Transcription

1 이보고서는 해외원자력발전및방사성폐기물처리관련규제의사례연구 에대한국회예산정책처의정책연구용역사업에의한것임 해외원자력발전및방사성폐기물 처리관련규제의사례연구

2

3 해외원자력발전및방사성폐기물 처리관련규제의사례연구 연구책임자진상현 ( 경북대학교행정학부교수 ) 연구원한동희 ( 경북대학교에너지환경경제연구소연구원 ) 연구보조원황인창 ( 네덜란드암스테르담자유대학박사과정 ) 보조원김동형 ( 경북대학교행정학과학부과정 )

4

5 제출문 본보고서를귀국회예산정책처의정책연구과제 해외원자력발전및방사성폐기물처리관련규제의사례연구 의 최종보고서로제출합니다

6 요약문 한국의원자력의존적인정책구조 한국은전력소비를늘린뒤증가된수요를충족시키기위해원전을추가적으로건설한다는원자력의존적인정책을추진하는대표적인국가임 년고리 1호기의가동으로세계 21번째원전보유국이되었음 년에는 UAE와의계약을통해서원전수출국으로성장했으며, 2012년현재한국은원전설비용량기준으로세계 5위의원전대국임 그렇지만 2011년 3월에발생한후쿠시마원전사고로인해세계각국의원자력정책이급격히변화하는추세임 - 사고당사국인일본은탈원전국가전략을발표했고, 독일은수명연장을취소한채탈원전계획을앞당겼으며, 세계 1위의프랑스마저도 80% 의원자력의존도를 50% 로낮추겠다는목표를설정해놓고있음 - 국내에서도박근혜대통령이대선공약으로 원자력의안전운영 을최우선적으로고려하겠다는공약을제시한상태이기때문에확대중심의기존원자력정책에대한수정이불가피한실정임 원자력비용관련국내 외의논란 원전건설비용의증가 - 세계적으로 59개의원전이건설중이지만, 18기는수십년동안공사가지연되고있으며, 나머지 41기는최근 5년이내에건설이시작되었지만착공일을잡지못해계획대로완공될수있을지불투명한원전임 - 게다가건설중인원전의 4분의 3이중국, 인도, 러시아에서진행되고있으며, 불가리아와일본에서는건설중인원전마저중단된상태임 - 이처럼신규원전의건설이중단되는근본적인이유는비용증가때문임. 유럽의원전건설비용은지난 10년동안 4배로늘어났으며, 미국의와츠바원전은건설비용이최근 5년간 60% 가늘어난상태임 원자력유지 보수비용의증가 - 미국의원자력은저렴한천연가스에밀려경쟁력을잃어가고있을뿐만아니라안전규제의강화로인해유지 보수비용마저감당할수없는실정임 - 원전업체인도미니온은경제성악화때문에위스콘신주의기존원전을 2013년부터정지하기로결정했으며, 계획중인원전인수도포기한상태임 - 대규모원전업체인엑셀론도 2029년까지운전허가를받았던오이스터크릭원전을유지비용의부담때문에 2019년에멈추기로결정함 - i -

7 후쿠시마이후의달라진세계 - 게다가후쿠시마사고를통해서안전성, 경제성, 환경성, 사회성등의거의모든측면에서원자력관련논란이제기되고있는실정임 - 이에본연구에서는후쿠시마사고이후선진국의강화된안정성기준을한국에반영하기위해국가별규제의수준과비용을검토하고자함 - 구체적으로는두개부분, 즉원자력관련운영규제및신형원전의설비기준에관한사례와방사성페기물처리지침및폐로과정에서의원전철거비관련사례를경제성이라는측면에서조사하고자함 연구결과의종합 원자력안전강화및신형원자로비용 - 후쿠시마사고이후원자력의안전조치강화로인한추가비용은 1MW 설비용량당최소값으로 2.1억원을제시한일본이가장낮았고, 남아프리카공화국이 3.2억원으로가장높았으며, 평균비용은 2.6억원 /MW이었음 - 신형원자로의경우안전성이강화된프랑스의 EPR 원자로가 kw당 800만 원정도로가장높았고, 일본의 ABWR이 360만원으로가장낮았으며, 국가 별평균비용은 650만원 /kw이었음 방사성폐기물처분및원자로폐쇄비용 - 고준위폐기물은나라별로우라늄톤당 4억원 ~11억원이소요되었음 - ii -

8 국가단위비용 원화 참고문헌 미국 백만원 감사원 년보고서 프랑스 백만원 방사성폐기물관리청 년보고서 영국 백만원 개원자력폐쇄국 년보고서 핀란드 백만원 고준위폐기물사업자포시바 년보고서 스웨덴 백만원 방사성폐기물관리사업자 년보고서 - 기타방사성폐기물은저준위폐기물의경우m3당수백만원의처리비용이 소요되는데반해, 중준위폐기물과중저준위장기폐기물은m3당수천만원 의처리비용이소요되는것으로나타남. 한편초저준위폐기물의처리비용 은m3당 70 만원정도였음 국가폐기물성상단위비용 원화 비고 참고문헌 미국저준위 백만원 반웰 저준위폐기물처분장운영회사 프랑스 영국 중저준위단기 저준위 초저준위 백만원 백만원 백만원 방사성폐기물관리청 년보고서 중준위 백만원 원자력폐쇄국 년보고서 저준위 초저준위 백만원 원자력폐쇄국 년보고서 핀란드중저준위 백만원 년보고서 스웨덴중준위장기 백만원 방사성폐기물관리사업자 년보고서중준위단기 백만원 - 원자로폐쇄비용은핀란드와스웨덴이 MW 당 2 억원내외였던반면에, 1 세 대원자로가폐쇄된미국 (8 억원 /MW) 과영국 (17 억원 /MW) 은비용이많이 소요되었음 국가원자로유형단위비용 원화 참고문헌 미국 억원 년의회연구보고서 프랑스 억원 회계감사원 년보고서 영국 억원 에너지기후변화부 년보고서 핀란드 억원 발주부퍼탈 연구소의 년보고서 스웨덴 억원 발주부퍼탈 연구소의 년보고서 - iii -

9 목차 - iv -

10 - v -

11 표 - vi -

12 - vii -

13 그림 - viii -

14 - ix -

15 - x -

16 - 1 -

17 - 2 -

18 1)

19 - 4 -

20 - 5 -

21 Country Developer and US-Japan (GE-Hitachi, Toshiba) Reactor Size MWe Design Progress ABWR 1380 Commercial operation in Japan since In US: NRC certified 1997, FOAKE. Main Features (improved safety in all) Evolutionary design. More efficient, less waste. Simplified construction (48 months) and operation. USA (Westinghouse) Europe (Areva NP) USA (GE- Hitachi) Japan ( u t i l i t i e s, Mitsubishi) South Korea (KHNP, derived f r o m Westinghouse) Europe (Areva NP) AP600 AP1000 (PWR) EPR US-EPR (PWR) ESBWR 1600 APWR US-APWR EU-APWR APR-1400 (PWR) A t m e a 1 (PWR) AP600: NRC certified 1999, FOAKE. AP1000 NRC certification 2005, under construction in China, many more planned there. Four due to start construction in USA in Future French standard. French design approval. Being built in Finland, France &China. Undergoing certification in USA. Developed from ABWR, undergoing certification in USA, likely constructiion there. Basic design in progress, planned for Tsuruga US design certification application. Under construction - Shin Kori 3 &4. Sold to UAE. French design approval Feb 2012, ready for deployment. Simplified construction and operation. 3 years to build. 60-year plant life. Evolutionary design. High fuel efficiency. Flexible operation Evolutionary design. Short construction time. Hybrid safety features. Simplified Construction and operation. Evolutionary design. Increased reliability. Simplified construction and operation. Innovative design. High fuel efficiency. R u s s i a (Gidropress) VVER-1200 (PWR) 1200 Under construction at Leningrad, Novovoronezh and Baltic plants Evolutionary design. High fuel efficiency. 50-year plant life Canada Energy) (Candu E n h a n c e d CANDU Improved model Licensing approval 1997 Evolutionary design. Flexible fuel requirements. China (INET, Chinergy) HTR-PM 2 x (module) Demonstration plant being built at Shidaowan Modular plant, low cost. High temperature. High fuel efficiency. 출처 : WNA (2013a) - 6 -

22 2) EPR 17%, 10% (AREVA, 2013)

23 neutron spectrum coolant temperatu re( C) Gas-cooled fast reactors fast helium 850 high Lead-cooled fast reactors Molten salt fast reactors Molten salt reactor - Advanced High-temperature reactors Sodium-cooled fast reactors Supercritical water-cooled reactors Very high temperature gas reactors 출처 : WNA (2013b) fast fast thermal lead or Pb-Bi fluoride salts fluoride salts low pressure fuel fuel cycle size(mwe) uses U-238 with some U-235 or Pu-239 U-238 with some U-235 or Pu-239 closed, on site closed, regional low UF in salt closed fast sodium 550 low thermal or fast thermal UO2 particl es in prism U-238 &MOX water very high UO2 helium high UO2 prism or pebbles electricity & hydrogen electricity & hydrogen electricity & hydrogen open hydrogen closed open (thermal) closed (fast) open electricity electricity hydrogen & electricity - 8 -

24 Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Loss of AC power + 51 min + 54 min + 52 min Loss of cooling + 1 hour + 70 hours + 36 hours Water level down to top of fuel* + 3 hours + 74 hours + 42 hours Core damage starts* + 4 hours + 77 hours + 44 hours Reactor pressure vessel damage* +11 hours uncertain uncertain Fire pumps with fresh water + 15 hours + 43 hours Hydrogen explosion (not confirmed for unit 2) + 25 hours service floor + 87 hours suppression + 68 hours service floor chamber Fire pumps with seawater + 28 hours + 77 hours + 46 hours Off-site electrical supply days Fresh water cooling days 주 : 표에서시간은지진발생후시간을의미함. 출처 : WNA (2013c) - 9 -

25 - 10 -

26 - 11 -

27 - 12 -

28 < 표 Ⅱ-6> 후쿠시마원전사고이후주요국의원자력정책변화

29 - 14 -

30 - 15 -

31 3),

32 - 17 -

33 < 표 Ⅱ-7> IAEA 의심층방어 (Defence in depth) 단계

34 4),

35 - 20 -

36 - 21 -

37 < 표 Ⅱ-8> 미국의후쿠시마사고대응 1 단계

38 - 23 -

39 - 24 -

40 < 표 Ⅱ-9> 미국에서 3 세대원자로 AP1000 의자본비용 5) 6) (133 ), 1 2.5, ) 8) -

41 < 표 Ⅱ-10> Mark 1 과 Mark 2 기술에대한안전장치추가비용

42 - 27 -

43 9), 20% 80%,

44 - 29 -

45 < 표 Ⅱ-11> 프랑스 EDF 의원자력안전강화조치내용

46 - 31 -

47 10) )

48 12) ) -

49 - 34 -

50 - 35 -

51 자본비 운전유지비 사회적비용 비용등 사고위험대응비용 정책경비 발전비용 발전량

52 < 표 Ⅱ-16> 후쿠시마사고이후추가된안전대책비용 추가적안전대책긴급안전대책비상용발전설비외부전원의신뢰성확보심각한사고에의대응기타 각사가독자적으로대처하고있는안전대책 합계 비용 억엔 손해비용 엔 지불기간 년 단가 연간발전량

53 14)

54 - 39 -

55 - 40 -

56 - 41 -

57 - 42 -

58 15) 16), PWR. 17) -

59 - 44 -

60 - 45 -

61 18)

62 19) -

63 - 48 -

64 - 49 -

65 - 50 -

66 μ

67 - 52 -

68 20),. IAEA(2012)

69 21)

70 - 55 -

71 - 56 -

72 Country Final disposal site Facility type Period of operation Finland Olkiluoto NPP Rock cavern Loviisa NPP Rock cavern Sweden Forsmark yvl Rock cavern Norway Himdalen Rock cavern Germany Asse Salt mine Morsleben Rock cavern France Centre de la Manche Shallow land burial Centre de l Aube Near-surface concrete vaults Great Britain Drigg Maahanhautaus Spain El Cabril Near-surface concrete vaults The Czech Dukovany Republic Near-surface concrete vaults Slovakia Mohovce Near-surface concrete vaults Japan Rokkasho Near-surface concrete vaults USA Beatty, Nevada Shallow land burial Barnwell, South-Carolina Shallow land burial Hanford, Washington Shallow land burial Country Waste type Disposal site / rock type C o m mi s s i o n i n g target Finland snf. Olkiluoto/ 2020 granite formation Sweden snf. Forsmark/ granite formation 2023 Germany snf and hlw Open 2030 Great Britain hlw Open not before 2040 France hlw Open / clay or granite formation 2020 Japan hlw Open / granite or sediment formation Canada snf. Open / granite formation 2025 USA snf and hlw Yucca Mountain / volcanic tuff formation not before

73 22),

74 23) (NRC) ( Manifest Information Management System(MIMS) (

75 - 60 -

76 24) NWPA 1998 DOE NRC. NWF. (Holt, 2011)

77 25) 3,. (NRC, 2007)

78 - 63 -

79 26)

80 27)

81 - 66 -

82 - 67 -

83 - 68 -

84 - 69 -

85 - 70 -

86 - 71 -

87 - 72 -

88 - 73 -

89 - 74 -

90 - 75 -

91 - 76 -

92 28) CSM Digulleville, CSFMA Soulaine-Dhuys

93 - 78 -

94 - 79 -

95 - 80 -

96 - 81 -

97 - 82 -

98 - 83 -

99 - 84 -

100 - 85 -

101 - 86 -

102 - 87 -

103 - 88 -

104 - 89 -

105 - 90 -

106 - 91 -

107 - 92 -

108 - 93 -

109 - 94 -

110 - 95 -

111 - 96 -

112 29)

113 - 98 -

114 - 99 -

115 30) 1999, FIM. 31) 6 FIM, 6 FIM

116 32) (Posiva Oy, 2005)

117 33)

118

119

120 34) -

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130 35) 1SEK ,

131

132

133

134

135

136 국가 총원자로수 운영원자로수 처분용량 비용 년기준가격 프랑스 억유로 일본 억유로 영국 억유로 미국 억달러 벨기에 억유로 스웨덴 억유로

137

138 원자로유형 폐쇄비용 년기준미국달러 평균표준편차

139 국가 발전소 용량 비용 년기준미국달러 총비용 백만달러 단위비용 달러 즉시폐쇄시 벨기에 독일 이탈리아 슬로베니아 남아프리카공화국 스페인 스웨덴 스위스 미국 일정기간유예후폐쇄시 브라질 프랑스 독일 일본 네덜란드 슬로베니아

140 자료원원자로유형비고 전세계 개원자로대상 등 개유형 총폐쇄비용을모두포함하지는않음 미국 개 원자로대상 가정시 미국 개 원자로대상 가정시 단위비용 년기준백만파운드 평균 범위 다양함 개국다양한원자로 유럽형 미국 개원자로 자료원원자로유형비고 단위비용 년기준백만파운드 구분프랑스스웨덴벨기에일본미국영국독일 프랑스방법외삽 36)

141 국가단위비용 달러 단위비용 원화 비고참고문헌 미국 천달러 백만원 프랑스 천달러 백만원 영국 천달러 개 백만원 개 중준위장기폐기물비용포함 개당비용 핀란드 천달러 백만원 천 개 스웨덴 천달러 백만원 감사원 년보고서방사성폐기물관리청 년보고서원자력폐쇄국 년보고서고준위폐기물사업자 년보고서방사성폐기물관리사업자 년보고서 국가폐기물성상단위비용 달러 단위비용 원화 비고 참고문헌 미국저준위 천달러 백만원 저준위폐기물처분장운영회사 프랑스 영국 중저준위단기 천달러 백만원 방사성폐기물관리청 저준위 천달러 백만원 초저준위 천달러 백만원 년보고서 중준위 천달러 백만원 저준위 초저준위 천달러 백만원 원자력폐쇄국 년보고서 원자력폐쇄국 년보고서 핀란드중저준위 천달러 백만원 년보고서 스웨덴중준위장기 천달러 백만원 방사성폐기물관리사업자 년보고서중준위단기 천달러 백만원

142 국가 원자로유형 단위비용 달러 단위비용 원화 참고문헌 미국 천달러 억원 년의회연구보고서 프랑스 천달러 억원 회계감사원 년보고서 영국 천달러 억원 에너지기후변화부 년보고서 핀란드 천달러 억원 발주독일 연구소의 년보고서 스웨덴 천달러 억원 발주독일 연구소의 년보고서

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150 구분 단위 신형원전 1, 2 (1400MW 2) 신형원전 N-th (1400MW 2) 건설단가천원 /kw 1,540 1,319 1,176 순건설단가천원 /kw 1,145 1, 발전원가원 /kwh 고정비 운전유지비 연료비 석탄 800MWe 급 (800MW 2)

151 Advantus (2011), "Investor impact post Fukushima", Advantus Capital Management Inc. AREVA (2013), "EPR". BSNWF (2012), Activity Report 2012, The Board of Swedish Nuclear Waste Fund. Corradini (2012), "The Future of Nuclear Power Post-Fukushima", Presentation at FRI FRESH Seminar February 23, 2012 de Saillan, C (2010), Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel in the United States and Europe: A persistent Environmental Problem, Harvard Environmental Law Review 34: ENSREG: EU "Stress tests" specification, European Nuclear Safety Regulatory Group, available at Ewing, R. C. and von Hippel, F. N. (2009), "Nuclear Waste Management in the United States-Starting Over", Science, 325: Finland STUK (2010), Finland report on nuclear safety, Finland Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority. Finland STUK (2011), Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management: 4th Finnish National Report as referred to in Article 32 of the Convention, Finland Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority. Finland STUK (2012), European Stress Tests for Nuclear Power Plants: National Action Plan, Finland Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority. Finland STUK (2013a), Nordic Nuclear Power Follow-up in Finland", NKS Seminar on the Fukushima Accident and Perspectives for Nordic Reactor Safety and Emergency Preparedness, 9 Jan 2013, Finland Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority. Finland STUK (2013b), Safety research in Finland related to Fukushima Dai-ichi accident", 25th Annual Regulatory Information Conference (RIC) International Research: Post-Fukushima Research Washington, March , Finland Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority. Finland MEE (2010), National Nuclear Power Plant Safety Research , Ministry of the Employment and the Economy. France ANDRA (2005), Dossier 2005 Agrile, French Nuclear Safety Authority. France ANDRA (2009), Update on French Deep Geological program for High level waste", 2009 CEG Workshop FEB BOMMERSVIK presentation, French Nuclear Safety Authority. France ANDRA (2012), National Inventory of Radioactive Materials and Waste, French Nuclear Safety Authority. France ASN (2011a), Complementary safety assessments of the French nuclear installations, French Nuclear Safety Authority. France ASN (2011b), Fourth National Report on Compliance with the Joint Convention Obligations, French Nuclear Safety Authority. France ASN (2012a), ASN report abstracts on the state of Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection in

152 France in 2011, CONTRÔLE 194, JUNE 2012, French Nuclear Safety Authority. France ASN (2012b), National Action Plan of the French Nuclear Safety Authority, French Nuclear Safety Authority. France ASN (2012c), Nuclear safety and radiation protection in France in 2011, French Nuclear Safety Authority. France CDC (2012), The costs of the nuclear power sector. Cour des competes. Holt, M. (2011), Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress. Holt, M. (2012), Nuclear Energy Policy, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress. Holt, M. and A. Andrews (2012), Nuclear Power Plant Security and Vulnerabilities, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress. HSE (2006), Safety Assessment Principles for Nuclear Facilities, Health and Safety Executive. IAEA (1996), Defence in Depth in Nuclear Safety, International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA (2006a), Fundamental Safety Principles, Safety Fundamentals No. SF-1, International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA (2006b), Storage of Radioactive Waste, Safety Guide No. WS-G-6.1, International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA (2008), Nuclear Safety Infrastructure for a National Nuclear Power Programme Supported by the IAEA Fundamental Safety Principles, International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA (2009a), Safety Assessment for Facilities and Activities, General Safety Reguirements Part 4 No. GSR- Part 4, International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA (2009b), Classification of Radioactive Waste, General Safety Guide No. GSG-1, International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA (2009c), Deterministic Safety Analysis for Nuclear Power Plants, 2009 IAEA SAFETY STANDARDS SERIES No. SSG-2, International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA (2011a), IAEA Action Plan on Nuclear Safety, International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA (2011b), A framework for an integrated risk informed decision making process, INSAG Report 25, International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA (2011c), Disposal of Radioactive Waste, Specific Safety Requirements No. SSR-5, International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA (2011d), Establishing the Safety Infrastructure for a Nuclear Power Programme, Specific Safety Guide No. SSG-16, International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA (2011e), Safety of Nuclear Power Plants: Commissioning and Operation, Specific Safety Guide No. SSR-2/2, International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA (2011f), Status Report 83: APR1400, International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA (2012a), Protection against Extreme Earthquakes and Tsunamis in the Light of the Accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA (2012b), IAEA REPORT ON REACTOR AND SPENT FUEL SAFETY IN THE LIGHT OF THE ACCIDENT AT THE FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI, International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA (2012c), Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material, 2012 Edition, Specific Safety Requirements No. SSR-6, International Atomic Energy Agency

153 IAEA (2012d), International Status and Prospects for Nuclear Power 2012, GOV/INF/2012/12-GC(56)/INF/6, International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA (2012e), "Advanced Reactor Technology Development for Near Term Deployment", Presentation at Nuclear Energy Management School, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 12 January 2012, International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA (2012f), "Overview of the International Initiatives for the Development of Innovative Fast Reactors", Presentation at IAEA Education and Training Seminar on FAST REACTOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Centro Atòomico Bariloche, October 1 5, 2012, International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA (2012g), "IAEA Safety Standards and their Role IAEA Response to the TEPCO 's Fukushima Daiichi NPPs Accident, Presentation at the EC Workshop how to improve safety in regulated industries What could we learn from each other?, Luxemburg, October 2012, International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA (2012h), "International perspective on Fukushima accident, Presentation at the US DOE workshop, September 2012, International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA (2012i), Safety of Nuclear Power Plants: Design, Specific Safety Requirements, No. SSR-2/1, International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA (2012j), Fukushima Daiichi Status Report, International Atomic Energy Agency. IEA (2010), Projected cost of generating electricity 2010 edition. Internation Energy Agency. IPFM (2011), Managing Spent Fuel from Nuclear Power Reactors Experience and Lessons from Around the World, International Panel on Fissile Materials. JAIF (2012), "Current Status of the Nuclear Power Plants in Japan", Japan Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc. Japan EEC (2011), コスト等検証委員会報告書, エネルギー 環境会議, コスト等検証委員会. Japan NRA (2013a), "Nuclear Regulation Authority of Japan", Nuclear Regulation Authority. Japan NRA (2013b), "Draft New Safety Standards for Nuclear Power Stations", Nuclear Regulation Authority. Kaplan, S. (2008), Power Plants: Characteristics and Costs, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress. Keay (2013), UK Electricity Market Reform and the EU, Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. Lazo, T. (2011), NEA international peer reviews of post-accident protection policy, NEA News 2011 No , OECD Nuclear Energy Agency. Matsuo, Y. (2012), Summary and Evaluation of Cost Calculation for Nuclear Power Generation by the Cost Estimation and Review Committee, The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan. McKinzie, M and T. B. Cochran (2011), "Natural Resources Defense Council, "The Collective Effective Dose Resulting from Radiation Emitted During the First Weeks of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident. MIT (2003), The Future of Nuclear Power. MIT (2009), Update of the MIT 2003 Future of Nuclear Power

154 NEI (2012), Making Safe Nuclear Energy Safer, Nuclear Energy Institute. OECD (1999), Low-level radioactive waste repositories: An analysis of costs. Nuclear Energy Agency, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD (2003), Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants: Policies, Strategies and Costs, Nuclear Energy Agency, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD (2011), Improving Nuclear Regulation, Nuclear Energy Agency, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD (2012), OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) activities in follow-up to the TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. Nuclear Energy Agency, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Posiva Oy (1999), The final disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel: Environmental impact assessment report. Posiva Oy (2005), Cost estimate of Olkiluoto disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel. Posiva Oy (2008), Overall description of an extension to the final disposal facility of spent nuclear fuel to accommodate for the fuel from Olkiluoto 3 plant unit. Posiva Oy (2011), Final disposal of spent nuclear fuel in Olkiluoto. Ramana (2009), Nuclear Power Economic, Safety, Health, and Environmental Issues of Near-Term Technologies, Annual Review of Environment Resource (34). Samseth, J. et al. (2012), "Closing and Decommissioning Nuclear Power: Another look following the Fukushima accident", in UNEP Year Book 2012, United Nations Environment Programme. Skone (2012), Role of Alternative Energy sources: Nuclear Technology Assessment, NETL, U.S. DOE. Srinivasan and Rethinaraj (2013), Fukushima and thereafter: Reassessment of risks of nuclear power, Energy policy, 52. Sweden SKB (2009), Final repository for spent fuel in Forsmark: Basis for decision and reasons for site selection, Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co. Sweden SKB (2010), Plan 2010 Costs starting in 2012 for the radioactive residual products from nuclear power, Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co. Sweden SKB (2011), Environmental Impact Statement, Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co. Sweden SSM (2012), Swedish Action Plan for Nuclear Power Plants, Swedish Radioactive Safety Authority. Sweden MOE (2011), Sweden 's fourth national report under the Joint Convention on the safety of spent fuel management and the safety of radioactive waste management. Ministry of Environment Sweden. Technip (2012), Cigeo- Geological repository. TEPCO (2012), Fukushima Nuclear Accident Analysis Report, Tokyo Electric Power Company, Inc. Thomas (2005), The Economics of Nuclear Power, Heinrich Boell Stiftung, Nuclear Issues Paper No. 5 Thomas (2010), The Economics of Nuclear Power: An update, Heinrich Boell Stiftung, publication series on ecology

155 TVO (2008), Nuclear power plant units Olkiluoto 1 and Olkiluoto 2. UCS (2012), U.S. Nuclear Power Safety One Year after Fukushima, Union of Concerned Scientists. UK DECC (2010), Consultation on a methodology to determine a fixed unit price for waste disposal and updated cost estimates for nuclear decommissioning, waste management and waste disposal, Department of Energy and Climate Change. UK DECC (2011a), Electricity Market Reform: Options for ensuring electricity security of supply and promoting investment in low-carbon generation, EMR impact assessment, Department of Energy and Climate Change. UK DECC (2011b), The United Kingdom's fourth national report on compliance with the obligations of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioative Waste Management, Department of Energy and Climate Change. UK DECC (2012), Electricity Market Reform: policy overview, Department of Energy and Climate Change. UK DEFRA et al. (2008), Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal, White Paper, Defra, BERR and the devolved administrations for Wales and Northern Ireland. UK HM Government (2013), The UK's Nuclear Future. UK NDA (2008), Annual Report & Accounts 2007/08, Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. UK NDA (2009a), UK Stragety for the Management of Solid Low Level Radioactive Waste from the Nuclear Industry: UK Nuclear Industry LLW Strategy, Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. UK NDA (2009b), UK Radioactive Higher Activity Waste Sorage Reiwe, Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. UK NDA (2009c), LLW Repository: LLW Strategic Review, Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. UK NDA (2010a), UK Stragety for the Management of Solid LLW by the Nuclear Industry, Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. UK NDA (2010b), Gological Disposal: Steps towards implementation, Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. UK NDA (2011a), Geological Disposal: Review of options for accelerating implementation of the Geological Disposal programme, Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. UK NDA (2011b), The 2010 UK Radioactive Waste Inventory, Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. UK NDA (2011c), Radioactive Wastes in the UK, Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. UK NDA (2012a), Integrated Waste Management Stragety Development Programme, Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. UK NDA (2012b), Assessment of the geological disposal facility implications for the products of reprocessing compared to the direct disposal of the spent fuel, Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. UK ONR (2011), Japanese earthquakes and tsunami: Implications for the UK nuclear industry, Office for Nuclear Regulation. UK ONR (2012), Japanese earthquakes and tsunami: Implementing the lessons for the UK's nuclear industry, Office for Nuclear Regulation. US BRC (2012), Report to the Secretary of Energy, Blue Ribon Commision on America's Nuclear Future. US DOE (2008a), Analysis of the Total System Life Cycle Cost of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program, Fiscal Year U.S. Department of Energy Office of Civilian Radioactive

156 Waste Management. US DOE (2008b), Yucca Mountain Program Status Update, U.S. Department of Energy. US EIA (2010), "Updated Capital Cost Estimates for Electricity Generation Plants", U.S. Energy Information Administration. US EIA (2013), Updated Capital Cost Estimates for Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants, U.S. Energy Information Administration. US GAO (2004), Low-Level Radioactive Waste: Disposal availability adequate in the short term, but oversight needed to identify any future shortfalls, Government Accountability Office. US GAO (2007), Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management: Approaches used by foreign conntries may provide useful lessons for managing U.S. radioactive waste, Government Accountability Office. US GAO (2009), Nuclear Waste Management: Key attributes, challenges, and costs for the Yucca Mountain Repository and two potential alternatives, Government Accountability Office. US NRC (2007), History and Framework of Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management in the United States, ACNW White Paper, Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commision. US NRC (2011), Recommendations for enhancing reactor safety in the 21st century, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commision. US NRC (2012), Consideration of additional requirements for containment venting systems for boiling water reactors with Mark 1 AND Mark 2 containments, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commision. US NRDC (2012), Nuclear Safety Deffered: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Inadequate Response to the Lessons of the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Accident, U.S. Natural Resources Defence Council. US NWTRB (2009), Survey of National Programs for Managing High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel, A report to Congress and the Secretary of Energy. U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. US NWTRB (2011), Experience Gained From Programs to Manage High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel in the United States and Other Countries, A report to Congress and the Secretary of Energy. U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. WEA (2012), World Energy Perspective: Nuclear Energy One Year After Fukushima, World Energy Council. WNA (2012b), Nuclear Power Economics and Project structuring, World Energy Council. WNA (2013a), "Advanced Nuclear Power Reactors", World Nuclear Association. WNA (2013b), "Generation 4 Nuclear Reactors", World Nuclear Association. WNA (2013c), "Fukushima Accident 2011", World Nuclear Association. WNA (2013d), "Nuclear Power in Japan", World Nuclear Association. WNA (2013e), Inside the Black Box: Exploring the Assumptions within Nuclear Power Forecasts, World Energy Council. Wuppertal (2007a), Comparing among different decommissioning funds methodologies for nuclear installations, Country Report Finland on behalf of the European Commission Directorate-General

157 Energy and Transport, H2, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy. Wuppertal (2007b), Comparing among different decommissioning funds methodologies for nuclear installations, Country Report Sweden on behalf of the European Commission Directorate-General Energy and Transport, H2, Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy

158