[en] Decommissioning alternatives include initial mothballing with removal after a cooldown period, initial entombment with removal after a cooldown period, and prompt removal at the end of operating life. The last alternative, with funding of the cost during the life of the plant, would provide the greatest benefit to all concerned

No abstract available

[en] Discussed are: Basic questions of financing, to bring in the decommissioning costs with reference to the various types of enterprises, questions of taxes, use of the accumulated liquid means, the economy of nuclear facilities taking into account the decommissioning expenses. (HP)

[en] In connection with the required technical and physical measures, the legal obligations of nuclear waste management and reactor decommissioning, the question arose as to what the economic consequences would be. Not only waste management cost but also reactor shut-down and decommissioning costs and had to be determined. In addition, one had to find out how to take these costs into account as fas as economy in operation and balance sheets were concerned. Bearing this in mind, the Vereinigung Deutscher Elektrizitaetswerke (VDEW) (association of German power plants) had ordered the Nuklear-Ingenieur Service GmbH (NIS) to deliver an expert opinion on the reactor shutdown and decommissioning costs to be expected. As this report has been available since June 1980, the following contribution discusses relevant aspects relating to balance sheets and economy in operation. (orig./UA)

[en] The objective of the work programme is to develop a concept of data bank for evaluating decommissioning cost and radiation exposure on the basis of existing data. In the first step we have defined a methodology for extrapolating experience relating to cost and occupational radiation exposure, gained in the decommissioning of specific installations (e.g. pilot dismantling projects), to the future decommissioning of various installations. In the second step we collect existing and available basic data. (author)

[en] Nuclear reactors come in a wide variety of styles, size, and ages. However, during decommissioned one issue they all share is the balancing of remotely and manually activities. For the majority of tasks there is a desire to use manual methods because remote working can be slower, more expensive, and less reliable. However, because of the unique hazards of nuclear reactors some level of remote activity will be necessary to provide adequate safety to workers and properly managed and designed it does not need to be difficult nor expensive. The balance of remote versus manual work can also affect the amount and types of waste that is generated. S.A.Technology (SAT) has worked on a number of reactor decommissioning projects over the last two decades and has a range of experience with projects using remote methods to those relying primarily on manual activities. This has created a set of lessons learned and best practices on how to balance the need for remote handling and manual operations. Finding a balance between remote and manual operations on reactor decommissioning can be difficult but by following certain broad guidelines it is possible to have a very successfully decommissioning. It is important to have an integrated team that includes remote handling experts and that this team plans the work using characterization efforts that are efficient and realistic. The equipment need to be simple, robust and flexible and supported by an on-site team committed to adapting to day-to-day challenges. Also, the waste strategy needs to incorporate the challenges of remote activities in its planning. (authors)

[en] Over the past 35 years, considerable experience has been gained in decommissioning many types of nuclear facilities. By the turn of the century, more than 60 nuclear power plants and 250 research reactors around the world will become likely candidates for decommissioning. Several factors influence the choice of decommissioning strategy in a country and consequently, the decommissioning cost estimates performed are difficult to compare. International efforts to harmonize the various estimates are essential. The IAEA introduced the concept of various cost elements or components, a suggested methodology and it has also undertaken, in its 1991-92 programme, some specific studies on a common methodology for decommissioning cost estimation. 2 figs, 1 map, 2 tabs

No abstract available

[en] Short communication

[en] After the shut-down decision, the technical effort necessary to place a reactor facility in the ''storage with surveillance'' condition is relatively minor. The operating costs during the storage time depend on whether a second power plant unit is located or is being constructed at the site. If the reactor facility is totally removed after the decision to shut it down, the resulting costs are at first not comparable to those incurred by the bringing about of ''storage with surveillance''. Because the nuclear power plant ''stored with surveillance'' will have to be removed at the end of the storage time, enormously high costs once again are the result here too. The savings resulting because the need for remotely controlled dismantling and packing of parts with higher activity (reactor vessel, core fixtures, etc.) is eliminated, do not, from a technical point of view, outweigh the disadvantages of the surveillance and maintenance necessary during a storage time of 40 years. It is to be noted, however, that during a total removal, large quantities of radioactive waste result and suitable repositories or storage possibilities must be available