• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant Presentation to the Assembly of Contributors
 

Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant Presentation to the Assembly of Contributors

on

  • 774 views

This presentation was done in June, 2010

This presentation was done in June, 2010

Statistics

Views

Total Views
774
Views on SlideShare
766
Embed Views
8

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0

1 Embed 8

http://www.linkedin.com 8

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • The first part of the presentation is essentially that given at the NDAP in Luxembourg. If there has been progress on the topics mentioned in the first part, it would be good to include it. The second part of the presentation focuses specifically on the IIDSF projects. It is presented in the order proposed: B1  B2/3/4  B9 series  B9-4  Tools (B14/15)
  • Unchanged
  • The data here refers only to the contract and does not mention that the contract was substantially over the original budget. Likewise it refers only to delays in the contract schedule rather than the originally planned project schedule. Does INPP have any idea what the scale of future claims under B1 may be?
  • The first part of the presentation is essentially that given at the NDAP in Luxembourg. If there has been progress on the topics mentioned in the first part, it would be good to include it. The second part of the presentation focuses specifically on the IIDSF projects. It is presented in the order proposed: B1  B2/3/4  B9 series  B9-4  Tools (B14/15)
  • As with B1, would you wish to include the forecast budget for this facility? And the original planned implementation dates?
  • For INPP comment.

Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant Presentation to the Assembly of Contributors Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant Presentation to the Assembly of Contributors Presentation Transcript

  • Transformation of INPP for decommissioning and Current Status of IIDSF Projects Osvaldas Čiukšys General Director Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant
  • December 31, 20 09: change of INPP core activity
    • I NPP was acting as nuclear power plant
    • operator.
    • December 31, 2009 Unit 2 reactor was
    • shut down.
    • the Main INPP activity has been changed
    • to decommissioning organization.
  • Successful operation of INPP: accumulated expertise and know-how of RBMK technology – key prequalification for successful RBMK type plant decommissioning - 1974 Preparations started for construction of INPP - 1983 Unit 1, 1987 Unit 2 commissioned - It took 11 years to build the worlds most powerful nuclear plant - Originally 4 RBMK-1500 reactors planned - ~ 6000 staff employed (1989) - In 2 7 years 308 bln k Wh of electricity - INPP specialists were the first to start using the enriched fuel with burnable absorber – erbium - Unique project of Unit 1 nuclear fuel reuse in Unit 2 reactor implemented 1st time in operation history of nuclear reactors - Other unique technology improvements & modifications
    • Safe & Cost – Effective Decommissioning : - Transformation of INPP from operation to decommissioning - Application of the best international practice: greater ownership & full employment of all internal resources
    Values Strategy Mission Tasks Vision
  • Vision INPP - the company , safely and efficiently terminating its operation as a nuclear power facility, gaining and sharing its experience in decommissioning as well as turning its activities and ( infra ) structure to commercially effective and business oriented opportunities.
  • Mission
    • to pioneer safe and successful RBMK type reactor
    • decommissioning
    • to develop highest level of management of:
      • human resources, time and funds
      • processes and projects
      • radioactive waste
    • to use own staff and expertise in order to gain and achieve:
      • experience and new skills
      • efficiency and transparency
      • use of skills and know-how in intn’l decom projects
    • to maintain certain level of social security as employer
    • t h rough the whole process of decommissioning
  • Strategy and Tasks (1)
    • Short term 2010 – 2013
    • Fast reorganization of INPP to post-operational nuclear facility aiming its main activities to full extend for decommissioning :
      • change of management , INPP structure , work culture and attitude maintaining the highest standards for nuclear and radiological safety
      • implementation of project based / Horizontal vs. Vertical / static hierarchical model for processes and projects management
      • revision of FDP and overall decom costs , optimization of
      • post – operational costs and public procurement
      • key decom projects acceleration and completion/operational acceptance :
      • new spent fuel and waste management facilities and storages
      • initiation of in-house D&D ( Decontamination & Dismantling) projects :
      • both units reactors D&D, tools management, radiological characterization etc.
      • retention of skilled INPP specialists, application of motivation schemes
  • Strategy (2)
    • Medium to long term 2014 – 2020 – 2029
    • 2014 – 2020 :
    • fast and safe defueling of both units into the ISFSF
    • peak of D&D in main buildings
    • management of big waste volumes
    • start of both units reactors D&D
    • gradual handover of spent fuel and r-waste storages to RATA .
    • 2020 – 2029 :
    • environment friendly and safe end-state of both units reactors D&D
    • fill-up of r-waste storages
    • D&D of main buildings or their adoption to possible reuse for industrial purposes
    • site remediation
    • decommissioning company reorganization to:
    • - real estate man a gement,
    • - radioactive waste handling
    • - international decom projects / other supporting entities
    • Safety
    • Cost-effectiveness
    • Transparency and responsibility
    • Professional approach and innovation
    • Social guarantees and openness for society
    Values
  • ? Main periods for the whole decommissioning planning Revision of FDP / other key documents and amendments of legislation
    • Restructured management
    Further optimization of INPP management and functional structure in the course of 2010 Accounts Assets & Procurement Personnel Labour Safety Training Centre Information Centre Decommissioning Directorate Finance Directorate Personnel Directorate Security Department Document Management Quality Assurance Legal Group Planning Group Advisory Group General Director Technology Department Project Department D&D Department Rad. Safety Department Radwaste Department
    • Purpose
      • Improved cost effectiveness
      • “… a number of revisions that should be made to … improve the cost effectiveness of the proposed projects.”
      • Independent Expert Review Group Report – March 2007
    In-house project strategy
    • Purpose
      • Improved cost effectiveness
      • Motivate and retain INPP’s engineering staff
      • “… motivation of INPP staff to rise to the professional challenges of integrated decommissioning and waste management, represents, in the view of the IERG, an important milestone in the ongoing gradual transition of the INPP operations function into an efficient Decommissioning Service business organisation.”
      • IERG Report – March 2007
    In-house project strategy
    • Purpose
      • Improved cost effectiveness
      • Motivate and retain INPP’s engineering staff
      • Improve horizontal coordination of D&D planning
      • It was important to note the need for INPP Management to reconsider their traditional vertical thinking in favour of horizontal thinking in view of the repetitive tasks ahead.
      • IERG to EC – March 2007
    In -house project strategy
    • Purpose
      • Improved cost effectiveness
      • Motivate and retain INPP’s engineering staff
      • Improve horizontal coordination of D&D planning
    • Approach
      • Maximise own-staff involvement in project leadership/performance
      • Use external consultants only for specific targeted support
    • Application (to date)
      • Radiological characterisation (replacing external project RDC.02)
      • Reactor D&D feasibility study (replacing external project B9-4)
      • * - Following the recommendations of Independent Expert Review Group Report – March 2007
    Implementation of in-house projects * :
    • Purpose
      • Cost saving by rationalised tool procurement (esp. consumables)
      • “… not all of the tools and equipment specified in each project need to be available on the start of the respective decontamination and dismantling activities. The required dates for the phased availability of the tools and equipment should form part of the optimised planning process for the individual decontamination and dismantling projects and activities.”
      • “… a budget [has] to be established for the routine maintenance and replacement of such tools, as needed, during the whole decommissioning period”
      • IERG – March 2007
    Tool s management
    • Purpose
      • Cost saving by rationalised tool procurement (esp. consumables)
    • Approach
      • ensure no duplication with existing INPP equipment
      • ensure no duplication between B9 projects
      • procure tools according to schedule of usage
      • encourage flexibility and economy in tool usage
      • price benefits of locally-sourced, larger-scale call-off contracts
    • Application
      • Replacing all former “building-by-building” tool procurements
        • B14 • B15 • B29
    Introduction of tools management * :
      • * - Following the recommendations of Independent Expert Review Group Report – March 2007
  • FDP Key decommissioning dates 2004 -2016
    • Units Final Shutdown
    • Reactors defueling
    • Pools defuelling
    • Start of D&D activities
    • Unit 1 – 31/12/2004
    • Unit 2 – 31/12/2009
    • Unit 1 – 31/12/2009
    • Unit 2 – 28/02/2012
    • Unit 1 – 31/08/2015
    • Unit 2 – 12/01/2016
    • Unit 1 – 01/01/2010
    • Unit 2 – early 2012
    achieved planned
  • B1: Interim Spent Fuel Store
    • Key contract data
      • Signed 12 January 2005 with GNS-NUKEM consortium
      • Completion date:
        • Original contract 04 / 06 / 2009
        • Current amendment 29 / 03 / 2011
      • Contract price:
        • Original contract 171,487,079.00 EUR
        • Current amendment 193,492,261.97 EUR
    • Contract amendment signed May 2009
      • intended to resolve commercial issues and establish
      • new fixed schedule
    • Outcome (1 year later):
      • Further schedule slippage: 8 months
      • Completion July 2011 : estimated , slippages
      • Further claims anticipated regarding damaged fuel
      • No satisfactory recovery/mitigation plan from NUKEM
    + 22 months + 22 MEUR (approx) 19 - 06 - 2010 B1
  • ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF ISFSF COMMISSIONING DELAY (PROJECT В1) ON THE GENERAL DECOMMISSIONING PROCESS INPP post-shutdown maintenance costs greatly depend on keeping the fuel in the Units’ reactors and pools : Assessment of maintenance costs is made on the basis of EWN (Germany) calculations in the context of “Decommissioning Project for INPP Unit 2 Final Shutdown and Defuelling Phase” (Project U2DP0).
    • Delay amounts to 32 months according to estimated date of completion
    • Due to the fuel in the reactor no reduction in safety level and safety systems maintenance costs
    • Next safety systems reduction is possible when fuel removed from pools
    • Further increase of the costs because of likely further slippages
  • B2/3/4: Radwaste facilities B2: Waste retrieval and sorting / 3: Waste management / B 4: Waste storage
    • Key contract data:
      • Contract signed 30 November 2005 with NUKEM
      • Completion date
        • Original contract 28 / 11 / 2009
        • Current forecast + 49 months delay (estimated)
      • Contract price
        • Original contract 120,065,781 EUR
        • Current contract 122,936,810 EUR
        • Current claims approx. 70 MEUR
    • Current status
        • B2: No on-site activities at INPP
        • B3/4: Concrete base laid but no further progress
        • INPP and NUKEM explores possibility to reach Global Settlement on unsolved commercial issues
    17 – 06 - 2010 B34
  • Resolution of B1/2/3/4 issues
    • Observations
    • - Performance of NUKEM is unsatisfactory
        • unjustified claims
        • failure to provide information in a timely manner
    • More proactive approach of INPP
      • - engaging strong legal support team to contest NUKEM claims
      • calculation of INPP extra costs due to NUKEM delays
      • keeping key stakeholders (MoE, EC, EBRD) informed of progress in INPP/NUKEM relations and negotiations
        • Contracts create additional complications due to use of
        • Eglish law for contract activities conducted in Lithuania
  • Key Decommissionin g Project
    • UP – 01 Project: D&D of Units 1 & 2 reactor shafts:
    • initiated as in-house project
    • cost saving of the whole process :
    • project B9-4 transformed to feasibility study
    • on D&D of both units reactors started in- house
    • enables to use INPP staff expertise
    • and develop know-how
    • special working group created
    • program of milestones and priorities
    • set up
    • involvement of different research/
    • scientific institutions and contractors
    • cooperation with IAEA in project
    • on Carbonwaste and graphite handling
    R1 R3 R2
  • Thank you / A č i ū Ignalina International Decommissioning Support Fund Republic of Lithuania