 58 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 23 (23) Another key lesson learned from the Fukushima nuclear accident is the importance of enhancing transparency on nuclear safety matters. Transparency is also an important means to promote and guarantee independence in regulatory decision making. Therefore, the current provisions of Directive 2009/71/Euratom on the information to be provided to the public should be more specific as to which type of information should be provided, as a
Amendment 59 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 24 (24) The requirements of this Directive on transparency are complementary to those of the existing Euratom legislation. Council Decision 87/600/Euratom of 14 December 1987 on Community arrangements for the early exchange of information in the event of a radiological emergency42 imposes obligations on Member States to notify and provide information to the Commission and to other Member States in case of a radiological emergency on its territory, whilst Council Directive 89/618 Euratom of 27 November 198943 includes requirements on Member States to inform the public about health protection measures to be applied and steps to be taken in the event of a radiological emergency, and to provide advance and continuing
Amendment 60 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 24 (24) The requirements of this Directive on transparency are complementary to those of the existing Euratom legislation. Council Decision 87/600/Euratom of 14 December 1987 on Community arrangements for the early exchange of information in the event of a radiological emergency16 imposes obligations on Member States to notify and provide
Amendment 61 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 25 (25) The Directive 2009/71/Euratom sets up a legally binding Community framework underlying a nuclear safety legislative, administrative and organisational system. It does not include specific requirements for nuclear installations. In view of the technical progress achieved by the IAEA, and the Western European Nuclear Regulators Association ('WENRA') and other sources of expertise, including the lessons learned from the stress tests and the Fukushima nuclear accident investigations, Directive 2009/71/Euratom should be amended to include legally binding Community nuclear safety objectives covering all stages of the lifecycle of nuclear installations (siting, design, construction, commissioning, operation, decommissioning).
Amendment 62 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 26 (26) Risk-informed methods examine the probability of each event in an event sequence likely to lead or contribute to an accident as well as its possible consequences. In the light of the causes of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, assessments must study and take account of combined, and not just isolated, risk factors. The answers can be used to provide insights into the strengths and weaknesses of the design and operation of a nuclear installation and can thus guide
Amendment 63 #
Recital 27 (27) Ageing of the safety related structures, systems and components of a nuclear installation, and especially embrittlement of components which are difficult to replace in practice, such as reactor pressure
Amendment 64 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 27 (27) Ageing of the safety related structures, systems and components of a nuclear installation, and especially embrittlement of components which are difficult to replace in practice, such as reactor pressure vessels, puts a natural limit to its acceptable continued operation. From both a safety and an economical point of view, the limit of operational lifetime is typically 40 years after the start of commercial operation therefore Member States should
Amendment 65 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 27 (27) Ageing of the safety related structures, systems and components of a nuclear installation, and especially embrittlement of components which are difficult to replace in practice, such as reactor pressure vessels, puts a
Amendment 66 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 28 (28) For new reactor design, there is a clear expectation to address in the original design what was beyond design for previous generations of reactors. Design extension conditions are accident conditions that are not considered for design basis accidents, but are considered in the design process of the installation in accordance with best estimate methodology, and for which releases of radioactive material are kept within acceptable limits. Design extension conditions
Amendment 67 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 28 (28) For new reactor design, there is a clear expectation to address in the original design what was beyond design for previous generations of reactors. Design extension conditions are accident conditions that are not considered for design basis accidents, but are considered in the design process of the installation in accordance with best estimate methodology, and for which releases of radioactive material are kept within acceptable limits. Design extension conditions
Amendment 68 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 29 (29) Application of the concept of defence- in-depth in organisational, behavioural, or design activities related to a nuclear installation, ensures that safety related activities are subject to independent layers of provisions, such that if a failure were to occur, it would be detected and compensated or corrected by appropriate measures. The independent effectiveness of each of the different layers is an essential element of defence in depth to prevent accidents, detect and control deviations and mitigate the consequences if they do occur.
Amendment 69 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 30 (30) After the nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, the Fukushima nuclear accident highlighted once again the critical importance of the containment function, which is the last barrier to protect people and the environment against radioactive releases resulting from an accident. Therefore the applicant for a licence for the construction of a new power or research reactor should demonstrate that the design practically limits the effects of a reactor core damage to within the containment, i.e. he has to prove that a radioactive release outside the containment is physically impossible
Amendment 70 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 30 (30) After the nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, the Fukushima nuclear accident highlighted once again the critical importance of the containment function, which is the last barrier to protect people and the environment against
Amendment 71 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 30 (30) After the nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, the Fukushima nuclear accident highlighted once again the critical importance of the containment function, which is the last barrier to protect people and the environment against radioactive releases resulting from an accident. Therefore the applicant for a licence for the construction of a new power or research reactor should demonstrate that the design practically limits the effects of a reactor core damage to within the containment, i.e. he has to prove that a radioactive release outside the containment is physically impossible
Amendment 72 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 31 (31) Directive 2009/71/Euratom does not include measures regarding on-site emergency preparedness and response, which, as the Fukushima nuclear accident highlighted, are crucial to mitigate the consequences of a nuclear accident. Council Directive 96/29/Euratom foresees that, in case of radiological emergencies, it is necessary to organise appropriate intervention to stop or reduce the emission of radionuclides, and to assess and record the consequences of the emergency and the effectiveness of the intervention. Since a nuclear accident can affect several countries, a European emergency response force must be set up. Measures should also be in place for the protection and monitoring of the environment and population. However, more specific provisions regarding on-site emergency preparedness and response are needed in order to assess situations that might require on-site protective measures, to have an organisational structure and coordination among response bodies, and to ensure that sufficient resources are available to apply those appropriate protective measures even in extreme cases.
Amendment 73 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 32 (32) The stress tests demonstrated the key role of enhanced cooperation and coordination mechanisms between all parties having responsibilities for nuclear safety. The peer-reviews have proved to be a good means of building confidence, with the aim of developing and exchanging experience and ensuring the common application of high nuclear safety standards. The scope of the provisions of Directive 2009/71/Euratom is however limited only to self-assessments and international peer-reviews of Member States' legislative, regulatory and organisational infrastructure and therefore the Directive should be widened to include peer reviews of nuclear installations. Peer reviews of this kind must involve experts drawn from civil society and other experts independent of the regulatory authorities.
Amendment 74 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 33 (33) This Directive introduces new provisions on self-assessments and peer- reviews of nuclear installations based on selected nuclear safety topics covering their entire lifecycle. At an international level, there is already confirmed experience with conducting such peer- reviews on nuclear power plants. At the EU level, the experience from the stress tests process shows the value of a
Amendment 75 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 33 (33) This Directive introduces new provisions on self-assessments and peer- reviews of nuclear installations based on selected nuclear safety topics covering their entire lifecycle. At an international level, there is already confirmed experience with conducting such peer- reviews on nuclear power plants. At the EU level, the experience from the stress tests process shows the value of a coordinated exercise to assess and review the safety of EU nuclear power plants. The European Parliament resolution of 14 March 2013 on risk and safety assessments (‘stress tests’) of nuclear power plants in the European Union and related activities emphasises that the stress tests are incomplete and that even if it is successful, a stress test will not guarantee the safety of a nuclear plant; Parliament’s resolution furthermore recommends that periodic reviews should be based on common safety standards. A similar mechanism, based on cooperation between the Member States' regulatory authorities and the Commission, should be applied here. Therefore, competent
Amendment 76 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 33 (33) This Directive introduces new provisions on self-assessments and peer- reviews of nuclear installations based on selected nuclear safety topics covering their entire lifecycle. At an international level, there is already confirmed experience with conducting such peer- reviews on nuclear power plants. At the EU level, the experience from the stress
Amendment 77 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 33 a (new) Amendment 78 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 35 (35) An appropriate follow-up mechanism should be established to ensure that the outcome of the
Amendment 79 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 35 (35) An appropriate follow-up mechanism should be established to ensure that the outcome of these peer-reviews is properly implemented. Peer reviews should help improve the safety of individual nuclear installations in the context of different applications as well as help formulate generic technical safety recommendations and guidelines valid across the Union.
Amendment 80 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 36 Amendment 81 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 36 (36) In case the Commission identifies substantial deviations or delays in the implementation of the technical recommendations from the peer review process, the Commission sh
Amendment 82 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 39 (39) In line with the principle of proportionality, the applicability of the provisions of Chapter 2, Section 2 "Specific Obligations" of this Directive depends on the type of nuclear installations on the territory of a Member State. Therefore, when implementing these provisions in national law, Member States should take account of the risks posed by the specific types of nuclear installations they plan or operate.
Amendment 83 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 40 (40) The provisions of this Directive which are intrinsically linked to the existence of nuclear installations, namely those concerning the licence holder's obligations, the new specific requirements for nuclear installations and the provisions concerning the on-site emergency preparedness and response are not applicable to Member States without nuclear installations as defined by this Directive. These Member States need not transpose and implement the requirement to impose penalties on those who do not comply with this Directive. The other provisions of this Directive should be transposed and implemented in a proportionate manner in accordance with national circumstances and taking into account the fact that these Member States do not have nuclear installations, whilst ensuring that nuclear safety receives appropriate attention by the government or by the competent authorities. Member States which do not have nuclear power plants on their territory shall have the right to be involved in the assessments carried out by neighbouring Member States.
Amendment 84 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 41 (41) According to Directive 2009/71/Euratom, the Member States have to establish and maintain a national legislative, regulatory and organisational framework ('national framework') for nuclear safety of nuclear installations. The determination on how the provisions of the national framework are adopted and through which instrument they are applied rests with the competence of the Member States, and the Commission shall ensure that these provisions are properly transposed.
Amendment 85 #
Proposal for a directive Recital 42 a (new) (42a) In order to promote democracy, the subjects of nuclear power and particularly nuclear safety should be dealt with within the framework of the Treaty on European Union and by means of the ordinary legislative procedure.
Amendment 86 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point -2 (new) Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 1– point b (-2) Article 1(b) is amended as follows: "b) to ensure that Member States shall provide for a
Amendment 87 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 1 – point c " c) to ensure that Member States shall provide for a
Amendment 88 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 a (new) Directive 2009/71/EURATOM Article 1 – point d (2a) In Article 1, the following point is added: (d) to promote and enhance nuclear safety culture
Amendment 89 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point -4 (new) Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 3 – paragraph 2 (-4) In Article 3, paragraph 2 is amended as follows: "2)
Amendment 90 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 3 – paragraph 7 7. ‘abnormal event’ means any unintended occurrence the consequences, or potential consequences of which
Amendment 91 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 3 – paragraph 8 8. 'accident' means any unplanned event, including operating errors, equipment failures and other mishaps, the consequences or potential consequences of which
Amendment 92 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 3 – paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. 'accident conditions' are deviations from normal operation that are less frequent and more severe than anticipated operational occurrences, and which include design basis accidents and design extension conditions;
Amendment 93 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 3 – paragraph 11 11.
Amendment 94 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 3 – paragraph 12 12. 'reasonably
Amendment 95 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 3 – paragraph 12 12. 'reasonably achievable' means that, in
Amendment 96 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 3 – paragraph 12 12. 'reasonably achievable' means that, in addition to meeting the requirements of good practice in engineering, further safety or risk reduction measures for the design, commissioning, operation or decommissioning of a nuclear installation should be sought and that these measures should be implemented
Amendment 97 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 3 – paragraph 13 13. 'design basis' means the range and cumulative effect of conditions and events taken explicitly into account in the design of an installation, according to established criteria, so that the installation can withstand them
Amendment 98 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 3 – paragraph 14 14. 'design basis accident' means an accident causing accident conditions
Amendment 99 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 source: PE-529.779
2014/03/07
ITRE
9 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 4 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 3 – paragraph 12 'reasonably
Amendment 2 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 9 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8 Transparency 1. Member States shall ensure that up to date
Amendment 3 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 10 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8a Safety objective for nuclear installations 1. Member States shall ensure that the national framework requires that nuclear installations are designed, sited, constructed, commissioned, operated and decommissioned with the objective of
Amendment 4 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 10 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8b Implementation of the safety objective for nuclear installations In order to achieve the safety objective set out in Article 8a, Member States shall ensure that the national framework requires that nuclear installations are: (a) sited so that due consideration is provided to
Amendment 5 #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – point 10 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8c Methodology for siting, design, construction, commissioning, operation and decommissioning of nuclear installations 1. Member States shall ensure that the national framework requires that the licence holder, under the supervision of the competent regulatory authority: (a) regularly evaluates the radiological impact of a nuclear installation on workers, the general public and air, water and soil, in both normal operating and in both operating and accident conditions; (b) defines, documents and re-assesses regularly and at least every
Amendment 6 #
On-site emergency preparedness and response Member States shall ensure that the national framework requires that the licence holder, under the supervision of the competent regulatory authority: (a) prepares and regularly updates, at least every eight years, an on-
Amendment 7A #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e Peer Reviews 1. Member States shall at least every
Amendment 7B #
Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 11 Directive 2009/71/Euratom Article 8e Peer Reviews 1. Member States shall at least every ten years arrange for periodic self-assessments of their national framework and competent regulatory authorities and invite an international peer review of relevant segments of their national framework and competent regulatory authorities with the aim of continuously improving nuclear safety. Outcomes of any peer review and, where appropriate, of its follow-up shall be reported to the Member States
Amendment 8 #
Amendment 74 falls Amendment 76 voted as addition (33) This Directive introduces new provisions on self-assessments and peer- reviews of nuclear installations based on selected nuclear safety topics covering their entire lifecycle. At an international level, there is already confirmed experience with conducting such peer- reviews on nuclear power plants. At the EU level, the experience from the stress tests process shows the value of a coordinated exercise to assess and review the safety of EU nuclear power plants. In its resolution of 14 March 2013 on risk and safety assessments (‘stress tests’) of nuclear power plants in the European Union and related activities, the European Parliament recalled that those stress tests had been limited in scope and could not be intended to replace the detailed safety reviews of nuclear installations which are carried out under the competence of Member States. A similar mechanism, based on cooperation between the Member States' regulatory authorities and the Commission in the framework of ENSREG, should be applied here.
source: PE-530.030
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
2014-07-21Show (20) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows/0/group |
Old
S&DNew
S&D |
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows/1/group |
Old
ALDENew
ALDE |
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows/2/group |
Old
Verts/ALENew
Verts/ALE |
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows/3/group |
Old
ECRNew
ECR |
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows/4/group |
Old
GUE/NGLNew
GUE/NGL |
| activities/2/committees/1/shadows/0/group |
Old
S&DNew
S&D |
| activities/2/committees/1/shadows/1/group |
Old
ALDENew
ALDE |
| activities/2/committees/1/shadows/2/group |
Old
Verts/ALENew
Verts/ALE |
| activities/2/committees/1/shadows/3/group |
Old
ECRNew
ECR |
| activities/2/committees/1/shadows/4/group |
Old
GUE/NGLNew
GUE/NGL |
| activities/3/committees/1/shadows/0/group |
Old
S&DNew
S&D |
| activities/3/committees/1/shadows/1/group |
Old
ALDENew
ALDE |
| activities/3/committees/1/shadows/2/group |
Old
Verts/ALENew
Verts/ALE |
| activities/3/committees/1/shadows/3/group |
Old
ECRNew
ECR |
| activities/3/committees/1/shadows/4/group |
Old
GUE/NGLNew
GUE/NGL |
| committees/1/shadows/0/group |
Old
S&DNew
S&D |
| committees/1/shadows/1/group |
Old
ALDENew
ALDE |
| committees/1/shadows/2/group |
Old
Verts/ALENew
Verts/ALE |
| committees/1/shadows/3/group |
Old
ECRNew
ECR |
| committees/1/shadows/4/group |
Old
GUE/NGLNew
GUE/NGL |
2014-07-20Show (20) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows/0/group |
Old
S&DNew
S&D |
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows/1/group |
Old
ALDENew
ALDE |
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows/2/group |
Old
Verts/ALENew
Verts/ALE |
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows/3/group |
Old
ECRNew
ECR |
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows/4/group |
Old
GUE/NGLNew
GUE/NGL |
| activities/2/committees/1/shadows/0/group |
Old
S&DNew
S&D |
| activities/2/committees/1/shadows/1/group |
Old
ALDENew
ALDE |
| activities/2/committees/1/shadows/2/group |
Old
Verts/ALENew
Verts/ALE |
| activities/2/committees/1/shadows/3/group |
Old
ECRNew
ECR |
| activities/2/committees/1/shadows/4/group |
Old
GUE/NGLNew
GUE/NGL |
| activities/3/committees/1/shadows/0/group |
Old
S&DNew
S&D |
| activities/3/committees/1/shadows/1/group |
Old
ALDENew
ALDE |
| activities/3/committees/1/shadows/2/group |
Old
Verts/ALENew
Verts/ALE |
| activities/3/committees/1/shadows/3/group |
Old
ECRNew
ECR |
| activities/3/committees/1/shadows/4/group |
Old
GUE/NGLNew
GUE/NGL |
| committees/1/shadows/0/group |
Old
S&DNew
S&D |
| committees/1/shadows/1/group |
Old
ALDENew
ALDE |
| committees/1/shadows/2/group |
Old
Verts/ALENew
Verts/ALE |
| committees/1/shadows/3/group |
Old
ECRNew
ECR |
| committees/1/shadows/4/group |
Old
GUE/NGLNew
GUE/NGL |
2014-07-19Show (20) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows/0/group |
Old
S&DNew
S&D |
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows/1/group |
Old
ALDENew
ALDE |
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows/2/group |
Old
Verts/ALENew
Verts/ALE |
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows/3/group |
Old
ECRNew
ECR |
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows/4/group |
Old
GUE/NGLNew
GUE/NGL |
| activities/2/committees/1/shadows/0/group |
Old
S&DNew
S&D |
| activities/2/committees/1/shadows/1/group |
Old
ALDENew
ALDE |
| activities/2/committees/1/shadows/2/group |
Old
Verts/ALENew
Verts/ALE |
| activities/2/committees/1/shadows/3/group |
Old
ECRNew
ECR |
| activities/2/committees/1/shadows/4/group |
Old
GUE/NGLNew
GUE/NGL |
| activities/3/committees/1/shadows/0/group |
Old
S&DNew
S&D |
| activities/3/committees/1/shadows/1/group |
Old
ALDENew
ALDE |
| activities/3/committees/1/shadows/2/group |
Old
Verts/ALENew
Verts/ALE |
| activities/3/committees/1/shadows/3/group |
Old
ECRNew
ECR |
| activities/3/committees/1/shadows/4/group |
Old
GUE/NGLNew
GUE/NGL |
| committees/1/shadows/0/group |
Old
S&DNew
S&D |
| committees/1/shadows/1/group |
Old
ALDENew
ALDE |
| committees/1/shadows/2/group |
Old
Verts/ALENew
Verts/ALE |
| committees/1/shadows/3/group |
Old
ECRNew
ECR |
| committees/1/shadows/4/group |
Old
GUE/NGLNew
GUE/NGL |
2014-07-18Show (20) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows/0/group |
Old
S&DNew
S&D |
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows/1/group |
Old
ALDENew
ALDE |
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows/2/group |
Old
Verts/ALENew
Verts/ALE |
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows/3/group |
Old
ECRNew
ECR |
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows/4/group |
Old
GUE/NGLNew
GUE/NGL |
| activities/2/committees/1/shadows/0/group |
Old
S&DNew
S&D |
| activities/2/committees/1/shadows/1/group |
Old
ALDENew
ALDE |
| activities/2/committees/1/shadows/2/group |
Old
Verts/ALENew
Verts/ALE |
| activities/2/committees/1/shadows/3/group |
Old
ECRNew
ECR |
| activities/2/committees/1/shadows/4/group |
Old
GUE/NGLNew
GUE/NGL |
| activities/3/committees/1/shadows/0/group |
Old
S&DNew
S&D |
| activities/3/committees/1/shadows/1/group |
Old
ALDENew
ALDE |
| activities/3/committees/1/shadows/2/group |
Old
Verts/ALENew
Verts/ALE |
| activities/3/committees/1/shadows/3/group |
Old
ECRNew
ECR |
| activities/3/committees/1/shadows/4/group |
Old
GUE/NGLNew
GUE/NGL |
| committees/1/shadows/0/group |
Old
S&DNew
S&D |
| committees/1/shadows/1/group |
Old
ALDENew
ALDE |
| committees/1/shadows/2/group |
Old
Verts/ALENew
Verts/ALE |
| committees/1/shadows/3/group |
Old
ECRNew
ECR |
| committees/1/shadows/4/group |
Old
GUE/NGLNew
GUE/NGL |
2014-07-17Show (20) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows/0/group |
Old
S&DNew
S&D |
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows/1/group |
Old
ALDENew
ALDE |
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows/2/group |
Old
Verts/ALENew
Verts/ALE |
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows/3/group |
Old
ECRNew
ECR |
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows/4/group |
Old
GUE/NGLNew
GUE/NGL |
| activities/2/committees/1/shadows/0/group |
Old
S&DNew
S&D |
| activities/2/committees/1/shadows/1/group |
Old
ALDENew
ALDE |
| activities/2/committees/1/shadows/2/group |
Old
Verts/ALENew
Verts/ALE |
| activities/2/committees/1/shadows/3/group |
Old
ECRNew
ECR |
| activities/2/committees/1/shadows/4/group |
Old
GUE/NGLNew
GUE/NGL |
| activities/3/committees/1/shadows/0/group |
Old
S&DNew
S&D |
| activities/3/committees/1/shadows/1/group |
Old
ALDENew
ALDE |
| activities/3/committees/1/shadows/2/group |
Old
Verts/ALENew
Verts/ALE |
| activities/3/committees/1/shadows/3/group |
Old
ECRNew
ECR |
| activities/3/committees/1/shadows/4/group |
Old
GUE/NGLNew
GUE/NGL |
| committees/1/shadows/0/group |
Old
S&DNew
S&D |
| committees/1/shadows/1/group |
Old
ALDENew
ALDE |
| committees/1/shadows/2/group |
Old
Verts/ALENew
Verts/ALE |
| committees/1/shadows/3/group |
Old
ECRNew
ECR |
| committees/1/shadows/4/group |
Old
GUE/NGLNew
GUE/NGL |
2014-07-16Show (20) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows/0/group |
Old
S&DNew
S&D |
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows/1/group |
Old
ALDENew
ALDE |
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows/2/group |
Old
Verts/ALENew
Verts/ALE |
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows/3/group |
Old
ECRNew
ECR |
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows/4/group |
Old
GUE/NGLNew
GUE/NGL |
| activities/2/committees/1/shadows/0/group |
Old
S&DNew
S&D |
| activities/2/committees/1/shadows/1/group |
Old
ALDENew
ALDE |
| activities/2/committees/1/shadows/2/group |
Old
Verts/ALENew
Verts/ALE |
| activities/2/committees/1/shadows/3/group |
Old
ECRNew
ECR |
| activities/2/committees/1/shadows/4/group |
Old
GUE/NGLNew
GUE/NGL |
| activities/3/committees/1/shadows/0/group |
Old
S&DNew
S&D |
| activities/3/committees/1/shadows/1/group |
Old
ALDENew
ALDE |
| activities/3/committees/1/shadows/2/group |
Old
Verts/ALENew
Verts/ALE |
| activities/3/committees/1/shadows/3/group |
Old
ECRNew
ECR |
| activities/3/committees/1/shadows/4/group |
Old
GUE/NGLNew
GUE/NGL |
| committees/1/shadows/0/group |
Old
S&DNew
S&D |
| committees/1/shadows/1/group |
Old
ALDENew
ALDE |
| committees/1/shadows/2/group |
Old
Verts/ALENew
Verts/ALE |
| committees/1/shadows/3/group |
Old
ECRNew
ECR |
| committees/1/shadows/4/group |
Old
GUE/NGLNew
GUE/NGL |
2014-07-15Show (20) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1/committees/1/date |
2013-11-20T00:00:00
|
| activities/1/committees/1/rapporteur |
|
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows |
|
| activities/1/committees/2/date |
2014-03-05T00:00:00
|
| activities/1/committees/2/rapporteur |
|
| activities/2/committees/1/date |
2013-11-20T00:00:00
|
| activities/2/committees/1/rapporteur |
|
| activities/2/committees/1/shadows |
|
| activities/2/committees/2/date |
2014-03-05T00:00:00
|
| activities/2/committees/2/rapporteur |
|
| activities/3/committees/1/date |
2013-11-20T00:00:00
|
| activities/3/committees/1/rapporteur |
|
| activities/3/committees/1/shadows |
|
| activities/3/committees/2/date |
2014-03-05T00:00:00
|
| activities/3/committees/2/rapporteur |
|
| committees/1/date |
2013-11-20T00:00:00
|
| committees/1/rapporteur |
|
| committees/1/shadows |
|
| committees/2/date |
2014-03-05T00:00:00
|
| committees/2/rapporteur |
|
2014-07-10Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/5 |
|
2014-07-09Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/5/date |
Old
2014-06-11T00:00:00New
2014-07-08T00:00:00 |
| activities/6/date |
Old
2014-06-11T00:00:00New
2014-07-08T00:00:00 |
2014-07-07Show (20) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1 |
|
| activities/2 |
|
| activities/3/committees/1/date |
2013-11-20T00:00:00
|
| activities/3/committees/1/rapporteur |
|
| activities/3/committees/1/shadows |
|
| activities/3/committees/2/date |
2014-03-05T00:00:00
|
| activities/3/committees/2/rapporteur |
|
| activities/5/committees |
|
| activities/5/date |
Old
2014-03-18T00:00:00New
2014-06-11T00:00:00 |
| activities/5/type |
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
End of procedure in Parliament |
| activities/6/body |
Old
EPNew
EP/CSL |
| activities/6/committees |
|
| activities/6/date |
Old
2013-11-18T00:00:00New
2014-06-11T00:00:00 |
| activities/6/type |
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single readingNew
Act adopted by Council after consultation of Parliament |
| committees/1/date |
2013-11-20T00:00:00
|
| committees/1/rapporteur |
|
| committees/1/shadows |
|
| committees/2/date |
2014-03-05T00:00:00
|
| committees/2/rapporteur |
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting final decisionNew
Procedure completed, awaiting publication in Official Journal |
2014-05-11Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/docs/0/celexid |
CELEX:52013PC0715:EN
|
2014-05-10Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/docs/0/celexid |
CELEX:52013PC0715:EN
|
2014-04-12Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/4/docs/0/text |
|
2014-04-06Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/4/docs/0/url |
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2014-0274
|
2014-04-05Show (4) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/docs/0/url |
Old
http://old.eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2013&nu_doc=715New
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2013&nu_doc=715 |
| activities/4/docs |
|
| activities/4/type |
Old
Vote scheduledNew
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading |
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stageNew
Awaiting final decision |
2014-04-04Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/4/type |
Old
Vote in plenary scheduledNew
Vote scheduled |
2014-04-01Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/3/docs/0/text |
|
2014-03-27Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/3/docs |
|
2014-03-26Show (3) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/docs/0/url |
Old
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2013&nu_doc=715New
http://old.eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2013&nu_doc=715 |
| activities/3 |
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting committee decisionNew
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage |
2014-03-20Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/2/committees |
|
| activities/2/type |
Old
Vote scheduled in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading |
2014-03-18Show (4) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1/committees/2 |
|
| activities/3/date |
Old
2014-04-16T00:00:00New
2014-04-02T00:00:00 |
| activities/3/type |
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote in plenary scheduled |
| committees/2 |
|
2014-02-26Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/2 |
|
2014-02-20Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| procedure/instrument |
Directive
|
2014-02-06Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/2/date |
Old
2014-04-15T00:00:00New
2014-04-16T00:00:00 |
2014-01-22Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows/2 |
|
| committees/1/shadows/2 |
|
2014-01-18Show (10) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0 |
|
| activities/0/body |
Old
EPNew
EC |
| activities/0/commission |
|
| activities/0/date |
Old
2014-01-10T00:00:00New
2013-10-17T00:00:00 |
| activities/0/docs/0/celexid |
CELEX:52013PC0715:EN
|
| activities/0/docs/0/text |
|
| activities/0/docs/0/title |
Old
PE526.123New
COM(2013)0715 |
| activities/0/docs/0/type |
Old
Committee draft reportNew
Legislative proposal published |
| activities/0/docs/0/url |
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2013&nu_doc=715
|
| activities/0/type |
Old
Committee draft reportNew
Legislative proposal published |
2014-01-11Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/2 |
|
| activities/3/date |
Old
2014-04-03T00:00:00New
2014-04-15T00:00:00 |
2014-01-09Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/commission/0 |
|
| other/0 |
|
2013-12-14Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows/1 |
|
| committees/1/shadows/1 |
|
2013-12-10Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/2 |
|
2013-12-07Show (4) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows/1 |
|
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows/2 |
|
| committees/1/shadows/1 |
|
| committees/1/shadows/2 |
|
2013-11-22Show (4) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1/committees/1/date |
2013-11-20T00:00:00
|
| activities/1/committees/1/rapporteur |
|
| committees/1/date |
2013-11-20T00:00:00
|
| committees/1/rapporteur |
|
2013-11-20Show (4) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1 |
|
| committees/1/shadows |
|
| procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
ITRE/7/14357
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Preparatory phase in ParliamentNew
Awaiting committee decision |
2013-11-13Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/docs/0/text |
|
2013-10-29Show (5) Changes
| activities |
|
| committees |
|
| links |
|
| other |
|
| procedure |
|