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 assumptionsAssumptions

• 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

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

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 customersExclusion:• potential benefits from possible local cask manufacture, shipping lines and

other 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, 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

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