벨기에의 탈원전 정책 전개 과정과 시사점

While Germany and Belgium are implementing their nuclear phase-out policy first by enacting the laws laying its foundation and containing the rules for sensitive political issues, and further by refining the contents of the laws that have been challenged by lawsuits, the domestic policy has remained at the level of planning and policy since 2017. If the current government is genuinely committed to the nuclear phase-out policy, it is imperative to explore effective methods and procedures from a legal perspective, especially from an integrated one that encompasses the legislative process and any potential litigation challenges. In this regards, this paper has case studied the Belgian approach towards the nuclear phase-out policy and how the Belgian government actually implements it. The Belgian nuclear phase-out policy was legislated into the Law of 31 January 2003 on the gradual phasing out of nuclear energy for the industrial production of electricity(hereinafter the 2003 Nuclear Phase-Out Law), and the Law of 11 April 2003, regulating the provisions for the decommissioning of Belgium’s nuclear power plants(hereinafter NPPs) and for the management of spent fuel from these NPP(the 2003 Provisions Law). The 2003 Nuclear Phase-Out Law was subsequently amended twice in 2013 and 2015. However, the 2015 Nuclear Phase-Out Law was annulled by the ruling of the Belgian Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice due to its procedural unconstitutionality and illegality in extending the life of the two oldest reactors in the country. Both Courts saw that as with the initial construction of a reactor, the extension of the two reactors with accompanying upgrades are the “construction or intervention that results in changes in the physical aspects of the site” containing risks of significant environmental impact, and thus constitutes a project that is subject to the environmental impact assessment under the EU Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. The Belgian case study shows that a legislative ground for the nuclear phase-out policy is a necessary condition for its implementation, but it also needs to create an foundation and environment to make it substantiable over time. A direct democratic and social permission is required in the course of the implementation or revision of such law, and the environmental impact assessment can be the means. In addition, the Belgian case provides three implications: First, the success or failure of the nuclear phase-out policy ultimately depends on making sufficient provisions for the costs of nuclear decommissioning and disposal and management of radioactive wastes such as spent nuclear fuel. Belgium has established a law just for that(the 2003 Provisions Law) since the beginning of implementing the policy, and has systematically accumulated, operated, and managed the funds. Second, Belgium took the approach of shutting down a nuclear power plant at the expiration of its operation period, thus escaping from the problem of compensation for damages and/or loss for the NPP operators. Instead the NPP operators need to pay a share of the profits gained by the life extension of the NPPs to the government. In that matter, the Belgian Legislature allowed to make an agreement between the government and the NPP operators rather than to set rules in the statute or its statutory instrument. Third, the Belgian government sought to secure objectivity and justification for any changes in the implementing methods of or modifications on the Nuclear Phase-out Law by continuously operating public mechanisms to monitor energy prices and power supply stability. Such public mechanisms can contribute to enhancing social acceptability and confidence in the implementation of the nuclear phase-out policy.