environmental impact assessment review

Environmental impact assessment and

the decommissioning of nuclear power

plants—a review and suggestion for

a best practicable approach

Alan Bonda,*, Mark Bussellb, Patrick O’Sullivanc,1,Juan Palermd

aEIA Unit, Institute of Biological Sciences, University of Wales, Aberystwyth, Wales SY23 3DD, UKbOxford Biosphere Ltd., P.O. Box 1122, Oxford OX3 8YS, UK

cUnited Kingdom Nirex Ltd., Curie Avenue, Harwell, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0RH, UKdECA S.A., Quatre Camins 9-15, 10B, 08022 Barcelona, Spain

Received 1 January 2002; received in revised form 1 September 2002; accepted 1 October 2002

Abstract

This paper reviews the current legislative and guidance framework for the Environ-

mental Impact Assessment (EIA) of projects to decommission nuclear power plants. It

considers, in particular, the potential use of EIA as a tool for harmonising relevant consent

processes across the European Union member states and accession countries. To this end, a

best practicable approach for carrying out EIA for the decommissioning of a nuclear

installation, based on consultation with a range of stakeholders across the European Union,

is proposed which can both lead to better harmonisation by virtue of its practicability, and

prevent unnecessary duplication of effort. The approach has been developed in the context

of the legal framework provided by the relevant Directives and takes heed of European

Commission guidance on various aspects of environmental assessment. It draws on

extensive feedback obtained from a 2-day workshop attended by the range of stakeholders

0195-9255/02/$ – see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S0195-9255(02)00091-4

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-1970-622-387; fax: +44-1970-622-307.

E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Bond).1 Now at NRG, Westerduinweg 3, P.O. Box 25, 1755 LE Petten, The Netherlands.

www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

23 (2003) 197–217

associated with decommissioning activities in 18 countries and the European Commission,

and including public representatives.

D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: European Union; Environmental impact assessment; Nuclear power plants; Public

participation; Decommissioning

1. Introduction

Over 110 nuclear facilities, most of which are nuclear power plants, are at

various stages of the decommissioning process in the European Union at the

present time and it is forecast that another 160 nuclear facilities will need to be

decommissioned in the next 15 years (Vankerckhoven, 1998) (a brief overview of

decommissioning nuclear power plants and the alternative strategies available is

described by Braeckeveldt, 2001). For each new project involving the decom-

missioning or significant modification of a nuclear power plant and most research

reactors it is now obligatory that ‘development consent’ is granted by an

appropriate national competent authority and that an EIA is undertaken prior to

that consent being granted (a list of the current status of the sites currently being

decommissioned across the EU can be found at http://europa.eu.int/comm/

energy/nuclear/decomm5.htm). The expansion of the European Union to include

the Baltic and Central European countries is expected to lead to a rapid increase

in the number of facilities to be decommissioned by at least another 50 sites

(Vankerckhoven, 1998).

Against this background, a collaborative study was undertaken for the Nuclear

Safety Unit, now part of the Directorate-General for Energy and Transport, of the

European Commission (Ref.: EC Contract B4-3040/99/MAR/C2) on the applica-

tion of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to the decommissioning of

nuclear facilities in EU member states and the applicant countries. This study

provided the basis for the information provided in this paper.

1.1. Legislative and guidance context for decommissioning nuclear power plants

Nuclear energy is covered by the Euratom Treaty, one of the founding

Treaties of the European Union, which came into force on January 1, 1958 and

leaves member states the main responsibilities in matters of nuclear safety,

largely sidelining the EU institutions (Anon., 2000). The reason for this is that

the Euratom Treaty was primarily drafted as a means for facilitating civilian

nuclear power programmes, at which time installation safety issues and

radioactive waste management were not a paramount public concern. That this

is the case is reflected by the fact that the Euratom Treaty has only one specific

reference to radioactive waste, in its Article 37 (Taylor, 2000). As a result, there

are a wide variety of approaches to nuclear safety issues across the European

A. Bond et al. / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 23 (2003) 197–217198

http:\\www.europa.eu.int\comm\energy\nuclear\decomm5.htm

Union. With this being the case, the Environmental Assessment Directive may

be seen as a potential means of achieving greater harmonisation, particularly as

it already allows for two-way communication with the public when used

properly (Forsstrom and Taylor, 2000). Indeed, the Environmental Assessment

Directive has previously been identified as a potential means of harmonising

practice related to the decision-making process in the siting of geological

repositories for radioactive waste (see Bond et al., 2001; O’Sullivan et al.,

1999a,b).

The relevant legal framework at the European level is provided by the

Environmental Assessment Directive and Directive 96/29/Euratom on safety

standards against the changes arising from ionising radiation (Council of the

European Union, 1996) and including specific requirements arising from Article

37 of that Treaty. In addition, further influence can be expected from the Arhus

Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and

access to justice in environmental matters (United Nations Economic Commis-

sion for Europe, 1998) which will require greater public involvement at the

earlier stages of the EIA process. Indeed, the European Commission has now

adopted a Proposal for a Directive amending the EIA (and other) Directives

(Commission of the European Communities, 2001) to take account of the

changes which will be required by the Arhus Convention. Thus, the implications

of the Environmental Assessment Directive, the Euratom Treaty and the Arhus

Convention on the decommissioning of nuclear power plants will be considered

in turn below.

The requirements for EIA within the EU are currently set out in Council

Directive 97/11/EC (Council of the European Union, 1997) amending Directive

85/337/EEC (Council of the European Communities, 1985). This Directive

already incorporates the requirements of the Espoo Convention covering Envir-

onmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (United Nations

Economic Commission for Europe, 1991), and its obligations on member states

are set out in Fig. 1.

The specific requirements of the Directive have been well covered in other

literature and guidance documents and will not be repeated here (see, for

example, Bond, 2000; Environmental Resources Management, 2001a,b,c). In

the case of decommissioning power reactors and most research reactors an EIA

must always be undertaken, following paragraph 2 of Annex I of the Directive,

except in exceptional cases covered in Article 2(3).

The Directive sets out the minimum contents requirements for an Envir-

onmental Impact Statement which documents the EIA itself, and Article 37 of the

Euratom Treaty states that member states provide the Commission with ‘general

data’ relating to any plan for the disposal of radioactive waste, to allow them to

determine whether the plan will cause environmental impacts.

On December 6, 1999, the European Commission published a recommenda-

tion on the application of this article (Commission of the European Communities,

1999). Section 1, subsection 9, of this Recommendation defines ‘‘any planned

A. Bond et al. / Environ. Impact Asses. Rev. 23 (2003) 197–217 199

disposal or accidental release of radioactive substance associated with . . . thedismantling of nuclear reactors and reprocessing plants’’ as falling within the

Article 37 definition of the disposal of radioactive waste. The same recom-

mendation contains, in Annex 2, what the Commission would expect to see as the

‘general data’ to be submitted prior to decommissioning. This Annex is

comprehensive and, although it is a separate requirement from the need for

Fig. 1. The EIA process specified in the Environmental Assessment Directive.


EIA, there is scope to save duplication of effort by ensuring that the EIA for

decommissioning covers at least the general data specified in this Annex 2, the

main headings of which are duplicated in Table 1.

In terms of legal obligations imposed by this Commission Recommendation,

Article 161 of the Euratom Treaty makes it clear that Recommendations have no

binding force. In practice however, the Commission would expect the Recom-

mendation to be followed and could have recourse to Article 38 of the Euratom

Table 1

Main headings of the ‘general data’ to be submitted to the European Commission under Commission

Recommendation of December 6, 1999 (Commission of the European Communities, 1999)

1 The site and its surroundings

1.1 Geographical, topographical and geological features of the site and the region

1.2 Hydrology

1.3 Meteorology

1.4 Natural resources and foodstuffs

2 The installation

2.1 Brief description and history of the installation to be dismantled

2.2 Ventilation systems and the treatment of gaseous and airborne wastes

2.3 Liquid waste treatment

2.4 Solid waste treatment

2.5 Containment

3 Release from the installation of airborne radioactive effluents in normal conditions

3.1 Authorisation procedure in force

3.2 Technical aspects

3.3 Monitoring of discharges

3.4 Evaluation of transfer to man

4 Release from the installation of liquid radioactive effluents in normal conditions

4.1 Authorisation procedure in force

4.2 Technical aspects

4.3 Monitoring of discharges

4.4 Evaluation of transfer to man

5 Disposal from the installation of solid radioactive waste

5.1 Categories of solid radioactive wastes and estimated amounts

5.2 Processing and packaging

5.3 Storage arrangements

5.4 Radiological risks to the environment, precautions taken

5.5 Arrangements for the movement and destinations of classified waste transferred off-site

5.6 Criteria for contaminated materials to be released from the requirements of the Basic Safety

Standards, for disposal, recycling or reuse

5.7 Envisaged types and amounts of released materials

6 Unplanned releases of radioactive effluents

6.1 Review of accidents of internal and external origin which could result in unplanned releases of

radioactive substances

6.2 Reference accident(s) taken into consideration by the competent authorities for evaluating possible

radiological consequences in the case of unplanned releases

6.3 Evaluation of the radiological consequences of the reference accident(s)

7 Emergency plans; agreements with other Member States

8 Environmental monitoring


Treaty, enabling them to issue a Directive requiring a member state to take

stipulated measures where the data have not been supplied.

The Arhus Convention was signed on June 25, 1998 by 39 countries and by

the European Union and came into force after receiving the 16th ratification on

October 30, 2001.

The Arhus Convention is based upon three principles (Palerm, 1999):

� access to environmental information,� public participation in environmental decision making,� access to justice.

The Arhus Convention sets stricter provisions for public participation than

those of the Environmental Assessment Directive and these apply to the

permitting process of any activity listed in Annex I of the Convention, including

the decommissioning of nuclear reactors.

The Convention defines ‘the public’ as ‘‘one or more natural or legal persons,

and . . . their associations, organisations or groups’’. A separate definition for the

‘public concerned’ is provided as ‘‘the public affected or likely to be affected by, or

having an interest in, the environmental decision making; non-governmental

organisations promoting environmental protection . . . shall be deemed to have

an interest’’.

Therefore the public which must be given an opportunity to participate should

include any person or group (including NGOs) who have an interest in the

decision making process.

Article 6 of the Arhus Convention concerns public participation in decisions on

specific activities. Provisions of the article need to be taken into account when

deciding on whether proposed activities under Annex I of the Convention should

be permitted. The energy sector is the first activity listed in Annex I which refers to

nuclear power stations and other nuclear reactors and includes ‘‘the dismantling or

decommissioning of such power stations or reactors . . .’’. Article 6 sets more

detailed conditions than the Environmental Assessment Directive for notification

of the public concerned specifying that this should take place ‘‘by public notice or

individually, early in the environmental decision making procedure, and in an

adequate, timely and effective manner’’. Palerm (1999) argues that, in the light of

empirical best-practice, adequate and effective should be interpreted as going

beyond mere publication in an official gazette, probably including the use of mass

media as a means of communication. Finally the article states that outcomes of

public participation shall be taken into account in the decision and that the content

and justification for the decision are made known to the public.

In the context of EIA, the Directive only mentions that the opportunity for

public participation should occur before development consent is granted, but the

Arhus Convention establishes that reasonable time-frames should be employed

and participation should occur early in the process, when all options are open and

effective public participation can take place (Article 6.3). This should be inter-


preted as allowing for public participation before the Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) is produced and, ideally, during a participative scoping phase

(Palerm, 1999).

In addition to the regulatory framework, there also exists European Commis-

sion guidance which includes:

� EIA–Guidance on Screening–June 2001 (Environmental Resources Manage-

ment, 2001c)� EIA–Guidance on Scoping–June 2001 (Environmental Resources Manage-

ment, 2001b)� EIA Review Check List–June 2001 (Environmental Resources Management,

2001a)� Guidelines for the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts as well as

Impact interactions–May 1999 (Walker and Johnston, 1999).

So, for the particular case of nuclear power plant decommissioning there will

normally be a requirement to produce an Environmental Impact Statement and an

Article 37 submission to the European Commission. In addition, nuclear power

plants already have an operational requirement to present a safety case, under the

International Atomic Energy Agency’s ‘Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent

Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management’, which

is the licensee’s documented demonstration that the plant is safe to operate

(International Atomic Energy Agency, 1997); this convention came into force for

those countries which had ratified it (which includes all EU states) on June 18,

2001. There are significant overlaps in the information requirements of the safety

case, the Article 37 submission and the Environmental Assessment procedure and

therefore considerable scope for removal of duplication. This could be achieved,

for example, by incorporating the information requirements of all three proce-

dures into the Environmental Assessment report. Alternatively, common formats

for reports supporting the main submissions required by each procedure could be

developed, such that the current practice of providing similar information in

different formats, e.g. relating to calculated impacts on human health, is avoided.

2. Deriving a best practicable approach

EIA is a procedure which aims to provide information to decision makers on the

environmental consequences of their decisions on applications for development

(Bond, 2000; Glasson et al., 1999; Wathern, 1988; Wood, 1995). A country’s EIA

system is often accompanied by guidance on its implementation indicating good

practice approaches to meeting the requirements of the procedure as opposed to

minimum compliance approaches, for example, the UK Government has produced

a general guide to what the EIA procedures mean (Department of the Environment

Transport and the Regions/National Assembly for Wales, 2000), and a good


practice guide to help with the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements

compliant with the procedures (Department of the Environment, 1995). Despite

the guidance literature that is available, the stark reality is that developers often aim

for minimum compliance rather than adopt best practice due to financial con-

straints. Proving that best practice can be cost effective is difficult. Furthermore,

when extended to a European Union scale, even getting agreement on what would

constitute good practice across all member states is a huge undertaking, fraught

with similar difficulties to the process followed in getting agreement on Directives

in the first place. Before the Single European Act amended the Treaty of Rome in

1987, Environmental Directives required unanimity for adoption and therefore

allowed each member state a veto over the text—leading to what was termed

‘‘lowest common denominator decision-making’’ (Scott, 1998, p. 7). Since 1987,

qualified majority voting and increasing influence of the European Parliament

have moved the development of environmental Directives away from this position

to one of greater cooperation between the Commission, Council and the European

Parliament, but there is still much scope for obligations disliked by member states

to be rejected during the negotiation of the text. As such, the challenge is to devise

an approach which can be applied by all member states; it therefore needs to be

practicable, to comply with all relevant legal frameworks and, if it is to improve

practice, it needs to contain as many elements of good practice as can be

universally agreed. Thus this paper aims to derive what will be termed a ‘‘best

practicable approach’’ for EIA and the decommissioning of nuclear power plants.

In deriving a best practicable approach for EIA it is not intended to propose a

prescriptive procedure, rather to illustrate an approach that may be helpful for

organisations and stakeholders concerned with the EIAs for decommissioning

projects.

The basic study approach can be broken into three components:

(1) To determine, through literature reviews, the mandatory and semi-mandatory

legal requirements stemming from Directives, EU Guidance and International

Conventions. This review has been summarised in the introduction to this

paper.

(2) To determine, through literature reviews and web page searches, question-

naire surveys supplemented by direct consultation with key organisations and

individuals (nuclear operators, nuclear safety regulators, EIA practitioners,

researchers and members of public interest groups) what the current regu-

latory procedures are for EIA of decommissioning of nuclear power plants in

European Union member states and accession countries. The main aim here

was to obtain feedback for every one of the study countries and there was no

attempt to include views of all stakeholders in determining the legal context.

Perceptions and expectations for best practice formed an important study area

and involved the review of guidance documents and good practice guides

both from the European Commission and from individual member states, and

a literature review. To gain comprehensive feedback on the study and the


approach suggested, the data were collated, analysed, and were then dis-

cussed in depth at a two-day workshop (Cassiopee et al., 2001c) which

allowed delegates from those countries investigated to test the accuracy of the

information, and to debate the proposed approach. This workshop involved

59 participants including nuclear operators, nuclear safety regulators, EIA

practitioners, researchers, members of public interest groups, and a number of

representatives of the European Commission also took part. This workshop

allowed the various stakeholders participating to suggest changes where

necessary—the final approach described in this paper incorporates changes

made as a result of this workshop.

(3) To determine, through case study analysis, what lessons could be learnt from

practice of decommissioning and whether elements of good practice could be

extracted. Whilst decommissioning is becoming necessary for a large number

of nuclear reactors, experience to date is still quite limited. However, a case

study was used from each of Germany (Greifswald reactor), Spain (Vandellos

1 reactor) and the UK (Trawsfynydd reactor); in addition a review was

undertaken of case studies of contentious projects in order to identify good

practice in public participation and consultation—13 case studies were used

drawing on experience from Hungary, Spain, UK, Switzerland, Hong Kong,

USA and Japan (detailed in Cassiopee et al., 2001a).

3. An approach for EIA associated with decommissioning a nuclear power

plant

Based on the legal and guidance framework, case study evidence and con-

sultations, an illustrative approach is detailed in Fig. 2 and essentially comprises 20

stages. In practice, the different stages may be organised differently than proposed

here, however it is suggested that all the key elements of the approach are necessary

for a successful EIA to be carried out. Each of these stages is numbered and the

detail of what is expected, both procedurally and in terms of public participation, is

indicated below, along with an explanation of whether the stage has been included

through legal obligations or as an element of good practice.

3.1. Steps 1 and 3: Identification of stakeholders and list of stakeholders

That the input of stakeholders is vital to the success of the scoping stage and

thereby to the entire EIA process, was a clear conclusion both from a review of

the regulatory framework (full consultation with the public concerned is required

by the Arhus Convention) and from the consultation undertaken. Good practice

dictates that it is important to start by identifying all individuals/organisations

wishing to be considered as stakeholders and (subject to their agreement) list their

full contact details in a single, publicly available, document. This stage needs to

be undertaken at the start of the project and will ideally build upon existing


stakeholder contacts. Table 2 is a simple checklist to facilitate the initial

identification of stakeholders.

3.2. Step 2: Outline of feasible alternatives

Also at the start of the process, and in parallel with the identification of

stakeholders to save time, an initial outline of feasible alternatives should be

Fig. 2. The suggested Environmental Impact Assessment process for a nuclear power plant

decommissioning project.


prepared. These alternatives are later screened, on the basis of criteria agreed by

the stakeholders, to obtain a list of the alternative(s) to be assessed in more

detail. This step is in line with the requirement of the Environmental

Assessment Directive to outline the main alternatives considered, although it

goes further than legal obligations in having the stakeholders consider which

will be subject to further study and, therefore, which will be outlined in the

EIS.

3.3. Step 4: Definition of decision-making procedures and criteria

This is the core of the scoping stage and thus the widest support from

stakeholders should be sought through active public participation to define the

decision-making procedures and criteria to be used during the EIA process.

This step goes much further than legal obligations require and meets percep-

tions of good practice, particularly regarding public involvement. Ideally, a

consensus will be reached but, in any case, efforts must be made to integrate

stakeholders’ concerns. Face-to-face meetings which allow a two-way com-

munication process (e.g. public meetings, workshops) are preferred to indirect

means (e.g. questionnaires, allowing for submission of written comments,

surveys, etc.). However, indirect participatory strategies may still be used to

complement two-way communication processes. Further details on the par-

ticipation techniques which may be appropriate at this stage can be found in

Cassiopee et al. (2001b).

Another aspect to be considered at this point is the definition of the project

baseline, specifying the existing situation against which comparisons of potential

environmental impacts should be made.

It is expected that Steps 1–4 would take from 3 to 6 months to complete.

The amount of time required depends to a large extent on the degree of support

for the decommissioning project. If there are disagreements between stake-

holders, repeated meetings may be necessary before reaching an agreement on

the scope.

Table 2

Checklist for identification of stakeholders

. Local residents

. Trades unions

. Media

. Religious groups

. Local community groups

. Commercial associations

. Educational institutions

. Non-governmental organisations

. Independent experts

. National and local government agencies with responsibility for management of natural resources and

welfare of people likely to be affected by the project


3.4. Step 5: Alternatives screened according to agreed decision-making criteria

A first screening of the proposed (feasible) alternatives should be undertaken

as part of the public participation procedure at this stage. As for Step 2, the

Environmental Assessment Directive dictates that alternatives outlined should

be considered in the EIS, but this step incorporates good practice in that the

public are involved in the decision on which alternatives are included for further

study.

3.5. Step 6: Public information on agreed decision-making criteria and

remaining alternatives

The public should be informed about the results of this first part of the scoping

stage, i.e. the decision-making procedures and criteria as well as the alternatives

selected for further examination. This step ensures that transparency is main-

tained in the process. The information should be sent directly to the stakeholders

who participated in earlier stages and should be made publicly available. At

present, this goes further than the Environmental Assessment Directive, but can

be considered as a requirement under the Arhus Convention.

3.6. Step 7: Scoping for impacts of remaining alternatives

The remaining alternatives should then be scoped for impacts, in order to

select the final alternative(s) for the remainder of the EIA process. This ensures

that only alternatives that are technically and financially feasible, socially

acceptable and with potentially low environmental impacts are subjected to a

detailed assessment. This is a practical requirement to ensure that resources are

focused on the ‘main alternatives’ as required by the Environmental Assessment

Directive, and involves choosing the option(s) (from the feasible alternatives)

best meeting the established decision-making criteria.

3.7. Step 8: Draft scoping report

As an element of good practice taken from the US EIA system, a draft scoping

report is produced at this stage, establishing the scope of the EIA for the

decommissioning project. The draft scoping report will serve as a working

document; it should be made publicly available and a scoping meeting organised

to discuss it and agree on the final scope of the project. This step is not an obligation

of the Environmental Assessment Directive nor is it suggested in EU Guidance;

though it is compatible with the philosophy of the Arhus Convention for greater

public participation.

The process including the rejection of alternatives not meeting decision-

making criteria (Step 5) through to the production of the draft scoping report

(Step 8) is expected to take approximately 3–6 months.


3.8. Steps 9 and 10: Discussion and agreement of draft and final scoping reports

As scoping is the key to efficient EIA, helping to focus all resources onto the

significant issues of concern, all stakeholders discuss the draft scoping report, and

outstanding issues or inaccuracies are pointed out at this stage (Step 9). A

notification should be made through the local press as well as by traditional

means (e.g. posting notices or use of bulletin boards in public libraries and local

authorities). Whilst not a legal obligation under the Environmental Assessment at

present, this step is, arguably, required by the Arhus Convention and by EU

Guidance. The information which should be provided to the public in the

notification as part of this step is detailed in Table 3.

In addition, the previously identified stakeholders should be directly notified

of the proceedings and invited to participate in the scoping meeting. Sufficient

time should be allowed between notification and the scoping meeting in order to

allow the public to study the information and form an opinion. This allows the

public an opportunity to express an interest and identify themselves as stake-

holders in the process. Two primary means of participation may be used: indirect

participation (unilateral) through sending written comments and multilateral

participation through a scoping meeting.

The scoping meeting serves as a two-way communication forum where the

draft scoping document can be discussed and agreed. Care should be taken to

ensure the integration of all comments and concerns, and to be flexible and

willing to change the scope of the EIA in order to accommodate all major

concerns.

A final scoping report (Step 10) is then produced and made publicly available

in line with good practice and the requirements of the Arhus Convention for early

and effective communication in the environmental decision-making procedure.

This report incorporates all the changes agreed to the draft report at the

stakeholder meeting, and this document then forms the basis of the EIA to be

undertaken. Further scoping meetings may be needed if discrepancies remain to

be resolved. If, on the other hand, no major opposition arises, another scoping

Table 3

Information to be provided to the public in notification of scoping meeting

. The request for development consent

. The fact that the project is subject to an environmental impact assessment

. Details of the competent authorities responsible for taking the decision or from which relevant

information can be obtained or to which comments (or questions) can be submitted

. An indication of what relevant information is accessible to the public concerned and the places

where and means by which it will be made available

. An invitation to review the information and submit comments, specifying the means to convey the

information and the time frames involved

. An invitation to attend the scoping meeting, specifying the time and place

. Where relevant, the fact that there are transboundary impacts


meeting may not be necessary and the final scoping report may be prepared. The

review of the scoping report should become an iterative process until a document

agreeable to all parties is produced.

3.9. Step 11: Determination of the environmental baseline

In order to predict the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project,

as required by the Environmental Assessment Directive, the initial environmental

conditions must be known. Environmental damage varies according to the initial

conditions: for example, a given level of emissions may be more damaging in

ecologically sensitive zones or may surpass the ecosystem’s tolerance level if the

area is already polluted; tall structures may be tolerable in industrial areas but not

within a site of outstanding natural beauty.

The definition of the baseline conditions (e.g. meteorological conditions,

geological formations, groundwater flow direction) also provides data necessary

to make impact predictions. Because the same baseline conditions apply to all

of the options this step can be started before the full scope of the EIA has been

agreed if time is a concern. There may be some unnecessary expenditure

incurred but this would be small compared to the wider project and is likely to

be more than offset by the benefits of completing this stage early in the

process.

3.10. Step 12: Impact identification

Potential environmental impacts are identified at this stage, as required by

the Environmental Assessment Directive, based on parameters related to the

degree of physical and socio-economic impact, as well as according to the

public perceptions and values. For each alternative being evaluated, a separate

analysis needs to be carried out to determine the likelihood of environmental

impacts.

3.11. Step 13: Assessment of the significance of impacts

This step considers the implications of the impacts identified previously and

assesses their significance, as required by the Environmental Assessment Direct-

ive. Significance can be gauged relative to environmental standards or to public

perception for some more subjective impacts, and relative to radiological standards

as required by Directive 96/29/Euratom and the safety case. Frequent dialogue with

stakeholders throughout the Environmental Impact Assessment can, therefore, be

very helpful.

It is important for this step to include an evaluation of the uncertainties

associated with specific assessments. In particular it must be made clear whether

predictions represent best estimate or worst case scenarios, although in most

cases it will be appropriate to present both.


3.12. Step 14: Development of mitigation measures

One aim of EIA is to try and remove or reduce to acceptable levels all the

impacts which may occur as required by the Environmental Assessment Direct-

ive. Good practice dictates that the identification of possible mitigation measures

must have the agreement of the developer if they are to be included in the EIS.

3.13. Step 15: Listing of residual impacts

Mitigation can rarely remove all the identified impacts and a clear statement has

to be made about the impacts which would still occur even after the implementation

of the mitigation measures. The Environmental Assessment Directive does require

that all impacts are described and assessed, but this step makes it very clear where

mitigation is not possible or might not be fully effective.

3.14. Step 16: Development of a monitoring plan

In recognition of the fact that the evaluation of impacts is subject to

uncertainties, it is appropriate to develop a monitoring plan which would be

able to check that the residual impacts identified are the only ones which occur.

This would ensure that no unexpected impacts arise and that the proposed

mitigation measures are working adequately. This goes beyond the requirements

of the Environmental Assessment Directive but does meet with perceptions of

good practice. If unexpected impacts do arise, this would give an opportunity to

take remedial action.

The study to evaluate the impacts of the alternatives under investigation (Steps

11–16) is expected to last up to 12 months. This timing depends on the

information which is already available and that which must be specifically

collected (e.g. local meteorological and ecological data).

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.

3.15. Steps 17 and 18: Production of EIS

The product of all the environmental studies taking place in Steps 11–16 is

reported in the EIS, which typically is written as the evaluation work is taking

place. The EIS is the public report of the study that has taken place and needs to

convey the information gathered in an understandable way.

After the EIS is produced, it may be issued as a draft version (this is not

required by the Environmental Assessment Directive but would be an element of

good practice) and subjected to a public review. This review is recommended

when the project has proved to be controversial, but the stage may be omitted if

there is already a large degree of agreement. After the final EIS is produced


(Step 17), it must be made publicly available and submitted to the competent

authority in line with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment

Directive (Step 18).

3.16. Step 19: EIS review

Once the EIS has been submitted to the competent authority, it forms part of

the information on which a decision is based. As such, it needs to be checked to

ensure that appropriate evaluation techniques have been used and that there is no

undue bias. (The involvement of stakeholders earlier in the process should make

this stage little more than a formality).

The EIS review is normally the responsibility of the competent authority. Each

country, in line with the obligations of the Environmental Assessment Directive,

has defined the procedure for undertaking the EIS review; this normally involves

the public (e.g. allowing them to submit comments, organising public meetings or

hearings) and/or expert committees such as the EIA Commission in the Nether-

lands (see Wood, 1995). Sometimes, although the review is formally the re-

sponsibility of the competent authority, public meetings may need to be organised

by the developer.

3.17. Step 20: Decision

Depending on the country, the decision on the EIS may be the sole decision

required in order to authorise decommissioning or may be but another source of

evidence feeding into the sectoral decision-making process. Decision makers may

approve the proposed development, reject it, or approve it subject to meeting

certain conditions. In any case, the Environmental Assessment Directive indicates

that the decision should be justified and be made publicly available. Once the

decision has been made the EIA process can be said to be complete although the

monitoring programme must be implemented and the results of this programme

must also be made publicly available. If the project is likely to have significant

environmental impacts in a neighbouring country, the authorities in such country,

as well as that country’s concerned public must be considered stakeholders. In

this case, in line with the requirements of the Espoo Convention (United Nations

Economic Commission for Europe, 1991), the information and notifications must

be translated, if relevant.

3.18. All stages

Besides the formal scoping meeting(s) and the formal opportunity to review the

final scoping report, the most effective integration of public concerns will occur

when they are consulted in an ongoing (though maybe informal) manner. Such

ongoing participation can be arranged through an ad hoc organisation, such as a

Citizen’s Advisory Committee or through other non-formal means (e.g. open


houses) and should remain open for new organisations or individuals to join.

However, if nomajor public controversies arise, consultations may be scaled down.

4. Discussion

In deciding a strategy for decommissioning it should be appreciated that the

cost of different technical and timing options will inevitably be an important

consideration. In many countries, for example, sufficient funding may not be

available to make immediate dismantling of nuclear power plants a feasible

option, regardless of other technical considerations. Such countries may need to

establish funds that will grow over time such that dismantling will be undertaken

when sufficient funds are available (see, for example, UK Nirex et al., 1999). In

countries where nuclear power plants are privately owned, the financial viability

of the companies operating the facilities may not allow certain options such as

immediate dismantling.

The approach discussed above allows such considerations to be taken into

account. For example, referring to Fig. 2, the definition of ‘‘feasible’’ should be

taken to include technical as well as financial feasibility. Thus the procedure can

still be followed, therefore fulfilling legal obligations and using elements of good

practice, but at the same time facilitates dialogue with the public over financial

constraints to alternatives.

Another issue of relevance is the time that should be spent on the consultation.

In fact the approach discussed at the 2-day workshop (Cassiopee et al., 2001c)

did include a timeline, albeit with some flexibility built in. A timeline has been

included in Fig. 2; however, because of the differences in the appropriate

approaches to public participation in different countries and also because of the

different administrative structures which already have variation in their timelines,

this will need to be modified according to circumstance.

Inevitably, a suggested approach like this cannot satisfy entirely all the

stakeholders involved in a decommissioning project. Some stakeholders, particu-

larly some organisations responsible for decommissioning, were unhappy with

the suggested approach as it would impose obligations not formalised in the EIA

Directive, thereby increasing the time and expense involved. Fig. 2 tries to

accommodate this by including ‘‘optional stages’’ which include the production

and review of draft EISs (based on the US system of EIA; see Canter, 1996); the

approach incorporates the draft EIS as a good practice stage which is optional to

facilitate this view. The workshop involving the stakeholders did support the

proposed process, though there was some discussion about the timeline asso-

ciated with the completion of stages. It is clear that existing administrative

procedures in countries vary greatly in terms of the expected timings of some of

these stages, and the large range of time allowed for completion of stages allow

for this, whilst at the same time indicating that an EIA has to be expected to last

1–2 years or more for a project of this kind.


The approach suggested in this paper has been written to fully comply with

all the relevant European legislation and guidance and also UNECE Con-

ventions. The process suggested in Fig. 2 clearly takes a long time and is

resource intensive, but at the same time such projects can be contentious and

clearly have a potential for significant environmental impacts if they are not

managed properly. Flexibility has been built into the approach to facilitate the

differences in the legislative and administrative procedures which exist in

different countries, but the main stages of the approach, including the public

participation requirements, provide a means of compliance with all existing

EU legislation.

5. Conclusions

Whilst negotiations to amend the Environmental Assessment Directive pro-

duced some improvements in practice with the amendments in 1997, these fell

short of what many would have considered best practice (Bond and Wathern,

1999) and this can probably be explained by the process involved in negotiating a

Directive (Scott, 1998). However, events outside the sphere of Directive

negotiations are beginning to exert a significant influence on EIA and, specif-

ically, the Arhus Convention will require changes to the text in that it requires

significant enhancement of the public participation procedures within the EIA

process. The recent revision of the European Commission’s screening, scoping

and review guidance reflects these necessary changes.

It is too early to say whether the aim to establish a best-practicable approach

for EIA has been met. Certainly an approach has been established which is

available as advice on the web pages of the Directorate-General for Energy and

Transport of the European Commission, and which can now be applied in

practice to determine its effectiveness; the wide consultation carried out means

that the approach incorporates the requirements of current legal frameworks and

some elements of good practice outlined in guidance whilst being acceptable to at

least some of the developers and stakeholders involved in the decommissioning

process. Of particular significance is the amount of time which has been set aside

for public participation in this proposed approach which exceed the requirements

of current legislation in this area. By focussing on practicability, the approach

should be capable of achieving greater harmonisation of decision-making

procedures relating to decommissioning of nuclear power plants within the

European Union as it uses the Environmental Assessment Directive as one of

the prime vehicles for gathering all the information needed for the decision

process. Indeed, the study is available on the European Commission’s web pages

(Cassiopee et al., 2001a,b,c) and is, therefore, available as an approach to be

followed by organisations responsible for decommissioning.

The approach cannot be considered to represent ‘best practice’ as such an

approach would be likely to meet with great resistance from some organ-


isations responsible for decommissioning, concerned with potential increases

in cost and time involved in achieving a decision, particularly where some

steps are not legally required. However, by adopting a ‘best practicable’

approach, where legal obligations are met and elements of good practice are

included where they are likely to be accepted, it seems logical that the

procedure has a better chance of being used, and that greater consistency

achieved in this way should lead to greater consistency in the decision-making

procedures overall, although evidence would need to be collected to dem-

onstrate any clear relationship.

There are clearly limitations to the study which have led to the

development of this approach. The study did identify the current legislation

related to EIA of nuclear power plant decommissioning, but though three

case studies from actual decommissioning projects were used, experience in

this area is still limited. In addition, consultation over the approach tried to

be inclusive, but certainly focussed on the nuclear industry with public

involvement being limited primarily to an association of Mayors from

potentially affected communities—their input was extremely useful but

may not represent the strength of feeling of other stakeholders in the

process. The feeling from the stakeholders present at the workshop was that

this approach was workable, though inevitably the stages will be adapted

accordingly.

Whilst developed for nuclear power plants, there is no reason why this

suggested approach cannot be used for any contentious projects where

careful planning and good consultation will save time in the long run. As

it is applied, experience will be able to develop and improve the

approach.

Acknowledgements

The ideas presented in this paper were developed as part of a collaborative

study undertaken for the Nuclear Safety Unit, now part of the Directorate-General

for Energy and Transport, of the European Commission (Ref.: EC Contract B4-

3040/99/MAR/C2) on the application of Environmental Impact Assessment

(EIA) to the decommissioning of nuclear facilities in EU member states and the

applicant countries. The authors wish to express their gratitude to the

Commission services for their helpful comments and advice and also for their

permission to produce this paper, but stress that the views presented in the paper

are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Commission. Those

organisations involved in the study were the EIA Unit of The University of

Wales, Aberystwyth; Cassiopee, a European Economic Interest group formed of

the waste management agencies of Belgium, France, Germany, Spain, The

Netherlands and United Kingdom; and ECA Global, an environmental

consultancy company based in Barcelona.


References

Anon. EU Commission urged to act on nuclear safety. ENDS Daily [Friday 19 May 2000].

Bond AJ. Environmental impact assessment in the UK: background, basics, context and procedure.

Oxford: Chandos, 2000.

Bond AJ, Wathern P. EIA in the European Union. In: Petts J, editor. Handbook of environmental

impact assessment. Oxford: Blackwell; 1999. p. 223–48.

Bond A, O’Sullivan P, Russell S. Harmonising EIA processes for geological repositories for nuclear

waste in the European Union. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 2001;19:205–14.

Braeckeveldt M. Overview of Nuclear Decommissioning. Cassiopee, University of Wales Aberyst-

wyth, ECA Global. Study on EIA for Decommissioning Nuclear Installations. Final Report-Vol-

ume 1-Situation Report. Commission of the European Communities, 2001. Available at http://

europa.eu.int/comm/energy/nuclear/pdf/eur20051_vol1.pdf.

Canter LW. Environmental impact assessment. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1996.

Cassiopee, University of Wales Aberystwyth, ECA Global. Study on EIA for Decommission-

ing Nuclear Installations. Final Report-Volume 1-Situation Report. Commission of the

European Communities; 2001a. Available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy/nuclear/pdf/

eur20051_vol1.pdf.

Cassiopee, University of Wales Aberystwyth, ECA Global. Study on EIA for Decommissioning

Nuclear Installations. Final Report-Volume 2-Guidance for Undertaking an EIA of Proposals to

Decommission a Nuclear Power Plant. Commission of the European Communities; 2001b. Avail-

able at http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy/nuclear/pdf/eur20051_vol2.pdf.

Cassiopee, University of Wales Aberystwyth, ECA Global. Study on EIA for Decommissioning Nu-

clear Installations. Final Report-Volume 3-Workshop Report. Commission of the European Com-

munities; 2001c. Available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy/nuclear/pdf/eur20051_vol3.pdf.

Commission of the European Communities. Commission Recommendation of 6 December 1999 on

the application of Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty (notified under document number C(1999)

3932). Official J Eur Communities 1999;L324:23–43.

Commission of the European Communities. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and

of the Council providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and

programmes relating to the environment and amending Council Directive 85/337/EEC and 96/61/

EC. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities; 2001.

Council of the European Communities. Council Directive of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the

effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. Official J Eur Communities 1985;

C175:40–9.

Council of the European Union. Directive 96/29/Euratom laying down basic safety standards for the

protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing

radiation. Official J Eur Communities 1996;39:1–114.

Council of the European Union. Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/

337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environ-

ment. Official J Eur Communities 1997;40:5–14.

Department of the Environment. Preparation of environmental statements for planning projects that

require environmental assessment: a good practice guide. London: HMSO; 1995.

Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions/National Assembly for Wales. Environ-

mental impact assessment. A guide to procedures. Tonbridge: Thomas Telford; 2000.

Environmental Resources Management. Guidance on EIA—EIS review. Brussels: Commission of the

European Communities; 2001a.

Environmental Resources Management. Guidance on EIA—scoping. Brussels: Commission of the

European Communities; 2001b.

Environmental Resources Management. Guidance on EIA—screening. Brussels: Commission of the

European Communities; 2001c.

Forsstrom H, Taylor D. Current policy on radioactive waste management in the European Union.


http:\\www.europa.eu.int\comm\energy\nuclear\pdf\eur20051_vol1.pdf




IAEA International Conference on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, Cordoba, Spain;

2000.

Glasson J, Therivel R, Chadwick A. Introduction to environmental impact assessment. Principles and

procedures, process, practice and prospects. London: UCL Press; 1999.

International Atomic Energy Agency. Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and

on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. International Atomic Energy Agency; 1997.

Available at http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Documents/Legal/jointconv.shtml.

O’Sullivan P, Bond AJ, Russell S, Dagg S, Russell I. Environmental Impact Assessments and Geo-

logical Repositories for Radioactive Waste. Final Report, Volume 3: Central and East European

Countries. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 1999a.

O’Sullivan P, McKirdy B, Askarieh M, Bond AJ, Russell S, Dagg S, Russell I, Alonso J, Santiago

JJ. Environmental Impact Assessments and Geological Repositories for Radioactive Waste.

Volume 1: Main Report. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Com-

munities; 1999b.

Palerm JR. Public participation in environmental decision making: examining the Aarhus convention.

J Environ Assess Policy Manag 1999;1:229–44.

Scott J. EC environmental law. London: Longman; 1998.

Taylor D. Radioactive Waste Management in the European Union. Seminar on Nuclear Energy and

Radioactive Waste. Brussels; 2000.

UK Nirex, DBE, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, Sofres Conseil, C&E, ANDRA, COVRA, ENRESA,

ONDRAF/NIRAS. Schemes for financing radioactive waste storage and disposal. Brussels: Euro-

pean Commission, Directorate General for Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection;

1999.

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Convention on environmental impact assessment

in a transboundary context. Geneva: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe; 1991.

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Convention on access to information, public

participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters. Geneva: United

Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Committee on Environmental Policy; 1998.

Vankerckhoven P. Decommissioning of nuclear installations in the European Union. Supporting docu-

ment for the preparation of an EC Communication on the subject of decommissioning nuclear

installations in the EU. Brussels: European Commission, Directorate General for Environment,

Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection; 1998.

Walker LJ, Johnston J. Guidelines for the assessment of indirect and cumulative impacts as well as

impact interactions. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, Directorate General

XI; 1999.

Wathern P. Environmental impact assessment: theory and practice. London: Routledge; 1988.

Wood C. Environmental impact assessment: a comparative review. Harlow: Longmann Scientific and

Technical; 1995.


http:\\www.iaea.org\worldatom\Documents\Legal\jointconv.shtml

environmental impact assessment review

Documents

nuclear facilities

european commission

central european countries

european union member

decommissioning process

elsevier science

decommissioning activities

guidance framework