Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SOME ASPECTS OF THE DECOMMISSIONING
OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
M. S. Khvostova1
Translated from Élektricheskie Stantsii, No. 10, October 2011, pp. 2 – 9.
The major factors influencing the choice of a national concept for the decommissioning of nuclear power
plants are examined. The operating lifetimes of power generating units with nuclear reactors of various types
(VVÉR-1000, VVÉR-440, RBMK-1000, ÉGP-6, and BN-600) are analyzed. The basic approaches to decom-
missioning Russian nuclear power plants and the treatment of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel are dis-
cussed. Major aspects of the ecological and radiation safety of personnel, surrounding populations, and the en-
vironment during decommissioning of nuclear installations are identified.
Keywords: nuclear power plants, decommissioning, reactor, power generation unit, radioactive waste, spent
nuclear fuel.
The natural disaster in Japan on March 11, 2011 caused
an accident at the Fukushima-1 nuclear power plant and has
become a landmark in the history of worldwide nuclear
power. Many countries with nuclear technologies, such as
Germany, Belgium, Italy, Switzerland, etc., are now reexam-
ining their plans for the use of nuclear power. This means
that, if a political decision is made to cease operating power
plants that have reached the end of their working lifetimes,
there will be massive decommissioning of these plants.
There are 439 power reactors in the world, of which half
(218) are concentrated in three countries, the USA, Japan,
and France. Nuclear power plants are operating in 29 out of a
total of approximately 200 countries. Today, 30% (166) of
the power generating units are more than 30 years old and
will soon require decommissioning, while 83% are more
than 20 years old.
A brief digression on the history of the problem. The
decommissioning of nuclear power plants is an inevitable
part of their life cycle. According to the regulatory document
OPB-88/97, the decommissioning of a nuclear power plant
involves a series of steps following the removal of nuclear
fuel to prevent use of the generator unit as an energy source
and ensure the safety of personnel, local populations, and the
environment [1].
Decommissioning can be for the following reasons [2]:
— completion of the planned service lifetime;
— accidents, after which operation is impossible or in-
appropriate;
— changes in reliability and operational safety speci-
fications which cannot or should not be satisfied with the
existing design;
— economic unsuitability for further operation; and,
— the political situation in the country.
All of these factors have already served as the reasons for
decisions to decommission nuclear power plants. Thus, the
first and second units at the Novovoronezhskaya nuclear
power plant (NPP) were finally halted after 20 years of work;
the first and second units of the Beloyarskaya NPP were
closed because it was uneconomical to update them follow-
ing damage to the equipment; unit A-1 of the Bohunice NPP
was decommissioned after an accident; the Armenian NPP
was closed because of changes in safety specifications for
NPPs; all plants with gas-graphite reactors in France were
stopped because they were uncompetitive with water-water
power units; and, the Ignalina and Nord NPPs were closed
for political reasons.
Worldwide practice has shown that decommissioning re-
quires substantial intellectual and material expenditure, bal-
anced planning, special standards and legal bases, careful or-
ganization, coordination and control of work, the creation of
special infrastructure, the development of innovative engi-
neering solutions, and highly qualified personnel [3 – 7].
During the Soviet period, a concept for the decommis-
sioning NPPs was created in 1984 by experts from Bulgaria,
Czechoslovakia, and the USSR, who then joined together to
form the International Economic Community for Scientific
and Technical Support of the Decommissioning of Nuclear
Power Plants (MKhT VAÉ), and completed in 1990.
In 1987 – 1988 an all-union scientific and technical pro-
gram for the decommissioning of NPPs was developed in the
USSR. This program included the work completed by the
MKhT VAÉ. The preparations for this program made use of
the experience of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy
Agency) and the countries of the OECD (Organization for
Power Technology and Engineering Vol. 45, No. 6, March, 2012
447
1570-145X�12�4506-0447 © 2012 Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.
1 Severodvinsk Branch, St. Petersburg State Maritime Technical University
(Sevmashvtuz), Severodvinsk, Arkhangel’sk Oblast’, Russia;
e-mail: [email protected]
Economic Cooperation and Development), along with spe-
cific aspects of Soviet power plants.
The program for decommissioning NPPs included safety,
ecological, social-economic, and health criteria, as well as
considerations of the level of development of the means for
technological support of the power generating units of NPPs,
the existence and characteristics of storage and burial sites
for radioactive waste with various levels of activity, and the
duration of the work. More than 40 organizations and enter-
prises and 15 ministries and agencies of the USSR partici-
pated in developing this program.
For a given NPP unit, in the stage of technical and eco-
nomic studies, they examined different decommissioning
variants and ultimately a final variant was chosen. A techni-
cal basis for realizing (in principle) the chosen variant was
developed and the work to be done was analyzed in terms of
engineering and economics. Here the costs of labor, material,
and financial resources, as well as the collective equivalent
radiation dose for personnel, were taken into account.
In worldwide practice there are three ways of decommis-
sioning NPPs:
— delayed dismantling — reliable preservation fol-
lowed by dismantling;
— prompt dismantling — complete removal; and,
— an intermediate variant — partial dismantling (partial
removal and reliable preservation of the remaining radioac-
tive components).
Prompt dismantling has a number of advantages: the per-
sonnel and engineering equipment from the NPP can be used
for the dismantling. Delayed dismantling has a major disad-
vantage: after a term of 40 years people with a different tech-
nological culture will have come to a plant, so that some in-
formation about the plant will inevitably be lost. On the other
hand, in the case of delayed dismantling, over a prolonged
period of storage of reactors that are no longer running, new
technologies and engineering solutions will be developed
which will make the work more efficient.
Factors which affect the choice of a particular variant
include:
(a) the existence of a depository for final burial of the re-
actor components, lack of financial means for direct re-
moval, reducing radioactivity, and expenses for the develop-
ment and conditioning of radioactive waste, and
(b) the possibility of using and applying the experience
of operating personnel at a nuclear energy installation, the in-
frastructure and engineering equipment at the plant, the li-
censing conditions, avoidance of expense to monitor and
maintain the unit if safe conservation is chosen, and reuse of
the plant site.
Decommissioning power generating units at NPPs in
Russia. Today 10 NPPs with 32 power generating units
(reactors) are operating in Russia; of these, 4 are being pre-
pared for decommissioning and 6 power generating units are
under construction. Of the power generating units, 16 are
equipped with VVÉR reactors (6 VVÉR-440 and 10 VVÉR-
1000), 11 with RBMK-1000 reactors, 4 with ÉGP reactors
(Bilibinskaya nuclear heating and electric power plant), and
1 with a BN-600 fast neutron reactor (the third unit at the Be-
loyarskaya NPP).
The operational problems with nuclear energy are related
to massive ageing of the power generating units (reactors) at
first-generation NPPs, for which the design lifetime is 30
years. These units were created with designs from the 1960’s
in accordance with general industrial standards; there was
a very narrow agency standards base for nuclear power and
limited experience with the operation of power reactors. In
addition, the power generation units with VVÉR-440 reac-
tors in the V-230 design (also built in a number of countries
in eastern Europe) had a number of differences from interna-
tional practice, which led to problems in validating their
safety. Thus, in Russia the design service lifetime of 16 oper-
ating power generation units with a combined power of
9.4 GW should end by 2011 (Table 1).
11 power generating units (reactors) have been operating
for 21 to 30 years, and 15, for 31 to 40 years (Fig. 1).
Figure 2 shows that only four of the generating units
with VVÉR-1000 reactors have been operating for between
1 and 20 years. The other 12 units with VVÉR-1000 and
VVÉR-440 reactors have been operating for between 21 and
40 years.
The situation appears much more serious with regard to
the times the power generation units with RBMK-1000,
BN-600, and ÉGP-6 reactors have been running (Fig. 3). Of
the 16 units with type RBMK-1000, BN-600, and ÉGP-6 re-
actors, 15 have been operating for between 21 and 40 years.
Thus, an analysis of the data in Figs. 2 and 3 indicates
that the procedure for decommissioning should apply first to
the units with RBMK-1000, BN-600, and ÉGP-6 reactors.
Experts estimate, however, that the conservative approach
used in designing the first generation of reactors and the
experience of operating them for many years means that it
may be possible to extend their operating lifetimes through
modernization and engineering modifications.
448 M. S. Khvostova
From 1 to 10 years
From 11 to 20 years
From 21 to 30 years
From 31 to 40 years
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Num
ber
of
un
its
Fig. 1. Operating lifetimes of all power generation units in Russian
NPPs (as of June 1, 2011).
Nevertheless, aside from completion of the federal pro-
gram “Development of the nuclear energy industrial complex
during 2007 – 2010 and on to 2015” for the construction of
new power generating units at NPPs [8], over the next
15 years Russia faces the need to solve the large-scale prob-
lem of preparing and decommissioning the first generation of
power reactors. During the period from 2016 through 2020,
eight power generating units (the third and fourth units at the
Novovoronezhskaya NPP, and the first and second units at
the Kola, Bilibinskaya, and Leningradskaya plants) will have
to be decommissioned.
According to Russian standards documents (OPB-
88�97), a decommission project must be submitted to the
supervisory agencies 5 years before the end of design operat-
ing lifetime of a unit, whether its service life is to be
extended or not. In this regard, plans have been developed
for the decommissioning of the first and second units of the
Kola and the third and fourth units of the Novovoronezh-
skaya NPPs.
According to the Russian plan, the decommissioning of a
VVÉR-440 reactor will take 12.5 years from the time it is
shut down. The number of personnel participating in the pre-
paratory and direct work for the decommissioning will be
375, and the total amount of work is estimated to be 2920
man-years. The structure of the costs for decommissioning of
a unit with a VVÉR-440 reactor is given here [9] (millions of
dollars, with percentages in parentheses):
Planning and management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.17 (1)
Preparation for decommissioning . . . . . . . . . . . 16.25 (9)
Handling activated materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.53 (5)
Some Aspects of the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants 449
Characteristics of Russian NPPs in operation and under construction (as of June 2011)
Nuclear power plant Unit No. Reactor type Power, MW Year brought on line Designed end of service lifetime Generation of reactor
Balakovskaya 1 VVÉR-1000 1000 1985 2015 2
2 1000 1987 2017 2
3 1000 1988 2018 2
4 1000 1993 2023 3
Beloyarskaya 3 BN-600 600 1980 2010* 2
4 BN-800 800 2014 Under construction 2
Bilibinskaya 1 ÉGP-6 12 1974 2009** 1
2 12 1974 2009** 1
3 12 1975 2010** 1
4 12 1976 2011** 1
Volgodonsk 1 VVÉR-1000 1000 2002 2032 3
2 1000 2010 2040 3
3 1000 2015 Under construction 3
Kalininskaya 1 VVÉR-1000 1000 1984 2014 2
2 1000 1986 2016 2
3 1000 2005 2035 2
4 1000 2014 Under construction 3
Kola 1 VVÉR-440 440 1973 2008** 1
2 440 1974 2009** 1
3 440 1979 2009* 2
4 440 1981 2011 2
Kursk 1 RBMK-1000 1000 1976 2011** 1
2 1000 1979 2009* 1
3 1000 1983 2013 2
4 1000 1985 2015 2
Leningradskaya 1 RBMK-1000 1000 1973 2008** 1
2 1000 1975 2010** 1
3 1000 1979 2009* 2
4 1000 1981 2011 2
Leningradskaya-2 1 VVÉR-1200 1200 2015 Under construction 3+
Novovoronezhskaya 3 VVÉR-440 417 1971 2016 1
4 417 1972 2017 1
Novovoronezhskaya-2 5 VVÉR-1000 1000 1980 2010* 2
1 VVÉR-1200 1200 2014 Under construction 3+
Smolensk 1 RBMK-1000 1000 1982 2012 2
2 1000 1985 2015 2
3 1000 1990 2020 2
Baltiiskaya 1 VVÉR-1200 1200 2016 Under construction 3+
* At present the operating lifetimes of units with RBMK-1000, first generation VVÉR-440, and BN-600 have been extended by 15 years, and
those with second generation VVÉR-440 and VVÉR-1000 reactors, by 20 years.
** An extension of the operating lifetime by 15 years has been proposed and a license granted for 5 years.
Disassembly of radioactive equipment . . . . . . . 66.54 (39)
Packing radioactive waste in containers . . . . . . . . 2.04 (1)
Radioactive waste handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.00 (6)
Ongoing expenses (consumable materials, instruments, energy
carriers, etc.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.00 (36)
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166.53 (100)
The cost of work for decommissioning a VVÉR-440 unit
is given in 1989 dollars assuming that the unit is in a normal,
nonemergency state.
The Finnish company “Imatran Voima,” which owns and
operates the Lovisa NPP (based on a Soviet design), has also
developed a plan for decommissioning the first unit at the
plant (the main unit was started up in 1977).
Comparing the Russian and Finnish plans, it can be seen
that their estimates of the total amount of work, efforts to
deal with radioactive waste, time to complete disassembly,
and other items are essentially the same. The radiation dose
to personnel from all phases of decommissioning the plants
is estimated on the basis of the plans, calculations, and analy-
ses. The collective doses in man-sieverts during decommis-
sioning of the Lovisa NPP are given here [9]:
Preparatory work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8
Deactivation of primary loop. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.12
Handling of activated material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.88
Handling of contaminated material
in the reactor building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.38
at other sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.85
Plant personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.87
Work not accounted for (10%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.10
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.00
Uranium-graphite power reactors developed from indus-
trial reactors for the production of plutonium for weapons
came into widespread use in the USSR. In all, 21 reactors of
this type (17 RBMK and 4 ÉGP-6) were built. Elsewhere,
this type of reactor design was little developed, so that there
is no international experience with decommissioning them.
At present 11 units with RBMK-type reactors are cur-
rently in operation in Russia, including 3 of the first genera-
tion, which were brought on line during 1973 – 1976, which
have undergone extensive modernization with an extension
of their service lifetimes by 15 years. It should be noted that,
while there is a possibility of further extension of the service
lifetime of VVÉR reactors (in the US it has been extended to
60 years for similar types), this is not possible for RBMK re-
actors. This is explained by degradation of the properties of
the graphite lining of the reactor under neutron irradiation.
Experimental studies of graphite have been confirmed by
computational models. Graphite retains its properties under
neutron bombardment for 48 – 53 years [10].
The need to utilize graphite imposes an uncertainty on
strategies for the decommissioning of RBMK reactors. The
mass of the graphite lining in an RBMK-1000 reactor is
1700 tons. The activity of the graphite lining is determined
by the long-lived (half life 5400 years) isotope 14C which
represents 95% of the activity of the graphite. At present
there are no engineering methods or industrial technologies
for conditioning radioactively contaminated graphite prior to
the burial stage.
In Lithuania (Ignalina NPP) a concept for disassembly
without delay after removal of the fuel to dry storage has
been adopted. It is planned to package (on site) the graphite
lining as a radioactive waste storage site. The graphite lining
has to be preserved because there is no technology for repro-
cessing irradiated graphite. This approach has also been
adopted for the first and second units of the Beloyarskaya
NPP (AMB uranium-graphite reactors) [2].
Thus, the basic scheme for decommissioning RBMK-
1000 reactors is the variant involving long-term (after re-
moval of spent nuclear fuel) storage. Prolonged, safe storage
is provided by the existing barriers which will be further
sealed. Long-term storage is consistent with the principle of
gradual dismantling of a reactor, which permits the use of op-
timal solutions, in terms of safety and minimal cost, in every
450 M. S. Khvostova
From 1 to 10 years
From 11 to 20 years
From 21 to 30 years
From 31 to 40 years
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
VVÉR-1000VVÉR-440
Num
ber
of
un
its
Fig. 2. Operating lifetimes of Russian NPPs with VVÉR-1000 and
VVÉR-440 reactors (as of June 1, 2011).
From 1 to 10 years
From 11 to 20 years
From 21 to 30 years
From 31 to 40 years
0
1
2
3
4
5
RBMK-1000BN-600
ÉGP-6
Num
ber
of
un
its
Fig. 3. Operating lifetimes of Russian NPPs with RBMK-1000,
BN-600, and ÉGP-6 reactors (as of June 1, 2011).
stage of the work. This means that corrective steps can be
taken when new technologies are developed.
Economic aspects of the decommissioning of reactors
at NPPs. All the matters of relevance to the near-term de-
commissioning of Russian power reactors were developed
during the period of state management and centrally planned
economics. Insufficient attention was devoted to questions
(especially financial) of their decommissioning. It was
assumed that all the problems and questions that might arise
would be solved by central planning and support. Thus, spe-
cial funding and the accumulation of means for decommis-
sioning of NPPs were not provided, as is the case in the west.
The cost of decommissioning a NPP depends on many
factors besides the power of the generating unit, how long
it has operated, and the time to final shutdown (mainly, the
type and state of the nuclear power installation, problems as-
sociated with the processing and storage of residual materi-
als, radiation protection standards, personnel costs, and the
work schedule). The overall cost of decommissioning and
disassembling a single nuclear power generating unit is esti-
mated to be approximately 20 – 30% of the cost of construct-
ing a new plant. The expenses are significantly influenced by
local national characteristics, such as the amount of work
required and the means for dealing with radioactive waste.
The overall cost depends to a great extent on the amount of
radioactive waste, (5 – 20) × 103 tons, and the methods for
processing it and separating it from waste for reuse.
All work on the decommissioning of NPPs is financed
by a reserve for support of decommissioning that is made up
of deductions from the income received by the company JSC
“Kontsern “Rosénergoatom” for goods and services. At pres-
ent, the standard charge is 1.6%, which is clearly insufficient.
The money in the reserve for support of decommissioning
will be spent only to finance work on decommissioning,
exclusive of costs for social and other programs. The con-
struction of a centralized long-term storage site for spent
nuclear fuel from RBMK-1000 reactors is being financed by
the federal budget.
The need to raise the deductions to 2.2% in order to fill
the reserve is under discussion. An additional source of
money for the reserve for the decommissioning of NPPs is
extending the service lifetime of the reactors. American ex-
perience has shown that, with minor costs for modernizing
operating reactor units (8 – 10% of the cost of building new
units), an additional income can be assured over a fairly long
time.
The inadequate standard for these deductions was based
on theoretical recommendations from the IAEA. Estimates
by experts from the IAEA in the early 1990’s indicated that
the cost of decommissioning a NPP would be about 12% of
the cost of its construction [11]. Actual decommissioning
projects for NPPs have shown that this estimate was far too
low and that the actual costs are about 37% of the cost of a
new installation [2].
Based on international experience, the IAEA subse-
quently developed a document devoted to the economics of
decommissioning VVÉR-440 reactors. All the countries op-
erating this type of reactor participated in this international
project. The costs were estimated using a unified financial
technique from the IAEA and the nuclear energy agency of
the OECD. At present, this report is the most complete and
detailed document dealing with this problem [11].
An analysis shows that the average cost of decommis-
sioning a unit with a VVÉR-440 reactor is 350 million dol-
lars for prompt disassembly after 40 years of operation (in
2002 dollars).
These data include a large amount of uncertainty associ-
ated with national policies regarding the treatment of radio-
active waste, the level of technology, etc. It is difficult to ap-
ply international experience to Russian practice for many
reasons. Thus, preparatory work for the decommissioning of
the Beloyarskaya NPP has been underway here for 20 years
and substantial costs have already been incurred.
Radioactive waste during the decommissioning of
NPPs and the treatment of radioactive wastes. The
amount of radioactive waste increases significantly during
decommissioning of NPPs and has a very serious effect on
the overall situation with regard to radioactive waste. The
creation of a single, efficient system for treatment of radio-
active waste is a fundamental task for the decommissioning
of NPPs.
Three groups of solid radioactive waste (with large
volumes, different activities, and a number of specific prop-
erties) can be distinguished during decommissioning of
NPPs — metallic waste produced during demolition of
equipment, structural material waste, and waste produced
during demolition of protective barriers.
The activity of the structures in a decommissioned
VVÉR-440 reactor is approximately 2.5 million Ci, includ-
ing an activity of 1.2 million Ci inside the reactor vessel. The
mass of the reactor structures and in-vessel components is
about 300 tons [2].
The metallic waste produced during demolition of
piping, armatures, etc., are of medium and low activity. Their
activity is determined mainly by corrosion products and
ranges from 1 × 10–8 to 1 × 10–4 Ci�kg. In addition, about 14
thousand tons of metallic solid radioactive waste and about
10 thousand tons of contaminated concrete are produced
during decommissioning of a unit with a VVÉR-440 reactor.
This is all waste from structural materials and protective bar-
riers [12].
The situation with solid radioactive wastes is more com-
plicated during decommissioning of RBMK-1000 reactors.
During disassembly of a power plant with an RBMK-1000
reactor, the amount of waste that must be buried includes
about 100 thousand tons of concrete and 10 tons of steel with
a combined activity of 1.8 million Ci. Besides the solid me-
tallic and structural material waste, about 1700 tons of radio-
active graphite has to be salvaged, as there is no technology
available anywhere for reprocessing it.
The liquid radioactive wastes produced during decom-
missioning of NPPs include the following:
Some Aspects of the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants 451
— solutions from deactivation and washing of equip-
ment and sites, 25,000 m3;
— water discharged from reactor systems, 1000 m3;
— water from decontamination points, sanitary basins,
and special laundries, 30,000 m3;
— pearlite slurries, ion exchange resins, sediments,
200 m3; and
— vat residues, condensate from evaporation of liquid
radioactive wastes, 20,000 m3.
These are low-activity waste materials, with bulk spe-
cific activities ranging from 1 × 10–6 to 1 × 10–4 Ci�liter, and
the total volume of waste in this group is up to 100,000 m3.
The different types of reactors in NPPs have different
fuel cycles because of the variety of physical and technical
characteristics of the fuels that are used. About 19.7 thou-
sand tons of spent nuclear fuel, including fuel from transport
and research reactors, have accumulated thus far in Russia.
At present the following ways of dealing with spent reac-
tor fuel are operative:
— reprocessing of spent fuel from VVÉR-440 to fabri-
cate fuel for RBMK reactors and close the fuel cycle;
— temporary storage of spent fuel from VVÉR-1000 re-
actors for subsequent fabrication into mixed uranium-pluto-
nium fuel; and
— temporary on-site storage of spent fuel from RBMK
reactors. At present it is not economically efficient to regen-
erate it, and reprocessing can only be done if there is a sharp
increase in the price of natural uranium [2, 12].
The remaining principle for financing a system to deal
with radioactive waste has always been a basic part of the de-
velopment of nuclear power in the USSR and later in Russia.
Until recently, none of the schemes for dealing with radioac-
tive waste have aimed to solve the problem definitively,
since they have been based on the principle of a delayed so-
lution, which meant, in practice, that any scheme for dealing
with radioactive waste was limited to the stages of collecting
and temporary storage of unconditioned waste, while spent
reactor fuel that was not to be reprocessed was stored tempo-
rarily where it was produced, i.e., at sites located in the cor-
responding NPPs.
The company JSC “Kontsern “Rosénergoatom” has pre-
pared a proposal for a Federal law on dealing with radioac-
tive waste and sent it for approval to the relevant ministries
and agencies. This proposal sets up legal bases for actions in
the treatment of these wastes, and determines the principles,
system, and order of financing for dealing with radioactive
wastes. It envisions the creation of a unified government sys-
tem for controlling the handling of radioactive wastes, which
will solve a number of problems in this area.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The decommissioning of NPPs is an important, self-
contained, technological and scientific problem relating
to the use of nuclear energy, both in Russia and in other
countries.
2. Each country that has developed nuclear technology
each its own national concepts for the management of nu-
clear plants when they are no longer operational. These con-
cepts have specific features that reflect historical, national,
territorial, technological, social-economic, and other condi-
tions, including public opinion. There are a number of com-
mon approaches, typical of all countries, in the choice of
ways of decommissioning and the need to obtain licenses
from regulatory agencies to complete the work, which
requires the preparation of a report on the safety of the
decommissioning.
3. In Russia, the decommissioning of NPPs specifically
involves the widespread use of uranium-graphite reactors.
The need to salvage the contaminated graphite from them
imposes an uncertainty in any project. For this reason, the
basic mode of decommissioning RBMK-1000 reactors is
long-term storage.
4. Over the time in which work will be under way to
extend the service lifetimes of NPPs, i.e., over the next 10 –
15 years, it will be necessary to undertake the formulation of
basic design and engineering decisions, and, based on these,
to prepare for industrial-scale decommissioning of nuclear
energy installations.
In addition, it is also necessary to create a centralized
federal system for controlling the activity of specialized
enterprises dealing with the collection, reprocessing, and
storage of radioactive waste and spent reactor fuel, and also
to develop and bring the new laws entitled “on the treatment
of radioactive waste” and “on the treatment of spent nuclear
fuel” into force.
5. The most important factors influencing the ecological
and radiation safety of personnel, the general population, and
the environment during decommissioning of nuclear installa-
tions are the following:
— structural features of NPP designs;
— qualitative and quantitative estimates of the radio-
activity accumulated during operation of nuclear plants, as
well as the composition of the characteristic dose-producing
isotopes;
— engineering and ecological aspects of dealing with
spent nuclear fuel and radioactive wastes;
— engineering and ecological analysis of methods for
demolition and deactivation of equipment;
— dose burdens for personnel and the problems of or-
ganizing and conducting radiation monitoring of work on the
demolition of equipment;
— radioactive contamination of NPP sites; and
— the preparation of personnel for work on the decom-
missioning of reactors.
REFERENCES
1. PNAÉ G-01-011–97. General Aspects of Safety at Nuclear
Plants. OPB-88�97 [in Russian].
452 M. S. Khvostova
2. V. M. Kuznetsov, Kh. D. Chechenov, and V. S. Nikitin, Decom-
missioning Nuclear Energy Installations [in Russian], Izd. JSC
“NIPKTs Voskhod-A,” Moscow (2009).
3. O. Bodrov, O. Muratov, et al., Concepts for Decommissioning of
NPPs at the End of Their Service Lifetimes: A Proposal from
Social Environmental Organizations [in Russian], St. Petersburg
(2007).
4. A. F. Nechaev, “Thoughts on the decommissioning of nuclear in-
stallations,” Atom. Strategiya, XXI(8), 13 (2004).
5. Concept for the Decommissioning of Industrial Uranium-Graph-
ite Reactors. Decree of the Federal Agency for Atomic Energy,
February 4, 2005 [in Russian], VNIPIÉT, St. Petersburg (2005).
6. V. M. Kuznetsov, “What does the experience of others teach us?”
Mir. Énerg., No. 5 (2005).
7. V. M. Kuznetsov, “A dangerous age,” Mir. Énerg., Nos. 7 – 8
(2005).
8. Federal Targeted Program “The Development of the Nuclear
Energy Industrial Complex of Russia during 2007 – 2010 and
looking toward 2015.” Decree of the Government of the Russian
Federation of October 6, 2006, No. 605 [in Russian].
9. É. Maier, “Working plan for the decommissioning of the Lovisa
NPP,” Atomn. Énerg., 67(2), (1989).
10. V. S. Radchenkov, A. V. Subotin, P. A. Platonov, et al., “Evalu-
ating the state and predicting the lifetime of the graphite lining
of RBMK reactors,” in: Abstrs. of Talks at the Jubilee Int. Sci.
and Tech. Conf. “Experience in the Construction of Nuclear
Reactors,” Moscow, May 27 – 28, 2002 [in Russian], Izd. FGUP
NIKIÉT, Moscow (2002).
11. Nuclear Power Reactors in the World. Issue 2, IAEA, Vienna
(2002).
12. O. E. Muratov, V. V. Dovgusha, and M. N. Tikhonov, “Radio-
ecological aspects of handling radioactive wastes and irradiated
nuclear fuel,” Ékol. Ékspert., No. 6 (2007).
Some Aspects of the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants 453
