COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

"EU DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING DATA"

Accompanying the document

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

on the use of financial resources earmarked for the decommissioning of nuclear installations, spent fuel and radioactive waste

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1........... INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 3

2........... EU MEMBER STATE OVERVIEW:............................................................................. 5

3........... COMPARISON OF FUNDING PRACTICE WITH THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 54

4........... SUMMARY OF FINDINGS...................................................................................... 64

5........... GOOD PRACTICE EXAMPLES................................................................................ 65

6........... TABLES...................................................................................................................... 66

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. BACKGROUND

In October 2004, the Commission presented its first report to the European Parliament on the use of financial resources earmarked for the decommissioning of nuclear power plants[1]. The 2004 report was generally well received and led to an own-initiative report[2] from the European Parliament. It was acknowledged within the report that decommissioning was a complex issue and that more detailed information was required in order to progress the issues. With this in mind the Commission has initiated an extensive dialogue with experts of the Member States.

Subsequently, in 2006, the Commission adopted a Recommendation[3] on decommissioning funds following consultation with Member State experts taking advantage of its research in the field.

In December 2007, the Commission presented its second report to the European Parliament and the Council, comparing EU nuclear operators' and Member States' funding practice with the criteria detailed in the Commission Recommendation. Whereas the 2004 report was limited to power reactors, the second report covered all nuclear installations with an emphasis being placed on those which were at greatest risk should the topic of decommissioning funding be inadequately addressed.

Since the presentation of the second report in December 2007, the legal environment was decisively changed with the adoption of Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom of 19 July 2011, which established a Community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste[4]. This Directive, which requires to be transposed in Member States' national law by 23 August 2013, foresees in its Article 9 that "Member States shall ensure that the national framework requires that adequate financial resources be available when needed for the implementation of national programmes referred to in Article 11, especially for the management of spent fuel and radioactive waste, taking due account of the responsibility of spent fuel and radioactive waste generators".

This principle, which is shared with the Recommendation, is now binding law which must be transposed by all Member States. In order to comply with the obligations arising from the Directive, national programmes are expected to cover all waste types and all management stages from generation to disposal as well as a sufficiently detailed basis for estimating long-term cost as input to build up adequate waste management funds. The obligation to cover all management stages, beginning with the generation of waste, means that the national programmes will be required to cover a large portion of the decommissioning activities in the forefront related to spent fuel and waste management.

It is the view of the Commission that the national spent fuel and radioactive waste programmes should provide a detailed cost estimate of all waste management steps up to disposal including the associated activities, such as research and development. The national waste management programme has also to provide information on the financing of the programme.

Should a national programme consider only long-term interim storage, but no disposal, a utility would save a considerable amount of money which it could then use for other investment and to strengthen its market position in relation to a competitor in another Member State where funding of a disposal facility is foreseen as a mandatory element. Such a situation could be seen as a clear distortion of competition. Some estimations come to a potential cost advantage in the order of 3.5-4.0 percent of the assumed total generating cost[5].

Apart from Article 9, the Directive also contains binding rules regarding financing schemes and transparency, which also reflect basic principles of the Recommendation.

Through the obligation on Member States to keep their national programmes updated and subject to peer reviews, the Directive increases the transparency and quality of the funding mechanisms of spent fuel and radioactive waste management and decommissioning, which will further help to avoid market distortions.

The Directive not yet being transposed, the present report does not yet analyse its consequences but is, as in the past, based on the continuous work carried out by the Member States and the Commission for the implementation of the Recommendation, in particular within the Decommissioning Funding Group. It aims to present a comprehensive overview of the situation in the Member States. In particular, it looks at the advances in the alignment of the national decommissioning financing regimes with the Commission Recommendation.

1.2. METHODOLOGY

In 2004 the Commission set up an ad-hoc expert group - Decommissioning Funding Group (DFG) - in order to assist the EC in:

· Promoting a clear understanding of the decommissioning policies and strategies and the attendant tasks and activities;

· Providing an up-to-date knowledge on decommissioning cost estimates and the management of the provisions/funds;

· Exploring possible ways ahead in terms of further co-operation and harmonisation at European level.

The DFG is the only body in the EU which brings together Member States and the Commission for common reflection and discussion of decommissioning funding issues. Therefore neither ENSREG, the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group, nor ENEF, the European Nuclear Forum, have formed subgroups dealing exclusively with decommissioning funding issues.

The national experts forming the Decommissioning Funding Group developed, together with the Commission, guidelines which explore in detail the different aspects of decommissioning financing, reflected in the Commission's 2006 Recommendation3 on decommissioning funding. On the basis of these guidelines, the DFG elaborated, again in cooperation with the Commission, a questionnaire for Member States.

The questionnaires were sent to all Member States in September 2010, and the majority of Member States sent their completed documents during the first months of 2011. A first discussion of the findings took place during the 2011 DFG meeting on 16 March 2011. The collection of answers continued during 2011. Some Member States were also asked individually to complete certain data which were considered unclear or missing.

During the DFG meeting of 12 March 2012, the first draft of the Commission Staff Working Document was discussed in detail. A majority of the countries who assisted in the meeting provided updates, corrections and additions to the draft document, in particular concerning the chapter describing their respective decommissioning funding system in place.

2. EU MEMBER STATE OVERVIEW:

This chapter summarises the decommissioning funding situation within the EU and is based preliminary upon the information contained in the completed questionnaires, reflecting the situation at the end of 2010. More recent information was provided by the Member States in the wake of the Decommissioning Financing Group meeting of 12 March 2012. In some cases, where necessary, information is supplemented with that taken from the second report to the European Parliament and the Council. In addition to the information on the financing, there is a short description of the other relevant aspects of decommissioning.

TABLES[6]

Table 2.1: Power reactor closure status and prediction

Country || before 1986 || 1986-2009 || 2010-2025 || later or unknown || Total

Belgium || || 1 || 7 || || 8

Bulgaria || || 4 || || 2 || 6

Czech Republic || || || || 6 || 6

Denmark || || || || || 0

Finland || || || || 4 || 4

France || 3 || 6 || || 60 || 69

Germany* || 6 || 13 || 17 || 0 || 36

Greece || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Hungary || || || || 4 || 4

Italy || 1 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 4

Latvia || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Lithuania || || 2 || || || 2

Poland || || || || not defined || not defined

Romania || 0 || 0 || 0 || 4 || 4

Slovakia || 1 || 2 || || 6 || 9

Slovenia || 0 || 0 || 1* || 0 || 1*

Spain || 0 || 2 || 6 || 2 || 10

Sweden || 1 || 2 || || 10 || 13

The Netherlands || || 1 || || 1 || 2

United Kingdom || 2 || 24 || 18 || 1 || 45

TOTAL || 14 || 59 || 38 || 104 || 208

Table 2.2: Research reactors in the European Union

|| Research Reactors || || || Decommissioning status || || || ||

Country || total || operational || shutdown || not specified || ongoing || safe enclosure || modified use || dismantled

Austria || 1 || 1 || || || || || ||

Belgium || 5 || 3 || 2 || || 1 || || || 1

Bulgaria || 1 || || || || || || 1 ||

Czech Republic || 4 || 3 || 1 || || || || || 1

Denmark || 3 || || || || || 1 || || 2

Finland || 1 || 1 || || || || || ||

France || 26 || 7 || 19 || || 8 || 0 || || 11

Germany || 46 || 9 || 37 || || 5 || 2 || 2 || 28

Greece || || 1 || || 1 || || || ||

Hungary || 2 || 2 || || 2 || || || ||

Italy || 14 || 5 || 9 || 4 || || || || 5

Latvia || 1 || || 1 || || 1 || || ||

Lithuania || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Poland || 5 || 1 || 4 || || || || 1 || 3

Portugal || || || || || || || ||

Romania || 2 || 1 || 1 || || 1 || || ||

Slovakia || || || || || || || ||

Slovenia || 1 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Spain || 3 || 0 || 3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 3

Sweden || 6 || || 6 || || 2 || || || 4

The Netherlands || 3 || 2 || 1 || || 1 || || ||

United Kingdom || 19 || || 19 || || 2 || 5 || || 12

Total || 140 || 37 || 103 || 7 || 20 || 7 || 4 || 71

Table 2.3 Type of nuclear fuel cycle facilities in the EU

Country || Fuel Fabrication || Fuel reprocessing || Fuel Storage || total

Belgium || 2 || 1 || 2 || 5

Bulgaria || || || 1 || 0

Czech Republic || || || 4 || 4

Denmark || 1 || || || 1

Finland || || || 3 || 3

France || 11 || 5 || 5 || 21

Germany || 2 || 0 || 16 || 18

Greece || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Hungary || || || 1 || 1

Italy || 6 || 2 || 1 || 9

Latvia || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Lithuania || || || 2 || 2

The Netherlands || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Poland || || || 2 || 2

Romania || 1 || 0 || 6 || 7

Slovakia || || || 1 || 1

Slovenia || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Spain || 1 || 0 || || 3

Sweden || 1 || || 1 || 2

United Kingdom || 1 || 2 || || 17

Total || 26 || 10 || 45 || 96

Table 2.4: Operational and decommissioning status of the nuclear fuel cycle facilities

|| Nuclear Cycle Facilities || || || Decommissioning status || ||

Country || Total || Operational || shutdown || not specified || ongoing || dismantled

Belgium || 5 || 3 || 2 || || 2 ||

Bulgaria || - || - || - || - || - || -

Czech Republic || 4 || 4 || || || ||

Denmark || 1 || || 1 || || 1 ||

Finland || 3 || 3 || || || ||

France || 27 || 12 || 16 || || 14 || 2

Germany || 31 || 20 || 11 || || 4 || 7

Greece || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Hungary || 1 || 1 || || 1 || ||

Italy || 9 || 1 || 8 || 1 || 4 || 4

Latvia || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Lithuania || 1 || 1 || || || ||

The Netherlands || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Poland || - || - || - || - || - || -

Romania || 14 || 11 || 3 || || 1 ||

Slovakia || 1 || 1 || - || || ||

Slovenia || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0

Spain || 5 || 3 || 2 || || SAELICES || FUA

Sweden || 2 || 2 || || || ||

United Kingdom (NDA & Westinghouse) || 17 || 12 || 5 || || 5 ||

TOTAL || 121 || 74 || 48 || 2 || 31 || 13

Table 2.5 Decommissioning funds accumulated in relation to expected total costs of future decommissioning of nuclear installations in the European

Member States

COUNTRY || Name of nuclear facility || Kind of facility || Total estimated decommissioning costs || Provisions accumulated by end 2009 (unless otherwise stated) || Percentage of required provisions accumulated || Percentage of operational lifetime expired [%] || specified year || Base provisions (updated to the year 2009) to be covered by dedicated assets || Value of the dedicated assets to cover the provisions (end 2009) || Ratio between the provisions and their cover by dedicated assets

|| || || [€ million] || [€ million] || [%] || || || [€ million] || ||

|| || || || || || || || || ||

Belgium || Doel 1 || NPP || 231.1 || 182.8 || 79% || 85.0% || 2009 || || ||

|| Doel 2 || NPP || 231.1 || 182.8 || 79% || 85.0% || 2009 || || ||

|| Doel 3 || NPP || 512.8 || 301.8 || 59% || 67.5% || 2009 || || ||

|| Doel 4 || NPP || 555.6 || 295.8 || 53% || 60.0% || 2009 || || ||

|| Tihange 1 || NPP || 453.4 || 350.7 || 77% || 85.0% || 2009 || || ||

|| Tihange 2 || NPP || 562.2 || 304.6 || 54% || 65.0% || 2009 || || ||

|| Tihange 3 || NPP || 592 || 301.8 || 51% || 60.0% || 2009 || || ||

|| Spent fuel || Fund || || 3.653 || || || 2009 || || ||

|| Belgonucléaire || Fuel fabrication || || 222.6 || 100% || 100% || 2006 || || ||

|| FBFCi || Fuel fabrication || 34.5 || 22.9 || 67% || || 2006 || || ||

|| SCK•CEN || Research institute || 57.4 || 53.9 || 94% || || 2006 || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || ||

Bulgaria || Kozloduy1 || Special cases || || || || || || || ||

|| Kozloduy2 || Special cases || || || || || || || ||

|| Kozloduy3 || Special cases || || || || || || || ||

|| Kozloduy4 || Special cases || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || ||

Czech Republic || Dukovany1 || NPP || 690 (price basis 2008. does not include costs of RW/SF disposal) || 187 || 27 || 63 || || || ||

|| Dukovany2 || || || ||

|| Dukovany3 || || || ||

|| Dukovany4 || || || ||

|| Temelin1 || NPP || 583 (price basis 2009. does not include costs of RW/SF disposal) || 63 || 11 || 25 || || || ||

|| Temelin2 || || || ||

|| ISFS Dukovany || Spent fuel storage || 0.49 || 0.057 || 12 || 20 || || || ||

|| SFS Dukovany || Spent fuel storage || 0.49 || 0.029 || 6 || 6 || || || ||

|| SFS Temelin || Spent fuel storage || 0.51 || 0 || 0 || 0 || || || ||

|| LVR-15 || Spent fuel storage || 5.8 || 1 || 17 || 81 || || || ||

|| SF storage NRI Rez || Spent fuel storage || 0.17 || 0.056 || 33 || 37 || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || ||

Germany || Gundremmin-gen A || BWR || || || || 100 || || || ||

|| M-Kärlich || PWR || || || || 100 || || || ||

|| Lingen || BWR || || || || 100 || || || ||

|| Obrigheim || BWR || || || || 100 || || || ||

|| Stade || PWR || || || || 100 || || || ||

|| Würgassen || BWR || || || || 100 || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || ||

|| || All || 11,672 || 2,529 || 21.66 || || || || ||

Denmark || DR1 || Res. Reactor || 0.8 || 0.8 || 100 || 100 || || || ||

|| DR 2 || Res. Reactor || 4 || 4 || 100 || 100 || || || ||

|| DR3 || Res. Reactor || 56 || 56 || 100 || 100 || || || ||

|| Hot Cell || Hot Cells || 3 || 3 || 100 || 100 || || || ||

|| Technology hall || fuel fabrication || 0.01 || 0.01 || 100 || 100 || || || ||

|| Waste treatment plant || Waste treatment || 34 || 34 || 100 || 100 || || || ||

Estonia || Nothing || || || || || || || || ||

Finland || Loviisa 1&2 || NPP || 330 (in 2011) || 321 || 97 || 66 || || || ||

|| Olkiluoto 1&2 || NPP || 183 || 179 || 98 || 53 || || || ||

|| TRIGA || Research reactor || 6 || 6 || 100 || 97 || || || ||

France || Name of the nuclear facility || Kind of facility || Total estimated decommissioning || Provisions || Percentage of required provisions accumulated || Percentage of operational lifetime expired [%] || || || ||

|| costs || accumulated by end 2009 (unless otherwise stated) || [%] || || || ||

|| [€ million] || [€ million] || || || || ||

|| (basis 2009 and not corrected for inflation) || || || || || ||

|| || Up to value year 2009) || || || || ||

|| || || || || || ||

|| EDF || 69 power reactors (included 58 in operation)+7 other installations || 60 718 M€ || 27 563 M€ || 40% || various || || 17 407 M€ || 11 441 M€ || 66%

|| || ||

|| CEA || 36 civil installations, including reactors, laboratories and others || 6 053 M€ || 3 912 M€ || 65% || various || || 3 912 M€ || 1291 M€ || 33%

|| (civil installations only) || (civil installations only) || (civil installations only) || || (civil installations only) || (civil installations only) || (civil installations only)

|| || || || || || ||

|| Groupe AREVA || 18 installations (principaly linked to the fuel cycle) || 10277 M€ || 5306 M€ || 52% || Various || || 5306 M€ || 5379 M€ || 101%

|| || || ||

|| || || ||

Greece || - || _ || _ || _ || _ || _ || _ || _ || _ ||

Hungary || Paks NPP || NPP || 1184 M euro || 115,9 M euro || 27.40%[7] || ≈52%[8] || || || ||

|| ISFS || SF storage || 28.6 M euro (included in the costs of the NPP) || 0,15 M euro || 27,4% || ≈18% || || || ||

|| Budapest || resear. || 3.27 M euro || none[9] || || ≈ 79% || || || ||

|| reactor || reactor || || || ||

|| Training || resear. || 1.78 M euro || none || || ≈70% || || || ||

|| reactor || reactor || || || ||

Italy || Caorso NPP || NPP || 339,8 (3) || NA || NA || Early closure || || || ||

|| Trino NPP || NPP || 229,2 (3) || NA || NA || Early closure || || || ||

|| Latina NPP || NPP || 699,9 (3) || NA || NA || Early closure || || || ||

|| Garigliano NPP || NPP || 348,3 (3) || NA || NA || Early closure || || || ||

|| EUREX || Repr. || 572,1 (3) || NA || NA || Not Applicable || || || ||

|| Bosco Marengo || Fabr. || 22,5 (3) || NA || NA || Not Applicable || || || ||

|| Casaccia || Fabr. – || 284,5 (3) || NA || NA || Not Applicable || || || ||

|| || || || ||

|| || || || ||

|| ITREC || Repr. || 316,4 (3) || NA || NA || Not Applicable || || || ||

|| Avogadro || Interim storage || Not yet available (4) || -4 || -4 || 95% || || || ||

|| NA || NA || || || ||

|| LENA || RR || || No decommissioning plan, no cost calculations, no || || ||

|| Triga II || || || provisions yet. Public budget will be allotted when shut down || || ||

|| ENEA || || || || ||

|| TrigaII, || || || || || || || ||

|| Tapiro || || || || || || || ||

|| Palermo || || || || ||

|| University || || || || || || || ||

|| AGN-201 || || || || || || || ||

|| LENA || || || || ||

|| Subcritical || || || || || || ||

|| Assembly || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || ||

Lithuania || Ignalina Unit 1 || NPP || 2400 MEUR || 153 MEUR* || N/A || 100%; || || || ||

|| Ignalina Unit 2 || NPP || || N/A || 100%; || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || ||

Latvia || Salaspils research reactor || Research reactor || 10.6 || no || No || 100 || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || ||

The Netherlands || Facilty 1 || NPP || Confidential || || - || - || || || ||

|| Facilty 2 || RR || Confidential || || - || - || || || ||

|| Facilty 3 || RR || Confidential || || - || - || || || ||

|| Facilty … || RR || Confidential || || - || - || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || ||

Poland || nothing reported || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || ||

Romania || Cernavoda U1 || NPP || 247 (2006 estimate: 320 MUSD) || 6.604 || 2.67 || 32.5 || || || ||

|| Cernavoda U2 || NPP || 247 (2006 estimate: 320 MUSD)) || 6.238 || 2.53 || 5 || || || ||

|| Horia Hulubei, Magurele, Bucharest || RR || 27 || N/A (Budgetary planning) || 0 || 100 || || || ||

|| TRIGA, Mioveni, Pitesti || RR || 77 || N/A (Budgetary planning) || 0 || 60 || || || ||

|| CNU Bihor || Uranium mine || N/A || 0 || 0 || 100 || || || ||

|| CNU Banat || Uranium mine || N/A || 0 || 0 || 100 || || || ||

|| CNU Suceava || Uranium mine || N/A || 0 || 0 || - || || || ||

|| CNU Feldioara || Milling facility for uranium ore || N/A || 0 || 0 || - || || || ||

|| FCN, Mioveni, Pitesti || Fuel fabr. plant || N/A || 0 || 0 || - || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || ||

Sweden || F1, F2, F3 || NPP || 2 692 || 1 364 || 51 || 52-60 || || || ||

|| O1, O2, O3 || NPP || 1 982 || 1 026 || 52 || 42-65 || || || ||

|| R1, R2, R3, R4 || NPP || 2 785 || 1 480 || 53 || 56-71 || || || ||

|| B1, B2 || NPP || 1 089 || 589 || 54 || 100 || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || ||

Slovenia || Krško Nuclear || NPP || 1,149.30 || 145 || 12,6 % || 67,5 % || || || ||

|| Power Plant || (undiscounted) || (at the end of 2009) || (undiscounted) || || || ||

|| || 338.5 (EUR 2002) || || 42.8 % || || || ||

|| || (discounted) || || (discounted) || || || ||

|| TRIGA Mark II || RR || 5.47 (EUR 2007) || 0 || 0.00% || 88,0 % || || || ||

|| (undiscounted) || || || ||

|| Central interim || storage of || Not calculated yet || 0 || 0.00% || Not decided yet || || || ||

|| storage of || institutional || || || ||

|| radioactive waste || radioactive || || || ||

|| in Brinje || waste || || || ||

|| || || || || ||

|| Zirovski Vrh || Uranium || Not known || 0 || 0.00% || 100 % || || || ||

|| Uranium Mine || Mine and Mill || || || ||

|| and Milll; Waste || || || || ||

|| Pile Jazbec || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || ||

|| || || || || || || || || ||

Slovakia || JE V1 || NPP || 547,953 (2011) || 313,042 || 57,13% || 100% || || || ||

|| JE V2 || NPP || 732,379 (2011) || 386,414 || 52,76% || 62,5% || || || ||

|| EMO 1,2 || NPP || 674,549 (2011) || 231,703 || 43,35% || 30% || || || ||

United Kingdom || Sizewell A || Power reactor || 916 + proportion of 493 (Magnox South central costs) || || || 100 || || || ||

|| Bradwell || Power reactor || 724 + proportion of 493 (Magnox South central costs) || || || 100 || || || ||

|| Berkeley || Power reactor || 608 + proportion of 493 (Magnox South central costs) || || || 100 || || || ||

|| Dungeness A || Power reactor || 879 + proportion of 493 (Magnox South central costs) || || || 100 || || || ||

|| Hinkley Point A || Power reactor || 890 + proportion of 493 (Magnox South central costs) || || || 100 || || || ||

|| Hunterston A || Power reactor || 671 + proportion of 366 (Magnox North central costs) || || || 100 || || || ||

|| Olbury || Power reactor || 954 + proportion of 366 (Magnox North central costs) || || || 98 || || || ||

|| Chapelcross || Power reactor || 804 + proportion of 366 (Magnox North central costs) || || || 100 || || || ||

|| Trawsfynydd || Power reactor || 796 + proportion of 366 (Magnox North central costs) || || || 100 || || || ||

|| Wylfa || Power reactor || 964 + proportion of 366 (Magnox North central costs) || || || 95 || || || ||

|| Capen hurst || Fuel cycle facility || 645 || || || || || || ||

|| Windscale || Research reactor || 987 || || || 100 || || || ||

|| Sellafield || Fuel cycle facility || 23,537 || || || (Calder Hall 100) || || || ||

|| Dounreay || Research reactor || 2,396 || || || 100 || || || ||

|| Harwell and Winfrith || Research reactor || 1,203 || || || 100 || || || ||

|| Springfields Fuels Ltd || Fuel cycle facility || 687 || || || || || || ||

|| Low Level || Radioactive waste disposal facility || 290 || || || || || || ||

|| Waste || Fuel cycle facility || 687 || || || || || || ||

|| Repository || Radioactive waste disposal facility Radioactive waste disposal facility || 290 3,767 || || || || || || ||

|| Geological || || || ||

|| Disposal || || || ||

|| Facility || Radioactive waste disposal facility || 3,767 || || || || || || ||

|| || || || ||

|| || || || ||

Countries are listed in order of the relative share of nuclear energy production:

2.1. FRANCE

2.1.1. Overview

The regulatory situation and organisation of nuclear decommissioning and waste management in France underwent profound change in 2006 with the adoption of new legislation on nuclear waste research and management ("New Waste Law")[10].

The French legislative framework defines a specific category of nuclear facilities, called “Basic nuclear installations” (or INB – “installations nucléaires de base”). It covers all facilities that present a significant risk for the workers or for the environment, due to a nuclear activity (including all nuclear reactors), or due to the use of nuclear materials.

Basic Nuclear Installations are subject to a specific legislative and regulatory framework, which includes the issue of funding of long term liabilities (decommissioning and radioactive waste management)[11].

Given the scale of the sums required and the time-frames involved for decommissioning nuclear installations and managing radioactive waste, the creation of a specific legislative system became necessary to secure the required funding. Although measures of this type already existed, they had no legislative or regulatory basis.

Key articles of the new "Law on the Programme Relative to the Sustainable Management of Radioactive Materials and Wastes" include the legal requirement to elaborate a "National Plan for the Management of Radioactive Materials and Wastes" and a "National Inventory of Radioactive Materials and Wastes". Both have to be updated every three years.

2.1.2. Decommissioning funding

The decommissioning financing regime is based on two types of funds:

· The nuclear operators set up internal restricted funds covered by dedicated assets managed under separate accountability; these funds shall account for all future costs related to decommissing as well as waste management and shall be entirely set up from the beginning of operations of each given nuclear installation.

· The National Radioactive Waste Management Agency (ANDRA) has to set up two additional internal restricted funds, whose purpose is to finance exclusively some of the waste management operations that ANDRA has responsibility for conducting:

– the “research fund” is for the financing of research works related to the future storage facility dedicated to long lived high and medium level wastes;

– the “construction fund” is for the construction and operation of the future storage facility dedicated to long lived high and medium level wastes. These two funds are fed by payments from the operator’s internal funds, at the time when ANDRA is required to conduct operations. Specific details about how and when the payments from the operator’s internal funds are made may vary: payments to the “research fund” are collected through a tax, whereas future payments to the “construction fund” might be settled under bilateral conventions. In both cases, from the point of view of the operators, these paiements can be seen as transfers from their internal fund to an external segregated fund managed by ANDRA.

· Currently, the research fund is the only of these two funds to be fed, as the construction of the storage facility for long lived high and medium level waste facility will not start before at least 2025.

· Furthermore, other payments are made from the operators' internal funds to the ANDRA general budget, to finance operations related to the storage facilities for short lived medium level wastes. Payments details are setteld under bilateral conventions. From the point of view of operators, such payments can be seen as transfers from their internal segregated fund to an external non-segregated fund managed by ANDRA.

A "National Financing Evaluation Commission of the Costs of Basic Nuclear Installations Dismantling and Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Management", comprising representatives of the National Assembly and the Senate and a number of experts that have to be independent of the nuclear operators and the energy industry, oversees the system.

Partial privatisation led key nuclear players AREVA and EDF to advance the reorganisation of their back-end provisions and accountancy practice. AREVA was the first to cover provisions by dedicated assets. The two companies have now set up restricted internal funds for the financing of future backend charges. Due to the increasing constraints in government budgets, nuclear research agency CEA has however been exempted from setting up a fully liquid fund. At the end of year 2011, 75% of the fund was filled with a guarantee of future financing.

The new waste law stipulates that the operators of basic nuclear installations shall "build up provisions in a prudent manner, for the costs of decommissioning of their installations or for their radioactive waste storage facilities, the final shut down, maintenance and surveillance costs”. In addition the law requires operators to “earmark specific assets exclusively to cover these provisions”.

These assets have to be accounted for separately and they have to present a “sufficient degree of security and liquidity in order to serve their objective”. Their market value has to be at least as high as the provisions to be covered. The assets are protected by law and nobody, besides the state, in the execution of its right to enforce the operators’ obligations to decommission their facilities and to manage their spent fuel and radioactive waste, can claim any right over the assets.[12] This aims at protecting the assets in case of insolvency or bankruptcy of an operator, while at the same time leaving them with the operator who has a level of freedom to control and access them.

The new law stipulates that any operator of a nuclear installation must carry out a prudent assessment of the cost of decommissioning and of managing its spent fuel and radioactive waste. An assessment such as this constitutes the foundation for any secure funding mechanism. The level of assets must be at least equal to the discounted cost from the time of commissioning.

In addition, the funds are under the supervision of the State (through the Administrative Authority), who can impose corrective measures to the operators, including imposing the payment of any required amount to the dedicated fund in ANDRA’s account. The operators of nuclear installations produce a detailed report at least every three years, presenting an assessment of these costs, their anticipated schedule and the value of the reserve set up in the balance sheet in accordance with applicable accounting rules. This report is submitted to the competent administrative authority for examination (services of the Ministry for Economy and Energy on the advice of the nuclear safety authority) which could if necessary provide for specific measures if it felt that the assessment produced was inadequate.

Nuclear operators are required to report every three months on their portfolio of dedicated assets, and have to report every year (or when there is a significant change) on the cost assessment and their financial provisions in the accounts. These regular reporting requirements allow shortfalls to be addressed in an adequate timeframe.

2.1.3. Decommissioning strategy

Since 2003, the French regulations allow for the immediate or slightly deferred dismantling of nuclear facilities.[13] The French nuclear safety authority is clearly in favour of immediate dismantling under the condition that a full scale dismantling strategy is available prior to the start of the operations. The strategy is elaborated by the operator but is required to be authorised by the safety authorities, not only from their technical point of view but also on the level of their financial feasibility.[14] The position of the safety authority was instrumental in the shift from deferred to immediate dismantling as the reference strategy.

Dismantling operations can take more than a decade in case of more complex nuclear facilities, often after several decades of operation. The safety authorities consider that the risk of the loss of memory on the conception and the operation is “very significant”[15]. This is one of the key reasons why the immediate dismantling approach has been adopted in France. The safety authority specifically requests in most of the cases the development of means to preserve the memory of the past presence of a nuclear facility on a given site and to restrict the scope of its use.

2.1.4. Radioactive waste management

The French nuclear industry is based upon a closed fuel cycle. There are two commercial reprocessing plants at La Hague (Normandy). The choice of the reprocessing option had considerable impact on the definition of the current waste management scheme in France. In 1969 a “low and medium level” waste final disposal site, the "Centre de Stockage de la Manche" (CSM) was opened up adjacent to the La Hague reprocessing plant and operated until 1994 by the CEA. The site, now under surveillance by the National radioactive waste management agency ANDRA, contains over 527,000 t of radioactive waste and hundreds of tons of heavy metals. After closure the site was covered with a multi-layer cover in order to avoid the intrusion of water. In February 2003 the site officially entered the surveillance phase. In 1992, the low and intermediate level waste repository (CSFMA) took over from the Manche repository, taking full advantage of operating experience feedback gained from it. Licensed by decree in September 1989, this installation, located in Soulaines-Dhuys (Aube département) offers a storage capacity for 1,000,000 m3 of waste located in 400 storage units.

In 2003 was also opened a disposal facility (CSTFA) for very-low-level waste in Morvilliers (Aube Department). This facility is also managed by ANDRA and offers a capacity of 650 000 m3.

2.2. SLOVAKIA

2.2.1. Overview

Slovakia operates four nuclear reactors, two at Bohunice V2 NPP and two at Mochovce NPP. Bohunice V1 Units 1 and 2 were shut down respectively in 2006 and 2008, in line with the obligations arising from the Treaty of Accession to the European Union. A specific protocol of this Treaty contained a commitment of significant European Union assistance for their decommissioning.

The privatisation of Slovenske Elektrarne (SE), in which ENEL of Italy has a majority stake, has led to a major reorganisation of operating and shutdown facilities. A new government owned group –JAVYS- now assumes responsibility for the Bohunice V1 facilities and most of the waste management facilities as well as the Interim Spent Fuel Storage. At Mochovce, in addition to the two operating units, there are also two partially completed VVER 440 reactors whose completion is foreseen for October 2012 and June 2013 for units 3 and 4 respectively.

2.2.2. Decommissioning funding

Prior to specific legislation in 1995, there was no requirement to create a dedicated fund with costs being borne directly from the treasury account.

The "National Nuclear Fund" (NNF) is a specific State fund which was established by the Act No. 238/2006 Coll. The purpose of the NNF is to acumulate and to manage the finances determined for the back-end of Slovak nuclear power. The highest body of NNF is the Board of Governors. Activities of NNF are controlled by the Supervisory Board nominated by several ministries and the Nuclear Regulatory Authority of SR.

The financial means of the Fund can be used only for activities related to the back-end of the peaceful use of nuclear energy; decommissioning is a part of this. The level of the payments is defined by the Act in such a way as to be accumulated in sufficient amounts when needed.

If there are insufficient financial resources for safe decommissioning in the National Nuclear Fund, the State may enforce a special additional fee to the price of electricity to the operator of the transmission system and send this to the Nuclear Fund[16]. The Act No. 238/2006 clearly defines the sources of the Fund (level of contributions), the Fund management rules, the form of the Fund use, as well as conditions for its use.

In recognition of the financial burden that Slovakia's early closure commitment for the V1 reactors created, the European Union has foreseen significant financial assistance in a specific protocol to the Treaty of Accession. This assistance will amount to a total of approximately €613 million up to the end of 2013. EU assistance was not only foreseen for decommissioning of the reactor units but also for issues related to security of supply. The amounts fixed for this assistance were not based on a specific proportion of the estimated costs, but recognise the significant burden placed on Slovakia by the shutdown commitment, and are an expression of solidarity between the Union and Slovakia. While the Community assistance is significant, the specific conditions of its use are that it may not be used for the decommissioning of other facilities. For 2014-2017, a further and final European Union commitment is in preparation.

The total value of historical debt (in 2010 price level) is app. 2,7 billion €. Concerning the full decommissioning of NPP A1, including disposal of decommissioning wastes (in near surface or deep repository) and part of the decommissioning of NPP V1 and V2 costs, including management of the spent fuel, aliquot to production of electricity before establishing the NNF. As of 30.06.2011, the value of the National Nuclear Fund was 930,56 million €.

2.2.3. Decommissioning strategy

In accordance with the approved document "Nuclear Energy Back End Strategy", the areas of nuclear power plants Jaslovské Bohunice and Mochovce will be used for future commercial activities after decommissioning. After the shutdown of a nuclear power plant, the area is not considered for agricultural purposes or for the purposes of residential construction. From the viewpoint of radiological background, the site will be a "brownfield", from the viewpoint of the (in)existence of physical constructional obstacles. This means the site will be able to be used for industrial or nuclear purposes. It also means that the final radiologicitalyal status of the site is less restrictive than for a greenfield in terms of radiology.

2.2.4. Radioactive waste management

The near surface National Radwaste Repository for low and intermediate level waste is operational since 1999. The waste which is not acceptable for the National Repository Mochovce shall be stored at the sites of the power plants. A feasibility study and technical documentation for the enlargement of this repository or an alternative construction of a VLLW repository is being financed primarily through Community financial assistance.

Options to construct a deep geological repository are being assessed with a view to have an operational facility by 2038.

2.3. BELGIUM

2.3.1. Overview

Belgium has two sites with operating commercial nuclear power plants at Doel and Tihange, both operated by Electrabel. In addition to the seven reactors at the two sites, there is a fuel fabrication plant at Dessel. The only NPP which is shut down in Belgium is BR-3, a prototype reactor subject of a decommissioning pilot project within the European Commission’s research programme. Other decommissioning projects include several SCK-CEN waste facilities and the former Eurochemic pilot reprocessing plant.

2.3.2. Decommissioning funding

In Belgium, the decommissioning financing regime is based on two funds, one for waste management and the other for decommissioning tasks and the spent fuel management tasks.

A subsidiary of Electrabel, Synatom, is responsible for establishing and managing the provisions for the decommissioning and the management of spent fuel of the commercial power plants. The decommissioning fund is therefore segregated but internal. It is overseen by a surveillance committee, the Nuclear Provisions Commission. The State holds a "golden share" in Synatom which gives it the power to veto certain decisions. 75% of the provisions can be lent back to the operators. A change of the law in 2007 made it possible to use 10% of the remaining 25% of the funds for loans to other power sector investments unrelated to nuclear decommissioning.

The State is responsible for ensuring that adequate financial resources are collected for the former liabilities from non-commercial nuclear programmes such as Eurochemic. This is financed through a levy on electricity sales which are held in a fund managed by the "National Agency for Radioactive Waste and Enriched Fissile Materials" (ONDRAF/NIRAS). The agency is responsible for all waste management, and all radioactive waste must be transferred to it. In parallel, it holds the fund for waste management, which is fed from industry contributions. Synatom has to transfer the financial means for the waste once it is transferred to ONDRAF/NIRAS.

For all nuclear power plants, the obligation to constitute adequate reserves for future liabilities stems from the generally applicable accounting regulation. The basic assumption is that the net present value has to be available at any time during the operation of the nuclear power plants.

Since 2003, the existence of a supervising committee charged with the control of the mechanisms for the decommissioning provisions for nuclear power plants and spent fuel management, is a legal requirement. The supervising committee is composed of high level individuals in the administrations and the banking world. The change of law of 2007 made it possible that 3 delegates of the decommissioning fund, a subsidiary of the nuclear operator, sit in the Nuclear Provisions Commission, the controlling body. ONDRAF/NIRAS is specifically responsible for collecting information related to the decommissioning programmes, approving these programmes, and eventually executing the programme at the request of the operator. Decommissioning provisions and costs are revised every three years for the nuclear power plants and every five years for other facilities.

In practice, provisions are created by trimestrial endowments of the electricity producers during the 40 years of operation of the NPP. Effectively, the trimestrial endowment for the decommissioning of the nuclear power plants is the interest on the gathered provisions at a rate of 5% given that the net present value of decommissioning is already constituted. The total collected amount for the decommissioning at the end of 2010 is €2231 million.

From the financial point of view, all nuclear fuel remains always the property of Synatom, being effectively lent to the nuclear power plant for the production of electricity. The costs related to the nuclear fuel cycle are paid to Synatom from the revenue generated through electricity sales, with a portion of this payment being set aside for the constitution of the provisions for the future management of spent fuel. The provisions for the management of spent fuel are managed by Synatom in the same way as the decommissioning provisions of the nuclear power plants. The cost estimate for the provisions of spent fuel management is based on the most expensive scenario for the back-end of the nuclear fuel cycle, which is reprocessing. The costs are furthermore increased with an uncertainty margin. For this purpose, €3923 million was constituted by the end of 2010.

The state finances the decommissioning of older R&D-facilities, the so-called “nuclear liability programme”. Since 2003, the dismantling of the EUROCHEMIC pilot reprocessing plant and the former waste management site of SCK/CEN is financed by a levy on the electricity consumption. The other SCK/CEN facilities which existed before 1989 are still financed by the state. In practical terms, it is for ONDRAF/NIRAS to manage these projects.

Every 3 years, there is a review of the cost calculations and the financial planning for the commercial power plants by the Nuclear Provisions Commission.

The safety of the investments is assured through regular reviews and checks. If it is found that the provisions are no longer sufficient, regardless of the reasons, the operators have to pay a supplement to the fund to cover the deficit.

2.3.3. Decommissioning strategy

Immediate decommissioning with green field end status was estimated to be the most expensive dismantling strategy and therefore chosen as a reference scenario for nuclear power plants in order to make sure that adequate financial resources will be available independent from the future strategy choice of the operator. Financial resources are therefore calculated for a greenfield endpoint.

There is however no specific national policy and no obligation regarding decommissioning up to greenfield or brownfield. This is indeed established on a site by site basis.

2.3.4. Radioactive waste management

ONDRAF/NIRAS is responsible for the management of all radioactive waste in Belgium and all radioactive waste has in the end to be transferred to it from the producer or owner. Upon transfer, the producer or owner pays to ONDRAF/NIRAS the amount which covers the future management costs. These provisions are managed by ONDRAF/NIRAS. The decommissioning waste management cost is included in the decommissioning cost estimate of the facility.

In 2006, Belgium selected its site (Dessel) for a low level waste repository, where most of the decommissioning waste will be deposited. An extensive R&D programme is aimed at assessing the possibilities for a geological repository for medium, high level and long-lived waste. This programme is expected to result in a site selection, between 2010 and 2020, followed by a preliminary safety report to be submitted to the safety authorities by around 2025. Currently, a first authorisation will be requested for the construction of a disposal facility limited to non-heating waste.

2.4. SWEDEN

2.4.1. Overview

Sweden's nuclear facilities are made up of 13 commercial power reactors, 5 older and permanent shut-off research reactors, a spent fuel store, a repository for short-lived operational radiological waste, a fuel fabrication plant and several other related nuclear installations. Three power reactors and all research reactors are in the state of permanent shut-down. The total decommissioning cycle has been succefully completed for 3 out of 5 research reactors. The two commercial power reactors at the Barsebäck site – near the city of Malmö - which were closed down in 1999 respectively 2005 as part of Sweden's nuclear phase out policy that prevailed at that time were initially foreseen for immediate dismantling. However, these plans have been delayed due to the absence of a waste repository for decommissioning waste. Initially such a repository should have been licensed in 2010, but the plans have been delayed and now the acutal plan is 2023. In conjunction with the decommissioning plans Sweden – like most other countries within the EU – faces a challenge to develop regulations for landfills for the waste bulk of materials from decommissioning projects, for the waste routs for VLLW, materials for free release and hazardous waste etc.

2.4.2. Decommissioning funding

The "Nuclear Activity Act" stipulates that the licence holder of any nuclear facility shall be responsible for all measures required for ensuring safe management and disposal of nuclear waste, as well as safe closure and dismantling of permanent shut-off nuclear power plants in which activities are no longer necessary.

Power reactor decommissioning costs must be established during the first 40 years (plus and additional period of 0-6 years so that the residual time always remains at least 6 years) of operation and are backed up by two guarantees relating to early closure and unforeseen waste management costs. The funds are set up as external segregated funds with considerable oversight especially with respect to fund investment.

The legal framework on decommissioning imposes the licence holder to pay a fee per delivered kWh of electricity to the "Nuclear Waste Fund". The size of the fee is based on a 40-year earning period per reactor. The purpose of the Fund is to cover all expenses incurred for the safe handling and disposal of spent nuclear fuel, as well as dismantling nuclear facilities and disposal of the decommissioning waste. The Fund is also obliged to finance research and development carried out by the "Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company" (SKB). The fund inludes future governmental costs as well.

Updated cost calculations, including decommissioning costs are to be carried out jointly by the operators and submitted to the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority for approval every 3 years. Based on a proposal from the Authority, the Government establishes the fees. The withdrawals from the Fund are subject to regulatory review by the Authority.

The management of the Nuclear Waste Fund is the responsibility of a separate government agency, the Nuclear Waste Fund. The Fund is in principle administered as a number of individual funds corresponding to the operators' liabilites and are managed jointly. The total cost estimate for managing all nuclear waste and for dismantling nuclear power plants in the future is approximately 9 700 million €. As of the end of 2011, 4 115 million € had been collected in the fund. During 2011, the fund capital increased by 328 million €. The fee is reassessed every third year and is individual. In addition to the fees paid to the Nuclear Waste Fund, the nuclear power utilities must provide two forms of guarantees. Guarantee I should cover the shortfall should a reactor be finally closed down before it has reached its earning period of 40 years. Guarantee II should cover contingencies if expenses for future nuclear waste management become higher than expected, if these expenses have to be met earlier than expected, or if the actual amount in the Fund is lower than was estimated. The sizes of these guarantees are €963 million and €3,17 billion, respectively.

The financing of the historical liabilities, e.g. older nuclear installations previously owned by the state, in particular the facilities at Studsvik, the Ågesta reactor and the closed uranium mine in Ranstad, and other miscallaneous radioactive waste for the early days of the Swedish nuclear era are dealt with separately. The basic requirement imposes for all three nuclear power utilities equally to pay a fee to a dedicated fund ad valorem to the generated kWh of electricity. It is forecasted that the fund may be fully built up by the end of 2017. The fee is reassessed annually andequal for each contributor. This fund is also managed by the Nuclear Waste Fund. The future liabilities from 2012 and onwards, to the beginning of the 2040´s is assessed to be around €175M. The working hypotesis is that sufficient funds are to be collected by 2017.

2.4.3. Decommissioning strategy

The operator decides the decommissioning strategy but it is subject to the regulatory authorities’ approval. No binding time limits for decommissioning are set in the current Swedish legislation or operating licenses for nuclear facilities. Storage facilities for decommissioning waste must however be available before dismantling of the facilities can take place. The standpoint of the regulating authority - the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority - from a safety and a radiation protection view is that a decommissioned power reactor should be dismantled, demolished and the site cleared for unrestricted use in a timeframe of around a half generation in the normal case, provided that storage facilities for the decommissioning waste are construced, built, licenced and put into operation. For the case of twin reactors with common safety systems, deferral could be justified if only one of the two reactors is shut down at a given time.

2.4.4. Radioactive waste management

The Swedish policy is clear and states that all that radioactive waste that has arisen in Sweden should be managed and disposed of within the borders. An exemption may be granted by the government in particular cases. There is so far no repository licensed for decommissioning waste. Shallow land burials are licensed only for short-lived very low level waste, but there is at present no up-dated regulations in this field. There are plans to re-license the repository for short-lived low and intermediate level operational waste to allow for disposal also of short-lived decommissioning waste in an extension to the existing facility. There is no disposal facility licensed for long-lived low and intermediate level radioactive waste. According to current plans, a repository for long-lived low and intermediate level waste will be in full operation around 2045. The applications for a permit to build a final repository for spent nuclear fuel, and an associated encapsulation plant, were submitted in March 2011 by SKB. SSM has launched a preliminary review of the need for any development of the application as by November 2012.

2.5. BULGARIA

2.5.1. Overview

Bulgaria has four VVER 440 and two VVER 1000 nuclear reactors at the Kozloduy plant. After the upgrade of the two VVER 1000 units, their operational lifetime extension is a declared priority. A decision in principle was taken in 2012 to undertake preparatory activities for the construction of a new nuclear capacity on Kozloduy site. Spent fuel is currently shipped back to the Russian federation for reprocessing. The construction of a national repository for low and intermediate level waste is at a stage of Technical Design and ISAR development . Construction works are expected to start in 2013.

The four Kozloduy Units, being first generation Soviet design reactors, were closed before the end of their design lifetime, in 2002 and in 2006 respectively, in line with Bulgaria's commitment made in the Treaty of Accession to the European Union. In order to help alleviate the consequences of early closure of these 4 units, significant Community assistance was made available: The total contribution for Bulgaria is foreseen to reach €867,78 million by the end of 2013, with the commitments for 2012 still to be implemented and the ones for 2013 being subject to the approval of the Budgetary Authority (decommissioning activity support and mitigating measures in the energy sector). A further European Union contribution is envisaged for the period 2014-2017.

2.5.2. Decommissioning funding

Segregated external funds were created in 1999 to cover decommissioning and waste liabilities: The "Nuclear Installations Decommissioning Fund" (IYaSE) and the "Radioactive Waste Safety and Storage Fund" (BSRAO). The main source of funding is from a levy on the electricity sold by the operator.

The "Radioactive Waste Fund" and the "Nuclear Installations Decommissioning Fund" were established as the legal successors to the abovementioned funds under the "Safe Use of Nuclear Energy Act" adopted in 2002.

The funds are the main financial instruments used for the implementation of the national policy for the safe management of radioactive waste, including its disposal, and the decommissioning of nuclear installations. They were established with the special purpose of guaranteeing the implementation of specific long-term activities (over a period of more than 300 years) relating to the management of radioactive waste and the decommissioning of nuclear installations.

The decommissioning of nuclear installations is financed by the Nuclear Installations Decommissioning Fund under the authority of the Minister of Economy, Energy and Tourism.

The operators of nuclear installations pay a monthly fee into the budget of the Nuclear Installations Decommissioning Fund. The monthly fee is calculated as a percentage of the average price of electricity sold. The percentage is calculated on the basis of the project lifecycle of the installation. At present, the installments of the operator to the Nuclear Installations Decommissioning Fund amount to 7.5% of the electricity sales, and another3% of the electricity sales are directed to the Radioactive Waste Fund.

In accordance with Article 30(1) of the EU Accession Treaty, Kozloduy Units 1 and 2 were shut down on 31 December 2002 and Units 3 and 4 on 31 December 2006. Due to the early shutdown, the funds raised from relevant fees into the budget of the Nuclear Installation Decommissioning Fund are insufficient to cover the full decommissioning costs. To partially contribute towards this funding gap the Kozloduy International Decommissioning Fund was established and managed by the EBRD. The European Commission is the principal donor and has a decisive vote. The agreed Community financial assistance for the period until the end of 2013 is 867,78 million EUR.

Kozloduy Units 1 and 2 were declared as radioactive menagement facilities and transferred to the State Enterprise for Radioactive Waste (SERAW). The transfer of Units 3 and 4 to SERAW is under preparation.

As of the 31st December 2011 a total of 146.3 million BGN had been raised from fees paid into the budget of the Radioactive Waste Fund.

2.5.3. Decommissioning strategy

Bulgarian law envisages specific steps for the decommissioning of all nuclear installations following their shut-down.

The Strategy for the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste until 2030 as updated in 2011 envisages the full decommissioning of Units 1 to 4 of the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant based on a continuous dismantling concept. In the long term, the sites of the decommissioned Kozloduy Units 1 to 4 are to be re-cultivated up to brownfield status.

A separate programme and financial plan will be developed for the decommissioning of each subsequent installation.

2.6. SLOVENIA

2.6.1. Overview

Slovenia has one nuclear power plant, a research reactor, a waste storage and a uranium mine. A detailed decommissioning strategy and decommissioning funding plan exists for the nuclear power plant. A draft decommissioning strategy and decommissioning funding plan exists for Research Reactor TRIGA Mark II. Decommission of the uranium mine is complete.

The Krško Nuclear Power Plant (Krško NPP) is co-owned by the States of Slovenia and Croatia, which share in equal part the plant’s benefits and liabilities. The nuclear power plant has an operational licence until 2023, with investigations which foresee a possible life-time extension of 20 years. Croatia has joint responsibility with Slovenia for the decommissioning and waste management liabilities relating to the Krsko NPP. In 2003, the governments of Slovenia and Croatia signed an Agreement on the status and other legal issues related to investment, exploitation, and decommissioning of the Nuclear power plant Krško. In this agreement, both countries agreed on assuring funds for decommissioning by financing in equal shares, developing a new decommissioning program, costs and timetable for decommissioning, and requiring each country to establish its own fund for the management and collection of financial resources for its share of decommissioning.

2.6.2. Decommissioning funding

The financial resources for the decommissioning and disposal of all radioactive waste and spent fuel must be available before the end of the nuclear power plant’s operation. As Krško NPP is co-owned in 50:50 share by Slovenia and Croatia, two independent funds must be established. In Slovenia, an external fund, a legal entity managed by a dedicated agency, was established in 1995 to gather half of the required resources and to ensure their availability according to the decommissioning and radioactive waste & spent fuel management program. The owner contributes monthly to the fund via a levy on the produced electricity (0.3 eurocent per kWh). The levy is periodically reassessed based on available technical data and other inputs. Both the decommissioning program and the spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste management program shall be updated and revised every 5 years.

The Croatian decommissioning financing scheme will be addressed within the next issue of this report, as Croatian EU membership is only anticipated from 1 July 2013. A proposal for legislation on the Croatian fund has been drafted during Croatia's accession negotiations.

In Slovenia, the financial resources for the decommissioning and disposal of all radioactive waste must be available before the end of the nuclear power plant’s operation. The total cost of decommissioning is estimated at €1.2 billion. The Slovenian fund amounted to € 145 million at the end of 2009.

2.6.3. Decommissioning strategy

Immediate decommissioning is the preferred strategy in order to exploit to the maximum the experience of the personnel, economical factors and political aspects. If no lifetime extension is granted, the dismantling of the plant is expected to be finalised by 2037 with “green field” as the end point.

2.6.4. Radioactive waste management

It is assumed that all low and interim level radioactive waste will be disposed of in a near-surface repository, expected to become available before the start of decommissioning activities and a site selection process is ongoing. The design of the repository should be modular, with sufficient capacity to accommodate all future LILW waste arising in Slovenia.

In the long term, a decision about the construction of a final repository is expected. The spent research reactor fuel will be sent back to the country of origin.

2.7. GERMANY

2.7.1. Overview

Despite its recent decision to phase out all nuclear power plants by 2022, Germany still has a significant nuclear industry with 9 commercial nuclear power plant units still in operation. For 8 nuclear power plant units the authorisation to generate power expired in 2011 when the 13th Act amending the Atomic Energy Act took effect. Altogether, 19 nuclear power plant units are under decommissioning or have already been decommissioned, one of them still containing fuel. From these, 15 nuclear power plants are currently being dismantled, two nuclear power plants are in safe enclosure and two plants have already been completely dismantled. Furthermore, there were 46 research reactors of which are 8 in operation, 10 were shut down or are in the process of decommissioning and 28 already fully dismantled and numerous other nuclear cycle facilities such as fuel fabrication plants, spent fuel storages and other facilities.

In Germany, the decommissioning financing regime is determined by the Atomic Energy Act (Atomgesetz, AtG) and statutory ordinances promulgated on the basis of the AtG, commercial law and tax law, as well as general administrative provisions: Following the ‘Polluter Pays Principle’, the licensees are responsible for all decommissioning activities. They are free to decide on the decommissioning strategy they would like to follow, and have to bear the respective costs. On the corporate group level, the corporate groups to which the private operators belong set up provisions according to international accounting standards. There are no restrictions with regard to the investment of these internal funds.

Germany has considerable experience of nuclear decommissioning, and its operators have built up significant funds for the financing of such operations.

2.7.2. Decommissioning funding

The way funds are set aside for financing decommissioning activities differs between the purely publicly-owned nuclear installations, nuclear installations with mixed ownership, and nuclear installations belonging to private companies (nuclear power plants, fuel cycle facilities, etc.):

In general, decommissioning of publicly owned nuclear facilities is financed from the current budget. There are no provisions made for future payments. For most projects, the Federal Government covers the bulk of the costs. For some projects, part of the cost is covered by the State Governments (“Länder”). For facilities with mixed ownership, special arrangements are required to clarify the proportion of the costs to be borne by the public and that by the private organisations.

The private owners of nuclear facilities build up internal non-segregated funds according to German commercial law based on their liabilities according to the Atomic Energy Act. On the corporate group level, international accounting standards are applied. The obligation to set up provisions (internal, unrestricted decommissioning funds) starts with the beginning of operation, however the complete amount is not required at this time. According to German tax law, decommissioning provisions for nuclear reactors in German tax balance sheets have to be set up according to the following principles:

· Provisions for spent fuel management are allocated according to their "burn-up" over the period they are used in the reactor. Discounting takes place in a layered procedure over five years. Provisions for the management of the core are allocated over the first 19 years of operation.

· As long as the final shut down of a nuclear facility is not exactly determined, provisions for dismantling, decontamination and demolition have to be accumulated in equal instalments over the first 25 years of operation.

· Provisions for management of radioactive waste from operation are made according to the waste generated. Claims of future interest on advance payments for a final disposal site have to be balanced with the liability which says that operators have to contribute to financing costs of a final disposal site.

· Since 1999, provisions for nuclear decommissioning have to be discounted at a nominal discount rate of 5.5%. However, the discounting period is limited to the period during which the provisions are accumulated. In contrast to IAS/IFRS, the discounting period does not cover the whole time between generation of the kWh which causes the liability and start of the respective decommissioning activity.

· For changes in the size of decommissioning provisions caused by the new German tax law in 1999, a ten years transition period has been granted.

The net provisions given in commercial balance sheets on 31.12.2010 totalled approximately €28.726 million and this provides for a recognised major source of internal finance. The cost estimates on which the provisions are based are regularly updated. Investments are made such that there will be sufficient fund liquidity when needed. However, there is no direct link made between provisions and liabilities.

2.7.3. Decommissioning strategy

Germany has considerable experience in dismantling of nuclear power plants and other nuclear installations. Operators are responsible for the choice of the decommissioning strategy taking radiation protection, employment, knowledge and financial aspects into account. In the past, after having removed all spent fuel, for several nuclear facilities the ‘safe enclosure’ option was chosen, while for other plants, direct dismantling was preferred. The German law includes both options.

2.7.4. Radioactive waste management

The German policy is aiming at minimising radioactive waste and at recycling and reuse of materials. In this context, the release of materials, buildings and sites from nuclear regulatory control is of high importance. The German Radiation Protection Ordinance includes a comprehensive and consistent set of quantitative and radionuclide specific data for the release of materials, buildings and sites from nuclear regulatory control. In practice, the implementation of such an approach requires a great number of measurements, in particular by the operator, in order to demonstrate compliance with legal requirements.

Although the costs of performing clearance are non-negligible – the costs for decontamination and preparation of the material as well as for performing the clearance and control measurements etc. – the costs for treating this material as radioactive waste and bringing it to final disposal would be considerably higher.

Since July 1, 2005, the Atomic Energy Act forbids transport of spent fuel elements from power reactors to reprocessing (this does not affect spent fuel from research reactors). Prior to this date, reprocessing was an option used by many NPPs in Germany.

Since 2002, the operators of NPPs are required to ensure that an interim storage facility is constructed within the enclosed site or in the vicinity of the installation and that the irradiated nuclear fuel is stored there until it is surrendered to a disposal facility. Accordingly, such local interim storage facilities for spent fuel have been constructed during the last few years at the NPP sites in Germany. Therefore, in principle the shipment of spent fuel from the NPPs to the existing centralized interim storage facilities does no longer occur.

2.8. CZECH REPUBLIC

2.8.1. Overview

The Czech Republic operates six pressurized water reactor units, four VVER-440/213 reactor units at Dukovany and two VVER-1000/320 reactors at Temelín. Taking into account anticipated lifetime extensions, the expected shutdown dates for these units are between 2025-2028 and 2042-2043 respectively. There are also two operational research reactors, one school reactor, four spent fuel storages and three LLW/ILW repositories in use.

In addition to the remedial efforts for the environmental legacies from already closed and operational uranium mining sites, the decommissioning of the commercial NPPs sites will constitute the bulk of decommissioning effort and expense.

2.8.2. Decommissioning funding

In the Czech Republic, two separate funds are set up. The first one for decommissioning and the other one for waste disposal. The former being an internally managed blocked account and the latter an external fund managed by the Ministry of Finance.

Nuclear law requires that in case an estimate of total costs of decommissioning exceeds 300 000 CZK, the licence holder has to make provisions for decommissioning of the respective nuclear installation or category III or IV workplace steadily, so that financial resources deposited on a blocked account will be available for preparation and performance of decommissioning, at the required time and in the required amount, in line with the programme of decommissioning approved by the "State Office for Nuclear Safety" (SONS).

While this bank account is maintained by the licensee, payments can be effectuated solely for decommissioning purposes, subject to the approval of the "Radioactive Waste Repository Authority" (RAWRA). The latter monitors the account and verifies the decommissioning cost estimate on the basis of both publicly available information and expert estimates. The decommissioning plan and the relevant cost estimate of each nuclear installation or workplace shall be updated at least every 5 years.

The most recent decommissioning cost estimates covering the technical decommissioning amounted to €690 million for NPPs Dukovany 1-4, and €583 million for Temelin 1-2 (2009 prices). Liabilities resulting from spent-fuel management (e.g., costs for on-site interim storage) and all costs related to final nuclear waste disposal are not covered by these estimates. Estimated decommissioning costs are based on undiscounted decommissioning cost estimates which must be updated every five years.

The cost for the disposal of all spent fuel and high level waste is borne by the waste producers via their contributions to the so-called "Nuclear Account", a dedicated external fund held at the Czech National Bank and managed by the Ministry of Finance. The "Radioactive Waste Repository Authority" monitors the adequacy of the Nuclear Account.

The contribution of nuclear power plants to the Nuclear Account is based on their electricity production at the rate of 2 €/MWe. Waste producers operating nuclear research reactor contribute on the basis of heat generation at the rate of 0,6 €/MWt.

Small producers pay when their waste is accepted for disposal.

2.8.3. Decommissioning strategy

The adopted decommissioning strategy for both nuclear power plant sites involves a 35-40 year safe enclosure period following spent fuel removal and facility preparation (deferred decommissioning). The installation is then decommissioned over a ten year period. A green field state is not an absolute requirement. The timescale for research reactor decommissioning is more rapid but subject to optimisation for economic reasons.

2.8.4. Radioactive waste management

The waste resulting from the decommissioning process will be processed by standard technologies, which are presently available and which are or will be used in the Dukovany nuclear power plant and the Temelin nuclear power plant.

Radioactive waste repositories are available for the nuclear power plants’ decommissioning waste and for the waste arising from decommissioning of other nuclear installations and workplaces.

The decommissioning waste that does not meet the waste acceptance criteria for disposal in existing repositories is planned to be disposed of in a deep geological repository. Investigations are on-going to select an appropriate site for a deep geological repository.

2.9. FINLAND

2.9.1. Overview

Finland has four existing power reactors, two boiling water reactors at Olkiluoto, operated by TVO and two pressurised water reactors at Loviisa, operated by Fortum Power and Heat. A European Pressurised Water reactor (EPR) is under construction at Olkiluoto and is expected to become operational in 2014. A project for a new nuclear power plant has been put forward by Fennovoima at the Pyhäjoki site. Two decisions-in-principle were made by the Finnish Government and ratified by the Parliament in 2010 concerning a fourth reactor in Olkiluoto for TVO and a reactor in Pyhäjoki for Fennovoima. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland has decided to close the small Triga Mark II research reactor in Espoo after 50 years of operation. Decommissioning is expected to start in the next few years, preceded by an environmental impact assessment. The exact closure date of the reactor has not yet been decided.

2.9.2. Decommissioning funding

Since 1988, financing of nuclear waste management and decommissioning has been regulated by the provisions included in the "Nuclear Energy Act" and the "Decree on the State Nuclear Waste Management Fund".

The operators of NPPs are responsible for the management of all nuclear waste. The operators have to take care of their waste including that of decommissioning until the waste has been disposed of in a manner accepted by the authorities. Responsibilities cover planning, research and implementation including the costs.

The "State Nuclear Waste Management Fund" is a special-purpose fund, segregated from the State budget. Its task is to collect, hold and invest in a secure way the funds needed to guarantee the future management of nuclear waste. The Ministry of Employment and the Economy (MEE) controls that the operation of the Fund complies with the legislation. The Fund does not pay for the waste management measures but keeps in safe the money corresponding to the costs of the remaining measures. Theoretically, all the funds have been returned to the operators when they have carried out all the necessary waste management operations. For these reasons, the Fund could be described as a guarantee fund.

The Fund’s capital consists of the contributions determined annually by the MEE and paid by the utilities and the operator of the research reactor. The waste management and decommissioning costs shall be evaluated in nominal terms following the current cost level, without discounting. If a significant part of the costs are not dependent on the amount of nuclear waste the system allows distribution of costs over the first 25 years of plant operation against full securities. Also, the funding of major increases in liability may be distributed over five years.

In 2011 the State Nuclear Waste Management Fund amounted to about € 2120 million, adequate to cover 97% of the future financial liabilities. These arise from the conditioning and disposal of the current amount of waste and decommissioning of the facilities. The collection of assets will continue in order to cover the remaining liability and that due to additional accumulation of nuclear waste. At each moment, the amount of liabilities which is not yet covered by the fund has to be covered by securities supplied by the licensees. To provide for unforeseen costs, the Government can decide on an extra security of up to 10 % of the total liability.

The licensees are entitled to borrow money from the Fund against securities. These loans may not exceed 75% of the confirmed fund holding of the loan-taker at a time. The State has a right to borrow the sum not borrowed by the contributors. The remaining funds are invested by the Fund.

For ensuring that the cost estimates for waste management and decommissioning are realistic, the owners of the NPP’s are obliged to update cost estimates for carrying out nuclear waste management, including decommissioning, every three years. A plan for the decommissioning of nuclear facilities, which includes technical details, shall be updated at six year intervals. The authorities review these technical plans and cost estimates. The last updates for technical plans were published in 2009 and for cost estimates in 2010.

2.9.3. Decommissioning strategy and radioactive waste management

Management of spent nuclear fuel from the NPPs is based on disposal into a geological repository, planned to be operational around 2020. Low and intermediate level waste from the NPPs will be disposed of into already existing licensed onsite repositories.

The decommissioning plan for the Loviisa NPP is based on immediate dismantling after 50 years of operation. The spent fuel storage remains on site after the plant is decommissioned until all spent fuel has been transported to Olkiluoto for final disposal. The decommissioning plan for the Olkiluoto NPP units 1 and 2 is based on deferred dismantling after a safe storage period of 30 years. The decommissioning strategy of the unit OL 3 is immediate dismantling. Dismantling of all the units at Olkiluoto site is expected to be done in one campaign. The onsite repositories for operational low and intermediate level waste will be extended to accommodate the waste from decommissioning. The strategy in Olkiluoto is justified by the decrease of the activity of the contaminated circuits and because of the continuation of the nuclear activities at the site is foreseen towards the end of the century. The strategy in Loviisa is justified by the feasibility of decontamination of the primary circuit, availability of experienced workers and by the need of the site for new electricity generation capacity.

2.10. SPAIN

2.10.1. Overview

Spain has 8 operating power reactors, two shutdown reactors (one in safe enclosure), a fuel fabrication plant and one nuclear research center, currently under decommissioning, and around 1,200 radioactive instalations in the field of the industry, medicine and research generating LILW. None of its Uranium mines is operational, all of them being already environmentally restored. The "Spanish Radioactive Waste Management Organisation" (ENRESA), a state company set up in 1984, is responsible for spent fuel, radioactive waste management and decommissioning activities. Since the endorsement of the Law 11/2009, the management of radioactive waste, including spent nuclear fuel, and the dismantling and decommissioning of nuclear facilities was qualified as an essential public service corresponding exclusively to the State (commissioned to ENRESA).

2.10.2. Decommissioning funding

A Royal Decree 1349/2003 on the ordering of the activities of ENRESA requires the conclusion of contracts between ENRESA and the companies owning nuclear power plants and other facilities generating radioactive waste. The major objective of these contracts is to establish the conditions for the reception of radioactive waste during the operating life time and the decommissioning of the installations.

The regulation on the provision of funds for waste management and decommissioning was originally based on a general fee on the electricity tariff; but since the approval of Royal Decree-Law 5/2005, a revised system is applied where nuclear utilities bear the bulk of the expenses (last amendments by Law 11/2009 and Law 2/2011).

These amounts are allocated to the build-up of a fund, managed by ENRESA, the revenues of which arise from:

The amounts collected via the supply and access fees proportional to electricity sales. The percentages to be applied, established by the Law 11/2009, can be modified by the Government. By these means, funds are collected for the management of waste generated in NPPs that ceased their operation before 1st of January 2010, as well as waste generated by other reasons (eg. research activities, unexpected shutdown of a NPP, etc.).

Fees to the licensees of the nuclear power plants of a certain amount, which results from multiplying the gross kilowatt-hours generated by each plant in each calendar month by a unit value specific to each plant established by the Law, that can be modified by the Government. This system, in force since 1st of January 2010, is applied to cover the management of spent fuel and waste generated by NPPs in operation.

Fees collected for the management of radioactive wastes arising from the manufacturing of fuel assemblies and for the dismantling of the facilities at which such fuel assemblies are manufactured.

Billing to the operators of radioactive facilities generating radioactive wastes and involved in medicine, industry, agriculture and research, to be directly collected to the operators via tariffs approved by the Law, that can be also modified by the Government.

The financial management of the fund by ENRESA is governed by the principles of security, profitability and liquidity. The total amount shall cover the costs related to the activities contemplated in the General Radioactive Waste Plan GRWP. For nuclear power plants, a 40 years service lifetime is assumed in the calculation. The average value of the yearly incomes estimated to finance the future costs of decommissioning and end fuel cycle burdens represents around €6.69/MWh of nuclear origin (2011 value).

The GRWP includes activities regarding the management of radioactive waste, spent fuel as well as dismantling and decommissioning of both nuclear and radioactive facilities. It also addresses the uranium mining and milling activities performed prior to 1984. The GRWP is revised every four years or more frequently upon the request of the Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism. In addition to this, during the first six months of every year, ENRESA draws up an updated economic-financial study of the costs of the activities contemplated in the GRWP. Furthermore, each year a technical-economic assessment is submitted to justify the suitability of the annual budget for the next financial year and to provide forecasts for the next three years, with respect to the provisions of the updated economic-financial study of the costs.Total decommissioning and waste management costs are estimated at €16.8 billion (2011 value), including disposal. The dismantling of nuclear power plants is estimated at €3.18 billion (2011 value). The total amount of money collected in the fund as of 31st December, 2010 was €2.913 million, i.e. roughly 24% of the future stimated cost.

2.10.3. Decommissioning strategy

The GRWP set up as the national selected strategy is one of immediate dismantling except for the Vandellós I nuclear power plant, which is already decommissioned to stage 2 as of the beginning of 2003 and which is due to remain in safe enclosure state for 30 years. The immediate decommissioning strategy is to be initiated three years after definitive shutdown and following removal of the spent fuel. The end-point of decommissioning is the free release of the site, e.g. “green field”.

2.10.4. Radioactive waste management

The handling, storage and disposal of radioactive waste are the responsibility of ENRESA, the Spanish radioactive waste management agency. The radioactive waste management services offered by ENRESA to the operators of nuclear and radioactive facilities are governed by contracts based on corresponding type-contracts and the fees established by the Law. Once the radioactive waste is removed from the facilities, ENRESA becomes responsible for its management until its definitive disposal.

In accordance with the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management the seven nuclear power plant sites in Spain are also radioactive waste management facilities.

2.11. UNITED KINGDOM

2.11.1. Overview

In the United Kingdom there are three main nuclear operators, British Energy (BE), British Nuclear Fuel (BNFL), and the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA). BE is a private company while BNFL and UKAEA belong to the public sector. The UK’s decommissioning plans are advanced and well documented, because the UK was a pioneer in the field of nuclear power generation and already has many retired nuclear facilities that need to be decommissioned. The UK government’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) was set up in 2005 to take over the sites previously owned by BNFL and the UKAEA and is also expected to manage the decommissioning of British Energy’s sites.

The total cost of decommissioning Britain’s civil nuclear facilities is currently estimated to be in excess of €100 billion, although it is widely expected that this figure will rise. The cost estimates are dominated by two sites, Dounreay and Sellafield, which account for approximately 75% of the total liability.

Due to its operational independence, the NDA is considered to be a useful model for other countries to follow for the management of decommissioning once the facilities have been closed. However, the funding mechanisms that resulted in identifiable funds representing only 1 percent of current liabilities, needs to be carefully addressed in order to avoid possible repetitions. In addition, the funding arrangements for NDA give some cause for concern in that the government share (currently 50%) is based upon a short term commitment period which can be seen as inappropriate for long term decommissioning planning.

2.11.2. Decommissioning funding

The NDA has contributed to transparency by publishing a vast amount of useful and accessible material on its decommissioning plans and the estimated costs through the ‘Lifecycle Baselines’ it drafts for each of its main facilities. A similar remark cannot be made for the government underwritten BE fund.

There have been a number of major changes in the way decommissioning provisions for the civil nuclear power plants have been collected. Provisions were initially set up as internal unsegregated provisions, however these were not passed on to successor companies. A consumer subsidy was introduced in the 1990s – Fossil Fuel Levy (FFL) – in order to finance inter-alia, decommissioning costs. The absence of any segregated fund, and the creation of NDA has seen the main part of this subsidy used by the government for purposes other than nuclear decommissioning.

BE operates the AGR reactors and the Sizewell B PWR. Approximately €350 million of the FFL was passed on to BE and placed in a segregated fund which did not address stage 1 decommissioning. This and the very long deferral periods mean BE was required to only provide relatively small discounted contributions. Subsequently, under the EC approved restructuring package, the former fund was subsumed within the new Nuclear Liabilities Fund (NLF). BE makes periodic contributions into the NFL, aimed at covering all stages of decommissioning and uncontracted liabilities. While BE is making an effort to cover the decommissioning costs of its power stations, there can be no guarantee that the assets in the segregated fund will be sufficient. Therefore, the fund is underwritten by the UK Government to ensure safety and environmental protection. Nevertheless, the Government can initiate at specific intervals, the first of which is 2015, a 'Fund Review' if it believes the assets of the Fund will outstrip the liabilities by 125%. If the Review confirms that position, the Government has a right to extract the excess funds from the NLF.

BE’s nuclear liabilities are estimated in the companies accounts for the year ending 31st March 2003 at €1.5 billion for decommissioning, €5 billion for Contracted Spent Fuel Liabilities and €1.5 billion for uncontracted Spent Fuel Liabilities. BE is also responsible for future (post Jan 2005) spent fuel liabilities. Under the EC approved restructuring plan, BE contributes to the NLF in the following ways: a fixed contributions of €35 million per annum; €412 million of new bonds; €225,000 per tonne/uranium of fuel loaded into Sizewell B reactor; and 65 % of BE’s free cash flow. The value of the segregated fund as set out in 2004 annual accounts was €660 million.

2.11.3. Decommissioning strategy

By international standards, UK timescales for decommissioning are long: completion of final clearance for nuclear power plants is not expected until up to 130 years after plant closure. NDA has an objective to reduce this to 25 years, which will tend to increase undiscounted costs and massively increase discounted costs. While the NDA has a supervisory role over plans to decommission British Energy’s plants, it is not entirely clear whether it is able to require British Energy to reduce the timescales for its plants, which on current plans assume site clearance is not complete until nearly 100 years after plant closure.

2.11.4. Radioactive waste management

The UK has disposal facilities for low and very low level radioactive wastes. Pending decisions on a long-term solution, interim and high level waste is stored on site. The NDA’s strategy for dealing with radioactive waste is dependent on the outcome of wider reviews initiated by the UK Government.

2.12. ROMANIA

2.12.1. Overview

Romania operates two pressurised heavy water reactor units in Cernavodã, operated by SN Nuclearelectrica SA. In addition, Romania has a dual core TRIGA research reactor in Pitesti, operated by Institute for Nuclear Research (SCN) and a shutdown WWR-S type reactor in Bucharest, currently in the second stage of decommissioning, owned by "National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering – Horia Hulubei" (IFIN-HH).

The "Nuclear and Radioactive Waste Agency" (AN&DR) is responsible for the disposal of radioactive waste (RW) and spent nuclear fuel (SNF), and to ensure at national level the coordination of the nuclear installations decommissioning process. AN&DR is a specialized body of the central public administration, with legal personality, under the coordination of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Business Environment.

2.12.2. Decommissioning funding

In 2007 the Government of Romania adopted a decision regarding the way of establishment and of management of the financial resources necessary for the safe management of radioactive waste and for the decommissioning of the nuclear and radiological facilities.

The purpose of this decision was to determine the amount of contributions that must be paid by the licence holders that hold nuclear units, in order to constitute the necessary financial resources to cover the costs for the decommissioning and the safe management of radioactive waste generated by the operation and the decommissioning of these facilities, as well as the way of administration and management of the financial accumulations achieved in this way.

Therefore, in 2007 two segregated funds were established: one to cover the costs of the disposal of SNF and RW generated by the operation and the decommissioning of the nuclear facilities, the "Waste Management Fund" (WMF) and the second one to cover the costs of the decommissioning of nuclear facilities, the "Decommissioning Fund" (DF). The waste generators are required to make annual contributions to both funds, which are administrated by AN&DR.

SN Nuclearelectrica SA, the main contributor of both funds, pays a levy on energy production at the rates of 1.4 Euro/MWh for WMF and 0.6 Euro/MWh for the DF. The funds are constituted by the State Treasury into interest bearing accounts. The Cernavoda reactor units have a design lifetime of 30 years with possibility to be extended to 50 years after a major refurbisment (25 of operation +1.5 years of refurbishment+25 year of operation). According to the current estimations, the refurbishment process for Cernavoda NPP Unit 1 will take place between 2022-2023. Following shutdown, decommissioning costs are to be incurred over a period of 70 years and are estimated to be around of €250 million per reactor unit.

The funds earmarked for decommissioning of research reactors will be ensured from the State Budget.

2.12.3. Decommissioning strategy

The existing Preliminary Decommissioning Plan (PDP) for Cernavoda NPP Units 1 and 2 is under review and has to be completed by the end of year 2012. Cernavoda NPP units 3 and 4 issued in 2010 the first version of PDP which was endorsed by AN&DR.

The immediate dismantling strategy was selected for decommissioning the WWR-S reactor. The implementation of the strategy is based on the decommissioning plan and the project management.

2.12.4. Radioactive waste management

According to the law, the predisposal management of the radioactive waste (handling, storage, treatment and conditioning) is under the responsibility of the waste generators. As shown in the Romanian Report to the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, the three nuclear facilities sites in Romania have their own radioactive waste management installations.

The implementation of the Romanian national strategy for radioactive waste management aims to create an operating repository for low - and intermediate - level radioactive waste by 2020. The facility will be suitable to accommodate short-lived radioactive waste, with long-lived radionuclides in limited quantities originating form operation and decommissioning of four units at Cernavoda NPP. The concept proposed for disposal of the waste is a near-surface repository with multiple barrier system.

The disposal of institutional radioactive waste is performed in the National Repository for Low and Intermediate Level Wastes (DNDR), operated by IFIN-HH.

For the management of the SNF and long-lived RW, Romania is developing a preliminary programme for establishing a geological repository along with the cost estimation.

2.13. HUNGARY

2.13.1. Overview

There are four nuclear facilities in Hungary: The Paks Nuclear Power Plant, the Budapest Research Reactor at the KFKI Atomic Energy Research Institute, the training reactor at Budapest University of Technology and Economics and an Interim Spent Fuel Storage (ISFS) Facility.

Other facilities, in which radioactive materials are produced, processed, used, handled, stored or disposed, are non-nuclear facilities. Nuclear facilities fall under the regulatory jurisdiction of the "Hungarian Atomic Energy Authority" (HAEA), non-nuclear facilities are licensed by the "National Public Health and Medical Officer Service".

For the Paks NPP, the initial design lifetime was 30 years, however a lifetime-extension of 20 years is currently under discussion. This will require a licence from the regulatory body. (Concerning the first unit, the lifetime extension licence application was submitted to HAEA by the licensee in 2011.)

2.13.2. Decommissioning funding

The "Central Nuclear Financial Fund" (CNFF) was established on 1 January 1998. It is a separate Treasury account made up of the contributions of the nuclear facilities operators and the waste producers. It is designed for financing the construction and operation of disposal facilities for the final disposal of radioactive waste, as well as for interim storage of spent nuclear fuel and closure of the fuel cycle (according to the present reference scenario: final disposal of spent fuel), and decommissioning of nuclear facilities. CNFF is managed by the HAEA. The state is responsible for preserving the value of CNFF by making annual contributions with a sum that is calculated on the average assets of the Fund in the previous year using the average base interest rate of the central bank in the previous year.

It is important to add that the CNFF (being a separate, segregated state fund) is on a separate account in the Hungarian State Treasury, and falls under the control of the "State Audit Office of Hungary" (SAO). Year by year, when giving opinion on the budget appropriation bill of the Republic of Hungary, SAO reviews also the proposed budget of CNFF as part of the central budget.

The nuclear power plant at Paks is obliged to make annual contributions to the fund covering the total cost of waste and spent fuel management and decommissioning until the end of its operation. The payment is determined annually by the "Public Agency for Radioactive Waste Management" (PURAM) in discussion with the HAEA, the Hungarian Energy Office as well as a special committee of the CNFF, and approved by the Minister disposing over the Fund. Finally, as the research and training reactors are state-owned, the cost of their decommissioning will be paid into the CNFF by the state when the time comes. The Act on Atomic Energy requires that nuclear facilities pay during their life-time into the Central Nuclear Financial Fund the cost of all activities to cover radioactive waste and spent fuel management as well as decommissioning. The calculations are updated anually.

In total the decommissioning cost of the Paks Nuclear Power Plant and the Interim Spent Fuel Storage Facility was estimated as 330 billion HUF given in 2011 year price, which is about € 1,182 million (calculated with the 2011 year average exchange rate: 279 HUF/Euro).

2.13.3. Decommissioning strategy

PURAM is responsible for the decommissioning and waste management activities, including preparation of the long term plans and calculation of the related costs. The plans, after supervision by the HAEA, are approved by the Minister supervising the HAEA.

The first study report discussing the decommissioning of the nuclear facilities (Paks NPP and the ISFS facility as well) was prepared by DECOM Slovakia Ltd in 1997. Then DECOM Slovakia Ltd and TS-ENERCON Ltd jointly prepared the first version of the preliminary decommissioning plan of the ISFS in 2003.

The present, accepted decommissioning strategy is deferred dismantling with a safe enclosure period of 20 years contained in the preliminary decommissioning plan (actualised in 2008). It has been worked out for the “green field” option as the end point of decommissioning.

The preliminary decommissioning plan is updated with a 5 years period, but its cost estimates are reviewed annually.

2.13.4. Radioactive waste management

Non-nuclear power plant wastes are disposed of in the existing Radioactive Waste Treatment and Disposal Facility, operational since 1976. The Interim Spent Fuel Storage Facility is available for spent fuels from the nuclear power plant.

In addition, a project is on-going to construct a low and intermediate level waste repository at Bátaapáti (National Radioactive Waste Repository; NRWR) for the operational and decommissioning waste of the NPP. A referendum held in July 2005 demonstrated the existence of a very high level of public acceptance at local level for this project. As the first phase of the construction of the repository, the surface facilities were completed in 2008, which enables to temporarly store of a part of solid waste from the NPP. The first disposal gallery will be installed and commissioned in the underground disp