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

• f 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

• f 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

11

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
• f 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
• ther support services

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

• 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)

Source: IAEA Storage and Disposal of Spent Fuel and High Level Waste, 2005

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,
• perations, 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

Linkages with other NFCRC work streams

• Linkages with nuclear power plant stream

– a South Australian waste management capability would address the waste requirements from a local nuclear power plant which will need access to a GDF

• Linkages with fuel manufacture / enrichment

stream

– could form a part of a ‘lease and take back’ arrangement whereby South Australian nuclear material is leased and then returned to South Australian for storage and disposal – this has both economic advantages to SA, as well as nuclear non-proliferation benefits

20

Study outputs

• Cost ranges, with assumptions and evidence for the

four types of facility and supporting infrastructure – scenarios for individual or joint operation – opportunities for phased development

• Revenue estimates, with assumptions and evidence
• Commercial outcome measures, including IRR, NPV

(at various discount rates)

• Sensitivity analysis to address key areas of

uncertainty and demonstrate overall confidence in findings

21

22