EN    EN EN 
EN   EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 27.10.2009 
SEC(2009) 1431 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
“Kozloduy Programme” 
 
Ex Ante Evaluation 
 
Accompanying document to the 
 
Proposal for a   
 
COUNCIL REGULATION 
 
on Community financial assistance with  respect to the decommissioning of  
Units 1 to 4 of the Kozloduy nuclear power plant in Bulgaria 
   
{COM(2009) 581 final} 
EN    EN Kozloduy Programme – ex ante evaluation 
Lead DG : TREN 
Other involved services : N.A. 
Agenda planning or WP reference : 2009/TREN/050 
Executive summary  
First generation reactors of Soviet design such as the 4 VVER 440/230 reactors at Kozloudy 
Nuclear Power Plant (KNPP) in Bulgaria are a major safety risk for the citizens and the 
environment. Whereas units 1 and 2 were shut down in 2002 in th e framework of the 
accession negotiations, Bulgaria closed units 3 and 4 by 2006 and will subsequently decommission all four units as laid down in the Protocol to the Accession Treaty of Bulgaria 
and Romania.  
To alleviate the economic consequences of this early closure the Union provided € 210 
million in 2004 prices between 2007 and 2009 for decommissioning of the reactors, but also 
for security of supply (replacem ent capacity) and energy efficiency measures through the 
Kozloduy International Decomm issioning Support Fund (KIDSF), managed by the European 
Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in London, to which th e EU is the major 
(but not sole) contributor. Contrary to Slovakia and Lithuania where similar shutdown 
decisions were taken in the accession process,  current funding for Kozloduy is foreseen to 
stop in 2009. 
Up to today, Bulgaria has fulfilled its commitme nts and all 4 reactor units have been closed. 
Bulgaria could request, however, the restart of Units 3 and 4 at  any moment based on Article 
36 of the Protocol to the Accession Treaty, in case of exceptional economical circumstances. 
However, an unilateral Bulgarian decision would constitute an infringement of the Accession 
Treaty. 
Bulgaria decided in the meantime to accel erate decommissioning, which sound studies 
showed to be more economic than deferring th ese activities, but which makes further timely 
funding necessary. The country asked, therefor e, since 2005, the European Commission and 
Member States for additional support between  2010 and 2013. The final amount for additional 
financial support would be € 300 million, out of  which 60% would cover the needs for the 
implementation of decommissioning projects and 40% measures in the energy sector. 
The Commission evaluated five options ("no EU intervention - continue with national 
funding", "no EU intervention – continue with private funding" , "EU limited co financing 
(pay only safe maintenance)", "EU indirect  co-financing (through E BRD)", "EU direct co 
financing") on whether and to what extent they would help reaching the Commission's 
objectives, including nuclear safety and the availa bility of adequate financial resources when 
needed for decommissioning. Economic studies on th e closures of nuclear power plants show 
that Bulgaria would be hit relatively harder than the Lithuania and Slovakia. The preferred 
option is actually to continue EU funding vi a the EBRD. This solution secures a much higher 
level of safety, keeps expertise on site, ensure s de-fuelling, prevents re-opening and allows for 
a start of actual dismantling works while guaranteeing seamless financing. 
EN    EN Bulgaria has already agreed to accept – as in the past – a st ringent monitoring of individual 
decommissioning steps including clearly timed  deliverables. Working through EBRD and 
KIDSF would allow following these individual steps and enabling annual evaluations of the 
use of Community funds. 
EN    EN Table of Contents 
Executive summary .................................................................................................................. 2 
Section 1: Procedural issues and c onsultation of interested parties ........................................... 5 
Organisation and timing........................................................................................................ ..... 5 
Consultation and expertise ..................................................................................................... .... 5 
Section 2 Problem definition................................................................................................... ... 7 
Background ..................................................................................................................... ........... 7 
Current status and progress achieved......................................................................................... 7 Justification for additional support........................................................................................... .. 9 
Conclusions .................................................................................................................... .......... 11 
Section 3: Objectives.......................................................................................................... ...... 13 
Section 4: Policy options...................................................................................................... .... 15 
Background ..................................................................................................................... ......... 15 
Conclusion of mid term evalua tion Slovakia and Lithuania .................................................... 16 
Assessment of the mid-term recommendations for Bulgaria ................................................... 17 The policy options are:........................................................................................................ ..... 17 
Section 5: Analysis of impacts................................................................................................. 19 
SWOT Analysis.................................................................................................................. ...... 19 
Section 6: Comparing the options ............................................................................................ 22 Section 7: Monitoring and evaluation ...................................................................................... 24 Annex 1 ……………………………………………………………………………………….26 Annex 2…….. .................................................................................................................... ...... 28 
Annex 3 ……………………………………………………………………………………….31 
 
EN    EN 1. SECTION 1: PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
1.1. Organisation and timing 
Agenda planning 2009/TREN/050  
A proposal for Council Regulation is foreseen for autumn 2009. The Council Regulation is foreseen  to come into force in 2010.  
1.2. Consultation and expertise 
The following stakeholders were involved at di fferent levels in the consultation process: 
1. The Bulgarian government and in particular the Bulgarian Ministry of Economy and 
Energy. 
The consultation with the Bulgarian government was held through several meetings 
and exchanges of letters. First contacts go back to 2007 after DG TREN had taken over from DG ELARG the implementation of the EU assistance for Bulgaria 
following their accession to the EU. In 2008 information was exchanged and 
meetings held on procedural topics relate d to an extension of support. Since end 
2008 and in 2009 meetings took place to discus s and agree on the technical scope of 
a possible extension of support. 
2. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) 
Exchanges and discussions with EBRD as the manager of the KIDSF took place on a 
regular basis. This consultation focu sed on the progress of the works in 
decommissioning and in the energy sector  assisted by the Community and is an 
integral part of DG TREN's monitoring pr ogramme. In addition to the Assembly of 
Donors meetings twice a year, separate work ing meetings were ar ranged, either in 
the Bank's or the Commission's premises or on site in Bulgaria. 
3. EU Member States 
Several EU Member States are D onors to the Kozloduy International 
Decommissioning Support Fund (KIDSF) and ar e represented in the Assembly of 
Donors meeting organised twice a year in London. All EU Member States are 
represented in the Nuclear Decommissi oning Assistance Programme Committee 
(NDAP-C), which is the management committee advising the Commission on the 
implementation of the financia l support to the three benefi ciary countries Lithuania, 
Slovakia and Bulgaria. At the Assembly and NDAP-C meetings the progress of the 
programme is discussed and the planning for the future is addressed. Bulgaria has 
raised the issue of extension of financ ial assistance for th e period 2010 – 2013 in 
order to get the support from the other Member States. Several Member States 
explicitly expressed their s upport for the Bulgarian request. 
4. The Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant (KNPP) and State Enterprise of Radioactive 
Waste (SERAW): 
EN    EN KNPP and SERAW were consulted on the technical aspects and corresponding 
budget for the extension of the support, as both organisations are the main beneficiaries of the support programme. Mee tings and site visits contributed to the 
consultation process. 
5. The technical experts and expertise: 
Several national reference documents, that we re elaborated to a very large extent 
with financial support from the Community, pr ovide the basis for technical expertise. 
The Updated Decommissioning Strategy of 2006
1 is the approved and official 
document of the Decommissioning Programme of Units 1-4 of the Kozloduy NPP. It 
is based on the Decommissioning Strategy of 20022.  
The Technical Design of the Decommissioning of Units 1-2 (the basis of the original 
Decommissioning Strategy of 2002) was financed by PHARE – BG 9608-01-01-
L001 and prepared by Consortium Be lgatom (Belgium) – EWN (Germany) – 
Energoproekt (Bulgaria) in 2001.  
Additional information was used from th e study contracted by the Commission on 
the "Analysis of Environmental, Econom ic and Social Issues Linked to the 
Decommissioning of Nuclear Installati ons" performed by Plejades. The study 
contains a separate chapter on Bulgaria addressing the impact of early closure of the KNPP units 1 to 4. The Plejades re port was finalised in January 2007
3. Extract 
concerning Bulgaria see annex 3. 
6. NGOs, civil society - not consulted given the short timeframe. 
                                                 
1 Updated decommissioning strategy KPMU, 20 June 2006 … 
2 Technical design of the decommissioning of units 1-2, PHARE BG9608-01-01-L001 
3 Analysis of Environmental, Economic and Social  Issues Linked to the Decommissioning of Nuclear 
Installations, Plejades,  January 2007, Europa web DG TREN 
EN    EN  
2. SECTION 2 PROBLEM DEFINITION  
2.1. Background 
Nuclear reactors of VVER 440/230 type (first gene ration reactors of Soviet design) constitute 
a risk for the citizens and the environment. The safety of those first generation VVER 
440/230 reactors is not up to a comparable level w ith western European nuclear reactors. 
These reactors have limited confinement functi on and capability, as well as vulnerability 
against common cause failures. It does not appear economically feasible to back fit the 
plants with a reactor containment  that could provide similar protection to the containments 
of modern Western PWR reactors.  
Bulgaria has 4 VVER 440/230 reactors at Ko zloudy Nuclear Power Plant (KNPP). Units 1 
and 2 of KNPP were shut down in 2002 in the framework of the accession negotiations. 
According to the Article 30 of the Protocol to  the Accession Treaty of Bulgaria and Romania, 
Bulgaria committed itself to definitively close Units 3 and 4 by 2006 and subsequently decommission all four units. 
KNPP units 1 and 2 have essentially been shut down at the end of their initial design-lifetime 
of 30 years. Units 3 and 4 were closed 5 years earlier than their design life (early closure). 
Early closure of the KNPP units puts an economical burden on Bulgaria. 
The European Union expressed its willingness to  support Bulgaria's efforts to alleviate the 
consequences of early closur e of these 4 units. Therefore Article 30 of the Protocol 
concerning the conditions and arrangements for admission of the Repub lic of Bulgaria and 
Romania to the European Union foresees a dditional financial assi stance up to 2009 as an 
extension of the pre-accession aid implement ed under the Phare programme. The budget for 
this additional assistance was fixed at €210 million (2004 prices) for the period 2007 to 2009. 
EU assistance is not only foreseen for decommissi oning of the reactors, but also for security 
of supply (replacement capacity) and energy effici ency which are a direct consequence of 
early closure. The amounts fixed for this assi stance are not based on a specific proportion of 
the estimated costs, but recognise the extraordinary burden placed on Bulgaria by the shutdown commitment, and are an expression of solidarity between the EU and Bulgaria. 
The assistance is currently de livered through the Kozloduy In ternational Decommissioning 
Support Fund (KIDSF), managed by the EBRD in London, to which the EU is the major (but 
not sole) contributor. 
Beyond 2009, no additional Community funding is foreseen, no follow-up is planned, unlike 
the situation for Slovakia and Lithua nia where funding is guaranteed until 2013. 
2.2. Current status and progress achieved 
Today Bulgaria has fulfilled its commitment and all 4 reactor units have been closed. 
EN    EN Units 1 and 2 have been de-fuelled 2 years ahead of the schedule. The reactors of Units 3 and 
4 have been de-fuelled and the spent fuel is st ill in the fuel ponds of the units. Currently, no 
irreversible dismantling steps have been taken. This  means that it is still possible for Bulgaria 
to request the restart of Units 3 and 4 at any moment based on Art.36 of the Protocol to the 
Accession Treaty, in case of ex ceptional economical circumst ances. An unilateral decision 
from Bulgaria to restart the closed units woul d constitute an infringement of the Accession 
Treaty. 
Decommissioning of KNPP units 1 - 4 
Decommissioning of nuclear power plants is a long term proces s (20-30 years). Bulgaria's 
initial decommissioning strategy was "differed dismantling" . This strategy consists of two 
phases: (1) defueling of the reac tor units and establishment of the infrastructures necessary for 
decommissioning and (2) following a waiting pe riod (for the decay of radioactivity) the 
dismantling of the installation and the management of decommissioning waste. 
The Bulgarian government proposed in 2006 an "immediate dismantling strategy"  to replace 
the "deferred dismantling strategy"  in line with international best practices, based on safety 
and economical grounds. 
Progress achieved by Bulgaria in the decommi ssioning preparation st age of the Kozloduy 
Programme utilising the Community funds put in  place until 2009 are satisfactory as the four 
units have actually been closed down and all major preparatory works for decommissioning are very well advanced. However, the real di smantling works have not yet started. Further 
financial support beyond 2009 is needed in or der to allow to progress with the actual 
dismantling operations and waste treatment. 
Mitigation measures in the energy sector 
Progress achieved in the energy sector to mitig ate the economical consequences of the early 
closure is very satisfactory. In the period unt il 2009, the financial support was focused on 
priorities targeting mainly improvements in i ndustrial and residential energy efficiency and 
assistance in strengthening th e use of renewable energy sour ces. The corresponding projects 
were quick start ones, resulting in  massive energy savings and CO
2 emission reductions. 
Nevertheless, and in particular in the current  economical context there remains the need for 
additional financial support to progress further with mitigating measures in the energy sector given the extent of the capacity loss by the clos ure of the nuclear units and its impact on the 
security of supply in the region. 
Progress overview on achievements and financial status 
In summary, at the end of 2008, the contri bution agreements to KIDSF (this is donor 
contributions to the Kozloduy International Decommissioning Support Fund) total 525 Mio €. 
Out of that 513 Mio€ have been committed by the EBRD in grant agreements, of which 259.5 
Mio € on energy projects, 177.5 Mio € on deco mmissioning preparation, and 76 Mio € on 
waste treatment projects. Effectiv e payments amount to 383 Mio €. 
The status and main achievements of measures implemented from the financial support up to 
2009 are listed in the table of  annex 1 and 2. Achievements  are classified under similar 
categories of objectives as for the mid term ev aluation carried out for Lithuania and Slovakia, 
which are: 
EN    EN For decommissioning:  
– Closure of all 4 reactors 
– Dismantling and the treatment of all waste 
– Permanent disposal of waste 
– Support to plant personnel (safe maintenance) 
– Technical assistance 
For mitigation measures in the energy sector:  
– Environmental upgrading 
– Restructuring energy production 
– Energy supply 
– Energy efficiency 
General overview of projects as currently a llocated under KIDSF Grant Agreements can be 
found in annex 2 
2.3. Justification for additional support 
As mentioned in the precedent section the current financial support allows Bulgaria to 
maintain safety, to perform and finalise the prep aratory works required to be in a position to 
effectively start with dismantling activities. Du e to the change in strategy (from differed to 
immediate dismantling) funds for the continua tion of decommissioning activities are required 
much earlier in time. 
The funds required for continuing decommissi oning cannot be made available through the 
Bulgarian National Fund. Although  such a fund is in place, the financial resources are not 
adequate. This is, to a very large extend, due to the historical context. From the former operation of the nuclear power plants under th e Soviet Union no funds are available for 
decommissioning. Unlike other Member States in a similar situation but without being 
confronted to early closure of their plants, it  was not possible for Bulgaria to accumulate 
sufficient funds from operation. 
Based on those considerations, the Bulgarian g overnment has requested the extension of the 
Community support for the period 2010 - 2013. Th is would bring the Community support for 
Bulgaria in line with the support for Lithuani a and Slovakia where assi stance is granted until 
the end of the current fina ncial perspective (2013). 
The extension of support is proposed for the following activities to be implemented until the 
end of 2013: 
EN    EN (1) Project management, engineering and tech nical assistance for the support of the 
implementation of the decommissioning programme. It includes  
– the extension of the work of the Project  Management Unit (PMU) at the Kozloduy 
site; 
– the extension of the PMU at the site of State Enterprise Radioactive Waste (SE 
RAW),  
– assistance to the Bulgarian Nuclear Regul atory Agency in the implementation of 
the regulatory tasks of  the decommissioning; 
– special nuclear technical storage assi stance. Special decommissioning process 
engineering for treatment, conditioning and transport of radioactive soil, radioactive waste, tr ansport of waste and global site cleaning; 
– other technical, safety, environmental imp act assessment assistance to the projects 
of the decommissioning programme. 
(2) The provision of salaries for 715 KNPP (ope ration, maintenance, technical support, 
project management) experts at the Kozl oduy site, working for the decommissioning 
of Units 1-4. The active involvement of the plant staff reduces th e need for external 
organisations and highly contributes to th e reduction of the cost  of decommissioning. 
It furthermore contributes to mainta in a high level of nuclear safety. 
(3) The construction of the National Radioactive Wa ste Disposal Facility is crucial for the 
implementation of the decommissioning pr ogramme. The waste generation of the 
decommissioning cannot be managed without th is repository. The estimate of the total 
investment is around €150 million. The faci lity also will serve for the long term 
storage of operational waste.  The main function however in the first 10 years of 
operation is the storage of the low and intermediate level waste of the decommissioning process.  
Under this item 50% of co-financing is considered and justified by the accelerated 
decommissioning process. The load of the faci lity for the first period of its operation 
should be established by the speed of the decommissioning process to avoid 
restrictions in waste management  in the operation of the KNPP. 
(4) After the installation of the major faci lities for decommissioning (fragmentation 
workshops, waste treatment and conditioning f acilities, intermediate waste storages, 
release control and measuring devices) th e advanced stage of the decommissioning 
programme will focus on the decommissioni ng process. The decommissioning work 
process – the working connecti on at the sites between the f acilities, location and the 4 
units need precise, regulated and controlled  transport routes, devices, equipment and 
special services. Taking into account that  a new process is going to be introduced, 
there is the need to foresee additional fina ncing of the introduction of strict safety 
measures in order to minimize the risk s. The decommissioning process at Kozloduy 
site is a new challenge with radioactiv e and environmental impact hazards. The 
management of the Kozloduy based trans portation, handling and storage process 
alongside with the existing facilities, c ontrol and measurement devices will need 
specific technical service and technical solutions. 
EN    EN The following table gives an ove rview on the corresponding budget: 
N° ITEM EC 
ASSESSMENT 
[M€] 
1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT, ENGINEERING AND 
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 25 
2 PROVISION OF SALARIES OF 715 KNPP STAFF 30 
3 CO-FINANCING FOR THE NATIONAL 
RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY (TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS 150 M€) 75 
4 SITE INFRASTRUCTURE AND TREATMENT OF 
DISMANTLED WASTE 
ADDITIONAL ALLOCA TION FOR ALREADY 
TENDERED PROJECTS TO  COPE WITH MARKET 
RESPONSE (OFFERS) THAT ARE HIGHER THAN THE INITIAL ESTIMATES. 50 
 TOTAL - DECOMMISSIONING 180 
 
Moreover,  there is also the need for financial s upport to progress further with mitigating 
measures in the energy sector given the extent of the capacity loss resulting from the closure 
of the nuclear units and its impact on the security of supply in the region. 
The upgrade and the modernisation of the en ergy production, transmission and distribution 
system, the diversification of the energy supply,  energy efficiency and the use of renewable 
energy sources would be a vital pa rt of this additional support. 
The final amount for additional financial s upport would be 300 m€, out of which 180 m€ 
(60%) would cover the needs fo r the implementation of deco mmissioning projects and 120 
m€ (40%) for measures in the energy sector. 
2.4. Conclusions  
Bulgaria has demonstrated effective and effi cient implementation of the Community support 
in the decommissioning and in the energy sect or. Under the provisions of the Treaty of 
Accession support is granted only until end of  2009. Most of the decommissioning related 
preparatory works are finalised or close to completion and additional financial resources are required to ensure seamless c ontinuation of decommissioning. 
Without additional EU funding, the consequences would be the following: 
EN    EN (1) There would be no sufficient funds availabl e to continue with the decommissioning of 
the 4 units with a risk for the citizens and the environment due to the unfinished decommissioning status of the units; 
(2) No funds would be available to cover th e salaries of the experienced KNPP staff 
performing the decommissioning with the ri sk that they might leave the nuclear 
facility and that the expe rtise and knowledge of th e plant would get lost.; 
(3) Risk of re-opening the reac tors 3 and 4 where no irreversible activities were 
performed; 
(4) The liability and responsibi lity for decommissioning the units would be shifted to 
future generations; 
It is in the highest interest of the European Union that Bulgaria continues to decommission in 
a timely manner these 4 reactors, in order to ensure safe dismantling and to avoid any attempt to restart units 3 and 4 again in the future. 
The Community has the right to act for several reasons 
• To ensure that the 4 KNPP units remain closed; 
• To support Bulgaria in their efforts to  safely decommission the four units; 
• To express its solidarity in line with the Lisbon Treaty; 
EN    EN 3. SECTION 3: OBJECTIVES  
The objective for providing additional EU f unding for the period 2010 – 2013 is to continue 
supporting Bulgaria in its efforts to (1) guarantee  sufficient funds for the continuation of safe 
decommissioning of units 1 – 4 of KNPP and (2) to  support measures in the energy sector to 
mitigate the economical consequences of the early closure. 
In the context of the renewed interest in nuc lear power expressed by  a number of Member 
States the role of the European Union is to ensure that this source of energy is developed 
while meeting the highest level of safety. C onsequently a Council Directive on establishing a 
community framework for the nucle ar safety of nuclear installa tions has been adopted on June 
25, 20094. 
Effects of radiological incide nts do not stop at the bord ers and can have potential 
consequences both for the health of workers and citizens, but also wide ranging economic 
implications for the energy generating industry. Therefore measures must be put in place to 
guarantee safety. 
After the Chernobyl accident in  1986, the European Union ha s adopted with new vigour, a 
policy towards safer nuclear installations . The Commission's position on VVER 440/230 
reactors has remained consistent and in lin e with the G7 multilateral programme of action 
adopted at the Munich G7 summ it in 1992: these first generation reactors of Soviet design 
cannot be economically upgraded to a required level of safety and should be closed.  
In order to achieve the above mentioned objectives in the give n context, additional support of 
€300 million will be needed for the period 2010 - 2013, covering decommissioning needs as well as measures in the energy sector in Bulgaria. 
• The extension of support is in accord ance with the following objectives: 
• The general objective
 of the EU decommissioning polic y is nuclear safety and the 
availability of adequate financial re sources when needed for decommissioning. 
• The specific objective  is to accompany and to ascertain the safe decommissioning of all 4 
VVER 440/230 type reactors of the first genera tion, including the safe management of the 
decommissioning waste. 
• The operational objectives are 
(a) Not to lose the necessary expertise  
(b) To continue with decommissioning works;  
(c) To advance in the approved decommissioning plan. This includes the safe 
maintenance, the actual physical decommissioning and dismantling of the nuclear power plant – units 1 to 4 – as well as the waste treatment. 
                                                
 
4 OJ L 172, 2.7.2009, p.18 
EN    EN (d) To assure the non-nuclear window, security of supply needs to be guaranteed 
after the shutdown (sufficient repl acement capacity for the closed down 
capacity). 
(e) To continue during the period 2010-2013 with the safe maintenance including 
the payment of staff salaries.  
(f) To avoid the risk of reopening.  
These objectives are consistent with the othe r Community assistance programme provided to 
Lithuania and Slovakia as well as the EU en ergy policy (energy efficiency and the use of 
renewables) as well as the Lisbon Treaty (solidarity principle). 
It guarantees the seamless continuation of the support under the Accession Treaty. 
EN    EN 4. SECTION 4: POLICY OPTIONS  
4.1. Background 
– Bulgaria requested initially for the nuclear sector 202 m€, and for the non-nuclear sector 
494 m€. 
– Following a more detailed analysis it appear ed that 180 m€ is in fact needed for the 
decommissioning sector. 
– Finally it was agreed that 60 % of the additional support  would go to decommissioning 
(180 m€) and 40 % to energy sector measures (120 m€). 
– The Community support must be pr ovided to ensure closure and to cover part of the costs 
of decommissioning (waste management includ ed), which otherwise could not be paid by 
the Bulgarian government alone in the tight timeframe . 
– The Community support should be dedicated in priority to achie ving real progress in 
decommissioning; decommissioning progre ss is paramount for nuclear safety . 
– The calculation of the financial needs can al so be made through a comparison with the 
decommissioning costs in Slovakia, because the reactor units that were closed down are of 
the same design (VVER). Lithuania cannot be  used for comparison because the reactor 
units are of a completely different design (RBMK). 
– Bulgaria has received less Co mmunity support than Slovakia. Slovakia has since the start 
of Community support in 1999 received 614 m€  for two units  that were closed. Bulgaria 
has received for four units  of the same kind only 550 m€ up to now . 
– Under this consideration the request from Bulgaria for additional funding  for the nuclear 
sector (decommissioning and waste management) is duly justified . 
– The Community provided Bulgaria since acce ssion with the followi ng support: 74 m€ in 
2007, 76 m€ in 2008 and 77.5 m€ for 2009 (210 m€ plus inflation). The continuation of 
support at this level until 2013  would amount to 300 m€  (75 m€/year). 
– If an additional support of 300 m€  would be acceptable for the EU Member States, this 
extension would 
(a) cover the full needs for decommissioning until 2013 and 
(b) provide additional money for measures in the energy sector (replacement 
capacity and security of supply). 
Additional support of 300 million € is justified, covering decommissioning needs as well as 
measures in the energy sector which are estimated to amount to: 
MEASURE OBJECTIVE COSTS TIMING 
PROVISION OF SALARIE S KEEP 30 MILLION € 2010-2013 
EN    EN OF DECOMMISSIONING 
STAFF (715) KNOWLEDGE 
AND EXPERTISE ON SITE + SAFE MAINTENANCE 
SAFE MAINTENANCE AVOID 
ACCIDENTS INCLUDED 2010-2013 
PROJECT MANAGEMENT, 
ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 
 PROVIDE 
INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT AND EXPERTISE 25 MILLION € 2010-2013 
TENDERING O
F 
DISMANTLING WORKS APPLY EU 
STANDARDS INCLUDED 2013 
NATIONAL RADIOACTIV E 
WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY (CO-FINANCING) SAFE WASTE 
TREATMENT 75 MILLION € 2013 
DRY SPENT FUEL 
STORAGE SAFE WASTE 
TREATMENT 50 MILLION € 2010 
DECOMMISSIONING 
WORKS START 
DISMANTLING WORKS INCLUDED 2011 
ENERGY REPLACEMENT 
CAPACITY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES REPLACEMENT 
OF CLOSED CAPACITY 120 MILLION € 2013 
 
The Bulgarian programme should also be assess ed against the recomme ndations given in the 
mid-term evaluation of the Slovak and Lithuani an program. In the following, the conclusions 
for Slovakia and Lithuania are listed and their relevance for Bulgaria is assessed at the end. 
4.2. Conclusion of mid term eval uation Slovakia and Lithuania 
The mid term evaluation for Slovakia and Lithuani a showed that a majority of the projects has 
been well implemented in so far as the results match the objectives. The costs of the projects, 
to the extent that it could be assessed within the evaluation, are fair when compared to the 
results.  
The recommendations were as follows, including the follow up actions taken
: 
(1) That the EC develops a consistent st rategy with goals and criteria for the 
decommissioning assistance programme(s),  against which any ongoing and future 
assistance could be judged and evaluated.  The strategy should include objectives for 
any related energy system and social measures that are justified as a consequence of 
EN    EN the shutting down of 1st generation units that (were) op erate(d) in countries becoming 
members of the EU. – A strate gic plan has been drafted . 
(2) To assure that any assistance provided is consistent and complementary with the 
national activities (implemented via nati onal decommissioning funds and/or other 
national means). – This is assu red through the monitoring meetings . 
(3) With the consideration that the conceptu al decommissioning plans for both Bohunice 
and Ignalina were developed and decomm issioning strategies selected in both 
countries, a more accurate estimate of act ual decommissioning and related energy 
sector costs (against which the needs for fi nancial assistance commitments could then 
be assessed) should be developed. – Estimat es of decommission ing costs are being 
made within the framework of th e Decommissioning Funding Group (DFG) . 
(4) The EC shall consider to modify the implementation rules for the provision of 
assistance to allow for adjustments with actual costs dynamics for the 
decommissioning activities (e.g. to allow for lower utilization in the years when only 
preparatory activities take place). – Annua l budget provisions are set by the budgetary 
authority. A fluctuation in function of th e annual needs would require a modification 
of the Financial Regulation . 
(5) Investigate measures that could lead to an increased effectiveness and efficiency of the 
activities of the PMUs operating within the International Decommissioning Support 
Funds. – Being investigated . 
(6) Investigate the merits of having two assistance vehicles  operating in parallel (in 
Lithuania) with a view to possibly integrat ing these, while preserving the benefits 
offered by each. – Such dual system is not considered for Bulgaria . 
(7) In light of the changing framework conditions, it is suggested to carry out an 
assessment to identify an optimal vehicle for providing assistan ce in the future. – 
EBRD seems to be the appr opriate choice for Bulgaria.  
4.3. Assessment of the mid-term recommendations for Bulgaria 
– Recommendations 1, 2, 3 and 5 ar e applicable for Bulgaria.  
– Recommendation 4 can not be implem ented under the current financial 
Regulation. 
– Recommendation 6: such dual system is not considered for Bulgaria. 
– Recommendation 7: EBRD seems to be the appropriate choice for Bulgaria.  
4.4. The policy options are:  
(a) no EU intervention - conti nue with national funding  
(b) no EU intervention – continue with private funding;  
EN    EN (c) EU limited co financing (pay only safe maintenance); 
(d) EU indirect co fina ncing (through EBRD);  
(e) EU direct co financing  
Exclusive funding through the natio nal or private decommissioning fund is not considered as 
the operational lifetime has expired and insuffici ent funding was available at the time of early 
closure upon Accession. Currently  only 280 Mio € is available in  the fund for re actors 1 to 6 
(14 % of the estimated decommissioning costs). 
The option A (no EU intervention) is a theoretical  option, as actually EU must intervene in 
order to ensure the level of required nuclear safety. 
EN    EN 5. SECTION 5: ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS  
5.1. SWOT Analysis 
A. no EU intervention – continue with national funding 
In the case funding has to come from  the national budget, the "immediate 
decommissioning" strategy will not be pursued, especially given the current economical context and the energy needs. Ta lks about re-opening have already been 
held, and technical verifications for re-ope ning were executed. The re-opening of 
these potentially unsafe nuclear reactors pos es a serious threat to the environment 
  
STRENGTHS: 
- NATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES TAKEN OPPORTUNITIES: 
- LESS COSTS ON THE EU BUDGET 
WEAKNESSES: - INSUFFICIENT NATIONAL FUNDING 
AVAILABLE IN THE FUND  - ECONOMICAL CONTEXT OF WEAK NATIONAL BUDGETS THREATS: 
- POSTPONEMENT OF THE 
DECOMMISSIONING - RESTART OF THE REACTORS - UNSAFE DECOMMISSIONING - UNEMPLOYMENT OF STAFF 
 
B. no EU intervention – continue with private funding 
In the case funding has to come from  the private owner, the immediate 
decommissioning strategy will not be pursued. It is unlikely that a private company 
will commit the significant funds necessa ry without any identifiable economical 
benefit. The consequence would be the ri sk of re-opening these potentially unsafe 
nuclear reactors. 
STRENGTHS: 
- POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE WOULD 
BE FULLY ENDORSED OPPORTUNITIES: 
- LESS COSTS ON THE EU BUDGET 
WEAKNESSES: 
- INSUFFICIENT FUNDING 
POSSIBILITIES - EARLY CLOSURE WAS AN EU CONDITION - TIME SPAN BETWEEN OPERATION AND DECOMMISSIONING – HISTORICAL OWNER? THREATS: 
- UNEMPLOYMENT OF STAFF 
- POSTPONEMENT OF THE DECOMMISSIONING - RESTART OF THE REACTORS - UNSAFE DECOMMISSIONING 
EN    EN - NOT A SINGLE ECONOMIC BENEFIT 
FOR THE OWNER TO ENGAGE IN THESE HUGE INVESTMENTS 
 
C. EU limited co financing (pay only safe maintenance) 
In this case limited funding has to come (partially) from the EU budget. It is 
impossible to continue im mediate decommissioning. This would simply mean a 
status quo. The threat of re-opening of these potentially unsafe reactors remains. 
STRENGTHS: 
- USE OF AVAILABLE EXPERTISE 
 - REDUCE UNEMPLOYMENT BY USING OWN SKILLED STAFF WHEN IMMEDIATE DISMANTLING OPPORTUNITIES: 
- RELATIVELY SMALL SAVING OF FUNDS 
FOR THE EU BUDGET 
- MAINTAINED SAFETY 
WEAKNESSES: 
- EU RATHER THEN NATIONAL MONEY 
- POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE LESS APPLIED THREATS: 
- CONTINUOUS REQUEST FOR FULL 
FUNDING - RE-OPENING - NO DISMANTLING WORK 
D. EU indirect co financing (through EBRD) 
In the case funding has to come (partially) fr om the EU budget, it is likely that the 
immediate decommissioning strategy can be continued, especially given the political 
context. The funding would mean equal trea tment (Lithuania and Slovakia), create an 
economical benefit for Bulgaria, and elimin ate the threat of re-opening of these 
potentially unsafe reactors that would pose a serious threat to the general public and 
the environment. Funding would continue, as is the case at present, through the 
EBRD. 
STRENGTHS: 
- IMMEDIATE DECOMMISSIONING 
- MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO RESTART THE REACTORS - USE OF AVAILABLE EXPERTISE - MORE ECONOMIC APPROACH - REDUCE UNEMPLOYMENT BY USING OWN SKILLED STAFF WHEN IMMEDIATE DISMANTLING OPPORTUNITIES: 
- BETTER CHECK ON THE OPTIMAL 
ADVANCEMENT OF THE DECOMMISSIONING - INCREASED SAFETY - ACTUAL PROGRESS WITH DE-FUELLING AND DISMANTLING WORKS 
WEAKNESSES: 
- EU RATHER THAN NATIONAL MONEY 
- POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE LESS THREATS: 
- CONTINUOUS REQUEST FOR FULL 
FUNDING 
EN    EN APPLIED 
 
E. EU direct co financing 
In the case funding has to come (partially) fr om the EU budget, it is likely that the 
immediate decommissioning strategy can be continued, especially given the political 
context. The funding would mean equal trea tment (Lithuania and Slovakia), create an 
economical benefit for Bulgaria, and elimin ate the threat of re-opening of these 
potentially unsafe reactors that would pose a serious threat to the environment. 
Funding would have to go through a nati onal agency, which would have to be 
created. This would require a long term time perspective, time which is not available. 
Financing would not be controlled by EBRD and a risk of deviation of funds cannot 
be excluded. 
STRENGTHS: 
- IMMEDIATE DECOMMISSIONING 
- MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO RESTART THE REACTORS - USE OF AVAILABLE EXPERTISE - MORE ECONOMIC APPROACH - REDUCE UNEMPLOYMENT BY USING OWN SKILLED STAFF WHEN IMMEDIATE DISMANTLING OPPORTUNITIES: 
- BETTER CHECK ON THE OPTIMAL 
ADVANCEMENT OF THE DECOMMISSIONING - INCREASED SAFETY - ACTUAL PROGRESS WITH DE-FUELLING AND DISMANTLING WORKS 
WEAKNESSES: 
- EU RATHER THEN NATIONAL MONEY 
- POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE LESS APPLIED - NO EXISTING NATIONAL CHANNEL YET THREATS: 
- CONTINUOUS REQUEST FOR FULL 
FUNDING - CREATION OF A NATIONAL AGENCY 
 
EN    EN 6. SECTION 6: COMPARING THE OPTIONS  
It is important to realise that all impacts of safe maintenance and decommissioning itself are 
equal wherever the financing comes from. The main concern is to continue the 
decommissioning process. 
Cost – benefit analysis of EU funding 
COSTS 
- EU SUBVENTION OF 300 MIO € OVER 
THE PERIOD 2010-2013 (75 MIO € PER ANNUM) BENEFITS 
- SECURE A MUCH HIGHER LEVEL OF 
SAFETY - KEEP EXPERTISE ON THE SITE- ENSURE DE-FUELLING OF THE PONDS- PREVENTION FROM RE OPENING- START OF ACTUAL DISMANTLING WORKS 
Cost – benefit analysis of no funding 
COSTS 
- MAJOR SAFETY RISK
- RISK OF RE-OPENING UNSAFE REACTORS - NEED TO GO TO A "MINIMUM SAFETY" PLATFORM COMES WITH A COST- SAFE MAINTENANCE IS A DEAD COST THAT IS ADDED TO THE OVERALL DECOMMISSIONING COSTS- STAFF UNEMPLOYMENT- LOST EXPERTISE => HIGHER COSTS TO RESTART THE DECOMMISSIONING 
AFTERWARDS 
- COSTS ARE MORE THAN INFLATED IF LEFT TO FUTURE GENERATION BENEFITS 
- "EXCUSE" FOR BULGARIA TO RE-OPEN 
THE REACTORS 
 
EU added value:
 
In case no funding would be available, safe main tenance would be endang ered. The risk of re-
start of the reactors, with possi ble major accidents, is actual. Also loss of expertise would 
delay, render more difficult and more costly the whole decommissioning process. 
Taking into account the necessary safety requirements and the ge neral interest; EU financing 
would be the appropriate solution. Option D ( optimal EU funding managed in an indirect 
EN    EN way, via EBRD) is indeed the best viable opti on as it is vital to have seamless financing 
available in order not to risk losing the on site expertise and pu t safe maintenance in danger.  
EN    EN 7. SECTION 7: MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
- The core indicators of pr ogress towards meeting the objectives are the advancement 
in the decommissioning plan as well as a voidance of accidents (safe maintenance) 
- The monitoring and evaluation arrangements are as follows: 2 times per year a 
monitoring committee with EU takes place on  the spot to verify the advancement of 
the decommissioning works. The Commission Decision on Proce dures is in place 
including monitoring provisions for the 3 decommissioning funds. Yearly combined 
programming documents, attached to th e Commission Decision on financing state 
the progress towards decommissioning. A mid term evaluation of the programme 
should be foreseen. 
Milestones:  
• safe maintenance = no accidents  
• de-fuelling reactor ponds 1-4 by 31/12/2012 
• start dismantling works by 01/01/2011 (non contaminated parts) 
The timeline of the decommissioning programme until 2013 is as follows: 
Zero power operation unit 1-2  2003-2009  
ZERO POWER OPERATION UNIT 3-4 2007-2012  
REMOVAL OF THERMAL INSULATION, ASBESTOS OF UNITS 
1-4 UNTIL 2009 
REMOVAL OF TOXIC MATERIALS IN UNITS 1-4 UNTIL 2008 
REMOVAL OF FLAMMABLE MATERIALS IN UNITS 1-4 UNTIL 2009 REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE UNITS 1-4 UNTIL 2008 
DISMANTLING OF NON-SAFETY RELATED EQUIPMENT OF 
UNITS1-4 UNTIL 2009 
COMMISSIONING OF THE DRY SPENT FUEL STORAGE 
FACILITY 2009 
RADIOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND DATABASE OF UNITS 1-4 UNTIL 2010 
DEFUELLING OF THE REACTOR PONDS OF UNITS 1-2 2007-2008 
DEFUELLING OF THE REACTOR PONDS OF UNITS 3-4 2011-2012  
DECOMMISSIONING PERMIT FOR UNITS 1-2 2010 DECOMMISSIONING PERMIT FOR UNITS 3-4 2012 
EN    EN COMPLETING OF THE WASTE BACKLOG TREATMENT AT 
THE KOZLODUY SITE 2012 
INVENTORY, TREATMENT AND CONDITIONING OF 
CONTAMINATED SOIL UNTIL 2013 
•  
EN    EN Annex 1 
Status and main achievements of measures impl emented from the financial support up to 2009 
MEASURES  STATE 
OF PLAY FUNDING 
USED 
(MIO €) IF DELAY, 
REASONS 
• CLOSURE OF ALL FOUR REACTORS 
DEFUELING OF UNITS 1-2 DONE NA NA 
DISMANTLING AND THE TREATMENT 
OF ALL WASTE 
• DRY FUEL SPENT STORAGE 
• DECOMMISSIONING DESIGN 
(INITIAL AND SECOND STAGE) 
• IMPLEMENTATION OF 
DECOMMISSIONING PROGRAMME USING HR AVAILABLE AT UNITS 1-4 
•  
CONSTRUCTION OF HEAT 
GENERATION PLANT ONGOING  
72,90 
99,96 
 
35,00 
LAST 
ASSEMBLY 
APPROVED 
+15,00 
39,00  
PERMANENT DISPOSAL OF WASTE  
SITE SELECTION FOR NATIONAL RADIOACTIVE DISPOSAL FACILITY ONGOING 3,00  
SUPPORT TO PLANT PERSONNEL (SAFE 
MAINTENANCE) DONE   
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO 
REGULATORY BODIES PMU DONE 4,00 
38,50  
ENVIRONMENTAL UPGRADING 
• SOFIA DISTRICT HEATING 
• PERNIC DISTRICT HEATING 
• VARNA HEATING DISTRIBUTION 
NETWORK DONE  
30,00 
10,95 
0,45  
RESTRUCTURING ENERGY 
PRODUCTION 
• MARITZA EAST  
• REFURBISHMENT SUBSTATIONS 
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 
• GAS PIPELINE SILISTRA 
• MINES ENERGY EFFICIENCY 
• CONTROL ELECTRICITY LOSSES 
VARNA/GORNA 
• REPLACEMENT OLD 
TRANSFORMERS 
• GAS SYSTEM 13 CITIES SOUTH-
CENTRAL 
• GAS NETWORK DIMITROVGRAD/ 
CHIRPAN/ RAKOVSKI 
•
 GAS SUPPLY ETROPOLE/ 
SVILENGRAD/ KARDJALI 
• GAS PIPELINE RAZLIV ONGOING  
19,50 25,43 
 
20,00 
15,00 
1,80 0,82 1,30 2,33 
 
2,05 0,48 
  
ENERGY SUPPLY    
EN    EN • TRYAVNA HEATING PLANT WOOD 
BIOMASS 
• RUSSE INTEGRATED ENERGY FARM ONGOING
STOPPED 0,85 
1.61 
(0 
DISBURSED)  
MISSING OWN 
FINANCING 
PART 
ENERGY EFFICIENCY 
• ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES IN 
POWER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 
• BULGARIAN ENERGY EFFICIENCY 
RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDIT LINE 
• ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES IN 
PUBLIC BUILDINGS 
• BULGARIAN RESIDENTIAL ENERGY 
EFFICIENCY CREDIT LINE 
• ENERGY EFFICIENCY FACILITY 
• REHABILITATION STREET LIGHTING ONGOING  
5,30 
  
35,20 
 
23,95 
 
14,60 
 
3,20 5,50  
TOTAL  513,00  
 
EN    EN Annex 2 
General overview of decommissioning projects as currently allocated under KIDSF Grant 
Agreements:  
1 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A DRY SPENT FUEL STORAGE 
FACILITY 
2 DECAY STORAGE AT THE KNPP SITE FOR TRANSITIONAL WASTE 
3 SITE STORAGE FOR CONVENTIONAL WASTE OF DECOMMISSIONING 
4 STORAGE OF VERY LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE AT THE KNPP 
SITE 
5 INVENTORY, TREATMENT AND CONDITIONING (STORAGE) OF 
CONTAMINATED SOIL STORAGES 
 
6 FRAGMENTATION AND DECONTAMINATION ACTIVE WORKSHOP 7 HAND HELD EQUIPMENT FO R THE ACTIVE WORKSHOP 
8 DISMANTLING AND FRAGMENTATI ON TOOLS FOR THE REACTOR 
BUILDING 
9 WASTE MONITORING EQUIPMENT FOR FREE RELEASE FROM THE 
ACTIVE WORKSHOP 
10 FRAGMENTATION WORKSHOP IN THE TURBINE HALL 11 DISMANTLING AND FRAGMENTATION TOOLS FOR THE TURBINE 
HALL 
12 DISMANTLING AND FRAGMENTATI ON TOOLS FOR THE AUXILIARY 
BUILDINGS WORKSHOPS FOR 
FRAGMENTATION, 
DECO AND PACKAGING 
 
13 LIQUID RADIOACTIVE WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY 14 FACILITY FOR RETRIEVAL AND CONDITIONING OF ION EXCHANGE 
RESINS 
15 FACILITY FOR TREATMENT AND CONDITIONING OF SOLID 
RADIOACTIVE WASTE WITH HIGH VOLUME REDUCTION FACTOR 
16 EQUIPMENT FOR RETRIEVAL OF LIQUID PHASE OF EVAPORATOR 
CONCENTRATES TANKS 
17 EQUIPMENT FOR RETRIEVAL OF SOLIDIFIED PHASE OF 
EVAPORATOR CONCENTRATE TANKS 
18 CLEANING EQUIPMENT OF EMERGENCY BORON TANKS 
19 DECONTAMINATION AND CLEANING EQUIPMENT CLEANING DEVICES – 
LOCAL TREATMENT OF 
LIQUID AND SOLID 
RADIOACTIVE WASTE 
EN    EN 20 ASBESTOS REMOVAL EQUIPMENT 
21 SINGLE VEHICLE MOUNTED BOOM LIFT 
22 DEMOLISHING EQUIPMENT 
23 SUPPLY OF TANK LEVEL MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENTATION 24 SUPPLY OF CONTAINERS FOR TRANSPORT OF DISMANTLED WASTE 
25 COMPUTER SIMULATOR FOR REACTOR DISMANTLING 
 
26 EQUIPMENT FOR RADIOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT - LABORATORY 
LEVEL 
27 SUPPLY OF CONSUMABLES AND DEVICES - FOR LABORATORY 
LEVEL MEASUREMENTS 
28 CONSUMABLES FOR THE RADIOLOGICAL INVENTORY OF UNITS 1-4 
29 LABORATORY EQUIPMENT FOR THE RADIOLOGICAL INVENTORY OF 
UNITS 1-4 
30 EQUIPMENT OF ON-SITE RADIOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT SAMPLING 
AND ANALYSIS 
31 COMPLEX VEHICLE WEIGHBRIDGE FOR THE CONTROL OF 
CONVENTIONAL WASTE 
32 PORTABLE GAMMA IN-SITU CONTROL MEASUREMENT DEVICE 
33 SUPPLY OF EQUIPMENT FOR LO W LEVEL RADIOLOGICAL DOSE 
MEASUREMENT 
34 CONCRETE CORE SAMPLING ANALYSIS FOR CONTAMINATION 
CONTROL OF BUILDINGS 
35 MOVEABLE PERSONNEL REDRESSING AND CONTAMINATION 
MONITORING FACILITY 
36 CONTROL DEVICES FOR MEASUREMENT OF LIQUID AND GASEOUS 
RELEASES 
37 FACILITY FOR FREE RELEASE MEASUREMENT 
38 VEHICLE EXIT MONITORS RADIOLOGICAL 
INVENTORY – 
LABORATORY 
MEASUREMENTS FREE 
RELEASE 
MEASUREMENT – 
CONTROL OF 
TRANSPORT DEVICES 
 
EN    EN  
39 MEASUREMENT OF HEAT, FLUID FLOW, ELECTRICITY USED FOR 
DECOMMISSIONING 
40 DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF NEW SERVICE WATER PIPELINE FOR 
DECOMMISSIONING 
41 DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF HEATING SYSTEM AND HOUSE LOAD 
STEAM FOR DEC 
42 DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF HEAT FEEDING SYSTEM FROM THE 
HEATING PLANT 
43 SECURITY PERIMETER SEPARATION (UNITS 1-4) 
44 REPLACEMENT OF ARTESIAN WATER PIPELINES 
45 SUPPLY OF SECURITY EQUIPMENT 
46 DESIGN SUPPORT TO INSTALLATION OF THE NEW PIPE SYSTEMS OF 
THE SEPARATION DECOMMISSIONING 
OPERATION WITHIN 
THE 
DECOMMISSIONING 
INFRASTRUCTURE 
 
EN    EN Annex 3 
7.1. Plejades study 
The potentially mostly affected countries, Bulgar ia, Lithuania, and Slovakia were analysed 
more deeply using macroeconomic models in  the aforementioned Pl ejades study of 2007 
"analysis of environmental, economic and soci al issues linked to the decommissioning of 
nuclear installations". 
The objective of the stu dy was to compare the environmental,  economic and social issues of 
the decommissioning of nuclear power plan ts for the different Member States. 
The analysis was done in different steps, and country profiles for each Member State were 
drawn up. 
Conclusions: The highest shut-down numbers pe r million capita are found in Lithuania (0.57) 
and in Bulgaria (0.50). Bulgaria faces a much higher challenge to overcome its relative smaller amount of shutdowns, as it also has a much smaller absorption capacity. It is obvious 
from the study that the economic indicators (number and capacity per GDP) show the highest economic impact potential in Lithuania and Bu lgaria followed by Slovakia and Belgium. 
Compared to the EU average all indicators are higher by orders of magnitude. It shall be 
further noted that in those indicators the fina ncing provisions available are not included. This 
means that the situation in the countries wher e historically no approp riate financing means 
could be collected to finance later shut down a nd decommissioning as is the case in Lithuania, 
Slovakia and Bulgaria there is an additional thr eat. In conclusion it should be noted that the 
newly accessed EU Member States Lithuania, Slovakia and Bulgaria will have to face the 
highest economic challenges. 
Besides the technical issues of decommissioning and dismantling, key societal questions such 
as funding, social and economic burdens and replacement energy supply arise on national and 
local level. These challenges are higher, if larg er plants are shut down. Only within the last 
few years a discussion about po ssible radioactive and non-radio active environmental impacts 
of shut-down decisions and decommissioni ng and dismantling activ ities has evolved. 
Decommissioning of a NPP always leads to a need for high investments. These are 
investments for decommissioning and investments for the replacement of capacities of the 
NPPs. These investments have positive impacts on the GDP. In all calculated scenarios of the 
Plejades study the positive effects of investment  are stronger than the negative aspects such as 
lay-offs, social transfers, pri ce increases, and the negative eff ects of financing. Nevertheless it 
shall be noted that although the overall balance in the economy tends to  be positive, the 
negative impacts may have seriou s negative impacts at the local level. A main part of these 
investments are imported. Further electricity has to  be imported or the exports of electricity 
reduced. Hence the net exports decrea se in the considered countries. 
The main results for the three countries, pr ovided decommissioning funding is continued
, are 
as follows: 
• In the three considered countries decomm issioning of NPPs very  rarely leads to 
strong frictions of economic growth. 
EN    EN • Decommissioning of a NPP leads to highe r investments. These are investments 
for decommissioning and investments fo r the replacement of the NPPs. These 
investments implicate positive impacts on the GDP. 
• A main part of these investments are imported. In Bulgaria  the exports of 
electricity were reduced. Hence the net exports decrease in the considered countries. 
• The effects on the labour market are sma ll. The lay-offs which results from the 
shut down of the NPPs are mostly compensated by more employment due to 
higher investment. 
• Decommissioning has only moderate effects to prices and inflation. 
• The economic development in  these three countries is  not endangered by the 
decommissioning of NPPs. On the contra ry, decommissioning may lead to even 
stronger economic growth in most simula tions. However the financial source of 
decommissioning and replacement investments may have some negative secondary effects. 
For Bulgaria two specific dates of decommissioning of VVER 440 units at Kozloduy NPP 
have been compared in the Plejades study of  2007. Two scenarios – one describing a deferred 
shut-down and the other one describing an early shut-down – were compared with each other. 
In the early closure scenario earlier replacem ent investments and resulting higher energy 
prices were taken into account. Transfers from  the European Union to assist Bulgaria’s 
economy have been kept identical in both scenarios . The comparison of these two scenarios 
shows, that earlier decommissioning leads to earlier investment which creates a positive 
demand shock that is enforced by multiplier-accel erator effects and results in higher output 
and employment. Investments for decommissioni ng and for replacement have to be made 
earlier. Both result in higher GDP, in higher electri city prices and in a slightly higher inflation 
rate. Lay-offs resulting from decommissioni ng are smaller than the employment increases 
from the high investments. In the deferred scenario similar effects will happen but on a lower level. Hence earlier decommissioning is  the proposed option in Bulgaria. 
Kozloduy region is mostly affected as far as social and economical issues are concerned. 
However the whole South-Easter n European region, even outside Bulgaria, is concerned by 
the early closure of the reactors (around 15% of electricity production cap acity) as Bulgaria is 
an electricity exporter and af ter the closures electricity export margins became tighter.