Nuclear Facilities - Deloitte
Decommissioning ofNuclear FacilitiesMarket Overview and ForthcomingChallenges for Plant Operators
Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities Market Overview and forthcoming Challenges for Plant OperatorsForthcoming Decommissioning ProjectsworldwideThe global framework for the nuclearenergy market and its facilities has beenfacing radical changes over the pastdecade. After the dramatic incidentat the Fukushima Daiichi NPP in 2011,ongoing construction projects for NPPswere stopped and new constructionprojects are becoming increasingly difficultto implement, especially in westerncountries. Concerns relate in particularto massive project delays, changinggovernmental safety assessments aswell as increasing initial investments anduncertain profit prospects. Instructiveexamples include the European newconstruction projects Flamanville (France)and Hinkley Point (England).At the same time, a large number of NPPsare reaching the end of their service life,and political decisions based on securityconcerns as well as social constrains arelikely to accelerate the wave of shutdownsin the following two decades. Apartfrom new construction projects in a fewcountries of Asia (e.g. China, India and theUAE), the dismantling of NPPs in manyother countries will strongly predominateactivities in the nuclear sector for years tocome. The following section will providea brief market overview of forthcomingdecommissioning projects worldwide andthe challenges plant operators are goingto face.A Wave of Dismantling Projects is justaround the CornerCurrently, 56 nuclear facilities are in thephase of decommissioning. Most of thedecommissioning projects carried outright now are located in Germany, Franceand Japan. Simultaneously with thoseprojects, the market for decommissioningservices is getting more mature; hence thefirst companies have already positionedthemselves in the dismantling market.According to estimates of IEA experts,the costs of decommissioning nuclearfacilities around the globe will amount toat least USD 100 B by 2040. The credibilityof the forecast is underpinned by takingFig. 1 – Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities Worldwide by 2040America75 NPPs (units),33 Research ReactorsEurope141 NPPs (units),64 Research Reactors37762Europe274426Asia-Pacific77 NPPs (units),17 Research Reactors1822America86Africa & Australia2 NPPs (units),2 Research BelgiumOtherUSACanadaBrazilArgentinaJapanS. KoreaTaiwanIndiaArmeniaOther
Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities Market Overview and forthcoming Challenges for Plant Operatorsthe number of expected shutdowns intoaccount. Figure 1 illustrates the globaldistribution of upcoming decommissioningprojects for NPPs and larger researchreactors by 2040 by continent.replaced or compensated by other meansof generation.The United States (86), France (62), Japan(61) and Russia (44) in particular, allcountries that belong to the pioneers ofnuclear technology, will face a dramaticdecline of their nuclear industry, if newconstructions are not realized in thenear future. By 2040, just within thesefour countries a total of 253 nuclearfacilities will be entering the phase ofdecommissioning. This large numberof dismantling projects will challengeoperators and policymakers on a nationalOverall, 411 nuclear facilities are expectedto be phased out by 2040, whereof 295are commercial NPPs (units) and about116 are being operated as researchreactors. By shutting down these NPPs, anelectricity generation capacity of roughly260 GW will no longer be available to feedelectricity to the grid. This substantialcapacity gap will necessarily have to beand international level in the same way.The process of establishing an efficientdismantling infrastructure and a nationalnuclear repository for highly active nuclearwaste, which is not yet available foroperation in any country, will be crucial.Most nuclear power plants have beendesigned for an operational lifetime ofabout 40 years. However, some NPPs areoperated for much longer periods, wheretimeframes of 50 years or longer can beobserved. The graph below illustrates theage distribution of existing NPPs that arestill in operation in 2018 per country.Fig. 2 – Age Distribution of NPPs in Operation or Ready for Operation per anJapKUanceFranyermGlgium0BeNumber of NPPs100 40–500–403
Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities Market Overview and forthcoming Challenges for Plant OperatorsOn a global scale, already today, 77 NNPsexceed the presumed lifetime of 40 years.With increasing operational lifetimes, thedeterioration processes of the plantsare progressing, in particular with regardto mechanical and electrotechnicalcomponents. This leads to increasingmaintenance costs and in some cases,particularly for large components suchas reactor pressure vessel and steamgenerator, to an increased materialfatigue. Additionally, in most countries,regulatory requirements that havesignificant effects on administrative andtechnical efforts, have increased over thelast years. In this context, a recent studyof the Carnegie Mellon University hasexamined the nuclear energy market inthe US, categorizing more than 50 nuclearpower plants as being overaged andtoo expensive in order to continue theiroperation. At the same time, electricityfrom renewable energy sources such aswind and sun would become cheaper andnatural gas would furthermore strengthenits position as a reliable and affordablealternative in the U.S.; consequently,the operation of NPPs would becomeincreasingly unprofitable.Besides technical and economicassessments, politics and regulation playsa central role in the generation of nuclearpower. Germany, for example, conducteda reassessment of the risks associatedwith nuclear energy after the majorincident at Fukushima Daiichi NPP in 2011.This assessment resulted in the decisionof the German federal government inJune 2011 to decommission all NPPs by2022 (eight NPPs had their operatinglicenses revoked immediately) and in thereinforcement of safety requirements.4By passing the ‘Energy Transition forGreen Growth’ act in 2015, France alsoannounced its plan to decrease its shareof nuclear power from 75 to 50% by 2025.Although the target date was postponed,whereby the proposed 50% reductionshall now only be achieved by 2035, it is aclear sign that France will also divest itselfof its nuclear assets in the medium term.A further example is Switzerland. In 2017,a referendum on nuclear energy resultedin the planned withdrawal from nuclearenergy in the foreseeable future, butwithout naming a specific date.However, not only policymakers in Europestart to think about the future role ofnuclear energy. Taiwan used the incidentin Fukushima in 2011 as a catalyst torethink its nuclear policy. In 2016, thecabinet passed an agenda forcing theentire phasing out of nuclear energy by2025.In line with a general decrease of nucleartechnology for power generation, researchprojects on nuclear technology will not beextended. Various research reactors havefulfilled their original purpose and are nowwaiting to be decommissioned.The reasons for abandoning nuclearenergy generation are manifold.Therefore, this question arises: Whatare the challenges that operators andindividual countries will face if they want tomanage their nuclear legacy successfully?Efficient Decommissioning Requiresa Smooth Transition from theOperational into the DismantlingOrganizationThe first dismantling projects have alreadybeen completed and valuable experiencehas been gained. However, these initialdismantling projects brought to light thatplanning values (budget and time) differedvery strongly from reality. A few examplesunderpin these insights. The German NPP Stade, located inLower Saxony, started its phasing outin 2003. Initially, the green field phaseshould have been reached by 2015. Inthe meantime, the targeted time framefor the process of complete dismantlinghas been changed to 2023 and costestimates had to be raised fromoriginally EUR 500 M to EUR 1 B. The last unit of the Lithuanian NPPIgnalina was taken off the grid in 2009.Nearly 10 years later, its fuel elementshave yet to be removed from thereactor core. According to currentplans, the removal will be undertakenin 2022 at the earliest. Additionally, theconstruction of major decommissioninginfrastructure elements, such as a solidwaste retrieval facility or a solid wastetreatment and storage facility, is subjectto further massive delays. Significant budget overruns alsooccurred during the dismantling of theUS NPP Haddam Neck in Connecticut.When the project was completedin 2006, dismantling costs of overUSD 900 M had been incurred, whichstands in sharp contrast to the initiallyestimated costs of roughly USD 500 M.
Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities Market Overview and forthcoming Challenges for Plant OperatorsTherefore, this question arises: whichfactors significantly influence the successof the dismantling progress? To this day, 21dismantling projects worldwide have beencompleted successfully, dealing with allcommon reactor types. From a technicalpoint of view, nuclear decommissioning iscontrollable, especially in cases of NPPsthat were constructed with a high degreeof standardization. Hence, budget andtime requirements should be plannablefor the single dismantling stages based onpreviously gained experience.Further elements that influence thedismantling progress to the same extentare smooth processes, transparentstructures as well as intelligent andintense change management. While theoperational organization is designed forstable and reliable processes, dismantlingcompanies need to convert fundamentallyto agile, project-oriented organizations.This transformation affects both corporatestructures and corporate culture.Clear communication of the changeprocesses can create acceptance andsupport employees in developing acommitment to the development of thecompany. On the other hand, shapingthe transition inconsistently is one of thereasons that cause the above-mentionedbudget and time overruns for dismantlingprojects. For a smooth transition, thereare a couple of success factors to beconsidered, which are outlined below.Three transformation levels which needto be looked at are the foundationof a successful organization for thedismantling of NPPs: from the targetoperating model to the organizationaldesign down to the operational level – alllevels are substantially affected by theenterprise transition (see Figure 3).The target operating model requirescareful consideration in order to establisha successful collaboration between thepower plant director and the respectiveproject manager (in as far as thesepositions are not staffed with the sameperson). Furthermore, guidelines forcollaboration between the departmentswith nuclear responsibility and therelevant project and dismantling teamshave to be laid down. The dismantlingphase also requires an organizationalstructure with the capacity to handlecomplex and dynamic projects in anefficient manner. This requires ananalysis of the tasks to be performed bydecentralized project teams; on the otherhand, where centralized, crosssectionalunits can create synergies. In practice,it has become evident that dismantlingorganizations often do not carry out therequired organization transformation inall the required details and consequences.Instead, hybrid forms arise, withparallel structures causing conflicts andinefficiencies. The target operating model,however, forms the starting point forfurther organizational development.Fig. 3 – Fundamental Transformations are Required at Every Transition LevelTarget Operating ModelLevel 1Level 2Level 3Organizational geManagementProcedural StructureStaff PlanningTime & BudgetPlanningLicensing/ApprovalManagementIT5
Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities Market Overview and forthcoming Challenges for Plant OperatorsOnce the target operating modelhas been defined, it is necessary toelaborate on the organizational units,including a precise definition of tasksand personnel capacities. In practice,task structures and priorities must beadapted to the new challenges in thephase of decommissioning. For example,the requirements for project planningand the disposal infrastructure will risesharply during the dismantling phase.Based on the dismantling organization,management, core and support processesneed to be adapted to the new companypurpose. In particular, interfaces betweenorganizational units need to be designedin a way that ensures safe and efficientprocesses as well as the secure and swiftflow of information.The organizational transition pervadesthe company down to the operationallevel. Essential business activities such asbudgeting, purchasing and staff planningas well as reporting are facing radicallydifferent requirements. An adapted set ofmethods and tools can support businessunits to manage the challenges in anefficient manner.Budget planning and reporting isparticularly affected by the changeoverto a project organization. In order toestablish appropriate transparencyregarding cost development anddismantling progress, companies needto adapt their work breakdown structure(WBS). The WBS needs to be verygranular in order to allow accurate costbooking to the relevant WBS-elements.Implementation in this way enablesexecutives to determine the projectscourse based on a profound database.6Business units responsible for purchasingactivities are in need of proactivepurchase planning in order to avoiddelivery delays, and therefore providesupport for reaching project schedules.Considering the applicable tenderingspecifications, it is important to identifypotential delivery delays and to avoidthem by taking countermeasuresat an early stage. In addition, thedevelopment of commodity group/supplier management, analysis ofsupply bottlenecks and availability ofsuppliers, analysis and verification ofcontracts or the awarding system shouldbe considered in the transition phase.In practice, by using smart purchasingtools and working in close collaborationwith other departments, purchasers canachieve significantly shorter procurementlead times.HR departments need to consider a morecomplex and dynamic planning processfor relevant staff planning and recruitingactivities. Future gross personnelrequirements are subject to increaseduncertainty, as the dismantling progresscannot be completely and accuratelypredicted. Consequently, a personneldevelopment concept is required whichprepares employees for future challengesin the field of dismantling. Additionally,resulting net personnel requirementsneed to be identified systematicallyand staff marketing has the task ofaddressing external expertise precisely.Due to an underserved labor market fornuclear energy experts, it is essential toestablish a HR marketing that is capableof attracting specialists to the company.The implementation of such strategicstaff planning can absorb losses of keyknowledge to ensure smooth projectprogress on the personnel side.In the decommissioning phase, operatorsmust seek even more contact withauthorities and appraisers. Very often,due to complex and sluggish licensing andapproval processes, delays may have amajor impact on the project’s progress.Systematic licensing and approvalmanagement can counteract those projectdelays and help to improve overall time/schedule management.
Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities Market Overview and forthcoming Challenges for Plant OperatorsExcursus: Currently Operated Reactor TypesFrom a technical perspective, the dismantling activities are connected to thetype of reactor used. As Figure 4 highlights, most reactor operators rely onpressurized water reactors, PWR (224), followed by boiling water reactors,BWR (73). Further common reactor types particularly are gas-cooled reactorsand pressurized heavy water reactors. The mentioned numbers refer to NPPscurrently in operation.Fig. 4 – Global Distribution of Currently Operated Reactor Types2247371PressurizedWater ReactorBoilingWater ReactorOtherIn a BWR, water is heated up in the reactor core and steam then flows tothe turbine within a closed circuit. In the PWR, however, a heat exchanger isinterposed to feed a secondary stream with heat. By separating the circuits, itis ensured that no contaminated fluid can enter the turbine tract. Hence, froma dismantling point of view, PWRs require smaller control areas and fewercomponents will become contaminated.Challenges can be ManagedSuccessfullyFocusing on the technical complexityof nuclear dismantling projects, plantmanagers often neglect the furtherdevelopment of the organization andbusiness culture. In fact, this can beidentified as the turning point forestablishing a successful organization. Ifthe dismantling organization is properlydesigned from the start, one of the rootcauses for budget overruns and projectdelays is eliminated right at the beginning.Based on the insights gained from the firstdecommissioning projects, responsiblemanagers are increasingly pursuingcorporate development, integratingtechnical, economic and regulatoryrequirements into an agile organization.This becomes particularly relevant in thelight of the upcoming dismantling wavethat is going to hit the global nuclearindustry, as described above. Successfullymanaging this challenge will be a decisiveprerequisite for business prosperity ofenergy utilities.7
Your ContactsDr. Andreas LangerDirectorRA Leader Energy, Resources & IndustrialsTel: 49 (0)69 75695 6512anlanger@deloitte.deSupported byLorenz MüllerConsultantEnergy, Resources & IndustrialsTel: 49 (0)711 16554 7572lomueller@deloitte.deThis communication contains general information only not suitable for addressing the particular circumstancesof any individual case and is not intended to be used as a basis for commercial decisions or decisions of anyother kind. None of Deloitte Consulting GmbH or Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, its member firms, or theirrelated entities (collectively, the “Deloitte network”) is, by means of this communication, rendering professionaladvice or services. No entity in the Deloitte network shall be responsible for any loss whatsoever sustained byany person who relies on this communication.Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited byguarantee (“DTTL”), its network of member firms, and their related entities. DTTL and each of its member firmsare legally separate and independent entities. DTTL (also referred to as “Deloitte Global”) does not provideservices to clients. Please see www.deloitte.com/de/UeberUns for a more detailed description of DTTL and itsmember firms.Deloitte provides audit, risk advisory, tax, financial advisory and consulting services to public and private clientsspanning multiple industries; legal advisory services in Germany are provided by Deloitte Legal. With a globallyconnected network of member firms in more than 150 countries, Deloitte brings world-class capabilitiesand high-quality service to clients, delivering the insights they need to address their most complex businesschallenges. Deloitte’s approximately 264,000 professionals are committed to making an impact that matters.Issue 09/2018
nuclear energy. Taiwan used the incident in Fukushima in 2011 as a catalyst to rethink its nuclear policy. In 2016, the cabinet passed an agenda forcing the entire phasing out of nuclear energy by 2025. In line with a general decrease of nuclear technology for power generation, research projects on nuclear technology will not be extended.
XaaS Models: Our Offerings @DeloitteTMT As used in this document, "Deloitte" means Deloitte & Touche LLP, Deloitte Tax LLP, Deloitte Consulting LLP, and Deloitte Financial Advisory Services LLP. These entities are separate subsidiaries of Deloitte LLP. Deloitte & Touche LLP will be responsible for the services and the other subsidiaries
Deloitte & Touche South Africa is referred to throughout this report as Deloitte South Africa, and Deloitte Pan African Trust is referred to throughout this report as Deloitte Africa. Deloitte Africa holds practice rights to provide professional services using the Deloitte name which it extends to Deloitte entities within its territory,
Nuclear Chemistry What we will learn: Nature of nuclear reactions Nuclear stability Nuclear radioactivity Nuclear transmutation Nuclear fission Nuclear fusion Uses of isotopes Biological effects of radiation. GCh23-2 Nuclear Reactions Reactions involving changes in nucleus Particle Symbol Mass Charge
Guide for Nuclear Medicine NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGULATION OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE. Jeffry A. Siegel, PhD Society of Nuclear Medicine 1850 Samuel Morse Drive Reston, Virginia 20190 www.snm.org Diagnostic Nuclear Medicine Guide for NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGULATION OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE. Abstract This reference manual is designed to assist nuclear medicine professionals in .
May 02, 2011 · Deloitte & Touche LLP Cleveland, Ohio 1 216 589 5717 tgriffiths@deloitte.com Theresa Cui . Engagement Consultant . Deloitte & Touche LLP . Cleveland, Ohio Cleveland, Ohio 1 216 589 5018 1 216 . tcui@deloitte.com . Kathie Schwerdtfeger Advisory Principal Deloitte & Touche LLP . Austin, Texas 1 512 691 2333 . kschwerdtfeger@deloitte.com .File Size: 720KB
Knabe, Andrea Consulting Deloitte Consulting LLP Chicago Kwan, Anne Consulting Deloitte Consulting LLP San Francisco . Miller, Christian L. Tax Deloitte Tax LLP Washington DC . Smith, Sandra Consulting Deloitte Consulting LLP Chicago Spangrud, Chad Audit & Assurance Deloitte & Touche LLP Costa Mesa Springs, Christanna R. Tax Deloitte Tax .
Any nuclear reactor or radiological accidents involving equipment used in connection with naval nuclear reactors or other naval nuclear energy devices while such equipment is under the custody of the Navy. DoD's Definition of Nuclear Weapon Accident An unexpected event involving nuclear weapons or nuclear
additif a en fait des effets secondaires nocifs pour notre santé. De plus, ce n’est pas parce qu’un additif est d’origine naturelle qu’il est forcément sans danger. Car si l’on prend l’exemple d’un champignon ou d’une plante toxique pour l’homme, bien qu’ils soient naturels, ils ne sont pas sans effets secondaires.
