Login
Login

nuclear decommissioning

{{Short description|Process of dismantling a nuclear facility}}

{{Use dmy dates|date=February 2023}}

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 many decades more when an interim safe storage period 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 final disposal of nuclear waste from past and future decommissioning is a growing still unsolved problem.

Decommissioning is an administrative and technical process. The facility is dismantled to the point that it no longer requires measures for radiation protection. It includes clean-up of radioactive materials. Once a facility is fully decommissioned, no radiological danger should persist. The license will be terminated and the site released from regulatory control. The plant licensee is then no longer responsible for the nuclear safety.

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.

Worldwide, there are hundreds of thousands small nuclear devices and facilities, for medical, industrial and research purposes, that will have to be decommissioned at some point.[https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/rwmst2/IAEA-WMDB-ST-2-Part-2.pdf Decommissioning of nuclear facilities], p. 52. IAEA, 9 Sep 2002

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.[https://www.iaea.org/topics/decommissioning Decommissioning of nuclear installations.] IAEA (accessed Feb 2023)

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.[https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/nuclear-energy/decommissioning-nuclear-facilities_en Decommissioning of nuclear facilities.] European Commission (accessed Feb 2023) 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.[https://www.grs.de/en/research-and-assessment/decommissioning-dismantling Decommissioning & dismantling.] Gesellschaft für Anlagen- und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) (accessed Feb 2023)

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 necessarily part of it as far as existing structures are reused after decommissioning and decontamination.[https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/IAEA-NSS-GLOweb.pdf IAEA Nuclear Safety and Security Glossary], 2022 (p. 137). 3.7 MB. [https://www.iaea.org/publications/15236/iaea-nuclear-safety-and-security-glossary Via],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. 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. 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;[https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/decommissioning.html Backgrounder on Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants.] U.S.NRC, update 17 Oct 2022 up to 50 years are for radioactive decay and 10 years to dismantle the facility.[https://www.mass.gov/doc/meeting-exhibit/download Overview of Reactor Decommissioning]. NRC, 18 Oct 2017 (2.4 MB)

Steps in the decommissioning process

The decommissioning process encompasses:

;pre-decommissioning

  • 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

;decommissioning

  • dismantling and decontamination
  • in the US, a License Termination Plan (LTP) has to be submitted two years prior to (the expected) termination of the plant license.[https://www.epri.com/research/products/1003426 Summary of License Termination Plan Submittals by Three Nuclear Power Plants]. EPRI, 28 Oct 2002
  • restoration of the environment
  • termination of the operating license; turn over responsibilities
  • monitoring of the site (in case of deferred dismantling/Safstor)
  • monitoring and maintenance of the interim storage of spent fuel
  • final disposal of radioactive waste

= Decommissioning plan =

Under supervision of the IAEA, a member state first develops 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. In the EU, decommissioning operations are overseen by Euratom. Member states are assisted by the European Commission.

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 =

File:Dry Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel (7845746956).jpg

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.[https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage.html 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." 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, on- or off-site storage in the US usually takes place in Independent Spent Fuel Storage Facilities (ISFSI's).[https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/independent-spent-fuel-storage-installation-isfsi.html Independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI)]. U.S.NRC, update 9 March 2021

In the UK, all eleven Magnox reactors are in decommissioning under responsibility of the NDA. The spent fuel was removed and transferred to the Sellafield site in Cumbria for reprocessing.[https://web.archive.org/web/20170316204352/https://nda.blog.gov.uk/2017/01/13/radiological-hazard-on-all-magnox-nuclear-sites-across-uk-set-to-reduce-by-99/ Radiological hazard on all Magnox nuclear sites across UK set to reduce by 99%.] Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, 13 Jan 2017 (archived) Facilities for "temporary" storage of nuclear waste – mainly 'Intermediate Level Waste' (ILW) – are in the UK called Interim Storage Facilities (ISF's).[https://newsnet.scot/news-analysis/nuclear-decommissioning-chapelcross-a-timeline/ Nuclear Decommissioning: Chapelcross a timeline.] Newsnet.scot, 10 Jan 2022

=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.{{Cite web|url=http://www.fz-juelich.de/portal/lw_resource/datapool/__pages/pdp_1407/atw-2008-06_HEUEL-FABIANEK.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080911042258/http://www.fz-juelich.de/portal/lw_resource/datapool/__pages/pdp_1407/atw-2008-06_HEUEL-FABIANEK.pdf|url-status=dead|title=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|archive-date=September 11, 2008}} 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; )

Shortly after the permanent shutdown, the dismantling and/or decontamination of the facility begins. Equipment, structures, systems and components that contain radioactive material are removed and/or decontaminated to a level that permits the ending of regulatory control of the facility and its release, either for unrestricted use or with restrictions on its future use.,p. 50 The operating license is terminated.

Deferred dismantling (SAFSTOR in the United States; "care and maintenance" (C&M) in the UK)

The final decommissioning is postponed for a longer period, usually 30 to 50 years. Often the non-nuclear part of the facility is dismantled and the fuel removed immediately. The radioactive part 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 or restrict use. In the US, the decommissioning must be completed within 60 years. With deferred dismantling, costs are shifted to the future, but this entails the risk of rising expenditures for decades to come and changing rules.[https://www.reutersevents.com/nuclear/us-utilitys-deferred-reactor-clean-shows-cost-pressure-early-closures US utility's deferred reactor clean-up shows cost pressure on early closures.] Reuters Events, 21 Sep 2016 Moreover, the site cannot be re-used until the decommissioning is finished, while there are no longer revenues from production.

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.[https://www.dndkm.org/DOEKMDocuments/BestPractices/26-EFCOG%20Best%20Practice%20-%20SRS%20P%20and%20R%20Reactor%20Basins%20ISD%20Final.pdf SRS P and R Reactor Disassembly Basin In Situ Decommissioning.] ARC-EFCOG Collaboration, 2012 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.[https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/entomb.html 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." 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.

In IAEA terms, entombment is not considered an acceptable strategy for decommissioning a facility following a planned permanent shutdown, except under exceptional circumstances, such as a nuclear disaster. In that case, the structure has to be maintained and surveillance continued until the radioactive material is decayed to a level permitting termination of the licence and unrestricted release of the structure.,p. 50

Costs

The calculation of the total cost of decommissioning is challenging, as there are large differences between countries regarding inclusion of certain costs, such as on-site storage of fuel and radioactive waste from decommissioning, dismanting of non-radioactive buildings and structures, and transport and (final) disposal of radioactive waste.[https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_14910 Costs of decommissioning nuclear power plants], NEA No. 7201, OECD, 2016 (viewer). [https://oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/7201-costs-decom-npp.pdf PDF] (4 MB),p. 61

Moreover, estimates of future costs of deferred decommissioning are virtually impossible, due to the long periode, where inflation and rising costs are unpredictable. Nuclear decommissioning projects are characterized by high and highly variable costs, long schedule and a range of risks. Compared with non-nuclear decommissioning, additional costs are usually related with radiological hazards and safety & security requirements, but also with higher wages for required higher qualified personnel. Benchmarking, comparing projects in different countries, may be useful in estimating the cost of decommissioning. While, for instance, costs for spent fuel and high-level-waste management significantly impacts the budget and schedule of decommissioning projects, it is necessary to clarify which is the starting and the ending point of the decommissioning process.{{Cite journal |last1=Invernizzi |first1=Diletta Colette |last2=Locatelli |first2=Giorgio |last3=Brookes |first3=Naomi J. |date=August 2017 |title=How benchmarking can support the selection, planning and delivery of nuclear decommissioning projects |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0149197017301075 |journal=Progress in Nuclear Energy |language=en |volume=99 |pages=155–164 |doi=10.1016/j.pnucene.2017.05.002|bibcode=2017PNuE...99..155I }}

The effective decommissioning activities begin after all nuclear fuel has been removed from the plant areas that will be decommissioned and these activities form a critical component of pre-decommissioning operations, thus should be factored into the decommissioning plan. The chosen option – immediate or deferred decommissioning – impacts the overall costs. Many other factors also influence the cost. A 2018 KPMG article about decommissioning costs observes that many entities do not include the cost of managing spent nuclear fuel, removed from the plant areas that will be decommissioned (in the US routinely stored in ISFSIs).[https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/ca/pdf/2018/06/ca-decommissioning-nuclear.pdf Decommissioning nuclear – Understanding the reporting obligations]. KPMG Canada, 2018 (3.1 MB)

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 US$1 trillion.{{Cite web|url=http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1201_web.pdf|title=Status of Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities around the World}} 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.

The huge costs of research and development for (geological) longterm disposal of nuclear waste are collectively defrayed by the taxpayers in different countries, not by the companies.

= 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– [https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/decommissioning.html 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."
– [https://www.iaea.org/topics/decommissioning 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."

Switzerland has a central fund for decommissioning its five nuclear power reactors, and another one for disposal the nuclear waste.[https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsrepository-delay-reduces-swiss-npps-decommissioning-costs-5703898 Repository delay reduces Swiss NPPs' decommissioning costs.] Nuclear Engineering International, 22 Dec 2016 Germany has also a state-owned fund for decommissioning of the plants and managing radioactive waste, for which the reactor owners have to pay. The UK Government (the taxpayers) will pay most of the costs for both nuclear decommissioning and existing waste.

[https://theecologist.org/2017/mar/16/edf-facing-bankruptcy-decommissioning-time-frances-ageing-nuclear-fleet-nears EDF facing bankruptcy as decommissioning time for France's ageing nuclear fleet nears.] Paul Dorfman, The Ecologist, 16 March 2017 The decommissioning of all Magnox reactors is entirely funded by the state.Table of the cost of decommissioning of the UK Magnox reactors, entirely funded by the state (in 2015-pounds): [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/512836/ Nuclear Decommissioning Authority: Strategy], Appendix B, p. 129. March 2016.

[https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/nuclear-decommissioning-authority-draft-strategy Via]

Since 2010, owners of new nuclear plants in the Netherlands are obliged to set up a decommissioning fund before construction is started.[https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/geld-tekort-voor-sloop-dodewaard~b14aded7/ Geld tekort voor sloop Dodewaard .] Volkskrant, 19 Oct 2010 (in Dutch)

== Underfunding ==

The economic costs of decommissioning will increase as more

assets reach the end of their life, but few operators have put aside sufficient funds.

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.[https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-europe-nuclear-idUKKCN0VP2KN EU short of 118 billion euros in nuclear decommissioning funds.] Reuters, 16 Feb 2016

In Feb 2017, a committee of the French parliament warned that the state-controlled EDF has underestimated the costs for decommissioning. France had set aside only €23 billion for decommissioning and waste storage of its 58 reactors, which was less than a third of 74 billion in expected costs, while the UK's NDA estimated that clean-up of UK's 17 nuclear sites will cost between €109-€250 billion. EDF estimated the total cost at €54 billion. According to the parliamentary commission, the clean-up of French reactors will take longer, be more challenging and cost much more than EDF anticipates. It said that EDF showed "excessive optimism" concerning the decommissioning. EDF values some €350 million per reactor, whereas European operators count with between 900 million and 1.3 billion euros per reactor. The EDF's estimate was primarily based on the single historic example of the already dismantled Chooz A reactor. The committee argued that costs like restoration of the site, removal of spent fuel, taxes and insurance and social costs should be included.[https://www.reutersevents.com/nuclear/frances-lower-cost-decommissioning-plan-rests-chooz-reactor-learnings France's lower-cost decommissioning plan rests on Chooz A reactor learnings]. Reuters, 22 Feb 2017

Similar concerns about underfunding 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.{{cite web|url=http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0917/ML091700104.pdf |title=NRC Requests Plans from 18 Nuclear Power Plants to Address Apparent Decommissioning Funding Assurance Shortfalls |publisher=Nuclear Regulatory Commission |date= June 19, 2009 |access-date=2014-12-30}} The decommissioning cost of Small modular reactors is expected to be twice as much respect to Large Reactors.{{Cite journal|last1=Locatelli|first1=Giorgio|last2=Mancini|first2=Mauro|date=July 2, 2010|title=Competitiveness of Small-Medium, New Generation Reactors: A Comparative Study on Decommissioning|journal=Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power|volume=132|issue=10|pages=102906|doi=10.1115/1.4000613|issn=0742-4795|hdl=11311/565407|url=https://re.public.polimi.it/bitstream/11311/565407/1/Competitiveness%20of%20Small%20Medium%20New%20Generation%20Reactors%20a%20Comparative%20Study%20on%20decommissionig.pdf|hdl-access=free}}

= Examples by country =

File:Kernkraftwerk Isar 01.jpg in Germany was taken out of service in April 2023.{{cite news |title=Permit issued for dismantling of Isar 2 |url=https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Permit-issued-for-dismantling-of-Isar-2 |work=World Nuclear News |date=25 March 2024}}]]

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.{{Cite web|url=https://www.letelegramme.fr/ar/viewarticle1024.php?aaaammjj=20071129&article=20071129-2063574&type=ar|title=Brennilis.|date=November 29, 2007|website=Le Telegramme|access-date=26 October 2021|archive-date=18 May 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220518233031/https://www.letelegramme.fr/ar/viewarticle1024.php?aaaammjj=20071129&article=20071129-2063574&type=ar|url-status=dead}}{{Cite web|url=http://www.mayennesurvoltee.com/Mayenne_survoltee/Actualites/actua_nation/actua_brennilis_12072007/BRENNILIS.jpg|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110501102123/http://www.mayennesurvoltee.com/Mayenne_survoltee/Actualites/actua_nation/actua_brennilis_12072007/BRENNILIS.jpg|url-status=dead|title=Ouest-France: "Brennilis : EDF se fait taper sur les doigts"|archive-date=May 1, 2011}}

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 (Calder Hall, Windscale and the reprocessing facility) alone accounts for most of the decommissioning cost and increase in cost;{{Cite journal|date=2020-09-01|title=Developing policies for the end-of-life of energy infrastructure: Coming to terms with the challenges of decommissioning|journal=Energy Policy|language=en|volume=144|pages=111677|doi=10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111677|issn=0301-4215|doi-access=free|last1=Invernizzi|first1=Diletta Colette|last2=Locatelli|first2=Giorgio|last3=Velenturf|first3=Anne|last4=Love|first4=Peter ED.|last5=Purnell|first5=Phil|last6=Brookes|first6=Naomi J.|bibcode=2020EnPol.14411677I |hdl=11311/1204791|hdl-access=free}} Free access.

as of 2015, the costs were estimated £53.2 billion. In 2019, the estimate was even much higher: £97 billion.[https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nuclear-provision-explaining-the-cost-of-cleaning-up-britains-nuclear-legacy/nuclear-provision-explaining-the-cost-of-cleaning-up-britains-nuclear-legacy#latest-estimate Nuclear Provision: the cost of cleaning up Britain's historic nuclear sites.] NDA, Update 4 July 2019 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.{{cite journal|title=Nuclear Decommissioning Authority: Managing risk at Sellafield |date=February 4, 2013|publisher=London: The Stationery Office Limited|author=House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmpubacc/746/746.pdf}}

In Germany, decommissioning of Niederaichbach nuclear power plant, a 100 MW power plant, amounted to more than €143 million.{{citation needed|date=March 2017}}

Lithuania has increased the prognosis of decommissioning costs from €2019 million in 2010 to €3376 million in 2015.

== United States ==

The decommissioning can only be completed after the on-site storage of nuclear waste has been ended. Under the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, a "Nuclear Waste Fund", funded by tax on electricity was established to build a geologic repository. On May 16, 2014, collection of the fee was suspendedUnited States Senate [https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-163/issue-90/senate-section/article/S3140-1 Congressional Record Vol. 163, No. 90 (Senate - May 24, 2017)], United States Reports (Government). after a complaint by owners and operators of nuclear power plants. By 2021, the Fund had a balance of more than $44 billion, including interest. Later, the Fund has been put back into the general fund and is being used for other purposes. As the plan for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository has been canceled, DOE announced in 2021 the establishing of an interim repository for nuclear waste.[https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/18/nuclear-waste-why-theres-no-permanent-nuclear-waste-dump-in-us.html The feds have collected more than $44 billion for a permanent nuclear waste dump — here's why we still don't have one.] CNBC, 19 Dec 2021

Because the government has failed to establish a central repository, the federal government pays about half-a-billion dollars a year to the utilities as penalty, to compensate the cost of storage at more than 80 ISFSI sites in 35 states as of 2021. As of 2021, the government had paid $9 billion to utility companies for their interim storage costs, which may grow to $31 billion or more.

Nuclear waste costed the American taxpayers through the Department of Energy (DOE) budget as of 2018 about $30 billion per year, $18 billion for  nuclear power and $12 billion for waste from nuclear weapons programs.[https://earth.stanford.edu/news/steep-costs-nuclear-waste-us The steep costs of nuclear waste in the U.S.] Stanford Earth Matters magazine, 3 July 2018

KPMG estimated the total cost of decommissioning the US nuclear fleet as of 2018 to be greater than US$150 billion. About two-thirds can be attributed to costs for termination of the NRC operating licence; 25% to management of spent fuel; and 10% to site restoration. 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. A 2004 GAO report indicated the "costs will have exceeded revenues by $3.5 billion to $5.7 billion (in 2004 dollars)" for the 3 enrichment facilities slated for decommissioning.United States General Accounting Office.[https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-04-692.pdf URANIUM ENRICHMENT: Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund Is Insufficient to Cover Cleanup Costs.], United States Reports (Government).

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. 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.

Decommissioning of ships, mobile reactors, and military reactors

File:K-159.JPG in decommissioning (before 2004)]]

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. Russia has a fleet of nuclear-powered vessels in decommissioning, dumped in the Barents Sea. Estimated cost for the decommissioning of the two K-27 and K-159 submarines alone was €300 million (2019),[https://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2020-03-major-european-bank-could-help-russia-lift-its-sunken-nuclear-submarines Major European bank could help Russia lift its sunken nuclear submarines.] Bellona, 18 March 2020 or $330 million.[https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200901-the-radioactive-risk-of-sunken-nuclear-soviet-submarines Russia's ‘slow-motion Chernobyl’ at sea.] BBC, 2 Sep 2020 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".{{Cite web|url=https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/decommissioning-nuclear-facilities.aspx|title=Nuclear Decommissioning: Decommission nuclear facilities - World Nuclear Association|website=www.world-nuclear.org}} Many of these sites still host spent nuclear fuel in the form of dry casks embedded in concrete filled steel drums.[https://infcis.iaea.org/NFCIS/Facilities/5?Country=All&Status=In%20operation&Type=22&Scale=All&SearchText=Search%20Facilities List of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities] (NFCIS)

As of 2017, most nuclear plants operating in the United States were designed for a life of about 30–40 years{{cite web |url=http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear-Wastes/Decommissioning-Nuclear-Facilities/ |title=Nuclear Decommissioning: Decommission nuclear facilities |publisher=World-nuclear.org |access-date=2013-09-06 |archive-date=19 October 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151019172620/http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear-Wastes/Decommissioning-Nuclear-Facilities/ |url-status=dead }} and are licensed to operate for 40 years by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.[https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission:Sites Undergoing Decommissioning (by Location or Name)]{{cite web|url=http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=228&t=21 |title=How old are U.S. nuclear power plants and when was the last one built? – FAQ – |publisher=U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) |access-date=2021-05-17}} As of 2020, the average age of these reactors was about 39 years. 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.{{cite web|url=https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/decommissioning.html |title=NRC: Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities |publisher=NRC |date=June 28, 2013 |access-date=2013-09-06}}

Generally are not included the costs of storage of nuclear waste, including spent fuel, and maintenance of the storage facility, pending the realization of repository sites for long-term disposal,p. 246 (in the US Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSI's). Thus many entities do not include the cost of managing spent nuclear fuel, removed from the plant areas that will be decommissioned. There are, however, large differences between countries regarding inclusion of certain costs, such as on-site storage of fuel and radioactive waste from decommissioning, dismanting of non-radioactive buildings and structures, and transport and (final) disposal of radioactive waste.,p. 61

The year of costs may refer to the value corrected for exchange rates and inflation until that year (e.g. 2020-dollars).

The stated power in the list is preferably given in design net capacity (reference unit power) in MWe, similar to the List of commercial nuclear reactors.

{{legend|#d0e2d0|decommissioning complete, except for on-site storage of nuclear waste}}

{{legend|#fff|decommissioning in progress}}

{{legend|#fcc|suffered partial or complete core meltdown}}

class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"
+Dismantled or inactive civil nuclear reactorsWorld Nuclear Association [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf19.html Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081016233119/http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf19.html |date=16 October 2008 }} published by www.world-nuclear.org (Association of nuclear reactors builders), March 2017NRC [https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/power-reactor Locations of Power Reactor Sites Undergoing Decommissioning]Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)[http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?query_id=2&page=0&osti_id=1344 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]
Country

! Location

! Reactor type

! Operative life

! Decommissioning

! Decommissioning costs

style="background:#d0e2d0

| Austria

| Zwentendorf

| BWR 723 MWe

| Never activated due to referendum in 1978{{Cite web|url=http://www.sustainabilityinstitute.org/dhm_archive/index.php?display_article=vn166zwented|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110511102256/http://www.sustainabilityinstitute.org/dhm_archive/index.php?display_article=vn166zwented|url-status=dead|title=sustainabilityinstitute.org is registered with Pair Domains|archive-date=May 11, 2011|publisher=Sustainability Institute}}

| Now a technics museum

|

style="background:#d0e2d0

| Belgium

| SCK•CEN – BR3,
located at Mol, Belgium

| PWR (BR-3)

| 1962–1987
(25 years)

| 2002- [https://web.archive.org/web/20190401060959/https://science.sckcen.be/en/Facilities/BR3 Belgian Reactor 3 - BR3]. SCK•CEN (archived Apr 2019, no update)

| Still unknown

Bulgaria

| Kozloduy
Units 1, 2, 3, 4{{Cite web|url=https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/bulgaria.aspx|title=Nuclear Power in Bulgaria | Bulgarian nuclear energy - World Nuclear Association|website=www.world-nuclear.org}}

| 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

"Static state" since 1986{{Cite web|url=http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull274/27405092729.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110429052517/http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull274/27405092729.pdf|url-status=dead|title=Taking Canada's Gentilly-1 to a "static state (by Balarko Gupta)|archive-date=April 29, 2011|publisher=IAEA}}{{Cite web|url=http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?8801395|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110427010401/http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?8801395|url-status=dead|title=ASCE: Gentilly-1 a study in nuclear decommission|archive-date=April 27, 2011}}[http://www.ccnr.org/gentilly_hq.html A Chernobyl in Québec?] (correspondence on the dangers of Québec's only nuclear plant)

| Still unknown

stage two:{{clarify|date=March 2017}}
$25 million

Canada

| Gentilly-2(Québec)

| CANDU-BWR
675 MWe

| October 1, 1983 to December 28, 2012

| Ongoing

| $1.8 billion (estimated) [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-nuclear-reactor-shutdown-will-cost-1-8-billion-1.1159201 Quebec nuclear reactor shutdown will cost $1.8 billion CBC news. October 03, 2012 ]

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"
Decommissioning to begin in 2020[http://www.opg.com/power/nuclear/pickering/ Ontario Power Generation: Pickering Nuclear Power]{{Cite web|url=http://fairewinds.org/reports/relicensing-analysis-pickering-ngs-fairewinds-associates|title=Relicensing Pickering Nuclear Generating Station|publisher=FAIREWINDS|access-date=21 January 2014|archive-date=13 February 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140213015832/http://fairewinds.org/reports/relicensing-analysis-pickering-ngs-fairewinds-associates|url-status=dead}}

| Still unknown

calculated:{{clarify|date=March 2017}} $270–430/kWe{{citation needed|date=March 2017}}

China{{Cite web|url=http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NEFW/documents/IDN_2007/China.pdf|title=IAEA: Decommissioning in China}}

| 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
$5 million for fuel remotion

France{{Cite web|url=https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx|title=Nuclear Power in France | French Nuclear Energy - World Nuclear Association|website=www.world-nuclear.org}}

| Brennilis

| HWGCR 70 MWe

| 12 years
(1967–1979)

| Ongoing

Phase 3
(fire during decommissioning in 2015) [http://7seizh.info/2015/09/23/brennilis-incendie-a-centrale-nucleaire-plan-durgence-declenche Brennilis: Incendie À La Centrale Nucléaire, Le Plan D’urgence Déclenché]

| Still unknown

already spent €480 million
(20 times the forecasted amount) {{Cite web|url=http://www.beyondnuclear.org/nuclear-decommissioning-costs/2016/4/27/the-global-state-of-nuclear-decommissioning-costs-rising-fun.html|title=The global state of nuclear decommissioning: costs rising, funds shrinking, and industry looks to escape liability by decades of delay}}{{Cite journal|url=https://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/brennilis-laboratoire-du-demantelement.N157890|title=BRENNILIS, LABORATOIRE DU DÉMANTÈLEMENT|date=September 1, 2011|via=www.usinenouvelle.com |last1=Nouvelle |first1=L'Usine }}

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

style="background:#d0e2d0

| France

| Chooz-A

| PWR 300 MW

| 24 years
(1967–1991)

| 2007-

Ongoing

Deferred dismantling;{{Cite web|url=http://www.wmsym.org/archives/2009/pdfs/9087.pdf|title=WM2009 Conference, March 1–5, 2009 Phoenix, AZ – International Cooperation for the Dismantling of Chooz A Reactor Pressure Vessel – 9087}}

dismantling to finish by 2025

| 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[https://web.archive.org/web/20150402132154if_/http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NEFW/CEG/documents/ws102003_michaille1-e.pdf Decommissioning of LMRs in France]. ECA, 2003

|Still unknown

France

| Phénix at
Marcoule

| Experimental
Fast breeder nuclear reactor
(sodium-cooled)
233 MWe

| 36 years
(1973–2009){{Cite web|url=https://www.osti.gov/biblio/21144200|title=Phenix Decommissioning Project - Overview|first=Michel|last=Soldaini|date=January 15, 2008|osti=21144200|via=www.osti.gov}}

| 2005-

Ongoing
non-nuclear dismantling finished in 2011; finalising expected between 2031 and 2043.[https://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/display2.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.visiatome.fr%2FLocal%2Fvisiatome%2Ffiles%2F566%2FDemantelement.de.la.centrale.Phenix.a.Marcoule.par.Jean-Paul.Grandjean.le.14.mars.2013.pdf Demantelement de la centrale Phenix]. CEA, 14 March 2013 (French)

|Still unknown

France

| Superphénix at
Creys-Malville

| Fast breeder nuclear reactor
(sodium-cooled)

| 11 years
(1985–1996){{Cite web|url=https://www.wiseinternational.org/node/1979|title=Superphénix; still more problems ahead | Wise International|website=www.wiseinternational.org}}

| Ongoing

1) Defuelled
2) Extraction of Sodium{{Cite web |url=http://www.ans.org/store/j_3608 |title=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 |access-date=July 1, 2015 |archive-date=July 2, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150702041334/http://www.ans.org/store/j_3608 |url-status=dead }}
Pipe cutting with a robot [http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1633_web.pdf Decommissioning of Fast Reactors after Sodium Draining]{{Cite web |url=http://uk.areva.com/EN/home-824/news2013decommissioning-of-nuclear-installations-world-first-for-the-robot-charli.html |title=Decommissioning of nuclear installations: World first for the robot CHARLI - 2013 - News |access-date=July 1, 2015 |archive-date=September 26, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150926041336/http://www.uk.areva.com/EN/home-824/news2013decommissioning-of-nuclear-installations-world-first-for-the-robot-charli.html |url-status=dead }}

| 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
dismantling
(underwater cutting)

| Still unknown

East Germany

| Rheinsberg
Unit 1

| VVER-210
70–80 MWe

| 24 years
(1966–1990)

| Ongoing

In dismantling
since 1996
Safstor (underwater cutting)

| 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

style="background:#d0e2d0

| West Germany

| Gundremmingen-A

| BWR
250 MWe

|
11 years

| Ongoing

Immediate
dismantling
pilot project
(underwater cutting)

| Still unknown

India{{Cite web |url=http://www.cised.org/EconomicsofNuclearPowerfromHeavyWaterReactors.pdf |title=INDIA – CISED: Economics of Nuclear Power Heavy Water Reactors |access-date=January 12, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090225155112/http://www.cised.org/EconomicsofNuclearPowerfromHeavyWaterReactors.pdf |archive-date=February 25, 2009 |url-status=dead }}

| Rajasthan Atomic Power Station
Unit 1
(Rajasthan)

| PHWR 100 MWe (similar to CANDU)

| 44 years
(1970–2014)

| Ongoing

| Still unknown

Italy{{Cite web|url=https://newmdb.iaea.org/profiles.aspx?ByCountry=IT|title=Country Nuclear Waste Profile - NEWMDB - IAEA|website=newmdb.iaea.org}}

| Caorso

| BWR
840 MWe[http://www.zonanucleare.com/questione_scorie_italia/inventario_rifiuti_radioattivi/indice_centrale_caorso.htm Zona Nucleare – La centrale nucleare in fase di smantellamento ex-ENEL di Caorso] (Piacenza){{Cite web|url=http://www.ilfiumepo.net/it/caorso.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110501143001/http://www.ilfiumepo.net/it/caorso.html|url-status=dead|title=Il Fiume Po: La Centrale Nucleare di Caorso|archive-date=May 1, 2011}}

| 9 years
(1981 – Closed in 1990 after referendum in 1986)

| 1999-2031 (estimated)

| €450 million (dismantling)
+ €300 million (fuel reprocessing){{cite web|url=http://www.tecnosophia.org/documenti/Articoli/SessioneI/Guerzoni.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150503052119/http://www.tecnosophia.org/documenti/Articoli/SessioneI/Guerzoni.pdf |archive-date=2015-05-03 |title= Il decommissioning della centrale nucleare di Caorso |page=6 |author=Renzo Guerzoni |publisher=Sogin}}{{Cite web |url=http://energia24club.it/articoli/0,1254,51_ART_93751,00.html |title=Via libera allo smantellamento della centrale di Caorso |access-date=July 26, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120328054629/http://energia24club.it/articoli/0,1254,51_ART_93751,00.html |archive-date=March 28, 2012 |url-status=dead }}{{Cite web|url=http://www.dire.it/caorso_accordo.php?menu=3&cont=22745&lingua=it|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120328054706/http://www.dire.it/caorso_accordo.php?menu=3&cont=22745&lingua=it|url-status=dead|title=Accordo tra la SOGIN e la Sudsvik svedese|archive-date=March 28, 2012}}{{Cite web|url=https://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubblica/archivio/repubblica/1991/10/09/per-caorso-un-addio-lungo-mezzo-secolo.html|title=PER CAORSO UN ADDIO LUNGO MEZZO SECOLO PIANO ENEL PER SMANTELLARE LA C - la Repubblica.it|website=Archivio - la Repubblica.it|date=9 October 1991 }}

Italy

| Garigliano (Caserta)

| BWR
150 MWe[http://www.zonanucleare.com/questione_scorie_italia/inventario_rifiuti_radioattivi/indice_centrale_garigliano.htm Zona Nucleare – La centrale nucleare in fase di smantellamento ex-ENEL di Garigliano] (Caserta)

| 18 years (1964-1982)

| 1999-2026 (estimated)

| Still unknown

Italy

| Latina (Foce Verde)

| Magnox
210 MWe Gas-graphite[http://www.zonanucleare.com/questione_scorie_italia/inventario_rifiuti_radioattivi/indice_centrale_latina.htm Zona Nucleare – La centrale nucleare in fase di smantellamento ex-ENEL di Foce Verde] (Latina)

| 24 years
(1962 – Closed in 1987 after referendum)

| 1999-2027 (estimated)

| Still unknown

Italy

| Trino Vercellese

| PWR Westinghouse,
270 MWe[http://www.zonanucleare.com/questione_scorie_italia/inventario_rifiuti_radioattivi/indice_centrale_trino_vercellese.htm Zona Nucleare – La centrale nucleare in fase di smantellamento ex-ENEL di Trino Vercellese] (Vercelli)

| 25 years
(1965 - Closed in 1990 after referendum)

| 1999-2030 (estimated)

| Still unknown

style="background:#fcc;"

| 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
{{Cite web|url=https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/fukushima-nuclear-accident-update-log-49|title=Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update Log|date=June 2, 2011|website=www.iaea.org}}{{cite news|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/06/06/japan.nuclear.meltdown/index.html?iref=NS1 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110609041550/http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/06/06/japan.nuclear.meltdown/index.html?iref=NS1 |url-status=dead |archive-date=9 June 2011 |title=3 nuclear reactors melted down after quake, Japan confirms |publisher=CNN|date= June 7, 2011|access-date=July 13, 2011}}{{cite web |url=http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110607005367.htm |title='Melt-through' at Fukushima? / Govt report to IAEA suggests situation worse than meltdown |publisher=Yomiuri |date=June 8, 2011 |access-date=June 8, 2011 |archive-date=June 7, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110607225045/http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110607005367.htm |url-status=dead }}

Hydrogen explosion (INES 7){{cite web | url=http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/12_05.html | title=Japan to raise Fukushima crisis level to worst | access-date=April 12, 2011 | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110412003205/http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/12_05.html | archive-date=April 12, 2011 | df=mdy-all }}{{cite news | url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-idUSTRE72A0SS20110412 | title=Japan raises nuclear crisis to same level as Chernobyl | work=Reuters | date=April 12, 2011}}

| 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).[http://www.japantimes.co.jp The Japan Times]: [http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/10/20/national/whether-tepco-fails-or-not-its-taxpayers-tab/ Whether Tepco fails or not, it's taxpayers’ tab]

style="background:#fcc;"

| Japan

| Fukushima Dai-ichi
Unit 2

| BWR 760 MWe

| December 24, 1973 – March 11, 2011

| Ongoing

| Still unknown

style="background:#fcc;"

| 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
Damage to spent fuel cooling-pool
(INES 4)

| 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{{Cite web|url=http://depletedcranium.com/the-other-fukushima-nuclear-power-plant|title=The Other Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant}}

| BWR 1067 MWe

| July 31, 1981 – 11 March 2011

| Planned decommissioning
Cold shutdown since March 11, 2011
{{Cite web|url=https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/fukushima-daini-nuclear-power-station.html|title=Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Station all shutdown | NextBigFuture.com|date=March 12, 2011}}

| Still unknown

style="background:#d0e2d0

| Japan

| Fugen{{Cite web |url=http://www.jnc.go.jp/zfugen |title=Fugen NPP official website |access-date=March 10, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051101085946/http://www.jnc.go.jp/zfugen/ |archive-date=November 1, 2005 |url-status=dead }}

| Advanced thermal reactor
(MOX fuel core,
heavy water-BWR)
165 MWe

| 1979–2003

| Ongoing

Since March 11, 2011 Cold shutdown {{Cite web|url=http://www.jaea.go.jp/english/04/turuga/info/rd/rd.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110523143824/http://www.jaea.go.jp/english/04/turuga/info/rd/rd.html|url-status=dead|title=Fugen Decommissioning Engineering Center|archive-date=May 23, 2011}}

{{Cite web|url=http://blog.livedoor.jp/amenohimoharenohimo/archives/65710772.html|title=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|website=blog.livedoor.jp|date=15 April 2011 }}{{Cite web|url=https://vimeo.com/22618813|title=Deconstruction of Nuclear power plant|via=vimeo.com}}

| Still unknown

style="background:#d0e2d0

| Japan

| Tokai
Unit 1

| Magnox (GCR) 160 MWe

| 1966–1998

| deferred dismantling: 10 years[http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/htgr/abstracts/abst_29059902.html Article in IAEA-TECDOC—1043: Permanent cessation of Tokai power plant's operation].[http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200520/000020052005A0825407.php Science Links Japan: Progression of decommissioning of Tokai power plant. First case of power reactor in Japan] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110513053239/http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200520/000020052005A0825407.php |date=May 13, 2011 }}.
then decon
until 2018

|
¥93 billion[https://books.google.com/books?id=W7OZkUOOVD0C&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=Decommissioning+cost+of+Tokai#PPA1,M1 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/Nuclear Energy Agency, report 2003]: Strategy Selection for the Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities (page 118).
(€660 million of 2003)

North Korea

| Yongbyon

| Magnox-type
(reactor for the production of nuclear weapons through PUREX treatment)

| 1985–2005
(20 years)
Deactivated after a treaty{{Cite web|url=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/aug/27/korea.nuclear|title=Nuclear agreement: N Korea halts decommissioning|date=August 26, 2008|website=the Guardian}}

| deferred dismantling; cooling tower dismantled

| Still unknown

Netherlands

| Dodewaard

| BWR Westinghouse
55 MWe

| 1968–1997
(28 years)

| 2002-2100+
safe-storage; start dismantling in 2045;
separate interim storage of high-level waste at COVRA for 100 years or longer[https://www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/profiles/Netherlands_report_web.pdf Radioactive waste management and decommissioning in the Netherlands.] OECD-NEA, Oct 2008,p. 171

| estimated cost €134 million (1999); €180 million (2016),p. 174

Russia

| Mayak{{Cite web|url=https://www.greenpeace.org/italy/tag/inquinamento/|title=Inquinamento - Greenpeace Italia|website=www.greenpeace.org|date=22 January 2025 }}
(Chelyabinsk-65)

| PUREX plant for
uranium enrichment

| 1946–1956
(10 years)

| Ongoing

| Still unknown

Russia

| Seversk{{Cite web|url=http://www.cncp.ru/eng/cities/seversk/seversk.shtml|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090814190933/http://www.cncp.ru/eng/cities/seversk/seversk.shtml|url-status=dead|title=UK-Russia Closed Nuclear Cities Partnership|archive-date=August 14, 2009}}
(Tomsk-7)

| Three plutonium reactors
Plant for uranium enrichment

| Two fast-breeder reactors closed (of three),
after disarmaments agreements with USA in 2003.{{Cite web|url=https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Russia_shuts_second_plutonium-producing_reactor_at_Seversk-0606083.html|title=World Nuclear Association - World Nuclear News|website=www.world-nuclear-news.org}}

| Ongoing

| Still unknown

Slovakia

| Jaslovské Bohunice
Units 1, 2{{Cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/160334.stm|title=BBC News | Europe | Full ahead for Slovak nuclear reactor|website=news.bbc.co.uk}}{{Cite web|url=https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090111/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_austria_slovakia_gas|title=YAHOO NEWS: Slovakia forced to restart nuclear reactors after Ukrainian gas crisis}}

| VVER 440/230
2 X 440 MWe

| (1978–2006)
(1980–2008)

| Ongoing

| Still unknown

style="background:#d0e2d0

| Spain[http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-o-s/spain.aspx Nuclear Power in Spain] - February 2017

| José Cabrera

| PWR
1 x 160 MWe
(Westinghouse)

| 38 years
(1968–2006)

| 2010-2023[https://www.enresa.es/eng/index/activities-and-projects/dismantling-and-environmental-restoration/dismantling-of-the-jose-cabrera-nuclear-power-plant Dismantling of the Jose Cabrera Nuclear Power Plant].[https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsdismantling-of-spains-jos-cabrera-npp-almost-complete-9815975 Dismantling of Spain's José Cabrera NPP almost complete]. NEI, 30 June 2022[https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Decommissioning-milestone-at-Spain-s-Zorita-plant Decommissioning milestone at Spain's Zorita plant]. WNN, 27 June 2022

| Still unknown
Estimation increased from {{euro}}135 mln in 2003 to {{euro}}217.8 mln in 2014[https://www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/workshops/findecom/presentations/2_3-garcia.pdf Comparison of estimated and actual decommissioning cost of José Cabrera NPP]. ENRESA, Sep 2016

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 kronor ($1.63 billion){{Cite web|url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/|title=Business News Today: Read Latest Business news, India Business News Live, Share Market & Economy News|website=The Economic Times}}

Sweden

|Oskarshamn

Units 1, 2

|BWR 1 x 473 MW

BWR 1 x 638 MW

| Reactor 1: 45 years 1972–2017
Reactor 2: 41 years 1975 – 2016

|Ongoing

|Still unknown

Sweden

|Ringhals

Units 1, 2

|BWR 1 x 881 MW

PWR 1 x 904 MW

| Reactor 1: 44 years 1976–2020
Reactor 2: 44 years 1975 – 2019

|Ongoing

|Still unknown

Switzerland{{Cite web|url=http://www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/profiles/Switzerland_report_web.pdf|title=Nuclear Energy Agency: Decommissioning in Switzerland}}

| DIORIT

| MWe CO2-Gas-heavy water
(experimental)

|

| DecommissionedENSI: Aufsichtsberichte, since around the year 2000

|Still unknown

style="background:#fcc;"

| Switzerland

| LUCENS

| 8,3 MWe CO22-Gas-heavy water
(experimental)

| (1962–1969)
Incident: fire in 1969

| Decommissionedthe same source

| Still unknown

Switzerland

| SAPHIR

| 0,01–0,1 MWe
(Light water pool)

| 39 years
(1955–1994)
(Experimental demonstrator)

| Decommissioned

| Still unknown

style="background:#fcc;"

| Ukraine

| Chernobyl-4
(110 km
from Kyiv)

| RBMK-1000
1000 MWe

| hydrogen explosion,
then graphite fire (1986)
(INES 7)

| Ongoing

ENTOMBMENT
(armed concrete "sarcophagus")

| Still unknown
Future: riding sarcophagus in steel[http://www.ebrd.com European Bank for Reconstruction and Development]: [http://www.ebrd.com/new/pressrel/2007/070917.htm Breakthrough for Chernobyl nuclear decommissioning efforts (Consortium Novarka to build New Safe Confinement Holtec International to complete Spent Fuel Storage)] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080821144800/http://www.ebrd.com/new/pressrel/2007/070917.htm |date=August 21, 2008 }}

= [[Nuclear power in the United Kingdom|United Kingdom]] =

class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"
Location

! Reactor type

! Operative life

! Decommissioning

! Decommissioning
costs

Berkeley

| Magnox
(2 x 138 MWe)

| 1962–1989
(27 years)

| save storage

| Still unknown

Bradwell

| Magnox
2 x 121 MWe

| 1962–2002
(40 years)

| 2002-2083 or later
save storage[https://nda.blog.gov.uk/first-of-the-uks-earliest-nuclear-sites-to-be-sealed-for-a-period-of-care-and-maintenance/ First of the UK's earliest nuclear sites to be sealed for a period of “care and maintenance”.] Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, 16 Jan 2017. [https://web.archive.org/web/20191024223721/https://nda.blog.gov.uk/2017/01/16/first-of-the-uks-earliest-nuclear-sites-to-be-sealed-for-a-period-of-care-and-maintenance/ archived]

| Still unknown

Calderhall
Sellafield

| Magnox
4 x 60 MWe

|1956-2003
(44–46 years)[https://web.archive.org/web/20040222073030/http://www.bnfl.com/index.aspx?page=413 Calder Hall Celebrates 40 Years of Operation – Press Release]. BNFL, 22 Feb 2004{{cite news| url=https://www.theguardian.com/nuclear/article/0,2763,918724,00.html | work=The Guardian | location=London | title=First nuclear power plant to close | first=Paul | last=Brown | date=March 21, 2003 }}

| save storage[http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20150817115932/http://www.nda.gov.uk/documents/upload/NDA-Calder-Hall-Nuclear-Power-Station-Feasibility-Study-2007.pdf NDA Calder Hall Nuclear Power Station Feasibility Study 2007].

| Still unknown

Chapelcross

| Magnox
4 x 60 MWe
("sister reactor" to Calderhall)

| 1959–2004
(45 years)

| save storage

| Still unknown

Dounreay: DMTR
(Research facility of UKAEA)

|Fast-neutron reactor

|1958–1969

|Ongoing

Demolition contract awarded December 2018{{Cite web|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/scotlands-oldest-nuclear-reactor-to-go-as-demolition-contract-awarded|title=Scotland's oldest nuclear reactor to go as demolition contract awarded|website=GOV.UK|date=20 December 2018 |language=en|access-date=2019-03-05}}

|Still unknown

Dounreay: DFR
(Research facility of UKAEA)

|Loop-type fast breeder.

14 MWe.{{Cite web|url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Dounreay-completes-first-phase-of-breeder-shipment|title=Dounreay completes first phase of breeder shipments - World Nuclear News|website=www.world-nuclear-news.org|access-date=2019-03-05}}

|1959–1977

|Ongoing{{Cite web|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/work-starts-on-lifting-last-material-from-dounreay-reactor|title=Free at last as jammed fuel is lifted out|website=GOV.UK|date=4 December 2017 |language=en|access-date=2019-03-05}}

|Still unknown

Dounreay: PFR
(Research facility of UKAEA)

|Pool-type fast breeder cooled by liquid sodium, fueled with MOX.250 MWe.{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/9/newsid_2730000/2730083.stm |title=New nuclear reactor for Dounreay |publisher=BBC |date=February 9, 1966 |access-date=April 10, 2016}}

| 1974–1994
(with average 26.9% load){{cite web |url=http://www.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=243 |title=PRIS: Dounreay PFR |publisher=IAEA |access-date=April 28, 2014}}
Delays and reliability problems before reaching full power.{{cite book |pages=73–88 |url=http://fissilematerials.org/library/rr08.pdf |title=Fast Breeder Reactor Programs: History and Status |author=Frank von Hippel |publisher=International Panel on Fissile Materials |isbn=978-0-9819275-6-5 |date=February 2010 |access-date=April 28, 2014|display-authors=etal}}

| Remotely operated robot 'Reactorsaurus' will be sent in to decontaminate equipment as too dangerous a task for a human.{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/8033763.stm|title='Reactorsaurus' to rip up station|publisher=BBC|date=May 5, 2009|access-date=May 5, 2009}} Control panel has been earmarked for an exhibition at London Science Museum (2016). {{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-27126921|title=BBC News – Plan to display parts of Dounreay at London museum|work=BBC Online|access-date=April 24, 2014}}

|Still unknown

style="background:#d0e2d0

| Winfrith
Dorset

| SGHWR
92 MWe

| 1968 to 1990
(22 years)

| 1995-
dismantled;
off-site storage of waste[https://www.onr.org.uk/sites/winfrith.htm Winfrith]. Office for Nuclear Regulation (update 10 Dec 2021)

|Still unknown

=== United States ===

[https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/index.html#alpha Sites Undergoing Decommissioning] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)[https://www.nrc.gov/images/reading-rm/doc-collections/maps/isfsi-facility-types.png Map of ISFSI Locations]. U.S.NRC, update Oct 2021

class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"
Location

! Reactor type

! Operative life

! Decommissioning

! Decommissioning
costs

style="background:#d0e2d0

| Connecticut Yankee
Connecticut

| PWR
619 MWe

| 1968–1996
(28 years)

| 1998-2007
DECON; on-site ISFSI waste storage[https://connyankee.com/decommissioning/ Decommissioning.] Connecticut Yankee (accessed Feb 2023)

| 931 mln;
additional $575.5 mln in court awarded from DOE for waste storage at 3 plants[https://connyankee.com/fuel-storage/ Fuel Storage]. Connecticut Yankee (accessed Feb 2023)

Crystal River 3
Florida

| PWR
825 MWe

| 1977–2009
(32 years)

| 2013-2037 (estimated)
DECON; on-site
ISFSI waste storage[https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/power-reactor/cr3.html Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant.] NRC, update 13 Apr 2022

| In 2013 estimated ~$1,2 bln[https://www.tampabay.com/news/business/energy/shutting-down-crystal-river-nuclear-plant-will-cost-12-billion-take-60/2156453/ Shutting down Crystal River nuclear plant will cost $1.2 billion, take 60 years.] Tampa Bay Times, 11 Dec 2013

Dresden
Unit 1
(Illinois)

| BWR
207 MWe

| 1960–1978
(18 years)

| Defueled in safety in 1998
now in SAFSTOR{{Cite web|url=https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/power-reactor/dresden-nuclear-power-station-unit-1.html|title=Dresden - Unit 1|website=NRC Web}}
Fuel in on-site dry-casks.{{Cite web|url=http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/us-nuclear-power-plants-database/dresden-nuclear-generating-station#.WJ9Jnh-i5pQ|title=UCSUSA: Dresden Nuclear Generating Station}}

| Still unknown

style="background:#d0e2d0

| Fort St. Vrain
(Colorado)

| HTGR
(helium-graphite)
330 MWe

| 1979–1989
(10 years)[https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=623 FORT ST. VRAIN]. PRIS-IAEA

| 1989-1992
(3 years)
dismantled; off-site ISFSI waste storage;
replaced by conventional station[https://web.archive.org/web/20101226163544/http://xcelenergy.com/Minnesota/Company/About_Energy_and_Rates/Power%20Generation/ColoradoPlants/Pages/FortStVrainStation.aspx Fort St. Vrain Station]. Xcel Energy (Dec 2010 archived)

| $283 million[https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/pdf/rap-info/i4428.pdf No 4428 - Rapport d'information], p. 69, 71. Assemblée nationale, 1 Feb 2017 (in French); [https://www2.assemblee-nationale.fr/documents/notice/14/rap-info/i4428/%28index%29/depots Web text]

style="background:#d0e2d0 "

| Pacific Gas & Electric –
Humboldt Bay
Unit 3

| BWR 63 MWe

| 1963–1976
(13 years)[https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=599 Humboldt Bay Permanent Shutdown]. IAEA PRIS

| 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.[https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2021/21-051.pdf NRC Terminates Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant License]. NRC, 18 Nov 2021

| Unknown

Fund for $53.3 million required for decommissioning of storage alone.

style="background:#d0e2d0 "

| Maine Yankee

| PWR
860 MWe

| 24 years
(closed in 1996)

| DECON; on-site ISFSI waste storage{{Cite web|url=https://www.power-technology.com/projects/maine/|title=Maine Yankee USA Nuclear Power Station Project - Power Technology | Energy News and Market Analysis|website=www.power-technology.com}}{{Cite web|url=http://local.ans.org/ne/Ted%20-%20ANS%2010-30-03.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110501093148/http://local.ans.org/ne/Ted%20-%20ANS%2010-30-03.pdf|url-status=dead|title=Maine Yankee Decommissioning 80% Complete|archive-date=May 1, 2011}}

| $635 million{{Cite web|url=http://www.maineyankee.com/public/pdfs/epri/my%20epri%20report-2005.pdf|title=Maine Yankee Decommissioning Experience Report|access-date=7 January 2009|archive-date=10 December 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141210020242/http://maineyankee.com/public/pdfs/epri/my%20epri%20report-2005.pdf|url-status=dead}}

Piqua NGS
(Ohio)

| OCM (Organically Cooled/Moderated) reactor 46 MWeUS NRC Information Digest 2008–2009

| 2 years
(closed in 1966)

| ENTOMB
(coolant design inadequate for neutron flux)

| Still unknown

style="background:#d0e2d0

| Rancho Seco NGS{{Cite web|url=https://www.osti.gov/_|title=OSTI.GOV|website=www.osti.gov}}
(California)

| PWR 913 MWe

| 12 years
(Closed after a referendum in 1989)

| SAFSTOR: 5–10 years
completed in 2009 [http://www.power-eng.com/articles/2009/10/rancho-seco-nuclear-power-plant-ends-decommissioning.html Rancho Seco nuclear power plant ends decommissioning] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120902084633/http://www.power-eng.com/articles/2009/10/rancho-seco-nuclear-power-plant-ends-decommissioning.html |date=September 2, 2012 }} 10-2009

Fuel in insite long-term dry-cask storage

| $538.1 million {{Cite web|url=https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0703/ML070390056.pdf|title=SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY DISTRICT: RANCHO SECO REPORT ON DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING STATUS}}

San Onofre NGS Unit 1
(California)

| PWR 436 MWe Westinghouse Electric Corporation

| 1967–1992
(25 years)[https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=604 SAN ONOFRE-1] PRIS-IAEA

| 1993-2032 (estimated)
dismantled; on-site ISFSI waste storage for whole plant[https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/power-reactor/san-onofre-unit-1.html San Onofre – Unit 1].

NRC (update 14 July 2021)

|Still unknown

San Onofre NGS Units 2, 3
(California){{Cite web|url=https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/fission-stories-92-san-onofres-allegators/|title=Fission Stories #92: San Onofre's Allegators|date=May 15, 2012|website=All Things Nuclear}}

| PWR
1070 MWe
1080 MWe

| 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.{{Cite web|url=https://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/cracked-steam-generator-tubes-at-san-onofre/|title=Cracked Steam Generator Tubes at San Onofre|date=March 27, 2012|website=All Things Nuclear}}

| in defueling.Permanent shutdown – DECON
soon defuelingNRC [https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/power-reactor/songs/decommissioning-plans.html Plans for Decommissioning of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3] July 8, 2016

|Still unknown

2014 cost forecast:
$3.926 billion{{Cite web |url=https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1426/ML14269A032.pdf |title=San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3 Irradiated Fuel Management Plan |last=Southern California Edison |date=September 23, 2014 |publisher=NRC |pages=14}}
to $4.4 billion{{cite news|title=Calif. nuclear plant to cost $4.4 billion to dismantle| url=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/calif-nuclear-plant-to-cost-4-4-billion-to-dismantle/|access-date=3 August 2014|agency=AP|publisher=CBS News|date=Aug 2, 2014}}

style="background:#d0e2d0 "

| Shippingport
(Pennsylvania)

| BWR 60 MWe

| 25 years
(closed in 1989)

| Decon completed
dismantled in 5 years
(first small experimental reactor)

| $98.4 million{{Cite web|url=https://www.osti.gov/biblio/5660448|title=Shippingport station decommissioning project start of physical decommissioning|first=F. P.|last=Crimi|date=January 1, 1986|osti=5660448|via=www.osti.gov}}

style="background:#fcc;"

| 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){{Cite web|url=https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/power-reactor/three-mile-island-unit-2.html|title=Three Mile Island - Unit 2|website=NRC Web}}

Trojan
(Oregon)

| PWR 1,180 MWe

| 16 years
(Closed in 1993 because of proximity to seismic fault)

| SAFSTOR
(cooling tower demolished in 2006)

| {{cite news |last=Koberstein |first=Paul |url=http://www.wweek.com/editorial/3118/6073/ |title=Trojan: PGE's Nuclear Gamble |work=Willamette Week |page=A1 |date=March 9, 2005 |access-date=2007-06-15 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070929115456/http://www.wweek.com/editorial/3118/6073/ |archive-date=September 29, 2007 |df=mdy-all }}

Vermont Yankee

| BWR 620 MWe
(General Electric)

| 1972–2014
(42 years)

| Ongoing
2015–

| ~$1.24 billion

style="background:#d0e2d0

| Yankee Rowe
(Massachusetts)

| PWR 180 MWe

| 1961–1991
(30 years)
Construction cost was $45 million

| completed in 2007[https://www.benningtonbanner.com/local-news/yankee-rowe-decommissioning-complete/article_6ccd0d48-d9af-5abb-b445-7787224f3a9c.html Yankee Rowe decommissioning complete]. Bob Audette, Bennington Banner, 18 Aug 2007
on-site ISFSI waste storage

| $608 million (See main article)

style="background:#d0e2d0

| Zion
Units 1, 2
(Illinois)

| 2 x PWR 1040 MWe
(Westinghouse)

| 1973/1974–1998
(25 years)

| 1998-2020 [https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/power-reactor/zion-nuclear-power-station-units-1-2.html Zion Units 1 & 2.] U.S. NRC, update June 2022
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;[https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-bn-xpm-2010-08-23-28516755-story.html Exelon sets stage for dismantling Zion reactor]. Chicago Tribune, 23 Aug 2010. [https://web.archive.org/web/20100825104425/http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/08/exelon-hands-off-closed-zion-reactor.html Archived].
"When work is complete, Exelon will resume responsibility for the 200-acre site, where spent fuel will be stored in large concrete casks,".
for remaining waste unknown

See also

References

{{reflist|colwidth=30em}}

External links

  • {{Commons category-inline}}
  • [http://www.oecd-nea.org NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development]: [http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2016/7201-costs-decom-npp.pdf Cost of Decommissioning Nuclear Energy Plants] (2016)
  • [http://www.nrc.gov UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION]: [https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/decommissioning.html Backgrounder on Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants]
  • [https://www.businessinsider.com/ Business Insider – UK]: [https://www.businessinsider.com/r-global-nuclear-decommissioning-cost-seen-underestimated-may-spiral-2015-1 Getting Rid Of Old Nuclear Reactors Worldwide Is Going To Cost Way More Than People Think]
  • [https://web.archive.org/web/20160306154005/http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-germany-energy-nuclear-idUKKBN0DY0EM20140518 Germany's economy minister Sigmar Gabriel says state won't pay for nuclear decommissioning] (May 18, 2014)
  • [http://www.ndreport.com Nuclear Decommissioning Report (www.ndreport.com) is the multi-media platform for the nuclear decommissioning industry.]
  • [http://www.decommissioning.info/ decommissioning.info is a portal with information on nuclear decommissioning]
  • [https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/index.html US Sites Undergoing Decommissioning]
  • [https://web.archive.org/web/20070704090027/http://www.eu-decom.be/siteentrance/ European website on decommissioning of nuclear installations]
  • [https://web.archive.org/web/20080411043124/http://www.wupperinst.org/en/projects/proj/index.html?&beitrag_id=555&projekt_id=167&bid=42 Decommissioning Fund Methodologies for Nuclear Installations in the EU], rapport by the German Wuppertal Institute, commissioned by the European Commission. May 2007.
  • [http://www.master-nuclear-energy.fr/en/fiche.php?spe=5&langue=en Master 'Nuclear Energy' – Decommissioning and Waste management] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190412192213/http://www.master-nuclear-energy.fr/en/fiche.php?spe=5&langue=en |date=April 12, 2019 }}

{{Nuclear power by country}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Nuclear Decommissioning}}

Category:Nuclear technology

Category:Nuclear power stations

Category:Radioactive waste

Category:Nuclear liability

Category:Radioactive contamination