How is the international nuclear community addressing the issue of nuclear decommissioning? Is there a need for regulation on an international basis?
by Lee G. J. Thomson

This decommissioning problem has arisen now due to the fact that those nuclear facilities built in the pioneering stages of nuclear development have either come or will soon come to the end of their operating lifetimes. In accordance with national and international regulations and guidelines, these installations will have to be taken out of active use. Indeed, contemporary debate has been fuelled by statistics suggesting that in the next 20-30 years, over 400 nuclear facilities will require nuclear decommissioning in Western Europe and the United States alone.¹ This time scale has indicated that tackling the problem of the decommissioning of nuclear facilities is overdue.

"the activities taken at the end of the useful life of a facility in retiring it from service with adequate regard for the health and safety of workers and members of the public." ²

• Do nothing - leave the nuclear structures as they are, in perpetuity;
• Prompt Dismantling - immediately dismantle the structures and return the nuclear facility and site to greenfield status;³
• Postponed Dismantling - leave the nuclear structures as they are for a specified number of years with a view to eventually dismantling and returning the nuclear facility and site to greenfield status;
• Permanent Entombment - seal the nuclear structures in thick concrete permanently to secure the radioactivity; and
• Reversible Entombment - immediately remove uncontaminated structures, build a temporary structure around the reactor and cover the site with earth, with a view to possibly dismantling it in the future.⁴

It is thought by some that the ‘do nothing' approach to decommissioning is most favourable. They believe that the reactor is the safest place to house radioactive material.⁵

However, this approach infringes upon the desire to protect the environment. Leaving a nuclear facility in situ for an indefinite period of time will inherently contravene the environmental ‘concept' of sustainable development.⁶ Emerging as early as the 19th century, sustainable development has found contemporary acceptance and was defined in 1987 as

"development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs." ⁷

"requires observance of three basic principles: conservation of options, conservation of quality, and conservation of access."⁸

However, this issue concerning rights and duties is disputed.⁹

Additionally, the ‘do nothing' approach fails to reflect the ‘polluter pays' principle.¹⁰ This principle proposes that the polluter should bear the expenses of any pollution that has occurred, and that the expense should be reflected in the costs of goods and services that have caused the pollution.¹¹

The ‘do nothing' option could ultimately risk natural or man-made disasters and would contradict general norms, requiring disused industrial sites to be made fit for alternative use.¹² This option is not normally regarded as an acceptable one.

Immediate dismantling on the other hand, is the only option of the five which does not produce inter-generational tension. It is clearly an option which favours the environment and is the active policy in Germany and Sweden. Under this option, the site quickly becomes available for other purposes, eliminating any need for long-term security, surveillance and maintenance. Furthermore, there is a greater degree of certainty as to the availability of low-level waste facilities willing to accept the radioactive waste at the time.¹³

Immediate dismantling does present some problems. These generally relate to the higher worker and public radioactive doses contracted and the larger initial requirement of money to fund the operation. Indeed, in most cases, the cost consideration will heavily influence the choice of decommissioning alternative.¹⁴

Similar environmental and ethical considerations which arise under the ‘do nothing approach also arise under the postponed dismantling approach. The postponement period varies from country to country. The US allows a 60 year period¹⁵ whereas the period is 130 years in the UK.¹⁶ The main technical argument advanced in favour of this option is that

"lengthy delays significantly reduce radioactivity over the time period." ¹⁷

"this argument about waste site requirements is a potentially serious one." ¹⁸

"the absolute technical problems involved are relatively manageable - there is existing experience in the decontamination, demolition and waste packaging technologies that will predominate." ¹⁹

Regardless, the issue of dismantling nuclear components is receiving considerable interest. Existing cutting techniques are proving successful, but technology development especially in Japan²⁰ and as part of the OECD/NEA Co-operative Programme on Decommissioning²¹ is proving invaluable.

Decontamination concerns are also receiving high priority. The objective is to reduce contamination levels to allow greater hands-on dismantling techniques and to reduce overall costs associated with waste production. Pioneering techniques being developed in France are aiding a solution by the use of dilute chemical decontamination processes.²²

The experience to date that the nuclear industry has gained provides little basis for estimating the costs of decommissioning of present day commercial reactors. Indeed, the issue of prospective costs of decommissioning is one which industry regards as highly important. The problem is exacerbated due to large discrepancies between the various decommissioning project costs world-wide.²³ This high degree of uncertainty

"is an unavoidable feature of decommissioning - the only remedy is to have the highest possible level of confidence in the judgements made." ²⁴

It is generally contended that previous cost estimates have been too low.²⁵ Present estimates for the decommissioning of nuclear facilities are taking a number of additional considerations into account in an attempt to ensure that cost estimates are accurate and reliable.

The decommissioning alternative chosen is crucial to overall costs. Immediate decommissioning operations will yield higher amounts of radioactive waste and contamination, and will require greater amounts of initial capital. In contrast, entombment will dispense with many of these costs, but will require increased security, surveillance and maintenance costs.²⁶ The choice of option is thus a delicate balancing act, but will be guided overall by what the relevant regulations permit.

Finally, decommissioning funds must be assured. This varies from country to country, but generally the costs will either be provided by Government or by the licensee.²⁷ These funds can be in the form of prepayment accounts, external sinking funds or in some cases, surety bonds.²⁸

"the optimum decommissioning strategy needs to be identified on a case-by-case basis, focusing on site specific factors."²⁹

Set up in 1957 by the United Nations, the IAEA' purpose was to further the peaceful uses of nuclear energy throughout the world.³⁰ Under Article III.A.6 of the IAEA Statute, the IAEA is charged to

For many years, the IAEA has done this by providing various safety standards relating to the construction, operation and, to a lesser extent, the decommissioning of nuclear facilities.³¹ However, such standards and codes are of a non-binding nature as concerns individual states. This was

"consequent on the view that nuclear safety is principally a matter for national concern."³²

3.2.1 The Convention on Nuclear Safety³³

"A plant ceases to be a nuclear installation when all nuclear fuel elements have been removed permanently from the reactor core and have been stored safely in accordance with approved procedures, and a decommissioning programme has been agreed by the regulatory body." ³⁴

Clearly, once the fuel elements have been removed, the facility ceases to be a nuclear installation as defined under the Convention and would have undergone stage 1 decommissioning.³⁵ Thus, only a small amount of the decommissioning process is covered by the Convention.

3.2.2 The Joint Convention³⁶

"a need to cover such installations under the Joint Convention."³⁷

"all steps leading to the release of a nuclear facility, other than a disposal facility from regulatory control. These steps include the process of decontamination and dismantling."³⁸

By virtue of this provision, the subsequent articles relating to general safety requirements can be applied to decommissioning.³⁹

"provide general guidance to Member States for regulating the decommissioning of nuclear facilities within the established nuclear regulatory framework." ⁴⁰

The guide describes the process to be used and the considerations to be applied in the development of decommissioning regulations, while also setting out the responsibilities of both the regulatory body and the license holder.⁴¹

In 1988, the IAEA published a revised safety code relating to nuclear safety.⁴² Decommissioning is however treated in a short and superficial manner. Chapter 18 of the Code stipulates that the license holder shall provide measures for

"the decommissioning of the nuclear power plant in a safe manner and in accordance with a planned programme...[which] shall include all steps that can reasonably taken to ensure safety." ⁴³

The Code does though highlight the considerations to be taken into account when choosing the decommissioning alternative.⁴⁴

IAEA Code on Practice ⁴⁵

3.3 The OECD/NEA Co-operative Programme on Decommissioning ⁴⁶

"it has been demonstrated, that in some situations, the use of certain mechanical cutting techniques offers significant advantages in terms of volume of secondary waste produced."⁴⁷

There have also been clear advantages in the use of robotics and autonomous machines.⁴⁸

"projects within the Co-operative Programme have remodelled their cost management structure on the proposed basis."⁴⁹

Finally, the Task Group set up to study recycling and reuse, had the objective of maximising the recovery of valuable material from the decommissioning process and minimising overall decommissioning waste.⁵⁰ The Task Group has extended its study but realises that a considerable impediment to its efforts is

"the absence of consistent, internationally accepted release criteria."⁵¹

"This work provides some unique insight into the state of the recycling world from the nuclear decommissioning perspective."⁵²

The Euratom Treaty was signed in 1957 with the purpose of creating a nuclear common market. Under the Treaty, member states are obliged to create and implement safety directives as well as ensure their enforcement.⁵³

"Treaty is an anachronism in that it calls for the promotion of nuclear energy even though 14 out of 15 member states oppose or have stalled nuclear development."⁵⁴

"the development of a system for handling decommissioned plants and for removing radioactive materials as well as the development of guiding principles for the and operation of facilities so as to simplify later decommissioning." ⁵⁵

The absence of substantial regulations and guidance at international level has encouraged individual states to forge ahead and create a regulatory framework to deal with nuclear facility decommissioning in their own nations. Two of the most important regimes have been set up in the United States and in Germany. The US regime is significant as it houses the single largest number of nuclear facilities within its borders, 110 in all.⁵⁶ In contrast, Germany has only 20 nuclear facilities in operation,⁵⁷ but is the only country in Western Europe to adopt specific statutory regulation to deal with nuclear decommissioning.

The decommissioning of nuclear facilities in the US was brought sharply into focus in 1979, following a nuclear accident at Unit 2 of the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant. It took another nine years however, before the present decommissioning regulations were enacted, despite the fact that they were being promulgated as early as 1971.⁵⁸ By virtue of these regulations, decommissioning of nuclear facilities is regulated under the auspices of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

Since 1960, the US has decommissioned more than 70 test, demonstration and power reactors. The major projects have included the Shippingport and Fort St. Vrain nuclear facilities.⁵⁹

On the 27th of June 1988, the US Congress issued the NRC's final decommissioning regulations after ten years of environmental, technical, policy and legal analysis on the subject.⁶⁰ In 1996, a final rule amending the regulations was passed.⁶¹

Under the rule, 5 years prior to the end of operation of a nuclear facility, a ‘preliminary decommissioning plan' (PDP) must be submitted by the licensee containing a site specific cost estimate for the process and an up-to-date assessment of the major technical factors involved.⁶² Furthermore, applications for license termination must be submitted

"within two years following permanent cessation of operations, and in no case later than one year prior to expiration of the operating license." ⁶³

Stage 1 of the decommissioning project is not realised until the licensee has proved to the NRC that all operations have permanently stopped and all spent fuel has been removed.⁶⁴ Once this has been done, a post-shutdown decommissioning activities report (PSDAR) must be submitted along with the license termination application. The PSDAR must include

• a description of the planned decommissioning alternative to be used;
• a schedule for the accomplishment of significant milestones;
• an estimate of expected costs; and
• documentation proving that the environmental impacts associated with site-specific decommissioning activities has been considered.⁶⁵

The NRC, on receipt of the application, places the plan in the Federal Register and makes it available for public comment. There is a 90 day period in which the NRC must review the report and decide whether or not to allow the licensee to continue with the decommissioning operations. Within this period, the licensee is not permitted to carry out major decommissioning activities.⁶⁶ However, the licensee is allowed to carry out routine measures such as maintenance and disposal of small radioactive components.

On completion of stage 1 of the decommissioning process, the licensee will either continue on to stage 2 (removal of buildings/equipment but leaving core and shielding) or proceed directly to stage 3 (immediate dismantling and the returning of the facility to greenfield status.) Unless permission is given to the contrary by the NRC, the site must be decommissioned within 60 years.⁶⁷

Finally, before the license termination will be granted, the licensee must submit a license termination plan. This must be done at least two years before the proposed termination date.⁶⁸ If the NRC deems the license termination plan acceptable and the nuclear facility and site are suitable for release, it will complete the process by terminating the license.

NRC funding requirements relating to decommissioning, only apply to those parts of the nuclear facility that have been contaminated. Under 10 CFR 70.25 (a), decommissioning funds must be set up by the licensee. The licensee must review the fund annually in order to account for changes in labour, energy and low-level waste disposal costs, as well as to take into account technological advancements.⁶⁹

Three types of funds are acceptable to the NRC; external sinking funds,⁷⁰ prepayment accounts⁷¹ or surety bonds.⁷² In most cases, the external sinking fund is the preferred option.⁷³

In Germany, there is at present 20 nuclear reactors in operation. There has however been relatively little practical experience in the decommissioning of such facilities. This has been mainly due to the fact that the estimated operating lifetimes of the facilities is 40 years and the larger reactors were only initially put into operation in the early 1970's.⁷⁴ However, decommissioning experience has been generated as a result of the decommissioning of two smaller reactors; one at Niederaichbach and the other at Gundremingen.⁷⁵

The initial legislative enactment dealing with the operation of nuclear facilities did not envisage the resultant decommissioning problem. Indeed, the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1959 dealt primarily with licensing and operational safety aspects.⁷⁶ However, by virtue of the 4th Amendment to the AEA in 1976, the German legislature adopted provisions to deal with decommissioning license requirements and procedures.⁷⁷ Section 7(3) of the AEA states that

Licenses under Section 7(3) of the AEA may only be granted if the prerequisite conditions are fulfilled. The conditions are transplanted from those which relate to the construction and operation of nuclear facilities in Germany.⁷⁸ Separate licences are required for withdrawal from service, safe enclosure and dismantling.⁷⁹

Since 1977, prospective plant operators must take the issue of decommissioning into account in the initial design phase of the facility. Criterion 2.10 of the Safety Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants stipulates that a concept for dismantling the facility must be presented during the initial application for a construction and operating license.⁸⁰ Such requirements are however not statutory in nature. By virtue of section 19(3) of the AEA

"a drawn-out process of decommissioning and is concerned about possible job losses and claims for damages against the government," ⁸¹

whereas, the Green's want to phase-out nuclear power as soon as possible. This problem is further being exacerbated by recent rumours suggesting the Government may put a surcharge on the price of electricity to help fund the decommissioning programme.⁸²

The German decommissioning programme is clearly going to expand rapidly in the near future. One problem that may arise however, will be the lack of sufficient reprocessing and repository facilities. This will be as a direct result of present revision drafts to the atomic energy laws, which are proposing to end reprocessing activities.⁸³ More informed discussion will have to take place in Germany if the German nuclear phase-out is to be achieved effectively and in line with the regulations.

Go to top of page
 

¹ Kunth, Dr. B., Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants 1986 JENRL 107, at p.107.  Return to text
² IAEA, The Regulatory Process for the Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, IAEA Safety Series, Vienna 1990, at p.1.   Return to text
³ Greenfield status refers to the site being fully restored to its original, undamaged condition and ready for unrestricted use.   Return to text
⁴ For further details of such processes, see Surrey, J., Ethics of Nuclear Decommissioning 1992 Energy Policy 632, at p.637-638.   Return to text
⁵ Indeed, it is contended that structures built to house decommissioning wastes are unlikely to be as robust as a reactor and that dismantling reduces the security of the material. See Surrey, supra note 4, at p. 637.
Return to text
⁶ It is not clear yet to what extent sustainable development can be regarded as a international legal principle. See, Birnie, P. & Boyle, A., International Law and the Environment, at p. 122-124.   Return to text
⁷ See The Bruntland Report, World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987 - Our Common Futures at p.43. This report was a prelude to the 1992 Rio Conference where sustainable development was given pride of place, see, United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, June 14th 1992, 1992 ILM 874. Furthermore, a recent decision of the International Court of Justice has put sustainable development firmly on the map, see, Separate Opinion of VP Weeremantry, in, the Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), Judgement of 25th September 1997, 1998 ILM 162.
Return to text
⁸ Gundling, L., Our Responsibility To Future Generations, 1990 AJIL 207, at 209.   Return to text
⁹ See D'amato, A., Agora: What obligation does our generation owe to the next? An approach to global environmental responsibility, 1990 AJIL 190-198.   Return to text
¹⁰ The status of the polluter pays principle is also questionable, especially in relation to whether or not if there is sufficient support for its widespread use. For a discussion, see, Birnie, P. & Boyle, A., supra note 6, at p. 109-111.   Return to text
¹¹ See principles 2 and 4 of the OECD's Guiding Principles on the Environment, US Dept. Of State Release, No. 130, 1972, 11 ILM 1172.   Return to text
¹² See Surrey, supra note 4, at p.637.   Return to text
¹³ NRC, Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants, www.nrc.gov/NRC/NUREGS/SR1628/part06.html#_1_8, at para. 2.6.  Return to text
¹⁴ As Surrey points out, immediate dismantling can increase decommissioning costs by 50% overall. See Surrey, J., UK Policy on Decommissioning ,1994 Energy Policy 723, at p. 723.   Return to text
¹⁵ 10 CFR 50.82 (a) (3)   Return to text
¹⁶ See, White Paper on Review of Radioactive Waste Management - Final Conclusions, Cmnd 2919 1995, at p.32.  Return to text
¹⁷ MacKerron, G., The Decommissioning of Nuclear Plant - Timing, cost and regulation, 1989 Energy Policy 103, at p.105.   Return to text
¹⁸ Ibid.   Return to text
¹⁹ Ibid. at p. 104   Return to text
²⁰ Japanese Atomic Energy Research Institute Report, Development Programs on Decommissioning Technology for Reactors and Fuel Site Facilities in Japan, Paper presented to OECD/NEA Decommissioning Policy Conference, Paris, 2-4 October, 1991, at p. 77-87.  Return to text
²¹ Infra Chapter 3.3, at p. 19.   Return to text
²² See Douborg, M., The Spin-off of LWR Maintenance Techniques and Applicability to Reactor Decommissioning,, Paper presented to OECD/NEA Decommissioning Policy Conference, Paris, 2-4 October, 1991, at p. 124.   Return to text
²³ Gaunt, J. & Numark, N., Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Facilities, World Bank Report, April 1990, at p. 20.   Return to text
²⁴ MacDonald, N. & Page , B., Achieving Credibility in Decommissioning Cost Estimates, Paper presented to OECD/NEA Decommissioning Policy Conference, Paris, 2-4 October, 1991, at p. 193.   Return to text
²⁵ See Gaunt supra note 23, at p. 21.   Return to text
²⁶ See NRC Workshop, Questions on Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants, www.nrc.gov/NRC/NUREGS/SR1628/part06.html#_1_8 ,at para. 2.8.   Return to text
²⁷ For example, in the UK, the Government has helped to pay the costs of the privatised nuclear industry by using funds collected by a fossil fuel levy.   Return to text
²⁸ For a description of these funding mechanisms, see Chapter 4.2 infra, at p. 26.   Return to text
²⁹ See Gaunt, supra note 23, at p. 22.   Return to text
³⁰ 276 UNTS 4, at Article II.   Return to text
³¹ See Chapter 3.2.3. infra at p. 17.   Return to text
³² Szasz, P., International Atomic Energy Agency: Convention on Nuclear Safety 1994 ILM 1514, at p.1514.
Return to text
³³ 1994 ILM 1518.   Return to text
³⁴ Ibid. at Art. 2(I).   Return to text
³⁵ Overall, the IAEA has envisaged a three-stage process for the purposes of guiding nuclear decommissioning activities. After stage 1, the facility should have effectively ceased operations. After stage 2, the facility should be able to be left with a minimal amount of maintenance and surveillance, and the radioactive materials should be sealed up. A ‘greenfield site' is achieved on completion of stage 3.   Return to text
³⁶ The Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and Safety of Radioactive Waste Management 1997 ILM 1435.   Return to text
³⁷ Tonhauser, W., and Jankowitsch, O., The Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel and the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management 1997 Nuclear Law Bulletin 9, at p.16.   Return to text
³⁸ Art. 2(b).   Return to text
³⁹ Arts. 4-17.   Return to text
⁴⁰ Supra note 2, at p. 2.   Return to text
⁴¹ Of particular importance are the sections relating decommissioning planning, cost estimation, funding and regulatory process. Ibid. at Chapters 2-9.   Return to text
⁴² IAEA Safety Series, No. 50-C-G(Rev.1), June 1988.   Return to text
⁴³ Ibid. at para . 1801-1802.   Return to text
⁴⁴ These are namely, potential radioactive exposure after shutdown, risk to personnel and public, future use of the site and the safety and surveillance considerations.   Return to text
⁴⁵ The Code on Practice relating to the Management of Radioactive Wastes from Nuclear Power Plants, IAEA Safety Series No. 69, February, 1984.   Return to text
⁴⁶ NEA/OECD, The NEA Co-operative Programme on Decommissioning – The First Ten Years 1985-1995, OECD, 1996.   Return to text
⁴⁷ Ibid. at p.8.   Return to text
⁴⁸ Ibid. at p.9.   Return to text
⁴⁹ Ibid. at p.10. Indeed, the OECD/NEA cost methodologies are now being used by the EC and the IAEA.
Return to text
⁵⁰ This study is now the subject of a separate report, see, OECD/NEA, Nuclear Decommissioning – Recycling and Reuse of Scrap Metals, OECD, 1996.   Return to text
⁵¹ Ibid. at p.138.   Return to text
⁵² Supra, note 46, at p.10.   Return to text
⁵³ See Treaty Establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) (Rome), 298 UNTS 167, (1957), at Arts. 33 & 38.   Return to text
⁵⁴ Lyons, P., EU energy policies of the mid-1990s, at p.95.   Return to text
⁵⁵ See Kunth, supra note 1, at p. 109.   Return to text
⁵⁶ See, IAEA - Nuclear Power Reactors in the World, April 1997 Edition, at p.9.   Return to text
⁵⁷ Ibid. at p.8.   Return to text
⁵⁸ Leonoff, L., Regulations Governing Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning - A North American Perspective 1986 IBL 70, at 71.   Return to text
⁵⁹ Shippingport was a 72 MWe nuclear facility and was actively in service from 1957-1982. Decommissioning was completed in 1989. In 1989, the 330 MWe Fort St. Vrain nuclear facility was taken out of service due to poor performance, after 16 years in operation. By early 1996, decommissioning was complete, several months ahead of schedule and within its $189m budget.   Return to text
⁶⁰ 53 FR 24018-24056.   Return to text
⁶¹ 61 FR 39301.   Return to text
⁶² 10 CFR 50.75 (f).   Return to text
⁶³ 10 CFR 50.82 (a) (4) (i).   Return to text
⁶⁴ 10 CFR 50.82 (a) (ii).   Return to text
⁶⁵ Supra, note 63.   Return to text
⁶⁶ Major decommissioning activities are described in 10 CFR 50.2 as ‘any activity that results in the permanent removal of major radioactive components, permanently modifies the structure of containment or results in dismantling components for shipment containing radioactive waste.'   Return to text
⁶⁷ 10 CFR 50.82 (a) (iii). It is interesting to note that the original period was to be 30-50 years, but after considerable protesting by industry for a greater period, the figure was set at 60 years. See Leonoff supra note 58, at p.73.   Return to text
⁶⁸ 10 CFR 50.82 (9) (i).   Return to text
⁶⁹ 10 CFR 70.25 (e).   Return to text
⁷⁰ Sinking funds accumulate money over the facility's operating lifetime, and are collected from customer's rates and trust funds.   Return to text
⁷¹ Prepayment accounts have money deposited before the facility goes into operation.   Return to text
⁷² Surety bonds are guarantees as to the payment of decommissioning costs if the licensee defaults.
This option can also be in the form a letter of credit or insurance.   Return to text
⁷³ In 1992, the US Congress implemented two major changes to aid the nuclear industry in covering decommissioning costs. First, by 1994 federal tax on the funds was lowered from 34% to 22%, and by 1996, to 20%. Secondly, the nuclear industry was no longer restricted to low-earning tax exempt municipal bonds and federal government securities and was instead permitted to invest in higher earning investment areas.
Return to text
⁷⁴ See Kunth supra note 1, at p. 110.   Return to text
⁷⁵ Niederaichbach was a 100 MWe pressure tube reactor which was decommissioned after only 18 days of operation. It only achieved a 40% yield of its rated power and was retracted from service due to being technically inadequate in the face of advancing technology. Gundremingen was a 250 MWe reactor which was partially decommissioned in the late 1970's. Once again, technical inadequacy forced the Gundremingen reactor out of service and full decommissioning will commence at the start of the new century.  Return to text
⁷⁶ Act on the Peaceful Utilisation and the Protection Against its Hazards (AEA) 1959,as amended, December 21 1992, BGBI I p.814.   Return to text
⁷⁷ BGBI I p.2573.   Return to text
⁷⁸ Supra note 76, at sec. 7(2) No.1-No.6. They require the applicant to ensure the reliability and responsibility of the appropriate personnel; the necessary knowledge of the personnel in relation to safe operation, safety measures and possible hazards; the necessary precautions in the light of state of the art to prevent damage arising from decommissioning; financial security to cover all legal liability; necessary protection from interference from 3rd parties; and compatibility with public interests and in particular to protect the environment.   Return to text
⁷⁹ See, European Commission Report - A review of the situation of decommissioning of nuclear installations in Europe, EUR 17622 EN, European Communities 1997.   Return to text
⁸⁰ Safety Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants, October 1977, Bundesanzeiger, No.206. Other relevant enactments include, the Model Rules for the Use of the State Collecting Facilities for the Radioactive Wastes in the FRG (1981) and the Decommissioning Guide (Draft, February 1995).   Return to text
⁸¹ Studemanne, F., Warning on Decommissioning Talks: German energy sector nuclear issue exposes fundamental differences between coalition partners, Financial Times, Dec. 24 1998, at p.2.   Return to text
⁸² Studemanne, F., Energy Bills Surcharge Mooted, Financial Times, Dec. 21 1998, at p.2.   Return to text
⁸³ Studemanne, F., Schroeder Discovers Nuclear Issue Still has Power to Divide, Financial Times, Dec.18 1998, at p.4.   Return to text
 

Go to top of page