Proceedings of Global 2015September 20-24, 2015 - Paris (France)

Paper 5468

Investigation of economics of nuclear fuel cycle options in the Republic of Korea based on Once-through

Seok-Ki Cho, Man-Sung YimDepartment of Nuclear and Quantum Engineering, Korea Advance Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST)

AddressTel: +82-042-350-5876 , Email: msyim@kaist.ac.kr

Abstract – Despite splendid success in its development, future of nuclear power in the Republic of Korea (the ROK) faces a number of challenges. Majority of the public believe nuclear power is not safe resulting in low public acceptance. No long-term solution has been found for the management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel (SNF). Developing new sites for construction of new nuclear power plants has become very difficult. Government policy for future development remains uncertain. The ROK is now the 5th largest user country of nuclear energy and also a nuclear exporter. Given the strategic importance of nuclear power in the country’s energy security planning in the ROK, policy makers need to develop long-term plan for the country’s fuel cycle systems taking into account various factors involved such as domestic politics, nonproliferation, international relations, and economics. In relation to this consideration, this study performs economic evaluation of future nuclear fuel cycle options based on Once-through of the ROK. Various factors of the future development in the ROK are also considered in the study including nuclear phase-out, continuous use of nuclear energy at varying growth rate, and the reunification of the Korean peninsula. A spreadsheet model is developed as part of the methodology of screening material flow and economic evaluation and results are discussed for policy planning for the ROK as well as for nuclear developing countries.

I. INTRODUCTION

Since the Korean War, the Republic of Korea has achieved democracy, economic development and technological advances in only a several decades. The basis industry of the ROK is manufacturing like automobile, chemistry, shipment, and electric devices. Due to the characteristics of these energy consuming industries, the domestic energy demand has been proportional to its GDP. Also, the enhancement of life of quality engendered high energy consumption. Within the previous increasing trend of energy demand, nuclear energy has contributed significantly in terms of secure and economical energy supply as a base load. The first reactor constructed in the ROK is Kori unit 1, which is the type of Westinghouse 600. From the first commercial operation in 1977, by the year of 2015, 23 reactors are in operation and 5 are under construction in the ROK. The ROK currently ranks the 5 th

place in nuclear energy use and has become a nuclear exporter from the contract with the UAE in 2009.

However, the ROK has not decided policy on the back-end fuel cycle yet. Since discharged spent fuel has been stored and cooled down in the wet storages at the

sites and these storages will be at capacity soon, from the deployment of the spent nuclear fuel (SNF) interim storage, the back-end fuel cycle facilities should be planned and constructed in a few decades with proper direction of policy.

The government is facing a great challenge by the public for decision making. It assembled a committee (PECOS) to collect opinions from the public and suggest a roadmap for nuclear back-end fuel cycle policy for 20 last months and according to the final report, Deep Geological Repository (DGR) will be needed until 2051 taking into account license expiration of nuclear facilities. Before the deployment of DGR, plans for SNF storage and management are said to be flexible and uncertain, which seems the committee struggled to have a consensus with the public. In these circumstances, and due to the US-ROK agreement, pursuing the advanced fuel cycle with Gen IV program - sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR) with pyro-reprocessing, looks not feasible before solving the urgent problem. Therefore, in this paper, only once-through cycle (SNF direct disposal) is studied and data results and conclusions are made for recommendations based on once-through cycle.

Proceedings of Global 2015September 20-24, 2015 - Paris (France)

Paper 5468

To make a policy, many factors are involved in the decision making process: public acceptance, international relationship, technical advantages, domestic policy and economics, but economics is still considered as the first to be discussed16). Considering not only the roadmap from the committee is not clear and uncertain, but also future political circumstances in the ROK might be, which might lead to different nuclear fuel cycle scenarios, the purpose of this study is to provide data of economic evaluation on the back-end nuclear fuel cycle as reference cost data and a benchmark case for nuclear developing countries.

The chosen uncertainties other than cost uncertainties are nuclear phase-out policy, the reunification of the Korean peninsula, license renewals of nuclear reactor operation and DGR deployment year (time delay of decision making). Using a model developed for this study, future scenarios of nuclear fuel cycle are simulated and levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) for the back-end fuel cycle is computed, with Monte-Carlo probability calculation and sensitivity analysis based on system dynamics approach. The ROK’s current implementation of LCOE for funding of the back-end fuel cycle is composed of expenditures for reactor decommissioning, waste treatment, SNF storage and disposal and transportation with inclusion of social costs, charged per revenue (kWh). For employment of reference cost data in the model, U.K. High Level Waste (HLW) repository cost estimation paper for Deep Geological Repository (DGR)2), EPRI report3) and the report from the Ministry of Knowledge Economy of the ROK4) for the interim storage, and NPP decommissioning cost report from OECE-NEA5) were benchmarked.

II. SCENARIO MODELLING

The back-end fuel cycle cost occurs mostly after commercial operation period of NPP so the profits from the commercial operation cannot immediately reflect the back-end fuel cycle cost. Therefore, a nuclear operator makes funding for the future costs of the back-end nuclear fuel cycle. However, if circumstances or policy establishment that disadvantageously change nuclear fuel cycle occur, LCOE gets to be charged unequally over time, leaving burdens to the future generation.

To investigate possible fuel cycle scenarios first, the simulation model developed enables computation of power capacity and material screening with various scenarios defined by inputs. The main inputs for modelling are mostly of the size of system and we have made observations on how they affect the back-end fuel cycle cost. The model is consisted of three modules: input module, material screening and facility deployment module, and cost calculation module. In this section, the modules for scenario definitions and material screening of SNF are introduced.

II.A. Selected input variables for modelling

In the input module, the information of the current existing reactors in the ROK was employed and the number of vacancy sites for new reactor construction was determined by the 6th Energy Supply Demand Plan of the ROK. The selected input variables are listed in Table I.

TABLE I

Variables and determinants for the input module

Variables/Determinants Values/OptionsReunification

Phase-outYes/NoYes/No

Extended year for new NPP Until 2080

Licensed operation period extension of NPP

Licensed operation period of SNF interim storage

Energy demand increase rate

Construction lead time of NPPDecommissioning lead time of NPP

GDR deployment yearPWR fuel discharge burn-ups

Capacity Factor of NPPOnsite wet storage for SNF

Interim storage type

None/10year/20year

100 year4)

1.7% / various (Reunification)

5 year10 year20504)

44.6 MWD/kg6)

0.85579 tU/NPP6)

Site dry storage

According to the Energy Supply Demand Plan, by the year of 2024, 34 reactors – 4 of those are Candu reactors - will have been constructed at the existing 4 sites and 4 or more of NPP constructions at new sites are currently under consideration7). Therefore, 38 vacancy sites for reactors are assumed at 5 sites (Kori, Han-bit, Han-ul, Wol-sung, and New site) and no more siting for new construction is supposed. After filling 38 reactor sites, when Phase-out option, no more reactors are constructed. When Continuous use option, reactors are constructed by site-reusing after decommissioning of an existing reactor until the year of 2080 so that the sites for NPP can be once reused.

The deployment year of DGR and cooling time of SNF after discharge after depletion affect the size of the interim storage. Deployment time of Deep Geological Repository (DGR) of SNF is assumed to be from 2050 and cooling time of PWR SNF and PHWR SNF is to be 60 years8) and 30 years9) each.

II.B. The reunification of the Korean peninsula

One of the political uncertainties that might affect the future nuclear energy use and fuel cycle is possibility of the reunification of the Korean peninsula. Currently, North Korea ranks low in DGP and lacks industrial infrastructure. Because of the gaps in economics, after the reunification, North Korea would need to host much investment in

Proceedings of Global 2015September 20-24, 2015 - Paris (France)

Paper 5468

development of infrastructure. Furthermore, low costs in workforce and real estates would attract entrepreneurs in manufacturing industries, which should be accompanied with stable and secure energy supply. Likewise the past of South Korea, the development of North Korea might also benefit secure and cheap energy from nuclear power. Therefore, this fuel cycle cost estimation model assumes nuclear energy demand increase rate is proportional to GDP increase rate.

Korea Institute for National Unification suggests a Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) model for estimation of economics after the reunification. The DSGE model supposes the reunification to be from 2014 to 2060 with 5 periods10). Table II shows the GDP increase rate in the DSGE unification model.

TABLE II

GDP increase rate in the reunification of the Korean peninsula10)

Periods South Korea North KoreaPreparation (2014 ~2028) 1.7 % 1.7 %Dissolution of separation

(2028 ~ 2030)1.7 % 1.7 %

The unified KoreaUnification of governance

(2030 ~ 2040)Completion of nation

(2040 ~ 2050)Normal operation (2050 ~ 2060)

3.8 %

2.5 %

2.2 %

In the reunification option, 4 more sites for new NPP construction in North Korea are available with 8 reactors at each site and 2.2% of nuclear energy demand increase rate is assumed until 2080. Selection of the reunification enlarges the geological limit of reactor vacancy from 38 to 70.

Fig. 1. Simulated nuclear energy supply and demand in the Phase-out option

Fig. 2. Simulated nuclear energy supply and demand in the Continuous use option

As Fig 1, 2 and Table III present, 4 scenarios are made for once-through fuel cycle with inclusion of the reunification. The sub-options of licensed operation period extension of NPP and time delay of DGR deployment are used as probability variables following triangular probability like cost data.

TABLE III

Once-through fuel cycle scenarios selected in the ROK

Scenario No. Phase-out Unification Avg size of system

(TWh/yr)SC1 Yes No 150SC2SC3SC4

YesNoNo

YesNoYes

285217332

II.C. Material screening and facility deployment

Material flow of SNF discharge from reactors in operation, SNF emplacement at the interim storage, and SNF emplacement at DGR comprises the material screening module. Each term is shown in Eq. (1), (2) and (3).

F1=Pi , n ∙ CF ∙365

BU ∙ eff

(1)

Max(F ¿¿2)=∑i=1

i

F1−∑i=1

i

F3−Oi , n¿

(2)

Proceedings of Global 2015September 20-24, 2015 - Paris (France)

Paper 5468

F3=Pi−PWR cooling time ,n ∙CF ∙365

BU ∙eff

(3)

where F1= annual SNF generation (kg) Pi ,n= installed capacity at n site in year i

CF= capacity factor (0.85)BU= PWR SNF discharge burnupseff = thermal efficiency of NPPMax (F ¿¿2)¿ = interim storage capacityOi ,n= stored SNF at onsite wet storage at n site

in year iF3= annual emplacement of SNF at DGR.

When energy demand is larger than supply and there is an empty vacancy site for new NPP construction, Pi ,n is increased by 1455 MWe, which is the capacity of APR1400 type. Deployment year of the interim storage is automatically determined when F2is positive and SNF at one site cannot be moved to another site. When F2= 0, the interim storage is closed and decommissioned. As described in the input module, PWR SNF is cooled down for 60 years before disposal at DGR and 30 years for PHWR SNF, and DGR closes when F3= 0.

Fig. 2. Simulated capacities of the interim storages in the case of none of reactor operation licensed time extension.

Fig. 3. Simulated capacities of DGR in the case of none of reactor operation licensed time extension.

The computed data of PHWR is of the only single fuel cycle scenario, Phase-out and non-Unification option. Fig. 2 and 3 show the size of the system from SC1, SC2, SC3 and SC4 and with the simulated data from this module, we can screen and track annual SNF flow among NPPs, the interim storage, and DGR, which is used to estimate the back-end fuel cycle cost employing reference cost data. The cost estimation and simulated results are investigated in the next sections.

III. COST ESTIMATION

The costs for the back-end fuel cycle are determined by construction cost expenditure plans, operation time and annual though put of SNF. By computing the scenario simulation model, operation time of SNF treatment facilities and annual though put results are obtained to be utilized at the cost estimation module. For the process of cost estimation, reference cost expenditure plans are benchmarked. In this paper, OECD-NEA report for NPP decommissioning, EPRI cost estimation report for the interim storage, which the Ministry of Knowledge Economy of the ROK referenced, and Nirex report from U.K. for the DGR are benchmarked. Table IV, V, VI, VII show the expenditure plans of the lifetime operation for programs of the back-end fuel cycle facilities and activities.

TABLE IV

Cost estimation of NPP decommissioning5)

Types of reactor Immediate dismantling

Deferred dismantling

PWR 421USD/kWe(2003)

225 USD/kWe(2003)

PHWR N/A 432 USD/kWe(2003)

TABLE V

Proceedings of Global 2015September 20-24, 2015 - Paris (France)

Paper 5468

Cost breakdown for the interim storage3),4)

Description Reference capacityPWR SNF

(reference capacity : 3123 canisters, 8.86 tU for a canister)

Costs at BKRW2012

Years before deployment

Siting and construction

112 -6

Design and commissioning

63.2 -3

Facility operation cost

1833 For 100 years of operation

R&D cost 16 For 100 years of operation

Canister cost 2.8 Per canisterDismantling cost 1141.9 Closure

PHWR SNF(reference capacity : 27 modules, 440 tU for a module)

Siting and construction

67.4 -6

Design and commissioning

63.2 -3

Facility operation cost

826.6 For 50 years of operation

R&D cost 40 For 50 years of operation

Module cost 4.326 Per ModuleDismantling cost 36.1 Closure

TABLE VI

Cost breakdown for DGR2)

Description Reference capacityPWR SNF+PHWR SNF+HLW

(reference capacity : 7000 canisters,1.7 tU for a PWR canister5.61 for a PHWR canister)

For the first emplacement of 700 canistersCosts at m₤2004

Years before deployment

Site characterization 521 -29

Rock characterization facility

234 -19

Management and design/construction

support

274 -10

Surface building/off-site infrastructure

384 -7

Drifts & shafts 142 -6

Below ground facilities 155 -3

Utilities and services 95 -2

Testing & commissioning 29 -1

Post first emplacement (1 step for 2100 canisters, n steps before closure)

Post first emplacement 166 Per step

O&M costAnnual O&M cost 0.673 Per yearMetric O&M costDisposal canister

0.0320.465

Per canisterAt BKRW2012

Sealing and Closure cost

Closure cost 279 Closure

TABLE VII

Cost estimation of transportation4)

Description Cost at BKRW2012

Infrastructure for PWR 665697

0.0788 per trip13.48 per trip

Infrastructure for PHWRTransportation cost of a PWR canister

Transportation cost of a PHWR module

Because of limited land available for new construction of NPPs, to leave the option of site re-using strategy immediate decommissioning is considered. The licensed operation time of the interim storage is assumed to be 100 years and when it is expired, the module builds a new interim storage if needed. When the first construction of DGR occurs, the full capacity of SNF is not implemented, but 10% of the total capacity2). Then the capacity is expanded in steps if required. The costs for DGR O&M costs and closure costs include bentonite backfilling and do not consider re-using of disposed SNF. Costs for transportation infrastructure and SNF transportation comprise the total transportation cost. By selection of types of the interim storage, transportation costs are differentiated. With the centralized interim storage, since the surplus SNF from the sites is emplaced, movement of SNF from site to the interim storage cause costs of transportation. However, if the site interim storage is selected, costs for movement of SNF in a site are negligible as is currently conducted.

The benchmark data of the interim storage and DGR are of specific capacities and to utilize these data at the cost estimation module, the costs shall be scaled up with comparison to the result data from the material screening module. The scaling law between two integrated plants with different capacities was introduced by OECD-NEA report11) and Eq. (4) shows the scaling law.

Proceedings of Global 2015September 20-24, 2015 - Paris (France)

Paper 5468

OVC (capacity1 )=OVC (capacity2)( capacity 1capacity 2

)0.6

(4)

The last step of cost estimation computation is contingency addition and cost inflation. For the expenditure plans of the interim storage and DGR, 15% of the total costs of the programs12) are additionally counted for contingency and all the reference costs in the benchmark data are inflated to the current value and exchanged to KRW2015.

The charged price per kWh for SNF funding in the ROK covers NPP decommissioning costs. However, in other papers, the back-end fuel cycle cost often does not cover NPP decommissioning costs. Eq. (5) and (6) show the two representative types of the back-end fuel cycle cost4), 11) and the total costs of the back-end fuel cycle for SC1 are shown in Fig. 4 as an example case.

d1 ∙∑n=1

i E(1+r )i−1 =∑

n=1

i I +H +D+T(1+r)i−1 (5)

d2 ∙∑n=1

i E(1+r )i−1 =∑

n=1

i I +H +T(1+r)i−1 (6)

where E = generated electricity at year i I = cost for the interim storage at year i H = cost for DGR at year i D = cost for NPP decommissioning at year i T = cost for transportation of SNF at year i R = discount rate (%) d = the back-end fuel cycle LCOE.

Fig. 4. The total cost expenditure of the back-end fuel cycle in SC1 case represented annually.

IV. RESULTS

OECD-NEA report (2013) points out that the size of the system affects mostly the cost of the back-end fuel cycle11). Results of this model are to confirm the effects of the size of the system and time-dependency and compare the back-end fuel cycle costs to the results from other studies. The results of computation of the cost estimation model with the 4 scenarios by Monte-Carlo probability distribution are shown in Table VIII. Contingency is accounted to be 30% of the total costs of the interim storage and DGR, and varies from 20% to 40% for triangular probability distribution. Reference license renewal of reactors and time delay of DGR deployment are 10 year and 10-year variation is applied for the same probability distribution each. Reactor decommissioning cost is assumed to be 546 USD/kWe which is escalated to the present value (2015) from the reference (2003) and 10% of variation is applied for the triangular probability distribution.

TABLE VIII

Cost estimation results of the back-end fuel cycle with various discount rates

Scenario No.(Size of the

system)

Cost at KRW2015/kWh0% 3% 7%

Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.DSC1SC2SC3SC4

4.684.314.54.44

0.180.150.160.16

1.671.671.771.76

0.10.10.10.11

0.520.520.540.57

0.070.070.080.08

If 3% discount rate is applied, LCOE of the back-end fuel cycle (except reactor decommissioning) varies from 1.52 to 1.58 USD2015/MWh with exchange rate of 1100 KRW to 1 USD, which is higher than the cost estimation of 1 USD/MWh with 3% discount rate for the system size of 400 TWh/year from OECD-NEA(2013)11). According to the report from the Ministry of Knowledge Economy of the ROK4), the estimation of LCOE for SC1 is 3.3 KRW2012/kWh with 0% discount rate while our model presents 3.6 KRW2015/kWh except reactor decommissioning costs. In the report from OECD-NEA (2013), effects of the size of the system capacity are reflected and the estimation around the capacity of 150 TWh/year is also lower than results our model. Because of time dependence of the deployment of the fuel cycle facilities in the scenarios, resulting in deterrence of continuous expansion of the system capacity by limitation factors such as the number of sites, the back-end fuel cycle cost does not seem to decrease drastically as the capacity increases. Although the cost does not vary a lot, the system size effect is also found in this study, according to Table

Proceedings of Global 2015September 20-24, 2015 - Paris (France)

Paper 5468

VIII and cost comparison to other studies are presented in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5. Comparisons of the back-end fuel cycle costs (except reactor decommissioning) with 0% discount rate11)

*Currency is escalated to the present value (2015)Fig. 6 shows the results of sensitivity analysis on

selected variables and license renewal presents the most sensitivity among them. The sensitivity of expenditures in SNF facilities (by contingency variation) is also substantial to the back-end fuel cycle LCOE. The least sensitive factor is time delay of DGR deployment, which does not change the capacity need of the interim storage because of the planned new NPP constructions. However, if the plans are canceled, which reduces the wet storage at sites, the sensitivity may be greater due to the need for increased capacity of the interim storage.

Fig. 6. The back-end fuel cycle cost uncertainties in SC1.

By scenario modelling, the size of the system capacity is affected by prolonged operation period or/and increase in a number of reactors. When the continuous use option is selected, new NPP construction is assumed to continue until 2080, re-using the existing sites for another operation cycle of a reactor. With the option of the reunification,

from 2030, 32 more vacancy reactor site are added utilizing the land of North Korea. The back-end fuel cycle cost data from the ROK (2012) is based on the current scenario in the ROK. For validation of our cost estimation model, the same current scenario was duplicated and the results show similar to the estimated cost from the ROK.

V. DISCUSSIONS

In the former estimation of the back-end fuel cycle cost, costs for social programs to the locals that attracted fuel cycle facilities and taxes were not taken into account. In reality, roughly 9 KRW/kWh13) of the back-end fuel cycle cost (scenario equivalent to SC1) is charged for funding, which seems social costs and the miscellaneous expense take a significant portion in it. The main purpose of this study was not only to explore economic evaluation by various fuel cycle scenarios, but also to do so by social factors and time delay of deployment of the facilities.

Recently, public acceptance towards nuclear energy in the ROK is low and many entanglements with stakeholders exist, which causes increase in social costs and time delay of nuclear development. However, in the case of the reunification of the Korean peninsula, according to DSGE reunification model, active investment in infrastructure and humanitarian financial support would likely be projected. With expectation of secure siting in North Korea in light of electricity supply and providing quality job opportunities, social costs for deployment of the fuel cycle facilities might be significantly reduced at the development phase. The reunification might also be a significant positive change in the nuclear industry.

On the other hand, if the ROK struggles with making a policy for treatment of SNF and continuous use of nuclear energy, competency of nuclear power in economics would be lessened resulting in sudden rise in electricity cost. For example, precipitant planning and deployment of SNF treatment/disposal facilities might increase costs of the project management and social costs. By continuing the current NPP construction plan and securing the conservative capacity of the interim storage, well-controlled SNF management and nuclear economics can be made because late deployment of DGR presents better economics than having DGR project delayed with increased contingency. With more exhaustive literature review in estimation model of social costs, projection of social costs is needed for the future work, which is expected to show drastic variance in the back-end fuel cycle cost.

SNF reprocessing option also has to be considered in the future fuel cycle in the ROK. The ROK joined the Gen IV project and presents a load map of Sodium cooled Fast Reactor (SFR) aiming to commercial operation from 205014). Because of uncertainties in cost premium, other studies expect the fuel cycle cost for closed fuel cycles to be more expensive11). For economic evaluation and

Proceedings of Global 2015September 20-24, 2015 - Paris (France)

Paper 5468

scenario load maps of the future closed fuel cycle scenarios in the ROK, the model used in this study should be further developed.

As license renewals of Kori unit 1 and Wolsung unit 1 achieved, the nuclear energy capacity will be expected to increase. In the case of U.S., from Calvert cliffs units, 1998, more than 70 operation licenses have been renewed15). Yucca Mountain project was initially of the capacity of 63000 MT of commercial spent fuel. However, with a series of NPP license renewals, expected generation of SNF is to be 150000MT for the minimum and a second repository is suggested16). Compared to the size of the system in U.S., the nuclear capacity in the ROK is not large. However, if nuclear energy is continuously used in the future or reprocessing technology is deployed, the ROK should consider a second repository in terms of both finite limits to repository capacity and throughput efficiency of a repository. Therefore, a second repository option will be taken into account for the future cost estimation modelling work.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

The role of nuclear energy in economy in the ROK has been significant providing secure and cheap electricity. By 2014, the portion of manufacturing industry in added value in the ROK is 31%. Compared to other countries (12 % for U.S., 19% for Japan, 24% for Germany, and 10% for U.K.), GDP dependency on manufacturing industry is high and secure energy supply is more important. In particular, in an island like the ROK, the price of nuclear energy is very competitive. For this reason, the contribution of nuclear energy to national economic growth has been and seems to be great in the future. To keep the price of nuclear power as low as possible with maximum efficiency, the back-end fuel cycle strategy including decommissioning is very important. Even though PECOS reported the need for DGR from 2051, extensive operation of the interim storage can have it postponed by providing “buffer” for decision making and project management. For continuous use of nuclear energy, the ROK needs to decide a policy and plan for the back-end fuel cycle soon rather than “sit and watch” strategy for prevention of leaving burdens of not only waste, but not making the benefit of nuclear energy to the future generation.

REFERENCES

1. Jewhan Lee, Jeong Ik Lee, Won Joon Chang, Soon-Heung Chang, “Comparative cost analysis of direct disposal versus pyro-processing with DUPIC in Korea”, Annals of Nuclear Energy 27 p.1699-1704 (2010)

2. "Cost Estimate for a Repository Concept for UK High-level Waste/Spent Nuclear Fuel," Chapter 3, United Kingdom Nirex, Oxfordshire (2005)

3. "Cost Estimate for an Away-From-Reactor Generic Interim Storage Facility (GISF) for Spent Nuclear Fuel," EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2009, 1018722.

4. "2012 년 방사성폐기물관리비용 산정 최종보고서 ", The Ministry of Knowledge Economy of the ROK (2012)

5. "Decommissioning Nuclear Pwer Plants," Chapter 4, OECD-NEA, Paris (2003)

6. https://aris.iaea.org/sites/..%5CPDF%5CAPR1400.pdf

7. "The 6th Energy Supply Demand Plan(2013~2027)," p.33, The Ministry of Knowledge Economy of the ROK (2013)

8. Harold Feivesion, Zia Mian, M.V. Ramana and Frank von Hippel, "Managing Spent Fuel from Nuclear Pwer Reactors," 2011 International Panel on Fissile Materials, p.105, Princeton University, Princeton, USA (2011)

9. Heui-joo Choi, Jong-youl Lee, and Jong-won Choi, "Development of Geological Disposal Systems for Spent Fuels and High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Korea", p.31, Nuclear Engineering and Technology, Vol.45 No.1, KAERI, Daejeon, ROK (2013)

10. Kyuryoon Kim et al., "The Attraction of Korean Unification: Inter-Korean and International Costs and Benefits", Chapter 2, Korea Institute for National Unification (KINU), Seoul (2011)

11. "The Economics of the Back End of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle," Chapter 3, OECD-NEA, Pairs (2013)

12. "Cost Estimation for Decommissioning," p.30, OECD-NEA, Paris (2010)

13. " 원전사후처리 비용 대폭 현실화," The Ministry of Knowledge Economy of the ROK

14. https://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloadable/ Meetings/2013/2013-09-11-09-13-TM-NPTD/10.yoo.pdf

15. http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/ renewal/applications.html

Proceedings of Global 2015September 20-24, 2015 - Paris (France)

Paper 5468

16. Per F. Peterson, "Will the United States Need a Second Geologic Repository?," The Bridge, Vol.33, No.3, p.27-31 (2003)