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 financing, decommissioning of power stations, financial management, nuclear fuel, radioactive waste

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 8.3.2013  
COM(2013) 121 final 

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 

{SWD(2013) 59 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
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. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

2. 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 4 

BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 4 

METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................... 4 

CURRENT FUNDING PRACTICE IN VIEW OF THE COMMISSION 
RECOMMENDATION ............................................................................................... 6 

2.1. 

DECOMMISSIONING OF NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS ..................................... 6 

2.1.1.  Decommissioning and Waste Management ................................................................. 6 

2.1.2.  Polluter pays principle ................................................................................................. 6 

2.1.3.  Completeness of Financial Resources (incl. Waste Management) .............................. 6 

2.2. 

INSTITUTIONAL AND PROCEDURAL ASPECTS................................................ 7 

2.2.1.  Article 41 of the EAEC Treaty: Proposal of Decommissioning Funding Regime ...... 7 

2.2.2.  National Body .............................................................................................................. 7 

2.3. 

DECOMMISSIONING FUNDS.................................................................................. 7 

2.3.1.  Adequacy and Origin of Funds .................................................................................... 7 

2.3.2.  Fund Type, Control on Use and Review...................................................................... 8 

2.3.3.  New Nuclear Installations ............................................................................................ 9 

2.4. 

ESTIMATION OF DECOMMISSIONING COSTS................................................... 9 

2.4.1.  Separate Cost Calculations for Technical Decommissioning and Waste Management9 

2.4.2.  Cost Calculations and Adequacy ................................................................................. 9 

2.4.3.  Site-specific Cost Estimates....................................................................................... 10 

2.5. 

USE OF DECOMMISSIONING FUNDS ................................................................. 10 

2.5.1.  Use for intended Purpose and Transparency.............................................................. 10 

2.5.2.  Secure Risk Profile..................................................................................................... 10 

2.5.3.  Underperformance of Fund Management .................................................................. 11 

2.5.4.  Non-Commercial Nuclear Installations ..................................................................... 11 

3. 

CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK.......................................................................... 12 

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 being generally well received led to an own-initiative report2 from the European 
Parliament.  It  was  acknowledged  within  this  report  that  decommissioning  was  a  complex 
issue  and  that  more  detailed  reflection  was  required  to  understand  the  individual  Member 
States' funding mechanisms.  
In 2006, the Commission adopted a Recommendation3 on decommissioning funds following 
an  extensive  dialogue  with  Member  State  experts,  taking  advantage  of  its  expertise  in  the 
field.  In  December  2007,  it  presented  its  second  report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council4,  comparing  EU  nuclear  operators'  and  Member  States'  funding  practice  with  the 
criteria detailed in the Commission Recommendation.  

One  of  the  second  report's  conclusions  was  that  more  detailed  and  better  structured 
information needed to be obtained from the Member States. The outcome of the process was 
the Guidelines and Questionnaire forming the basis of the present report, as described below 
in the next chapter. 

The  present  report  does  not  yet  analyse  the  consequences  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 waste5 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  and 
waste management financing regimes with the Commission Recommendation. 

1.2.  METHODOLOGY 

In 2004 the Commission set up an ad hoc expert group, the Decommissioning Funding Group 
(DFG). The DFG was formally introduced by the Recommendation of 2006, with the task of 
assisting the European Commission in: 

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

attendant tasks and activities; 

•  Providing 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 

1 

2 

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) 
COM(2007) 794 final of 12.12.2007, 

3 
4 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0794:FIN:EN:PDF 
5 

OJ L 199, 2.8.2011, p. 48, in the following called "Nuclear Waste Directive" 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
European Nuclear Forum, have formed subgroups dealing exclusively with decommissioning 
funding issues. 
The  2nd 
the  benefits  of  exploring  harmonised 
decommissioning  funding  methodologies  in  the  EU,  taking  into  account  the  differences  in 
Member States' strategies. 

report's  conclusions  highlighted 

The  national  experts  at  the  DFG  developed,  together  with  the  Commission,  Guidelines 
exploring  in  detail  the  different  aspects  of  decommissioning  financing,  in  order  to  build  a 
common  understanding  of  the  Commission's  2006  Recommendation3  on  decommissioning 
funding.  On  the  basis  of  these  Guidelines,  the  DFG  and  the  Commission  elaborated  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 clarify or complete certain data which were considered unclear or missing.  

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 systems in place. 

In  the  following  section,  extracts  from  the  2006  Recommendation  and  the  Guidelines  are 
compared with the status of decommissioning financing in the Member States, as reflected in 
the answers to the questionnaire and the later information. The numbered paragraphs follow 
the logic of the 2006 Recommendation, summarising the information obtained from Member 
states, during the exercise, on the key provisions of the Recommendation. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
2. 

CURRENT  FUNDING  PRACTICE  IN  VIEW  OF  THE  COMMISSION 
RECOMMENDATION 

2.1. 

DECOMMISSIONING OF NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS 

2.1.1.  Decommissioning and Waste Management 

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. They have, however, chosen quite different routes to achieving this: Some Member 
States  opt  for  immediate  decommissioning  while  others  prefer  deferred  decommissioning 
after  an  initial  period  of  safe  enclosure.  Concerning  the  final  state  of  the  site,  some  aim  at 
"Greenfield" and others at "Brownfield" end-states. As achieving "Greenfield" status is more 
expensive, it requires larger resources to be collected during the lifetime of the plant. 

According to the Commission Recommendation of 2006, each nuclear installation should be 
covered by a Decommissioning Strategy aligned with a Decommissioning Policy. Both plans 
exist in most Member States. In some Member States, the strategy and plan are established in 
principle, while the exact details remain to be defined. Only detailed planning can ensure the 
collection of adequate funds. 

2.1.2.  Polluter pays principle 

All Member  States agree with  the  "polluter pays"  principle.  In  those  Member  States  having 
commercial nuclear operations, comprehensive 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 individual obligations 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  is  now  common  agreement  on  the 
objectives  which  will  allow  the  Commission  to  address  itself  more  to  the  details  of  the 
financing regimes in the future.  

Recent examples of good practice:  

•  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 a fund for the decommissioning of the State-financed research installations.  

•  In Spain, recent changes in law have further shifted the funding of decommissioning from 

a general fee towards licence-holder contributions. 

2.1.3.  Completeness of Financial Resources (incl. Waste Management) 

Waste management costs must also be considered part of the decommissioning activities. 

It can be said that the issue is addressed by all Member States and that separate calculations 
exist  throughout  the  EU.  In  particular  for  the  Member  States  with  substantial  commercial 
nuclear programmes, 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 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
management  of  nuclear  waste,  albeit  with  a  higher  degree  of  uncertainty  given  that  most 
countries are at an early stage of preparation in respect of final disposal. 

Some  Member  states  have  set  up  separate  financing  regimes  for  decommissioning  and  for 
waste management. 

2.2. 

INSTITUTIONAL AND PROCEDURAL ASPECTS 

2.2.1.  Article 41 of the EAEC Treaty: Proposal of Decommissioning Funding Regime 

The  principle  of  notifying  the  decommissioning  funding  regime  in  the  framework  of  the 
notification  procedure  set  in  Article  41  of  the  EAEC  Treaty  was  generally  respected  in  the 
most recent notifications to the Commission. However, the notification did not always contain 
a  fully  developed  decommissioning  funding  regime  incorporated  in  legislation.  This  would 
require  a  description  of  the  investment  projects  and  the  planned  decommissioning  funding 
regime  (amount,  plan  for  constituting  the  assets  in  the  fund,  modalities  of  fund 
management…).  

For all future Article 41 notifications, such a detailed description is expected, at least in the 
form of a draft law. This would make it possible to consult the DFG on the proposal.  

This recommendation 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. 

2.2.2.  National Body 

The  national  body  should  possess  both  technical  and  financial  expertise  to  perform  its 
functions. 

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 by highly specialised independent auditors.  

In  some  cases,  there  is  room  for  improvement  with  regard  to  clarity  on  the  degree  of 
independence  from  the  operator  and  on  the  question  of  who  actually  performs  the  control 
functions independently of the fund. 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 national bodies have the authority to enforce corrective measures, in particular in case of a 
shortfall  of  resources.  License  holders  in  general  have  an  obligation  to  fill  any  gap  in 
resources discovered by the national body. 

All  national  bodies  exercise  periodic  controls  of  decommissioning  costs  estimates.  The 
frequency of checks is at least every five years, while often there are more frequent controls.  

The national body has an important role to play in reviewing the adequacy of the fund and the 
level of the decommissioning liabilities. Should the costs of decommissioning increase during 
the  operational  life  of  the  facility,  the  operator is  held  responsible  for  these  increased  costs 
and  should  increase  the  fund  accordingly.  Member  States  already  take  this  point  very 
seriously. For increased confidence, it is recommended that the national bodies play an even 
more important role in this field (e.g. higher frequency of review or swifter implementation of 
corrective measures). 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
2.3. 

DECOMMISSIONING FUNDS 

2.3.1.  Adequacy and Origin of Funds 

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 activities during the lifetime.  

In general, the rate of accumulation to date appears adequate. Most of the Member States with 
commercial  nuclear  programmes  have  collected  substantial  resources,  and  some  are  even 
approaching  close  to  the  necessary  amount  foreseen.  Where  the  collected  sums,  as  a 
proportion  of  the  necessary  total,  lag  behind  that  foreseen  at  this  stage  of  the  installations' 
lifetimes, this may be due to on-going negotiations on lifetime extensions. The expectation of 
a lifetime extension should however not lead to lower collection efforts.  

The  time  frame  for  the  build-up  of  funds  typically  extends  over  the  whole  expected 
exploitation period. Shorter periods are not excluded and represent a means of safeguarding 
against unforeseen cases such as early closure. 

For  cases  of  early  closures  due  to  political  decisions,  it  is  in  general  up  to  the  responsible 
government to cover the resulting shortfall in the fund. In case of accidents, the international 
liability regime based on the respective international Conventions applies. 

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: This may be due to an early 
shutdown (referendum after the Chernobyl accident), no existing funds prior to EU accession 
or bankruptcy of the operator. Where the European Union has set up a system of funds from 
which  the  decommissioning  of  the  installations  concerned  is  supported,  it  remains 
nevertheless the ultimate responsibility of the licence holder and the respective State to collect 
the funds for decommissioning and waste management. Additional efforts in this regard are 
required where funds are not sufficient to cover the total decommissioning costs. 

Apart  from  the  mentioned  historical  cases,  for  all  other  nuclear  installations,  the  funding 
regime must be fully in line with the Recommendation and the Directive 2011/70/Euratom for 
waste management. 

The  decommissioning  programme  of  the  nuclear  installations  owned  by  the  European 
Commission under the Euratom Treaty (the nuclear installations of the Joint Research Centre) 
is  the  subject  of  regular  dedicated  communications  to  the  Parliament  and  the  Council. 
Decommissioning  funds  are  managed  by  the  Joint  Research  Centre  on  the  basis  of  a  multi-
annual schedule approved by the budgetary Authority. 

Good practice example: 

•  Finland  and  Sweden  could  be  mentioned  here  as  examples  for  adequacy  of  the  sums 

collected so far in a segregated fund. 

2.3.2.  Fund Type, Control on Use and Review 

Member States adopted their models on the following basic types:  

•  The  segregated  internal  fund,  kept  by  the  operator  of  the  installation  but  as  a  separate 
budget which can only be touched for decommissioning and waste management purposes 
and under the control of the national body. Funds of this type exist for example in France, 
Belgium, and Czech Republic.  

•  The segregated external fund, meaning external to the operator of the installation, exists in 
Finland  and  Sweden,  where  it  is  also  external  from  the  state  budget,  and  Hungary, 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
Romania,  Slovakia  and  Bulgaria.  In  those  Member  States,  however,  the  funds  are 
somehow within 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 for the 
future decommissioning and waste management costs. 

While a segregated fund is the recommended option, a safe system can also be built with well-
controlled non-segregated funds. Where the financial means collected by segregated funds are 
lent  back  to  the  licence  holders,  an  increased  degree  of  control  by  an  independent  body  is 
necessary. 

For  its  review,  the  national  body  must  be  fully  independent  of  the  operator  and  have  the 
necessary  authority  to  assure  that  any  proposed  corrective  actions  are  implemented.  Such 
authority  might  be  put  into  doubt  if  representatives  of  the  license  holder  have  a  right  to 
nominate  representatives  to  the  board  of  the  national  body,  as  is  the  case  in  some  Member 
States. 

2.3.3.  New Nuclear Installations 

Member  States  without  an  existing  and  fully  functioning  funding  regime  who  plan  to  build 
new  nuclear  installations,  and  in  particular  new  nuclear  power  plants,  should  establish  the 
laws  to  establish  a  robust  decommissioning  financing  regime  by  the  time  of  the  decision  to 
invest.  

Most recent examples for new financing regimes: 

•  In the UK, an external and segregated fund will be created for future new build.  

•  Lithuania,  which  decided  to  build  a  new  NPP  close  to  former  NPP's  site,  is  currently 

developing a funding regime.  

•  Poland has recently adopted its legislation for the decommissioning funding regime, well 

ahead of the pending decision on the building of the planned NPP(s). 

2.4. 

ESTIMATION OF DECOMMISSIONING COSTS 

2.4.1. 

Separate Cost Calculations for Technical Decommissioning and Waste Management 

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.  

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.  

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 
waste6, shall lead to substantial progress in financial planning for waste management costs. 

2.4.2.  Cost Calculations and Adequacy 

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. Albeit strongly recommended for calculating 
or benchmarking, this is not a mandatory procedure but could help to inform and reinforce the 
methodologies in some countries. Recently, the "International Structure for Decommissioning 

6 

OJ L 199, 2.8.2011, p. 48 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Costing"  (ISDC),  published  by  the  OECD/NEA  in  2012  (NEA  No.  7088),  has  updated  and 
replaced the "yellow book". There is as yet no equivalent for nuclear waste cost assessment. 

Whether the national body reviews all cost estimates, which it should do, is not evident in all 
Member States. The Commission will continue to observe the situation. 

2.4.3. 

Site-specific Cost 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.  A  "fleet 
approach" to costs may be relied upon where appropriate.  

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. 

2.5. 

USE OF DECOMMISSIONING FUNDS 

2.5.1.  Use for intended Purpose and Transparency 

Decommissioning  funds  should  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. 
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  both  the questionnaire and to subsequent information requests 
are  still  not  sufficiently  detailed.  This  could  possibly  be  due  to  the  fact  that  the  majority  of 
funds have not yet reached their disbursement phase. The issue requires to be followed closely 
in the future. 

Examples of good practice in this regard: 

•  In Sweden, where the national fund publishes a very detailed report containing all relevant 
language: 

and  English 

in  Swedish 

its  website 

information 
http://www.karnavfallsfonden.se/.  

annually  on 

•  The site of the UK's NDA, http://www.nda.gov.uk/, also contains similar information. 

2.5.2. 

Secure Risk Profile 

For  a  secure  risk  profile,  low-risk  assets  should  be  preferred  while  not  excluding  high-risk 
assets  but  with  constraints  on  the  risk  exposure.  The  management  strategy  should  aim  to 
match  the  full  decommissioning  cost  and  to  ensure  its  availability  at  the  time  when  it  is 
needed, under the control of the national body. 

A  satisfactory  return  on  the  capital  should  be  achieved  without  excessive  risk:  In  some 
Member States the fund can lend a maximum of 75% of the capital back to the operator who 
must pay a government-fixed interest. In others, the fund must always cover the discounted 
provisions  and  eligible  assets  are  defined  by  decree,  but  the  operators  decide  freely  on  that 
basis. In one case, 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, 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.  

Many  Member  states  require  funds  to  invest  to  a  high  degree  in  government  bonds.  Recent 
events in the financial markets having put serious doubts on the absolute safety of government 
bonds,  it  may  be  advisable  to  revisit  the  implicit  assumptions  underlying  the  existing 
legislation in this respect.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
As  a  possible  example  of  good  practice  in  fund investment  one  could  mention  here  France, 
where very detailed rules exist for the eligible asset classes and where a review is underway.  

2.5.3.  Underperformance of Fund Management 

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. 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. 

This principle is well implemented in all Member States which chose to set up internal fund 
regimes.  In  all  cases,  there  is  periodic  control  by  the  national  body  for  this  essential 
requirement. 

2.5.4.  Non-Commercial Nuclear Installations 

The  facilities  addressed  here  are  typically  State-owned  service  facilities  such  as  medical 
centres,  research  centres,  isotope  production  facilities  and  particle  accelerators.  Being 
typically under state responsibility, their decommissioning is paid from the national budget. A 
final  decommissioning  plan  detailing  the  scale  of  liabilities  and  associate  costs  should  be 
drawn  up  nevertheless.  All  Member  States  possessing  such  installations  have  either  set  up 
decommissioning plans or are in the process of doing so.  

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
3. 

CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK 

Since the presentation of the second decommissioning report in 2007, the legal environment 
in  the  field  of  decommissioning  and  waste  management  has  changed  significantly  with  the 
adoption  of  Council  Directive  2011/70/Euratom  of  19  July  2011  establishing  a  Community 
framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste7. This 
Directive, 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, shared with the Recommendation, is now binding law to be transposed by all 
Member States. National spent fuel and radioactive waste programmes will have 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  accumulate  adequate  waste 
management  funds.  The  obligation  to  cover  all  management  stages  from  the  generation  of 
waste  onwards  means  that  a  large  portion  of  the  decommissioning  activities  will  also  be 
covered.  

The  national  programmes  should  provide  a  detailed  cost  estimate  of  all  waste  management 
steps up to disposal including the associated activities, such as research and development. It 
must also provide information on the financing.  

Should  a  national  programme  consider  only  long-term  interim  storage,  but  no  disposal,  the 
amount  of  money  saved  risks  allowing  the  operator  to  strengthen  its  market  position  in 
relation  to  competitors  in  Member  States  where  funding  a  disposal  facility  is  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 cost8. 

The  Directive  also  contains  binding  rules  regarding  financing  schemes  and  transparency, 
which also reflect some basic principles of the Recommendation. Article 10 on transparency 
ensures  public  information  and  the  right  to  have  an  opportunity  to  participate  effectively  in 
the  decision-making  process.  Article  12  on  national  programmes  includes  an  obligation  to 
have  cost  assessment  and  national  schemes  in  force,  as  well  as  a  transparency  policy  or 
process. 

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. 
The  "Nuclear  safety"  Directive  2009/71/Euratom9  is  relevant  for  decommissioning  as  it 
includes  in  its  scope  all  civilian  nuclear  installations  operating  under  a  license,  including 
licences to decommission a nuclear installation. It is a further, decisive step towards binding 
rules  for  the  accumulation  of  adequate  financial  resources  for  decommissioning  and  waste 
management of nuclear installations. They form a strong basis for a common legal framework 

7 
8 

9 

OJ L 199, 2.8.2011, p. 48 
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. 
OJ L 172, 2.7.2009, p. 218 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
and a strong safety culture within the EU. Together with the Commission Recommendation of 
2006, they will set the framework for the continuing work on further improving the situation 
in  all  Member  States  concerning  the  adequacy,  availability  and  safety  of  the  financial 
resources earmarked for decommissioning and waste management. 

Even  after  the  full  transposition  of  the  "Nuclear  waste"  Directive,  the  DFG  will  have  to 
continue  its  work  with  the  Commission  to  promote  a  clear  understanding  of  the 
decommissioning  policies  and  strategies  by  providing  up-to-date  knowledge  on 
decommissioning cost estimates and the management of the funds and by exploring possible 
ways ahead in terms of further co-operation or even harmonisation.  

Some further possible forward issues were discussed during the DFG meeting in March 2012: 
The  reporting  under  the  Recommendation  and  the  "Nuclear  waste"  Directive  should  be 
aligned:  After  the  first  reporting  under  the  "Nuclear  waste"  Directive,  a  reflection  on  the 
reporting under the Recommendation will be required. Another important point in this context 
will be the reflection upon the relation of the DFG to the "Nuclear waste" Directive, also in 
connection  with  the  transposition  process  and  the  links  to  ENSREG  and  ENEF.  A  revised 
mandate  of  the  DFG  should  be  elaborated  in  co-operation  between  the  DFG  and  the 
Commission. 

An important point of the common reflection could be the lessons to be drawn from the recent 
banking and sovereign debt crises. A reaction to the turmoil in the financial markets during 
the  last  couple  of  years  is  needed  in  all  Member  States,  and  collaboration  within  the  DFG 
could contribute to enhanced robustness of decommissioning finances in the future. 

EN 

13 

   EN