방사성폐기물학회지 (Journal of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Technology(JNFCWT))

  • 제20권4호
  • /
  • Pages.541-550
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 1738-1894(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-5471(eISSN)
한국방사성폐기물학회 (Korean Radioactive Waste Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Suggestion of Contingency Guidelines According to ISDC Based on Overseas Contingency Data

  • Minhee Kim (KEPCO International Nuclear Graduate School) ;
  • Chang-Lak Kim (KEPCO International Nuclear Graduate School) ;
  • Sanghwa Shin (KEPCO International Nuclear Graduate School)
  • 투고 : 2022.06.07
  • 심사 : 2022.08.22
  • 발행 : 2022.12.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

When decommissioning nuclear power plant (NPP), the first task performed is cost estimation. This is an important task in terms of securing adequate decommissioning funds and managing the schedule. Therefore, many countries and institutions are conducting continuous research and also developing and using many programs for cost estimation. However, the cost estimated for decommissioning an NPP typically differs from the actual cost incurred in its decommissioning. This is caused by insufficient experience in decommissioning NPPs or lack of decommissioning cost data. This uncertainty in cost estimation can be in general compensated for by applying a contingency. However, reflecting an appropriate standard for the contingency is also difficult. Therefore, in this study, data analysis was conducted based on the contingency guideline suggested by each institution and the actual cost of decommissioning the NPP. Subsequently, TLG Service, Inc.'s process, which recently suggested specific decommissioning costs, was matched with ISDC (International Structure for Decommissioning Costing)'s work breakdown structure (WBS). Based on the matching result, the guideline for applying the contingency for ISDC's WBS Level 1 were presented. This study will be helpful in cost estimation by applying appropriate contingency guidelines in countries or institutions that have no experience in decommissioning NPPs.

키워드

과제정보

This study was supported by the Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP No. 20204010600130 and No. 20191510301180) and the Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy (MOTIE) of the Republic of Korea.

참고문헌

  1. International Atomic Energy Agency-Power Reactor Information System. May 8 2022. "Permanent Shutdown Reactors-by Type." IAEA.org. Accessed May 10 2022. Available from: http://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/ShutdownReactorsByType.aspx. 
  2. International Atomic Energy Agency-Power Reactor Information System. May 8 2022. "Miscellaneous Reports-Age Distribution." IAEA.org. Accessed May 10 2022. Available from: http://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/OperationalByAge.aspx. 
  3. K.S. Jeong, D.G. Lee, K.W. Lee, and W.Z. Oh, "A Study on the Configuration of Cost Items and the Identification of Cost Affecting Factors for the Decommissioning Cost Estimation of Nuclear Research Facilities", Proc. of the Korean Radioactive Waste Society 2005 Autumn Conference, vol. 3(2), 25-31, November 17-18, 2005, Gyeongju. 
  4. J.Y. Oh, Y.K. Kim, and J.H. You, "Sensitivity Analysis on Decommissioning Cost for Nuclear Power Plants", Proc. of the Korean Society for Energy 2019 Autumn Conference, 217, October 31- November 1, 2019, Busan. 
  5. H.S. Park, S.K. Park, H.G. Jin, and J.W. Choi, "A Conceptual Design of a Decommissioning Decision Making Support Model Combining Engineering Technology for Decommissioning Information and Requirement Engineering", J. Korean Inst. Inf. Technol., 13(11), 159-166 (2015). 
  6. D.B. Monteiro, J.M.L. Moreira, and J.R. Maiorino, "A New Management Tool and Mathematical Model for Decommissioning Cost Estimation of Multiple Reactors Site", Prog. Nucl. Energy, 114, 61-83 (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2019.03.004
  7. International Atomic Energy Agency. Financial Aspects of Decommissioning, IAEA Report, IAEA-TEC-DOC-1476 (2005). 
  8. T.S. LaGuardia. Cost Estimating for Decommissioning Nuclear Reactor in Sweden, Stralsakerhetsmyndigheten Report, 2014:01 (2014). 
  9. AACE International, Cost Engineering Terminology, TCM Framework: General Reference, 10S-90 (2022). 
  10. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/Nuclear Energy Agency, International Structure for Decommissioning Costing (ISDC) of Nuclear Installations, NEA No.7088 (2012). 
  11. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/Nuclear Energy Agency, The Practice of Cost Estimation for Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, NEA No.7237 (2015). 
  12. H. Larsson, A. Anunti, and M. Edelborg. Decommissioning Study of Oskarshamn NPP, Svensk Karnbranslehantering AB Report, SKB R-13-04 (2013). 
  13. M. Laraia, Advances and Innovations in Nuclear Decommissioning, Woodhead Publishing, Sawston (2017). 
  14. T.S. LaGuardia, "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates", Proc. of the American Power Conference, vol. 48, 964-967, April 14-16, 1986, Chicago. 
  15. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Standard Review Plan for Decommissioning Cost Estimates for Nuclear Power Reactors, US NRC Report, NUREG-1713 (2004). 
  16. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/Nuclear Energy Agency, Costs of Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants, NEA No. 7201 (2016). 
  17. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/Nuclear Energy Agency, Cost Estimation for Decommissioning, NEA No. 6831 (2010). 
  18. TLG Service, Inc., Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis, L11-1774-001 (2020). 
  19. TLG Service, Inc., Decommissioning Cost Analysis for the Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, E11-1605-002 (2009). 
  20. TLG Service, Inc., Decommissioning Cost Study for the D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant, A02-1745-001 (2019). 
  21. TLG Service, Inc., Site Specific Decommissioning Cost Estimate for the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, P23-1680-001 (2013). 
  22. TLG Service, Inc., Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Analysis for the Indian Point Energy Center Unit 3, E11-1583-006 (2010). 
  23. TLG Service, Inc., Decommissioning Cost Estimate for the ZION Nuclear Power Station Units 1 and 2, C04-1326-002 (1999). 
  24. TLG Service, Inc., Decommissioning Cost Analysis for the Columbia Generating Station, B23-1755-001 (2019). 
  25. TLG Service, Inc., Decommissioning Cost Analysis for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, E16-1726-001 (2016). 
  26. TLG Service, Inc., Decommissioning Cost Analysis for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, X01-1617-004 (2011). 
  27. TLG Service, Inc., Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report, E11-1724-001 (2018). 
  28. TLG Service, Inc., Site Specific Decommissioning Cost Estimate for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, E11-1685-001 (2014).