Nuclear Decommissioning: Regulatory and Policy Implications · 2020. 4. 17. · Decommission Market Segment Estimate of Decommissioning Costs U.S. $30 billion France $25 billion Russia

Nuclear Decommissioning: Regulatory and Policy

Implications

Allison Macfarlane

Nuclear at a Crossroads Conference, CSIS

October 24, 2016

Global Plant Status• Increasing number of shutdown plants

– Germany phase out by 2022

– Japan

• Fukushima Dai’ichi, Monju, Hamaoka

– Canada

– UK

– US

– France ?

• Decommissioning will be big business

US Waste Status

• 100 operating reactors

• Spent Fuel

– >74,000 metric tons at 65

reactor sites

– >15,000 metric tons HLW and

spent fuel in weapons

complex

• A 1000 MWe reactor

produces about 20 metric

tons spent fuel/year

US Reactor Shutdowns by Year

0

1

2

3

4

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

198

0

198

2

198

4

198

6

198

8

199

0

199

2

199

4

199

6

199

8

20

00

20

02

20

04

20

06

20

08

20

10

20

12

20

14

Impending Plant Shutdowns

Announced Shutdowns Date

Ft Calhoun 12/2016

Fitzpatrick 2016?

Clinton 2017

Quad Cities 1 & 2 2018

Oyster Creek 2019

Pilgrim 2019

Diablo Canyon 1 & 2 2025

• Other reactors under

threat:

– Ginna (NY)

– Nine Mile Point (NY)

– Davis Besse (OH)

– Three Mile Island (PA)

– Byron (IL)

– Millstone (CT)

Decommissioning Process

• 3 Options

– Immediate Dismantlement

(DECON)

– Deferred Dismantlement

(SAFSTOR)

– Entombment (ENTOMB)

• US rule: Decommissioning

complete by year 60 after

shutdown

• Decommissioning process

usually involves

– (1) Immediate removal of fuel from

reactor

– (2) To NRC: within 2 y of shutdown:

Post Shutdown Decommissioning

Activities Report

• Planned activities, schedule,

expected costs

– (3) Remove equipment, deal with

wastes, decontaminate

– (4) Public engagement with owner

Yankee Rowe Decommissioning

Yankee Rowe Before Decon Yankee Rowe After Decon

Decommissioning Strategy Decision

Advantages of Immediate Decon

• Workforce

– Knowledgeable workers already there

– Less chance of knowledge loss

– Less workforce disruption

– Less economic shock on region

• Certainty

– Predict costs better (may be cheaper)

– Know who will manage decon process and

pay

– Less risk to decon funds

• More public acceptance

– Earlier reuse of site

Advantages of Waiting

• Radiation decreases over time

– Less worker dose

– Reduction in waste volumes

• Can grow decommissioning fund

• Time for disposal options to

appear

• Coordinate decommissioning at a

number of sites

DECON or SAFSTOR?Shutdown Plant Status

Big Rock Point ISFSI only

Humboldt ISFSI only

Haddam Neck ISFSI only

Maine Yankee ISFSI only

Yankee Rowe ISFSI only

Rancho Seco ISFSI only

Trojan ISFSI only

Ft St Vrain ISFSI only

Lacrosse DECON

Zion 1 & 2 DECON

Dresden 1* SAFSTOR

Millstone 1* SAFSTOR

Peach Bottom 1* SAFSTOR

Three Mile Island 2* SAFSTOR

Recently ShutdownPlants

Status License Termination

Crystal River SAFSTOR 2073

Kewaunee SAFSTOR 2073

VermontYankee

SAFSTOR 2073

San Onofre DECON 2033

*have operating plants on the same site

Decommissioning Experience

• US and international

experience

• Timing: 5 – 15 years

• Costs

– Estimates: $450M -

$1.1B/reactor

– Actual costs: 2013$

• $308 - $836/reactor

Haddam neck decommissioning

Regulatory Issues

• Decommissioning Funding

Status Reports

– Every 2 years

• Currently – decon plants are

regulated under operating

licenses

– Require exemptions from

safety and security regulations

• Decommissioning Planning

Rule

– Expected 2019

• Will consider

– Emergency planning/security

– NRC approval of PSDAR

– Examine timeframes of

SAFSTOR

– Role of state/local government

and public

Waste Streams in Decommissioning

• Waste streams

– VLLW, Class A, B & C go

to landfill/waste

facilities

– GTCC & Spent Fuel

• Need deep repository

• No site available

• All stored on-site

Waste type

Est for EU plant (m3)

ME Yankee

860 MWePWR)

Rancho Seco (913

MWePWR)

VLLWClass A*

2,900 90,600 17,200

Class B & C*

2,500 570 90

GTCC* 110 N/A 10

Spent Fuel N/A 1434 assemblies

493 assemblies

*From McGrath & Reid, 2014

Recent Developments

• Consent-based siting process – Department

of Energy

• Public engagement to develop a consent-

based siting method

• Potential new centralized storage facilities:

• Waste Control Specialists Texas site (40,000

MT)

– License application submitted 4/2016

– Holtec International New Mexico site

• License application to be submitted 11/2016

• Continued Storage Rule (NRC)

– Indefinite storage results in only small impactsWaste Control Specialists site plan

Current Waste Stalemate

• Congress: waste safe now, next election

important

• Dept of Energy: no legal authority to solve

it entirely

• Utilities: Need to reduce costs – will do

nothing

• Dept of Justice: (Judgment Fund) – forces

lowest cost option

• Nuclear Regulatory Commission: no

forcing mechanism in current regulations

for action

• Anti-nuclear groups: oppose repository,

waste transport

• Decommissioning sites: want waste out of

there

Conclusions

• In the near future

– More plant shutdowns

– Need to ensure

• Adequate funding available

for decommissioning

• Responsible party for

decommissioning/spent fuel

disposal is maintained over

long time periods

• A repository program is

prioritized

Economic Implications of Nuclear

Decommissioning

Nuclear Energy at a Crossroads

Center for Strategic & International Studies

Washington, DC

Eric Knox

AECOM, Management Services

Nuclear & Environment

24 October 2016

17

Utility Presentation

AECOM Business Sensitive and Proprietary

Contents

• An Introduction to AECOM

− Our “D4” Credentials

− Decommissioning, Decontamination, Dismantling & Demolition

• Decommissioning – A Global Perspective

Page 17

18



• ~$4B annual

government

budgets managed

• Over 10,000 people

(inc. LLC employees)

• Prime contractor on

9 Tier 1 DOE and

NDA contracts

• Partner /Support on 5

Tier 1 DOE and NDA

contracts

• Provide engineering

& consulting services

at 20 DOE and NDA

projects

AECOM – Nuclear Decommissioning— Over 150 Site-Years on Complex, High-Hazard Nuclear Sites

Page 18

19



Some Examples of Site ProjectsKorea Development Bank HeadquartersSeoul, Korea

East Tennessee Technology ParkOak Ridge, TN - NOW

Before

Savannah River Site SC -AFTER

BEFORE River Corridor Project, Hanford, WA - 2014

Dounreay, Scotland

Page 19

Reactor Decommissioning- a Global Overview

21



Global Summary

• At the end of 2015, the world’s 441 reactors (382 GWe of nuclear capacity) accounted for 11% of world’s electricity

• Some 80% of existing nuclear capacity is in OECD countries. Of that more than three-quarters is over 25 years old

• By contrast, around half of the capacity in non-OECD countries (excluding Russia) is less than 15 years old

• Currently, 67 GW of nuclear capacity under construction, 21 reactors in OECD countries and 46 in non-OECD countries

• In 2015, WNA reports that 10 new reactors began commercial operations (+9497 MWe), while internationally eight reactors were shutdown for decommissioning (-4582 MWe)

• In total: 110 commercial reactors, 46 experimental or prototypes, and 250 research reactors as well as a number of fuel cycle facilities have been permanently shutdown. Some of these facilities have been fully dismantled.

• Over the next 20 years and beyond, the IAEA estimates that 150 GWs, or more than 200 nuclear plants, are expected to be retired, primed for or begin decommissioning

Page 21

22



• Bulk of worldwide retirements are in the mature markets, i.e.

oldest fleets first, reflecting the age profile of their fleets,

particularly the European Union (led by France, Germany and

UK), Russia, Japan and United States

• Rate of retirements picks up in the first half of the 2020s as

reactors built in 1970s are taken off-line, and then again in the

2030s, particularly if life extensions in the U.S. are not re-

extended for another 20 years

• Average rate of retirements is about 5 GWs per year, compared

with new additions of 15 per year

• Main drivers for plant retirements include:

1. Units that have achieved their expected economic lifetime, 75 %

2. Units that are closed following an accident, 5%

3. Units which are closed prematurely by political decision or due to

regulatory reasons, 20%

Global Summary

Page 22

23



Age Profile of Operating Reactors

• Global nuclear reactor fleet average age is 27 years • OECD countries, reactor fleet is over 25 years • Half of the capacity in Non-OECD countries is less than 15 years old

Page 23

24



Age Profile of Operating Reactors

• 356 reactors over 20+ years• 220 reactors over 30+ years• 65 reactors over 40+ years

Page 24

25



Distribution of Planned Retirements

Around 150 GW of nuclear capacity is retired thru 2040, equivalent to 38% of the current installed capacity or 44% of the existing operating

world fleet

Page 25

26



Overview

• Approximately 50% of the world’s existing nuclear reactors are expected to be shutdown by 2030, creating a substantial market for the commercial nuclear reactor decommissioning industry in the years to come per GlobalData reports

$28.0

$21.4 $20.2

$18.7

$13.4

International Commercial Nuclear D&D Market (US$B)

(2015 to 2025)

USA

Europe

Asia

UK

Russia

$-

$20.0

$40.0

$60.0

$80.0

$100.0

$120.0

$140.0

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

$17.8 $27.3

$57.1

$87.5

$130.0

Tota

l US$

Bill

ion

s

Projected International D&D Market (US$B)

Ref : GlobalData reports

Page 26

27



Decommissioning - Europe

• Germany shut down 8 units in 2011 and a 9th (Grafenrheinfeld) was

shut down in 2015 – total (8942 MWe). Remaining 8 units will be

shutdown by Dec 2022

• All the UK’s first generation Magnox units are now shutdown

(4450 MWe) and in various stages of decommissioning

• France has a total of 13 power reactors to be decommissioned

(4210 MWe)

• In addition to Germany, France and the UK, reactors in Bulgaria,

Sweden, Slovakia and Spain have been shutdown and are being

or will be decommissioned (5052 MWe)

• This is a total of 22654 MWe being decommissioned

Page 27

28



Decommissioning - Asia

• So far, Japan has declared that 8 reactors will be

decommissioned (excluding those at Fukushima Dai-ichi)

- Hamaoka 1 & 2, Genkai 1, Mihama 1 & 2, Shimane 1, Tsuruga 1

and, most recently, Ikata 1 (2627MWe in total)

• South Korea has announced that its first reactor (Kori

1) will be shutdown and decommissioned (556 MWe)

• Taiwan – if ChinShan 1 & 2 do not get their life

extensions approved then they will shut down in 2018

and 2019 (1208 MWe)

Page 28

29



Decommissioning Costs – U.S. Example

Based on U.S. data, decommissioning cost estimates are in the range of $750M to $1 billion per 1000MW plant

Decommissioning options include:- Immediate dismantling (prompt removal and processing of all radioactive material)

- Deferred dismantling or “SAFSTOR” (make safe and allow radioactive decay to occur before starting the dismantling process)

Page 29

30



Order of Magnitude Decommissioning Cost Estimates thru 2040

Decommission Market Segment Estimate of Decommissioning Costs

U.S. $30 billion

France $25 billion

Russia $15 billion

U.K. $20 billion

Germany $25 billion

Japan $30-50 billion (exc Fukushima Daiichi)

Total $155- 175 billion

• Decommissioning market size could be over $150 billion thru 2040• Decommissioning costs are in the order of 10 percent of the investment

in new nuclear capacity over the period

Page 30

31



Summary

• Decommissioning has started now but from the mid-2020s will become an increasingly important segment of the nuclear energy industry

• Decommissioning is a growth market

• Many existing nuclear plants are approaching “mid-life” and future

nuclear plant retirements are “around-the-corner” – decommissioning

activity will therefore continue to grow through the 2030s

• Total Spend on reactor decommissioning could exceed $200B over next

three decades

• Nuclear plant decommissioning costs vary significantly from country to

country and depend on a range of factors, including:

- Domestic economic/political/regulatory conditions

- Utilities’ financial strategies (including D&D funding options)

- Availability of waste disposition options

Page 31

Thank You

US Existing Nuclear Plants at

RiskElectric Power andEmissions Impacts

28 GWof nuclear plants at risk of retirement by 2030Retired capacity, GW

Scenario design

CPP Existing + New

Mass-based compliance with existing and new fossil units covered

Intra-regional trading

Allowances value recycled to consumers

CPP Existing Only

Mass-based compliance with existing fossil units covered

Intra-regional trading

Allowances value recycled to consumers

No CPP

No emissions policy in the electricity sector

Change in power sector CO2emissions compared to 2015, MMT

CPP Existing Only No CPPCPP Existing + New

CPP Existing + New CPP Existing Only No CPP

Change in generation due to nuclear retirements, TWh

Retirements make it more difficult to achieve USParis goals2025,million metric tons

11% ofminimum

emissionsgap

5% ofminimum

emissionsgap

4.0%

3.1%3.5%

2030 Electric Power System Resource CostsBillion 2015 dollars

US Existing Nuclear at RiskElectric Power andEmissions Impacts

Documents

Nuclear Decommissioning: Regulatory and Policy Implications · 2020. 4. 17. · Decommission Market Segment Estimate of Decommissioning Costs U.S. $30 billion France $25 billion Russia