Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities

Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities

(Updated July 2011)

  • To date, about 100 mines, 85 commercial power reactors, 45 experimental or prototype reactors, over 250 research reactors and a number of fuel cycle facilities, have been retired from operation. Some of these have been fully dismantled.
  • Most parts of a nuclear power plant do not become radioactive, or are contaminated at only very low levels. Most of the metal can be recycled.
  • Proven techniques and equipment are available to dismantle nuclear facilities safely and these have now been well demonstrated in several parts of the world.
  • Decommissioning costs for nuclear power plants, including disposal of associated wastes, are reducing and contribute only a small fraction of the total cost of electricity generation.

All power plants, coal, gas and nuclear, have a finite life beyond which it is not economically feasible to operate them. Generally speaking, early nuclear plants were designed for a life of about 30 years, though some have proved capable of continuing well beyond this. Newer plants are designed for a 40 to 60 year operating life. At the end of the life of any power plant, it needs to be decommissioned, decontaminated and demolished so that the site is made available for other uses. For nuclear plants, the term decommissioning includes all clean-up of radioactivity and progressive dismantling of the plant.

At the end of 2005, IAEA reported that eight power plants had been completely decommissioned and dismantled, with the sites released for unconditional use. A further 17 had been partly dismantled and safely enclosed, 31 were being dismantled prior to eventual site release and 30 were undergoing minimum dismantling prior to long-term enclosure.

Decommissioning Options

The International Atomic Energy Agency has defined three options for decommissioning, the definitions of which have been internationally adopted:

  • Immediate Dismantling (or Early Site Release/’Decon’ in the US): This option allows for the facility to be removed from regulatory control relatively soon after shutdown or termination of regulated activities. Usually, the final dismantling or decontamination activities begin within a few months or years, depending on the facility. Following removal from regulatory control, the site is then available for re-use.
  • Safe Enclosure (or ‘Safestor’): This option postpones the final removal of controls for a longer period, usually in the order of 40 to 60 years. The facility is placed into a safe storage configuration until the eventual dismantling and decontamination activities occur.
  • Entombment (or ‘Entomb’): This option entails placing the facility into a condition that will allow the remaining on-site radioactive material to remain on-site without the requirement of ever removing it totally. This option usually involves reducing the size of the area where the radioactive material is located and then encasing the facility in a long-lived structure such as concrete, that will last for a period of time to ensure the remaining radioactivity is no longer of concern.

There is no right or wrong approach, each having its benefits and disadvantages. National policy determines which approach is adopted. In the case of immediate dismantling (or early site release), responsibility for the decommissioning is not transferred to future generations. The experience and skills of operating staff can also be utilised during the decommissioning program. Alternatively, Safe Enclosure (or Safestor) allows significant reduction in residual radioactivity, thus reducing radiation hazard during the eventual dismantling. The expected improvements in mechanical techniques should also lead to a reduction in the hazard and also costs.

In the case of nuclear reactors, about 99% of the radioactivity is associated with the fuel which is removed following permanent shutdown. Apart from any surface contamination of plant, the remaining radioactivity comes from “activation products” such as steel components that have long been exposed to neutron irradiation. Their atoms are changed into different isotopes such as iron-55, cobalt-60, nickel-63 and carbon-14. The first two are highly radioactive, emitting gamma rays. However, their half life is such that after 50 years from closedown their radioactivity is much diminished and the risk to workers largely gone.

Decommissioning Experience

Over the past 40 years considerable experience has been gained in decommissioning various types of nuclear facilities. Over 80 commercial power reactors, 45 experimental or prototype power reactors, as well as over 250 research reactors and a number of fuel cycle facilities, have been retired from operation. Of these, about 15 had been fully dismantled, about 51 were being dismantled, 48 were is Safestor, 3 were entombed, and for others the decommissioning strategy was not yet specified.

European reactors

To decommission its retired gas-cooled reactors at the Chinon, Bugey and St Laurent nuclear power stations, Electricité de France chose partial dismantling and postponed final dismantling and demolition for 50 years. As other reactors will continue to operate at those sites, monitoring and surveillance do not add to the cost.

A recycling plant for steel from dismantled nuclear facilities is being built at Marcoule, in France. This metal will contain some activation products, but it can be recycled for other nuclear plants.

Decommissioning has begun at 25 UK reactors. One of the first was Berkeley nuclear power station (2 x 138 MWe, Magnox reactors), closed for economic reasons in 1989 after 27 years of operation, where defuelling was completed in 1992. The cooling ponds were then drained, cleaned and filled in and the turbine hall was dismantled and demolished. The reactor buildings are in an extended Safestor period. Ultimately they too will be dismantled, leaving the site to be leveled and landscaped. The same pattern is being followed at other UK reactor sites.

Spain’s Vandellos-1, a 480 MWe gas-graphite reactor, was closed down in 1990 after 18 years operation, due to a turbine fire which made the plant uneconomic to repair. In 2003 ENRESA concluded phase 2 of the reactor decommissioning and dismantling project, which allows much of the site to be released. After 30 years Safestor, when activity levels have diminished by 95%, the remainder of the plant will be removed. The cost of the 63-month project was EUR 93 million.

Germany chose immediate dismantling over safe enclosure for the closed Greifswald nuclear power station in the former East Germany, where five reactors had been operating. Similarly, the site of the 100 MWe Niederaichbach nuclear power plant in Bavaria was declared fit for unrestricted agricultural use in mid-1995. Following removal of all nuclear systems, the radiation shield and some activated materials, the remainder of the plant was below accepted limits for radioactivity and the state government approved final demolition and clearance of the site.

The 250 MWe Gundremmingen-A unit was Germany’s first commercial nuclear reactor, operating 1966-77. Decommissioning work started in 1983, and moved to the more contaminated parts in 1990, using underwater cutting techniques. This project demonstrated that decommissioning could be undertaken safely and economically without long delays, and recycling most of the metal.

Japan’s Tokai-1 reactor, a 160 MWe UK Magnox design, is being decommissioned after 32 years service to 1998.  After 5-10 years storage, the unit will be dismantled and the site released for other uses about 2018.  The total cost will be JPY 93 billion (USD 1.04 billion) – 35 billion for dismantling and 58 billion for waste treatment which will include the graphite moderator (which escalates the cost significantly).

 US reactors

Experience in the USA has varied, but 12 power reactors are using the Safestor approach, while 10 are using, or have used, Decon. Procedures are set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and considerable experience has now been gained. A total of 31 power reactors have been closed and decommissioned. Site release often excludes the on-site used fuel storage in an ISFSI (independent spent fuel storage installation), which usually remains, to await the Department of Energy taking away the used fuel (over which it has title) to a national repository sometime in the future.

Rancho Seco (single 913 MWe, PWR) was closed in 1989, and in 1995 NRC approved a Safestor plan for it. However, the utility subsequently decided upon incremental dismantling and this was completed in 2009, leaving about 3 ha still under NRC licence for waste storage. About 32 ha has been released for unrestricted use.

At multi-unit nuclear power stations, the choice has been to place the first closed unit into storage until the others end their operating lives, so that all can be decommissioned in sequence. This will optimise the use of staff and the specialised equipment required for cutting and remote operations, and achieve cost benefits.

Thus, after 14 years of comprehensive clean-up activities, including the removal of fuel, debris and water from the 1979 accident, Three Mile Island 2 was placed in Post-Defuelling Monitored Storage (Safestor) until 2014, when the operating licence of Unit 1 was originally expected to expire, so that both units could be decommissioned together.

San Onofre 1, which closed in 1992, was put into Safestor until licences for Units 2 and 3 expired in 2022-23.  However, after NRC changes, dismantling was brought forward to 1999, so it became an active Decon project which was largely completed in 2008. A small amount of work remains to be completed with eventual decommissioning of units 2 & 3 on the site.

A US Decon project was the 60 MWe Shippingport reactor, which operated commercially from 1957 to 1982. It was used to demonstrate the safe and cost-effective dismantling of a commercial scale nuclear power plant and the early release of the site. Defuelling was completed in two years, and five years later the site was released for use without any restrictions. Because of its size, the pressure vessel could be removed and disposed of intact. For larger units, such components have to be cut up.

Immediate Decon also the option chosen for Fort St Vrain, a 330 MWe high temperature gas-cooled reactor which was closed in 1989. This took place on a fixed-price contract for US$ 195 million (hence costing less than 1 cent/kWh despite only a 16-year operating life) and the project proceeded on schedule to clear the site and relinquish its licence early in 1997 – the first large US power reactor to achieve this.

Shoreham BWR, on Long Island, generated very little power and never received a full operating licence. It was shut down in 1989 and became a Decon project, completed in 1994. The 59 MWe Pathfinder prototype BWR in South Dakota, shut down in 1967 after a very short life was also a Decon project, completed in 1992.  Haddam Neck 560 MWe PWR in Connecticut, closed in 1996 after 29 years operation, was a further Decon project, completed in 2007.

For Trojan (1180 MWe, PWR) in Oregon the dismantling was undertaken by the utility itself. The plant closed in 1993, steam generators were removed, transported and disposed of at Hanford in 1995, and the reactor vessel (with internals) was removed and transported to Hanford in 1999. Except for the used fuel storage, the site was released for unrestricted use in 2005. The cooling tower was demolished in 2006.

Yankee Rowe (167 MWe, PWR) was shut down in 1991 after 30 years service. It was a Decon project and demolition was completed in 2006. Licence termination was in August 2007, allowing unrestricted public access, except for 2 ha for used fuel storage.

Another US Decon project was Maine Yankee, a 860 MWe PWR plant which closed down in 1996 after 24 years operation. The containment structure was finally demolished in 2004 and except for 5 ha with the dry store for used fuel, the site was released for unrestricted public use in 2005, on budget and on schedule.

Connecticut Yankee (590 MWe PWR) also shut down in 1996 after 28 years operation.  Decommissioning work began in 1998 and demolition was concluded in 2006. The site was released for unrestricted public use in 2007, apart from 2 ha for dry cask used fuel storage.  Residual contamination on the land is below NRC’s limit of 0.25 millisievert per year for maximum radiation dose.

In 2005 the site of the small Saxton reactor which closed in 1972 was ready to be released for unrestricted use. It had been placed into Safstor in 1975 and the fuel shipped off site. Demolition began in 1986.

In 2006 the site of 72 MWe Big Rock Point nuclear power plant in Michigan, shut down in 1997 after 35 years operation, was largely returned to greenfield status. In January 2007 most of the land was released for derestricted public use, though 43 hectares still has the dry cask storage facility where used fuel is stored pending transfer to the national repository.

With Exelon’s Zion 1 & 2 reactors (2 x 1098 MWe) closed down in 1998 and in Safstor, a slightly different process is envisaged, considerably accelerating the decommissioning.  Exelon has contracted with a specialist company – EnergySolutions, to remove the plant and return the site to greenfield status. To achieve this, the plant’s licence and decommissioning funds will be transferred to EnergySolutions, which will then be owner and licensee, and the site will be returned to Exelon about 2018. Used fuel would remain on site until taken to the national repository.

In summary, in October 2010, US plants with Decon completed are: Big Rock Point, Elk River, Fort St Vrain, Haddam Neck, Maine Yankee, Pathfinder, Rancho Seco, Saxton, Shippingport, Shoreham, Trojan and Yankee Rowe. Decon is in progress at Fermi 1, Humboldt Bay 3 and San Onofre 1.

US plants in Safstor include Dresden 1, Indian Point 1, LaCrosse, Millstone 1, Peach Bottom 1, and Zion 1&2, as well as NS Savannah. Three Mile Island 2 is in post-defueling monitored storage.

The only US plants subject to the Entomb option are small experimental ones: Bonus BWR in Puerto Rico, Piqua organic-moderated reactor in Ohio, and Hallam graphite-moderated sodium-cooled reactor in Nebraska.

In addition to the above is the first floating nuclear power plant, installed in a former liberty ship, and utilised at Panama 1967-76. The Sturgis had a 45 MWt/ 10 MWe (net) PWR which provided power to the Canal Zone. After it was defuelled in 1977, some 89 m3 of solid radioactive waste and 363 m3 of liquid waste was removed and the vessel placed in safstor at Fort Belvoir, Virginia until 2027.

Further information on decommissioning in USA is available from the Nuclear Energy Institute.

Graphite

A number of first-generation reactors had graphite blocks as moderator. This is high-quality reactor-grade material produced at about 3000°C which accumulates some radionuclide contamination while in service. While it oxidizes slightly under neutron bombardment and also at high temperatures (to CO), it does not burn, but sublimes at 3652°C. There is no risk of oxidation under Safestor conditions.

A 2006 report commissioned by EPRI states: ” The graphite moderators of retired gas-cooled nuclear reactors present a difficult challenge during demolition activities. As a result, utilities have not dismantled any moderators of CO2 cooled power reactors to date.” However, it concludes that adequate information exists to enable the safe dismantling and processing of graphite moderators, and that the three main options for disposal of this graphite are oxidation to the gas phase and release as carbon dioxide (difficult), direct burial, or recycling into new products for the nuclear industry. In each case, opportunities exist for pre-processing to concentrate or remove radionuclides to enhance the safety of the chosen option. The radionuclide inventory of irradiated graphite is unusual in comparison with other nuclear wastes. Cobalt-60 and tritium are the principal isotopes of short-term importance, carbon-14 and chlorine-36 are dominant in the longer term.

Other facilities

The French Atomic Energy Commission is decommissioning the UP1 reprocessing plant at Marcoule. This plant started up in 1958 and treated 18,600 tonnes of metal fuels from gas-cooled reactors (both defence and civil) to 1997. Progressive decontamination and dismantling of the plant and waste treatment will span 40 years and cost some EUR 5.6 billion, nearly half of this for treatment of the wastes stored on the site.

Areva will decommission the Eurodif enrichment plant at Marcoule from the end of 2012. This will involve over 2012-15 the decontamination with ClF3 gas to remove the residual uranium left inside, and extract it as UF6, then recovery of all produced chloride and fluoride gas before the opening of equipments and circuits. Then over 2016-25 the plant will be dismantled.

Many nuclear submarines have been decommissioned over the last decade. In USA, after defuelling, the reactor compartments are cut out of the vessels and are transported inland to Hanford, where they are buried as low-level waste.

Cost and Finance

In most countries the operator or owner is responsible for the decommissioning costs.

The total cost of decommissioning is dependent on the sequence and timing of the various stages of the program. Deferment of a stage tends to reduce its cost, due to decreasing radioactivity, but this may be offset by increased storage and surveillance costs.

Even allowing for uncertainties in cost estimates and applicable discount rates, decommissioning contributes a small fraction of total electricity generation costs. In USA many utilities have revised their cost projections downwards in the light of experience.

Financing methods vary from country to country. Among the most common are:
Prepayment, where money is deposited in a separate account to cover decommissioning costs even before the plant begins operation. This may be done in a number of ways but the funds cannot be withdrawn other than for decommissioning purposes.

External sinking fund (Nuclear Power Levy): This is built up over the years from a percentage of the electricity rates charged to consumers. Proceeds are placed in a trust fund outside the utility’s control. This is the main US system, where sufficient funds are set aside during the reactor’s operatinig lifetime to cover the cost of decommissioning.

Surety fund, letter of credit, or insurance purchased by the utility to guarantee that decommissioning costs will be covered even if the utility defaults.

In USA, utilities are collecting 0.1 to 0.2 cents/kWh to fund decommissioning. They must then report regularly to the NRC on the status of their decommissioning funds. About two thirds of the total estimated cost of decommissioning all US nuclear power reactors has already been collected, leaving a liability of about $9 billion to be covered over the remaining operating lives of 104 reactors (on basis of average $320 million per unit).

An OECD survey published in 2003 reported US dollar (2001) costs by reactor type. For western PWRs, most were $200-500/kWe, for VVERs costs were around $330/kWe, for BWRs $300-550/kWe, for CANDU $270-430/kWe. For gas-cooled reactors the costs were much higher due to the greater amount of radioactive materials involved, reaching $2600/kWe for some UK Magnox reactors.

International Cooperation

The IAEA, the OECD’s Nuclear Energy Agency and the Commission of the European Communities are among a number of organisations through which experience and knowledge about decommissioning is shared among technical communities in various countries.

In 1985, the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency launched an International Co-operative Program for the Exchange of Scientific and Technical Information Concerning Nuclear Installation Decommissioning Projects. This international collaboration, covering 15 reactors and six fuel-cycle facilities, has produced a great deal of technical and financial information.

The important areas where experience is being gained and shared are the assessment of the radioactive inventories, decontamination methods, cutting techniques, remote operation, radioactive waste management and health and safety. The aims are to minimise the radiological hazards to workers and to optimise the dismantling sequence and timing to reduce the total decommissioning cost.

Reasons for shutdown

Most decommissioned reactors were shut down because there was no longer any economic justification for running them. Practically all are relatively early-model designs, and about 45 are experimental or prototype power reactors. Three categories are listed here:

  1. Experimental and early commercial types whose continued operation was no longer justified, usually for economic reasons. Most of these started up before 1980 and their short life is not surprising for the first couple of decades of a major new technology. At least 35 of this 95 (* asterisked) ran relatively full-term, for a design life of 25-30 years or so (design lives today are 40-60 years). Total 95.
  2. Units which closed following an accident or serious incident (not necessarily to the reactor itself) which meant that repair was not economically justified. Total 11.
  3. Units which were closed prematurely by political decision or due to regulatory impediment without clear or significant economic or technical justification. Total 25, 17 of these being early Soviet designs.

In fact the distinctions are not always sharp, eg Chernobyl 2 was closed in 1991 after a turbine fire when it would have been politically impossible to repair and restart it, Rheinsberg was closed in 1990 though it was nearly at the end of its design life – both these are in the ‘political decision’ category.

Reactors closed following an accident or serious incident (11)

Country Reactor Type MWe net Years operating Shut down reason
Germany Greifswald 5 VVER-440/V213 408 0.5 11/1989 Partial core melt
Gundremmingen A BWR 237 10 1/1977 Botched shutdown
Japan Fukushima Daiichi 1 BWR 439 40 3/2011 Core melt from cooling loss
Fukushima Daiichi 2 BWR 760 37 3/2011 Core melt from cooling loss
Fukushima Daiichi 3 BWR 760 35 3/2011 Core melt from cooling loss
Fukushima Daiichi 4 BWR 760 32 3/2011 Damage from hydrogen explosion
Slovakia Bohunice A1 Prot GCHWR 93 4 1977 Core damage from fuelling error
Spain Vandellos 1 GCR 480 18 mid 1990 Turbine fire
Switzerland St Lucens Exp GCHWR 8 3 1966 Core Melt
Ukraine Chernobyl 4 RBMK LWGR 925 2 4/1986 Fire and meltdown
USA Three Mile Island 2 PWR 880 1 3/1979 Partial core melt

Reactors closed prematurely by political decision (25)

Country Reactors Type MWe net each Years operating each Shut down
Armenia Metsamor 1 VVER-440/V270 376 13 1989
Bulgaria Kozloduy 1-2 VVER-440/V230 408 27, 28 12/2002
Kozloduy 3-4 VVER-440/V230 408 24, 26 12/2006
France Super Phenix FNR 1200 12 1999
Germany Greifswald 1-4 VVER-440/V230 408 10, 12, 15, 16 1990
Muelheim Kaerlich PWR 1219 2 1988
Rheinsberg VVER-70/V210 62 24 1990
Italy Caorso BWR 860 12 1986
Latina GCR 153 24 1987
Trino PWR 260 25 1987
Lithuania Ignalina 1 RBMK LWGR 1185 21 2005
Ignalina 2 RBMK LWGR 1185 22 2009
Slovakia Bohunice 1 VVER-440/V230 408 28 12/2006
Bohunice 2 VVER-440/V230 408 28 12/2008
Sweden Barseback 1 BWR 600 24 11/1999
Barseback 2 BWR 600 28 5/2005
Ukraine Chernobyl 1 RBMK LWGR 740 19 12/1997
Chernobyl 2 RBMK LWGR 925 12 1991
Chernobyl 3 RBMK LWGR 925 19 12/2000
USA Shoreham BWR 820 3 1989

Reactors closed having fulfilled their purpose or being no longer economic to run (96+1)

- prot= prototype, exp= experimental, * = ran approx full-term

Country Reactor type MWe net each Start-up Years operating each Shut down
Belgium BR-3 Prot PWR 10 1962 24 1987
Canada Douglas Point Prot PHWR 206 1967 17 1984
Gentilly 1 Exp SGHWR 250 1971 6 1977
Rolphton NPD Prot PHWR 22 1962 25 1987
France Bugey 1 GCR 540 1972 22 1994
Chinon A1 Prot GCR 70 1963 10 1973
Chinon A2 GCR 180 1965 20 1985
Chinon A3 * GCR 360 1965 25 1990
Chooz A Prot PWR 305 1967 24 1991
Brennilis EL-4 exp GCHWR 70 1967 18 1985
Marcoule G-1 Prot GCR 2 1956 12 1968
Marcoule G-2 Prot GCR 39 1959 20 1980
Marcoule G-3 Prot GCR 40 1960 24 1984
Phenix * FNR 233 1973 37 2010
St Laurent A1 GCR 390 1969 21 1990
St Laurent A2 GCR 465 1971 21 1992
Germany Juelich AVR Exp HTR 13 1968 21 1989
Uentrop THTR Prot HTR 296 1985 3 1988
Kalkar KNK 2 Prot FNR 17 1978 13 1991
Kahl VAK Exp BWR 15 1961 24 1985
MZFR Exp PHWR 52 1966 18 1984
Groswelzheim Prot BWR 25 1969 2 1971
Lingen Prot BWR 183 1968 10 1979
Niederaichbach Exp GCHWR 100 1973 1 1974
Obrigheim * PWR 340 1968 36 2005
Stade * PWR 640 1972 31 2003
Wuergassen BWR 640 1972 22 1994
Italy Garigliano BWR 150 1964 18 1982
Japan Fugen Prot ATR 148 1978 24 2003
Hamaoka 1 BWR 515 1974 26 2001
Hamaoka 2 BWR 806 1978 25 2004
JPDR Prot BWR 12 1963 13 1976
Tokai 1 * GCR 137 1965 33 1998
Kazakhstan Aktau BN-350 Prot FNR 52 1973 27 1999
Netherlands Dodewaard * BWR 55 1968 28 1997
Russia Obninsk AM-1 Exp LWGR 6 1954 48 2002
Beloyarsk 1 Prot LWGR 108 1964 19 1983
Beloyarsk 2 Prot LWGR 160 1968 22 1990
Melekess VK50 Prot BWR 50 1964 24 1988
Novovoronezh 1 Prot VVER-440/V210 210 1964 23 1988
Novovoronezh 2 Prot VVER-440/V365 336 1970 20 1990
Spain Jose Cabrera * PWR 141 1968 38 2006
Sweden Agesta Prot HWR 10 1964 10 1974
UK Berkeley 1-2 * GCR 138 1962 26 1988-89
Bradwell 1-2 * GCR 123 1962 39 2002
Calder Hall 1-4 * GCR 50 1956-59 44-46 2003
Chapelcross 1-4 * GCR 49 1959-60 44-45 2004
Dungeness A 1-2 * GCR 225 1965 41 2006
Hinkley Pt 1-2 * GCR 235 1965 35 2000
Hunterston A 1-2* GCR 160 1964 25 1989-90
Oldbury 2 GCR 217 1967 44 2011
Sizewell A 1-2 * GCR 210 1966 41 2006
Trawsfynydd 1-2 * GCR 196 1965 26 1993
Windscale Prot AGR 28 1963 18 1981
Dounreay DFR Exp FNR 11 1962 18 1977
Dounreay PFR Prot FNR 234 1975 19 1994
Winfrith Prot SGHWR 92 1968 23 1990
USA Big Rock Point* BWR 67 1962 35 1997
BONUS Exp BWR 17 1964 4 1968
CVTR Exp PHWR 17 1963 4 1967
Dresden 1 BWR 197 1960 18 1978
Elk River BWR 22 1963 5 1968
Enrico Fermi 1 Prot FNR 61 1966 6 1972
Fort St. Vrain Prot HTR 330 1976 13 1989
Haddam Neck* PWR 560 1967 29 1996
Hallam Exp sodium cooled GR 75 1963 1 1964
Humboldt Bay BWR 63 1963 13 1976
Indian Point 1 PWR 257 1962 12 1974
Lacrosse BWR 48 1968 19 1987
Maine Yankee* PWR 860 1972 25 1997
Millstone 1 BWR 641 1970 28 1998
Pathfinder Prot BWR 59 1966 1 1967
Peach Bottom 1 Exp HTR 40 1967 7 1974
Piqua Exp Organic MR 12 1963 3 1966
Rancho Seco 1 PWR 873 1974 15 1989
San Onofre 1* PWR 436 1967 25 1992
Saxton Exp PWR 3 1967 5 1972
Shippingport Prot PWR 60 1957 25 1982
Trojan PWR 1095 1975 17 1992
Vallecitos Prot BWR 24 1957 6 1963
Yankee NPS* PWR 167 1960 31 1991
Zion 1-2 * PWR 1040 1973 25 1998
Sturgis FNPP PWR 10 1967 9 1976

The last, Sturgis FNPP, is the “+1″ in top total

Main Sources & References:

Nuclear Decommissioning”, IMechE Conference transaction 1995 -7.

OECD/NEA 1992, Decommissioning Policies for Nuclear Facilities.

OECD/NEA 1992, International Co-operation on Decommissioning.

IAEA Bulletin 42/3/2000, “Preparing for the End of the Line – Radioactive Residues from Nuclear Decommissioning”

OECD/NEA 2003, Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants – policies, strategies and costs.

OECD/NEA 2006, Decommissioning Funding: Ethics, Implementation, Uncertainties.
Nuclear Energy Institute 2002, Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants, factsheet.

Doubleday, EC, 2007, A Decommissioning Wrapup, Radwate Solutions March-April 2007.

IAEA PRIS

Graphite Decommissioning: Options for Graphite Treatment, Recycling, or Disposal, including a discussion of Safety-Related Issues, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, 1013091 (March 2006)

Comments are closed.