COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Council Regulation establishing the nuclear decommissioning assistance programme of the Ignalina nuclear power plant in Lithuania (Ignalina programme) and repealing Council Regulation (EU) No 1369/2013
Date: 2018-06-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Energy, European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, Lithuania, decommissioning of power stations, financial aid, nuclear power station, nuclear safety, radioactive waste, storage of waste, waste disposal

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 13.6.2018  SWD(2018) 342 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Council Regulation establishing the nuclear decommissioning assistance programme of the Ignalina nuclear power plant  in Lithuania (Ignalina programme) and repealing Council Regulation (EU) No 1369/2013 {COM(2018) 466 final}  
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT ..................................... 3 

1.1.  Scope and context ......................................................................................................... 3 
1.2.  Lessons learned from previous programme .................................................................. 6 

2.  THE OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................... 9 

2.1.  Challenges for the programme of the next MFF ........................................................... 9 
2.2.  Objectives of the programme of the next MFF ........................................................... 10 
General objectives .......................................................................................................... 10 

2.2.1. 

2.2.2. 

Specific objectives ......................................................................................................... 11 

3.  PROGRAMME STRUCTURE AND PRIORITIES ................................................. 12 

4.  DELIVERY MECHANISMS OF THE INTENDED FUNDING ............................ 13 

4.1.  Policy option 1 - Discontinuation of Ignalina programme ......................................... 14 
4.2.  Policy option 2 - Ignalina programme under cohesion policy (ESIF) ........................ 15 
4.3.  Policy option 3 - Ignalina programme as dedicated spending programme ................. 16 
4.4.  Policy options benchmark ........................................................................................... 17 

5.  HOW WILL PERFORMANCE BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? ............ 18 

5.1.  Programming, monitoring, reporting and evaluation .................................................. 18 
5.2.  Performance indicators ............................................................................................... 18 
5.3.  Preliminary evaluation criteria .................................................................................... 19 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

CPMA 

EBRD 

ECA 

ESIF 

EVM 

IAS 

IIDSF 

INPP 

ISSG 

KPI 

MFF 

NDAP 

NPP 

RBMK 

Central Project Management Agency (Lithuania) 

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development 

European Court of Auditors 

European Structural and Investment Funds  

Earned Value Management 

Internal Audit Service 

Ignalina International Decommissioning Support Fund 

Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant 

Inter-service Steering Group 

Key Performance Indicator 

Multi-annual Financial Framework 

Nuclear Decommissioning Assistance Programmes,  
whereby the EU provides financial support to Lithuania to shut 
down and decommission two reactors at the Ignalina nuclear power 
plant, to Bulgaria to shut down and decommission four reactors at 
the Kozloduy nuclear power plant, and to Slovakia to shut down and 
decommission two reactors at the Bohunice V1 nuclear power plant. 

Nuclear Power Plant 

Реактор Большой Мощности Канальный / Reaktor Bolshoy 
Moshchnosti Kanalnyy (“High Power Channel-type Reactor”) is a 
class of graphite-moderated nuclear power reactor designed and 
built by the Soviet Union (e.g. Chernobyl nuclear power plant, 
Ignalina nuclear power plant) 

2 

 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT 

1.1. 

Scope and context 

The present ex-ante evaluation relates to the Ignalina programme (the 'programme') whereby the 
European Union (EU) provides financial support to Lithuania to decommission the two RBMK-
1500 reactors of the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) located nearby the town of Visaginas. 
The decommissioning of these reactors - same type as in Chernobyl – is a first-of-a-kind activity 
entailing technological challenges such as the dismantling of graphite cores and the subsequent 
management of important amounts of irradiated graphite. 

Figure 1 – Ignalina nuclear power plant site. 

The programme originated in the context of the negotiations for accession to the European Union 
of  Lithuania,  which  took  the  commitment  to  close  and  subsequently  decommission  the  two 
Soviet-designed  nuclear  reactors  by  a  commonly  agreed  date.  As  an  act  of  solidarity,  the 
European  Union  committed  itself  to  provide  financial  assistance  for  the  decommissioning  of 
Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant. The closure commitment of Lithuania as well as the commitment 
of  the  EU  to  provide  financial  support  was  foreseen  in  the  Lithuania's  Accession  Treaty1 
(Lithuania acceded in 2004). 

Lithuania has fulfilled its accession treaty commitment to close its reactors in a timely manner2. 
Based on the provisions of Lithuania's Accession Treaty3, the Council of the European Union has 
adopted beyond 2006 successive Regulations4,5 for the implementation of the decommissioning. 

1  
2  
3  

OJ L 236, 23.9.2003, p. 33 and p. 944 
Ignalina NPP Unit 1 was shut-down in 2004 and Unit 2 in 2009. 
Article 3.1 "Recognising that the decommissioning of the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant is of a long-term nature 
and represents for Lithuania an exceptional financial burden not commensurate with its size and economic 
strength, the Union shall, in solidarity with Lithuania, provide adequate additional Community assistance to the 

3 

IgnalinaNPPLithuania 
 
                                                            
 
This  ex-ante  evaluation  is  carried  out  in  preparation  of  the  next  MFF  and  it  is  based  on  the 
lessons  learnt  and  progress  achieved  so  far.  The  assessment  of  policy  options  is  not  strictly 
required for an ex-ante evaluation. However, a main purpose of this evaluation is to examine if 
the existing instrument should be: 

(i) 

(ii) 

discontinued in the next MFF, or 

merged into the Funds under cohesion policy, or 

(iii) 

continued as a dedicated programme. 

This  is  linked  to  a  recommendation  issued  by  the  European  Court  of  Auditors  (ECA)  in  their 
latest  performance  audit  on  the  nuclear  decommissioning  assistance  programme  and  to  the 
associated reply provided by the Commission6. 

The programme has been indeed subject to extensive audits in the first part of the current MFF: 
an  internal  audit  conducted  by  the  Internal  Audit  Service  (IAS)  that  resulted  in  three 
recommendations7, all implemented to date; a performance audit of the ECA that issued a special 
report8 resulting in eight recommendations, either fulfilled or under implementation according to 
the established plan. 

Originally and until 2013 the European Union assistance was designed to support Lithuania both 
in  its  efforts  to  shut  down  and  decommission  the  concerned  reactors,  but  also  to  address  the 
consequences of early closure of its nuclear power plant installation. The assistance covered thus 
actions such as enhancement of security of supply and energy efficiency. This has changed under 
the current MFF where the scope of the programme was restricted to decommissioning activities 
only, i.e. on safety related measures. The disposal of spent fuel and radioactive waste in a deep 
geological repository was never part of the programme. This shift from financing a complex mix 
of  energy  and  decommissioning  projects  towards  a  dedicated  and  focused  effort  on  the 
decommissioning programme resulted in increased effectiveness and efficiency. 

decommissioning effort beyond 2006." Article 3.2 "The Ignalina Programme will be, for this purpose, seamlessly 
continued and extended beyond 2006. Implementing provisions for the extended Ignalina Programme shall be 
decided […] and enter into force, at the latest, by the date of expiry of the current Financial Perspective. […]" 
Article 3.4 "For the period of the next Financial Perspectives, the overall average appropriations under the 
extended Ignalina Programme shall be appropriate. Programming of these resources will be based on actual 
payment needs and absorption capacity." (2003 Act of accession, Protocol No 4 on the Ignalina nuclear power 
plant in Lithuania (OJ L 236, 23.9.2003)) 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1990/2006 of 21 December 2006 on the implementation of Protocol No 4 on the 
Ignalina nuclear power plant in Lithuania to the Act of accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, 
Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia "Ignalina Programme" (OJ L 411, 30.12.2006, p.10) 
Council Regulation (EU) No 1369/2013 of 13 December 2013 on Union support for the nuclear 
decommissioning assistance programme in Lithuania (OJ L 346, 20.12.2013, p.7) 
The Commission's reply to recommendation 5 ("Discontinue dedicated funding programmes for nuclear 
decommissioning in Lithuania, Bulgaria and Slovakia after 2020") of the ECA Special Report 22/2016 reads: 
"The Commission will carry out an impact assessment […] with regard to proposals of new [NDAP] initiatives. 
This impact assessment will explore whether funding should be continued and if so the most suitable financing 
mechanisms." 
The recommendations concerned the assessment of ex-ante conditionalities, the control strategy, and the co-
financing. 
ECA Special Report 22/2016 - EU nuclear decommissioning assistance programmes in Lithuania, Bulgaria and 
Slovakia: some progress made since 2011, but critical challenges ahead. 

4 

5  

6   

7  

8   

4 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                 
More  in  particular,  in  the  MFF  2014-2020  the  programme  objectives  have  been  specified  as 
follows: 

Table 1: Ignalina programme specific objectives for MFF 2014-2020 

Ignalina programme 

  Defueling of the reactor core of Unit 2 and the reactor fuel ponds of Units 

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES 

1 and 2 into the dry spent fuel storage facility; 

  Safely maintaining the reactor units; 
  Performing dismantling in turbine halls and auxiliary buildings; 
  Safely managing the decommissioning waste in accordance with the 

detailed waste management plan. 

implementing  procedures9  of 

The 
the  baseline 
(decommissioning plan) for the decommissioning programme up to the respective end-state and 
provided concrete targets per each specific objective. 

the  current  Regulation  established 

The European Union financial assistance has been implemented by indirect management10 since 
its inception. It has been made available through pillar assessed implementing bodies in the form 
of contributions to: 

(i) 

the  Ignalina  International  Decommissioning  Support  Fund  (IIDSF)  managed  by  the 
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) since 2001; 

(ii) 

the Central Project Management Agency (CPMA) since 2003. 

The total financial assistance from the European Union to Lithuania for the decommissioning of 
the  concerned  reactors  as  well  as  for  mitigation  measures  in  the  energy  sector  until  the  end  of 
2020 sums up to EUR 1 818 million. Thereof, EU assistance earmarked for decommissioning of 
the two reactors until the end of 2020 sums up to EUR 1 494 million (see Annex 2). 

As mentioned, the final decommissioning plan (baseline) was prepared in 201411. This plan sets 
out  the  schedule  (covering  a  timespan  longer  than  the  MFFs)  and  the  cost  estimates  for  the 
decommissioning  activities  until  the  accomplishment  of  a  well-established  end-state.  Funding 
provided in this MFF is fit for effective and efficient accomplishment of the related objectives.  

In  line  with  the  Rome  Declaration12,  the  EU  budget  should  enable  a  Europe  that  is  safe  and 
secure; this is a dimension where the Nuclear Decommissioning Assistance Programme (NDAP) 
has  contributed  so  far  and  may  further  contribute,  especially  in  Lithuania.  The  main  positive 
impact to be achieved by the NDAP is indeed the progressive decrease of the level of radiological 
hazard  for  the  workers,  the  public  and  the  environment  in  Lithuania  but  also  in  the  EU  as  a 
whole.  Nuclear  decommissioning  and  waste  management  are  key  processes  of  a  modern,  clean 
and circular economy. 

9  

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 
10   Art 60 Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 

2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union 

11   The definition of a detailed decommissioning plan and the associated financing plan was a pre-condition (ex-ante 
conditionality) to the launch of the programme in the MFF 2014-2020. These plans describe in detail the 
decommissioning strategy, how the facilities will be safely dismantled, how radiation protection of workers and 
the public is ensured, how environmental impacts are addressed, how materials – radioactive and non-radioactive 
– are to be managed, and how the regulatory authorisation for the facilities and sites are to be terminated. 
12   Declaration of the leaders of 27 member states and of the European Council, the European Parliament and the 

European Commission (25 March 2017) 
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/03/25/rome-declaration/pdf 

5 

 
 
 
                                                            
Like all existing EU instruments the programme needs to undergo the EU value added test in line 
with  the  reflection  paper13  on  the  future  of  EU  finances.  As  reflected  in  the  list  of  options, 
consideration is hereby given whether the programme remains indispensable or whether there is 
scope  for  merging  programmes  or  modifying  them  with  a  view  to  budgetary  flexibility  and/or 
simplification, which are other key principles underpinning the next MFF. The programme's EU 
added  value  test  fits  into  the  lines  and  principles  drawn  by  the  Commission  in  its 
Communication14 on a new, modern Multiannual Financial Framework post-2020.  

The Ignalina programme has taken the attention of both the European Parliament and the Council 
of the European Union. Both bodies intervened specifically on the NDAP after the publication of 
the dedicated ECA Special Report15. 

The  European  Parliament16  underlined  that  nuclear  safety  is  of  prime  importance,  not  only  for 
Lithuania but for the population in the whole Union and its neighbourhood and called upon the 
Commission  to  perform  a  thorough  assessment  of  the  needs  for  continuation  of  the  dedicated 
funding  programme  for  nuclear  decommissioning  in  Lithuania  beyond  2020.  It  underlined 
furthermore that the closure of Ignalina nuclear power plant was a condition placed by the Union 
on  the  accession  of  Lithuania  in  exchange  for  Union  support  for  its  closure,  decommissioning 
and mitigation of the social and economic impacts (as defined in Protocol No. 4 of the accession 
treaty1).  

The  Council17  also  recalled  that  the  premature  closure  and  subsequent  decommissioning  of  the 
two Soviet-designed nuclear reactors in Lithuania was one of the conditions for accession to the 
EU. It further underlined the fact that this condition entailed a significant financial burden based 
on  which  the  EU  agreed  to  provide  financial  assistance,  underscored  the  need  for  adequate 
supporting actions for the decommissioning of Ignalina nuclear power plant to ensure successful 
completion of the decommissioning processes whilst maintaining a high level of nuclear safety, 
and  noted  that  any  potential  new  EU  funding  beyond  2020  should  include  clear  rules  and  the 
right incentives to pursue decommissioning, with regard to both financing and timing. 

1.2.  Lessons learned from previous programme 

A mid-term evaluation of the NDAP was conducted pursuant to Article 9 of the relevant Council 
Regulation5  in  line  with  the  Better  Regulation  guidelines.  The  mid-term  evaluation  considered 
and assessed the results and impacts, the efficiency of the use of resources and its Union added 
value.  The  evaluation  focused  on  the  period  2014-2017  but  considered  where  relevant  the 
previous financial framework (2007-2013). 

For  the  mid-term  evaluation  the  Commission  gathered  relevant  information  and  data  by 
extensively  involving  key  stakeholders  (i.e.  Ministries,  implementing  bodies,  decommissioning 
operators, members of the NDAP Committee).  

Moreover,  an  Open  Public  Consultation  was  launched  by  the  Commission  in  June  2017  for  an 
extended  duration  of  14  weeks.  The  consultation  received  limited  interest  (20  responses).  In 
addition  to  this  consultation,  a  targeted  e-survey  consultation  was  launched  in  July  2017;  it 
gathered  an  additional  17 responses  (1  from  Bulgaria,  4  from  Lithuania  and 12  from  Slovakia) 

13   Reflection Paper on the Future of EU Finances - COM(2017) 358 
14   Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council - A 
new, modern Multiannual Financial Framework for a European Union that delivers efficiently on its priorities 
post-2020 - COM(2018) 98 final 

15   ECA Special Report 22/2016 - EU nuclear decommissioning assistance programmes in Lithuania, Bulgaria and 

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

16   Committee on Budgetary Control "Report on the Court of Auditors’ special reports in the context of the 2015 

17 

Commission discharge" (2016/2208(DEC)) 
Council conclusions on the ECA Special Report No 22/2016, adopted by the Council at its 3511th meeting held 
on 13 December 2016 (document n° 15534/16 ATO 68) 

6 

 
                                                            
from  90  stakeholders  contacted  in  total.  The  replies  received  were  overall  positive  about  the 
NDAP but did not provide any additional new input on the programmes. These two consultations 
were complemented with targeted consultations of around 100 interviews with decommissioning 
operators and relevant stakeholders. 

The conclusions of the NDAP mid-term evaluation can be summarised as follows: 

Coherence  with  EU  policies.  The  mid-term  evaluation  concluded  that  the  NDAP  are  coherent 
with  EU  policies  aiming  at  ensuring  the  highest  level  of  nuclear  safety.  The  EU  support 
through  the  NDAP  ensures  that  the  immediate  dismantling  strategy  in  Lithuania  is  steadily 
pursued  and  prevents  that  undue  burden  is  transferred  to  future  generations,  while  it  partially 
derogates  for  historical  reasons  to  the  ultimate  responsibility  of  the  Member  State  to  ensure 
adequate financial resources for nuclear decommissioning and radioactive waste management. 

Progress.  In  line  with  expectations  set  for  the  MFF  2014-2020,  Lithuania  has  progressed 
effectively  and  efficiently  in  the  decommissioning  of  its  reactors  in  line  with  the  agreed 
baseline  (decommissioning  plan).  There  have  been  challenges  and  setbacks  due  to  the 
programme's complexity, but the management system has proven increasing ability to cope with 
such  challenges.  Roadblocks  from  the  previous  financial  framework  were  removed  and  delays 
carried over were recovered to the extent possible. 

Safety. The analysis demonstrated also that substantially improved levels of safety are going to 
be  achieved  at  the  site  as  a  result  of  the  Union  funding  in  this  MFF.  In  Lithuania,  the  main 
ongoing developments in the field are the steady progress of removing spent fuel from the reactor 
buildings  and  the  preparations  for  dismantling  the  irradiated  graphite  from  the  reactors'  core, 
which is a first-of-a-kind project of unprecedented scale. 

Financial scope. The preparation and endorsement in 2014 of the decommissioning plan was  a 
major  milestone  and  clarified  the  scope,  schedule,  and  budget  of  the  decommissioning 
programme. Between 2014 and 2016, the Commission has analysed this baseline and concluded 
that  it  is  based  on  a  complete  and  comprehensive  plan,  and  on  a  sound  overall  cost  estimate 
which could be improved further by considering a higher level of contingencies (max 16%). In 
2017,  the  Lithuanian  authorities  confirmed  that  the  cost  estimates  for  the  programme  remains 
unchanged and in line with the agreed decommissioning end-state. 

Beyond  2020,  the  raising  of  additional  funds  needed  until  2038  for  the  decommissioning  of 
Ignalina NPP calls for a careful follow-up as the financing gap is sizable (EUR 1331 million).  

National  contribution.  The  mid-term  evaluation  showed  that  the  achieved  levels  of  national 
contribution  appear  fit  to  sustain  proper  efficiency;  nonetheless,  co-financing  is  not 
established  in  the  legal  basis,  thus  creating  continued  uncertainties  that  should  be  removed. 
Moreover, the analysis showed that increasing levels of national contribution are a necessary but 
not a sufficient condition to set the right incentives for timely and efficient decommissioning. To 
this end, the explicit transfer of risks (cost overruns, delays) to the Member State  would have a 
greater  impact.  This  practice  has  been  already  introduced  to  a  certain  extent  under  the  current 
MFF where possible. 

Governance. The governance setup has ensured effective and efficient implementation of the 
programme  and  compensated  for  the  uncertainties  mentioned  on  the  national  contribution 
aspects. Main factors of success were clear definitions of roles and responsibilities as well as a 
strengthened  monitoring  framework.  The  analysis  has  also  identified  areas  for  further 
improvement such as: 

(i) 

increased  involvement  of  the  Member  State  (programme  coordinator  and  financial 
coordinator)  for  increased  ownership  together  with  stronger  accountability  of  the 
decommissioning operator (final beneficiary); 

7 

 
(ii) 

streamlining of procedures to enhance the timeliness of the management cycle; 

(iii) 

increased inter-comparability with other programmes' performance. 

Objectives. The mid-term evaluation confirmed that the general objective18 and the main specific 
objectives19 of the NDAP remain valid in the current MFF. Nevertheless, some of the expected 
results,  milestones,  target  dates,  as  well  as  the  corresponding  performance  indicators  should  be 
adapted  in  line  with  the  latest  updates  of  the  decommissioning  plan  to  allow  for  effective 
monitoring for the period 2018-2020. 

Although the reduction of the ultimate risk to the general population posed by the facility while 
ensuring that the decommissioning is conducted in a safe manner have been the driving factors 
behind the NDAP, the mid-term evaluation noted that these aspects have not been well captured 
in  the  high  level  monitoring  framework  that  is  the  basis  for  communication  of  the  results  to 
external parties (e.g. reporting to the Council and the Parliament). Any post-2020 funding should 
therefore  focus  on  explicit  safety  objectives  monitored  by  means  of  dedicated  performance 
indicators. 

Knowledge gain. Finally the  mid-term  evaluation has highlighted that the experience gained  so 
far from the projects implemented under NDAP in Lithuania, as well as in Bulgaria and Slovakia, 
provides  a  solid  base  of  knowledge  in  the  EU  for  conducting  ongoing  and  future 
decommissioning  activities.  These  EU  co-funded  programmes  may  aim  at  becoming  a  solid 
benchmark  for  governance  related  issues  and  management  practices  such  as  cost  estimation 
methodologies  or  planning,  and  persisting  technological  challenges  such  as  the  dismantling  of 
graphite-moderated reactors and the subsequent management of important amounts of irradiated 
graphite. 

19  

18   The general objective of the programme is to assist the Member State concerned in implementing the steady 
process towards the decommissioning end state of the concerned NPP in accordance with its respective 
decommissioning plan, whilst maintaining the highest level of safety. 
For LT: (a) 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; (b) safely maintaining the reactor units; (c) performing dismantling in the turbine hall and 
other auxiliary buildings and safely managing the decommissioning waste in accordance with a detailed waste 
management plan. 

8 

 
 
 
                                                            
2. 

THE OBJECTIVES  

1.3.  Challenges for the programme of the next MFF  

The  key  aim  in  nuclear  decommissioning  is  the  progressive  removal  of  hazards  inherently 
associated to the concerned installations. This process is stepwise in nature, mainly because the 
removal of major batches of radioactive materials is obtained over several stages. The reduction 
of safety measures and associated costs evolves likewise. 

At  this  point  in  time  the  decommissioning  operator  is  focussing  on  dismantling  activities. 
Dismantling & Decontamination (D&D) works are well advanced in the auxiliary buildings at the 
Ignalina site. In addition, the key safety-related project to remove the spent nuclear fuel from the 
Chernobyl type reactor buildings is now well underway.  

The programme is on track to accomplish the specific objectives with the funding provided in the 
current  MFF  (2014-2020)  and  a  clear  trend  towards  increased  efficiency  was  observed 
throughout the monitoring activities as confirmed by independent experts20. However, important 
safety  challenges  remain  both  of  a  technical  and  technological  nature  but  also  of  a  financial 
nature for the next financial period. 

Safety challenges 

Progress  in  the  implementation  of  the  programme  in  the  current  MFF  (2014-2020)  has  led 
already to an important decrease in radiological hazard to the general public but some important 
milestones  are  still  ahead.  With  the  funds  already  provided,  the  spent  nuclear  fuel  is  currently 
being removed from the reactor-buildings (scheduled to be finalised by 2022). It is only after this 
step  that  the  decontamination  and  dismantling  works  may  commence  on  the  reactor  primary 
cooling circuits and cores. The funding for these activities has to be available in the next MFF. In 
parallel, all waste management routes have to be completed under the next MFF either for interim 
storage or disposal. 

The technical challenges for the decommissioning of Ignalina nuclear power plant are especially 
complex  due  to  its  first-of-a-kind  nature  especially  in  respect  to  the  dismantling  of  irradiated 
graphite and to the fact that a large percentage of the equipment is contaminated. Ignalina nuclear 
power  plant  is  the  first  Chernobyl  type  reactor  to  be  decommissioned  worldwide.  This  means 
there  is  no  predecessor  or  experience  that  the  decommissioning  operator  can  rely  on.  Open 
questions remain in particular with regard to the management of irradiated graphite waste. Some 
useful experience can be derived from other graphite moderated reactors which are currently shut 
down but none of these has though been completely decommissioned to date. It is worth noting 
that in all cases (UK, France, Spain, and Italy) SAFSTOR21 strategies have been favoured.  

In  this  respect  the  programme  holds  a  high  potential  for  the  development  of  innovative 
technologies and solutions for the dismantling, conditioning and storage of irradiated graphite. 

The  availability  of  financing  in  a  timely  manner  would  prevent  delays  or  even  possible 
discontinuation  of  the  decommissioning  process.  This  is  a  crucial  element  for  ensuring  nuclear 
safety and the protection of the workers and the EU citizens. In case of insufficient funding, safe 
maintenance  would  be  compromised  and  loss  of  unique  expertise  would  render  the  whole 
decommissioning process more risky, difficult and costly. 

20  

21  

"Support to the mid-term evaluation of the Nuclear Decommissioning Assistance Programmes", EY, An 
evaluation for the European Commission DG Energy, 2018 
SAFe STORage is one of the options for nuclear decommissioning of a shutdown plant. During SAFSTOR the 
de-fuelled plant is monitored for up to sixty years before complete decontamination and dismantling of the site, 
to a condition where nuclear licensing is no longer required. During the storage interval, some of the radioactive 
contaminants of the reactor and power plant will decay, which will reduce the quantity of radioactive material to 
be removed during the final decontamination phase. 

9 

 
                                                            
As  noted  previously,  the  availability  of  adequate  funding  is  at  risk  in  Lithuania.  In  September 
2017, the Lithuanian Government declared its political commitment to contribute as a minimum 
14% of the overall decommissioning cost; for the remaining part the Member State openly relies 
on  Union  support.  Presently  the  financing  gap  after  2020  is  estimated  at  about  EUR  1 331 
million. 

The EU funding under the next MFF (see Annex 2) together with the national contribution will 
cover  part  of  the  remaining  decommissioning  programme  in  Lithuania.  The  remaining  funding 
gap to be covered by national  contributions will be about 20% of the overall  decommissioning 
cost and will be needed after 2030. 

Social challenges 

The  social  impact  in  the  region  of  Visaginas  caused  by  the  shutdown  of  the  reactors  was 
considerable,  because  Ignalina  nuclear  power  plant  was  the  main  economic  operator  in  this 
remote  region  at  the  border  between  Lithuania,  Latvia  and  Belarus.  After  the  shutdown  the 
Ignalina  nuclear  power  plant  workforce  has  declined  from  4 500  employees  in  2003  (INPP  in 
operation) to 1 980 employees in 2018. 

In  pursuing  the  decommissioning  programme  Ignalina  nuclear  power  plant  is  still  the  major 
employer and contracting authority in the region. However the decommissioning programme has 
a  limited  duration,  therefore  the  social  challenges  needs  to  be  anticipated  and  addressed  by 
Lithuania. 

In the future, the scope of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be open to cover 
any  type  of  restructuring  event,  also  those  triggered  by  the  change  to  a  low  carbon  economy. 
Generally speaking, the EGF can be triggered if at least 250 jobs were displaced within a period 
of  four  months.  Whereas  the  ESF+  is  designed  to  offer  assistance  in  an  anticipatory  way,  the 
EGF,  is  designed  to  offer  assistance  in  the  case  of  unexpected  major  restructuring  events  in  a 
reactive manner. 

Other available EU instruments may be deployed in the region ensuring this way synergies and 
complementarities.  For  example,  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF),  the 
European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) and the Cohesion Fund could support measures to accompany 
the related social and economic transition, including also energy efficiency and renewable energy 
measures  as  well  as  certain  other  activities  not  linked  to  radiological  safety  processes.  As  such 
these  Funds  can  create  additional  activities  in  the  concerned  region  and  utilise  the  locally 
available expertise as a major driver of job creation, sustainable growth and innovation.  

Similarly  synergies  should  be  explored  with  FP9  and  /  or  the  Euratom  Research  and  Training 
programme  in  areas  such  as  technology  development  and  testing,  as  well  as  training  and 
education 

1.4.  Objectives of the programme of the next MFF 

1.4.1.  General objectives 

The general objective of the programme in the next MFF is to assist Lithuania in managing the 
radiological safety challenges of the decommissioning of Ignalina nuclear power plant.  

For the next MFF the general objective is complemented by the aim of enhancing the EU added 
value  of  the  programme  through  dissemination  of  knowledge  (thereby  generated)  to  all  EU 
Member States on the decommissioning process. 

Finally,  a  key  policy  objective  remains  further  increase  of  Member  States'  ownership  of  the 
decommissioning and waste management processes. 

10 

 
1.4.2.  Specific objectives 

The  specific  objectives  need  to  be  adapted  to  the  actual  progress  of  the  decommissioning 
programme,  the  related  challenges,  and  the  need  to  foster  knowledge  sharing  and  potential 
synergies. 

The  decommissioning  programme  covers  a  timespan  longer  than  the  MFFs  and  is  properly 
defined  in  terms  of  scope,  budget,  and  timeline  within  the  decommissioning  plan.  The 
abovementioned  challenges  are  identified  in  the  decommissioning  plan  and  have  to  be  tackled 
based on priorities dictated by radiological safety.  

The disposal of spent fuel and radioactive waste in a deep geological repository is excluded from 
the  scope  of  the  programme,  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 
directive22,  23. The Lithuanian national programme does not cover the funding for the realisation 
of a deep geological repository. 

Four specific objectives reflect the need to progress in the removal of radiological hazards: 

(1)  Perform the dismantling and decontamination of the reactor shafts top and bottom zones in 
accordance with the decommissioning plan; progress has to be measured by the quantity and 
type of materials removed as well as earned value; 

(2)  Complete  the  design  for  the  dismantling  and  decontamination  of  the  reactor  shafts  central 
zones (graphite cores); progress has to be measured through earned value; this objective has 
to be accomplished with the release of relevant authorisations to carry out the dismantling 
and decontamination; 

(3)  Safely manage the decommissioning  and legacy waste up to interim storage or to disposal 
(depending  on  the  waste  category),  including  the  completion  of  the  waste  management 
infrastructure where necessary. This objective has to be accomplished in accordance with the 
waste  management  plan;  progress  has  to  be  measured  by  the  quantity  and  type  of  safely 
stored or disposed of waste as well as through earned value; and 

(4)  Continue downgrading  radiological hazards; this objective has to be  measured through  the 
safety  assessments  of  the  activities  and  the  facility,  identifying  ways  in  which  potential 
exposures  could  occur  and  estimating  the  probabilities  and  magnitude  of  potential 
exposures. 

The plans shall include a proper set of milestones (output, date and budget) and target amounts. 

An additional specific objective should reflect the need to create and share knowledge for all EU 
Member  States  managing  decommissioning  programmes.  When  possible,  additional  synergies 
should be also developed and exploited. 

(5)  Develop ties and exchanges among EU stakeholders (e.g. Member States, safety authorities, 
utilities  and  decommissioning  operators)  and  document  explicit  knowledge  and  make  it 
available  through  multi-lateral  knowledge  transfers  on  decommissioning  and  waste 

22   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 L 199, 2.8.2011, p. 48-56. 

23   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. 

11 

 
                                                            
management  governance  issues,  managerial  best  practices,  and  technological  challenges, 
with a view to develop potential EU synergies. Progress is to be measured by the number of 
knowledge products created and their outreach. 

Other two specific objectives reflect the general policy objective to increase the Member State's 
ownership: 

(6)  Specify the maximum level of EU co-financing both in relative and absolute terms; 

(7)  Support national  initiatives to develop implementing agencies to  ensure local  capacity and 

increased ownership to govern decommissioning and waste management.  

3. 

PROGRAMME STRUCTURE AND PRIORITIES 

The legal basis for the programme is Lithuania's Accession Treaty. Protocol No 4 and Article 56 
2003  of  the  Act  of  Accession  (AA)1  state  that  "the  decommissioning  of  the  Ignalina  Nuclear 
Power  Plant  with  two  1  500  MW  RBMK-type  reactor  units  inherited  from  the  former  Soviet 
Union  is  of  an  unprecedented  nature  and  represents  for  Lithuania  an  exceptional  financial 
burden  not  commensurate  with  the  size  and  economic  strength  of  the  country"  and  that  this 
decommissioning is of a long-term nature. 

The  actions  to  be  funded  post-2020  will  be  derived  from  the  latest  version  of  the 
decommissioning plan and are generally responding to the safety objective. Having achieved the 
complete  defueling  of  the  reactors  (priority  funded  under  the  current  MFF),  dismantling  of  the 
graphite  cores  has  the  highest  priority  in  the  next  stage  as  it  represents  a  major  removal  of 
radiological  hazard  and  a  first-of-a-kind  activity  that  will  serve  as  a  benchmark  for 
decommissioning  programmes  in  other  EU-27  Member  States  (France,  Spain,  Italy,  Germany) 
and  worldwide 
the  safe  management  of 
decommissioning and legacy waste (e.g. bituminized waste) needs to be finalised, i.e. up until the 
interim  storage  or  disposal  depending  on  the  waste  category,  as  it  represents  another  major 
removal of radiological hazard. Irrespectively of the breakdown of the programme into individual 
projects, the listed activities represent a critical mass for Union support. 

(Russia,  UK,  Ukraine,  US).  Additionally 

In order of importance the priorities for the programme are: 

(i) 

sharper  focus  on  safety  (nuclear  safety,  protection  of  workers,  public,  and  the 
environment); 

(ii) 

dissemination of knowledge for the EU nuclear decommissioning market; 

(iii) 

incentivised and enhanced performance through increased ownership; 

(iv) 

simplification and synergies; 

(v) 

solidarity. 

Based  on  the  already  good  established  practice  of  the  current  MFF,  whereby  the  focus  of  the 
assistance  programme  was  restricted  to  decommissioning  only,  the  programmes  should  further 
focus  on  activities  strictly  related  to  the  achievement  of  the  main  safety  objective  and  to  the 
delivery of EU added value, i.e. removal of radiological hazards and creation and dissemination 
of  relevant  knowledge.  The  established  decommissioning  plan  will  continue  to  serve  as  the 
baseline,  defining  this  way  the  precise  scope  for  EU  assistance.  At  the  same  time,  taking  into 
account  the  ECA's  recommendations27,  incentives  to  pursue  decommissioning  should  be 
embedded  in  the  funding  mechanism,  including  time  limitations  and  appropriate  levels  of 
national contribution from the beneficiary Member States. 

12 

 
The  solidarity  principle  is  enshrined  in  the  Lithuania's  Accession  Treaty,  calling  the  Union  to 
support the Member State in dealing with this Soviet era legacy. This aspect deserves the right 
level  of  political  attention,  because  it  underpinned  the  agreements  between  Lithuania  and  the 
Union when the decision to prematurely shut-down Ignalina nuclear power plant was taken. 

Hence, it is important that the programme be prioritised for further EU support in the next MFF 
(2021-2027) as it has the potential for achieving notable EU-added value both in terms of safety 
and knowledge gain. 

4. 

DELIVERY MECHANISMS OF THE INTENDED FUNDING 

In  the  context  of  the  mid-term  evaluation  the  current  NDAP  has  been  benchmarked  with  three 
‘comparator’  instruments24:  Connecting  Europe  Facility  (CEF),  Budget  Support  aid  delivery 
mechanism  and  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  (ESIF)  major  projects.  The 
benchmark focused on the identification of relevant best practices concerning the governance, the 
programme and project management and financial management. 

The  benchmark  showed  that  the  performance  monitoring  framework  for  the  current  NDAP  is 
generally in line with best practice – in particular practices in Budget Support operations – given 
that  a  results-based  performance  monitoring  is  in  place.  In  this  respect  the  NDAP  could  be 
improved by linking additional funding to the achievement of pre-defined targets. 

As  sought  by  the  current  NDAP,  all  'comparator'  instruments  seek  to  ensure  strong  national 
ownership of project implementation through early buy in and strong Member State involvement. 
Member States are involved early on in the development of the projects or programmes and have 
input at key phases.  

CEF  and  ESIF  have  a  clearly  defined  framework  for  EU  co-financing,  with  minimum  and 
maximum  EU  co-financing  rates  set  out  in  the  legal  base.  Unlike  these  two  programmes,  the 
NDAP has no formalised framework for EU co-financing at the moment. 

All  instruments,  the  current  NDAP  inclusive,  offer  a  fully  multi-annual  rather  than  annual 
framework for programming. While 'comparator' instruments all imposed annual monitoring and 
reporting requirements  (similar to NDAP), none had in place an annual cycle for programming 
and  commitments  (in  contrast  to  NDAP).  Projects  are  implemented  in  line  with  their  approved 
work plans. For CEF and major projects, specific approval is necessary prior to funding as well 
as for substantive deviations from the approved programme of works or approved budget. 

The  defining  feature  of  major  projects  is  the  specific  approval  procedure  to  which  they  are 
subject to. This includes a number of analyses carried out by the Commission services with the 
aim  to  ensure  the  quality  of  the  project  proposal,  its  feasibility,  maturity  and  its  utility.  The 
NDAP delegates this role to the Implementing Bodies that are entrusted budget implementation 
tasks via a Delegation Agreement.  

A  new  financial  regulation  is  being  prepared  to  provide  the  EU  with  reinforced  tools  to 
implement the budget. The design of a new delivery mechanism will have to make use of the new 
features proposed by the financial regulation. 

Based on this analysis, the following three policy options should be considered in assessing the 
impact of the NDAP in the next MFF: 

(i) 

Policy option 1 - Discontinuation of Ignalina programme, 

(ii) 

Policy option 2 - Ignalina programme under cohesion policy, 

24   These three comparators were selected because they represent a variety of different approaches for programme 

implementation and are used to deliver large-scale projects, including notably in the energy sector. 

13 

 
                                                            
(iii) 

Policy option 3 - Ignalina programme as dedicated spending programme. 

1.5. 

Policy option 1 - Discontinuation of Ignalina programme  

Under Option 1 the implementation of the provisions of the Accession Treaty would end in 2020. 
No further financial EU assistance would be provided and consequently Lithuania would have to 
guarantee safe completion of the decommissioning programme with own national resources.  

As mentioned under section 2.1 above, in case of insufficient funding, there is a risk of rendering 
the whole decommissioning process more risky, difficult and costly as well as result in possible 
safety implications and risk of loss of unique expertise. 

Firstly, if compared with the Bohunice (SK) and Kozloduy (BG) programmes where  significant 
decrease in radiological hazard to the general public has already been accomplished, the Ignalina 
programme is evidently at an earlier stage of this process; therefore important milestones need to 
be met before achieving the same level of risk reduction. 

Secondly,  the  Commission  services  have  found  in  a  previous  study25  that  the  State  budget  of 
Lithuania appears able to absorb the additional financing needs but given the size of the gap the 
expected impact would be however significant.  

Finally,  the  national  policy  and  programme  which  are  established  by  the  Member  State  in 
application  of  the  Council  Directive  2011/70/Euratom  (so  called  Waste  Directive)  include  the 
management  of  spent  fuel  and  decommissioning  waste  from  the  concerned  facilities  and  the 
associate cost estimates until the completion of the programme.  

In summary, given that national policy and programme are in place, key safety objectives have 
been  met  already,  and  the  national  economy  appears  generally  fit  for  bearing  future  charges 
(though  with  certain  negative  impact),  the  discontinuation  option  may  appear  viable  in  some 
respect. 

However, in such a scenario the Union would have no more leverage on the timely execution of 
the safety actions within the timescales set out in the approved decommissioning plan. There is a 
high risk that the necessary funding for the programme will not be provided in accordance with 
the plan, with obvious delays in the progressive decrease of the level of radiological hazard. 

Moreover,  the  discontinuation  of  the  NDAP  could  seriously  harm  the  reputation  of  the  EU  in 
Lithuania as it had to shut down Ignalina nuclear power plant on request by the EU at the time of 
the accession negotiations. Lithuania was relying on Union support for the decommissioning as 
well  as  for  measures  mitigating  the  important  effects  to  its  economy  due  to  the  loss  of  inland 
energy production26. Lithuania communicates regularly that it counts on EU solidarity regarding 
the completion of decommissioning of the Ignalina nuclear power plant. 

These  risks  should  be  assessed  also  in  view  of  the  increased  programmes'  effectiveness  and 
efficiency obtained during the current MFF. 

25  

26  

"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 
Ignalina NPP Unit 2 counted for 25% of Lithuania's electricity generating capacity and supplied about 70% of 
Lithuania's electrical demand. 

14 

 
                                                            
1.6. 

Policy option 2 - Ignalina programme under cohesion policy 

Cohesion  policy  is  the  Union's  main  investment  policy,  aiming  to  strengthen  economic,  social 
and territorial cohesion and reduce disparities among regions. It is a major driver of job creation, 
sustainable growth and innovation in Europe’s diverse regions.  

As a result of a performance audit on the NDAP, in 2016 the ECA recommended27 discontinuing 
the dedicated NDAP spending programmes after 2020 and considering access to ESIF for nuclear 
decommissioning  activities.  This  recommendation  was  made  with  the  aim  to  create  the  right 
incentives  to  pursue  decommissioning  and  adhere  to  the  strict  rules  on  co-financing  applicable 
under ESIF (i.e. fixed maximum EU co-financing rates). The Commission partially accepted this 
recommendation holding over its prerogative to decide based on an impact assessment (replaced 
by  this  ex-ante  evaluation)  in  line  with  the  requirements  of  the  financial  regulation  and  better 
regulation agenda with regard to proposals of new initiatives. 

It is worth recalling that in preparation of the current MFF (2014-2020) the NDAP was already 
revised  to  exclude  all  measures  which  were  not  strictly  related  to  the  decommissioning  of  the 
concerned facilities. As a consequence, support to energy related projects was taken out of NDAP 
as it could be supported through other EU funded measures such as ESIF. 

Currently,  decommissioning  of  nuclear  power  stations  is  explicitly  excluded28  under  ESIF 
(European  Regional  Development  Fund  and  Cohesion  Fund).  Therefore,  a  possible  funding  of 
decommissioning under cohesion policy will lead to a fundamental change in the philosophy of 
these  Funds,  which  are  geared  to  growth  objectives,  notably  in  line  with  the  priorities  of  the 
Europe 2020 strategy. 

Several  arguments  can  be  listed  pro  the  extension  of  eligibility  under  cohesion  policy  to  the 
decommissioning of these specific reactors: 

(i) 

simplification and reduction of administrative burden; 

(ii)  well-established, proven and cross-cutting management and control systems; 

(iii) 

increased  Member  State's  ownership  of  the  decommissioning  programme,  with  clear 
requirements for national contributions; 

(iv) 

budgetary flexibility transferred to the Member State. 

In other words, implementation under the shared management mode could increase the Member 
State's  ownership  of  the  decommissioning  programme  (if  compared  to  an  unchanged  NDAP 
scenario) and would allow the Member State to prioritise decommissioning projects among other 
eligible projects under cohesion policy funding.  

However, these advantages are offset by two substantial drawbacks:  

27   Recommendation  5:  dedicated  funding  programmes  for  nuclear  decommissioning  in  Lithuania,  Bulgaria  and 
Slovakia should be discontinued after 2020. If a clear need for the use of EU funds beyond 2020 is established, in 
one or more of the three Member States, any future EU funding proposed by the Commission and agreed by the 
legislator should include the right incentives to pursue decommissioning, including by being time limited and by 
being  based  on  appropriate  levels  of  Member  State  co-financing.  One  way  to  do  this  would  be  to  consider 
widening access to the European Structural and Investment Funds to allow nuclear decommissioning activities to 
be covered, fulfilling these conditions. 

28   Article 3.3 Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 
on the European Regional Development Fund and on specific provisions concerning the Investment for growth 
and jobs goal and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006; 
Article 2.2 Regulation (EU) No 1300/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 
on the Cohesion Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006. 

15 

 
                                                            
 
(i)  making decommissioning an eligible activity under cohesion policy funding, will create a 
precedence that goes against the principles set by the Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom 
on the safe and responsible management of radioactive waste and spent fuel, whereby the 
costs for the management of these materials shall be borne by those who generated those 
materials; and 

(ii) 

shifting  of  budget  between  priorities  is  possible  during  the  entire  lifetime  of  the 
programme, therefore there is a risk of de-prioritisation of decommissioning in favour of 
other activities financed within cohesion policy. 

In  the  case  of  Lithuania  a  possible  inclusion  of  decommissioning  under  cohesion  policy would 
result  in  a  considerable  share  of  its  allocation  being  concentrated  solely  on  one  area  and  one 
region.  This  would  be  disproportionate  vis  á  vis  other  priority  areas  and  other  regions  in 
Lithuania that are equally in need for reducing disparities. 

1.7. 

Policy option 3 - Ignalina programme as dedicated spending programme 

Safety remains at the heart of the Union policy priorities14. The fundamental need of safety has 
been  the  basis  for  the  NDAP  since  its  inception,  i.e.  since  the  pre-accession  time.  Clearly  this 
need is still the main driver for continuing the Ignalina programme under nuclear safety policies. 

As a result of the NDAP mid-term evaluation the current governance setup has proven to ensure 
effective and efficient implementation of the programmes. Main factors of success are the clear 
definitions of roles and responsibilities as well as the strengthened monitoring framework. 

The Member State appoints a Programme Coordinator and a Financial Coordinator (ministerial or 
state secretary rank) to be responsible for the programming, coordination and monitoring of the 
decommissioning programme, thus ensuring at national level the comprehensive oversight of the 
programme and enhancing access to information by the Commission in its supervisory role.  

A Committee with monitoring and reporting functions is in place, co-chaired by a Commission 
representative  and  the  Programme  Coordinator.  The  Committee  is  well  equipped  with  a 
dashboard  of  key  performance  indicators  and  detailed  targets,  in  order  to  steer  the  Ignalina 
programme  through  a  well-informed  assessment  and  decision  making  process.  The  detailed 
objectives  and  indicators  (proposed  by  the  Member  State  and  approved  by  the  Commission) 
provide quantitative information to measure progress towards the specific objectives. Moreover, 
the Earned Value Management (EVM) methodology enhances the Commission's supervision on 
both effectiveness and efficiency with a positive trickle-down effect at national level. 

From  a  legal  viewpoint,  the  base  for  the  continuation  of  the  programme  in  Lithuania  is  well 
identified.  Nonetheless  the  analysis  and  the  benchmark  have  also  identified  areas  for  further 
improvement to be achieved in the establishment of a new Regulation for the next MFF, should 
this policy option be selected.  

In  particular  on  the  EU  co-financing  issue,  it  is  worth  noting  that  presently  the  national 
contribution is generally within the ranges defined under the ESIF, although the legal basis has 
not defined the due level of national  contribution. While this approach  created  uncertainties, in 
the  present  financial  framework  levels  of  national  contribution  have  increased  compared  to 
previous  financing  periods.  From  a  legal  viewpoint  there  are  no  obstacles  to  introduce  clearer 
criteria  and  provisions  (in  line  with  the  ESIF  ones);  the  decision  in  this  respect  remains  truly 
political. 

Likewise,  further  increase  of  Member  State's  ownership  as  well  as  stronger  incentives  can  be 
devised in a dedicated spending programme, based on the other lessons learnt from 'comparator' 
instruments, such as limitation in time for the funding. 

16 

 
The Ignalina programme is currently implemented by the EBRD as well as by a national agency 
(CPMA). The implementation via the national agency was established upon request by Lithuania 
in view of increasing ownership. The EBRD support in Lithuania is phasing out. Continuing the 
implementation of the NDAP through the established implementing bodies would ensure stability 
in the safe decommissioning process. 

The progress achieved under NDAP in Lithuania is significant. The existing monitoring tools  – 
remarkably  the  EVM  based  methodology  -  have  ensured  that  issues  that  have  occurred  in  the 
implementation  of  projects  have  been  addressed  in  a  timely  and  efficient  manner  to  prevent 
delays.  

1.8. 

Policy options benchmark 

The risks associated to policy option 1 (discontinuation) can be summarised as such: EU would 
waive  leveraging  on  the  safety  objectives  of  the  NDAP  as  well  as  exploiting  the  knowledge 
gained in favour of other EU Member States; moreover, from a political standpoint, the solidarity 
principle  underpinning  the  NDAP  thus  far  would  be  disregarded  by  the  Union  with  negative 
effect on the European sentiment in Lithuania. 

Policy  options  2  and  3  are  mainly  differentiated  in  terms  of  theme  (cohesion  vs  safety)  and 
delivery mechanism (cohesion policy funding vs dedicated spending programme). 

Both  solutions  are  fit  for  addressing  the  substantial  needs  of  increased  ownership  by  the 
beneficiary Member State and of stronger incentives to pursue decommissioning in a timely and 
efficient manner. However, policy option 3 responds more effectively to the needs of: 

(i) 

EU leveraging on the safety objectives; 

(ii) 

exploitation of the knowledge gain for the decommissioning of nuclear reactors EU wide. 

17 

 
 
 
5. 

HOW WILL PERFORMANCE BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? 

The nuclear decommissioning programme is complex and long-lasting (flowing through several 
subsequent  MFFs).  Objectives  are  thus  specifically  defined  for  the  short  term  (e.g.  year,  MFF) 
under the framework of a multiannual programme aimed at accomplishing the general objective. 

1.9. 

Programming, monitoring, reporting and evaluation 

Under policy option 3 the programming, monitoring and control system will be further improved 
and streamlined with respect to the existing one; lessons learnt from the mid-term evaluation will 
be used in order to ensure continuous improvement. 

In 2013, the Commission modified the governance of the programme for the MFF 2014-2020 in 
order to set out clearer roles and responsibilities, and introduced increased planning, monitoring 
and  reporting  requirements.  In  line  with  this  revised  governance  approach,  Lithuania  has 
appointed  a  Programme  Coordinator  and  a  Financial  Coordinator  (deputy  minister  or  state 
secretary)  to  be  responsible  for  the  programming,  coordination  and  monitoring  of  the 
decommissioning  programme  at  national  level.  Currently  the  Programme  Coordinator  has  to 
submit  the  annual  work  programme  for  adoption  by  the  Commission  along  with  the  relevant 
financing decision; in the next MFF the tools provided by the new Financial Regulation will be 
exploited and more analogies (to the extent possible) with the management and control structure 
for cohesion policy funding will be sought in order to ensure streamlining and simplification. 

As far as programming is concerned the multiannual nature of the decommissioning programme 
will be reflected in the adoption of a multiannual work programme and financing decision, in line 
with  the  envisaged  new  financial  regulation.  This  programming  process  will  be  evidently 
synchronised with the evaluation steps (an interim one after four years, and a final one five years 
after 2027 to ensure completion of tasks in field). 

The Commission would continue entrusting the implementation of the programmes' budget to a 
pillar assessed implementing body (indirect management), i.e. to CPMA. 

A Committee with monitoring and reporting functions is in  place, co-chaired by a Commission 
representative  and  the  Programme  Coordinator.  Implementing  bodies  (EBRD,  CPMA)  monitor 
on  a  day  to  day  basis.  In  addition,  the  Commission  services  closely  follow  project 
implementation through desk and on-the-spot reviews on a biannual basis. 

As far as reporting is concerned, the practice of annual reporting to the European Parliament and 
the Council will be maintained. 

Presently  the  regular  programming,  monitoring  and  control  cycle  is  supplemented  by  thematic 
verifications based on risk reviews. This practice has to continue in the next MFF. 

1.10.  Performance indicators 

The present Regulation5 has defined SMART specific objectives for the progress to be achieved 
in  the  funding  period;  those  specific  objectives  have  been  further  detailed  with  targets  and 
indicators within the detailed implementation procedures9. 

Quite  a  number  of  output-based  physical  progress  indicators  are  suitable  both  for  defining 
specific  objectives  and  for  monitoring  the  performance  (i.e.  effectiveness)  of  decommissioning 
programmes;  for  example  amounts  of  systems  dismantled,  materials  released  from  regulatory 
control, radioactive waste processed, conditioned and stored or disposed of. 

Another important category of indicators is project-based; for example milestones i.e. significant 
events in a project properly budgeted and scheduled. Moreover, project management techniques 
such as critical path analysis and the EVM that provides robust project-based KPIs enabling the 

18 

 
managers to control delays and cost-increases. Accordingly these indicators are used to assess the 
efficiency of the process. 

The combination of output-based and project-based indicators has proven to have a high potential 
for  programmes  such  as  nuclear  decommissioning.  Output-based  indicators  put  very  specific 
activities under the spotlight; the information they provide is sharp and clear, but also limited in 
that  the  full  picture  is  not  covered.  Complementarily  the  Earned  Value  Management  KPIs 
provide  a  complete  view  of  the  progress  of  individual  projects/work  packages  and  can  be 
aggregated to inform on the general state of play of the overall programme, both time-wise and 
cost-wise. 

Such set of indicators (fully quantitative) enables control on short-term as well as on long-term 
issues, providing the managers (up to supervisory organisations) the tools to enact corrective or 
mitigation  measures  at  the  earliest  time  possible.  This  is  a  key  feature  for  nuclear 
decommissioning programmes because the processes are not yet fully mature world-wide. 

The mid-term evaluation of the NDAP has shown that this comprehensive toolkit of performance 
indicators has supported effective and efficient implementation as demonstrated by the deeds, i.e. 
accomplishments. Therefore, the performance monitoring and evaluation for the future MFF can 
be  profitably  built  on  both  the  existing  system  and  the  lessons  learnt  to  ensure  continuous 
improvement. 

Under  policy  option  3  other  indicators  are  needed  to  reflect  safety  related  achievements  in  an 
even stricter manner and to match with the new explicit EU-wide knowledge sharing objective. 

Progressive  and  stepwise  removal  of  radiological  hazards  posed  by  the  facilities  under 
decommissioning  will  have  to  be  measured  based  on  the  safety  cases  prepared  by  the 
decommissioning license holder. 

As far as the EU-wide knowledge sharing objective is concerned, the following key items should 
be  monitored  without  prejudice  to  the  competitive  advantage  of  the  decommissioning  license 
holder having created such know-how: 

(i)  decommissioning cost estimates and estimations methodologies; 

(ii)  radiation protection and industrial safety issues; 

(iii)  identification of proven processes; 

(iv)  irradiated graphite management (from dismantling to storage). 

1.11.  Preliminary evaluation criteria 

For the programme, the main EU co-financed endeavour for the next MFF period (2021-2027) is 
the  dismantling  of  the  two  reactor  graphite  cores,  including  all  preparatory  tasks.  As  per  the 
Ignalina  Final  Decommissioning  Plan  approved  by  the  Commission  at  the  beginning  of  the 
current  MFF,  the  dismantling  of  the  reactor  core  Unit  1  should  be  completed  in  2030  with  the 
funding  provided  in  the  next  MFF.  This  activity  is  a  true  first-of-a-kind  one,  therefore  the 
schedule and the budget are subject to uncertainties which call for a strict monitoring and control 
(and fully justify the Union solidarity). 

Given the above, the current  cycle of programme evaluations should be maintained, i.e.  a mid-
term evaluation has to be scheduled as well as the mandatory final evaluation. 

19 

 
 
 
Annex 1: Procedural information 

1. 

LEAD DG(S), DECIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

DG ENER, no entry in Decide Planning required 

2. 

ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

21 February 2018 – ISSG meeting 
18 April 2018 – ISSG meeting 

3. 

EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

The following documents have been used as input to this ex-ante evaluation: 

[1]  "Support  to  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  Nuclear  Decommissioning  Assistance 

Programmes", EY, An evaluation for the European Commission DG Energy, 2018 

[2]  "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" of 20.06.2017 COM(2017) 
328 final 

[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 2015 and previous years" of 20.06.2016 COM(2016) 
405 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 the period 2010-2014" of 03.03.2015 COM(2015) 78 
final 

[5]  "Report  on  the  assessment  of  the  Nuclear  Decommissioning  Assistance  Programme  in 
framework  2014-2020" 

the  mid-term 

review  of 

financial 

the 

view  of 
[Ares(2016)3562735] 

[6]  "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 

[7]  ECA  Special  Report  22/2016  "EU  nuclear  decommissioning  assistance  programmes  in 
Lithuania, Bulgaria and Slovakia: some progress made since 2011, but critical challenges 
ahead" 

20 

 
 
 
Annex 2: Funding of the Ignalina programme 

Programme 

Planned end date 

Cost estimate  
[EUR million] 

Post-2020  
financing gap 
[EUR million] 

Ignalina 

2038 

3 377 

1 331 

EU Commitments - EUR million 

< 2013 

2014 – 2020  

Total (decommissioning + energy sector) 

1 367 

Decommissioning activities only 

1 043 

451 

451 

Average EUR million per year 

2014-2020 

2021-2027 

EU contribution (commitments) 

EU+LT disbursements (payments) 

64.4 

125.6 

78.9 

98.5 

Total 

1 818 

1 494 

Δ% 

+22% 

-22% 

Sources:  European  Commission,  Decommissioning  plans,  Monitoring  reports,  Mid-term 

evaluation study. 

21