Commission staff working document -“Kozloduy Programme” Ex Ante Evaluation - Accompanying document to the Proposal for a Council Regulation on Community financial assistance with respect to the decommissioning of Units 1 to 4 of the Kozloduy nuclear power plant in Bulgaria {COM(2009) 581 final}
Date: 2009-10-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Bulgaria, EU aid, EU financing, decommissioning of power stations, nuclear power station, nuclear safety

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 27.10.2009 
SEC(2009) 1431 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

“Kozloduy Programme” 

Ex Ante Evaluation 

Accompanying document to the 

Proposal for a  

COUNCIL REGULATION 

on Community financial assistance with respect to the decommissioning of  
Units 1 to 4 of the Kozloduy nuclear power plant in Bulgaria 

{COM(2009) 581 final} 

EN 

  EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Kozloduy Programme – ex ante evaluation 

Lead DG: 

TREN 

Other involved services:  N.A. 

Agenda planning or WP reference: 2009/TREN/050 

Executive summary  

First generation reactors of Soviet design such as the 4 VVER 440/230 reactors at Kozloudy 
Nuclear  Power  Plant  (KNPP)  in  Bulgaria  are  a  major  safety  risk  for  the  citizens  and  the 
environment.  Whereas  units  1  and  2  were  shut  down  in  2002  in  the  framework  of  the 
accession  negotiations,  Bulgaria  closed  units  3  and  4  by  2006  and  will  subsequently 
decommission all four units as laid down in the Protocol to the Accession Treaty of Bulgaria 
and Romania.  

To  alleviate  the  economic  consequences  of  this  early  closure  the  Union  provided  €  210 
million in 2004 prices between 2007 and 2009 for decommissioning of the reactors, but also 
for  security  of  supply  (replacement  capacity)  and  energy  efficiency  measures  through  the 
Kozloduy International Decommissioning Support Fund (KIDSF), managed by the European 
Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in London, to which the EU is the major 
(but  not  sole)  contributor.  Contrary  to  Slovakia  and  Lithuania  where  similar  shutdown 
decisions  were  taken  in  the  accession  process,  current  funding  for  Kozloduy  is  foreseen  to 
stop in 2009. 

Up to today, Bulgaria has fulfilled its commitments and all 4 reactor units have been closed. 
Bulgaria could request, however, the restart of Units 3 and 4 at any moment based on Article 
36 of the Protocol to the Accession Treaty, in case of exceptional economical circumstances. 
However, an unilateral Bulgarian decision would constitute an infringement of the Accession 
Treaty. 

Bulgaria  decided  in  the  meantime  to  accelerate  decommissioning,  which  sound  studies 
showed to be more economic than deferring these activities, but which makes further timely 
funding necessary. The country asked, therefore, since 2005, the European Commission and 
Member States for additional support between 2010 and 2013. The final amount for additional 
financial  support  would  be  €  300  million,  out  of   which  60%  would  cover  the  needs  for  the 
implementation of decommissioning projects and 40% measures in the energy sector. 

The  Commission  evaluated  five  options  ("no  EU  intervention  -  continue  with  national 
funding",  "no  EU  intervention  –  continue  with  private  funding",  "EU  limited  co  financing 
(pay  only  safe  maintenance)",  "EU  indirect  co-financing  (through  EBRD)",  "EU  direct  co 
financing")  on  whether  and  to  what  extent  they  would  help  reaching  the  Commission's 
objectives, including nuclear safety and the availability of adequate financial resources when 
needed for decommissioning. Economic studies on the closures of nuclear power plants show 
that  Bulgaria  would  be  hit  relatively  harder  than  the  Lithuania  and  Slovakia.  The  preferred 
option is actually to continue EU funding via the EBRD. This solution secures a much higher 
level of safety, keeps expertise on site, ensures de-fuelling, prevents re-opening and allows for 
a start of actual dismantling works while guaranteeing seamless financing. 

EN 

   EN 

 
Bulgaria has already agreed to accept – as in the past – a stringent monitoring of individual 
decommissioning  steps  including  clearly  timed  deliverables.  Working  through  EBRD  and 
KIDSF would allow following these individual steps and enabling annual evaluations of the 
use of Community funds. 

EN 

   EN 

 
Table of Contents 

Executive summary .................................................................................................................. 2 

Section 1: Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties ........................................... 5 

Organisation and timing ............................................................................................................. 5 

Consultation and expertise ......................................................................................................... 5 

Section 2 Problem definition...................................................................................................... 7 

Background ................................................................................................................................ 7 

Current status and progress achieved ......................................................................................... 7 

Justification for additional support............................................................................................. 9 

Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 11 

Section 3: Objectives................................................................................................................ 13 

Section 4: Policy options.......................................................................................................... 15 

Background .............................................................................................................................. 15 

Conclusion of mid term evaluation Slovakia and Lithuania .................................................... 16 

Assessment of the mid-term recommendations for Bulgaria ................................................... 17 

The policy options are:............................................................................................................. 17 

Section 5: Analysis of impacts ................................................................................................. 19 

SWOT Analysis........................................................................................................................ 19 

Section 6: Comparing the options ............................................................................................ 22 

Section 7: Monitoring and evaluation ...................................................................................... 24 

Annex 1 ……………………………………………………………………………………….26 

Annex 2…….. .......................................................................................................................... 28 

Annex 3 ……………………………………………………………………………………….31 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
1. 

SECTION 1: PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

1.1. 

Organisation and timing 

Agenda planning 2009/TREN/050  

A proposal for Council Regulation is foreseen for autumn 2009. 

The Council Regulation is foreseen to come into force in 2010.  

1.2. 

Consultation and expertise 

The following stakeholders were involved at different levels in the consultation process: 

1. 

The Bulgarian government and in particular the Bulgarian Ministry of Economy and 
Energy. 

The consultation with the Bulgarian government was held through several meetings 
and exchanges of letters. First contacts go back to 2007 after DG TREN had taken 
over  from  DG  ELARG  the  implementation  of  the  EU  assistance  for  Bulgaria 
following  their  accession  to  the  EU.  In  2008  information  was  exchanged  and 
meetings  held  on  procedural  topics  related  to  an  extension  of  support.  Since  end 
2008 and in 2009 meetings took place to discuss and agree on the technical scope of 
a possible extension of support. 

2. 

The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) 

Exchanges and discussions with EBRD as the manager of the KIDSF took place on a 
regular  basis.  This  consultation  focused  on  the  progress  of  the  works  in 
decommissioning  and  in  the  energy  sector  assisted  by  the  Community  and  is  an 
integral part of DG TREN's monitoring programme. In addition to the Assembly of 
Donors  meetings  twice  a  year,  separate  working  meetings  were  arranged,  either  in 
the Bank's or the Commission's premises or on site in Bulgaria. 

3. 

EU Member States 

to 

the  Kozloduy 

Several  EU  Member  States  are  Donors 
International 
Decommissioning  Support  Fund  (KIDSF)  and  are  represented  in  the  Assembly  of 
Donors  meeting  organised  twice  a  year  in  London.  All  EU  Member  States  are 
represented  in  the  Nuclear  Decommissioning  Assistance  Programme  Committee 
(NDAP-C),  which  is  the  management  committee  advising  the  Commission  on  the 
implementation of the financial support to the three beneficiary countries Lithuania, 
Slovakia and Bulgaria. At the Assembly and NDAP-C meetings the progress of the 
programme  is  discussed  and  the  planning  for  the  future  is  addressed.  Bulgaria  has 
raised  the  issue  of  extension  of  financial  assistance  for  the  period  2010  –  2013  in 
order  to  get  the  support  from  the  other  Member  States.  Several  Member  States 
explicitly expressed their support for the Bulgarian request. 

4. 

The  Kozloduy  Nuclear  Power  Plant  (KNPP)  and  State  Enterprise  of  Radioactive 
Waste (SERAW): 

EN 

   EN 

 
KNPP  and  SERAW  were  consulted  on  the  technical  aspects  and  corresponding 
budget  for  the  extension  of  the  support,  as  both  organisations  are  the  main 
beneficiaries  of  the  support  programme.  Meetings  and  site  visits  contributed  to  the 
consultation process. 

5. 

The technical experts and expertise: 

Several  national  reference  documents,  that  were  elaborated  to  a  very  large  extent 
with financial support from the Community, provide the basis for technical expertise. 

The  Updated  Decommissioning  Strategy  of  20061  is  the  approved  and  official 
document of the Decommissioning Programme of Units 1-4 of the Kozloduy NPP. It 
is based on the Decommissioning Strategy of 20022.  

The Technical Design of the Decommissioning of Units 1-2 (the basis of the original 
Decommissioning  Strategy  of  2002)  was  financed  by  PHARE  –  BG  9608-01-01-
L001  and  prepared  by  Consortium  Belgatom  (Belgium)  –  EWN  (Germany)  – 
Energoproekt (Bulgaria) in 2001.  

Additional  information  was  used  from  the  study  contracted  by  the  Commission  on 
the  "Analysis  of  Environmental,  Economic  and  Social  Issues  Linked  to  the 
Decommissioning  of  Nuclear  Installations"  performed  by  Plejades.  The  study 
contains a separate chapter on Bulgaria addressing the impact of early closure of the 
KNPP  units  1  to  4.  The  Plejades  report  was  finalised  in  January  20073.  Extract 
concerning Bulgaria see annex 3. 

6. 

NGOs, civil society - not consulted given the short timeframe. 

1 
2 
3 

Updated decommissioning strategy KPMU, 20 June 2006 … 
Technical design of the decommissioning of units 1-2, PHARE BG9608-01-01-L001 
Analysis  of  Environmental,  Economic  and  Social  Issues  Linked  to  the  Decommissioning  of  Nuclear 
Installations, Plejades, January 2007, Europa web DG TREN 

EN 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

SECTION 2 PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1. 

Background 

Nuclear reactors of VVER 440/230 type (first generation reactors of Soviet design) constitute 
a  risk  for  the  citizens  and  the  environment.  The  safety  of  those  first  generation  VVER 
440/230  reactors  is  not  up  to  a  comparable  level  with  western  European  nuclear  reactors. 
These  reactors  have  limited  confinement  function  and  capability,  as  well  as  vulnerability 
against  common  cause  failures.  It  does  not  appear  economically  feasible  to  back  fit  the 
plants with a reactor containment that could provide similar protection to the containments 
of modern Western PWR reactors.  

Bulgaria  has  4  VVER  440/230  reactors  at  Kozloudy  Nuclear  Power  Plant  (KNPP).  Units  1 
and 2 of KNPP were shut down in 2002 in the framework of the accession negotiations. 

According to the Article 30 of the Protocol to the Accession Treaty of Bulgaria and Romania, 
Bulgaria  committed  itself  to  definitively  close  Units  3  and  4  by  2006  and  subsequently 
decommission all four units. 

KNPP units 1 and 2 have essentially been shut down at the end of their initial design-lifetime 
of  30  years.  Units  3  and  4  were  closed  5  years  earlier  than  their  design  life  (early  closure). 
Early closure of the KNPP units puts an economical burden on Bulgaria. 

The  European  Union  expressed  its  willingness  to  support  Bulgaria's  efforts  to  alleviate  the 
consequences  of  early  closure  of  these  4  units.  Therefore  Article  30  of  the  Protocol 
concerning  the  conditions  and  arrangements  for  admission  of  the  Republic  of  Bulgaria  and 
Romania  to  the  European  Union  foresees  additional  financial  assistance  up  to  2009  as  an 
extension of the pre-accession aid implemented under the Phare programme. The budget for 
this additional assistance was fixed at €210 million (2004 prices) for the period 2007 to 2009. 

EU assistance is not only foreseen for decommissioning of the reactors, but also for security 
of  supply  (replacement  capacity)  and  energy  efficiency  which  are  a  direct  consequence  of 
early closure. The amounts fixed for this assistance are not based on a specific proportion of 
the  estimated  costs,  but  recognise  the  extraordinary  burden  placed  on  Bulgaria  by  the 
shutdown commitment, and are an expression of solidarity between the EU and Bulgaria. 

The  assistance  is  currently  delivered  through  the  Kozloduy  International  Decommissioning 
Support Fund (KIDSF), managed by the EBRD in London, to which the EU is the major (but 
not sole) contributor. 

Beyond 2009, no additional Community funding is foreseen, no follow-up is planned, unlike 

the situation for Slovakia and Lithuania where funding is guaranteed until 2013. 

2.2. 

Current status and progress achieved 

Today Bulgaria has fulfilled its commitment and all 4 reactor units have been closed. 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
Units 1 and 2 have been de-fuelled 2 years ahead of the schedule. The reactors of Units 3 and 
4 have been de-fuelled and the spent fuel is still in the fuel ponds of the units. Currently, no 
irreversible dismantling steps have been taken. This means that it is still possible for Bulgaria 
to request the restart of Units 3 and 4 at any moment based on Art.36 of the Protocol to the 
Accession  Treaty,  in  case  of  exceptional  economical  circumstances.  An  unilateral  decision 
from  Bulgaria  to  restart  the  closed  units  would  constitute  an  infringement  of  the  Accession 
Treaty. 

Decommissioning of KNPP units 1 - 4 

Decommissioning  of  nuclear  power  plants  is  a  long  term  process  (20-30  years).  Bulgaria's 
initial  decommissioning  strategy  was  "differed  dismantling".  This  strategy  consists  of  two 
phases: (1) defueling of the reactor units and establishment of the infrastructures necessary for 
decommissioning  and  (2)  following  a  waiting  period  (for  the  decay  of  radioactivity)  the 
dismantling of the installation and the management of decommissioning waste. 

The Bulgarian government proposed in 2006 an "immediate dismantling strategy" to replace 
the "deferred dismantling strategy" in line with international best practices, based on safety 
and economical grounds. 

Progress  achieved  by  Bulgaria  in  the  decommissioning  preparation  stage  of  the  Kozloduy 
Programme utilising the Community funds put in place until 2009 are satisfactory as the four 
units have actually been closed down and all major preparatory works for decommissioning 
are  very  well  advanced.  However,  the  real  dismantling  works  have  not  yet  started.  Further 
financial  support  beyond  2009  is  needed  in  order  to  allow  to  progress  with  the  actual 
dismantling operations and waste treatment. 

Mitigation measures in the energy sector 

Progress achieved in the energy sector to mitigate the economical consequences of the early 
closure  is  very  satisfactory.  In  the  period  until  2009,  the  financial  support  was  focused  on 
priorities  targeting  mainly  improvements  in  industrial  and  residential  energy  efficiency  and 
assistance in strengthening the use of renewable energy sources. The corresponding projects 
were quick start ones, resulting in massive energy savings and CO2 emission reductions. 

Nevertheless, and in particular in the current economical context there remains the need for 
additional financial support to progress further with mitigating measures in the energy sector 
given the extent of the capacity loss by the closure of the nuclear units and its impact on the 
security of supply in the region. 

Progress overview on achievements and financial status 

In  summary,  at  the  end  of  2008,  the  contribution  agreements  to  KIDSF  (this  is  donor 
contributions to the Kozloduy International Decommissioning Support Fund) total 525 Mio €. 
Out of that 513 Mio€ have been committed by  the EBRD in grant agreements, of which 259.5 
Mio  €  on  energy  projects,  177.5  Mio  €  on  deco mmissioning  preparation,  and  76  Mio  €  on 
waste treatment projects. Effective payments amount to 383 Mio €. 

The status and main achievements of measures implemented from the financial support up to 
2009  are  listed  in  the  table  of  annex  1  and  2.  Achievements  are  classified  under  similar 
categories of objectives as for the mid term evaluation carried out for Lithuania and Slovakia, 
which are: 

EN 

   EN 

 
For decommissioning: 

–  Closure of all 4 reactors 

–  Dismantling and the treatment of all waste 

–  Permanent disposal of waste 

–  Support to plant personnel (safe maintenance) 

–  Technical assistance 

For mitigation measures in the energy sector: 

–  Environmental upgrading 

–  Restructuring energy production 

–  Energy supply 

–  Energy efficiency 

General  overview  of  projects  as  currently  allocated  under  KIDSF  Grant  Agreements  can  be 
found in annex 2 

2.3. 

Justification for additional support 

As  mentioned  in  the  precedent  section  the  current  financial  support  allows  Bulgaria  to 
maintain safety, to perform and finalise the preparatory works required to be in a position to 
effectively  start  with  dismantling  activities.  Due  to  the  change  in  strategy  (from  differed  to 
immediate dismantling) funds for the continuation of decommissioning activities are required 
much earlier in time. 

The  funds  required  for  continuing  decommissioning  cannot  be  made  available  through  the 
Bulgarian  National  Fund.  Although  such  a  fund  is  in  place,  the  financial  resources  are  not 
adequate.  This  is,  to  a  very  large  extend,  due  to  the  historical  context.  From  the  former 
operation  of  the  nuclear  power  plants  under  the  Soviet  Union  no  funds  are  available  for 
decommissioning.  Unlike  other  Member  States  in  a  similar  situation  but  without  being 
confronted  to  early  closure  of  their  plants,  it  was  not  possible  for  Bulgaria  to  accumulate 
sufficient funds from operation. 

Based on those considerations, the Bulgarian government has requested the extension of the 
Community support for the period 2010 - 2013. This would bring the Community support for 
Bulgaria in line with the support for Lithuania and Slovakia where assistance is granted until 
the end of the current financial perspective (2013). 

The extension of support is proposed for the following activities to be implemented until the 
end of 2013: 

EN 

   EN 

 
(1) 

Project  management,  engineering  and  technical  assistance  for  the  support  of  the 
implementation of the decommissioning programme. It includes  

–  the extension of the work of the Project Management Unit (PMU) at the Kozloduy 

site; 

–  the  extension  of  the  PMU  at  the  site  of  State  Enterprise  Radioactive  Waste  (SE 

RAW),  

–  assistance to the Bulgarian Nuclear Regulatory Agency in the implementation of 

the regulatory tasks of the decommissioning; 

–  special  nuclear  technical  storage  assistance.  Special  decommissioning  process 
engineering  for  treatment,  conditioning  and  transport  of  radioactive  soil, 
radioactive waste, transport of waste and global site cleaning; 

–  other technical, safety, environmental impact assessment assistance to the projects 

of the decommissioning programme. 

The  provision  of  salaries  for  715  KNPP  (operation,  maintenance,  technical  support, 
project management) experts at the Kozloduy site, working for the decommissioning 
of  Units  1-4.  The  active  involvement  of  the  plant  staff  reduces  the  need  for  external 
organisations and highly contributes to the reduction of the cost of decommissioning. 
It furthermore contributes to maintain a high level of nuclear safety. 

The construction of the National Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility is crucial for the 
implementation  of  the  decommissioning  programme.  The  waste  generation  of  the 
decommissioning cannot be managed without this repository. The estimate of the total 
investment  is  around  €150  million.  The  faci lity  also  will  serve  for  the  long  term 
storage  of  operational  waste.  The  main  function  however  in  the  first  10  years  of 
operation 
the 
low  and 
is 
decommissioning process.  

level  waste  of 

the  storage  of 

intermediate 

the 

Under  this  item  50%  of  co-financing  is  considered  and  justified  by  the  accelerated 
decommissioning process. The load of the facility for the first period of its operation 
should  be  established  by  the  speed  of  the  decommissioning  process  to  avoid 
restrictions in waste management in the operation of the KNPP. 

After  the  installation  of  the  major  facilities  for  decommissioning  (fragmentation 
workshops,  waste  treatment  and  conditioning  facilities,  intermediate  waste  storages, 
release  control  and  measuring  devices)  the  advanced  stage  of  the  decommissioning 
programme  will  focus  on  the  decommissioning  process.  The  decommissioning  work 
process – the working connection at the sites between the facilities, location and the 4 
units  need  precise,  regulated  and  controlled  transport  routes,  devices,  equipment  and 
special  services.  Taking  into  account  that  a  new  process  is  going  to  be  introduced, 
there  is  the  need  to  foresee  additional  financing  of  the  introduction  of  strict  safety 
measures  in  order  to  minimize  the  risks.  The  decommissioning  process  at  Kozloduy 
site  is  a  new  challenge  with  radioactive  and  environmental  impact  hazards.  The 
management  of  the  Kozloduy  based  transportation,  handling  and  storage  process 
alongside  with  the  existing  facilities,  control  and  measurement  devices  will  need 
specific technical service and technical solutions. 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

EN 

   EN 

 
The following table gives an overview on the corresponding budget: 

N° 

ITEM 

1 

PROJECT  MANAGEMENT,  ENGINEERING  AND 
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 

2 

PROVISION OF SALARIES OF 715 KNPP STAFF 

3 

4 

CO-FINANCING 
NATIONAL 
RADIOACTIVE  WASTE  DISPOSAL  FACILITY 
(TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS 150 M€) 

FOR 

THE 

SITE  INFRASTRUCTURE  AND  TREATMENT  OF 
DISMANTLED WASTE 

ADDITIONAL  ALLOCATION  FOR  ALREADY 
TENDERED  PROJECTS  TO  COPE  WITH  MARKET 
RESPONSE  (OFFERS)  THAT  ARE  HIGHER  THAN 
THE INITIAL ESTIMATES. 

EC 
ASSESSMENT 
[M€] 

25 

30 

75 

50 

TOTAL - DECOMMISSIONING 

180 

Moreover,  there  is  also  the  need  for  financial  support  to  progress  further  with  mitigating 
measures in the energy sector given the extent of the capacity loss resulting from the closure 
of the nuclear units and its impact on the security of supply in the region. 

The  upgrade  and  the  modernisation  of  the  energy  production,  transmission  and  distribution 
system, the diversification of the energy supply, energy efficiency and the use of renewable 
energy sources would be a vital part of this additional support. 

The  final  amount  for  additional  financial  support  would  be  300  m€,  out  of  which  180  m€ 
(60%)  would  cover  the  needs  for  the  implementation  of  decommissioning  projects  and  120 
m€ (40%) for measures in the energy sector. 

2.4. 

Conclusions  

Bulgaria has demonstrated effective and efficient implementation of the Community support 
in  the  decommissioning  and  in  the  energy  sector.  Under  the  provisions  of  the  Treaty  of 
Accession  support  is  granted  only  until  end  of  2009.  Most  of  the  decommissioning  related 
preparatory works are finalised or close to completion and additional financial resources are 
required to ensure seamless continuation of decommissioning. 

Without additional EU funding, the consequences would be the following: 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

There would be no sufficient funds available to continue with the decommissioning of 
the  4  units  with  a  risk  for  the  citizens  and  the  environment  due  to  the  unfinished 
decommissioning status of the units; 

No  funds  would  be  available  to  cover  the  salaries  of  the  experienced  KNPP  staff 
performing  the  decommissioning  with  the  risk  that  they  might  leave  the  nuclear 
facility and that the expertise and knowledge of the plant would get lost.; 

Risk  of  re-opening  the  reactors  3  and  4  where  no  irreversible  activities  were 
performed; 

The  liability  and  responsibility  for  decommissioning  the  units  would  be  shifted  to 
future generations; 

It is in the highest interest of the European Union that Bulgaria continues to decommission in 
a timely manner these 4 reactors, in order to ensure safe dismantling and to avoid any attempt 
to restart units 3 and 4 again in the future. 

The Community has the right to act for several reasons 

•  To ensure that the 4 KNPP units remain closed; 

•  To support Bulgaria in their efforts to safely decommission the four units; 

•  To express its solidarity in line with the Lisbon Treaty; 

EN 

   EN 

 
3. 

SECTION 3: OBJECTIVES  

The objective for providing additional EU funding for the period 2010 – 2013 is to continue 
supporting Bulgaria in its efforts to (1) guarantee sufficient funds for the continuation of safe 
decommissioning of units 1 – 4 of KNPP and (2) to support measures in the energy sector to 
mitigate the economical consequences of the early closure. 

In  the  context  of  the  renewed  interest  in  nuclear  power  expressed  by  a  number  of  Member 
States  the  role  of  the  European  Union  is  to  ensure  that  this  source  of  energy  is  developed 
while meeting the highest level of safety. Consequently a Council Directive on establishing a 
community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations has been adopted on June 
25, 20094. 

Effects  of  radiological  incidents  do  not  stop  at  the  borders  and  can  have  potential 
consequences  both  for  the  health  of  workers  and  citizens,  but  also  wide  ranging  economic 
implications for the energy generating industry. Therefore measures must be put in place to 
guarantee safety. 

After  the  Chernobyl  accident  in  1986,  the  European  Union  has  adopted  with  new  vigour,  a 
policy  towards  safer  nuclear  installations.  The  Commission's  position  on  VVER  440/230 
reactors  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.  

In order to achieve the above mentioned objectives in the given context, additional support of 
€300 million will be needed for the period 2010 - 2013, covering decommissioning needs as 
well as measures in the energy sector in Bulgaria. 

•  The extension of support is in accordance with the following objectives: 

•  The  general  objective  of  the  EU  decommissioning  policy  is  nuclear  safety  and  the 

availability of adequate financial resources when needed for decommissioning. 

•  The specific objective is to accompany and to ascertain the safe decommissioning of all 4 
VVER 440/230 type reactors of the first generation, including the safe management of the 
decommissioning waste. 

•  The operational objectives are 

(a) 

Not to lose the necessary expertise  

(b) 

To continue with decommissioning works;  

(c) 

To  advance  in  the  approved  decommissioning  plan.  This  includes  the  safe 
maintenance,  the  actual  physical  decommissioning  and  dismantling  of  the 
nuclear power plant – units 1 to 4 – as well as the waste treatment. 

4 

OJ L 172, 2.7.2009, p.18 

EN 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(d) 

(e) 

To assure the non-nuclear window, security of supply needs to be guaranteed 
after  the  shutdown  (sufficient  replacement  capacity  for  the  closed  down 
capacity). 

To continue during the period 2010-2013 with the safe maintenance including 
the payment of staff salaries.  

(f) 

To avoid the risk of reopening.  

These objectives are consistent with the other Community assistance programme provided to 
Lithuania  and  Slovakia  as  well  as  the  EU  energy  policy  (energy  efficiency  and  the  use  of 
renewables) as well as the Lisbon Treaty (solidarity principle). 

It guarantees the seamless continuation of the support under the Accession Treaty. 

EN 

   EN 

 
4. 

SECTION 4: POLICY OPTIONS 

4.1. 

Background 

–  Bulgaria requested initially for the nuclear sector 202 m€,  and for the non-nuclear sector 

494 m€. 

–  Following  a  more  detailed  analysis  it  appeared  that  180  m€  is  in 

fact  needed  for  the 

decommissioning sector. 

–  Finally  it  was  agreed  that  60  %  of  the  additional  support  would  go  to  decommissioning 

(180 m€) and 40 % to energy sector measures (120 m€). 

–  The Community support must be provided to ensure closure and to cover part of the costs 
of decommissioning (waste management included), which otherwise could not be paid by 
the Bulgarian government alone in the tight timeframe . 

–  The  Community  support  should  be  dedicated  in  priority  to  achieving  real  progress  in 

decommissioning; decommissioning progress is paramount for nuclear safety. 

–  The  calculation  of  the  financial  needs  can  also  be  made  through  a  comparison  with  the 
decommissioning costs in Slovakia, because the reactor units that were closed down are of 
the  same  design  (VVER).  Lithuania  cannot  be  used  for  comparison  because  the  reactor 
units are of a completely different design (RBMK). 

–  Bulgaria has received less Community support than Slovakia. Slovakia has since the start 
of Community support in 1999 received 614 m€  for two units that were closed. Bulgaria 
has received for four units of the same kind only 550 m€  up to now. 

–  Under this  consideration the request  from Bulgaria  for additional funding for the nuclear 

sector (decommissioning and waste management) is duly justified. 

–  The Community provided Bulgaria since accession with the following support: 74 m€ in 
plus inflation). The continuation of 

2007, 76 m€ in 2008 and 77.5 m€ for 2009 (210 m€ 
support at this level until 2013 would amount to 300 m€  (75 m€/year). 

–  If  an  additional  support  of  300  m€

  would  be  acceptable  for  the  EU  Member  States,  this 

extension would 

(a) 

(b) 

cover the full needs for decommissioning until 2013 and 

provide  additional  money  for  measures  in  the  energy  sector  (replacement 
capacity and security of supply). 

Additional support of 300 million € is justified, covering decommissioning needs as well as 
measures in the energy sector which are estimated to amount to: 

MEASURE 

OBJECTIVE 

COSTS 

TIMING 

PROVISION  OF  SALARIES  KEEP 

30 MILLION € 

2010-2013 

EN 

   EN 

 
OF  DECOMMISSIONING 
STAFF (715) 

SAFE MAINTENANCE 

KNOWLEDGE 
AND  EXPERTISE 
ON  SITE  +  SAFE 
MAINTENANCE 

AVOID 
ACCIDENTS 

PROJECT  MANAGEMENT, 
AND 
ENGINEERING 
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 

PROVIDE 
INTERNATIONAL 
SUPPORT 
EXPERTISE 

AND 

INCLUDED 

2010-2013 

25 MILLION € 

2010-2013 

TENDERING 
DISMANTLING WORKS 

OF 

APPLY 
STANDARDS 

EU 

INCLUDED 

2013 

NATIONAL  RADIOACTIVE 
DISPOSAL 
WASTE 
FACILITY 
(CO-
FINANCING) 

SAFE 
TREATMENT 

WASTE 

75 MILLION € 

2013 

DRY 
STORAGE 

SPENT 

FUEL 

SAFE 
TREATMENT 

WASTE 

50 MILLION € 

2010 

DECOMMISSIONING 
WORKS 

START 
DISMANTLING 
WORKS 

INCLUDED 

2011 

ENERGY  REPLACEMENT 
CAPACITY  AND  ENERGY 
EFFICIENCY MEASURES 

REPLACEMENT 
OF 
CAPACITY 

CLOSED 

120 MILLION € 

2013 

The Bulgarian programme should also be assessed against the recommendations given in the 
mid-term evaluation of the Slovak and Lithuanian program. In the following, the conclusions 
for Slovakia and Lithuania are listed and their relevance for Bulgaria is assessed at the end. 

4.2. 

Conclusion of mid term evaluation Slovakia and Lithuania 

The mid term evaluation for Slovakia and Lithuania showed that a majority of the projects has 
been well implemented in so far as the results match the objectives. The costs of the projects, 
to  the  extent  that  it  could  be  assessed  within  the  evaluation,  are  fair  when  compared  to  the 
results.  

The recommendations were as follows, including the follow up actions taken: 

(1) 

That  the  EC  develops  a  consistent  strategy  with  goals  and  criteria  for  the 
decommissioning  assistance  programme(s),  against  which  any  ongoing  and  future 
assistance  could  be  judged  and  evaluated.  The  strategy  should  include  objectives  for 
any related energy system and social measures that are justified as a consequence of 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
the shutting down of 1st generation units that (were) operate(d) in countries becoming 
members of the EU. – A strategic plan has been drafted. 

(2) 

To  assure  that  any  assistance  provided  is  consistent  and  complementary  with  the 
national  activities  (implemented  via  national  decommissioning  funds  and/or  other 
national means). – This is assured through the monitoring meetings. 

(3)  With the consideration that the conceptual decommissioning plans for both Bohunice 
and  Ignalina  were  developed  and  decommissioning  strategies  selected  in  both 
countries,  a  more  accurate  estimate  of  actual  decommissioning  and  related  energy 
sector costs (against which the needs for financial assistance commitments could then 
be  assessed)  should  be  developed.  –  Estimates  of  decommissioning  costs  are  being 
made within the framework of the Decommissioning Funding Group (DFG). 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

to  allow 

for  adjustments  with  actual  costs  dynamics 

The  EC  shall  consider  to  modify  the  implementation  rules  for  the  provision  of 
assistance 
the 
decommissioning activities (e.g. to allow for lower utilization in the years when only 
preparatory activities take place). – Annual budget provisions are set by the budgetary 
authority. A fluctuation in function of the annual needs would require a modification 
of the Financial Regulation. 

for 

Investigate measures that could lead to an increased effectiveness and efficiency of the 
activities  of  the  PMUs  operating  within  the  International  Decommissioning  Support 
Funds. – Being investigated. 

Investigate  the  merits  of  having  two  assistance  vehicles  operating  in  parallel  (in 
Lithuania)  with  a  view  to  possibly  integrating  these,  while  preserving  the  benefits 
offered by each. – Such dual system is not considered for Bulgaria. 

In  light  of  the  changing  framework  conditions,  it  is  suggested  to  carry  out  an 
assessment  to  identify  an  optimal  vehicle  for  providing  assistance  in  the  future.  – 
EBRD seems to be the appropriate choice for Bulgaria. 

4.3. 

Assessment of the mid-term recommendations for Bulgaria 

–  Recommendations 1, 2, 3 and 5 are applicable for Bulgaria.  

–  Recommendation  4  can  not  be  implemented  under  the  current  financial 

Regulation. 

–  Recommendation 6: such dual system is not considered for Bulgaria. 

–  Recommendation 7: EBRD seems to be the appropriate choice for Bulgaria. 

4.4. 

The policy options are:  

(a) 

(b) 

no EU intervention - continue with national funding  

no EU intervention – continue with private funding;  

EN 

   EN 

 
(c) 

EU limited co financing (pay only safe maintenance); 

(d) 

EU indirect co financing (through EBRD);  

(e) 

EU direct co financing  

Exclusive funding through the national or private decommissioning fund is not considered as 
the operational lifetime has expired and insufficient funding was available at the time of early 
closure upon Accession. Currently only 280 Mio € is available in  the fund for reactors 1 to 6 
(14 % of the estimated decommissioning costs). 

The option A (no EU intervention) is a theoretical option, as actually EU  must  intervene in 
order to ensure the level of required nuclear safety. 

EN 

   EN 

 
5. 

SECTION 5: ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

5.1. 

SWOT Analysis 

A. 

no EU intervention – continue with national funding 

In  the  case  funding  has  to  come  from  the  national  budget,  the  "immediate 
decommissioning"  strategy  will  not  be  pursued,  especially  given  the  current 
economical context and the energy needs. Talks about re-opening have already been 
held,  and  technical  verifications  for  re-opening  were  executed.  The  re-opening  of 
these potentially unsafe nuclear reactors poses a serious threat to the environment 

STRENGTHS: 

OPPORTUNITIES: 

- NATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES TAKEN 

- LESS COSTS ON THE EU BUDGET 

WEAKNESSES: 

THREATS: 

- INSUFFICIENT NATIONAL FUNDING 
AVAILABLE IN THE FUND  
- ECONOMICAL CONTEXT OF WEAK 
NATIONAL BUDGETS 

- POSTPONEMENT OF THE 
DECOMMISSIONING 
- RESTART OF THE REACTORS 
- UNSAFE DECOMMISSIONING 
- UNEMPLOYMENT OF STAFF 

B. 

no EU intervention – continue with private funding 

In  the  case  funding  has  to  come  from  the  private  owner,  the  immediate 
decommissioning strategy will not be pursued. It is unlikely that a private company 
will  commit  the  significant  funds  necessary  without  any  identifiable  economical 
benefit.  The  consequence  would  be  the  risk  of  re-opening  these  potentially  unsafe 
nuclear reactors. 

STRENGTHS: 

OPPORTUNITIES: 

- POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE WOULD 
BE FULLY ENDORSED 

- LESS COSTS ON THE EU BUDGET 

WEAKNESSES: 

THREATS: 

- INSUFFICIENT FUNDING 
POSSIBILITIES 
- EARLY CLOSURE WAS AN EU 
CONDITION 
- TIME SPAN BETWEEN OPERATION AND 
DECOMMISSIONING – HISTORICAL 
OWNER? 

- UNEMPLOYMENT OF STAFF 
- POSTPONEMENT OF THE 
DECOMMISSIONING 
- RESTART OF THE REACTORS 
- UNSAFE DECOMMISSIONING 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
- NOT A SINGLE ECONOMIC BENEFIT 
FOR THE OWNER TO ENGAGE IN THESE 
HUGE INVESTMENTS 

C.  EU limited co financing (pay only safe maintenance) 

In  this  case  limited  funding  has  to  come  (partially)  from  the  EU  budget.  It  is 
impossible  to  continue  immediate  decommissioning.  This  would  simply  mean  a 
status quo. The threat of re-opening of these potentially unsafe reactors remains. 

STRENGTHS: 

OPPORTUNITIES: 

- USE OF AVAILABLE EXPERTISE 

- RELATIVELY SMALL SAVING OF FUNDS 
FOR THE EU BUDGET 

- REDUCE UNEMPLOYMENT BY USING 
OWN SKILLED STAFF WHEN IMMEDIATE 
DISMANTLING 

- MAINTAINED SAFETY 

WEAKNESSES: 

THREATS: 

- EU RATHER THEN NATIONAL MONEY 
- POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE LESS 
APPLIED 

- CONTINUOUS REQUEST FOR FULL 
FUNDING 
- RE-OPENING 
- NO DISMANTLING WORK 

D.  EU indirect co financing (through EBRD) 

In the case funding has to come (partially) from the EU budget, it is likely that the 
immediate decommissioning strategy can be continued, especially given the political 
context. The funding would mean equal treatment (Lithuania and Slovakia), create an 
economical  benefit  for  Bulgaria,  and  eliminate  the  threat  of  re-opening  of  these 
potentially unsafe reactors that would pose a serious threat to the general public and 
the  environment.  Funding  would  continue,  as  is  the  case  at  present,  through  the 
EBRD. 

STRENGTHS: 

OPPORTUNITIES: 

- IMMEDIATE DECOMMISSIONING 
- MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO RESTART THE 
REACTORS 
- USE OF AVAILABLE EXPERTISE 
- MORE ECONOMIC APPROACH 
- REDUCE UNEMPLOYMENT BY USING 
OWN SKILLED STAFF WHEN IMMEDIATE 
DISMANTLING 

- BETTER CHECK ON THE OPTIMAL 
ADVANCEMENT OF THE 
DECOMMISSIONING 
- INCREASED SAFETY 
- ACTUAL PROGRESS WITH DE-
FUELLING AND DISMANTLING WORKS 

WEAKNESSES: 

THREATS: 

- EU RATHER THAN NATIONAL MONEY 
- POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE LESS 

- CONTINUOUS REQUEST FOR FULL 
FUNDING 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
APPLIED 

E.  EU direct co financing 

In the case funding has to come (partially) from the EU budget, it is likely that the 
immediate decommissioning strategy can be continued, especially given the political 
context. The funding would mean equal treatment (Lithuania and Slovakia), create an 
economical  benefit  for  Bulgaria,  and  eliminate  the  threat  of  re-opening  of  these 
potentially  unsafe  reactors  that  would  pose  a  serious  threat  to  the  environment. 
Funding  would  have  to  go  through  a  national  agency,  which  would  have  to  be 
created. This would require a long term time perspective, time which is not available. 
Financing would not be controlled by EBRD and a risk of deviation of funds cannot 
be excluded. 

STRENGTHS: 

OPPORTUNITIES: 

- IMMEDIATE DECOMMISSIONING 
- MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO RESTART THE 
REACTORS 
- USE OF AVAILABLE EXPERTISE 
- MORE ECONOMIC APPROACH 
- REDUCE UNEMPLOYMENT BY USING 
OWN SKILLED STAFF WHEN IMMEDIATE 
DISMANTLING 

- BETTER CHECK ON THE OPTIMAL 
ADVANCEMENT OF THE 
DECOMMISSIONING 
- INCREASED SAFETY 
- ACTUAL PROGRESS WITH DE-
FUELLING AND DISMANTLING WORKS 

WEAKNESSES: 

THREATS: 

- EU RATHER THEN NATIONAL MONEY 
- POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE LESS 
APPLIED 
- NO EXISTING NATIONAL CHANNEL YET 

- CONTINUOUS REQUEST FOR FULL 
FUNDING 
- CREATION OF A NATIONAL AGENCY 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
6. 

SECTION 6: COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

It is important to realise that all impacts of safe maintenance and decommissioning itself are 
equal  wherever  the  financing  comes  from.  The  main  concern  is  to  continue  the 
decommissioning process. 

Cost – benefit analysis of EU funding 

COSTS 

BENEFITS 

-  EU  SUBVENTION  OF  300  MIO  €  OVER 
THE  PERIOD  2010-2013  (75  MIO  €  PER 
ANNUM) 

-  SECURE  A  MUCH  HIGHER  LEVEL  OF 
SAFETY 
-  KEEP  EXPERTISE  ON  THE  SITE
- ENSURE DE-FUELLING OF THE PONDS
-  PREVENTION  FROM  RE  OPENING
-  START  OF  ACTUAL  DISMANTLING 
WORKS 

Cost – benefit analysis of no funding 

COSTS 

BENEFITS 

- "EXCUSE" FOR BULGARIA TO RE-OPEN 
THE REACTORS 

MAJOR 

SAFETY 

- 
RISK
-  RISK  OF  RE-OPENING  UNSAFE 
REACTORS 
- NEED TO GO TO A "MINIMUM SAFETY" 
PLATFORM  COMES  WITH  A  COST
-  SAFE  MAINTENANCE  IS  A  DEAD  COST 
THAT  IS  ADDED  TO  THE  OVERALL 
DECOMMISSIONING 
COSTS
- 
UNEMPLOYMENT
-  LOST  EXPERTISE  =>  HIGHER  COSTS 
TO  RESTART  THE  DECOMMISSIONING 
AFTERWARDS 
-  COSTS  ARE  MORE  THAN  INFLATED  IF 
LEFT TO FUTURE GENERATION 

STAFF 

EU added value: 

In case no funding would be available, safe maintenance would be endangered. The risk of re-
start  of  the  reactors,  with  possible  major  accidents,  is  actual.  Also  loss  of  expertise  would 
delay, render more difficult and more costly the whole decommissioning process. 

Taking into account the necessary safety requirements and the general interest; EU financing 
would  be  the  appropriate  solution.  Option  D  (optimal  EU  funding  managed  in  an  indirect 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
way,  via  EBRD)  is  indeed  the  best  viable  option  as  it  is  vital  to  have  seamless  financing 
available in order not to risk losing the on site expertise and put safe maintenance in danger.  

EN 

   EN 

 
7. 

SECTION 7: MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

- 

- 

The core indicators of progress towards meeting the objectives are the advancement 
in the decommissioning plan as well as avoidance of accidents (safe maintenance) 

The  monitoring  and  evaluation  arrangements  are  as  follows:  2  times  per  year  a 
monitoring committee with EU takes place on the spot to verify the advancement of 
the  decommissioning  works.  The  Commission  Decision  on  Procedures  is  in  place 
including monitoring provisions for the 3 decommissioning funds. Yearly combined 
programming  documents,  attached  to  the  Commission  Decision  on  financing  state 
the  progress  towards  decommissioning.  A  mid  term  evaluation  of  the  programme 
should be foreseen. 

Milestones:  

•  safe maintenance = no accidents   

•  de-fuelling reactor ponds 1-4 by 31/12/2012 

•  start dismantling works by 01/01/2011 (non contaminated parts) 

The timeline of the decommissioning programme until 2013 is as follows: 

Zero power operation unit 1-2 

ZERO POWER OPERATION UNIT 3-4 

2003-2009 

2007-2012 

REMOVAL OF THERMAL INSULATION, ASBESTOS OF UNITS 
1-4 

UNTIL 2009 

REMOVAL OF TOXIC MATERIALS IN UNITS 1-4 

UNTIL 2008 

REMOVAL OF FLAMMABLE MATERIALS IN UNITS 1-4 

UNTIL 2009 

REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE UNITS 1-4 

DISMANTLING  OF  NON-SAFETY  RELATED  EQUIPMENT  OF 
UNITS1-4 

UNTIL 2008 

UNTIL 2009 

COMMISSIONING  OF  THE  DRY  SPENT  FUEL  STORAGE 
FACILITY 

2009 

RADIOLOGICAL INVENTORY AND DATABASE OF UNITS 1-4  UNTIL 2010 

DEFUELLING OF THE REACTOR PONDS OF UNITS 1-2 

2007-2008 

DEFUELLING OF THE REACTOR PONDS OF UNITS 3-4 

2011-2012 

DECOMMISSIONING PERMIT FOR UNITS 1-2 

DECOMMISSIONING PERMIT FOR UNITS 3-4 

2010 

2012 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMPLETING  OF  THE  WASTE  BACKLOG  TREATMENT  AT 
THE KOZLODUY SITE 

2012 

INVENTORY,  TREATMENT  AND  CONDITIONING  OF 
CONTAMINATED SOIL 

UNTIL 2013 

•   

EN 

   EN 

 
Status and main achievements of measures implemented from the financial support up to 2009 

Annex 1 

STATE 
OF PLAY 

FUNDING 
USED 
(MIO €) 

IF DELAY, 
REASONS 

DONE 

NA 

NA 

ONGOING

72,90 
99,96 

35,00 

LAST 
ASSEMBLY 
APPROVED 
+15,00 
39,00 

ONGOING

3,00 

MEASURES 

•  CLOSURE OF ALL FOUR REACTORS 

DEFUELING OF UNITS 1-2 
DISMANTLING  AND  THE  TREATMENT 
OF ALL WASTE 
•  DRY FUEL SPENT STORAGE 
•  DECOMMISSIONING 

DESIGN 

(INITIAL AND SECOND STAGE) 

•  IMPLEMENTATION 

OF 
DECOMMISSIONING  PROGRAMME 
USING HR AVAILABLE AT UNITS 1-4 

•   

OF 

HEAT 

SELECTION  FOR  NATIONAL 

CONSTRUCTION 
GENERATION PLANT 
PERMANENT DISPOSAL OF WASTE  
SITE 
RADIOACTIVE DISPOSAL FACILITY 
SUPPORT TO PLANT PERSONNEL (SAFE 
MAINTENANCE) 
TECHNICAL 
REGULATORY BODIES 
PMU 
ENVIRONMENTAL UPGRADING 
•  SOFIA DISTRICT HEATING 
•  PERNIC DISTRICT HEATING 
•  VARNA  HEATING  DISTRIBUTION 

ASSISTANCE 

TO 

DONE 

DONE 

DONE 

NETWORK 
RESTRUCTURING 
PRODUCTION 
•  MARITZA EAST  
•  REFURBISHMENT 

ENERGY 

ONGOING

SUBSTATIONS 

DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 
•  GAS PIPELINE SILISTRA 
•  MINES ENERGY EFFICIENCY 
•  CONTROL  ELECTRICITY  LOSSES 

VARNA/GORNA 
•  REPLACEMENT 
TRANSFORMERS 

OLD 

•  GAS  SYSTEM  13  CITIES  SOUTH-

CENTRAL 

•  GAS  NETWORK  DIMITROVGRAD/ 

CHIRPAN/ RAKOVSKI 

•  GAS 

SUPPLY 

ETROPOLE/ 

SVILENGRAD/ KARDJALI 

•  GAS PIPELINE RAZLIV 
ENERGY SUPPLY 

4,00 
38,50 

30,00 
10,95 
0,45 

19,50 
25,43 

20,00 
15,00 
1,80 
0,82 
1,30 
2,33 

2,05 
0,48 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  TRYAVNA  HEATING  PLANT  WOOD 

BIOMASS 

•  RUSSE INTEGRATED ENERGY FARM 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY 
•  ENERGY  EFFICIENCY  MEASURES  IN 

POWER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 

•  BULGARIAN  ENERGY  EFFICIENCY 
RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDIT LINE 
•  ENERGY  EFFICIENCY  MEASURES  IN 

PUBLIC BUILDINGS 

•  BULGARIAN  RESIDENTIAL  ENERGY 

EFFICIENCY CREDIT LINE 

•  ENERGY EFFICIENCY FACILITY 
•  REHABILITATION STREET LIGHTING 

TOTAL 

ONGOING
STOPPED 

0,85 
1.61 
(0 
DISBURSED) 

ONGOING

MISSING 
OWN 
FINANCING 
PART 

5,30 

35,20 

23,95 

14,60 

3,20 
5,50 
513,00 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
General  overview  of  decommissioning  projects  as  currently  allocated  under  KIDSF  Grant 
Agreements:  

Annex 2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

DESIGN  AND  CONSTRUCTION  OF  A  DRY  SPENT  FUEL  STORAGE 
FACILITY 

STORAGES 

DECAY STORAGE AT THE KNPP SITE FOR TRANSITIONAL WASTE 

SITE STORAGE FOR CONVENTIONAL WASTE OF DECOMMISSIONING 

STORAGE OF VERY LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE AT THE KNPP 
SITE 

INVENTORY,  TREATMENT  AND  CONDITIONING 
CONTAMINATED SOIL 

(STORAGE)  OF 

FRAGMENTATION AND DECONTAMINATION ACTIVE WORKSHOP 

HAND HELD EQUIPMENT FOR THE ACTIVE WORKSHOP 

WORKSHOPS FOR 
FRAGMENTATION, 
DECO AND PACKAGING 

DISMANTLING  AND  FRAGMENTATION  TOOLS  FOR  THE  REACTOR 
BUILDING 

9  WASTE  MONITORING  EQUIPMENT  FOR  FREE  RELEASE  FROM  THE 

ACTIVE WORKSHOP 

10  FRAGMENTATION WORKSHOP IN THE TURBINE HALL 

11  DISMANTLING  AND  FRAGMENTATION  TOOLS  FOR  THE  TURBINE 

HALL 

12  DISMANTLING  AND  FRAGMENTATION  TOOLS  FOR  THE  AUXILIARY 

BUILDINGS 

13  LIQUID RADIOACTIVE WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY 

14  FACILITY  FOR  RETRIEVAL  AND  CONDITIONING  OF  ION  EXCHANGE 

RESINS 

15  FACILITY  FOR  TREATMENT  AND  CONDITIONING  OF  SOLID 
RADIOACTIVE WASTE WITH HIGH VOLUME REDUCTION FACTOR 

16  EQUIPMENT  FOR  RETRIEVAL  OF  LIQUID  PHASE  OF  EVAPORATOR 

CONCENTRATES TANKS 

17  EQUIPMENT  FOR  RETRIEVAL  OF  SOLIDIFIED  PHASE  OF 

EVAPORATOR CONCENTRATE TANKS 

18  CLEANING EQUIPMENT OF EMERGENCY BORON TANKS 

19  DECONTAMINATION AND CLEANING EQUIPMENT 

CLEANING DEVICES – 
LOCAL TREATMENT OF 
LIQUID AND SOLID 
RADIOACTIVE WASTE 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
RADIOLOGICAL 
INVENTORY – 
LABORATORY 
MEASUREMENTS FREE 
RELEASE 
MEASUREMENT – 
CONTROL OF 
TRANSPORT DEVICES 

20  ASBESTOS REMOVAL EQUIPMENT 

21 

SINGLE VEHICLE MOUNTED BOOM LIFT 

22  DEMOLISHING EQUIPMENT 

23 

SUPPLY OF TANK LEVEL MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENTATION 

24 

SUPPLY OF CONTAINERS FOR TRANSPORT OF DISMANTLED WASTE 

25  COMPUTER SIMULATOR FOR REACTOR DISMANTLING 

26  EQUIPMENT  FOR  RADIOLOGICAL  MEASUREMENT  -  LABORATORY 

LEVEL 

27 

SUPPLY  OF  CONSUMABLES  AND  DEVICES  -  FOR  LABORATORY 
LEVEL MEASUREMENTS 

28  CONSUMABLES FOR THE RADIOLOGICAL INVENTORY OF UNITS 1-4 

29  LABORATORY EQUIPMENT FOR THE RADIOLOGICAL INVENTORY OF 

UNITS 1-4 

30  EQUIPMENT OF ON-SITE RADIOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT SAMPLING 

AND ANALYSIS 

31  COMPLEX  VEHICLE  WEIGHBRIDGE  FOR  THE  CONTROL  OF 

CONVENTIONAL WASTE 

32  PORTABLE GAMMA IN-SITU CONTROL MEASUREMENT DEVICE 

33 

SUPPLY  OF  EQUIPMENT  FOR  LOW  LEVEL  RADIOLOGICAL  DOSE 
MEASUREMENT 

34  CONCRETE  CORE  SAMPLING  ANALYSIS  FOR  CONTAMINATION 

CONTROL OF BUILDINGS 

35  MOVEABLE  PERSONNEL  REDRESSING  AND  CONTAMINATION 

MONITORING FACILITY 

36  CONTROL  DEVICES  FOR  MEASUREMENT  OF  LIQUID  AND  GASEOUS 

RELEASES 

37  FACILITY FOR FREE RELEASE MEASUREMENT 

38  VEHICLE EXIT MONITORS 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
39  MEASUREMENT  OF  HEAT,  FLUID  FLOW,  ELECTRICITY  USED  FOR 

DECOMMISSIONING 

40  DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF NEW SERVICE WATER PIPELINE FOR 

DECOMMISSIONING 

DECOMMISSIONING 
OPERATION WITHIN 
THE 
DECOMMISSIONING 
INFRASTRUCTURE 

41  DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF HEATING SYSTEM AND HOUSE LOAD 

STEAM FOR DEC 

42  DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF HEAT FEEDING SYSTEM FROM THE 

HEATING PLANT 

43 

SECURITY PERIMETER SEPARATION (UNITS 1-4) 

44  REPLACEMENT OF ARTESIAN WATER PIPELINES 

45 

SUPPLY OF SECURITY EQUIPMENT 

46  DESIGN SUPPORT TO INSTALLATION OF THE NEW PIPE SYSTEMS OF 

THE SEPARATION 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
7.1. 

Plejades study 

Annex 3 

The  potentially  mostly  affected  countries,  Bulgaria,  Lithuania,  and  Slovakia  were  analysed 
more  deeply  using  macroeconomic  models  in  the  aforementioned  Plejades  study  of  2007 
"analysis  of  environmental,  economic  and  social  issues  linked  to  the  decommissioning  of 
nuclear installations". 

The objective of the study was to compare the environmental, economic and social issues of 
the decommissioning of nuclear power plants for the different Member States. 

The  analysis  was  done  in  different  steps,  and  country  profiles  for  each  Member  State  were 
drawn up. 

Conclusions: The highest shut-down numbers per million capita are found in Lithuania (0.57) 
and  in  Bulgaria  (0.50).  Bulgaria  faces  a  much  higher  challenge  to  overcome  its  relative 
smaller amount of shutdowns, as it also has a much smaller absorption capacity. It is obvious 
from the study that the economic indicators (number and capacity per GDP) show the highest 
economic  impact  potential  in  Lithuania  and  Bulgaria  followed  by  Slovakia  and  Belgium. 
Compared  to  the  EU  average  all  indicators  are  higher  by  orders  of  magnitude.  It  shall  be 
further noted that in those indicators the financing provisions available are not included. This 
means  that  the  situation  in  the  countries  where  historically  no  appropriate  financing  means 
could be collected to finance later shut down and decommissioning as is the case in Lithuania, 
Slovakia and Bulgaria there is an additional threat. In conclusion it should be noted that the 
newly  accessed  EU  Member  States  Lithuania,  Slovakia  and  Bulgaria  will  have  to  face  the 
highest economic challenges. 

Besides the technical issues of decommissioning and dismantling, key societal questions such 
as funding, social and economic burdens and replacement energy supply arise on national and 
local level. These challenges are higher, if larger plants are shut down. Only within the last 
few years a discussion about possible radioactive and non-radioactive environmental impacts 
of shut-down decisions and decommissioning and dismantling activities has evolved. 

Decommissioning  of  a  NPP  always  leads  to  a  need  for  high  investments.  These  are 
investments  for  decommissioning  and  investments  for  the  replacement  of  capacities  of  the 
NPPs. These investments have positive impacts on the GDP. In all calculated scenarios of the 
Plejades study the positive effects of investment are stronger than the negative aspects such as 
lay-offs, social transfers, price increases, and the negative effects of financing. Nevertheless it 
shall  be  noted  that  although  the  overall  balance  in  the  economy  tends  to  be  positive,  the 
negative impacts may have serious negative impacts at the local level. A main part of these 
investments are imported. Further electricity has to be imported or the exports of electricity 
reduced. Hence the net exports decrease in the considered countries. 

The main results for the three countries, provided decommissioning funding is continued, are 
as follows: 

•  In  the  three  considered  countries  decommissioning  of  NPPs  very  rarely  leads  to 

strong frictions of economic growth. 

EN 

   EN 

 
•  Decommissioning  of  a  NPP  leads  to  higher  investments.  These  are  investments 
for  decommissioning  and  investments  for  the  replacement  of  the  NPPs.  These 
investments implicate positive impacts on the GDP. 

•  A  main  part  of  these  investments  are  imported.  In  Bulgaria  the  exports  of 
electricity  were  reduced.  Hence  the  net  exports  decrease  in  the  considered 
countries. 

•  The  effects  on  the  labour  market  are  small.  The  lay-offs  which  results  from  the 
shut  down  of  the  NPPs  are  mostly  compensated  by  more  employment  due  to 
higher investment. 

•  Decommissioning has only moderate effects to prices and inflation. 

•  The  economic  development  in  these  three  countries  is  not  endangered  by  the 
decommissioning  of  NPPs.  On  the  contrary,  decommissioning  may  lead  to  even 
stronger  economic  growth  in  most  simulations.  However  the  financial  source  of 
decommissioning  and  replacement 
investments  may  have  some  negative 
secondary effects. 

For  Bulgaria  two  specific  dates  of  decommissioning  of  VVER  440  units  at  Kozloduy  NPP 
have been compared in the Plejades study of 2007. Two scenarios – one describing a deferred 
shut-down and the other one describing an early shut-down – were compared with each other. 
In  the  early  closure  scenario  earlier  replacement  investments  and  resulting  higher  energy 
prices  were  taken  into  account.  Transfers  from  the  European  Union  to  assist  Bulgaria’s 
economy have been kept identical in both scenarios. The comparison of these two scenarios 
shows,  that  earlier  decommissioning  leads  to  earlier  investment  which  creates  a  positive 
demand  shock  that  is  enforced  by  multiplier-accelerator  effects  and  results  in  higher  output 
and  employment.  Investments  for  decommissioning  and  for  replacement  have  to  be  made 
earlier. Both result in higher GDP, in higher electricity prices and in a slightly higher inflation 
rate.  Lay-offs  resulting  from  decommissioning  are  smaller  than  the  employment  increases 
from the high investments. In the deferred scenario similar effects will happen but on a lower 
level. Hence earlier decommissioning is the proposed option in Bulgaria. 

Kozloduy region is mostly affected as far as social and economical issues are concerned. 

However  the  whole  South-Eastern  European  region,  even  outside  Bulgaria,  is  concerned  by 
the early closure of the reactors (around 15% of electricity production capacity) as Bulgaria is 
an electricity exporter and after the closures electricity export margins became tighter. 

EN 

   EN