ignalina npp closure and decommissioning
DESCRIPTION
Presentation designed to substantiate the costs of Ignalina NPP decommissioningTRANSCRIPT
Ignalina NPP Closure and Decommissioning
Meeting the Cost
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Energy
Decommissioning Funding Group – 16 March 2011
… the decommissioning of the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant with
two 1500 MW RBMK-type reactor units inherited from the former
Soviet Union is of an unprecedented nature and represents for
Lithuania an exceptional financial burden not commensurate
with the size and economic strength of the country …
Accession Treaty, Protocol 4
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Energy
Plant Overview
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Energy
Basics
Plant Type RBMK-1500
Number of units 2 (of 4 planned)
Power per unit 1250 MWe
Nearest settlement Visaginas
Staff in 2011 2000 (approx.)
Unit 1 Unit 2
Operatio
n
First operation Dec 1983 Aug 1987
Final closure Dec 2004 Dec 2009
Load factor (since independence)
45.5% 57.4%
• Largest and most advanced RBMK design (also with later safety upgrading)
• Intended to serve NW region of Soviet Union
• Supplied 70-80% of LT national demand
• Closed at around mid-life
• Low load factor (lack of consumers in 1990s)
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Energy
Impact on National Energy Supply
2007 2010
Primary Energy Sources
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Energy
Export
Import
LT SI CZ BG FR RO ES DE BE PL
EE GB DK AT SE NL SK GR PT NI IT HU FI LV IE LU LT
2009
Impact on National Energy Supply
20092010
Source: ENTSO-E (European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity)
Import/Export of Electricity Supply for EU Countries (2010)
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Energy
Strategic initiatives: electricity
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Energy
Strategic initiatives: natural gas
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Energy
Impact on Visaginas
• Purpose-built town (pop. ~30,000)• Wholly reliant on INPP• Largely Russian-speaking with poor
socio-economic integration • Hard-hit by closure
– reduction of employment opportunities– loss of status– massive rises in heating prices
• Ministry of Energy funding social mitigation measures
• PHARE study estimated 440 m Euro in social costs for best-case scenario
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Energy
Decommissioning Strategy
Advantage Drawback
Use of existing workforce:(a) social mitigation (b) staff knowledge
Costs incurred earlier
Higher radiation levels
Use of operational infrastructure
Defined regulatory framework
Better cost definition
No legacy to future generations
Immediate Dismantling
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Energy
RBMK plant decommissioning
Technical difficulties: • huge primary masses of buildings• large proportion of contaminated masses• large volumes of operational waste• irradiated graphite – no established disposal method
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Energy
Comparison with Greifswald NPP (1)
Steel
30,000 m3
5,800 m3
130,000 tons
190 (additional)
17,100 tons
15,000 m3
2,000 m3
59%
116,000 tons
61
2,660 tons91%
Steel Graphite Shielding (serpentine / sand)
2,300 t 3,800 t 11,000 t
Operational Solid Waste (to be retrieved and managed)
Operational Spent Resins (for cementation)
Steel from Equipt. Dismantling contaminated
Required Spent Fuel Casks (for interim storage)
Reactor Core Structures
6 x 440 MWe VVER Greifswald NPP Ignalina NPP
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Energy
Comparison with Greifswald NPP (2)
Smaller reactor size
permits integral removal
and storage of main vessel
Not possible for RBMK
• International experience exists in dismantling pressurised water reactors
• Ignalina NPP is pioneering the immediate dismantling of an RBMK more difficult to define technology and costs
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Energy
Overall schedule
2001-2010 2011-2020 2021-2030
Unit 1 activities
Unit 2activities
General site activities
Dismantling & Decontamination
ISFSF
SWMSF
Landfill Facility
Near Surface Repository
Dismantling & Decontamination
Fuel in core Fuel in pools Fuel fully removed
Fuel in core Fuel in pools Fuel fully removed
Site Operation & Maintenance DemolitionD&D
Post-operation
Operation
Operation
Post-operation
Opening wastemanagement
routes(Design &
construction)
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Energy
Sequence of starting dismantling
1. emergency core cooling system water storage tanks (Building 117)
2. turbine generators with auxiliary systems, feed facilities and heat supply facilities (Block G)
3. reactor gas circuit and special venting system (Block V)
4. low salt water and main coolant circuit bypass water treatment facilities (Block B)
5. control room, electrical equipment and deaerator (Block D) heat pipe service / fire fighting (Unit 1 only)
6. reactor building (Block A)
2
1
36
5
4
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Energy
Current Status
• Dismantling outside units since 2009 (e.g. service water pump house)
• Dismantling unit facilities since 2010 (Unit 1 emergency core cooling system)
• 2 major facilities in construction
(a) Interim Spent Fuel Storage Facility
(b) Solid Waste Management & Storage Facility
• 2 major facilities under design
– Landfill (constructing Buffer Store)
– Near Surface Repository
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Energy
Decommissioning Costs
Methodology
• Simplified “Global Decommissioning Programme”
– based on Final Decommissioning Plan
– takes account of activities performed up to now
– fully up-to-date and consistent with current planning
– enables long-term cost factoring
• Macroeconomic study
– performed by chief economist of leading commercial bank
– focussed on parameters relevant to decommissioning
(general inflation, energy costs, labour costs)
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Energy
Adjustments applied (1)
• Since 2002 (preparation of Final Decommissioning Plan) = ~30%
• Forecast for 2012 to 2029 (annual rate of 2.5 to 3.2%) = ~110%
General inflationConsumer Price Index (normalised to 2002)
2002
2011
2029
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Energy
Adjustments applied (2)Energy prices 20
29
• Broadly based study based on several sources:
– International Energy Agency– EC DG ENER– Russian Ministry of Energy– EPRI– World Nuclear Association
• Adapted to specific circumstances of Lithuania
– existing situation– strategic initiative in energy
sector (e.g. interconnections and new nuclear)
%
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Energy
Adjustments applied (3)
Wages and salaries
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20101000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600Average of public and private sector salaries
(Litas)
• Significant rise in salaries since 2002 • Forecast for 2012 to 2029: from 7%, slowing to 5% in later years
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Energy
Breakdown by Generic Activities
550m€
510m€
610m€200m€
100m€
210m€
110m€
Total cost: 2290 m Euro
(at 2011 prices)
Final Site Clearance
5%
D&D24%
Preparatory Actions4%
Fuel Removal9%
Post-operation 9%
WasteRemoval
22%
General Site Operation
27%
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Energy
Breakdown by Generic Costs
Adjustments
460m€
Other Investments & Procurements
38% (2011)
640m€
320m€
+160m€
+140m€
870m€
Major Facilities
28% (2011)
Staffing20% (2011)Energy
14% (2011)
450m€+150m€
Staffing23% (adjusted)
Energy17% (adjusted)
Major Facilities, Investments & Procurements60% (adjusted)
(2012-2029)
Total cost: 2290 m Euro
(at 2011 prices)
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Energy
Ignalina NPP Staffing
2001-2003
2000
2004-2009 2010-2012 2013-2016
500
1400
2017-2023
1100
500
3900
2800
2024-2026 2027-2029
4600
Staff attributable to the cost of post-operation and dismantling
Unit 1closure
600
End of unitdismantling
End of defuelling
2250
Unit 2closure
2000
Newskills
End of all D&D
1800
End of demolition
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Energy
Energy costs
25 m Euro
15 m Euro
10 m Euro
5 m Euro
20 m EuroElectricity Heat & Gas
2011 Adjusted
320 m Euro 460 m Euro (2011) (adjusted)
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Energy
Major Facilities
Facility: ISFSF SWMSF Landfill NSR
Status: Construction Construction Design(Buffer Store Construction)
Design
Cost: 200 m Euro 120 m Euro 30 m Euro 290 m Euro
TOTAL 640 m Euro
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Energy
Other investments & procurements Field Cost to 2011 Cost 2012-2029 TOTAL
Reliable heat & steam supply after closure (B5) 40 m Euro 0 m Euro 40 m Euro
Projects derived from the Final Decommissioning PlanProjects B6-B36 excl. D&D consultancy (B9), Reactor Dismantling equipt. (B30), PMU (B31) and Melting Unit (B18†)
25 m Euro 85 m Euro 110 m Euro
Reactor Dismantling Related Investments (B30, B37, B38) 0 m Euro 40 m Euro 40 m Euro
Consultancy Services (IIDSF PMU - B31) 40 m Euro 5 m Euro 45 m Euro
D&D Consultancy (B9) 15 m Euro 5 m Euro 20 m Euro
Physical Protection and Fire Service Cover 10 m Euro 100 m Euro 110 m Euro
Site infrastructure for decommissioning 10 m Euro 15 m Euro 25 m Euro
Dismissal compensation, low price contracts, training, insurance, business travel, etc.(Costs now paid from National Decommissioning Fund)
55 m Euro 40 m Euro 95 m Euro
Support of post-operation 10 m Euro 45 m Euro 55 m Euro
Support of D&D implementation 0 m Euro 220 m Euro 220 m Euro
Final clean up of buildings, demolition and site restoration 0 m Euro 110 m Euro 110 m Euro
TOTAL (at 2011 prices) 205 m Euro 665 m Euro 870 m Euro
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Energy
Major Exclusions (1)
Direct Costs of Ignalina NPP Decommissioning
Field Exclusion Justification
Graphite All final disposal costsNo technical solution currently available
Spent nuclear fuel
All final disposal costsNo technical solution currently available
All costs of physical protection and surveillance beyond 2029
Long-term cost
Radioactive waste All costs of physical protection and surveillance of storages and repositories beyond 2029
Long-term cost
Divestment All costs associated with divestment of non-decommissioning activities of Ignalina NPP
Not currently quantified
Regulatory institutionsAll costs associated with the operation of regulatory institutions for decommissioning
Not currently quantified
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Energy
Major Exclusions (2)
Indirect Costs of Ignalina NPP Decommissioning
Field Exclusion Justification
Local impactUnemployment benefits, social support, mitigation and redevelopment measures in Visaginas
Not currently quantified. PHARE Study estimated social costs of 440 m Euro at 2001 prices.
National impact
Loss of revenue to the State Budget Not currently quantified
Economic impact of loss of industrial competiveness due to increased electricity prices
Not currently quantified
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Energy
Assumptions
Field Assumption Justification
Overall decommissioningGlobal Decommissioning Plan (GDP) has identified all possible costs
GDP was built-up from estimates developed and refined successively in successive planning documents (PDP, FDP, U1DP0, etc.). GDP accounts for real costs over 2000-2010 and further development of ongoing projects.
Reactor dismantlingGDP assumes immediate dismantling
FDP concluded that dismantling of reactors is possible and foresees long-term interim storage of associated “orphan” waste.
Macroeconomic Rises in salaries, energy costs and other prices do not exceed the values presented
Macroeconomic study commissioned by Ministry of Energy based on best available data.
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Energy
Risks Field Risk Quantification of impact
Design & Build Major Investment Projects (ongoing)
Additional works, changes in regulatory requirements
20% (60 m Euro approx.)
Excludes indirect impact of any further delays.
Build-only Major Investment Projects (planned)
Additional works, changes in regulatory requirements
15% (50 m Euro approx.)
Reactor dismantlingRevisions of scope and unforeseeable variations
50% (20 m Euro approx.)
Bitumized waste
Upgrading of interim storage into long-term near surface disposal (foreseen in GDP based on preliminary study) is not possible.
50 m Euro (approx.)
14,000 m3 to be retrieved conditioned and disposed of in NSR
Other Investments derivedfrom Final Decommissioning Plan
Revisions of scope and unforeseeable variations
10% (10 m Euro approx.)
Total 190 m Euro (approx.)
Other?
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Energy
Comparison with Greifswald NPP (3)
Operational Solid Waste (to be retrieved and managed)
Operational Spent Resins (for cementation)
30,000 m3
15,000 m3
5,800 m3
2,000 m3
Steel from Equipt. Dismantling contaminated
59%
91%
130,000 tons
116,000 tons
Steel
Steel Graphite Shielding (serpentine / sand)
Required Spent Fuel Casks (for interim storage)
190 (additional)
61
17,100 tons
2,300 t
Reactor Core Structures
1.4 billion Euro
3.2 billion Euro
2,660 tons
3,800 t 11,000 t
Greifswald NPP Ignalina NPP
Decommissioning Funding Identified
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Energy
Resources: EU & international
1999 - 2003
210 m€ 320 m€ 837 m€
Bilateral donors: 33 m€
2004 - 2006 2007 - 2013
EU: 1367 m€
Total: 1450 m€
EU: 995.5 m€
Total: 1078.5 m€
2011 2013IIDSF interest: 50 m€
• Legal basis of IIDSF and Ignalina Programme (from Accession Treaty) include decommissioning and consequential measures in the energy sector
• Relevant to examine use of funds to date:– proportion of funding in each sector– current funding available
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Energy
Resources: EU & international
651 m Euro
306.5 m Euro
111mEuro
Administration 1%10 m Euro
Total: 1078.5 m Euro
Energy Sector 29%
Decommissioning60%
Unallocated 10%
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Energy
National Decommissioning Fund
• Limited by:– Soviet period– safety power reduction– low load factor– early closure
• Former funding– levy on INPP electricity
no present income
• Future funding– surcharge on electricity
sales (also limited)
45 m Euro29 m Euro
49 m Euro
32 m Euro
Social Mitigation
18%
Energy Sector20%
Decommissioning30%
Unallocated28%
Administration4% (6 m Euro)
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Energy
Other national sources
• Ignalina NPP own resources
– present cash assets: 100 m Euro
– future sales of materials: 30 m Euro
• State Budget
– taxes and ineligible income costs
460 m Euro to 2029 (at 20% tax)
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Energy
Conclusion
1290 m Euro
1480 m Euro
EU and international donors until 2013
2040m€
650m€ 320m€
Resources
Lithuania
Direct Costs
Direct costs to 2011 Future direct costs 2012 to 2029
1450 m Euro 2740 m Euro(adjusted)
2290 m Euro(2011 prices)
480m€ (max)
700m€
2011
190m€
2930 m Euro(adjusted incl. risk)
Risk
FUNDING GAP
• Costs well-founded (cf. FDP & Greifswald) but significant funding gap• Benefit to EU MS and ENP of Ignalina NPP experience• Lithuania is contributing to the expected level• Seeking EU funds to meet funding gap (with inherent risks)
Thank you
Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Energy
Impact on National Energy Supply
Breakdown of Electricity Imports by Country 1-3Q 2010
Belarus 6%
Latvia 8%
Estonia 22%
Russia 64%