Nuclear Energy Agency. Costs of Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants

Transcription

1 Nuclear Energy Agency Costs of Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants International Conference on Financing of Decommissioning Stockholm, Sweden September 2016 Geoffrey Rothwell, PhD, Principal Economist Division of Nuclear Development, Nuclear Energy Agency, OECD 2016 Nuclear 2016 Energy Nuclear Agency/OECD/Paris, Energy France

2 NEA (2016). Costs of Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants. Paris: OECD. This NEA study s aim is to review NPP decommissioning costs and funding practices adopted by NEA member countries, based on the collection and analysis of survey data gathered via a dedicated questionnaire. The work has been done with the NEA s Radioactive Waste Management Committee (RWMC) and its standing groups: the Working Party on Decommissioning and Dismantling (WPDD) and Decommissioning Cost Estimation Group (DCEG). We also had close co-operation with the IAEA and the European Commission. 2

3 What is decommissioning? US NRC Decontamination Decontamination & Demolition (D&D) D&D plus all waste management costs (including or not Spent Nuclear Fuel) EC (ISDC) + Site Restoration 3

4 History of NEA D&D Cost Reports NEA Report of 1986: 6 Countries NEA Report of 1991: 9 Countries 9 data points NEA Report of 2003: 24 Countries 53 data points updated 2013 USD (2001 USD x 1.44 Producer Price Index) PWRs: 300 to 700 USD/kWe av. 460 USD/kWe (see p. 59) VVERs: 300 to 700 USD/kWe av. 475 USD/kWe (see p. 60) BWRs: 450 to 800 USD/kWe av. 600 USD/kWe (see p. 61) NEA Report of 2015: 14 Countries 11 data points PWRs: 4 sets of estimated costs (3 of which are generic) VVERs: 2 sets for VVERs BWRs: 3 sets (one generic estimate) GCRs/Magnox: 11 sets (UK NDA Magnox fleet/gcr in Spain) 4

5 International Structure for Decommissioning Costing in ISDC ISDC COST ITEM (ISDC was produced by NEA with the EC and the IAEA) 01 PRE, Pre-decommissioning 02 SHUT, Facility shutdown 03 ENCLO, Additional activities for safe enclosure 04 DISM, Dismantling activities within the controlled area (aggregate into D&D ) 05 WASTE, Waste processing, storage & disposal ( aggregate into WASTE ) 06 INFRA, Site infrastructure and operation (aggregate into MANAGE ) 07 DEMO, Conventional dismantling demolition and site restoration (aggregate into D&D ) 08 PM, Project management, engineering & site support (aggregate into MANAGE ) 09 R&D, Research and development 10 FUEL, Fuel and nuclear material 11 MISC, Miscellaneous expenditures TOTAL 5

6 Outcome of the Survey Per PLANT SITE - ISDC Level 1 Categories: (millions of 2013 USD) ES-P1 ES-P2 CH-P1 FR-P1 ES-B1 ES-B2 SE-B1 F1-V1 SK-V1 NEA. Costs of Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants (2016) 6

7 Aggregated Outcomes Percentages of ISDC Level 1 Categories: 100% 7% 7% 5% 11% 13% 90% 17% 28% 23% 80% 42% 46% 14% 41% 29% 70% 44% 10% 60% 55% 19% 5% 50% 46% 8% 8% 5% 29% 40% 33% 30% 20% 10% 0% 6% 62% 4% 50% 43% 43% 44% 10% 22% 29% 29% 12% ES-P1 ES-P2 CH-P1 FR-P1 ES-B1 ES-B2 SE-B1 FI-V1 SK-V1 ISDC ISDC 05 ISDC Others NEA. Costs of Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants (2016) 7

8 Compare with US Cost Estimates With the lack of observations, we turned to the US data as presented in a Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) report done for the US NRC, but never published! Assessment of the Adequacy of the 10 CFR 50.75(c) Minimum Decommissioning Fund Formula Completed costs for 4 decommissioned NPPs Site-specific estimates for several NPPs - PWRs & BWRs (shut down or approaching retirement) Compatibility and comparability with ISDC? Different structures for cost allocation: Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) Therefore, we hired a consultant to work out the correspondence between WBS and ISDC 8

9 Converting US D&D Data to ISDC The D&D cost estimation data presented in PNNL (2011) are based on a WBS from two different D&D cost estimation companies. We applied the conversion method to a limited number of cases, covering many possible combinations: for example, PWR and BWR, and immediate and deferred dismantling. Converted ISDC data were then used to calculate percentage distributions of D&D costs for (1) cost estimates and (2) actual cost data for accomplished projects as presented in the PNNL report for four cases: Haddam Neck, Trojan, Main Yankee and Rancho Seco. 9

10 US Cost estimates vs Actual Costs ISDC (D&D), ISDC 05 (Waste) and ISDC (Management) for converted data and reformatted data for completed projects $1,000 $900 $800 $700 $600 $ DOC Bankrupt RPV to Hanford Estimates for Immediate D&D LS U1 La Salle Unit 1 LS U2 La Salle Unit 2 CP U1 Comanche Peak Unit 1 CP U2 Comanche Peak Unit 2 DA Duane Arnold KW Kewaunee $400 $300 $200 $100 $0 LS U1 LS U2 CP U1 CP U2 DA KW HNP HNP-R MY TNP RS Completed Projects HNP Haddam Neck HNP Haddam Neck ( revised ) MY Main Yankee = $500M TNP Trojan NPP RS Rancho Seco NPP 10

11 Conclusions Regarding Cost Drivers Pre-decommissioning costs: To encourage early planning, these should be paid for out of decommissioning funds. Cost of managing Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF): The cost of managing SNF is not always included in the cost of decommissioning. To make cost estimates more transparent over time, these should not be included in decommissioning cost estimates. Immediate versus deferred D&D: The selection of immediate versus deferred decommissioning, is primary factor influencing the overall costs of D&D and limits the validity of quantitative comparisons between cost estimates. 11

12 Conclusions Regarding Funding Funding Policy and Strategy: There are considerable variations between countries in the details of formal funding requirements. To increase comparability, countries should try to standardize funding requirements, e.g., Germany and Sweden, where utilities share ownership in many nuclear power plants. During operation: Regular updating of decommissioning cost estimates is an important prerequisite for establishing adequate funds for future decommissioning. Nonetheless, decommissioning funding arrangements may still be vulnerable to the failure of a fund to reach a sufficient level of financing to cover the full actual costs of decommissioning, e.g., due to earlier than expected closure. Therefore, it is better to collect more funds early, and less funds later, if they are not necessary. 12