IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to adisclaimerand acopyright notice
 
Contact | Search on EUROPA  

 

 

Nuclear Issues 

Response from Directorate general for Energy and Transport to all correspondance concerning the completion of Units 3 and 4 of Mochovche nuclear power plant in Slovakia


Overview


European Nuclear Energy Forum

- Bratislava-Prague forum
2nd meeting
22 & 23 May 2008, Prague

Public consultations


Nuclear Safety

Eurobarometer, February 2007
Europeans and nuclear safety


European Governance in nuclear issues


Radioactive Waste

Eurobarometer, June 2008
Radioactive waste


Press release


Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations


Radiation Protection


Transport of Radioactive Material


Nuclear Safeguards


EURATOM Supply Agency


Publications and Reports


Legislation


 

Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations

|Overview

|European regulatory aspects of decommissioning of nuclear installations

|Review of work on the preparation of a Commission Communication on decommissioning

|Decommissioning status of shutdown nuclear installations in the EU

|Forecast shutdown dates for nuclear power plants in the EU new member states and candidate countries

|Shutdown nuclear power plants in the New Independent States


Review of work on the preparation of a Commission Communication on decommissioning

COM(2004) 719 of 26/10/2004 - Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council - Report on the use of financial resources earmarked for the decommissioning of nuclear power plants

Introduction

In 1997, Directorate-General Environment of the European Commission financed a study on the analysis of the existing situation regarding the decommissioning principles and policies in the Member States. The results of this study were officially published by the Commission services and were used as a basis for developing future thoughts and opinions on the subject. At the end of 1997, following contacts with officials of the Candidate Countries, we were able to extend the Commissionís knowledge of the situation in those States. In early 1998, Terms of Reference were prepared in collaboration with the members of the Commissionís Advisory Committee on Programme Management (ACPM) with the aim of preparing a Commission Communication on the subject.

A first step was to prepare a situation report and define best practice guidelines in the field. This report was prepared under the auspices of DG-Environment services with the active participation of eight guest experts coming from seven European Union "nuclear countries". The working group was composed of nuclear experts from regulatory bodies, radioactive waste management agencies and industrialists. We published the final report of this working group in the EUR series and it is also available on request by e-mail.

General background and existing EC Directives

Decommissioning is the final phase in the lifecycle of a nuclear installation and is to be considered part of a general strategy of environmental restoration after the final suspension of the industrial activities. At present, over 110 nuclear facilities within the Union are at various stages in the decommissioning process and it is forecast that at least a further 160 facilities will need to be decommissioned over the next 20 years (with the present 15 Member States). Enlargement of the Union would contribute to a rapid increase in the number of nuclear facilities to be decommissioned (at least 50 facilities). Since 1979, the European Commissionís DG Research has conducted four successive five-year research and development programmes on the decommissioning of nuclear installations performed under cost-sharing contracts with organisations from the European Union. The main objective of these programmes was, and is, to establish a scientific and technological basis for the safe, socially acceptable and economically affordable decommissioning of obsolete nuclear installations. After almost 20 years of EU research and development activities on decommissioning, with the technology having reached industrial maturity, the time is ripe to review the related environmental and regulatory issues.

At the level of the European Union, four Council Directives have clear direct links with decommissioning activities.

The general guiding principles for "the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation" are established in Article 2b of the Euratom Treaty of 1957, leading to Chapter 3, and in particular Articles 30, 31, 32 and 37 thereof, and call for the establishment of Basic Safety Standards. These general guiding principles were originally formulated by the European Commission in 1959 and are regularly updated. The last version was published in Council Directive 96/29/EURATOM of 13 May 1996.

Another important document from the European Commission on radiation protection for the nuclear industry workers, applicable during decommissioning activities is "Council Directive 90/641 on the operational protection of outside workers". This Directive is of primary importance for the radiological protection of thousands of outside workers who will be involved in decommissioning activities at the European level.

Directive 85/337/EEC, amended by Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, on the assessment of the effect of certain public and private projects on the environment, in annex 1, describes the projects subject to the Directive. It includes the dismantling and decommissioning operations of nuclear power reactors.

Directive 96/92/EC of 19 December 1996, concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity, opens up, the European electricity market, for the first time, to competition, not only at the production level, but also at the supply level. The directive requires vertically integrated electricity companies to separate their accounts for production, transmission and distribution. The obligation for transparency in the accounts means that a clear overview has to be given regarding the decommissioning financial provisions and the estimated final costs as well as their influence on the final selling price of electricity.

The Terms of Reference for the expert working group

There are a large number of criteria to be considered in establishing a Community opinion on the decommissioning of nuclear facilities. Various regulatory, technical, financial and organisational aspects are closely intertwined in preparing a guiding framework. An analysis of the regulatory and organisational items relevant to decommissioning should be made in the form of an inventory of potential future EC and Member States actions. The guidelines will recommend some policies for the decommissioning of nuclear facilities, and will identify the relevant common base for the legislative aspects and will help Member States to gain experience from others.

The following list summarises some of the major elements which could potentially form the framework of the communication.

Policy aspects

  1. The group of experts should identify the specific aspects of the health standards protecting the public and the workers under the Directives and recommendations of the Euratom Treaty in the field of decommissioning. This involves examination of the radiation protection aspects such as dosimetry, contamination control and the ALARA (ALARP) principle.
  2. The group of experts should identify the responsibilities connected with decommissioning and waste management.
  3. The group of experts should identify management policies for material resulting from decommissioning operations. This analysis will be performed in a context of the development of common practices of management and classification of radioactive waste.
  4. The group of experts, in the context of the minimisation of waste generated, will examine the rules in force within the framework of the criteria for the release of materials. The EURATOM basic safety standards and recommendations will be considered.
  5. The group of experts should examine potential ways of implementing the rules on the environmental impact assessment in national regulations. It will take into account Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3rd March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC.

Financial aspects

  1. The group of experts should consider the possible financing plans for the implementation of decommissioning operations. The fiscal aspects, the concepts of financial provisions and the management of funds will be examined.

  2. The group of experts should analyse international co-operation in the field of decommissioning and consider its possible reinforcement. The synergies developed on a European Union scale could allow decommissioning costs to be reduced.

Technical aspects

  1. The group of experts will recommend that a technical approach to decommissioning be established based on the concept of the time required appropriate for the implementation of the various stages of decommissioning, on the current development of technical and scientific knowledge gained from the European Communities research and development programmes (3rd to the 5th framework programme of Directorate-General XII), and based on the social conditions, the nuclear energy perspective, and the repository situation of each country.

  2. The group of experts will examine and recommend possibilities to ensure that the quantities of waste produced during decommissioning operations are minimised. To this end, processes connected with recycling and/or re-use of materials should be explored. They should consider whether the environmental and energy-related impact of recycling is beneficial. Recent progress in the fields of decontamination and the segregation of isotopes will contribute to the analysis of this objective. The majority of radioactive waste volumes resulting from decommissioning operations have a very low level of activity.

  3. The Group of Experts should consider the specific case of very low-level radioactive waste. Options for storage and final disposal will be examined within the possibilities available at national and Community levels.

Based on existing national experience in the field of decommissioning, the preparation of a Commission communication for decommissioning will have to integrate numerous economic, health-related and legislative parameters. This integration will be possible in the perspective of sustainable industrial development also incorporating a respect for the environment. To this end, consultation of the various European socio-economic actors involved will be necessary in order to define more efficiently the terms governing a Commission recommendation.

Summaries of the expert working group

The items listed in this chapter are taken from the complete report3 published by the EC during spring 1999. This report reflects the opinion of the team of guest experts and does not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission services.

Radiation Protection and Industrial Safety

  1. The Group of experts indicated that the conventional safety issues that can be encountered during decommissioning work should also be considered, in addition to the nuclear and radiation risks.

  2. The dose limits imposed by the EURATOM BSS for the workers and the public protection are sufficient and are applicable even if the nuclear facility has changed status and/or has entered in a decommissioning phase.

  3. The total yearly exposure will vary according to the stages of decommissioning and to the ALARA principle. If not at the beginning, the dose received by each individual will gradually decrease due to the removal of the radiation sources and to the decontamination of the plant.

  4. The experts were of the opinion that International dosimetry tracking, although each Member State has put in place national dose recording systems, is deficient. Decommissioning projects may involve international private companies sending their workers to different decommissioning sites around Europe and it will be important to record properly the worker's total doses from each different country. Currently, the transfer of exposure data relies on the worker's willingness to communicate their exact dosimetry information to the next employer or authority. Therefore, based on EC Directive5 90/641, improvements in international dose tracking are useful.

General Responsibilities related to Decommissioning

  1. The Group of Experts recognises that the legal framework for decommissioning is different in each Member States, and should be treated as such: "harmonisation" of decommissioning practices need not necessarily be the objective.

  2. On the other hand, each Member State must ensure that the risks involved in decommissioning are completely covered by the national regulatory framework put in place for this important task. The Experts stressed the importance oft the responsibilities and the participants being clearly identified by law in each country, without imposing a uniform guideline throughout the Member States.

  3. In the case of the transfer of responsibilities, e.g. to future generations, the Member States must verify that this transfer is feasible and that not only the responsibilities are transferred, but also the knowledge and means to achieve them: e.g. technical, knowledge, financial..

  4. Each Member State must ensure that the decommissioning of each of its nuclear facilities be completed to the final stage determined by their Authorities.

  5. There is a particular responsibility for waste management: the Member States must determine clearly who is responsible for waste repositories and ensure that these responsibilities are fully covered in the long term.

Decommissioning material management policy

  1. The Group of Experts was of the opinion that, when viable, the option of "recycle-reuse" is preferable to the option of "disposal-replacement".

  2. The abolition of the borders within the EU makes the harmonisation of material management criteria highly desirable. To achieve this, co-operation between international organisations (IAEA, OECD-NEA, EC) is desirable.

  3. World-wide criteria harmonisation will also protect the EU against unexpected importation of scrap of international origins. This harmonisation will let material released in one Member State be accepted freely in another through transboundary shipments.

  4. It is important to keep open different pathways for the management of the material from decommissioning activities. The report depicts two different approaches for the management of these materials (OECD versus EC). These different approaches must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis depending on the national situation and the economics of the waste disposal prices that are different in each Member State and influence the national decision on material management. Following the expertís opinion, conditional clearance should remain an open possibility.

  5. Economics also guide the selection of different specific processes, like material sorting, which in some cases is very expensive but in other cases is the best approach for sound material management similar to what is done in the conventional industry.

  6. Material from decommissioning must be defined: some material originating from the non-controlled area is not expected to be contaminated and never came into the regulatory system. For the material coming from the controlled area segregation is necessary. One way of segregating the material is by zoning (used in France); clearance can be done by measurements and strict controls based on criteria, or on a case-by-case basis. It must be remembered that difficulties have been encountered in the acceptance of cleared material by scrap dealers or commercial smelters who refuse this kind of raw material for their production (public perception problem).

  7. Decommissioners should also take into account the management of hazardous material: asbestos, PCB, Öwhich may also be radioactive.

Release criteria

  1. The Group of Experts recommended that the concepts of exemption, conditional, and unconditional clearance be maintained. Although a disparity may be perceived between the values, they need to be maintained if we want to address the number of issues that decommissioning activities raise. The numbers of various concepts or criteria create confusion, therefore, one needs to find the correct language to put them across.

  2. The Group of Experts was of the advice that industrial concrete is more and more recycled in the construction industry instead of disposed of in industrial dumps. If we want to pursue a similar process in the nuclear decommissioning industry, on-going work on release criteria for contaminated concrete should be pursued.

  3. The Group of Experts raised the question of clearance levels and detection limits. The detectors, that to an ever increasing extent are used by scrap dealers, are of sufficient sensitivity to detect radiation below clearance levels. This issue should be considered when developing a strategy of information to the public and to industrialists not familiar with health physics and radiation control.

  4. The Group of Experts stressed the importance of co-operation and clarification on release principles and release criteria with other international organisations. It was felt it would be of great interest to pursue the work of an international working group with IAEA, OECD-NEA in order to reach a consensus on these issues.

Environmental Impact Assessment

  1. The Group of Experts indicated that the Directive 97/11/EC7 came out only in March 1997 and should be transposed into national legislation in March 1999. It seems too early to identify the approaches and the differences between the Member States to and on this matter.

  2. The Group of Experts insisted on the importance, in the future, of a proper feedback from the Member States on the Environmental Impact Assessments that they put into place.

Financing Plans

  1. The decommissioning and waste management costs should be included in the price of the kWh (internalisation of costs) with the exception of historical liabilities associated, for example, with national research or defence facilities.

  2. Provided that financial provisions have been built up throughout the operating life of a nuclear facility, the costs per produced kWh should be relatively low and should not significantly influence electricity charges or lead to unfair competition between producers. If the appropriate financial provisions have not been built up over time, there is a potential risk that producers could choose to embrace the cheapest decommissioning strategy rather than make a balanced judgement based on all the relevant factors, e.g. safety and environmental issues.

  3. This decommissioning financial provision obligation could handicap the nuclear electricity generators compared to fossil fuel generators. A fairer approach could be to integrate into fossil fuel electricity prices the cost of the greenhouse effects (e.g. a CO≤ tax).

  4. The steps to be taken in determining financing requirements include identifying the decommissioning strategy to be applied and preparing detailed cost estimates that include appropriate risk margins. Advice is being prepared as part of the "Incosit" initiative that should be a basis for decommissioning cost estimates.

  5. The best practice is to have full funding available at the time of the final shutdown of the facility. The benefit of this approach is to ensure that money is available when decommissioning occurs and, should any decommissioning activities be deferred to a later date, financial burdens will not be imposed on future generations.

  6. The funding of decommissioning nuclear installations in the EU should be based on the idea of:

  • Identifying the full amount of the funds required, including the waste management and final disposal costs;

  • making the fund secure and controlled by the competent authorities;

  • making sure that the appropriate amount of money is available when needed;

  • dedicating the fund to decommissioning, and nothing else.

International Co-operation

  1. The experts stressed the importance of the exchange of information on decommissioning within the European Community and recommended that the EC extends its initiatives on this subject.

  2. The experts also expressed their strong recommendation that the EC continues its co-operation with the Member States by sponsoring projects and developments on decommissioning subjects.

  3. The experts recommended that the training of engineers and technicians be developed by exchanges of staff and experts between countries inside and outside the EU. This would also be beneficial to the nuclear industry in preparation for the future enlargement of the EU.

  4. The experts were of the advice that international co-operation should exist in the development of information strategies for the public.

  5. The experts recognised the potential technical and financial benefits of international co-operation on waste disposal and waste transfer between countries. Although there are merits in sharing highly expensive waste or fuel repositories (e.g. why impose on a small nuclear waste producing state the high costs of its own deep repository for a few cubic metres of spent fuel or waste while a neighbouring state does the same for its own use), or swapping wastes between countries to optimise treatment and disposal, it was recognised that it may not be politically acceptable to all national governments.

Technical approach to Decommissioning

  1. The experts were of the opinion that the EC should publicise more widely the results of its 20 years of R&D activities on decommissioning. This publication should address the practical industrial aspects of decommissioning showing the industrial maturity that has been reached and the technical problems that have been solved. It should also identify new areas for further work and research.

  2. There is not one decommissioning strategy, but a number of alternatives depending of the particular situation of each site. The choice between immediate and deferred dismantling is based on various factors: the existence or not of waste disposal sites, the social aspects and local employment, the need to clear sites for further nuclear or industrial activities, the technical solutions available at the time of the shutdown, the type of reactors or facility, the level and nature of the contamination, the decay optimisation,Ö The situation can vary depending on the social aspects, the use of specialist subcontractors, the existence or not of decommissioning fundsÖ

  3. Technical solutions exist for the majority of the projects involving decommissioning of nuclear installations, but the EC should identify the supplementary approaches from the conventional industry that could be directly applicable or transferred to decommissioning activities.

  4. More investigation should be made on deferred decommissioning techniques and long term building integrity.

  5. It is important to work on the best decommissioning techniques allowing the decommissioning costs and the wastes produced to be reduced to a minimum.

  6. Within the framework of the enlargement of the EU to the Eastern countries, it will become more important to study the VVER decommissioning cases. With the exception of Lithuania, the nuclear reactors in the other Central and Eastern countries are mostly of this types and their number warrants a serious investigation into existing documentation, applicable and available dismantling techniques and the need for further R&D programmes. The experts suggested the creation by the EC of a Centre of Excellence where technical exchanges between Eastern and Western specialists could take place, plant status and decommissioning programmes evaluated, and practical training on real decommissioning cases performed.

Minimisation of Wastes

  1. The experts agreed with the suggestion for additional technological development programmes on:-

  • non-metallic material recycling and environmental impact;

  • control and measurement techniques of difficult-to-access surfaces;

  • improvement of decontamination methods;

  • improvement of volume reduction techniques.

  1. The experts also made the following recommendations

  • Limiting the concentration of impurities in material, at the design stage of the plant, for example rare earth's in concrete will reduce the production of Europium by neutron activation and limit the amount of waste generated by the dismantling of the plant.

  • Examples of actions that could be taken during the operation of the plant to limit the spread of radioactivity are: primary water chemistry control which, in the case of the BWR's, can be illustrated by the controlled addition of zinc. The permanent control of the cleanliness of the plant.

  • At decommissioning time, the choice of adequate decommissioning techniques can be instrumental in the minimisation of wastes.

  • Another decommissioning strategy for waste minimisation is to let the activity of the material decay. However, this technique is not always effective since, for example, the slow diffusion of tritium through the material could lead to larger quantities of waste.

  • Additional R&D programmes on waste minimisation should be carefully proposed, taking account of the research projects being carried out or completed by the EC, DG XII.

Very Low Level Waste

  1. The Experts highlighted the differences between Very Low Level Wastes and Very Low Level Material, i.e. that which remains radioactive after all attempts have been made to declassify, clear, recycle, Ö

  2. The Very Low Level Wastes is not a formally existing category of wastes except in France, where a specific VLLW site is planned.

  3. The VLLWís are of such a low activity that it is not desirable, for financial reasons, to dispose of them in LLW repositories.

  4. The Experts suggested avoiding the disposal of the large volumes of VLLW in LLW sites. Alternatives are specific disposal in VLLW sites or conditional release of these materials (not wastes) and controlled recycling as input for the production of new metal, or for the construction of roads.

Public Acceptance

  1. Concerning the legacy to future generations, the experts were of the opinion that, although it is true that each generation must take care of their problems in order not to transfer unresolved issues to the future, decommissioning activities can be postponed to the next generation for particular reasons (technical, decay, overall cost of the cleanup) if the financial and technical means to solve the problems are transferred as well.

  2. The responsibility for transferring any legacy to future generations lies not only with the national or private electricity producers or nuclear facility users, but also with the public who have received the benefits from the product (welfare, price stability).

  3. It would be advantageous in terms of public information to produce an EC CD-ROM describing the decommissioning programmes within the EU, the results of the R&D projects, the principles of decommissioning strategies and alternatives. It should also be advertised on Internet.

  4. The experts expressed the opinion that any decommissioning actions are per se positive environmental activities that are aimed at solving issues and reducing the risk from industrial activities to the population.

  5. Recognising the difficulties in explaining complex messages to the general public, professional public affairs advice should be taken in developing the means and details of how to convey appropriate messages and information to the public on decommissioning.

European Commission conclusions

This expert report is considered as a valuable input to the Commissionís work in the area. The Commission will carefully examine the expertís recommendations and will, in particular, assess to what extent they can be included in its future communication on the subject.

1. The European Commission Communication on Decommissioning

It will address the issues that include the share of responsibilities connected with decommissioning; the management policy of the materials and waste; radiation protection; the impact on the environment; public perception; the technical approach and the financial aspects. After a first review of the actual situation, it seems that the responsibilities involved in the decommissioning of nuclear facilities and the management of their wastes are environmental, technical, social and financial. In some Member States it is not clearly defined who will bear these responsibilities for the decommissioning of the nuclear installations to the final stage. Until now decommissioning projects have often been regulated on a case-by-case basis and a build-up of experience is necessary in this field.

The development of common views within the EU on the decommissioning of nuclear facilities could result in a better protection of the population and of the environment, and in a more standardised technological practice lead to, inter alia, a reduction in the generation of waste. Well established decommissioning practices in the Member States and the development of specific decommissioning policies could render regulatory decisions easier, more efficient, transparent and more readily acceptable by the public.

2. The European Commission opinion on the financial aspects of Decommissioning

In the Commissionís second report to the Council and the European Parliament on harmonisation requirements concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity, COM(1999)164 final, the issue of decommissioning or dismantling of nuclear power plants is included due to the specific effects relating to the different financing and accounting approaches. The report does not intend to question the different organisational and technical approaches towards decommissioning.

Extracts of the report

"The main costs of nuclear power generation include capital investment, fuel, ongoing generation and maintenance costs, plus, and this is the main difference to other types of generation, the costs for nuclear waste storage and future dismantling costs. It is evident that the evaluation of these latter costs is rather complex. Depending on the valuation of these cost factors and the legal obligation to calculate provisions into the electricity prices, the resulting prices of nuclear sources have considerable bandwidth. Regarding liquidity, thus looking at generators from a cash flow perspective, the timing of the payments related to the costs is significantly different for nuclear electricity generation compared with other types of generation. A nuclear power generator has to make provisions for substantial future payments, namely the costs of nuclear waste storage and dismantling. With regard to its future financial obligations, the generator itself or a separate entity will seek to invest the cash surplus which is collected through provisions or other levies. Thus, nuclear generators can be seen as trustees for funds to cover future decommissioning costs. Since electricity generators have to compete with each other as of 19 February 1999, diverging regulatory approaches to the management of decommissioning funds may cause substantial market distortions."

"The electricity directive 96/92/EC opens for the first time competition in the European electricity market, not only at the production level, but also at the supply level. The need for transparency in the electricity-producing companiesí accounts foresees a clear need for a full integration of the end of life decommissioning costs."

"Different situations exist among the Member States for the financing of decommissioning, e.g. simple provision in the accounts of the electricity companies allowing reinvestment of the collected funds for other than decommissioning purposes, segregation of collected funds outside the sphere of the company, or a complete State organisation and management of decommissioning by separate specialised, mostly publicly owned companies. Moreover, the amount of yearly funding required, the requirements as to when and how decommissioning has to be accomplished and the applied calculation methods and discount rates differ substantially between Member States. This situation questions the principles quoted above and could lead to distortion and discrimination between the new competing nuclear electricity producers from different Member States. Decommissioning costs are clearly seen as part of the electricity production costs. They may not be cross-subsidised from the transmission activity nor be directly subsidised via state aid to the extent that they are incompatible with the EU Treaty."

"Provided that financial provisions have been built up throughout the operating life of a nuclear facility, the costs per kWh should be relatively low and should not significantly influence electricity charges or lead to unfair competition between producers."

"The steps to be taken in determining financing requirements include identifying the decommissioning strategy to be applied and preparing detailed costs estimates that include appropriate risk margins. Sound decommissioning financing will also increase the public acceptance of the potential legacy to the future generations. The benefit of this approach is to ensure that money is available when immediate decommissioning occurs, and that financial burdens and risks are not imposed on future generations should any decommissioning activities be deferred to a later date."

"If appropriate financial provisions have not been built up over time, there is a potential risk that producers could choose to elect the cheapest decommissioning strategy rather than make a balanced judgement on all the relevant factors, e.g. safety and environmental issues."

EC suggested approach

  1. that the Member States should apply transparency of the financing plans and of its calculation method, that the required full amount of the fund/provision be identified, including the complete decommissioning process, the waste management and final disposal costs,

  2. that these full decommissioning costs be included in the selling price of the kWh (internalisation of costs) with the potential exception of historical nuclear liabilities associated, for example, with national research or defence facilities for which clear specific financial arrangements should be taken at national levels,

  3. that the fund/provision be secured and controlled by the mandated national authorities,

  4. that the fund/provision be dedicated to decommissioning purposes, and nothing else,

  5. and that the full funding be available at the foreseen time (fixed in licence) of the final shutdown of the facility.

"It has to be emphasised that most of these principles can be derived either from the unbundling requirements of the electricity directive or from the competition rules of the EC Treaty. Nevertheless, due to the specific aspects of decommissioning and the importance for the level playing field in the European electricity market, a harmonised approach could be beneficial."

3. The European Commission opinion on the Environmental Impact Assessment

Council Directive 97/11/EC7 of 3 March 1997 on the Environmental Impact Assessment, annex 1, describes the projects subject to the Directive. It includes dismantling and decommissioning operations for nuclear power reactors. However, while the general requirements are set out in the Directive, the detailed requirements could vary from state to state. Formally, the Directives set out the broad principles of the environmental assessment system to be put in place by the Member States. At first sight, the existing decommissioning plans, in most of the countries inside and outside the EU, focus only on radiological impact assessments rather than the wider Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) covered by the Directives.

The final destination of a nuclear installation being part of a global environmental restoration strategy it is an important matter for the public. The general public is concerned over what will happen to the waste and over potentially extended time-scales for decommissioning. In addition, there is concern about leaving our wastes to future generations. Even if the existing regulations and practices used during decommissioning protect workers and the general public, the public still needs to be informed on the measures taken. Decommissioning operations and the related strategy decisions should be done with transparency, involve the public and be open to their concerns.

 

 

last update: 05-08-2008