Publication Laka-library:
Expert response to the report by the Joint Research Centre entitled “Technical assessment of nuclear energy with respect to the ‛Do No Significant Harm’ criteria in Regulation (EU) 2020/852, the ‛Taxonomy Regulation’”

AuthorBASE Bundesamt für die Sicherheit der nuklearen Entsorgung
6-01-0-00-282.pdf
DateJune 2021
Classification 6.01.0.00/282 (GENERAL)
Remarks Deutsche fassung 6.01.0.00/281
Front

From the publication:

Expert response to the report by the Joint Research Centre entitled
“Technical assessment of nuclear energy with respect to the ‛Do No
Significant Harm’ criteria in Regulation (EU) 2020/852, the
‛Taxonomy Regulation’”

Particularly considering the suitability of criteria for including nuclear
energy in EU taxonomy

The Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management (BASE)
with support from the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS)
June 2021

Summary
The Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management (BASE) with 
support from the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS), acting on behalf 
of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear
 Safety (BMU), has examined the report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of 
the European Union (EU) entitled “Technical assessment of nuclear energy with 
respect to the ‘Do No Significant Harm’ criteria of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 
(‘Taxonomy Regulation’)” to see whether the JRC has used expertise that is 
complete and comprehensible when determining whether the use of nuclear fission 
to generate energy can be included in the taxonomy register.
The Taxonomy Regulation defines criteria that determine whether an economic 
activity (and therefore investments in this activity) can be viewed as 
ecologically sustainable. The JRC, the EU’s research centre, concludes in its 
report dated March 2021 that the conditions for including nuclear energy in EU 
taxonomy are met in terms of the “Do No Significant Harm” criteria (DNSH). 
Prior to this, the Technical Expert Group (TEG) had not yet recommended the 
inclusion of nuclear energy in EU taxonomy and advised the EU Commission to 
review the DNSH criteria more closely.
This expert response finds that the JRC has drawn conclusions that are 
hard to deduce at numerous points. Subject areas that are very relevant to 
the environment have also only been presented very briefly or have been 
ignored. For example, the effects of severe accidents on the environment 
are not included when assessing whether to include nuclear energy in the 
taxonomy register – yet they have occurred several times over the last few 
decades. This raises the question of whether the JRC has selected too narrow 
a framework of observation. The aspects mentioned and others listed in this 
expert response suggest that this is true.
This expert response also points out that the JRC mentions topics, but 
then fails to consider them further or in more detail, although they 
must be included in any assessment of the sustainability of using 
nuclear energy. The need to consider them is partly based on the fact 
that certain effects on the other environmental objectives in the 
Taxonomy Regulation must be expected if the matter is viewed more closely
 or at least cannot be excluded. In other cases, this need results from 
the fact that the Taxonomy Regulation refers to the UN approach in its 
2030 Agenda in its understanding of sustainability – and the latter, for 
example, contains the goals of “considering future generations” and 
“participative decision-making”. Any sustainability, particularly for 
future generations, can only be guaranteed if attempts are made at an 
early stage to achieve acceptance in the population, enable future 
generations to handle the use of nuclear energy and its legacy or waste 
appropriately and ensure that information and knowledge are maintained 
in the long term.
Generally speaking, it should be noted that the problem of disposing of 
radioactive waste has already been postponed by previous generations to 
today’s and it will ‘remain’ a problem for many future generations. The 
principle of “no undue burdens for future generations” (pp. 250ff) has 
therefore already been (irrevocably) infringed, while the DNSH-hurdle 
“significant[ly] harm” has also been infringed.

Generating huge quantities of dangerous waste is being continued for decades 
without any effective disposal solution being available. The JRC itself says 
that the primary and best waste management strategy is not to generate any 
radioactive waste in the first place. However, this assessment is not 
consistently applied within the report.
The JRC Report only provides an incomplete view of the consequences and risks of 
using nuclear energy for people and the environment or for future generations or 
does not even mention them in its assessment. Where it does mention them, some of 
the principles of scientific work are not correctly considered at some points. 
The JRC Report is therefore incomplete and therefore fails to comprehensively 
assess the sustainability of using nuclear energy.