Euradwaste '08 - EU Bookshop - Europa
Euradwaste '08 - EU Bookshop - Europa Euradwaste '08 - EU Bookshop - Europa
As in all industrial activities, "Polluter pays" principle is valid for nuclear power, too. Considering the long lead times in radioactive waste management, the financial provisions for waste management must be secured in advance and collected in phase with electricity production. The present generations that take the advantage of nuclear electricity shall have the burden to bear the waste management costs and not push them forward to future generations. The financing of waste management necessitates reliable assessment of waste management costs. The cost calculations are, however, not too straightforward especially when related to high level waste management. Prediction of future costs over a time span of one hundred years is very challenging while bearing in mind that the technology is continuously developing. In all activities related to nuclear power "Safety first" principle is mandatory. The application of this in financial provisions implies that conservatism is included in cost calculations. It should be noted that sufficiently accurate information of waste management costs is needed also for the evaluation of the economics of nuclear power, i.e. when new nuclear power plant projects are considered. Such calculations can utilise the same data base although they might be based on different premises and boundary conditions. The purpose of this presentation is to discuss the costs of spent fuel management, first using the Finnish situation as an example and then trying to generalize our experiences and conclusions into an international framework as far as possible. Some long-term perspective is available on the basis of the past evolution of our cost estimates but an extrapolation into the future is doubtful at its best. 2. Basis for calculation of waste management costs in Finland 2.1 Legal framework for assessing financial liabilities Preparations for nuclear waste management were commenced in Finland already in the 1970s when the power plants were still under construction. In 1983, the Government confirmed a target schedule for spent fuel management, in which the construction of the final disposal facility was scheduled for the 2010s and the start of final disposal for 2020. The Nuclear Energy Act regulates the implementation of nuclear waste management in Finland. According to the Act, the operators of the NPPs bear the responsibility for nuclear waste until final disposal has taken place. All nuclear waste generated in Finland, including spent fuel, must be handled, stored and permanently disposed of in Finland. The financial side of final disposal is also covered by legislation. The assets required for the management of wastes produced in nuclear power plants are collected in advance from the waste producers and transferred to the State Nuclear Waste Management Fund. The two nuclear power companies, Teollisuuden Voima Oy (TVO) and Fortum Power and Heat Oy (Fortum), are responsible for the safe management of the their waste and for all associated expenses. TVO and Fortum established a joint company, Posiva Oy, in 1995 to implement the disposal programme for spent fuel from their NPPs, whilst other nuclear wastes are handled and disposed of by the power companies themselves. The State Nuclear Waste Management Fund is a reserve for future costs. The Fund was introduced in the Nuclear Energy Act of 1987 and is operative since 1988. It is not included in the budget of the state, but is an external fund controlled by the Ministry of Employment and the Economy (TEM). The Finnish Fund fulfils the two globally accepted principles for such funds: the funds are 48
collected in the cost of the nuclear electricity production giving rise to the wastes and the collected funds should be available when the related waste management operations are carried out. The nuclear operators are entitled to borrow back, at the market interest, 75% of the capital against full securities. The State has the right to borrow the remaining 25% at the same interest rate. It is worth emphasizing that the Fund does not pay for the waste management activities but only keeps in safe the money corresponding to the costs of the remaining measures. Theoretically, all the funds have been returned to the operators when they have carried out all the necessary waste management operations. As the costs of dismantling and decommissioning immediately turn to remaining waste management costs when a nuclear facility is made critical for the first time, there is a transition period of 25 years to collect these costs that constitute a considerable portion of the total waste management costs. A second and more universal financial provision system was introduced with the adoption of the International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) as basis for the financial reporting of Finnish public companies in 2005. IFRS requires that the waste management liabilities are accounted for in the balance sheet. Funds for future waste management activities have to be collected by the end of the operational lifetime of NPPs. 2.2 Practical prerequisites and principles of assessment The implementation of spent fuel management for Olkiluoto and Loviisa NPP units is based the Decision-in-Principle (DiP) issued by the Finnish Government in December 2000 and ratified by the Parliament in May 2001. According to this decision, Posiva will locate its repository in crystalline bedrock at Olkiluoto and the disposal would be based on the so called KBS-3 concept (Fig. 1). Based on the target schedule, final disposal of spent fuel will commence in 2020. Host rock Backfill KBS-3V Bentonite Canister 49 KBS-3H Host rock Bentonite Canister Figure 1: Schematic illustration of KBS-3 disposal concept with two alternatives The cost estimates for financial provisions and liabilities are based on the latest detailed waste management plans and schedules. These are revised at three years intervals; latest revision was made in 2006.
- Page 13 and 14: Topic: Support actions SAPIERR-II -
- Page 15: CONFERENCE SUMMARIES
- Page 18 and 19: supported. The Commission believes
- Page 20 and 21: Ms Monika Hammarström of SKB in Sw
- Page 22 and 23: Dr Bruno of Amphos 21 urged the swi
- Page 24 and 25: measurements of actinides to determ
- Page 26 and 27: Dr Peter Blümling of Nagra in Swit
- Page 28 and 29: Future directions There seemed to b
- Page 31 and 32: 1. Introduction Keynote Address Pet
- Page 33 and 34: tive waste management, a considerab
- Page 35 and 36: the decision making process. The se
- Page 37: All initiatives leading to encourag
- Page 40 and 41: tegrating them as part of advanced
- Page 43: General introduction and objectives
- Page 47 and 48: Radioactive waste management: Where
- Page 49 and 50: The intense development in nuclear
- Page 51 and 52: Figure 3: Schematic diagram of the
- Page 53 and 54: contributed to enhance knowledge ab
- Page 55 and 56: the first time in French history, a
- Page 57 and 58: PANEL DISCUSSION Summary of the Pan
- Page 59: With the support of IAEA preliminar
- Page 63: Assessment of Financial Provisions
- Page 67 and 68: erated by Fortum) and one PWR unit
- Page 69 and 70: pected. As to tunnel backfilling, t
- Page 71 and 72: ferent, the technological solutions
- Page 73 and 74: PANEL DISCUSSION Summary of the Pan
- Page 75: Discussion: As a response to a ques
- Page 79 and 80: Cooperation in the development of g
- Page 81 and 82: During the 1980’s it was realized
- Page 83: government on the operating license
- Page 86 and 87: tions. EDRAM is another example of
- Page 88 and 89: Discussion: The chairman opened the
- Page 91 and 92: Communicating the safety of radioac
- Page 93 and 94: Communicating the Safety of Radioac
- Page 95 and 96: Geological repositories … Differe
- Page 97 and 98: Geological long-term stability (pla
- Page 99 and 100: Times & doses in perspective (examp
- Page 101 and 102: Trust is generated (by the regulato
- Page 103 and 104: PANEL DISCUSSION Summary of the Pan
- Page 105: 4. The regulators could play a very
- Page 108 and 109: Europe's nuclear industries, theref
- Page 110 and 111: filled - one key example being coll
- Page 112 and 113: Table 2. FP6 Integrated Projects an
As in all industrial activities, "Polluter pays" principle is valid for nuclear power, too. Considering<br />
the long lead times in radioactive waste management, the financial provisions for waste management<br />
must be secured in advance and collected in phase with electricity production. The present<br />
generations that take the advantage of nuclear electricity shall have the burden to bear the waste<br />
management costs and not push them forward to future generations.<br />
The financing of waste management necessitates reliable assessment of waste management costs.<br />
The cost calculations are, however, not too straightforward especially when related to high level<br />
waste management. Prediction of future costs over a time span of one hundred years is very challenging<br />
while bearing in mind that the technology is continuously developing. In all activities related<br />
to nuclear power "Safety first" principle is mandatory. The application of this in financial provisions<br />
implies that conservatism is included in cost calculations.<br />
It should be noted that sufficiently accurate information of waste management costs is needed also<br />
for the evaluation of the economics of nuclear power, i.e. when new nuclear power plant projects<br />
are considered. Such calculations can utilise the same data base although they might be based on<br />
different premises and boundary conditions.<br />
The purpose of this presentation is to discuss the costs of spent fuel management, first using the<br />
Finnish situation as an example and then trying to generalize our experiences and conclusions into<br />
an international framework as far as possible. Some long-term perspective is available on the basis<br />
of the past evolution of our cost estimates but an extrapolation into the future is doubtful at its best.<br />
2. Basis for calculation of waste management costs in Finland<br />
2.1 Legal framework for assessing financial liabilities<br />
Preparations for nuclear waste management were commenced in Finland already in the 1970s when<br />
the power plants were still under construction. In 1983, the Government confirmed a target schedule<br />
for spent fuel management, in which the construction of the final disposal facility was scheduled<br />
for the 2010s and the start of final disposal for 2020.<br />
The Nuclear Energy Act regulates the implementation of nuclear waste management in Finland.<br />
According to the Act, the operators of the NPPs bear the responsibility for nuclear waste until final<br />
disposal has taken place. All nuclear waste generated in Finland, including spent fuel, must be handled,<br />
stored and permanently disposed of in Finland.<br />
The financial side of final disposal is also covered by legislation. The assets required for the management<br />
of wastes produced in nuclear power plants are collected in advance from the waste producers<br />
and transferred to the State Nuclear Waste Management Fund. The two nuclear power companies,<br />
Teollisuuden Voima Oy (TVO) and Fortum Power and Heat Oy (Fortum), are responsible<br />
for the safe management of the their waste and for all associated expenses. TVO and Fortum established<br />
a joint company, Posiva Oy, in 1995 to implement the disposal programme for spent fuel<br />
from their NPPs, whilst other nuclear wastes are handled and disposed of by the power companies<br />
themselves.<br />
The State Nuclear Waste Management Fund is a reserve for future costs. The Fund was introduced<br />
in the Nuclear Energy Act of 1987 and is operative since 1988. It is not included in the budget of<br />
the state, but is an external fund controlled by the Ministry of Employment and the Economy<br />
(TEM). The Finnish Fund fulfils the two globally accepted principles for such funds: the funds are<br />
48