ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES
DELACOMMISSION
COLLECTION RELIEE DES
DOCUMENTS "COM"
COM (78)167
V ol.1978/0055

Disclaimer
Conformément aurèglement(CEE,Euratom)n°354/83duConseildu1erfévrier1983
concernantl'ouvertureaupublicdesarchiveshistoriquesdelaCommunauté économique
européenne etdelaCommunauté européenne del'énergieatomique(JOL43du15.2.1983,
p.1),telquemodifiéparlerèglement(CE,Euratom)n°1700/2003du22septembre2003
(JOL243du27.9.2003,p.1),cedossierestouvertaupublic.Lecaséchéant,lesdocuments
classifiésprésentsdanscedossierontétédéclassifiés conformément àl'article5dudit
règlement.
Inaccordance withCouncilRegulation(EEC,Euratom)No354/83of1February1983
concerningtheopeningtothepublicofthehistoricalarchivesoftheEuropeanEconomic
Community andtheEuropeanAtomicEnergyCommunity (OJL43,15.2.1983,p.1),as
amendedbyRegulation(EC,Euratom)No1700/2003of22September2003(OJL243,
27.9.2003,p.1),thisfileisopentothepublic.Wherenecessary,classifieddocuments inthis
filehavebeendeclassified inconformitywithArticle5oftheaforementioned regulation.
InÜbereinstimmung mitderVerordnung(EWG,Euratom)Nr.354/83desRatesvom1.
Februar1983überdieFreigabederhistorischen ArchivederEuropäischen
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft undderEuropäischen Atomgemeinschaft (ABI.L43vom15.2.1983,
S.1),geändertdurchdieVerordnung (EG,Euratom)Nr.1700/2003vom22.September2003
(ABI.L243vom27.9.2003,S.1),istdieseDateiderÖffentlichkeit zugänglich.Soweit
erforderlich,wurdendieVerschlusssachen indieserDateiinÜbereinstimmung mitArtikel5
dergenanntenVerordnungfreigegeben.

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COM(78)167 final.
Brussels .20April 1978 .
N r
■ v ■* v--–\
v&v ^ *\è;, ^
PROPOSAL FOR ACOUNCIL DECISION
adopting aprogramme concerning the decommissioning
ofnuclear power plants
(submitted totheCouncil "bytheCommission )
COM(78)167final

-1
CONTENTS :
PREFACE
PART I:
PART II:Situation andprospects regarding decommissioning of
nuclear power plants •
1.Introduction
2.Experience with decommissioning
3.Becorcmi ssioning studies
4.Decommissioning techniques
5.Estimation ofthe quanti«s of
radioactive waste from decommissioning
6.Guiding principles
*
Proc;rar:me proposal
1.Underlying considerations
2.General features ofthe proposed programme
3.Research and development actions
4.Identification ofguiding principles
5.Breakdown ofproposed funding
Annex I:Supporting information toPart I
Annex II:Description ofproposed research and development
actions .
 
* *
Proposal for aCouncil decision

PREFACE ■
OnMay1977 "theCouncil approved ,aspart oftheCommunity 'saction
programme ontheenvironment theprinciple ofanaction concerning the
decomissioning ofnuclear power plants .Itasked theCommission topool
and toanalyse earlier studies andexperience and topresent ,onthe
basis oftheresults ofthis work ,appropriate proposals totheCouncil .
Thepresent document has "been drawn upwith thehelp ofagroup of
national experts .Part Icontains mainly ananalysis ofearlier studies
andexperience andPart IIaproposal forafunded action programme .
Thescope oftheanalysis andtheproposal has "been restricted tonuclear
power plants ,excluding other nuclear installations such asresearch reactors
andfuel cycle facilities .However ,available relevant experience with
such other installations hasbeen taken into account .I"tmayalso
benoted ,that theresults from theproposed action areexpected tobe
ofbenefit toother installations too .
xOJN°C139 ,13.6.1977

PART I:SITUATION AMD PPOSPFCTS REGARDING DECOMMISS IONIf'G OF NUCLEAR
PWEP PLANTS
1.Introduction
Decommissioning ofnuclear plants means their .safe disposition after '
retirement from service .Its ultimate objective isthe unrestricted release
oftheplant site forother uses .One must however keen inmind that only a
relatively small part ofanuclear power station <15to20 %)will give rise
toproblems associated with the presence ofradioactive matte "*.
Every nuclear power plant will some time arrive atthe end ofits use­
fullife/butthe reasons forretiring aplant from service may vary .A
prototyoe plant may bedecommissioned when ithas achieved itsobjective ,
orwhen theobjective has been abandoned .Commercial olants will beretired
from service when either economic orsafe operation isnolonger possible .
Such^situation could also hebrought about byanincident ifrehabilitation
<1oftheplant proved too costly orimpossible duetoradiation .
After aplant has been retired from service ,the nuclear fuel,radio­
active materials inprocess andradioactive waste oroduced innormal opera­
tion should first beremoved byroutine operations .Asregards thefurther
procedure ,three stages ofdecommissioning have been defined inthe frame of
/theInternational Atorric Energy Agency ,namely :
St comm_i 3s_icn_2nQ
Thepl?nt ispractically kent intact .The mechanical opening systems
(valves ,nluos ,etc.)ofthefirst contamination barrier are perma -
-.nently blocked and sealod ..Theplant isunder surveillance and ins­
pections are carried out tocheck that itremains ingood condition .
S£33£_2_!.2££!I!E25.§.2£D2 n2
The primary contamination barrier isreduced tominimum size and
. i ■'sealed ,removing allparts which can beeasily dismantled .Thebiolo­
gical shield "(e.g. concrete )isextended sothat it -completely
surrounds the "barrier . . ' ,':.

-4-
After decontamination toacceptable levels the containment building
canberemoved .Theother parts oftheplant (buildings orequipment )
can bedismantled orconverted for newpurposes .Surveillance around
thebarrier isnecessary but can berelaxed escompared with Stage 1.
*
External inspection ofthe sealed part should beperformed .
St_aqe _3%cjjmrnijsj^oniing
All remaining parts -oftheplant ;theactivity ofwhich remains signi­
ficant despite decontamination procedures ,are removed .Theplant is
then released without restrictions .Nosurveillance orinspection
isnecessary from thepoint ofview ofradiological protection .
Stages 1to3are,though not completely corresponding ,sometimes
also referred toas/'mothbatling ","entombment "and"(complete )remo *?
vsl",respectively .
2. Experience with deocmmi ssioning
About 20nuclear power plants inthe Western world -all ofthem in
the United States and inEurope -have already been retired from service .
Five ofthese plants are located inthe Conmunity,' namely :
-Marcoule G1and Chinon 1,inFrance
-Heissdampfreaktor (HDR)and Kernkraftwerk Niederaichbach ,inGermany
-Dounreay Fast Reactor ,inthe United Kingdom .
Decommissioning ofmost retired plants has not yetproceeded beyond
Stage I.Five plants have been decommissioned further ,namely :HNPF,BONUS ,
ERR (all inthe USA),CNL (Switzerland )and HDR (Germany ).
These decommi ssioning operations have complied with theregulations
forprotection ofthepersonnel -andthe general public ;noparticular in­
cident hasbeen reported .They have yielded valuable experience asregards
decommissioning techniques andcost .However ,this experience isnotdi­
rectly applicable tofuture decommissioning ofnuclear power plants ,and
oflarge commercial plants inparticular ,forthe following reasons :

-thereactors were ofone-off types ,not used incommercial plants ;
-tb'sy were relatively snail ; ■ '- .
-they had been operated forrelatively short periods ,and
consequently radioactivity inventories were small ;
Relevant experience has also been obtained from the decommissioning
ofmajor nuclear power plant components .Within theCommunity the '
dismantling andcutting cfthethermal shields oftheTrino Vercellese and
theChooz pressurized water reactors deserve particular mention inthis respect .
Decommi ssoning operations atresearch reactors andfuel cycle plants
have also yielded experience which isofconsiderable value inthe de­
commissioning ofnuclear power plants .Major operations performed inthe
member countries are :
-total disnantling ofthe LeBouchet uranium fabrication plant
CFrance )
-total disnantling ofasmall prototype reprocessing plant at
Fontenay -aux-Rcses (Franco )
-extensive decontamination operations atreprocessing plants at
MoI(Belgium ),Dounresy (UK)andTrisaia (Italy ).
The available experience has been taken into account andcarefully
extrapolated inthe studies ofdecommissioning ofcommercial plants , >
which forrc the subject ofChapter 3*
3. Decommissioning studies
3.1Light water reactors
Light water reactors areofparticular interest since they constitute
the major part ofthe nuclear generating capacity installed and under con­
struction andbecause their proportion isforecast toincrease over the
coming decades .The decommissioning problems posed bypressurized water

reactors ,which account for about 80Xofthe Light water reactors inthe
Community andaretakan asareference here*,andbyboiling water reac-^
tors donotdiffer fundamentally .
Radioactivity
Theradioactivity inventory after 40years ofoperation and oneyear
after shutdown isillustrated bythe following data (orders ofmagnitude ):
Components (material )Weight
t!' "
Activity
Ci
Reactor vessel internals (stainless stetl ) 1S0 '1U7
Reactor vessel (mild steel ,cladding
stainless steel ) 580 5000
Biological shield (concrete ,reinforcement
mild steel )
- . i430 700v
■) ' •
Systems contaminated only (stainless steel ) 6000' 3000
Thetotal activity inventory islower byafactor cfebout 1000 than
that V .shortly after shutdown ,this being duetothe removal offuel and
tothe decay ofshort-lived nuclides .The bulk ofthis activity isre­
presented byafewreactor internals surrounding the core,with maximum
specific activities ofabout 2Ci/g.
More important than these total activities arethdse ofspecific
nuclides .There "are nosignificant amounts ofthercdiotoxic long-lived
■i
alpha emitters .Cobalt-60 ,because ofitspenetrating type ofradiation ,
determines the exposure ofpersonnel during decommissioning works andthere
fore ■dictates thedegree ofshielding and remote operation required .
The capacity ofthe reference plant isabout 1200 MWe

Its decay -itshalf-life being five years -istheprincipal reason
fordelaying dismantling .Because oftheir long andvery lonehalf-lives *
«
nick^l-63 endr.icfcel-59 will h?ve amajor influence onthe choice ofthv.
final storage ordisposal mode ofsteel components .
Even though nickel-59 .and nieke1-63 may bepresent insignificant quanti­
ties for long periods ,their potential biological hczard must bekept 1h
perspective ,considering the low level' andpenetration capability ofthe
radiation .
Deconrmssioninq alternatives
According tothestudies itwould befeasible but notoptiral with
respect toboth health protection and costs ^toundertake complete dis­
mantling and removal oftheplants immediately after shutdown ("Prompt
Stage 3"). Ontheother hand itwould not^je practical todelay Stage 3'
until itwas reached merely bythe decay orthe radionuclides .The
principal reasons for proceeding toStage 3appear tobethe denradation
ofcontamination brrrisrs >thesurveillance costs during lower Sta&os anc,
possibly ,national licensing requirements .The economic value ofthe
land area recovered would becomparatively insignificant ,ftnuclear site
may beofhigh value totheutility ,butitwould generally bepossible
tobuild anewplant without removing thereactor building ofthe old ,
one,since this building usually occupies only asmall part ofthesite
area .
I
4
Thedecision tostart onStage 2,asagainst Stage 1,will depend
» i Jtoalarge extent onthenational licensing requirements .Recovery of
site area andesthetic reasons will not beanincentive ,since underground
*Nieke1-65 :half-life of90years
.,Mckel-59 :half-life of£0,000 years

-8-
entor.Ur .ent appears impractical andsubstantial overground structures or
even the whoU containment building ,asenvisaged intheUnited States ,"*
will remain inplace during Stage 2.
i •
• ■ ι: .1
J>ecornrds_s^njn£ co^sts -
Decommissioning costs accrue from decommissioning works attheplant ,
from management anddisposal ofthe wastes produced and,until Stage 3is
reached ,,from surveillance and maintenance oftheplant .The mode ofwaste
disposal isdecisive ofdisposal costs and mayalso condition preceding
operations andtheir costs .Asthedisposal mode isunknown csyet,cost
estimates have been based onassumed disposal modes andtherefore areto
acertain degree hypothetical .The following costs have been estimated re­
cently inanAmerican (A)and inaEuropean <E)studyat<in millions of
• i
1975 US»,including removal ofnon-nuclear buildings ):
' '• ' ...» "•..»
Decomi ssioning alternativesStudy
'A'' I
iE
,Prompt Stage 3
' ■ • '(.\) ' ^ ■'Delayed Stage 3v'-after Stage 1
-after Stage 227
23
2579
64
(l)Delay after shutdown :108years for A,AOyears for E;no,,
permanent security force during Stage 1.
;'i *%» • '.• * i,
These costs range from about 4to13%ofplant capital costs In
,1975 .Thedifference between ths twoestimates istoalarge extant due'
tothedifferent wasffe disposal modes assuried ,which arevirtually opposite
extremes asregards their inpact oncosts .Study Aisbased onthefinan­
cial andtechnical conditions Inforce atcommercial surface burial grounds
butassumes theradioactivity limit tobestrongly increased ,ffhis certainly
unrealistic assunption affects only the Prompt Stage 3alternative ).Stiidy E
isbased ontheconditions inforce atanexperimental' geological disposal
facility ,which require fnpaeticular that allwastes arepacked insmall
units . *
y Alp/NÏSP-009SR ;study E:EUR5728 d'

-9-
Moreover ,these costs are not discounted .However ,comparison ofcosts
arising atdifferent points intime Inevitably involves discounting and
not discounting amounts merely tousing adiscount rate ofzero .Discount
rates may bechosen onthe basis ofanticipated interest andinflation
rates ,ofutility practices orofmacro-economic considerations .Thus no
specific rate can beproposed here,butthe preponderant influence ofdis­
counting ,even with rates as.low as 1%per year,has tobestressed .This
influence tends toreduce the -,ratio ofdecornmssionir.g tocapital costs ,the
reduction being the -greater the longer Stage 3isdelayed andpermits
sinking-funds togrow .
The current costs during Stages 1and 2would belower than assumed
inthe studies ifthe decommissioned plant shared the site with atleast
oneoperating plant ,which will bethe rcost frequent cass intheforesee­
able future .Ontheother hand,apermanent security force ,which might be
required for osingle plant inStage 1,would result inanadditional
cost .Constant annual maintenance costs .,excluding major works ,have been
assumed butitisrecognized that this may beunrealistic ,inparticular
for longer periods ofdelay .Maintenance costs are expected toincrease
atlong term,asexcessive degradation oftheplant istobeavoided ,and
this might beareason toproceed toStcge 3earlier .This aspect requires
further stuc'y .
0.cci£at îonal exposure
Occipational radietion exposure isseen tobethe main safety concern
indecommission ing.Not only have the individual dose limits tobecomplied
with,but also thetotal radiation dose should bekept within acceptable
limits .Besides the useofshielding ,remote operation andenclosures with
controlled ventilation ,careful planning ofthesuccessive decommissioning
pperations isessential .Total occipational doses estimated inthe already
mentioned study A,are 630 man-rem for Prompt Stage 3and about 450 man-rem

10-
forStege1or2andDelayedStage3<108yearsaftershutdown).Ithasto
bementioned'thatsubstantially higherdoseshavebeenestimatedbyothers.
3.2.G;;s-cooled reactors .
Gssgraphitereactorswillprobablyformthebulkofthenuclearpower
plantswhichwillbecomeredundantbytheendofthiscentury.
r
Importantdifferences intheradioactivity inventorycomparedwith\
lightwaterreactorsarethelowerspecificactivitiesbutlargervolumes,
thepreponderance ofmildsteeloverstainlesssteelandthelargeamounts
ofgraphite,which,however,arepresentaseasilymanageablepieces.The
followingamountsofmaterialshavebeenindicatedforthepressurevessel
andthepressurevesselinternals .ofatypicalcommercialMagnoxreactor
(capacity:250Mwe):2500tpnnesofmildsteel,100tonnesofstainless
steeland2500tonnesofgraphite.Asregardsthebiologicalshieldcon­
crete,onlyitsinnerlayerisactivated.Thethicknessofthislayerwill
beabout1.5rntwoyearsaftershutdownandwilldecreasewithtimeasthe
resultofradioactive decay.Nevertheless thisconcretewouldpresentthe
majordisposalproblemintermsofmoss.Heatexchangers wouldbytheir
sizeondbythetubesurfaceareaandgeometryposeamajordecontamination
problem. -.
Thestudyofthedecommissioning ofarepresentative commercial Magnox
reactorisstillinprogress,butadetailedtechnicalstudyontheWind-
scaleAdvancedGas-cooled Reactor -(W.A.G.R.),hasbeencompletedanditis
likelythatitsconclusionswillinprinciple beapplicablealsotoMagnox
reactors.TheW.A.G.R.studyisbasedinonecaseonaprogressive procedure,
considering Sta^e1asaninterimphase.Stage2asastoragesituationof
unspecifieddurationandStage3astheidealultimateobjective*Theal­
ternativecaseistheprogression fromreactorclosuretoStage3asacon­
tinuingoperation.Inparticular,itisconcludedthatasatisfactory long

term Stage 2condition can beestablished andthat there isnotechnical
obstacle toproceeding directly toaStage 3condition .The conception of
Stage 2differs from that envisaged inthe United States forpressurized
water reactors inthe dismantling ofthe containment building andthe heat
exchangers ,resulting inaconsiderable reduction ofthe occupied area and
the visual impact .For commercial steel pressure vessel Magnox reactors ,
irrespective ofoutput capacity ,the remaining structures would becylinders
with adiameter ofabout 30metres and a-height above ground of18-30 metres
Ade-tailed decommissioning study has been performed onChinon 1,a
70MWe gasgraphite prototype plant >which wasretired from service foreco­
nomic reasons in1973,after having operated for 10years with anaverage
load factor ofabout 50 %.From activity measurements carried out onsamples
theactivity ofthegraphite moderator (1050 tonnes )atthe end of1975
has been estimated as3000 Ciofcobalt-60 ,1200 Cioftritium ,300 Ciof
carbon-14 and 0.5 Ciofplutonium-239 and-24G.Measurements inside the fuel
channels have shown dose rates inthe order of10rem/hfrom thegraphite
reaching amaximum of400 rem/hnear thecore support steel plate .The ac­
tivated steel components amount toabout 1500 tonnes .First measurements
indicated that the biological shield concrete isnotactivated .
The Chihon 1study compares thedirect approach ofStages 1,2andJ.
Stage 2was assumed toembrace the reactor vessel andthe heat exchangers
within aconcrete enclosure ;andtoinvolve dismantling other contaminated
systems ,storing theparts within sealed premises inthe containment sphere .
The conclusion wasthat this condition would not besafer than Stage 1and
that itwould complicate proceeding tobtage 3subsequent ly.Stage 3was
studied indetail ,including the conceptual design oftherequired remotely
operated equipment .
Onthebasis ofthis study itwas decided toconvert theplant into a
nuclear museum .This conception ,which inparticular allows thepublic

-12-
access topart ofthe containment sphere ,Isplanned tobeachieved in1978
or1979 .Theoption toproceed toStage 3,3Cyears later -remains open .
3*3.Decommi ssionir.g subsequent toamaior accident
Thestudies considered inthe foregoing sections <3.1,3.2)are based
onplants which are .retired from service inanormal condition .Major plant
accidents ,resulting inawide spread ofheavy contamination within the con­
tainment building ,would pose special decommissioning problems and even
complicate routine operations ,such asthedischarge andthe removal ofthe .
fuel .Whereas such accidents aretaken into account intheplant design ,
their impact ondecommissioning isnot well known .First studies ,which are
inprogress ,have shown the complex nature ofthis problem . '
4. Decommissioning techniques .
4.1.Decontamination •
Thepurpose ofdecontamination indecommissioning will inmost cases
betofacilitate the dismantling andfurther treatment ofcomponents ,by
reduction ofthe radiation level and removal ofloose contamination .An­
other possible objective is"complete decontamination ",i.e. decontamina­
tion toalevel below the limit forunrestricted release ofmaterial ,inor
der.to reduce the volume ofradioactive waste .The benefits ofdecontamina­
tion have tobeweighed against operational risks ,arisings ofconsequen­
tial waste and costs .Thus different opinions exist astowhat isareason­
able decontamination effort .This question merits further study ,butit
cannot beanswered without abetter knowledge ofthetechnical options .
Theonly proven decontamination techniques arethose which are cur­
rently used inoperating reactors and which mcy beclassified asfollows :
%
~ applied within closed systems oftheplant
and using chemical agents ;

-13-
-JW2®£sion nation ^applied todismantled component and
using chemical agents ,generally .combined with mechanical means
such asbrushing orultrasonic waves ; „
" applied tosystems locally through openings ,
ortodismantled components inspecial dells ,oreven tothe sur­
faces ofpremises ,using jets ofvapour orliquid orofamixture
ofliquid andgrinding particles .
Experience with these techniques issubstantial butdifficult tointer­
pret .Achieved decontamination factors vary over awide range ,depending
ontheparticular conditions inaway which isnot yet well understood .
\
These proven tecnmques neve been developed for application tocompo­
nents tobeserviced orrepaired ,that istosay,subject tothe condition
ofpreserving component integrity .Whereas these techniques are also user
fully employed indc-corcmi ssioning ,more aggressive methods ,resulting in
more effective decontamination ,would bedesirable .These could bevariants
the proven techniques ,i^e.,system and immersion decontamination using
mors aggressive chemical agents -orjetdecontamination using higher pres- 7
sure ormore abrasive grinding particles ,etc.,but also basically new tech­
niques . ,
System decontamination offers the advantage ofpreceding the opening
upanddismantling ofthe system ,thus reducing personnel exposure .Itreaches
alarge surface atatime,but cannot beapplied selectively tolocal peaks
ofcontamination .Itisatso less effective increvices and dead end ^ofa
system ,where contamination often concentrates .Consequently ,system decon­
tamination will asageneral rule notresult incomplete decontamination .
The large volume ofcertain systems ,such cstheprimary cobling circuit ,
andtheneed forseveral decontamination andflushing steps givejise to
very large quantities ofradioactive liquid ,which may pose problems ofin-,
terim storage andoftreatment ."Moreover ,differential attack onthevarious
materials ofasystem and the spread ofcontamination toinitially clean

-14 ,-
regions are aspects which have toboconsidered .
Immersion decontamination canuseexisting equipment forsmall compo­
nents ,butthecorrosive attack ofthetanksmu3t.be considered ,ifnore
aggressive chemical reagents are employed .Major components would pose
problems ofspace ,equipment endofvolume ofliquid produced .
i /
The folowing,n»w techniques have been proposed :
-Decontamination bycher.ical agents applied asasurface layer ,i.e.,
pastes andfcolten salts .Laboratory experiments have shown promising
results ,indicating hich efficiency and lowvolurie ofconsequential
waste . -
-Electrolytical decontamination ,using similar processes totheelectro­
polishing known inthenon-nuclear industry . :
-Decontamination byexplosive methods .Preliminary experiments have de­
monstrated that the oxide film,which incorporates the contamination
ofsteel components ,can bespalled off from the base rcetnl .With this
.technique the volume ofconsequential waste would L>cvery small .
4.2.Dismant lina
_D"!smant ijn_% _cfsjteelcoripcn ents
The reactor vessel andthe reactor vessel internals pose the most
difficult dismantling problems ,oecause ofthe high radiation ,level ,remote
operation isrequired .The more active vessel internals oflight water re­
actors should preferably becut under water ,the water providing shielding
andreducing aerosol production .Certain components have large wall-thick -
Mnesses ,ranging upto500 rm(reactor vessel flange ofpressurised water
reactors ). '
Mechanical ;-techniques such asmill cutting and sawing canbecarried
out under water ,butthey «retime-consuming andrequire heavy .supports .
With thermal techniques special attention has tobepaid tothe confinement
ofaerosols .Plasma arccutting ,which can becarried out under water ,

-15-
appears attractive ;.Atthe present time itcan beenployed'to uall-tmck -
nesses uptcabout 170 mm,,but has development potential upto500 mm.
Another promising technique isoxy propane cutting .Electro-melt separation
canbeemployed for large wall~thicknesses but hasthedisadvantage ofstrong
*
aérosol production »
Concerning the dismantling ofpipework ,the removal ofthermal insula­
tion maypose special problems .Moreover ,no'adequate technique iscurrently
available forcutting large-diameter large wall-thickness pipework ,such as
that employed inthe primary circuit ofpressurized water reactors .Cutting
ofpipes byexplosive methods constitutes anew technique which should be
developed .Experiments carried out cnpipes ofmoderate size have shown that
itispossible with explosive methods todisconnect apipe andtoclose its
ends inasingle operation .
Dismantling ofconcrete structures1 ~~
The concrete structure which usually poses the -main dismantling problem
isthebiological shielding .Special problems duetostored energy mayarise
with certain prestressed concrete pressure vessels which are employed in
some gasgraphite reactors . '
There are several proven techniques for dismantling concrete .Inthe
explosive technique charges placed inholes loosen upthe whole structure
orbreak itupinto layers .This 'method 'isrelatively expensive and time-
consuming .Inthe thermal lance technique ,:holes closely put inaline are
burnt into the concrete byajet ofoxygen ,towhich iron issupplied as
fuel .Dismantling bythis method isrelatively quick ,butisaccompanied
byintensive smoke formation .Additionally sawing ,hydraulic orpneumatic
wedges ,orhigh pressure water jets may beused .
These proyen techniques will require further development andadaptation ,
toperform the more difficult tasks offuture dismantling operations .
«

16-
Other techniques tobeconsidered archydraulic cracking ,oxy-arc cutting
andsuccessive boring and cracking byfreezing *
4.3.Equipment for remote operations - •.
Remote operations such asdismantling ,decontamination ,conditioning
andpacking require special equipment tohold and move tools ,measuring
instruments ,telecameras andtheparts tobetreated .Such equipment may
bedesigned adhocfor aspecial situation orformultiple -use.Itbelongs
toatechnology which isalready employed inreactors and hotcells but has
tobescaled upandfurther developed for decommi ssioning operations .
4.4.Management andstorage ofwastes from decommi ssioning
Conditioning ,packaging ;transport andstorage ordisposal constitute ,
aseries ofop';re*ions which have tobeoptimized asawhole ,taking asa
basis thespecific characteristics ofthetype ofwaste considered .The
process ofevolving the optimal management concepts forwastes from de­
commissioning isstill inapreliminary phase .
The waste arising from dismantling ofmajor activated components is
characterized bythe large initial dimensions and by'the fact that the bulk
ofradioactivity isincorporated inthe base metal .One leading idea forthe
management ofthis waste 'would betolimit the cutting tothe extent ne­
cessary fortransport ,thus minimizing work under radiation andthe spread
ofradioactive material .Accordingly ,large transport containers should be
developed forcertain components andthe storage facilities should bede­
signed for acceptance oflarge units . ,1
Forcontaminated pipework atreatment reducing the storage volume ap­
pears desirable .Press compaction ,cryogenic cracking andsmelting have
been proposed astechniques .Thefeasibility ofsuch atreatment should be
studied ,including the question ,whether theoperation should becarried
out onthesite ofthe nuclear 'power plant orinacentral facility .

-Asregards redioactfve concrete' ,wsste ,itwould-' !*?-desirable tohaW
aninexpensive method' forthe long tern •Immobilization of'theradior.utli Jes.
Controlled burning has been proposed forthegraphite arising inthe
decommissioning ofgasgraphite reactors and advanced gas cooled reactors .
Inorder todecide whether this method isappropriate /itis.necessary to
consider notonly itslocal radiological impact ,butalso the long-tern
consequences ,through thecontribution tothe worldwide background radia -.
ticn/of"releasing tothe atmosphere 'considerable amounts ofthelong-lived
radionuclide carbon-14 . ^ ,
Consequential wastes nced.no special consideration here,since they
can bemanaged appropriately bythe methods which are currently employed
for wastes arising atoperating nuclear power' plants . v
The following methods have been envisaged bycertain countries forfi­
nalstorage ordisposal ofdifferent types' ofwaste arising from decommissioning
surface storage ,storage inaformer mine,disposal indrilled deep holes and sea
dumping .
5.-Estimation ofthe quantities ofradioscti vowastes from ,
deconni ssioning
5.1.General considerations '
The following information isrequired toestimate the arisings of :
radioactive wastes from the decommissioning ofnuclear power plants :
a)schedule ofretirement oftheplants from service ;
b)inventory ofthe radioactive components ,systems andstructures
oftheplants andestimate ofassociated radionuclides ;
c)schedule ofdecommissioning works and ,inparticular of
dismant ling ;
d)extent towhich theoriginal volume andradioactivity oftlie
»materials concerned are changed bydecontamination ,conditioning ,
overpacking ,etc.,andproduction ofconsequential wastes .

-ia-
•Theresultofafirsttentativeapproachtoitema)isgivenin
point5.2.kotow.
Asregardsitemb),becauseofthevarietyofexistingnuclearpower
stations,mostofthemaretobeconsideredindividually .Someinformation
.isalreadyavailable,butagreatdealofworkisstillneededbeforeacom­
pletesurveyofradioactivity inventories canbeestablished .
Fortheevaluationofitems,c)andd?,referencestrategies haveto
beevolved;thisistobeconsidered asalong-termtask.
5.2.Retirementofnuclearpowerplantsfromservice ,
.It7sprematuretomakefirmestimates onthescheduleofretirement
ofnuclearpowerplantsfromservice,sincetheoperationallifeisuncer­
tainwithinawiderange.Thefollowingtableillustrates apossiblepattern
1 5 , 1Ittakesintoaccountthe.plantswhicharecurrentlyinoperationorunder
construction intheCommunity andisbased.onanassutnedoperational -lifeof
30years,exceptforcertainprototypeplants,forwhichspecificshorter.,
periodshavebeenadopted.
11
ReactortypeReactorsretiredoverperiod:
1981-1990 1V91-2C00
_j2001-2010
Gasgraphiteandadvanced .
gas-cooled reactorsI
I
11r20'14
Lightwaterreactors , .I,3.■'7•
Othertypes 1 2. 2"4
--»
1
Total {'16ji
i»]

-19-
6. Guiding princinles
Guiding principles concerning decommissioning con beformulated only
insvery general way asregards the immediate future and can only bedeve­
loped ingreater detail asalong-term process ,Moreover ,consideration at
Community level must take into account thedifferent conditions prevailing
inthe Member States ,such asreactor types employed ,territorial conditions
and urgency ofdecommissioning .
Community efforts inthis field should not duplicate orhamper the
measures undertaken onaworld scale bytheInternational Atomic Energy
Agency ,butitshould berecognized ,that the Community could bring itspoint
ofview tobear with greater weight inthis wider framework ifithadclear
conceptions substantiated byappropriate studies . '
/
6.1. Guiding principles inthe design anr'operation ofnuclear power
plants with aview tosinpli fying dace ramissioning
Studies have indicated ,that asregards decommissioning modern nuclear
! \ • , •
power plants pose nofundamental difficulties which would require basic
changes indesign ..Improvements with aview tofacilitating decommissioning
have been proposed and appear possible ,concerning features such asthe ar­
rangement ,design an^materials 'ofplant ccr.ipon&nts .
Features which areincreasingly introduced into modern nuclear power
plants ,inorder tofacilitate maintenance andrepair during the operation
period ,will ultimately also facilitate decommissioning .
6.2. Guiding principles inthe decommissioning ofnuclear power plants
Decommissioning operations aresubject togeneral nuclear regulations ,
but nospecific detailed guidelines for decommissioning exist inthe iiember
States asyet.Forinstance ,permissible radiation limits for the -personnel
andtheoeneral public arelaid down inthegeneral regulations ,butthere

20-
arenocriteriafortheunrestricted releaseofequipment andsites.Such
mattershaveboonsettledinpastdecommissioning operations onacase-by-
casebasis.In-thiscontextmentionshoulcbemcdeofthepresentefforts
bytheInternational AtomicEnergyAgency.

PART II:PROGRAMME PROPOSAL
1.Underlying considerations •
iiajor advances inconcepts and techniques will berequired to
decommission the nuclear power plants inthe best way,with respect to
both health protection and economy .The solutions adopted may influence
the development ofnuclear power through their economic impact and through
thereception they meet with among thepublic .
Asthe number ofplants tobedecommissioned will increase atonly a
slow pace during the coming decades and,moreover ,dismantling and removal
ofthe plants ,ifnecessary ,may bepostpones for considerable periods
after their withdrawal from service ,itmight beconctuded that nosub- •
stantial effort tosolve the problems ofdecommissioning iscalled for at
the present time .This conclusion would ,however ,beadangerous mistake ,
forthe following reasons :.
-Features which facilitate decommissioning should bedeveloped and
increasingly introduced inthe design ofnewplants .
-Thetask ofidentifying ,developing and .irplamenting the optimum solutions
will take along time .Thetechnical developments will beconditioned by
the legal andadministrative framework ,and inparticular bythecriteria
forrelease orfor acceptance atcentral depositories ofthe -wastes .
The industry therefore need3 guidance onthese questions atanearly stege .
Onthe other hand,better knowledge ofthepossible technical options is
needed inorder toevolve the legal and admini strative framework . ■
-Uetter knowledge ofdecommissioning costs will enable utilities to
accumulate provisions for decommissioning inaccordance with national
requirements .
-Decommissioning operations may beurgently required inparticular
situations ,for instance after anincident .

-22-
-Itisbecoming *increasingly important ,inorder tosecure public
acceptance ofnewplants ,tohave elaborated andweLl-founded concepts
forthe "back ends "ofnuclear energy generation ,even ifdefinitive
solutions arenotyetreally needed .Onecould gosofar astoconsider
dismantling andremoving aolant earlier than would otherwise beappro­
priate ,inorder todemonstrate thefeasibility ofadecommissioning
concept .
The Commission therefore holds theview that inaddition tothe research acti­
vities oftheJoint Research Centre anindirect action joining forces atCommunity
level ,intheform ofexchanging information andsharing work ,could save money
andtime .Moreover ,aCommunity approach could favourable influence accep­
tance bythepublic ofthesolutions adopted bytheMember States ,whatever
their differences tosuit theorrticular features ofthenuclear power
plants andother national conditions .Work already going oninamember
country could bepursued under thecommon programme ,ifthecountry
agrees ?ncj-jfthework isofinterest totheCommunity .Thepublic service
nature ofthis work andthesecondary importance ofcompeting commercial
interests atstake will facilitate aCommunity approach .
2.General features oftheproposed programme
Theprogramme ,which isproposed tocover aperiod offive years be­
ginning 1July 1978 ,must beregarded asthefirst stage ofalonger-term
effort .Itconsists ofaseries ofstudies andexperimental projects aimed
atevolving themost appropriate solutions ,with respect toboth health
protection andeconomy ,forthedecommissioning ofnuclear power plants .
These studies andprojects will befinanced largely bytheCommission
andcoordinated byitwith thehelp ofanAdvisory Committee onProgramme
Management comprising representatives oftheMember States andCommission
officials.' This committee will have tomeet assoon asthis programme is
« ·
approved .Thework will bocarried outbyqualified public orprivate
agencies intheMember States . V -• v

-?3-
Inordertoavoidduplication,theprogrammetakesintoaccountthe:
relevantactivitiesoftheinternational organisations .Ontheotherhand,
thescopeoftheprogramme hasbeenstrictlydelimitedtopreludeovorlan-
pinnwiththeCommunityprogramme onradioactive wastemanagement and
storage.Inparticular,ittakesintoaccountactivitiesdealingwith
thedecontamination ofreactorcomponents beingcarriedoutatJPC
««•
withintheframeoftheirmultiannual programme1977-1980andwillbe
closelycoordinated withtheseactivities.
\
Theprogramme maybesubmittedforreviewattheendoftwoyears,to
reorientate oramplify.it,whorenecessary,inthelightoftheresults
obtained.-
3.researchanddevelopment actions
Theproposedactions,whicharcdescribedinannexII,concern'the
followingsubjects: ' ,
Action 1:Longternintegrityofbuildings andsystems.
Action*'°2:Decontamination fordecommissioning purposes.
ActionH°3:Dismantling techniques .
ActionN°4:Treatmentofspecificwastematerials :steel,concreteand
graohite.
ActionN°5:Largetransportcontainersforradioactive wasteorocluced
inthedismantling ofnuclearpowerolants.
ActionN°6:Estimationofthequantitiesofradioactive wastesarising
fromdecommissioning ofnuclearpowerplantsintheCommunity.
Action*!07:Influenceofnuclearpowefplantdesignfeatureson
decommissioning .
Theseproposals havebeenformulated onthebasisoftheanalysisof
earlierstudiesandexperience,whichiscontainedinPartIofthis
document.
ι

-24
Tnaddition tothese proposals itisenvisaged that theCommunity
participates inaLarge-scale operation ,carried out inthecontext of
decommissioning ofanuclear power plant orofamajor component ofsuch a
nlant andinvolving thedemonstration ofnewtechniques ortheextension
ofproven techniques toawirier range ofconditions ,such assize and
radiation level ofcomponents .AsnoSDecific action canbeproposed at
present ,thesubject ismentioned here only fortherecord ,but aproposal
should ,ifpossible ,besubmitted fortherevision oftheprogramme .
Th?>Community 'sfinancial contribution would depend onthegeneral
interest joftheinformation -expected tobeobtained from theproposed
action .
Ir '-nt1'fication ofguiding principles .
This activity relates to :
-Cuidinq principles inthedesign ,andoperation ofnuclear power plants
with aview tosimplifying their subsequent decommissioning .
-Guiding principles inthedecommissioning ofnuclear power plants .
Guiding principles need tobeprogressively evolved inorder
toplan theresearch and development actions efficiently ;conversely ,
theresults oftheactions may influence theshaping oftheguiding
principles .Inview ofthis interdependence theprogramme includes
provision for theprogressive evolvement ofguiding principles .
The intention isthat rough material forguiding principles
prepared intheMember States should beassembled andanalysed ,and
anassessment then made ofthescope forapproximation and joint
development .Atalater stage oftheprogramme itwill beendeavoured
toframe proposals forc«amon guiding principles .
TheCommission should also have alimited "budget forthis action so
that itcould have thenecessary analyses performed under study contracts .

5.Breakdown ofproposed funding
Costs over five years inmillions cfFuronean units cfaccount (EUA):
Item Costs
Contribution toresearch and development actions :
/
0.3
1-.4
1.1
0.6 •
0.2
0.4
.0.6Action 1 •
Action N°? \
Action i*:03
Action *!°4
Action /;°5
Action f'°6 .
Action N° 7
•Subtotal rctions 1to7 4.6
Identification rfguidino princinlaes
Staff *
Meetings .0.2
1.51
0.27
Total 6.38
*This programme will require astaff of 5(2A+2B+1C)

ANNEX I
SUPPORTING INFORMATION TO PART I
to2. Experience with decommissioning
The nuclear power plants which have already been retired from
service arelisted inTable 1.Further information onnuclear power plants
which have been decommissioned beyond ,Stage 1isgiven inTable -2.
to3.1.Light water reactors .
Table 3gives information concerning radionuclides ofsignificance
asregards activation ofsteels .Table 4gives sipplementary information
concerning thecost data . 'v ,
to5.2.Retirement ofnuclear power plants from service
The nuclear power plants taken into account inthe summary table
under point 5.2.ofPart Iarelisted inTable 5.
to6.1.Guiding principles inthe design and operation ofnuclear power
plants 'with aview tosimplifying decommissioning
The following design features have been recommended inthe frame
ofthe International Atomic Energy Agency (document IAEA-179 ):
Arrangement ofcompenents anastructures
,Components andstructures should besoarranged tnats
-Thesite canutlimately bedeveloped toits maximum potential despite the
eventual existence ofdecommissioned structures ;
,
-There issufficient space around them topermit access with transporting
equipment ,shielding ortools ;
-Suitable cells orcabins can beerected around them torestrict the dis-
perison ofradioactive material during their dismantling and,ifneces -
scry,topermit operations atslower pressure than inthe surrounding
atmosphere ;
-They tanberemoved inonepiece through adjoining roon /sorthe roof,-
using -ilsnt orexternal lifting devicsr if"oc'" .

-2-
Construction of£o_np^en.is_"Jici_st r_uctures
Components andstructures should besodesigned that :
-The contaminated oractivated components can becutoff;
Example }Detachable concrete layers onthe biological shield ;
■*Their activation level isreduced ;
Example :Distance between the steel reinforcement ofthe concrete and
ι
the neutron flux zone ;
-The components andstructures can bebroken down into parts which arc
relatively light ,small andsuitably shaped fcrtransportation ;
-Suitable passages andopenings areprovided for removing them from the
containment orreactor building ;
-Asmany components aspossible arereplaceable ;
-ilateriels areselected toreduce the formation ofnuclides with along
half-life . .
J)e£ont£mi na1io_nprovasi on_s
Tosimplify thedecontamination ofcomponents ,pipe systems and
rooms ,the following provisions should bemade ;
-The spreading ofactive corrosion products ordeposits during operation
ordeccmmi ssioning should belimited byfor example ,theincorporation of
drain points ,devices for flushing thepipinj systems andtraps inpipe
systems ;
-Facilities forthe decontamination ofcomponents and rooms ,including
means ofintroducing anddraining decontamination solution .
Adjnijii^t£_a^iji /e_mea_SLire_s
Areliable documentation system should beestablished and used
torecord all changes inthe design andmaterials oftheplant during its
operation .

Table 1.Nuclear oower plants retired from service
.Country Plant*
TypeCapacity
MWaOpérât ing
! period
■- –
France
II
Germany
IIJ
tiarcoule G1
Chinon 1
HDR Grosswelzheiin
KKN NiüderaichbachGGR
GGR
BWH
iiWR4
70
25
1001956 r1966
1963 *1973
,1970 -1972
1974 -1974
United
-Kingdoni
1 I
Switzerland
USA
II
MDFR Dounreay
CNL Lucens ,
Vallecitos ¿fVEíjR
Elk River Reactor
Hallam HNPF
30NUS
Vallecitos VBWR
I
iSanta Susana
Piqua OMR
Carolinas CVTR
Enrico Férmi
Pathfinder
Saxton -.
Pesch üottom.FSR
' I
HWR
BWK
BWR
SGR
BUR
OWR
SGR
OMR
PWR
FÜR
BW*
PWR
MIR15
8
5
22
75
16.5
10
7.5
11.4
17
61
! 62
! 4.2
; 401963 -1977
196ö -1969
1957 -1963 '
1964 -1968
1962 -1964 .
1962 -1968 '
1957 -1963
1958 -1966
1963 -1966
'1963 -1967
1966 -1971
1962 -1967
1962 -1972
.1966 -1974 .
BWR =boiling water reactor
GGRsgasgraphite reactor
FBR sfast breeder reactor
HTR «high temperature reactor
HWR =heavy water reactor
OMR =organic moderated reactor
PWR *pressurized water reactor
SGR =sodium graphite reactor

•able 2.Plants which have been decommissioned beyond Stage 1
PlantKNPF (Hoilam Nuclear
Tower facility )tiONUS (Boiling Nu­
clear Superheater
Reactor )CNL (Centrale
"nucléaire Lucens ),ERR (Elk River
Reactor )!
Country USA %USA Switzerland jUSA
Reactor type graphite moderated
sodium cooledboil in.3water
nuclear super­
heatingheavy water mode­
rated ,gas cooledboiling water
(fossil super­
heating )
Caprcity (fî'Jc) 75 16.5 8 22
Opercting period 1962-1964 1962-1968 1966-1969 1964"1966
Activity * ^inventory (Ci)' 3s10 5 50.000 5U0 9000
Ccr.c ition
reached
iUnderground en­
tombment ;top
planted and acces­
sible without
restrictionEntombment in
biological shield ;
plant converted to
museumLow active parts
(total '1.5 Ci)
entombed ;other
parts packed and
stored onsite ;
recctor caverns
accessible withoui
restrictionStage 3completed
in1974
Deccnmissioning
cost
14.2 millions USt not available not available 5.7 millions 'J3£
HNPF :attime ofentombment closure ;others :atstart ofdecommissioning

Table 3.Radionuclides ofsignificance asregards activation ofsteels used
inlight water reactors
Radionuclide iIron-55Cobalt-60 iJickel-ô3 Nickel -59
Half-life ,years 2.4 5.2
■92 80,000
Radiation garc^a ,X-ray gamma ,beta . .beta gamma ,X-ray
Mother element Iron Cobalt Nickel
Content ,(%)ofmother element in:
I -stainless steel (1) 70 traces 10
-carbon steel (2) J97 traces 0.5-0.8
(1)Conponentj ::Reactor vessel internals ,reactor vessel caldding
(2)Component :Reactor vessel

-6-
Table 4:Cost estimates for decommissioning oflight water reactors
(1200 HWeplants ;operating time :40years )
Costs inmillions of1975 US8 (1)
f " '
IStudy r E F Â;i
Référencé EUR 5728
I'AIF/NESP-U09SR
Reactor 'PWR BWR |•PWR ;| BWR
|Discounting |(2)|jno (2) ||no 1n° 1L_rl
Prompt Stage 5 όδ.478.Çj33.4 95.4 26.9 !31.2
{Delayed Stace 3-after Stage 1
j-Stace 1 !I4.5 4.6 4.5 4.6 2.3 I 2.4
-Interim costs (3)-case I0.3 0.7 0.3 0.7 9.5 9.2
-case II (4) (4) (4)' (4) ■18.0 17.4
-Stage 3(5) 12.2 59.0 13.1 63.3 |I11.0 11.7
I-Totnl -case I17.0 64.3 17.9 i68.6IΓ22.δ , 23.3
j -case I]j(4) (4)(4)|<^>j51.3 |31*5|
IDelayed Starve 2-nftcr Stag rn
-Stage 2' II 7.4 7.6 I
-Interim costs (3) (4)''6.3 j 6.0 i
-Stage 3(5) io.îs 12.2
i-Total
I24.5 |25.8 |
.I
(1)Data from study Econverted with therato'1 DM=0.4 US2
(2)Discounted toshutdown date atanannual rate of3.7 %(This rate
results from assumed annual rates of 12 )'<.for interest and of8%
for inflrtion ) >
(3)Based onfollowing 'annual costs ofmainter'iance andsurveillance :
Study E. A
After Stage 1-case I:nosecurity force
-cr.se II:with security force
After Stage 20.C19
(4)
(4)C.0S8 .
0.167
0.058'
(4)Alternative not considered
(5)Delayed Stage 340years (study t)„1QSyears (study A,PWR)
and 104years (study A,tJ'iR )after shutdown (The delay periods
assumed instudy Awere estimated topermit manual -asopposed
toremotely operated -dismantling ).

-7-
Table5:Nuclearpowerplantsbuiltorunderconstruction
intheEuropennCommunity • .
IPlant !CountnTypeICaoccityStartofIYearorI
InJOoperationIassumedperiodofclosure
1Marcoule61'IGGR1956I1968
HDRGross'wclzhçim »fcHvR 251970 1972
Chinon1 FGGR .70 19A5 1973
KKNNiederaichbech 0HUR 100 1974 1974
IDFRDounreny [IUKIFURL_15I1963l1977 |
IBR-3hol IPUR■101966 n
IMZFRKarlsruhe DHWR 511966
(OttoHahn 0PUR
.1966
El-4Montsci'Arré FHU'R 701967 1931-1990
VAKKahl »BWR 151961
•JAGRWindscale UKAGR 321963
MarcouleG2 FGGR 401959
IMarcoule G3 F.GGR 401960
lCalderhall JKGGR 4X501956-1959
IChapolcrosj |IUK'IGGRI4X50||1959-'i960
jBerkeley UKIGGR 2X13b1961n
IBradwell UKGGR 2X1501961
ILatina 1GGR 210 1964
IHunterston A UKGGR 2X1501964
IGarigliano I■DUR 160 1964 J
ITrinoVercellese IPiVR 257 1965
IChinon2 .FGGR 200 1965 1991-2000
IHinkleyPointA •JKGGR 2X2501965
ITrawnsfynydd UKGGR 2X2501965
IDungeness A UKGGR 2X2751965
IChinon3 FGGR 480 1966
ISizewell A UK-GGR 2X2901966
IKR3Gundremmingen £>PWR 237 1966 M
I.SENAChoo2 FPWR 3051967
]AVRJûlich 0HTR 131967
IOldburyA UK |GGR 2X3001967-1968
lKULLingen 0SfcJWR 182 '196S■
]KW0Obrigheim PWR 328 1968'
IGKNDodewaard NL !ÛWR .521968 -
ISGHWRUinfrith UK iHWR 92.'1968
StLaurent 1 FIGGR 480 |I1969 |
;
jStLaurent2 F1ÏSGRI5151971I... •
IWylfei ;.UKGGR 2X5901971 !
IKi\!KKarlsruhe .....0SZR 191972
KUWWurgossen t>B'.v'R 640 1972
KKSStade DPWR 630 1972
-2001-2010Bugey1 FGGR 540 1972''
Borssele NLPWR 450 1973
PhénixFjFBR|2331973j!

Table5:continued
PlantCountryTypeCapacity
f'IWeStartofj
operationYearor
assumedperiod
ofclosure
IBiblisAPIPUR[1146l
1974 I
Doel1 ΒPUR 390 11974
Tihange 1 Βpwr 870 1975
IPFRDounreay IUKFBR;I230;1975
... --
Doel2 «3PWR 390 1975 ■•
Biblis0 .DPWR 1240 1976'
GKNNeckarwestheim ■&PWR 775 1976
KK3Brunsbùttel , DluWR 770' 1976
HinleyPofntS UK ;AGR2X6251976-1977
Hunterston B uk :AGR2X6251976-1977
Fessenhoim 1,2 f iPUR2X890 1977
KKIIsar D 'BWR 870 1977 2UC1-2010
KKP-1Philippsburg DBWR 864 1977 !
.
KKUUnterweser » IPWR 1230 1977 I
Bugcy2,3 FPUR2X925 .1978 ]
Caorso IPUR 840 1978 I
Bugey4,5 F•"PWR2X9051978-1979 IΚ
Tricastin1,2,3,4 FPWR4X9251979-1960
Gravelin.es1,2,3,4 FPWR4X9251979-1.981
KKfGrafenrheinfeld 0PWR 1229 1979
tfulhein-K'årlich 0PWR 1154 1979
Duirjensss 0 UKAGR2X6001979
Hartlepool > UKAGR I2X625 1979
Heysham UK'AGRl2X625 1979
Dsmpierre1,2,3,4 FPUR4X9251979-1981
.
Doel3 ΒPUR 900 1980
Tihange2 ΒPWR 900 1980.
KKKKrummel DB'JR 1260 19b0
JTHTR-300 -UentrooJ[_!>LHTRj 300I1980 I
StLaurentü1,2
LeBlayais1,2
KWGGrohnde
KRüB,CGrundremmingen
ChinonB1,2
KBRBrokdorf
KUSWyhl
SNF.-300Kalkar ,
Cirene
Paluit1,2
Superphénix
KKP-2Philippsburg
ENEL6,8foontaltoF
F
0
D
F
D
D
D
1
F
F
0
•IPWR
PUR
PUR
3UR
PWR
PvJR
PUR
FBR
Hi.'S
PUR
FUR
PUR
BWR2X925
2X925
1294
2X1250
2X925
1294
1283
282
32
2X1300
1200-
1230
2X9801981
1981
1981
1981-1982
1981-1982
1982
1982
1982
1982
1982
1983
1982
1983-1984I
j
i.
l
after2010
i
i
Note:Theassumedperiodsofclosureresultfromtheassumptionindicated
inunderpoint5.2ofPartI.Therearegenerally noplanneddates
ofclosureasyet.

ANNEX II
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED RESEARCH
A!!D'OEVELOPi'it.UT ACTIONS
Long term mtogrity ofbuilomgs and systems
- Ithas been proposed thnt the dismantling ofnuclear power plants be
delayed forperiods ranging from several decodes toabout ahundred years ,
mainly inordsr toreduce personnel radiation exposure .Significant degra -.-.
detion oftheplant ,and inparticular ofthe contamination barriers ,during
this time would pose problems ofsafety ,maintenance costs and,ultimately ,
dismantling *This aspect ,which has not been assessed inmost existing de­
commissioning studies ,isamong others important forthe purpose ofesti­
mating what would beareasonable period of.delaying dismantling .
* Theobjective ofthis action would betoimprove the knowledge onde­
gradation andtopropose appropriate preventive measures .
Prooramme-' ; >
-Estimation oftheprogress ofdegradation and oftherequired maintenance
effort tobeexpected csafunction oftime for containment buildings ,
based onareview ofavailable oxperionce with similar buildings .
-study oftheinternal corrosion ofclosed contaminated systems dueto
residual amounts ofhumidity andaggressive agents ;development ofmethods
for removing residues ofcorrosive agents .
-study ofother measures aimed atmaintaining plants inasafe condition .
Community contribution ;0.3 million EUA.

Action *'°?
Decontaminntion for decommi ssioni ne;curposes
I '
The object ofthis action ,comnlementary tothese carried out atJRC
within the frame oftheir nrultianpual programme istodevelop andtoassess
decontamination methods which arespecifically suitable for decommissioning
purposes .These methods nay apply toclosed systems /todismantled compo­
nents ,especially those ofIsroe dimensions ,ortothesurfaces cfpremises
The?methods may bemore aggressive than those currently employed atope­
rating reactors .Development should aim innarticular atobtaining the
following characteristics :high decontamination efficiency ;simple and
safe application ;unnroblematic nature and low volume ofconsequential
waste .Methods which can beapplied within the premises ofnuclear power .
nlants and with eminimum cfadditional eauipment are ofsnecirl interest .
Among the methods which seem todeserve development ,the following
ones may bementioned :decontamination bypastes and bymolten salts ;
electrolytical decontamination ;decontamination byexplosive methods .
Moreover ,asynoptic study should beperformed inorder toassess the
reasonable decontamination effort indecommissioning ,taking asabasis
typical reference components .This study should inparticular identify the
components for which "comnlctc decontamination ",permitting theunrestric­
tedrelease ofthe?treated item,would bepracticable .
The soecial decommissioning problems posed bynuclear power plants
which hsve ha:!amajor apcident will also beanalyzed .The study should .
bebased onaloss ofcoolant accident which leads tosevere contamination
oftheplant .The study should propose procedures bywhich theplant can
bebrought toacondition ,inwhich itcan besafely handled bynormal
decommissioning orocedures .Ifnecessary ,reasonable modifications ofthe
plant design should beororoscd .
Commumty contribution :1.4 million FUA

Action N° 3
Dismantlinn te*clini ques
Various (hsnantling techniques have already been utilized indecom­
missioning ,but would require further development toperform the ir.or~' dif­
ficult tnsKS required inthefuture ."T.naddition ,promising now techniques :
have been proposed . ,
Because of'the .variety oftechniques ,which Cc-nteenvisoQfcd .*it !
proposed that acomparative screening study ,consioering' several typi^l di
mantling tasks ,becarried out inorder toassess thepossible applications
andthe relative merits ofthedifferent techniques *Onthis btsis ,the rr.os
promising techniques should beselected and developed further .
Thefollowing techniques have,hou4ver ,already beenidentified for
further development :
-explosive methods ,fordismantling both .sieel piping andconcrete struc­
tures;'
•-thermal techniques forcutting thick wallsd steel -components *
Community contribution :l.imillion EUA „

Act-^n N'04
Troc.tncr;t ofspecific Wdst .materials :steely concrete endgraphite
Largs amounts cfradioactive waste consisting ofsteel will arise at
every nuclear power plant which isdismantled .Cryogenic cracking end .
smelting have been proposed as -promising new techniques forthe conditioning
^fsuch waste .
Cryogenic cracking isaimed principally atreducing the storage volume
rr.d^oert particularly expropriate for elements such aspiping .
Sneltini would nav <?several purposes ,i.e. :
-maximum reduction ofthe storage volume ;
-maximum reduction ofthe surface which ,csuld become accessible to
corrosion after .disposal ;.
-decontamination byslag removal ;
-incorporation ofresidual contamination into the base material ;
-pocsibly separation oflong-lived radioelements .
Theobject ofthe action ,where these techniques are concerned ,is
tocarry out feaj-ib'1 lity studies ,including :
-basic studies onspecific aspects ,such astheeffectiveness ofdeconta­
mination bysmelting andthepossibility ofseparating long-lived radio­
edmonts ; 1
-conceptual studies with aview toarriving atthoprincipal process
parameters 2ndconditions ofapplication andtoassessing the industrial
interest ofthetechniques inquestion *
The problems posed bytriiieted steel waste will also bestudied .
Asregards concrete w^ste ,aconditioning method should bedeveloped ,
bywhich theradioactivity isdurably immobilized .
Large aivouias ofgraphite will arise from the decommissioning ofgas
5rep' -,-it*,rei.ctii 'sand advanced gas-cooled reactors .Theobject cfthis ac­
tion istJdevelop amethod forthedisposition ofthis waste ,taking into
account theglobal and long term radiological irrpact ofcarbon-14 inthe
atmc rphr;;"erincase thegraphite would boburnt .
Community contribution :C.6 million HUA

-5-
. . ■I .
Action 11° 5
' ■ 1
Large transport containers for radioactive i.'^ste produced inthe
dismantling ofnuclear power plants
♦ *
/ ,
Studies have shown that itisdesirable totransport the radioactive
"waste resulting from dismantling ofcertain major reactor components in
larger units than those currently used forother types ofradioactive \isste,
inorder to-reduce the required amount ofcutting and,consequently ,the
personnel radiation exposure andthedecommissioning costs .Thesize and
'weight oftheshipping units should atleast besuch astotake full advan-'
tags ofthe normrl transport facilities ! ,
Programme
-System study aimed atdefining th.etypes oflarge transport and/ordis­
posal containers needed ,depending onthecharacteristics ofthewaste ,
such csradiation level ,previous conditioning ,etc.
/ '
-Conceptual study oflarge containers ,including shielding design and
safety analysis ;definition ofthetest programme required forlicensing
purposes .
! ' ' I
Community contribution :.0.2 million EUA

6
Action 6
Estimation ofthequantities ofradioaef've wastes arising from
decommissioning of_nuclear power plants inthe Community 1
This r.ctitn involves thedefinition ofreference *strategies for de- ,'
com/hissioni.13endistherefore tobeconsidered asa.long-term task .Con­
sequent ly,theobjective inthis five-year programme canonly betoarrive
atafirst tentative .approach tothe problem .
Programme
\
-Survey ofdata concerning radioactivity inventories after shutdown of
nuclear power plants inthe member countries ;this survey should becomple -
,.mented progressively ,taking into account new studies which become
available . ■ ~
-Assessment ofdifferent schemes for decommissioning ofplants and
conditioning' ofwastes produced .
-Estimate ofthe an'sings ofradioactive wastes tobeexpected from
decommi ssioning ofthe nuclear power plants ,starting from some selected
decommissioning schemes ,inorder toarrive atIcnrer-term ataforecast
ofthe wastes arising inthe member countries .
Community contribution :0.4 million £UA

Action NO7
Influence ofnuclear power plant desigrr features ondecommissioning
Theobject ofthis action would betoidentify and develop reasonable
improvements inplant design with aview todecommissioning .Inorder to
perform this tr.sk effectively ,while safeguarding the industrial information
theparticipation ofplant constructors would besought .
Programmo
-Inafirst phase ,exchange ofinformation and views onthoextent towhich
features facilitating decommissioning are already taken into account and
onthepossibilities offurther improvements ;identification ofsome spe­
cific potential improvements -which eresuitable for study under this ac­
tion .
-Assessment ofthese specific improvements from thepoint ofview oftheir
technical feasibility /with dueregard tosafety andreliability ofope­
ration /andoftheir economic andenvironmental impact .
-Experimental studies onspecific selected subjects (e.g,/detachable
surface layers ). 'a .
Commuait /contribution :0.6 million EUA.

PROPOSAL FCR ACOUf.'CIL DECISIOf ADOPTING AP!\OGRAr -ÌME CO ?CERiòING
THE DECOHMSSIOr'IrtG OF NUCLLMR POWLR PLANTS
The Council ofthe European Communities
HA VING regard tothe Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy
Community ,end inparticular Article 7thereof ;
HA VING regard tothe proposal presented bythe Commission after consulting
theScientific and Technical Committee ;
HA VING regard tothe Opinion ofthe European Parliament ;
HA VING regard tothe Opinion ofthe Economic and Social Committee ;
WHEREAS the programme ofaction ofthe European Communities onthe
environment approved bytheCouncil ofthe European Communities andthe
representatives ofthe Governments ofthe fiercer St3tes meeting inthe
itCouncil inthe Declaration of17Hay 1977 ,underlines the need for
Community measures onthe decommissioning ofnuclear power plants and
whereas itlays down the content ofandprocedures for implementing such
measures ; .
WHEREAS certain parts ofnuclear power plants inevitably become radio­
active during operation ,and whereas itistherefore essential tofind
effective solutions which are capable ofensuring thesafety andprotection
ofboth man and his environment against thepotential hazards involved in
the decommissioning ofthese plants ;
*OJNo C139,13.6.1977 ,P.34-35

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION
Article 1
Anrorranme onthe research rclatinn tothe decommissioning ofnuclear
power plant shall beadopted inthe form set out inthe Annex for a
five-year neriod from 1July 1978 .The Annex forms anintegral part of
this Decision .
Article 2
The expenditure commitments necessary forthe implementation ofthis
programme areestimated at6.38 millions Furopean units ofaccount (EUA)
with astaff offive . '
ι
Article 3
The orogramme set out inthe Annex may besubmitted for amendment atthe
end ofthe second year -inaccordance with the appropriate procedures .

ANNEX
PPOGRAfWE
Tho aim ofthe oroqrammc isthejoint development ofasystem nf
management ,ofredundant nuclear power plants andoftheradioactive
wastes produced intheir dismantling which ,atitsvarious stages ,will
orovide man and his environment ,with the best protection possible ;
the.programme seeks topromote :
A.°csearch and development actions concerning tho following subjects :
Action f'° 1:l^ng term integrity ofbuildings and systems .
Action '32:Docontamination for decommissioning purposes .
Action fv°3:Dismantlinr *techniques .
Action M°4:Treatment ofspecific waste materials :steel ,concrete
and graphite .
Action N°(5:Large transport containers forradioactive .waste produced
inthe dismantling ofnuclear power plants .
Action N°6:Fstimrticn oftho quantities ofradioactive wastes rrising
from decommissioning ofnuclear power plants inthe
Community . .Ί
Action N°7:Influence ofnuclear power plant design features on
decommissioning .
B.Identification ofguiding principles ,namely :
-certain guiding principles inthe design andoperation ofnuclear
power nlant with aview tosimplifying their subsequent decommissioning
-cuiding principles intho decommissioning ofnuclear power plant which
could for*i theinitial elements ofaCommunity policy inthis field .

FINANCIAL SHEET
1.Relevant budget heading code :3359
2.Title ofbudget heading : v
Decommissioning ofnuclear installations
3..Legal basis
Article 7ofthe Treaty establishing the EAEC
ι
4.Description ,objective andjustification ofthe action
ι

-2-
4.1.Description
This isaEURATOM research programme (indirect action )onthe decommis­
sioning ofnuclear installations .The programme relates tothe following
topics :
-development ofspecialized techniques ;
-forecasting ofradioactive waste generation ;
-study ofcertain power plant characteristics from adecommissioning .
standpoint ;
-definition ofguiding principles .
The programme primarily concerns electricity producers andpublic
and private bodies competent inthe field ofnuclear research .
4.2.Objective
/
The objective ofthe action istopromote the development ofmethods
and techniques for decommissioning nuclear installations insuch a
way astoensure protection for man and his environment .
4.3 .Justification
The proposed programme isthe outcome ofthe action programme onthe
environment approved bythe Council on17May 1977 ;ithas been drawn
upwith the aid ofagroup ofnational experts .Action atCommunity
1-evel will make for economy work through the exchange ofinformation
and the apportionment oftasks .

-3-
5.Financial incidence ofthe action (in EUA )
5.0.Incidence onexpenditure •
5.0.0 .Total cost during theenvisaged period
-from the budget ofthe Communities : 6,3.80,000 EUA
-from national adminlist rations :
-from other sectors atnational level :
5.0.1 Multiannual timetable Total cost :6,380,000 EUA
Appropriations for commitment
<
i1978 1979 1980
'1981 1982 j
■
'
i1983
Staff
expenditure
Admini strati v
expenditure ,
Contra etse
24,000 .
476,000262;000
49,000
2,000,000 ,277,000
52,000
1,327,000294,000
55,000
1,000,000311,000
59,000164,000
.30,000
Total i500,000 2,311,000I
1,656,000 1,349,000 370,000 194,000
Appropriations for payment
1978 .1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 ■
Staff
expenditure 262,000i.1
277,000 294,000 311,000 164,000
Administr .'!
expenditureI24,000
!49,000 52,000 55,500 , 59,000 .30,000
Contracts I476,000
i .,
!1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 327,000
Total !500,000 1,311,000 1,329,000 1,349,000 |
!tl,370,000 521,000

5.0t2Method ofcalculation
a)Staff expenditure
The appropriations forthis programme were evaluated onthe basis
ofthe following staff :
2officials ofgrade A
2officials ofgrade B.
'1officiai ofgrade C
\ .
The calculations take account ofthe data asestablished for the
setting-up ofthedraft budget for the year 1979 .Nonet increase
ofsalaries isassumed .!Only avariation ofthe weightings has
been considered inorder totake account ofthe trend inthe general
level ofprices inthe Community .
b)Administrative and technical expenditure
They cover expenditures onmissions and onthe organization of
meetings aswell astheutilization ofscientific andtechnical
support ifappears necessary for the good development ofthe pro­
gramme .
c)Contract expenditure
Depending onthe nature ofthe subject and the qualifications of
the contractors ,nostandard method ofcalculation can belaid
down .
Anyhow ,the Advisory Committee onProgramme Management will be
consulted onthe awarding ofappropriations .
d)Multiannual previsions *
The rates held for the calculations ofthe previsions are resp .:
1979 =1.07 ;1980 =1.13 ;1981 =1.20;1982 =1.27 ;1983 =1.34 . .
'5.1 Implications onthe funds '
6. Control regime foreseen
Scientific control :ACPM and the responsible staff ofthe DGXII
Administrative controls :
Budgetary execution :Financial Control
Regularity ofexpenditure :Division Contracts of DGXII.

-5-
7.Action financing
7.0
7..1
7.2
7.3 Appropn ations tobeentered under future budgets .