Technology AssessmentJordan Nuclear Power Plant Project

2 10-Jun-2010

Jordan Country Profile

- Total Area: 89 213 sq. Km

- Sea Port: Aqaba

- Coastline: 26 Km

- Population: 5.96 million 31% (15- 29) 38% (below 15)

- Climate: Mediterranean & Arid Desert

- GDP: $21.5 billion

- Per Capita: $3,554

- Annual GDP Growth: 7% (2000-2009)

3 10-Jun-2010

NPP Project Background and Benefits

Project Background

Increase energy independence,Provide electricity to the country at a reasonable price,Ensure additional income and balancing loads by exporting electricity to the neighboring countries (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria and Palestine),Utilize/ Leverage domestic uranium reserves, Provide opportunity to develop nuclear capabilities, including participation in project development, design, construction, and plant operation,Multiplicative effect on local economy via infrastructure upgrades, job creation, provision of services, and education of workforce,Reduce CO2 emissions, by switching to minimum CO2-intensive electricity productionSupport major infrastructure projects, such as Red Sea –Dead Sea Canal project

99% of Jordan’s electricity is generated from either oil or gas, which is in turn 96% imported

6800 MW of new power generating capacity needed to satisfy the demand by 2030

Decision has been reached to build a new Nuclear Power Plant

Project Benefits

4 10-Jun-2010

Five Measures

1. Generation. Policy : privatized but with Gov. equity (PPP model). International nuclear operator with safe record + investment for the plant

2. Uranium Exploitation. Policy : maximize sovereignty while creating value from resource. Avoid concessions

3. Fuel Cycle: Negotiate assurances for fuel services including waste disposal

4. Getting Country Ready:1. Investment for all studies2. Investment in training and HR3. Investment in infrastructure

5. Funding : Investigate creative financing methods that minimize central Gov. resources

5 10-Jun-2010

Available and Committed Capacities versus the Electricity Median Load Forecast

0 0 0 0 0

561

821

1200

1539

1832

2100

2670

3045

3634

3974

4336

4721

5095

5490

5908

6352

6839

7740

8579

9151

10138

10783

11754

12846

14022

14824

15676

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022202320242025202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037203820392040

MW

Existing & Committed Capacity Capacity Shortage Peak Load

6 10-Jun-2010

Regional Interconnection

National Grid Map

HASANREHAB

ZARQA

HARANEHAZRAQ

SAFAW I

RWAISHED

RESHEH

QAIA

QATRANEHKARAK

GHOR SAFI EL HASA

RASHADIA

MA ’ AN

QWEIRA

AQABA A2

SHEIDIA

SUBEIHIESHTAFAINA

WAQAS

DER ALI

TABA

SWAIMA

Amm .N

BAYADER Amm .S

SAHABASHRAFIA

ABDALIMARKATAREQ

ABDOON

132 kV

400 kV500 kV

SABHA

220 kV

SYRIA

SAUDI ARABIAEGYPT

MEDITERRANEAN SEA

MASKIN

FUHIS

400/132 kV S/S132/33 kV S/SN. GAS T.

THERMAL P/S

220/132 kV S/S

IRAQ

AMMAN AREA

RED

SEA

DEA

D S

EA

400 kV S/MARINE CABLE

IRBID

GAS T. (DIESEL FIRED)

AQABA M400

AQABA INDUSTR

7 10-Jun-2010

Grid Stability and Adaptability (1)

The stability of Jordan's T&D network from introduction of 1000 MWe NPP is under study by NEPCO

Preliminary Results:

Reinforce the internal 400 kV line (estimated cost around US$ 300 million).Upgrade the international connection with neighboring countries (estimated cost around US$ 500 million).Agreement with the interconnected countries to keep a stable reserve in case of the outage of the NPP unit.Long term trading agreement with neighboring countries to keep the Nuclear unit (as a base load unit) during the daily operation.

8 10-Jun-2010

Grid Stability and Adaptability (2)

Technical Assessment Report, 30 May, 2010.

Design and Specification Report (June-July, 2010).

Load Generation Balance Management Report (June-July, 2010).

Final Report, (Mid September, 2010).

9 10-Jun-2010

Site Selection

Preliminary regional analysis was carried out for identification of potential sites for NPP, followed by screening of these sites and selecting candidate sites.The analysis was based on the following IAEA criteria:

1.The suitability of the site for heavy construction:

A. The topography, morphology, and ground stability.B. The geology, structural geology, and soil mechanics.C. The seismology of the area.

2. The possible impact of human induced events on safety of the NPP.

3. The availability of water for steam generation, cooling, and other uses.

4. The distance from the electrical transmission network.

5.The possible impact on public health and environment under normal operation and in case of accident.

6.The economical feasibility of the site.

10 10-Jun-2010

1. Aqaba sites, where it can use the sea water for cooling: i. Site 1; at the sea where it can use the sea water for

direct cooling. ii. Site 2; 10 km to the east of Gulf of Aqaba shoreline at

the Saudi Arabia borders. iii. Site 3, 4 km to the east of Gulf of Aqaba shoreline. iv. Site 4; 22 km to the north of Gulf of Aqaba shoreline.

This site has been excluded for being on the gravel and siltstone and closed to the population, main roads and air port.

2. Wadi Araba Site 5; where it can use the proposed Red Sea-Dead Sea canal's water for cooling. But this site has been excluded for being laying on the gravel in area of high seismic activity and for the uncertainty around the route, capacity, and the time of executing the proposed canal.

3. Al-khirbeh Al Samra Site 6; where it can use the treated waste water flowing from the Wastewater Treatment Plant for cooling and the groundwater in the area for other uses. The site considered to be a candidate site to build one reactor. But the site has been excluded for the time being because the unreliability of the resources.

4. Wadi Bin Hammad Site 7; where it can use the brackish groundwater. The site considered to be a candidate site to build one reactor, but excluded because the uncertainty about the availability of enough groundwater.

Initial Screening

11 10-Jun-2010

Proposed Cooling Water Options

12 10-Jun-2010

Site Suitability Conclusions

Abandon the alluvial plain in front of the mountain range as potential site for a NPP (area 4).

Only the granitic basement in the east of the 6 km²site (area 5) should be considered as a potential site for a NPP (area S1, S2,and S4).

Commence the characterization phase of the project on the Eastern part of the selected site.

Preliminary Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment

Operating-Basis Earthquake-OBE (475 years return period) found to be in the range of 0.163-0.182 gSafe Shutdown Earthquake-SSE (10,000 years return period) found to be in the range of 0.333-0.502g.

13 10-Jun-2010

NI

EPC Contractor

Financing

NEPCO

Power PurchaseAgreement

TI, BOP+/-?

Nuclear Power Co.

Setting Up of Nuclear Company

GOJ Nuclear Operator

Mining Source of Funding

Others

14 10-Jun-2010

Transmission Network + System Operator+ Bulk Supplier

NEPCO

Consumers

IPPsGenerationCompanies

ElectricalInterconnection

PrincipalConsumers

DistributionCompanies

National Electric Power Company (NEPCO)

15 10-Jun-2010

PPA

Negotiated with NEPCOSeveral favorable PPAs successfully negotiated and implemented with conventional IPPsTwo Components:- Capacity Charge- Energy Charge

Open book accountingCurrently, no sale to third parties but flexibility existsFavorable provisions- Term could exceed 30 years- Force Majeure- Dispute resolution

16 10-Jun-2010

JNRC - Regulations

Regulations in development• Site approval• Construction permitting• Overall licensing• Safety (design, construction, training, operations, QA)• Emergency planning• Decommissioning• Spent fuel and RW management

17 10-Jun-2010

Technology Assessment - Strategy

JAEC’s Technology Assessment Strategy is a three-fold:

Evaluate in details the technologies of interest in accordance with approved procedure and evaluation criteria.

Select the top three technologies based on technical and financial parameters to carry forward into a competitive dialogue process.

Implement a competitive dialogue process with the three selected reactor technology providers.

This assessment was designed provide a ranking of the technologies by the JAEC technology assessment team to identify those technologies/vendors that will be invited to participate in the competitive dialogue.

18 10-Jun-2010

In 2009, JAEC received expressions of interest from four reactor technology vendors

On January 26, 2010, JAEC issued a questionnaire to each of the interested technology vendors requesting technical and preliminary financial information

On March 21, 2010, JAEC received vendors responses offering JAEC seven different plant technologies

JACE and the NPP Pre-Construction Consultant (WP) conducted two independent assessment of the submitted vendors responses to select the top three technologies suitable for Jordan

Technology Assessment - Background

19 10-Jun-2010

Technology Assessment – Background (2)

The final seven vendors plant technologies responses received were, namely:

APR-1000 from KEPCO in Korea

ATMEA1 from AREVA in France

EC6 from AECL in Canada

VVER-1000 version A91 (AES-91) - AtomStroyExport of Russia

VVER-1000 version A92 (AES-92) - AtomStroyExport of Russia

AES-2006 Leningrad versions - AtomStroyExport of Russia

AES-2006 Novo Voronezh version - AtomStroyExport of Russia

20 10-Jun-2010

The technical questions in the questionnaire were focused on the following categories:

General Vendors information

Reactor Technology Design

Operation and Maintenance

Construction Method and Schedule

Reactor Performance

Safety of the Reactor Design

Fuel cycle, Waste management and Non-proliferation

International Licensing and operating Experience

Vendor Long Term Commitment

Evaluation Methodology

21 10-Jun-2010

The evaluation procedure was developed using an internationally recognizedand accepted evaluation methodology based mainly upon the evaluationprovided in the IAEA documents Technical Report Series 204, “TechnicalEvaluation of Bids for Nuclear Power Plants, 1981” and its update.

The process for assigning scores for the proposed reactor technologies isdetermined in accordance with the following equation.

Score(T) = Σ(i=1 to x) [ Σ(j = 1 to bi) Wij Vij]Where:Score (T) = Score for Reactor Technology, T

i = Category Group number (1 to x)j = Criterion number bi = Number of criteria in criterion group iWij = Weighting factor for criterion j in criterion group i (0 to 10)Vij = Value assigned to a reactor technology for criterion (j) in criterion group (i)

Evaluation Methodology

22 10-Jun-2010

Evaluation Methodology

Criteria Baseline Var. WP

General Requirements 6.25 10

Design 6 5

Operations and Maintenance 8.08 10

Construction 2.5 10

Reactor Performance 3.92 5

Safety of Reactor Design 25 25

Fuel Cycle/Radwaste/Non-Proliferation 25 10

International Licensing / Operations Experience 5.75 10

Vendor Long Term Commitment 2.5 5

NPP Economics 15 10

Two Different Relative Weighting Factors

23 10-Jun-2010

Technical Evaluation Results

Based solely on the vendors responses to the technology assessment questions, the selected top three nuclear reactor technologies were ( not in any order):

EC6, AES-92, ATMEA1

COMPETETIVE DALOGUE

25 10-Jun-2010

CD vs. Bid Invitation

A Competitive Dialogue process is employed when it is desired that the signing of contracts is done a short time, and that several activities can be conducted in parallel, so that the selected Supplier can begin activities with minimal delays.

26 10-Jun-2010

Goals - General

Fair (equal treatment)TransparentYield acceptable technical product and commercial conditions, and competitive pricing for the projectYield a solution that supports a new NPP in Jordan producing power in 2018/2019

27 10-Jun-2010

Goals – General (2)

Understand and Evaluate technical product

Evaluate the Bidders ability to provide a full scope of services needed (licensing, design, construction, S/U, operation, maintenance, training, technology transfer, localization, fuel, fuel cycle management, etc.)

Evaluate commercial arrangement and pricing

28 10-Jun-2010

Goals – Jordan Specific

Perform a Phase 1 evaluation and down select to two bidders in July

Perform a Phase 2 evaluation and select one bidder for negotiations by October (if possible)

• Identify a form of corporate structure for future cooperation

• Arrive at term sheets among potential corporate stakeholders to support forming a corporate arrangement

29 10-Jun-2010

CD Process for Jordan

Phase 1 – three Bidders

• Questions sent to Bidders in May

• Meeting with each Bidder to discuss questions, preliminary answers, and consider new questions, first week of June, final additionalquestions sent to Bidders after meetings

• Bidders develop answers and return to present answers and additional information, third week of June

• JAEC evaluate and decide on two best Bidders to continue CD Process, in July

30 10-Jun-2010

CD Process for Jordan (2)

Phase 2 – Two Bidders

• Additional questions to clarify scope, approach to commercial arrangement, and costs

• Separate meetings with technical, financial, and commercial teams

• Two rounds of written questions, preparation of responses, present responses with clarifications developed in the second round. Develop term sheets among potential corporate stakeholders to support forming a corporate arrangement

• JAEC may elect to have a third round of questions/responses as needed to make a decision on which Bidder to invite to negotiations to form corporate structure.

31 10-Jun-2010

Negotiations

Building on term sheets structure a commercial arrangement that address ownership/financing and sets up structure for placing contracts to design/build/operate the new NPP.

Corporate arrangement obtains funding and starts to let contracts for start of work (long-lead equipment and design, etc.)

32 10-Jun-2010

Overall Evaluation Process

1. What are the deliverables to ensure the country is ready? What are the impacts on job creation and technology transfer?

2. What is the wealth creation to Jordan from Uranium assets?

3. How does the proposal address fuel cycle, including fuel security, costs and waste management?

4. How does the proposed generation technology meet our selection criteria for the reactor? What is the safety record of the operator?

5. What is the approach to resolve Jordan’s financial constraints?

33 10-Jun-2010

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Jordan

Vendor Selection

Financing

EIA/Site Selection

PSARCh2

Reactor/Const

Vendor

Basic design and PSAR

Site Preparation

Construction

Commissioning

MoE

JNRC

Site Approval

Select 3 Final Selection/ Limited Notice to Proceed

Contract Negotiated

Financial Closure

5/15 12/25 6/30

Design/PSAR Review

Construction Permit

Commissioning Permit

Operating Permit

Design Review Complete

Client Approval

2017 2018