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 {SEC(2007) 1654}
Date: 2007-12-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: management of resources, nuclear fuel, nuclear policy, nuclear power station, nuclear safety, private-sector liquidity, radioactive waste

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 12.12.2007 
COM(2007) 794 final 

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 

{SEC(2007) 1654} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

3.4. 

3.5. 

3.6. 

3.7. 

BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................... 3 

METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................... 3 

Decommissioning Funding Group ............................................................................... 3 

Studies .......................................................................................................................... 4 

External Cooperation ................................................................................................... 4 

RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 4 

Decommissioning of nuclear installations ................................................................... 5 

Legislative, Institutional and procedural aspects ......................................................... 6 

Decommissioning Funds.............................................................................................. 6 

Cost Estimation and Fund Adequacy........................................................................... 7 

Use of Funds ................................................................................................................ 7 

New Nuclear Construction........................................................................................... 8 

Transparency ................................................................................................................ 8 

3.8.  Way Forward................................................................................................................ 9 

4. 

CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................ 10 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
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 plants1. 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  report2  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 Recommendation3 on decommissioning funds in 2006 
following consultation with Member State experts and taking advantage of its research in the 
field.  This  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.  

2. 

METHODOLOGY 

In  2004  the  Commission  set  up  an  ad-hoc  expert  group  -  Decommissioning  Funding  Group 
(DFG) - in order to improve consultation with the Member States and to ensure better input to 
the work of the Commission. . 

2.1. 

Decommissioning Funding Group 

The DFG assisted the EC in: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

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. 

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 

3 

Report on the use of financial resources earmarked for the decommissioning of nuclear power plants, 
COM(2004)719 Final of 26.10.2004 
European Parliament resolution on the use of financial resources earmarked for the decommissioning of 
nuclear power plants (2005/2027(INI)), P6_TA-PROV(2005)0432 
OJ L 330 (28.11.2006) 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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  addressed  the 
following issues: 

•  Analysis of the factors influencing the selection of strategies for decommissioning 

of nuclear installations; 

•  Decommissioning funding methodologies in the European Union; 

•  Inventory of best practices in the decommissioning of nuclear installations; 

•  Analysis  of  environmental,  economic  and  social 

issues 

linked 

to 

the 

decommissioning of nuclear installations; 

Copies  of  the  main  reports  for  these  studies  can  be  found  on  the  relevant  Commission 
website4. 

The  response  from  Member  States  to  specific  requests  for  information  and  in  particular  the 
questionnaire varied, affecting sometimes the conclusions of the relevant study. This issue is 
further elaborated in section 3.7 of this report. 

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 TEGDE5 and WPDD6. 

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 2.2 above. 

3. 

RESULTS 

The  work  of  the  Commission  over  the  past  two  years  reinforced  considerably  the  general 
conclusions  from  2004  that  there  were  wide  variations  in  decommissioning  strategy  and 
funding  methodology  across  the  Member  States.  While  harmonisation  can  have  significant 
positive political advantages, due account is taken of the potential consequences of imposing 
a one-size-fits-all policy of harmonisation. 

The Commission’s work has provided reasonable confidence that Member State operators act 
responsibly  in  the  creation  and  management  of  decommissioning  funds.  There  are  many 
examples of good practice that can be highlighted in countries such as Finland and Sweden 
where the polluter-pays-principle is enshrined in national legislation. The new law adopted in 

4 
5 
6 

Web page: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/index_en.htm 
TEGDE: Technical Group for Decommissioning (IAEA) 
WPDD: Working party for dismantling and decommissioning (NEA) 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
France  in  2006  provides  another  more  recent  example,  demonstrating  awareness  by 
governments of the need to address an aspect of the nuclear industry which is of clear public 
concern. 

The Commission's work has also highlighted areas of concern. Results are summarised below 
making  reference  to  the  relevant  part  of  decommissioning  fund  Recommendation3  in  [] 
brackets. 

3.1. 

Decommissioning of nuclear installations 

In  all  Member  States,  strategies  are  decided  upon  following  an  assessment  of  numerous 
factors ranging from cost and, availability of waste repositories, to social consequences. In no 
single case is it stated that a particular decommissioning strategy has been selected due to the 
absence of adequate funding. It is however noted that for several installations a deferral period 
has  been  significantly  reduced  following  an  increased  availability  in  funding.  In  some 
Member States a government authority is responsible for deciding upon the decommissioning 
strategy whereas in others the decision is left to the operator subject of course to regulatory 
approval. 

Strategies  are  categorised  according  to  the  three  basic  types  of  immediate,  deferred  or 
entombment  with  the  latter  considered  as  a  possible  option  but  not  actually  foreseen  in  any 
EU  nuclear  installation.  The  strategy  selected  often  varies  within  Member  states  with 
significant  variations  in  deferral  period  the  longest  being  for  the  UK  gas  graphite  reactors, 
which  have  a  final  site  clearance  130  years  after  plant  closure.  While  the  UK  strategy  is 
officially  determined  by  the  benefits  of  radioactive  decay,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  the  recently 
formed government organisation (NDA) now responsible for this legacy has a stated objective 
of  reducing  this  period  to  25  years.  In  other  Member  States  a  strategy  of  immediate 
dismantling is being implemented over a relatively long timeframe (Italy, France). 

Information  provided  by  Member  States  confirm  that  the  issue  of  nuclear  installation 
decommissioning and management of waste is addressed with activities that do not result in 
undue risk to the health and safety of workers and the general public [1,2]. 

Whatever strategy a Member State chooses for decommissioning, insufficient funding by the 
plant operator can run counter the polluter-pays principle [3]. Furthermore, it can result in an 
unjustified  economic  advantage,  amounting  to  State  aid  which  distorts  competition  between 
electricity producers. 

Some member States such as the Czech Republic, Hungary, and the Netherlands have opted 
for a strategy of deferred decommissioning. While there are many assessments that conclude 
that  the  overall  cost  is  relatively  unaffected  by  strategy  choice,  a  deferred  strategy  does  not 
require sums as large as those needed for immediate decommissioning to be made available as 
soon  as  a  plant  is  shut  down.  It  is  essential,  however,  to  ensure  that  the  chosen  mode  of 
management guarantees that the financial resources will be fully available and adequate when 
required. In other countries some significant evolutions are ongoing: in the UK the NDA has 
proposed to reduce the deferral period from over 100 to 25 years. Slovakia and Bulgaria have 
both indicated an intention to move from deferred decommissioning to immediate or, as in the 
case  of  Kozloduy  1-4,  a  solution  falling  somewhere  between  the  two  is  proposed.  In  such 
cases, the availability of additional funding from sources other than the operator’s fund plays 
a  key  role  in  strategy  selection  and  long  term  financial  security  is  an  area  that  appears  to 
require further development. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
3.2. 

Legislative, Institutional and procedural aspects 

In  all  Member  states  there  is  clear  legislation  in  force  requiring  the  creation  of  a  fund  with 
varying specificities regarding management and use. In France, such legislation was adopted 
in 2006 with a new law that provides a good example of best practice and makes mention in 
its explanatory memorandum of the European Commission's work in this area. 

All  Member  States  have  set  up  a  national  body  [6]  for  the  review  and  assessment  of 
decommissioning fund management and cost estimates. The role of such bodies however, is 
rarely detailed. This is still an evolving process which needs to be closely monitored through 
the  national  reports  foreseen  in  the  Recommendation  in  order  to  ensure  that  an  effective 
method of review, assessment and control is being implemented. 

3.3. 

Decommissioning Funds 

Most  decommissioning  funds  are  segregated  [8]  with  revenues  obtained  on  the  basis  of 
nuclear activities – primarily through a levy – during plant operational life. There are however 
several notable variations: 

•  In several member States funding for decommissioning and waste management is 
provided  by  more  than  one  system.  This  is  the  case  for  example  in  Italy,  UK, 
Slovakia, Bulgaria and Lithuania. 

•  In Germany funds are held and managed internally by commercial operators. It is 
to be noted that whereas the system operated by German utilities has in the past 
been  singled  out  for  criticism  by  many  stakeholders,  this  system  of  fund 
management  has  a  demonstrable  performance  from  the  viewpoint  of  providing 
adequate funds. 

•  Shared ownership requires a specific solution to funding issues especially where 
the  part-owner  is  from  another  Member  State.  Of  particular  note  is  for  example 
the situation in Slovakia with the ENEL purchase of Slovenske Elektrene and, the 
joint  responsibility  between  Croatia  and  Slovenia  for  the  Krsko  NPP.  The  latter 
has resulted in an under-resourced fund due to the absence of a dedicated fund in 
Croatia.  Particular  attention  needs  to  be  paid  to  the  aspect  of  funding  in  future 
with proposals for new power plant construction with ownership shared by several 
countries. 

•  There are many instances where a dedicated fund has not been created but instead 
there  is  a  basic  assumption  that  treasury  funds  will  be  made  available  when 
required. While the liabilities for most installations are small compared to power 
reactors this is not the case for reprocessing and plutonium handling facilities. 

The  establishment  and  operation  of  a  decommissioning  fund  is  rarely  accompanied  by  any 
assessment  of  the  inherent  risks  associated  with  long  term  operation,  liability  assessment, 
governance  and  investment.  The  study  on  decommissioning  funding  methodologies  has 
provided  a  useful  and  rare  insight  into  fund  risk  management  which  given  the  uncertainties 
that exist in these areas should be subject to further evaluation. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
3.4. 

Cost Estimation and Fund Adequacy 

There  have  been  several  attempts  by  International  organisations  aimed  at  comparing 
decommissioning  cost  estimates  with  a  view  to  harmonisation  in  this  area  but,  with  little 
success to date. There are justified reasons why estimates may vary from one Member State to 
another due for example to manpower costs or national policy on clearance levels. Since 2004 
further  detailed  information  has  been  obtained  however,  many  operators  are  reluctant  to 
provide all details on such calculations. 

Slovenia  has  a  well  defined  fund  which  meets  the  best  practice  outlined  in  the 
Recommendation however, the responsibility for the Krsko power plant is shared with Croatia 
with the latter yet to establish a similar system. As a consequence, and through no fault of the 
Member State, only 50% of the required funding for decommissioning is currently being set 
aside. 

term  nature  of 

The  Ignalina  reactors  in  Lithuania,  Bohunice  V1  in  Slovakia  and  Kozloduy  Units  1-4,  are 
covered  by  an  early  closure  commitment  negotiated  as  part  of  the  EU  enlargement  process. 
The consequences of early closure were acknowledged during accession negotiations with the 
Community committing to provide adequate financial assistance which takes into account the 
the  subsequent  decommissioning  process.  International  funds 
long 
administered  by  the  EBRD  have  been  set  up  and  in  December  2005  the  Union  agreed  to 
significant  continued  Community  financing  over  the  2007-2013  financial  perspective.  A 
regulation to implement this financing was adopted for Ignalina7 in 2006 and for Bohunice in 
May  20078,  in  line  with  the  commitment  made  in  the  relevant  protocol  to  the  Act  of 
Accession.  Implementation  of  the  Community  assistance  to  Bulgaria  in  respect  of  the 
Kozloduy units 1-4 closure is provided through the relevant Act of Accession until 2009. 

The  basic  assumptions  made  regarding  discounted  costs  vary  considerably  across  the  EU 
which is an area that should be addressed through future harmonisation. A combination of a 
long deferral period and an inappropriate use of discounting rates give rise to a concern over 
long-term fund adequacy [13]. 

It  is  recognised  by  all  operators  that  the  decommissioning  liability  estimate  needs  to  be 
reassessed over the lifetime of the installation concerned and with increasing precision. The 
uncertainties  involved  in  this  process  are  significant  with  potential  for  a  serious  shortfall  in 
funds  when  required  should  it  not  be  properly  addressed.  Inaccurate  decommissioning  cost 
estimates, poor fund performance (whether due to low return or high risk investments) are key 
concerns  which require independent  fund oversight at both financial and technical levels. A 
question remains as to the adequacy of such oversight in several Member States [11]. 

Insurance against early closure is only foreseen in a few cases whether as initial guarantees, 
provisions  or  specific  insurance  policies.  In  several  Member  States,  it  is  an  assumption  that 
the State will underwrite any financial shortfall related to early closure problems. 

3.5. 

Use of Funds 

There  are  several  examples  within  the  EU  where  financial  resources  are  used  for  purposes 
other  than  decommissioning  and  waste  management  [15].  A  particular  concern  arises  for 

7 
8 

OJ L 411/10 (30.12.2006) 
OJ L 131/1 (23.5.2007) 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
treasury funds where financial resources are not segregated with the consequent potential lack 
of long-term financial stability which is essential for safe decommissioning. In Italy, the funds 
obtained from a tariff on electricity price are placed in a State fund and the part not required 
for decommissioning used for other purposes of State interest. Approximately half of today's 
funding for civil installations in the UK is provided from the State budget based upon a three 
year  commitment.  The  current  shortfall  in  operating  profits  which  provides  the  remaining 
funding  and  absence  of  a  segregated  fund  results  in  a  potential  requirement  to  reorganise 
short-term decommissioning activities. 

Belgium  has  recently  drafted  a  new  law  which  will  see  decommissioning  funds  used  to 
finance  totally  unrelated  power  investment  projects  in  a  manner  which  could  be  seen  as 
preferential to the project rather than prudent fund management [16]. 

Lithuania  has  used  in  some  cases  its  national  fund  to  co-finance  energy  sector  projects  to 
provide replacement capacity for the early closed reactor. 

In  addition,  using  funds  intended  for  decommissioning  purposes  as  a  cheap  financing 
resource, can lead to major distortions on the EU's internal market 

3.6. 

New Nuclear Construction 

Within the EU the choice on the use of nuclear energy remains open to those Member States 
that  so  wish  and,  a  significant  rise  in  the  number  of  new  nuclear  power  reactors  must  be 
considered  in  assessing  the  need  for  Community  action  in  areas  such  as  decommissioning 
finance. 

The  polluter-pays-principle  requires  operators  to  set  up  adequate  funds  which  are  available 
when  necessary.  This  principle  is  not  always  strictly  applied  usually  for  well  defined 
historical  reasons.  Following  the  Recommendation,  no  such  situation  should  be  allowed  to 
occur for future constructions. Several member States have addressed this issue; in the case of 
France  through  new  legislation  and  with  the  UK  and  the  Netherlands  expressing  similar 
positions.  Construction  of  a  new  power  plant  in  Romania  will  be  completed  in  2007  with 
three  other  partially  constructed  plants  foreseen  for  completion  in  the  near  future.  The 
provisions made by Romania in order to address decommissioning liabilities are in process to 
be further defined on the basis of the recent 2006 and 2007 legislation. Several other Member 
States  have  expressed  an  intention  to  construct  new  nuclear  facilities  and  the  Commission 
needs to play a role in ensuring best funding practice is applied. 

The Commission's Recommendation [5] makes special mention of decommissioning funding 
regimes and recommends the funding modalities being reported as part of the Article 41 of the 
Euratom  Treaty  concerning  the  construction  of  new  nuclear  installations.  This  voluntary 
process which is without prejudice to the provisions of Article 41 of the Treaty is consistent 
with  'soft-legislation'  provided  by  the  Recommendation.  This  method  of  declaration  and 
consultation will have to be assessed by the Commission in order to conclude on the need or 
not for further community legislation. 

3.7. 

Transparency 

The  issue  of  transparency  with  regard  to  funding  issues  from  both  the  Member  States  and 
individual  operators  needs  to  be  assessed  at  the  level  of  both  cooperation  and,  publicly 
available  information.  In  terms  of  information  within  the  public  domain  the  situation  is  far 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
from  satisfactory  in  many  member  States.  The  UK's  NDA  represents  an  example  of  best 
practice in this area with its dedicated website and Lifecycle baselines which provide a major 
improvement to the level of public information normally made available. 

In general, the communication between the Commission and Member States takes place in a 
spirit of good cooperation and this situation has been significantly improved in recent years. 
The Commission has maintained the Member State as its main interlocutor but where contact 
has been made with individual operators a similar situation has been demonstrated. There are 
some notable exceptions to this situation of general good communication: 

•  Bulgaria  did  not  reply  to  the  Commission's  questionnaire  or  react  to  specific 
requests  for  information.  A  similar  remark  was  often  provided  by  tenderers  as 
feedback during the course of the studies. It is noted that the early closure of the 
Kozloduy 1-4 power reactors has led to important funding issues. 

•  The  information  provided  by  the  UK  was  quite  sparse  especially  compared  to 
most Member States and disproportionate to the size of its nuclear industry. The 
detailed information made publicly available by the NDA on its website provides 
a counterweight to this criticism. 

•  Germany  respond  to  the  Commission's  questionnaire  some  time  after  the  study 
had been completed thereby removing an important element from the comparison 
being undertaken in one of the targeted studies. 

•  A number of operators maintain a confidentiality clause over the release of either 
liability  estimates,  funds  collected  or,  both.  The  argument  most  commonly  cited 
being  that  the  information  is  commercially  sensitive.  Given  the  detailed 
information  available  in  this  domain  and  the  willingness  of  many  operators  to 
provide such information, this argument is not considered valid. 

•  Romania adopted legislation which requires the creation of two segregated funds, 
one for decommissioning of nuclear facilities and the second one for spent nuclear 
fuel  and 
the 
radioactive  waste  management.  Further 
implementation of the new legislation will be required from Romania. 

information  on 

3.8.  Way Forward 

It is to be noted that in the annex to its 2002 Communication9 the Commission drew special 
attention  to  the  funding  systems  in  France  and  Germany  as  being  the  only  cases  which 
required  special  attention.  Arguments  were  based  upon  the  impact  of  the  proposal  to  set  up 
external  funds  and,  the  conclusion  would  be  little  affected  following  the  last  two  EU 
enlargements. 

A  more  detailed  analysis  of  the  situation  in  Member  States  and  wider  consultation  with 
stakeholders  has  resulted  in  a  significantly  different  understanding  of  the  situation.  Funding 
methodology  cannot  be  simply  divided  into  internal  or  external  funds;  there  are  large 
variations in methodology and the degree of ring fencing provided by the various mechanisms 
especially  in  the  case  of  external  funds.  Where  an  operator  maintains  full  responsibility  for 

9 

Nuclear safety in the European Union. COM(2002) 605 final of 6.11.2002 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
decommissioning and waste management, the operator argues for maintaining its right for the 
financial management of funds created for this purpose. This situation may be unacceptable 
and the attention should be focussed on the various factors that affect fund adequacy, liquidity 
and security and, combined with close restrictions on fund use and transparent management. 

It seems that current concerns are largely due to the lack of application of national legislative 
requirements  and  best  practices.  These  concerns  could  be  better  addressed  by  independent 
oversight of the decommissioning funds, rather than further legislation - whether national or 
supranational.  

The  recent  change  in  relevant  French  law  highlights  the  role  that  an  external  body  plays  in 
overseeing such issues. The reports of the Court of Auditors were influential in the changes to 
legislation and the Commission's work was also recognised in the explanatory memorandum 
that accompanied the new law. A similar strengthening of the role of external oversight can be 
perceived in other Member States. A notable feature of the new legislation is that it requires 
practice  based  on  requirements  regarding  prudence  and  secure  management  which  are  not 
clearly defined but rather subject to independent oversight. 

The Commission is aware that there is a need for improvements to assure the availability of 
adequate  funding  when  required  and  their  transparent  and  secure  management.  The 
Commission  will  address  these  issues  as  follow-up  action  to  the  publication  of  the 
Recommendation together with the advisory group representing all Member States. 

4. 

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. 

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. 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 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
with  respect  to  decommissioning  and  radioactive  waste  management.  The  information  on 
decommissioning financing cannot be retained on the basis of confidentiality. 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. 

The  working  document  accompanying  this  report  contains  a  table  of  accumulated  funds  in 
relation to total liability and plant operational lifetime. The content of the 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. 

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

Sources  for  the  information  in  this  report  can  be  found  in  the  Commission's  Staff  Working 
Document: EU decommissioning funding data10. 

10 

SEC(2007) 1654. 

EN 

11 

   EN