Industry also has an interest in perfecting itsknowledge of decommissioning costs so that itmay develop a coherent decommissioning strategythat reflects national policy and assures workerand public safety, while also being cost effective.

The NEA study on decommissioningA study1 on decommissioning policies, strategies

and costs was carried out by the NEA in 2001-02,with the objectives of compiling relevant data andanalysing them in order to understand hownational policies and industrial strategies affectdecommissioning costs, and eventually identifyingdecommissioning cost drivers. The scope of thestudy was limited to commercial nuclear powerplants, excluding prototypes, demonstration plantsand plants where significant incidents or accidentswould have occurred. This approach was adoptedin order to obtain data representative of decom-missioning activities undertaken by the nuclearpower industry.

8 Facts and opinions, NEA News 2003 – No. 21.2

Governments are particularly interestedin ensuring that money for the decom-missioning of nuclear installations willbe available at the time it is needed,

and that no “stranded” liabilities will be left to befinanced by the taxpayers rather than by theelectricity consumers. For this reason, they havesought to understand the components of decom-missioning costs and to periodically review costestimates from nuclear installation owners. Robustcost estimates are key elements in designing andimplementing a coherent and comprehensivenational decommissioning policy, including thelegal and regulatory bases for the collection, sav-ing and use of decommissioning liability funds.

E. Bertel, T. Lazo*

Decommissioning policies,strategies and costs: aninternational overview

* Dr. Evelyne Bertel (bertel@nea.fr) is a member of the NEANuclear Development Division. Dr. Ted Lazo (lazo@nea.fr) is amember of the Radiation Protection and Radioactive WasteManagement Division.

As many nuclear power plants will reach the end of their lifetime during thenext 20 years or so, decommissioning is becoming an increasingly importanttopic for governments, regulators and industries. Decommissioning policiesand strategies vary widely at the international level, and choices in strategymay also differ. In addition, project-specific characteristics largely influence

decommissioning costs. Despite this, major cost drivers can be identified.

Included in national policy Share of positive answers

Definition of decommissioning 50%Defined decommissioning end-point 50%Mandatory timescale for decommissioning completion 25%Decommissioning license requirement 80%Defined radioactive waste exemption levels 60%

Twenty-six countries provided data and infor-mation through the study’s questionnaire. Thequestions on policy and strategy targeted issues ofrelevance for cost estimates. The proposeddetailed cost structure2 – namely cost elements(e.g. dismantling activities or site cleanup andlandscaping) and cost groups (e.g. labour orcapital) – was intended to support an in-depthanalysis of cost drivers. However, most respon-dents reported results from existing studies andestimates based on national and/or companyaccounting frameworks and practices, which werenot fully consistent with the scope and structurerecommended in the questionnaire. These limi-tations were taken into account in the analysespresented in the report.

The data collected include decommissioningcost estimates for a large number of nuclear powerplants, representing approximately one-third ofthe nuclear capacity in operation worldwide. Itoffers a robust base for statistical analysis andoverall assessment. Decommissioning cost esti-mates were provided for a broad range of reactortypes and sizes, reflecting the variety of nuclearpower plants built and operated in the partic-ipating countries. All reactor types that have beencommercially deployed (PWR, VVER, BWR,PHWR/CANDU and GCR) are covered by thestudy. The size of the reactors considered rangefrom less than 10 MWe to more than 1 000 MWe.

Decommissioning policies andstrategies

Decommissioning policy is defined as theframework implemented by governments, includ-ing laws, regulations, standards and mandatory

requirements, that imposes the background rulesto be followed by the nuclear industry for decom-missioning projects. National decommissioningpolicies were found to differ on many aspects thatmay have an impact on costs. Key points in thisregard are summarised in Table 1, which indicatesthe percentage of positive answers for each topiclisted.

Decommissioning strategy, as defined withinthe study, relates to how the owners and operatorsof nuclear power plants apply national policy totheir specific decommissioning project. Wide varia-tions can be noted in the strategies adopted byindustries in different countries and even by dif-ferent operators in the same country. Operators/owners consider a broad range of issues in choos-ing a decommissioning strategy, covering technicalfeasibility, economic efficiency, regulatory con-straints and socio-political aspects.

Regarding the decision-making process, nationalcontext and local situations are often driving fac-tors for choosing between alternative approaches.For example, the status and trends in nuclearpower development in the country, the local socialconditions (e.g. unemployment, development oftourism) and the expected re-use of the site areprimary factors considered in determining indus-trial strategies for decommissioning.

In terms of schedule, the majority consider bothimmediate and deferred dismantling when choos-ing a strategy; in some countries, however, theregulatory framework allows only one option.Each of the two options, immediate and deferreddismantling, was assumed for costing purposesby roughly half of the study respondents. It isinteresting to note that, in practice, immediate

9Facts and opinions, NEA News 2003 – No. 21.2

■ Decommissioning policies, strategies and costs: an international overview

Table 1. Decommissioning policy overview

and deferred dismantling are not always drasticallydifferent in terms of the overall schedule of decom-missioning activities. For example, some imme-diate dismantling strategies lead to ending decom-missioning activities 40 years after shutdown, whilesome deferred strategies with 30 years of dormancywill lead to a similar end of activities 40 years aftershutdown. This largely explains the lack of impactof immediate versus deferred dismantling ondecommissioning costs.

Decommissioning costsDecommissioning cost estimates (see Table 2)

remain below 500 US$/kWe for nearly all waterreactors considered in the survey. For gas-cooled

reactors (GCR), the reported cost estimates aresignificantly higher (around 2500 US$/kWe), but itshould be noted that only four cost data sets werereported for this reactor type and they refer to oldreactor designs not at all comparable with thehigh-temperature, gas-cooled reactors (HTGR)under development today.

Dismantling and waste management/disposalgenerally represent a large share (one-fourth toone-third) of total decommissioning costs; eachone of these two elements may reach up to 60% oftotal costs in some cases. Three other cost elementsusually represent around 10% each of the totalcost: security survey and maintenance; site cleanupand landscaping; and project management, engi-neering and site support. The other elementsseldom exceed 5% of total decommissioning costs.

Regarding waste management and disposal, theweight of radioactive waste arising from decom-missioning activities is around 10 tonnes per MWe

for any reactor type, except for the gas-cooledreactors for which it is ten times higher, around100 tonnes per MWe. This is one of the reasonswhy decommissioning costs do not seem to varysignificantly according to the type of water reactorconsidered.

Decommissioning is a labour-intensive activityand labour costs may be a significant componentof total decommissioning costs. However, on thebasis of cost data sets provided for the study, thereis no evidence of correlation between averagenational manpower costs and total decommis-sioning costs. This might be the result of industrystrategy adaptation, shifting from manual inter-vention to automated equipment when and wherehigh labour costs make it economically efficient.

Decommissioning cost driversThe study’s findings on cost drivers are only

tentative owing to the variability in coverage andcomprehensiveness of responses. However, theygenerally confirm earlier national and internationalanalyses and publications. In particular, they high-light the importance of project-specific character-istics and issues in the understanding of decom-missioning cost elements.

The main factors identified as having minorimpacts on decommissioning costs are: type andsize of the reactor (GCRs excepted); immediateor deferred dismantling option; and unit labourcosts. The major cost drivers concern: scope ofdecommissioning activities; regulatory standardsincluding waste classification and clearance levels;site conditions and re-use; and radioactive wastedisposal.

The scope of decommissioning activities takeninto account in cost estimates, including the

10 Facts and opinions, NEA News 2003 – No. 21.2

Decommissioning policies, strategies and costs: an international overview ■

Reactor type Average cost Standard deviation (no. of data sets) (US$/kWe) (US$/kWe)

PWR (21) 320 195VVER (8) 330 110CANDU (7) 360 70BWR (9) 420 100GCR (4) >2500 -

Table 2. Summary of decommissioning cost estimates

example, nuclear facilities or a recreation park).The scope and end-point of decommissioningactivities vary widely depending on such site-specific issues as the continued operation ofnuclear facilities during and after the unit underconsideration is decommissioned.

The quantities and specific characteristics ofradioactive waste arising from decommissioningare a major cost driver. An in-depth study in thisfield would be needed to identify and analyseseparately the impacts of regulations (clearancelevels), technical progress (plant design and oper-ation, waste treatment) and socio-political context(cost and implementation of waste disposalfacilities).

Providing for future decommissioningcosts

The information provided for the study showsthat in all countries, decommissioning costs arerobustly estimated and thoroughly analysed byoperators, regulators and governments. Costestimates based upon engineering models andfeedback from experience are carried out, regularlyupdated and often audited by independent bodies.These estimates are used in particular to assessthe amount of decommissioning funds necessary.Various measures and schemes are in place ineach country to ensure that the decommissioningfunds are accumulated in a timely fashion to beavailable when expenses will occur.

References1. NEA (2003), Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants: Policies,

Strategies and Costs, OECD, Paris.2. EC, IAEA, NEA (1999), Nuclear Decommissioning, A Proposed

Standardised List of Items for Costing Purposes, OECD, Paris.

assumed starting and end-point, obviously has amajor influence on total cost. This scope is largelydelineated by national policy. Analysing in detailthe relationship between policy changes and costscould provide valuable information to policymakers. Such an analysis would, however, requiremore detailed information on national decom-missioning policy and cost estimates than wasavailable for the study.

Regulatory standards in force – includingclearance levels, allowable radiation doses toworkers and the public, environmental norms andstandards – define the framework and boundariesof decommissioning activities and have a majorimpact on the cost of decommissioning. For exam-ple, maximum acceptable dose to workers has adirect impact on manpower requirements and thecost of labour. Environmental regulations andmandatory decommissioning end-points have animpact on the scope and schedule of decom-missioning activities, which in turn are key costdrivers.

Site-specific conditions of a decommissioningproject that have an impact on cost include thenumber, type and status of units located on thesame site and the intended re-use of the site (for

11Facts and opinions, NEA News 2003 – No. 21.2

■ Decommissioning policies, strategies and costs: an international overview

■

Dismantling operations at a nuclear power plant in the United Kingdom.

UKA

EA,

Uni

ted

King

dom