COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Impact assessment
Date: 2011-11-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Bulgaria, EU financing, Lithuania, Slovakia, aid programme, decommissioning of power stations, economic support, nuclear power station, nuclear safety

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 24.11.2011 
SEC(2011) 1387 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

Impact assessment 

Accompanying document to the 

Proposal for a Council Regulation 

on Union support for the nuclear decommissioning assistance programmes in Bulgaria, 
Lithuania and Slovakia. 

{COM(2011) 783 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1388 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

Impact assessment 

Accompanying document to the 

Proposal for a Council Regulation 

on Union support for the nuclear decommissioning assistance programmes in Bulgaria, 
Lithuania and Slovakia. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties .............................................. 5 

Identification ................................................................................................................ 5 

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

Consultation and expertise ........................................................................................... 6 

1.3.1.  Public consultation ....................................................................................................... 6 

1.3.2.  Direct consultation of the Member States concerned .................................................. 6 

1.3.3.  Other inputs.................................................................................................................. 7 

2. 

Problem definition........................................................................................................ 7 

2.1. 

Context ......................................................................................................................... 7 

2.2.  What is the problem? ................................................................................................. 12 

2.3.  Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent? .................................................. 14 

2.4. 

2.5. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

4. 

5. 

Evolution of the problem without further EU support ............................................... 15 

EU right to act and EU added-value .......................................................................... 15 

Objectives................................................................................................................... 16 

General policy objectives........................................................................................... 16 

Specific objectives ..................................................................................................... 17 

Consistency with other EU policies and objectives ................................................... 17 

Policy options............................................................................................................. 17 

Analysis of impacts .................................................................................................... 19 

5.1. 

Economic, social and environmental impacts............................................................ 19 

5.1.1.  Economic impacts ...................................................................................................... 19 

5.1.2.  Social impacts ............................................................................................................ 22 

5.1.3.  Environmental impacts............................................................................................... 22 

5.2. 

Sensitivity analysis..................................................................................................... 22 

6. 

7. 

7.1. 

7.2. 

8. 

Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 23 

Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 29 

Core indicators of progress towards meeting the objectives...................................... 29 

Broad outline for possible monitoring and evaluation arrangements ........................ 29 

Annexe 1: Overview of 3 countries basic data........................................................... 32 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
9. 

9.1. 

9.2. 

9.3. 

10. 

Annexe 2: Full decommissioning plans for LT, SK, BG........................................... 35 

Annexe 2.1: Detailed decommissioning plan – Lithuania ......................................... 35 

Annexe 2.2: Detailed decommissioning plan – Slovakia........................................... 36 

Annexe 2.3 Detailed decommissioning plan – Bulgaria............................................ 37 

Annexe 3: Conclusions of previous/ongoing audits................................................... 40 

Disclaimer: This report commits only the Commission's services involved in its preparation 
and does not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  

1.1. 

Identification 

Lead DG: DG ENER  

Other  involved  services:  SG,  DG  BUDG,  DG  REGIO,  DG  JRC,  DG  SJ,  DG  ECFIN,  DG 
ENV, DG CLIMA, DG RTD, DG ENTR and DG EMPL 

Agenda planning or WP reference: 2011/ENER/050 

1.2. 

Organisation and timing 

This proposal has been drafted by DG ENER and covers the assessment of the proposal for 
further  financial  EU  support  to  Lithuania,  Slovakia  and  Bulgaria,  originating  in  the 
corresponding Accession Treaties. 

An impact assessment steering group has been set up on 16/02/2011. DG ENER, SG, BUDG, 
REGIO and JRC participated in the work of this IASG. DG SJ, ECFIN, ENV, CLIMA, RTD, 
ENTR and EMPL were invited to participate in the work of the IASG, but did not nominate a 
representative. 

The  Impact  Assessment  Board  has  assessed  the  draft  Impact  Assessment  submitted  to  their 
attention  in  September  2011  and  issued  its  opinion  on  21  October  2011.  In  line  with  the 
opinion, the draft Impact Assessment has been revised, in particular to: 

–  clarify the context for the proposed action and to provide a clearer problem definition (see 

section 2.1, 2.2, 3.1 and 3.2); 

–  explain more clearly the choice of policy options, link of options to specific objectives and 
link of options to feedback from stakeholders, European Court of Auditors and European 
Parliament  (see  section    2.2,  4,  5,  in  particular  5.1.1  and  6,  in  particular  the  paragraphs 
related to option 3); 

–  strengthen  the  impact  analysis  (see  sections  5.1,  in  particular  5.1.1  and  section  6  in 

particular the paragraphs related to option 3): 

–  provide  a  more  operational  evaluation  and  monitoring  arrangement  (see  section  7.1  and 

7.2) 

–  to take into account other comments related to the procedure, presentation and clarification 

of terminology (see section 1.3.1, 1.3.3, 2.2, 4 and 5.1.3). 

A proposal for a Council Regulation is foreseen for November 2011. The Council Regulation 
is foreseen to come into force on 1 January 2014. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
1.3. 

Consultation and expertise 

1.3.1.  Public consultation 

A  notice  has  been  published  on  the  DG  ENER  website1  announcing  the  public  consultation 
for  this  impact  assessment  on  the  future  of  the  nuclear  decommissioning  programmes  for 
Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia. 

The  public  consultation  was  launched  on  16  March  at  the  meetings  of  the  Nuclear 
Decommissioning  Assistance  Programme  Committee  (NDAPC  –  management  committee 
under  comitology)  and  the  Decommissioning  Funding  Group  (DFG  expert  group)  in  March 
2011.  The  NDAPC  is  composed  of  national  Member  State  representatives  that  assist  the 
Commission in implementing the current financial EU decommissioning support. The DFG is 
composed  of  nuclear  experts  from  the  Member  State  dealing  with  financial  aspects  of 
decommissioning. Discussions within the DFG gave the opportunity for the experts to express 
their  views  on  the  future  orientation  of  the  successor  to  the  3  nuclear  decommissioning 
programmes.  The  consultation  via  the  website  lasted  4  weeks,  considered  sufficient  for  the 
main direct stakeholders and Member State experts to provide further comments if necessary, 
in addition to their input already provided at the DFG and NDAP meetings. 

No further input was received from the consultation process via the DG ENER website. There 
were only two requests for additional information. 

In  general,  all  experts  within  the  DFG  recognise  the  need  for  continued  financing  of  these 
nuclear  units  that  were  shut  down  early  in  line  with  the  Accession  treaties.  All  were  of  the 
opinion  that  there  needs  to  be  a  solid  and  complete  detailed  decommissioning  plan  behind, 
including  full  costing  estimates  up  to  the  completion  date  for  decommissioning.  A  clear 
indication of the national co-financing and the way to secure this national funding in the long 
term has to be provided. Key milestones were explicitly supported, as well as the linking of 
payments  to  the  accomplishment  of  concrete  milestones,  with  the  highest  EU  added  value. 
Compliance procedures and close cost monitoring should be considered from the outset. 

Some were strongly in favour of continuing with full support towards decommissioning and 
also  for  additional  support  for  energy  sector  measures,  however  in  a  regressive  way  as  off 
2014. 

Most experts were of the opinion to address only decommissioning needs and to refer energy 
sector  needs  to  more  specific  financing  channels  such  as  the  structural  funds.  A  solid  case 
with  convincing  arguments  is  required  in  order  to  ensure  continuation  of  the  nuclear 
decommissioning in a safe manner in these 3 countries. 

The  results  of  this  consultation  were  fully  integrated  at  appropriate  levels  of  this  Impact 
Assessment  (ex.  problem  definition,  assessment  of  the  policy  options,  monitoring,  and 
evaluation). 

1.3.2.  Direct consultation of the Member States concerned 

In  addition  to  the  public  consultation,  the  three  Member  States  concerned  were  directly 
consulted  on  their  further  needs  for  financial  EU  support.  All  three  Member  States  had 

1 

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/consultations/2011_04_15_nuclear_decommissioning_en.htm 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
approached the Commission in 2010 with a request to open negotiations on the extension of 
the EU support beyond 2013. 

Upon request from the Commission, the three Member States provided a detailed justification 
for 
request 
for 
decommissioning). 

(ex.  decommissioning  planning,  updated  cost  estimation 

their 

The  information  provided  by  the  Member  States  were  the  basis  to  define  the  specific 
objectives  of  the  programme  as  well  as  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  provisions  (Logical 
Framework Matrix). 

1.3.3.  Other inputs 

The assistance programme has been subject to regular audits and evaluations. Amongst others 
a mid-term evaluation for Lithuania and Slovakia finalised in 2007, as well as a performance 
audit  currently  being  finalised  by  the  European  Court  of  Auditors.  These  audits  and 
evaluations  have  highlighted  some  weaknesses  in  the  overall  definition  of  the  financial  EU 
assistance and proposed a number of possible measures for improving the implementation of 
the  programmes.  Annex  3  provides  an  extract  of  the  conclusions  from  the  mid-term 
evaluation  as  well  as  some  preliminary  recommendations  from  the  performance  audit.  The 
recommendations were taken into account. 

Also the opinion of the European Parliament and the feedback from broad discussions in the 
different  Committees  of  the  Parliament  (in  the  context  of  the  adoption  of  the  Council 
Regulation  for  the  extension  of  EU  support  to  Bulgaria  for  the  period  2010-2013)  and  the 
findings  of  the  European  Parliament's  own  initiative  report  from  2011  have  been  taken  into 
account.  The  feedback  from  these  recommendations  has  allowed  a  clear  definition  of  the 
general and specific objectives, performance indicators to meet them as well as to assess the 
policy  options.  It  was  also  of  major  guidance  for  clearly  defining  the  scope,  amount  and 
duration for further EU support in order to define a clear framework for the programme, with 
a clear statement to concentrate on decommissioning and to no longer support projects in the 
energy sector. The Commission’s proposed implementation mechanism is also in accordance 
with the recommendations. 

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1. 

Context 

The  three  countries,  Lithuania,  Slovakia  and  Bulgaria,  operated  old  soviet  design  nuclear 
reactors  which  the  international  community,  in  line  with  the  G7  multilateral  programme  of 
action adopted at the Munich G7 summit in 1992, concluded could not be upgraded to meet 
the  minimum  required  safety  standards,  at  an  economically  acceptable  cost.  As  such  these 
plants required to be closed earlier than their foreseen end-of-lifetime dates. 

In  the  context  of  the  negotiations  for  accession  to  the  European  Union,  the  three  candidate 
countries  took  the  commitment  to  close  and  subsequently  decommission  these  nuclear 
reactors by a commonly agreed date. This early closure represented an exceptional financial 
burden for the Member States which was not commensurate with the economic strength of the 
countries  concerned.  In  recognition  of  this  fact  and  as  act  of  solidarity  the  European  Union 
committed  itself  to  continue  to  provide  adequate  additional  financial  assistance  for 
decommissioning  of  these  reactors.  The  closure  commitment  of  the  three  Member  States  as 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
well  as  the  commitment  of  the  EU  to  provide  financial  EU  support  was  foreseen  in  the 
corresponding Accession Treaties. 

In  2006  and  2007  the  European  Council  adopted  new  Regulations  for  Lithuania2  and 
Slovakia3 which formed the legal basis for the continuation of the European Union assistance 
in these countries until the end of 2013. Since mid 2010 a new Council Regulation4 provides 
the legal basis for additional European Union assistance to Bulgaria for 2010 – 2013. 

The total financial assistance from the European Union to the three Member States until the 
end  of  2013  foresees  €2 847.8  million  (€1 367  million  for  Lithuania,  €613  million  for 
Slovakia and €867.8 million for Bulgaria). 

The  European  Union  assistance  is  designed  to  support  Member  States  efforts  in  the 
decommissioning  of  the  nuclear  power  plants  as  well  as  to  support  measures  in  the  energy 
sector to mitigate the economical consequences of the early closure, such as: 

–  the nuclear safety in the nuclear facilities,  

–  the  establishment  and  upgrade  of  the  waste  management  infrastructure  required  to  start 

decommissioning activities,  

–  measures  to  support  the  nuclear  safety  authorities  in  safe  assessment  and  licensing  of 

decommissioning projects, 

–  the  environmental  upgrading  of  energy  infrastructure  and  modernisation  of  conventional 
energy  production  capacity  as  a  replacement  for  the  lost  nuclear  energy  production 
capacity in line with the legislation of the European Union, 

–  the enhancement of security of supply and energy efficiency, 

–  measures to support plant personnel in maintaining a high level of operational safety in the 

periods prior to the closure and during the decommissioning of the reactor units. 

The European Union financial assistance has been made available in the form of contributions 
to  three  International  Decommissioning  Support  Funds  managed  by  the  European  Bank  for 
Reconstruction and Development. In addition, since 2004, part of the financial assistance for 
Lithuania  has  also  been  made  available  as  a  direct  support  to  the  country  in  order  to 
implement  provisions  of  Art.  2.45  of  the  Accession  Protocol  through  a  National  Agency 
(Central Project Management Agency). 

All  three  Member  States  have  fulfilled  their  accession  treaty  commitments  to  close  their 
reactors  in  a  timely  manner.  Ignalina  Nuclear  Power  Plant  Unit  1  was  shut-down  on  31 
December 2004 and Unit 2 on 31 December 2009. Bohunice V1 Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 
was shut-down on 31 December 2006 and Unit 2 on 31 December 2008. Kozloduy Nuclear 

2 
3 
4 
5 

OJ L 411, 30.12.2006, p.10 
OJ L 131, 23.5.2007, p.1 
OJ L 189, 22.7.2010, p.9 
"The Ignalina Programme shall include measures to support plant personnel in maintaining a high level 
of operational safety at the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant in the periods prior to the closure and during 
the decommissioning of the said reactor units." 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Power  Plant  units  1  and  2  were  shut-down  on  31  December  2002  and  units  3  and  4  on  31 
December 2006. 

All  beneficiary  countries  were  commitment  to  proceed  with  the  implementation  of  their 
decommissioning plan and where technically possible, defueling of the reactor took place as a 
first important step towards irreversible closure and decommissioning of the plants. Facilities 
necessary  to  support  the  decommissioning  process  are  under  installation.  Preparation  of 
licensing  documentation  is  under  elaboration  and  preparatory  works  for  dismantling  as  an 
integral  part  of  decommissioning  are  ongoing.  The  countries`  legal  framework  and 
management structures are in the process to be adapted to take into account the change from 
an  electricity  producing  company  to  an  organisation  for  safe  decommissioning.  First 
dismantling works of non-active facilities have started. Major facilities for the treatment and 
storage  of  radioactive  waste  and  spent  nuclear  fuel  are  under  construction,  where  they  are 
required. 

The energy  sector benefited from the financing of  measures  fully  in  line  with  the  European 
Union  energy  policy.  Energy  efficiency  projects  were  successfully  completed,  conventional 
production  capacities  were  environmentally  upgraded  and  new  capacities  are  under 
construction and the adjustment of the electricity grid infrastructure is under implementation. 
In  none  of  the  three  Member  States  did  the  closure  of  the  nuclear  reactor  units  result  in  a 
black-out electricity supply. Not even the severe gas crisis in early 2009 led to the reopening 
of the closed reactor units, although the intention was expressed at political levels. 

The table below gives an overview on some major achievements of the current financial EU 
support.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
Decommissioning 

Where do we stand? Examples of main achievements 

Lithuania 

–  Shut down of both units and defueling of unit 1 reactor core; 
–  Finalisation of the free release measurement facility; 
–  Start  of  dismantling  works  in  the  building  with  the  Emergency 

Core Cooling System; 

–  Start of decontamination of unit 1 primary circuit; 
–  Start of dismantling works in the reactor turbine hall; 
–  Construction  works  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  storage 

facilities close to completion; 

Mitigating measures 

–  Environmental upgrade of the Lithuanian Thermal Power Plant; 
–  Construction of a new 440 MW CCGT plant ongoing; 

Decommissioning 

Mitigating measures 

Decommissioning 

Mitigating measures 

1045MW  production  capacity  was  made  available  by 
those 
measures as replacement. Considering the date provided in annex 1 
this corresponds to approximately 57% of the effective lost capacity. 

Slovakia 

–  Shut down of both units and complete defueling; 
–  Update of the V1 conceptual decommissioning plan; 
–  Elaboration  of  decommissioning  license  documentation  and 

decommissioning waste management strategy; 
–  Decommissioning license obtained in July 2011; 
–  Reconstruction of an auxiliary boiler station; 
–  Reconstruction of Krizovany transformer substation; 
–  Close  to  400  energy  efficiency  projects  supported  mainly  in  the 

residential sector but 10% also in the industrial sector. 

For Slovakia  the mitigating  measures  were focused on the upgrade 
of  their  electricity  network  infrastructures  that  became  necessary 
following the closure of Bohunice V1 nuclear power plant. 

Bulgaria 

–  Shut  down  of  all  4  units  and  complete  defueling  of  units  1&2. 
Complete defueling of units 3&4 is foreseen by end of 2011; 

–  Construction of a dry spent fuel storage facility; 
–  Revised decommissioning strategy put in place; 
–  Design,  supply  and  implementation  of  projects  within  the  first 

stages of decommissioning; 

–  Environmental impact assessment; 
–  Start of dismantling works in the turbine hall; 
–  Extension  and  refurbishment  of  national  electricity  distribution 

system; 

–  Rehabilitation of Pernic district heating; 
–  Rehabilitation of Sofia district heating network and substations; 
–  Contributions to energy efficiency and renewable energy projects 

through credit line facilities; 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
lead 

to  an  equivalent 
The  energy  efficiency  measures  will 
production capacity replacement of estimated 500MW. Considering 
the date provided in annex 1 this corresponds to approximately 62% 
of  the  closed  down  effective  lost  capacity  (this  does  not  take  into 
the  EU 
account 
decommissioning  support  for  upgrading  Kozloduy  units  5&6  that 
also contributed to the compensation for the closure of units 1&2). 

financial  support  provided  separately 

to 

Apart  from  the  listed  achievements  it  is  important  to  understand  how  far  the  three  Member 
States  progressed  in  decommissioning.  Decommissioning  is  a  long  process  composed  in 
general of two major phases characterised by the type of license issued by the national nuclear 
regulator (see figure). 

Slovakia  has  completed  the  transition  period  by  having  obtained  its  first  decommissioning 
license  for  Bohunice  V1  nuclear  power  plant.  In  Kozloduy  units  1&2  have  no  more  spent 
nuclear fuel in the units. Consequently both units have been transferred to the State Enterprise 
for  Radioactive  Waste  and  are  close  to  obtaining  their  decommissioning  license.  By  2013 
Kozloduy units 3&4 are expected to have received their decommissioning license. In the case 
of Lithuania the transition period will extend until 2016. This time is required to transfer all 
spent nuclear fuel from both reactor units to the dry spent fuel storage. 

It  must  be  understood  that  non-safety  relevant  decommissioning  activities  as  well  as  the 
implementation  of  the  required  spent  fuel  storage  facilities  and  waste  treatment  and  storage 
facilities  can  already  be  executed  in  the  transition  period.  Consequently,  although  only  four 
out  of  eight  concerned  nuclear  reactor  units  have  completed  the  transition  phase,  first 
dismantling works have started (ex. in the turbine building) also for the other units. Progress 
in  the  spent  fuel  and  waste  management  are  in  an  advanced  implementation  stage.  Equally 
important activities to be performed in the transition period are the preparation of all required 
licensing documents as well as environmental impact assessments, where required. 

By the end of 2010 the European Commission committed a total of €1 807 million with the 
following breakdown: 

–  Lithuania:  total  commitment:  €995.5  million;  a llocation  to  projects:  €894  million  (€694 

million EBRD and €200 million CPMA); 72% on decommissioning and 28% on measures 
in the energy sector; 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
 
–  Slovakia: total commitment: €423.7 million; allo cation to projects: €391 million; 53% on 

decommissioning and 47% on measures in the energy sector; 

–  Bulgaria: total commitment: €642.8 million; allocation to proj ects: €575 million; 57% on 

decommissioning and 43% on measures in the energy sector; 

The  rate  of  absorption  of  the  financial  EU  support  has  improved  substantially  over  the  last 
years with the realisation of major investment projects (ex. waste management infrastructure 
projects)  and  with  the  start  of  real  decommissioning  works.  The  absorption  rate  (full 
commitment to projects) is expected to be high by the end of the current financial perspective. 

2.2.  What is the problem? 

Effects  of  radiological  incidents  can  have  potential  consequences  for  the  health  of  workers 
and citizens and for the environment as well as wide ranging economic implications for the 
energy  sector.  Consequently,  nuclear  safety  requires  the  utmost  attention  and  appropriate 
actions, also after the closure of the units during the transition phase where spent nuclear fuel 
is still present in the reactor units and during decommissioning. The problem is to eliminate as 
far as possible the source of radiological hazard. In concrete terms this means that the closed 
reactor units must remain closed, that they are defueled and that they are safely dismantled. In 
the  context  of  ‘early  closure’  and  considering  the  related  economical  consequences  for  the 
three concerned Member States this closure must become irreversible6. Today this stage is not 
yet reached. 

The  current  financial  EU  support  has  effectively  mitigated  the  economical  consequences  of 
the  early  closure  and  the  decommissioning  process  is  well  engaged  (waste  management 
infrastructure, preparation for dismantling). However, as can be deducted from the figure of 
the  previous  paragraph,  the  important  safety  relevant  key  projects  in  the  decommissioning 
process  are  still  to  be  implemented.  The  remaining  key  challenges  (including  tentative 
timeframe) to be addressed by the three Member States and the relevance of EU support are 
summarised in the next table: 

Lithuania 

Remaining challenges: 

–  Defueling of spent nuclear fuel from Unit 2 and the reactor fuel ponds into the dry spent 

fuel storage (to be completed by end 2016); 

–  Safe maintenance of the reactor units until defueling is completed (until end 2016); 
–  Further  dismantling  works:  Unit  2  turbine  hall  (until  2017);  gas  and  ventilation  building 

(2014 – 2015); dismantling works in reactor building unit 1 and 2 (start in 2017); 

–  Engineering design for reactor core dismantling; 

Relevance of EU support: To provide financial support due to inadequate national resources 
(50m€ only) for seamless continuation of d ecommissioning focussed on key projects towards 
irreversibility of the closure; 

6 

Closure to become irreversible means that decommissioning has progressed so far on a technical level, 
that  it  would  economically  no  longer  be  advantageous  to  consider  the  re-opening  of  the  concerned 
reactor units. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Slovakia 

Remaining challenges: 

Preparation of decommissioning phase II from mid 2015 onwards (Preparation and execution 
of dismantling of the contaminated and activated equipment and systems) and completion of 
decommissioning phase I. 
–  Decontamination of spent fuel and other contaminated tanks (until end 2015) 
–  Dismantling of reactor core and reactor building (start in 2015) 

Relevance  of  EU  support:  provide  financial  support  to  progress  in  decommissioning  to  be 
focussed on key projects towards irreversibility of the closure; 

Remaining challenges: 

Bulgaria 

Dismantling activities in the reactor buildings. 
–  Dismantling of large components in the reactor buildings 1 to 4 (start 2016) 
–  Dismantling of equipment in reactor buildings 1 to 3 (start 2015) 

Relevance  of  EU  support:  provide  financial  support  due  to  inadequate  national  resources 
(180m€  only)  for  seamless  continuation  of  de commissioning  with  focus  on  key  projects 
towards irreversibility of the closure; 

In order to allow for safe decommissioning, adequate financial resources should be available 
when required7. The updated decommissioning planning and decommissioning cost estimates 
provided  by  the  Member  States  in  early  2011  provide  clear  evidence  that  substantial 
additional financial resources will be required to complete decommissioning of the Kozloduy, 
Ignalina and Bohunice nuclear power plants in a safe manner. 

For historical reasons, the three Member States do not have the required financial resources. 
The  nuclear  power  plants  were  built  under  different  political  and  economic  regimes,  not 
necessitating the accumulation of funding. Since 1995, 1999 and 2002 Slovakia, Bulgaria and 
Lithuania  have  respectively  put  in  place  their  national  funds  in  order  to  meet  their  national 
responsibilities for the financing of decommissioning. However, taking into account that the 
reactors were shut down before their initially foreseen end of design lifetime and that it takes 
about  25  years  (ex.  legal  obligation  for  accumulation  of  funds  in  Germany)  of  operation  to 
accumulate sufficient funds for decommissioning, it was not possible for the three countries to 
set  aside  sufficient  funds.  Today  the  available  resources  are  still  insufficient  to  ensure  a 
seamless continuation and completion of safe decommissioning. In addition, early closure or 
decommissioning does not give rise to any economic advantage, such that the market will not 
finance the decommissioning process. 

The immediate problem to be addressed is the funding shortfall to ensure continuation of safe 
decommissioning of the nuclear power plants in the three beneficiary countries, to ensure that 
the  closure  becomes  irreversible  and  that  the  beneficiary  takes  gradually  a  stronger  and 

7 

Commission  recommendation  on  the  management  of  financial  resources  for  the  decommissioning  of 
nuclear installations, spent fuel and radioactive waste. OJ L 330, 28.11.2006, p.31 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
substantially higher own responsibility for the decommissioning of these reactors during the 
period up to 2020. 

Findings  from  the  mid  term  evaluation  and  the  Court  of  Auditor's  performance  audit  have 
contributed  to  the  problem  definition  and  to  developing  an  appropriate  policy  option  as 
discussed  under  section  6.  Results  from  the  discussions  in  the  European  Parliament  in  the 
context  of  the  consultation  presented  under  1.3.3  provided  additional  input  to  the  problem 
definition. The issues raised are summarised in the next table: 

Issues raised 

–  To establish a needs assessment on progress so far, activities still to be performed 
and overall financing plan including resources from different stakeholders (ECA) 

–  To establish 'consistent strategy' with goals and criteria against which ongoing and 

future assistance can be judged and evaluated (Mid-Term); 

–  Definition of objectives and meaningful performance indicators for monitoring and 

reporting of programme implementation (ECA); 

–  Ex-ante evaluation for further EU support under the next MFF (ECA) 

–  Identify an optimal vehicle for providing assistance in the future (Mid-Term); 

–  Number of management levels and diffused responsibilities (ECA) 

–  Absence of funding ceilings and polluter pay principle should be applied (EP) 

–  Full funding not guaranteed (ECA) 

–  High  share  of  funds  used  for  mitigating  measures  and  not  for  the  main  purpose 

(decommissioning) (EP) 

–  Economical consequences sufficiently mitigated (EP) 

–  Safety is of utmost importance (EP) 

–  Simplification of rules for implementation (EP) 

–  Assess funding through Structural Funds (ECA) 

2.3.  Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent? 

EU citizens and future generations as well as the environment are the main groups affected by 
the problem of funding shortfall and the associated risk of compromising nuclear safety. 

This  funding  shortfall  would  be  a  major  risk  for  the  safe  maintenance  of  the  shut  down 
reactors (no salaries for the staff to perform safe maintenance). It would also jeopardize the 
seamless  continuation  of  safe  decommissioning  because  of 
that  further 
decommissioning steps would be postponed to an undefined date, awaiting the availability of 
funds and transferring this liability and responsibility to future generations. It also increases 

the  risk 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
the risk of reopening of the unsafe nuclear power plants. At most of the reactor units no major 
irreversible  dismantling  steps  have  been  implemented.  Technically  it  is  still  possible  to 
consider  restarting  certain  reactor  units,  in  particular  if  it  is  considered  to  be  economical 
advantageous.  The  funding  shortfall  inevitable  would  also  affect  the  environment  such  as 
water quality (ground-, river- and or sea-), air quality or would result in uncontrolled release 
of contaminated materials. 

2.4. 

Evolution of the problem without further EU support 

Discontinuing or no further EU support would leave the three Member States facing the full 
cost of completing the decommissioning process. As previously mentioned the Member States 
have currently insufficient alternative funding sources in place for timely implementation of 
safe  maintenance  and  safe  completion  of  decommissioning.  Adequate  funding  not  being 
available when required would: 

–  result in the interruption or delay of the decommissioning process; 

–  change the strategy (immediate to deferred dismantling); 

–  increase significantly the cost due to the delay; 

–  jeopardise nuclear safety; 

–  be  a  risk  for  the  citizens  and  the  environment  due  to  the  uncompleted  decommissioning 

status; 

–  lead to the commensurate loss of plant specific expertise and knowledge because no funds 
would  be  available  to  cover  the  salaries  of  the  experienced  staff  at  the  three  NPP's 
performing the decommissioning works; 

–  shift the liability and responsibility for decommissioning to future generations. 

2.5. 

EU right to act and EU added-value 

The EU support is anchored in the Protocols No 4 for Lithuania, No 9 for Slovakia and No 30 
for  Bulgaria  to  the  respective  Accession  Treaties8,9,10.  In  addition,  protocol  No  4  on  the 
Ignalina nuclear power plant in Lithuania provides further that: 

–  "… the Union shall in solidarity with Lithuania, provide adequate additional Community 

assistance … beyond 2006." 

–  "For  the  period  of  the  next  Financial  Perspectives,  the  overall  average  appropriations 

under the extended Ignalina Programme shall be appropriate." 

It  provides  the  framework  for  EU  support  also  beyond  the  current  financial  perspective.  It 
should  however  not  to  be  considered  as  an  obligation  for  the  EU  to  cover  the  full  costs  for 
decommissioning until its completion. 

8 
9 
10 

OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p.33 and p.944 
OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p.33 and p.954 
OJ L 157, 21.6.2005, p.11 and p.38 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Providing further financial EU assistance to Slovakia and Bulgaria is justified in the context 
of  equal  treatment  with  Lithuania,  not  in  terms  of  absolute  amount  of  funds  but  related  to 
supporting  the  Member  States  in  addressing  the  current  funding  shortfall  for  seamless 
continuation of safe decommissioning. 

The necessity for intervention (subsidiarity) is due to the fact that adequate funds required for 
continuing  safe  decommissioning  can  currently  be  not  be  made  available  through  the 
respective national funds as explained in the previous sections. Unlike other Member States in 
a  similar  situation  but  without  being  confronted  to  early  closure  of  their  plants,  it  was  not 
possible for them to accumulate sufficient funds from operation of the plants. 

It  is  therefore  in  the  interests  of  the  European  Union  to  ensure  that  the  concerned  reactors 
remain closed and that they are defueled and dismantled in order to reduce the risk of negative 
consequences  for  the  EU  citizen  and  for  the  environment.  The  EU  added  value  lies  in  the 
support of measures dedicated to achieving real physical progress in dismantling in order to 
reach a safe and irreversible state within the decommissioning process, which is of paramount 
importance for nuclear safety. 

Article 203 of the EURATOM Treaty states that "If action by the Community should prove 
necessary to attain one of the objectives of the Community and this Treaty has not provided 
the  necessary  powers,  the  Council  shall,  acting  unanimously  on  a  proposal  from  the 
Commission  and  after  consulting  the  European  Parliament,  take  the  appropriate  measures." 
The  need  for  insuring  nuclear  safety  throughout  the  decommissioning  process  calls  thus  for 
EU  action  under  Article  203,  thereby  allowing  the  prolongation  of  the  decommissioning 
assistance  programmes.  It  is  proposed  to  have  one  single  common  Euratom  Council 
Regulation to cover the financial EU support to all three beneficiary Member States. 

3. 

OBJECTIVES 

The  general  policy  objectives  as  well  as  the  specific  objectives  have  been  defined  in  the 
broader  methodology  to  establish  the  Logical  Framework  Matrix  (full  Matrix  in  section  7) 
according the Commission's Project Cycle Management procedure. 

3.1. 

General policy objectives 

The role of the European Union is to ensure that nuclear energy is developed (from cradle to 
grave)  while  meeting  the  highest  level  of  safety.  Consequently,  two  Council  Directives  on 
establishing a community framework for the safety of nuclear installations11 as well as for the 
responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste12 were adopted on June 
25, 2009 and on 19 July 2011 respectively. 

The general policy objective for providing additional EU funding for the period 2014 – 2020 
is  to  support  the  three  Member  States  in  their  efforts  to  continue  safe  decommissioning 
according the revised decommissioning plans. It provides substantial and durable support for 
the  health  of  workers  and  the  general  public,  preventing  environmental  degradation  and 
providing  for  real  progress  in  nuclear  safety  and  security  and  initiates  at  the  same  time  the 
transition towards full own Member States financial coverage. The ultimate responsibility for 

11 
12 

OJ L 172, 2.7.2009, p.18 
OJ L 199, 2.8.2011; p.48 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
nuclear  safety  however  remains  with  the  Member  State  concerned,  which  also  implies  the 
ultimate responsibility for its financing. 

In order to achieve this objective in the given context, additional assistance of €500 million 
has  been  estimated  for  the  period  2014  -  2020,  in  support  of  safe  decommissioning.  This 
further assistance is clearly to be understood as an expression of solidarity towards the three 
concerned Member States. 

3.2. 

Specific objectives 

The three specific objectives of the additional EU support programme are to 

(1) 

To  reach  an  irreversible  state  within  the  decommissioning  process.  The  main 
expected results/outputs for achieving this objective are: 

•    Nuclear  power  plants  are  safely  maintained  in  post  shut-down  mode  until 

complete defueling; 

•    Decommissioning license is in place; 

•    Design for the dismantling of the reactor core/primary circuit is completed: 

•    Dismantling in the reactor building has started. 

(2) 

To  safely  manage  the  radioactive  waste:  The  main  expected  results/outputs  for 
achieving this objective are: 

•    All nuclear reactor units are entirely defueled and nuclear spent fuel is safely 

stored: 

•    Decommissioning  waste  is  part  of  a  comprehensive  waste  management 
programme  and  safely  treated  and  stored  according  to  a  detailed  waste 
management plan. 

(3) 

To  maintain  the  key  expertise  and  knowledge:  This  is  of  benefit  for  safe 
decommissioning but equally important for addressing the social consequences of the 
early closure. The expected result for achieving this objective is the redeployment of 
plant personal for decommissioning activities. 

3.3. 

Consistency with other EU policies and objectives 

The general and specific objectives for providing additional EU funding for the period 2014 – 
2020  are  consistent  with  the  Community  assistance  programme  provided  under  the  current 
financial perspectives as well as the Lisbon Treaty (solidarity principle). 

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS  

The three identified policy options are:  

Option 1: 

Baseline option: No further financial EU assistance; 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
Option 2: 
consequential measures in the energy sector; 

Business  as  usual:  EU  financial  contribution  to  decommissioning  and 

Option 3: 

EU partial financing of decommissioning only 

Under  Option  1  the  implementation  of  the  provisions  of  the  accession  treaty  would  end  in 
2013.  No  further  financial  EU  assistance  would  be  provided  and  consequently  all  three 
Member  States  would  have  to  guarantee  safe  completion  of  their  decommissioning 
programme with own national resources. 

Option 2 would entail a prolongation of the current funding programmes, similar in level of 
funding (current support: €258 million per year ) and in scope (decommissioning and energy 
measures to further mitigate the economical consequences of the early closure). 

Option  3  is  a  clear  political  message  that  the  three  Member  States  should  show  a  higher 
degree of financial responsibility and ownership and therefore additional funding is proposed 
to be reduced in amount (about €71 million per year in average) and limited in time (no EU 
support any more beyond 2020). Under this option, no further EU assistance would be made 
available for measures in the energy sector for mitigating the economical consequences of the 
early closure. The EU support would only be focussed on key issues in order to progress on 
safe  decommissioning.  The  EU  support  would  need  to  be  complemented  by  substantial 
additional national financial resources to meet the remaining funding gap for the completion 
of decommissioning. 

The policy option of no EU intervention but completing decommissioning only with private 
funding  was  not  considered.  Early  closure  or  decommissioning  are  not  giving  rise  to  any 
economical  gain,  which  means  that  also  the  market  will  not  finance  the  decommissioning 
process. 

Complementary  to  the  policy  options  it  is  important  to  assess  the  possible  delivery 
mechanisms  in  order  to  identify  the  most  appropriate  mechanism  for  achieving  the  general 
and specific objectives in the most effective and efficient way. This has been recommended in 
the context of the mid-term evaluation. Option 1 (no further financial EU assistance) does not 
require any delivery mechanism. 

There are four possible delivery mechanisms that can be considered for options 2 and 3. They 
are: 

Mechanism  A:  Funding  under  joint  management  with  the  EBRD  through  the  existing 
international multi-donor funds (current mechanism for all three Member States): This is the 
current  system.  It  worked  well  in  the  period  before  Accession,  but  has  since  then  started  to 
show its limits. It is to be noted that the other donors have not provided any further support 
since years, making the EU the largest and since 2004 the only remaining donor (more than 
95 % of current funds totals). 

Mechanism B: Funding under joint management with the EBRD however through dedicated 
EC  funds:  This  system  would  benefit  from  the  EBRD's  competence  as  financial  institution 
under joint management, without the drawbacks of the multi-donor fund system. 

Mechanism C: Funding under centralised indirect management through the existing national 
agency  CPMA  (current  additional  mechanism  only  for  Lithuania)  nominated  by  the 
Commission:  With  the  completion  of  the  main  infrastructure  investment  projects,  and  the 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
advancement  in  the  decommissioning  process  with  skilled  own  staff  at  the  nuclear  power 
plant,  a  tendency  to  move  towards  complete  execution  of  the  EU  budget  by  CPMA  is  the 
ongoing trend. 

Mechanism  D:  Funding  integrated  into  the  EU  structural  funds  mechanism:  This  delivery 
mechanism  would  be  entirely  new  and  would  put  the  decommissioning  support  programme 
under the General Regulation governing the Structural Funds. 

The implementation of any further EU support directly by the European Commission without 
any  intermediate  implementing  body  (EBRD  or  CPMA)  is  not  considered  as  delivery 
mechanism.  The  Commission  does  not  have  the  required  human  resources  to  act  as 
contracting  authority,  to  ensure  the  implementation  of  investments  and  the  management  of 
decommissioning  project  preparation,  selection,  appraisal,  procurement,  contracting  and 
control. 

5. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

5.1. 

Economic, social and environmental impacts 

Effects  appear  mainly  linked  to  the  fields  below,  and  are  positively  respectively  negatively 
linked  to  either  funding  of  a  safe  decommissioning,  or  the  lack  of  sufficiently  and  timely 
available funding. They are mainly cross-border. 

5.1.1.  Economic impacts 

•  Electricity prices for consumers. Although it can be argued that up to now, the cost of 
electricity  charged  did  not  include  all  back-end  costs  (except  Slovakia),  there  are  high 
increases in electricity prices for end consumers due to the early closures. Options 2 and 
3  would  ease  the  effect,  by  offsetting  partly  the  decommissioning  costs  and  spreading 
the price rise due to increased levies on electricity over time. 

•  Electricity trade: the early closure has led to diminished generation capacity in the three 
Member  States,  and  hence  diminished  electricity  trade  (Bulgaria),  or  switches  from 
being  electricity  exporter  to  importer  (Lithuania  and  Slovakia).  It  is  to  be  noted  that 
Lithuania and the Baltic States in general are not connected to the European electricity 
grid,  making  them  vulnerable  to  major  electricity  imports  from  one  single  source, 
Russia.  Lithuania  had  to  close  down  its  two  nuclear  reactor  units,  representing  around 
70% of the energy generation. It is still heavily dependent on one supplier (Russia 80%) 
for all energy sources (oil – gas – electricity). Only option 2 would make a difference, as 
energy sector measures would then be financed. 

•  Competitiveness:  

The Accession Treaties already recognise the extraordinary burden that is placed on the 
economies  of  the  three  concerned  Member  States  following  the  early  closure.  The 
amounts  needed  for  the  decommissioning  process,  especially  given  the  imposed  early 
closure,  might  handicap  the  competitiveness  of  the  three  Member  States  during  an 
extended  period  of  time.  Therefore,  EU  funding  is  already  foreseen  since  the  Pre-
Accession  status  in  order  to  restore  the  competitive  balance  with  Member  States  who 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
have  had  more  time  to  accumulate  decommissioning  funds  during  the  operational 
lifetime of their nuclear power plants. 

Option 1 would therefore worsen the competitive status of the three concerned Member 
States.  Options  2  and  3  restoring  the  competitive  fair  grounds  as  far  as  the  amounts 
needed  for  decommissioning  are  concerned.  However,  given  the  time  lapse  since  the 
closure and the mitigation measures already put in place until now, care must be taken 
in  order  not  to  go  too  far,  especially  relating  to  replacement  capacity  or  equivalent 
savings. Such an action could possibly create distortion with other Member States who 
have to replace outdated power generation themselves. 

Additionally, under option 1 and 2 in the case of Lithuania, experience in the "first of a 
kind" decommissioning of a graphite reactor would be build up – with all international 
expertise  involved  in  the  research  and  steering  of  the  programme.  This  would 
strengthen  Lithuanians  competitiveness  in  the  field  of  decommissioning  of  graphite 
reactors. 

•  Impact on the GDP:  

The  seamless  implementation  of  the  current  decommissioning  plans  (option  2  and  3) 
will  stimulate  growth  by  accelerating  the  pace  of  decommissioning  activities  to  be 
performed. Delaying decommissioning because of inadequate funding (option 1) would 
have a negative impact on the GDP, as investments would be shifted towards the future. 

•  Public authorities: 

Option 1 will have a major budgetary impact for the beneficiary Member States. They 
would  need  to  cover  the  full  remaining  funding  for  decommissioning  from  their 
national budget. This cannot be considered credible. At present effectively €50 million 
is available in the national fund in Lithuania; €230 million is available in the national 
fund in Slovakia for reactors 1 and 2; and €180  million is available in the national fund 
in  Bulgaria  for  reactors  1  to  4.  Option  2  and  3  will  limit  the  impact  on  the  national 
budgets.  Nevertheless,  option  3  clearly  emphasises  the  need  for  the  three  Member 
States  to  ensure  a  higher  degree  of  financial  responsibility  and  ownership.  While 
providing  a  reduced  support  beyond  2013  this  allows  for  a  smooth  transition  to  full 
Member State funding of decommissioning until the end of the process. It provides an 
additional time reserve for Member States to set aside national resources to take over 
the financial liability for completion of decommissioning. 

•  Administrative burden:  

For the implementation of the policy options (2 and 3 only) the burden depends on the 
selected delivery mechanism identified in section 4. 

For mechanism A the decision systems are complicated, giving the EU only one vote 
amongst  the  donors,  and  are  leading  to  a  dilution  of  responsibilities.  In  case  of 
difficulties in the implementation of projects this mechanism has shown its limitations 
regarding  the  Commission’s  possibilities  to  intervene.  This  weakness  has  also  been 
identified in the context of the performance audit conducted by the European Court of 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
Auditors. Due to the fact that since 2004 there were no further 3rd party contributors to 
the multi-donor fund this mechanism seems no longer appropriate. 

Under mechanism B the decision making process would be streamlined, as well as the 
monitoring  flows  improved,  and  administrative  burden  decreased.  The  General 
Conditions  applicable  to  the  European  Community  contribution  agreements  with 
international  organisations  as  well  as  the  Commission's  procedural  decisions  would 
then  be  binding  and  would  fully  apply  (which  is  not  the  case  for  the  multi-donor 
funding  mechanism  under  A).  Mechanism  B  would  strengthen  the  Commissions 
management possibilities to intervene more efficiently in case of difficulties (delays and 
cost overruns) in the implementation of decommissioning project by the beneficiaries. 
At the same time it allows to reduce the number of management levels as recommended 
by the Court. 

Implementation  of  the  EU  support  via  a  dedicated  national  agency  under  delivery 
mechanism  C  has  benefits  for  the  future  kind  of  projects  of  proximity  for  instance 
during  tender  processes  and  day  to  day  follow  up  of  the  decommissioning  works  by 
local  companies.  Although  this  mechanism  is  operating  in  Lithuania,  a  similar 
alternative is not investigated for Slovakia and Bulgaria, as no suitable structures exist 
at present to fulfil this role. Given the time needed to set up, verify and accreditate such 
new structures, a significant risk for delays would occur. 

The  inclusion  of  the  decommissioning  funds  into  the  structural  funds  (mechanism  D) 
would appear to be contrary to the overall philosophy of the structural funds, which are 
geared  to  growth  objectives,  notably  in  line  with  the  priorities  of  the  EUROPE  2020 
strategy.  Structural  Funds  operate  on  the  basis  of  shared  management.  In  accordance 
with this principle, it is up to Member States to design, select, implement and manage 
projects, in line with the priority axes laid down in operational programmes that are the 
subject  of  a  Commission  decision.  The  primary  responsibility  for  monitoring  and 
control  of  the  project  lies  with  Member  States.  The  Commission  participates  in 
programme monitoring committees on an advisory basis and performs selective audits 
on the basis of a risk analysis. The system of regular technical inspections performed by 
the Commission as part of the monitoring mechanism for nuclear decommissioning is 
not  readily  compatible  with  the  shared  management  model.  International  cooperation 
would also be less straightforward under shared management. Specificities in the field 
of nuclear decommissioning such as active involvement of specialised nuclear services 
and  inspections  to  assure  nuclear  safety  throughout  the  decommissioning  process  are 
not readily compatible with the shared management mode of the Structural Funds. The 
Structural  Funds  operate  on  a  co-financing  basis,  i.e.  national  public  or  private  co-
financing is required, with the EU contribution being determined by the various limits 
set out in the General Regulation governing the Structural Funds. The actual level of the 
EU  contribution  to  a  given  priority  axis  is  additionally  modulated  on  the  basis  of  a 
number of criteria, including the full application of the "polluter pays" principle. 

•  Impacts on third countries: 

Option  1  would  lead  to  an  immediate  funding  shortfall.  This  could  have  a  potential 
major  impact  in  and  outside  the  EU  as  highlighted  in  the  problem  definition  under 
section 2. Options 2 and 3 address the funding shortfall and will have a positive impact 
on citizens and environment in and outside the EU. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
5.1.2. 

Social impacts 

•  Employment:  Currently  a  significant  number  of  skilled  people  are  employed  at  the 
concerned power plants (4200 in BG (715 in decommissioning of units 1-4), 2000 in LT 
and  1000  in  SK(240  in  V1)).  These  skilled  labour  forces  are  needed  for  the  safe 
maintenance  of  the  closed  down  reactors,  for  the  radiological  characterisation  and  for 
some pre-decommissioning activities requiring their existing historical knowledge of the 
plant's  operational  life  time.  If  no  funding  would  be  available  (options  1),  this  would 
pose a serious threat to the payment of their salaries13. It would also affect whole towns, 
where the NPP is generally the main employer. Therefore many more people than only 
the direct staff would be affected in their future. In case of continued EU financing for 
decommissioning  (options  2  and  3),  the  key  staff  with  their  expertise  would  be 
maintained  as  well  as  the  historical  memory,  with  the  highest  value  for  the 
decommissioning project. Their historical knowledge would be used optimally, and the 
risk of additional cost overruns due to "unforeseen discoveries" would be significantly 
lower. Additional skilled labour would be needed in the operation of the waste facilities. 

•  Security (accidents / terrorism / security of energy supply): without funding (options 1), 
less  strict  control  and  less  maintenance  are  likely,  leading  to  a  higher  risk  of  misuse. 
With the acceleration of the decommissioning process (options 2 and especially 3), this 
risk diminishes. 

•  Health:  radiological  risks  for  workers  as  well  as  for  the  general  public  are  possible  in 
case  of  accidents  or  lower  safe  maintenance.  Safe  treatment,  storage  and  disposal  of 
spent fuel and radioactive waste should be according to the highest safety standards but 
they  require  appropriate  funding  (options  2  and  3).  The  relevance  of  safety  has  been 
underlined by the European Parliament. 

5.1.3.  Environmental impacts 

•  Environment: in case of delaying the decommissioning, the waste management, in case 
of  insufficient  safe  maintenance  or  accidents,  or  even  simply  as  a  result  of  ageing 
monitoring equipment, impacts would include areas as drinking water, rivers and lakes, 
the food chain, flora and fauna, radiological effects on land, water and air. It is important 
to  ensure  transparent  monitoring,  especially  for  possible  EU  wide  effects.  The  risk  for 
accidents,  contamination,  leaks  etc  increases  with  the  lack  of  funding  for  safe 
maintenance  and  decommissioning  (option  1  entail  a  significant  risk,  which  is  much 
lower under options 2 and 3). 

5.2. 

Sensitivity analysis 

The  decommissioning  process  is  a  complex  process  which  extends  over  a  significant  time. 
There  are  several  uncertainties.  Some  are  of  a  technical  nature  (e.g.  the  first-in-a-kind 
decommissioning  of  a  graphite  reactor,  differences  between  building  plans  and  actual  built 
dating back to the soviet era). Others are the availability of sufficient national funding, price 
evolutions,  changing  safety  regulations  or  additional  safety  requirements  imposed  at  the 
licensing stage. 

13 

To be noted that not for all staff, salaries should be paid under decommissioning. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
RISK MATRIX 

High impact 

Medium impact 

Low impact 

High probability 

Non-availability  of  national 
funding 

Price evolutions 

Medium probability  Technical  changes  due  to 
first-of-a-kind" 
"the 
decommissioning 
a 
of 
graphite  reactor;  changing 
safety regulations; additional 
safety  requirements  imposed 
at lincensing 

Differences  between 
building  plans  and 
actual  built  dating 
back to the soviet era 

Low probability 

The above risk matrix concerns the overall decommissioning process independent from where 
the financing is provided. However, the risk for the EU budget should be limited by setting 
clear priorities in the tasks to be performed (highest EU added value), give the overall ceiling 
for the EU funding solidarity (cost overruns are born by the beneficiary Member States), as 
well  as  creating  the  optimal  funding  contributions  on  for  instance  an  "earned  value" 
management control concept. 

To complete the above considerations the Logical Framework Matrix in section 7 identifies 
additional external factors that have the potential to influence (or even determine) the success 
of the EU support programme, but lie outside the direct control of the European Commission. 

6. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS  

The  overriding  principle  and  main  weighing  factor  is  the  contribution  to  improving  nuclear 
safety and security while progressing with nuclear decommissioning. All impacts have been 
treated  in  a  qualitative  way,  within  the  need  to  contribute  to  the  general  and  specific 
objectives.  Option  1  does  not  address  any  of  the  objectives.  It  excludes  the  EU  from  any 
influence  on  safe  decommissioning  reaching  an 
the  process. 
Consequently this option must therefore to be excluded. Business as usual option 2 and option 
3 contribute to the overriding principle of nuclear safety. Option 2 is however far more costly 
without justified EU added value (high time lapse since closure and significant measures put 
in place to deal with the early closure consequences). 

irreversible  stage 

in 

Option 1: 

Baseline option: No further financial EU assistance 

In  the  case  funding  has  to  come  entirely  from  the  already  stretched  national  budget,  the 
"immediate  decommissioning"  strategy  will  not  be  pursued,  especially  given  the  current 
economical  context,  the  energy  needs  and  the  original  reluctance  to  close  down  early  the 
"profitable" nuclear reactors. Talks about re-opening have already been held. The potentially 
re-opening of these nuclear reactors poses a serious threat to the citizens and the environment. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Strengths: 

Opportunities: 

–  national responsibilities taken 
–  polluter pays principle would be fully 

–  less costs on the EU budget 
–  no programme administration (delivery 

endorsed 

Weaknesses: 

–  insufficient funding available in the national 

fund 

–  economical context of weak national budgets 
–  no "direct" international view on the 

decommissioning process 

mechanisms) required 

Threats: 

–  compromise nuclear safety 
–  postponement of decommissioning and related 

higher inflated costs 
–  restart of the reactors 
–  prolonged duration of and additional costs for 

safe maintenance 

–  unemployment of staff and loss of necessary 

skills for nuclear decommissioning 

–  radiological exposure 
–  environmental degradation 

Option 2: 
consequential measures in the energy sector 

Business  as  usual:  EU  financial  contribution  to  decommissioning  and 

Further  financial  support  beyond  2013  at  the  current  support  level  will  allow  to  swiftly 
progress  with  the  actual  dismantling  operations  and  waste  treatment.  Further  energy 
efficiency  measures  and  installation  of  new  electricity  generation  capacity  can  continue,  as 
well as the restructuring of the electricity networks. 

However so far most of the energy sector objectives, consequential to the closure, have been 
met.  It  has  allowed  for  the  concerned  Member  States  to  have  sufficient  additional  EU 
financed  capacity  at  peak  load  conditions,  allowing  for  coping  with  the  normal  network 
operations. Moreover it seems that, given the period since the early closures as well as the risk 
of distortion of competition in the field of energy efficiency measures, network upgrading and 
building  of  new  electricity  generation  capacity,  this  funding  window  should  not  be  further 
considered. The business as usual option has to be excluded also for the following reasons; 

– 

– 

further  EU  support  to  projects  in  the  energy  sector  would  lead  to  distortion  of 
competition and 

a  continuing  high  level  of  financial  support  to  decommissioning  would  not  be  a 
sufficient  incentive  for  the  concerned  Member  States  to  gradually  take  over  full 
financial responsibility and ownership of the decommissioning project. 

The position to terminate funding for energy projects was clearly supported by the European 
Parliament. 

Strengths: 

Opportunities: 

–  supports continuation of immediate 

decommissioning 

–  make it impossible to restart the reactors 
–  use of available expertise and historical 

memory 

–  more economic approach 
–  reduce unemployment by using own skilled 

–  contribution to increased nuclear safety 
–  actual progress with de-fuelling and 

dismantling works 

–  better check on the optimal advancement of 

the decommissioning 

–  further support of measures in the energy 

sector 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
staff when immediate dismantling 

–  international expertise coming in through the 

EU funding approval process 

Weaknesses: 

Threats: 

–  EU rather than national funding 
–  further EU support at a high funding level 
–  polluter pays principle less applied 

–  continuous request for full funding 
–  sub-optimal allocation of resources (energy 

sector) 

–  double funding in the energy sector 
–  distortion of competition and preferential 

treatment (EU financing of 20-20-20 targets) 

Option 3: 

EU partial financing of decommissioning only 

Option 3 reflects a clear political will of the Commission to gradually phase out the financial 
EU  assistance  for  decommissioning  in  the  three  Member  States.  Limited  support  only  to 
decommissioning  also  excludes  the  threats  identified  for  option  2.  Meeting  the  programme 
objectives with option 3 requires however a full commitment of the Member States to provide 
the  required  additional  financial  resources  to  met  the  costs  to  completion  of  safe 
decommissioning. 

Under  option  3  €500 14  million  would  become  fully  available  for  decommissioning.  This 
the 
would  support  the  continuation  of  safe  decommissioning  beyond  2013,  bring 
decommissioning  process  to  an  irreversible  stage  and  at  the  same  time  stimulate  a  stronger 
own financial effort by the beneficiary Member State itself. 

The main funding data related to the decommissioning of the nuclear power plants in the three 
Member States is summarised in the table below. The data is based on the updated estimations 
of total costs for decommissioning and of remaining funding needs beyond 2013 to complete 
the decommissioning as provided by the Member States. 

[€ million] 

Lithuania 

Slovakia  Bulgaria 

Total 

Decommissioning  cost  estimation  (including 
waste management, MS data) 

2 800 

1 146 

1 858 

5 804 

EU support for decommissioning (by end 2013) 

1 107 

429 

510 

2 046 

Other  financial  support  (national  resources  and 
other donors) 

343 

291 

495 

1 129 

Additional needs (beyond 2013, MS data) 

1 350 

426 

853 

2 629 

Proposed additional EU support 

At 2011 prices 

210 

105 

185 

500 

14 

Financial amounts are given in 2011 prices. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Remaining funding gap 

1 140 

321 

668 

2 129 

The  total  amount  required  for  decommissioning  of  the  eight  nuclear  power  plant  units  is 
estimated at €5 804 million. By the end of 2013  €3 175 million will have been put in place. 
Out  of  this  amount,  €2 046  million  (64%)  will  be  covered  by  the  financial  EU  support. 
Member  States  and  other  donors  will  have  contributed  by  2013  with  additional  €1 129 
million. 

The  additional  funds  required  beyond  2013  is  estimated  at  €2 629  million.  The  proposed 
extension of the EU financial support by €500 million represents approximately 20% of the 
remaining funds to be provided. The reduction in the amount of the financial EU support for 
the  next  financial  perspective  takes  due  account  of  the  evolution  since  the  three  Member 
States have joined the EU. 

At  the  time  of  accession  (2004  and  2007)  the  Member  States  were  in  a  difficult  economic 
situation. To allow for the early closure of the concerned nuclear power plants and to address 
the  urgent  needs  of  the  Member  States  to  address  the  economic  consequences  of  closure  as 
well  as  for  starting  preparation  of  decommissioning  it  was  justified  that  the  EU  covers  the 
major part of the funding needs. 

In  the  meantime,  Member  States  have  established  legal  provisions  that  should  address  the 
funding needs for decommissioning (ex. special levy on electricity prices). Member States are 
also  committed  to  bear  their  responsibility  for  the  completion  of  decommissioning. 
Nevertheless, it cannot reasonably be expected (due to  the reduced  time of  accumulation as 
explained above) that by 2013 the three Member States would be in a position to complete the 
decommissioning only by their own financial means. Therefore, the reduced amount of €500 
million  of  further  EU  support  is  considered  to  be  reasonable  to  support  the  seamless 
continuation of the decommissioning process and the transition to the full remaining financing 
by the Member States. 

The  €500  million  additional  EU  support  shall  be  dedicated  to  support  safety  relevant 
activities. It is expected from the Member States that they are ready to provide the required 
additional  financing  to  cover  the  remaining  funding  gap  (see  table  above)  and  to  safely 
complete decommissioning in order to ensure efficient and effective use of the additional EU 
support of €500 million. Slovakia and Bulgaria alr eady expressed their readiness to meet this 
expectation. 

Lithuania  will  have  to  make  significant  larger  efforts  to  accumulate  the  needed  funds.  Not 
only that Lithuania started much later with making financial provisions for decommissioning 
but also the electricity prices in the past were extremely low and even after having increased 
the prices since two years, they are currently still low (0.0955€/ kWh) as compared to Slovakia 
for example (0.1277€/kWh ). In addition prioritie s in the energy sector are more focused on 
security  of  supply  and  interconnections.  Under  the  Commission  proposals  for  the  next 
financial  framework  Lithuania  will,  at  the  same  time,  remain  a  major  beneficiary  of  the 
Structural  and  Cohesion  Funds,  which  will  allow  for  continued  support  for  catering  for  the 
economic and social consequences of decommissioning. In addition, the Connecting Europe 
Facility proposed by the Commission will create major opportunities for Lithuania to upgrade 
and  modernise  its  energy,  transport  and  telecommunications  infrastructure.  This  could  free 
some  national  resources  that  could  be  re-directed  for  providing  the  balancing  funding  of 
decommissioning. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
With the additional €500 million the EU support dedicated to decommissioning as percentage 
of  total  estimated  costs  for  decommissioning  reaches  around  44%  (€2 546  million  out  of 
€5 804 million). 

Taking  into  account  the  overall  total  EU  funds  committed  to  the  three  Member  States  until 
2013 (€2 848 million) plus the additional €500  million up to 2020, the total EU support as a 
percentage of total estimated costs for decommissioning approaches 58%. 

It has to be noted that the EU will have allocated by the end of 2013 around €802 million for 
mitigating measures in the energy sector, consequential to the early closure out of the total EU 
support of €2 848 million. 

Beyond 2020 the Commission does not foresee any further extension of financial EU support. 

Strengths: 

Opportunities: 

–  reduced EU support (in amount and time) 
–  provides time to establish more national 

–  contribution to increased nuclear safety 
–  transition to full financial responsibility and 

financial means 

–  supports continuation of immediate 

decommissioning 

–  make it impossible to restart the reactors 
–  use of available expertise and historical 

memory 

–  more economic approach 
–  reduce unemployment by using own skilled 

staff when immediate dismantling 

–  international expertise coming in through the 

EU funding approval process 

ownership of the Member State 
–  actual progress with de-fuelling and 

dismantling works 

–  better check on the optimal advancement of 

the decommissioning 

Weaknesses: 

Threats: 

–  still some EU support 
–  polluter pays principle not fully applied 

–  Member  States  unable 

to  provide 

balancing 
funding 
completion of decommissioning 

to  met 

the  cost 

the 
to 

–  continuous  request  for  full  funding  if  no 
concrete  milestones  and  boundary  conditions 
for the EU funding would be set 

In  summary,  the  impacts  would  be  a  contribution  to  the  improvement  of  nuclear  safety 
(options 2 and 3) with an accelerated defueling and decommissioning under international co-
operation; versus a highly increased safety risk (under option 1), with EU wide effects in case 
of a possible accident, and possibly re-opening of potentially unsafe reactors. 

Option 3 would indeed have a high added value as it would allow to advance significantly the 
decommissioning process in a safe way, to improve significantly nuclear safety and to provide 
at  the  same  time  a  transition  period  for  the  Member  States  to  gradually  take  over  full 
ownership and financial responsibility. 

Delivery mechanisms 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
The  administrative  burden  should  be  less  than  at  present  for  all  the  three  considered  policy 
options. Options 1 would not require any delivery mechanism, however the EU would then 
lack information on the continuation of safe maintenance and decommissioning. 

In option 2 and 3, there will be only a single legal base, and only one set of rules that apply to 
all  three  decommissioning  funds.  It  is  proposed  to  have  a  national  channel  for  Lithuania 
(mechanism C), as the CPMA is in place and have successfully managed several EU funding 
programmes  over  the  past  years.  CPMA  is  located  in  Lithuania  and  has  therefore  less 
overhead  and  administrative  costs  in  the  monitoring  process.  For  Bulgaria  and  Slovakia, 
where  such  a  national  implementing  body  does  not  exist,  it  is  proposed  to  continue  to  use 
exclusively  the  EBRD.  However  given  the  absence  of  continued  funding  from  other 
international donors, and in order to streamline and to simplify, it is proposed to go through a 
dedicated  decommissioning  fund  (mechanism  B).  This  would  increase  the  decision  making 
power  and  the  influence  of  the  Commission  over  the  EU  funding  to  attain  objectives,  and 
increase  responsibility  by  suppressing  a  layer  of  decision  making  and  approval  procedures 
(the  Assembly  of  Contributors  –  fund  rules  –  specific  rules  for  tendering  etc.).  Both 
mechanisms  B  and  C  will  strengthen  the  Commissions  management  role,  in  particular  also 
when dealing with difficulties in project implementation. The combination of options B and C 
represent  a  natural  evolution  of  the  current  Commission  Decision  on  Procedures  and  will 
improve the overall management of the programme regarding efficiency and effectiveness as 
recommended by the European Court of Auditors. 

The preferred option 

Option 2 (business as usual) has high costs and only reduced added EU value. Option 1 (no 
further  EU  support)  jeopardizes  nuclear  safety  with  potential  high  negative  impact  on  EU 
citizens and the environment. 

The  main  concern  is  that  the  financing  for  the  continuous  safe-maintenance  and 
decommissioning  needs  to  be  available  in  a  timely  manner.  This  is  the  crucial  element  for 
improving nuclear safety and the protection of all EU citizens. Whether the financing comes 
from  EU  or  other  funding  sources,  it  is  important  to  realise  that  all  further  impacts  of  safe 
maintenance  and  decommissioning  itself  are  equal  (impact  on  nuclear  safety,  radiological 
risks, other environmental risks, employment etc). In case no funding would be available, safe 
maintenance  would  be  compromised.  Loss  of  unique  expertise  would  render  the  whole 
decommissioning process, more difficult and costly. It is equally important to have sufficient 
resources available to allow the continuation of the decommissioning process.  

EU partial financing for decommissioning only (option 3) is considered the most appropriate 
solution following a clear expressed political will. This option maximises the EU added value 
and  supports  the  transition  towards  full  Member  State  funding  of  the  safe  completion  of 
decommissioning  beyond  the  next  multiannual  financial  framework.  Option  3  provides  for 
real improvement in nuclear safety and will help to achieve timely real physical progress in 
defueling and decommissioning and ensure that the closure is irreversible. 

Option 3 combined with the implementation mechanisms B (for Bulgaria and Slovakia) and C 
(for Lithuania) will provide for a continued strengthening of the Commission’s management 
for the effective, efficient and economical use of EU funds. The identified weaknesses under 
the  current  implementation  mechanism  (A)  would  be  overcome  and  it  would  reinforce  the 
Commissions  management  possibilities  to  intervene  more  efficiently  in  case  of  difficulties 
(delays  and  cost  overruns)  in  the  implementation  of  decommissioning  project  by  the 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
beneficiaries.  The  specific  objectives  being  aligned  with  the  proposed  budget  and  based  on 
revised/updated  decommissioning  plans  (needs  expressed  by  the  Member  States)  together 
with the meaningful performance indicators are the basis for achieving the expected benefits 
from the further financial EU support after 2013. This approach is in full accordance with the 
recommendations from the European Court of Auditors. 

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION  

7.1. 

Core indicators of progress towards meeting the objectives 

In order to be able to verify the success of the programme (meeting the general and specific 
objectives)  SMART  Objectively  Verifiable  Indicators  have  been  identified.  Those 
indicators can also serve to target the funding towards tasks with the highest EU added value. 
At the same time, they allow to give a clear signal and incentive to the beneficiary Member 
States  for  them  to  advance  efficiently  and  effectively  on  the  vital  parts  of  the 
decommissioning process. 

The  Logical  Framework  Matrix  (presented  below)  provides  an  overview  of  the  main 
programme parameters in terms of objectives, outputs (results), activities, pertinent indicators, 
source of verifications and basic assumptions. 

At the current stage those indicators are generic to all three individual Programmes (Ignalina, 
Bohunice  and  Kozloduy  Programme).  For  the  implementation  it  is  foreseen  to  adopt  one 
annual  work  programme  for  all  three  individual  Programmes  specifying  the  objectives, 
expected  results,  related  indicators  and  timeline  for  the  use  of  funds  under  each  annual 
financial commitment. 

On  a  procedural  level  it  is  foreseen  to  adopt  not  later  than  31  December  2014  detailed 
implementation  procedures  for  the  duration  of  the  Programme.  This  decision  shall  also 
contain expected results, activities with the corresponding performance indicators, as well as 
the decommissioning plans for all three individual Programmes that will serve as baseline for 
the monitoring of the progress and the timely achievement of the expected results. 

A  major  precondition  to  ensure  efficient  use  of  the  further  EU  support  in  meeting  the 
objectives is the need for the three Member States to put in place by January 2014, a national 
legal  framework  to  provide  adequate  provisions  for  the  timely  accumulation  of  national 
financial resources for the safe completion of decommissioning.  

7.2. 

Broad outline for possible monitoring and evaluation arrangements 

The  monitoring  is  based  on  the  review  of  the  identified  indicators,  measuring  progress 
towards meeting the objectives. 

A revised Commission Decision on Procedures (similar to the current programme) will define 
all  related  procedural  issues  related  to  the  implementation  of  the  extended  EU  financial 
support, amongst others also the monitoring and reporting requirements. The EU monitoring, 
reporting and evaluation arrangements will contain at least: 

–  Twice  per  year  a  monitoring  committee  meeting  with  EU  on  the  spot  to  verify  the 

advancement of the decommissioning works. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
–  Regular  status  and  progress  reporting  from  the  beneficiary  NPP  as  well  as  the 

implementing bodies (EBRD and CPMA). 

–  Yearly  combined  programming  documents,  annexed  to  the  Commission  Decision  on 

financing reporting progress towards decommissioning. 

–  Status  reports  to  the  European  Parliament  and  Council  on  the  implementation  of  the 

financial EU assistance 

Additionally,  a  monitoring  system  should  be  put  in  place  by  the  beneficiaries,  allowing  for 
active  day-to-day  monitoring  of  the  projects  and  tasks,  and  allowing  for  immediate 
operational feedback into the planning with corrective measures. 

Regarding  arrangements  for  evaluations  it  is  foreseen  that  no  later  than  end  2016,  an 
evaluation report shall be established by the Commission on the achievement of the objectives 
of all the measures (at the level of results and impacts), the efficiency of the use of resources 
and  its  European  added  value,  in  view  of  a  decision  on  modification  or  suspension  of  the 
measures.  The  evaluation  shall  additionally  address  the  scope  for  simplification,  its  internal 
and external coherence, the continued relevance of all objectives, as well as the contribution 
of the measures to the Union priorities of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. It shall take 
into account evaluation results on the long-term impact of the predecessor measures. 

It is planned to perform ex-post evaluation in close cooperation with the Member States and 
beneficiaries.  The  ex-post  evaluation  shall  examine  the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  the 
Programme and its impact on decommissioning. 

Evaluations  will  take  account  of  progress  against  identified  performance  indicators  in  the 
Regulation and the Work Programmes. 

LOGICAL FRAMEWORK MATRIX 

Intervention logic 

Indicators 

Overall 

Objective 

Support the Member 
States efforts in safe 
decommissioning. 

Progress according 
decommissioning plan 
(tasks, costs, resources, 
timing); 

Purpose 

To reach an 
irreversible state 
within the 
decommissioning 
process; 

Dismantling according 
decommissioning plan; 

To safely manage the 
spent fuel and 
radioactive waste; 

Waste management 
according detailed waste 
management plan 

Assumptions 

Stable political and 
regulatory 
framework; 

National funding 
forthcoming to meet 
the funding gap; 

Source of 
Verification 

Decommissioning 
plan; 

Regular 
monitoring 
meetings; 

Reporting by NPP 
and national 
authorities; 

Decommissioning 
and waste 
management plan; 

Stable political and 
regulatory 
framework; 

Regular reporting 
and monitoring 
meetings; 

changes 

No 
decommissioning 
strategy; 

in 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
To maintain the key 
expertise and 
knowledge; 

Use of staff from the nuclear 
power plants; 

Outputs 

NPPs safely 
maintained; 

(expected 
results) 

No environmental 
impact; 

Spent fuel safely 
stored; 

Nuclear waste safely 
stored; 

Decommissioning 
license in place; 

Design of 
core/primary circuit 
dismantling; 

Staff engaged on 
decommissioning; 

Safe maintenance; 

Defueling; 

Dismantling works; 

Radwaste treatment 
and conditioning; 

Licensing docs; 

Engineering design 
core/prim circuit 
dismantling; 

Staff training and 
reallocation; 

Activities 

Status and 
progress reports; 

Regular 
monitoring 
meetings; 

License issued by 
the regulator; 

Staff accountancy; 

Nb of incidents/accidents; 

Environmental monitoring 
data; 

Nb of fuel elements stored 
and Nb of waste packages 
stored according to the 
planning; 

License issued according to 
the time schedule; 

Design completed in time; 

Nb of staff employed; 

Earned value analysis; 

Planning of safe 
maintenance; 

Nb of fuel elements 
unloaded; 

Quantity of material/system 
dismantled; 

Quantity of rad waste treated 
and conditioned; 

Submission of licensing doc; 

Design feasibility and 
engineering studies; 

Nb of staff trained and 
reallocated; 

Status and 
progress reports; 

Regular 
monitoring 
meetings; 

Detailed 
decommissioning 
work plan; 

Operational 
feedback to NPP 
planning 
department; 

HR plan; 

Efficient NPP 
management structure 
for decommissioning 
established and fully 
operational; 

Efficient 
decommissioning 
planning in place; 

Operational feedback 
effectively used; 

No changes in 
decommissioning 
strategy; 

Proactive project 
monitoring function 
in place; 

Efficient NPP 
management structure 
for decommissioning 
established and fully 
operational; 

National funding 
forthcoming to meet 
the funding gap; 

Economic viability 
for using own NPP 
staff; 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
8. 

ANNEXE 1: OVERVIEW OF 3 COUNTRIES BASIC DATA 

Type  of  reactor  (and 
number) 

Capacity 
early 

shut 

down 

LITHUANIA 

SLOVAKIA 

BULGARIA 

RBMK (2) 

VVER 440/230 (2) 

VVER440/230 (4)  

2600 MWe nominal
average  load  factor 
before  closure  70%
Effective 
lost 
capacity  =  1820 
MWe 

 880  MWe  nominal
average 
load  factor 
before  closure  86,8%
Effective 
lost 
capacity = 764 MWe 

TOTAL  1760  MWe 
nominal 
Units 1to4 880MWe 

load  factor 
average 
before  closure  75%
Effective 
lost 
capacity  =  660  MWe 
(taken 
into  account 
also  upgrade  of  units 
5-6 with 300 MWe) 

Lost  years  due  to  early 
closure  compared  to  30 
years of operation 

17 

4 

15 

conditions 

Specific 
circumstances 
to 
taken into account 

/ 
be 

of 

•  Electricity  price 
already  high  at 
top of EU range 

•  70  % 
energy 
production 
shut 
early 

down 

•  Isolation  from 

EU grid 

to 

•  Contribution 
nuclear 
overall 
electricity 
production  45% 
before 
in 
shutdown 
2002  of  units 
1&2 and 17% in 
after 
2007 
of 
shutdown 
units 3&4 

•  10%  of  energy 
production  shut 
down early 

•  V1 

NPP 
covered  approx. 
of 
20% 
electricity 
consumption 

•  Slovakia 
net 
became 
importer 
of 
electricity  after 
closure 
(exporter 
before) 

of 
Total 
decommissioning  (waste 

cost 

2800 MEUR 

1 146 MEUR 

1858 MEUR 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
man. incl.); 

Updates  estimation  by 
Member States 

date 
Completion 
Decommissioning 

for 

2029 

2025 

2030 

International 
until 201415  

funding 

1451 MEUR 

636 MEUR 

890 MEUR 

which 

Of 
already 
received  EU  funding  up 
to 2014 

which 

Of 
already 
received  funding  from 
to 
other  donors  up 
201416 

1367MEUR 

613 MEUR 

850 MEUR 

84 MEUR 

23 MEUR 

40 MEUR 

Existing 
Funding  

National 

50 Mio € 

230 MEUR 

180 MEUR 

National 
provisions earmarked 

budget 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Funding GAP 

1350 MEUR 

426 MEUR 

853 MEUR 

Updated  estimation  by 
Member States 

Requested EU funding 

770+580= 1350 
MEUR17 

426 MEUR 

450 MEUR 

Proposed EU funding 

210 MEUR 

105 MEUR 

185 MEUR 

Required 
funding  

national 

1110 MEUR 

318.5 MEUR 

700.5 MEUR 

15 
16 
17 

Including also other international donors and interest 
Including international donors and accumulated interest 
€770 million for the period 2014-2020 and additional €530 million for the period 2021-2028 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Key  milestones  with 
specific  EU  added  value 
or interest 

•  Closure 

Reached 

•  Core defueling 

2009/2013 

•  Reactor 

building 

2016/2017 

defueling 

Reached 

Reached 

Reached 

Reached 

Reached 

U1&2 reached 

U3&4  to  be  reached 
end 2011 

•  Decommissioning 

licence 

Ongoing  –  building 
wise 
licensing 
approach 

Reached for phase 1  U1&2 end 2011 

U3&4 end 2012 

•  Primary 

circuit 

Started for unit 1 

December 2012 

2027 

decontamination 

•  Dismantling 
turbine hall 

•  Commission  of  a 
national  repository 
for 
and 
low 
intermediate 
radioactive waste 

•  Primary 
(incl. 
dismantling 

circuit 
RPV) 

2016/2017 

2018 

2015 

2015 

2020 

End 2015 

2022/2023 

August 2020 

Units 1&2 end 2024 

Units 3&4 end 2028 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
9. 

ANNEXE 2: FULL DECOMMISSIONING PLANS FOR LT, SK, BG 

9.1. 

Annexe 2.1:  Detailed decommissioning plan – Lithuania 

EN 

35 

EN 

 
  
 
9.2. 

Annexe 2.2:  Detailed decommissioning plan – Slovakia 

EN 

36 

EN 

 
  
 
9.3. 

Annexe 2.3  Detailed decommissioning plan – Bulgaria 

EN 

37 

EN 

 
  
 
EN 

38 

EN 

 
  
 
EN 

39 

EN 

 
  
 
10. 

ANNEXE 3: CONCLUSIONS OF PREVIOUS/ONGOING AUDITS 

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 following provides an extract of the recommendations: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

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. 

Ensure  that  any  assistance  provided  is  consistent  and  complementary  with  the 
national  activities  (implemented  via  national  decommissioning  funds  and/or  other 
national means). 

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. 

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. 

Preliminary recommendations of European Court of Auditors performance audit (2011) 

(a) 

The  Commission  should  put  in  place  the  conditions  for  an  effective,  efficient 
and economical use of EU funds. To this effect: 

• 

• 

It  should  establish  a  detailed  needs  assessment  showing  the  progress  of 
the programmes so far, the activities still to be performed and an overall 
financing  plan  identifying  the  funding  resources  from  the  different 
stakeholders. 

Before further spending takes place, the Commission should analyse the 
resources available and the expected benefits. This should lead in turn to 
objectives  being  aligned  with  the  budget  made  available  and  to  the 
establishment  of  meaningful  indicators,  which  can  subsequently  be 
monitored  and 
the  programme 
implementation as a whole. 

reported  on  as  necessary 

for 

(b) 

Should  the  EU  decide,  as  proposed  by  the  Commission,  to  provide  further 
financial assistance in the next multi-annual financial framework, this support 
should  be  based  on  an  ex-ante  evaluation  of  the  EU  added  value  of  such 
intervention,  identifying  the  specific  activities  to  be  financed  through  the  EU 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
budget, taking account of other funding facilities such as Structural Funds and 
the conditions for EU disbursements. 

EN 

41 

   EN