Contingency factors are a standard ingredient in all types of estimated costs. The actual contingency figure used, however, is always open to question. Given the absence of large-scale decommissioning projects, the long future time reference, the history of early shutdowns, and possibility of accidents, there continues to be a substantial controversy regarding the contingency level that is most appropriate. In this chapter, Bruce Biewald and Stephen Bernow present a critical review of the matter of contingency factors, arguing that current common levels in the neighborhood of 25 percent are too low.
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories (1985). Updated Costs for Decommissioning Nuclear Power Facilities. Richland, Washington: prepared for the Electric Power Research Institute. EPRI NP-4012.
2.
BernowStephen S.BiewaldBruce (1987). “Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning: Cost Estimation for Planning and Ratemaking,” Public Utilities Fortnightly. October29.
3.
Decision Focus, Incorporated (1978). Costs and Benefits of Over/Under Capacity in Electric Power System Planning. Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI EA-927).
4.
Electric Power Research Institute (1986). Technical Assessment Guide. Palo Alto, CA (EPRI P-4463s-SR, Volume 1).
5.
Energy Information Administration (1986). An Analysis of Nuclear Power Plant Construction Costs. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE/EIA-0485).
6.
GoldsteinJamesBiewaldBruceWhiteAllen (1990). Disposal Costs at Existing and Proposed Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facilities and the Implications for Vermont. Boston: Tellus Institute, Report 89-168.
7.
GPU Nuclear Communications (1990). “Three Mile Island Unit 2: Unit 2 in Profile,” Middletown, PA. June.
8.
LaGuardiaThomas S. (1987). Decommissioning Study for the Seabrook Station, Unit1. Bridgewater, CT: TLG Engineering, Inc.
9.
LofstedtRagnarWhiteAllen (1990). “Chernobyl: Four Years Later, the Repercussions Continue,” Environment32(3) (May).
10.
McNeesStephen K. (1981). “The Recent Record of Thirteen Forecasters,” New England Economic Review (September/October).
11.
MerrowEdward W. (1988). Understanding the Outcomes of Megaprojects: A Quantitative Analysis of Very Large Civilian Projects. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1989). Licensed Operating Reactors Status Summary Report. NUREG-0020,13(9). Washington, D.C.
12.
SmithR.I.KonzekG.J.KennedyW.E. (1978). Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station. NUREG/CR-0130. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
13.
Westinghouse Hanford Company (1989). Final Project Report Shippingport Station Decommissioning Project. Shippingport,PA: U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Shippingport Station Decommissioning Project Office (DOE/SSDP-0081).
