If the operational life of a nuclear power plant can be extended, decommissioning will be delayed. In effect, this is an alternative to decommissioning. Is this a sensible or desirable option? In this chapter, M.E. Lapides evaluates the cost, environmental consequences, and funding impacts of delaying for 20 to 30 years. One of his conclusions is that the impacts of decommissioning on any of these three categories will be insignificant to the decommissioning decision. A contrasting view was offered in Chapter 20.
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (1954). Section 103c and 10CFR 50.51.
2.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (1987a). BWR Pilot Plant Life Extension. Report NP5181M.
3.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (1987b). PWR Pilot Plant Life Extension. Report NP 5289.
4.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (1988). PLEX Project Briefs. Report NP 5388SP, Rev 1.
5.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (1989a). Project Management Plans for Lead Plant(s) License Renewal Project. Status Report (in publication).
6.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (1989b). PLAN60: A Life Cycle Management Code. Report NP-6205-CCML.
7.
OakH.D.HolterG.M.KennedyW.E.KonzekG.D. (1980). Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Boiling Water Reactor Power Station. Report NUREG/CR-0672. Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
8.
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.
9.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report (1988). Regulatory Options for License Renewal. NUREG-1317.
