|
duci
Forum Admin
172 Posts |
 Posted - 03/21/2008 : 14:10:26
|
Unfit for purpose
18 January 2008
A recent European report into decommissioning and waste funds in
member states has found funds in some countries are not nearly enough, and have been misused.
By Corrina Thomson
In October 2004, the European Commission (EC) made its first report to the European Parliament on nuclear decommissioning funds, on the back of concerns about the safety implications of poor funding, fund
mismanagement, and distortion of competition. The second report takes a step further in comparing European nuclear operators' and states' funding practice with that of an EC recommendation adopted in 2006.
The most obvious general finding of the second report was that there
is a vast difference in decommissioning strategy and funding across
European states, although it does not force the 'one size fits all'
stance. Sweden and Finland are singled out for praise at their good
practice and legal enforcement of the 'polluter pays' principle.
The report notes that decommissioning strategies are decided on the
basis of cost, repository availability, social consequences and other factors, and implies that work has been deferred or brought forward depending on the money available. It is the government of some countries that makes these decisions, whereas in others it is up to the operators (subject to regulators).
The longest deferral period in Europe is for England's graphite
reactors, which have a huge 130-year timescale before final site
clearance after plant closure. The UK Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority has stated it plans to reduce this to 25 years. In Italy and France, 'immediate dismantling' is being carried out over a
"relatively long timeframe", according to the report.
Insufficient funding, apart from being contrary to the 'polluter pays' principle, can turn out to be an unjustified economic advantage amounting to state aid, which distorts competition between electricity producers, it says.
The Czech Republic, Hungary, and the Netherlands have opted for a
strategy of deferred decommissioning but Slovakia and Bulgaria say
they plan to move from deferred decommissioning to immediate or, as in the case of Kozloduy 1-4, a solution falling somewhere between the two. Long-term financial security is an area that appears to require further development.
The report says all member states have set up a body to review and
assess fund management and cost estimates, but the role of these
bodies is rarely detailed and requires close monitoring.
In several states, such as Italy, UK, Slovakia, Bulgaria and
Lithuania, funding is provided by more than one system. In Germany
funds are held and managed internally by commercial operators,
although this has been criticised it has provided reasonable funds.
Shared ownership requires a specific solution to funding issues
especially where the part-owner is from another member state.
Particular attention needs to be paid to new power plant construction where ownership is shared by several countries.
There are many instances where a dedicated fund has not been created
but instead there is an assumption that treasury funds will be made
available when required. The report points out that while the
liabilities for most installations are small compared to power
reactors this is not the case for reprocessing and plutonium-handling facilities.
Since 2004, further detailed information on cost estimates has been
obtained but many operators have been reluctant to tell the EC how the figures have been calculated.
Slovenia has a well-defined fund which meets the best practice
outlined in the 2006 recommendation however, the responsibility for
the Krsko power plant is shared with Croatia with the latter yet to
establish a similar system. As a consequence, only half of the
required funding for decommissioning is currently being set aside.
The vagaries of cost-discounting have also played out across Europe
and "should be addressed" by harmonisation, according to the report. A
combination of a long deferral period and inappropriate use of
discounting rates can create long-term fund problems. Further problems
are created when there isn't proper oversight of cost estimates and
poor fund performance. Also, in several countries, it is assumed that
the state will underwrite any financial shortfall related to early
closure problems.
Misuse of decommissioning and waste management funds was found in
several countries. In Italy, money obtained from an electricity tariff
is placed in a state fund and the part not required for
decommissioning is used for other purposes of state interest.
In the UK, about half of today's funding for civil installations is
provided from the state budget, based on a three-year commitment. The
current shortfall in operating profits, which provides the remaining
funding, and absence of a segregated fund results in a requirement to
reorganise short-term decommissioning activities.
Belgium has drafted a new law which will see decommissioning funds
used to finance totally unrelated power investment projects in a
manner which could be seen as preferential to the project rather than
prudent fund management.
Lithuania has in some cases used its national fund to co-finance
energy sector projects to provide replacement capacity for its
reactor, which was shut down early.
In terms of information within the public domain, the funding
situation is "far from satisfactory" in many member states. Bulgaria
did not reply to the EC's questionnaire or react to specific requests
for information, and the report states that the early closure of the
Kozloduy 1-4 power reactors has led to important funding issues.
The information provided by the UK was "quite sparse", especially
compared to most states, and disproportionate to the size of its
nuclear industry. The information made available by the NDA on its
website provided some counterweight to this criticism.
Germany responded to the EC's questionnaire some time after the study
had been completed thereby removing an important element from the
comparison being undertaken in one of the targeted studies.
The report noted that the claim of "commercial sensitivity" was used
in many cases to withhold liability estimates and estimates of funds
collected. "Given the detailed information available in this domain
and the willingness of many operators to provide such information,
this argument is not considered valid," it said.
The report concluded that the benefits of harmonised decommissioning
funding methodologies should be explored. For future nuclear
constructions a common approach should be progressed but for currently operating systems the EC's activities need to be based upon independent evaluation and reporting.
|
Prof.Dr. D. Ciurchea
|
|
reprocesarea
