ICFD Session 2, Cost Estimation Stockholm, Sweden - 21 September 2016 Michael Lackey P.E. Vice President - Nuclear Operations

Transcription

1 ICFD Session 2, Cost Estimation Stockholm, Sweden - 21 September 2016 Michael Lackey P.E. Vice President - Nuclear Operations Experience of Cost Estimation and Costs for NPP Decommissioning in the USA

2 Current Status of Reactors in the United States 100 Power Reactors Operating 8 Planned near-term shutdowns 4 New reactors under construction 29 Power Reactors Shutdown 11 Decommissioned 6 In active decommissioning 12 In SAFSTOR Diablo Canyon Trojan Decommissioning Project 2 GV PPTX

3 Completed US Reactor Decommissionings Early Decommissionings Shippingport MWe PWR/LWBR Pathfinder MWe BWR Shoreham MWe BWR Fort St Vrain MWe GCR Second Wave Decommissionings Trojan ,095 MWe PWR Maine Yankee MWe PWR Saxton MWe PWR Big Rock Point MWe BWR Haddam Neck (CY) MWe PWR Yankee Rowe MWe PWR Rancho Seco MWe PWR 3 GV PPTX

4 Comparison of Specific Facility Estimates Reactor Size and Type Haddam Neck 582 MWe PWR Maine Yankee 860 MWe PWR Trojan 1,095 MWe PWR NRC Formula Site Specific DCE (initial) Variance $414 $ % Variance Reasons Soil & Groundwater Contamination Alpha Contamination of Failed Fuel $449 $430-4% Lower LLW Volumes $371 $339-9% Lower LLW Disposal Rates Negotiated Notes: Estimates in 2010 US dollars. Values do not include spent fuel management costs or non-radiological cleanup costs 4 GV PPTX

5 Comparison of Estimated to Actual Costs Reactor Size and Type Site Specific DCE (Initial) Actual Costs D&D + PM + Waste = NRC Variance Variance Reasons Haddam Neck 582 MWe PWR $538 $421 $377 $121 $ % Significant issues/delays with RCS decon and reactor internals segmentation Fixed price contract disputes and eventual settlement/removal Significant increase in program management costs due to long project delays Significant increase in waste volumes Significantly reduced LLW disposal rates and VLLW disposal costs Maine Yankee 860 MWe PWR $430 $225 $228 $122 $ % Fixed price contractor insolvency and removal Significant increase in program management costs due to project delays Significant increase in waste volumes Significantly reduced LLW disposal rates and VLLW disposal costs Trojan 1,095 MWe PWR $339 $102 $162 $60 $324-4% Single piece reactor vessel/internals disposal Spent fuel dry storage delay increased program management costs Embedded pipe remediation & survey reduced removal costs and LLW volumes Utilization of a VLLW disposal facility for slightly contaminated concrete Notes: Estimates in 2010 US dollars. Values do not include spent fuel management costs or non-radiological cleanup costs 5 GV PPTX

6 Current Site Specific Decommissioning Cost Estimates Reactor Size and Type Crystal River MWe PWR Humboldt Bay 3 63 MWe BWR Kewaunee 574 MWe PWR SONGS 2 1,070 MWe PWR SONGS 3 1,080 MWe PWR Vermont Yankee 617 MWe BWR Zion 1 & 2 1,040 MWe PWR (2) NRC Formula Site Specific DCE NRC + Fuel + NonRad = Total $503 $880 $279 $54 $1,213 SAFSTOR management costs $660 $811 $214 $55 $1,080 Not Published $538 $304 $37 $879 $521 $1,052 $634 $431 $2,117 $521 $1,097 $664 $610 $2,371 $619 $741 $361 $59 $1,161 Not Published $940 $278 $70 $1,288 Comments Below-grade reactor caisson removal Protracted decommissioning schedule SAFSTOR management costs estimated at about 1/3 of CR3 estimate and about 1/2 of VY estimate Very high program management costs from: - Unexpected closure - California regulatory hurdles Possible no disposal in State landfills. Possible below-grade removal of structural supports. Possible removal of seawater intake & discharge lines. SAFSTOR management cost Large volumes of lightly contaminated soil and groundwater Fixed price decommissioning contract with parent of waste site operator Notes: Estimates in 2015 US dollars 6 GV PPTX

7 Estimating Conclusions from the Second Wave of U.S. Plant Decommissionings Current decommissioning estimating techniques are adequate to produce a reliable estimate. With important caveats: Inadequate characterization can lead to major deviations in the actual costs. In particular: Groundwater Soil Structures Radwaste disposal costs can vary drastically based on competitive negotiations and will drive decommissioning strategies Decon/release vs rip and ship A realistic and executable decommissioning schedule is important as it drives project staff and other time and activity dependent costs A robust risk management process is needed to identify/avoid/mitigate potential project impacts. Examples: Denied or delayed critical regulatory approval Delayed spent fuel removal Failed contracting approach Spent fuel management and non-radiological clean-up costs must be considered Can be very significant Are intertwined with the decommissioning process Can impact schedules, costs, and cash flows 7 GV PPTX