State Regulatory Impact on Reactor Decommissioning: Financing Approaches and Their Cost

  • Vincent L. Schwent


The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is moving toward promulgating comprehensive new regulations governing decommissioning. Increasing numbers of state legislatures and utility commissions are becoming more interested in decommissioning activities. In addition, large gatherings such as this are focusing increased attention on various aspects of decommissioning. Given this atmosphere, perhaps it is appropriate to assess how attitudes and policies toward the financial aspects of decommissioning are changing and evolving and the role of state and federal authorities in this process.


Premature Shutdown Nuclear Regulatory Commission Financial Assurance Public Service Commission Financial Liability 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Docket PRM 50–22.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nucleonics Week, January 6, 1977, p. 5.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    W.J. Manion and T.S. LaGuardia, An Engineering Evaluation of Nuclear Power Reactor Decommissioning Alternatives, AIF/NESP009SR, Atomic Industrial Forum (1976).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Plan for Reevaluation of NRC Policy on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, NUREG0436, Rev. 1, (1978).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G.D. Calkins, Thoughts on Regulation Changes for Decommissioning, NUREG-0590, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1979).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R.I. Smith, G.J. Konzek, and W.E. Kennedy, Jr., Technology, Safety, and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station, NUREG/CR-0130, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1978).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R.J. Stouky and E.J. Ricer, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Decommissioning Alternatives, Report 1851, prepared for Southern California Edison by the NUS Corporation (1977).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    California Public Utilities Commission, Decision No. 89711, December 12, 1978.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R.J. Stouky, “Factors Affecting Power Reactor Decommissioning Costs for Complete Removal”, presented to the American Nuclear Society Meeting in San Diego, June 19, 1978.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R.S. Wood, Assuring the Availability Nuclear Facilities, NUREG-0584, U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1979).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Connecticut Public Utilities Control Authority, Docket No.770319, Control Section IV, I, p. 45.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    _, “Progress of Regulation: Trends and Topics,” Public Utilities Fortnightly, pp. 54–56, April 26, 1979.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    _, “Duquesne Light Want Customers to Pay Decommissioning Costs”, Nucleonics Week, p.4, October 13, 1977.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, Docket No. 7610–1021, January 31, 1979.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Legislative Memorandum of Ward M. Rockey, Assistant to the Vice President of Consolidated Edison.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    B.J. Ewers, Jr., “Accounting Today for Future Nuclear Plant Decommissioning Cost”, presented to the American Gas Association-Edison Electric Institute Accounting Conference in Dearborn, Mich., May, 1977.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    B.C. Mingst, DECOST Computer Routine for Decommissioning Cost and Funding Analysis, NUREG-0514, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1978).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    D. Chapman, Nuclear Economics: Taxation, Fuel Cost, and Decommissioning, prepared for the California Energy Commission, (1979)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    P.A. Collins, “Financing and Accounting Alternatives for Decommissioning Nuclear Plants”, presented to the Southeastern Electric Exchange meeting in New Orleans, September 28, 1978.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Arkansas Power and Light, Analysis of Decommissioning Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit 1, prepared for the Arkansas Public Service Commission, August 10, 1977.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    V.L. Schwent, “Costs and Financing of Reactor Decommissioning; Some Considerations”, presented to the NARUC Subcommittee of Staff Experts on Accounting Meeting in Seattle, September 12, 1978.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vincent L. Schwent
    • 1
  1. 1.California Energy CommissionSacramentoUSA

Personalised recommendations