European Decomissioning Document

EC Contract B4-3040/99/MAR/C2
Environmental Impact Assessment

for the Decommissioning of Nuclear
Installations
FINAL REPORT
Volume 3
Workshop Report
Cassiopee
The University of Wales, Aberystwyth
ECA Global
June 2001
Revised February 2002
Environmental Impact Assessment for the Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations
EC Contract B4-3040/99/136035/MAR/C2
Environmental Impact Assessment for the
Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations
FINAL REPORT
VOLUME 3 Workshop Report
Cassiopee:
M J Bussell (Nirex)
C P Haigh (Nirex)
P J O'Sullivan (Nirex)
M Braeckeveldt (NIRAS/ONDRAF)
S Vidaechea (ENRESA)
J Ziegenhagen (DBE)
and
J Palerm (ECA Global)
A J Bond (The University of Wales, Aberystwyth)
The report was reviewed by:

Cassiopee:
John Mathieson (Nirex)

Alvaro Beceiro (ENRESA)
Enrique Biurrun (DBE)
Hans Code (COVRA)
Jacques Tamborini (ANDRA)
Jean-Marie Deconinck (NIRAS/ONDRAF)
and
Lynda Warren (University of Wales Aberystwyth)
Bill Sheate (Imperial College)
EIAD Volume 3
June 2001
EIAD Volume 3
June 2001
Acknowledgements
The workshop organisers wish to thank DG Environment and DG Energy and

Transport for support in organising and running this workshop, and to all the
participants, especially those who acted as rapporteurs and facilitators.
EIAD Volume 3
June 2001
EIAD Volume 3
June 2001
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Report presents the results of a study concerned with Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) for the decommissioning of nuclear installations in European
Union Member States and in the Applicant Countries in Central and Eastern Europe.
The study, undertaken for the Environment Directorate General of the European
Commission, took place between January 2000 and March 2001 under contract
number B4-3040/99/136035/MAR/C2 entitled Environmental Impact Assessment for
the Decommissioning of nuclear Installations.
The study presents an analysis of the current situation in the European Union and in
the Applicant Countries, and develops guidance for applying the relevant Directives
for EIA to the specific issue of decommissioning nuclear installations although there
is also scope for application to other large or controversial projects.
The first part of the report (Volume 1) describes the current situation in the EU
Member States and Applicant Countries. On the basis of this status, the guidance
presented in Volume 2 was developed. Draft versions of these volumes were reviewed
by an independent review panel and were then subjected to detailed discussion and
debate at a Workshop held in Brussels in January 2001. The Workshop was attended
by more than 60 representatives of the nuclear industry, nuclear regulators, public
interest groups and EIA experts. Some minor changes were made following the
Workshop, a record of which can be found in Volume 3.
VOLUME 1
Legal Requirements and Guidance in the European Union
The requirements of the EIA Directives1 and of the relevant guidance2 on EIA
methodology provided by the European Commission are reviewed. Although the
existing guidance is necessarily of a general nature, the advice given (e.g. advice on
the assessment of indirect and cumulative impacts, European Commission (1999)) has
been taken into account in developing the guidance presented in Volume 2.
The report also examines the potential implications of two UN Conventions, the
Espoo Convention on EIA in a transboundary context (adopted in 1997) and the
Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision making
and access to justice in environmental matters (expected to come into force in 2001).
Consent Processes for Decommissioning in Member States
In the European Union the process of transposing the EIA Directive, as amended in
1997, into national legislation is still ongoing in a number of countries, including
Austria, Belgium, France, Germany and Italy; it has been completed in Denmark,
Finland, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK. It is likely that this process will
be completed by all Member States by the end of 2001.
Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment (European Commission, 1985), amended by Directive 97/11/EC (European
Commission, 1997).
Much of the existing guidance dates from 1996 and is being revised by DG Environment; an
interim report on the possible revisions to this guidance has been reviewed and taken into account
in this report.
EIAD Volume 3
June 2001
Page i
In all Member States a formal consent permit is required before decommissioning of a

nuclear facility can proceed. In most Member States, the permit is granted under
general nuclear or radiological protection legislation, with a requirement (usually
under different legislation) that an EIA is undertaken before consent can be given.
The EIA Process and Public Involvement in Member States
There is a range of approaches being taken in the countries studied to the question of
what the EIA process comprises. A key distinction is the extent to which there is a
formal scoping procedure to establish the issues that should be addressed by the EIA,
including consideration of alternatives. In the context of decommissioning, scoping
provides the first formal opportunity for public involvement in the EIA process,
although Member States have considerable discretion under the Directive as regards
the nature of public involvement throughout the process. In practice the approach
taken varies widely from one country to another.
Each of the participating countries must provide the European Commission with the
information required by Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, and would normally await a
formal Opinion from the Commission before giving consent to proceed with
decommissioning. In some countries (e.g. the UK) there is provision to proceed with
decommissioning without such an Opinion where issues of nuclear safety arise; in
such (exceptional) cases, consent to decommission could be granted except for
activities involving the generation of radioactive wastes.
Consent Processes for Decommissioning in Applicant Countries
In each of the countries for which information has been obtained there exists primary
legislation governing the safety of nuclear facilities. This legislation includes
requirements for specific consents to be obtained from relevant national authorities
before proceeding with decommissioning, generally requiring the preparation and
approval of a decommissioning plan for the nuclear facility. A formal EIA for
proposed decommissioning projects is at present only a requirement in some of the
Applicant Countries. However, legislation in all Applicant Countries is under review
with the aim of harmonisation with EU legislation, so it may be assumed that an EIA
will become a requirement before consent for decommissioning can be granted.
The EIA Process and Public Involvement in Applicant Countries
With the exception of Lithuania and the Slovak Republic, the EIA process envisaged
in the countries surveyed does not include a formal scoping phase. Public involvement
is therefore often limited to reviewing the EIS. On the basis of the information
obtained it appears that, for most countries, the provisions for public involvement in
the EIA process meet the minimum requirements in the 1997 EIA Directive. The lack
of provision for a scoping phase in most countries does mean that such involvement
will be of a limited nature. However, since almost all the Applicant Countries
surveyed have become signatories to the Aarhus Convention, their legislation in this
regard can be expected to change (along with the legislation of individual Member
States, and the EIA Directive itself) after the Convention comes into force.
Case Studies of Current Decommissioning Practices
There is limited experience of applying EIA to the decommissioning of nuclear power
reactors in either the EU or in the Applicant Countries. The study examined in detail
the approaches taken at three major NPPs currently undergoing decommissioning:
EIAD Volume 3
June 2001
Page ii
Trawsfynydd (UK), Greifswald (Germany) and Vandells 1 (Spain). In all cases

decommissioning work began before the requirements of the 1997 EIA Directive were
transposed into national legislation, and therefore the approaches for future
decommissioning projects in these countries are likely to be different in various
respects from the historical approaches recorded here. Removal of spent fuel from the
reactor was, in all cases, defined to be outside the decommissioning process, i.e. it
was regulated in the same way as fuel removal during reactor operation.
At Trawsfynydd, removal of spent fuel was completed in August 1995. Since that
time, early decommissioning activities, such as removal of uncontaminated plant,
have been under way in accordance with a decommissioning plan submitted to the
nuclear safety regulator. The EIA process for decommissioning was required because
of an associated application for development consent relating to use of the reactor
buildings for the continued storage of radioactive materials.
The process of developing the preferred strategy (deferred decommissioning) included
extensive consultations in the local community. This process was completed before it
was decided to undertake an EIA in connection with the application for development
consent. No formal scoping exercise was undertaken, though there were extensive
discussions between the developer and the local authority, and with local interest
groups, following submission of the EIS.
At Greifswald a licence to proceed with initial dismantling activities was granted in
June 1995 by the regional (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern) Ministry of the Environment.
It is not intended to incorporate a safestore phase in the overall programme. It was
agreed with the regional authority that EIA (though not then mandatory) would be
applied to specified phases of activity where it was considered that there could be a
significant environmental impact. Until now the requirement for a comprehensive EIA
has not been triggered for any of these activities.
The regional authority established an expert group to advise on all aspects of work at
the site. The work of this group, which includes representation by local interest
groups, is ongoing, though direct public involvement in the decision making process
at Greifswald has been very limited.
At Vandells 1, the EIS was submitted to the Competent Authority in August 1996
and consent to implement the deferred decommissioning strategy was granted by the
Ministry of Industry and Energy in January 1998. In March 1996 a summary of the
projects major characteristics had been submitted to the Competent Authority as well
as to the sectoral (i.e. nuclear) authority. In an extensive programme of consultation,
this summary was then sent by the Competent Authority to 110 groups likely to be
affected, including many local groups.
The process for selecting the preferred decommissioning strategy (involving a
safestore phase lasting about 30 years before commencing final demolition and site
restoration) was not part of the EIA process.
A significant factor in the perceived success of the EIS was the establishment by the
Mayors of the affected municipalities of a Commission involving representatives of a
wide range of local groups. The Commission has maintained an ongoing involvement
with activities at the plant.
For each of the NPP case studies it is evident that different approaches were taken,
particularly in relation to the involvement of the general public. The study also
EIAD Volume 3
June 2001
Page iii
considered best practice in the context of public participation by reviewing a number

of case studies both inside and outside the nuclear field. It was concluded that there
are likely to be significant benefits from involving the public early in the decision
making process, e.g. in reducing and avoiding potential conflicts and in arriving at
more robust decisions. These additional case studies demonstrated the importance of
two-way communication and of easy accessibility of relevant information. Examples
of different participatory processes are given in the report.
Role of EIA in NPP Decommissioning
The EIA process requires information to be provided on the main decommissioning
alternatives considered by the proponent and the reasons for the choice of the
preferred alternative, taking account of environmental effects (Article 5(3)). An
implication of this requirement is that the process for selecting the decommissioning
strategy is relevant to the adequacy of the overall EIA process. The considerations
relevant to the choice of alternatives also have significant implications for cost and
resource requirements, as well as for the overall adequacy of the EIA.
As regards the documentation required by different consent processes (relating to
nuclear safety and environmental protection) one option is for all documentation
relating to the safety, environmental and economic justification for a proposal to be
brought together in an hierarchical EIS, with detailed safety and environmental
assessments being part of the hierarchy, though focused on the specific requirements
relating to nuclear safety or environmental protection. Such an approach is favoured
by this study. It seems likely that a single consolidated document along these lines
would also fulfil the information requirements related to Article 37 of the Euratom
Treaty, which requires Member States to provide information relating to plans for the
disposal of radioactive waste.
Resource Requirements
The cost and resource implications of an EIA for NPP decommissioning are
influenced by a number of different factors, particularly:
the approach to scoping and selection of the preferred option for decommissioning
(e.g. whether one or more preferred options are taken forward for detailed
assessment);
the extent to which key impacts for assessment are identified during the scoping
phase, so that effort during the assessment phase can be concentrated on these;
and
the approach taken to public involvement.
It is difficult to separate costs relating to EIA and those relating to the licensing
process, e.g. safety assessments required by nuclear regulators provide much of the
information required in the EIS on impacts to human health. Considering only those
activities that are additional to those that will be required by the licensing process, the
typical cost of an EIA for a NPP decommissioning project is likely to be in the range
1m - 1.5m, though this figure may be increased significantly where information
obtained during plant operation cannot be relied on or where a significant programme
of environmental monitoring is required.
EIAD Volume 3
June 2001
Page iv
Based on current experience, the time needed for a full EIA for NPP
decommissioning is assumed to be in the range 1-3 years, depending in particular on
the time allowed for public consultation in the early scoping phase. The time needed
for detailed assessment work and preparation of the EIS is likely to be in the range 915 months, depending on the potential impacts and the extent to which earlier
assessments can be utilised.
VOLUME 2
Volume 2 presents guidance for undertaking an Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA) of proposals for the decommissioning of a nuclear power plant (NPP). Included
as an appendix is an example Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that illustrates
the scope and level of technical detail that would be expected (Appendix 2.1).
Additional appendices are provided that describe the background to and methods for
consultation and public participation (Appendix 2.2) and consider the differences
between NPP decommissioning and that for other nuclear installations, to assist the
application of this guidance to other facilities (Appendix 2.3).
Volume 1 noted the many differences between countries at both organisational levels
(e.g. systems of local government) and cultural and community levels (e.g.
communication networks and cultural norms). It has therefore not been possible to
prepare detailed prescriptive guidance on how to undertake an EIA of a nuclear
decommissioning project that would be applicable across all or even most EU
Member States and the Applicant Countries. The contents of Volume 2 should
therefore be viewed as general guidance, the application of which will require
flexibility in interpreting the needs of the decision-making bodies and the stakeholder
groups concerned.
At a number of points in this report specific methodologies, issues or alternatives have
been discussed. These have been included for illustrative purposes and should not be
taken to represent the best or the only way in which projects should be undertaken.
Indeed it is generally true that reliance on a single method, whatever that might be,
would be inappropriate and would risk overlooking important factors or options. A
range of methods, issues and alternatives must be considered at each point and
generally more than one must be selected for further application or development
unless a strong case can be made for a single one.
The EIA Process
An overview of the EIA process is given, with particular emphasis on stakeholder
consultation, as required by the EIA Directive itself and by the Aarhus Convention
(which is expected to come into effect in Member States and in most Applicant
Countries during the course of 2001.) Aspects of public consultation are considered in
detail in Section 3.
It is suggested that the scoping phase should have three main complementary aims:
promoting public involvement and enlisting public support for the proposals,
thereby minimising the risk of costly delays in the process;
selecting a preferred alternative from an initial range of options; and
focusing the detailed environmental and technical studies on the issues of most
relevance to the public and the decision makers.
EIAD Volume 3
June 2001
Page v
A key conclusion of the study is that specific attention should be given to scoping,
thus helping to ensure that the overall EIA process is undertaken in an efficient and
cost effective way. This should also increase the likelihood that the decommissioning
option(s) selected for detailed assessment will carry broad public support, a key
element in reducing EIA costs and timescales.
Consultation and Public Participation
The study concluded that consultation and public participation is best undertaken as
an integral part of the EIA process with elements being present in each of the broad
phases of the EIA process.
The participation of the public in the different stages of the EIA process is discussed
and various means of participation are presented for involvement in the screening,
scoping, review, decision and monitoring phases as well as methods for involvement
on an ongoing basis during the course of the impact evaluation studies.
Selection of Preferred Option(s) for Assessment
The study recommends that a preliminary qualitative assessment of feasible
alternatives be undertaken against selection criteria developed through a stakeholder
dialogue process. Those not meeting the selection criteria should be discarded and the
others scoped for potential environmental impacts. This process, undertaken in
conjunction with ongoing dialogue should be used to reduce the number of options to
one or a few preferred alternatives, as well as establishing the impact factors for
assessment.
The history, current status and anticipated future evolution of the NPP and associated
buildings should be investigated. This should include investigation and assessment of
the operating history, waste management practices and consequences of normal
operations and any non-routine events leading to environmental consequences. The
proposed development and the alternative options should be presented in terms of the
project plan, key activities, descriptions of the principal engineering works, waste
arisings, and the environmental situation at key stages such as completion of
dismantling of plant in buildings peripheral to the reactor building.
The key features of the alternatives must be defined, concentrating on those issues
identified as being significant in terms of the selection of alternatives for further
assessment. A record of design decisions, and the reasoning behind them should be
maintained. The justification for key decisions should be recorded in the EIS.
Baseline Description
The next issue addressed is the description of the current environmental situation,
taking into consideration the areas which may be affected by the possible impacts
(determined during the scoping phase). The various factors should be described in
terms of the current situation and in terms of the trend (e.g. whether air quality is
improving over time).
EIAD Volume 3
June 2001
Page vi
Identification and Assessment of Impacts

The identification of impacts that may affect the environment is addressed by
consideration of a list of environmental factors potentially affected. An example of
one approach for relating project activities and environmental factors is given in the
form of a matrix. Other methods should be adopted in addition to a matrix method to
ensure that all potentially significant impacts are addressed by the EIA process.
Impact Assessment
The process of impact assessment typically relies on the use of impact indicators,
which provide a measure of their significance. Impact indicators may be simple
environmental quality standards (e.g. statutory concentration limits for dust in air) or
may require more detailed and sometimes subjective analysis (e.g. analysis of the
change to the quality of the landscape). The selection and use of impact indicators
must be presented and discussed in detail. Environmental indicators must be justified
particularly where subjective criteria are used or where value judgements have been
made.
Prevention, Minimisation and Mitigation Measures
In undertaking the EIA measures must be identified to prevent, minimise or mitigate
the negative consequences of the development and to maximise the positive aspects.
The effects of these measures need to be taken into account in assessing the impacts
of the proposed development, with the residual impacts (those remaining even after
the mitigation measures) being clearly indicated.
Monitoring
The final area to be covered by the EIA is the specification of an ongoing monitoring
programme. This must meet a number of requirements including monitoring
compliance with health, safety and environmental criteria (e.g. statutory limits for
worker dose rates and limits for ambient noise levels) and also providing data to
compare the predicted environmental situation with the actual situation. It should also
ensure that the project (including prevention, minimisation and mitigation measures)
is implemented as agreed including any additional requirements placed upon the
developer by the competent authorities. Finally, the monitoring plan should be related
to the Environmental Management System established for the implementation of the
agreed decommissioning works, where such a system exists.
VOLUME 3
Volume 3 provides a record of the Workshop which was undertaken to present the
findings of the study, particularly the guidance presented in Volume 2 and the
Example EIS presented in Appendix 2.1.
Volume 3 and the associated Appendixes are intended to summarise the proceedings
of the workshop and do not aim to provide a detailed account of all of the discussions
that took place. The main text of Volume 3 summarises the discussions that took place
during the workshop and is based around the relevant rapporteurs presentations
(presented in detail in Appendix 3.3) and the ensuing discussions although points
raised in other session workgroups and plenary discussions are included where
appropriate. The aim is to give a good appreciation of the discussions and conclusions
of the Workshop.
EIAD Volume 3
June 2001
Page vii
Copies of the Workshop Programme (Appendix 3.1), texts of the invited presentations
(Appendix 3.2), bullet point summaries of the rapporteurs reports from the work
group sessions (Appendix 3.3), a list of attendees (Appendix 3.4) and the results of a
workshop evaluation survey (Appendix 3.5) are included at the end of the report.
REPORT REVIEW
In addition to the review by the Workshop participants this report has been reviewed
by the following experts who were independent of the Project Team:
Cassiopee:
John Mathieson, Nirex

Alvaro Beceiro, ENRESA
Enrique Biurrun, DBE
Hans Code, COVRA
Jacques Tamborini, ANDRA,
Jean-Marie Deconinck, NIRAS/ONDRAF
Lynda Warren, University of Wales Aberystwyth

and
Bill Sheate, Imperial College London
EIAD Volume 3
June 2001
Page viii
CONTENTS
WORKSHOP OVERVIEW .................................................................................1

1.1 Workshop Purpose and Objectives.....................................................................1
1.2 Workshop Mechanism and Content ...................................................................2
1.3 Structure of the Report .......................................................................................3
SUMMARY OF PLENARY DISCUSSIONS.....................................................5

2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................5
2.2 Methodologies for Impact Definition (Scoping) ................................................5
2.3 Definition of Alternatives...................................................................................5
2.4 Public Involvement During Scoping / Selection of Alternatives .......................6
2.5 Assessing Significance .......................................................................................8
2.6 Mitigation Measures and Impact Management ..................................................9
2.7 Structure of EIS and Methods for its Dissemination..........................................9
2.8 Role of EIA Process in the Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities................10
2.9 Public Involvement in EIA Process..................................................................12
2.10 Structure of EIS and Relationship to Nuclear Safety Documentation .............13
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................15

3.1 Conclusions ......................................................................................................15
3.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................15
APPENDIX 3.1:
WORKSHOP PROGRAMME
APPENDIX 3.2:
WORKSHOP PRESENTATIONS
APPENDIX 3.3:
RAPPORTEURS PRESENTATIONS OF WORKGROUP

SESSIONS
APPENDIX 3.4:
LIST OF WORKSHOP ATTENDEES
APPENDIX 3.5:
WORKSHOP EVALUATION SURVEY
EIAD Volume 3
June 2001
Page ix
EIAD Volume 3
June 2001
Page x
WORKSHOP OVERVIEW
1.1
Workshop Purpose and Objectives
The workshop was arranged to consider the draft findings of the study on
Environmental Impact Assessment for the Decommissioning of Nuclear
Installations, undertaken for Directorate General Environment (DG Env). The study
was undertaken by CASSIOPEE3, the EIA Unit of the University of Wales
(Aberystwyth) and ECA Global.
The workshop took place over two days from 22 to 23 January 2001 and was hosted
by the European Commission (DG Env). It was attended by nearly 60 invited
participants, including nuclear operators, nuclear safety regulators, EIA practitioners,
researchers and members of public interest groups. A number of representatives of the
Commission (DGXI and DGXII) also took part. The full list of attendees is given in
Appendix 3.4.
The Workshop considered the conclusions of the study on as presented in the draft
final report. The study has involved:
An examination of the national requirements for EIAs (EU Member States and EU
applicant countries with significant nuclear programmes), and implementation of
Directive 85/337/EEC and its amendment in the EU Member States;
An examination of consent procedures and the relationship of nuclear safety
documentation to an EIA;
Case studies of EIA and decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) and of
public involvement;
Production of best practice guidelines for carrying out an EIA of the
decommissioning of a NPP;
Production of a model EIA to illustrate the use of the best practice guidelines
developed;
Formulation of guidelines for good practice in the involvement of the public in the
EIA process for decommissioning NPPs.
The principal aims of the workshop were to:
(1) review the guidance presented in the draft report;
(2) review the proposed model EIA;
(3) consider the scope and content of the EIS and the relationship of the EIS to
nuclear safety documentation;
(4) consider the involvement of the public in the EIA process;
CASSIOPEE is a European Economic Interest Grouping formed by the radioactive waste

management agencies of six countries of the European Union: ANDRA (France), COVRA
(Netherlands), DBE (Germany), ENRESA (Spain), NIREX (United Kingdom) and
ONDRAF/NIRAS (Belgium).
EIAD Volume 3
June 2001
Page 1
(5) consider how the study's recommendations can be enhanced and disseminated.
This report presents a summary of the discussions that took place at the workshop and
incorporates the text of invited papers and details of the participants, together with the
Executive Summary of the final report of the project.
1.2
1.2.1
Workshop Mechanism and Content

Workshop mechanism
The workshop was structured around the main topics addressed by the study relating
to the EIA process, integration with other nuclear regulatory requirements, public
participation in the EIA process and the scope and content of the EIA Report. The
Workshop programme is given in Appendix 3.1. The meeting involved a combination
of plenary sessions and smaller workgroup sessions concentrating on specific tasks,
with the conclusions from the latter being considered in full session.
There were three main sessions over the two-day period. The first two sessions were
designated to stimulate discussion on various aspects of the main topic areas so as to
assist in the production of a detailed set of conclusions and recommendations during
the third session.
Specific objectives were defined in advance for each working group (see Appendix
3.1) and two members were designated as Facilitator and Rapporteur.
The Facilitator was given the responsibility of ensuring that the work group delivered
its set objective and, in conjunction with the rapporteur, that an adequate record was
made of the discussion.
The Rapporteur was expected to record the essence of the discussion that took place
in the working group, in order that:
(1)
a presentation on the conclusions reached could be given to other workshop

participants in the plenary sessions (Appendix 3.3); and
(2)
the main conclusions and issues could be summarised in this report.
The working groups were structured such that, over the workshop as a whole, each
participant worked closely with as many of the other participants as possible. This
approach was intended to ensure that there was an ongoing development of ideas
throughout the workshop.
The scheme involved each participant being allocated to one of nine colour-coded
groups. Each working group was then formed by a unique combination of three
colour-coded groups. With each colour grouping containing either 6 or 7 participants,
each workgroup about 20 participants.
1.2.2
Workshop Content
The first session was devoted to consideration of the study findings in relation to the
selection of alternatives and the scoping of the EIA. Particular areas of discussion
EIAD Volume 3
June 2001
Page 2
related to methodologies for scoping, the process of defining alternative

decommissioning proposals and the involvement of the public in the selection of
alternatives and during scoping.
The second session sought to address the issues of the assessment of impact
significance, mitigation measures and impact management and the structure of the
EIS and methods for its dissemination.
The final session aimed at developing overall conclusions and recommendations on
the role of the EIA process in nuclear decommissioning, the involvement of the public
in the EIA process and the structure of the EIS and its relationship to other nuclear
safety documentation.
1.3
Structure of the Report
This report is intended to summarise the proceedings of the workshop. It is not

intended as a detailed account of all of the discussions that took place, nor are
individuals identified with particular viewpoints or comments from those discussions.
Much of the content of the discussions can be found in Appendix 3.2 (Workshop
Presentations) and Appendix 3.3 (Rapporteurs Presentations of Workgroup
Sessions).
The main part of this volume summarises the discussions that took place during the
workshop and is based around the relevant rapporteurs presentations and the ensuing
discussions although where appropriate points raised in other session workgroups and
plenary discussions are included. The aim is to give a good appreciation of the
discussions and conclusions of the Workshop.
Copies of the Workshop Programme (Appendix 3.1), texts of the invited presentations
(Appendix 3.2), bullet point summaries of the rapporteurs reports from the work
group sessions (Appendix 3.3), a list of attendees (Appendix 3.4) and the results of a
workshop evaluation survey (Appendix 3.5) are included in at the end of the report.
EIAD Volume 3
June 2001
Page 3
EIAD Volume 3
June 2001
Page 4
2
2.1
SUMMARY OF PLENARY DISCUSSIONS

Introduction
This chapter is structured around the discussions in the plenary sessions which
followed the rapporteurs presentations of the conclusions of the nine workgroups.
There was a lot of repetition of points raised in the various workshops and for that
reason the discussions following some of the rapporteurs presentations were
comparatively brief.
2.2
Methodologies for Impact Definition (Scoping)
Session 1, Workgroup 1
Facilitator: Peter Dickenson
Rapporteur: Ana Yuncal Olea
It was recognised that there is a need to define decommissioning. It was proposed that
it should be understood as occurring "from shut-down to the point at which no more
licensing is required by the nuclear authorities". There was no specific agreement on
this.
The proposal that a discussion document should be prepared prior to scoping was
received favourably.
Someone commented that the report suggesting an ad hoc approach (i.e. to scoping)
was nive, as it assumed that no previous studies had been undertaken, which would
not usually be the case. However, it was agreed that, as all cases were different, an ad
hoc approach would be useful to modify previous experience to the new context.
The importance of defining the boundaries of the EIA and the decommissioning
project were recognised.
It was considered that the driving forces behind the decision to decommission are
important in defining the scoping methodologies. For example, was the decision to
decommission the result of a local or national referendum, an accident at the NPP or
was it part of the established plan for the NPP?
2.3
Definition of Alternatives
Facilitator: Luc Baekelandt
Rapporteur: Gbor Bacsk & Paul Haigh
The opinion of the workgroup that feasible engineering alternatives should be
changed to include costs and safety considerations was unanimously accepted on the
grounds that many things are technically feasible but would be impossible to finance
or would carry too great a risk for workers.
The point was made that there was no specific requirement to address the fundamental
need to not place an undue burden on future generations. The analysis and assessment
of alternatives must be undertaken in the light of this.
One delegate expressed the opinion that nuclear operators should not be required to
discuss alternatives with the general public or with any organisation other than the
EIAD Volume 3
June 2001
Page 5
nuclear regulatory authorities. The underlying point was that it is the responsibility of
the operator to plan and to implement. There was no support offered for this point of
view and the question of what would happen if the decision-making body did not
grant approval due to the force of public opinion was asked although not answered.
No conclusions were reached but it is important to note that this point of view was
expressed a number of times in relation to public involvement but without enlisting
vocal support.
Some issues associated with public involvement were raised including:
the problem of defining the extent of the public who should be allowed to
participate (the opinion of EIA experts was that the concerned public is
effectively a self-selecting group).
Public opinion not only varies between different groups but also changes over
time.
The political process cannot be avoided. The view was expressed without
opposition that good links with the local community and involvement in the
decisions regarding alternatives will protect the developer from many criticisms.
EIA in general and public involvement in particular can be viewed in one of two
ways: a chore imposed on an operator; or a process to obtain a broad consensus.
To be consistent with the latter it is important that early and full consultation and
public participation is undertaken, including the selection of alternatives.
It is important to realise that the public is to be invited to assist in the process but
the decision must remain with the operator. This is a point which appeared to gain
the approval of all delegates.
It must be noted that the guidance document (i.e. Volume 2) specifies the
involvement of stakeholders in the EIA process, not simply the public. The
different roles of certain stakeholders, especially those with a statutory role such
as the regulators, must be recognised.
2.4
Public Involvement During Scoping / Selection of Alternatives
Facilitator: Philip Moding
Rapporteur: Lutz Blank
A number of issues were discussed which are summarised in the following list:
The topics / issues which should be addressed at the scoping stage
The public affected and the definition of the relevant public (there being a separate
issue of those affected locally and others affected by, for example, transport)
When to involve the public
The outcome, realistically, of public participation
Techniques of involving the public
Initially a number of impacts which could be caused by nuclear power plant

decommissioning were discussed, and the following brief list was developed as a
EIAD Volume 3
June 2001
Page 6
discussion point: safety; employment; visual; air quality; ecology; health impacts;
cost; time.
Further detail was developed for the first of this list (e.g. safety) and a further list was
developed indicating what this particular impact meant: health impacts of employees;
public safety, both local and external to the site; nuclear safety; radiological safety;
industrial safety; transport.
This set the context for the following discussion.
The public affected and the definition of the relevant public
The workgroups response to this question was that the Spanish Circles (see the
presentation by Mari Vila dAbadal in Appendix 3.2) was one model which could be
adopted and could perhaps be used as a starting point for identifying the public. There
was a feeling that some groups were missing from this diagram that might be affected
by issues such as transport off-site. In addition, there was a view that relevant
stakeholders should be identified during the operational life of a reactor.
There was general consensus that the public should be involved as early as possible
and certainly before a decision was made. There were some concerns about the
resource constraints that would be imposed on operators in trying to involve a large
group of people in effective dialogue.
The outcome, realistically, of public participation
There was a feeling that public involvement is more than just providing information to
the public and should include the opportunity to influence the decision made,
otherwise it would not be a useful exercise for any of the parties involved. At the
same time, it was felt that the potential to influence decision making may be limited
because of a decision forced on operators by decommissioning strategies which have
already been funded.
There was little discussion on this point and there were no fundamental objections to
the techniques described in the study report. An example of a technique used in
Sweden was described whereby a local competence building is established where
people can visit and give their own views on issues.
The Timing of the EIA
It was considered that a decommissioning strategy should be part of an initial EIA in
the planning phase of a reactor. However, the common situation at present in some
countries is that a power plant exists and an EIA for decommissioning is necessary,
but a previous strategy for decommissioning has been funded by setting aside money
over a number of years. Thus the scope to discuss decommissioning alternatives was
potentially limited as more money to fund different alternatives was not available.
Complications such as this meant that the guidance would need to be flexible.
EIAD Volume 3
June 2001
Page 7
2.5
Assessing Significance
Facilitator: Jos L Revilla
Rapporteur: Klaus Schiffer
Issues to be taken into account by evaluating the impacts
The general aim of the EIA including the mitigation measures is to prove that
there are no additional burdens for future generations or that the remaining burden
is acceptable.
NPP decommissioning reduces the risk and possible impacts, particularly due to
the considerable lower activity inventory. Some new risks and impacts are
introduced but the overall risks and impacts will be lower.
The EIA is only a part of the licensing procedure on NPP decommissioning. The
legal regulations on NPP decommissioning require a detailed safety assessment of
decommissioning.
What impacts should be taken into account
All impacts of significance for groups or individual persons should be taken into
account, independent from the number of persons.
The impact assessment should include both technical issues and publicly sensitive
issues.
The impact assessment should include both impacts that have been assessed
during the operational licensing process and which are of significance for NPP
decommissioning and new impacts resulting from the decommissioning process.
Previous impact assessments should be reviewed in relation to changing natural
and technical conditions and legal requirements. In general the impact assessment
of decommissioning processes should be comparable with the assessment during
the operational licensing process.
Assessing process issues
The early determination of baselines4 is of importance. It should be noted that the

baselines can be different in different countries (for example clearance levels).
Nevertheless the baselines should comprise both the estimated actual levels and
the permissible limits of consequences.
Experiences of EIA for other projects should be used.
The development and enhancement of public competence by wide public

consultation and involvement is of importance for achieving public consent.
The term baseline is used here in reference to fundamental criteria and requirements rather than the
baseline for the assessment of the environmental impacts as described in Section 5 of Volume 2.
EIAD Volume 3
June 2001
Page 8
2.6
Mitigation Measures and Impact Management
Facilitator: Jana Burclov
Rapporteur: Lucien Teunckens
The mitigation measures could comprise:
advisory measures
preventative measures
corrective measures
monitoring, control and verification measures
The extent of apparent overlaps in documentation such as Safety Cases and EIS was
noted in discussion, with perhaps 95% of material in the latter appearing in the
former. The question was asked whether a single document was more appropriate but
it was noted that, in some countries, Safety Cases were not public documents. The
suggestion was further made that there was overlap with the Decommissioning Plan
and whilst multi-purpose documentation might not be feasible they should, as far as
possible, be consistent and co-ordinated information should be presented in related
documents.
In the case of a proposed 20 year Safestore project it was asked whether a dynamic
EIS might be possible. The delegates expressed the opinion that this would be
difficult and would add a new level of discussion. It was also noted that public
perception and opinion might change over the period, again requiring a re-evaluation
of environmental impact.
The workgroup recommendation that risk should be assessed deterministically rather
than probabilistically was explained: this recommendation was in relation to dealing
with low probability extreme events (seismic event, aircraft crash) and also where an
accidentally damaged facility was to be decommissioned.
2.7
Structure of EIS and Methods for its Dissemination
Facilitator: Sue Hall
Rapporteur: Hlmfridur Bjarnadttir
A number of questions were discussed by the group which were not related to the
workgroup subject. These questions were further discussed in the plenary session.
Should screening and scoping be included in the EIA process where these are not
required by national ;legislation? Yes because we are defining best practices rather
than analysing particular cases.
Who is "Public affected"? We should define the size and composition of the target
groups. Should we focus to each person? Interested groups? Not interested
groups?
EIAD Volume 3
June 2001
Page 9
Public could be interested in other aspects not considered, for example:

-
"Destination of wastes". Does it mean that we have to include all the

declassification process and clearance levels in the EIS? In general it should
be enough to refer to such things in a generic way that permit people to
understand what they want to know.
"History of the Plant" (License History, Background, pre-existing EIS, etc..).

This information should be included, at least in an Appendix Data (if it is very
voluminous).
"Radiological Inventory", include an estimation of radwastes in EIS. This

should be included in the EIS.
Should the EIA be undertaken before, after or in parallel to other studies such as
Safety Studies?
The methods of dissemination should be defined during the scoping phase.
Information must be made available in a range of forms (Internet, Cd-Rom, etc.)

and in a comprehensive manner to everybody. It is especially important to provide
a Non-Technical Summary.
Information must be made available in all the local languages.
It is necessary to analyse the longevity of data (Updating, etc.)
2.8
Role of EIA Process in the Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities
Facilitator: Jules Scholten
Rapporteur: Tony Free
Level of decision making
It was emphasised that this discussion was focussed on the project itself and not on
a more strategic level. It was clear that an SEA (strategic environmental
assessment) will become compulsory in the future but a directive for SEA has yet to
be agreed.
The following questions were raised
Can we make an EIA for decommissioning covering the whole decommissioning

period when this period covers more then 50 years and even 100 years, depending
on the strategy applied?
Can we make a decision on a decommissioning approach at the decision to

construct an new NPP, knowing that the time between construction an end of
operation could be 50 years or even more?
A solution to the time scale problem could be that the EIA is an ongoing process with
hold points during the decommissioning project. The risk in such an approach could
be that at a hold point, the remaining decommissioning activities could be stopped.
A delegate from a nuclear regulatory background indicated that in most countries, as
for the NPP operation licensing, the decommissioning licensing permit and EIA has
no well defined time scale but will be evaluated periodically (e.g. every 10 years).
EIAD Volume 3
June 2001
Page 10
For a deferred dismantling strategy, it is clear that the activities after the safestore
period will have to be performed under a specific license that will take into account
the regulations and practices applicable at that moment. To what extent a new EIA has
to be performed is not clear.
Procedure as a tool in the decision making
In general, the EIA should provide information to be able to make a decision.
Screening and scoping should be included.
A number of participants indicated that it was important that a timeline should be
included in the whole procedure. This timeline could protect the developer and could
prevent the process becoming very protracted and expensive.
It was suggested that time limits should be set for regulatory decisions. Most
probably, the project-management will have put forward his own time limits, so there
could be no need to impose time limits to the project-management.
Another possibility could be that, depending on the scale of the project, a timeline is
discussed with the regulators.
Examples of applicable procedures in two countries were presented:
Hungary: the process for decommissioning is a 2 step procedure: first a

preliminary study has to be performed. This study is followed by a detailed study
that has to be finalised in two years
UK: 3 processes are applicable:

-
An EIA for decommissioning has to be prepared and approved by the

regulator
Where new development is included (e.g. a waste store) an EIA for planning
permission has to be elaborated and approved by the regulator local planning
authority
EURATOM article 37 is also applicable.
Contents of EIA document
General remark: In volume II appendix 2.1. it could be understood by the reader

that immediate dismantling is the guideline for decommissioning. The text
should be adopted in a way that this model is only an example.
Specific comments:
-
The EIA should put more emphasis on sustainability, recycling/re-use,

clearance levels.
The EIA should focus on relevant aspects that are related to the
decommissioning activities itself.
Furthermore, an EIA covering the whole decommissioning period for a NPP where a
deferred dismantling strategy is applied should be more quantitative for operations
that are performed in a period of some 10 years. As the environment for periods after
some 10 years could be changed, the EIA covering this later period should be more
and more qualitative the longer the decommissioning period.
EIAD Volume 3
June 2001
Page 11
Finally, in the social-economic part of the EIA, the aspect of intergenerational equity
could be dealt with: Why wait to do something later (deferred dismantling) if we
could do the job now (immediate dismantling)?
2.9
Public Involvement in EIA Process
Facilitator: Simon Webster
Rapporteur: Magda Tth Nagy
The work group discussions had focused on six main issues:
Traceability of public comments a key conclusion being that the EIS should
make reference to inputs from the public and how these had been addressed in the
environmental assessment process
Who should be informed and through what methods information at appropriate

levels of detail and using a variety of means should be provided to everyone
interested in a decommissioning project.
Role of the regulator it was suggested that the nature of the role of regulatory
agencies was changing, whereby in future regulators would have closer contact
with the general public including providing independent advice on issues raised by
the public.
Funding for public involvement it was suggested that there should be funding
provision for affected communities (e.g. through local government
administrations) to participate in EIAs for decommissioning projects.
Increasing public interest it was noted that public interest was likely to be
focused on issues relating to local employment, transportation and waste
management; nonetheless, efforts should be made to encourage public
participation in the EIA process as a whole.
The benefit of public involvement a range of views were expressed reflecting

current practices and cultural contexts in different countries, with a spectrum of
views of there being small to significant benefits.
During the brief plenary session following the work group presentation there was
discussion of the issue of the funding for public involvement in particular. In some
countries (e.g. in Sweden) local authorities and public interest groups have access to
public funds to facilitate their participation in the project evaluation process. In other
cases there is indirect support, such as the provision of office facilities for public
interest groups. It was suggested that an important consideration was the extent to
which there was close involvement by the regulator, at early of the evaluation process.
Where the regulator was involved only at later stage there was a greater need for
independent sources of technical advice to be made available
EIAD Volume 3
June 2001
Page 12
2.10 Structure of EIS and Relationship to Nuclear Safety Documentation

Facilitator: Manfred Schrauben
Rapporteur: Jan Carlsson
The discussions following the presentation of the findings of this workgroup were
restricted to consideration of the scope for rationalising the scope and contents of the
principal regulatory documents: the EIS, the Safety Case and the Article 37
submission. It was acknowledged by all that there was considerable overlap but
opinions varied on the desirability of a single document to serve all purposes. The
final conclusion which achieved a compromise acceptable to all delegates was that
underlying reports (e.g. radiological assessments, radionuclide inventory) could be
appended to the reports as necessary to ensure consistency. This will ensure that the
documents are based on the same information but leaves the authors free to adapt the
content of the documents to suit the particular needs of the decision-makers and
stakeholders.
EIAD Volume 3
June 2001
Page 13
EIAD Volume 3
June 2001
Page 14
3
3.1
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions
Guidance at this level cannot be prescriptive. Flexible application of the guidance

will be necessary to adapt it to the particular technical, environmental and
regulatory situations of each particular project.
Given that an environmental impact assessment must be undertaken for a nuclear

power plant decommissioning project it is important to establish an overall
approach that will encourage an efficient and effective decision making process.
There is a range of stakeholders who will be involved in the EIA process, not least
the general public. It will be of great benefit to the overall decision-making
process if the stakeholders, including the general public, are involved early on in
the process and in an effective way. (There was one delegate who expressed the
view that the nuclear operating company which he represented would be unable to
agree with this.)
Early and effective involvement is required by the Aarhus Convention.
A formal scoping stage is fundamental to ensuring a good EIA. Scoping must

therefore be undertaken at the earliest stage.
The selection of alternative decommissioning strategies must take account of

financial and safety consideration as well as engineering and environmental
factors.
There are potential problems with the involvement of stakeholders as envisaged

by the guidance. These must be recognised and ways to overcome them must be
sought without limiting the scale or scope of the involvement.
The example EIS is a useful guide to the scope of an EIA and the contents of an
EIS. It may be used as a starting point but care must be taken to not be constrained
by it.
The EIA and EIS must be co-ordinated with other elements of the regulatory
systems in order to ensure consistency and minimise duplication of effort.
3.2
Recommendations
The need for flexibility in the application of the guidance must be stated more
clearly.
Stakeholder definition must include consideration of the role of each stakeholder

group in the decision making process.
The Guidance must discuss some of the potential problems associated with public
consultation.
The EIA must address the management of materials and waste, including
recycling and reuse.
EIAD Volume 3
June 2001
Page 15
FINAL REPORT
APPENDIX 3.1 Workshop Programme
Cassiopee:
P OSullivan (Nirex)
and
A J Bond (The University of Wales)
EIAD Appendix 3.1
June 2001
EIAD Appendix 3.1
June 2001
Workshop: Environmental Impact Assessments for Decommissioning

of Nuclear Facilities
European Commission Offices, Beaulieu, Brussels, 22 & 23 January 2001
Objectives of Workshop
The Workshop will consider the conclusions of the study on Environmental impact
assessment for decommissioning of nuclear installations, as presented in the draft
final report. The study has involved:
An examination of the national requirements for EIAs (EU Member States and EU
applicant countries with significant nuclear programmes), and implementation of
Directive 85/337/EEC and its amendment in the EU Member States;
An examination of consent procedures and the relationship of nuclear safety
documentation to an EIA;
Case studies of EIA and decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) and of
public involvement;
Production of best practice guidelines for carrying out an EIA of the
decommissioning of a NPP;
Production of a model EIA to illustrate the use of the best practice guidelines
developed;
Formulation of guidelines for good practice in the involvement of the public in the
EIA process for decommissioning NPPs.
The principal aims of the workshop will be to:
(1) review the guidance presented in the draft report;
(2) review the proposed model EIA;
(3) consider the scope and content of the EIS and the relationship of the EIS to
nuclear safety documentation;
(4) consider the involvement of the public in the EIA process;
(5) consider how the study's recommendations can be enhanced and disseminated.
Key
The following terms are used in the workshop programme:
Officials = a delegate from the European Commission or a national government
Public = a delegate representing a public interest group or political body
Regulator = delegate representing a nuclear safety regulator
Operator = delegate representing a nuclear facility operator
Expert = delegate invited with EIA, public participation or decommissioning expertise
EIAD Appendix 3.1
June 2
Page 1
WORKSHOP PROGRAMME
MONDAY, 22 JANUARY 2001
9:00-9:15
Registration
9:15-9:30
Introduction to Workshop
John Mathieson and Derek Taylor
SESSION 1 EIA Process and Decommissioning Part 1: Alternatives & Scoping

9:30-10:30
Plenary Session
9:30-9:50
EIA for Controversial Projects
9:50-10:10
Methodologies for determining alternatives and defining the scope of

an EIA
Alan Bond
10:10-10:30
Public perspective on public participation
Jules Scholten
Mari Vila dAbadal
10:30-11:00 Coffee
11:00-12:30 Work Groups on EIA process and decommissioning Part 1
1.
Methodologies for impact definition (scoping)

Objective: to make recommendations on the impact definition
methods which should be used in scoping
2.
Definition of alternatives
Objective: to consider the effectiveness of the suggested
approach for determining the decommissioning alternative
3.
Public involvement during scoping / selection of alternatives

Objective: to make recommendations on the level of public
participation needed and the techniques which might be
appropriate
EIAD Appendix 3.1
June 2
Page 2
12:30-13:30 Lunch
13:30-14:30 Plenary Discussion on EIA process and decommissioning Part 1
Presentations by Rapporteurs from each Work Group and general discussion
14:30-15:00 Coffee
SESSION 2 EIA Process and Decommissioning Part 2: Impact Assessment,
Mitigation & Monitoring
15:00-16:15 Plenary Session
15:00-15:20
Consultation and Public Participation in the Vandells NPP

Decommissioning Decision Making Process Josep Castellnou Barcel
15:20-15:40
Model EIA and EIS structure for Nuclear Power Plant

decommissioning
Sergio Vidaechea
15:40-16.00
Guidelines for public participation in EIA of NPP decommissioning

projects
Juan Palerm
16:00-16:15
Electronic methods for dissemination of the EIS
Magda Tth Nagy
16:15-17:45 Work Groups on EIA process and decommissioning Part 2

1.
Assessing significance
Objective: to make recommendations on how best to evaluate
impacts
2.
Mitigation measures and impact management

Objective: to make recommendations on how best to deal with
identified impacts
EIAD Appendix 3.1
June 2
Page 3
3.
Structure of EIS and methods for its dissemination

Objective: to make recommendations on the most appropriate
structure for an EIS and on the most effective means for its
dissemination
TUESDAY, 23 JANUARY
9:00-10:30
Plenary Discussion on EIA process and decommissioning Part 2

10:30-11:00 Coffee
SESSION 3 Overall Conclusions and Recommendations on how these can best be
Disseminated
11:00-12:30 Work Groups on overall conclusions and recommendations and
how these can best be disseminated
1.
Role of EIA process in the decommissioning of nuclear

facilities
Objective: to draw overall conclusions and make
recommendations on the model EIA process
2.
Public Involvement in EIA Process Magda Tth Nagy

recommendations on how public involvement in the EIA
process for decommissioning of nuclear facilities could be
improved
EIAD Appendix 3.1
June 2
Page 4
3.
Structure of EIS and Relationship to Nuclear Safety

Documentation
recommendations about the structure of the EIS and its
relationship with nuclear safety documentation
12:30-13:30 Lunch
13:30-15:30 Plenary discussion on overall conclusions and recommendations
and how these can best be disseminated
15:30-15:45 Close of Workshop
John Mathieson and Derek Taylor
15:45-16:00 Coffee
EIAD Appendix 3.1
June 2
Page 5
WORK GROUPS
Yellow group
Blue group
White group
Simon Webster
Ana Yuncal Olea
Katarina Pavlikov
Peter Dickenson
Jana Burclov
Irena Buciunaite
Patrick OSullivan
Derek Taylor
Mari Vila d'Abadal
Luc Baekelandt
Edouard Bauer
Ernst Warnecke
Borut Fajt
Mark Bussell
Patrick Vanckerckoven
Philip Moding
Jeroen Welbergen
Tony Free
Maks Penik
tefan Palgyi
Alan Bond
Red group
Green group
Brown group
Susannah Bras Santos

Manfred Schrauben
Jos Revilla
Duan Krsny
Ivana Davidov
Juan Palerm
Jan De Mulder
Josep Barcel Castellnou
Ivo Tripputi
Gbor Bacsk
Tzvete Delcheva
Paul Haigh
Emilio Garcia
Berit Balfors
Hlmfridur Bjarnadttir
Hkan Sterner
Sergio D'Offizi
Lutz Blank
Sergio Vidaechea
Black group
Grey group
Pink group
Hkan Wingren
Jules Scholten
Ferenc Lrnd
Sue Hall
Stanislaw Szipilowski
Marnix Braeckveldt
Claudio Pescatore
Magda Tth Nagy
Klaus Schiffer
Jeff Smith
Arnis Ezergailis
Jrgen Ziegenhagen
Sheila Twidle
Lucien Teunckens
Jan Carlsson
Henno Putnik
Daniela Dogaru
John Mathieson
Attendance at workgroups will be as follows:

Session
1
Workgroup
Workgroup 1 salle A
Workgroup 2 salle B
Workgroup 3 salle C
Workgroup 1 salle A
Workgroup 2 salle B
Workgroup 3 salle C
Workgroup 1 salle A
Workgroup 2 salle B
Workgroup 3 salle C
Colour attending
Yellow
Blue
White
Red
Green
Brown
Black
Grey
Pink
EIAD Appendix 3.1
Red
Green
Brown
Grey
Pink
Black
Green
Yellow
Red
Black
Grey
Pink
White
Yellow
Blue
White
Brown
Blue
June 2
Page 6
FINAL REPORT
APPENDIX 3.2 Workshop Presentations
Cassiopee:
EIAD Appendix 3.2
M J Bussell (Nirex)
June 2001
EIAD Appendix 3.2
June 2001
CONTENTS
1
EIA FOR CONTROVERSIAL PROJECTS, JULES SCHOLTEN ...............1
2
METHODOLOGIES FOR DETERMINING ALTERNATIVES AND
DEFINING THE SCOPE OF AN EIA, ALAN BOND.............................................8
3
PUBLIC PERSPECTIVE ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MARI VILA
DABADAL.................................................................................................................13
4 CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FOR THE
DECOMMISSIONING OF VANDELLS 1 NPP, JOSEP CASTELLNOU
BARCEL ..................................................................................................................19
5 MODEL EIA AND EIS STRUCTURE FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
DECOMMISSIONING, SERGIO VIDAECHEA...................................................30
6
GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN EIA OF NPP
DECOMMISSIONING PROJECTS, JUAN PALERM.........................................33
7 ELECTRONIC METHODS FOR DISSEMINATION OF THE EIS,
MAGDA TTH NAGY .............................................................................................35
EIAD Appendix 3.2
June 2001
Page i
EIAD Appendix 3.2
June 2001
Page ii
EIA FOR CONTROVERSIAL PROJECTS, JULES SCHOLTEN
Jules Scholten has a MSc degree in geography and soil science (1966). During a period of
fifteen years he worked with rural development projects in various developing countries
in Asia and the Caribbean with the UN and the Netherlands bilateral assistance
programme. When working in these countries he appreciated the weak position of the
environment in decision-making and hence the need to improve that situation. In 1982
Jules took up the position of director of the Commission for EIA in The Netherlands.
This Commission has a legal role as independent advisor of competent authorities in all
EIA procedures in The Netherlands. Additionally, this Commission advises the minister
for development co-operation on matters related to EIA for developments projects and
programmes.
EIAD Appendix 3.2
June 2001
Page 1
EIA for controversial projects
by Jules Scholten
Commission for EIA in the Netherlands
Prepared for the workshop on EIA for

Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities
Brussels, 22 23 January 2001
EIAD Appendix 3.2
June 2001
Page 2
What is a controversial project?

A project trying to solve a problem that raises considerable
public interest with conflicting views about how to solve that
problem.
Therefore, the rationale and objective of such a project are
questioned by some stakeholders.
Mostly, controversy arises when a government identifies a problem at
the strategic level of decision making and designs specific projects to
solve that problem without sufficient participation of the public.
Projects concerning Nuclear Facilities and the handling of radioactive
waste are always controversial due to different perceptions of
the related environmental impacts and health risks.
Decision making about controversial projects covers a wide
range of decisions from strategic to the project level.
The chain of decision making can be illustrated with three questions:
What approach should be followed and what method is best suited
to solve the problem?
Where can the best place be found to solve the problem?
How can the preferred approach be best implemented at the
selected site?
EIAD Appendix 3.2
June 2001
Page 3
The first two questions cover strategic issues and should be

addressed with the help of Strategic Environmental Assessment
(SEA).
The third question concerns project issues and must be addressed
with the help of project EIA.
Concerning environmental assessment for decommissioning nuclear
power plants (NPPs) the what, where and how questions can be
specified as follows:
What?
At the national level government decides in its strategic energy
plan what portion of the demand for energy will be provided by
NPPs.
The strategic energy plan determines the design lifetimes of the
NPPs and must include a decommissioning strategy and
radioactive waste management plan for temporary storage or
definitive removal of all contaminated structures and components.
Where?
The strategic energy plan determines where the NPPs will be
located and therefore where decommissioning must take place
upon expiry of their design lifetimes.
Also, there must be a strategic decision where the residual
radioactive waste is stored temporarily or deposited permanently.
EIAD Appendix 3.2
June 2001
Page 4
How?
Technical alternatives for implementing decommissioning include:
decontamination and dismantling leading to free release of the
NPP area for any particular land use;
safe storage for an extended period of time to allow decay of
radioactivity followed by decontamination, dismantling and free
release;
entombment for an unrestricted period of time.
These alternatives are affected by the existence of central storage
facility for residual radioactive waste.
Frequently, environmental assessment is only carried out at the
project level when the important decisions about the approach and
the site have been made already without any involvement of third
parties and the public.
This is known as the Father knows best approach.
This adversely affects the controversial character of the projects.
EIAD Appendix 3.2
June 2001
Page 5
EXPERIENCE IN THE NETHERLANDS
No SEA was carried out for the decisions to construct and

operate the two NPPs in the Netherlands. That decision was
made before EIA became obligatory.
Consequently, no SEA was carried out for the strategy on
decommissioning the NPPs.
A project EIA has been carried out for decommissioning of the

NPP Dodewaard.
During the scoping the preferred alternative was safe storage for
40 years to be followed by decontamination and dismantling. The
two other options (instant decontaminating dismantling and
entombment) were also recognised as realistic alternatives.
The EIS presented a different set of alternatives:

(1)
instant decontamination and dismantling
(2)
safe storage for between 40 and 100 years to be followed

by either dismantling or permanent entombment.
Alternative (2) is preferred. Another EIA will have to be carried

out later to decide on the step following safe storage.
The review has been completed but the decision still must be
made.
The anti-NPP lobby did not care much about the way
decommissioning will take place: they are satisfied that one of
the two NPPs has closed down.
The local government favours instant decontamination and

dismantling, releasing the area for any kind of land use.
EIAD Appendix 3.2
June 2001
Page 6
CONCLUSIONS
Tiered decision making with environmental assessment: SEA
followed by project EIA;
consideration of alternatives at all levels answering the what,
where and how questions;
consideration of a wide range of impacts including the nonradiological and social impacts;
open process and early public participation (stakeholder
dialogue), i.e. starting in the scoping phase and continuing in the
reviewing phase (according to the Aarhus Convention).
Extra:
Independent reviewing of EISs to avoid sweetheart statements
and to safeguard the quality of the decision making.
EIAD Appendix 3.2
June 2001
Page 7
METHODOLOGIES FOR DETERMINING ALTERNATIVES

DEFINING THE SCOPE OF AN EIA, ALAN BOND
AND
Alan Bond has a degree in environmental science and a PhD in the field of volcanology.
This latter qualification was used to good effect in persuading Mars Confectionery that
chocolate and lava have similar flow properties and hence they employed him in their
research and development division in the UK. After three years at Mars, Alan resumed
his career in the environmental field and has been lecturing on environmental impact
assessment at the University of Wales Aberystwyth since 1992. His main duties involve
co-ordinating a distance-learning Masters programme in EIA, although many research
and consultancy projects are undertaken - the latest one being the study of national EIA
requirements in EU Member States and applicant countries which comprises a part of the
study discussed in the April workshop.
EIAD Appendix 3.2
June 2001
Page 8
Environmental Impact Assessment for

Methodologies for determining alternatives and
defining the scope of an EIA
Methodologies for determining alternatives

and defining the scope of an EIA
Where we are in the EIA process (Volume 2 page 14)
Alternatives and scoping
Sources of advice / information
Methods
EIAD Appendix 3.2
June 2001
Page 9
Alternatives and scoping

Alternatives
Identification of most appropriate decommissioning stage
Identification of most appropriate decommissioning activities
Scoping
Identification
alternative(s)
of
significant
impacts
associated
with
preferred
Feasible engineering
alternatives outlined
Identify
stakeholders
All stakeholders listed in a single public

document with contact details
4
Decision-making
procedures and criteria
described and agreed
6
5
Alternatives not meeting

decision-making criteria
rejected
Remaining alternatives scoped

for impacts by independent
consultants
Information provided to
public regarding
decision-making criteria
to be adopted and the
alternatives to be
examined further
Draft scoping
report
Discussion and agreement of scoping

report by all stakeholders at a scoping
meeting and decision on preferred
alternative(s)
10
Final scoping report including decision

on alternative(s) chosen for further study
EIAD Appendix 3.2
June 2001
Page 10
Sources of advice / information

Technical
Political
Social
Methods
Ad hoc
Checklists
Matrices
Networks
Example Network Diagram

(Impacts of Marine Dredging)
EIAD Appendix 3.2
June 2001
Page 11
Example of a Leopold Matrix
EIAD Appendix 3.2
June 2001
Page 12
PUBLIC PERSPECTIVE ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATIONMARI VILA

DABADAL
Mariano Vila d'Abadal is General Manager and Secretary of the Group of European
Municipalities with Nuclear Facilities (GMF). He obtained a Bachelor of Laws at
Barcelona University, followed by a Bachelor's Degree in Institutional Relations and
Public Management of the European Union by the European Centre for Public Affairs
in Brussels (Templeton College, Oxford), and a Master's degree in Local
Administration. He is General Manager and Secretary of AMAC (Association of
Spanish Municipalities with NPP). And a member of the International Nuclear Law
Association as well as of the Spanish Environmental Law Association.
He took part and organised several international conferences related to the subject of
the environment and nuclear facilities in Spain as well as in other European countries
including Hospitalet de l'Infant (Spain), 1993; Belleville sur Mer (France), 1994;
Oskarsham (Sweden), 1995; Obrihaim (Germany), 1996; Madrid (Spain), 1998;
Brussels (Belgium), February 2000.
"Good morning.
As the chairman said, I am the general secretary of the Spanish municipalities with
NPPs and member of the staff of GMF (Group of European municipalities with
NPPs). So, I have some experience in the management of local interest in the nuclear
world, whether in the relations with other administrations at national or international
level or with the social agents who take part in these issues.
First of all, I would like to thank the organisation of this workshop for this
opportunity to express the opinion, the feeling, of local authorities in relation to
nuclear security or radiological protection.
The nuclear policies of the most important countries are anyhow influenced by the
evolution of the public opinion and have experimented strong changes together with
political evolution. The future of nuclear power plants in some important countries is
doubtful, as for the case of Sweden, Germany, Spain, Holland, Belgium, etc.
The large democratic discussions that affect permanently our society, as well as the
new society of information that is being implanted, have turned the decision making
processes into what is referred to as public participation and transparency, especially
when these affect the environment or the immediate future of the citizens.
The installation policies of nuclear plants are very similar in all the countries. Most of
them are located in low density population areas, with low activity rate and high rate
of elder people. These territories have many water resources, low communication
infrastructure level, etc. So the typographic aspects of the European municipalities are
alike (in Eastern Countries as well).
Nuclear energy whose existence is sometimes called in question by press media,
citizens and inhabitants, needs full agreement within the territory in order to work at
its best. Moreover, the territory on which the plant is installed must have the
necessary means of infrastructure (development from a social and economic point of
view) as well as the clues for its future and for a new positive reality as far as the
EIAD Appendix 3.2
June 2001
Page 13
citizens are concerned in order to face the corresponding challenges.

Having got to this point, a territorial debate should be focused on the balance between
the states general interest and the local one since normalised operation in nuclear
facilities, including decommissioning is and will only be possible in a context of
mutual respect.
The new European political map and the last governmental decisions in energetic
strategies grant more value to the opinion of the local authorities on the territories
affected by these facilities. So, in order to express their opinion, these authorities
should gather within a European forum where the communication would become
much more fluent.
With this goal the European Municipalities created the GMF, a group of
municipalities which think that they have to take part in decision making process in
order to defend any interest dealing with the people living in nuclear territories.
The will of GMF is to work together in favour of the security and the quality of life,
which means socio-economic progress for their citizens. The municipalities wish to
stay away from the general and typical debate about yes or no to nuclear energy.
once we have reached this point we must define our main objectives: security and
socio-economic development. nevertheless all our efforts will be useless if we do not
consider the main instrument to get information and transparency in the process, I
mean participation.
SECURITY
In the surrounding of NPP, as in other risk facilities, the perception of security
depends on two factors: information (the way decommissioning activities are carried
out , who is in charge, how information is being spread,...) and the measures to be
taken into account in case of emergency.
However a previous factor, the confidence, affect all the processes and has to be
considered before talking about the other two factors. The most important challenge is
to gain a certain level of confidence among the different agents taking part in nuclear
debates, if success is needed when looking for future nuclear sites, decommissioning
activities or any event related.
If we want to obtain peoples trust we have to work respecting two principles:
First, in order to work directly on the territory one must be involved in everyday life.
The idea is that nuclear issues are very wide, very special and also very technical with
a very specific language.
There is a certain kind of anxiety among people when a nuclear facility is built or
decommissioned. If people are not well informed, their anxiety may provoke
suspicion. Even more, the people responsible for reporting about nuclear aspects
among the population must become regular members of the community and get
involved in normal events of everyday life. If so, confidence is given a chance to
grow.
The second item would be that information should be reported on a regular basis. If
we are used to explain what it is going on within the daily nuclear operations,
EIAD Appendix 3.2
June 2001
Page 14
avoiding unnecessary technical terms, it should not be a problem to communicate any

information concerning nuclear activities and obtain peoples trust.
Information:
In order to ensure information reporting, we must consider two aspects: transparency
and participation in the decision making process.
Transparency
First condition, the transparency is the opposite to opacity and it is based on mutual
confidence. Transparency has to run in two directions. So, whoever gives information
has to tell the truth but, at the same time, whoever receives it has to believe what they
listen to. Otherwise it would be a nonsense dialog.
Second condition, information has to be available. Everybody should be able to access
all the information and use it to defend their legitimate objectives.
And the third condition must be to tell the truth instead of trying to convince either the
anti-nuclear or the pro-nuclear part. Citizens like the truth not what is tendentious.
Local authorities avoid debates about yes or no to nuclear energy, because while we
argue in these sterile debates we forget to talk about what is going on with the future.
The content of the information is very important. Sometimes we would like people to
learn what they, however, aren't interested in, specially when we talk about nuclear
matters. They want to find somebody to trust but not to understand boring technical
aspects.
PARTICIPATION
How can we put these ideas into practice? How can we make sure that in nuclear
territories people will not be against the decommissioning activities or, at least, that
they will listen to the information about what is going on?
Everybody with some kind of responsibility in the nuclear field should try to find
answers to these questions, but the main idea is that the solution is in the co-operation
among whoever is concerned directly or indirectly with the nuclear world.
The public's will of participating in the decision making process has increased
progressively and this fact has conditioned each national legislation. Most of the
industrial countries have been taking this fact into account in their legislation
contents. A basic movement has emerged and it aims at allowing the public to a
participation in the decisions, for example in relation to the use of this energy (thanks
to a system of previous debates or during the authorisation process), following the
best possible procedure and through representation mechanisms according to the texts
of the Law. Why not opening a regulated participation plan concerning the
information about decommissioning activities?
In fact, many western countries have already integrated some of these principles in
their legislation, allowing the public representatives to be informed as well as
consulted and in many cases authorised to participate directly in the decision making
processes in relation to the development of nuclear issues.
The solutions adopted by some states concerning the public's participation in the
successive stages of the decisions - legislative, regulation or administrative - depend
EIAD Appendix 3.2
June 2001
Page 15
directly on their political regime, on their constitution and in particular on the

structure and the participation of the local authorities as well as on the social and
psychological context.
Today all the countries (even Eastern countries) admit that the public should play a
role, direct or indirect, in the nuclear policy elaboration or at least in its settings,
although a direct participation still constitutes an exception. There are, of course,
notable differences in the setting modalities in relation to this participating principle,
clearly due to the constitutional, political or social traditions, sometimes old, and also
due to the fact that the public sensitivity to nuclear risk differs from a country to
another. These differences may also imply different forms and mechanisms, as well as
various participation degrees in the definitive decision.
When we ask for participation we are actually asking for co-operation, because local
authorities and the citizens on their territories are directly involved in the future of
nuclear energy. We are used to hearing a lot of opinions about nuclear energy, above
all when someone argues whether to close or not a NPP, as if NPPs were only an idea
and didn't affect people, families, jobs, etc. In order to face this, we need to take part
in all the forums where our future is debated, and we also need efficient systems to
guarantee some basic knowledge of the reality in our areas.
The first step towards this should be an agreement among members of international
organisms in order to ensure the participation in all the countries where nuclear
energy exists.
It is very important to introduce the idea of local democracy into the operation of
nuclear facilities, because it is the way to involve the inhabitants of these areas in the
future of this kind of industry and to spread the feeling of security among people.
At the same time, we have to create concrete participation systems in order to allow
municipalities and social representatives to take part in the decision making process
and to receive permanent information about their nuclear installation or about the
general debates concerning the future of nuclear energy.
Currently, the most successful experience is the Local Information/ Security
Commissions created at local level in some countries. With this tool, local authorities
and other opinion leaders keep in touch with the actual situation as far as security and
radioactive control are concerned and, at the same time, citizens receive information
from their most direct representatives. It is an example of creating confidence among
people who live in the surrounding of nuclear facilities.
There are other situations where participation takes place. The most common is the
possibility to express opinions at certain periods of the authorisation procedures. In
these cases the system changes from one country to another, oscillating from a simple
publication of the project in the state bulletin to a referendum with general
participation.
As a representative of GMF, I would like you to give attention to the fact that not all
the countries in western Europe have the right method to guarantee a real local
democracy in nuclear procedures.
EIAD Appendix 3.2
June 2001
Page 16
Before starting our second pillar, I would like to put together some very short ideas.
-
The information has to be trustworthy, permanent, timely and opened to

everyone.
It is necessary to create local information agencies with the participation of all

the agents involved, even those whose activity is related to nuclear facilities.
Decision making process has to forecast the real possibility for the population and
their representatives to take part in it and express their opinion in order to have
some influence on the final decision.
Local authorities have to accept the information that they receive and transmit it
to the citizens on their own decision or on peoples request.
Local authorities should take part in organisms of participation but also safeguard
their citizens participation.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
The second pillar of our model are the socio-economic activities. There is a need to
work simultaneously on both security and socio-economic approaches.
From the socio-economic point of view we must consider that there will be no
confidence unless we look for the peoples social and economical future. Future
means that alternative economy should replace the economy being lost by the
decommissioning activities.
In that confidence climate people need to get results. Otherwise the confidence looses
strength. People should contribute by participating in any decision being made by the
authorities in charge. The population must feel that all kind of policies carried out
within their territory are focused on them and on their future.
Therefore we have connected both strategic working lines: participation and social
economic activities.
PARTICIPATION
SOCIO-ECONOMIC APPROACH
Agents involved
Feedback Process
1.- Co-operation
Local residents, companies, organs.,..
2.-P.R Involvement
Local, regional and national authorities
3.-Specific Tools
Experts, Univ., nuclear companies,..
4.- International Agreement
GMF + European Governments
EIAD Appendix 3.2
June 2001
Page 17
Linked working lines

1. Co-operation must exist so that all the agents involved will be able to define...
a. the priorities concerning the decommissioning plan consequences and the wide
range of impacts
b. the most important resources which guarantee the sustainability of the projects in
order to create steady jobs.
c. the socio-economic alternatives related to the decommissioned areas
d. the social problems during the decommissioning plan

2. Public representatives should manage...
a. the impact of the different alternatives proposed both from the territory and the
administrative point of view
b. identification of measures for different areas
c. problem solving models when decommissioning takes place.
d. With specifications by agent involved.

3. We have to use some Specific tools as territorial planning models (specially for
decommissioning activities), problem solving models, FCR (fact-conclusionsrecommendations) models, evaluation tools, reality tools to solve the problems,
etc.
4. An International Agreement is necessary among all the municipalities from GMF
and the European authorities having some kind of responsibility in the
decommissioning process.
At last, the international organisms should make a strong effort in order to harmonise
the transparency and the participation and to co-ordinate policies and experiences in
real time in order to achieve the main objectives: security and socio-economic
development where nuclear activities (in this case decommissioning) exist.
Thank you for your attention."
EIAD Appendix 3.2
June 2001
Page 18
CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FOR THE

DECOMMISSIONING OF VANDELLS 1 NPP, JOSEP CASTELLNOU
BARCEL
Josep Jaume Barcel Castellnou is Mayor of Vandells and Hospitalet de lInfant. He

is president of COMUN, a national association of Municipalities affected by NPPs.
He created a Commission which interacted with the developer during the whole
decommissioning process for Vandells 1.
EIAD Appendix 3.2
June 2001
Page 19
Decomissioning effect of
Vandells 1 NPP
Josep Castellnou
Aerial view of the site

Reactor Type:
Natural Uranium graphite-gas
Owner: HIFRENSA
Beginning: May 1972
Closing: October 1989
Generated Energy: 55.000
Gwh.
MILESTONES OF VANDELLS 1 NPP (1)

Construction start
28/06/67
Grid connection
06/05/72
Commercial operation
08/06/72 to 19/10/89
Gross electrical power
500 Mwe
Total electrical production
55,647 Gwh
Reactor availability factor (life time)
92,2%
Turbine incident & fire
19/10/89
Decomissioning order
31/07/90
Defueling authorisation
March 91
End of reactor defueling
October 94
EIAD Appendix 3.2
June 2001
Page 20
OVERVIEW
Vandells 1 Nuclear Power Plant is owned by HISPANOFRANCESA DE ENERGA NUCLEAR, S.A., whose shareholders
are:
ENDESA
52%
ELECTRICIT DE FRANCE
25%
IBERDROLA
23%
The construction of the plant began in June 1967. The technology

belongs to the European model of natural uranium-graphite-gas
cooled reactors, specifically based on a joint project between
Electricit de France (EDF) and the Comissariat lEnergie
Atomique (CEA)
The commercial production started in May 1972 and finished in
October 1989.
The October 19 th 1989 incident

FACTS
At 21.39 PM on 19th October 1989 high vibration alarm led the turbine generator number 2 to
an automatic trip.
The shift operator manually tripped the reactor, so did the automatism
The fire began on the high pressure urbine area and on the lower levels of the turbines building,
causing the loss of turboblowers number 3 and 4. The fire/emergency plan was activated.
At 4.30 AM of the 20th October, the manager of the Plant declared to the Regulatory and Civil
authorities the fire was finished.
The root cause of the incident was a mechanic failure causing a sudden projection of 36 blads
in the HP wheel number 8, due to an stress corrosion phenomena, not technically known at that
time for the suplier of this type of turbines.
The big unbalance caused the rupture of several steam and oil pipes, what fed the fire.
Any radiological release was produced neither inside nor outside the site
Any external damage (people and enviroment) was produced, the same its to say for people in
the site.
The excellent behaviour of the staff has been recognised by all the Organisms and Institutions
TREE OF OCURRENCES DURING THE FIRE (10/19/1989)

DEGRADATION OF SAFETY FUNCTION DECAY HEAT REMOVAL
INOPERABILITY OF 2 OUT OF 4 AUXILIARY
FEEDWATER TRAINS
INOPERABILITY OF SHUTDOWN HEAT REMOVAL

INOPERABILITY OF 4 SHUTDOWN COOLING PUMPS
DEGRADED PERFORMANCE OF AUXILIARY

FEEDWATER (REGULATED VALVES)
FLOOD
LOSS OF CONTROL AIR (PIPING FAILURE)
LOSS OF POWER SUPPLY TO 2 OF 4

CONTROL AIR COMPRESSORS
LOSS OF INSTRUMENT AND CONTROL

POWER
REACTOR BUILDING SUMP PUMP

INOPERABLE
WATER LEAKAGE
FROM
DEMINALIZERS
LOSS OF 2 OUT OF 4
TURBOBLOWERS
WATER FROM
MANUAL FIRE
FIGHTING
TURBINE REACTOR
COMMUNICATION DOOR OPEN
CIRCULATING WATER
EXPANSION JOINT FAILURE
LOSS OF
ELECTRICAL
POWER SUPPLY
FIRE
OIL LINE BREAK
TURBINE BLADES BREAK
EIAD Appendix 3.2
June 2001
Page 21
WHAT LED TO THE DEFINITIVE SHUTDOWN OF

VANDELLS 1 NPP
FINAL REPORT OF THE INCIDENT
Issued by HIFRENSA on November 13th 1989
Issued by the Nuclear Safety Council (CSN) in April 1990
SAFETY CRITERIA TO REFURBISH AND UPGRADE THE PLANT
HIFRENSAs PRELIMINARY PROJECT, ACCORDING TO THE CSNs ASSESMENTS
EXTRA INPUTS
High cost of the project considering the remaining life of the plant (10 years)
Strong opposition from politicians and public opinion to restart
Existence of sufficient capacity of electrical generation in Spain
Project investment not recognised by the Spanish Ministry of Industry
HIFRENSAs FORMAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE DEFINITIVE SHUTDOWN OF THE PLANT
MILESTONES OF VANDELLS 1 NPP
End of Graphite Project (preconditioning of the graphite

sleeves from the spent fuel) in December 1998.
The 28 th Jannuary 1998, a Ministerial Order approved the
dismantling Plant made by ENRESA and authorized the
transfer of Vandells 1 NPP facilities from HIFRENSA to
ENRESA for its dismantling.
The 4 th February 1998 took place the effective transfer
between HIFRENSA and ENRESA.
- OCT. 1989 Incident in Vandells I.

- JUL. 1990 Definitive interruption of the NPP.
- JUN. 1991 Alternative Definition about the decomissioning. Action proposal.
- NOV. 1992 Succes in MINER/CSN alternative.
- MAY. 1994 Presentation off the dismantiling and the shutdown plan.
- SEP. 1996 Presentation of the evironmental study.
- DEC.
1996 Reqwest of the building site licence and activity licence.
- APR. 1997 Counsil autoritzationAutorizacin y condicionado del Consejo.

- SEP. 1997 Evironmental impact declaration.
- JAN. 1998 MINER determination about the titularity transfer and the
authorization of the project.
- JAN. 1998 Approval of the dismantling and the shutdown plan.
- FEB. 1998 The titularity transfer of NPP.
- MAR. 1998 Starting the preliminary phase.
- JAN. 1999 End of de new systems test.
- MAR. 1999 CSN authorization for the decomissioning in some radiological
sites.
- APR. 1999 Starting the dismantiling work in some radiological sites.
EIAD Appendix 3.2
June 2001
Page 22
VANDELLS 1
DEFINITIVE SHITDOWN - PHASE 1- TRANSFER PHASE 2
1990
January 1998
PHASE 1
PHASE 2
UNLOADING AND EVACUATION OF

THE REACTOR DEFUELING
HIFRENSA
WHASTE CONDITIONING
SUPPORT SERVICES FOR

THE DECOMISSIONING
PRECONDITIONING OF THE
GRAPHITE-SILOS
CSN
DGMA
MIE
ENRESA
FAVOURABLE APPRECIATION OF THE

DISMANTILING AND THE SHUTDOWN PLAN
EVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DECLARATION

APPROVATION OF THE PDC AND
TRANSFER ORDER OF THE RESPONSIBLE
EXPLOTATION TO ENRESA
PREPARATION OF THE
TRANSFER AND THE
DISMANTLING PROCESS
EXECUTION OF THE
DECOMISSIONING PHASE 2
TRANSFER
THE DISMANTLING PROCESS IN SPAIN (1)

ENRESA was established by the Royal Decree 1522/1984
According the law, ENRESA has the liability for the definitive storage of radiological
wastes and also for the dismantling of radiological and nuclear facilities.
The three dismantling phases defined by the IAEA are shared as follows:
LEVEL 1: Under the responsability of the owner
Duration: The time elapsed for defueling the reactor and conditioning the
radwaste produced during the operational period.
Funds: The funds are provided by the owner
LEVEL 2: Under the responsability of ENRESA
Duration: The time elapsed for achieving the decomissioning and
dismantling plan submited to the Spanish Ministry of Industry.
Funds: Tax in the electrical invoice to consumers, assigned to ENRESA.
WAITING PERIOD: The nuclear site is under responsability and surveillance of
ENRESA
Duration: The length of time is 25-30 years. During this period, the
disqualified area of the site is returned to the owner, which can use it for any
purposes.
Funds: The same that at level 2.
LEVEL 3: Under the responsability of ENRESA
Funds: The same that at level 2
THE DISMANTLING PROCESS IN SPAIN (2)

On 31 st July 1990, a Ministerial Order required ENRESA to elaborate
a decommissioning and dismantling plan for Vandells 1 NPP.
On november 1992, the General Direction of Energy accepted the
alternative proposed by ENRESA consisting in a Level 2 dismantling
(dismantling of the conventional parts of the plant and of radiactive parts
other than the reactor and its internals) followed by a waiting period,
estimated to last 25-30 years for the completion of the total dismantling.
The Vandells 1 NPP decomissioning and dismantling project was
submited to the Spanish Ministry of Industry in May 1994 for approval
The Ministry of Industry approved the project on 28th January 1998.
EIAD Appendix 3.2
June 2001
Page 23
The Ministerial Order of 31st July 1990 (1)

That order required
HIFRENSA
- Adaptation of the Plants technical specifications.
- Defueling the reactor and shipping off the spent fuel (start on April 1991,
end on October 1994)
- Conditioning the operating radiological wastes (low level, irradiated
metallics and spent resines).
- Preconditioning the radiological wastes stored in the three graphite silos
(Graphite Project).
- To collaborate with ENRESA, in order to establish the dismantling
project.
- To transfer the Plant to ENRESA once all requirements were carried out
The Ministerial Order of 31st July 1990 (2)

That order required
ENRESA
- To elaborate and submit a decomissioning project of Vandells 1 NPP
(Level 2 option submited on November 1992, definitive project submited
on May 1994).
- To be the nuclear operator of the dismantling once the transfer
produced.
- To execute the dismantling (conventional parts and radiological parts,
except Reactor and shielding building with its internals).
- To be the nuclear operator during the waiting period (25-30 years).
- To execute the level 3 dismantling (an specific project will have to be
submit).
IMPACT UPON PEOPLE DUE TO THE PLANT

SHUTDOWN
Social impact
Demography estability that shows a littel descent.
Job loss.
Retirement and anticipated retirement.
Economic impact
Loss of the municipal income. (tax and economic compensation)
Temporaly loss of land developement.
EIAD Appendix 3.2
June 2001
Page 24
MANAGING THE HUMAN RESOURCES (1)

STAFF EVOLUTION
400
354
350
346
341
287
Nm. trabajadores
300
246
250
195
200
184
158
142
130
150
111
100
106
80
50
0
1988
1989 1990 1991
1992 1993
1994 1995 1996
1997 1998
1999 2000
AO
Industry activity licence requested to Townhall

Requested on 27th /12/96
Submitted to public information.
Scope: Level 2 in the decomissioning process
Granted on 2/3/98 with the following conditioning.
ENRESA will inform of any significative change in the decomissioning conventional

process.
The licence is granted to the level 2 in the decomissioning process.
The positioning will not store other whastes that those situatet in the plan once the
licence is granted.
Before the wastes transfer of ATOC, ENRESA will offert.

- Final disposition and the bauking up caracterization.
- Definitive wastes bulk to store.
- Request of the waiting period licence.
Building site licence requested to Townhall
Requested on 27th /12/96
Submitted the information to:

- Urbanism head office.
- Industry head office.
- Port and coast head office.
- Governnent Subdelegation at Tarragona
- Industry and energy County Council Direccin
- Coast Office of the Evironmental Ministery
EIAD Appendix 3.2
June 2001
Page 25
C onditioning in building licence requested from

the tow nhall
S ecurity
Inform ation
E conom ic C om pensation
Security
Nuclear Safety Council
Ministerial control: Decomissioning information

committee
Municipal control: Tracking Municipal Commission
Inform ation
Trackin g M u n icip al C o m m issio n .
A spects that should be treated:
-B uilding treatem ent.
-P resent staff in the com pany
-M aterial control
-C onventional, radiological and
polluted w astes m ana gem ent.
-F luit (liquid and gaseous)
-S ecurity (form ation and accidents)
-V igilance (radiological and
environm ental)
-Incidents
-C onditioning execution
EIAD Appendix 3.2
June 2001
Page 26
Information
Municipal Magazine. Public information
about the decomissioning evolution.
Information Center. Institucional

educational and personal visits at the plant.
E co
no
ation
con
o m ic C o m pe ns
nsa
tion
E n r es a f ou n dat ion T ow n h al l agr eem en t
A greem en t to execu te p ro jects an d activities
related to social a spects of the m un icipa lity .
E co n o m ic d iv ersitica tio n
E n te rp ris e c e n te r
P o litic a p p lic a tio n
In s titu tio n a l R e la tio n s s h ip
T ra c k in g M u n ic ip a l C o m m is s io n
T o w n H a ll
M a in a s s o c ia tio n s
L o c a l p o litic a l p a rtie s
A g re e m e n t w ith th e B a ix C a m p C o u n c il
C o n v e n tio n a l w a s te s
M u n ic ip a l m a n a g e m e n t
q u a lity
A g re e m e n t b e tw e e n E n re s a a n d th e s ite T o w n h a ll
U n iv e rs ity o f R o v ira & V irg ili a t T a rra g o n a
G o v e rn n e n t S u b d e le g a tio n a t T a rr a g o n a : C o m m u n ic a tio n a g re e m e n t
EIAD Appendix 3.2
June 2001
Page 27
Economic Compensation
Convenio F undacin E nres a-Ayuntamiento
Agreement to execute projects and activities
related to social aspects of the municipality.
Social works
Theater
Social house Masboquera
Economic Compensation
Convenio F undacin E nr es a-Ayuntamiento
Agreement to execute projects and activities
related to social aspects of the municipality.
Public places
Arenal beach
Sport area access
S o c ia l C o m p e n s a tio n
C r eat io n o f th e In d u s tr y an d S er v ices S t ar tw o r ker s A s s o ci at io n at
V an dell s i lH o s p it alet de l In f an t ( 4 7 E n ter p r is e)
E m plo y em en t cr eat io n d u r in g t h e d eco m is s io n in g p r o ces s .
L o cals
S t af f
(A p r il 2 0 0 0 )
282
E n t er p r is e
(N o v . 1 9 9 9 )
40
P r o v in cial
48
EIAD Appendix 3.2
O th er s
T o t al
86
368
38
126
June 2001
Page 28
M A N A G IN G T H E H U M A N R E S O U R C E S (2 )
S T A F F D IS T R IB U T IO N 2 0 00
P res ent s taff in the
C om pany
Tem porary engaged by
other C om panies
80
13
Induc ed pay out
18 8
47
26
D efinitively engaged by
other C am panies
R etir em ent and
antic ipated retirem ent
Staff in the decomissioning phase
Local
74%
Others
26%
C o llla
la b o r a to
t o r s in V a n d e ll s I
A v e ra g e : 3 1 9 w o r k e rs
S ocial C om pensation
Cou r s es
R elated to decom issionin g activiti

(radiologic protection, w elding,...)
R adw aste m anagem ent and N PPs
decom issioning (U niversitiy)
A greem ent of scolarship hold ers
EIAD Appendix 3.2
June 2001
Page 29
MODEL EIA AND EIS STRUCTURE FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

DECOMMISSIONING, SERGIO VIDAECHEA
Sergio Vidaechea has a degree in Physics specialised in Automation at the

Complutense University of Madrid. Now is preparing his PhD in the field of Nuclear
Safety at the Polytechnical University of Madrid. Since 1995 he has worked in the
Projects Department of ENRESA (Radioactive Waste Management Company in
Spain) with responsibilities in environmental, and decommissioning and dismantling
projects. Before his position at ENRESA he was Head of Projects Department. in a
Meteorological and Environmental Consulting company working as a consultant with
responsibility for Environmental and Technical Projects.
Sergio is member of the Spanish Professional Association of Physicists. He has
prepared several papers on radioactive waste management and environmental
projects, and lectures in waste management and information systems in Spanish
Universities, the Spanish Professional Association of Physicists and the Instituto de
Empresa Business School.
Guideline Objectives
Model EIA and EIS structure

for Nuclear Power Plant
decommissioning
A Study for the Environment Directorate

General of the European Commission
Guideline Sections
EIA
EIS preparation
EIS Review
Decision
Assist the applicants in the preparation

of an EIA for decommissioning of nuclear
installations
Develop a model EIS with a practical

case to ensure that the Guideline
provide a useful tool, from the design
stage to decision and implementation of
a project
Determination of the environmental
baseline
Scoping Phase (Stakeholder consultation,

Public involvement, selecting preferred
alternative/s)
Environmental Impact
Evaluation
Process:
Within the EU Regulatory Framework in

the Member States:
Initial environmental conditions
(ecologically-sensitive zones, ecosystem's

tolerance level, areas already polluted)
EIAD Appendix 3.2
June 2001
Page 30
Evaluation
Impact
identification
Potential environmental impacts are

identified based on parameters related
to:
The degree of physical and socioeconomic impact
According to the public perceptions and

values
See enlarged version at end of

presentation
Typical Environmental
Inventory Index
Inventory Index
AIR QUALITY AND METEOROLOGY
Regional climate and Meteorology of the site
Atmospheric diffusion, Air quality
Noise levels
LAND AND SOIL: GEOLOGICAL-GEOTECHNICAL

STUDIES; EDAPHOLOGY
Regional geography
Local geology
FLORA AND FAUNA; ECOSYSTEMS
Detailed geology of the plant site
Terrestrial and Aquatic medium
Geotechnical studies of the site and conclusions
Terrestrial, Marine and/or fluvial ecosystems
Seismology
WATER: HYDROLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
Soil on site
Surface system and groundwaters quality
Soils in surrounding area
Inventory Index
Inventory Index
LANDSCAPEVisibility analysis
Quality of the landscape, Human presence
Population
Visual fragility of the landscape
Demographic evolution and projection
Distribution by age of population, Floating

population
Health aspects
LAND USE
CULTURAL RESOURCES
INFRASTRUCTURES: TERRITORIAL SYSTEM
Demographic density and typology of settlements
Communications network and basic infrastructures
Evaluation
HUMAN ASPECTS
Includes evaluation of the effects that the

project will generate on the environment
Significance can be gauged relative to:
Income and employment
Agricultural and Fishing production
Industrial activity
Assessment of the significance of impacts (II)
Consider the implications of the impacts

identified previously and assesses their
significance
Evaluation
Assessment of the significance of impacts (I)
Economic System
Environmental standards
Against public perception (more subjective impacts)
Qualitative or quantitative
EIAD Appendix 3.2
Most significant impact indicators in

decommissioning
Radiological impacts:Inhalation, ingestion and

external irradiation due to radioactive materials
Noise level, measured as the level of acoustic

pressure or intensityand typology of the noise
produced
Concentration of dust particles both in the

atmosphere and on the surrounding land as a result
of deposition
Land use
June 2001
Page 31
Evaluation
Remove or reduce to acceptable levels all
the impacts
Identification of possible mitigation
measures
Impacts which would still occur even after
the implementation of the mitigation
measures
EIS Practical Case Structure

DESCRIPTION OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT AND
SITE
DESCRIPTION OF DISMANTLING PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION
ALTERNATIVE 2: LONG-TERM STORAGE
ALTERNATIVE 3: IMMEDIATE DISMANTLING
ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY
IDENTIFICATION OF AND EVALUATION OF

IMPACTS FOR THE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
SOCIOECONOMIC
MEDIUM
The developer may have an ongoing communication

with stakeholders during this phase in order to
ensure that their concerns are being properly
addressed and that local and expert knowledge
have been used effectively.
SELECTION OF MOST FAVOURABLE ALTERNATIVE
IMPACT MINIMISATION AND MITIGATION

MEASURES
ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOLOGICAL SURVEILLANCE

PLAN
BIBLIOGRAPHY
INDEX OF APPENDICES
FAUNA
E6
LANDSCAPE
E7
LAND USE
E8
CULTURAL FACTORS
E9
INFRASTRUCTURE
E10
HUMAN FACTORS
E11
POPULATION AND ECONOMY
?
?
?
?
Releases or leakage of contaminating

liquids or gases
Operating failures
Personnel accidents
Structural failures due to the action of

external agents (earthquakes, flooding and
sabotage)
Surveillance and control operations
A16
A17
A18
A19
A15
Fires
Storage of solid radioactive wastes
A14
A10
Landfills and earth movements
Recycling of wastes
A13
E5
Use of rubble tips or solid inert waste tips
FLORA
?
?
A12
WATER
E4
?
?
A8
E3
Silting and drainage
A7
A4
LAND AND SOIL
Construction of new buildings
A3
AIR
E2
Demolition of buildings
Modification of industrial buildings

A2
E1
Modification of property limits
Modification of industrial site
PHYSICAL MEDIUM
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
PROJECT ACTIONS HAVING THE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE AN IMPACT
A1
EXAMPLE OF IMPACT
IDENTIFICATION
MATRIX FOR
DECOMMISSIONING
A6
Proposed mitigation measures are working

adequately (remedial action)
EIS Practical Case Structure
A5
Ensure that no unexpected impacts arise
Transport of materials
of residual impacts
Check residual impacts identified
Emission of liquid and gaseous effluents
Listing
Handling of hazardous radioactive or toxic

materials
Development of monitoring plan
A9
of mitigation measures
A11
Development
Evaluation
?
?
?
?
EIAD Appendix 3.2
June 2001
Page 32
GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN EIA OF NPP

DECOMMISSIONING PROJECTS, JUAN PALERM
Juan Palerm is a Senior Environmental Consultant at the Spanish company ECA. He

holds a degree in Chemical Engineering, a MSc in environmental technology and a
PhD in environmental policy (focused on public participation in EIA). In ECA he is
responsible for project management; although currently covering a wide range of
areas due to the demands of his work, his main interests are on environmental policy,
most specifically public participation, EIA and SEA.
Underlying Considerations for

the Development of Guidelines
Guidelines for Public

Participation in EIA of
NPP Decommissioning
Projects
Normative
Compliance
with European legislation,

international conventions and bestpractice
Juan Palerm
EIA Directive 85/337/EEC (as amended by

Directive 97/11/EC)
Espoo Convention
Aarhus Convention
Definition of stakeholders
Specific characteristics of nuclear

decommissioning projects
inclusion of individuals and groups
inclusion of public in other affected countries
EC EIA Guidance
triggering point: actors who feel affected by the

decision
screening
scoping
EIS review checklist
Key Issues
Underlying Considerations for

the Development of Guidelines
and Functional arguments
public participation (draft)
NB: The Guidelines are not meant to be prescriptive
Access to information
Principle of transparency
Easily available and understandable
During all stages of the EIA process
Key Issues
Key Issues
Notifications
With comprehensive information
Accessible to all potential stakeholders
Valid issues for deliberation
Timing and venues
Accessible and convenient to stakeholders

Sufficient time to read through information and
form an opinion
Social inclusiveness
EIAD Appendix 3.2
Social learning
May require special approaches to reach minority

groups (e.g. translations, direct notifications)
Objective and subjective claims

Potential inclusion of socio-economic aspects
On-going learning process and understanding of
other parties viewpoints
Use of public participation mechanisms
Combination of one-way and two-way

mechanisms
June 2001
Page 33
Scoping
Scoping
Identification of potential stakeholders
After remaining alternatives are scoped for impacts

Working document for scoping meetings
Comprehensive notification
Single document with contact details of all

potential stakeholders (e.g. Making use of simple
checklist)
Agreement of decision-making procedures and

criteria
Provision of information on agreed decisionmaking criteria and alternatives to be examined
Final Scoping Report

Must integrate outcome of scoping meetings and input from
any independent consultants
Justify how public input was considered
Publicly available
Further scoping meetings if necessary
After screening of technically-feasible alternatives
Ongoing Public Participation
Scoping
Recommended
ongoing consultations
during scoping
Draft Scoping Report
Various mechanisms available, e.g.
Recommended for developers to keep an ongoing dialogue with stakeholders throughout

the EIA process
Options of methods:
Citizens Advisory Committees

Open houses
invitation to send comments

telephone hot-line
workshops to deal with specific issues
open-houses
internet
EIS Review
Draft EIS and Review

EIS
Optional
and its non-technical summary must

be publicly available and copies available
at a reasonable cost
Notification
Two-way communication mechanisms
Time allowed for stakeholders to prepare
their positions
stage
recommended when the project is

complex, technically or in its public
perception
Decision
Post-Decision Monitoring
Publicly
available
Justify how public input was taken into
account
Third-party right of appeal
EIAD Appendix 3.2
Regular
meetings with stakeholders

hoc approaches to solve arising
controversies and concerns (e.g. over
specific safety issues as
decommissioning activities progress)
May use various mechanisms, e.g.
Workshops, advisory committees,
information sessions
Ad
June 2001
Page 34
ELECTRONIC METHODS FOR DISSEMINATION OF THE EIS,

MAGDA TTH NAGY
Magda Tth Nagy is the Head of the Public Participation Program of the Regional
Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe, (REC), located in Szentendre,
Hungary. She is one of the founding staff members who started the operations of REC
in 1990. Since 1993 she has specialised on public participation and has been Project
Manager of different REC projects on public participation promoting capacity
building, networking, legal and policy analysis and assistance to develop more
efficient legal and institutional framework in CEE countries. She has also participated
in a number of projects related to EIA and public participation. She participated in the
development of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation
in Environmental Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters
and in the work of the different Task Forces under the Aarhus Convention. She is
member of the Advisory Board for the Aarhus Convention. She has been nominated
as Head of the Public Participation Program of REC in June 1999.
BACKGROUND
INCREASING USE OF ELECTRONIC TOOLS IN PRACTICE
INTERNATIONAL LEGAL INSTRUMENTS PROMOTING THE USE OF

ELECTRONIC TOOLS
AARHUS CONVENTION
EU DIRECTIVE
INTERNATIONAL LEGAL INSTRUMENTS PROMOTING THE

USE OF ELECTRONIC METHODS
AARHUS CONVENTION (ARTICLE 5)
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION PROGRESSIVELY BECOMES

AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC DATABASES WHICH ARE EASILY
ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC
...TO THE EXTENT THAT THE AVAILABILITY OF SUCH INFORMATION

IN THIS FORM WOULD FACILITATE THE APPLICATION OF NATIONAL
LAW IMPLEMENTING THIS CONVENTION.
THE EUROPEAN UNION:
DETAILED PROPOSAL TO REPLACE CURRENT DIRECTIVE

90/313/EEC
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT WILL GIVE OPINION IN 1ST

READING IN JANUARY AND PLANS TO ADOPT IN 2001
EIAD Appendix 3.2
June 2001
Page 35
TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF

AARHUS CONVENTION AND EXPERIENCE OF THE MEMBER
STATES
REFLECTS CHANGES OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES
USE OF AVAILABLE COMPUTER TELECOMMUNICATION AND/OR

ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGY STRESSED
THE USE OF ELECTRONIC TOOLS

FOR DISSEMINATION OF EIS
THE MAIN REASONS/ADVANTAGES
COST-EFFICIENT
FLEXIBLE
EASY TO ACCESS AND USE FOR DISSEMINATION OF

INFORMATION
REACHES OUT TO MULTIPLE USERS AND STAKEHOLDERS
PASSIVE AND ACTIVE METHODS
PASSIVE
ACTIVE
PUT ON WEB SITE OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES, PUBLIC

LIBRARIES, EASILY ACCESSIBLE INSTITUTIONS
SENDING OUT TO NOTIFICATION LIST TO THOSE

INDICATING INTEREST
CAN BE USED FOR COLLECTING COMMENTS AND FEED BACK
EIAD Appendix 3.2
June 2001
Page 36
FINAL REPORT
APPENDIX 3.3 Rapporteurs Presentations of Workgroup Sessions
Cassiopee:
EIAD Appendix 3.3
M J Bussell (Nirex)
June 2001
EIAD Appendix 3.3
June 2001
CONTENTS
1 SESSION 1, WORKGROUP 1: METHODOLOGIES FOR IMPACT
DEFINITION (SCOPING)..........................................................................................1
SESSION 1, WORKGROUP 2: DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVES..................3
2 SESSION 1, WORKGROUP 3: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT DURING
SCOPING / SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES ....................................................4
3
SESSION 2, WORKGROUP 1: ASSESSING SIGNIFICANCE.....................6
4 SESSION 2, WORKGROUP 2: MITIGATION MEASURES AND

IMPACT MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................9
5
SESSION 2, WORKGROUP 3: STRUCTURE OF EIS AND METHODS
FOR ITS DISSEMINATION ....................................................................................19
6 SESSION 3, WORKGROUP 1: ROLE OF EIA PROCESS IN THE
DECOMMISSIONING OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES ..........................................22
7 SESSION 3, WORKGROUP 2: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN EIA
PROCESS ...................................................................................................................25
8
SESSION 3, WORKGROUP 3: STRUCTURE OF EIS AND
RELATIONSHIP TO NUCLEAR SAFETY DOCUMENTATION .....................28
EIAD Appendix 3.3
June 2001
Page i
EIAD Appendix 3.3
June 2001
Page ii
SESSION 1, WORKGROUP 1: METHODOLOGIES FOR IMPACT

DEFINITION (SCOPING)

DEFINITION AND IMPLICATION OF SCOPING: IMPACTS DEFINITION
METHODS
What does scoping mean?
For the EIA; the scoping stage is the time when, among other things the Terms of
Reference (ToR) are defined. The stakeholders have the opportunity to express their
opinions and concerns over the decommissioning project Also the decision making
procedures and criteria should be described at this stage and feasible alternative(s)
selected. (page 9. EIA D&D Draft Final Report)
For the IAEA: all administration work to be done for the final shutdown. From the
administration activities to the technical activities
Final shutdown
Operation finished
But, scoping means different things for different people, and it is necessary to define
scoping for all the stakeholders involved. For this purpose, we must:
1. Identify the stakeholders at each stage of the process
2. Identify the information to be given to each stakeholder at each stage of the
process
3. To publish all the activities (implications, obligations, rights/ per stakeholder/ per
stage of the process)
The implications of scoping: is it the same for all the stakeholders?
Is the definition of the ToR the same for all the stakeholders involved? The key
concerns must be described at this stage for the points of view of all of the people
involved. The objectives and the main factors for the ToR must also address:
1. What are the main objectives for the scoping and what impact definition methods
should be used in scoping.
2. What are the main factors which must be taken into account?
Costs, stakeholders, etc.
Best practice from past experience
Range of approaches: political, technical, governmental, social, economical,

infrastructural, environmental, etc.
3. What is the relevant information for the decision making process and for all the
stakeholders involved?
EIAD Appendix 3.3
June 2001
Page 1
4. What are the concepts and the impacts?
What concepts must be defined?
Definition of scoping (terms of reference).
SCOPING IN PRACTICE: METHODOLOGIES

Best Practice Document
This document must be used at the start of the process not at the final stage of the
process for all the stakeholders.
This document must include all the data related to the scoping stage: stakeholders,
objectives of the process, key points, general relevant information for all the
stakeholders, impacts for all the people involved, agenda, previous environmental
assessment, financial items, etc, to be used to inform stakeholders about the
decommissioning project every time.
It must be completed daily with all the changes occurring during the process,
published for public consultation, direct and well written for all the stakeholders and
clear.
We must think that the planning for decommissioning starts when constructing all the
nuclear power plants.
Project Level
Initial outline of feasible alternatives (list of them)
Decision-making procedures: definition of the project baseline
Alternatives screened according to agreed decision- making criteria
Draft scoping report (taking into account the starting document)
Discussion and agreement of draft and final scoping reports
It is necessary to take into account:
All the stakeholders must have the opportunity to discuss all the project stages
Previous studies and reports (Aarhus Convention) must be taken into account
Public Consultation must be undertaken at all stages
Legislation
A best practise document
Impact assessment
Other potential impacts not considered before
What other facilities may be needed
Workshops and Commissions to inform all the stakeholders
EIAD Appendix 3.3
June 2001
Page 2
SESSION 1, WORKGROUP 2: DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVES

EIA is PART, not the whole of the decision process.
EIA is MORE THAN a discussion with the public.
In box 2 feasible engineering alternatives, the team engineering MUST include costs
and safety considerations not just Technically Feasible options.
The process overall IS helpful in determining alternatives BUT it is idealistic and may not
reflect the practical on the ground situation.
There are some instances where only one technical option will be taken forward (i.e.
step 5 is missed) BUT we requested a legal commentary on this approach.
The process description and diagram needs to display more clearly a distinction between
public consultation and regulatory approval.
We were able to make some suggestions direct to the author.
EIAD Appendix 3.3
June 2001
Page 3
SESSION 1, WORKGROUP 3: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT DURING

SCOPING / SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES

Objectives
to make recommendations on
the level of public participation
the appropriate techniques
Procedure of Workgroup
far reaching (over and above remit)
mildly chaotic
some points relevant to EIA process per se and structure + objectives of guidelines
not all relevant topics addressed
Conclusion
Objectives partially achieved
Issues Discussed
Topics/issues addressed at scoping (safety; environment; social; economics)
Public affected/definition of relevant public (local versus others transport,

disposal)
Outcome of Public Participation (realistic scope of involvement)

no discussion; reference to draft guideline, no fundamental objections to its
content
Issue Timing
Timing defines scope of real involvement consensus: Public Participation as early as
possible,
before decisions have been taken.
EIAD Appendix 3.3
June 2001
Page 4
Ideal situation:
Decom. strategy is part of initial EIA at planning phase

maximum scope
Common situation:
NPP exists
EIA (likely)
Public Participation at initial EIA
may be
Decom. EIA:
Limited alternatives
(technical; financial)
Limited scope for public
Conclusion
Guideline has to be flexible to allow for ideal scenario and real scenario
Issue: Degree of Public Participation
Potential for decision-making and public influence may be limited
Public Participation is more than information, should provide real opportunity to

influence decisions
At scoping stage this would mean

determine issues
determine criteria for assessment
Mandatory to involve public early to ensure full support for EIS
Not covered/partially covered
Techniques for Public Participation
Who are the public

circle
Conclusions
Guidelines have to be flexible
Scope for decision making/public influence may be restricted
Public Participation as early as possible
EIAD Appendix 3.3
June 2001
Page 5
[Techniques as per draft guidelines]

SESSION 2, WORKGROUP 1: ASSESSING SIGNIFICANCE

The discussions of the workgroup were summarised in a figure which is reproduced
below. A copy of the original version is also provided for completeness.
EIAD Appendix 3.3
June 2001
Page 6
What is risk, analyses in countries
Risk-reduction
process
Impact x
x risk
x law
clearance of site
x normal ?
Example: clearance levels
HOW BEST TO
EVALUATE
IMPACT
national law + int. standards!
Impact was assessed for operation

look only at additional impact?
Experience
other projects
(traffic, waste, .)
Aim: decom. plan reasonable

no danger for us + future generations
PUBLIC SENSITIVE
TECHNICAL
(more public)
(more regulator)
as representative of public
Public
competence
Socio - economic..
Facts, numbers
WHAT IS SIGNIFICANT? if a group (?!?) thinks that it is !
Other Industries???
EIAD Appendix 3.3
June 2001
Page 7
EIAD Appendix 3.3
June 2001
Page 8
SESSION 2, WORKGROUP 2: MITIGATION MEASURES AND IMPACT

MANAGEMENT

Mitigation Measures and

Impact Management
Objective: to make
recommendations on how best to
deal with identified impacts.
Mitigation
One aim of EIA is to try and remove or

reduce to acceptable levels all the
impacts which may occur (from
decommissioning activities). (Vol. 2, p.
12)
An important step in the EIA process is

the definition of measures to be applied
to prevent, mitigate or correct the
environmental impact of the
decommissioning project. (Vol. 2, p. 50)
EIAD Appendix 3.3
June 2001
Page 9
Mitigation Measures and

Impact Management
Based on these statements, it was proposed

to accept a broad interpretation of the
objectives of the working group, considering
that mitigation measures may include
Precaution (advisory character, i.e.,

source reduction)
Prevention (i.e., prevention of
contamination spread, removing the
impact by modifying the project activity
causing it)
Corrective actions (i.e., remedial actions,
mitigatory if they cancel, attenuate or
modify the impact once it has been
caused)
Monitoring, the evaluation of the impact
of the measures that are taken
In principle, the identified mitigation measures

could be grouped in these categories
EIAD Appendix 3.3
June 2001
Page 10
Mitigation Measures
In practice, the report gives a rather extensive

overview of mitigation measures that may be
considered
Some additional measures could be identified,

and all were grouped in
General measures
Special measures
Personnel specific factors

Environmental factors
Socio-economic factors
The availability of a Quality Assurance

System was considered to be an advantage
and an effective tool for adequate
management of mitigation measures
EIAD Appendix 3.3
June 2001
Page 11
General Measures
(Continuous) adequate personnel training, for

all the levels and areas of the organisation
Effective performance of the programmes

required by the
Fire protection
Radiological protection
Rigorous and detailed occupational
safety standards
Application of a flexible fire protection

system, given the changing nature of the
situation of the plant during dismantling
Periodic revision of obligatory safety
elements, e.g., fire extinguishers and
alarms
Transport measures
Adherence to strict working hours and

transport routes for movement of
materials off-site and on-site
Truck washing station to prevent
problems of mud on the roads
EIAD Appendix 3.3
June 2001
Page 12
Personnel Specific Measures (1)
Minimisation of occupational dose rates,

rigorous application of the ALARA principle
Minimisation of external dose rates
System decontamination
Shielding (under water handling)
Use of remote handling and/or
robotic systems
Minimisation of contamination (spread)
Minimisation of dust production

(moving covers, confined
enclosures, spraying coagulant,
fixing solutions, careful planning of
fragmentation techniques, under
water handling)
Minimisation of emissions
(collection of aerosols/dust on the
spot)
Use of protective clothing
Decontamination facilities for
personnel
EIAD Appendix 3.3
June 2001
Page 13
Personnel Specific Measures (2)
Minimisation of exposure time
Minimisation of industrial risks
Evaluation of the risk on the workplace

Reduction of hand-arm vibrations
(tooling, equipment)
Reduction of operator work load
(automated tooling, equipment)
Minimisation of other risks
Scaffolding - handling devices

Use of mock-ups and training
Hazardous waste (asbestos, organic

waste)
Noise and vibrations (general use of
silencers on vehicles and machinery and
minimisation or elimination of blasting
operations)
Maintenance of hygienic conditions in the

toilets for the operations personnel and other
users, and in the cafeteria and canteen areas
if they exist
EIAD Appendix 3.3
June 2001
Page 14
Environmental Measures (1)

(air, water => land, soil => fauna,
flora)
Minimisation of atmospheric emissions
High efficiency filters

Emission capturing systems
Dust emission control systems
Minimisation of release to surface waters
Recycling and reuse of waste waters

Polishing systems
Use of dry cutting/decontamination
techniques
Treatment and conditioning of waste
EIAD Appendix 3.3
June 2001
Page 15

(air, water => land, soil => fauna,
flora)
Minimisation of land and soil contamination
Safe arrangement/management of the main

areas used for handling and storage of waste
materials (preventing uncontrolled access,
fires, flooding, leakage, spillage and
uncontrolled release)
Control/management of leachates in
collecting areas and rubble tips
Control/management and tracking of the

production and location of waste
materials
Control/management of landfills,
clearing the areas
Identification and characterisation of

materials prior to dismantling
Classification at the point of origin,

elimination of intermediate stages
Minimum secondary waste treatment
Prevention of cross contamination and

recontamination
Reduction of the number of potential

sources of risk (dispersion of storage
and collecting facilities, reducing
transport operations)
EIAD Appendix 3.3
June 2001
Page 16
Landscape
Use/reuse of materials from demolition

and excavation operations for refilling
and topographic restoration activities
Modification of buildings (size, shape,
colour) to minimise visual impact
Restoration of the natural morphology
and replanting
Noise and vibrations
General use of silencers on vehicles and

machinery and minimisation or
elimination of blasting operations
Socio-economic Measures
Measures to promote employment, use of

available operational personnel, promotion of
subcontracting in the areas around the plant
Motivation of the personnel relating to the

future loss of employment
Secondary factors
Closure of shops, schools

Impact on value of property (house, land
prices)
EIAD Appendix 3.3
June 2001
Page 17
Monitoring, Evaluation of the Impact

of Measures that were Implemented
Considered to be an important aspect (see

earlier)
Due to time constraints not further discussed
Consider we are happy with the

statements on p. 52-53, Vol. 2
To be extended to the additional
measures that were identified
General Comments
The principles indicated in the report are an

essential part of a Quality Assurance Plan, or
A well developed Quality Assurance

Programme would support the activities
relating to an EIA
Risks relating to the decommissioning of a

nuclear facility would be subject to a
deterministic rather than to a probabilistic
approach?
EIAD Appendix 3.3
June 2001
Page 18
SESSION 2, WORKGROUP 3: STRUCTURE OF EIS AND METHODS

FOR ITS DISSEMINATION

Objective: to make recommendations on the most appropriate structure for an EIS
and on the most effective means for its dissemination
Starting point:
What is the objective of preparation of an EIS Who is it for?
Prime Importance:
To make relevant information available for decision-making
The Audience/Users:
Decision-makers
EIS
Development
The (affected) public
The Operator
Potentially affected countries (ESPOO Conv.)
Overall Conclusion:
The contents of an EIS are already established in practice - there is no need to discuss
it [for decommissioning of nuclear installations]
* [It is] a matter of Good and Bad EISs
EIAD Appendix 3.3
June 2001
Page 19
Comments/Discussion Points on Basis of Appendix 2.1, Vol. II Model

Environmental Impact Statement
e.g.
Balance between technical social issues
Socio Economic
Public Health
(Employment)
(Incl. Mental Health)
Compensation/Mitigation Measures
Scope of the Assessment - Definition of
Affected Area
Affected Public
(Incl. transport & waste)
Coverage of Related Development
! Importance of Scoping
Screening and Scoping necessary?
Importance of Background Information

Historical background
Geological data (prev. EIS)
History of licensing process
Laws and regulations that apply
EIA Operational Licensing Document/programme

Procedural Order
EIAD Appendix 3.3
June 2001
Page 20
Monitoring programme
Follow-up
Clearing levels
Handling of waste
(Where does it go?)
Criteria for Recycling
Radiological Assessment of the Inventory?
(Public Concern)
Data relevant for decision-making

e.g. information on flora and fauna in Appendix
Dissemination of Information - previously est. affected public
Ideally: on-going consultation, starting at scoping stage
Imp. of accessibility for all - not only those with internet & CD-Rom
Emphasis on non-technical summary for dissemination purposes

free of charge?
translation in different languages?
Availability at Town Hall/Library
Acknowledgement of comments
EIAD Appendix 3.3
June 2001
Page 21
SESSION 3, WORKGROUP 1: ROLE OF EIA PROCESS IN THE

DECOMMISSIONING OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES

Level of decision making
Procedure
Contents
Existing decision making processes are project based
Future decision making processes should be more strategic (should SEA become
compulsory)
Timescales can decisions on decommissioning approach be taken at

construction?
Should EIA be a continuous or a one-off process?
Procedure
Screening/Scoping
EIA Preparation
Review
Decision
EIAD Appendix 3.3
June 2001
Page 22
What should be done if the EIS review concludes that it is inadequate?
How do we harmonise procedures?
Timelines
-
Statutory
Guidelines
Set end point
EIA scope and contents

Baseline
Case dependent but must be justified
Scope but be relevant to decision not over-ambitious
Where should it end
Can it deal with effects a long way away
Long term effects
Would there be another EIS needed for the end of the safestore period and
final dismantling?
Long term information is necessarily qualitative
Prudent to look at EIA before future major activities
EIA should contain
Technical issues
Psycho-social value judgements
EIAD Appendix 3.3
June 2001
Page 23
Sustainability
Re-use/Recycling
More than mitigation
Difficulties on transboundary clearance levels
Technical definition of safe levels versus public aversion
Intergenerational equity
Why put off actions which can be performed now?
Why spend the money now that could be used more efficiently?
Summary
Decommissioning is different from construction need different content
EIA is only for decommissioning units
How do you deal with deferred decommissioning?
What are the implications of mothballing as opposed to decommissioning

(i.e. where the option of restarting the NPP is retained)
Implications for non-NPP facilities

-
There are threshold issues
Need to argue for EIA on case by case basis
EIAD Appendix 3.3
June 2001
Page 24
SESSION 3, WORKGROUP 2: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN EIA

PROCESS

Objective: To draw overall conclusions and make recommendations on how public
involvement in EIA process for decommissioning of nuclear power plants/facilities
could be improved.
Overall Conclusions
The text of guidelines is comprehensive but additions could be included on points
which are missing, need more details or could be useful.
Issues to be added
1.
Traceability of public comments/input

How to deal with comments, how/where to reflect them in EIS? Individual
comments?
-
Acknowledge public comments
Make reference in EIS
Evaluate them in EIS and use them (publish them?)
Different types should be dealt differently
If not used, explain why
Increases acceptance
EIAD Appendix 3.3
June 2001
Page 25
2.
Who should be informed directly?
Ensure information to concerned public at least + transparency
Active/passive methods
Presentation of info electronic, face to face, publication, small groups, etc.
Not only in written format

Examples:
Internet
Mobile info
Site visits
Different level of details in different type of communication
Non-technical summary
plus contact info
plus where full info is available
3.
The Role of Regulator needs to be more clarified and emphasised
New role to be more involved, how? (Sweden)
People would like direct contact with regulator also
Need to reach out and communicate with public
Special skills/language (UK)
Communication in any format (radio, TV, meetings, hearings, etc.)
4.
Funding for Public Involvement
Problem Costs Detriment?
Regulator needs more funds and staff

Examples: Sweden - Municipalities funded to participate/inform and organise
public participation in EIA on nuclear waste
plus funding for interest groups/local, national
Who should get funding?
Could funding for public involvement be part of planned budget for

decommissioning process?
EIAD Appendix 3.3
June 2001
Page 26
5.
How to make Decommissioning more Interesting for Public?
In some countries no public interest or low
Usually decommissioning gets less interest but there are particular issues public
might be more interested
6.
Is there a Benefit of Public Involvement in Decommissioning?
Different views: some see no benefits, others see relevance and usefulness
Little experience of base evaluation
Different legal setting, traditions, cultures
EIAD Appendix 3.3
June 2001
Page 27
SESSION 3, WORKGROUP 3: STRUCTURE OF EIS

RELATIONSHIP TO NUCLEAR SAFETY DOCUMENTATION
AND

Relationship to Other Nuclear Safety Documentation
Partly overlapping documents (Article 37, EIA(EIS), Safety Case)
A common, acceptable, document on National level
Open/confidential documents
Date for the EIS should be used from existing safety Case, Operation reports etc.
Hierarchical Organisation of Documents

Recommendation:
1. Common substance in the documents in different nations
2. Common form of documents
Volume II, Appendix 2
Model Environmental Impact Statement
Keep the table of contents as it is
Include Recycling, Clearance and Reuse (Ch. 1.6)
Use Material Management
A Transport Section is missing
Note that the model is an example - not prescriptive

Note the No Action alternative is only for comparison and not a practical
decommissioning alternative. Should be explained in the Report.
Summary
The Structure of the EIS is good and useful as a checklist.
EIAD Appendix 3.3
June 2001
Page 28
FINAL REPORT
APPENDIX 3.4 List of Workshop Attendees
EIAD Appendix 3.4
June 2001
EIAD Appendix 3.4
June 2001
Dr Lutz Blank
Senior Environmental Adviser
EBRD
One Exchange Square
London EC2A 2JN
UNITED KINGDOM
Tel: 44 207 338 7431
Fax: 00 44 207 338 6848
Email: blankl@ebrd.com
Dr Berit Balfors
Dept of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Royal Institute of Technology
100 44 Stockholm
SWEDEN
Tel: 46 8 790 63 52
Fax: 46 8 411 07 75
Email: beribal@aom.kth.se
Gbor Bacsk
PURAM
H-7031, Paks, PO Box 12
HUNGARY
Tel: +36 75 50 70 49
Fax: +36 75 50 67 99
Email: gabor.bacsko@rhk.hu
Dr Alan Bond
EIA Unit
Institute of Biological Sciences
University of Wales Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth, Ceredigion
SY23 3DD
UNITED KINGDOM
Tel: + 44 1970 622387
Fax: + 44 1970 622307
Email: alan.bond@aber.ac.uk
Luc Baekelandt
Head, Regulatory and Licensing Department
Federal Agency for Nuclear Control
Ravensteinstraat 36
B-1000 Brussels
BEGLIUM
Tel: + 32 2 2892107
Fax: + 32 2 2892109
Email: luc.baekelandt@fanc.fgov.be
Marnix Braeckeveldt
ONDRAF/NIRAS
Avenue des Arts 14
BE-1210 Brussels
BELGIUM
Tel: +32 2 212 10 75
Fax: +32 3 218 51 65
Email: m.braeckeveldt@nirond.be
Edouard Bauer
EDF
1 Place Pleyel
F 93282 St Denis Cedex
FRANCE
Tel: +33143690708
Fax: +33143690710
Email: edouard.bauer@edf.fr
Susannah Bras Santos

European Commission
Brussels
BELGIUM
Tel:
Fax:
Email:
Hartwig Bischoff
European Commission
DG Energy and Transport
Brussels
BELGIUM
Tel:
Fax:
Email:
Irena Buciunaite
Ministry of Environment of Lithuania
A. Jaksto str. 4/9
LT-2600 Vilnius
LITHUANIA
Tel: 370 2 62 26 24
Fax: 370 2 61 53 39
Email: i.buciunaite@aplinkuma.lt
Hlmfrdur Bjarnadttir
Research Fellow
NORDREGIO, Box 1658
SE-111 86 Stockholm
SWEDEN
Tel: +46 8 463 54 19
Fax: +46 8 463 54 04
Email: holmfridur.bjarnadottir@nordregio.se
Jana Burclov
Nuclear Regulatory Authority
Bajkalska, 27
POB 24
820 O7 Bratislava
SLOVAK REPUBLIC
Tel: 421 8055 501 529
Fax: 421 8055 501 530
Email: Jana.Burclova@ujd.gov.sk
EIAD Appendix 3.4
June 2001
Page 1
Mark Bussell
Oxford Biosphere Ltd
PO Box 1122
Oxford
OX3 8YS
UNITED KINGDOM
Tel: +44 1235 825458
Fax: +44 1235 825514
Email: markbu@nirex.co.uk
Arnis Ezergailis
State Ltd READTORS
Mura str. 3A
Salaspils
LV 2169
LATVIA
Tel: +371 790 1295 or +371 928 6925
Fax: +371 790 1242 or +371 790 1295
Email: nucleae@varam.gov.lv
Jan Carlsson
SKB
PO Box 5864
SE-102 40 Stockholm
SWEDEN
Tel: +46 8 459 85 02
Fax: +46 8 662 53 81
Email: jan.carlsson@skb.se
Sergio D'Offizi
ENEL-SGN
Via Torino 6
00184 Roma
ITALY
Tel:
Fax:
Email: d'offizi.sergio@enel.it
Josep Jaume Castellnou Barcel

Alamanda no 4
43890 Hospitalet de lInfant
Tarragona
SPAIN
Tel: +34 977 823313
Fax: +34 977 823900
Email: info@vandello-hospitalet.org
Daniela Dogaru
Transport and Radioactive Waste Section
CNCAN
Bucharest
ROMANIA
Tel: 40 1410 2441
Fax: 40 1411 1436
Email: daniela.dogaru@cncan.ro
Dr Ivana Davidov
Nuclear Fuel Cycle Department
EZ Power Company
Jungmannova 29
111 48 PRAGUE 1
CZECH REPUBLIC
Tel: + 420 2 2408 2640
Fax: + 420 2 2408 3032
Email: davidi1.hsp@mail.cez.cz
Borut Fajt
Nuklearna elektrarna Krsko
Vrbina 12
8270 Krsko
SLOVENIA
Tel: +386-7-480 25 25
Fax: +386-7-492 15 28
Email: borut.fajt@nek.si
Tony Free
Liabilities Project Manager
British Energy
Barnett Way
Barnwood
Gloucester, GL4 7RS
UNITED KINGDOM
Tel: +44 1452 654174
Fax:
Email: tony.free@british-energy.com
Tzvete Delcheva
State Agency for Energy and Energy Resources
Triaditza Str, 8
1040 Sofia
BULGARIA
Tel: 359 2 988 5929
Fax: 359 2 988 8688
Email: aec@nek.bg
Peter Dickenson
HSE
Safety Policy Directorate E, Room 422
Rose Court
2 Southwark Bridge
London
SE1 9HS
UNITED KINGDOM
Tel: 0207 717 6843
Fax: 0207 717 6095
Email: peter.dickenson@hse.gsi.gov.uk
Emilio Garcia
ENRESA
Emilio Vargas 7
28043 Madrid
SPAIN
Tel: +34 91 5668100
Fax: +34 91 5668163
Email: EGAN@enresa.es
EIAD Appendix 3.4
June 2001
Page 2
John Mathieson
UK Nirex Ltd
Curie Avenue
Harwell
Didcot
OX11 0RH
UNITED KINGDOM
Tel: +44 1235 825606
Fax: +44 1235 821627
Email: john.mathieson@nirex.co.uk
Dr Paul Haigh
22 Hatherley Court Road
CHELTENHAM
Gloucestershire
GL51 3AG
UNITED KINGDOM
Tel: +44 1242 572493
Fax: +44 1242 226958
Email: Paul@Jpsonline.com
Dr Sue Hall
Reactor Decommissioning Unit
Berkeley Centre
Berkeley
Gloucestershire
GL13 9PB
UNITED KINGDOM
Tel: + 44 1453 813328
Fax: + 44 1453 812158
E Mail: schall9@magnox.co.uk
Philip Moding
General Secretary of KSO
Landbackegatan 3
21230 MALM
SWEDEN
Tel: +4640490872
Fax: +4640494372
Email: Philip.moding@swipnet.se
Jean Marc Hallemans

European Commission
Brussels
BELGIUM
Tel:
Fax:
Email:
Patrick O'Sullivan
UK Nirex Ltd
Curie Avenue
Harwell
Didcot OX11 0RH
UNITED KINGDOM
Tel: +44 1235 825609
Fax: +44 1235 825514
Email: patricko@nirex.co.uk
Mr Duan Krsny
Slovensk elektrrne, a. s.
919 31 Jaslovsk Bohunice
SLOVAKIA
Tel: 421 805 555 67 20
Fax: 421 805 559 15 65
Email: krasny_dusan@vyz.seas.sk
Dr tefan Palgyi
Dept of Environmental and Waste Management
State Office for Nuclear Safety
Senovn nmst 9
110 00 Prague 1
CZECH REPUBLIC
Tel: +420 2 21624 801
Fax: +420 2 21624 710
Email: stefan.palagyi@sujb.cz
Michael Kuske
European Commission
DGXI.C2
200 rue de la Loi
B-1049 Brussels
BELGIUM
Tel: +32.2.2963882
Fax +32.2.2950061
Email: michael.kuske@dg11.cec.be
Dr Juan Palerm
ECA, S.A
Quatre Camins 9-15, 1B
08022 Barcelona
SPAIN
Tel: +34.93.253.2244
Fax: +34.93.253.2243
Email: international@ecaglobal.com
Ferenc Lrnd
Nuclear Safety Directorate
Hungarian Atomic Energy Authority
Budapest 114. POB 676
H-1539
HUNGARY
Tel:: (36-1) 356-2772
Fax: (36-1) 356-3846
Email: lorand@haea.gov.hu
Katarina Pavlikov
Co-director, Centre for EIA
Dept. of Landscape Ecology
Comenius University
Mlynska Dolina, B2
842 15 Bratislava
SLOVAK REPUBLIC
Tel: 421 60296579
Fax: 421 62428938
Email: pavlickova@fns.uniba.sk
EIAD Appendix 3.4
June 2001
Page 3
Maksimiljan Pecnik
Slovenian Nuclear Safety Administration
Vojkova 59
61113 Ljubljana
SLOVENIA
Tel: +00386 1565 4311
Fax: +003861 4721199
Email: Maks.Pecnik@gov.si
Manfred Schrauben
ONDRAF/NIRAS
Avenue des Arts 14
BE-1210 Brussels
BELGIUM
Tel: +32 2 212 1011
Fax: +32 2 218 5165
Email: m.schrauben@nirond.be
Claudio Pescatore
OECD/NEA
12, blvd des les
92130 Issy-les-Moulineaux
FRANCE
Tel: + 33 - (0)1 - 45 24 10 48
Fax: + 33 - (0)1 - 45 24 11 10
Email: Claudio.PESCATORE@oecd.org
Dr. Jeff Smith

Webmaster and Communications Officer
European Atomic Forum - FORATOM
Rue Belliard 15-17
1040 Brussels
BELGIUM
Tel: +32 2 502 4595
Fax: +32 2 502 39 02
Email: js@foratom.skynet.be
Henno Putnik
ALARA Ltd
6 Kiriku street
10130 Tallinn
ESTONIA
Tel: +372 6201904
Fax: +372 6313160
Email: alara@anet.ee
Hkan Sterner
Head of International Department
Energiewerke Nord GmbH
Postfach 11 25
17507 Lubmin
GERMANY
Tel: +49 38354 48010
Fax: +49 38354 48058
Email: Sterner@EWN-GmbH.de
Jos. L. Revilla
Decommissioning Project Manager
Vandells 1 NPP
Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear
Justo Dorado 11
28040 Madrid
SPAIN
Tel: +34 91 346 0446
Fax: +34 91 346 0588
Email: jlrg@csn.es
Stanislaw Szpilowski
National Atomic Energy Agency
Krucza 36
00-921 Warsaw
POLAND
Tel:. + 4822 629 45 26
Fax: + 4822 695 98 10
Email: szpilowski@paa.gov.pl
Derek Taylor
Head of Unit, Nuclear safety, regulation and
radioactive waste management
European Commission, Directorate-General for
Energy and Transport (TREN)
Rue Demot 28 (6th Floor)
Brussels
BELGIUM
Tel: +32 2 2953401 or 2961160
Fax: +32 2 2950061
Email: derek.taylor@cec.eu.int
Dr. Klaus Schiffer

EON Kernkraft
Genehmigungen und Strahlenschutz
Tresckowstr.3
D-30457
Hannover
GERMANY
Tel: 0511 439-2859
Fax: 0511 439 4187
Email: Klaus.Schiffer@eon-energie.com
Jules Scholten
Director
Commission for EIA
P.O. Box 2345
3500 GH Utrecht
THE NETHERLANDS
Tel: +31 30 234 7666
Fax: +31 30 233 1295
Email: Jscholten@eia.nl
Lucien Teunckens
Division Manager
Decommissioning and Decontamination
Belgoprocess nv Gravenstraat 73
2480 Dessel
BELGIUM
Tel: +32 14 33 43 01
Fax:+32 14 31 30 12
Email: lucien.teunckens@belgoprocess.be
EIAD Appendix 3.4
June 2001
Page 4
Ernst Warnecke
Head of Decommissioning
Nuclear Safety Department
Federal Office for Radiation Protection
PO Box 10 01 49
38201 Salzgitter
GERMANY
Tel: +49-5341-885 810
Fax: +49-5341-885 808
Email: ewarnecke@bfs.de
Magda Tth Nagy

Project Manager
Regional Environmental Centre
9-11 Ady Endre t
H-2000 Szentendre
HUNGARY
Tel: +36 26 311 199 ext. 115
Fax: +36 26 311 294
Email: MTothnagy@rec.org
Ivo Tripputi
SOGIN
Spent Fuel Storage Director
Via Torino, 6
00184 Roma
ITALY
Tel: +39 06 83040 361
Fax: +39 06 83040 480
Email: tripputi.ivo@enel.it
Simon Webster
DG Energy and Transport, Unit 02
200 rue de la Loi
B-1049 Brussels
BELGIUM
Tel:
Fax: +32 2 295 00 61
Email: Simon.WEBSTER@cec.eu.int
Jeroen Welbergen
COVRA N.V.
Spanjeweg 1
4380 AE Vlissingen 20
THE NETHERLANDS
Tel: +31 113616610
Fax: +31 113616650
Email: JWCOVRA@Zeelandnet.nl
Sheila Twidle BA(Hons) Dip UP MRTPI

127 Hampton Road
Redland
Bristol
BS6 6JE
UNITED KINGDOM
Tel: +44 117 907 7549
Fax: +44 117 907 7549
Email: sheila@twidle.fsnet.co.uk
Hkan Wingren
Sydsvenska Vrmekraft AB
SE - 205 09 Malm
SWEDEN
Tel: +44 40 256142
Fax: +44 40 255980
Email: hakan.r.wingren@sydkraft.se
Patrick Vanckerckhoven
Environment Directorate-General
(Nuclear safety, regulation and radioactive
waste management)
European Commission, TRMF 04/95
200 rue de la Loi
B 1049 Brussels
BELGIUM
Tel: +32 2 2963882
Fax: +32 2 295 0061
Email: patrick.vankerckhoven@cec.eu.int
Ana Yuncal Olea

GMF
Gran Via, 86-Esc. 3, 7,7
28013 Madrid
SPAIN
Tel: +34915479136
Fax: +34915481094
Email: amac.madrid@arrakis.es
Sergio Vidaechea
Projects Dpt
ENRESA
28043 Madrid
SPAIN
Tel: +34 91 566 8176
Fax: +34 91 566 8176
Email: SVIM@enresa.es
Dr. Jrgen Ziegenhagen

DBE
Eschenstrasse 55
D-31224 Peine
GERMANY
Tel: +49 5171 431541
Fax: +49 5171 431506
Email: Ziegenhagen@DBE.de
Mariano Vila d'Abadal

General Manager of GMF and AMAC
Raval Sant Pere 31
43204 REUS
SPAIN
Tel: +34 977 773120
Fax: +34 977 772215
Email: m.vilaabadal@amac.es
EIAD Appendix 3.4
June 2001
Page 5
EIAD Appendix 3.4
June 2001
Page 6
FINAL REPORT
APPENDIX 3.5 Workshop Evaluation Survey
EIAD Appendix 3.5
June 2001
EIAD Appendix 3.5
June 2001
INTRODUCTION
The following text is taken from a survey of the participants at the Workshop on
Environmental Impact Assessments for Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities held
in Brussels, 22-23 January 2001. Not all respondents answered all of the questions
and that the project team and European Commission delegates were not sent a
questionnaire to avoid bias. The total number of questionnaires sent out was thus 42
compared to the 56 people who attended. A total of 23 responses were received,
providing evaluations from 11 countries and 3 international organisations.
The questions posed in the survey are given, followed by a compilation of all of the
responses received. The text has been provided as it appeared in the returned survey
forms in order to avoid any unintended meanings being placed upon the authors.
2
QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES
The responses to the questions have been provided directly, with no editorial changes.
This ensures that no bias is introduced and that the responses are not interpreted to
reflect well on the Workshop.
1. LIST some worthwhile things you did and learned during the workshop.
I learnt before and during the workshop that the SEA, the most interesting part of a
more total evaluation, was too given. Simultaneously other groups within EU are
working with the SEA without coordination to a holistic approach. In Sweden our
MKB-procedure covers all the three phases SEA-EIA-EIS in one term MKB
(miljkonsekvensbeskrivning).
I did meet quite a few interesting folks. These are good contacts for the future. I
learnt that the state of the art is not very far advanced and it can be resumed to a
couple of tables.
I have 24 years experience in the nuclear field and I did not hear any new things.
-
Summarise different ideas from more than 10 countries and report them in a
whole document
Working methodology
The different approaches coming from the industry, educational organisations,

municipalities and other organisations
The way to develop and carry out the conclusions of a project and to produce them
in papers.
Approach in other EU countries to the EC Directive is very different from the

UK
Process of ES depends not only on the information required by the Regs but
also the social and political processes in each of the other states
EIAD Appendix 3.5
June 2001
Page 1
GB can afford to be more isolationist because it is an island, no land

boundaries with other states (although I do not think it should be so aloof).
During conferences usually only good/positive results are presented. During

workshop I could meet also the examples of negative experience, problematic topics
and discuss them with other participants (e.g. problem of "doing nothing", how to
increase public acceptance etc.).
I enjoyed participating. Like the first workshop I found it very stimulating to discuss
the matter of EIA for decommissioning nuclear facilities with so many different
participants with different backgrounds from countries with widely varying
traditions.
It was useful in attaining a better understanding of the approach taken in other EU
countries to the Directive, and the varying social and political issues.
Overall useful inasmuch as it provided factual information (presentation of study
findings) and associated feedback from practitioners and affected parties (during
discussions).
-
new informations about EIA situation in other countries
effective work in groups
improve English
meet interesting people
practical experiences in EIA aplication in decommissioning phase
A method to (more) actively involve the participants on the work using workgroups,
facilitators and rapporteurs.
Through the workshop I learned that the legal basis for EIA on decommissioning of
Nuclear facilities is much broader than the scope of nuclear and radiation safety
regulation. For me it was good opportunity to exchange views with people who have
expertise not only in nuclear, but also in environment protection and other areas.
Differences between countries concerning public participation
Difficulties connected with alternatives especially the zero alternative
Scoping of the EIA process for decommissioning of nuclear power plant.

My contribution to the workshop was discussions to each main subject of the
Workshop and the active participation in the problem solving in white working group
from the view-point of a regulator. Moreover, I contributed to the updating of Draft
Final Report Vol. 1, Appendix 1.5, p. 7: Country Report on the Czech Republic.
During the workshop I learned most of all mainly in the different methodology of the
approaching to the EIA and the EIS structure for NPP decommissioning.
EIAD Appendix 3.5
June 2001
Page 2
Better understanding of EIA implementation framework in other European countries.

Ability to feed back points about the practicalities of EIA for existing NPP with
established decommissioning strategies compared with idealistic position for new
NPP. Ability to make points on the circumscribing nature of financial provisions, esp.
for private sector companies. Better understanding of next steps from the
Commission.
- different importance of the EIA in the decision making process in different
countries;
- the different role of the SAR in different countries;
- the degree of the public involvement versus the responsibilities of the owner with
respect to the legal/administrative requirements.
There are a lot of difficulties to define who is stakeholder because nuclear

sector is still afraid whit information and transparency policies.
EIA could be a good tool to ensure the participation of people interested in

nuclear projects.
Environmental regulation would have to oblige companies to include in the

project a system of public information enough to ensure a real knowledge by the
citizens.
The workshop gave a valuable insight into the work that has been carried out by
NIREX good presentation of the various parts of the study, contributors etc. The
various backgrounds of the participants at the workshop gave an insight over the
different interests and standpoints involved in the decommissioning, which were
particularly expressed in the smaller workshops. Personally, I found it very valuable
to gain insight into the industry and operators view/approach to EIA and the degree
to which their views differ from those of EIA experts. Particularly the issues they
raised around the fundamental importance of timing and costs involved in the EIA
process, public participation etc.
Information about problems in other countries, knowledge about similar opinions on
PP and this kind of projects.
View points of industry, government experts and independent experts on EIA, access
to information and public participation during decommissioning of nuclear facilities.
It was interesting to see the ranges of opinions and especially the extreme one being
against transparency and openness. I also learnt a lot of technical details which I was
not familiar with before about the subject.
How to formulate questions about Public Perception . It is very useful for me in my
work in the Baltic states.
I found it very interesting to see the differences in the countries represented at the
meeting. In some countries environmental impact assessment is in the lead whereas in
other countries it is the nuclear safety assessment.
EIAD Appendix 3.5
June 2001
Page 3
2. RATE your satisfaction with this workshop by giving it a number between 0

(very dissatisfied) and 10 (very satisfied).
3, 9, 3 (I was dissatisfied with the report, and with the final conclusion of the
meeting, too.), 8, 4, 9, 3, 9, 8, 9, 3, 8, 8, 7, 7, 8, Organisation 8, Place 7,
Documentation 8, Participation 7 (=7.5), 4, 8, 6, 8, 6.5
The average rating is thus 6.6. However, the distribution of ratings is bimodal which
indicates that respondents were either satisfied or dissatisfied (see graph below).
Some of the concerns are detailed below in answers to other questions.
Frequency
Evaluation
10
8
6
4
2
0
1
10
Rating
3. IDENTIFY some things which helped you to work efficiently at this workshop.
Some moderators especially our Dutch colleague, excellent performance by him.
The small size of the working groups.
I think I was not very active on the meeting, the reason was that we talked only about
general questions and I did not understand why we did not talk about the concrete
mistakes and contradictions of the document.
The working system methods: mornings dedicated to learn from other cases,
afternoon meetings with the delegates, rapporteurs and other people in charge of
the workshop.
The methodology of the whole workshop. We could produce a lot of conclusions

only in 2 days.
List of delegates.
Excellent new system of general presentation and following wide discussion of each
partial problem in groups, good choice of participants for individual groups.
Delegate List.
- work in groups
EIAD Appendix 3.5
June 2001
Page 4
- sending of study in advance

- e-mail communication
The speakers provided a good introduction to the problems that were further
discussed in working groups.
To get the report before the workshop
To get information about the structure of the workshop.
Good presentations, possibility to express opinion and discuss.

The participation of different professional as operators, officials, regulators, experts
and public representatives together at the workshop and creation of working groups
were very useful. Draft final report sent in advance to the participants.
Good combination of plenary versus break out sessions.
The use of work groups instead of working in plena. The preparation of the work
shop agenda was very good.
- the draft material;
- the methodology of the workshop itself i.e. the work in smaller groups.
The most important was to have the draft enough days before. It was a good system
too to organise some different workgroups. It let us to study in depth all of issues.
The organisation of the workshop was very efficient, both with regard to the contents
(different aspects addressed) in the main sessions as well as the smaller workshops.
The structure of facilitators and rapporteurs functioned well, in order to give the
participants an idea of the discussion that took place in the session they didnt attend.
Furthermore, the colour scheme worked well to ensure renewal of the workshops
dynamics.
The material for the workshop given to us in an adequate time before the workshop,
the creation and circulation of working groups.
most presentations which were clear, brief and to the point, facilitated by good slides
or transparencies;
small group discussions;
excellent background materials prepared by the organizers.
The draft report was very useful and also the roset from the delegation from Spain
about which parties are to be involved in the process. The discussion with the
Scandinavian delegate about hollistic approach was interesting.
None
EIAD Appendix 3.5
June 2001
Page 5
4. LIST some things which stopped you from being more effective.
Even if my English is not perfect I heard that many couldnt follow your fast and too
low speaking. The room was a catastrophy and the didactics applied there was not
adjusted to the situation. I said quite a few times. The entrance to the big building is
impressing but the rooms and the interior for meetings are among the worst I ever
saw.
None, it was a well run workshop.
That was my first participation at such an important EU meeting. Our country is not
member of the EU yet. More or less this is a political question. I did not want to insult
anybody.
Nothing. I think everybody had the opportunity to express his/her ideas.
-
groups too large
some groups did not keep to the topic, more background information may have
helped
lack of 'proper' facilitators.
Participants were not familiar with new system, so discussion was not sometimes
exactly focused to given topic.
The venue of the workshop is below standard. To squeeze a large group of persons in
a small and stuffy room with poor acoustics and no proper sound system is inefficient
and even shows disrespect for the participants who give nearly two days of their time
to attend.
I could have benefited from understanding what hat people were wearing, e.g.
utility, govt funded, private, etc. The groups were too large with at times lack of
focus. The group sessions easily broke down in general debates.
The teamworking exercises were clearly unnecessary and a waste of time. Some of
the tasks set were so banal that many attendees with practical experience couldn't be
bothered.
- too many people
- short time for such voluminous study and wide range of problems (only 2 days)
- work under time pressure
Nothing for myself.
In my view, the sitting and operation requirements were not sufficiently considered.
The aim of the workshop need to be more clear
EIAD Appendix 3.5
June 2001
Page 6
More information about the specific topics
An idea of what is expected of the participants.
Some general organizational matters.

Most of lecturers did not submit their presentation in a written form including
illustrations.
It wasn't quite clear why the event was being held. Was it a promotional for the work
or a consultation? If the latter then the feedback was largely superficial. Some of the
break out sessions lacked a clear focus. The latter ones in particular tended to repeat
earlier sessions.
The time for preparation was too short.
There were too many participants in the work shop to be really efficient
The discussion in plena was not very efficient.
- the same questions were discussed too many times without a clear conclusion.
As is often the case, the workshops strengths were simultaneously its weak point
That is, the large number of participants and the representation of the different
stakeholders, the different backgrounds and knowledge of the subjects being
discussed etc. diffused the focus of the discussions, both in the plenary as well as the
smaller workshops. In some of the workshop there seemed to be obscurity of what
was being discussed and it took a large part of the workshop for people to tune
together. The large number of participants also resulted in that in some cases
representatives from certain areas (e.g. the industry) dominated the discussion. With a
smaller number of participants in the discussion groups it might have been easier for
the discussion facilitator to keep the discussion on track.
Choice of the leaders of the working group (some of them).
In the small groups sometimes the facilitation was not good enough and therefore the
discussion was not focused enough, which limited the outcome.
The location (seminar) for the plenary session was rather small.
The too big number of participants.
The unco-ordinated invitation of delegates from Germany.
Too many working groups.
The purpose of the meeting and the role / mandate of the group was not clear at
the beginning of the meeting.
EIAD Appendix 3.5
June 2001
Page 7
5. SUGGEST any ideas you may have to improve future workshops.

Better rooms and a more didactic performance. Louder, slower and better regards to
those not having English as a mother tongue. A demand to every participant to be
precise and to the point. New techniques of the communication such as the Metaplan,
dialogues, more visual and in front of all a continuous checking of that everyone can
follow and hear what is taking place.
Fine, as it was held.
I suggest to organise meetings in a more comfortable conference room.
-
To work with the attendants at least 3 months in advance in order each of them
could contribute with more developed ideas
To learn about the methodology of the workshop in advance, in order people get
familiar with the system (colours for the different meetings, themes, the way to
perform the meetings, and so on).
smaller groups
more briefing notes
professional facilitators.
To send the document earlier or to identify for individual participants to which parts
they should focus. To express more clearly the goal of workshop.
There were some excellent facilitators and rapporteurs but also a few that did not
make much of the job. It is essential that the facilitators have an agenda in mind to
guide along the discussion without imposing too mch of what they think important.
Would it be an idea to evaluate the various facilitators and rapporteurs or would that
be too menacing for potential candidates for these jobs in the future? I found the input
of the EC insufficient. It is not very stimulating for the participants when the official
representative of the EC is only present during the opening and closing sessions.
trained facilitators to lead the sessions, and to bring the skills that keep all delegates
involved.
The workshop could have been shortened to one day without loss of benefit to the
attendees. I appreciated the dinner which provided a very good opportunity to meet
more people; this should be kept (I acknowledge the timing difficulties if one were to
shorten the workshop to one day).
- one day longer meeting
- less people = more effective work
Maybe a strengthening of conclusions and recommendations from the WS.
EIAD Appendix 3.5
June 2001
Page 8
The decommissioning is actually the last phase in the lifetime of nuclear facility. For
this reason the EIA for Decommissioning of nuclear installations should be put into
context of the nuclear regulation on sitting construction and operation of nuclear
facilities (the legal requirements and technical documentation are very similar),
considering also the provisions of legislation related to environment protection as
well.
A clear aim of the workshop
Information about the topics and the structure of the workshop so the
participants are prepared
Links to other workshops (for example the workshop about nuclear waste)
Inform the participants about the continuing work and future workshops
Give clear guidelines to the facilitator about the purpose of the discussion.
A case - study of EIA for decommissioning a nuclear power plant would be very
useful.
It seems that some more practical issues treated at the workshop would be needed
also for obtaining the reasonable balance between different interest groups in order to
keep the EIA procedures minimal in their duration and cost.
Rapporteurs and Facilitators were clearly largely untrained and inexperienced and
there would have been virtue in having professional facilitation.
Briefing of the facilitators and rapporteurs before the work shop and a possibility for
the facilitator and rapporteur of each work group to meet before the work shop would
help.
- to work in even smaller groups;
- all groups should discuss the same matter at the same time.
It could be interesting to foresee the participation of some stakeholders in this kind
of events. In this case you would need some translation to more languages because
people, normally, only know the own language.
The structure and the organisation of the workshop were very good and I dont have
any suggestions on how they should be changed. The problems mentioned above
could to some extent be avoided by limiting the number of participants at future
workshops.
It could be beneficial to extend the time from 2 to 3 days with more open program.
I would suggest to invite more NGOs so there could be a balance among the different
stakeholders and an open, direct discussion.
Obviously a bigger room for the plenary session. The rest was perfect!
EIAD Appendix 3.5
June 2001
Page 9
6. Other comments or suggestions.

A special point not treated at the workshop is about the role of the local liaison
committees which both you in UK and we in 'Sweden have at the NPP sites. How and
how long are they expected to operate in the decommissioning period? Another
question about the decommissioning and that is the emergency planning and
performance. How long must an emergency plan exist including a good rescue and
fire brigade, designed for "radioactive accidents". Could you send me some comments
to these questions please.
I appreciated the breadth of experience represented at the workshop, and especially
the representation of civil society. It was a good idea and very respectful of the
participants - to provide the list of participants with a short rsum.
I missed more experiences from stakeholders.
I thought it was an insight most of all into the problems and opportunities of the EU.
I am probably in a minority of UK residents who are in favour of the EU, but I came
away encouraged by the vision of a European Community. It was an insight into the
difficulties some countries face and how eager they seem to overcome them.
No other comments, in fact I highly appreciate the possibility to discuss just this
topic, because we have not very wide experience with it (but lot of problems).
I was encouraged by the way European Countries appear to want to work together to
achieve common objectives.
- per diem allowance should be paid at the beginning of the meeting
It was in my opinion an efficient WS.
I appreciated very much the opportunity to participate in this project.
It is not enough to organize 1 or 2 seminars for preparation for such kind of
guidelines.
The discussion on the legal implications of EIA process in decommissioning would
be also useful.
- an explanation (or clarification) of the background would be worthwhile (e.g. the
need, the requirements, legal aspects, the problems encountered, the issues etc.) - in
this particular case the Euratom Treaty.
It was very interesting for me and for GMF to take part in your workshop. Thank you
very much.
"None.
EIAD Appendix 3.5
June 2001
Page 10
SUMMARY
The responses to the workshop evaluation appear to divide into two broad groups
those who were satisfied that the workshop was beneficial and those who felt that
more time and resources should have been invested in the workshop.
EIAD Appendix 3.5
June 2001
Page 11

European Decomissioning Document

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

European Decomissioning Document

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

European Decomissioning Document

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What was the purpose of the workshop?

What was the purpose of the workshop?

What feedback was provided about the workshop structure and organization?

What feedback was provided about the workshop structure and organization?

EC Contract B4-3040/99/MAR/C2

Environmental Impact Assessment

Environmental Impact Assessment for the Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations

The report was reviewed by:

John Mathieson (Nirex)

Environmental Impact Assessment for the Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations

Environmental Impact Assessment for the Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations

The workshop organisers wish to thank DG Environment and DG Energy and

Environmental Impact Assessment for the Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations

Environmental Impact Assessment for the Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations

Environmental Impact Assessment for the Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations

In all Member States a formal consent permit is required before decommissioning of a

Environmental Impact Assessment for the Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations

Trawsfynydd (UK), Greifswald (Germany) and Vandells 1 (Spain). In all cases

Environmental Impact Assessment for the Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations

considered best practice in the context of public participation by reviewing a number

the approach taken to public involvement.

Environmental Impact Assessment for the Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations

selecting a preferred alternative from an initial range of options; and

Environmental Impact Assessment for the Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations

Environmental Impact Assessment for the Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations

Identification and Assessment of Impacts

Environmental Impact Assessment for the Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations

John Mathieson, Nirex

Lynda Warren, University of Wales Aberystwyth

Environmental Impact Assessment for the Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations

WORKSHOP OVERVIEW .................................................................................1

SUMMARY OF PLENARY DISCUSSIONS.....................................................5

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................15

RAPPORTEURS PRESENTATIONS OF WORKGROUP

LIST OF WORKSHOP ATTENDEES

WORKSHOP EVALUATION SURVEY

Environmental Impact Assessment for the Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations

Environmental Impact Assessment for the Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations

Workshop Purpose and Objectives

CASSIOPEE is a European Economic Interest Grouping formed by the radioactive waste

Environmental Impact Assessment for the Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations

Workshop Mechanism and Content

a presentation on the conclusions reached could be given to other workshop

the main conclusions and issues could be summarised in this report.

Environmental Impact Assessment for the Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations

related to methodologies for scoping, the process of defining alternative

Structure of the Report

This report is intended to summarise the proceedings of the workshop. It is not

Environmental Impact Assessment for the Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations

Environmental Impact Assessment for the Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations

SUMMARY OF PLENARY DISCUSSIONS

Methodologies for Impact Definition (Scoping)

Environmental Impact Assessment for the Decommissioning of Nuclear Installations

Public Involvement During Scoping / Selection of Alternatives

The topics / issues which should be addressed at the scoping stage

When to involve the public

The outcome, realistically, of public participation

Techniques of involving the public

Initially a number of impacts which could be caused by nuclear power plant