Nuclear decommissioning
Nuclear decommissioning is the process leading to the irreversible complete or partial closure of a nuclear facility, usually a nuclear reactor, with the ultimate aim at termination of the operating licence. The process usually runs according to a decommissioning plan, including the whole or partial dismantling and decontamination of the facility, ideally resulting in restoration of the environment up to greenfield status. The decommissioning plan is fulfilled when the approved end state of the facility has been reached.
The process typically takes about 15 to 30 years, or decades more when an interim safe storage periode is applied for radioactive decay. Radioactive waste that remains after the decommissioning is either moved to an on-site storage facility where it is still under control of the owner, or moved to a dry cask storage or disposal facility at another location.
The facility is dismantled to the point that it no longer requires measures for radiation protection. The presence of radioactive material necessitates processes that are potentially occupationally hazardous, expensive, time-intensive, and present environmental risks that must be addressed to ensure radioactive materials are either transported elsewhere for storage or stored on-site in a safe manner. The challenge in nuclear decommissioning is not just technical, but also economical[1] and social.[2]
Decommissioning is an administrative and technical process. It includes clean-up of radioactive materials and progressive demolition of the facility. Once a facility is fully decommissioned, no radiological danger should persist. The costs of decommissioning are to be covered by funds that are provided for in a decommissioning plan, which is part of the facility’s initial authorization. They may be saved in a decommissioning fund, such as a trust fund. After a facility has been completely decommissioned, it is released from regulatory control and the plant licensee is no longer responsible for its nuclear safety.
Definition
Nuclear decommissioning is the administrative and technical process leading to the irreversible closure of a nuclear facility such as a nuclear power plant (NPP), a research reactor, an isotope production plant, a particle accelerator, or uranium mine. It refers to the administrative and technical actions taken to remove all or some of the regulatory controls from the facility to bring about that its site can be reused. Decommissioning includes planning, decontamination, dismantling and materials management.[3]
Decommissioning is the final step in the lifecycle of a nuclear installation. It involves activities from shutdown and removal of nuclear material to the environmental restoration of the site.[4] The term decommissioning covers all measures carried out after a nuclear installation has been granted a decommissioning licence until nuclear regulatory supervision is no longer necessary. The aim is ideally to restore the natural initial state that existed before the construction of the nuclear power plant, the so-called greenfield status.[5]
Decommissioning includes all steps as described in the decommissioning plan, leading to the release of a nuclear facility from regulatory control. The decommissioning plan is fulfilled when the approved end state of the facility has been reached. Disposal facilities for radioactive waste are closed rather than decommissioned. The use of the term decommissioning implies that no further use of the facility (or part thereof) for its existing purpose is foreseen. Though decommissioning typically includes dismantling of the facility, it is not necessarilly part of it, for example, when the existing structures are put to another use after decommissioning and decontamination.[6],p. 49-50
From the owner's perspective, the ultimate aim of decommissioning is termination of the operating license, once he has given certainty that the radiation at the site is below the legal limits, which in the US is an annual exposure of 25 millirem in case of releasing of the site to the public for unrestricted use.[7] The site will be dismantled to the point that it no longer requires measures for radiation protection. Once a facility is decommissioned no radioactive danger persists and it can be released from regulatory control.
The complete process usually takes about 20 to 30 years.[4] In the US, the decommissioning must be completed within 60 years of the plant ceasing operations, unless a longer time is necessary to protect public health and safety;[7] up to 50 years are for radioactive decay and 10 years to dismantle the facility.[8]
Steps in the decommissioning process
The decommissioning process encompasses:
- development of a decommissioning plan
- involvement of the public (in democracies)
- application for a decommissioning license
- permanent shutdown
- removal and disposal of nuclear fuel, coolant(s) and/or moderator
- dismantling and decontamination
- disposal of nuclear waste
- in the US, a License Termination Plan (LTP) has to be submitted two years prior to termination of the plant license.[9]
- monitoring of the site (in case of deferred dismantling/Safstor)
- restoration of the environment
- termination of the operating license; turn over responsibilities
Decommissioning plan
Under supervision of the IAEA, a member state first developes a decommissioning plan to demonstrate the feasibility of decommissioning and assure that the associated costs are covered. At the final shutdown, a final decommissioning plan describes in detail how the decommissioning will take place, how the facility will be safely dismantled, ensuring radiation protection of the workers and the public, addressing environmental impacts, managing radioactive and non-radioactive materials, and termination of the regulatory authorization.[3] In the EU, decommissioning operations are overseen by Euratom. Member states are assisted by the European Commission.[4]
The progressive demolition of buildings and removal of radioactive material is potentially occupationally hazardous, expensive, time-intensive, and presents environmental risks that must be addressed to ensure radioactive materials are either transported elsewhere for storage or stored on-site in a safe manner.
Disposal of nuclear waste
Radioactive waste that remains after the decommissioning is either moved to an on-site storage facility where it still is under control of the plant owner, or moved to a dry cask storage or disposal facility at another location.[10] The problem of long-term disposal of nuclear waste is still unsolved. Pending the availability of geologic repository sites for long-term disposal, interim storage is necessary. As the planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository – like elsewhere in the world – is controversial, off-site storage in the US usually takes place in independent spent fuel storage facilities (ISFSIs).[11]
Environmental impact assessment
The decommission of a nuclear reactor can only take place after the appropriate licence has been granted pursuant to the relevant legislation. As part of the licensing procedure, various documents, reports and expert opinions have to be written and delivered to the competent authority, e.g. safety report, technical documents and an environmental impact assessment (EIA). In the European Union these documents are a precondition for granting such a licence is an opinion by the European Commission according to Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty.[12] On the basis of these general data, the Commission must be in a position to assess the exposure of reference groups of the population in the nearest neighbouring states.
Options
There are several options for decommissioning:
Immediate dismantling (Decon in the United States)
Soon after the nuclear facility has been closed definitely, equipment, structures, and portions of the facility containing radioactive contaminants are removed or decontaminated to a level that permits release of the property and termination of the NRC license. Dismantling or decontamination activities begin within a few months or years, and depending on the facility, it could take five years or more.[7]
Deferred dismantling (Safstor in the United States)
The final decommissioning is postponed for a longer period, usually 40 to 60 years. The nuclear facility is maintained and monitored in a condition that allows the radioactivity to decay. Afterwards, the plant is dismantled and the property decontaminated to levels that permit release for unrestricted use.[7] The bulk of the costs for dismantling is also postponed to the future.
Partial entombment
The US has introduced the so-called In Situ Decommissioning (ISD) closures. All aboveground structures are dismantled; all remaining belowground structures are entombed by grouting all spaces. Advantages are lower decommissioning costs and safer execution. Disadvantages are main components remaining undismantled and definitively inaccessible. The site has to be monitored indefinitely.
This method was implemented at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina for the closure of the P and R Reactors. With this method, the cost of decommissioning for each reactor was about $73 million. In comparison, the decommissioning of each reactor using traditional methods would have been an estimated $250 million. This resulted in a 71% decrease in cost.[13] Other examples are the Hallam nuclear reactor and the Experimental Breeder Reactor II.
Complete entombment
The facility will not be dismantled. Instead it is entombed and maintained indefinitely, and surveillance is continued until the entombed radioactive waste is decayed to a level permitting termination of the license and unrestricted release of the property. The licensee maintains the license previously issued.[14] This option is likely the only possible one in case of a nuclear disaster where the reactor is destroyed and dismantling is impossible or too dangerous. An example of full entombment is the Chernobyl reactor.
Costs
Decommissioning funds
The costs of decommissioning are to be covered by funds that are provided for in a decommissioning plan, which is part of the facility’s initial authorization, before the start of the operations. In this way, it is ensured that there will be sufficient money to pay for the eventual decommissioning of the facility. This may for example be through saving in a trust fund or a guarantee from the parent company[15]
Switzerland has a central fund for decommissioning its five nuclear power reactors, and another one for disposal the nuclear waste.[16]
The economic costs of decommissioning will increase as more assets reach the end of their life, but few operators have put aside sufficient funds.[17]
In Europe there is considerable concern over the funds necessary to finance final decommissioning. In many countries either the funds do not appear sufficient to cover decommissioning and in other countries decommissioning funds are used for other activities, putting decommissioning at risk, and distorting competition with parties who do not have such funds available.[18]
In 2016 the European Commission assessed that European Union's nuclear decommissioning liabilities were seriously underfunded by about 118 billion euros, with only 150 billion euros of earmarked assets to cover 268 billion euros of expected decommissioning costs covering both dismantling of nuclear plants and storage of radioactive parts and waste. France had the largest shortfall with only 23 billion euros of earmarked assets to cover 74 billion euros of expected costs.[19]
Similar concerns exist in the United States, where the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has located apparent decommissioning funding assurance shortfalls and requested 18 power plants to address that issue.[20] The decommissioning cost of Small modular reactors is expected to be twice as much respect to Large Reactors.[21]
Examples by country
In the US, the decommissioning of only the three uranium enrichment facilities would have an estimated cost (2004) of US$18.7 to 62 billion, with an additional US$2 to 6 billion for the dismantling of a large inventory of depleted uranium hexafluoride. The cost will exceed the revenues by billions.[22]
In France, decommissioning of Brennilis Nuclear Power Plant, a fairly small 70 MW power plant, already cost €480 million (20x the estimate costs) and is still pending after 20 years. Despite the huge investments in securing the dismantlement, radioactive elements such as plutonium, caesium-137 and cobalt-60 leaked out into the surrounding lake.[23][24]
In the UK, the decommissioning of civil nuclear assets were estimated to be £99 to £232 billion (2020), earlier in 2005 under-estimated to be £20-40 billion. The Sellafield site (Windscale) alone accounts for most of the decommissioning cost and increase in cost.[17] A 2013 estimate by the United Kingdom's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority predicted costs of at least £100 billion to decommission the 19 existing United Kingdom nuclear sites.[25]
In Germany, decommissioning of Niederaichbach nuclear power plant, a 100 MW power plant, amounted to more than €143 million.
Lithuania has increased the prognosis of decommissioning costs from €2019 million in 2010 to €3376 million in 2015.[17]
In 2004, in a meeting in Vienna, the International Atomic Energy Agency estimated the total cost for the decommissioning of all nuclear facilities. Decommissioning of all nuclear power reactors in the world would require US$187 billion; US$71 billion for fuel cycle facilities; less than US$7 billion for all research reactors; and US$640 billion for dismantling all military reactors for the production of weapons-grade plutonium, research fuel facilities, nuclear reprocessing chemical separation facilities, etc. The total cost to decommission the nuclear fission industry in the World (from 2001 to 2050) was estimated at around US$1 trillion.[26] Market Watch estimated (2019) the global decommissioning costs in the nuclear sector in the range of US$1 billion to US$1.5 billion per 1,000-megawatt plant.[17]
International collaboration
Organizations that promote the international sharing of information, knowledge, and experiences related to nuclear decommissioning include the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development's Nuclear Energy Agency and the European Atomic Energy Community.[27] In addition, an online system called the Deactivation and Decommissioning Knowledge Management Information Tool was developed under the United States Department of Energy and made available to the international community to support the exchange of ideas and information. The goals of international collaboration in nuclear decommissioning are to reduce decommissioning costs and improve worker safety.[27]
Decommissioning of ships, mobile reactors, and military reactors
Many warships and a few civil ships have used nuclear reactors for propulsion. Former Soviet and American warships have been taken out of service and their power plants removed or scuttled. Dismantling of Russian submarines and ships and American submarines and ships is ongoing. Marine power plants are generally smaller than land-based electrical generating stations.
The biggest American military nuclear facility for the production of weapons-grade plutonium was Hanford site (in the State of Washington), now defueled, but in a slow and problematic process of decontamination, decommissioning, and demolition. There is "the canyon", a large structure for the chemical extraction of plutonium with the PUREX process. There are also many big containers and underground tanks with a solution of water, hydrocarbons and uranium-plutonium-neptunium-cesium-strontium (all highly radioactive). With all reactors now defueled, some were put in SAFSTOR (with their cooling towers demolished). Several reactors have been declared National Historic Landmarks.
List of inactive or decommissioned civil nuclear reactors
A wide range of nuclear facilities have been decommissioned so far. The number of decommissioned nuclear reactors out of the List of nuclear reactors is small. As May 2022, about 700 nuclear reactors have been retired from operation in several early and intermediate stages (cold shut-down, defueling, SAFSTOR, internal demolition), but only about 25 have been taken to fully "greenfield status".[28] Many of these sites still host spent nuclear fuel in the form of dry casks embedded in concrete filled steel drums.[29]
As of 2017, most nuclear plants operating in the United States were designed for a life of about 30–40 years[30] and are licensed to operate for 40 years by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.[31][32] As of 2020, the average age of these reactors was about 39 years.[32] Many plants are coming to the end of their licensing period and if their licenses are not renewed, they must go through a decontamination and decommissioning process.[30][33][28]
| Country | Location | Reactor type | Operative life | Decommissioning process |
Dismantling costs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Austria | Zwentendorf | BWR 723 MWe | Never activated due to referendum in 1978[36] | Now a technics museum | |
| Belgium | SCK•CEN – BR3, located at Mol, Belgium |
PWR (BR-3) | 1962–1987 (25 years) |
2002- [37] | Still unknown |
| Bulgaria | Kozloduy Units 1, 2, 3, 4[38] |
PWR VVER-440 (4 x 408 MWe) |
Reactors 1,2 closed in 2003, reactors 3,4 closed in 2006 |
Ongoing | Still unknown |
| Canada | Gentilly Unit 1 (Québec) |
CANDU-BWR 250 MWe |
180 days (between 1966 and 1973) |
Ongoing | Still unknown
stage two: |
| Canada | Pickering NGS Units A2, A3 (Ontario) |
CANDU-PWR 8 x 542 MWe |
30 years (from 1974 to 2004) |
Ongoing
Two units currently in "cold standby" |
Still unknown
calculated: $270–430/kWe |
| China[44] | Beijing (CIAE) | HWWR 10 MWe (multipurpose Heavy Water Experimental Reactor for the production of plutonium and tritium) | 49 years (1958–2007) |
SAFSTOR until 2027 | Still unknown
proposed: $6 million for dismantling |
| France[45] | Brennilis | HWGCR 70 MWe | 12 years (1967–1979) |
Ongoing
Phase 3 |
Still unknown
already spent €480 million |
| France | Bugey Unit 1 |
UNGG Gas cooled, graphite moderator |
1972–1994 | Ongoing
postponed |
Still unknown |
| France | Chinon Units 1, 2, 3 |
Gas-graphite | (1973–1990) |
Ongoing
postponed |
Still unknown |
| France | Chooz-A | PWR 300 MW | 24 years (1967–1991) |
2007-
Ongoing
Deferred dismantling;[49] |
Still unknown |
| France | Saint-Laurent | Gas-graphite | 1969–1992 | Ongoing
Postponed |
Still unknown |
| France | Rapsodie at Cadarache |
Experimental Fast breeder nuclear reactor (sodium-cooled) 40 MWe |
15 years (1967–1983) |
1983- Ongoing dismantling planned by 2005; general decontamination planned by 2020[50] |
Still unknown |
| France | Phénix at Marcoule |
Experimental Fast breeder nuclear reactor (sodium-cooled) 233 MWe |
36 years (1973–2009)[51] |
2005-
Ongoing |
Still unknown |
| France | Superphénix at Creys-Malville |
Fast breeder nuclear reactor (sodium-cooled) |
11 years (1985–1996)[53] |
Ongoing
1) Defuelled |
Still unknown |
| East Germany | Greifswald Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
VVER-440 5 x 408 MWe |
Reactors 1–5 closed in 1989/1990, reactor 6: finished but never operated |
Ongoing
Immediate |
Still unknown |
| East Germany | Rheinsberg Unit 1 |
VVER-210 70–80 MWe |
24 years (1966–1990) |
Ongoing
In dismantling |
Still unknown |
| East Germany | Stendal Units 1, 2, 3, 4 |
VVER-1000 (4 x 1000 MWe) |
Never activated (1st reactor 85% completed) |
Not radioactive (Cooling towers demolished; Structure in exhibition inside an industrial park) |
Still unknown |
| West Germany | Gundremmingen-A | BWR 250 MWe |
11 years |
Ongoing
Immediate |
Still unknown |
| India[57] | Rajasthan Atomic Power Station Unit 1 (Rajasthan) |
PHWR 100 MWe (similar to CANDU) | 44 years (1970–2014) |
Ongoing | Still unknown |
| Italy[58] | Caorso | BWR 840 MWe[59][60] |
3 years (1978 – Closed in 1987 after referendum in 1986) |
SAFSTOR: 30 years (internal demolition) |
€450 million (dismantling) + €300 million (fuel reprocessing)[61][62][63][64] |
| Italy | Garigliano (Caserta) | BWR 150 MWe[65] |
Closed on March 1, 1982 | SAFSTOR: 30 years (internal demolition) |
Still unknown |
| Italy | Latina (Foce Verde) | Magnox 210 MWe Gas-graphite[66] |
24 years (1962 – Closed in 1986 after referendum) |
SAFSTOR: 30 years (internal demolition) |
Still unknown |
| Italy | Trino Vercellese | PWR Westinghouse, 270 MWe[67] |
(Closed in 1986 after referendum) |
SAFSTOR: 30 years (internal demolition) |
Still unknown |
| Japan | Fukushima Dai-ichi Unit 1 |
BWR 439 MWe | November 17, 1970 – March 11, 2011 | Ongoing
Since 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami of March 11 |
Estimated at ¥10 trillion (US$100 billion) for decontaminating Fukushima and dismantling all reactors in Japan and considering long time damage to environment and economy, including agriculture, cattle breeding, fishery, water potabilization, tourism, loss of reputation in the world (without considering further health care spending and reduction of life expectancy).[73] |
| Japan | Fukushima Dai-ichi Unit 2 |
BWR 760 MWe | December 24, 1973 – March 11, 2011 | Ongoing | Still unknown |
| Japan | Fukushima Dai-ichi Unit 3 |
BWR 760 MWe | October 26, 1974 – March 11, 2011 | Ongoing | Still unknown |
| Japan | Fukushima Dai-ichi Unit 4 |
BWR 760 MWe | February 24, 1978 – March 11, 2011 | Ongoing
Since March 11, 2011 Reactor defueled when tsunami hit |
Still unknown |
| Japan | Fukushima Dai-ichi Unit 5 |
BWR 760 MWe | September 22, 1977 – March 11, 2011 | Planned decommissioning Cold shutdown since March 11, 2011 |
Still unknown |
| Japan | Fukushima Dai-ichi Unit 6 |
BWR 1067 MWe | May 4, 1979 – March 11, 2011 | Planned decommissioning Cold shutdown since March 11, 2011 |
Still unknown |
| Japan | Fukushima Daini Unit 1[74] |
BWR 1067 MWe | July 31, 1981 – 11 March 2011 | Planned decommissioning Cold shutdown since March 11, 2011 [75] |
Still unknown |
| Japan | Fugen[76] | Advanced thermal reactor (MOX fuel core, heavy water-BWR) 165 MWe |
1979–2003 | Ongoing | Still unknown |
| Japan | Tokai Unit 1 |
Magnox (GCR) 160 MWe | 1966–1998 | SAFSTOR: 10 years[80][81] then decon until 2018 |
¥93 billion[82] (€660 million of 2003) |
| North Korea | Yongbyon | Magnox-type (reactor for the production of nuclear weapons through PUREX treatment) |
20 years (1985–2005) Deactivated after a treaty[83] |
SAFSTOR: cooling tower dismantled | Still unknown |
| Netherlands | Dodewaard | BWR Westinghouse 58 MWe[84] |
28 years (1969–1997) |
Defuelling completed SAFSTOR: 40 years |
Still unknown |
| Russia | Mayak[85] (Chelyabinsk-65) |
PUREX plant for uranium enrichment |
Several severe incidents (1946–1956) |
Ongoing | Still unknown |
| Russia | Seversk[86] (Tomsk-7) |
Three plutonium reactors Plant for uranium enrichment |
Two fast-breeder reactors closed (of three), after disarmaments agreements with USA in 2003.[87] |
Ongoing | Still unknown |
| Slovakia | Jaslovské Bohunice Units 1, 2[88][89] |
VVER 440/230 2 X 440 MWe |
(1978–2006) (1980–2008) |
Ongoing | Still unknown |
| Spain[90] | José Cabrera | PWR 1 x 160 MWe (Westinghouse) |
38 years (1968–2006) |
2010-2023[91][92][93] | Still unknown Estimation increased from €135 mln in 2003 to €217.8 mln in 2014[94] |
| Spain | Santa María de Garoña (Burgos) |
BWR/3 1 x 466 MWe (by Dutch RDM) |
1966–2013 | Ongoing
Defueled |
Still unknown |
| Spain | Vandellós Unit 1 |
UNGG 480 MWe (gas-graphite) |
18 years Incident: fire in a turbogenerator (1989) |
SAFSTOR: 30 years (internal demolition) |
Still unknown
Phases 1 and 2: €93 million |
| Sweden | Barsebäck Units 1, 2 |
BWR 2 x 615 MW | Reactor 1: 24 years 1975–1999 Reactor 2: 28 years 1977 – 2005 |
SAFSTOR: demolition will begin in 2020 | The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority has assessed that the costs for decommissioning and final disposal for the Swedish nuclear power industry may be underestimated by SKB by at least 11 billion Swedish crowns ($1.63 billion)[95] |
| Switzerland[96] | DIORIT | MWe CO2-Gas-heavy water (experimental) |
Decommissioned[97] | Still unknown | |
| Switzerland | LUCENS | 8,3 MWe CO22-Gas-heavy water (experimental) |
(1962–1969) Incident: fire in 1969 |
Decommissioned[98] | Still unknown |
| Switzerland | SAPHIR | 0,01–0,1 MWe (Light water pool) |
39 years (1955–1994) (Experimental demonstrator) |
Decommissioned[98] | Still unknown |
| Ukraine | Chernobyl-4 (110 km from Kiev) |
RBMK-1000 1000 MWe |
hydrogen explosion, then graphite fire (1986) (INES 7) |
Ongoing
ENTOMBMENT |
Still unknown Future: riding sarcophagus in steel[99] |
| United Kingdom[100] | Berkeley | Magnox (2 x 138 MWe) |
27 years (1962–1989) |
SAFSTOR: 30 years (internal demolition) |
Still unknown |
| United Kingdom | Bradwell | Magnox 2 x 121 MWe |
1962–2002 | SAFSTOR: 30 years (internal demolition) |
Still unknown |
| United Kingdom | Dounreay: DMTR (Research facility of UKAEA) |
Fast-neutron reactor | 1958–1969 | Ongoing
Demolition contract awarded December 2018[101] |
Still unknown |
| United Kingdom | Dounreay: DFR (Research facility of UKAEA) |
Loop-type fast breeder.
14 MWe.[102] |
1959–1977 | OngoingDefueling[103] | Still unknown |
| United Kingdom | Dounreay: PFR (Research facility of UKAEA) |
Pool-type fast breeder cooled by liquid sodium, fueled with MOX.250 MWe.[104] | 1974–1994 (with average 26.9% load)[105] Delays and reliability problems before reaching full power.[106] |
Remotely operated robot 'Reactorsaurus' will be sent in to decontaminate equipment as too dangerous a task for a human.[107] Control panel has been earmarked for an exhibition at London Science Museum (2016). [108] | Still unknown |
| United Kingdom | Sellafield-Calderhall | Magnox 4 x 60 MWe first nuclear power station. |
August 27, 1956 – March 31, 2003 (World's first nuclear power station to generate electrical power on an industrial scale [109]) The first reactor had been in use for 47 years.[110] | SAFSTOR: 30 years (internal demolition).[111] |
Still unknown |
| United Kingdom | Chapelcross | Magnox 4 x 60 MWe ("sister reactor" to Calderhall) |
1959–2004 | SAFSTOR: 30 years (internal demolition) |
Still unknown |
| United Kingdom | Winfrith-Dorset Research area of the UKAEA |
SGHWR 100 MWe |
Operated from 1958 to 1990. |
Ongoing | Still unknown |
| United States | Crystal River 3 (Florida) |
PWR 860 MWe |
33 years (1976–2009)[115] Plant scheduled to restart in April 2011, but the project encountered a number of delays.[116] After repairs, additional delamination began to occur in adjacent bays. Duke Energy announced in Feb-2013 that the Crystal River NPP would be permanently shut down.[117] |
From 2015 to 2019 Ongoing expected SAFSTOR 2019–2067 Decommissioning Periods (Start – End); Duration (years) |
~$1,2 billion[119] |
| United States | Dresden Unit 1 (Illinois) |
BWR 207 MWe |
18 years (1960–1978) |
Defueled in safety in 1998 now in SAFSTOR[120] Fuel in on-site dry-casks.[121] |
Still unknown |
| United States | Fort St. Vrain GS (Colorado) |
HTGR (helium-graphite) 380 MWe |
12 years (1977–1989) |
Immediate Decon | $195 million |
| United States | Rancho Seco NGS[122] (California) |
PWR 913 MWe | 12 years (Closed after a referendum in 1989) |
SAFSTOR: 5–10 years completed in 2009 [123] Fuel in insite long-term dry-cask storage |
$538.1 million [124] |
| United States | Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station Unit 2 (Pennsylvania) |
PWR 913 MWe | 1978–1979 Core meltdown incident |
Post-Defuelling Phase 2 (1979) |
$805 million (estimated)[125] |
| United States | Shippingport (Pennsylvania) |
BWR 60 MWe | 25 years (closed in 1989) |
Decon completed dismantled in 5 years (first small experimental reactor) |
$98.4 million[126] |
| United States | San Onofre NGS Unit 1 (California) |
PWR 436 MWe[127] Westinghouse Electric Corporation | 25 years (1967–1992) |
Reactor dismantled and used as a storage site for spent fuel.[128] | Still unknown |
| United States | San Onofre NGS Units 2, 3 (California)[129] |
2 x PWR 1,075 MWe[127] | Unit 2: 1983–2013 Unit 3: 1984–2013 In 2011, Edison finished replacing the steam generators in both reactors with improved Mitsubishi ones, but the new design had several problems, cracked, causing leaks and vibrations.[130] |
in defueling.Permanent shutdown – DECON soon defueling[131] |
Still unknown
2014 cost forecast: |
| United States | Piqua NGS (Ohio) |
OCM (Organically Cooled/Moderated) reactor 46 MWe[134] | 2 years (closed in 1966) |
ENTOMB (coolant design inadequate for neutron flux) |
Still unknown |
| United States | Trojan (Oregon) |
PWR 1,180 MWe | 16 years (Closed in 1993 because of proximity to seismic fault) |
SAFSTOR (cooling tower demolished in 2006) |
[135] |
| United States | Yankee Rowe (Massachusetts) |
PWR 180 MWe | 1961–1991 (30 years) Construction cost was $45 million |
completed in 2007[136] site released for unrestricted use; new on-site storage facility for the spent fuel. |
In 2004 estimated total $636 million[137] |
| United States | Maine Yankee | PWR 860 MWe |
24 years (closed in 1996) |
Decon completed – Demolished in 2004 (greenfield open to visitors) [138][139] |
$635 million[140] |
| United States | Vermont Yankee | BWR 620 MWe (General Electric) |
1972–2014 (42 years) |
Ongoing 2015– |
~$1.24 billion |
| United States | Zion Units 1, 2 (Illinois) |
2 x PWR 1040 MWe (Westinghouse) |
1973/1974–1998 (25 years) |
1998-2020 [141] after SAFSTOR full dismantling; New on-site for spent fuel storage |
Costs for SAFSTOR unknown; for dismantling & decontamination estimated in 2010 $1 billion + demolition city fees millions;[142] for remaining waste unknown |
| United States | Pacific Gas & Electric – Humboldt Bay Unit 3 |
BWR 63 MWe | 1963–1976 (13 years)[143] |
1988-2021 (33 years) License terminated in Oct 2021; site released for unrestricted use; New license for on-site storage facility for the spent fuel.[144] |
Unknown Fund for $53.3 million required for decommissioning of storage alone.[144] |
See also
References
- Invernizzi, Diletta Colette; Locatelli, Giorgio; Brookes, Naomi J. (August 1, 2017). "How benchmarking can support the selection, planning and delivery of nuclear decommissioning projects" (PDF). Progress in Nuclear Energy. 99: 155–164. doi:10.1016/j.pnucene.2017.05.002.
- Invernizzi, Diletta Colette; Locatelli, Giorgio; Brookes, Naomi J. (October 1, 2017). "Managing social challenges in the nuclear decommissioning industry: A responsible approach towards better performance" (PDF). International Journal of Project Management. Social Responsibilities for the Management of Megaprojects. 35 (7): 1350–1364. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.12.002.
- Decommissioning of nuclear installations. IAEA (accessed Feb 2023)
- Decommissioning of nuclear facilities. European Commission (accessed Feb 2023)
- Decommissioning & dismantling. Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) (accessed Feb 2023)
- IAEA Nuclear Safety and Security Glossary, 2022 (p. 137). 3.7 MB. Via
- Backgrounder on Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants. U.S.NRC, update 17 Oct 2022
- Overview of Reactor Decommissioning. NRC, 18 Oct 2017 (2.4 MB)
- Summary of License Termination Plan Submittals by Three Nuclear Power Plants. EPRI, 28 Oct 2002
- Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel'. U.S.NRC, update 9 Jan 2023.
"Decommissioned Reactor Sites – After terminating reactor operations and removing structures used in reactor operations, the licensee stores spent fuel on-site pending off-site transport to either a site-specific ISFSI that is authorized to receive the spent fuel, or a permanent geologic repository licensed for disposal." - Independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). U.S.NRC, update 9 March 2021
- "Heuel-Fabianek, B., Kümmerle, E., Möllmann-Coers, M., Lennartz, R. (2008): The relevance of Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty for the dismantling of nuclear reactors. atw – International Journal for Nuclear Power 6/2008" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on September 11, 2008.
- SRS P and R Reactor Disassembly Basin In Situ Decommissioning. ARC-EFCOG Collaboration, 2012
- ENTOMB U.S.NRC (update 9 March 2021)
"ENTOMB — a method of decommissioning, in which radioactive contaminants are encased in a structurally long-lived material, such as concrete. The entombed structure is maintained and surveillance is continued until the entombed radioactive waste decays to a level permitting termination of the license and unrestricted release of the property. During the entombment period, the licensee maintains the license previously issued by the NRC." - – Backgrounder on Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants. U.S.NRC:
"Before a nuclear power plant begins operations, the licensee must establish or obtain a financial mechanism – such as a trust fund or a guarantee from its parent company – to ensure there will be sufficient money to pay for the ultimate decommissioning of the facility."
– Decommissioning of nuclear installations. IAEA:
"As part of a facility’s initial authorization, a decommissioning plan is developed that demonstrates the feasibility of decommissioning and provides assurance that provisions are in place to cover the associated costs." - Repository delay reduces Swiss NPPs' decommissioning costs. Nuclear Engineering International, 22 Dec 2016
- Invernizzi, Diletta Colette; Locatelli, Giorgio; Velenturf, Anne; Love, Peter ED.; Purnell, Phil; Brookes, Naomi J. (September 1, 2020). "Developing policies for the end-of-life of energy infrastructure: Coming to terms with the challenges of decommissioning". Energy Policy. 144: 111677. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111677. ISSN 0301-4215. Free access.
- ENDS: Nuclear decommissioning funds “require oversight”
- Christoph Steitz, Barbara Lewis (February 16, 2016). "EU short of 118 billion euros in nuclear decommissioning funds". Reuters. Retrieved February 17, 2016.
- "NRC Requests Plans from 18 Nuclear Power Plants to Address Apparent Decommissioning Funding Assurance Shortfalls" (PDF). Nuclear Regulatory Commission. June 19, 2009. Retrieved December 30, 2014.
- Locatelli, Giorgio; Mancini, Mauro (July 2, 2010). "Competitiveness of Small-Medium, New Generation Reactors: A Comparative Study on Decommissioning" (PDF). Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power. 132 (10): 102906. doi:10.1115/1.4000613. hdl:11311/565407. ISSN 0742-4795.
- Benjamin K. Sovacool. A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia, Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 40, No. 3, August 2010, p. 373.
- "Brennilis". Le Telegramme. November 29, 2007.
- "Ouest-France: "Brennilis : EDF se fait taper sur les doigts"". Archived from the original on May 1, 2011.
- House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts (February 4, 2013). "Nuclear Decommissioning Authority: Managing risk at Sellafield" (PDF). London: The Stationery Office Limited.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - "Status of Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities around the World" (PDF).
- World Nuclear Association Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities published by www.world-nuclear.org (Association of nuclear reactors builders), March 2017
- "Nuclear Decommissioning: Decommission nuclear facilities - World Nuclear Association". www.world-nuclear.org.
- List of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities (NFCIS)
- "Nuclear Decommissioning: Decommission nuclear facilities". World-nuclear.org. Retrieved September 6, 2013.
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission:Sites Undergoing Decommissioning (by Location or Name)
- "How old are U.S. nuclear power plants and when was the last one built? – FAQ –". U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Retrieved May 17, 2021.
- "NRC: Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities". NRC. June 28, 2013. Retrieved September 6, 2013.
- NRC Locations of Power Reactor Sites Undergoing Decommissioning
- Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)Appendix A – A Summary of the Shutdown and Decommissioning Experience for Nuclear Power Plants in the United States and the Russian Federation. Appendix B – A Summary of the Regulatory Environment for the Shutdown and Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants in the United States and the Russian Federation. Appendix C – Recommended Outlines for Decommissioning Documentation
- "sustainabilityinstitute.org is registered with Pair Domains". Sustainability Institute. Archived from the original on May 11, 2011.
- Belgian Reactor 3 - BR3. SCK•CEN (archived Apr 2019, no update)
- "Nuclear Power in Bulgaria | Bulgarian nuclear energy - World Nuclear Association". www.world-nuclear.org.
- "Taking Canada's Gentilly-1 to a "static state (by Balarko Gupta)" (PDF). IAEA. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 29, 2011.
- "ASCE: Gentilly-1 a study in nuclear decommission". Archived from the original on April 27, 2011.
- A Chernobyl in Québec? (correspondence on the dangers of Québec's only nuclear plant)
- Ontario Power Generation: Pickering Nuclear Power
- "Relicensing Pickering Nuclear Generating Station". FAIREWINDS.
- "IAEA: Decommissioning in China" (PDF).
- "Nuclear Power in France | French Nuclear Energy - World Nuclear Association". www.world-nuclear.org.
- Brennilis: Incendie À La Centrale Nucléaire, Le Plan D’urgence Déclenché
- "The global state of nuclear decommissioning: costs rising, funds shrinking, and industry looks to escape liability by decades of delay".
- "BRENNILIS, LABORATOIRE DU DÉMANTÈLEMENT". September 1, 2011 – via www.usinenouvelle.com.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - "WM2009 Conference, March 1–5, 2009 Phoenix, AZ – International Cooperation for the Dismantling of Chooz A Reactor Pressure Vessel – 9087" (PDF).
- Decommissioning of LMRs in France. ECA, 2003
- Soldaini, Michel (January 15, 2008). "Phenix Decommissioning Project - Overview". OSTI 21144200 – via www.osti.gov.
- Demantelement de la centrale Phenix. CEA, 14 March 2013 (French)
- "Superphénix; still more problems ahead | Wise International". www.wiseinternational.org.
- "ANS / Store / Journals / Electronic Articles / Nuclear Technology / Volume 150 / Number 1 / Recent Sodium Technology Development for the Decommissioning of the Rapsodie and Superphénix Reactors and the Management of Sodium Wastes". Archived from the original on July 2, 2015. Retrieved July 1, 2015.
- Decommissioning of Fast Reactors after Sodium Draining
- "Decommissioning of nuclear installations: World first for the robot CHARLI - 2013 - News". Archived from the original on September 26, 2015. Retrieved July 1, 2015.
- "INDIA – CISED: Economics of Nuclear Power Heavy Water Reactors" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on February 25, 2009. Retrieved January 12, 2009.
- "Country Nuclear Waste Profile - NEWMDB - IAEA". newmdb.iaea.org.
- Zona Nucleare – La centrale nucleare in fase di smantellamento ex-ENEL di Caorso (Piacenza)
- "Il Fiume Po: La Centrale Nucleare di Caorso". Archived from the original on May 1, 2011.
- Renzo Guerzoni. "Il decommissioning della centrale nucleare di Caorso" (PDF). Sogin. p. 6. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 3, 2015.
- "Via libera allo smantellamento della centrale di Caorso". Archived from the original on March 28, 2012. Retrieved July 26, 2011.
- "Accordo tra la SOGIN e la Sudsvik svedese". Archived from the original on March 28, 2012.
- "PER CAORSO UN ADDIO LUNGO MEZZO SECOLO PIANO ENEL PER SMANTELLARE LA C - la Repubblica.it". Archivio - la Repubblica.it.
- Zona Nucleare – La centrale nucleare in fase di smantellamento ex-ENEL di Garigliano (Caserta)
- Zona Nucleare – La centrale nucleare in fase di smantellamento ex-ENEL di Foce Verde (Latina)
- Zona Nucleare – La centrale nucleare in fase di smantellamento ex-ENEL di Trino Vercellese (Vercelli)
- "Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update Log". www.iaea.org. June 2, 2011.
- "3 nuclear reactors melted down after quake, Japan confirms". CNN. June 7, 2011. Retrieved July 13, 2011.
- "'Melt-through' at Fukushima? / Govt report to IAEA suggests situation worse than meltdown". Yomiuri. June 8, 2011. Archived from the original on June 7, 2011. Retrieved June 8, 2011.
- "Japan to raise Fukushima crisis level to worst". Archived from the original on April 12, 2011. Retrieved April 12, 2011.
- "Japan raises nuclear crisis to same level as Chernobyl". Reuters. April 12, 2011.
- The Japan Times: Whether Tepco fails or not, it’s taxpayers’ tab
- "The Other Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant".
- "Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Station all shutdown | NextBigFuture.com". March 12, 2011.
- "Fugen NPP official website". Archived from the original on November 1, 2005. Retrieved March 10, 2017.
- "Fugen Decommissioning Engineering Center". Archived from the original on May 23, 2011.
- "原発解体～世界の現場は警告する～|NHKスペシャル（文字おこし）（1） : 座間宮ガレイの世界". blog.livedoor.jp.
- "Deconstruction of Nuclear power plant" – via vimeo.com.
- Article in IAEA-TECDOC—1043: Permanent cessation of Tokai power plant's operation.
- Science Links Japan: Progression of decommissioning of Tokai power plant. First case of power reactor in Japan Archived May 13, 2011, at the Wayback Machine.
- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/Nuclear Energy Agency, report 2003: Strategy Selection for the Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities (page 118).
- "Nuclear agreement: N Korea halts decommissioning". the Guardian. August 26, 2008.
- "NEA: Decommissioning in the Netherlands" (PDF).
- "Inquinamento - Greenpeace Italia". www.greenpeace.org.
- "UK-Russia Closed Nuclear Cities Partnership". Archived from the original on August 14, 2009.
- "World Nuclear Association - World Nuclear News". www.world-nuclear-news.org.
- "BBC News | Europe | Full ahead for Slovak nuclear reactor". news.bbc.co.uk.
- "YAHOO NEWS: Slovakia forced to restart nuclear reactors after Ukrainian gas crisis".
- Nuclear Power in Spain - February 2017
- Dismantling of the Jose Cabrera Nuclear Power Plant.
- Dismantling of Spain’s José Cabrera NPP almost complete. NEI, 30 June 2022
- Decommissioning milestone at Spain's Zorita plant. WNN, 27 June 2022
- Comparison of estimated and actual decommissioning cost of José Cabrera NPP. ENRESA, Sep 2016
- "Business News Today: Read Latest Business news, India Business News Live, Share Market & Economy News". The Economic Times.
- "Nuclear Energy Agency: Decommissioning in Switzerland" (PDF).
- ENSI: Aufsichtsberichte, since around the year 2000
- the same source
- European Bank for Reconstruction and Development: Breakthrough for Chernobyl nuclear decommissioning efforts (Consortium Novarka to build New Safe Confinement Holtec International to complete Spent Fuel Storage) Archived August 21, 2008, at the Wayback Machine
- "Radiological hazard on all Magnox nuclear sites across UK set to reduce by 99% - Cleaning up our nuclear past: faster, safer and sooner". nda.blog.gov.uk.
- "Scotland's oldest nuclear reactor to go as demolition contract awarded". GOV.UK. Retrieved March 5, 2019.
- "Dounreay completes first phase of breeder shipments - World Nuclear News". www.world-nuclear-news.org. Retrieved March 5, 2019.
- "Free at last as jammed fuel is lifted out". GOV.UK. Retrieved March 5, 2019.
- "New nuclear reactor for Dounreay". BBC. February 9, 1966. Retrieved April 10, 2016.
- "PRIS: Dounreay PFR". IAEA. Retrieved April 28, 2014.
- Frank von Hippel; et al. (February 2010). Fast Breeder Reactor Programs: History and Status (PDF). International Panel on Fissile Materials. pp. 73–88. ISBN 978-0-9819275-6-5. Retrieved April 28, 2014.
- "'Reactorsaurus' to rip up station". BBC. May 5, 2009. Retrieved May 5, 2009.
- "BBC News – Plan to display parts of Dounreay at London museum". BBC Online. Retrieved April 24, 2014.
- "Calder Hall Celebrates 40 Years of Operation – Press Release". BNFL. Archived from the original on February 22, 2004. Retrieved February 22, 2004.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - Brown, Paul (March 21, 2003). "First nuclear power plant to close". The Guardian. London. Retrieved May 12, 2010.
- NDA Calder Hall Nuclear Power Station Feasibility Study 2007.
- "MP's vow to fight for Winfrith future (From Thisisdorset)". Thisisdorset.net. September 4, 2007. Retrieved September 6, 2013.
- "Winfrith – Quarterly report for 1 July – 30 September 2011". Hse.gov.uk. Retrieved September 6, 2013.
- "Work underway to remove nuclear reactor core in Dorset". GOV.UK.
- Duke Energy (October 12, 2010). "CRYSTAL RIVER NUCLEAR PLANT – SPECIAL INSPECTION REPORT 05000302/2009007" (PDF).
- "Progress analyzing Crystal River repair proposals". World Nuclear News. January 11, 2012.
- "Crystal River Nuclear Plant to be retired; company evaluating sites for potential new gas-fueled generation". February 5, 2013. Archived from the original on October 22, 2013.
- "GRU - Access Denied (403 Error)" (PDF). gru.com.
- Shutting down Crystal River nuclear plant will cost $1.2 billion, take 60 years Tampabay news
- "Dresden - Unit 1". NRC Web.
- "UCSUSA: Dresden Nuclear Generating Station".
- "OSTI.GOV". www.osti.gov.
- Rancho Seco nuclear power plant ends decommissioning Archived September 2, 2012, at the Wayback Machine 10-2009
- "SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY DISTRICT: RANCHO SECO REPORT ON DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING STATUS" (PDF).
- "Three Mile Island - Unit 2". NRC Web.
- Crimi, F. P. (January 1, 1986). "Shippingport station decommissioning project start of physical decommissioning". OSTI 5660448 – via www.osti.gov.
- "United States of America". Power Reactor Information System (PRIS). International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Retrieved June 9, 2013.
- Jim Shephard (March 29, 2012). "San Onofre – Unit 1". United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Retrieved September 4, 2012.
- "Fission Stories #92: San Onofre's Allegators". All Things Nuclear. May 15, 2012.
- "Cracked Steam Generator Tubes at San Onofre". All Things Nuclear. March 27, 2012.
- NRC Plans for Decommissioning of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3 July 8, 2016
- Southern California Edison (September 23, 2014). "San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3 Irradiated Fuel Management Plan" (PDF). NRC. p. 14.
- "Calif. nuclear plant to cost $4.4 billion to dismantle". CBS News. AP. August 2, 2014. Retrieved August 3, 2014.
- US NRC Information Digest 2008–2009
- Koberstein, Paul (March 9, 2005). "Trojan: PGE's Nuclear Gamble". Willamette Week. p. A1. Archived from the original on September 29, 2007. Retrieved June 15, 2007.
- Yankee Rowe decommissioning complete. Bob Audette, Bennington Banner, 18 Aug 2007
- License Termination Plan, p. 7-5. Yankee, 19 Nov 2004 (16MB). Via
- "Maine Yankee USA Nuclear Power Station Project - Power Technology | Energy News and Market Analysis". www.power-technology.com.
- "Maine Yankee Decommissioning 80% Complete" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on May 1, 2011.
- "Maine Yankee Decommissioning Experience Report" (PDF).
- Zion Units 1 & 2. U.S. NRC, update June 2022
- Exelon sets stage for dismantling Zion reactor. Chicago Tribune, 23 Aug 2010. Archived.
"When work is complete, Exelon will resume responsibility for the 200-acre site, where spent fuel will be stored in large concrete casks,". - Humboldt Bay Permanent Shutdown. IAEA PRIS
- NRC Terminates Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant License. NRC, 18 Nov 2021
External links
Media related to Nuclear decommissioning at Wikimedia Commons- NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development: Cost of Decommissioning Nuclear Energy Plants (2016)
- UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION: Backgrounder on Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants
- Business Insider – UK: Getting Rid Of Old Nuclear Reactors Worldwide Is Going To Cost Way More Than People Think
- Germany's economy minister Sigmar Gabriel says state won't pay for nuclear decommissioning (May 18, 2014)
- Nuclear Decommissioning Report (www.ndreport.com) is the multi-media platform for the nuclear decommissioning industry.
- decommissioning.info is a portal with information on nuclear decommissioning
- US Sites Undergoing Decommissioning
- European website on decommissioning of nuclear installations
- Decommissioning Fund Methodologies for Nuclear Installations in the EU, rapport by the German Wuppertal Institute, commissioned by the European Commission. May 2007.
- Master 'Nuclear Energy' – Decommissioning and Waste management Archived April 12, 2019, at the Wayback Machine