ignalina npp closure and decommissioning

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


Plant Overview


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)


Impact on National Energy Supply

2007 2010

Primary Energy Sources


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


20092010

Source: ENTSO-E (European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity)

Import/Export of Electricity Supply for EU Countries (2010)


Strategic initiatives: electricity


Strategic initiatives: natural gas


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


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


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


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



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


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)


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


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


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)


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


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)

%


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


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%


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)


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


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)


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


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


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



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



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.


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


Reactor dismantlingRevisions of scope and unforeseeable variations


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


Total 190 m Euro (approx.)

Other?



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


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


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%


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)


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)


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



Breakdown of Electricity Imports by Country 1-3Q 2010

Belarus 6%

Latvia 8%

Estonia 22%

Russia 64%

ignalina npp closure and decommissioning

Documents

republic of lithuaniaministry

national energy supply2007

primary energy sources

energy plant overview

major facilities

plant type rbmk

fighting unit

feed facilities