Nuclear decommissioning is the dismantling of a nuclear power plant and decontamination of the site to a state no longer requiring protection from radiation for the general public. The main difference from the dismantling of other power plants is the presence of radioactive material that requires special precautions.
Generally speaking, nuclear plants were designed for a life of about 30 years. Newer plants are designed for a 40 to 60-year operating life.
Decommissioning involves many administrative and technical actions. It includes all clean-up of radioactivity and progressive demolition of the plant. Once a facility is decommissioned, there should no longer be any danger of a radioactive accident or to any persons visiting it. After a facility has been completely decommissioned it is released from regulatory control, and the licensee of the plant no longer has responsibility for its nuclear safety.
Contents |
The International Atomic Energy Agency has defined three options for decommissioning, the definitions of which have been internationally adopted:
A wide range of nuclear facilities has been decommissioned so far. This includes nuclear power plants (NPPs), research reactors, isotope production plants, particle accelerators, and uranium mines. The number of decommissioned power plants is small. There are companies specialized in nuclear decommissioning; the practice of decommissioning has turned into a profitable business. Decommissionning is very expensive. The current estimate by the United Kingdom's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is that it will cost at least £70 billion to decommission the 19 existing United Kingdom nuclear sites; this takes no account of what will happen in the future. Also, due to the radioactivity in the reactor structure, decommissioning is a slow process which takes place in stages. The plans of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority for decommissioning reactors have an average 50 year time frame. The long time frame makes reliable cost estimates extremely difficult. Excessive cost overruns are not uncommon even for projects done in a much shorter time frame.
Several nuclear reactors dismantled in America, type, power and decommissioning cost (often is mentioned only the probable cost per kilowatt of power:[1][2][3]
| Country: | Location: | Reactor type: | Operative life: | Decommissioning phase: |
Dismantling costs: |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canada (Québec) | Gentilly-1 | CANDU-BWR 250 MWe |
180 days (between 1966 and 1973) |
"Static state" since 1986[4][5][6] | stage two: US $ 25 Million |
|
| Canada (Ontario) |
Pickering NGS Units A2 and A3 |
CANDU-PWR 8 x 542 MWe |
30 years (from 1974 to 2004) |
Two units currently in "cold standby" Decommissioning in 2012? |
(calculated: $ 270–430/kWe ?) |
|
| USA | Fort St. Vrain | HTGR (helium-graphite) 380 MWe |
12 years (1977–1989) |
Immediate Decon | $ 195 Million | |
| USA | Rancho Seco[7] | Multiunit: PWR 913 MWe |
12 years (Closed after a referedum nel 1989) |
SAFSTOR: 5–10 years completion 2018 |
? ($ 200–500/kWe)[8] |
|
| USA | Three Mile Island 2 | Multiunit: 913 MWe PWR |
INCIDENT: core fusion (in 1979) |
Post-Defuelling Phase 2 (1979) |
$ 805 Million (estimated)[9] |
|
| USA | Shippingport | (The first BWR) 60 MWe |
25 years (closed in 1989) |
Decon completed dismantled in 5 years (first small experimental reactor) |
$ 98.4 Million[10] | |
| USA | Piqua(Ohio) | OCM (Organically Cooled/Moderated) reactor 46 MWe[11] |
2 years (closed in 1966) |
ENTOMB (coolant design inadequate for neutron flux) |
unk | |
| USA | Trojan | PWR 1.180 MWe |
16 years (Closed in 1993 because nearby to seismic fault) |
SAFSTOR: (cooling tower demolished in 2006) |
?[12][13] | |
| USA | Yankee Rowe | PWR 185 MWe | 31 years (1960–1991) |
DECON COMPLETED - Demolished (greenfield open to visitors) [14] |
$608 million with $8 million per year upkeep | |
| USA | Maine Yankee | PWR 860 MWe |
24 years (closed in 1996) |
DECON COMPLETED - Demolished in 2004 (greenfield open to visitors) [15][16] |
$ 635 Million[17] | |
| USA | Connecticut Yankee | PWR 590 MWe |
28 years (closed in 1996) |
Decon - demolished in 2007 (greenfield open to visitors) [18] |
$ 820 Million[19] | |
| USA | Exelon - Zion 1 & 2 |
PWR - Westinghouse 2 x 1040 MWe |
25 years (1973–1998) (Incident in proceedings, abandoned because of the excessive cost of vaporizers substitution) |
SAFSTOR-EnergySolutions (opening of the site to visitors for 2018) [20] |
$ 900–1,100 Million (2007 dollars)[21] |
|
| USA | Pacific Gas & Electric - Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant - Unit 3 |
BWR 1 x 63 MWe |
13 years (1963–1976) (Shut down due to seismic retrofit) |
On July 2, 1976, Humboldt Bay Power Plant (HBPP) Unit 3 was shut down for annual refueling and to conduct seismic modifications. In 1983, updated economic analyses indicated that restarting Unit 3 would probably not be cost-effective, and in June 1983, PG&E announced its intention to decommission the unit. On July 16, 1985, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued Amendment No. 19 to the HBPP Unit 3 Operating License to change the status to possess-but-not-operate, and the plant was placed into a SAFSTOR status. | Unknown - Closure date: 12/31/2015[22] |
Several nuclear reactors dismantled in Asia, type, power and decommissioning cost per kilowatt of electric power (source: World Nuclear Association article[23]).
| Country: | Location: | Reactor type: | Operative Life: | Decommissioning Phase: |
Dismantling Cost: |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| China[24] | Beijing (CIAE) | HWWR 10 MWe (multipurpose) (Heavy Water Experimental Reactor for the production of plutonium and tritium) |
49 years (1958–2007) |
Safestore & Decon in 20 years (until 2027) |
proposed: $ 6 Million for dismantling $ 5 Million for fuel remotion |
| North Korea | Yongbyon | Magnox-type (reactor for the production of nuclear weapons through PUREX treatment) |
20 years (1985–2005) Deactivated after a treaty[25][26] |
SAFESTORE: Cooling tower dismantled |
? |
| Japan | Tokai-1 | Magnox (GCR) 160 MWe |
32 years (1966–1988) |
Safestore: 10 years[27][28] then DECON until 2018 |
estimanted cost: Yen 93 Billion[29] (Euro 660 Million of 2003) |
| India [30],[31] |
Tarapur-1,2 (Maharashtra) |
2x BWR 160 MWe | 40 years ? (1969–2009?) |
NOT deactivated | ? |
| India[32] | Rawatbhata Atomic Power Station-1,2 (Rajasthan) |
1x PHWR 100 MWe 1x PHWR 200 MWe (similar to CANDU) |
40 years ? (1970–2011?) |
NOT deactivated | ? |
| Iraq | Osiraq/Tammuz-1 [33] |
BWR 40 MWe Nuclear reactor with weapons-grade plutonium production capability |
(Destroyed by Israeli Air Force in 1981) | Not radioactive: Never refurbished with uranium |
? |
Several nuclear reactors dismantled in Western Europe, type, power and decommissioning cost per kilowatt of power: European Union Website about Nuclear Decommissioning,[34] World Nuclear Association (reactor building companies),[35] United Kingdom.[36]
| Country: | Location: | Reactor type: | Operative Life: | Decommissioning phase: |
Dismantling cost: |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Austria[37] (Nuclear Free Country)[38] |
Zwentendorf NPP Google Maps |
PWR 723 MWe |
Never activated[39], after referendum in 1978 | ? | ? |
| Belgium | Mol | PWR (BR-3) |
25 years (1962–1987) |
DECON COMPLETED - pilot project (underwater cutting and remote operated tools) [40][41] |
? |
| France | Brennilis | HWGCR 70 MWe | 12 years (1967–1979) |
Phase 3 | Euro 480 Million (20 times the forecasted amount) |
| France | Bugey-1 | UNGG Gas cooled, graphite moderator |
1972-1994 | postponed | ? |
| France | Chinon 1,2,3 | Gas-graphite | (1973–1990) |
postponed | ? |
| France | Saint-Laurent Nuclear Power Plant | Gas-graphite | 1969-1992 | postponed | ? |
| France | Superphénix at Creys-Malville |
Fast breeder nuclear reactor (sodium-cooled) |
11 years (1985–1996) |
postponed | estimated for the future: $ 4000/kWe ? |
| United Kingdom | Berkeley | Magnox (2 x 138 MWe) |
27 years (1962–1989) |
Safestore: 30 years (internal demolition) |
$ 2600/kWe |
| United Kingdom | Sellafield-Windscale |
Windscale Advanced Gas Reactor WAGR (32 MWe) |
18 years (1963–1981) |
Remotion of reactor in 2009 - pilot project (cutting with remote controlled robots, UV lasers) [40][42],[43][44] |
More than $2600/kWe (WNI estimates) So far € 117 Million |
| West Germany | Gundremmingen-A | BWR 250 MWe |
11 years |
Immediate dismantling - pilot project (underwater cutting) |
(~ $ 300–550/kWe) |
| Italy | Caorso NPP | BWR 840 MWe[45][46] |
3 years ( 1978 - Closed in 1987 after referendum in 1986 ) |
Safstore: 30 years (demolizione interna) |
euro 450 Million (dismantling) + 300 M fuel reprocessing[47][48][49][50] |
| Italy | Garigliano NPP (Caserta) | BWR 150 MWe[51] |
? years (Closed on March 1, 1982) |
Safstore: 30 years (internal demolition) |
$/kWe |
| Italy | Latina NPP (Foce Verde) | Magnox 210 MWe Gas-graphite[52] |
24 years ( 1962 - Closed in 1986 after referendum ) |
Safstore: 30 years (internal demolition) |
$/kWe |
| Italy | Trino Vercellese NPP | PWR Westinghouse, 270 MWe[53] |
? years ( Closed in 1986 after referendum ) |
Safstore: 30 years (internal demolition) |
$/kWe |
| Nederlands | Dodewaard NPP | BWR Westinghouse, 58 MWe[54] |
28 years (1969–1997) |
Defuelling completed - Safstore for 40 years |
$/kWe |
| Slovenia (former-Yugoslavia) |
Krsko NPP[55] | PWR (Westinghouse) 696 MWe |
40? years (1981–2021?) |
Will be deactivated in 2022 | ? |
| Spain | Vandellós NPP-1 | UNGG 480 MWe (gas-graphite) |
18 years Incident: fire in a turbogenerator (1989) |
Safestore: 30 years (internal demolition) |
Phases 1 and 2: Euro 93 Million |
| Switzerland[56] | DIORIT | MWe Gas-graphite (experimental) |
() |
Safestore: ? years (internal demolition) |
? |
| Switzerland | LUCENS | 8,3 MWe CO2-heavy water (experimental) |
(1962–1969) Incident: fire in 1969 |
Entombment for ? years Safestore & Decon: 24 years (internal demolition) |
? |
| Switzerland | SAPHIR | 0,01-0,1 MWe (Light water pool) |
39 years (1955–1994) (Experimental demonstrator) |
(In public display since inauguration open to visitors: "Cherenkov's light") |
? |
Several nuclear reactors dismantled in the nations born from the former Soviet Union: (Belarus, Russia, Ukraine and others) and rectors dismantled in countries formerly belonging to "Warsaw Pact" and/or to "Comecon", type, electric power and decommissioning cost per kilowatt of power: World Nuclear Association,[57] OSTI (Russia & USA).[3]
| Country: | Location: | Reactor typr: | Operative life: | Decommissioning phase: |
Dismantling cost: |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bulgaria | Kozloduy NPP-1,2,3,4[58] | PWR VVER-440 (4 x 408 MWe) |
Reactors 1,2 closed in 2003, reactors 3,4 closed in 2006 (Closing forced by European Union) |
De-fuelling | ? |
| East Germany | Greifswald NPP-1, 2,3,4,5 |
VVER-440 5 x 408 MWe |
Immediate dismantling (underwater cutting) |
(~ $ 330/kWe) | |
| East Germany | Rheinsberg NPP-1 | VVER-210 70–80 MWe |
24 years (1966–1990) |
In dismantling since 1996 Safstor (underwater cutting) |
(~ $ 330/kWe) |
| East Germany | Stendal NPP-1,2,3,4 | VVER-1000 (4 x 1000 MWe) |
Never activated (1st reactor 85% completed) |
NOT radioactive (Cooling towers demolished with explosives) |
(?) (Structure in exhibition inside an industrial park) |
| Russia | Mayak[59] (Chelyabinsk-65) |
PUREX plant for uranium enrichment |
Several severe incidents (1946–1956) |
? | ? |
| Russia | Seversk[60] (Tomsk-7) |
Three plutonium reactors Plant for uranium enrichment |
Two fast-breeder reactors closed (of three), after disarmaments agreements with USA in 2003[61]. | ? | ? |
| Slovakia | Mochovce NPP-1,2 (180 km east from Vienna)[62][63] |
VVER 440 2 X 440 MWe |
(1998–2028?) | ? | |
| Ukraine | Chernobyl NPP-4 (110 km from Kiev) |
RBMK-1000 1000 MWe |
? years WORST NUCLEAR ACCIDENT IN ALL HISTORY: hydrogen explosion, then graphite fire (1986) See:Chernobyl disaster |
ENTOMBMENT (armed concrete "sarcophagus") |
Past: ? Future: riding sarcophagus in steel[64] |
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, environmental impact study (EIS).
In the European Union these documents are the basis for the environmental impact assessment (EIA) according to Council Directive 85/337/EEC. A precondition for granting such a licence is an opinion by the European Commission according to Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty. Article 37 obliges every Member State of the European Union to communicate certain data relating to the release of radioactive substances to the Commission. This information must reveal whether and if so what radiological impacts decommissioning – planned disposal and accidental release – will have on the environment, i.e. water, soil or airspace, of the EU Member States.[65] 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.
In USA many utilities estimates now average $325 million per reactor all-up (1998 $).
In France, decommissioning of Brennilis Nuclear Power Plant, a fairly small 70 MW power plant, already cost 480 million euros (20x the estimate costs) and is still pending after 20 years. Despite the huge investments in securing the dismantlement, radioactive elements such as Plutonium, Cesium-137 and Cobalt-60 leaked out into the surrounding lake.[66][67]
In the UK, decommissioning of the Windscale Advanced Gas Cooled Reactor (WAGR), a 32 MW prototype power plant, cost 117 million euros.
In Germany, decommissioning of Niederaichbach nuclear power plant, a 100 MW power plant, amounted to more than 143 million euros.
In Europe there is considerable concern on the funds necessary to finance final decommissioning. In many countries either the funds do not appear sufficient to pay the financial decommissioning, and in other countries the funds are being used for activities other than decommissioning, putting the funds at risk, and distorting competition with parties who do not have nuclear decommissioning funds available.[68]
Currently (2008) the European Commission is looking into this issue.
Similar concerns exist in the United States, where the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has located apparent decommissioning funding assurance shortfalls and requested 18 nuclear power plants to address that issue.[69]
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 [70]. 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 [71].
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.
