Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants and Storage of ... · Nuclear Waste in Western Europe and...
-
Upload
nguyendang -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants and Storage of ... · Nuclear Waste in Western Europe and...
- 0 -TU Berlin - WIP
Ben Wealer
Organization Models for decommissioning and radioactive waste management
IAEE 2017, 21st June 2017
Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants and Storage of
Nuclear Waste in Western Europe and the US: Lessons
Learned and Perspectives for Asian Nuclear Countries
Ben Wealer, Simon Bauer, Jan Paul Seidel, and Christian von Hirschhausen
Berlin Institute of Technology, Workgroup for Economic and Infrastructure Policy (WIP)
40th IAEE International Conference
Singapore, 21st June 2017
- 1 -TU Berlin - WIP
Ben Wealer
Organization Models for decommissioning and radioactive waste management
IAEE 2017, 21st June 2017
Agenda
1) Motivation
2) Technological System and Organization Matrix
3) Western Europe and the US: Lessons Learned
4) Organization models in Asia
5) Conclusion
- 2 -TU Berlin - WIP
Ben Wealer
Organization Models for decommissioning and radioactive waste management
IAEE 2017, 21st June 2017
Agenda
1) Motivation
2) Technological System and Organization Matrix
3) Western Europe and the US: Lessons Learned
4) Organization models in Asia
5) Conclusion
- 3 -TU Berlin - WIP
Ben Wealer
Organization Models for decommissioning and radioactive waste management
IAEE 2017, 21st June 2017
Outlook – Global decommissioning
Global development of the Nuclear Power Plant FleetSource: Authors, based on IAEA (2016d)
• Increasing demand for decommissioning and waste management.
• About 440 commercial reactors are currently operating.
• Many reactors will reach their technical-lifetime very soon, which causes a growing
demand for decommissioning and dismantling services.
• The search for High Level waste disposal facilities is on-going. In Finland the
construction licence of the 1st DGF was granted in 2015.
- 4 -TU Berlin - WIP
Ben Wealer
Organization Models for decommissioning and radioactive waste management
IAEE 2017, 21st June 2017
Grid connections in major Asian nuclear countries
Source: Authors, based on IAEA (2016d)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Nu
clea
r Po
wer
Pla
nts
Year
KOREA, REPUBLIC OF TAIWAN, CHINA JAPAN INDIA CHINA
- 5 -TU Berlin - WIP
Ben Wealer
Organization Models for decommissioning and radioactive waste management
IAEE 2017, 21st June 2017
Agenda
1) Motivation
2) Technological System and Organization Matrix
3) Western Europe and the US: Lessons Learned
4) Organization models in Asia
5) Conclusion
- 6 -TU Berlin - WIP
Ben Wealer
Organization Models for decommissioning and radioactive waste management
IAEE 2017, 21st June 2017
Typical stages of the decommissioning process
Typical choice of a decommissioning licensee: Immediate Dismantling or Long-
term Enclosure.
The five stages of decommissioning („from the outside to the inside“):
• Stage 1: Deconstruction of systems which are not needed for decommissioning, Installation
of the logistic in the hot zone.
• Stage 2: Deconstruction of higher contaminated system parts e.g. the steam generator or
parts of the primary coolant. Preparation of the deconstruction of the larger and highly
activated components.
• Stage 3: Deconstructions in the hot zone, e.g. deconstruction of the reactor pressure vessel
and its internals, and the biological shield.
• Stage 4: Deconstruction of contaminated system parts, removal of operating systems e.g.
cranes or filtration systems and decontamination of buildings. Goal is the release from
regulatory control.
• Stage 5: Demolition or other use of the buildings.
Source: Wealer et al. (2015)
- 7 -TU Berlin - WIP
Ben Wealer
Organization Models for decommissioning and radioactive waste management
IAEE 2017, 21st June 2017
Organizational models for decommissioning and radioactive
waste management (RAW)
Production
Financing
A) Public
enterprise
B) Private enterprise
(decentral or status quo)
C) Public tender
(centralized or
decentralized)
D) Further
Alternatives
1) Public budget
2) External
segregated fund
3) Internal
segregated fund
4) Internal non
segregated fund
5) Further
Alternatives
Source: Seidel and Wealer (2016), based on Klatt (2011)
Decommissioning NPPs
High-level waste management
- 8 -TU Berlin - WIP
Ben Wealer
Organization Models for decommissioning and radioactive waste management
IAEE 2017, 21st June 2017
Agenda
1) Motivation
2) Technological System and Organization Matrix
3) Western Europe and the US: Lessons Learned
4) Organization models in Asia
5) Conclusion
- 9 -TU Berlin - WIP
Ben Wealer
Organization Models for decommissioning and radioactive waste management
IAEE 2017, 21st June 2017
Organization Model for Germany after the reform
recommended by EK and KfK
Production
Financing
A) Public enterprise B) Private enterprise
(decentral or
decentralized)
C) Public tender
(centralized or
decentralized)
D) Further alternatives
1) Public budget
2) External segregated fund
3) Internal segregated fund
4) Internal non segregated fund
5) Further alternatives
Production:
• Decommissioning:
• Remains scope of the utilities until the waste is
conditioned, GDR fleet decommissioned by EWN
• Stage 3 mostly tendered to specialized companies or
deferred strategy applied
• Radioactive Waste Management:
• Deep Geological disposal of LLW and ILW (Konrad in
construction, 2022 expected)
• Over 300,000 m³ of LLW needs disposal solution
• Deep geological facility estimated to start operations
around 2080
Financing :
• Decommissioning
• Estimated costs for 23 NPPs 830€/kW (19.719 bn €)
• Cost increases between 2.9% and 6% (1,400-10,000 €/kW)
• Radioactive Waste Management:
• Installation of a new external fund (KfK) with a sum of
around 23 billion Euro including a risk premium
• All disposal related risks will be the in the responsibility of
the public fund – infringes the polluter pays principle
• Concerns: amount is not high enough to bear all future
costs
KF
K
E K
- 10 -TU Berlin - WIP
Ben Wealer
Organization Models for decommissioning and radioactive waste management
IAEE 2017, 21st June 2017
Organization Model France
Production:
• Decommissioning:
• Scope of EDF (85% French state)
• Stage 3 of Chooz-A was executed by Westinghouse
• GCRs reach well into 22nd century
• EDF invested in Studsvik
• Radioactive Waste Management:
• ANDRA is responsible for RAW (LLW, ILW, HLW)
• Interim facilities are constructed and operated by EDF
• Deep geological facility: start of pilot phase set by law to
2025
Financing :
• Decommissioning
• Lowest estimated costs for decommissioning among the
observed countries (309€/kW)
• Estimated EDF costs: 26 bn €, EDF provisions in 2015: 15
bn €
• Radioactive Waste Management:
• Once the construction of the HLW facility begins, the
provisions will be transferred to ANDRA (*)
• Estimated cigéo costs: 29 bn €, EDF provisions in 2015:
8.3 bn
Production
Financing
A) Public enterprise B) Private enterprise
(decentral or
decentralized)
C) Public tender
(centralized or
decentralized)
D) Further
alternatives
1) Public budget
2) External segregated fund
3) Internal segregated fund
4) Internal non segregated
fund
5) Further alternatives*
- 11 -TU Berlin - WIP
Ben Wealer
Organization Models for decommissioning and radioactive waste management
IAEE 2017, 21st June 2017
Organization Model for the United States of America
Production
Financing
A) Public enterprise B) Private enterprise
(decentral or
decentralized)
C) Public tender
(centralized or
decentralized)
D) Further
alternatives
1) Public budget
2) External segregated fund
3) Internal segregated fund
4) Internal non segregated
fund
5) Further alternatives
Production:
• Decommissioning:
• Remains scope of the utilities, transfer of the
decommissioning license to third party possible
(EnergySolutions for Zion 1 and 2)
• 13 NPPs fully decommissioned
• Radioactive Waste Management:
• LLW disposal facilities operated by private companies
• 79,000 MT SNF, 78% stored in pools
• HLW: scope of the DOE
• DOE Pilot Interim storage facility by 2021
• Interim storage facility operated by private company
around 2025
Financing :
• Decommissioning
• Actual decommissioning costs: 280-1,500 USD/kW
• Balance of decommissioning Nuclear decommissioning
trust fund: 53 bn USD (2014)
• Exelon reported shortfalls for three reactors 6-83 m USD
• Radioactive Waste Management:
• LLW: privately contracted fees
• Yucca Mountain (NV), approved by Congress in 2002,
federal funding stopped in 2011
• Fee for the nuclear waste fund abandoned after 2014
• DOE spent over 10 bn USD in legal penalties, could
amount to 20.8 bn USD by 2020
- 12 -TU Berlin - WIP
Ben Wealer
Organization Models for decommissioning and radioactive waste management
IAEE 2017, 21st June 2017
Organization Model United Kingdom
Production
Financing
A) Public enterprise B) Private enterprise (central or
decentralized)
C) Public tender (centralized
or decentralized)
D) Further alternatives
1) Public budget
2) External segregated fund
3) Internal segregated fund
4) Internal non segregated fund
5) Further alternatives
Takeover option
by the NDA
Production:
• Decommissioning:
• Long-Term Enclosure, the reactors will be dismantled
after 85 years
• NDA tenders decommissioning work in long-term
contracts
• Radioactive Waste Management:
• RWM Limited (NDA subsidiary) plans and builds the
disposal facility until 2040
• LLW dipsosal facilities tendered to private companies
(Studsvik UK and Areva)
Financing :
• EDF Energy pays into the Nuclear Liability Funds, owned by the
Nuclear Trust (public)
• NDA acts as an agent
• Decommissioning:
• If EDF Energy wants to receive payments from the fund to
meet liabilities it can only be made by application
• NDA cost estimates: 150 billion Euros
- 13 -TU Berlin - WIP
Ben Wealer
Organization Models for decommissioning and radioactive waste management
IAEE 2017, 21st June 2017
Organization models (HLW) in Western Europe and the US
Takeover option
by the NDA
Source: updated Seidel and Wealer (2016)
- 14 -TU Berlin - WIP
Ben Wealer
Organization Models for decommissioning and radioactive waste management
IAEE 2017, 21st June 2017
Conclusions and Lessons-Learned for Western Europe and the
US
• Decommissioning is technologically challenging and completed projects are scarce.
• High variance for future cost estimations, cost increases in most projects.
• High market concentration for decommissioning and waste management services (slide
9), specialized nuclear companies in financial troubles.
• LLW Management and clear waste classifications important for decommissioning.
• Interim storage facilities were needed due to missing HLW disposal facility and high
inventory of SNF.
• Each funding system has (dis-) advantages. Internal: higher ROI, higher risk. External:
more transparency and control.
• Integral decommissioning and waste management plans and cost studies are needed
in respect to the long timeframe and the existing interdependences.
• Especially for HLW: all cost estimations are underlying uncertainties due to long-time
scales, cost increases and estimated interest and inflation rates.
• one external segregated fund under public control for both processes seems the most
suitable even if it also could not overcome the problem of too low cost estimations.
• Clear separation of regulator and operator important.
• New organization models are needed:
• third party holds decommissioning (EnergySolutions in the US)
• possible synergy and scale effects in the bundling of reactor types
- 15 -TU Berlin - WIP
Ben Wealer
Organization Models for decommissioning and radioactive waste management
IAEE 2017, 21st June 2017
Only a few and highly interconnected specialized
decommissioning and RAW companies
Source: updated Seidel and Wealer (2016)
- 16 -TU Berlin - WIP
Ben Wealer
Organization Models for decommissioning and radioactive waste management
IAEE 2017, 21st June 2017
Agenda
1) Motivation
2) Technological System and Organization Matrix
3) Western Europe and the US: Lessons Learned
4) Organization models in Asia
5) Conclusion
- 17 -TU Berlin - WIP
Ben Wealer
Organization Models for decommissioning and radioactive waste management
IAEE 2017, 21st June 2017
Organization model for Japan
Production
Financing
A) Public enterprise B) Private enterprise
(decentral or
decentralized)
C) Public tender
(centralized or
decentralized)
D) Further
alternatives
1) Public budget
2) External segregated fund
3) Internal segregated fund
4) Internal non segregated
fund
5) Further alternatives
Production:
• Decommissioning:
• Decommissioning is the scope of the 10 utilities
• 18 in shut-down (11 licensed for decommissioning)
• JPDR completed (12 MW, GE BWR)
• Radioactive Waste Management:
• Interim storage of HLW (415 m³) and SNF stored at
Rokkasho (2,968 MT) and on-site (14,830 MT)
• LLW disposal facility operated by JNFL (utilities owned),
74% occupied (80,000 m³)
• HLW disposal facility will be built and operated by private
company NUMO, planned to start operations in 2040
Financing :
• Polluter pays principle applies
• Decommissioning:
• Internal funds (15.3 bn USD in 2011) fed by fixed
surcharge on electricity price
• Estimation 743 USD/kW, Total 10.5 bn USD
• Radioactive Waste Management:
• HLW and TRU: External fund managed by RWMC
• Estimated costs for HLW: 33.3 bn USD
• NUMO applies for budget approval by METI
• METI determines the amount the utilities have to
contribute to the fund
• annual fee around 0.0018 USD/kWh
- 18 -TU Berlin - WIP
Ben Wealer
Organization Models for decommissioning and radioactive waste management
IAEE 2017, 21st June 2017
Shortage of funding capital for decommissioning led to 10
years of LTE and up to 20 years lifetime extension
Source: Japco/Kansai (2015)
- 19 -TU Berlin - WIP
Ben Wealer
Organization Models for decommissioning and radioactive waste management
IAEE 2017, 21st June 2017
Organization model for the Republic of Korea
Production
Financing
A) Public enterprise B) Private enterprise
(decentral or
decentralized)
C) Public tender
(centralized or
decentralized)
D) Further
alternatives
1) Public budget
2) External segregated fund
3) Internal segregated fund
4) Internal non segregated
fund
5) Further alternatives
Production:
• Decommissioning:
• First shutdowns in 2017/23/25/26
• Decommissioning is scope of the public utility KHNP
• Immediate Dismantling, minimum 13 years
• MTIE wants to foster decommissioning business
• Radioactive Waste Management:
• Open fuel cycle, interest in reprocessing SNF from PWR
• wet and dry storage of SNF at the sites, pool capacity
exhausted by 2021
• KORAD operates LILW disposal facility
• Interim storage facility for HLW (by 2035) and future
geological disposal facility (by 2051) will be built and
operated by KORAD
Financing :
• Polluter pays principle
• Decommissioning:
• Inhouse financing with reserves within the assets
• necessary provisions have to be provided by shutdown
• Radioactive Waste Management:
• 1st phase of disposal facility for ILW (costs: 1.53 USD),
• Fee (705 USD per kilogram used fuel), KRWM
supervises the fund
• The appropriate cost is determined every two years by
government, KORAD, KHNP and others by applying an
annual escalator to the costs for disposal of LILW
- 20 -TU Berlin - WIP
Ben Wealer
Organization Models for decommissioning and radioactive waste management
IAEE 2017, 21st June 2017
Organization model for China
Production
Financing
A) Public enterprise B) Private enterprise
(decentral or
decentralized)
C) Public tender
(centralized or
decentralized)
D) Further
alternatives
1) Public budget
2) External segregated fund
3) Internal segregated fund
4) Internal non segregated
fund
5) Further alternatives
Production:
• Decommissioning:
• Scope of the operators
• Radioactive Waste Management:
• Closed fuel cycle, construction start of reprocessing plant
and possibly MOX plant, pilot plant at Lanzhou
• MEP is responsible for the management of radioactive
waste nationwide
• Interim storage: SNF stored on-site in ponds, some
transported to centralized storage facility at Lanzhou
• HLW: Underground laboratory around 2020, construction
start around 2050
• Two LLW facilities; three future facilities are planned
Financing :
• Polluter pays principle
• Decommissioning, SNF management, and RAW management costs
have to be borne by the operators
• Funds are collected by a surcharge of 0.038 USD/kWh of generated
electricity, starts 5 years after commissioning
• Funds are managed on the part of the operators and subject to
oversight of special regulatory bodies
• Operators have to prepare detailed decommissioning plans, including
a cost estimation
- 21 -TU Berlin - WIP
Ben Wealer
Organization Models for decommissioning and radioactive waste management
IAEE 2017, 21st June 2017
Organization model for India
Production
Financing
A) Public enterprise B) Private enterprise
(decentral or
decentralized)
C) Public tender
(centralized or
decentralized)
D) Further
alternatives
1) Public budget
2) External segregated fund
3) Internal segregated fund
4) Internal non segregated
fund
5) Further alternatives
Production:
• Decommissioning:
• Scope of the public operator NPCIL
• First NPP Tarapur (BWR-1 by GE, 1964) is likely to be
closed in the short term
• No decommissioning plans have been prepared
• Radioactive Waste Management:
• Closed fuel cycle, reprocessing site at Tarapur
• Decentralized near-surface disposal facilities for LLW and
ILW Interim storage facility in operation
• HLW: Construction of an underground research facility
which could be converted into a pilot repository, done by
BARC
Financing:
• Decommissioning activities include defueling, dismantling,
transportation, and disposal of the waste
• No specific arrangements in law with regard to funding
• Operators collect provisions through a levy per kWh, levy has not
changed since 1991
• Provisions are transferred to a separate decommissioning fund,
maintained by NPCIL on behalf of the government
- 22 -TU Berlin - WIP
Ben Wealer
Organization Models for decommissioning and radioactive waste management
IAEE 2017, 21st June 2017
Agenda
1) Motivation
2) Technological System and Organization Matrix
3) Western Europe and the US: Lessons Learned
4) Organization models in Asia
5) Conclusion
- 23 -TU Berlin - WIP
Ben Wealer
Organization Models for decommissioning and radioactive waste management
IAEE 2017, 21st June 2017
Production
Financing
A) Public enterprise C) Private enterprise
(central or
decentralized)
B) Public tender
(centralized or
decentralized)
D) Further alternatives
1) Public budget
2) External segregated fund
3) Internal segregated fund
4) Internal non segregated fund
5)Further alternatives
Conclusion
1) Public budget
2) External segregated fund
3) Internal segregated fund
4) Internal non segregated fund
5) Further alternatives
- 24 -TU Berlin - WIP
Ben Wealer
Organization Models for decommissioning and radioactive waste management
IAEE 2017, 21st June 2017
Thank you for your attention!
Contact:
40th IAEE International Conference, Singapore
21st June 2017
- 25 -TU Berlin - WIP
Ben Wealer
Organization Models for decommissioning and radioactive waste management
IAEE 2017, 21st June 2017
References
China Atomic Energy Authority (2014). Third National Report for the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel
Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. Beijing, China.
Choi, H.-J. (2016). Geological Disposal Systems for HLW in Korea. 2016/05/25-IAEA-TM-52769, last accessed May 29, 2017
at https://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloadable/Meetings/2016/2016-05-24-05-26-INPRO/21_choi_Korea.pdf.
Comptroller and Auditor General of India (2012). Performance audit on activities of Atomic Energy Regulatory Board. Report
No. 9, last accessed June 19, 2017 at
http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/Performance%20audit%20on%20activities%20of%20Atomic%20Energy%20R
egulatory%20Board.pdf.
IAEA (2014). Country Nuclear Power Profiles - China. last accessed April 03, 2017 at
https://cnpp.iaea.org/countryprofiles/China/China.htm.
IAEA (2016a). Country Nuclear Power Profiles - Japan. last accessed April 03, 2017 at
https://cnpp.iaea.org/countryprofiles/Japan/Japan.htm.
IAEA (2016b). Country Nuclear Power Profiles - Korea, Republic. last accessed April 03, 2017 at
https://cnpp.iaea.org/countryprofiles/KoreaRepublicof/KoreaRepublicof.htm.
IAEA (2016c). Country Nuclear Power Profiles - India. last accessed April 03, 2017 at
https://cnpp.iaea.org/countryprofiles/India/India.htm.
IAEA (2016d). Nuclear power reactors in the world. Vienna: Intl Atomic Energy Agency.
IAEA (2017). PRIS - Power Reactor Information System. The Database on Nuclear Power Reactors, last accessed April 04,
2017 at https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/home.aspx.
Kang, J. & Feiveson, H.A. (2001). South Korea’s Shifting and Controversial Interest in Spent Fuel Reprocessing. The Non-
Proliferation Review, 8, pp. 70–78.
Kang, J., Kim, S.-W. & Lee, B.-C. (2015). Hot potato in South Korea: The spent nuclear fuel storage dilemma. Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists, 71(3), pp. 76–83.
Kim, H.G. (2016). Preparation Program at the Pre-Decommissioning Phase for the D&D of the Kori-1 Nuclear Power Plant. last
accessed May 31, 2017 at https://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloadable/Meetings/2016/2016-08-30-09-02-
NPES/1_KHNP_IAEA_Conference_HGKim_Rev2_20160829.pdf.
- 26 -TU Berlin - WIP
Ben Wealer
Organization Models for decommissioning and radioactive waste management
IAEE 2017, 21st June 2017
References
Nuclear Energy Institute (2017). Japan Nuclear Update. last accessed April 04, 2017 at https://www.nei.org/News-
Media/News/Japan-Nuclear-Update.
OECD/NEA (2009). Nuclear Legislation in OECD and NEA Countries - Regulatory and Institutional Framework for Nuclear
Activities - Republic of Korea. Paris, last accessed May 30, 2017 at http://www.oecd-nea.org/law/legislation/korea.pdf.
OECD/NEA (2016a). Cost of Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants. Paris: OECD/NEA Publishing.
OECD/NEA (2016b). Radioactive Waste Management Programmes in OECD/NEA Member Countries - Korea. Paris, last
accessed May 30, 2017 at https://www.oecd-nea.org/rwm/profiles/korea_profile.pdf.
Raj, K., Prasad, K.K. & Bansal, N.K. (2006). Radioactive waste management practices in India. Nuclear Engineering and
Design, India’s Reactors: Past, Present, Future, 236(7–8), pp. 914–930.
Schneider, M., Froggatt, A., Hazemann, J., Fairlie, I., Katsuta, T., Maltini, F. & Ramana, M.V. (2016). World Nuclear Industry
Status Report 2016. Paris, last accessed July 27, 2016 at http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/20160713MSC-
WNISR2016V2-HR.pdf.
Wealer, B., Czempinski, V., von Hirschhausen, C. & Wegel, S. (2017). Nuclear Energy Policy in the United States: Between
Rocks and Hard Places. IAEE Energy Forum, Second Quarter 2017, pp. 25–29.
Wealer, B. & Seidel, J.-P. (2016). Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants and Storage of Radioactive Waste – An
International Comparison of Organizational Models. Master thesis, Berlin Institute of Technology, Berlin, Germany.
World Nuclear Association (2017). Nuclear Power in South Korea. last accessed May 30, 2017 at http://www.world-
nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-o-s/south-korea.aspx.
Zeng, M., Wang, S., Duan, J., Sun, J., Zhong, P. & Zhang, Y. (2016). Review of nuclear power development in China:
Environment analysis, historical stages, development status, problems and countermeasures. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 59, pp. 1369–1383.
Zhou, Y. (2011). China’s spent nuclear fuel management: Current practices and future strategies. Energy Policy, 39(7), pp.
4360–4369.