COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT "EU DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING DATA" Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the use of financial resources earmarked for the decommissioning of nuclear installations, spent fuel and radioactive waste
Date: 2013-03-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU financing, decommissioning of power stations, financial management, nuclear fuel, radioactive waste

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 8.3.2013  
SWD(2013) 59 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

"EU DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING DATA" 

Accompanying the document 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

on the use of financial resources earmarked for the decommissioning of nuclear 
installations, spent fuel and radioactive waste 

{COM(2013) 121 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

"EU DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING DATA" 

Accompanying the document 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

on the use of financial resources earmarked for the decommissioning of nuclear 
installations, spent fuel and radioactive waste 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 3 

EU MEMBER STATE OVERVIEW: ......................................................................... 5 

COMPARISON OF FUNDING PRACTICE WITH THE COMMISSION 
RECOMMENDATION ............................................................................................. 54 

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ..................................................................................... 64 

GOOD PRACTICE EXAMPLES.............................................................................. 65 

TABLES..................................................................................................................... 66 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1. 

BACKGROUND 

In October 2004, the Commission presented its first report to the European Parliament on the 
use of financial resources earmarked for the decommissioning of nuclear power plants1. The 
2004  report  was  generally  well  received  and  led  to  an  own-initiative  report2  from  the 
European  Parliament.  It  was  acknowledged  within  the  report  that  decommissioning  was  a 
complex issue and that more detailed information was required in order to progress the issues. 
With  this  in  mind  the  Commission  has  initiated  an  extensive  dialogue  with  experts  of  the 
Member States. 
Subsequently,  in  2006,  the  Commission  adopted  a  Recommendation3  on  decommissioning 
funds  following  consultation  with  Member  State  experts  taking  advantage  of  its  research  in 
the field.  

In  December  2007,  the  Commission  presented  its  second  report  to  the  European  Parliament 
and the Council, comparing EU nuclear operators' and Member States' funding practice with 
the  criteria  detailed  in  the  Commission  Recommendation.  Whereas  the  2004  report  was 
limited to power reactors, the second report covered all nuclear installations with an emphasis 
being  placed  on  those  which  were  at  greatest  risk  should  the  topic  of  decommissioning 
funding be inadequately addressed. 

Since  the  presentation  of  the  second  report  in  December  2007,  the  legal  environment  was 
decisively changed with the adoption of Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom of 19 July 2011, 
which established a Community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent 
fuel and radioactive waste4. This Directive, which requires to be transposed in Member States' 
national law by 23 August 2013, foresees in its Article 9 that "Member States shall ensure that 
the  national  framework  requires  that  adequate  financial resources  be  available when  needed 
for  the  implementation  of  national  programmes  referred  to  in  Article  11,  especially  for  the 
management of spent fuel and radioactive waste, taking due account of the responsibility of 
spent fuel and radioactive waste generators".  

This principle, which is shared with the Recommendation, is now binding law which must be 
transposed  by  all  Member  States.  In  order  to  comply  with  the  obligations  arising  from  the 
Directive,  national  programmes  are  expected  to  cover  all  waste  types  and  all  management 
stages from generation to disposal as well as a sufficiently detailed basis for estimating long-
term cost as input to build up adequate waste management funds. The obligation to cover all 
management  stages,  beginning  with  the  generation  of  waste,  means  that  the  national 
programmes will be required to cover a large portion of the decommissioning activities in the 
forefront related to spent fuel and waste management.  

It  is  the  view  of  the  Commission  that  the  national  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste 
programmes  should  provide  a  detailed  cost  estimate  of  all  waste  management  steps  up  to 
disposal  including  the  associated  activities,  such  as  research  and  development.  The  national 
waste  management  programme  has  also  to  provide  information  on  the  financing  of  the 
programme.  

1 

2 

3 
4 

Report on the use of financial resources earmarked for the decommissioning of nuclear power plants, 
COM(2004)719 final of 26.10.2004 
European Parliament resolution on the use of financial resources earmarked for the decommissioning of 
nuclear power plants (2005/2027(INI)), P6_TA-PROV(2005)0432 
OJ L 330 (28.11.2006) 
OJ L 199, 2.8.2011, p. 48 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Should  a  national  programme  consider  only  long-term  interim  storage,  but  no  disposal,  a 
utility  would  save  a  considerable  amount  of  money  which  it  could  then  use  for  other 
investment and to strengthen its market position in relation to a competitor in another Member 
State where funding of a disposal facility is foreseen as a mandatory element. Such a situation 
could be seen as a clear distortion of competition. Some estimations come to a potential cost 
advantage in the order of 3.5-4.0 percent of the assumed total generating cost5.  

Apart from Article 9, the Directive also contains binding rules regarding financing schemes 
and transparency, which also reflect basic principles of the Recommendation. 

Through  the  obligation  on  Member  States  to  keep  their  national  programmes  updated  and 
subject  to  peer  reviews,  the  Directive  increases  the  transparency  and  quality  of  the  funding 
mechanisms  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  management  and  decommissioning,  which 
will further help to avoid market distortions.  

The  Directive  not  yet  being  transposed,  the  present  report  does  not  yet  analyse  its 
consequences but is, as in the past, based on the continuous work carried out by the Member 
States  and  the  Commission  for  the  implementation  of  the  Recommendation,  in  particular 
within the Decommissioning Funding Group. It aims to present a comprehensive overview of 
the situation in the Member States. In particular, it looks at the advances in the alignment of 
the national decommissioning financing regimes with the Commission Recommendation. 

1.2.  METHODOLOGY 

In  2004  the  Commission  set  up  an  ad-hoc  expert  group  -  Decommissioning  Funding  Group 
(DFG) - in order to assist the EC in: 

•  Promoting  a  clear  understanding  of  the  decommissioning  policies  and  strategies  and  the 

attendant tasks and activities; 

•  Providing  an  up-to-date  knowledge  on  decommissioning  cost  estimates  and  the 

management of the provisions/funds; 

•  Exploring  possible  ways  ahead  in  terms  of  further  co-operation  and  harmonisation  at 

European level. 

The  DFG  is  the  only  body  in  the  EU  which  brings  together  Member  States  and  the 
Commission  for  common  reflection  and  discussion  of  decommissioning  funding  issues. 
Therefore neither ENSREG, the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group, nor ENEF, the 
European Nuclear Forum, have formed subgroups dealing exclusively with decommissioning 
funding issues. 

The national experts forming the Decommissioning Funding Group developed, together with 
the Commission, guidelines which explore in detail the different aspects of decommissioning 
financing,  reflected  in  the  Commission's  2006  Recommendation3  on  decommissioning 
funding. On the basis of these guidelines, the DFG elaborated, again in cooperation with the 
Commission, a questionnaire for Member States. 

The  questionnaires  were  sent  to  all  Member  States  in  September  2010,  and  the  majority  of 
Member  States  sent  their  completed  documents  during  the  first  months  of  2011.  A  first 
discussion of the findings took place during the 2011 DFG meeting on 16 March 2011. The 
collection  of  answers  continued  during  2011.  Some  Member  States  were  also  asked 
individually to complete certain data which were considered unclear or missing.  

5 

COMMISSION  STAFF  WORKING  DOCUMENT,  Accompanying  document  to  the  revised  proposal 
for  a  COUNCIL  DIRECTIVE  (Euratom)  on  the  Management  of  Spent  Fuel  and  Radioactive  Waste 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT COM(2010) 618, Chapter 2.3.3. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
During the DFG meeting of 12 March 2012, the first draft of the Commission Staff Working 
Document  was  discussed  in  detail.  A  majority  of  the  countries  who  assisted  in  the  meeting 
provided updates, corrections and additions to the draft document, in particular concerning the 
chapter describing their respective decommissioning funding system in place. 

2. 

EU MEMBER STATE OVERVIEW:  

This chapter summarises the decommissioning funding situation within the EU and is based 
preliminary  upon  the  information  contained  in  the  completed  questionnaires,  reflecting  the 
situation at the end of 2010. More recent information was provided by the Member States in 
the  wake  of  the  Decommissioning  Financing  Group  meeting  of  12  March  2012.  In  some 
cases, where necessary, information is supplemented with that taken from the second report to 
the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council.  In  addition  to  the  information  on  the  financing, 
there is a short description of the other relevant aspects of decommissioning.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
TABLES6 

Table 2.1: Power reactor closure status and prediction 

Country 

before 1986 

1986-2009 

2010-2025 

later or 
unknown 

Total 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Finland 

France 

Germany* 

Greece 

Hungary 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Poland 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

The Netherlands 

United Kingdom 

TOTAL 

1 

4 

6 

13 

0 

3 

0 

2 

0 

2 

0 

2 

2 

1 

24 

59 

3 

6 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

2 

14 

7 

17 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1* 

6 

18 

38 

2 

6 

4 

60 

0 

0 

4 

0 

0 

8  

6 

6 

0 

4 

69 

36 

0 

4 

4 

0 

2 

not defined 

not defined 

4 

6 

0 

2 

10 

1 

1 

104 

4 

9 

1* 

10 

13 

2 

45 

208 

6 

The  tables  were  established  on  the  basis  of  the  information  provided  by  Member  States  during  the 
preparatory work for the report. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
                                                 
Table 2.2: Research reactors in the European Union 

Research 
Reactors 

Decommissioning 
status 

Country 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

The Netherlands 

United Kingdom 

Total 

total 

operational 

shutdown 

not specified 

ongoing 

safe 
enclosure 

modified 
use 

dismantled 

1 

5 

1 

4 

3 

1 

26 

46 

2 

14 

1 

0 

5 

2 

1 

3 

6 

3 

1 

3 

3 

1 

7 

9 

1 

2 

5 

0 

1 

1 

1 

0 

2 

2 

1 

19 

37 

9 

1 

0 

4 

1 

0 

3 

6 

1 

19 

140 

19 

103 

37 

1 

8 

5 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

2 

1 

2 

20 

1 

2 

0 

1 

0 

0 

4 

1 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

5 

7 

1 

1 

2 

11 

28 

5 

0 

3 

0 

3 

4 

12 

71 

1 

2 

4 

0 

0 

0 

7 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2.3 Type of nuclear fuel cycle facilities in the EU 

Country 

Fuel Fabrication 

Fuel reprocessing 

Fuel Storage 

total 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

The Netherlands 

Poland 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

Total 

2 

1 

11 

2 

0 

6 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

1 

1 

26 

1 

5 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

10 

2 

1 

4 

3 

5 

16 

0 

1 

1 

0 

2 

0 

2 

6 

1 

0 

1 

45 

5 

0 

4 

1 

3 

21 

18 

0 

1 

9 

0 

2 

0 

2 

7 

1 

0 

3 

2 

17 

96 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2.4: Operational and decommissioning status of the nuclear fuel cycle facilities 

Nuclear 
Cycle 
Facilities 

Decommissioning 
status 

Total 

Operational 

shutdown 

not specified 

ongoing 

dismantled 

5 

- 

4 

1 

3 

27 

31 

0 

1 

9 

0 

1 

0 

- 

14 

1 

0 

5 

2 

17 

121 

3 

- 

4 

3 

12 

20 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

0 

- 

11 

1 

0 

3 

2 

12 

74 

2 

- 

1 

16 

11 

0 

8 

0 

0 

- 

3 

- 

0 

2 

5 

48 

2 

- 

1 

14 

4 

0 

4 

0 

0 

- 

1 

0 

SAELICES 

5 

31 

- 

2 

7 

0 

4 

0 

0 

- 

0 

FUA 

13 

- 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

- 

0 

2 

Country 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

The Netherlands 

Poland 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 
United Kingdom (NDA & 
Westinghouse) 

TOTAL 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2.5 Decommissioning funds accumulated in relation to expected total costs of future decommissioning of nuclear installations in the European  

Member States 

Value of 
the 
dedicate
d assets 
to cover 
the 
provision
s (end 
2009) 

Ratio 
between 
the 
provision
s and 
their 
cover by 
dedicate
d assets 

Base 
provisions 
(updated to 
the year 
2009) to be 
covered by 
dedicated 
assets  
[€ million]  

COUNTRY 

Name of nuclear 
facility 

Kind of facility 

Total estimated 
decommissionin
g costs 
[€ million] 

Provisions accumulated 
by end 2009 (unless 
otherwise stated) 
[€ million] 

Percentage of 
required provisions 
accumulated 
[%] 

Percentage of 
operational 
lifetime expired 
[%] 

specified 
year 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Doel 1 

Doel 2 

Doel 3 

Doel 4 

Tihange 1 

Tihange 2 

Tihange 3 

Spent fuel 

NPP 

NPP 

NPP 

NPP 

NPP 

NPP 

NPP 

Fund 

231.1 

231.1 

512.8 

555.6 

453.4 

562.2 

592 

Belgonucléaire 

Fuel fabrication 

FBFCi 
SCK•CEN 

Kozloduy1 

Kozloduy2 

Kozloduy3 

Kozloduy4 

Fuel fabrication 
Research institute 

34.5 
57.4 

Special cases 

Special cases 

Special cases 

Special cases 

182.8 

182.8 

301.8 

295.8 

350.7 

304.6 

301.8 

3.653 

222.6 

22.9 
53.9 

79% 

79% 

59% 

53% 

77% 

54% 

51% 

100% 

67% 
94% 

85.0% 

85.0% 

67.5% 

60.0% 

85.0% 

65.0% 

60.0% 

100% 

2009 

2009 

2009 

2009 

2009 

2009 

2009 

2009 

2006 

2006 
2006 

Czech 
Republic 

Dukovany1 

NPP 

Dukovany2 

690 (price basis 
2008. does not 
include costs of 

187 

27 

63 

EN 

11 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
Total estimated 
decommissionin
g costs 
[€ million] 

RW/SF disposal) 

Provisions accumulated 
by end 2009 (unless 
otherwise stated) 
[€ million] 

Percentage of 
required provisions 
accumulated 
[%] 

Percentage of 
operational 
lifetime expired 
[%] 

specified 
year 

Value of 
the 
dedicate
d assets 
to cover 
the 
provision
s (end 
2009) 

Ratio 
between 
the 
provision
s and 
their 
cover by 
dedicate
d assets 

Base 
provisions 
(updated to 
the year 
2009) to be 
covered by 
dedicated 
assets  
[€ million]  

COUNTRY 

Name of nuclear 
facility 

Kind of facility 

Dukovany3 

Dukovany4 

Temelin1 

NPP 

63 

583 (price basis 
2009. does not 
include costs of 
RW/SF disposal) 

Temelin2 

ISFS Dukovany 

SFS Dukovany 

SFS Temelin 

LVR-15 

Spent fuel storage 

0.49 

Spent fuel storage 

0.49 

Spent fuel storage 

0.51 

Spent fuel storage 

5.8 

SF storage NRI Rez 

Spent fuel storage 

0.17 

0.057 

0.029 

0 

1 

0.056 

11 

12 

6 

0 

17 

33 

Germany 

Gundremmin-gen A 

M-Kärlich 

Lingen 

Obrigheim 

Stade 

Würgassen 

BWR 

PWR 

BWR 

BWR 

PWR 

BWR 

All 

Denmark 

DR1 

DR 2 

Res. Reactor 

Res. Reactor 

11,672 

0.8 

4 

2,529 

0.8 

4 

21.66 

100 

100 

25 

20 

6 

0 

81 

37 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

EN 

12 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
Total estimated 
decommissionin
g costs 
[€ million] 

Provisions accumulated 
by end 2009 (unless 
otherwise stated) 
[€ million] 

Percentage of 
required provisions 
accumulated 
[%] 

Percentage of 
operational 
lifetime expired 
[%] 

specified 
year 

Value of 
the 
dedicate
d assets 
to cover 
the 
provision
s (end 
2009) 

Ratio 
between 
the 
provision
s and 
their 
cover by 
dedicate
d assets 

Base 
provisions 
(updated to 
the year 
2009) to be 
covered by 
dedicated 
assets  
[€ million]  

COUNTRY 

Name of nuclear 
facility 

DR3 

Hot Cell 

Kind of facility 

Res. Reactor 

Hot Cells 

Technology hall 

fuel fabrication 

Waste treatment plant  Waste treatment 

56 

3 

0.01 

34 

Nothing 

Loviisa 1&2 

Olkiluoto 1&2 

TRIGA 

NPP 

NPP 

330 (in 2011) 

183 

Research reactor 

6 

56 

3 

0.01 

34 

321 

179 

6 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Name of the nuclear 
facility 

Kind of facility 

Total estimated 
decommissioning 

Provisions 

 costs 

accumulated by end 2009 
(unless otherwise stated) 

[€ million] 

[€ million] 

(basis 2009 and 
not corrected for 
inflation) 

Up to value year 2009) 

100 

100 

100 

100 

97 

98 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

66 

53 

97 

Percentage of 
required provisions 
accumulated 
[%] 

Percentage of 
operational 
lifetime expired 
[%] 

EN 

13 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Total estimated 
decommissionin
g costs 
[€ million] 

Provisions accumulated 
by end 2009 (unless 
otherwise stated) 
[€ million] 

Percentage of 
required provisions 
accumulated 
[%] 

Percentage of 
operational 
lifetime expired 
[%] 

specified 
year 

60 718 M€ 

27 563 M€ 

40% 

various 

Base 
provisions 
(updated to 
the year 
2009) to be 
covered by 
dedicated 
assets  
[€ million]  

17 407 M€ 

Value of 
the 
dedicate
d assets 
to cover 
the 
provision
s (end 
2009) 

Ratio 
between 
the 
provision
s and 
their 
cover by 
dedicate
d assets 

11 441 
M€ 

66% 

6 053 M€ 

3 912 M€ 

65% 

various 

(civil installations 
only)  

(civil installations only) 

(civil installations only) 

3 912 M€ 

1291 M€ 

33% 

(civil 
installations 
only) 

(civil 
installatio
ns only) 

(civil 
installatio
ns only) 

10277 M€ 

5306 M€ 

52% 

Various 

5306 M€ 

5379 M€ 

101% 

COUNTRY 

Name of nuclear 
facility 

EDF 

CEA 

Kind of facility 

69 power reactors 
(included 58 in 
operation)+7 
other installations 

36 civil 
installations, 
including reactors, 
laboratories and 
others 

Groupe AREVA 

18 installations 
(principaly linked 
to the fuel cycle) 

Greece 

Hungary 

- 
Paks NPP 

_ 
NPP 

_ 
1184 M euro 

_ 
115,9 M euro 

_ 
27.40%7 

_ 
≈52%8 

_ 

_ 

_ 

7 

8 

EN 

Since the 115,9 M euro gives the accumulated assets already in the fund by the end of 2009, the “Percentage of required provisions accumulated” was calculated on the 
basis of the present (discounted) value of the “Total estimated decommissioning costs” (1184 M euro), that is 423 M euro. 
The CNFF was set up in 1998, and the annual payments into the Fund are calculated year by year on the basis, that until the shutdown of the units of the Paks NPP all costs 
– including those of decommissioning of the NPP and the Interim Spent Fuel Storage Facility – shall be covered. It is therefore not correct to compare the availability of 
funding what percentage of the required provisions is accumulated with respect to the expired lifetime of the NPP. 

14 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
                                                 
Total estimated 
decommissionin
g costs 
[€ million] 

28.6 M euro 
(included in the 
costs of the NPP) 
3.27 M euro 

Provisions accumulated 
by end 2009 (unless 
otherwise stated) 
[€ million] 

Percentage of 
required provisions 
accumulated 
[%] 

0,15 M euro 

27,4% 

none9 

1.78 M euro 

none 

COUNTRY 

Name of nuclear 
facility 

Kind of facility 

ISFS 

SF storage 

 Italy 

Budapest 

reactor 

Training  

reactor 

Caorso NPP 

Trino NPP 

Latina NPP 

Garigliano NPP 

EUREX 

Bosco Marengo 

resear.  

reactor 

resear.  

reactor 

NPP 

NPP 

NPP 

NPP 

Repr. 

Fabr. 

Casaccia 

Fabr. – 

339,8 (3) 

229,2 (3) 

699,9 (3) 

348,3 (3) 

572,1 (3) 

22,5 (3) 

284,5 (3) 

ITREC 

Avogadro 

Repr. 

316,4 (3) 

Interim storage 

Not yet available 
(4) 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

-4 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

-4 

NA 

Value of 
the 
dedicate
d assets 
to cover 
the 
provision
s (end 
2009) 

Ratio 
between 
the 
provision
s and 
their 
cover by 
dedicate
d assets 

Base 
provisions 
(updated to 
the year 
2009) to be 
covered by 
dedicated 
assets  
[€ million]  

Percentage of 
operational 
lifetime expired 
[%] 

specified 
year 

≈18% 

≈ 79% 

≈70% 

Early closure 

Early closure 

Early closure 

Early closure 

Not Applicable 

Not Applicable 

Not Applicable 

Not Applicable 

95% 

9 

EN 

In case of the decommissioning of the Budapest Research Reactor and the training reactor, these are financed from the State budget, the State budget will come up for the 
costs when it is due. (So no provisions are accumulated.) 

15 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
                                                 
COUNTRY 

Name of nuclear 
facility 

Kind of facility 

Total estimated 
decommissionin
g costs 
[€ million] 

Provisions accumulated 
by end 2009 (unless 
otherwise stated) 
[€ million] 

Percentage of 
required provisions 
accumulated 
[%] 

Percentage of 
operational 
lifetime expired 
[%] 

specified 
year 

Value of 
the 
dedicate
d assets 
to cover 
the 
provision
s (end 
2009) 

Ratio 
between 
the 
provision
s and 
their 
cover by 
dedicate
d assets 

Base 
provisions 
(updated to 
the year 
2009) to be 
covered by 
dedicated 
assets  
[€ million]  

RR 

No decommissioning plan, no cost calculations, no 

provisions yet. Public budget will be allotted when shut down 

LENA 

Triga II 

ENEA 

TrigaII, 

Tapiro 

Palermo 

University 

AGN-201 

LENA 

Subcritical 

Assembly 

Lithuania 

Ignalina Unit 1 

Ignalina Unit 2 

NPP 

NPP 

2400 MEUR 

153 MEUR* 

Latvia 

The 
Netherlands 

Salaspils research 
reactor 

Research reactor 

10.6 

no 

Facilty 1 

Facilty 2 

Facilty 3 

Facilty … 

NPP 

RR 

RR 

RR 

Confidential 

Confidential  

Confidential 

Confidential 

EN 

100%; 

100%; 

100 

- 

- 

- 

- 

N/A 

N/A 

No 

- 

- 

- 

- 

16 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
COUNTRY 

Name of nuclear 
facility 

Kind of facility 

Total estimated 
decommissionin
g costs 
[€ million] 

Provisions accumulated 
by end 2009 (unless 
otherwise stated) 
[€ million] 

Percentage of 
required provisions 
accumulated 
[%] 

Percentage of 
operational 
lifetime expired 
[%] 

specified 
year 

Value of 
the 
dedicate
d assets 
to cover 
the 
provision
s (end 
2009) 

Ratio 
between 
the 
provision
s and 
their 
cover by 
dedicate
d assets 

Base 
provisions 
(updated to 
the year 
2009) to be 
covered by 
dedicated 
assets  
[€ million]  

Poland 

nothing reported 

Cernavoda U1 

NPP 

Romania 

Cernavoda U2 

NPP 

Horia Hulubei, 
Magurele, Bucharest 

RR 

TRIGA, Mioveni, Pitesti  RR 

CNU Bihor 

CNU Banat 

CNU Suceava 

CNU Feldioara 

Uranium mine 

Uranium mine 

Uranium mine 

Milling facility for 
uranium ore 

247 (2006 
estimate: 320 
MUSD) 
247 (2006 
estimate: 320 
MUSD)) 
27 

77 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

FCN, Mioveni, Pitesti 

Fuel fabr. plant 

N/A 

Sweden 

F1, F2, F3 

O1, O2, O3  

R1, R2, R3, R4 

B1, B2 

NPP 

NPP 

NPP 

NPP 

2 692 

1 982 

2 785 

1 089 

6.604 

6.238 

N/A (Budgetary planning) 

N/A (Budgetary planning) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 364 

1 026 

1 480 

589 

2.67 

2.53 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

51 

52 

53 

54 

32.5 

5 

100 

60 

100 

100 

- 

- 

- 

52-60 

42-65 

56-71 

100 

EN 

17 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
COUNTRY 

Name of nuclear 
facility 

Kind of facility 

Total estimated 
decommissionin
g costs 
[€ million] 

Provisions accumulated 
by end 2009 (unless 
otherwise stated) 
[€ million] 

Percentage of 
required provisions 
accumulated 
[%] 

Percentage of 
operational 
lifetime expired 
[%] 

specified 
year 

Slovenia 

Krško Nuclear 

Power Plant 

NPP 

1,149.30 

145 

12,6 % 

67,5 % 

(undiscounted) 

(at the end of 2009) 

(undiscounted) 

Value of 
the 
dedicate
d assets 
to cover 
the 
provision
s (end 
2009) 

Ratio 
between 
the 
provision
s and 
their 
cover by 
dedicate
d assets 

Base 
provisions 
(updated to 
the year 
2009) to be 
covered by 
dedicated 
assets  
[€ million]  

42.8 % 

(discounted) 

0.00% 

88,0 % 

0.00% 

Not decided yet 

TRIGA Mark II 

RR 

5.47 (EUR 2007) 

0 

338.5 (EUR 2002) 

(discounted) 

(undiscounted) 

Not calculated yet 

0 

storage of 

institutional 

radioactive 

waste 

Central interim 

storage of 

radioactive waste 

in Brinje 

Zirovski Vrh 

Uranium Mine 

and Milll; Waste 

Pile Jazbec 

Uranium 

Not known 

0 

0.00% 

100 % 

Mine and Mill 

Slovakia 

 United 
Kingdom 

EN 

JE V1 

JE V2 

EMO 1,2 

Sizewell A 

NPP 

NPP 

NPP 

Power reactor 

313,042 

386,414 

231,703 

547,953 (2011) 

732,379 (2011) 

674,549 (2011) 

916 + proportion 
of 493 (Magnox 
South central 
costs) 

57,13% 

 52,76% 

43,35% 

100% 

 62,5% 

30% 

100 

18 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
COUNTRY 

Name of nuclear 
facility 

Kind of facility 

Bradwell 

Power reactor 

Berkeley 

Power reactor 

Dungeness A 

Power reactor 

Hinkley Point A 

Power reactor 

Hunterston A 

Power reactor 

Olbury 

Power reactor 

Chapelcross 

Power reactor 

Trawsfynydd 

Power reactor 

Total estimated 
decommissionin
g costs 
[€ million] 

Provisions accumulated 
by end 2009 (unless 
otherwise stated) 
[€ million] 

Percentage of 
required provisions 
accumulated 
[%] 

Percentage of 
operational 
lifetime expired 
[%] 

specified 
year 

Value of 
the 
dedicate
d assets 
to cover 
the 
provision
s (end 
2009) 

Ratio 
between 
the 
provision
s and 
their 
cover by 
dedicate
d assets 

Base 
provisions 
(updated to 
the year 
2009) to be 
covered by 
dedicated 
assets  
[€ million]  

724 + proportion 
of 493 (Magnox 
South central 
costs) 
608 + proportion 
of 493 (Magnox 
South central 
costs) 
879 + proportion 
of 493 (Magnox 
South central 
costs) 
890 + proportion 
of 493 (Magnox 
South central 
costs) 
671 + proportion 
of 366 (Magnox 
North central 
costs) 
954 + proportion 
of 366 (Magnox 
North central 
costs) 
804 + proportion 
of 366 (Magnox 
North central 
costs) 
796 + proportion 
of 366 (Magnox 
North central 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

98 

100 

100 

EN 

19 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
COUNTRY 

Name of nuclear 
facility 

Kind of facility 

Total estimated 
decommissionin
g costs 
[€ million] 

Provisions accumulated 
by end 2009 (unless 
otherwise stated) 
[€ million] 

Percentage of 
required provisions 
accumulated 
[%] 

Percentage of 
operational 
lifetime expired 
[%] 

specified 
year 

Value of 
the 
dedicate
d assets 
to cover 
the 
provision
s (end 
2009) 

Ratio 
between 
the 
provision
s and 
their 
cover by 
dedicate
d assets 

Base 
provisions 
(updated to 
the year 
2009) to be 
covered by 
dedicated 
assets  
[€ million]  

Wylfa 

Power reactor 

Capen hurst 

Fuel cycle facility 

costs) 

964 + proportion 
of 366 (Magnox 
North central 
costs) 
645 

Windscale 

Research reactor 

987 

Sellafield 

Dounreay 

Fuel cycle facility 

23,537 

Research reactor 

Harwell and Winfrith 

Research reactor 

Springfields Fuels Ltd 

Fuel cycle facility 

Low Level 

Waste 

Repository 

Geological 

Disposal 

Facility 

Radioactive waste 
disposal facility 
Fuel cycle facility 
Radioactive waste 
disposal facility 
Radioactive waste 
disposal facility 
Radioactive waste 
disposal facility 

2,396 

1,203 

687 

290 

687 

290 
3,767 

3,767 

95 

100 

(Calder Hall 100) 

100 

100 

EN 

20 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
COUNTRY 

Name of nuclear 
facility 

Kind of facility 

Total estimated 
decommissionin
g costs 
[€ million] 

Provisions accumulated 
by end 2009 (unless 
otherwise stated) 
[€ million] 

Percentage of 
required provisions 
accumulated 
[%] 

Percentage of 
operational 
lifetime expired 
[%] 

specified 
year 

Value of 
the 
dedicate
d assets 
to cover 
the 
provision
s (end 
2009) 

Ratio 
between 
the 
provision
s and 
their 
cover by 
dedicate
d assets 

Base 
provisions 
(updated to 
the year 
2009) to be 
covered by 
dedicated 
assets  
[€ million]  

EN 

21 

EN 

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

2.1. 

FRANCE 

2.1.1.  Overview 

The regulatory situation and organisation of nuclear decommissioning and waste management 
in France underwent profound change in 2006 with the adoption of new legislation on nuclear 
waste research and management ("New Waste Law")10.  

The  French  legislative  framework  defines  a  specific  category  of  nuclear  facilities,  called 
“Basic  nuclear  installations”  (or  INB  –  “installations  nucléaires  de  base”).  It  covers  all 
facilities that present a significant risk for the workers or for the environment, due to a nuclear 
activity (including all nuclear reactors), or due to the use of nuclear materials. 

Basic  Nuclear  Installations  are  subject  to  a  specific  legislative  and  regulatory  framework, 
which includes the issue of funding of long term liabilities (decommissioning and radioactive 
waste management)11. 

Given  the  scale  of  the  sums  required  and  the  time-frames  involved  for  decommissioning 
nuclear  installations  and  managing  radioactive  waste,  the  creation  of  a  specific  legislative 
system  became  necessary  to  secure  the  required  funding.  Although  measures  of  this  type 
already existed, they had no legislative or regulatory basis. 

Key articles of the new "Law on the Programme Relative to the Sustainable Management of 
Radioactive Materials and Wastes" include the legal requirement to elaborate a "National Plan 
for  the  Management  of  Radioactive  Materials  and  Wastes"  and  a  "National  Inventory  of 
Radioactive Materials and Wastes". Both have to be updated every three years.  

2.1.2.  Decommissioning funding 

The decommissioning financing regime is based on two types of funds: 

•  The nuclear operators set up internal restricted funds covered by dedicated assets managed 
under  separate  accountability;  these  funds  shall  account  for  all  future  costs  related  to 
decommissing  as  well  as  waste  management  and  shall  be  entirely  set  up  from  the 
beginning of operations of each given nuclear installation. 

•  The  National  Radioactive  Waste  Management  Agency  (ANDRA)  has  to  set  up  two 
additional  internal  restricted  funds,  whose  purpose  is  to  finance  exclusively  some  of  the 
waste management operations that ANDRA has responsibility for conducting: 

–  the  “research  fund”  is  for  the  financing  of  research  works  related  to  the  future

storage facility dedicated to long lived high and medium level wastes; 

–  the  “construction  fund”  is  for  the  construction  and  operation  of  the  future
storage  facility  dedicated  to  long  lived  high  and  medium  level  wastes. 

10 
11 

EN 

Loi de programme relatif à la gestion durable des matières et des déchets radioactifs, 15 June 06 

Planning Act No. 2006-739 of 28 June 2006 Concerning the Sustainable Management of Radioactive 
Materials and Waste (especially its article 20); Decree n°2007-243 of 23rd February 2007 for securing 
the  funding  of  nuclear  liabilities;  Order  of  the  21st  March  2007,  for  securing  the  funding  of  nuclear 
liabilities. 

22 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
These  two  funds  are  fed  by  payments  from  the  operator’s  internal  funds,  at  the 
time when ANDRA is required to conduct operations. Specific details about how 
and  when  the  payments  from  the  operator’s  internal  funds  are  made  may  vary: 
payments  to  the  “research  fund”  are  collected  through  a  tax,  whereas  future 
payments to the “construction fund” might be settled under bilateral conventions. 
In both cases, from the point of view of the operators, these paiements can be seen 
as  transfers  from  their  internal  fund  to  an  external  segregated  fund  managed  by 
ANDRA. 

•  Currently, the research fund is the only of these two funds to be fed, as the construction of 
the storage facility for long lived high and medium level waste facility will not start before 
at least 2025. 

•  Furthermore,  other  payments  are  made  from the operators' internal funds to  the ANDRA 
general budget, to finance operations related to the storage facilities for short lived medium 
level  wastes.  Payments  details  are  setteld  under  bilateral  conventions.  From  the  point  of 
view  of  operators,  such  payments  can  be  seen  as  transfers  from  their  internal  segregated 
fund to an external non-segregated fund managed by ANDRA. 

A  "National  Financing  Evaluation  Commission  of  the  Costs  of  Basic  Nuclear  Installations 
Dismantling and Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Management", comprising representatives 
of the National Assembly and the Senate and a number of experts that have to be independent 
of the nuclear operators and the energy industry, oversees the system. 

Partial privatisation led key nuclear players AREVA and EDF to advance the reorganisation 
of  their  back-end  provisions  and  accountancy  practice.  AREVA  was  the  first  to  cover 
provisions by dedicated assets. The two companies have now set up restricted internal funds 
for the financing of future backend charges. Due to the increasing constraints in government 
budgets,  nuclear  research  agency  CEA  has  however  been  exempted  from  setting  up  a  fully 
liquid fund. At the end of year 2011, 75% of the fund was filled with a guarantee of future 
financing. 

The new waste law stipulates that the operators of basic nuclear installations shall "build up 
provisions in a prudent manner, for the costs of decommissioning of their installations or for 
their  radioactive  waste  storage  facilities,  the  final  shut  down,  maintenance  and  surveillance 
costs”. In addition the law requires operators to “earmark specific assets exclusively to cover 
these provisions”.  

These assets have to be accounted for separately and they have to present a “sufficient degree 
of security and liquidity in order to serve their objective”. Their market value has to be at least 
as high as the provisions to be covered. The assets are protected by law and nobody, besides 
the state, in the execution of its right to enforce  the operators’  obligations to decommission 
their facilities and to manage their spent fuel and radioactive waste, can claim any right over 
the  assets.12  This  aims  at  protecting  the  assets  in  case  of  insolvency  or  bankruptcy  of  an 
operator, while at the same time leaving them with the operator who has a level of freedom to 
control and access them.  

The  new  law  stipulates  that  any  operator  of  a  nuclear  installation  must  carry  out  a  prudent 
assessment  of  the  cost  of  decommissioning  and  of  managing  its  spent  fuel  and  radioactive 

12 

Art.20 II of the New Waste Law stipulates: « A l’exception de l’Etat dans l’exercice des pouvoirs dont il dispose 

pour  faire  respecter  par  les  exploitants  leurs  obligations  de  démantèlement  de  leurs  installations  et  de  gestion  de 

leurs  combustibles  usés  et  déchets  radioactifs,  nul  ne  peut  se  prévaloir  d’un  droit  sur  les  actifs  mentionnés  au 
premier alinéa du présent II, y compris sur le fondement du livre VI du code de commerce. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
                                                 
waste.  An  assessment  such  as  this  constitutes  the  foundation  for  any  secure  funding 
mechanism. The level of assets must be at least equal to the discounted cost from the time of 
commissioning. 

In  addition,  the  funds  are  under  the  supervision  of  the  State  (through  the  Administrative 
Authority),  who  can  impose  corrective  measures  to  the  operators,  including  imposing  the 
payment of any required amount to the dedicated fund in ANDRA’s account. The operators of 
nuclear  installations  produce  a  detailed  report  at  least  every  three  years,  presenting  an 
assessment of these costs, their anticipated schedule and the value of the reserve set up in the 
balance sheet in accordance with applicable accounting rules. This report is submitted to the 
competent  administrative  authority  for  examination  (services  of  the  Ministry  for  Economy 
and Energy on the advice of the nuclear safety authority) which could if necessary provide for 
specific measures if it felt that the assessment produced was inadequate. 

Nuclear  operators  are  required  to  report  every  three  months  on  their  portfolio  of  dedicated 
assets,  and  have  to  report  every  year  (or  when  there  is  a  significant  change)  on  the  cost 
assessment  and  their  financial  provisions  in  the  accounts.  These  regular  reporting 
requirements allow shortfalls to be addressed in an adequate timeframe. 

2.1.3.  Decommissioning strategy 

Since 2003, the French regulations allow for the immediate or slightly deferred dismantling of 
nuclear  facilities.13  The  French  nuclear  safety  authority  is  clearly  in  favour  of  immediate 
dismantling under the condition that a full scale dismantling strategy is available prior to the 
start  of  the  operations.  The  strategy  is  elaborated  by  the  operator  but  is  required  to  be 
authorised by the safety authorities, not only from their technical point of view but also on the 
level  of  their  financial  feasibility.14  The  position  of  the  safety  authority  was  instrumental  in 
the shift from deferred to immediate dismantling as the reference strategy. 

Dismantling  operations  can  take  more  than  a  decade  in  case  of  more  complex  nuclear 
facilities, often after several decades of operation. The safety authorities consider that the risk 
of the loss of memory on the conception and the operation is “very significant”15. This is one 
of the key reasons why the immediate dismantling approach has been adopted in France. The 
safety  authority  specifically  requests  in  most  of  the  cases  the  development  of  means  to 
preserve the memory of the past presence of a nuclear facility on a given site and to restrict 
the scope of its use.  

2.1.4.  Radioactive waste management 

The  French  nuclear  industry  is  based  upon  a  closed  fuel  cycle.  There  are  two  commercial 
reprocessing  plants  at  La  Hague  (Normandy).  The  choice  of  the  reprocessing  option  had 
considerable impact on the definition of the current waste management scheme in France. In 
1969  a  “low  and  medium  level”  waste  final  disposal  site,  the  "Centre  de  Stockage  de  la 
Manche"  (CSM)  was  opened  up  adjacent  to  the  La  Hague  reprocessing  plant  and  operated 
until  1994  by  the  CEA.  The  site,  now  under  surveillance  by  the  National  radioactive  waste 
management agency ANDRA, contains over 527,000 t of radioactive waste and hundreds of 
tons of heavy metals. After closure the site was covered with a multi-layer cover in order to 
avoid  the  intrusion  of  water.  In  February  2003  the  site  officially  entered  the  surveillance 

13 

14 
15 

ASN,  DGSNR,  « Procédures  réglementaires  relatives  au  démantèlement  des  installations  nucléaires  de  base », 

Révision de la note SIN/PARIS 16310/90 du 9 novembre 1990, DGSNR/SD3/N°/0095/2003, Fontenay aux Roses, 
letter dated 17 February 2003, Note n° SD3-DEM-01, Indice 1 du 3 February 2003 (see Annex 8) 
However, in practice human resources to do so remain limited within the Safety Authorities. 
Autorité de sûreté, DGSNR, « Rapport Annuel 2005 », p.414 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
                                                 
phase. In 1992, the low and intermediate level waste repository (CSFMA) took over from the 
Manche  repository,  taking  full  advantage  of  operating  experience  feedback  gained  from  it. 
Licensed  by  decree  in  September  1989,  this  installation,  located  in  Soulaines-Dhuys  (Aube 
département) offers a storage capacity for 1,000,000 m3 of waste located in 400 storage units. 

In 2003 was also opened a disposal facility (CSTFA) for very-low-level waste in Morvilliers 
(Aube  Department).  This  facility  is  also  managed  by  ANDRA  and  offers  a  capacity  of  650 
000 m3. 

2.2. 

SLOVAKIA 

2.2.1.  Overview 

Slovakia operates four nuclear reactors, two at Bohunice V2 NPP and two at Mochovce NPP. 
Bohunice V1 Units 1 and 2 were shut down respectively in 2006 and 2008, in line with the 
obligations arising from the Treaty of Accession to the European Union. A specific protocol 
of  this  Treaty  contained  a  commitment  of  significant  European  Union  assistance  for  their 
decommissioning.  

The privatisation of Slovenske Elektrarne (SE), in which ENEL of Italy has a majority stake, 
has  led  to  a  major  reorganisation  of  operating  and  shutdown  facilities.  A  new  government 
owned group –JAVYS- now assumes responsibility for the Bohunice V1 facilities and most of 
the waste management facilities as well as the Interim Spent Fuel Storage. At Mochovce, in 
addition to the two operating units, there are also two partially completed VVER 440 reactors 
whose completion is foreseen for October 2012 and June 2013 for units 3 and 4 respectively. 

2.2.2.  Decommissioning funding 

Prior to specific legislation in 1995, there was no requirement to create a dedicated fund with 
costs being borne directly from the treasury account.  

The "National Nuclear Fund" (NNF) is a specific State fund which was established by the Act 
No.  238/2006  Coll.  The  purpose  of  the  NNF  is  to  acumulate  and  to  manage  the  finances 
determined for the back-end of Slovak nuclear power. The highest body of NNF is the Board 
of  Governors.  Activities  of  NNF  are  controlled  by  the  Supervisory  Board  nominated  by 
several ministries and the Nuclear Regulatory Authority of SR. 

The financial means of the Fund can be used only for activities related to the back-end of the 
peaceful use of nuclear energy; decommissioning is a part of this. The level of the payments is 
defined by the Act in such a way as to be accumulated in sufficient amounts when needed. 

If there are insufficient financial resources for safe decommissioning in the National Nuclear 
Fund, the State may enforce a special additional fee to the price of electricity to the operator 
of the transmission system and send this to the Nuclear Fund16. The Act No. 238/2006 clearly 
defines the sources of the Fund (level of contributions), the Fund management rules, the form 
of the Fund use, as well as conditions for its use. 

In  recognition  of  the  financial  burden  that  Slovakia's  early  closure  commitment  for  the  V1 
reactors created, the European Union has foreseen significant financial assistance in a specific 
protocol to the Treaty of Accession. This assistance will amount to a total of approximately 
€613 million up to the end of 2013. EU assistance was not only foreseen for decommissioning 
of the reactor units but also for issues related to security of supply. The amounts fixed for this 
assistance  were  not  based  on  a  specific  proportion  of  the  estimated  costs,  but  recognise  the 
significant burden placed on Slovakia by the shutdown commitment, and are an expression of 
solidarity  between  the  Union  and  Slovakia.  While  the  Community  assistance  is  significant, 

16 

§28 sect.3 letter h/ and §31 sect. 2 letter w/ Act No. 251/2012 Z.z. on Energetic 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the specific conditions of its use are that it may not be used for the decommissioning of other 
facilities. For 2014-2017, a further and final European Union commitment is in preparation. 

The total value of historical debt (in 2010 price level) is app. 2,7 billion €. Concerning the full 
decommissioning of NPP A1, including disposal of decommissioning wastes (in near surface 
or  deep  repository)  and  part  of  the  decommissioning  of  NPP  V1  and  V2  costs,  including 
management  of  the  spent  fuel,  aliquot  to  production  of  electricity  before  establishing  the 
NNF. As of 30.06.2011, the value of the National Nuclear Fund was 930,56 million €.  

2.2.3.  Decommissioning strategy 

In accordance with the approved document "Nuclear Energy Back End Strategy", the areas of 
nuclear power plants Jaslovské Bohunice and Mochovce will be used for future commercial 
activities after decommissioning. After the shutdown of a nuclear power plant, the area is not 
considered for agricultural purposes or for the purposes of residential construction. From the 
viewpoint of radiological background, the site will be a "brownfield", from the viewpoint of 
the (in)existence of physical constructional obstacles. This means the site will be able to be 
used for industrial or nuclear purposes. It also means that the final radiologicitalyal status of 
the site is less restrictive than for a greenfield in terms of radiology. 

2.2.4.  Radioactive waste management 

The  near  surface  National  Radwaste  Repository  for  low  and  intermediate  level  waste  is 
operational  since  1999.  The  waste  which  is  not  acceptable  for  the  National  Repository 
Mochovce  shall  be  stored  at  the  sites  of  the  power  plants.  A  feasibility  study  and  technical 
documentation  for  the  enlargement  of  this  repository  or  an  alternative  construction  of  a 
VLLW repository is being financed primarily through Community financial assistance. 

Options to construct a deep geological repository are being assessed with a view to have an 
operational facility by 2038. 
BELGIUM 

2.3. 

2.3.1.  Overview 

Belgium has two sites with operating commercial nuclear power plants at Doel and Tihange, 
both operated by Electrabel. In addition to the seven reactors at the two sites, there is a fuel 
fabrication plant at Dessel. The only NPP which is shut down in Belgium is BR-3, a prototype 
reactor  subject  of  a  decommissioning  pilot  project  within  the  European  Commission’s 
research  programme.  Other  decommissioning  projects  include  several  SCK-CEN  waste 
facilities and the former Eurochemic pilot reprocessing plant.  

2.3.2.  Decommissioning funding 

In  Belgium,  the  decommissioning  financing  regime  is  based  on  two  funds,  one  for  waste 
management and the other for decommissioning tasks and the spent fuel management tasks. 

A  subsidiary  of  Electrabel,  Synatom,  is  responsible  for  establishing  and  managing  the 
provisions  for  the  decommissioning  and  the  management  of  spent  fuel  of  the  commercial 
power plants. The decommissioning fund is therefore segregated but internal. It is overseen by 
a  surveillance  committee,  the  Nuclear  Provisions  Commission.  The  State  holds  a  "golden 
share" in Synatom which gives it the power to veto certain decisions. 75% of the provisions 
can be lent back to the operators. A change of the law in 2007 made it possible to use 10% of 
the  remaining  25%  of  the  funds  for  loans  to  other  power  sector  investments  unrelated  to 
nuclear decommissioning.  

The  State  is  responsible  for  ensuring  that  adequate  financial  resources  are  collected  for  the 
former  liabilities  from  non-commercial  nuclear  programmes  such  as  Eurochemic.  This  is 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
financed through a levy on electricity sales which are held in a fund managed by the "National 
Agency  for  Radioactive  Waste  and  Enriched  Fissile  Materials"  (ONDRAF/NIRAS).  The 
agency is responsible for all waste management, and all radioactive waste must be transferred 
to  it.  In  parallel,  it  holds  the  fund  for  waste  management,  which  is  fed  from  industry 
contributions. Synatom has to transfer the financial means for the waste once it is transferred 
to ONDRAF/NIRAS. 

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

Since  2003,  the  existence  of  a  supervising  committee  charged  with  the  control  of  the 
mechanisms  for  the  decommissioning  provisions  for  nuclear  power  plants  and  spent  fuel 
management,  is  a  legal  requirement.  The  supervising  committee  is  composed  of  high  level 
individuals in the administrations and the banking world. The change of law of 2007 made it 
possible that 3 delegates of the decommissioning fund, a subsidiary of the nuclear operator, sit 
in the Nuclear Provisions Commission, the controlling body. ONDRAF/NIRAS is specifically 
responsible for collecting information related to the decommissioning programmes, approving 
these  programmes,  and  eventually  executing  the  programme  at  the  request  of  the  operator. 
Decommissioning  provisions  and  costs  are  revised  every  three  years  for  the  nuclear  power 
plants and every five years for other facilities. 

In  practice,  provisions  are  created  by  trimestrial  endowments  of  the  electricity  producers 
during  the  40  years  of  operation  of  the  NPP.  Effectively,  the  trimestrial  endowment  for  the 
decommissioning  of  the  nuclear  power  plants  is  the  interest  on  the  gathered  provisions  at  a 
rate  of  5%  given  that  the  net  present  value  of  decommissioning  is  already  constituted.  The 
total collected amount for the decommissioning at the end of 2010 is €2231 million.  

From  the  financial  point  of  view,  all  nuclear  fuel  remains  always  the  property  of  Synatom, 
being  effectively  lent  to  the  nuclear  power  plant  for  the  production  of  electricity.  The  costs 
related  to  the  nuclear  fuel  cycle  are  paid  to  Synatom  from  the  revenue  generated  through 
electricity  sales,  with  a  portion  of  this  payment  being  set  aside  for  the  constitution  of  the 
provisions  for  the  future  management  of  spent  fuel.  The  provisions  for  the  management  of 
spent  fuel  are  managed  by  Synatom  in  the  same way as the decommissioning provisions of 
the  nuclear  power  plants.  The  cost  estimate  for  the  provisions  of  spent  fuel  management  is 
based  on  the  most  expensive  scenario  for  the  back-end  of  the  nuclear  fuel  cycle,  which  is 
reprocessing.  The  costs  are  furthermore  increased  with  an  uncertainty  margin.  For  this 
purpose, €3923 million was constituted by the end of 2010. 

The  state  finances  the  decommissioning  of  older  R&D-facilities,  the  so-called  “nuclear 
liability programme”. Since 2003, the dismantling of the EUROCHEMIC pilot reprocessing 
plant  and  the  former  waste  management  site  of  SCK/CEN  is  financed  by  a  levy  on  the 
electricity  consumption.  The  other  SCK/CEN  facilities  which  existed  before  1989  are  still 
financed by the state. In practical terms, it is for ONDRAF/NIRAS to manage these projects. 

Every  3  years,  there  is  a  review  of  the  cost  calculations  and  the  financial  planning  for  the 
commercial power plants by the Nuclear Provisions Commission.  

The safety of the investments is assured through regular reviews and checks. If it is found that 
the provisions are no longer sufficient, regardless of the reasons, the operators have to pay a 
supplement to the fund to cover the deficit. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
2.3.3.  Decommissioning strategy 

Immediate  decommissioning  with  green  field  end  status  was  estimated  to  be  the  most 
expensive dismantling strategy and therefore chosen as a reference scenario for nuclear power 
plants  in  order  to  make  sure  that  adequate  financial  resources  will  be  available  independent 
from the future strategy choice of the operator. Financial resources are therefore calculated for 
a greenfield endpoint. 

There is however no specific national policy and no obligation regarding decommissioning up 
to greenfield or brownfield. This is indeed established on a site by site basis.  

2.3.4.  Radioactive waste management 

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

In 2006, Belgium selected its site (Dessel) for a low level waste repository, where most of the 
decommissioning  waste  will  be  deposited.  An  extensive  R&D  programme  is  aimed  at 
assessing  the  possibilities  for  a  geological  repository  for  medium,  high  level  and  long-lived 
waste.  This  programme  is  expected  to  result  in  a  site  selection,  between  2010  and  2020, 
followed  by  a  preliminary  safety  report  to  be  submitted  to  the  safety  authorities  by  around 
2025.  Currently,  a  first  authorisation  will  be  requested  for  the  construction  of  a  disposal 
facility limited to non-heating waste. 

2.4. 

SWEDEN 

2.4.1.  Overview 

Sweden's  nuclear  facilities  are  made  up  of  13  commercial  power  reactors,  5  older  and 
permanent  shut-off  research  reactors,  a  spent  fuel  store,  a  repository  for  short-lived 
operational  radiological  waste,  a  fuel  fabrication  plant  and  several  other  related  nuclear 
installations. Three power reactors and all research reactors are in the state of permanent shut-
down. The total decommissioning cycle has been succefully completed for 3 out of 5 research 
reactors. The two commercial power reactors at the Barsebäck site – near the city of Malmö - 
which  were  closed  down  in  1999  respectively  2005  as  part  of  Sweden's  nuclear  phase  out 
policy that prevailed at that time were initially foreseen for immediate dismantling. However, 
these plans have been delayed due to the absence of a waste repository for decommissioning 
waste. Initially such a repository should have been licensed in 2010, but the plans have been 
delayed  and  now  the  acutal  plan  is  2023.  In  conjunction  with  the  decommissioning  plans 
Sweden – like most other countries within the EU – faces a challenge to develop regulations 
for  landfills  for  the  waste  bulk  of  materials  from  decommissioning  projects,  for  the  waste 
routs for VLLW, materials for free release and hazardous waste etc. 

2.4.2.  Decommissioning funding 

The "Nuclear Activity Act" stipulates that the licence holder of any nuclear facility shall be 
responsible for all measures required for ensuring  safe  management  and  disposal  of  nuclear 
waste, as well as safe closure and dismantling of permanent shut-off nuclear power plants in 
which activities are no longer necessary.  

Power reactor decommissioning costs must be established during the first 40 years (plus and 
additional  period  of  0-6  years  so  that  the  residual  time  always  remains  at  least  6  years)  of 
operation and are backed up by two guarantees relating to early closure and unforeseen waste 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
management  costs.  The  funds  are  set  up  as  external  segregated  funds  with  considerable 
oversight especially with respect to fund investment. 

The  legal  framework  on  decommissioning  imposes  the  licence  holder  to  pay  a  fee  per 
delivered kWh of electricity to the "Nuclear Waste Fund". The size of the fee is based on a 
40-year earning period per reactor. The purpose of the Fund is to cover all expenses incurred 
for  the  safe  handling  and  disposal  of  spent  nuclear  fuel,  as  well  as  dismantling  nuclear 
facilities  and  disposal  of  the  decommissioning  waste.  The  Fund  is  also  obliged  to  finance 
research and development carried out by the "Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management 
Company" (SKB). The fund inludes future governmental costs as well. 

Updated  cost  calculations,  including  decommissioning  costs  are  to  be  carried  out  jointly  by 
the operators and submitted to the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority for approval every 3 
years.  Based  on  a  proposal  from  the  Authority,  the  Government  establishes  the  fees.  The 
withdrawals from the Fund are subject to regulatory review by the Authority. 

The  management  of  the  Nuclear  Waste  Fund  is  the  responsibility  of  a  separate  government 
agency,  the  Nuclear  Waste  Fund.  The  Fund  is  in  principle  administered  as  a  number  of 
individual funds corresponding to the operators' liabilites and are managed jointly. The total 
cost estimate for managing all nuclear waste and for dismantling nuclear power plants in the 
future  is  approximately  9  700  million  €.  As  of  the  end  of  2011,  4  115  million  €  had  been 
collected  in  the  fund.  During  2011,  the  fund  capital  increased  by  328  million  €.  The  fee  is 
reassessed every third year and is individual. In addition to the fees paid to the Nuclear Waste 
Fund, the nuclear power utilities must provide two forms of guarantees. Guarantee I should 
cover  the  shortfall  should  a  reactor  be  finally  closed  down  before  it  has  reached  its  earning 
period  of  40  years.  Guarantee  II  should  cover  contingencies  if  expenses  for  future  nuclear 
waste management become higher than expected, if these expenses have to be met earlier than 
expected, or if the actual amount in the Fund is lower than was estimated. The sizes of these 
guarantees are €963 million and €3,17 billion, respectively. 

The financing of the historical liabilities, e.g. older nuclear installations previously owned by 
the  state,  in  particular  the  facilities  at  Studsvik,  the  Ågesta  reactor  and  the  closed  uranium 
mine in Ranstad, and other miscallaneous radioactive waste for the early days of the Swedish 
nuclear  era  are  dealt  with  separately.  The  basic  requirement  imposes  for  all  three  nuclear 
power utilities equally to pay a fee to a dedicated fund ad valorem to the generated kWh of 
electricity. It is forecasted that the fund may be fully built up by the end of 2017. The fee is 
reassessed annually andequal for each contributor. This fund is also managed by the Nuclear 
Waste Fund. The future liabilities from 2012 and onwards, to the beginning of the 2040´s is 
assessed  to  be  around  €175M.  The  working  hypotesis  is  that  sufficient  funds  are  to  be 
collected by 2017. 

2.4.3.  Decommissioning strategy 

The  operator  decides  the  decommissioning  strategy  but  it  is  subject  to  the  regulatory 
authorities’  approval.  No  binding  time  limits  for  decommissioning  are  set  in  the  current 
Swedish  legislation  or  operating  licenses  for  nuclear  facilities.  Storage  facilities  for 
decommissioning  waste  must  however  be  available  before  dismantling  of  the  facilities  can 
take  place.  The  standpoint  of  the  regulating  authority  -  the  Swedish  Radiation  Safety 
Authority  -  from  a  safety  and  a  radiation  protection  view  is  that  a  decommissioned  power 
reactor  should  be  dismantled,  demolished  and  the  site  cleared  for  unrestricted  use  in  a 
timeframe of around a half generation in the normal case, provided that storage facilities for 
the decommissioning waste are construced, built, licenced and put into operation. For the case 
of twin reactors with common safety systems, deferral could be justified if only one of the two 
reactors is shut down at a given time. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
2.4.4.  Radioactive waste management 

The Swedish policy is clear and states that all that radioactive waste that has arisen in Sweden 
should be managed and disposed of within the borders. An exemption may be granted by the 
government  in  particular  cases.  There  is  so  far  no  repository  licensed  for  decommissioning 
waste. Shallow land burials are licensed only for short-lived very low level waste, but there is 
at present no up-dated regulations in this field. There are plans to re-license the repository for 
short-lived  low  and  intermediate  level  operational  waste  to  allow  for  disposal  also  of  short-
lived  decommissioning  waste  in  an  extension  to  the  existing  facility.  There  is  no  disposal 
facility  licensed  for  long-lived  low  and  intermediate  level  radioactive  waste.  According  to 
current  plans,  a  repository  for  long-lived  low  and  intermediate  level  waste  will  be  in  full 
operation  around  2045.  The  applications  for  a  permit  to  build  a  final  repository  for  spent 
nuclear fuel, and an associated encapsulation plant, were submitted in March 2011 by SKB. 
SSM has launched a preliminary review of the need for any development of the application as 
by November 2012.  

2.5. 

BULGARIA 

2.5.1.  Overview 

Bulgaria  has  four  VVER  440  and  two  VVER  1000  nuclear  reactors  at  the  Kozloduy  plant. 
After  the  upgrade  of  the  two  VVER  1000  units,  their  operational  lifetime  extension  is  a 
declared priority. A decision in principle was taken in 2012 to undertake preparatory activities 
for  the  construction  of  a  new  nuclear  capacity  on  Kozloduy  site.  Spent  fuel  is  currently 
shipped  back  to  the  Russian  federation  for  reprocessing.  The  construction  of  a  national 
repository for low and intermediate level waste is at a stage of Technical Design and ISAR 
development . Construction works are expected to start in 2013. 

The four Kozloduy Units, being first generation Soviet design reactors, were closed before the 
end  of  their  design  lifetime,  in  2002  and  in  2006  respectively,  in  line  with  Bulgaria's 
commitment  made  in  the  Treaty  of  Accession  to  the  European  Union.  In  order  to  help 
alleviate the consequences of early closure of these 4 units, significant Community assistance 
was made available: The total contribution for Bulgaria is foreseen to reach €867,78 million 
by the end of 2013, with the commitments for 2012 still to be implemented and the ones for 
2013  being  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  Budgetary  Authority  (decommissioning  activity 
support and mitigating measures in the energy sector). A further European Union contribution 
is envisaged for the period 2014-2017. 

2.5.2.  Decommissioning funding 

Segregated  external  funds  were  created  in  1999  to  cover  decommissioning  and  waste 
liabilities: The "Nuclear Installations Decommissioning Fund" (IYaSE) and the "Radioactive 
Waste Safety and Storage Fund" (BSRAO). The main source of funding is from a levy on the 
electricity sold by the operator.  

The "Radioactive Waste Fund" and the "Nuclear Installations Decommissioning Fund" were 
established  as  the  legal  successors  to  the  abovementioned  funds  under  the  "Safe  Use  of 
Nuclear Energy Act" adopted in 2002. 

The  funds  are  the  main  financial  instruments  used  for  the  implementation  of  the  national 
policy  for  the  safe  management  of  radioactive  waste,  including  its  disposal,  and  the 
decommissioning of nuclear installations. They were established with the special purpose of 
guaranteeing the implementation of specific long-term activities (over a period of more than 
300  years)  relating  to  the  management  of  radioactive  waste  and  the  decommissioning  of 
nuclear installations.  

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
The  decommissioning  of  nuclear  installations  is  financed  by  the  Nuclear  Installations 
Decommissioning Fund under the authority of the Minister of Economy, Energy and Tourism. 

The  operators  of  nuclear  installations  pay  a  monthly  fee  into  the  budget  of  the  Nuclear 
Installations  Decommissioning  Fund.  The  monthly  fee  is  calculated  as  a  percentage  of  the 
average  price  of  electricity  sold.  The  percentage  is  calculated  on  the  basis  of  the  project 
lifecycle  of  the  installation.  At  present,  the  installments  of  the  operator  to  the  Nuclear 
Installations Decommissioning Fund amount to 7.5% of the electricity sales, and another3% 
of the electricity sales are directed to the Radioactive Waste Fund. 

In accordance with Article 30(1) of the EU Accession Treaty, Kozloduy Units 1 and 2 were 
shut down on 31 December 2002 and Units 3 and 4 on 31 December 2006. Due to the early 
shutdown,  the  funds  raised  from  relevant  fees  into  the  budget  of  the  Nuclear  Installation 
Decommissioning Fund are insufficient to cover the full decommissioning costs. To partially 
contribute towards this funding gap the Kozloduy International Decommissioning Fund was 
established and managed by the EBRD. The European Commission is the principal donor and 
has a decisive vote. The agreed Community financial assistance for the period until the end of 
2013 is 867,78 million EUR. 

Kozloduy Units 1 and 2 were declared as radioactive menagement facilities and transferred to 
the  State  Enterprise  for  Radioactive  Waste  (SERAW).  The  transfer  of  Units  3  and  4  to 
SERAW is under preparation.  
As of the 31st December 2011 a total of 146.3 million BGN had been raised from fees paid 
into the budget of the Radioactive Waste Fund. 

2.5.3.  Decommissioning strategy 

Bulgarian  law  envisages  specific  steps  for  the  decommissioning  of  all  nuclear  installations 
following their shut-down.  

The  Strategy  for  the  management  of  spent  nuclear  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  until  2030  as 
updated in 2011 envisages the full decommissioning of Units 1 to 4 of the Kozloduy Nuclear 
Power  Plant  based  on  a  continuous  dismantling  concept.  In  the  long  term,  the  sites  of  the 
decommissioned Kozloduy Units 1 to 4 are to be re-cultivated up to brownfield status. 

A separate programme and financial plan will be developed for the decommissioning of each 
subsequent installation. 
SLOVENIA 

2.6. 

2.6.1.  Overview 

Slovenia has one nuclear power plant, a research reactor, a waste storage and a uranium mine. 
A detailed decommissioning strategy and decommissioning funding plan exists for the nuclear 
power plant. A draft decommissioning strategy and decommissioning funding plan exists for 
Research Reactor TRIGA Mark II. Decommission of the uranium mine is complete. 

The  Krško  Nuclear  Power  Plant  (Krško  NPP)  is  co-owned  by  the  States  of  Slovenia  and 
Croatia, which share in equal part the plant’s benefits and liabilities. The nuclear power plant 
has  an  operational  licence  until  2023,  with  investigations  which  foresee  a  possible  life-time 
extension of 20 years. Croatia has joint responsibility with Slovenia for the decommissioning 
and  waste  management  liabilities  relating  to  the  Krsko  NPP.  In  2003,  the  governments  of 
Slovenia  and  Croatia  signed  an  Agreement  on  the  status  and  other  legal  issues  related  to 
investment,  exploitation,  and  decommissioning  of  the  Nuclear  power  plant  Krško.  In  this 
agreement,  both  countries  agreed  on  assuring  funds  for  decommissioning  by  financing  in 
equal  shares,  developing  a  new  decommissioning  program,  costs  and  timetable  for 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
decommissioning,  and  requiring  each  country  to establish  its  own  fund  for  the  management 
and collection of financial resources for its share of decommissioning. 

2.6.2.  Decommissioning funding 

The  financial  resources  for  the  decommissioning  and  disposal  of  all  radioactive  waste  and 
spent fuel must be available before the end of the nuclear power plant’s operation. As Krško 
NPP  is  co-owned  in  50:50  share  by  Slovenia  and  Croatia,  two  independent  funds  must  be 
established. In Slovenia, an external fund, a legal entity managed by a dedicated agency, was 
established  in  1995  to  gather  half  of  the  required  resources  and  to  ensure  their  availability 
according to the decommissioning and radioactive waste & spent fuel management program. 
The owner contributes monthly to the fund via a levy on the produced electricity (0.3 eurocent 
per  kWh).  The  levy  is  periodically  reassessed  based  on  available  technical  data  and  other 
inputs. Both the decommissioning program and the spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste 
management program shall be updated and revised every 5 years. 

The  Croatian  decommissioning  financing  scheme  will be addressed within the next issue of 
this report, as Croatian EU membership is only anticipated from 1 July 2013. A proposal for 
legislation on the Croatian fund has been drafted during Croatia's accession negotiations. 

In  Slovenia,  the  financial  resources  for  the  decommissioning  and  disposal  of  all  radioactive 
waste must be available before the end of the nuclear power plant’s operation. The total cost 
of  decommissioning  is  estimated  at  €1.2  billion.  The  Slovenian  fund  amounted  to  €  145 
million at the end of 2009. 

2.6.3.  Decommissioning strategy 

Immediate decommissioning is the preferred strategy in order to exploit to the maximum the 
experience of the personnel, economical factors and political aspects. If no lifetime extension 
is granted, the dismantling of the plant is expected to be finalised by 2037 with “green field” 
as the end point. 

2.6.4.  Radioactive waste management 

It is assumed that all low and interim level radioactive waste  will be disposed  of in a near-
surface  repository,  expected  to  become  available  before  the  start  of  decommissioning 
activities  and  a  site  selection  process  is  ongoing.  The  design  of  the  repository  should  be 
modular, with sufficient capacity to accommodate all future LILW waste arising in Slovenia. 

In the long term, a decision about the construction of a final repository is expected. The spent 
research reactor fuel will be sent back to the country of origin. 

2.7. 

GERMANY 

2.7.1.  Overview 

Despite its recent decision to phase out all nuclear power plants by 2022, Germany still has a 
significant nuclear industry with 9 commercial nuclear power plant units still in operation. For 
8 nuclear power plant units the authorisation to generate power expired in 2011 when the 13th 
Act  amending  the  Atomic  Energy  Act  took  effect.  Altogether,  19  nuclear  power  plant  units 
are  under  decommissioning  or  have  already  been  decommissioned,  one  of  them  still 
containing  fuel.  From  these,  15  nuclear  power  plants  are  currently  being  dismantled,  two 
nuclear  power  plants  are  in  safe  enclosure  and  two  plants  have  already  been  completely 
dismantled. Furthermore, there were 46 research reactors of which are 8 in operation, 10 were 
shut  down  or  are  in  the  process  of  decommissioning  and  28  already  fully  dismantled  and 
numerous other nuclear cycle facilities such as fuel fabrication plants, spent fuel storages and 
other facilities. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
In Germany, the decommissioning financing regime is determined by the Atomic Energy Act 
(Atomgesetz, AtG) and statutory ordinances promulgated on the basis of the AtG, commercial 
law  and  tax  law,  as  well  as  general  administrative  provisions:  Following  the  ‘Polluter  Pays 
Principle’,  the  licensees  are  responsible  for  all  decommissioning  activities.  They  are  free  to 
decide  on  the  decommissioning  strategy  they  would  like  to  follow,  and  have  to  bear  the 
respective  costs.  On  the  corporate  group  level,  the  corporate  groups  to  which  the  private 
operators belong set up provisions according to international accounting standards. There are 
no restrictions with regard to the investment of these internal funds. 

Germany  has  considerable  experience  of  nuclear  decommissioning,  and  its  operators  have 
built up significant funds for the financing of such operations. 

2.7.2.  Decommissioning funding 

The  way  funds  are  set  aside  for  financing  decommissioning  activities  differs  between  the 
purely publicly-owned nuclear installations, nuclear installations with mixed ownership, and 
nuclear  installations  belonging  to  private  companies  (nuclear  power  plants,  fuel  cycle 
facilities, etc.): 

In general, decommissioning of publicly owned nuclear facilities is financed from the current 
budget.  There  are  no  provisions  made  for  future  payments.  For  most  projects,  the  Federal 
Government covers the bulk of the costs. For some projects, part of the cost is covered by the 
State Governments (“Länder”). For facilities with mixed ownership, special arrangements are 
required to clarify the proportion of the costs to be borne by the public and that by the private 
organisations. 

The private owners of nuclear facilities  build up internal non-segregated funds  according to 
German commercial law based on their liabilities according to the Atomic Energy Act. On the 
corporate group level, international accounting standards are applied. The obligation to set up 
provisions  (internal,  unrestricted  decommissioning  funds)  starts  with  the  beginning  of 
operation, however the complete amount is not required at this time. According to German tax 
law, decommissioning provisions for nuclear reactors in German tax balance sheets have to be 
set up according to the following principles: 

•  Provisions for spent fuel management are allocated according to their "burn-up" over the 
period  they  are  used  in  the  reactor.  Discounting  takes  place  in  a  layered  procedure  over 
five years. Provisions for the management of the core are allocated over the first 19 years 
of operation. 

•  As long as the final shut down of a nuclear facility is not exactly determined, provisions 
for  dismantling,  decontamination  and  demolition  have  to  be  accumulated  in  equal 
instalments over the first 25 years of operation. 

•  Provisions for management of radioactive waste from operation are made according to the 
waste  generated.  Claims  of  future  interest  on  advance  payments  for  a  final  disposal  site 
have  to  be  balanced  with  the  liability  which  says  that  operators  have  to  contribute  to 
financing costs of a final disposal site. 

•  Since  1999,  provisions  for  nuclear  decommissioning  have  to  be  discounted  at  a  nominal 
discount  rate  of  5.5%.  However,  the  discounting  period  is  limited  to  the  period  during 
which  the  provisions  are  accumulated.  In  contrast  to  IAS/IFRS,  the  discounting  period 
does not cover the whole time between generation  of the kWh which  causes the  liability 
and start of the respective decommissioning activity. 

•  For changes in the size of decommissioning provisions caused by the new German tax law 

in 1999, a ten years transition period has been granted. 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
The net provisions given in commercial balance sheets on 31.12.2010 totalled approximately 
€28.726 million and this provides for a recognised major source of internal finance. The cost 
estimates on which the provisions are based are regularly updated. Investments are made such 
that there will be sufficient fund liquidity when needed. However, there is no direct link made 
between provisions and liabilities. 

2.7.3.  Decommissioning strategy 

Germany  has  considerable  experience  in  dismantling  of  nuclear  power  plants  and  other 
nuclear installations. Operators are responsible for the choice of the decommissioning strategy 
taking radiation protection, employment, knowledge and financial aspects into account. In the 
past,  after  having  removed  all  spent  fuel,  for  several  nuclear  facilities  the  ‘safe  enclosure’ 
option was chosen, while for other plants, direct dismantling was preferred. The German law 
includes both options. 

2.7.4.  Radioactive waste management 

The German policy is aiming at minimising radioactive waste and at recycling and reuse of 
materials. In this context, the release of materials, buildings and sites from nuclear regulatory 
control  is  of  high  importance.  The  German  Radiation  Protection  Ordinance  includes  a 
comprehensive and consistent set of quantitative and radionuclide specific data for the release 
of  materials,  buildings  and  sites  from  nuclear  regulatory  control.  In  practice,  the 
implementation of such an approach requires a great number of measurements, in particular 
by the operator, in order to demonstrate compliance with legal requirements.  

Although the costs of performing clearance are non-negligible – the costs for decontamination 
and  preparation  of  the  material  as  well  as  for  performing  the  clearance  and  control 
measurements etc. – the costs for treating this material as radioactive waste and bringing it to 
final disposal would be considerably higher.  

Since  July  1,  2005,  the  Atomic  Energy  Act  forbids  transport  of  spent  fuel  elements  from 
power reactors to reprocessing (this does not affect spent fuel from research reactors). Prior to 
this date, reprocessing was an option used by many NPPs in Germany.  

Since  2002,  the  operators  of  NPPs  are  required  to  ensure  that  an  interim  storage  facility  is 
constructed within the enclosed site or in the vicinity of the installation and that the irradiated 
nuclear fuel is stored there until it is surrendered to a disposal facility. Accordingly, such local 
interim storage facilities for spent fuel have been constructed during the last few years at the 
NPP sites in Germany. Therefore, in principle the shipment of spent fuel from the NPPs to the 
existing centralized interim storage facilities does no longer occur. 

2.8. 

CZECH REPUBLIC 

2.8.1.  Overview 

The Czech Republic operates six pressurized water reactor units, four VVER-440/213 reactor 
units  at  Dukovany  and  two  VVER-1000/320  reactors  at  Temelín.  Taking  into  account 
anticipated lifetime extensions, the expected shutdown dates for these units are between 2025-
2028  and  2042-2043  respectively.  There  are  also  two  operational  research  reactors,  one 
school reactor, four spent fuel storages and three LLW/ILW repositories in use.  

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
In  addition  to  the  remedial  efforts  for  the  environmental  legacies  from  already  closed  and 
operational  uranium  mining  sites,  the  decommissioning  of  the  commercial  NPPs  sites  will 
constitute the bulk of decommissioning effort and expense.  

2.8.2.  Decommissioning funding 

In the Czech Republic, two separate funds are set up. The first one for decommissioning and 
the other one for waste disposal. The former being an internally managed blocked account and 
the latter an external fund managed by the Ministry of Finance. 

Nuclear  law  requires  that  in  case  an  estimate  of  total  costs  of  decommissioning  exceeds 
300 000  CZK,  the  licence  holder  has  to  make  provisions  for  decommissioning  of  the 
respective  nuclear  installation  or  category  III  or  IV  workplace  steadily,  so  that  financial 
resources deposited on a blocked account will be available for preparation and performance of 
decommissioning, at the required time and in the required amount, in line with the programme 
of decommissioning approved by the "State Office for Nuclear Safety" (SONS). 

While this bank account is maintained by the licensee, payments can be effectuated solely for 
decommissioning  purposes,  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  "Radioactive  Waste  Repository 
Authority" (RAWRA). The latter monitors the account and verifies the decommissioning cost 
estimate  on  the  basis  of  both  publicly  available  information  and  expert  estimates.  The 
decommissioning plan and the relevant cost estimate of each nuclear installation or workplace 
shall be updated at least every 5 years. 

The  most  recent  decommissioning  cost  estimates  covering  the  technical  decommissioning 
amounted to €690 million for NPPs Dukovany 1-4, and €583 million for Temelin 1-2 (2009 
prices).  Liabilities  resulting  from  spent-fuel  management  (e.g.,  costs  for  on-site  interim 
storage)  and  all  costs  related  to  final  nuclear  waste  disposal  are  not  covered  by  these 
estimates. Estimated decommissioning costs are based on undiscounted decommissioning cost 
estimates which must be updated every five years. 

The cost for the disposal of all spent fuel and high level waste is borne by the waste producers 
via their contributions to the so-called "Nuclear Account", a dedicated external fund held at 
the Czech National Bank and managed by the Ministry of Finance.  TThhee   ""RRaaddiiooaaccttiivvee   WWaassttee  
RReeppoossiittoorryy  AAuutthhoorriittyy""  mmoonniittoorrss  tthhee  aaddeeqquuaaccyy  ooff  tthhee  Nuclear Account. 

The contribution of nuclear power plants to the Nuclear Account is based on their electricity 
production  at  the  rate  of  2  €/MWe.  Waste  producers  operating  nuclear  research  reactor 
contribute on the basis of heat generation at the rate of 0,6 €/MWt.  

Small producers pay when their waste is accepted for disposal.  

2.8.3.  Decommissioning strategy 

The  adopted  decommissioning  strategy  for  both  nuclear  power  plant  sites  involves  a  35-40 
year  safe  enclosure  period  following  spent  fuel  removal  and  facility  preparation  (deferred 
decommissioning). The installation is then decommissioned over a ten year period. A green 
field state is not an absolute requirement. The timescale for research reactor decommissioning 
is more rapid but subject to optimisation for economic reasons. 

2.8.4.  Radioactive waste management 

The  waste  resulting  from  the  decommissioning  process  will  be  processed  by  standard 
technologies,  which  are  presently  available  and  which  are  or  will  be  used  in  the  Dukovany 
nuclear power plant and the Temelin nuclear power plant. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
Radioactive  waste  repositories  are  available  for  the  nuclear  power  plants’  decommissioning 
waste  and  for  the  waste  arising  from  decommissioning  of  other  nuclear  installations  and 
workplaces. 

The decommissioning waste that does not meet the waste acceptance criteria for disposal in 
existing  repositories  is  planned  to  be  disposed  of  in  a  deep  geological  repository. 
Investigations are on-going to select an appropriate site for a deep geological repository.  

2.9. 

FINLAND 

2.9.1.  Overview 

Finland has four existing power reactors, two boiling water reactors at Olkiluoto, operated by 
TVO and two pressurised water reactors at Loviisa, operated by Fortum Power and Heat. A 
European Pressurised Water reactor (EPR) is under construction at Olkiluoto and is expected 
to become operational in 2014. A project for a new nuclear power plant has been put forward 
by  Fennovoima  at  the  Pyhäjoki  site.  Two  decisions-in-principle  were  made  by  the  Finnish 
Government and ratified by the Parliament in 2010 concerning a fourth reactor in Olkiluoto 
for  TVO  and  a  reactor  in  Pyhäjoki  for  Fennovoima.  VTT  Technical  Research  Centre  of 
Finland has decided to close the small Triga Mark II research reactor in Espoo after 50 years 
of  operation.  Decommissioning  is  expected  to  start  in  the  next  few  years,  preceded  by  an 
environmental  impact  assessment.  The  exact  closure  date  of  the  reactor  has  not  yet  been 
decided. 

2.9.2.  Decommissioning funding 

Since 1988, financing of nuclear waste management and decommissioning has been regulated 
by the provisions included in the "Nuclear Energy Act" and the "Decree on the State Nuclear 
Waste Management Fund". 

The operators of NPPs are responsible for the management of all nuclear waste. The operators 
have to take care of their waste including that of decommissioning until the waste has been 
disposed of in a manner accepted by the authorities. Responsibilities cover planning, research 
and implementation including the costs. 

The "State Nuclear Waste Management Fund" is a special-purpose fund, segregated from the 
State  budget.  Its  task  is  to  collect,  hold  and  invest  in  a  secure  way  the  funds  needed  to 
guarantee  the  future  management  of  nuclear  waste.  The  Ministry  of  Employment  and  the 
Economy  (MEE)  controls  that  the  operation  of  the  Fund  complies  with  the  legislation.  The 
Fund  does  not  pay  for  the  waste  management  measures  but  keeps  in  safe  the  money 
corresponding to the costs of the remaining measures. Theoretically, all the funds have been 
returned  to  the  operators  when  they  have  carried  out  all  the  necessary  waste  management 
operations. For these reasons, the Fund could be described as a guarantee fund. 

The Fund’s capital consists of the contributions determined annually by the MEE and paid by 
the  utilities  and  the  operator  of  the  research  reactor.  The  waste  management  and 
decommissioning costs shall be evaluated in nominal terms following the current cost level, 
without  discounting.  If  a  significant  part  of  the  costs  are  not  dependent  on  the  amount  of 
nuclear waste the system allows distribution of costs over the first 25 years of plant operation 
against full securities. Also, the funding of major increases in liability may be distributed over 
five years. 

In  2011  the  State  Nuclear  Waste  Management  Fund  amounted  to  about  €  2120  million, 
adequate to cover 97% of the future financial liabilities. These arise from the conditioning and 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
disposal of the current amount of waste and decommissioning of the facilities. The collection 
of  assets  will  continue  in  order  to  cover  the  remaining  liability  and  that  due  to  additional 
accumulation  of  nuclear  waste.  At  each  moment,  the  amount  of  liabilities  which  is  not  yet 
covered by the fund has to be covered by securities supplied by the licensees. To provide for 
unforeseen costs, the Government can decide on an extra security of up to 10 % of the total 
liability. 

The licensees are entitled to borrow money from the Fund against securities. These loans may 
not  exceed  75%  of  the  confirmed  fund  holding  of  the  loan-taker  at  a  time.  The  State  has  a 
right to borrow the sum not borrowed by the contributors. The remaining funds are invested 
by the Fund.  

For ensuring that the cost estimates for waste management and decommissioning are realistic, 
the owners of the NPP’s are obliged to update cost estimates for carrying out nuclear waste 
management, including decommissioning, every three years. A plan for the decommissioning 
of  nuclear  facilities,  which  includes  technical  details,  shall  be  updated  at  six  year  intervals. 
The authorities review these technical plans and cost estimates. The last updates for technical 
plans were published in 2009 and for cost estimates in 2010. 

2.9.3.  Decommissioning strategy and radioactive waste management 

Management  of  spent  nuclear  fuel  from  the  NPPs  is  based  on  disposal  into  a  geological 
repository, planned to be operational around 2020. Low and intermediate level waste from the 
NPPs will be disposed of into already existing licensed onsite repositories. 

The decommissioning  plan for the Loviisa NPP is based on immediate dismantling after 50 
years of operation. The spent fuel storage remains on site after the plant is decommissioned 
until all spent fuel has been transported to Olkiluoto for final disposal. The decommissioning 
plan for the Olkiluoto NPP units 1 and 2 is based on deferred dismantling after a safe storage 
period of 30 years. The decommissioning strategy of the unit OL 3 is immediate dismantling. 
Dismantling  of  all  the  units  at  Olkiluoto  site  is  expected  to  be  done  in  one  campaign.  The 
onsite  repositories  for  operational  low  and  intermediate  level  waste  will  be  extended  to 
accommodate the waste from decommissioning. The strategy in Olkiluoto is justified by the 
decrease  of  the  activity  of  the  contaminated  circuits  and  because  of  the  continuation  of  the 
nuclear activities at the site is foreseen towards the end of the century. The strategy in Loviisa 
is  justified  by  the  feasibility  of  decontamination  of  the  primary  circuit,  availability  of 
experienced workers and by the need of the site for new electricity generation capacity. 

2.10. 

SPAIN 

2.10.1.  Overview 

Spain has 8 operating power reactors, two shutdown reactors (one in  safe enclosure), a fuel 
fabrication  plant  and  one  nuclear  research  center,  currently  under  decommissioning,  and 
around  1,200  radioactive  instalations  in  the  field  of  the  industry,  medicine  and  research 
generating  LILW.  None  of  its  Uranium  mines  is  operational,  all  of  them  being  already 
environmentally  restored.  The  "Spanish  Radioactive  Waste  Management  Organisation" 
(ENRESA), a state company set up in 1984, is responsible for spent  fuel, radioactive waste 
management and decommissioning activities. Since the endorsement of the Law 11/2009, the 
management  of  radioactive  waste,  including  spent  nuclear  fuel,  and  the  dismantling  and 
decommissioning  of  nuclear  facilities  was  qualified  as  an  essential  public  service 
corresponding exclusively to the State (commissioned to ENRESA). 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
2.10.2.  Decommissioning funding 

A  Royal  Decree  1349/2003  on  the  ordering  of  the  activities  of  ENRESA  requires  the 
conclusion  of  contracts  between  ENRESA  and  the  companies  owning  nuclear  power  plants 
and other facilities generating radioactive waste. The major objective of these contracts is to 
establish the conditions for the reception of radioactive  waste during the operating life time 
and the decommissioning of the installations. 

The  regulation  on  the  provision  of  funds  for  waste  management  and  decommissioning  was 
originally  based  on  a  general  fee  on  the  electricity  tariff;  but  since  the  approval  of  Royal 
Decree-Law  5/2005,  a  revised  system  is  applied  where  nuclear  utilities bear the  bulk  of  the 
expenses (last amendments by Law 11/2009 and Law 2/2011). 

These amounts are allocated to the build-up of a fund, managed by ENRESA, the revenues of 
which arise from: 

The  amounts  collected  via  the  supply  and  access  fees  proportional  to  electricity  sales.  The 
percentages  to  be  applied,  established  by  the  Law  11/2009,  can  be  modified  by  the 
Government. By these means, funds are collected for the management of waste generated in 
NPPs  that  ceased  their  operation  before  1st  of  January  2010,  as  well  as  waste  generated  by 
other reasons (eg. research activities, unexpected shutdown of a NPP, etc.). 

Fees  to  the  licensees  of  the  nuclear  power  plants  of  a  certain  amount,  which  results  from 
multiplying the gross kilowatt-hours generated by each plant in each calendar month by a unit 
value specific to each plant established by the Law, that can be modified by the Government. 
This system, in force since 1st of January 2010, is applied to cover the management of spent 
fuel and waste generated by NPPs in operation.  

Fees  collected  for  the  management  of  radioactive  wastes  arising  from  the  manufacturing  of 
fuel  assemblies  and  for  the  dismantling  of  the  facilities  at  which  such  fuel  assemblies  are 
manufactured. 

Billing to the operators of radioactive facilities generating radioactive wastes and involved in 
medicine, industry, agriculture and research, to be directly collected to the operators via tariffs 
approved by the Law, that can be also modified by the Government. 

The financial management of the fund by ENRESA is governed by the principles of security, 
profitability  and  liquidity.  The  total  amount  shall  cover  the  costs  related  to  the  activities 
contemplated in the General Radioactive Waste Plan GRWP. For nuclear power plants, a 40 
years service lifetime is assumed in the calculation. The average value of the yearly incomes 
estimated  to  finance  the  future  costs  of  decommissioning  and  end  fuel  cycle  burdens 
represents around €6.69/MWh of nuclear origin (2011 value).  

The GRWP includes activities regarding the management of radioactive waste, spent fuel as 
well  as  dismantling  and  decommissioning  of  both  nuclear  and  radioactive  facilities.  It  also 
addresses the uranium mining and milling activities performed prior to 1984. The GRWP is 
revised  every  four  years  or  more  frequently  upon  the  request  of  the  Ministry  of  Industry, 
Energy and Tourism. In addition to this, during the first six months of every year, ENRESA 
draws up an updated economic-financial study of the costs of the activities contemplated in 
the  GRWP.  Furthermore,  each  year  a  technical-economic  assessment  is  submitted  to  justify 
the suitability of the annual budget for the next financial year and to provide forecasts for the 
next three years, with respect to the provisions of the updated economic-financial study of the 
costs.Total  decommissioning  and  waste  management  costs  are  estimated  at  €16.8  billion 
(2011  value),  including  disposal.  The  dismantling  of  nuclear  power  plants  is  estimated  at 
€3.18  billion  (2011  value).  The  total  amount  of  money  collected  in  the  fund  as  of  31st 
December, 2010 was €2.913 million, i.e. roughly 24% of the future stimated cost. 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
2.10.3.  Decommissioning strategy 

The GRWP set up as the national selected strategy is one of immediate dismantling except for 
the  Vandellós  I  nuclear  power  plant,  which  is  already  decommissioned  to  stage  2  as  of  the 
beginning  of  2003  and  which  is  due  to  remain  in  safe  enclosure  state  for  30  years.  The 
immediate  decommissioning  strategy  is  to  be  initiated  three  years  after  definitive  shutdown 
and following removal of the spent fuel. The end-point of decommissioning is the free release 
of the site, e.g. “green field”. 

2.10.4.  Radioactive waste management 

The handling, storage and disposal of radioactive waste are the responsibility of ENRESA, the 
Spanish radioactive waste management agency. The radioactive waste management services 
offered  by  ENRESA  to  the  operators  of  nuclear  and  radioactive  facilities  are  governed  by 
contracts  based  on  corresponding  type-contracts  and  the  fees  established  by  the  Law.  Once 
the  radioactive  waste  is  removed  from  the  facilities,  ENRESA  becomes  responsible  for  its 
management until its definitive disposal. 

In accordance with the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the 
Safety  of  Radioactive  Waste  Management  the  seven  nuclear  power  plant  sites  in  Spain  are 
also radioactive waste management facilities. 

2.11.  UNITED KINGDOM 

2.11.1.  Overview 

In  the  United  Kingdom  there  are  three  main  nuclear  operators,  British  Energy  (BE),  British 
Nuclear  Fuel  (BNFL),  and  the  UK  Atomic  Energy  Authority  (UKAEA).  BE  is  a  private 
company while BNFL and UKAEA belong to the public sector. The UK’s decommissioning 
plans  are  advanced  and  well  documented,  because  the  UK  was  a  pioneer  in  the  field  of 
nuclear  power  generation  and  already  has  many  retired  nuclear  facilities  that  need  to  be 
decommissioned. The UK government’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) was set 
up  in  2005  to  take  over  the  sites  previously  owned  by  BNFL  and  the  UKAEA  and  is  also 
expected to manage the decommissioning of British Energy’s sites. 

The total cost of decommissioning Britain’s civil nuclear facilities is currently estimated to be 
in  excess  of  €100  billion,  although  it  is  widely  expected  that  this  figure  will  rise.  The  cost 
estimates  are  dominated  by  two  sites,  Dounreay  and  Sellafield,  which  account  for 
approximately 75% of the total liability.  

Due  to  its  operational  independence,  the  NDA  is  considered  to  be  a  useful  model  for  other 
countries  to  follow  for  the  management  of  decommissioning  once  the  facilities  have  been 
closed. However, the funding mechanisms that resulted in identifiable funds representing only 
1  percent  of  current  liabilities,  needs  to  be  carefully  addressed  in  order  to  avoid  possible 
repetitions.  In  addition,  the  funding  arrangements  for  NDA  give  some  cause  for  concern  in 
that  the  government  share  (currently  50%)  is  based  upon  a  short  term  commitment  period 
which can be seen as inappropriate for long term decommissioning planning. 

2.11.2.  Decommissioning funding 

The  NDA  has  contributed  to  transparency  by  publishing  a  vast  amount  of  useful  and 
accessible  material  on  its  decommissioning  plans  and  the  estimated  costs  through  the 
‘Lifecycle Baselines’ it drafts for each of its main facilities. A similar remark cannot be made 
for the government underwritten BE fund. 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
There have been a number of major changes in the way decommissioning provisions for the 
civil  nuclear  power  plants  have  been  collected.  Provisions  were  initially  set  up  as  internal 
unsegregated  provisions,  however  these  were  not  passed  on  to  successor  companies.  A 
consumer subsidy was introduced in the 1990s – Fossil Fuel Levy (FFL) – in order to finance 
inter-alia,  decommissioning  costs.  The  absence  of  any  segregated  fund,  and  the  creation  of 
NDA has seen the main part of this subsidy used by the government for purposes other than 
nuclear decommissioning. 

BE operates the AGR reactors and the Sizewell B PWR. Approximately €350 million of the 
FFL  was  passed  on  to  BE  and  placed  in  a  segregated  fund  which  did  not  address  stage  1 
decommissioning.  This  and  the  very  long  deferral  periods  mean  BE  was  required  to  only 
provide  relatively  small  discounted  contributions.  Subsequently,  under  the  EC  approved 
restructuring package, the former fund was subsumed within the new Nuclear Liabilities Fund 
(NLF).  BE  makes  periodic  contributions  into  the  NFL,  aimed  at  covering  all  stages  of 
decommissioning  and  uncontracted  liabilities.  While  BE  is  making  an  effort  to  cover  the 
decommissioning costs of its power stations, there can be no guarantee that the assets in the 
segregated fund will be sufficient. Therefore, the fund is underwritten by the UK Government 
to  ensure  safety  and  environmental  protection.  Nevertheless,  the  Government  can  initiate  at 
specific  intervals,  the  first  of  which  is  2015,  a  'Fund  Review'  if  it  believes  the  assets  of  the 
Fund  will  outstrip  the  liabilities  by  125%.  If  the  Review  confirms  that  position,  the 
Government has a right to extract the excess funds from the NLF. 

BE’s  nuclear  liabilities  are  estimated  in  the  companies  accounts  for  the  year  ending  31st 
March  2003  at  €1.5  billion  for  decommissioning,  €5  billion  for  Contracted  Spent  Fuel 
Liabilities and €1.5 billion for uncontracted Spent Fuel Liabilities. BE is also responsible for 
future  (post  Jan  2005)  spent  fuel  liabilities.  Under  the  EC  approved  restructuring  plan,  BE 
contributes to the NLF in the following ways: a fixed contributions of €35 million per annum; 
€412  million  of  new  bonds;  €225,000  per  tonne/uranium  of  fuel  loaded  into  Sizewell  B 
reactor; and 65 % of BE’s free cash flow. The value of the segregated fund as set out in 2004 
annual accounts was €660 million. 

2.11.3.  Decommissioning strategy 

By international standards, UK timescales for decommissioning are long: completion of final 
clearance  for  nuclear  power  plants  is  not  expected  until  up  to  130  years  after  plant  closure. 
NDA  has  an  objective  to  reduce  this  to  25  years,  which  will  tend  to  increase  undiscounted 
costs  and  massively  increase  discounted  costs.  While  the  NDA  has  a  supervisory  role  over 
plans  to  decommission  British  Energy’s  plants,  it  is  not  entirely  clear  whether  it  is  able  to 
require British Energy to reduce the timescales for its plants, which on current plans assume 
site clearance is not complete until nearly 100 years after plant closure. 

2.11.4.  Radioactive waste management 

The  UK  has  disposal  facilities  for  low  and  very  low  level  radioactive  wastes.  Pending 
decisions on a long-term solution, interim and high level waste is stored on site. The NDA’s 
strategy  for  dealing  with  radioactive  waste  is  dependent  on  the  outcome  of  wider  reviews 
initiated by the UK Government.  

2.12.  ROMANIA 

2.12.1.  Overview 

Romania  operates  two  pressurised  heavy  water  reactor  units  in  Cernavodã,  operated  by  SN 
Nuclearelectrica SA. In addition, Romania has a dual core TRIGA research reactor in Pitesti, 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
operated  by  Institute  for  Nuclear  Research  (SCN)  and  a  shutdown  WWR-S  type  reactor  in 
Bucharest, currently in the second stage of decommissioning, owned by "National Institute of 
Physics and Nuclear Engineering – Horia Hulubei" (IFIN-HH). 

The  "Nuclear  and  Radioactive  Waste  Agency"  (AN&DR)  is  responsible  for  the  disposal  of 
radioactive  waste  (RW)  and  spent  nuclear  fuel  (SNF),  and  to  ensure  at  national  level  the 
coordination of the nuclear installations decommissioning process. AN&DR is a specialized 
body of the central public administration, with legal personality, under the coordination of the 
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Business Environment. 

2.12.2.  Decommissioning funding 

In 2007 the Government of Romania adopted a decision regarding the way of establishment 
and  of  management  of  the  financial  resources  necessary  for  the  safe  management  of 
radioactive waste and for the decommissioning of the nuclear and radiological facilities. 

The purpose of this decision was to determine the amount of contributions that must be paid 
by  the  licence  holders  that  hold  nuclear  units,  in  order  to  constitute  the  necessary  financial 
resources to cover the costs for the decommissioning and the safe management of radioactive 
waste generated by the operation and the decommissioning of these facilities, as well as the 
way of administration and management of the financial accumulations achieved in this way. 

Therefore,  in  2007  two  segregated  funds  were  established:  one  to  cover  the  costs  of  the 
disposal of SNF and RW generated by the operation and the decommissioning of the nuclear 
facilities, the "Waste Management Fund" (WMF) and the second one to cover the costs of the 
decommissioning  of  nuclear  facilities,  the  "Decommissioning  Fund"  (DF).  The  waste 
generators are required to make annual contributions to both funds, which are administrated 
by AN&DR.  

SN Nuclearelectrica SA, the main contributor of both funds, pays a levy on energy production 
at  the  rates  of  1.4  Euro/MWh  for  WMF  and  0.6  Euro/MWh  for  the  DF.  The  funds  are 
constituted by the State Treasury into interest bearing accounts. The Cernavoda reactor units 
have  a  design  lifetime  of  30  years  with  possibility  to  be  extended  to  50  years  after  a  major 
refurbisment (25 of operation +1.5 years of refurbishment+25 year of operation). According 
to  the  current  estimations,  the  refurbishment  process  for  Cernavoda  NPP  Unit  1  will  take 
place  between  2022-2023.  Following  shutdown,  decommissioning  costs  are  to  be  incurred 
over a period of 70 years and are estimated to be around of €250 million per reactor unit. 

The funds earmarked for decommissioning of research reactors will be ensured from the State 
Budget.  

2.12.3.  Decommissioning strategy 

The existing Preliminary Decommissioning Plan (PDP) for Cernavoda NPP Units 1 and 2 is 
under review and has to be completed by the end of year 2012. Cernavoda NPP units 3 and 4 
issued in 2010 the first version of PDP which was endorsed by AN&DR.  

The immediate dismantling strategy was selected for decommissioning the WWR-S reactor. 
The  implementation  of  the  strategy  is  based  on  the  decommissioning  plan  and  the  project 
management. 

2.12.4.  Radioactive waste management 

According to the law, the predisposal management of the radioactive waste (handling, storage, 
treatment and conditioning) is under the responsibility of the waste generators. As shown in 
the Romanian Report to the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
the  Safety  of  Radioactive  Waste  Management,  the  three  nuclear  facilities  sites  in  Romania 
have their own radioactive waste management installations.  

The  implementation  of  the  Romanian  national  strategy  for  radioactive  waste  management 
aims to create an operating repository for low - and intermediate - level radioactive waste by 
2020. The facility will be suitable to accommodate short-lived radioactive waste, with long-
lived radionuclides in limited quantities originating form operation and decommissioning of 
four units at Cernavoda NPP. The concept proposed for disposal of the waste is a near-surface 
repository with multiple barrier system.  

The  disposal  of  institutional  radioactive  waste  is  performed  in  the  National  Repository  for  Low 
and Intermediate Level Wastes (DNDR), operated by IFIN-HH. 

For  the  management  of  the  SNF  and  long-lived  RW,  Romania  is  developing  a  preliminary 
programme for establishing a geological repository along with the cost estimation. 

2.13.  HUNGARY 

2.13.1.  Overview 

There  are  four  nuclear  facilities  in  Hungary:  The  Paks  Nuclear  Power  Plant,  the  Budapest 
Research  Reactor  at  the  KFKI  Atomic  Energy  Research  Institute,  the  training  reactor  at 
Budapest University of Technology and Economics and an Interim Spent Fuel Storage (ISFS) 
Facility. 

Other facilities, in which radioactive materials are produced, processed, used, handled, stored 
or disposed, are non-nuclear facilities. Nuclear facilities fall under the regulatory jurisdiction 
of the "Hungarian Atomic Energy Authority" (HAEA), non-nuclear facilities are licensed by 
the "National Public Health and Medical Officer Service".  

For the Paks NPP, the initial design lifetime was 30 years, however a lifetime-extension of 20 
years  is  currently  under  discussion.  This  will  require  a  licence  from  the  regulatory  body. 
(Concerning the first unit, the lifetime extension licence application was submitted to HAEA 
by the licensee in 2011.) 

2.13.2.  Decommissioning funding 

The  "Central  Nuclear  Financial  Fund"  (CNFF)  was  established  on  1  January  1998.  It  is  a 
separate Treasury account made up of the contributions of the nuclear facilities operators and 
the  waste  producers.  It  is  designed  for  financing  the  construction  and  operation  of  disposal 
facilities  for  the  final  disposal  of  radioactive  waste,  as  well  as  for  interim  storage  of  spent 
nuclear  fuel  and  closure  of  the  fuel  cycle  (according to the present  reference scenario: final 
disposal of spent fuel), and decommissioning of nuclear facilities. CNFF is managed by the 
HAEA.  The  state  is  responsible  for  preserving  the  value  of  CNFF  by  making  annual 
contributions with a sum that is calculated on the average assets of the Fund in the previous 
year using the average base interest rate of the central bank in the previous year. 

It is important to add that the CNFF (being a separate, segregated state fund) is on a separate 
account in the Hungarian State Treasury, and falls under the control of the "State Audit Office 
of  Hungary"  (SAO).  Year  by  year,  when  giving  opinion  on  the  budget  appropriation  bill  of 
the  Republic  of  Hungary,  SAO  reviews  also  the  proposed  budget  of  CNFF  as  part  of  the 
central budget. 

The nuclear power plant at Paks is obliged to make annual contributions to the fund covering 
the total cost of waste and spent fuel management and decommissioning until the end of its 
operation. The payment is determined annually by the "Public Agency for Radioactive Waste 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
the  research  and 

Management" (PURAM) in discussion with the HAEA, the Hungarian Energy Office as well 
as a special committee of the CNFF, and approved by the Minister disposing over the Fund. 
Finally,  as 
their 
decommissioning will be paid into the CNFF by the state when the time comes. The Act on 
Atomic  Energy  requires  that  nuclear  facilities  pay  during  their  life-time  into  the  Central 
Nuclear  Financial  Fund  the  cost  of  all  activities  to  cover  radioactive  waste  and  spent  fuel 
management as well as decommissioning. The calculations are updated anually. 

training  reactors  are  state-owned, 

the  cost  of 

In total the decommissioning cost of the Paks Nuclear Power Plant and the Interim Spent Fuel 
Storage Facility was estimated as 330 billion HUF given in 2011 year price, which is about € 
1,182 million (calculated with the 2011 year average exchange rate: 279 HUF/Euro). 

2.13.3.  Decommissioning strategy 

PURAM is responsible for the decommissioning and waste management activities, including 
preparation  of  the  long  term  plans  and  calculation  of  the  related  costs.  The  plans,  after 
supervision by the HAEA, are approved by the Minister supervising the HAEA.  

The first study report discussing the decommissioning of the nuclear facilities (Paks NPP and the 
ISFS  facility  as  well)  was  prepared  by DECOM Slovakia  Ltd  in  1997.  Then  DECOM Slovakia 
Ltd and TS-ENERCON Ltd jointly prepared the first version of the preliminary decommissioning 
plan of the ISFS in 2003.  

The present, accepted decommissioning strategy is deferred dismantling with a safe enclosure 
period of 20 years contained in the preliminary decommissioning plan (actualised in 2008). It 
has been worked out for the “green field” option as the end point of decommissioning. 

The preliminary decommissioning plan is updated with a 5 years period, but its cost estimates are 
reviewed annually. 

2.13.4.  Radioactive waste management 

Non-nuclear power plant wastes are disposed of in the existing Radioactive Waste Treatment 
and  Disposal  Facility,  operational  since  1976.  The  Interim  Spent  Fuel  Storage  Facility  is 
available for spent fuels from the nuclear power plant. 

In addition, a project is on-going to construct a low and intermediate level waste repository at 
Bátaapáti  (National  Radioactive  Waste  Repository;  NRWR)  for  the  operational  and 
decommissioning  waste  of  the  NPP.  A  referendum  held  in  July  2005  demonstrated  the 
existence of a very high level of public acceptance at local level for this project. As the first 
phase  of  the  construction  of  the  repository,  the  surface  facilities  were  completed  in  2008, 
which  enables  to  temporarly  store  of  a  part  of  solid  waste  from  the  NPP.  The  first  disposal 
gallery will be installed and commissioned in the underground disposal area of Bátaapáti NRWR 
by the end of 2012. 

Finally, a site for a deep geological repository is being examined for the final disposal of high 
activity wastes and spent fuel. 

2.14.  NETHERLANDS 

2.14.1.  2.14.1 Overview 

The Netherlands has one operational power reactor (Borssele) which has recently been subject 
to  a  lifetime  extension  up  to  2033.  A  second  power  reactor  (Dodewaard)  was  shutdown  in 
1997 and is currently in safe enclosure. An enrichment facility (URENCO) is in operation at 
Almelo and the country contains several operational research reactors and waste storages. 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
There  has  been  a  general  understanding  that  the  "polluter  pays  principle"  applies. 
for 
Consequently, 
decommissioning  on  a  voluntary  basis.  The  decommissioning  funds  were  managed  by  the 
utilities.  

the  NPPs  had  made 

the  operators  of 

reservations 

financial 

Since  April  2011  the  owners  of  nuclear  facilities  have  the  legal  obligation  to  set  up  a 
decommissioning  fund,  in  order  to  fully  cover  the  decommissioning  costs.  Also  for  the 
countries research reactors decommissioning funds have been established. 

2.14.2.  Decommissioning funding 

In principle the licensee is responsible for all aspects of decommissioning. According to the 
latest revision of the Nuclear Energy Act, in force since April 2011, a nuclear facility shall be 
decommissioned  directly  after  final  shut  down17.  The  new  legislation  also  requires  the 
licensee to make available adequate financial resources for decommissioning at the moment 
that  these  are  required.  Therefore,  the  licensee  will  have  to  calculate  the  costs  of  all  the 
activities  described  in  the  decommissioning  plan,  and  provide  for  a  financial  provision 
the  envisaged  start  of 
offering  sufficient  security 
decommissioning. The licensee is free to choose the form of the financial provision: however, 
it  shall  be  approved  by  the  authorities.  At  the  moment  of  writing  this  report,  the  licensees 
have prepared their financial provisions, and are discussing them with the authorities. 

that  all  costs  are  covered  at 

2.14.3.  Decommissioning strategy 

Decommissioning  implies  the  implementation  of  all  administrative  and  technical  measures 
that are necessary to remove the facility in a safe manner, and to create an end state of ‘green 
field’.  Therefore,  during  the  operational  phase,  the  licensee  is  required  to  develop  a 
decommissioning plan, describing all the necessary measures to safely reach the end state of 
decommissioning, including the management of radioactive waste, record keeping, etc. This 
decommissioning plan shall be periodically updated every five years, and shall be approved 
by  the  authorities.  The  decommissioning  plan  finally  becomes  part  of  the  decommissioning 
licence.  

At  the  end  of  decommissioning,  the  licensee  can  apply  for  withdrawal  of  the  licence,  after 
presenting an end report to the authorities proving that the decommissioning was completed. 
After  withdrawal  of  the  licence,  records  will  be  stored  at  the  "Central  Organisation  for 
Radioactive Waste" (COVRA). 

In May 2002 a licence was granted to GKN, the operator of the NPP Dodewaard, to bring and 
keep the plant in a safe enclosure until 2045. One of the requirements in the licence for safe 
enclosure  is  to  keep  a  record  system  of  the  inventory  of  all  radioactive  materials  and 
components, which have become contaminated or activated during operation, and to update it 
every five years. In July 2005 the stage of safe enclosure was realised. Another requirement in 
the license is that the licensee shall commence dismantling in 2045. The licensee will have to 
apply for a dismantling licence in due time. 

For the nuclear power station in Borssele the government has reached an agreement with the 
operator on immediate dismantling after closure (scheduled in 2033).  

The Low flux (research)Reactor at Petten has been shut down in 2010, and currently the 
decommissioning is being prepared. 

17 

1

The NPP Dodewaard, brought into state of safe enclosure in 2005, is excluded from this requirement.  

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.14.4 Radioactive waste management 

The  Nuclear  Energy  Act  stipulates  that  a  licensee  can  dispose  of  waste  only  if  disposal  is 
specifically approved in a license, or by handing it over to the authorised waste management 
organisation. As such, the Central Organisation for Radioactive Waste, COVRA, is the only 
organisation  authorised  by  the  Government  of  the  Netherlands.  COVRA  N.V.  is  a  State 
owned  company  and  is  responsible  for  the  treatment  and  storage  of  all  kinds  of  radioactive 
waste  (LLW,  ILW,  HLW,  spent  fuel).  This  comprises  also  the  waste  associated  with 
dismantling of a nuclear facility. Storage takes place in a single location in the south-west of 
the country, for a period of at least 100 years. After that period, geological disposal in salt or 
clay is foreseen.  

The  government  policy  on  spent  fuel  management  is  that  the  decision  on  whether  or  not  to 
reprocess spent fuel is in the first place a matter of the operators of the Borssele NPP. In the 
past,  the  operators  have  decided  in  favour  of  reprocessing  their  spent  fuel  for  economic 
reasons.  This  decision  was  endorsed  by  the  government.  The  operator  of  the  Borssele  NPP 
has recently extended the contract with the reprocessing facility at la Hague, France. As the 
NPP Dodewaard is concerned, all spent fuel has been reprocessed in the past. 

A centralised storage facility for HLW and spent fuel from research reactors, the HABOG 
facility, is available at Borssele.  

2.15.  LITHUANIA 

2.15.1.  Overview 

Lithuania had two nuclear reactors located at the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant, close to the 
town of Visaginas.  Before closure, these reactors constituted  up to 70-80% of the country’s 
electricity generating capacity. In line with obligations enshrined in the Treaty of Accession 
to the European Union, Unit 1 was permanently shutdown on 31 December 2004 and Unit 2 
on  31  December  2009.  In  order  to  mitigate  the  effects  of  the  obligation  to  shut  down  the 
country's only nuclear power plant, a European Union assistance programme was established.  

Lithuania is currently planning to build a new NPP at Visaginas, in the vicinity of the Ignalina 
NPP. For decommissioning funding, the Lithuanian Law on Nuclear Energy requires that the 
operator  of  the  nuclear  installation  shall  ensure  the  accumulation  of  resources  in  a  fund  for 
decommissioning  of  the  nuclear  installation,  including  safe  decommissioning  of  the  nuclear 
installation  and  safe  management  of  radioactive  waste.  The  detailed  legislation  on  the 
Decommissioning  Fund  for  future  NPPs  is  currently  being  drafted,  in  line  with  the 
Commission  Recommendation  on 
the 
decommissioning of nuclearinstallations, spent fuel and radioactive waste. 

the  management  of  financial  resources  for 

2.15.2.  Decommissioning funding 

The Ignalina reactors are foreseen for immediate dismantling with completion by 2030. The 
total  cost  of  decommissioning  is  estimated  at  €2,4  million  (2011),  based  on  the  immediate 
dismantling strategy. 

There are presently three different sources available for funding of decommissioning: direct 
European  Union  assistance;  the  Ignalina  International  Decommissioning  Support  Fund 
(IIDSF) to which the European Union is the largest contributor (~95%); and a National Fund. 
The  main  source  of  the  National  Fund  was  an  annual  contribution  amounting  to  6%  of  the 
plant’s  revenue  from  the  sold  electricity.  The  closure  of  the  unit  2  reactor  in  2009  led  to  a 
shortfall in the national fund, there being no longer any revenue to be taxed. This problem is 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
currently  being  addressed  by  the  manager  of  the  fund,  who  has  developed  a  plan  for 
corrective measures to fund the shortfall. 

By 2013 the total support to Lithuania will reach approximately €1.4 billion via either direct 
European Union contributions or the IIDSF. However, this assistance is not only foreseen for 
decommissioning of the reactors. Issues related  to security of supply (replacement capacity) 
and  the  maintenance  of  an  adequate  safety  culture  and  retraining  at  the  plant  are  also 
addressed. It is also to be noted that a significant proportion of the State Fund has been used 
for  non-nuclear  projects  relating  to  replacement  capacity.  An  additional  European  Union 
contribution is envisaged for the period 2014-2017. 

2.15.3.  Decommissioning strategy 

The Final Decommissioning Plan, the result of intensive discussions, is based solely upon the 
selected  strategy  of  immediate  dismantling.  The  immediate  decommissioning  strategy  is 
planned  to  reach  the  “brown  field”  state,  with  possible  re-use  of  the  site  as  an  industrial 
facility  or  for  new  energy  production.  The  decommissioning  project  is  expected  to  be 
completed by 2030. 

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

2.15.4.  Radioactive waste management 

At  present,  only  operational  waste  facilities  are  available  in  Lithuania.  A  landfill  buffer 
facility for short-lived very low level radioactive waste and a dry storage facility for spent fuel 
are under construction. The construction of a near surface repository and a land fill facility for 
low  and  medium  level  radioactive  waste  are  foreseen  to  start  by  2013/2014.  A  final  waste 
repository is expected to become available in 2050. 

2.16.  AUSTRIA 

2.16.1.  Overview 

In  1978,  the  Austrian  electorate  decided  in  a  referendum  not  to  start  the  operation  of  the 
completed nuclear power plant in Zwentendorf. Subsequently, Austria’s statute as  a nuclear 
free country was introduced in the constitution and enforced in the regulatory framework.  

Only one nuclear installation exists in Austria: A TRIGA research reactor, which is operated 
by the Vienna University of Technology (Institute of Atomic and Subatomic Physics). 

The  two  other  nuclear  installations,  the  ASTRA  research  reactor  in  Seibersdorf  and  a  zero 
power research reactor in Graz, have been shut down and decommissioned.  

2.16.2.  Decommissioning funding 

Vienna  University  of  Technology  has  reserved  financial  resources  for  a  back-end 
management  for  spent  fuel  return.  The  Austrian  state  will  take  over  the  costs  for 
decommissioning of the facility at the end of the operating life of the reactor. 

Since the beginning of 2003, all holders of radioactive waste and orphan sources for disposal 
are obliged to make contributions to a fund for final disposal. When the radioactive waste is 
delivered  to  "Nuclear  Engineering  Seibersdorf  GmbH"  (NES)  for  treatment  and  interim 
storage,  a  charge  (“Vorsorgeentgelt”)  has  to  be  paid.  This  charge  comprises  the  estimated 
costs for interim storage, pre-disposal treatment and transport to the final repository as well as 
for  disposal  and  long  term  management  of  the  final  repository.  The  final  disposal  fee  is 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
calculated  using  cost  estimates  based  upon  the  comparison  of  costs  on  existing  foreign 
repositories. The contributions of the producers go into a special separated fund which is not 
part  of  the  state  budget  and  is  administered  by  Austrian  national  authorities.  This  fund  is 
exclusively dedicated for financing the future final disposal in an appropriate repository.  

2.16.3.  Radioactive waste management 

The  low  and  intermediate  level  waste  resulting  from  the  decommissioning  of  the  ASTRA 
research  reactor  has  been  treated,  conditioned  and  placed  in  interim  storeage  at  NES.  The 
quantity of radioactive waste that originated from the reactor decommissioning was 160 tons 
of low level waste and less than 1 ton of intermediate level waste.  
NES  has  in  total  a  storage  capacity  of  3000  m3  for  LILW.  Around  2100  m3  of  LILW  are 
stored in the interim storage facility.  

The question regarding the final storage of radioactive waste is still open. Currently, there are 
no  plans  to  construct  a  final  repository  in  Austria  in  the  near  future.  Austria  being  a  small 
country  without  nuclear  power  plants  sees  an  international  co-operation  for  the  disposal  of 
radioactive  waste  as  the  most  reasonable  solution  and  is  therefore  interested  in  common, 
shared repositories for radioactive waste. 

2.17. 

ITALY 

2.17.1.  Overview 

Following the Chernobyl accident and subsequent 1987 referendum, the governmental body - 
“Interministerial  Committee  for  the  Economical  Planning”  -  in  charge  of  the  strategic 
decisions  on  nuclear  power  plants  decided  in  1990  on  the  definitive  closure  of  all  nuclear 
plants. At the same time Italy’s largest power company ENEL, was requested to commence 
planning  for  a  deferred  decommissioning  strategy  leading  to  the  eventual  unconditional 
release of the site.  

In  the  context  of  privatisation  and  liberalisation,  between  2000  and  2005,  the  liabilities  of 
former ENEL, FN and ENEA facilities were transferred to the company SOGIN which in turn 
has been transferred 100% to the Italian Ministry of Treasury. While total decommissioning 
liability is estimated at approximately € 4 billion ENEL has only accumulated provisions of 
€800 million prior to the re-organisation. Thus, considerable decommissioning costs are to be 
borne by the current generation through a levy on the price of electricity. 

The  only  operating  nuclear  facilities  today  in  Italy  are  research  and  waste  management 
facilities. One pilot fuel fabrication facility has been already completely dismantled. 

On  23  July  2009,  the  Italian  Parliament  approved  the  Law  n.99  “Provisions  for  the 
development and internationalization of enterprises, and energy”, setting the foundations for 
re-entering the production of electricity from nuclear power plants. Law 99/2009 contains the 
fundamental  principles  of  the  new  Italian  nuclear  legal  framework,  including  for  example  a 
Government entitlement to establish legislative procedure for the Italian nuclear power plants 
siting,  the  creation  of  an  independent  Nuclear  Safety  Agency,  the  reorganization  of  SOGIN 
and the promotion of innovation in the nuclear sector. 

In 2010, a decree on the localization and operation of facilities for the production of nuclear 
and electric power, the fabrication of nuclear fuel and storage systems of irradiated fuel and 
radioactive waste as well as compensation measures and information campaigns was issued. It 
appoints SOGIN as the company responsible for the decommissioning of the new plants. At 
the end of the life of the plant, SOGIN shall proceed with the safety enclosure of the newly 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
established  plants  and  the  decommissioning  activities  to  convert  the  site  to  other  purposes. 
Such activities will be exclusively financed by the holders of the sole authorization through a 
specific decommissioning fund. 

At the moment, however, the nuclear new build programme is suspended, awaiting the results 
of the European safety evaluation plan of the European NPPs following the nuclear accident 
in Fukushima, Japan in April 2011. 

2.17.2.  Decommissioning funding 

ENEL,  the  Italian  operator,  accumulated  funds  until  the  1987  Italian  nuclear  referendum 
(about  €800  million).  Since  then,  decommissioning  funds  have  not  been  accumulated,  but 
costs  are  covered  through  a  direct  levy  on  the  Italian  electric  bill.  A  ministerial  decree  of 
January  2000  established  an  instrument  for  financing  the  cost  of  decommissioning  by 
introducing a levy on the price of electricity paid from final users. The decree concerns only 
those  nuclear installations,  which  were in one way  or  another involved in the  production of 
electricity  (for  example:  nuclear  power  plants,  fuel  fabrication  facilities  and  reprocessing 
facilities). The levy is fixed by the National Authority for the Electricity and Gas on the basis 
of SOGIN’s annual program of activities. Between 2002 and 2004, €156 million was added 
annually  to  the  decommissioning  fund.  The  levy  is  transferred  to  a  national  fund  for  later 
transfer  to  SOGIN  in  order  to  finance  decommissioning  costs.  This  national  fund  is 
maintained as an internal unrestricted state fund, the operation of which does not appear to be 
particularly  transparent.  As  with  all  such  funds,  the  state  is  free  to  use  the  money  for  any 
purpose of public interest and not only nuclear decommissioning. 

As  a  consequence  of  the  public  financing  of  the  activities  and  of  the  creation  of  a  single 
company,  SOGIN,  to  carry  out  the  Italian  decommissioning,  a  system  of  checks  and 
evaluation  has  been  put  in  place.  The  adequacy  of  the  decommissioning  and  spent  fuel 
management costs is evaluated by the "Italian Regulatory Authority for Electricity and Gas" 
(AEEG), on the basis of a preliminary budget submitted by SOGIN, by the 31st of December 
of the year preceeding the one for which the preliminary budget refers. The expenses are then 
certified  and  approved,  once  incurred,  by  the  31st  of  March  of  the  following  year.  The 
budgets are revised and updated periodically. 

Every three years the AEEG approves the updated overall decommissioning budget (up to a 
Greenfield  status  of  the  sites)  inclusive  of  an  estimate  of  the  costs  of  final  disposal  of  all 
materials to the National Repository. 

Any shortfall is typically addressed through the raising of the A2 levy on the electrical bill. 
Such adjustments can be made every three months during the regular update of the electrical 
bill  components.  In  order  to  allow  for  adequate  planning,  SOGIN  communicates  to  the 
AEEG, at the beginning of every year and then through bi-monthly updates, an overview of 
its financial needs based on the progress of the decommissioning activities. 

The total decommissioning cost for all the nuclear facilities were estimated in 2004 at €4,029 
million. Information on the SOGIN managed fund is well documented in its annual report. 

The decommissioning policy for future NPPs has to be reformulated by the Parliament at the 
end of the current post-Fukushima moratorium. 

2.17.3.  Decommissioning strategy 

In 1999, the original deferred decommissioning strategy was revised and a decision to move 
to  immediate  decommissioning  was  made.  Three  main  objectives  were  also  set,  namely  to 
treat and condition all liquid and solid radioactive waste currently in on-site storage within a 
period of 10 years; also within 10 years, to select and construct a national repository for low 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
and intermediate level wastes which can also be used as temporary storage for high level long 
lived  wastes,  in  particular  spent  fuel  and  wastes  resulting  from  reprocessing;  and  finally  to 
start  immediately  the  nuclear  power  plants’  decommissioning  and  complete  it  by  2020.  In 
fact,  all  Italian  nuclear  installations  will  have  to  be  decommissioned  by  2016-2020 
(Garigliano NPP by 2017, Caorso NPP by 2017, Latina NPP by 2020, Trino NPP by 2016, the 
EUREX  and  the  ITREC  pilot  reprocessing  facilities  by  2016,  the  Casaccia  pilot  MOX  fuel 
fabrication  facility  by  2016  and  finally  the  FN  fuel  fabrication  facility  by  2016).  The  2020 
deadline  was  subsequently  extended  to  2024  due  to  delays  in  the  selection  of  the  site  for  a 
national repository. 

The decommissioning policy for future NPPs has to be reformulated by the Parliament at the 
end of the current post-Fukushima moratorium. 

2.17.4.  Radioactive waste management 

In the absence of a national repository, most of the radioactive waste, including spent fuel, is 
at  present  stored  in  temporary  facilities  on  the  sites  where  they  have  been  generated.  A 
process for choosing the site for the national repository is on-going. Until now, there exists 
neither a site for final waste disposal nor a centralised interim storage facility for spent fuel 
and high level waste. 

Following  the  political  decision  to  stop  nuclear  power  activities,  shipments  of  spent  fuel  to 
reprocessing facilities abroad were practically suspended. Following the political decision to 
stop  nuclear  power  activities,  shipments  of  spent  fuel  to  reprocessing  facilities  abroad  were 
suspended.  

The  issue  of  the  remaining  spent  fuel  will  be  addressed  either  by  a  instigation  of  a  new 
reprocessing  contract  or  possibily  via  on-site  storage  in  casks.  The  remaining  fuel  will  be 
covered  by  a  new  reprocessing  contract  currently  under  negotiation.  SOGIN  is  also 
considering the possibility of on-site storage in casks. 

2.18.  LATVIA 

2.18.1.  Overview 

There  was  only  one  fully  State-owned  nuclear  installation  in  Salaspils  Latvia,  which  was 
permanently shut down in 1998. The Latvian Environment, Geology and Meteorology Centre 
(LEGMC) is responsible for the facility and has been performing decommissioning activities 
since 1999. Decommissioning is fully financed from the state budget.  

2.18.2.  Decommissioning funding 

A  decommissioning  cost  estimate  was  provided  with  the  initial  decommissioning  plan,  and 
approved  together  with  the  decommissioning  concept.  The  state  is  liable  for  the 
decommissioning costs, which are planned in the multi-annual state investment programme. 
The financial commitment is made in the annual state budget.  

The  completion  of  the  decommissioning  activities  is  foreseen  by  2013.  According  to  the 
revised decommissioning concept, the site will subsequently become available for nuclear use 
or for other applications involving radioactive material. 

2.18.3.  Radioactive waste management 

LEGMC also manages a near surface radioactive waste repository at Baldone. It is planned to 
modernise and  extend the  radioactive  waste repository in order to ensure the disposal of all 
radioactive waste arising from the decommissioning of the Salaspil research reactors. 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
In total, it is expected that 1032 tons of radioactive waste will require disposal. 

2.19.  ESTONIA 

2.19.1.  Overview 

Estonia  inherited  a  number  of  installations  from  Russia  related  to  the  nuclear  industry, 
amongst them Paldiski, a former Soviet nuclear submarine training centre, the only site under 
decommissioning.  

2.19.2.  Decommissioning funding 

The decommissioning project is financed by the state and its implementation was entrusted to 
the  Estonian  Radioactive  Waste  Management  Agency.  To  that  end,  EEK52  million 
(approximately €3.3 million) was budgeted during the financial years 2000-2004. 

2.19.3.  Radioactive waste management 

The  disposal  of  radioactive  waste  is  a  major  concern  in  Estonia  given  that  some  sites  store 
considerable  quantities  of  radioactive  waste,  in  particular  the  Sillamäe  Metal  and  Chemical 
Production  Plant.  The  site,  the  largest  phosphate-uranium  operation  in  the  former  Soviet 
Union,  stores  8  million  metric  tons  of  hazardous  waste  (6.3  million  metric  tons  of  uranium 
processing residues and 150,000 m3 of uranium mill tailings).  

The  targeted  projects  needed  to  address  these  historical  liabilities  are  not  foreseen  as  yet  in 
terms of financial or technical planning. 

The  management  of  radioactive  waste  being  the  major  concern,  the  final  goal  of 
decommissioning  is  to  remove  all  radioactive  material  from  the  Paldiski  site  and  its  release 
for  unrestricted  use.  Firstly,  the  operational  waste,  the  contaminated  components,  building 
materials, etc. are to be disposed of in an interim waste storage facility.  
The total capacity of the interim radioactive waste storage is 1200 m3  

The  complete  free  release  of  the  site  could  only  be  envisaged  if  a  final  radioactive  waste 
repository  was  constructed  in  Estonia.  The  preparations  for  the  selection  of  the  site  for  the 
final repository are ongoing. 

2.20. 

POLAND 

2.20.1.  General introduction 

Poland  at  the  moment  does  not  have  nuclear  electrical  generation  capacity,  since  the  past 
project  to  build  an  NPP  was  abandoned  in  1990.  However,  Poland  took  the  decision  to 
introduce  a  nuclear  power  programme  in  2009,  for  which  an  appropriate  legislative 
framework is established. The legislation concerning the safety of radioactive waste and spent 
fuel  management  activities  and  facilities  does  exist  in  Poland  under  the  Atomic  Law  Act 
(established  2000, 
the  Council  Directive 
2009/71/EURATOM  of  25  June  2009),  as  well  as  appropriate  secondary  legislation  upon 
radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel (established 2002). A review is prepared due to the 
entrance  into  force  of  the  Council  Directive  2011/70/EURATOM  of  19  July  2011, 
nevertheless the existing regulation does cover the majority of safety issues within its scope, 
as the supervision over the radioactivity use does exist in Poland. 

last  amended  2011  with 

regard 

to 

Currently,  there  is  one  research  reactor  in  operation  (one  has  been  decommissioned  to  the 
brownfield)  at  Świerk  site  near  Warsaw,  operated  by  the  "National  Centre  for  Nuclear 
Research"  (formerly:  "Institute  of  Atomic  Energy  and  Andrzej  Soltan  Institute  for  Nuclear 
Studies").  There  is  one  organization  responsible  for  and  licenced  to  dispose  the  radioactive 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
waste  and  spent  nuclear  fuel  –  "Radioactive  Waste  Management  Plant",  a  State-owned 
company,  which  activities  are  subsidized  from  the  State  budget.  It  owns  and  operates 
RW/SNF  facilities,  including  two  SNF  wet  storages,  as  well  as  the  National  Radioactive 
Waste Repository in Różan – the only repository in Poland, of surface type. 

Supervision (from nuclear safety, radiation protection and nuclear security point of view) over 
any  activities  and  facilities  within  the  scope  of  RW/SNF  management  is  performed  by  the 
President  of  the  "National  Atomic  Energy  Agency"  (NAEA)  –  a  State  nuclear  regulatory 
authority. 

2.20.2.  Decommissioning policy and funding 

In  Poland,  radioactive  waste  originates  from  research  reactors,  scientific  and  educational 
institutions, industry and medical facilities. The costs of decommissioning of research reactors 
as  well  as  RW/SNF  disposal  from  the  aforementioned  waste  streams  are  attributable  to  the 
State’s budget. The state has a general responsibility for making available adequate financial 
resources  for 
the 
decommissioning plan and for the implementation of the project, subject to the authorization 
of the President of the NAEA. 

its  decommissioning.  The  operator 

is  responsible  for  preparing 

inter  alia, 

requirements 

licensing  procedures  and 

Regarding  the  nuclear  facilities,  along  with  the  2009/71/EURATOM  Directive,  appropriate 
series of requirements have been set up for the decommissioning of nuclear facilities. It sets 
up, 
issuing  and  updating 
decommissioning  plans:  before  applying  for  the  licence  to  build,  commission  or  operate  a 
nuclear facility, the head of an organization shall draw up a nuclear facility decommissioning 
programme  to  be  submitted  to  the  nuclear  regulatory  authority  for  approval  along  with  the 
application  for  granting  the  licence.  In  the  course  of  nuclear  facility  operation,  the  said 
programme  shall  be  updated  at  least  once  every  five  years  or  immediately  if  the  nuclear 
facility is closed under circumstances unaccounted for in the programme. An updated nuclear 
facility  decommissioning  programme  shall  be  submitted  to  the  President  of  the  NAEA  for 
approval along with the estimates of the nuclear facility decommissioning cost. 

for 

The amendment of the Atomic Law Act in line with the 2009/71/EURATOM Directive sets 
up  a  series  of  requirements  for  providing  appropriate  resources  for  funding  the  NPP 
decommissioning,  as  well  as  the  final  management  and  disposal  of  radioactive  waste  and 
spent nuclear fuel arisen from the operation and decommissioning of nuclear power plant. The 
funds for decommissioning of an NPP and RW/SNF management have to be saved quarterly 
to  a  distinguished  special  found  with  a  dedicated  bank  account  assigned,  referred  to  as  a 
“decommissioning fund”. The payment shall be made for every megawatt-hour produced by 
the  nuclear  power  plant.  The  head  of  organization  authorized  to  operate  or  decommission  a 
nuclear power plant may withdraw funds from the decommissioning found only following a 
favourable  opinion  of  the  President  of  the  NAEA  and  can  use  them  only  to  finance 
decommissioning  activities..  Every  three  months  the  head  of  operating  organization  shall 
submit  a  report  on  the  amount  of  collected  funds.  In  a  case  of  a  minimum  eighteen-month-
long delay in continuing savings, the President of the NAEA may stop the NPP operation.  

2.20.3.  Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel Management 

Poland has a surface repository for low and short-lived intermediate level radioactive waste. 
The site is also available for the temporary storage of long-lived radioactive waste. Average 
annual  amount  of  the  conditioned  radioactive  waste  ready  for  disposal  constitutes  about 
100m3. 

Along  with  introducing  the  principles  of  Global  Threat  Reduction  Initiative  (GTRI)  and 
International Program of Russian Research Reactor Fuel Return (RRRFR) by the Republic of 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
Poland  and  after  undertaking  appropriate  activities,  shipments  of  HEU  SNF  to  the  Russian 
Federation  took  place  in  2009,  2010  and  2012.  Some  of  HEU  fuel  is  still  being  used; 
nevertheless  the  majority  has  been  already  shipped  to  the  country  of  its  origin.  By  this 
opportunity the transport of SNF of EK-10 LEU fuel type was arranged (on separate funding 
as  well  as  other  conditions  between  Russia  and  Poland).  The  program  is  expected  to  be 
finished in 2016 as the remaining reserve of HEU assemblies will be shipped. 

The  decommissioning  project  of  the  nuclear  research  reactor  at  the  National  Centre  for 
Nuclear  Research  in  Otwock-Swierk  estimates  the  amount  of  RW  to  be  produced  in  the 
course of decommissioning activities to be 109 m3. 

2.21.  GREECE 

Greece  has  only  one  research  reactor  (GRR-1)  operated  by  the  Institute  of  Nuclear 
Technology and Radiation Protection (INTRP) of the National Centre for Scientific Research 
“Demokritos”, a state organization. GRR-1 is currently running an extensive modification and 
refurbishment project, financed by the state. GRR-1 is a state facility and therefore the Greek 
state is responsible for the cost of decommissioning.  All decommissioning activities will  be 
financed from the state budget. 

A  detailed  decommissioning  strategy  and  funding  plan  do  not  exist  for  GRR-1,  at  this 
moment. However, a GRR-1 decommissioning plan is under preparation, in accordance to the 
national, European, and international norms and conventions and will take into consideration 
the  safety  of  workers  and  of  the  general  public.  The  Plan  will  become  part  of  the 
revised/updated  PSAR  to  be  submitted  for  licensing  the  restart  of  the  reactor.  The  GRR-1 
decommissioning plan will take into account both radioactive and conventional toxic waste. 

2.22.  MALTA 
Malta has not responded to the questionnaire. The situation in Malta was described in the 2nd 
report  as  follows:  "Malta  reported  that  it  had  no  relevant  activities  or  installations  to  be 
covered  in  the  present  communication.  Nevertheless,  it  is  foreseen  to  set  up  a  centralised 
storage facility for long lived radioactive waste." 

2.23.  CYPRUS 
Cyprus has not responded to the questionnaire. For the 2nd report, Cyprus reported that it had 
no relevant activities or installations to be covered in the present communication.  

2.24.  DENMARK 

2.24.1.  Overview 

In  2000,  after  40  years  of  nuclear  research,  Denmark  decided  to  close  down  all  nuclear 
facilities except for the Waste Management at Risø National Laboratory namely the research 
reactors DR 1, DR 2, and DR 3 and the Hot Cells. In 2003 the Danish Parliament decided that 
the  research  facilities  should  be  decommissioned  to  a  status  of  "green  field"  during  a 
maximum period of 20 years. 

By  2005  the  reactor  DR  1  was  decommissioned  and  the  building  was  released  free  without 
restrictions  (green  field).  By  2007  the  reactor  DR  2  itself  was  decommissioned.  The  reactor 
hall is still in use in connection with the decommissioning of the other nuclear installations. 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
2.24.2.  Decommissioning funding 

All  nuclear  installations  have  been  shut  down.  Since  al  facilities  are  100%  State  owned,all 
costs  are  covered  through  govermnent  budgets.  The  estimated  decommissioning  costs  are 
fully covered by the provisions accumulated by end 2009. 

2.24.3.  Radioactive waste management 

Finally the Waste Treatment Plant should be decommissioned when a Danish final repository 
has been established. 

2.25. 

IRELAND 

Ireland has reported to have no relevant activities or installations to be covered in the present 
communication.  

2.26.  LUXEMBOURG 

Luxembourg has  reported to have no  relevant activities or installations to be  covered  in the 
present communication. 

2.27. 

PORTUGAL 

Portugal has reported to have no relevant activities or installations to be covered in the present 
communication. 

2.28.  EUROPEAN  UNION:  JOINT  RESEARCH  CENTRE  (JRC)  OF  THE 

EUROPEAN UNION 

2.28.1.  General introduction 

Under  the  Euratom  Treaty,  the  JRC  has  to  manage  its  nuclear  heritage  and  in  particular 
decommission installations that have been shut down. A budget heading has been created for 
this purpose by joint agreement between the European Parliament and the Council. In 1999, 
the Commission decided to launch without further delay a programme for decommissioning 
its obsolete nuclear installations, called the D&WM programme (decommissioning and waste 
management).  

The follow-up of the D&WM programme has been reported through regular Communications 
from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  to  the  European  Parliament  (SEC(2004)0621  and 
COM(2008)903). A new related Communication is currently in preparation. 

2.28.2.  Decommissioning funding 

The JRC has full responsibility on the operation and decommissioning of its nuclear facilities 
in Ispra (IT), Karlsruhe (DE), Petten (NL) and Geel (BE). The facilities were for the large part 
built and put into operation in the early 1960s or 1970s. Since the historical liability arising 
from  the  use  of  those  installations  cannot  be  considered  to  be  current  research  within  the 
meaning  of  the  term  currently  used  in  connection  with  the  various  framework  programmes, 
separate financial arrangements are made through the JRC D&WM programme. 

Only  in  the  case  of  the  Petten  High  Flux  Reactor,  provisions  covering  a  part  of  the 
decommissioning costs are put aside from an operational budget (currently trough successive 
Supplementary Research Programmes, i.e. outside of the JRC budget). 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
At  the  end  of  2008,  the  JRC  carried  out  its  latest  reported  analysis  of  its  "historical"  and 
"future" liabilities (as presented in COM (2008) 903). The total amount was put at € 1,221.7 
million18. The total cost of € 1,221.7 million19 is split among the four sites as follows:  

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

55.3% for Ispra (€676 million); 

35.0% for Karlsruhe (€427 million); 

5.7% for Petten (€69 million); 

3.4% for Geel (€42 million); 

0.6% for contingencies (€8 million). 

A new update of the budget is in preparation in 2012 and will be presented in the next related 
Communication. 

The  indicative  duration  of  the  programme  is  1999  until  around  2030.  The  objective  reasons 
explaining the increase of the budget (as compared to the original estimations) were explained 
in  the  Communication.  A  new  Communication  from  the  Commission  is  in  preparation  in 
2012. 

Decommissioning  funds  are  managed  by  the  JRC  on  the  basis  of  a  multi-annual  schedule 
approved by the budgetary Authority with audits by the internal services of the Commission 
and by the Court of Auditors in order to ensure the appropriate use of the funds. 

The D&WM programme and its estimated total budget are reviewed by external experts on a 
periodic  basis  and  are  followed  regularly  by  a  Group  of  Independent  Experts  from  various 
Member states. 

18 
19 

in constant 2003 prices 
in constant 2003 prices 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3. 

COMPARISON  OF  FUNDING  PRACTICE  WITH  THE  COMMISSION 
RECOMMENDATION20 

3.1. 

SECTION 3: DECOMMISSIONING OF NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS 

3.1.1. 

"All nuclear installations should be decommissioned after permanent shutdown and 
the management of waste should be properly addressed." 

All  Member  States  agree  with  the  principle  that  after  permanent  shutdown,  nuclear 
installations  should  be  decommissioned  and  the  management  of  waste  should  be  properly 
addressed.  Different  countries  have  chosen  quite  different  routes  to  achieving  this:  For 
decommissioning,  some  Member  States  opt  for  immediate  decommissioning  while  others 
prefer deferred decommissioning with safe enclosure. There is also no uniform policy when it 
comes  to  the  final  status  of  the  site,  with  some  aiming  at  "Greenfield"  and  others  at 
"Brownfield" end states. 

Each  nuclear  installation  should  be  covered  by  a  Decommissioning  Strategy  aligned  with  a 
Decommissioning  Policy.  A  detailed  decommissioning  strategy  and  funding  plan  exists  in 
most Member States. In some Member States (e.g. Estonia, Greece, Lithuania, Romania and 
Slovakia),  the  strategy  and  plan  seem  to  be  established  in  principle  while  the  exact  details 
remain to be defined in certain cases.  

The term "waste" is understood to encompass radioactive, toxic and all other forms of waste 
resulting from decommissioning and operation, including that arising from the former use of 
the  site.  In  this  context,  it  is  apparent  that  a  large  majority  of  Member  States  takes  the 
resulting conventional toxic waste also into account for the decommissioning costs. 

3.1.2. 

"Decommissioning activities should be carried out without undue risk to the health 
and safety of workers and the general public." 

To fulfil this recommendation, all Member States have adopted legislation based on a number 
of EU legislative acts based on the Euratom Treaty, such as: 

Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the 
protection  of  the  health  of  workers  and  the  general  public  against  the  dangers  arising  from 
ionising radiation21. 

Council Directive 2006/117/Euratom of 20 November 2006 on the supervision and control of 
shipments of radioactive waste and spent fuel22. 

Council  Directive  2003/122/Euratom  of  22  December  2003  on  the  control  of  high-activity 
sealed radioactive sources and orphan sources23. 

Moreover, under Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, Member States provide the Commission 
with such general data relating to any plan for the disposal of radioactive waste in whatever 
forms will make it possible to determine whether the implementation of such plan is liable to 
result in the radioactive contamination of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State. 
The Commission delivers its opinion within six months after notification, after consulting the 
group of experts referred to in Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty. 

3.1.3. 

"The polluter pays principle should be fully applied throughout the decommissioning 
of  nuclear  installations.  In  this  regard,  the  primary  concern  of  nuclear  operators 

20 
21 
22 
23 

OJ L 330 (28.11.2006) 
OJ L-159 of 29/06/96 page 1 
OJ L-337 of 05/12/2006 page 21 
OJ L-346 of 31/12/2003 pages 57-64 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
                                                 
should  be  to  ensure  the  availability  of  adequate  financial  resources  for  safe 
decommissioning by the time the respective nuclear installation is permanently shut 
down." 

All  Member  States  agree  in  principle  with  the  "polluter  pays  principle".  In  those  Member 
States having commercial nuclear operations, elaborate systems have been set up obliging the 
licence  holder  to  accumulate  adequate  financial  means  before  the  end  of  lifetime  of  the 
installations  in  order  to  assure  that  they  are  available  when  needed  for  decommissioning  of 
their facilities.  

For each nuclear facility the binding individual responsibilities must be clearly identified. In 
all  Member  States  it  is  clear  that  the  licence  holder  is  responsible  and  also  who  the  licence 
holder is. 

Since the last report on decommissioning financing, there has been encouraging progress on 
the implementation of this recommendation. There appears to be common agreement on the 
objectives which will allow the Commission to address itself more to the technical details in 
the future.  

In  the  UK,  an  exception  is  made  for  the  private  operator  of  NPPs  British  Energy,  whose 
decommissioning costs are to a large extent paid by the State. The reason was that, despite the 
creation of a segregated nuclear liabilities fund at the time of BE's privatisation in 1991, and 
as a consequence of the fall of BE's revenues immediately after privatisation, there were never 
sufficient financial means available to cover all of BE's nuclear liabilities. The exception was 
made  after  the  bankruptcy  and  rescue  of  British  Energy  by  setting  up  a  new  fund  financed 
largely from public funds. The new arrangements were approved as restructuring aid by the 
Commission after a comprehensive State aid investigation (case C 52/0324). 

3.1.4. 

"The  financial  resources  available  should  be  aimed  at  covering  all  aspects  of 
decommissioning  activities,  from  technical  decommissioning  of  the  installation  to 
waste management." 

This  recommendation  focuses  on  the  fact  that  waste  management  costs  are  also  to  be 
considered as part of the decommissioning activities. 

In terms of the methodology to achieve this recommendation, the Commission, together with 
the  Nuclear  Energy  Agency  NEA,  has  proposed  the  "Yellow  book"  approach.  This  is  not  a 
mandatory  procedure  but  could  help  to  guide  and  reinforce  the  methodology  in  some 
countries.  Recently,  the  "International  Structure  for  Decommissioning  Costing"  (ISDC), 
published by the OECD/NEA in 2012 (NEA No. 7088), has updated and replaced the "yellow 
book". 

For  the  Member  States  with  substantial  commercial  nuclear  programmes  (compared  to  the 
size of the population), it can be said that there are credible, robust costing methodologies in 
place which cover all aspects of decommissioning activities. The same can be said in principle 
for the costs of the management of nuclear waste, albeit with a higher degree of uncertainty 
given that most countries are at an early stage of preparations in respect of final disposal. 

In this context, it is interesting to see that some Member states have set up separate financing 
regimes or bodies for decommissioning and for waste management (e.g. Belgium, Romania, 
Czech Republic, Bulgaria, and Spain). 

24 

OJ C-180 of 31.7.2003 page 3 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.2. 

SECTION 4: INSTITUTIONAL AND PROCEDURAL ASPECTS 

3.2.1. 

5.  "Without  prejudice  to  the  provisions  of  Article  41  of  the  Treaty  and  the 
Regulations  in  force  with  regards  to  its  implementation  (1),  persons  and 
undertakings  should  report  on  the  planned  decommissioning  funding  regime  in  the 
context of the procedure provided for under Article 41 of the Treaty concerning the 
construction  of  new  nuclear 
the  proposed 
installations.  In 
decommissioning funding regime the Commission will — subject to the requirements 
of Article 44 of the Treaty — consult the Decommissioning Funding Group (DFG)." 

the  review  of 

This principle was generally respected in the most recent notifications under Article 41 to the 
Commission.  However,  it  must  be  said  that  the  notification  does  not  always  contain  a 
sufficiently  detailed,  fully  developed  decommissioning  funding  regime  enshrined  in 
legislation and in force at the time of the notification. This would require a description of the 
investment  projects  together  with  information  pertaining  to  the  planned  decommissioning 
funding  regime  (amount,  plan  for  constituting  the  assets  in  the  fund,  modalities  of  fund 
management…). In the case of the latest notification of a NPP from Lithuania, the documents 
presents only a commitment that such a regime is being developed and will be in line with the 
Commission Recommendation.  

It  would  be  desirable  if  each  Article  41  notification  of  the  Treaty  presented  a  detailed 
description of the proposed decommissioning funding regime covering the future installation, 
ideally  in  the  form  of  a  law  which  would  come  into  force  before  the  completion  of  the 
construction of the respective installation. This would make it possible to consult the DFG on 
the  proposal.  In  fact,  this  is  the  most  important  recommendation  concerning  the  DFG  as  it 
explicitly refers to and attributes a role to the DFG. It provides the basis for the work of the 
group: The Terms of Reference and criteria on which the DFG should give its opinion shall be 
worked out within the DFG based upon a proposal from the Commission. 

3.2.2. 

6.  "Where  not  already  provided  for,  Member  States  should  set  up  or  appoint  a 
national  body  capable  of  providing  an  expert  judgment  on  fund  management  and 
decommissioning  cost  matters.  This  body  should  be  independent  as  regards  the 
contributors  to  the  fund.  The  national  body  should  annually  review  the  financial 
resources gathered and periodically, at least every five years, the decommissioning 
cost  estimates.  Any shortfall between  cost estimates and  resources gathered should 
be addressed in good time. Member States should report annually on the conclusions 
of  the  proceedings  of  the  relevant  national  body  mentioned  above  to  the 
Commission." 

The  national  body  should  possess  both  technical  and  financial  expertise  to  perform  its 
functions. In the case of a missing expertise, the national body should hire this from outside 
(e.g. advice on fund management from banking or accountancy sector). 

National bodies with expert knowledge exist in the large  majority  of Member  States. In  the 
most  elaborate  cases,  a  dedicated  organisation  was  set  up  and  entrusted  with  the  task  of 
independent  control  of  the  fund.  In  other  Member  States,  the  national  body  functions  are 
performed  by  the  competent  Ministry  or,  as  in  Germany,  by  highly  specialised  independent 
auditors. In some Member States, it is not fully clear from their answers to the questionnaire 
who acts as national body (Bulgaria, Denmark, Lithuania) or if the necessary competences are 
available.  

Concerning the independence of the national body, it did not become fully clear from some 
answers  who  actually  performs  the  control  functions  independently  of  the  fund  (Finland, 
Slovakia). In Belgium, the management of the fund has seats on the board of the controlling 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
body,  which  could  undermine  its  independence  of  the  license  holder.  A  similar  situation 
seems  to  exist  in  Bulgaria  and  Romania.  In  general,  the  question  of  independence  of  the 
national body should be elaborated further in the future work of the DFG and future reports. 

All Member States which answered in detail concerning the body's competences reported that 
the national body does have the authority to enforce corrective measures, in particular in case 
of a shortfall of resources. Operators (license holders) do in general have an obligation to fill 
any gap in resources which is discovered by the national body. 

All  Member  States'  national  bodies  exercise  periodic  controls  of  decommissioning  costs 
estimates.  The  frequency  of  checks  is  at  least  every  five  years,  while  many  Member  States 
have more frequent controls, either every three years or even every year.  

The Commission does for the moment not receive on a regular basis, the annual reports on the 
conclusions of the proceedings of the relevant national body mentioned above. A system of 
standardised  reporting  could  be  developed  by  the  time  next  report  is  due.  However,  a  large 
majority  of  Member  States  spoke  out  against  any  additional  international  reporting 
obligations in the decommissioning field. 

3.3. 

SECTION 5: DECOMMISSIONING FUNDS 

3.3.1. 

7. "Nuclear installations should set up adequate decommissioning funds on the basis 
of the revenues obtained from their nuclear activities during the designed lifetime". 

The systems in all Member States with commercial nuclear operations are based on the model 
of  setting  up  adequate  decommissioning  funds  on  the  basis  of  the  revenues  obtained  from 
their nuclear activities during the designed lifetime. In the Member States without commercial 
operations,  the  installations  are  fully  State  owned  and  decommissioning  and  waste 
management are paid in one form or the other from the State budget. 

In  general,  the  reserves  accumulated  so  far  appear  adequate  for  dismantling.  Most  of  the 
Member States with large commercial nuclear programmes (e.g. Germany, Sweden, France, 
Finland, Czech Republic) have collected substantial amounts, in one case even 100% of the 
necessary  amount.  In  a  number  of  Member  States,  the  collected  sums  compared  with  the 
necessary total, lag slightly behind the installations' percentage of spent lifetime. This may in 
some cases be due to on-going negotiations on the topic of lifetime extension, which would 
allow  for  an  additional  period  of  funds  collection.  The  expectation  of  a  lifetime  extension 
should however not lead to lower collection efforts, which might worsen the situation.  

The time frame for the build-up of funds could extend over the whole expected exploitation 
period.  Shorter  periods  are  however  not  excluded,  and  are  in  fact  a  means  of  safeguarding 
against unforeseen cases such as early closure. 

For  early  closures  due  to  political  decisions,  it  is  in  general  up  to  the  political  body 
responsible of the decision to cover the shortfall in the decommissioning fund caused by it. In 
the  case  of  accidents,  the  international  liability  regime  based  on  the  respective  international 
Conventions applies. 

Considering that in some Member states, there have been long periods of shutdown of NPPs 
without money flowing into the fund, a shorter accumulation period (25 years) could be seen 
as  advantageous.  In  the  case  of  longer  accumulation  periods,  additional  guarantees  can 
increase the adequacy of the funding (e.g. France). 

In some Member States, for historical reasons, there are exceptions to the rule that funds must 
be collected from revenues obtained from the nuclear activities:  

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
•  In Italy, an early shutdown of the commercial nuclear installations (state decision) after the 
Chernobyl accident stopped the revenues at a very early stage. A system for collection of 
funds from the consumption of electricity in general has put in place instead. 

•  In some countries, no funds from revenues existed prior to their accession to the EU. All 
Member States concerned were required to collect the funds during the remaining lifetime 
of  the  installations,  which  proved  difficult.  The  problem  was  most  acute  in  Lithuania, 
Bulgaria and Slovakia, which were required by the terms of their accession treaties to shut 
down  certain  facilities  on  safety  grounds,  leading  to  an  immediate  stop  of  the  flow  of 
revenue  to  the  fund.  The  European  Union  has  set  up  a  system  of  funds  from  which  the 
decommissioning of the installations concerned is supported. In this context, it should be 
recalled  that  while  the  EU  gives  its  assistance  for  solidarity,  it  remains  in  principle  the 
responsibility  of  the  licence  holder  and  the  respective  State  to  collect  the  money  for 
decommissioning  and  waste  management.  Additional  efforts  in  this  regard  are  required 
where funds are not sufficient to cover the total decommissioning costs. 

•  In the UK, the  bankruptcy  of  British Energy led to the situation where decommissioning 

costs are to a large extent, paid by the State. 

3.3.2. 

8.  "A  segregated  fund  with  appropriate  control  on  prudent  use  should  be  the 
preferred  option  for  all  nuclear  installations.  The  review  of  the  national  body 
provided  for  in  this  Recommendation  should  play  a  key  role  in  ensuring  proper 
management and use of the funds". 

The  solutions  adopted  by  Member  States  vary  to  a  large  extent,  but  the  criterion  of  a 
segregated  fund  with  appropriate  control  on  prudent  use  is  followed  by  a  large  majority  of 
Member States:  

•  One variety is the segregated internal fund, meaning it is kept by the operator of the NPP 
but  as  a  separate  budget  which  can  only  be  touched  for  decommissioning  purposes  and 
under  the  control  of  the  national  body.  Funds  of  this  type  exist  for  example  in  France, 
Belgium, and Czech Republic.  

•  Another  solution,  the  segregated  external  fund,  meaning  external  to  the  operator  of  the 
NPP,  exists  in  Finland  and  Sweden,  where  it  is  also  external  from  the  state  budget,  and 
Hungary, Romania, Slovakia and Bulgaria. In those Member States, however, the funds are 
somehow internal to the State budget.  

•  Non-segregated internal funds exist in Germany, where the Commercial Law requires the 
companies operating NPPs to build up substantial reserves in their balance sheets in order 
to cover the future decommissioning and waste management costs. 

While a segregated fund is the recommended option, it is neither a necessary nor a sufficient 
criterion for the objective of ensuring proper management or use of the funds. For example, in 
Germany, a safe system was built with highly controlled non-segregated funds. On the other 
hand, in Belgium and Finland, the financial means collected by segregated funds (an internal 
one in the first and an external one in the latter case), can also find their way back into the 
treasury of the licence holders in the way of lending back the money (maximum 75%). Such 
systems obviously need an increased degree of control by an independent body, in particular 
to address for the possible case of bankruptcy of the licence holder. 

When performing the review, the national body must be fully independent of the operator and 
have the necessary and sufficient authority to assure that any proposed corrective actions are 
implemented. Such authority might be put into doubt if representatives of the license holder 

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
have  a  right  to  nominate  representatives  to the  board  of  the  national  body,  as  is  the  case  in 
some Member States. 

An overview of the funds existing in EU Member States can be found in table 2, Chapter 6 of 
this document. 

3.3.3. 

9. "New nuclear installations should set up segregated decommissioning funds with 
appropriate control on prudent use". 

The  terms  "prudent  use",  should  be  more  accurately  understood  as  "prudent  management". 
Such prudent management should aim to achieve a fully adequate financial value for the fund 
at the time when the fund is required - with "adequacy" equating to "sufficient to perform the 
decommissioning of the facility". With a view to achieving this situation, both low-risk assets 
and high-risk assets may be permissible, with constraints on the prudent risk exposure and the 
level of diversification.  

As  a  consequence  of  the  current  sovereign  debt  crisis,  it  could  be  appropriate  for  Member 
States to revisit their definitions of prudent management and to reassess their funds robustness 
to financial shocks. 

It  is  clear  that  Member  States  planning  to  build  new  nuclear  installations,  and  in  particular 
new nuclear power plants, should establish robust decommissioning financing regimes at least 
in  detailed  draft  form,  by  the  time  of  the  decision  to  invest.  In  some  cases  an  existing  and 
fully functioning regime already exists in the country at the time when a new installation is 
decided, as for example recently in Finland and France. 

In the UK, an external and segregated fund will be created for future new build while for the 
existing  installations  a  substantial  part  of  funding  comes  from  the  State  budget  through  the 
Nuclear Liabilities Fund (NLF).  

Lithuania,  which  currently  has  no  operating  commercial  nuclear  installations,  is  currently 
developing a funding regime associated with its plan to build a new NPP.  

3.4. 

SECTION 6: ESTIMATION OF DECOMMISSIONING COSTS 

3.4.1. 

10.  "In  view  of  the  differences  in  the  use  of  the  decommissioning  funds  gathered, 
technical  decommissioning  of  the  installation,  on  the  one  hand,  and  waste 
management, on the other, should be addressed separately, on the basis of separate 
cost calculations". 

The  requirement  for  identifiably  separate  costing lines for both decommissioning and waste 
management does not actually request nor necessitate the establishment of separate funds. In 
estimating  the  full  decommissioning  costs,  account  should  be  taken  of  the  long-run 
management  costs  (e.g.  the  issue  of  “disposal” in  the  scope  for  radioactive  waste  and  spent 
fuel should be addressed). 

The principle of separate cost calculations for decommissioning of the installation and waste 
management is accepted in all Member States, some of which have set up general, segregated 
but  separate  funds  for  decommissioning  and  waste  management  (e.g.  Sweden,  Belgium, 
Bulgaria, Czech Republic and Romania).  

The calculations of waste management costs tend to have a higher degree of uncertainty than 
those  for  decommissioning,  due  to  the  early  stage  of  planning  of  final  repositories  in  many 
Member  States.  The  sums  involved  can  be  expected  to  be  significant  given  that  it  concerns 
one  of  the  most  costly  phases  of  waste  management.  With  increased  future  knowledge  and 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
experience  it  is  expected  that  the  uncertainties  in  the  cost  of  waste  management  will  be 
reduced. 

The transposition of Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom of 19 July 2011, which established a 
Community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive 
waste25, will lead to substantial progress in financial planning for waste management costs. 

3.4.2. 

11.  "In  order  to  ensure  that  adequate  financial  resources  are  available,  cost 
calculations should be based upon a prudent choice from the realistically available 
alternatives  and  subject  to  the  external  supervision  and  agreement  of  the  national 
body foreseen in this Recommendation". 

As  mentioned  above,  the  Commission,  together  with  the  Nuclear  Energy  Agency  NEA,  has 
developed  and  proposed  the  "Yellow  book"  methodology  to  decommissioning  costing  to 
assist with the methodology for cost estimates. This is not a mandatory procedure but could 
help to inform and reinforce the methodologies in some countries. Recently, the "International 
Structure  for  Decommissioning  Costing"  (ISDC),  published  by  the  OECD/NEA  in  2012 
(NEA No. 7088), has updated and replaced the "yellow book". 

From some answers, e.g. the ones from Lithuania, it could not be established that the national 
body also reviews the cost estimates, which it should do.  

3.4.3. 

12.  "All  cost  estimates  should  be  site-specific  and  based  upon  best  available 
estimates". 

In relation to the term "site specific", and within the context of accuracy and transparency, the 
costs for multiple nuclear unit sites should be broken down to the unit level. The concept of a 
"fleet approach" to costs may be relied upon where appropriate for cost estimation purposes. 
In such cases it should be demonstrated that the unit or site in question conforms to the set of 
the fleet. For single or multiple sites the specific and particular issues related to the site should 
be considered separately and in detail. 

It is clear from a comparison of the answers to the questionnaire with earlier reports that there 
is  a  general  tendency  in  the  Member  states  to  move  from  generic  to  site-specific  cost 
estimates.  Most  Member  states  have  already  reached  full  compliance  with  this  criterion, 
which is a very positive development. 

3.4.4. 

13.  "If  during  implementation  the  decommissioning  project  proves  to  be  more 
expensive than the approved cost estimates, the operator should cover the additional 
expenses.  This  aspect  should  be  carefully  addressed  should  the  operator  change 
during or beyond the lifetime of the nuclear installation". 

The national body has an important role to play in reviewing the adequacy of the fund and the 
level of the decommissioning liabilities at such times. Should the costs of decommissioning 
increase  during  the  operational  life  of  the  facility  the  operator  shall  be  held  responsible  for 
these increased costs and should make a correction to the fund to cover the full liability. 

It is clear from the information in the answers to the questionnaire that Member States take 
this point very seriously. For increased confidence, it is recommended that the national bodies 
play an even more important role in this field. The emphasis should be on the frequency of 
review and on the speed of the correction measures if they are deemed necessary. 

3.4.5. 

14.  "Due  attention  should  be  paid  to  cases  arising  for  historical  reasons  where  a 
special  solution  is  the  most  appropriate.  This  case-by-case  approach  should  be 

25 

OJ L 199, 2.8.2011, p. 48 

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
                                                 
transparent  and  with  the  full  involvement  of  the  national  body  provided  for  in  this 
Recommendation". 

This recommendation shall only apply to existing historical cases and may not be invoked in 
the case of new facilities. 

It was already mentioned above that special cases exist for historical reasons in some Member 
States  which  fall  into  a  range  of  different  categories  (Italy,  with  its  early  shutdown  of  all 
NPPs;  the  Member  States  which  had  to  change  their  economic  systems  in  the  early  1990s, 
some  of  which  receive  EU  assistance  (Lithuania,  Bulgaria  and  Slovakia);  the  UK  with  the 
bankruptcy of British Energy). 

Concerning  the  situation  in  Lithuania,  Bulgaria  and  Slovakia,  there  is  a  recognised  funding 
gap due to the lack of accumulated resources and an early shutdown commitment for certain 
facilities.  For  reasons  of  solidarity,  the  EU  is  assisting  those  countries  with  their 
decommissioning efforts. However, it remains the responsibility of the licence holder and the 
respective State to collect the money for decommissioning and waste management. Additional 
efforts  in  this  regard  are  required  where  funds  are  not  sufficient  to  cover  the  total 
decommissioning costs. 

Member States described their special regimes in detail, which is both helpful and laudable. It 
can be said that all special existing regimes are justified by the specific situation which caused 
them to become necessary.  

It must, however, also be clear that for future installations, the funding regime must be fully 
in line with the Recommendation and the Directive 2011/70/Euratom for waste management. 

3.5. 

SECTION 7: USE OF DECOMMISSIONING FUNDS 

3.5.1. 

15.  Financial  resources  should  be  used  only  for  the  purpose  for  which  they  have 
been established and managed. In this context, due consideration should be given to 
transparency.  All  commercially  non-sensitive  information  should  be  publicly 
available. 

Decommissioning funds may only be used for the detailed purpose for which they have been 
established  as  defined  in  the  final  decommissioning  plan  and  not  for  any  other  purpose.  In 
respect of the issue of transparency, the national body retains an important function during the 
decommissioning phase, in monitoring and reviewing that the funds are used correctly.  

On this point, the answers to the questionnaire were rather imprecise. This could probably be 
due to the fact the majority of funds have not yet reached their disbursement phase. The issue 
requires to be followed closely in the future. 

3.5.2. 

16. A  secure risk profile should be sought  in the investment of the assets, ensuring 
that a positive return is achieved over any given period of time. 

For a secure risk profile, low-risk assets should be eligible but high-risk assets could also be 
permissible, with constraints on the risk exposure and the level of diversification. The fund's 
asset  build-up  strategy  should  take  into  account  reasonable  assumptions  regarding  inflation 
and  the  anticipated  rate  of  return.  The  management  strategy  should  aim  to  match  the  full 
decommissioning cost and to ensure its availability at the time when it is needed. The national 
body should verify that the fund conforms to the concept of a secure risk profile and that the 
underlying  assumptions  are  reassessed  at  regular  intervals  or  in  the  light  of  changing 
conditions. 

The  asset  constitution  strategies  of  the  funds  have  the  common  objective  of  achieving  a 
satisfactory  return  on  the  capital  while  at  the  same  time  avoiding  excessive  risk.  Member 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
states try to achieve this in different ways, reflected in the different legal frameworks of the 
fund  investments:  In  Belgium  and  Finland,  the  fund  can  lend  a  maximum  of  75%  of  the 
capital back to the operator who in return must pay a government-fixed interest. In France, the 
fund must always cover the discounted provisions and eligible assets are defined by decree, 
but  the  operators  decide  freely  on  that  basis.  In  Sweden,  the  fund  also  has  restrictions 
concerning the eligibility of some assets and must aim for the highest possible return under 
these conditions. In a number of Member States (e.g. Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovakia), the fund 
is held or established by the State treasury. In these cases it is not fully clear from the answers 
to the questionnaire how the capital is invested.  

A general feature of the legislation on eligible assets is the emphasis on government bonds as 
safe assets. Many Member states require funds to invest to a high degree in government bonds 
in  order  to  avoid  risks.  While  this  policy  is  understandable  given  the  assessment  of  risk  of 
different  types  of  assets  in  the  past,  recent  events  in  the  financial  markets  have  put  serious 
doubts on the general safety of all types of government bonds. It may be advisable to revisit 
the  implicit  assumptions  underlying  the  existing  legislation  in  this  respect  and  take  into 
account the risk of State bankruptcies. Typically only investment grade bonds are acceptable.  

3.5.3. 

17.  As  the  operator  has  no  influence  on  the  financial  management  of  an  external 
decommissioning  fund,  the  value  of  the  investments  should  be  guaranteed  by  the 
State in order to ensure that adequate funds are available when required, even if a 
nominal  loss  is  made  by  the  independent  manager  of  the  invested  amounts  by  the 
time these financial resources are to be used. In such cases, the funds should not be 
supplemented with an amount higher than the loss in the investment. 

This recommendation addresses the issue of external funds. By definition the operator has (or 
at least should not) have any management control or influence over an external fund. Where a 
shortfall exists between the value of the fund and the decommissioning liabilities, the entity 
managing the fund could be held responsible for the shortfall. This said, the entity managing 
the fund may not hold sufficient resources to compensate for the shortfall and in this case the 
Member State could be prepared to guarantee the shortfall. 

The only case where a guarantee system of an external decommissioning fund is apparent is 
Sweden:  The  Swedish  regime  foresees  that  the  nuclear  power  utilities  themselves  must 
provide  two  forms  of  guarantees  to  the  Nuclear  Waste  Fund.  Guarantee  I  should  cover  the 
shortfall should a reactor be finally closed down before it has reached its earning period of 40 
years.  Guarantee  II  should  cover  contingencies  if  expenses  for  future  nuclear  waste 
management  become  higher  than  expected,  if  these  expenses  have  to  be  met  earlier  than 
expected, or if the actual amount in the Fund is lower than was estimated. 

A State guarantee can, however, be assumed in a Member States' regimes where the State was 
chosen as the holder of the fund in one way or the other.  

3.5.4. 

18.  If  the  management  of  an  internal  fund  underperforms,  the  operator  should  be 
responsible for ensuring that adequate funds are available when needed. 

The  identification  of  a  shortfall  between  the  value  of  the  fund  and  the  decommissioning 
liabilities  should  give  rise  to  an  immediate  definition  of  corrective  measures  to  be 
implemented in the short-term, with a view to ensuring that adequate funds are available for 
decommissioning at the moment when they are needed. In this respect, the annual review of 
the accumulated funds, as well as the review of the cost estimates by the national body, is of 
the utmost importance with a view to detecting possible shortcomings at the earliest possible 
stage. 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
This principle is well implemented in all Member States which chose to set up internal fund 
regimes (e.g. Belgium, France, Germany, and Czech Republic). In all cases, there is periodic 
control  by  the  national  body  for  this  essential  requirement.  It  is  an  example  of  a  well-
implemented principle. 

3.5.5. 

19. In the case of nuclear installations whose main purpose is other than the sale of 
products or services, decommissioning should be properly planned and budgeted so 
as to allow adequate funding to be available for the safe and timely decommissioning 
of such installations. 

The  facilities  addressed  here  are  typically  social  service  facilities  such  as  medical  centres, 
research  centres,  isotope  production  facilities  and  particle  accelerators.  Given  that  such 
facilities  are  typically,  albeit  not  always,  under  state  responsibility,  the  state  may  consider 
financing  the  decommissioning  of  such  facilities  from  the  national  budget.  Such  facilities 
should nevertheless prepare a final decommissioning plan detailing the scale of their liabilities 
and associate costs which should be considered by the national body. 

The information given in the answers to the questionnaire can be summarized in a way that 
this  principle  is  not  forgotten  by  the  Member  States.  Those  who  have  commercial  nuclear 
installations  have  set  up  separate  systems  for  the  funding  of  the  decommissioning  of  other 
nuclear installations. The other Member States, who only possess such installations, have set 
up plans for their decommissioning or are in the process of setting them up.  

In general, it can be said that those installations in all cases belong to the State, directly or via 
State-owned universities, institutes, etc. The decommissioning is therefore paid from the State 
budget in one way or another. 

3.5.6. 

20. Budgetary planning should be subject to the review of the national body provided 
for in this Recommendation. In the absence of such a national body, Member States 
may request the Commission to provide advice concerning the measures to be taken. 

Budgetary planning is to be understood as "establishing a financial plan of decommissioning 
liabilities and their associated financial value". In the case where the member state addresses 
itself to the EC, the EC shall at no time replace the function of the national body. 

It  can  be  concluded  from  the  answers  to  the  questionnaire  that  this  principle  is  well 
implemented  in  the  Member  States.  The  national  bodies  in  general  do  carry  out  periodic 
reviews  of  the  budgetary  planning  of  decommissioning  and  waste  management.  There  have 
far.
not 

the  Commission 

requests 

advice 

from 

been 

any 

for 

so 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
4. 

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 

The good co-operation between the Commission and the Member States, in particular within 
the DFG, for the implementation of the Recommendation has led to considerable progress in 
the  alignment  to  its  main  principles.  Looking  at  all  the  different  criteria  of  the 
Recommendation, developments towards closer alignment can be seen everywhere. 

For instance, all Member States clearly state to adhere to the polluter pays principle. And this 
principle  is  also  regularly  inserted  in  the  new  legislation  being  implemented  in  the  field  of 
decommissioning  financing.  There  are  many  examples  of  good  practice  which  can  be 
mentioned in this context (please see chapter below). 

All  Member  States  have  national  bodies  in  place  which  control  the  decommissioning  fund 
management and the cost estimates. The exact role and the procedures still vary considerably 
between the countries, but there is constant progress to be noted, e.g. it was reported that all 
national  bodies  regularly  check  decommissioning  costs  estimates  and  have  the  authority  to 
enforce corrective measures in case of shortfalls of resources. 

Regarding the decommissioning funds existing in Member States, there is still a great variety 
when  it  comes  to  the  questions  of  them  being  internal/external, segregated or not, public or 
private. Moreover, many Member States have different funds for decommissioning and waste 
management funding.  

Also,  the  funds  often  only  exist  for  the  commercial  nuclear  installations  while  the 
decommissioning of the mostly State-owned research installations is paid by the State budget. 
The  most  important  principle,  that  adequate  funds  be  set  up  which  are  fed  by  contributions 
from  nuclear  activities,  is  however  adhered  to  by  all  Member  States  so  that  the  differences 
only concern the way how to achieve this. 

For  the  estimation  of  decommissioning  costs,  there  is  a  lot  of  progress  regarding  the  pure 
decommissioning  costs.  For  example,  most  Member  states  now  have  site-specific  cost 
estimates.  

Concerning waste management, however, the early stage of planning leads to a much higher 
degree of uncertainty about the costs. A lot of progress in this field is expected from the on-
going transposition process of the Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom of 19 July 2011 which 
established a Community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel 
and  radioactive  waste26,  which  includes  obligations  to  provide  national  plans  with  cost 
estimates for waste management. 

A very difficult question to answer is the adequacy of the funding. Accurate cost estimates, 
safe  investing  of  the  fund's  finances  and  constant  reassessment  over  the  lifetime  of  the 
installations are key to achieving adequate funding.  

Since the last report, many assumptions about safe investing had to be put in question in the 
wake of the financial crisis of 2008 and the on-going sovereign debt crisis. This has serious 
consequences  for  the  fund  management  strategies  in  Member  States,  who  must  react  with 
their respective policies to these challenges. The awareness about this is clearly there in the 
Member States. 

A very important element of decommissioning financing systems is transparency, as it allows 
the  public  to  be  informed  about  the  situation  and  gives  it  the  possibility  to  check  if  the 

26 

OJ L 199, 2.8.2011, p. 48 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
funding  regime  is  correctly  put  in  place.  It  is  clear  from  the  information  received  that  the 
degree  of  transparency  varies  between  Member  States,  not  least  for  cultural  and  historic 
differences. While there are many good examples, there is still room for improvement in this 
regard. The existence of adequate funding for decommissioning is a question of great interest 
for  the  public  and  people  have  a  right  to  check  if  there  is  enough  money  available  or  not. 
Transparency  is  also  important  for  the  public's  acceptance  of  nuclear  activities.  The  in-
transparency  that  was  seen  in  a  few  cases  will  no  longer  be  acceptable  once  the  Nuclear 
Waste Directive is transposed. 

5. 

GOOD PRACTICE EXAMPLES 

The following examples are meant to illustrate legal situations Member States characterised 
with a high degree of alignment to the Recommendation's principles. They are not meant to be 
exhaustive.  Most  good  practice  examples  were  chosen  because  of  recent  progress  in  the 
respective Member State: 

•  Polluter pays principle: In the Netherlands, the latest revision of the Nuclear Energy Act, in 
force  since  April  2011,  introduced  a  clear  legal  obligation  to  set  up  a  decommissioning 
fund  in  order  to  fully  cover  the  decommissioning  costs.  While  there  had  been  an 
understanding in the past that the polluter pays principle applies and funds had been set up 
on a voluntary basis, it is now a clear legal obligation. In France, where such legislation 
was  adopted  in  2006,  there  are  now  concrete  plans  to  also  set  up  also  a  fund  for  the 
decommissioning of  the  State-financed research  installations. In Spain,  recent  changes in 
law  have  further  shifted  the  decommissioning  cost-bearing  from  a  general  fee  towards 
licence-holder contributions. 

•  Transparency:  Of  many  possible  examples  of  good  practice  in  this  regard,  there  is  the 
situation in Sweden, where the national fund publishes its very detailed report containing 
all  relevant  information  annually  on  its  website  in  Swedish  and  English  language: 
http://www.karnavfallsfonden.se/. The site of the UK's NDA, http://www.nda.gov.uk/, may 
also be cited as a good example. 

•  Availability/secure risk profile: As an example of good practice in fund investment one can 
mention  here  France,  where  very  detailed  rules  exist  for  the  eligible  asset  classes  and 
where a review is under way.  

•  Adequacy of the fund: Comparing the sums collected for the fund with the cost estimate 
for decommissioning, Finland is probably the Member State where the highest percentage 
of the required amount has already been collected: 97% of the means required are in the 
fund and the collection goes on. 

•  New  nuclear  installations:  In  Poland,  the  legislation  for  the  decommissioning  funding 
regime has recently been adopted, well before the pending decision on the building of the 
planned NPP(s). 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
TABLES27 

6. 

TABLE 1: ILLUSTRATING POINT 3.2.2. ON NATIONAL BODIES 

ITEM 6 

Country 

NB exists 

BE  BG CZ EE FI  FR DE EL HU IT LV LT NL PL  RO  SK  SI  ES  SE UK

Y  Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y  Y  Y  Y  Y  Y Y

Judgement on fund management 

Y  Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y  Y  Y  Y  Y  Y Y

Judgement on Cost estimates 

Y  Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y  Y  Y  Y  Y  Y Y

Independent of license holder 

N  Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

  Y Y  N  N  Y  Y  Y Y

Annual review of financial resources 

Y  Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N Y  Y  Y  Y  Y  Y Y

Periodic  review  of  cost  estimates 
(maximum every 5 years) 

3  5 5

  3 3 1

  1

  1 3 5

  5  5  5  1  3 5

Shortfall addressed in good time 

Y  Y Y

  Y Y Y

  Y Y Y Y Y N  N 

Y  Y  Y Y

Readiness for annual reporting to EC 
from NB 

N  N N N N N N N N Y N Y N N  Y  N  Y  N  N
/
Y

N

27 

Please note that some Member States do not figure in the tables due to the limited size of their nuclear 
infrastructure (no commercial nuclear infrastructure). 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
6.1. 

TABLE  2:  Illustrating  point  3.3.2.  on  the  types  of  funds  existing  in  Member 
States 

ITEM 8 

Country 

BE  BG CZ EE FI  FR DE EL HU IT LV LT NL PL  RO  SK  SI  ES  SE UK

Segregated fund  

Y  Y Y

  Y Y N   Y N   Y

  Y  Y  Y  Y  Y  Y Y

Review of national body 

Y  Y Y

  Y Y Y

  Y

  Y Y Y  Y 

Y  Y  Y Y

Country 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

EE 

FI 

FR 

DE 

EL 

Type of fund 
Decom fund – internal segregated  
Waste fund – external 

External funds managed by state, separate ones for decommissioning and waste 

Decom - Internal segregated  
Waste – external fund 

No fund 

External segregated – separate from state budget 

Internal segregated 

Internal non-segregated 

No fund 

HU 

External segregated – internal segregated from state budget 

IT 

LV 

LT 

NL 

PL 

RO 

SK 

SI 

ES 

SE 

No fund 

No fund 

External segregated – managed by MoFinance 

Internal fund 

Internal segregated decommissioning fund 

Waste fund - external fund (state budget account ?) 
Decom fund – external fund (state budget account ?) 

External segregated fund 

External fund 

External fund 

External segregated – government supervised and administered 

UK 

New build – external segregated 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
6.2. 

TABLE  3:  Illustrating  point  3.4.4.  on  which  organisation  holds  ultimate 
responsibility  in  the  case  where  unexpectedly  high  decommissioning  costs  are 
realised.  

Country 

BE  BG CZ EE FI  FR DE EL HU IT LV LT NL PL  RO  SK  SI  ES  SE UK

License holder RESPONSIBLE 

Y  Y Y

  Y Y Y

  Y Y  Y 

Y 

Y Y

State RESPONSIBLE 

  Y Y Y

  Y

Y 

Y

EN 

69 

   EN