The potential benefits and drawbacks of deferring the decommissioning of nuclear facilities

The need to decommission redundant plants or sites at the end of operations is accepted throughout the industry, by the timing of such work requires careful consideration. In a world where political issues dominate, safety and business drivers are often only two of the inputs, and it is therefore imperative that industry is clear in its understanding of the different drivers that affect this issue. Issues are; 1. The formal positions adopted by governments and regulators are often directed at specifically to water reactors. Should other types of facilities be constrained by the same policies? 2. Political drivers can be dominated by short to medium term considerations. Can we encourage long term strategic planning, and ? 3. The failings of the industry (especially accidents) and fear of nuclear weapons can often dominate public perception. Can industry counter these adverse associations? The key benefits relate to better risk management (especially if the radiological inventory was minimised at plant closure). Extending the decommissioning programme does allow dose reductions to take place, especially if short-lived isotopes are involved. Other benefits include more time is allowed for optioneering and planning of the decommissioning processes. This time frame also gives opportunity to develop new or better technologies. With proper control, political strategies can be developed and financial planning can take place. The concern of 'Will there be enough money to fund decommissioning' can become 'A little funding set aside early, and properly managed, can pay for decommissioning in the future'. Savings in dose, impact on the environment, and money can be achieved through a well-managed deferred programme. An extended programme of decommissioning demands the political will and the infrastructure to remain in place over a long period. Tied in to this is the need to keep money available for a long time, and to be able to retain and recover the relevant knowledge. Additionally the concerns of site and inventory security over a potentially long dormant period would also need to be addressed. The key consideration is whether the regulatory and political climate would allow deferral even if the technical and safety justifications were made. The costs of rushing into decommissioning without long term national and international planning may outweigh the perceived benefits. There is a need to establish a regulatory framework that allows the right approach for each type of facility to be developed, and the industry needs to become more effective in addressing the concerns and requirements of all our stakeholders. This paper will seek to discuss further the issues associated with decommissioning and deferral. (author)