Publicatie Laka-bibliotheek:
NRG Historical Waste - Final document

AuteurPWC, Strategy&
Datumjuni 2017
Classificatie (OLP - HISTORISCH AFVAL (Waste Storage Facility-Pluggenloods))
Opmerking Online available at Een eerdere versie van deze presentatie kwam begin mei 2017 in handen van Nieuwsuur.

Uit de publicatie:

ECN/NRG face increasing and uncertain cost projections
from the obligation to relocate radioactive waste to Zeeland
Brief introduction of the case
• Since the commissioning of High & Low Flux Reactors (HFR, LFR) in the 1960s, radioactive waste from nuclear
  activities was stored at waste storage facility (WSF) at Onderzoeks Locatie Petten (OLP) in the interim before
  final disposal (which does not yet exist)
• In 1984, the Dutch government decided that all radioactive waste is to be collected and stored for the interim period
  until final disposal by a single organization (COVRA) – following the relocation of COVRA in the 1990s, it was decided
  that all radioactive waste from Petten (new and stored) needs to be transferred to Zeeland
• NRG’s radioactive waste is categorized into three main categories:
  – Operational waste: waste from current or recent activities of which the composition is precisely known and
    disposal route is defined and agreed with COVRA (to be transferred to COVRA within 2 to 5 years after production)
  – Stored historical waste: waste from historical activities of which the composition and/or disposal route is uncertain
    or not yet agreed with COVRA (to be transferred to COVRA as soon as possible)
  – Decommissioning waste: waste that will largely be produced in the next 15 years from bringing ~10 facilities to
    sufficiently low radioactivity level or greenfield state after operational life time (LFR decommissioning is in progress)
• To manage the waste transfer from Petten to Zeeland, ECN/NRG set-up a radioactive waste management program
  (RWMP) which is operated by license holder NRG and funded by ECN which carries the liability on its balance sheet
• RWMP costs related to stored and decommissioning waste are inherently uncertain and difficult to predict due to:
  – Many different waste streams (85) each with specific characteristics, processing and disposal requirements
  – Contents of various waste streams and canisters is not yet exactly known and also complex to determine
  – Disposal process requires specific expertise, unique solutions, tailor made equipment and special tools
• Over time, RWMP provision cost projections increased by a factor 9 (+€176Mn to €198Mn vs. €22Mn in 2000)
  and €82Mn has been spent – at the end of 2016, ECN maintained a provision of €116Mn for the total RWMP
• Since 2000, the government contributed €58Mn to RWMP costs plus a €40Mn loan in 2016 for general purposes
  – ECN/NRG contributed €93Mn (no information available on costs and funding prior to 2000)

ECN/NRG’s requests that the State should take over RWMP
costs and liability
ECN/NRG request
         “The business case for isotope and consultancy activities is positive, but this business cannot carry costs for
         historical waste disposal – nor is it meant to, as there is no link between commercial activities and the cost for
         historical and decom waste”

         “The burden of historical waste jeopardizes the financial viability of ECN/NRG and thereby threatens
         unnecessary the supply of medical isotopes to 25.000 patients per day, as the costs of historical waste will not
         disappear when NRG is not viable”

         “The obligation to have enough revenues from medical isotopes to support the costs of historical waste puts a
         risky pressure on the safety required for nuclear processing. Also when NRG is for too long time under a financial
         pressure, this could lead to unsafe situations”

         “The burden of historical waste poses a key risk to the success of Pallas as it deters investors”

         “ECN/NRG is not responsible for the historical waste nor decommissioning costs, as both have their origins in the
         time before the creation of ECN/NRG; thus the Dutch Government carries this responsibility”

         “The waste treatment process lacks a party responsible for the overall cost control; all parties are fully or partially
         owned by Dutch government and their incentives are driven by reducing only their own risk – ECN/NRG is at the
         top of this chain and is forced to absorb all cost of other parties and/or the cost implications of their decisions”

                                                STRATEGY& OBSERVATION INCLUDED IN APPENDIX

Note: ECN/NRG arguments are not well documented in any level of detail and are not substantiated by facts and analyses (e.g., legal or financial underpinning is not available),
previous recommendation to create a clear benefits case for liability take-over by the State have not been executed
Source: NRG Management