| NEW BUILD
Above left: Reactor 1 is taking shape at Hinkley Point C in the UK, as work continues around the clock Photo credit: EDF Energy Above right: Water on three sides made Qinshan III an even more challenging project
and frozen, before a project contract is signed. The USA experience of using 10CFR52 for a combined construction and operating licence, should be compared with using 10 CFR50 for separate construction and operating licences. A separate construction licence provides for simpler and faster construction. Projects must be led and built under a project culture.
A strong project delivery culture is different and is distinct from an owner or operating culture. In a project culture the organisational structure must be lean, simple and decisive, and exist only during the project phase and its delivery. An operating and or corporate culture is permanent, more complex and slower in decision making, which has an effect on the schedule. A balanced governance between corporate and project delivery culture is required by stakeholders and shareholders. Failure to achieve this balance complicates decision making, restricting the effectiveness of the project delivery management and putting the project at risk. Managing hundreds of thousands of project schedule activities is difficult, and history shows the array of tools employed has not usually delivered successful outcomes. Simple and experienced project management (integrated systems and people) and the right schedule have been proven to work. The project’s critical paths must be managed in real time with single-point decision-making minimising ‘management by committee’. The old adage of “Do it right the first time” warrants
attention in several aspects. The tendency to increase the number of watchers adds costs and does not help performance and productivity. ‘Twice as many people’ does not make the overall work go twice as fast, so prioritising training, especially in construction labour, has better results than increasing worker numbers. Rework can be significantly reduced, schedules improved by prefabrication and by modules (when the design is done) by teams of engineers and constructors who create buildable construction designs. There has been a movement internationally to promote
grid-connected small and medium sized power reactors with capacity of up to 300MWe (SMRs) using simpler, passive technologies with modular designs that are fabricated off site to reduce site construction costs (a third of the cost of large new-build plants). This can offset the reduced economy of scale, if it combines an ‘Nth of a kind’ approach using factory assembly of modules with series build.
Simpler designs and advances in technology mean multiple power and decay heat removal systems are not required. This supports plant economics and it must be recognised by the regulator. There are two FOAK aspects for SMRs. The first is
technology risk in bringing a new technology to reliable economic operation. The second is FOAK project delivery risk — even when using current technology scaled down. The on time and on budget factors still apply to SMRs. While each project is different, industry must learn from what worked and what did not work internationally. Success in Asia — on time and on budget — has been achieved with a continuous programme using Nth of a kind technology. It separated the build phase — project delivery culture — from the operating culture to lead and to manage the critical paths of a schedule of some 8000 activities for two units. Freezing design with the contract is critical, as are
experienced providers for design, equipment and construction. Qinshan III in China has two 725MWe CANDU units built by Atomic Energy of Canada under an EPC contract. They met the above criteria and were ahead of schedule (54 months from construction to in-service) and under budget. The major subcontractors (including Hitachi/Bechtel for engineering and procurement of the turbine generator island and balance of plant) worked to their own practices and quality programmes under the prime contractor umbrella role of AECL. This improved accountability and economics. ■
About the author Dr. Ken Petrunik has 45 years of international experience in new build nuclear power with a focus on leadership and project management. He has worked in a nuclear vendor and owner capacity and understands both sides. He is currently a consultant in nuclear power with a range of international clients and is chair of Global First Power who are developing a 5MWe micro off-grid reactor sited at Chalk River Canada. He was a board member for Horizon Wylfa Project in the UK for three years. His career with Atomic Energy of Canada (AECL) spanned 35 years where he was President of the CANDU Reactor Division responsible for AECL’s commercial CANDU business including marketing and delivery of new build reactors and services to operating stations. Following this he served for six years in the UAE as programme manager for Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation in their four-unit APR 1400 Barakah project. ■
www.neimagazine.com | January 2022 | 25
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45
