Nuclear Decommissioning: Decommission nuclear facilities - World Nuclear Association Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities (Updated November 2016) To date, about 110 commercial power reactors, 46 experimental or prototype reactors, over 250 research reactors and a number of fuel cycle facilities have been retired from operation. Some of these have been fully dismantled. Most parts of a nuclear power plant do not become radioactive, or are contaminated at only very low levels. Most of the metal can be recycled. Proven techniques and equipment are available to dismantle nuclear facilities safely and these have now been well demonstrated in several parts of the world. Decommissioning costs for nuclear power plants, including disposal of associated wastes, are reducing and contribute only a small fraction of the total cost of electricity generation. All power plants, coal, gas and nuclear, have a finite life beyond which it is not economically feasible to operate them. Generally speaking, early nuclear plants were designed for a life of about 30 years, though with refurbishment, some have proved capable of continuing well beyond this. Newer plants are designed for a 40 to 60 year operating life.

At the end of the life of any power plant, it needs to be decommissioned, cleaned up and demolished so that the site is made available for other uses. For nuclear plants, the term decommissioning includes all clean-up of radioactivity and progressive dismantling of the plant. This may start with the owner's decision to write it off or declare that it is permanently removed from operation. For practical purposes it includes defueling and removal of coolant, though NRC at least defines it as strictly beginning only after fuel and coolant are removed. It concludes with licence termination after decontamination is verified and wastes removed. A Table showing about 150 shutdown reactors is at the end of this paper. About 17 of these have had the full decommissioning process completed as of 2016. Decommissioning Options The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has defined three options for decommissioning, the definitions of which have been internationally adopted: Immediate Dismantling (or Early Site Release/'Decon' in the US): This option allows for the facility to be removed from regulatory control relatively soon after shutdown or termination of regulated activities.

Final dismantling or decontamination activities can begin within a few months or years, depending on the facility. Following removal from regulatory control, the site is then available for re-use. Safe Enclosure ('Safstor') or deferred dismantling: This option postpones the final removal of controls for a longer period, usually in the order of 40 to 60 years. The facility is placed into a safe storage configuration until the eventual dismantling and decontamination activities occur after resudual radioactivity has decayed. There is a risk in this case of regulatory change which could increase costs unpredictably. Entombment (or 'Entomb'): This option entails placing the facility into a condition that will allow the remaining on-site radioactive material to remain on-site without ever removing it totally. This option usually involves reducing the size of the area where the radioactive material is located and then encasing the facility in a long-lived structure such as concrete, that will last for a period of time to ensure the remaining radioactivity is no longer of concern. Each approach has its benefits and disadvantages. National policy determines which approach or combination of approaches is adopted or allowed.

In the case of immediate dismantling (or early site release), responsibility for completion of decommissioning is not transferred to future generations. The experience and skills of operating staff can also be utilised during the decommissioning program. Alternatively, Safe Enclosure (or Safstor) allows significant reduction in residual radioactivity, thus reducing radiation hazard during the eventual dismantling. The expected improvements in mechanical techniques should also lead to a reduction in the hazard and also costs. In the case of nuclear reactors, about 99% of the radioactivity is associated with the fuel which is removed following permanent shutdown. Apart from some surface contamination of plant, the remaining radioactivity comes from "activation products" in steel which has long been exposed to neutron irradiation, notably the reactor pressure vessel. Stable atoms are changed into different isotopes such as iron-55, iron-59 and zinc-65. Several are highly radioactive, emitting gamma rays. However, their half life is such (2.7 years, 45 days, 5.3 years, 245 days respectively) after 50 years from closedown their radioactivity is much diminished and the occupational risk to workers largely gone.

Decommissioning Experience Considerable experience has been gained in decommissioning various types of nuclear facilities. About 90 commercial power reactors, 45 experimental or prototype power reactors, as well as over 250 research reactors and a number of fuel cycle facilities, have been retired from operation. Of the 140+ power reactors including experimental and prototype units, at least 15 have been fully dismantled, over 50 are being dismantled, over 50 are in Safstor, three have been entombed, and for others the decommissioning strategy is not yet specified. (Ships and numerous submarines have also been decommissioned but are not included in this paper.) European reactors To decommission its retired gas-cooled reactors at the Chinon, Bugey and St Laurent nuclear power stations, Electricité de France (EdF) chose partial dismantling and postponed final dismantling and demolition for 50 years. As other reactors will continue to operate at those sites, monitoring and surveillance do not add to the cost. A recycling plant for steel from dismantled nuclear facilities is at Marcoule, in France. This metal will contain some activation products, but it can be recycled for other nuclear plants.

Decommissioning has begun at 29 UK reactors, 25 of them early Magnox types with graphite moderators.* One of the first was Berkeley nuclear power station (2 x 138 MWe), closed for economic reasons in 1989 after 27 years of operation, where defuelling was completed in 1992. The cooling ponds were then drained, cleaned and filled in and the turbine hall was dismantled and demolished. The reactor buildings are in an extended Safstor period. Ultimately they too will be dismantled, leaving the site to be leveled and landscaped. The same pattern is being followed at other UK reactor sites. * Costs for decommissioning gas-cooled reactors are much higher per unit of capacity than for light water reactors – at least five times for Magnox. This is due to the large volume of material and the need to dispose of a lot of graphite moderator. Decommissioning waste volumes per unit capacity for Magnox are ten times those for western light water reactors. See also following subsection on Graphite.

Spain's Vandellos 1, a 480 MWe gas-graphite reactor, was closed down in 1990 after 18 years operation, due to a turbine fire which made the plant uneconomic to repair. In 2003 ENRESA concluded phase 2 of the reactor decommissioning and dismantling project, which allowed much of the site to be released. After 30 years Safestor, when activity levels have diminished by 95%, the remainder of the plant will be removed. The cost of the 63-month project was €93 million. Eleven of Germany’s 19 decommissioned units are subject to immediate dismantling. (It is not yet clear if and when the eight units shut down in March 2011 for political reasons will be decommissioned. The four operators have €30 billion set aside for decommissioning and waste disposal.) Germany chose immediate dismantling over safe enclosure for the closed Greifswald nuclear power station in the former East Germany, where five reactors had been operating.

Similarly, the site of the 100 MWe Niederaichbach nuclear power plant in Bavaria was declared fit for unrestricted agricultural use in mid-1995. The 15 MWe Kahl experimental BWR was shut down in 1985, after 25 years operation. After decontamination, the plant was completely dismantled and the site was cleared for unrestricted use. The 250 MWe Gundremmingen A unit was Germany's first commercial nuclear reactor, operating 1966-77. Decommissioning work started in 1983, and moved to the more contaminated parts in 1990, using underwater cutting techniques. This project demonstrated that decommissioning could be undertaken safely and economically without long delays, and recycling most of the metal. Japan's Tokai 1 reactor, a 160 MWe UK Magnox design, is being decommissioned after 32 years service to 1998.

After 10 years storage, in Phase 2 (to 2011) the steam generators and turbines were removed, and in Phase 3 (to 2018) the reactor will be dismantled, the buildings demolished and the site left ready for re-use. The total cost will be JPY 93 billion (USD 1.04 billion) – 35 billion for dismantling and 58 billion for waste treatment which will include the graphite moderator (which escalates the cost significantly, see subsection below). US reactors Experience in the USA has varied, but 13 power reactors are using the Safestor approach, while 16 – mostly single-unit plants – are using, or have used, Decon. Procedures are set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and considerable experience has now been gained. A total of 32 power reactors have been closed and decommissioned. NRC requires that the operating license of a closed reactor be terminated and decommissioning activities be completed within 60 years.

Site release often excludes the on-site used fuel storage in an ISFSI (independent spent fuel storage installation), which usually remains, to await the Department of Energy taking away the used fuel (over which it has title) to a national repository sometime in the future. Rancho Seco (single 913 MWe, PWR) was closed in 1989, and in 1995 NRC approved a Safestor plan for it. However, the utility subsequently decided upon incremental dismantling and this was completed in 2009, leaving about 3 ha still under NRC licence for waste storage. About 32 ha has been released for unrestricted use. At multi-unit nuclear power stations, the choice has been to place the first closed unit into storage until the others end their operating lives, so that all can be decommissioned in sequence. This will optimise the use of staff and the specialised equipment required for cutting and remote operations, and achieve cost benefits.

Thus, after 14 years of comprehensive clean-up activities, including the removal of fuel, debris and water from the 1979 accident, Three Mile Island 2 was placed in Post-Defuelling Monitored Storage (Safstor) until the operating licence of Unit 1expires, so that both units can be dismantled together. San Onofre 1, which closed in 1992, was put into Safestor until licences for units 2&3 expired in 2022-23. However, after NRC changes, dismantling was brought forward to 1999, so it became an active Decon project which was largely completed in 2008. A small amount of work remains to be completed with eventual dismantling of units 2&3 on the site, which were shut down in May 2013. In April 2016 the California Public Utilities Commission approved $4.41 billion in decommissioning costs for them, from funds held in trust. Southern California Edison said that funds were then $3.37 billion.

Used fuel will be removed from 2024, and decommissioning is expected to be complete in 2050. A US Decon project was the 60 MWe Shippingport reactor, which operated commercially from 1957 to 1982. It was used to demonstrate the safe and cost-effective dismantling of a commercial scale nuclear power plant and the early release of the site. Defuelling was completed in two years, and five years later the site was released for use without any restrictions. Because of its size, the pressure vessel could be removed and disposed of intact. For larger units, such components have to be cut up. Immediate Decon also the option chosen for Fort St Vrain, a 330 MWe high temperature gas-cooled reactor which was closed in 1989. This took place on a fixed-price contract for US$ 195 million (hence costing less than 1 cent/kWh despite only a 16-year operating life) and the project proceeded on schedule to clear the site and relinquish its licence early in 1997 - the first US power reactor of this size to achieve this.

Shoreham BWR, on Long Island, generated very little power and never received a full operating licence, so the level of activation products was minimal. It was shut down in 1989 and became a Decon project, completed in 1994. The 59 MWe Pathfinder prototype BWR in South Dakota, shut down in 1967 after a very short life was also a Decon project, completed in 1992. Haddam Neck 560 MWe PWR in Connecticut, closed in 1996 after 29 years operation, was a further Decon project, completed in 2007. This was very high cost (over $800 million) due to difficulty in cutting up the internal components and then having to store them onsite. For Trojan (1180 MWe, PWR) in Oregon the dismantling was undertaken by the utility itself. The plant closed in 1993, steam generators were removed, transported and disposed of at Hanford in 1995, and the reactor vessel (with internals) was removed and transported to Hanford in 1999.

Except for the used fuel storage, the site was released for unrestricted use in 2005. The cooling tower was demolished in 2006. This was a relatively low-cost operation – about $300 million. Another US Decon project was Maine Yankee, a 860 MWe PWR plant which closed down in 1996 after 24 years operation. The containment structure was finally demolished in 2004 and except for 5 ha with the dry store for used fuel, the site was released for unrestricted public use in 2005, on budget (about $500 million) and on schedule. Connecticut Yankee (590 MWe PWR) also shut down in 1996 after 28 years operation. Decommissioning work began in 1998 and demolition was concluded in 2006. The site was released for unrestricted public use in 2007, apart from 2 ha for dry cask used fuel storage. Residual contamination on the land is below NRC's limit of 0.25 millisievert per year for maximum radiation dose.

In 2006 the site of 72 MWe Big Rock Point nuclear power plant in Michigan, shut down in 1997 after 35 years operation, was largely returned to greenfield status. In January 2007 most of the land was released for derestricted public use, though 43 hectares still has the dry cask storage facility where used fuel is stored pending transfer to the national repository. With Exelon's Zion 1&2 reactors (2 x 1098 MWe) closed down in 1998 and initially in Safstor, a slightly different process is envisaged, considerably accelerating the decommissioning. Exelon has contracted with a specialist company – EnergySolutions – to dismantle the plant, ship the waste to its disposal site in Utah, and return the site to greenfield status. To achieve this, in 2010 the plant's licence and decommissioning funds were transferred to EnergySolutions, which is then the owner and licensee, and the site will be returned to Exelon about 2020.

Used fuel remains on site until taken to the national repository, and in less than 12 months to January 2015 EnergySolutions had transferred it all to 61 Magnastor dry casks on site. Duke’s Crystal River 3 is expected to cost $1.18 billion (2013 dollars) to decommission via Safstor over 60 years, during which time the funds reserved for the purpose will accrue interest, thereby fully covering the cost, despite the fact that is was closed after only 35 years of operation. Decon would cost only $994 million, but this would be over only a few years, so the decommissioning fund would have less time to grow sufficiently to cover it. A $195 million impact on Florida ratepayers would result. Safstor will begin in July 2015 after used fuel is removed, and will end with removal of the unit’s remaining components about 2070 and site restoration in 2074. To August 2019 the spent fuel will remain in pools and from then to 2036 it will be held in a planned dry cask storage facility onsite.

The spent fuel will then be moved to a federal facility. In summary, US plants with Decon completed are: Big Rock Point, Elk River, Fort St Vrain, Haddam Neck, Maine Yankee, Pathfinder, Rancho Seco, San Onofre 1, Saxton, Shippingport, Shoreham, Trojan and Yankee Rowe. (Also Santa Susana Sodium Reactor Experimental which is not included in Tables.) Decon is in progress at Fermi 1, Humboldt Bay 3, LaCrosse, Zion 1&2. US plants in Safstor include Crystal River 3, Dresden 1, Fermi 1, Indian Point 1, LaCrosse, Kewaunee, Millstone 1, Peach Bottom 1, and Zion 1&2, as well as NS Savannah. Three Mile Island 2 is in post-defueling monitored storage. San Onofre 2&3 and later Vermont Yankee will also enter Safstor when defuelled.

The only US plants subject to the Entomb option are small experimental ones: Bonus BWR in Puerto Rico, Piqua organic-moderated reactor in Ohio, Hallam graphite-moderated sodium-cooled reactor in Nebraska, and in 2015, EBR-2. No NRC-licensed plant has used this option. In addition to the above is the first floating nuclear power plant, installed in a former liberty ship, and utilised at Panama 1967-76. The Sturgis had a 45 MWt/ 10 MWe (net) PWR which provided power to the Canal Zone. After it was defuelled in 1977, some 89 m3 of solid radioactive waste and 363 m3 of liquid waste was removed and the vessel placed in safstor at Fort Belvoir, Virginia until 2027. In 2014 CB&I was awarded a contract from the US Army to decommission and dismantle the MH-1A PWR reactor. Further information on decommissioning in USA is available from the Nuclear Energy Institute , and from NRC .

Russian reactors Rostechnadzor oversees a major program of decommissioning old fuel cycle facilities, financed under the Federal target program on Nuclear and Radiation Safety. Six civil reactors are being decommissioned: three early LWGRs, the Melekess VK-50 prototype BWR, and two larger prototype VVER-440 units at Novovoronezh. Most were shut down 1981-90, the fuel removed, and they now await dismantling, which is staring to progress at Novovronezh. Graphite A number of first-generation reactors had graphite blocks as moderator. This is high-quality reactor-grade material produced at about 3000°C which accumulates some radionuclide contamination while in service, particularly carbon-14 at levels which often means that it must be classified as intermediate-level waste. While it oxidizes slightly under neutron bombardment and also at high temperatures (to CO), it does not burn, but sublimes at 3652°C. There is no risk of oxidation under Safstor conditions. A 2006 report commissioned by EPRI states: "The graphite moderators of retired gas-cooled nuclear reactors present a difficult challenge during demolition activities.

As a result, utilities have not dismantled any moderators of CO2 cooled power reactors to date." However, it concludes that adequate information exists to enable the safe dismantling and processing of graphite moderators, and that the three main options for disposal of this graphite are oxidation to the gas phase and release as carbon dioxide (difficult), direct burial, or recycling into new products for the nuclear industry. In each case, opportunities exist for pre-processing to concentrate or remove radionuclides to enhance the safety of the chosen option. The radionuclide inventory of irradiated graphite is unusual in comparison with other nuclear wastes. Cobalt-60 and tritium are the principal isotopes of short-term importance, carbon-14 and chlorine-36 are dominant in the longer term. Fast neutron reactors Several sodium-cooled fast reactors have been decommissioned, but only a few have been dismantled. Germany’s KNK-2 at Karlsruhe was shut down in 1991 after 14 years' operation, with fuel removal and initial dismantling in 1993. High levels of activation products meant that much work was remote, and residual sodium meant that some cutting was done in a nitrogen atmosphere.

Total cost is estimated as €364 million, with completion expected in 2020. Other facilities The French Atomic Energy Commission is decommissioning the UP1 reprocessing plant at Marcoule. This plant started up in 1958 and treated 18,600 tonnes of metal fuels from gas-cooled reactors (both defence and civil) to 1997. Progressive decontamination and dismantling of the plant and waste treatment will span 40 years and cost some EUR 5.6 billion, nearly half of this for treatment of the wastes stored on the site. Areva is decommissioning the Eurodif enrichment plant at Marcoule since 2012. This involved over 2012-15 the decontamination with ClF3 gas to remove the residual uranium left inside, and extract it as UF6, then recovery of all produced chloride and fluoride gas before the opening of equipments and circuits. Then over 2016-25 the plant is being dismantled.

The US Department of Energy in August 2010 awarded a $2.1 billion contract to a joint venture between Fluor Corp and Babcock and Wilcox (B&W, now BWXT) for decontamination and decommissioning of the huge (1500 ha) Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (GDP) uranium enrichment site in Ohio, from March 2011. In March 2016 the contract was extended by 30 months. The US Department of Energy contractors in 2016 finished demolishing the Oak Ridge diffusion enrichment plant in Tennessee, which operated from the early 1940s to 1985, making 120 ha available for other uses. Many nuclear submarines have been decommissioned over the last decade. In USA, after defuelling, the reactor compartments are cut out of the vessels and are transported inland to Hanford, where they are buried as low-level waste. Russia has decommissioned three nuclear powered icebreakers: Lenin, Sibir and Arktika. Cost and Finance In most countries the operator or owner is responsible for the decommissioning costs.

The total cost of decommissioning is dependent on the sequence and timing of the various stages of the program. Deferment of a stage tends to reduce its cost, due to decreasing radioactivity, but this may be offset by increased storage and surveillance costs. Even allowing for uncertainties in cost estimates and applicable discount rates, decommissioning contributes a small fraction of total electricity generation costs. In USA many utilities have revised their cost projections downwards in the light of experience. Financing methods vary from country to country. Among the most common are: Prepayment, where money is deposited in a separate account to cover decommissioning costs even before the plant begins operation. This may be done in a number of ways but the funds cannot be withdrawn other than for decommissioning purposes. External sinking fund (Nuclear Power Levy): This is built up over the years from a percentage of the electricity rates charged to consumers. Proceeds are placed in a trust fund outside the utility's control. This is the main US system, where sufficient funds are set aside during the reactor's operatinig lifetime to cover the cost of decommissioning. Surety fund, letter of credit, or insurance purchased by the utility to guarantee that decommissioning costs will be covered even if the utility defaults.

In USA, utilities are collecting 0.1 to 0.2 cents/kWh to fund decommissioning. They must then report regularly to the NRC on the status of their decommissioning funds. About two thirds of the total estimated cost of decommissioning all US nuclear power reactors has already been collected, leaving a liability of about $9 billion to be covered over the remaining operating lives of 100 reactors (on basis of average $320 million per unit). An OECD survey published in 2003 reported US dollar (2001) costs by reactor type. For western PWRs, most were $200-500/kWe, for VVERs costs were around $330/kWe, for BWRs $300-550/kWe, for CANDU $270-430/kWe. For gas-cooled reactors the costs were much higher due to the greater amount of radioactive materials involved, reaching $2600/kWe for some UK Magnox reactors. This last figure remains to be tested in experience. Constraints on recycling Recycling materials from decommissioned nuclear facilities is constrained by the level of radioactivity in them.

This is also true for materials from elsewhere, such as gas plants, but the levels specified can be very different. For example, scrap steel from gas plants may be recycled if it has less than 500,000 Bq/kg (0.5 MBq/kg) radioactivity (the exemption level). This level however is one thousand times higher than the clearance level for recycled material (both steel and concrete) from the nuclear industry, where anything above 500 Bq/kg may not be cleared from regulatory control for recycling. There is increasing concerned about double standards developing in Europe which allow 30 times the dose rate from non-nuclear recycled materials than from those out of the nuclear industry. Norway and Holland are the only countries with consistent standards. Elsewhere, 0.3 to 1.0 mSv/yr individual dose constraint is applied to oil and gas recyclables, and 0.01 mSv/yr for release of materials with the same kind of radiation from the nuclear industry. The double standard means that the same radionuclide, at the same concentration, can either be sent to deep disposal or released for use in building materials, depending on where it comes from.

The 0.3 mSv/yr dose limit is still only one tenth of most natural background levels, and two orders of magnitude lower than those experienced naturally by many people, who suffer no apparent ill effects. The main radionuclide in scrap from the oil and gas industry is radium-226, with a half-life of 1600 years as it decays to radon. Those in nuclear industry scrap are cobalt-60 and caesium-137, with much shorter half-lives. Application of a 0.3 mSv/yr dose limit results in a clearance level for Ra-226 of 500 Bq/kg, compared with 10 Bq/kg for nuclear material. In 2011, 16 decommissioned steam generators from Bruce Power in Canada were to be shipped to Sweden for recycling. Although the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) approved Bruce Power’s plans in 2011 and confirmed steam generator processing is an excellent example of responsible and safe nuclear waste management practices, this caused public controversy at the time, and following the Fukushima nuclear accident plans for this shipment were shelved.

These steam generators were each 12m long and 2.5m diameter, with mass 100 t, and contained some 4g of radionuclides with about 340 GBq of activity. Exposure was 0.08 mSv/hr at one metre. They were classified as low-level waste (LLW). Studsvik in Sweden would recycle much of the metal and return about 10% of the overall volume as LLW for disposal in Ontario. The balance would be under 100 Bq/kg, which appeared to be the clearance level. In 2012 five steam generators from UK plants were shipped to Studsvik in Sweden for recycling. Studsvik has also set up a plant in the UK, at Lillyhall in Cumbria, to recycle materials from nuclear facilities, and this became fully operational in 2013 after processing 2000 t of metal from numerous sites and recycling 96% of it. The balance went to a LLW repository.

International Cooperation The IAEA, the OECD's Nuclear Energy Agency and the Commission of the European Communities are among a number of organisations through which experience and knowledge about decommissioning is shared among technical communities in various countries. In 1985, the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency launched an International Co-operative Program for the Exchange of Scientific and Technical Information Concerning Nuclear Installation Decommissioning Projects. This international collaboration, covering 15 reactors and six fuel-cycle facilities, has produced a great deal of technical and financial information. In 2013, following the Fukushima accident, an International Research Institute for Nuclear Decommissioning ( IRID ) was established, based in Japan. As well as bringing together knowledge and experience from wrecked reactors, IRID will build up the knowledge base for routine decommissioning. In January 2015 the IAEA launched an International Project on Decommissioning and Remediation of Damaged Nuclear Facilities, the DAROD project, to help increase nuclear safety under the agency’s Nuclear Safety Action Plan that was unanimously adopted by IAEA member states following the 2011 Fukushima accident. The project will run for three years, and involves 35 international experts from 19 IAEA member states.

The important areas where experience is being gained and shared are the assessment of the radioactive inventories, decontamination methods, cutting techniques, remote operation, radioactive waste management and health and safety. The aims are to minimise the radiological hazards to workers and to optimise the dismantling sequence and timing to reduce the total decommissioning cost. Reasons for shutdown Most decommissioned reactors were shut down because there was no longer any economic justification for running them. Practically all are relatively early-model designs, and about 45 are experimental or prototype power reactors. Three categories are listed here: Experimental, early commercial types and commercial unit whose continued operation was no longer justified, usually for economic reasons. Most of these started up before 1980 and their short life is not surprising for the first couple of decades of a major new technology. At least 41 of this 113 (* asterisked) ran relatively full-term, for a design life of 25-35 years or so (design lives today are 40-60 years). Total 113. Units which closed following an accident or serious incident (not necessarily to the reactor itself) which meant that repair was not economically justified. Total 11.

Units which were closed prematurely by political decision or due to regulatory impediment without clear or significant economic or technical justification. Total 25, 17 of these being early Soviet designs. In fact the distinctions are not always sharp, e.g. Chernobyl 2 was closed in 1991 after a turbine fire when it would have been politically impossible to repair and restart it, Rheinsberg was closed in 1990 though it was nearly at the end of its design life – both these are in the 'political decision' category. Note that the eight German reactors shut down in 2011 are not yet listed here. Reactors closed following damage in an accident or serious incident (11) Country BBC NEWS | Europe | Nuclear Europe: Country guide Printable version Nuclear Europe: Country guide There are 165 nuclear reactors producing power in Europe (excluding Russia), with six under construction and others planned. There is a wide divergence of approaches to nuclear power. Some countries, like Germany and Spain, are committed to phasing out nuclear power; others, like the UK and Italy, have recently committed themselves to building new power plants; while some, including Ukraine and Finland, already are.

FRANCE Reactors decommissioned/out of use 11 New reactors planned/under construction 1 Electricity generated (net billion kiloWatt hours (kWh)) 419 Proportion of electricity from nuclear power 77% France has been Europe's most enthusiastic devotee of nuclear power, constructing dozens of reactors since the 1970s oil crises spurred on its desire for energy independence. It has become the world's biggest net exporter of electricity, and is also a major exporter of nuclear technology. France began a public debate in 2003 on future energy policy, in response to a "strong demand from the French people". Two years later, the state power company EDF approved plans for the construction of a new European Pressurised Reactor (EPR), or improved third-generation plant, at Flamanville in Normandy. The project, which is intended as a prototype for up to 40 others of similar design, is expected to be completed in late 2012.

In 2006, the government also announced the start of the design process for a prototype fourth-generation, sodium-cooled fast reactor, with the aim of having the technology ready for industrial deployment and export after 2035-40. Reactors decommissioned/out of use 23 Electricity generated (net billion kWh) 57 Proportion of electricity from nuclear power 13% The UK was the first country to use nuclear energy to generate power for large-scale civilian use, opening its first plant in 1956. The last new reactor was opened in 1995, and the country has been steadily decommissioning its old plants, with many set to close by 2023. In 2008, the government gave the go-ahead for a new generation of nuclear power stations. It said it would identify what it believed were the best sites for new reactors, streamline the planning process, and set up a new independent body to monitor clean-up costs. Ministers hope that the first new reactors could be operational by 2020, but there could yet be new legal challenges.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has suggested that the replacement nuclear power stations could be built on new sites, not just those with existing plants. Reactors decommissioned/out of use 19 Electricity generated (net billion kWh) 133 Proportion of electricity from nuclear power 23% Germany, like the UK, has plans to close several plants in the coming years. All the reactors built in East Germany prior to reunification have been closed for safety reasons. Under former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, whose coalition included the Green Party, the government decided in 2001 to phase out nuclear power by 2020, and to close all reactors when they reached an average of 32 years old. The construction of new nuclear power plants was also forbidden. The current "grand coalition" of Chancellor of Angela Merkel has so far ruled out a change of policy. Reactors decommissioned/out of use 3 Electricity generated (net billion kWh) 64 Proportion of electricity from nuclear power 47% While a large proportion of Sweden's electricity is generated by hydro-electric power, Sweden decided in the 1960s and 70s to increase nuclear capacity to reduce dependence on oil.

In 1980, Swedes voted in a referendum to phase out nuclear power amid heightened fears over safety. Since then, however, only two of 12 reactors have been closed. Twenty-nine years later, the government announced that it planned to lift the ban on building new reactors and replace the 10 still in operation. The plan, which will not receive state funding, still needs to be approved by parliament. Public support has grown amid concerns over climate change and the reliability of foreign energy. New reactors planned/under construction 2 Reactors decommissioned/out of use 4 Electricity generated (net billion kWh) 92 Proportion of electricity from nuclear power 47% Ukraine's Chernobyl plant was the site of the largest nuclear accident in history in 1986, when an explosion blew the top off the site's number four reactor and sent a radioactive cloud across much of Europe. The country has remained committed to nuclear power, and is building two more reactors and planning as many as 11 more by 2030 as it seeks to reduce its dependence on energy from Russia, particularly in light of the disputes over gas in 2006 and 2009.

The strategy also envisages completing the construction by 2017 of two reactors at Khmelnitski, work on which has been halted since 1990. New reactors planned/under construction 4 Reactors decommissioned/out of use 4 Proportion of electricity from nuclear power 0% Italy was an early pioneer of nuclear technology, and built four reactors, but these were all shut down by 1990 in accordance with a referendum held after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986. Italy has since become the world's largest net importer of electricity, with more than 10% of its electricity coming from foreign-produced nuclear power. But in 2009, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and French President Nicolas Sarkozy signed a co-operation agreement which will see their countries work together to revive nuclear power in Italy. The Italian power company, ENEL, and its French counterpart, EDF, at the same time agreed to study the feasibility of building four, third-generation European Pressurised Reactors (EPR) in Italy.

The Italian government says it needs a total of eight to 10 EPRs, the first of which is expects to be operational by 2020. Reactors decommissioned/out of use 1 New reactors planned/under construction 1 Electricity generated (net billion kWh) 9 Proportion of electricity from nuclear power 64% Lithuania is second only to France in its dependence on nuclear power for its electricity. The government pledged to close its Ignalina plant - based on the same design as Chernobyl - by 2009 as part of its negotiations to join the European Union. But in 2008, Lithuania's parliament voted to hold a referendum on whether to extend its life. In a bid to find a replacement, Lithuania invited Latvia, Estonia and Poland to build a new nuclear plant at Ignalina. The first reactor is expected come on line by 2018.

Reactors decommissioned/out of use 4 New reactors planned/under construction 1 Electricity generated (net billion kWh) 14 Proportion of electricity from nuclear power 32% Concerns over safety standards led Bulgaria to reluctantly close four of the six reactors at its Kozloduy plant before it joined the European Union at the start of 2007. Bulgaria's government is committed to pressing ahead with the construction of two new reactors at Belene on the Danube, which are due to come on line in 2014. It has said it might consider recommissioning some of the closed Kozloduy reactors if energy shortages became too acute in the meantime - a strategy firmly opposed by the EU. New reactors planned/under construction 1 Electricity generated (net billion kWh) 22 Proportion of electricity from nuclear power 29% In 2002, Finland's parliament voted to approve building a fifth nuclear power plant on economic, energy security and environmental grounds. The energy firm TVO won the bid to build the reactor at its existing facility in Olkiluoto, where it operates two others.

The reactor was due to be commissioned in 2009, but the project has been delayed until mid-2012. Plans for a sixth reactor were submitted to the government for approval in 2009. Finland's decision to expand nuclear power defied the general European trend of the past decade. Reactors decommissioned/out of use 1 Electricity generated (net billion kWh) 46 Proportion of electricity from nuclear power 54% In 2003, Belgium's parliament voted to phase out the country's nuclear power plants between 2015 and 2025. The law also prohibits the building of new nuclear power plants and limits the operational period of the existing plants to 40 years. If the law is implemented by the current government, Belgium's largest energy generator, Electrabel, will have to take initial steps regarding the shutdowns in 2009 or 2010. Belgium has seven nuclear reactors, four at the Doel power plant near Antwerp and three in the eastern town of Tihange.

Electricity generated (net billion kWh) 26 Proportion of electricity from nuclear power 39% In 1990, a 10-year moratorium on the construction of new nuclear plants in Switzerland was imposed after a national referendum. But 13 years later, voters firmly rejected proposals to phase out nuclear energy altogether or extend the moratorium. The Swiss government subsequently announced in 2007 that the existing five nuclear reactors would be replaced with new units. SLOVENIA Electricity generated (net billion kWh) 5 Proportion of electricity from nuclear power 42% Slovenia jointly owns the Krsko nuclear power plant with Croatia, which came on line in 1981 when the neighbours were still part of the former Yugoslavia. It generates about 15% of Croatia's total power supply. The construction of another reactor at Krsko by 2017 is currently under consideration. Croatia is also said to be looking at the feasibility of building a new plant near its border with Serbia. Sources: International Atomic Energy Agency, World Nuclear Association, International Nuclear Safety Center, European Nuclear Society Bookmark with:

Question: Which European country is committed to decommissioning all of its nuclear reactors?
Answer: Sweden