SUMMARY ......................................................... 1
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................. 3
1.1. Background ............................................. 3
1.2. Objective .............................................. 3
1.3. Scope .................................................. 4
1.4. Structure .............................................. 4
2. SOCIOECONOMIC EFFECTS OF FINAL SHUTDOWN AND
DECOMMISSIONING ................................................. 5
2.1. Impacts on the workforce ............................... 6
2.2. Impact on the local community ......................... 10
2.3. Impact on the wider community ......................... 12
3. FACTORS THAT AFFECT THE SCALE OF SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT ....... 15
3.1. Size of the workforce ................................. 15
3.2. Location .............................................. 16
3.3. Decommissioning strategy .............................. 16
3.4. Type of site .......................................... 17
3.4.1. Research reactors and other small sites ........ 18
3.4.2. Large research, fuel cycle and defence sites ... 20
4. MANAGING THE SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT ........................... 21
4.1. Principles of intervention ............................ 22
4.2. Socioeconomic planning ................................ 24
4.3. Communications and consultation ....................... 27
4.3.1. Communication with the workforce ............... 28
4.3.2. Communication within the community ............. 29
4.3.3. Investment ..................................... 30
5. INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE OF THE MANAGEMENT OF SOCIOECONOMIC
IMPACTS ..................................................... 32
5.1. Armenia ............................................... 33
5.2. Bulgaria .............................................. 34
5.3. France ................................................ 34
5.4. Germany ............................................... 34
5.5. Lithuania ............................................. 36
5.6. Russian Federation .................................... 36
5.7. Spain ................................................. 36
5.8. Sweden ................................................ 38
5.9. Ukraine ............................................... 39
5.10. United Kingdom ........................................ 40
5.11. United States of America .............................. 42
6. CONCLUSIONS ................................................. 44
REFERENCES ..................................................... 45
ANNEXES: NATIONAL AND PROJECT EXPERIENCE .................... 49
ANNEX I: CREYS-MALVILLE, FRANCE: SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT OF
DECOMMISSIONING .................................... 51
ANNEX II: SOCIAL ASPECTS OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
DECOMMISSIONING AT THE GREIFSWALD SITE IN
GERMANY ............................................ 56
ANNEX III: DECOMMISSIONING IN LITHUANIA ....................... 64
ANNEX IV: SOCIOECONOMIC ASPECTS OF DECOMMISSIONING PROJECTS
IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION .......................... 74
ANNEX V: SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE DISMANTLING OF
VANDELLOS I NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, SPAIN ............. 82
ANNEX VI: BARSEBÄCK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT IN SWEDEN:
TRANSITION TO DECOMMISSIONING ...................... 97
ANNEX VII: SOCIOECONOMIC POSITION IN THE UNITED
KINGDOM AND THE DOUNREAY PROJECT .................. 111
ANNEX VIII: PRODUCING A SOCIOECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PLAN IN THE UNITED KINGDOM ........................ 122
ANNEX IX: LESSONS LEARNED AND CASE STUDIES .................. 128
CONTRIBUTORS TO DRAFTING AND REVIEW ........................... 136
|
