REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the evaluation and implementation of the EU nuclear decommissioning assistance programmes in Bulgaria, Slovakia and Lithuania
Date: 2018-06-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Energy, European Commission
Subjects: Bulgaria, EU programme, Lithuania, Slovakia, decommissioning of power stations, nuclear policy, nuclear power station, nuclear safety, principle of additionality, radioactive waste

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 13.6.2018  COM(2018) 468 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the evaluation and implementation of the EU nuclear decommissioning assistance programmes in Bulgaria, Slovakia and Lithuania  {SWD(2018) 344 final}  
 
 
1 

INTRODUCTION 

When  they  acceded  to  the  EU,  Bulgaria,  Slovakia  and  Lithuania  committed  to 
shutting down eight nuclear reactors before the end of their scheduled lifetime: 

  Kozloduy nuclear power plant in Bulgaria (units 1 to 4); 
  Bohunice V1 nuclear power plant in Slovakia (2 units); and 
 

Ignalina nuclear power plant in Lithuania (2 units). 

The EU itself committed to providing financial assistance for safely decommissioning 
those reactors. 

Two Council Regulations1, 2 were adopted on 13 December 2013 to provide support to 
these decommissioning programmes in the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 
2014-2020, continuing the assistance provided in previous periods.  

This report summarises the conclusions of the mid-term evaluation of the EU nuclear 
decommissioning  assistance  programmes  (hereinafter  the  programmes)  in  Bulgaria, 
Slovakia  and  Lithuania;  it  also  reviews  the  progress  made  in  2017  and  in  previous 
years.  The  report  fulfils  the  reporting  requirements  of  both  Articles  6  and  9  of  the 
Regulations. 

During  the  MFF  2014-2020,  the  Commission  has  reported  three  times  on  this 
subject3,4,5.  The  present  report,  as  set  out  in  the  mid-term  evaluation  roadmap6, 
analyses and presents: 

 

to  what  extent  the  Kozloduy,  Bohunice  and  Ignalina  programmes  have 
achieved their objectives in terms of results and impacts; 
the efficiency of the use of resources; and 

 
  EU added value. 

1   Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1368/2013 of 13 December 2013 on Union support for the 
nuclear decommissioning assistance programmes in Bulgaria and Slovakia, and repealing 
Regulations (Euratom) No 549/2007 and (Euratom) No 647/2010 (OJ L346, 20.12.2013, p. 1) & 
correction (OJ L8, 11.1.2014, p. 31). 

2   Council Regulation (EU) No 1369/2013 of 13 December 2013 on Union support for the nuclear 

decommissioning assistance programme in Lithuania, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1990/2006 
(OJ L346, 20.12.2013, p. 7) & correction (OJ L8, 11.1.2014, p. 30 & OJ L121, 24.4.2014, p. 59). 
3   Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of 
the work under the nuclear decommissioning assistance programme to Bulgaria, Lithuania and 
Slovakia in 2016 and previous years — COM(2017) 328 final. 

4   Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of 
the work under the nuclear decommissioning assistance programme to Bulgaria, Lithuania and 
Slovakia in 2015 and previous years — COM(2016) 405 final. 

5   Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of 
the work under the nuclear decommissioning assistance programme to Bulgaria, Lithuania and 
Slovakia in the period 2010-2014 — COM(2015) 78 final. 

6   http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/plan_2016_249_ndap_evaluation_en.pdf. 

1 

 
                                                 
As per Article 9 of the two Regulations, the evaluation also addresses whether there is 
a need to modify the specific objectives and implementation procedures7 described in 
Article 2(2) and Article 7 respectively. 

It  is  important  to  note  that  the  current  Regulations  restrict  the  scope  of  the 
programmes to decommissioning activities only, excluding mitigation measures in the 
energy sector that were supported in previous periods. Such a shift from financing a 
complex  mix of energy and decommissioning projects towards a single and focused 
effort  on  decommissioning  programmes  underpinned  by  approved  detailed 
decommissioning  plans  was  a  key  prerequisite  for  increased  effectiveness  and 
efficiency.  

2 

OBJECTIVES 

The two Regulations pursue the general objective of helping the respective Member 
States  to  reach  safely  the  decommissioning  end  state  while  maintaining  the  highest 
safety standards. 

In all three cases, the programmes are properly defined in terms of scope, budget and 
planning, with end dates scheduled beyond the current financing period. The disposal 
of spent fuel and radioactive waste in a deep geological repository is not included in 
the scope of the programmes,  and  has  to  be developed by each Member State in  its 
national  programme  for  the  management  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste  as 
required by the relevant Directive8,9. 

The Regulations also define the specific objectives: 

All three programmes 

  performing dismantling in turbine halls and auxiliary buildings; 
  safely  managing  the  decommissioning  waste  in  accordance  with  detailed 

waste management plans. 

Kozloduy and Bohunice programmes 

  dismantling of large components and equipment in the reactor buildings. 

Ignalina programme 

  defueling of the reactor core of unit 2 and the reactor fuel ponds of units 1 and 

2 into the dry spent fuel storage facility; 

  safely maintaining the reactor units. 

7   Commission Implementing Decision of 7.8.2014 on the rules of application for the nuclear 

decommissioning assistance programmes for Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia for the period 2014-
2020 — C(2014) 5449 final. 

8   Council  Directive  2011/70/Euratom  of  19 July 2011 on  establishing  a  Community  framework  for 
the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste, OJ L199, 2.8.2011, p. 48-
56. 

9   Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  on  progress  of 
implementation  of  Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom  and  an  inventory of  radioactive  waste  and 
spent fuel present in the Community’s territory and the future prospects — C(2017) 236 final. 

2 

 
                                                 
The  implementation  procedures7  establish  the  baseline  for  each  decommissioning 
programme  up  to  the  respective  end  state  and  provide  concrete  targets  for  each 
specific objective. 

3 

TOOLS 

The Commission has based its mid-term evaluation mainly on: 

(1)  An external study10 carried out in 2017, which included in-depth desk research, 
interviews  with  targeted  stakeholders,  field  visits,  an  analysis  of  the  public 
consultation  and  an  additional  targeted  consultation,  a  benchmarking  exercise 
with comparable instruments, and an expert panel. 

(2)  An  external  study11  carried  out  in  2016,  which  included  an  evaluation  of  the 
global cost estimates of the programmes, an overall risk assessment, an analysis 
of the national funds and other sources, and an analysis of the robustness of the 
State budgets. 

(3)  A  thematic  verification  of  procurement  procedures  carried  out  by  an  external 

contractor. 

(4)  The internal assessment of the results of periodic monitoring action conducted 

by the Commission and the documentation provided by stakeholders. 

(5)  The Special Report12 of the European Court of Auditors. 

4 

ASSESSMENT  OF  RELEVANCE,  COHERENCE,  EFFECTIVENESS,  EFFICIENCY 
AND EU ADDED VALUE 

This  report  assesses  whether  the  programmes  are  on  track  to  accomplish  their 
intended  objectives  and  includes  recommendations  on  how  to  improve  their 
implementation. The report is accompanied by a staff working document that provides 
factual information and analysis. 

The decommissioning operators are all fully working on decommissioning activities. 
Slovakia  has  advanced  the  most  and  is  currently  carrying  out  Dismantling  & 
Decontamination  (D&D)  in  the  reactor  building  at  the  Bohunice  site.  D&D  is  well 
advanced in the auxiliary buildings at the Kozloduy and Ignalina sites. In addition, the 
key  safety-related  project  in  Lithuania  to  remove  the  spent  nuclear  fuel  from  the 
RBMK reactor (similar to that used in Chernobyl) is now well underway. Defueling 
of  Unit  2  reactor  core  was  finalised  on  25  February  2018  (i.e.  15  months  ahead  of 
schedule). 

The  programmes  are  generally  on  track  to  achieve  the  specific  objectives  of  the 
Regulations with the funding provided in this MFF. A clear trend towards increased 
efficiency  has  been  observed  throughout  the  monitoring  activities,  as  confirmed  by 

10   ‘Support  to  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  Nuclear  Decommissioning  Assistance  Programmes’ 

Final report, EY, 2017. 

11  ‘Nuclear Decommissioning Assistance Programme (NDAP) — Assessment of the robustness of the 
financing plans considering the economic-financial-budgetary situation in each concerned Member 
State  and  of  the  relevance  and  feasibility  of  the  detailed  decommissioning  plans’,  Deloitte, 
NucAdvisor, VVA Europe, A study prepared for the European Commission DG Energy, 2016. 
12   ECA Special Report 22/2016 — EU nuclear decommissioning assistance programmes in Lithuania, 

Bulgaria and Slovakia: some progress made since 2011, but critical challenges ahead. 

3 

 
                                                 
independent  experts.  In  some  areas,  the  risk  of  delays  needs  further  mitigation  and 
close follow-up. 

The  evaluation  was  conducted  against  five  main  criteria:  relevance,  coherence, 
effectiveness, efficiency and EU added value. 

Relevance 

(1)  As far as the MFF 2014-2020 is concerned, the general and specific objectives 
of the programmes remain highly relevant for responding to the needs that were 
identified  when  the  MFF  was  prepared  (i.e.  progress  in  decommissioning  past 
the point of no return and accomplishment of enhanced safety). 

Coherence 

(2)  The  Regulations  are  coherent  with  EU  policies  that  aim  to  ensure  the  highest 
level  of  nuclear  safety.  The  programmes’  legal  basis  is  designed  to  be  fully 
consistent with the Euratom Treaty’s acquis, in particular in the area of nuclear 
safety13,14  and  the  management  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste8.  This  is 
without  prejudice  to  the  exceptional  nature  of  EU  funding  resulting  from  the 
specific  historical  events  that  underpin  the  programmes.  EU  support  ensured 
that immediate dismantling strategies were pursued and allowed for the level of 
radiological  hazard  to  be  reduced  more  rapidly  and  prevented  undue  burden 
from  being  transferred  to  future  generations,  while  partially  covering  the 
liabilities of the Member States. 

(3)  By  fulfilling  ex-ante  conditionalities, 

the 
programmes’  scope.  As  a  result,  the  long-term  management  of  spent  fuel  and 
high level radioactive waste has been explicitly excluded from the programmes 
and remains under the financial responsibility of the Member States in line with 
Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom. 

the  Member  States  shaped 

(4)  The  programmes  are  also  consistent  with  EU  policies  in  areas  such  as 

environmental and social protection. 

Effectiveness 

(5)  To  date,  progress  has  been  made  in  all  three  programmes,  and  long-standing 
issues  that  were  carried  over  from  the  previous  financial  framework  were 
eventually resolved. Key infrastructures for managing spent fuel and radioactive 
waste  either  became  operational  or  are  in  the  final  stages  of  commissioning, 
injecting fresh momentum into decommissioning activities. 

(6) 

In  all  three  sites,  D&D  in  the  turbine  halls  and  auxiliary  buildings  has 
progressed well. The decommissioning operators have successfully managed to 
identify and remove bottlenecks in the processes. 

13   Council Directive 2009/71/Euratom of 25 June 2009 establishing a Community framework for the 

nuclear safety of nuclear installations, OJ L 172, 2.7.2009, p. 18-22. 

14   Council Directive 2014/87/Euratom of 8 July 2014 amending Directive 2009/71/Euratom 

establishing a Community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations, OJ L 219, 
25.7.2014, p. 42-52. 

4 

 
                                                 
(7)  Progress has been made on D&D in the reactor buildings (controlled area) at the 

three sites, consistent with the respective programme schedules and end dates. 

(8)  The  main  outputs  of  decommissioning  programmes  are  materials  to  be  either 
reused  or  recycled  and  conditioned  radioactive  waste  to  be  either  stored 
temporarily  (interim  waste  store)  or  disposed  of.  For  the  three  programmes, 
these  outputs  have  been  lower  than  planned  to  date  for  several  reasons:  (i) 
inherent  uncertainties  in  the  characterisation  of  the  plants  caused  the  target 
values to be overestimated; (ii) lower input to waste management facilities from 
dismantling  activities;  and  (iii)  technical  challenges  related  to  specific  legacy 
waste streams. Nonetheless, the waste management processes have proved to be 
generally  capable  of  providing  the  necessary  productivity  throughput  with  the 
highest safety standards. 

Efficiency 

(9)  At the outset of the current MFF, the three Member States established detailed 
decommissioning  plans  to  fulfil  the  ex-ante  conditionalities.  The  overall  cost 
estimates of the programmes were therefore included and updated with respect 
to  previous  issues.  In  2016,  the  Commission  finalised  its  assessment  of  these 
new plans and concluded that they were complete, relevant, comprehensive and 
that the overall cost estimates were generally appropriate — as supported by the 
results of an independent review11 — provided that contingencies are increased 
to a level of 16 %. Both the limits of the scope of EU support and the baseline 
costs have therefore been clearly set in order to monitor cost-effectiveness. 

(10)  The analysis shows that the programmes have generally been implemented in a 
cost-effective  manner  in  the  current  financial  framework,  and  that  the 
programming process has a much higher level of maturity. 

(11)  Financial  benchmarking  of  decommissioning  activities  remains  a  challenge 
worldwide. This limitation is reflected in the difficulties involved in comparing 
the  three  programmes  with  each  other  and  with  other  decommissioning 
programmes  despite 
the  International  Structure  for 
Decommissioning Costing15. 

the  wider  use  of 

(12)  The analysis also identified the main factors that influence cost-effectiveness: 

  The  governance  in  place  since  2014  has  steered  the  programmes  towards 
increased efficiency, and organisational changes have had a positive impact 
on cost-effectiveness. 
Increasing levels of national contributions have allegedly supported greater 
accountability  and  economic  self-interest  in  the  Member  States.  However, 
there  was  no  evidence  that  a  higher  share  of  national  contributions  at  the 
level of individual projects corresponds to higher performance. 

 

  Timely  implementation  is  key  to  cost-effectiveness.  The  removal  of 
roadblocks  carried  over  from  the  previous  financial  framework  and  the 
recovery,  when  possible,  of  accumulated  delays  has  contributed  to  cost-
effectiveness  (e.g.  resolution  of  long-standing  contractual  disputes  in 

15   International Structure for Decommissioning Costing (ISDC) of Nuclear Installations, OECD 2012, 

NEA No 7088. 

5 

 
                                                 
Ignalina).  Furthermore,  the  earned  value  management16  methodology  and 
the  set  of  key  performance 
the  programmes’ 
stakeholders  with  a  toolkit  to  anticipate  the  impact  of  delays,  with  the 
prospect of mitigating or avoiding negative effect on costs (see for example 
the info box on the Bohunice programme). 

indicators  equipped 

  Labour costs are a substantial and inherently time-dependent component of 
decommissioning  costs.  When 
the 
labour 
decommissioning  operators’  staff,  incurred  delays  may  impact  on  the cost, 
especially when they affect the critical path, i.e. the programme’s end date. 
To  mitigate  this  risk,  externalisation  strategies  provide  adequate  flexibility 
to  adjust  needs  and  efforts.  The  implementation  of  such  strategies  is  well 
developed  in  Bohunice  and  is  progressing  in  Ignalina,  where  a  structured 
‘make or buy’ plan was established in 2017. 

is  provided  mainly  by 

  On  the  other  hand,  the  deployment  of  plant  staff  (who  were  employed 
during the operational life of the reactors) is a good knowledge management 
practice  as  it  ensures  that  relevant  experience  is  carried  over  to  reduce  the 
time of implementation. However, this practice entails the risk of having too 
many staff and limiting the flexibility of the organisations, especially where 
alternative opportunities are not available. 

  Some technical challenges remain intrinsic to the decommissioning process, 
and the decommissioning market is still in a developmental stage. This has 
led to instances of setbacks among contractors. 

  Cost increases have been noted with regard to modifications in legislation, 
and delays have increased during regulatory approval processes in all three 
countries. Safety decisions in the nuclear domain must be made independent 
of  specific  economic  factors;  the  decommissioning  operators  should 
therefore  work  with  regulators  to  anticipate  such  developments  in  the 
regulatory  domain  and  adequately  account  for  regulatory  processes  in 
project  planning.  While  some  good  practices  were  identified  in  Lithuania 
and Slovakia, this issue has impacted the Kozloduy programme. 

  Bearing  in  mind  that  only  3  out  of  more  than  90  reactors  shut  down  in 
Europe  have  been  fully  decommissioned,  the  programmes  initially  had  to 
seek increased efficiency mostly through learning by doing. In this respect, 
knowledge  sharing  between  the  three  programmes  has  been  a  key  tool 
towards  efficiency  during 
the  current  MFF.  The  Commission  has 
continually  encouraged  stakeholders  to  share  good  practices,  in  particular 
between Slovakia and Bulgaria due to the similarity of their plants (VVER 
reactors). 

EU added value 

(13)  The  added  value  of  the  programmes,  as  it  has  historically  been  perceived, 
naturally  declines  as  implementation  advances.  From  their  beginning,  the 
programmes’ added value has been cast in terms of nuclear safety and financial 
mitigation. 
  Beyond  2020,  estimated  financial  gaps  in  Bulgaria  and  Slovakia  do  not 

endanger finalisation of the programmes by the planned end dates. 

16   A measure of progress providing the value of work performed expressed in terms of the budget 

assigned to that work. 

6 

 
                                                 
 

In  Lithuania,  the  financing  gap  beyond  2020  has  also  decreased  thanks  to 
the  further  engagement  of  Lithuania.  However,  the  gap  remains  sizeable 
(EUR 1.331 billion). 

  While the three Member States’ economies are clearly capable of absorbing 
the financial needs through national financial resources, the impact of doing 
so would be more significant for Lithuania (0.3 %- 0.5 % of its annual State 
budget). 

  The  programmes  have  contributed  to  a  substantial  decrease  in  the  level  of 
radiological  hazard  and  risk  to  the  general  public.  The  most  important 
nuclear safety related risks have been eliminated in Slovakia and Bulgaria. 
In Lithuania, removal of spent fuel from reactor buildings is ongoing — by 
the  end  of  this  process  (scheduled  for  completion  by  2022,  but  financed 
under 
the  residual  radiological  hazard  will  be 
substantially reduced by orders of magnitude and will be represented mainly 
by the irradiated graphite cores. 

the  current  MFF), 

(14)  The  EU  nuclear  industry  is  firmly  moving  into  a  new  phase  characterised  by 
increased  activities  in  the  back-end  of  the  lifecycle.  However,  only  a  few 
decommissioning  programmes  have  made  significant  progress,  including  the 
Kozloduy, Ignalina and Bohunice programmes. It is therefore apparent that the 
decommissioning industry has not yet reached full maturity. In this context, EU 
support  to  the  decommissioning  programmes  in  Bulgaria,  Slovakia  and 
Lithuania  has  provided  additional  value  to  the  entire  EU  decommissioning 
industry  in  terms  of  knowledge  and  expertise.  Knowledge  sharing  and 
capitalisation aspects of the programmes therefore serve as a basis for ensuring 
continued  EU  added  value  enhancing  this  way  nuclear  safety.  This  process 
might be further exploited in managing irradiated graphite, which is a technical 
challenge worldwide17. 

17  No power reactors with graphite cores have been dismantled yet, although many of them were shut 
down several years ago. Besides Lithuania, other Member States have to undertake similar projects 
as they own significant inventories of irradiated graphite: United Kingdom (86 000 t), France 
(23 000 t), Lithuania (3 800 t), Spain (3 700 t), Italy (3 000 t), Belgium (2 500 t), Germany 
(2 000 t). 

7 

 
                                                 
In  2017,  the  Kozloduy  programme  underwent  a  three-yearly  revision  in  line  with  national 
legal  requirements  and  good  practice.  As  per  the  presently  available  information  the 
estimate  at  completion18  has  to  be  increased  by  23 %.  As  the  Member  State  provided 
increased  national  contribution,  the  funding  needs  after  2020  are  presently  about  EUR 92 
million.  In  any  case,  the  allocated  funds  ensure  effective  and  efficient  delivery  of  the 
programme’s objectives set out in the 2014-2020 MFF. 

D&D  in  the  turbine  halls  and  auxiliary  buildings  has  progressed  well,  with  completion  by 
2020. 

One major accomplishment is the installation of a state-of-the-art waste volume reduction 
facility, which delivers extremely high performance compared to similar facilities in the EU. 

In  this  MFF,  delays  incurred  in  the  Kozloduy  programme  (see  earned  value  vs  baseline  or 
schedule performance index) have not affected the critical path (i.e. end date) at this point 
in time. However, the project to dismantle the reactors’ cores is in a preparatory phase and 
the  extent  to  which  the  Kozloduy  programme  will  progress  towards  this  objective  in  2020 
remains unclear. 

18   The estimate at completion is the expected total cost of completing the programme work, which is 

calculated based on performance to date.  
The budget at completion is the total planned value of the programme (baseline). 

8 

 
 
 
                                                 
The Bohunice programme has reached a high level of maturity: the estimate at completion 
for  the  overall  programme  has  been  falling  slightly  and  is  supported  by  a  state-of-the-art 
plan  for  risks  and  contingencies;  this  provides  a  high  level  of  confidence  in  the  estimates. 
The  balance  of  variations  in  cost  estimates  at  project  level  also  shows  that  initial  global 
estimates were sound despite inherent uncertainties in such complex programmes. 

D&D  in  the  turbine  halls  and  auxiliary  buildings  is 
winding  down;  the  last  task,  i.e.  dismantling  the 
cooling  towers  (see  image  as  of  November  2017), 
is well underway, to be completed in 2018.  

Important  D&D  work  has  also  been  performed  in 
the  reactor  building,  despite  technical  challenges 
encountered  in  the  early  stages.  As  reported  in 
previous  communications3,  decontamination  of 
the reactors’ primary cooling circuits has experienced delays, which could have impacted the 
decommissioning  end  date.  However,  the  governance  setup  has  proven  to  be  apt  at 
ensuring effectiveness and efficiency thanks to the early detection of issues (monitoring, key 
performance  indicators  and  earned  value  management)  and  prompt  identification  of 
mitigation measures. As a result, the activity was put back on track and the decommissioning 
operator revised the programme’s final phases, which avoided any impact on the duration; 
the  initial  end  date  (2025)  is  currently  being  upheld.  This  is  reflected  in  the  earned  value 
parameters and indexes (the dashed line plots the new baseline and is based on the merger 
of three upcoming final decommissioning projects). 

To date, the reactors’ cooling circuits have been fully decontaminated. This process meant 
that fewer staff were needed to dismantle the reactors and that the programme end date in 
2025 is being adhered to. 

9 

 
 
 
Given  the  reactor  type,  the  Ignalina  programme  is  a  first  of  a  kind  challenge.  The  budget 
estimate  at  completion  of  the  programme  has  been  stable  since  2014.  The  financing  gap 
beyond 2020 is reduced given the recent Lithuanian government’s political commitment to 
maintaining a minimum level of national contributions at 14 % for the programme’s entire 
duration.  The  presently  allocated  funds  ensure  effective  and  efficient  delivery  of  the 
programme’s objectives set out in the 2014-2020 MFF. 

The  main  accomplishment  is  the  removal  of  spent 
nuclear fuel from the reactor buildings. This process 
started  in  the  fourth  quarter  of  2016  and  has 
progressed in line with plans; it could be completed 
earlier  without  endangering  the  operational  safety. 
The  image  shows  the  stored  spent  fuel  casks  in  the 
new interim storage facility as of October 2017. 

D&D  in  the  turbine  halls  and  auxiliary  buildings 
progressed  well.  Large  volumes  of  equipment  were 
dismantled,  maximising  any  possible  options  for 

reuse and recycling. 

In  this  MFF,  delays  incurred  in  the  Ignalina  programme  (see  earned  value  vs  baseline  or 
scheduled performance index) have not affected the critical path (i.e. end date) at this point 
in time. However, the project to dismantle the reactors’ cores is in a preparatory phase and 
represents a risk for the programme’s timely development post-2020. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
5 

GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT 

The  governance  setup  has  ensured  effective  and  efficient  implementation  of  the 
programmes.  The  key  success  factors  include  clear  definitions  of  roles  and 
responsibilities as well as a strengthened monitoring framework. 

Roles and responsibilities 

responsible 

Each  Member  State  appointed  a  programme  coordinator  (deputy  minister/state 
secretary) 
the 
decommissioning  programme.  This  ensured  comprehensive  programme  oversight  at 
national  level  and  improved  the  Commission’s  access  to  information  in  its 
supervisory role. 

for  programming,  coordinating  and  monitoring 

The analysis has also identified areas for further improvement: 

 

 

increased  involvement  of  the  Member  States  as  financial  stakeholders  for 
increased  ownership 
the 
decommissioning operators; 
the  timeliness  of  the  annual  programming/reporting  cycle  should  be 
enhanced by streamlining procedures. 

together  with  greater  accountability  of 

Monitoring framework 

Committees with monitoring and reporting functions exist for each Member State, co-
chaired  by  a  Commission  representative  and  the  programme  coordinators.  The 
committees are equipped with a dashboard of key performance indicators and detailed 
targets  so  they  can  steer  the  programmes  through  a  well-informed  assessment  and 
decision-making  process.  The  detailed  objectives  and  indicators  (proposed  by  the 
three  Member  States  and  approved  by  the  Commission7)  provided  quantitative 
information  to  measure  progress  towards  the  Regulations’  specific  objectives. 
Moreover,  the  earned  value  management  methodology  has  enhanced  Commission 
supervision of both effectiveness and efficiency, with a positive trickle-down effect at 
national level. 

This  evaluation  analysis  now  provides  an  opportunity  to  revise  the  performance 
indicators in order to: 

 

take stock of accomplishments and recalibrate the indicators to reflect actual 
progress over the coming periods; 

  make it easier to compare the programmes’ performance; and 
  ensure  effective  monitoring  until  completion  of  all  multi-annual  projects 

funded in the current period. 

Co-financing 

The  legal  basis  for  EU  financial  support  does  not  define  the  due  level  of  national 
contributions.  As  a  result,  the  co-financing  practice  continued  in  line  with  pre-
accession deals. While this approach has created uncertainties, in the present financial 
framework  national  contribution  levels  have  increased  to  the  amounts  reported  in 
Tables 1 and 2. These show disbursements and established funds cumulated since the 
start of the decommissioning assistance programme. 

11 

 
National  contributions  are  generally  within  the  ranges  defined  under  the  European 
Structural  and  Investment  Funds  (ESIF).  Moreover,  the  analysis  resulted  in  no 
evidence  that  a  higher  share  of  national  contributions  at  the  level  of  individual 
projects would correspond to better performance. In this context, the real issue does 
not appear to be the level of national contributions, but rather the general perception 
that the programmes are open-ended in nature. As the establishment of the baselines 
shaped  the programmes’  scope,  time  and  costs,  the  key  to  obtaining  the  appropriate 
level of ownership is to complete the transfer of management risks (e.g. increases in 
project cost estimates and delays) to the beneficiary Member States. 

Table 1 — Disbursements (payments to end beneficiaries), 31/12/2017 (€ million) 

Member State 

EU* 

Kozloduy 

Bohunice 

215 (37 %) 

185 (44 %) 

Ignalina 
* Includes contributions from other donors. 
Source: Monitoring Reports, EBRD, CPMA 

159 (15 %) 

364 (63 %) 

240 (56 %) 

928 (85 %) 

Table 2 — Established funds (disbursements plus allocations), 31/12/2017 (€ million) 

Kozloduy 

Bohunice 

Member State 

458 

476 

EU* 

800 

681 

478 
Ignalina 
* Includes contributions from other donors.  
Source: Monitoring Reports, Annual Work Programs, EBRD, CPMA 

1568 

Benchmark 

Three ‘comparator’ instruments were selected as part of a benchmarking exercise: the 
Connecting  Europe  Facility,  the  budget  support  aid  delivery  mechanism  and  ESIF 
major  projects.  On  the  programmes,  the  chosen  benchmark  includes  projects  with 
high complexity and technical innovations that have very different management and 
governance systems. The exercise led to the following findings: 

  The performance monitoring framework for the programmes is generally in 
line  with  best  practice,  in  particular  practices  governing  budget  support 
operations. 

  All  instruments  seek  to  ensure  strong  national  ownership  of  project 
implementation through early buy-in and active Member State involvement. 
  Two of the comparator instruments had a clearly defined framework for co-
financing,  with  EU  co-financing  rates  clearly  established  in  the  legal  basis 
and time limits for disbursement to prevent delays. 

  All  benchmark  instruments  offer  a  multi-annual  rather  than  annual 

framework for programming. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
7 

CONCLUSIONS 

In  line  with  the  expectations  set  for  the  current  MFF,  Bulgaria,  Slovakia  and 
Lithuania  have  made  effective  and  efficient  progress  in  decommissioning  their 
reactors.  There  have  been  challenges  and  setbacks  due  to  the  complexity  of  the 
programmes,  although  the  management  system  has  increasingly  proven  that  it  can 
cope  with  them.  Roadblocks  from  the  previous  financial  framework  have  been 
removed and delays carried over have been recovered as far as possible. 

The  preparation  and  endorsement  of  the  respective  decommissioning  plans  in  2014 
was a major milestone and defined the limits of the assistance programmes, with the 
financing needs to achieve the decommissioning end state eventually established. At 
the  mid-term  stage,  these  needs  were  confirmed  for  the  Bohunice  and  the  Ignalina 
programmes; 
the 
decommissioning plan may result in an increase in cost estimates post-2020. 

the  Kozloduy  programme, 

the  ongoing 

revision  of 

for 

In addition, the detailed objectives and indicators provided a good basis for measuring 
progress  towards  the  achievement  of  the  specific  objectives.  However,  the  analysis 
also  showed  that  it  would  be  opportune  to  recalibrate  these  indicators  in  order  to 
ensure  continued  effective  monitoring  and  possible  comparability  between  the 
programmes. 

No additional funding will be needed in the 2014-2020 MFF. However, the raising of 
additional funds needed in the long term (post-2020) for the Ignalina programme calls 
for a careful follow-up in Lithuania. 

The  national  contribution  levels  achieved  appear  suitable  for  sustaining  proper 
efficiency; however, they are not established in the legal basis, which creates residual 
uncertainties. Increasing national relative to EU contributions and defining a clear and 
formalised framework for ‘co-financing’ (either at programme or project level) would 
very likely continue to encourage greater national ownership and economy-seeking on 
the  part  of  beneficiaries.  Moreover,  the  explicit  transfer  of  risks  (cost  overruns, 
delays)  to  the  respective  Member  States  would  have  a  greater  impact  in  the  current 
context. 

The analysis also demonstrated that greatly improved safety levels will be achieved at 
the sites as a result of EU funding in this MFF. Major expected developments in the 
field include: 

 

 

 

in Bulgaria: the steady progress of construction of the National Disposal Facility, 
the management of legacy waste and the start of major D&D works in the reactor 
building; 

in Slovakia: the final dismantling of the reactor cores; 

in Lithuania: the steady progress of defueling and the preparations for dismantling 
the irradiated graphite core, which is a first of a kind project of an unprecedented 
scale. 

  Based on the results of this evaluation, the Commission deems that these measures 
should not be amended or suspended in the current MFF. The specific objectives 
(Article 2(2)  of  the  Regulations)  remain  valid  while  the  implementation 
procedures should be preferably revised to benefit from the lessons learned. Any 
such  update  should  aim  to  reinforce  the  role  of  the  Monitoring  Committees  and 
that  of  the  Programme  Coordinator  as  well  as  further  improve  the  governance 

13 

 
system by streamlining the programme management cycle, refining the content of 
programming and monitoring documents and updating and sharpening targets and 
indicators for multi-annual measures that go beyond 2020. 

14