Link to the study - European Parliament - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Policy Department D: Budgetary Affairs ____________________________________________________________________________________________ None of the affected countries was prepared for that closure, even though this early preparedness was a common safety principle well addressed in international Safety Guides: Financial arrangements for the decommissioning of those reactors were not available, thereby not implementing applicable international safety standards, e.g. the Safety Guide (IAEA 1999) that went into effect five years before the first plant shut down. It requires explicitly the establishment of dedicated funds for decommissioning 12 , and requires that those are immediately (!) set up for already existing and operating reactors 13 . No conceptual planning for their later decommissioning had previously been established, even though international safety standards explicitly required that (IAEA 1999) 14 , and called for this planning, including for existing reactors 15 'without undue delay'. The reactors were of the older Soviet PWR and RBMK types and not designed having their later decommissioning as a layout criteria in mind, which should be a basic design criteria nowadays (IAEA 1999). The requirement to have enough resources at hand to decommission a facility, whenever this is needed, can also be derived from the Fundamental Safety Principle 7 ('Protection of present and future generations'): 'Where effects could span generations, subsequent generations have to be adequately protected without any need for them to take significant protective actions.' (IAEA 2006) As a consequence of this failure to implement these international principles and recommendations, the operators and the three member states were majorly unprepared for the shutdown of these installations 16 . Neither were financial means nor were the necessary procedural steps, organisational 12 The Decommissioning Safety Guide (IAEA 1999) requires the following: '5.24. In order to provide the necessary confidence that the resources will be available to maintain radiation and environmental protection during decommissioning, provision for allocating resources should be established early in the planning of the nuclear power plant design. According to the legal framework, such a mechanism should be established before operation in order to secure the funds needed for decommissioning. The mechanism should be sufficiently robust to provide for decommissioning needs in the event of premature shutdown of the reactor installation. Irrespective of the type of financial mechanisms used, provision for premature decommissioning should be in place, should it be needed.' 13 Decommissioning Safety Guide (IAEA 1999): '5.25. For existing reactor installations with no financial assurance mechanism for decommissioning, such a mechanism should be established without undue delay.' 14 Decommissioning Safety Guide (IAEA 1999): '5.6. An initial plan for decommissioning should be prepared and submitted by the operating organization in support of the license application for the construction of a new reactor. Although the level of detail in the initial plan will necessarily be lower than that in the final decommissioning plan, many of the aspects listed in para. 5.11 should be considered in a conceptual fashion. A generic study showing the feasibility of decommissioning may suffice for this plan, particularly in standardized installations. Depending on applicable regulations, the plan should address the costs and the means of financing the decommissioning work.' 15 Decommissioning Safety Guide (IAEA 1999): '5.7. In cases where an operational plant does not have an initial plan for decommissioning, a decommissioning plan reflecting the operational status of the installation should be prepared without undue delay.' 16 Only Slovakia had, at that time, encountered a reactor under shutdown, Bohunice A1, see ANNEX 1 of this study, and had limited experiences with its decommissioning. 96
Nuclear Decommissioning: Management of Costs and Risks ____________________________________________________________________________________________ and technical know-how (not even on a conceptual basis) or the administrative framework (administrative rules, legislation, regulation, etc.) available and ready for this new situation. Moreover, the management and the administrative control instruments were unfamiliar with the situation. Facing a complete new set of problems to be resolved quickly, whilst still in a familiar and well-understood operational state caused internal resistance and the generation of numerous internal barriers against adaptation to the new task. The opportunities presented by this situation – e.g. developing excellence in dismantling, the organisation of well-designed processes, to solve waste management challenges - were not seen behind all the unresolved problems. In this phase it was a decisive contribution that the neighbouring countries were willing to assist the affected countries. Towards assistance Prior to and during the negotiation stage of the accession to the European Union (EU), older reactors of Soviet design were operated in several former East-European countries (including East Germany). In Bulgaria and Slovakia pressurized water reactors WWER-440/230 were in operation and the watercooled graphite reactor type RBMK-1500 in Lithuania. In 1992, the G7 summit in Munich concluded that these reactors did not comply with the required safety standards and cannot be economically upgraded. The summit therefore recommended that these reactors should be decommissioned before reaching their originally foreseen end of lifetime. This recommendation became a part of the accession negotiations with the former East-European countries and fixed closure dates were defined. The premature shutdown – as compared with the originally planned lifetime – was seen by the EU as a significant economic burden. Moreover, the earlier failure to comply with international standards in combination with the shortened lifetime did not allow sufficient financial resources to be accumulated within the funds for covering the decommissioning costs. The Acts of Accession have foreseen a financial assistance for this reason. It was clear from the beginning that the assistance should not cover the full costs of decommissioning but should be designed to express solidarity between the EU and the affected member states. The effort needed from the relevant countries to decommission as well as to resolve the social consequences and the resulting gaps in the energy sector was to be supported. The assistance was implemented in three periods: 1999-2003, 2004-2006 and 2007-2013 (EU 2011a, EU 2011b). 4.2. FUND ESTABLISHMENT AND CONTROL The following description is based on the descriptions in a special report of the European Court of Auditors (ECoA 2011) and the statement of the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), as documented in ANNEX 8. 97
Page 3 and 4:
DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL PO
Page 5 and 6:
Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
Page 97: Nuclear Decommissioning: Management
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
detailed regulation, should there b
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201:
show all

Link to the study - European Parliament - Europa

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?