Link to the study - European Parliament - Europa

Policy Department D: Budgetary Affairs
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Enclose them for a certain time period (e.g. the complete primary circuit in the existing and
modified concrete structure, the reactor vessel or other large equipment in a specially designed
and built enclosure);
Ensure that no one can enter the structure and no activated material or contamination can leave
the structure;
Leave this structure for a certain time period;
Foresee a final step, in which the remaining materials are removed from the structure and either
released from regulatory control (if decayed to below the prescribed concentrations), or are cut,
conditioned and sent to the final disposal facility.
The aims pursued by including such a step in the scheme can be manifold, as are the associated risks:
Short-lived radionuclides decay during this period so that radiation fields (esp. gamma radiation)
during the final step are less relevant. This concerns exclusively short-lived nuclides such as
Cobalt-60, i.e. in activated steel structures. Other parts, mainly of the contaminated primary
cooling system, are contaminated with fission products (notably Cesium-137) and for these parts
decontamination has to be applied. Thus, such an aim only make sense in cases where the
material can be finally released from regulatory control or when the final step(s) can be
performed under considerably less complex conditions (e.g. without remote cutting) or where
the decayed material becomes suitable for 'less reliably isolating' final disposal facilities). There
are several risks and obstacles that can turn this aim to its opposite (e.g. materials with low
concentrations of nuclides with adverse measuring properties increase necessary measuring
efforts and expenses to be made, no nuclear shops able and willing to perform the final tasks are
available any more, neither experienced personnel nor regulatory means are available any more,
the disposal facilities and their waste acceptance criteria have changed considerably, release
criteria have changed to lower and more strict concentrations).
The costs for the final steps have to be borne at a later time. This argument is shortsighted if the
previously named risks are considered. The total costs over the whole decommissioning scheme,
with a long inactive enclosure period in between, can be considerably higher than those for
immediate decommissioning (e.g. with extra cost factors such as for re-building personnel,
expertise and regulatory administration from the very scratch, setting up specialized shops for
performing the final steps, finding/building/operating/closing an extra disposal facility for the
then-generated wastes).
Similarly, the hope that money spent only years later might reduce overall costs is short-sighted:
Only money that is explicitly set aside (as a reserve or fund) for that purpose can generate
interests over time, assuming that interest rates remain high enough over the complete time
period.
Only if the inflation rate is continuously smaller than those interest rates, might a reduction of
total costs be achieved.
Increases in labor costs, one of the cost factors in decommissioning, can outweigh much or all
of the interest.
42