Radioactive Waste Storage and Disposal Facilities in SA Quantitative - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Radioactive Waste Storage and Disposal Facilities in SA – Quantitative Cost Analysis and Business Case Dr Tim Johnson & Dr Darron Cook TUESDAY, 6 OCTOBER 2015 1

Approach taken in the analysis Four generalised types of waste storage and disposal facility are being considered in the study: 1. Interim storage facility (ISF) for high and intermediate level wastes – surface facility 2. Geological disposal facility (GDF) for high level waste – deep underground 3. Intermediate depth underground repository (IDR) for intermediate level wastes 4. Low level waste repository (LLWR) – near surface Our investigation will look at the business case to manage international waste which does not have a local solution, as well as potential Australian wastes from a nuclear power programme 2

Types of waste under consideration The study focuses on the following waste streams • High level wastes (HLW) , mostly spent nuclear fuel ( SF ) potentially with some stabilised waste from reprocessing spent fuel, delivered in casks, for eventual disposal in a deep geological disposal facility ( GDF ). • Intermediate level wastes (ILW) mainly from nuclear power plants, delivered in robust containers, for eventual disposal in an intermediate-depth repository ( IDR ), • Low level wastes (LLW) arising from Australian nuclear- related activities (eg medical wastes, packaging, clothing) for disposal in a low level waste repository ( LLWR ) 3

Scale of the demand – key assumptions Assumptions • An existing and well documented stockpile of high level waste (largely spent fuel) held internationally, in need of a permanent solution • ‘Willingness to pay’ for the management of high and intermediate level wastes based on published holding costs • Potential customer countries do not reprocess their spent fuel Exclusions • Waste accruing from countries with advanced waste management programmes (e.g. USA, some EU countries, Russia, China) – assumed these countries will store and dispose of their wastes • International low level waste is excluded – assumed local, national solutions predominate 4

Scale of the demand – approach assumptions • Model the total amount radioactive waste requiring management over time based on: – the size of current and future stockpiles, for both existing nuclear power programmes and those in the advanced stages of planning – typical rates of high level and intermediate level waste creation for light water reactors • Estimate the % of the total market which SA will be able to capture and an upper and lower bound, depending on market and other factors 5

General assumptions regarding the radioactive waste storage and disposal industry • Timelines for licensing, developing, and commissioning these facilities are assumed to be very long • Facilities assumed to operate for decades (eg 25+ years development, 60 to 100+ years operation) – different scenarios will be developed to establish the range of likely timescales to bring these facilities into operation – surface storage is expected to be developed more quickly than underground disposal facilities, hence revenues will precede the costs of underground disposal • Both capital and through life operational costs are significant 6

Key assumptions – interim storage facility (IFS) • Also known as interim spent fuel storage (ISFS) • 5 to 10 years lead time to operations after siting and approvals in place • Located near to a new dedicated port in South Australia • Connected by a short haul road • Receives HLW and ILW in specialist casks and containers for surface storage • Sized to meet modelled demands with modular construction • Connected to water and power networks • Local workforce 7

Key assumptions – geological disposal facility (GDF) • Located in region with suitable geology, hydrogeology, geochemistry (to depth of 500m+) for deep underground disposal • Assumed to be several hundred kilometres from the IFS • 15+ years time to operations after siting and approvals in place • Connected to IFS by a heavy railway • HLW and ILW encapsulated for permanent disposal • Sized to meet modelled demands with modular construction • Stand-alone water and power supplies • Not assumed to have local workforce 8

Key assumptions – intermediate depth repository (IDR) • Co-located with the GDF • Shares common infrastructure and workforce with GDF • 10 to 15 years time to operations after siting and approvals in place • ILW encapsulated for permanent disposal • Sized to meet modelled demands with modular construction 9

Key assumptions – low level waste repository (LLWR) • Surface facility with fewer physical constraints on siting (climate, hydrology, geological stability) than for ILR and GDF. • Co-location with other facilities not necessary but may be cost beneficial • 1 to 5 years time to operations after siting and approvals • Assumed to have local workforce and connections to power and water networks • Receives compacted, sealed low level waste by road • Sized to meet modelled demands with modular construction 10

Other assumptions - storage and disposal facilities Assume: • SA has large areas with suitable geology for a GDF and IDR facility as well as a number of coastal locations suitable for an ISF. • All four types of facility form links in a service chain for the management of radioactive wastes • Business case modelling to incorporate extensive lead times for establishment of legislative, regulatory, siting, design and other processes prior to construction and operation • The SF part of HLW will have spent 10 years in wet storage (at source location) prior to delivery to the ISF by ship / truck • SF has 30 years storage at the ISF before relocation to the GDF • SF / HLW casks will be supplied by customers and re-used • Shipping costs will be met by customers Exclusion: • potential benefits from possible local cask manufacture, shipping lines and other support services 11

Cost estimation processes • Business case cost inputs are at AACE Class 5 (concept) level of -50% to +100%, given uncertainties regarding design, location, technologies applied. • Approach assumptions for capital and operating costs: – consider overseas experiences (designs and costs) – develop South Australian equivalent costs – develop both ‘top down’ and ‘bottom up’ costs as a cross check – apply phasing of costs over time 12

Reference projects: GDF and IDR • International concept studies reviewed at high level • Basement rock concept assumed for SA Source: IAEA Storage and Disposal of Spent Fuel and High Level Waste, 2005 • Basement rock concept designs: – GDF: Swedish/Finnish KBS-3H in-tunnel disposal concept (with an engineered barrier system adapted to the arid environment – IDR : ‘UK Reference’ vault disposal concept for basement rocks (designed to accommodate a wide range of low to intermediate level wastes)

Data sources for GDF and IDR costs • Sweden : Plan 2013: relevant for the BRC* model (SKB, 2014) • Finland : 2005 Cost estimate for the SF repository at Olkiluoto: relevant for the BRC* model (Posiva, 2005) • Switzerland : 2011 cost estimate for SF/HLW disposal: relevant to the HIC** model (SwissNuclear, 2011) • UK : Government pricing model for new build SF disposal (DECC, 2010) • SAPIERR shared European GDF project for the European Commission (Chapman et al, 2009) * BRC – Basement rock concept ** HIC – High isolation concept, for surface infrastructure only

Reference projects: ISF • Dry cask design – variants reviewed – Holtec system selected as reference • Storage facility design – private fuel storage project Utah, USA (2001) – EPRI study USA (2009) – US DOE study 2013 (more complex facility) • Costs – above studies – IAEA “Costing of Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage, report NF-T-3.5 (2009)

Cost factors incorporated in analysis • Location related costs • Cost of escalation (building price index increases) • Scale factors (compared with overseas facilities) • Upfront costs and ongoing phased expansion • Sequencing of facility planning, construction, operations, midlife renewal, decommissioning 16

Enabling infrastructure • ‘Hard’ infrastructure – airport / port facilities – rail & road connections – water and power connections / stand-alone systems – accommodation for GDF site • ‘Agency / human’ infrastructure – development of legislative basis for industry – expansion of regulatory bodies for industry – corporate / departmental growth 17

Other foreseeable costs included in analysis • Site selection and agreement, evaluation and environmental impact analysis; including transport corridors • Concept and detailed design, land acquisition and use (for both sites and transport corridors) • Rolling stock / logistics • Facility maintenance • Regulatory licensing and inspection costs • Post closure activities • Direct workforce costs – site admin, operations, quality assurance, security, etc 18

Development of the commercial basis • Demand and cost estimates will form basis of commercial model • Identify revenue requirements to meet various rates of return calculated at a range of discount rates • Compare these requirements with customer range of willingness to pay values • Consider generic scenario analyses including time to gain licenses, size, speed of implementation , length of railway, phasing of construction, size of demand etc 19