Nuclear Decommissioning
in Europe and JRC Scientific Support
Pierre Kockerols, European Commission, Joint Research Centre
Operational Issues in
Radioactive Waste Management and Nuclear Decommissioning
5th international Summer School 2013
Ispra, 9-13/09/2013
Content
Introduction
Situation in the EU
Costs and Funding
Staff resources
Environment and Safety
Scientific Support to Decommissioning in the EU
Conclusion
First decommissioning : 1964
EBR-I research reactor, Idaho, USA
became a U.S. “National Historic Landmark”
First commercial nuclear plant decommissioned: 1984-1989
Shippingport, Pennsylvania, USA
source: IAEA
First Decommissioning Milestones
Nuclear decommissioning
Feasibility of decommissioning will only be demonstrated if all operations can be performed with due consideration of safety and security concerns.
“Nuclear decommissioning is the final step in the lifecycle of a nuclear installation covering all activities from shutdown and removal of fissile
material to environmental restoration of the site.”
• Immediate Dismantling (DECON): the dismantling and decontamination activities begin within a few months or years
• 3 options for decommissioning
Status 124 worldwide shutdown power reactors:
# 16 fully dismantled
# 50 dismantling is on-going
# 3 entombed (US)
source: IAEA
• Long Term Safe Enclosure (SAFSTOR): postponement of the final release of regulatory controls (usually for a period of 40 to 60 years)
• Entombment (ENTOMB): placing the facility into a condition with remaining radioactive material on-site without ever removing it totally
Germany
France
Lithuania
Belgium
The NL
Spain
Italy
Slovakia Czech R.
Hungary
Slovenia
Romania
Bulgary
U.K.
Sweden
Situation nuclear power plants in the EU
TOTAL
Power reactors in EU: 220
Operating reactors: 135
Operational
Shutdown - Dismantling
Fully Dismantled
Long Term Safe Enclosure
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
19
73
19
76
19
79
19
82
19
85
19
88
19
91
19
94
19
97
20
00
20
03
20
06
20
09
20
12
20
15
20
18
20
21
20
24
20
27
20
30
20
33
20
36
20
39
# Commissioned NPP # Shut down NPP
Commissioning and Shutdown & Forecast
Economical reasons
52%Public acceptance
reasons
21%
Changes in licencing
requirements
9%
Technological
reasons
13%
Due to operational
accident/incident
4%
Reasons of currently shutdown reactors
source: IAEA, 2011
Main NPP decommissioning projects in EU
1
2
3
3
13
21
34
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
HWLWR
LGR (RBMK)
LMFBR
GCHWR
BWR
PWR
GCR
As condition for EU-Accession:
LI - Ignalina 1-2 (RMBK) / BG - Kozloduy 1-4 (VVER) / SK - Bohunice 1-2 (VVER)
Other:
UK - 25 reactors (mainly Magnox)
FR - Chinon, Bugey and St Laurent (6 GCR);
Brennilis (GCHWR), Chooz (PWR),
Phénix and Super-Phénix (LMFBR)
IT - full NPP fleet (Latina,Garigliano,Trino,Caorso)
DE - Greifswald (5 VVER),
Niederaichbach (GCHWR),
Gundremmingen-A (BWR)
BE - BR-3 (PWR)
ES - Vandellos-1 (GCR), Jose Cabrera (PWR)
Shutdown reactors in the EU
• The decommissioning market up to 2030 • shares as of January 2012
Asia-Pacific US$ 20 billion
Europe US$ 81 billion
North America US$ 8 billion
source: GlobalData, 2012
Current cost estimates range between 200 and 1150 million$ (160-900 M€) per nuclear power plant unit
Cost drivers are, in general:
Reactor type and size
Site condition (number of units)
Radioactive waste generated
Scope of the decommissioning projects (ending point)
Applicable Regulatory standards
Duration of the project…
sources: OECD, GlobalData
Decommissioning cost estimates
source: GlobalData, 2012
Decommissioning cost estimates
Estimated decommissioning cost by reactor type and reactor power
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Reactor net power output (MWe)
Co
st
(M$
) PWR
VVER
BWR
GCR
LWGR
Decommissioning Funds Type of funds:
• “Segregated internal fund”: kept by the operator of the NPP but as a separate budget which can only be addressed for decommissioning and waste management purposes and under the control of the national body.
--> Funds of this type exist in FR, BE, NL, and CZ.
• “Segregated external fund”: external to the operator of the NPP.
--> Exists in FI, SE, UK, ES, SL and LT where it is also external from the state budget.
--> Exists in HU, RO, SK and BG where the funds are somehow internal to the State budget.
• “Non-segregated internal fund”: companies operating NPPs must build up reserves in their balance sheets in order to cover the future decommissioning and waste management costs.
--> Exists in DE.
Decommissioning Funds
Council Directive 2011/70/Euratom on waste management: obligation on Member States to keep their national programmes updated and subject to peer reviews enhances the transparency and quality of
the funding mechanisms, which will also help to avoid market distortions.
Examples in EU:
Sweden
Total cost estimate: 9,7 G€
Collected (2011): 4,2 G€ (42%)
Finland
Total cost estimate: 2,1 G€
Collected (2010): 1,9 G€ (91%)
Staff resources Workforce re-deployment for decommissioning
- Experience from decommissioning of the Greifswald NPP -
Personnel development of EWN GmbH
237 128 30
1526
10921310
5231
5564
3640
2080
17921693 1567 1502 1468 1405 1355
1200959 870
745587
370244
-2 72 153252 316
473625
546 453
222 270
381
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
Nu
mb
er
of
sta
ff
Blue: staff for EWN decommissioning project
Red: additional staff for external projects
source: EWN GmbH (D)
European Human Resource Observatory for Nuclear sector (“EHRO-N”):
EU-27 : total workforce in the nuclear industry is approx. 500.000
16% (77.000) of these are 'nuclear experts', i.e. nuclear engineers, nuclear physicists, nuclear chemists, radiation protection specialists
By 2020 some 40.000 new nuclear experts will be needed to replace the retiring personnel and to cater for additional capacity.
Although not analysed in the EHRO-N study, it can be reasonably expected that a fraction of these, about 5.000-10.000 experts will have to acquire competence in the field of decommissioning and waste management
Staff resources
• Waste production
Waste treatment and disposal 20 to 40 % of decommissioning costs
Experience feedback on waste production:
PWRs, BWRs, PHWRs: 10 t / MWe
VVERs: 17 t / MWe
GCRs: 100 t / MWe
about 90% can be recycled or disposed of as conventional waste
Waste reduction further to be achieved by:
planning and management of waste streams
development of decontamination techniques
dedicated waste processing facilities and equipment
development of adequate radiation monitoring source: OECD
Under revision
2006
1999 1999
2001
DS403
2006 2008 2004
DS452
Under revision
DS450
Safety Standards for Decommissioning
Scientific Support to Decommissioning
Context
the European Parliament, during its debates on the
future Euratom research programme, requested
that:
“JRC builds upon its experience with the
decommissioning of JRC nuclear facilities and further
reinforces its research to support safe decommissioning in
Europe. “
Roundtable organised by JRC on
“Scientific Support for Nuclear Decommissioning
Aim: to bring industry and science together to share best
practices, identify bottle necks and consider future prospects
and priorities for European nuclear decommissioning
1. Development of Innovative Technologies:
• improvement measurement techniques:
• radiological characterisation of waste
• clearance
• site characterisation techniques
2. Standardisation:
• towards "reference centre" for radiological
measurements (assessment measurement
techniques, inter-comparisons, technical
advice, reference samples)
• validation of activation calculations,
improvement of nuclear data
3. Education and Training:
• integration Ispra summer school in JRC's
European Safety and Security School (EN3S)
• assessment of training needs and training
opportunities in the EU
• support E&T decommissioning network
4. Knowledge Management:
• organisation of dedicated seminars
• support to IAEA and OECD/NEA
• reiteration roundtable, associated paper
Conclusions (1/2)
• Decommissioning market is in full expansion, in particular in Europe.
• Significant impact on employment; shortages of qualified nuclear staff expected, including in decommissioning field
• Even without nuclear “renaissance”, decommissioning will be a long term activity (until > 2050)
• Funding systems are in place although adequacy of the cost estimates requires continuous attention
Conclusions (2/2)
• Currently, an industrial experience exist, however…
… further attention is necessary for:
• Development of the most suitable techniques, with respect to safety and waste limitation
• Standardisation and harmonisation
• Offering dedicated training opportunities
• Implementing experience feedback in design new facilities
• Set-up of an efficient regulatory oversight in MS
• Demonstration of decommissioning at an industrial scale, as a last but feasible step of the nuclear life-cycle, is essential for the credibility of the nuclear energy option
