Nuclear decommissioning is the process whereby a nuclear facility is dismantled to the point that it no longer requires measures for radiation protection. The presence of radioactive material necessitates processes that are potentially occupationally hazardous, expensive, time-intensive, and present environmental risks that must be addressed to ensure radioactive materials are either transported elsewhere for storage or stored on-site in a safe manner. The challenge in nuclear decommissioning is not just technical, but also economical and social.
Decommissioning is an administrative and technical process. It includes clean-up of radioactive materials and progressive demolition of the facility. Once a facility is fully decommissioned, no radiological danger should persist. The costs of decommissioning are generally spread over the lifetime of a facility and saved in a decommissioning fund. After a facility has been completely decommissioned, it is released from regulatory control and the plant licensee is no longer responsible for its nuclear safety. Decommissioning may proceed all the way to "greenfield" status.
Nuclear decommissioning is the administrative and technical process whereby a nuclear facility such as a nuclear power plant (NPP), a research reactor, an isotope production plant, a particle accelerator, or uranium mine is dismantled to the point that it no longer requires measures for radiation protection. The progressive demolition of buildings and removal of radioactive material is potentially occupationally hazardous, expensive, time-intensive, and presents environmental risks that must be addressed to ensure radioactive materials are either transported elsewhere for storage or stored on-site in a safe manner.[better source needed] Decommissioning may proceed all the way to "greenfield status". Once a facility is decommissioned no radioactive danger persists and it can be released from regulatory control.
The International Atomic Energy Agency defines three options for decommissioning:
- Immediate Dismantling (Early Site Release/Decon in the United States) allows for the facility to be removed from regulatory control relatively soon after shutdown. Final dismantling or decontamination activities begin within a few months or years, and depending on the facility, it could take five years or more. After being removed from regulatory control, the site becomes available for unrestricted use.
- Safe Enclosure (or Safestor(e) Safstor) postpones the final decommissioning for a longer period, usually 40 to 60 years. The nuclear facility is placed into a safe storage configuration during this time.
- Entombment/Entomb involves placing the facility in a condition that allows the remaining radioactive material to remain on-site indefinitely. The size of the area where the radioactive material is located is generally minimized and the facility is encased in a long-lived material such as concrete, with the aim of preventing a release of radioactive material.
The decommission of a nuclear reactor can only take place after the appropriate licence has been granted pursuant to the relevant legislation. As part of the licensing procedure, various documents, reports and expert opinions have to be written and delivered to the competent authority, e.g. safety report, technical documents and an environmental impact study (EIS).
In the European Union these documents are the basis for the environmental impact assessment (EIA) according to Council Directive 85/337/EEC. A precondition for granting such a licence is an opinion by the European Commission according to Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty. Article 37 obliges every Member State of the European Union to communicate certain data relating to the release of radioactive substances to the Commission. This information must reveal whether and if so what radiological impacts decommissioning – planned disposal and accidental release – will have on the environment, i.e. water, soil or airspace, of the EU Member States. On the basis of these general data, the Commission must be in a position to assess the exposure of reference groups of the population in the nearest neighbouring states.
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (December 2017)
This section needs additional citations for verification. (December 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
In the United States, the NRC recommends that the costs of decommissioning should be spread over the lifetime of a facility and saved in a decommissioning fund. Repository delay seems to be effective in reducing NPP decommissioning costs.
In France, decommissioning of Brennilis Nuclear Power Plant, a fairly small 70 MW power plant, already cost €480 million (20x the estimate costs) and is still pending after 20 years. Despite the huge investments in securing the dismantlement, radioactive elements such as plutonium, caesium-137 and cobalt-60 leaked out into the surrounding lake.
In the UK, decommissioning of the Windscale Advanced gas cooled reactor (WAGR), a 32 MW prototype power plant, cost €117 million. A 2013 estimate by the United Kingdom's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority predicted costs of at least £100 billion to decommission the 19 existing United Kingdom nuclear sites.
New methods for decommissioning have been developed in order to minimize the usual high decommissioning costs. One of these methods is in situ decommissioning (ISD), meaning that the reactor is entombed instead of dismantled. This method was implemented at the U.S. Department of Energy Savannah River Site in South Carolina for the closures of the P and R Reactors. With this tactic, the cost of decommissioning both reactors was $73 million. In comparison, the decommissioning of each reactor using traditional methods would have been an estimated $250 million. This results in a 71% decrease in cost by using ISD.
In 2004, in a meeting in Vienna, the International Atomic Energy Agency estimated the total cost for the decommissioning of all nuclear facilities. Decommissioning of all nuclear power reactors in the world would require US$187 billion; US$71 billion for fuel cycle facilities; less than US$7 billion for all research reactors; and US$640 billion for dismantling all military reactors for the production of weapons-grade plutonium, research fuel facilities, nuclear reprocessing chemical separation facilities, etc. The total cost to decommission the nuclear fission industry in the World (from 2001 to 2050) was estimated at around US$1 trillion.
In Europe there is considerable concern over the funds necessary to finance final decommissioning. In many countries either the funds do not appear sufficient to cover decommissioning and in other countries decommissioning funds are used for other activities, putting decommissioning at risk, and distorting competition with parties who do not have such funds available.
In 2016 the European Commission assessed that European Union's nuclear decommissioning liabilities were seriously underfunded by about 118 billion euros, with only 150 billion euros of earmarked assets to cover 268 billion euros of expected decommissioning costs covering both dismantling of nuclear plants and storage of radioactive parts and waste. France had the largest shortfall with only 23 billion euros of earmarked assets to cover 74 billion euros of expected costs.
Similar concerns exist in the United States, where the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has located apparent decommissioning funding assurance shortfalls and requested 18 power plants to address that issue. The decommissioning cost of Small modular reactors is expected to be twice as much respect to Large Reactors.
Organizations that promote the international sharing of information, knowledge, and experiences related to nuclear decommissioning include the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development's Nuclear Energy Agency and the European Atomic Energy Community. In addition, an online system called the Deactivation and Decommissioning Knowledge Management Information Tool was developed under the United States Department of Energy and made available to the international community to support the exchange of ideas and information. The goals of international collaboration in nuclear decommissioning are to reduce decommissioning costs and improve worker safety.
List of inactive or decommissioned civil nuclear reactors
A wide range of nuclear facilities have been decommissioned so far. The number of decommissioned nuclear reactors out of the List of nuclear reactors is small. As of 2016, 150 nuclear reactors were shut-off, in several early and intermediate stages (cold shut-down, defueling, SAFSTOR, internal demolition), but only 17 have been taken to fully "greenfield status". Some of these sites still host spent nuclear fuel in the form of dry casks embedded in concrete filled steel drums.
Several nuclear engineering and building demolition companies specialize in nuclear decommissioning, which has become a profitable business. More recently, construction and demolition companies in the UK have also begun to develop nuclear decommissioning services. Due to the radioactivity in the reactor structure (specially with high neutron-flux), decommissioning takes place in stages. Plans for decommissioning reactors have a time frame of decades. The long time frame makes reliable cost estimates difficult and cost overruns are common even for "quick" projects.
As of 2017, most nuclear plants operating in the United States were designed for a life of about 30–40 years and are licensed to operate for 40 years by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The average age of these reactors is 32 years. Many plants are coming to the end of their licensing period and if their licenses are not renewed, they must go through a decontamination and decommissioning process.
|Country||Location||Reactor type||Operative life||Decommissioning
|Austria||Zwentendorf||PWR 723 MWe||Never activated due to referendum in 1978|
|Belgium||SCK•CEN – BR3,
located at Mol, Belgium
|PWR (BR-3)||25 years
|Decon completed (2011)
European pilot project
(underwater cutting and remote operated tools) 
Units 1, 2, 3, 4
(4 x 408 MWe)
| Reactors 1,2 closed in 2003,
reactors 3,4 closed in 2006
by European Union)
(between 1966 and 1973)
|"Static state" since 1986||stage two:[clarification needed] |
Units A2, A3
8 x 542 MWe
(from 1974 to 2004)
|Two units currently in "cold standby"
Decommissioning to begin in 2020
|calculated:[clarification needed] |
|China||Beijing (CIAE)||HWWR 10 MWe (multipurpose Heavy Water Experimental Reactor for the production of plutonium and tritium)||49 years
|SAFSTOR until 2027||proposed: $6 million for dismantling |
$5 million for fuel remotion
|France||Brennilis||HWGCR 70 MWe||12 years
(fire during decommissioning in 2015) 
|already spent €480 million |
(20 times the forecasted amount) 
Gas cooled, graphite moderator
Units 1, 2, 3
|France||Chooz-A||PWR 300 MW||24 years
|Fully decommissioned – Greenfield
(Nuclear reactor was located inside a mountain cave)
Fast breeder nuclear reactor
| 1983: Defuelling
1987: Remotion of neutron reflectors
of sodium coolant
Accident when cleaning residual sodium in vessel with ethyl carbitol (March 31° 1994)
| The removed activity is estimated to around 4800 TBq.|
600 TBq (60Co) in 1990 still contained in 1ry vessel
Fast breeder nuclear reactor
|1) Defuelled||estimated for the future: |
|Fast breeder nuclear reactor
2) Extraction of Sodium
Pipe cutting with a robot 
|estimated for the future: |
Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
5 x 408 MWe
| Reactors 1–5 closed in 1989/1990,
reactor 6: finished but never operated
Safstor (underwater cutting)
Units 1, 2, 3, 4
(4 x 1000 MWe)
(1st reactor 85% completed)
demolished with explosives)
(Structure in exhibition
|India||Rajasthan Atomic Power Station
|PHWR 100 MWe (similar to CANDU)||44 years
|BWR 40 MWe
Nuclear reactor with weapons-grade plutonium production capability
|(Destroyed by Israeli Air Force in 1981)||Not radioactive: never supplied with uranium|
|3 years
(1978 – Closed in 1987 after referendum in 1986)
|SAFSTOR: 30 years
|€450 million (dismantling) |
+ €300 million (fuel reprocessing)
|Closed on March 1, 1982||SAFSTOR: 30 years
|Italy||Latina (Foce Verde)||Magnox
210 MWe Gas-graphite
(1962 – Closed in 1986 after referendum)
|SAFSTOR: 30 years
|Italy||Trino Vercellese||PWR Westinghouse,
(Closed in 1986 after referendum)
|SAFSTOR: 30 years
|BWR 439 MWe||November 17, 1970 - March 11, 2011||Since 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami of March 11
|Estimated at ¥10 trillion (US$100 billion) for decontaminating Fukushima and dismantling all reactors in Japan and considering long time damage to environment and economy, including agriculture, cattle breeding, fishery, water potabilization, tourism, lost of reputation in the world |
(without considering further health care spending and reduction of life expectancy).
|BWR 760 MWe||December 24, 1973 - March 11, 2011|
|BWR 760 MWe||October 26, 1974 - March 11, 2011|
|BWR 760 MWe||February 24, 1978 - March 11, 2011||Since March 11, 2011
Reactor defueled when tsunami hit
Damage to spent fuel cooling-pool
|BWR 760 MWe||September 22, 1977 - March 11, 2011||Planned decommissioning
Cold shutdown since March 11, 2011
|BWR 1067 MWe||May 4, 1979 - March 11, 2011||Planned decommissioning
Cold shutdown since March 11, 2011
|BWR 1067 MWe||July 31, 1981 - 11 March 2011||Planned decommissioning
Cold shutdown since March 11, 2011
|Japan||Fugen ||Advanced thermal reactor
(MOX fuel core,
|1979 – 2003||Cold shutdown |
|Magnox (GCR) 160 MWe||1966 – 1998||Safstore: 10 years
(€660 million of 2003)
(reactor for the production of nuclear weapons through PUREX treatment)
Deactivated after a treaty
|SAFSTOR: cooling tower dismantled|
SAFSTOR: 40 years
|PUREX plant for
|Several severe incidents
| Three plutonium reactors
Plant for uranium enrichment
|Two fast-breeder reactors closed (of three),
after disarmaments agreements with USA in 2003.
Units 1, 2
2 X 440 MWe
|Spain ||José Cabrera||PWR
1 x 160 MWe
Objective: green field in 2018
|Spain||Santa María de Garoña
1 x 466 MWe
(by Dutch RDM)
|1966 - 2013
(possible restart, since reactor vessel
is in good conditions)
Asked for renewal of license, until 2031 
fire in a turbogenerator
|SAFSTOR: 30 years
|Phases 1 and 2: €93 million|
Units 1, 2
|BWR 2 x 615 MW|| Reactor 1: 24 years 1975 – 1999
Reactor 2: 28 years 1977 – 2005
|SAFSTOR: demolition will begin in 2020||The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority has assessed that the costs for decommissioning and final disposal for the Swedish nuclear power industry may be underestimated by SKB by at least 11 billion Swedish crowns ($1.63 billion)|
|Switzerland||LUCENS||8,3 MWe CO2-heavy water
Incident: fire in 1969
|Entombment for ? years
SAFSTOR and Decon: 24 years
(Light water pool)
|In public display since inauguration|
then graphite fire (1986)
(armed concrete "sarcophagus")
|Past: ? |
Future: riding sarcophagus in steel
(2 x 138 MWe)
|SAFSTOR: 30 years
2 x 121 MWe
|1962–2002||SAFSTOR: 30 years
(PFR was a pool-type fast breeder reactor, cooled by liquid sodium, fueled with MOX).
250 MWe. (Research facility of UKAEA)
|1974 – 1994
(with average 26.9% load)
Delays and reliability problems before reaching full power.
|Remotely operated robot 'Reactorsaurus' will be sent in to decontaminate equipment as too dangerous a task for a human. Control panel has been earmarked for an exhibition at London Science Museum (2016). |
4 x 60 MWe
first nuclear power station.
|August 27, 1956 – March 31, 2003 (World's first nuclear power station to generate electrical power on an industrial scale ) The first reactor had been in use for 47 years.||SAFSTOR: 30 years
4 x 60 MWe
("sister reactor" to Calderhall)
|1959 – 2004||SAFSTOR: 30 years
Research area of
1958 to 1990.
|All nine reactors mostly dismantled|
|United States||Crystal River 3
Plant scheduled to restart in April 2011, but the project encountered a number of delays. After repairs, additional delamination began to occur in adjacent bays. Duke Energy announced in Feb-2013 that the Crystal River NPP would be permanently shut down.
|From 2015 to 2019 in defueling.
expected SAFSTOR 2019–2067
Decommissioning Periods (Start – End); Duration (years)
|Defueled in safety in 1998
now in SAFSTOR
Fuel in on-site dry-casks.
|United States||Fort St. Vrain GS
|Immediate Decon||$195 million|
|United States||Rancho Seco NGS
|PWR 913 MWe||12 years
(Closed after a referendum in 1989)
|SAFSTOR: 5–10 years
completed in 2009 
Fuel in insite long-term dry-cask storage
|$538.1 million  |
|United States||Three Mile Island
|PWR 913 MWe||1978-1979
Core fusion incident
Phase 2 (1979)
|$805 million |
|BWR 60 MWe||25 years
(closed in 1989)
dismantled in 5 years
(first small experimental reactor)
|United States||San Onofre NGS Unit 1
|PWR 436 MWe Westinghouse Electric Corporation||25 years
|Reactor dismantled and used as a storage site for spent fuel.|
|United States||San Onofre NGS Units 2, 3
|2 x PWR 1,075 MWe||Unit 2: 1983 – 2013
Unit 3: 1984 – 2013
|Permanent shutdown – DECON
|2014 cost forecast: |
to $4.4 billion
|United States||Piqua NGS
|OCM (Organically Cooled/Moderated) reactor 46 MWe||2 years
(closed in 1966)
(coolant design inadequate for neutron flux)
|PWR 1,180 MWe||16 years
(Closed in 1993 because of nearby to seismic fault)
(cooling tower demolished in 2006)
|United States||Yankee Rowe
|PWR 185 MW||31 years
|Decon completed – Demolished
(greenfield open to visitors) 
|$608 million with $8 million per year upkeep|
|United States||Maine Yankee||PWR
(closed in 1996)
|Decon completed – Demolished in 2004
(greenfield open to visitors) 
|United States||Vermont Yankee||BWR 620 MWe
|United States||Exelon –
Units 1, 2
|2 x PWR 1040 MWe
(opening of the site to visitors for 2018) 
|$900–1,100 million |
|United States||Pacific Gas & Electric –
|BWR 63 MWe||13 years
(Shut down per seismic retrofit)
|On July 2, 1976, Humboldt Bay Power Plant (HBPP) Unit 3 was shut down for annual refueling and to conduct seismic modifications. In 1983, updated economic analyses indicated that restarting Unit 3 would probably not be cost-effective, and in June 1983, PG&E announced its intention to decommission the unit. On July 16, 1985, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued Amendment No. 19 to the HBPP Unit 3 Operating License to change the status to possess-but-not-operate, and the plant was placed into a SAFSTOR status.||Unknown – Closure date: December 31, 2015|
Ships, mobile reactors, military reactors
Many warships and a few civil ships have used nuclear reactors for propulsion. Former Soviet and American warships have been taken out of service and their power plants removed or scuttled. Dismantling of Russian submarines and ships and American submarines and ships is ongoing. Marine power plants are generally smaller than land-based electrical generating stations.
The biggest American military nuclear facility for the production of weapons-grade plutonium was Hanford site (in the State of Washington), now defueled, but in a slow and problematic process of decontamination, decommissioning, and demolition. There is "the canyon" a giant structure for the chemical extraction of plutonium with the PUREX process. There are also many big containers and underground tanks with a solution of water, hydrocarbons and uranium-plutonium-neptunium-cesium-strontium (all highly radioactive). With all reactors now defueled, some were put in SAFSTOR (with their cooling towers demolished). Several reactors have been declared National Historic Landmarks.
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Nuclear decommissioning.|
- Hanford Site
- Lists of nuclear disasters and radioactive incidents
- Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
- Ship-Submarine recycling program
- Nuclear entombment
- Marcoule (French nuclear site)
- D&D KM-IT (Deactivation and Decommissioning Knowledge Management Information Tool)
- Benjamin K. Sovacool. "A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia", Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 40, No. 3, August 2010, p. 373.
- Invernizzi, Diletta Colette; Locatelli, Giorgio; Brookes, Naomi J. (2017-08-01). "How benchmarking can support the selection, planning and delivery of nuclear decommissioning projects". Progress in Nuclear Energy. 99: 155–164. doi:10.1016/j.pnucene.2017.05.002.
- Invernizzi, Diletta Colette; Locatelli, Giorgio; Brookes, Naomi J. (2017-10-01). "Managing social challenges in the nuclear decommissioning industry: A responsible approach towards better performance". International Journal of Project Management. Social Responsibilities for the Management of Megaprojects. 35 (7): 1350–1364. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.12.002. Archived from the original on 9 Jan 2017 – via White Rose Research Online.
- https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/decommissioning.html Quote: Before a nuclear power plant begins operations, the licensee must establish or obtain a financial mechanism – such as a trust fund or a guarantee from its parent company – to ensure there will be sufficient money to pay for the ultimate decommissioning of the facility.
- Liability for Nuclear Damage
- "Fact Sheets: Decommissioning Of Nuclear Power Plants". National Energy Institute. Retrieved 2014-06-19.
- DECON: a method of decommissioning, in which structures, systems, and components that contain radioactive contamination are removed from a site and safely disposed at a commercially operated low-level waste disposal facility, or decontaminated to a level that permits the site to be released for unrestricted use shortly after it ceases operation.
- SAFSTOR: a method of decommissioning in which a nuclear facility is placed and maintained in a condition that allows the facility to be safely stored and subsequently decontaminated (deferred decontamination) to levels that permit release for unrestricted use.
- ENTOMB: a method of decommissioning, in which radioactive contaminants are encased in a structurally long-lived material, such as concrete. The entombed structure is maintained and surveillance is continued until the entombed radioactive waste decays to a level permitting termination of the license and unrestricted release of the property. During the entombment period, the licensee maintains the license previously issued by the NRC.
- Heuel-Fabianek, B., Kümmerle, E., Möllmann-Coers, M., Lennartz, R. (2008): The relevance of Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty for the dismantling of nuclear reactors. atw – International Journal for Nuclear Power 6/2008 Archived September 11, 2008, at the Wayback Machine.
- NRC Factsheet Decomissoning Quote: Before a nuclear power plant begins operations, the licensee must establish or obtain a financial mechanism – such as a trust fund or a guarantee from its parent company – to ensure there will be sufficient money to pay for the ultimate decommissioning of the facility.
- Repository delay reduces Swiss NPPs’ decommissioning costs
- Le Télégramme: Brennilis
- Ouest-France: "Brennilis : EDF se fait taper sur les doigts" Archived May 1, 2011, at the Wayback Machine.
- House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts (February 4, 2013). "Nuclear Decommissioning Authority: Managing risk at Sellafield" (PDF). London: The Stationery Office Limited. Retrieved December 2, 2013.
- "SRS P and R Reactor Basins ISD Final" (PDF). D&D KM-IT – Deactivation and Decommissioning Knowledge Management Information Tool.
- Status of Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities around the World
- ENDS: Nuclear decommissioning funds “require oversight”
- Christoph Steitz, Barbara Lewis (February 16, 2016). "EU short of 118 billion euros in nuclear decommissioning funds". Reuters. Retrieved February 17, 2016.
- "NRC Requests Plans from 18 Nuclear Power Plants to Address Apparent Decommissioning Funding Assurance Shortfalls" (PDF). Nuclear Regulatory Commission. June 19, 2009. Retrieved 2014-12-30.
- Locatelli, Giorgio; Mancini, Mauro (July 2, 2010). "Competitiveness of Small-Medium, New Generation Reactors: A Comparative Study on Decommissioning". Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power. 132 (10): 102906–102906. doi:10.1115/1.4000613. ISSN 0742-4795.
- World Nuclear Association Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities published by www.world-nuclear.org (Association of nuclear reactors builders), March 2017
- World Nuclear Association: Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities
- OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (May 2007). Management of recyclable fissile and fertile materials. OECD Publishing. p. 34. ISBN 978-92-64-03255-2. Retrieved 22 March 2011.
- Estimate of Decommissioning Periods and Cost for Crystal River 3 NPP
- www.world-nuclear.org: Decommissioning nuclear facilities
- "Nuclear Decommissioning: Decommission nuclear facilities". World-nuclear.org. Retrieved 2013-09-06.
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission:Sites Undergoing Decommissioning (by Location or Name)
- "How old are U.S. nuclear power plants and when was the last one built? – FAQ –". U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Retrieved 2013-09-06.
- "NRC: Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities". Nrc.gov. June 28, 2013. Retrieved 2013-09-06.
- NRC Locations of Power Reactor Sites Undergoing Decommissioning
- Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)Appendix A – A Summary of the Shutdown and Decommissioning Experience for Nuclear Power Plants in the United States and the Russian Federation. Appendix B – A Summary of the Regulatory Environment for the Shutdown and Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants in the United States and the Russian Federation. Appendix C – Recommended Outlines for Decommissioning Documentation
- NEA: Decommissioning in Austria
- SUSTAINABILITY INSTITUTE: Zwentendorf, a Nuclear Plant That Will Never Be Turned On Archived May 11, 2011, at the Wayback Machine.
- "BR3". Eu-decom.be. Archived from the original on April 24, 2013. Retrieved September 6, 2013.
- "Nuclear Power in Belgium | Belgian Nuclear Energy". World-nuclear.org. Retrieved 2013-09-06.
- EU-DECOM-belgium – From 1979 until now: five framework programmes Archived October 9, 2008, at the Wayback Machine.
- The European Nuclear Decommissioning Training Facility – Mol, Belgium, 2002 Archived May 11, 2011, at the Wayback Machine.
- World Nuclear Association: Nuclear Power in Bulgaria
- IAEA: Taking Canada's Gentilly-1 to a "static state (by Balarko Gupta) Archived April 29, 2011, at the Wayback Machine.
- ASCE: Gentilly-1 a study in nuclear decommission Archived April 27, 2011, at the Wayback Machine.
- A Chernobyl in Québec? (correspondence on the dangers of Québec's only nuclear plant)
- Ontario Power Generation: Pickering Nuclear Power
- FAIREWINDS: Relicensing Pickering Nuclear Generating Station
- IAEA: Decommissioning in China
- Nuclear Power in France
- Brennilis: Incendie À La Centrale Nucléaire, Le Plan D’urgence Déclenché
- The global state of nuclear decommissioning: costs rising, funds shrinking, and industry looks to escape liability by decades of delay
- BRENNILIS, LABORATOIRE DU DÉMANTÈLEMENT
- MAMMOET: Nuclear decommissioning through a bottleneck.
- WM2009 Conference, March 1–5, 2009 Phoenix, AZ – International Cooperation for the Dismantling of Chooz A Reactor Pressure Vessel – 9087
- Segmentation of Reactor Vessel Internals
- Decommissioning of LMRs in France
- SCITECH CONNECT: Phenix Decommissioning Project – Overview
- WISEINTERNATIONAL: Superphénix; still more problems ahead
- Decommissioning of Fast Reactors after Sodium Draining
- INDIA – CISED: Economics of Nuclear Power Heavy Water Reactors
- Federation of American Scientists: Osiraq/Tammuz Nuclear Reactor
- The IAEA Online Information Resource for Radioactive Waste Management: ITALY
- Zona Nucleare – La centrale nucleare in fase di smantellamento ex-ENEL di Caorso (Piacenza)
- Il Fiume Po: La Centrale Nucleare di Caorso Archived May 1, 2011, at the Wayback Machine.
- Renzo Guerzoni. "Il decommissioning della centrale nucleare di Caorso" (PDF). Sogin. p. 6. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-05-03.
- Via libera allo smantellamento della centrale di Caorso
- Accordo tra la SOGIN e la Sudsvik svedese Archived March 28, 2012, at the Wayback Machine.
- LA REPUBBLICA: Per Caorso un addio lungo mezzo secolo, piano ENEL per smantellare la centrale
- Zona Nucleare – La centrale nucleare in fase di smantellamento ex-ENEL di Garigliano (Caserta)
- Zona Nucleare – La centrale nucleare in fase di smantellamento ex-ENEL di Foce Verde (Latina)
- Zona Nucleare – La centrale nucleare in fase di smantellamento ex-ENEL di Trino Vercellese (Vercelli)
- Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update Log
- "3 nuclear reactors melted down after quake, Japan confirms". CNN. June 7, 2011. Retrieved July 13, 2011.
- "'Melt-through' at Fukushima? / Govt report to IAEA suggests situation worse than meltdown". Yomiuri. June 8, 2011. Retrieved June 8, 2011.
- "Japan to raise Fukushima crisis level to worst". Archived from the original on April 12, 2011. Retrieved April 12, 2011.
- "Japan raises nuclear crisis to same level as Chernobyl". Reuters. April 12, 2011.
- The Japan Times: Whether Tepco fails or not, it’s taxpayers’ tab
- The Other Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant
- Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Station all shutdown
- Fugen NPP official website
- Fugen Decommissioning Engineering Center Archived May 23, 2011, at the Wayback Machine.
- Transcript of NHK TV special in Japanese
- NHK video of Fugen NPP
- Article in IAEA-TECDOC—1043: Permanent cessation of Tokai power plant's operation.
- Science Links Japan: Progression of decommissioning of Tokai power plant. First case of power reactor in Japan Archived May 13, 2011, at the Wayback Machine..
- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/Nuclear Energy Agency, report 2003: Strategy Selection for the Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities (page 118).
- PRESS TV (Iranian News Agency): North Korea to decommission nuclear facility
- THE GUARDIAN: Nuclear agreement: North Korea halts decommissioning
- NEA: Decommissioning in the Netherlands
- La storia dei ripetuti incidenti a Majak
- UK-Russia Closed Nuclear Cities Partnership Archived August 14, 2009, at the Wayback Machine.
- Russia shuts second plutonium-producing reactor at Seversk
- BBC: Austria against restarting of nuclear reactor at Jaslovské Bohunice
- YAHOO NEWS: Slovakia forced to restart nuclear reactors after Ukrainian gas crisis
- Nuclear Power in Spain - February 2017
- NUCLEAR ENGINEERING INTERNATIONAL: Decommissioning of José Cabrera NPP, 7 November 2013
- "José Cabrera moves into decommissioning". World Nuclear News. 2010-02-11. Retrieved 2010-02-14.
- Comparison of estimated and actual decommissioning cost of José Cabrera NPP
- SPANISH STAKEHOLDER FOR THE NEA WORKSHOP ON STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN NUCLEAR DECISION MAKING - Paris, January 2017
- Sweden plans big rise in fees to nuclear decommissioning fund
- Nuclear Energy Agency: Decommissioning in Switzerland
- European Bank for Reconstruction and Development: Breakthrough for Chernobyl nuclear decommissioning efforts (Consortium Novarka to build New Safe Confinement Holtec International to complete Spent Fuel Storage) Archived August 21, 2008, at the Wayback Machine.
- Radiological hazard on all Magnox nuclear sites across UK set to reduce by 99%
- "New nuclear reactor for Dounreay". BBC. February 9, 1966. Retrieved April 10, 2016.
- "PRIS: Dounreay PFR". IAEA. Retrieved April 28, 2014.
- Frank von Hippel; et al. (February 2010). Fast Breeder Reactor Programs: History and Status (PDF). International Panel on Fissile Materials. pp. 73–88. ISBN 978-0-9819275-6-5. Retrieved April 28, 2014.
- "'Reactorsaurus' to rip up station". BBC. May 5, 2009. Retrieved May 5, 2009.
- "BBC News – Plan to display parts of Dounreay at London museum". BBC Online. Retrieved April 24, 2014.
- "Calder Hall Celebrates 40 Years of Operation – Press Release". BNFL. Archived from the original on February 22, 2004. Retrieved February 22, 2004.
- Brown, Paul (March 21, 2003). "First nuclear power plant to close". The Guardian. London. Retrieved May 12, 2010.
- NDA Calder Hall Nuclear Power Station Feasibility Study 2007.
- "MP's vow to fight for Winfrith future (From Thisisdorset)". Thisisdorset.net. September 4, 2007. Retrieved 2013-09-06.
- "Winfrith – Quarterly report for 1 July – 30 September 2011". Hse.gov.uk. Retrieved 2013-09-06.
- Duke Energy (October 12, 2010). "CRYSTAL RIVER NUCLEAR PLANT – SPECIAL INSPECTION REPORT 05000302/2009007" (PDF).
- "Progress analyzing Crystal River repair proposals". World Nuclear News. January 11, 2012.
- "Crystal River Nuclear Plant to be retired; company evaluating sites for potential new gas-fueled generation". February 5, 2013. Archived from the original on October 22, 2013.
- Shutting down Crystal River nuclear plant will cost $1.2 billion, take 60 years Tampabay news
- U.S.NRC Dresden – Unit 1
- UCSUSA: Dresden Nuclear Generating Station
- OSTI: Energy Citations Database about Rancho Seco nuclear power plant
- Rancho Seco nuclear power plant ends decommissioning 10-2009
- SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY DISTRICT: RANCHO SECO REPORT ON DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING STATUS
- US-NRC: Rancho Seco nuclear power plant
- UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION: Three Mile Island – Decommissioning Unit 2
- OSTI, Office of Scientific and Technical Information – Shippingport station decommissioning project: start of physical decommissioning
- "United States of America". Power Reactor Information System (PRIS). International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Retrieved June 9, 2013.
- Jim Shephard (March 29, 2012). "San Onofre – Unit 1". United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Retrieved September 4, 2012.
- Fission Stories #92: San Onofre’s Allegators
- Cracked Steam Generator Tubes at San Onofre
- NRC Plans for Decommissioning of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3 July 8, 2016
- Southern California Edison (September 23, 2014). "San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3 Irradiated Fuel Management Plan" (PDF). NRC. p. 14.
- "Calif. nuclear plant to cost $4.4 billion to dismantle". CBS News. AP. Aug 2, 2014. Retrieved 3 August 2014.
- US NRC Information Digest 2008–2009
- Koberstein, Paul (March 9, 2005). "Trojan: PGE's Nuclear Gamble". Willamette Week. p. A1. Archived from the original on September 29, 2007. Retrieved June 15, 2007.
- Yankee Rowe Nuclear Reactor (third nuclear reactor in USA, totally dismantled)
- Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Station, ME – Power Technology
- Maine Yankee Decommissioning 80% Complete Archived May 1, 2011, at the Wayback Machine.
- Maine Yankee Decommissioning Experience Report
- With Exelon's Zion 1 and 2 reactors (2 x 1098 MWe) closed down in 1998 and in Safstor, a slightly different process is envisaged, considerably accelerating the decommissioning. Exelon has contracted with a specialist company – EnergySolutions, to remove the plant and return the site to greenfield status. To achieve this, the plant's licence and decommissioning funds will be transferred to EnergySolutions, which will then be owner and licensee, and the site will be returned to Exelon about 2018. Used fuel would remain on site until taken to the national repository.
- WEBWIRE: Exelon Nuclear To Accelerate Decommissioning Of Zion Station
- "NRC: Humboldt Bay". Nrc.gov. Retrieved 2013-09-06.
- NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development: Cost of Decommissioning Nuclear Energy Plants (2016)
- UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION: Backgrounder on Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants
- Business Insider – UK: Getting Rid Of Old Nuclear Reactors Worldwide Is Going To Cost Way More Than People Think
- Germany's economy minister Sigmar Gabriel says state won't pay for nuclear decommissioning (May 18, 2014)
- Nuclear Decommissioning Report (www.ndreport.com) is the multi-media platform for the nuclear decommissioning industry.
- decommissioning.info is a portal with information on nuclear decommissioning
- US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- European website on decommissioning of nuclear installations
- Decommissioning Fund Methodologies for Nuclear Installations in the EU, rapport by the German Wuppertal Institute, commissioned by the European Commission. May 2007.
- Master 'Nuclear Energy' – Decommissioning and Waste management