EN

Brussels, 12.12.2007

SEC(2007) 1654

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

"EU DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING DATA"

Document accompagnying the

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION

TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

Second Report on the use of financial resources earmarked for the decommissioning

of nuclear installations, spent fuel and radioactive waste

{COM(2007) 794 final}

Table of Contents

1. Introduction (...)4

2. EU Member State Overview (...)8

3. Funding status (...)15

4. EU Member State Overview (...)21

5. Comparison of funding practice with commission recommendation (...)54

Sources:

European Commission

DG TREN

EURATOM

Commission outsourced studies

(1) Analysis of the Factors Influencing the Selection of Strategies for Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations: Colenco/Iberdrola. TREN/04/NUCL/S07.40075

(2) EU Decommissioning Funding Methodologies: Wuppertal et al. TREN/05/NUCL/S07.55436

(3) Inventory of Best Practices in the Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations. Brenk/NRI TREN/04/NUCL/S07.40035

(4) Analysis of Environmental, Economic and Social Issues Linked to the Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations: Plejades TREN/04/NUCL/S07.39876

International

IAEA

NEA

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 report was drafted partly, as a result of concerns regarding potential safety implications should adequate decommissioning funds not be available when needed and concerning possible fund mismanagement and the potential for distortion of competition.

The 2004 report was 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 raised. With this in mind the Commission has completed an extensive consultation process involving independent technical studies (one of which included a detailed questionnaire) and detailed consultation with experts of the Member States.

In addition, the Commission adopted a Recommendation [3] on decommissioning funds in 2006 following consultation with Member State experts and taking advantage of its research in the field. The second report provides for a normal progression of the Commission's work comparing EU nuclear operators and Member States funding practice with that detailed in the Commission Recommendation. Whereas the 2004 report was limited to power reactors, the present report covers all nuclear installations with an emphasis being placed on those which are at greatest risk should decommissioning funding be inadequately addressed.

1.2. METHODOLOGY

The Commission's 2004 report was based primarily upon a written exchange of views with Member States. The limitations of this method were immediately obvious and an ad-hoc Member State expert group was established in order to ensure better consultation and input to the work of the Commission. The Commission has continued to work with international organisations and researched the EU scene through targeted studies which have brought unparalleled levels of information in this area.

1.2.1. Decommissioning Funding Group

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 the ways ahead in terms of further co-operation and harmonisation at European level.

Since its creation the DFG met twice and provided an open forum for the exchange of views on national approaches. This body was consulted during the drafting of the Commission's 2006 Recommendation3 on decommissioning funding.

1.2.2. Studies

Technical studies have been completed providing essential input to this report and addressing a wide range of issues related to nuclear decommissioning. The studies were targeted in order:

· To identify and analyse the factors influencing the selection of strategies for the decommissioning of nuclear installations in the 25 European Union (EU) Member States as well as the then Candidate Countries including Bulgaria and Romania. Switzerland was included in the comparison as a non-European Union Country. A consultation was performed by means of detailed and pre-completed questionnaires sent to relevant sources of information among the affected stakeholders. The replies were investigated in order to analyse a sufficiently large number of representative nuclear installations of different types (power plants, fuel cycle facilities, major research centres, etc.), different size and geographical coverage (study 1).

· To take stock of the various approaches followed in the EU Member States and accession countries to quantify the decommissioning costs, analyse them and propose to the European Commission a methodology for allowing an appropriately detailed comparison and to analyse the risks relating to the various methods to set aside financial resources for decommissioning purposes (study 2).

· To establish an inventory of best practices in the decommissioning of nuclear installations mainly across the Member States of the European Union. The main aims of this project were to create an information bank gathering the real and most up-to-date experience from ongoing and completed decommissioning projects and identifying the best practices in decommissioning and to obtain a broad technological coverage of the decommissioning of nuclear power plants and fuel cycle facilities; to derive conclusions on the driving factors for decommissioning strategy selection, planning of decommissioning, project management and key technological choices (study 3).

· To identify the effects of decommissioning of major nuclear installations in the surrounding area, in terms of impact on regional and local economy, focusing on the social issues and the impact on the environment and to identify the measures taken by the concerned actors and the critical aspects of the related consultation procedures (study 4).

Copies of the main reports for these studies can be found on the relevant Commission website [4].

The response from Member States to specific requests for information and in particular the questionnaire varied, affecting sometimes the conclusions of the relevant study.

1.2.3. External Cooperation

The Commission has continued to work with the IAEA and NEA in the field of nuclear decommissioning through the dedicated groups such as TEGDE [5] and WPDD [6].

A group was established by the Working Party on Nuclear Safety as part of the Council’s consultation process organised under the auspices of the Council Working Party on Atomic Questions. The Commission services have actively participated in the work of this group whose work was based primarily on the results of the Commission questionnaire referred to in section 1.2.2 above.

1.3. Conclusions

The decommissioning of nuclear plants is set to become an increasingly important issue in the years ahead. It is a fair assumption under the present policies that about one third of the reactors currently operating in the European Union will need to be decommissioned by 2025.

According to the results of the Commissions work, it seems that many operators have set up funding arrangements according to the polluter pays principle and that adequate decommissioning funds would be available when required. There are however several instances where this principle is not fully implemented:

· In the UK, following State Aid approval of British Energy restructuring and the creation of the NDA.

· The financing situation for decommissioning of Slovakia's A1 reactor has also to be clarified following the ENEL part-privatisation and subsequent re-organisation of the National Fund.

· The Community financial assistance for decommissioning being provided to Lithuania, Slovakia and Bulgaria provides a further exception to the principle. But such assistance is provided in recognition of the financial burden the related early closures create and was decided with the political support of the European Council and the European Parliament.

Despite specific national legislation, there are grounds for progress in several aspects of fund adequacy, management and use, in particular through detailed monitoring and reporting at both national and EU level.

Differences in decommissioning strategies and fund management may lead to a distortion on the liberalised EU energy markets. Decommissioning costs including the final disposal of the waste has to be seen as part of the electricity production costs and should be compatible with state aid rules.

Member States need to ensure more transparency in reporting on the financial resources for decommissioning. Liability assessments should follow agreed accounting principles with publicly available estimates and provisions.

Differences between Member States are partly due to the structure and ownership of energy utilities before the creation of the internal market in electricity. The liberalisation of energy markets has brought an increased need for transparency and more harmonisation in the management of these financial resources. More detailed and better structured information thus needs to be obtained from the Member States. The contacts established with a view to compiling this second report should be pursued with a view to introducing a methodology for making meaningful comparisons between the various Member States.

The Commission believes it is important to continue the effort and the cooperation with all parties concerned. The main scope is to ensure both that financial resources are set aside to meet the requirements of nuclear plant decommissioning and that they will actually be available as and when required. The resources need to be managed with full transparency ensuring adequate funds for a high level of nuclear safety with respect to decommissioning and radioactive waste management. The information on decommissioning financing cannot be retained on the basis of confidentiality. The nuclear industry frequently cites the argument that decommissioning is technically complex and funding issues commercially sensitive. The varying levels of confidentiality applied across the EU lead the Commission to conclude that this argument is sometimes exaggerated to the extent that it could be considered as being used to divert attention from a shortfall in fund availability and/or adequacy.

The benefits of harmonised decommissioning funding methodologies should be explored in the EU. This assessment should take into account the differences in strategies between the Member States avoiding compromising safety and security. Common approaches in the case of new constructions should be rigorously pursued.

The Commission should focus on the adequacy of funding, its financial security and the ring fencing that is required in order to ensure the funds are only used for the purposes intended. For future nuclear constructions a common approach to methodology should be progressed but for currently operating systems the Commissions activities need to be based upon independent evaluation and reporting.

Chapter 3 of the present working document contains a table of accumulated funds in relation to total liability and plant operational lifetime. The content of this working document is based upon the information provided by the Member States collected via reference studies undertaken since 2004. Member States are requested to correct, if necessary, the information provided and the Commission will reissue the document at appropriate intervals.

This accompanying working document will be used as a basis for future continued consultation with Member State experts.

2. EU Member State Overview

This chapter summarises the decommissioning scene within the EU and is based preliminary upon the Commission's work and, the referenced studies (1) – (4) undertaken since 2004. The intention is to provide an overview reflecting the situation at mid of 2007.

Table 2.1 summarises the nuclear power reactors within the EU with figure 2.1 providing the corresponding overview. Table 2.2 and figure 2.2 provide an indication of the growing size of the decommissioning effort required over the next two decades. Of particular note is the number of reactors anticipated for closure over the next 20 years amounting to approximately one third of the current EU nuclear generating capacity.

Of the three basic decommissioning strategies, only immediate and deferred dismantling are selected within the EU (table 2.3), though several Member States consider entombment as a potential option during the selection process. Within these two categories there are also large variations in interpretation as to the exact timing of the different phases, which has led to sub-categories being defined such as “rapid-immediate” strategy or conversely, an immediate strategy with a 20+ year period of deferral. There has been a definite trend towards early decommissioning in recent years, in particular for those countries such as France or the United Kingdom that previously had favoured a deferred decommissioning strategy with a very long period of safe enclosure. The new EU Member States have chosen both early and deferred decommissioning strategies with a non-uniform tendency.

The primary reasons given for selecting an early decommissioning strategy range from social aspects (preservation of jobs,) preservation of plant know-how (fear of loss of knowledge in case of deferred dismantling) to the necessity to demonstrate to the public that decommissioning of nuclear installations to green field is possible.

Selection of a deferred decommissioning strategy is often motivated by economic reasons, by specific waste management issues such as the lack of a disposal route for graphite or the lack of a final repository. Nevertheless, a large number of countries have chosen an early decommissioning strategy despite the lack of a repository, making use of existing or ad hoc built interim waste storage facilities. can be concluded that early decommissioning is possible independent of the size of the nuclear programme or the availability of a repository.

While power reactors tend to dominate the discussion on decommissioning, other nuclear installations, such as research reactors (see table 2.4) or nuclear fuel cycle facilities (see table 2.5 and 2.6), should not be neglected as the radiological and financial implications following closure can be very significant.

(...PICT...)

Table 2.1: Nuclear power reactors in the European Union (Status 30.06.2007)

(...PICT...)

Figure 2.1: Map of nuclear power reactors in the EU (Status 30.06.2007)

| before 1986 | 1986-2005 | 2006-2025 | later or unknown | Total |

Belgium | | 1 | 7 | | 8 |

Czech Republic | | | | 6 | 6 |

Germany | 6 | 13 | 17 | | 36 |

Spain | | 1 | 1 | 8 | 10 |

France | 6 | 6 | | 59 | 71 |

Italy | 1 | 3 | | | 4 |

Lithuania | | 1 | 1 | | 2 |

Hungary | | | | 4 | 4 |

The Netherlands | | 1 | | 1 | 2 |

Slovenia | | | | 1 | 1 |

Slovakia | 1 | | 2 | 4 | 7 |

Finland | | | | 4 | 4 |

Sweden | 1 | 2 | | 10 | 13 |

United Kingdom | 2 | 20 | 22 | 1 | 45 |

Bulgaria | | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 |

Romania | | | | | |

Total | 17 | 50 | 52 | 100 | 219 |

Table 2.2: Power reactor closure status and prediction

(...PICT...)

Figure 2.2: Timeline of power reactor commissioning and closure

(...PICT...)

Table 2.3: Decommissioning strategies within the European Union (Status 30.06.2007)

| Research Reactors | Decommissioning Status |

| Total | Opera- tional | Shut Down | Not specified | Ongoing | Safe enclosure | Modified use | Dis- mantled |

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

Czech Republic | 5 | 3 | 2 | | | | | 2 |

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

Germany | 46 | 12 | 34 | | 8 | 3 | | 23 |

Estonia | | | | | | | | |

Greece | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | | | | |

Spain | 4 | | 4 | 1 | | | | 3 |

France | 30 | 11 | 19 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 9 |

Ireland | | | | | | | | |

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

Cyprus | | | | | | | | |

Latvia | 2 | | 2 | 2 | | | | |

Lithuania | | | | | | | | |

Luxembourg | | | | | | | | |

Hungary | 3 | 2 | 1 | | | | | 1 |

Malta | | | | | | | | |

Netherlands | 5 | 3 | 2 | | | | | 2 |

Austria | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | | | | |

Poland | 5 | 1 | 4 | 2 | | | | 2 |

Portugal | 1 | 1 | | | | | | |

Slovenia | 1 | 1 | | | | | | |

Slovakia | | | | | | | | |

Finland | 2 | 1 | 1 | | | | | 1 |

Sweden | 5 | | 5 | 2 | | | | 3 |

United Kingdom | 34 | 3 | 31 | 2 | 5 | | | 24 |

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

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

Total | 174 | 52 | 122 | 21 | 20 | 4 | 1 | 76 |

Table 2.4: Research reactors in the European Union

| Fuel Fabrication | Fuel Reprocessing | Spent Fuel Storages | Total |

Belgium | 4 | 2 | 3 | 9 |

Czech Republic | | | 1 | 1 |

Denmark | 1 | | | 1 |

Germany | 11 | 13 | 14 | 38 |

Estonia | | | | 0 |

Spain | 4 | 1 | 1 | 6 |

France | 20 | 12 | 6 | 38 |

Italy | 6 | 3 | | 9 |

Lithuania | | | 1 | 1 |

Hungary | | | 1 | 1 |

Netherlands | 1 | | | 1 |

Portugal | | | | 0 |

Slovenia | | | | 0 |

Slovakia | | | 1 | 1 |

Finland | | | 3 | 3 |

Sweden | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |

United Kingdom | 21 | 13 | 7 | 41 |

Bulgaria | | | 1 | 1 |

Romania | 1 | | | 1 |

Total | 70 | 45 | 40 | 155 |

Table 2.5: Type of nuclear fuel cycle facilities in the European Union

| Nuclear Cycle Facilities | Decommissioning Status |

| Total | Operational | Shut down | Not specified | Ongoing | Dismantled |

Belgium | 9 | 5 | 4 | | 3 | 1 |

Czech Republic | 1 | 1 | | | | |

Denmark | 1 | 1 | | | | |

Germany | 38 | 12 | 26 | | 9 | 17 |

Estonia | | | | | | |

Greece | | | | | | |

Spain | 6 | 2 | 4 | | 1 | 3 |

France | 38 | 21 | 17 | 2 | 8 | 7 |

Ireland | | | | | | |

Italy | 9 | | 9 | 3 | 1 | 5 |

Cyprus | | | | | | |

Latvia | | | | | | |

Lithuania | 1 | 1 | | | | |

Luxembourg | | | | | | |

Hungary | 1 | | 1 | 1 | | |

Malta | | | | | | |

Netherlands | 1 | 1 | | | | |

Austria | | | | | | |

Poland | | | | | | |

Portugal | | | | | | |

Slovenia | | | | | | |

Slovakia | 1 | 1 | | | | |

Finland | 3 | 3 | | | | |

Sweden | 3 | 2 | 1 | | 1 | |

United Kingdom | 41 | 15 | 26 | 1 | 16 | 9 |

Bulgaria | 1 | 1 | | | | |

Romania | 1 | 1 | | | | |

Total | 155 | 67 | 88 | 7 | 39 | 42 |

Table 2.6: Operational and decommissioning status of the nuclear fuel cycle facilities

3. Funding status

The following table provides a comparison of estimated liabilities and accumulated provisions and is based primarily on the results of the study on funding methodology (2). In order to provide an indication of fund adequacy, the percentage operational lifetime is also indicated.

For reasons of simplicity and clarity, costs are only provided in Euros and, should be considered indicative only.

The table is not exhaustive and, obtaining accurate detailed information was problematic due to a lack of transparency or in many cases an outright refusal to make such information available. The Commission will correct the data at regular intervals as necessary in future revisions of this working document.

3.1. Decommissioning funds accumulated in relation to expected total costs of future decommissioning of nuclear installations in the European Member States.

Name of nuclear facility | Kind of facility | Total decommissioning costs estimated [€ million] | Provisions accumulated by end 2004 (unless otherwise stated) [€ million] | Percentage of required provisions accumulated [%] | Percentage of operational lifetime expired [%] |

BELGIUM |

Doel, Tihange | 7 NPPs+ spent fuel management | 2,300 (discounted)7,450 (discounted) | 1,3762,540 | 60%34% | various |

EUROCHEMIC | Reprocessing Plant | 203.3 (EUR2004, discounted) | | | 100 |

BULGARIA |

Kozloduy unit 1 | NPP | 2,600 | 280 in decomm. funds + 69 in radioactive waste management funds | 14% | ~70 (weighted average of the 6 plants) |

Kozloduy unit 2 | NPP | | | | |

Kozloduy unit 3 | NPP | | | | |

Kozloduy unit 4 | NPP | | | | |

Kozloduy unit 5 | NPP | | | | |

Kozloduy unit 6 | NPP | | | | |

Uranium mine | Uranium mine | | | | |

IRT Sofia | RR | | | | |

Considerable Community assistance also provided to Bulgaria in support of the decommissioning effort of Kozloduy 1-4 and, to address the consequences of early closure. Approximately €760 million up to 2009. |

CZECH REPUBLIC |

Dukovany 1 | NPP | > 580 (price basis 2003) (the 580 do not include any costs for waste management and disposal) | 137 | 24% | 48 |

Dukovany 2 | | | | | |

Dukovany 3 | | | | | |

Dukovany 4 | | | | | |

Temelin 1 | NPP | > 480 (price basis 2004) (this sum does not include any costs for waste management and disposal) | 28 | 6% | 10 |

Temelin 2 | | | | | |

LVR-15 | Research reactor | 4.4 (price basis unclear) | 2.5 | 55% | 61.5 |

ISFSF Dukovany | Interim storage | 0.4 (price basis 2004) | 0.018 | 4% | 11 |

Repository Dukovany | Repository (above ground) | 23 (price basis unclear) | | | |

RAWRA activities | Waste management | 1,490 (own estimate of all activities related to Dukovany and Temelin based upon 40 years lifetime and current contribution of 50 CZK/MWh to Nuclear Account) | 211 | 14% | n.a. |

|

GERMANY |

E.ON Corporate group | Several NPP (41.7% of total German NPP capacity in 2006) | Information on site-specific provisions is not accessible | 12,907 | Information on site-specific provisions is not accessible | |

RWE corporate group | Several NPP (27.1% of total German NPP capacity in 2006) | | 9,473 | | |

EnBW corporate group | Several NPP (21.4% of total German NPP capacity in 2006) | | 3,920 | | |

Stadtwerke München | Share in KKI 2 | | 679 | | |

GKN 1 | NPP | | Information on site-specific provisions is not accessible | | 81.8 |

GKN 2 | NPP | | | | 44.1 |

KKP 1 | NPP | | | | 72.7 |

KKP 2 | NPP | | | | 55.9 |

KKG | NPP | | | | 66.7 |

KRB-B | NPP | | | | 51.4 |

KRB-C | NPP | | | | 48.7 |

KKI 1 | NPP | | | | 74.3 |

KKI 2 | NPP | | | | 46.9 |

KWB A | NPP | | | | 82.9 |

KWB B | NPP | | | | 69.2 |

KKE | NPP | | 1,709 | | 39.5 |

KWG | NPP | | 1,401 | | 55.9 |

KKU | NPP | | Information on site-specific provisions is not accessible | | 73.5 |

Name of nuclear facility | Kind of facility | Total decommissioning costs estimated [Mio. EUR] | Provisions accumulated by 31-12-2004 [Mio. EUR] | Provisions accumulated in relation to expected costs [%] | Years of operation until 31-12-2004 in relation to total expected lifetime [%] |

KBR | NPP | | 1,577 | | 51.5 |

| | | | | |

KKB | NPP | | 1,354 | | 79.4 |

KKK | NPP | | 1,806 | | 58.8 |

KWO | NPP | | 880 | | 94.6 |

KKS | NPP | | 1,204 | | 100 |

KMK | NPP | | Information on site-specific provisions is not accessible | | 100 |

KWW | NPP | (> 700) | Information on site-specific provisions is not accessible | According to EON provisions should be more or less sufficient | 100 |

KKR | NPP | 3,200 | No nuclear provisions because liability is with the Federal government and not with EWN GmbH | 0% | 100 |

KGR 1 | NPP | | | | 100 |

KGR 2 | NPP | | | | 100 |

KGR 3 | NPP | | | | 100 |

KGR 4 | NPP | | | | 100 |

KGR 5 | NPP | | | | 100 |

AVR | NPP | ca. 500 | Paid out of public budget, therefore 0 | 0% | 100 |

KKN | NPP | 150 | | | 100 |

THTR-300 | NPP | (444) | ? | | 100 |

MZFR | NPP | 275 | Paid out of public budget, therefore 0 | 0% | 100 |

KNK-II | NPP | 291 | | | 100 |

FRM-II | RR | | | | ? |

FRJ-1 | RR | 26 | | | 100 |

FRJ-2 | RR | 100 | | | ? |

FRG-1 | RR | 100 | | | ? |

FRG-2 | RR | | | | 100 |

FR-2 | RR | 55 | | | 100 |

URENCO | Enrichment | No site-specific data accessible. Only data for the URENCO group as a whole: By the end of 2005, URENCO’s provisions in the company’s balance sheet for all the URENCO sites in total amount to 129 Mio. Euro for tails disposal, 157 Mio. Euro for dismantling of plant and machinery and 19 Mio. Euro for other, also non-nuclear purposes. |

ANF | Fuel fabrication | Information not accessible |

WAK | Reprocessing, complex site | 2,230 | Paid out of public budget, therefore 0 | 0% | 100 |

ITU-JRC | Research facilities | 389 | Paid out of the EC budget, therefore 0 | 0% | |

Wismut | Uranium mine | | | | 100 |

Name of nuclear facility | Kind of facility | Total decommissioning costs estimated [Mio. EUR] | Provisions accumulated by 31-12-2004 [Mio. EUR] | Provisions accumulated in relation to expected costs [%] | Years of operation until 31-12-2004 in relation to total expected lifetime[%] |

SPAIN |

Lobo (La Haba, Badajoz)Mina and Planta Lobo-G | Mine and Mill (no separated costs for m available) | 8.4 (2006 estimate) | N/A | - | 100 |

Fábrica de Uranio de Andujar (FUA)(Andujar Uranium Mill-AUM) | Uranium Mill | - | - | - | - |

Saelices el Chico(Salamanca) Planta Elefante | Uranium Mill | 5.5 (2006 estimate) | - | - | - |

Saelices el Chico (Salamanca) – Planta Quercus | Uranium Mill | 4.6 (2006 estimate) | - | - | - |

Saelices el Chico (Salamanca) – La mina | Uranium Mill | 58.7 (2006 estimate) | - | - | - |

Arbi Experimental reactor Bilbao | Research reactor | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |

Vandellos 1 | NPP | > 224.3 (stage 3; 2006 estimate) | | | |

José Cabrera | NPP | >130.8 (spent fuel + stage 3; 2006 estimate) | | | |

Ascó I | NPP | >206.5 (spent fuel + stage 3; 2006 estimate) | | | |

FINLAND |

OL 1+2 (TVO) | NPP | 827 (2005 estimate) | 827 | 100 | 42 |

Lo 1+2 (FPH) | NPP | 618 (2005 estimate) | 618 | 100 | 50 |

FiR 1 (VTT) | RR | 5.3 (2005 estimate) | 5.3 | 100 | 88 |

FRANCE |

EDF | NPPs and waste | 48,187 (2006 estimate) | 24,705 | 51% | Various |

CEA | Research, fuel cycle and waste | 13,211 (2006 estimate) | 8,602 | 65% | Various |

AREVA | Fuel cycle and waste | 8,258 (2006 estimate) | 4,332 | 52% | Various |

SOMANU Maubeuge7 | Nuclear Maintenance | 10 (2006 estimate) | 6 | 66% | 33 |

Name of nuclear facility | Kind of facility | Total decommissioning costs estimated [Mio. EUR] | Provisions accumulated by 31-12-2004 [Mio. EUR] | Provisions accumulated in relation to expected costs [%] | Years of operation until 31-12-2004 in relation to total expected lifetime[%] |

HUNGARY |

NPP Paks | NPP | 2,523 (2005 estimate) | 261 | 11 | 46 |

ISFSF Paks | SF storage site | Together with NPP | Together with NPP | Together with NPP | 10 |

BRR Budapest | RR | 4.7 (2005 estimate) | Will not be financed from CNFF | - | <72 |

TR Budapest | RR | 1 (2005 estimate) | Will not be financed from CNFF | - | <61 |

ITALY |

SOGIN facilities | Diverse | 4,029 (EUR 2004) (w/o costs of final disposal) | 570 still in the balance sheet, 800 in total transferred from ENEL (SOGIN)n.a. (CCSE) | ca. 20% (ENEL->SOGIN)n.a. (CCSE) | 100 |

ISPRA – JRC facilities | RR | 645 | Paid out of the EC budget, therefore 0 | 0.0% | 100 |

LENA Triga II | RR | No decommissioning plan, no cost calculations, no provisions yet. |

LITHUANIA |

INPP Unit 1 and 2 | NPP | ~ EUR 2020 million for immediate dismantling strategy (EUR 2002) | By 2006: EUR 104 million | 5% of immediate strategy costs | Unit 1 – 100% Unit 2 – 74% |

Considerable Community assistance also provided to Lithuania in support of the decommissioning effort of Units 1 &2 and, to address the consequences of early closure. Approximately €1.4 billion up to 2013. |

THE NETHERLANDS |

Dodewaard | NPP | 175 (undiscounted)75 (discounted) | 114 (for all remaining decommissioning liabilities) | 100% (compared to remaining liabilities | 100 |

Borssele | NPP | 700 (undiscounted)145 (discounted) | 163.6 | 23.4% (undiscounted)100.0% (discounted) | 51 |

URENCO Almelo | Enrichment facility | No site-specific data accessible. Only data for the URENCO group as a whole: By the end of 2005, URENCO’s provisions in the company’s balance sheet for all the URENCO sites in total amount to 129 Mio. Euro for tails disposal, 157 Mio. Euro for dismantling of plant and machinery and 19 Mio. Euro for other, also non-nuclear purposes. |

Petten nuclear reactor (HFR) (JRC Site) | RR | 69 | 5 (2003) | 7.2% | Not decided yet, maybe 83% |

HOR-RID, TU Delft | RR | Not calculated yet | 0 | 0.0% | Not decided yet |

COVRA | Waste management & disposal | 1,270 (disposal only) | 85.3 | 6.7% | ca. 10% – 20% |

Name of nuclear facility | Kind of facility | Total decommissioning costs estimated [Mio. EUR] | Provisions accumulated by 31-12-2004 [Mio. EUR] | Provisions accumulated in relation to expected costs [%] | Years of operation until 31-12-2004 in relation to total expected lifetime[%] |

ROMANIA |

Cernavoda 1 | NPP | N/A | 0 | 0 | 2.7 |

Cernavoda 2 | NPP | N/A | 0 | 0 | - |

Horia Hulubei, Magurele, Bukarest | RR | 16 | 0 | 0 | 100 |

TRIGA, Mioveni, Pitesti | RR | 100 | 0 | 0 | 49 |

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 | N/A |

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

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

SWEDEN |

B1, B2 | NPP | 510 (EUR 2004) | 510 | 100% | 100 |

F1, F2, F3 | NPP | 1,180 (EUR 2004) | 1100 | 93% | 53-78 |

O1, O2, O3 | NPP | 890 (EUR 2004) | 850 | 97% | 53-85 |

R1, R2, R3, R4 | NPP | 1,250 (EUR 2004) | 1210 | 96% | 58-78 |

SLOVENIA |

Krško Nuclear Power Plant | NPP | 1,149.3 (undiscounted)338.5 (EUR 2002) (discounted) | 115 | 10.0% (undiscounted)34.0% (discounted) | 52.5 |

TRIGA Mark II | RR | Not calculated yet | 0 | 0.0% | Not decided yet |

Central interim storage of radioactive waste in Brinje | storage of radioactive waste | Not calculated yet | 0 | 0.0% | Not decided yet |

Zirovski Vrh Uranium Mine and Milll; Waste Pile Jazbec | Uranium Mine and Mill | Not known | 0 | 0.0% | 100 |

SLOVAKIA |

A1 J. Bohunice | NPP | 378 (EUR 2004) | 324 | 6 % | 5 years, 25 |

V1 J. Bohunice | NPP | 1,884 (EUR 2004) | | | 28 years 75 |

V2 J. Bohunice | NPP | 1,620 (EUR 2004) | | | 28 years 75 |

JE Mochovce 1,2 | NPP | 1,620 (EUR 2004) | | | 5 years 14 |

Considerable Community assistance also provided to Slovakia in support of the decommissioning effort of Bohunice V1 and, to address the consequences of early closure. Approximately €600 million up to 2013. |

UNITED KINGDOM |

British Energy facilities | 8 NPP sites (9,892 MWe) | about 129,00 in total | 1,137 (NLF) (31 March 2005) | ?% | various |

All other civilian facilities | Diverse facilities | | 0 (NDA) | 0.0% | various |

4. EU Member State Overview

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

Contents:

4.1. FRANCE (...)22

4.2. LITHUANIA (...)25

4.3. SLOVAKIA (...)26

4.4. BELGIUM (...)29

4.5. SWEDEN (...)31

4.6. BULGARIA (...)32

4.7. SLOVENIA (...)33

4.8. GERMANY (...)34

4.9. CZECH REPUBLIC (...)37

4.10. FINLAND (...)38

4.11. SPAIN (...)40

4.12. UNITED KINGDOM (...)42

4.13. ROMANIA (...)44

4.14. HUNGARY (...)45

4.15. NETHERLANDS (...)47

4.16. AUSTRIA (...)48

4.17. ITALY (...)49

4.18. LATVIA (...)51

4.19. ESTONIA (...)52

4.20. JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE (...)52

4.21. POLAND (...)53

4.22. GREECE (...)54

4.23. MALTA (...)54

4.24. CYPRUS (...)54

4.25. DENMARK (...)54

4.26. IRELAND (...)54

4.27. LUXEMBOURG (...)54

4.28. PORTUGAL (...)54

4.1. FRANCE

4.1.1. Overview

The regulatory situation and organisation of nuclear decommissioning and waste management in France underwent profound change in 2006 with the adoption new legislation on nuclear waste research and management ("New Waste Law") [7]. The new law provides for the:

· creation of a national management plan and continued research;

· supervision of the reprocessing - recycling of foreign spent fuel in France;

· evaluation of research work by an independent commission of experts;

· consultation and safety analysis aspects of the process to create a repository in deep geological formations;

· economic development of the territories concerned by sitting of an underground laboratory or repository in deep geological formations;

· missions of the national agency for radioactive materials and waste management (Andra);

· financing of research into radioactive waste management;

· security of financing for decommissioning of basic nuclear installations and management of radioactive waste. These provisions are in particular designed to ensure that the goal of the first article of the bill is reached (article 1 A): “Steps are taken to search for and deploy the resources necessary to ensure that radioactive waste is finally secure, to prevent an undue burden being placed on future generations”.

Given the scale of the sums and the time-frame involved in the cost of decommissioning nuclear installations and managing radioactive waste, it became apparent that creation of a specific legislative system was necessary to secure the funding required. Although measures of this type already existed (in particular with the gathering of dedicated assets by the main operators concerned, and even the creation of dedicated funds with supervisory committees in certain cases), 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. The National Radioactive Waste Management Agency ANDRA has to set up an internal restricted fund in order to finance the storage of long lived high and medium level wastes. The fund will be fed by contributions from the nuclear operators under bilateral conventions. The nuclear operators will set up internal restricted funds covered by dedicated assets managed under separate accountability. A National Financing Evaluation Commission of the Costs of Basic Nuclear Installations Dismantling and Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Management will be established that comprises representatives of the National Assembly and the Senate as well as the Government and a number of experts that have to be independent of the nuclear operators and the energy industry.

Partial privatisation led key nuclear players AREVA and EDF to advance the reorganisation of their backend provisions and accountancy practice. The CEA is following soon. The three companies have set up restricted internal funds for the financing of future backend charges. The CEA was the first to set up a specific fund for its civil activities in 2001, while AREVA was the first to cover provisions by dedicated assets. EDF is expected to have built up earmarked assets by 2010, which is thought to be the earliest time EDF can complete this.

The sums involved are very significant. The French Court of Accounts has calculated liabilities totalling €65 billion (undiscounted) for the three main operators as of the end of 2004.

4.1.2. Decommissioning funding

The New Waste Law stipulates in article 20 that the operators of basic nuclear installations 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 necessary 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. [8] This means that it is aimed 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 new law requires that the level of assets must be at least equal to the discounted cost from the time of commissioning but that for currently operating EDF plant this situation will be required only by 2010.

The assessment of these nuclear costs will require that 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 amount of the reserve set up in the undertaking's balance sheet in accordance with applicable accounting rules. This report will be submitted to the competent administrative authority for examination (services of the Ministry for Industry 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

NPP decommissioning cost estimates have been subject of a detailed study and cost breakdown. The assessment assumes a generic treatment for all reactor types and while the benchmark value of 15% of construction cost is believed to still be valid, such a methodology is not considered best practice.

4.1.3. Decommissioning strategy

Until the end of the 1990s the reference strategy for the decommissioning of commercial nuclear facilities in France consisted of deferred dismantling activities (30 to 50 years) after discharging of fuel from nuclear reactors or respective operations like the evacuation of nuclear materials from other facilities. Only few and small-scale facilities like a number of small research reactors and laboratory scale facilities have been entirely dismantled so far (see table 2.4).

In 2003 the French regulations were modified significantly as to allow for the immediate or slightly deferred dismantling of the facilities. [9] The amendment of the rule was felt necessary also to take into account difficulties that had been encountered to apply existing regulations to non-reactor facilities. EDF had decided on its end already in 2001 to decommission its first generation reactors without an additional deactivation phase.

The French nuclear safety authorities are 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 has to be authorised by the safety authorities not only from their technical point of view but also on the level of their financial feasibility. [10] The position of the safety authorities 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” [11]. This is one of the key reasons why the immediate dismantling approach has been adopted in France.

The safety authorities specifically request 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.

4.1.4. Radioactive waste management

The French nuclear industry is based upon a closed fuel cycle. The original UP1 plant at Marcoule initially only processed military though later extended to cover civil fuel. The second plant UP2-400 was financed for half of the cost by the military budget of the CEA and for half by the civil budget. The plant also processed civil and military fuels.

In view of the then expected large-scale introduction of fast breeder reactors, the French industry invested in two commercial reprocessing plants, UP2-800 and UP3, each with 850 t/a capacity at La Hague. Most of the investment cost of the UP3 plant was covered under cost-plus-fee contracts by foreign reprocessing clients.

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.

4.2. LITHUANIA

4.2.1. Overview

Lithuania has two nuclear reactors of the RBMK-1500 series located at the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant, close to the town of Visaginas. These reactors have generated up to 70- 80% of the country’s electricity production, and have enabled in the past a limited amount of electricity to be exported to neighbouring countries. In line with its Accession Treaty obligations, Unit 1 was permanently shutdown on December 31, 2004. Ignalina Units 1 & 2 are Soviet design reactors, on which the Commission’s position has remained consistent and in line with the G7 multilateral programme of action adopted at the Munich G7 summit in 1992; these reactors cannot be economically upgraded to a required level of safety and should be closed. During the accession negotiations, the Lithuanian Government took a commitment to close Unit 1 in 2004, and Unit 2 in 2009. Community assistance totals €319 million for the period 2004-2006 resulting in a total Community contribution of €529 million since 1999 and, a further €837 million has been earmarked for the period 2007-2013.

The Ignalina reactors are foreseen for immediate dismantling with completion by 2030. Estimation of the cost of decommissioning ranges from €987 million to €1,300 million purely in terms of technical costs. A national fund has also been created which has accumulated just over €100 million however, a significant proportion has been disbursed, in some cases on non-decommissioning projects.

4.2.2. Decommissioning funding

According to the cost estimates, made initially in 2001, pure technical costs of decommissioning range from €987 million to €1,300 million. The agreed final decommissioning plan notes the sensitivity of the liability assessment to manpower costs and estimates an increase to ~€2 billion should the average wage rise from €6/hour to €40/hour. There are presently three different sources available for funding of INPP Decommissioning: direct Community assistance; the Ignalina International Decommissioning Support Fund (IIDSF) to which the Community is the largest contributor (~95%); and a National Fund. The main source of the National Fund is deductions from the revenue received from the sale of electricity (now 6% after the excise tax).

By 2013 the total support to Lithuania will reach approximately €1.4 billion via either direct Community contributions or the IIDSF however, this assistance is not just foreseen for decommissioning of the reactors but equally important are issues related to security of supply (replacement capacity) and the maintenance of an adequate safety culture through the maintenance of morale and retraining at the plant. It is also to be noted that significant proportion of the State Fund has been used for non-nuclear projects relating to replacement capacity.

Aware of the significant variations in decommissioning estimate, in 2006 the Commission requested the Lithuanian government to provide a detailed project pipeline for all projects foreseen for assistance in order to gain confidence that adequate funding would be available for safe decommissioning.

The license holder has full responsibility for dismantling and waste management and contributes to the budget relative to its economic strength, its annual contribution amounting to 6% of the plant’s annual revenue from the sold electricity.

4.2.3. Decommissioning strategy

The immediate decommissioning strategy is planned to reach the “brown field”, with possible re-use of the site as an industrial facility or for new energy production. The decommissioning project is expected to be completed by 2030.

The Preliminary Decommissioning Plan, adopted in 1999, included analysis of potential future at that time decommissioning strategies, which were three: immediate, deferred dismantling and entombment. In order to choose the best strategy the Ministry of Economy asked the INPP to prepare an analysis of technical and financial considerations having influence for the selection of a strategy. After extensive discussions, in 2002, the Government of Lithuania, basing its opinion on the need to prevent the country from cumbersome long-term social, economical, financial and environmental consequences and having in mind to use INPP staff in decommissioning activities selected an option of immediate dismantling. This is a continuous process starting after final shutdown and finishing with the interim/final disposal of all radioactive waste and territory restoration. Different factors have influenced the selection of strategy, in particular the development of the state energy policy, social aspects and nuclear safety aspects, technical characteristics of the power plant, financing, radioactive waste storage and international experience in the field of decommissioning of nuclear power plants.

A Final Decommissioning Plan was subsequently drafted and agreed based solely upon the selected strategy of immediate dismantling.

Dismantling requires appropriate radioactive waste management facilities (as a minimum landfill disposal site and free release measurement facility) however, dismantling of non-contaminated or slightly contaminated plant will begin in 2008.

4.2.4. Radioactive waste management

At present, only operational waste facilities are available in Lithuania. Nevertheless, it is expected that a landfill facility for short-lived very low level radioactive waste and a dry storage facility for spent fuel will become available by 2009 as well as a near surface repository for low and medium level radioactive waste by 2012. A final waste repository is expected to become available in 2050.

4.3. SLOVAKIA

4.3.1. Overview

Slovakia operates six VVER 440 nuclear reactors, four at Bohunice and two at Mochovce. These generate approximately 50% of the country’s electricity supply. Bohunice Units 1 & 2 are first generation Soviet design reactors, on which the Commission’s position has remained consistent and in line with the G7 multilateral programme of action adopted at the Munich G7 summit in 1992; these first generation reactors of Soviet design cannot be economically upgraded to a required level of safety and should be closed. During the accession negotiations, the Slovak Government took a commitment to close Unit 1 in 2006, and Unit 2 in 2008. The Treaty of Accession includes a specific protocol which describes this commitment and offers substantial Community assistance. Protocol 9 has resulted in a commitment for €100 million over the period 2004-6 and, the provision of a further €423 million over the period 2007-2013 has been agreed upon.

The privatisation of Slovenske Elektrarne (SE) which is now owned 66% by ENEL has led to a major reorganisation of operating and shutdown facilities. A new government owned group now assumes responsibility for Bohunice A1, V1 and most waste management facilities.

In addition to the two operational VVER 440 reactors at Mochovce, there are also two partially completed VVER 440 reactors and for which a decision on completion is expected in 2007.

Prior to specific legislation in 1996, there was no requirement to create a dedicated fund with costs being borne directly from the treasury account. A national fund has steadily built up since the mid-nineties. The separation of operational reactors from those shutdown or waste management facilities has led to a concern over the distribution of the previously established national decommissioning fund.

4.3.2. Decommissioning funding

Prior to 1996, decommissioning and costs were provided primarily from the federal budget. A first law was then approved which saw the creation of a state fund with various sources but in particular through contributions from operating facilities. This legislation was replaced by a new law in 2006 with funding resourced through a 5.95% levy on electricity price and a charge of €9450/MWe. Financial resources of the previous Fund were transferred to the new Nuclear Fund and its individual sub-accounts and analytical accounts in shares corresponding with the shares of generated electricity in the individual NPPs in relation to the overall electricity generated in all NPPs during 1978 – 2005. The breakdown by sub-account gives cause for concern as it appears to leave the ongoing A1 decommissioning project without any specifically earmarked source of funding:

1.) Decommissioning of nuclear facilities located at the Bohunice power plants site providing a separate independent account for each plant:

- A1: € 0

- V1: € 216 million

- V2: € 180 million

2.) Decommissioning of the Mochovce NPP:

- EMO: € 61 million

3.) Decommissioning of nuclear facilities that started their operations following the date when National nuclear fund law came into force:

- Beginning with € 0

4.) Treatment of nuclear materials and nuclear waste of unknown origin: € 0

5.) Searching the localities, geological survey, preparation, designs, constructions, operation and for closing-up the deep repositories of RAW and spent nuclear fuel: € 0

6.) Institutional control of (deep) repositories: € 0

7.) Storage of spent fuel in independent nuclear facilities: € 0

8.) Nuclear fund administration: € 51 million

In recognition of the financial burden that Slovakia's early closure commitment for the V1 reactors creates, the European Community has foreseen considerable financial assistance in a specific protocol to the Treaty of Accession. This Community assistance will amount to a total of approximately €600 million up to the end of 2013. EU assistance is not just foreseen for decommissioning of the reactors but equally important are issues related to security of supply. The amounts fixed for this assistance are not based on a specific proportion of the estimated costs, but recognise the extraordinary burden placed on Slovakia by the shutdown commitment, and are to some extent an expression of solidarity between the Union and Slovakia. While the Community assistance is significant, the specific nature regarding its intended use needs to be noted in that while not intended solely for nuclear decommissioning but cannot be used for the decommissioning of other facilities.

The national fund is State held segregated fund with strict controls on use. Fund management and use is controlled by a supervisory board made up of representatives from several ministries.

The total cost of decommissioning and waste management, including disposal, is estimated at €3.6 Billion. The present level of the national fund is of €324 million2004.

4.3.3. Decommissioning strategy

The strategy for Bohunice V1 nuclear power plant was re-assessed in 2005 and decision has been taken in early 2007 to change from deferred to immediate decommissioning. According to the latest estimates, the decommissioning of Bohunice V1 will cost approximately €500 million with this figure rising to €1315.9 million in total, when pre-decommissioning projects, safe shutdown, dismantling and the back-end of the nuclear cycle are taken into account.

The A1 plant was shut down in 1977 soon after operation started in 1973 following an INES 4 accident. The facility has been under decommissioning since 1979 with a chosen strategy of immediate dismantling. The decommissioning process is split into two phases: the main goal of the first phase, to be finished in 2007, is to achieve radiation safety, i.e. defueling and treatment of liquid radioactive waste. The second phase is expected to start in 2008 and will be finished by 2033. The cost of decommissioning was estimated at €290M (price level 2001).

4.3.4. 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 project for the enlargement of this repository or alternative construction of a VLLW 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.

4.4. BELGIUM

4.4.1. Overview

Belgium has two sites with operating nuclear power plants at Doel and Tihange, operated by Electrabel. In addition to the seven NPPs there is an LEU and MOX fabrication plant. 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 projects and the Eurochemic reprocessing plant.

A subsidiary of Electrabel, SYNATOM is responsible for establishing and managing the provisions for the decommissioning of the operational power plants. This fund is overseen by a Surveillance committee and the State holds a "golden share" which gives it the power to veto decisions. The use made of provisions is fairly flexible with up to 75% being available for loan to the operators. There is also currently a proposal to use part of the funds for power sector investments which are unrelated to nuclear decommissioning.

The State is responsible for ensuring that adequate financial resources are set aside for the nuclear liabilities programme such as Eurochemic, via a levy on electricity sales which are held in a fund managed by the national waste agency ONDRAF/NIRAS.

4.4.2. Decommissioning funding

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

Since 2000, the existence of a supervising committee charged with the control of the mechanisms for the decommissioning provisions for nuclear power plants is required by law. The supervising committee is composed of high level people in the administrations and banking world. The National Agency for Radioactive Waste and Enriched Fissile Materials (ONDRAF) 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, or in case of its failure. Decommissioning provisions and costs are regularly revised, i.e. 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 40 years of operation. Effectively, the trimestrial endowment 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. In total, the estimated cost of decommissioning (1999) is €2280.8 million. The reserves are managed by Synatom, the nuclear provision company, and up to 75% can be re-borrowed to the nuclear operators.

The first of the seven pressurized water reactor units is expected to be closed in early 2015 and the last in 2025. No shutdown date has been set for the fuel fabrication site at Dessel.

From the financial point of view, all nuclear fuel remains always the property of Synatom, being effectively loaned 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 of 15%. For this purpose, €2540 million was in total constituted by the end of 2004.

The state finances the decommissioning of older R&D-facilities, the so-called “nuclear liability programme”. The facilities were operated in the first development phase of nuclear energy and their prime objective was not commercial operation. Until 2002, the state and the electricity producers financed jointly these projects on the basis of annual endowments. From 2003 onwards, 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 to manage these projects, executed by BELGOPROCESS in the first two, and by SCK•CEN for the latter facilities.

The cost of spent fuel management for the BR3 reactor is included in the decommissioning costs of the reactor and is the responsibility of the Belgian Government. The spent fuel of the BR1-reactor irradiated before 1989 belongs to the “nuclear liability programmes” and is the responsibility of the Belgian Government; while the spent fuel irradiated since 1989 is the responsibility of SCK•CEN.

4.4.3. 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. Consequently, immediate decommissioning has been selected for all on-going decommissioning projects.

4.4.4. Radioactive waste management

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

In 2000 a detailed assessment concluded that following decommissioning, about 319600 tons of material is expected to be unconditionally released, while 15500 tons (about 5% of the total) of radioactive waste will have to be disposed, 98% of which is expected to be low level and the rest as medium and high level radioactive waste. BELGOPROCESS, a subsidiary of ONDRAF, is responsible for the processing, conditioning and storage of all radioactive waste before a final repository becomes available.

Belgium is in the process of selecting a site for a low level waste repository, where most of the decommissioning waste can be deposited. Furthermore, 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.

4.5. SWEDEN

4.5.1. Overview

Sweden's nuclear facilities are made up of 13 power reactors, 5 research reactors, a spent fuel store, a repository for short-lived waste, a fuel fabrication plant and several other related facilities. Three power reactors and both research reactors have already been shutdown. The two Barseback reactors which were closed down in 1999 and 2005 as part of Sweden's nuclear phase out policy were initially foreseen for immediate dismantling however, this has now been delayed due to the lack of waste repository.

Power reactor decommissioning costs must be established during the first 25 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 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 facilities in which activities are no longer necessary.

4.5.2. Decommissioning funding

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 25-year earning period per reactor. In practice, the fee, transferred quarterly, has in recent years been set at between 0.01 and 0.02 SEK/kWh.

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 disposing of the decommissioning waste. The Fund must also finance research and development carried out by the Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company (SKB).

Updated cost calculations, including decommissioning costs are to be carried out jointly by the operators and submitted to the Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate (SKI) for approval on an annual basis. Based on a proposal from SKI the Government decides on the fees. The withdrawals from the Fund are subject to regulatory review by SKI.

The management of the Nuclear Waste Fund is the responsibility of a separate government agency, the Board of the Nuclear Waste Fund. The Fund is in principle administered as a number of individual funds corresponding to operators required to pay fees, but the funds are managed together.

The total cost estimates for managing all nuclear waste and for dismantling nuclear power plants in the future are approximately SEK 50 Billion (1997 price level). At the end of 2004, SEK 31.68 billion had been collected in the fund.

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 25 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 €150 million and €1.5 billion, respectively.

The financing of the historical liabilities, e.g. older experimental facilities previously owned by the state, in particular the facilities at Studsvik, the Ågesta reactor and the uranium mine in Ranstad, are dealt with separately. The basic requirement imposes for all four nuclear power utilities equally to pay a fee to a dedicated fund proportional to the generated kWh of electricity until the Fund is built-up. The fee is reassessed each year and is currently SEK 0.0015 per kWh. The Board of the Nuclear Waste Fund administers this fund together with the Nuclear Waste Fund. By 2030, approximately €125M will have been collected.

4.5.3. Decommissioning strategy

The operator decides the decommissioning strategy but it is subject to the regulatory authorities’ approval. No binding time limits for decommissioning is set in the current Swedish legislation and 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 authorities (the SKI and the SSI) 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 about 5 – 15 years, provided that storage facilities for the waste are available. For the case of twin reactors with common safety systems deferral could be justified if only one of the two reactors is shut down.

4.5.4. Radioactive waste management

The Swedish policy is that radioactive waste that has arisen in Sweden should be managed and disposed of in Sweden. There is so far no repository licensed for decommissioning waste. Shallow land burials are licensed only for short-lived very low level waste. 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 sited in about 2035.

4.6. BULGARIA

4.6.1. Overview

Bulgaria did not respond very positively to the requests for information made in the course of the Commission studies.

Bulgaria has four VVER 440 and two VVER 1000 nuclear reactors at the Kozloduy plant. A decision was taken in 2006 to complete the construction of the two Belene reactors. Spent fuel is currently shipped back to the Russian federation and there are plans to construct a national repository for low and intermediate level waste.

Kozloduy Units 1 - 4 are first generation Soviet design reactors, on which the Commission’s position has remained consistent and in line with the G7 multilateral programme of action adopted at the Munich G7 summit in 1992; these first generation reactors of Soviet design cannot be economically upgraded to a required level of safety and should be closed. The first two reactors were closed in 2002 and Units 3 and 4 in 2006 in line with Bulgaria's commitment made in the Treaty of Accession. In order to help alleviate the consequences of early closure of these 4 units considerable Community assistance is being made available which will see a total of €760 million provided to Bulgaria by 2009.

Segregated external funds were created in 1999 to cover decommissioning and waste liabilities. The main source of funding is from a levy of the electricity price which, following a revision of the decommissioning estimate was increased in 2003 to 15%.

4.7. SLOVENIA

4.7.1. Overview

The nuclear power plant at Krško represents the major nuclear liability on the territory of Slovenia. The plant is co-owned by Slovenian and the Croat states, which share equally the plant’s benefits and liabilities. The nuclear power plant has an operational licence until 2023, with investigations are foreseen on 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 concluded an agreement on decommissioning of the Krsko NPP. In this agreement, both countries agreed on:

· assuring funds for decommissioning financing in equal shares,

· developing a new decommissioning plan, which was finally completed in 2005 determining the decommissioning strategy based on scenario analysis, 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.

For its part, Slovenia has been contributing to a dedicated external fund since 1996 which currently stands at approximately €130 million being based upon a total liabilities estimate of €1150 million (undiscounted).

While the provision of adequate financial guarantees for Slovenia's half of decommissioning liabilities is provided from a levy on the sale of electricity, no such scheme has been put in place by Croatia’s. Croatia has not set up a fund and has only recently drafted a proposal for legislation. This shortfall is being raised by the Commission as part of Croatia's accession negotiations.

In addition, Slovenia has a research reactor, a waste storage and Uranium mine.

4.7.2. Decommissioning funding

A dedicated agreement, concluded between the two states in 2003, sets out the basic principles for the decommissioning funding and waste management aspects: both countries have the obligation to grant half of the funds for the financing of all activities related to decommissioning and radioactive waste disposal.

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. An external fund, a legal entity managed by a dedicated agency, was established in Slovenia to gather these resources and to ensure their availability when needed. The operator contributes monthly to the Fund a levy on the produced electricity (0.3 eurocent per kWh). The levy is periodically reassessed. Both the decommissioning plan and the spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste management plan shall be updated and revised every 5 years.

The total cost of decommissioning is estimated at €1.2 billion. The Slovenian fund amounted to €115 Million at the end of 2004 and currently stands at approximately €130 million.

4.7.3. 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. The dismantling of the plant is expected to be finalised by 2037 with “green field” as the end point.

4.7.4. 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. The site selection, a responsibility of the Agency for Radioactive Waste Management to be determined by 2008, is in its final stage. The site is expected to be brought into operation by 2013.

In the long term, a decision will be made either to construct a final repository (operation expected to start in 2030) or to export spent fuel.

4.8. GERMANY

4.8.1. Overview

Germany has a significant nuclear industry consisting of:

· 30 commercial nuclear power plants of which are 17 in operation, 2 in safe enclosure and 11 in the process of decommissioning

· 6 prototype reactors (demonstration plants) of which 2 are in the process of decommissioning and 4 are already fully dismantled

· 46 research reactors of which are 12 in operation, 3 in safe enclosure, 8 in the process of decommissioning and 23 already fully dismantled

· 38 other nuclear facilities of which are 12 in operation, 9 in the process of decommissioning and 17 already fully dismantled.

According to the German Atomic Energy Act (AtG), statutory ordinances promulgated on the basis of the AtG, as well as general administrative provisions, and following the ‘Polluter Pays Principle’, the licensees are responsible for any decommissioning activities, 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 (US-GAAP, IAS/IFRS). There are no restrictions with regard to the investment of these internal funds.

Germany has considerable experience of nuclear decommissioning, its operators have built up considerable funds for the financing of such operations and, have demonstrated a preference for immediate decommissioning strategy.

4.8.2. Decommissioning funding

The way funds are set aside for financing decommissioning activities differs between 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 costs is covered by the State Governments (“Länder”). Furthermore, there are the ITU European Commission JRC research facilities in Karlsruhe, financed from the current budget of the European Union.

· 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 (IAS/IFRS; US-GAAP).

The obligation to set up provisions (internal, unrestricted decommissioning funds) starts with the beginning of operation, but not the complete amount is required at this time. According to German tax law, decommissioning provisions for nuclear reactors in German tax balance sheets have to be set up as follows:

· Provisions for spent fuel management are allocated according to their burn-up over the period they are used in the reactor (about 4-5 years). Discounting takes place in a layered procedure over five years, which probably means that the time the spent fuel is placed in the spent fuel storage bay will be added to the burn-up period (i.e. over 9 - 10 years in total).

· Provisions for the management of the core are allocated over the first 19 years of operation (the change in German tax law in 1999/2000/2002 did not affect the length of this allocation period).

· 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 (19 years before 1999).

· Since 1999, provisions for additional costs of manufacturing Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX) are no longer permitted, as well as any additional costs with regard to the management of remaining fissile materials in case they are not used for MOX production.

· 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 by 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 2005 commercial balance sheets total about €30 billion and this provides for a recognised major source of internal finance. The cost estimates on which the provisions are regularly checked by state ministries however, there are only limited possibilities to confirm the technical basis on which assessments are made. Investments are made such there will be sufficient fund liquidity when needed however, there is no direct link made between provisions and liabilities.

4.8.3. 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. From the perspective of the Federal Ministry for Environment as the supervising authority, the main factors influencing strategy selection provide arguments in favour of an immediate dismantling strategy.

4.8.4. 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, as amended on August 01, 2001, includes a comprehensive and consistent set of quantitative and radionuclide specific data for the release of materials, buildings and sites from nuclear regulatory control. This is a profound basis for terminating such controls. 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.

As there is no repository (neither for radioactive wastes nor for spent fuel and heat generating waste) available in Germany, clearance also helps to avoid the use of valuable space for interim storage for material not requiring treatment as radioactive waste. Although the costs for performing clearance are not 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. Furthermore, the shipment of spent fuel to the existing centralized interim storage facilities is also no longer legally viable. Therefore, interim storage facilities for spent fuel have been constructed during the last few years at the NPP sites in Germany.

4.9. CZECH REPUBLIC

4.9.1. 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 three operating research reactors, two interim storage facilities for dry spent-fuel storage for the commercial NPPs and research reactors, and three LLW/ILW repositories in use. A third storage hall for spent fuel will become operational in 2006.

In addition to the remedial efforts for the environmental legacies from closed and operating uranium mining sites, the decommissioning of the commercial NPPs sites will constitute the bulk of decommissioning effort and expense. Separate funds are set up for decommissioning and waste management. The former being an internally managed block account and the latter an external fund managed by the Ministry of Finance.

4.9.2. Decommissioning funding

All private utilities are obliged to collect financial means for decommissioning purposes. The license holder bears full responsibility for and the costs of decommissioning and management of waste arising. The license holder is therefore obliged to create reserves for the preparation and actual decommissioning of its nuclear installation(s). This obligation is not applied to organisational units of the state, state-subsidised organisations, public universities and their organisational bodies as well as organisations established by territorial self-governing units.

The amount of these reserves shall be established based on the decommissioning strategy approved by the State Office for Nuclear Safety, and gathered in a dedicated and “blocked” bank account. 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. 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 nuclear installation or workplace shall be updated at least every 5 years.

As of 31.12.2005 decommissioning cost estimates cover the technical decommissioning amounted to €580 million for NPPs Dukovany 1-4, and €480 million for Temelin 1-2. 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 contribution of nuclear power plants to the Nuclear Account is based on their electricity production at the rate of 1.8 €/MWe. Small producers pay when their waste is accepted for disposal. The Radioactive Waste Repository Authority monitors the adequacy of the reserve and approves any withdrawal. The total cost of waste disposal is estimated at €1570 million (2003). At present, €193 million (2004) is available.

4.9.3. Decommissioning strategy

The adopted decommissioning strategy for both nuclear power plant sites involves a 35-50 year safe enclosure period following spent fuel removal and facility preparation. The installation is then decommissioned over a ten year period and a green field state is not a requirement. The timescale for research reactor decommissioning is more rapid but subject to optimisation for economic reasons.

4.9.4. Radioactive waste management

The waste resulting from the decommissioning process will be processed by standard technologies, which are presently available and which are/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’ operational waste (in Dukovany) and for the decommissioning waste arising from installations (Richard repository). Their total capacity is 55 000 m3 and 8652 m3, respectively. It is expected that 4764 m3 of radioactive waste will be produced by the Dukovany nuclear power plant and 10686 m3 by the Temelin nuclear power plant.

The decommissioning waste that does not meet the waste acceptance criteria is planned to be disposed of in a deep geological repository. The same applies for decommissioning waste from other nuclear installations or workplaces. Investigations are on-going to select an appropriate site for a deep geological repository, expected to become operational by 2065.

4.10. FINLAND

4.10.1. Overview

Finland has four existing reactors, two boiling water reactors at Olkiluoto, operated by TVO and two pressurised water reactors at Loviisa, operated by Fortum Power and Heat. In May 2002, the Finnish parliament voted in favour of building a fifth nuclear power plant to be constructed at Olkiluoto site. The chosen reactor type is the European Pressurised Water reactor, expected to become operational in 2009 with a design operating lifetime of around 60 years.

4.10.2. Decommissioning funding

According to the Nuclear Energy Act the licence holder has an obligation to take responsibility for all nuclear waste management measures and their appropriate preparation (including decommissioning costs), and shall cover all the related expenses. This is done by gathering adequate funds for future investments in the Finnish State Nuclear Waste Management Fund, which is independent of the State budget but controlled by the Ministry of Trade and Industry. The Fund collects, holds and invests in a secure way the accumulated financial resources.

The Fund’s capital consists of the contributions determined by the Ministry of Trade and Industry and paid mainly by the two nuclear power companies. The contributors 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. Furthermore, the state has a right to borrow the sum not borrowed by the contributors. The remaining funds are invested.

Dismantling costs must be financed during the first 25 years of plant operation. In 2004 the State Nuclear Waste Management Fund amounted to about €1365.9 million, adequate to cover all future nuclear liabilities, including the disposal of the current amount of waste. However, the collection of assets will continue in order to cover the liabilities related to additional accumulation of spent fuel. 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.

Fortum and TVO are obliged to update their decommissioning plans every five years in order to ensure that decommissioning can be appropriately performed when needed and that the decommissioning cost estimates are realistic. The last updates were published at the end of 2003. In addition, the licensees have to draw up annually a provisional cost assessment for the liabilities until the end of the current year to be reviewed by the Ministry. The sum corresponding to those costs shall be evaluated in nominal terms following the current cost level, without discounting.

On top of the assessed liability, gathering contingencies of at least 10% is legally required. In practice, Fortum and TVO use 10% and 15% contingencies, respectively. On top of the legally required contingencies, the operators add to all cost estimates for unspecified costs and contingencies typically additional 10-20%.

4.10.3. Decommissioning strategy

Immediate dismantling has been selected for the Loviisa nuclear power plant, while a 30 year safe storage period is envisaged for the Olkiluoto nuclear power plant.

4.10.4. Radioactive waste management

The existing repositories for operational low and intermediate level waste, located in the crystalline bedrock at the sites of the nuclear power plants, will be extended to accommodate the waste from decommissioning.

It is expected that the Olkiluoto nuclear power plant will produce 10830 tons or 26600 m3 of radioactive waste, with that for the Loviisa nuclear power plant being 9720 tons or 16000 m3.

Studies are ongoing on the technical feasibility of disposing of the decommissioning wastes from the TRIGA Mark II research reactor in one of the repositories at the sites of the nuclear power plants.

The construction of a final repository is also subject to in-depth analysis.

4.11. SPAIN

4.11.1. Overview

Spain has 8 operating power reactors, two shutdown reactors (one in safe enclosure), a fuel fabrication plant, 4 research reactors and, several uranium mines only one of which is operational. 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.

4.11.2. Decommissioning funding

A royal decree on the ordering of fuel cycle activities requires the conclusion of contracts between ENRESA and the companies owning nuclear power plants and other facilities used for the manufacturing of concentrates of uranium and nuclear fuels. The major objective of these contracts is to establish the necessary means with regards to the collection of the financial resources for decommissioning during the operating life time of the installations.

The royal decree was revised in 2003 with the objective to apply the polluter pays principle in a more direct manner. Whereas prior to its introduction a general fee was applied to all electricity producers, since 2004 a more complex system is applied where nuclear utilities bear the bulk of the expenses.

These amounts are allocated to the build up a fund, managed by ENRESA. According to the corresponding royal decrees, the revenues transferred to the fund arise from:

a) The amounts collected via the supply and access tariffs proportional to electricity sales. The applied percentages are set by the royal decree establishing the electricity tariff for each year.

b) Billing to the licensees of the nuclear power plants 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, to be revised annually and established by a royal decree.

c) The amounts 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. A mechanism is established for annual contributions to be made throughout the operating lifetime of the fuel assembly manufacturing facilities, such that these revenues plus the corresponding financial yields cover the costs foreseen for these activities in the so-called General Radioactive Waste Plan (GRWP).

d) Billing to the operators of radioactive facilities generating radioactive wastes and involved in medicine, industry, agriculture and research, via tariffs approved by the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade.

e) Any other revenue collection method not contemplated in the previous paragraphs.

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 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 €3.5/MWh of nuclear origin (2004 value). Every six months ENRESA has to produce a report on the state of the fund.

The GRWP includes activities regarding the management of radioactive waste, spent fuel as well as dismantling and decommissioning of both nuclear facilities and as a result of the uranium mining and milling activities performed prior to 1984. The GRWP is revised every four years or upon request of the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade. Besides, 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 €12 billion (2005 value), including disposal. The dismantling of nuclear power plants is estimated at €2.3 billion (2004 value). The total amount of money collected in the fund as of 31st December, 2004 was €1.79 billion.

4.11.3. Decommissioning strategy

The selected strategy is of immediate dismantling except for the Vandellós I nuclear power plant, which is already decommissioned to stage 2 in the beginning of 2003 and due to remain in safe enclosure 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”.

4.11.4. Radioactive waste management

The handling, storage and disposal of radioactive waste are responsibility of ENRESA, the Spanish radioactive waste management agency. The radioactive waste management services rendered by ENRESA to the operators of nuclear and radioactive facilities are governed by contracts based on corresponding type-contracts. Once the radioactive waste is removed from the facilities ENRESA becomes the owner and is legally responsible.

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. To assure the temporary storage of spent fuel until definitive solutions become available the following strategies are applied in Spain. Firstly, re-racking can take maximum advantage of the existing space in the pools. Secondly, if necessary, the spent fuel storage capacity can be extended by dry storage technologies. This strategy was applied in the case of the Trillo plant.

The Second Spanish National Report for the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management presents the waste conditioning and storage facilities at the various sites.

The nuclear power plant management facilities consist of treatment plants for liquid wastes, based on desiccation or immobilisation in cement, and other installations for the conditioning of solid wastes by compacting or immobilisation in cement. The temporary storage facilities at the different plants are used as an intermediate step prior to the transport of the wastes to the El Cabril low and intermediate level waste disposal centre.

The plant Vandellós I has an installation prepared in the reactor building pit for the temporary storage of low and intermediate level wastes generated during the dismantling process as a specific intermediate solution for the inventory of wastes that cannot be managed at the El Cabril facility.

The Juzbado fuel manufacturing facility has installations similar to those of the nuclear power plants, consisting of a treatment plant for liquid wastes, based on desiccation and immobilisation in cement, and other installations for the pre-conditioning of solid wastes by pre-compacting or their final conditioning by immobilisation in cement. As in the case of the nuclear power plants, the temporary storage facility is used as an intermediate step prior to the transport of the wastes to the El Cabril low and intermediate level waste disposal centre.

The CIEMAT processing and temporary storage installations IR-17 is authorised as a 2nd category radioactive facility and consists of three buildings: the conditioning sheds building (CIEMAT Building 33), the package store (Building 40) and the packaging and components manufacturing workshop (Building 41).

In accordance with its operating permit, the IR-17 facility may be used for the conditioning of low and intermediate level solid wastes produced by CIEMAT or managed by ENRESA. The permit also establishes that the materials that may be handled or stored are solid wastes belonging to IAEA categories 1 and 2 and encapsulated sources of categories 1, 2 and 3 (whose surface dose rate does not exceed 1Sv/h for maximum energies of 1.33 MeV) and 4. The facility may also receive and store sources of Ra-226 taken over by the Directorate General of Energy Policy and Mines of the MITYC.

The facility is also equipped with the systems required for the disassembly of radioactive lightning rod and ISD ion sources for subsequent conditioning. The CIEMAT also treats and conditions the secondary wastes arising from research activities carried out at the centre, relating mainly to radioactive waste characterisation methodology developments.

The disposal facility El Cabril can store low and intermediate-level waste. Recently, a disposal facility for very low-level waste has been added, reducing the storage costs [Redondo, 2006]. The El Cabril centre has solid and liquid waste treatment and conditioning systems, including an incinerator and a compactor. These systems are used to suitably treat and condition all the wastes from the minor producers, as well as those generated at the facility itself, prior to their being introduced in the cells. It also possesses the systems required for the final conditioning of wastes from nuclear facilities, prior to their disposal in the cells. There are two sets of installations used for the temporary storage of solid waste and installations for definitive disposal.”

The future construction of a centralised interim storage facility is envisaged and scheduled for 2010.

4.12. UNITED KINGDOM

4.12.1. 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 probably better documented than elsewhere in Europe, mainly because UK was a pioneer in nuclear power 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 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 about 75 per cent of the total liability.

Due to its operational independence, the NDA is considered a useful model for other countries for managing 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 cause for concern in that the government share (currently 50%) is based upon a short term commitment period which can be argued as inappropriate for long term decommissioning planning.

4.12.2. 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 Sizewell B. Approximately €350 million of the FFL was passed on to BE and placed in a se