skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Challenges for Lithuania: Ignalina NPP Early Closure

Conference ·
OSTI ID:21144154
 [1];  [2]
  1. Ministry of Economy, Gedimino pr. 38/2, Vilnius, LT-01104 (Lithuania)
  2. Central Project Management Agency, S. Konarskio 13, Vilnius, LT-03109 (Lithuania)

As a condition of accession into the European Union (EU), Lithuania is committed to the closure and decommissioning of Ignalina NPP comprising two RBMK-1500 reactor units (Fig. 1). It was agreed in a special protocol to the Accession Treaty that, in return for adequate EU financial assistance, Unit 1 would be closed before 2005 and Unit 2 by the end of 2009. The first unit was duly shut down on December 31, 2004. Lithuania, which has borders with Russia (Kaliningrad territory), Poland, Latvia and Belarus, spent fifty years as part of the Soviet Union and was deeply integrated into its economy and electrical infrastructure. At the break-up of the USSR, Lithuania inherited electricity generating capacity designed to supply the north-west region including ownership of Ignalina NPP located in the north-east of the country. Ignalina NPP Unit 1 was commissioned in 1983, Unit 2 in 1987; the planned lifespan of each unit was 30 years. Construction of a third unit was started but never completed. Since Lithuania became independent in 1990, Ignalina NPP has typically contributed more than 70% of national power supply. The town of Visaginas (population approx. 30,000) was purpose built to serve the plant and staff were brought in from throughout the USSR. With 3200 direct employees, Ignalina NPP remains by far the largest employer. Although there are pockets of Russian-language speakers in communities throughout Lithuania, Visaginas is the only example on a whole-town scale. Thus closure of Ignalina NPP within the restricted timescale required by the EU Accession Treaty commitment set an exceptional challenge to Lithuania. However, since the preparatory phase of decommissioning started in 2000, notable progress has been made, experience gained and lessons learnt. At present Unit 1 remains partially fueled in a state of care and maintenance. Partly burnt fuel is being transferred from Unit 1 to Unit 2 for further irradiation in order to minimize the commitment of new fuel thereby reducing operating costs and the final quantity of spent fuel. Design and construction of the facilities for spent fuel storage, waste processing and free-release is ongoing. The siting of the Near Surface Repository is now in the final stages of approval and construction of the landfill facility is under tendering. In order to facilitate the approval process and minimize the transport of waste, both disposal facilities will be within the boundary of the NPP site. Approximately 450 staff are employed at the shutdown Unit 1 for the safe maintenance of essential systems. The total staffing level at the plant is currently being reduced by around 200 each year, with a larger release to take place at the closure of Unit 2. It is envisaged that 2000 staff will be required for the dismantling operations. Although Ignalina NPP is still in the early stages of closure and decommissioning, some important lessons have already been learnt: Firstly, the importance considering social and financial issues as well as technical factors in deciding the decommissioning strategy. This should be done before the preparation is started of the FDP. The same broad consideration should also be given to the economic restructuring of the local area. Consultation is necessary with local and national authorities, and other stakeholders up to ensure a common vision. At Ignalina NPP it was considered essential to staff morale and the maintenance of a strong safety culture to guarantee the special social and employment benefits to dismissed staff in law [9]. At the same time, measures were also adopted to encourage certain key personnel to remain at the plant until closure. The case of Lithuania, which at independence had no legislative framework or management infrastructure for radioactive waste, may be exceptional; however, for all decommissioning projects it is necessary to have, from the outset, a clear strategy on waste storage and disposal. Finally, coordination at all levels must be assured, especially with the involvement of the nuclear regulators and other regulatory authorities, to achieve a smooth progression from operation into decommissioning.

Research Organization:
American Nuclear Society, 555 North Kensington Avenue, La Grange Park, Illinois 60526 (United States)
OSTI ID:
21144154
Resource Relation:
Conference: DD and R 2007: ANS Topical Meeting on Decommissioning, Decontamination, and Reutilization 2007, Chattanooga, TN (United States), 16-19 Sep 2007; Other Information: Country of input: France; 9 refs; Related Information: In: Proceedings of the 2007 ANS Topical Meeting on Decommissioning, Decontamination, and Reutilization - DD and R 2007, 336 pages.
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English