New Build

Adrian Bull, Manager of Stakeholder Relations at Westinghouse UK, speaks to Nuclear Energy Insider’s Katherine Steiner-Dicks on the global success story of Westinghouse's AP 1000 Reactor; the cost-effectiveness of series and modular style construction methods; factoring in decommissioning costs; and what he’d change about the industry if he could.

NEI: Where is the skills gap within the industry most profound?

AB: The biggest issues are in the skills we will need soonest. For instance, in the UK until recently we had a shortage in safety inspectors to carry out the licensing work on the potential reactor designs being assessed for deployment. That issue seems to have been resolved now, but there are potential issues when we reach construction in the precision manufacturing sector, with fully qualified welders, etc, and then in the specialist commissioning teams needed to bring a nuclear reactor into commercial operation.

NEI: Why do you believe there is such a serious skills gap within the industry?

AB: In part, it is down to the age profile of the industry - we recruited a lot of people into the sector in the 1970s and early 80s, when the industry was growing. Since then, there has been a levelling off of work, and so little new recruitment. As those more experienced staff get to the end of their careers, the challenge of replacing them is significant - and that's needed even without the new jobs that a new build programme will bring. The fact that many other countries are facing similar challenges at the same time makes things harder to resolve, as there is not the "ebb and flow" of demand between countries to allow things to even out.

NEI: Given the skills gap, in your opinion, do we have enough talent to spread around both nationally and on a global level?

AB: Yes, I think we do, provided that as an industry we plan ahead and co-ordinate activities where it makes sense to do so. For instance, in the UK the National Skills Academy for Nuclear is introducing common accreditation standards for training and skills development, which means people can progress up the ladder - and more between companies - without having to re-do a lot of their training each time. It is one area where the relatively long timescales of the nuclear industry can help us. But if we are complacent and fail to plan ahead, then we will find we do run into problems later.

NEI: Do you believe there are supply chain capability constraints that will inevitably see UK opportunities go predominately overseas?

AB:The UK supply chain is uniquely well placed to take advantage of the new build opportunities. Many companies have experience of working in the sector already - if not on new build, then on the existing reactor fleet or on the site management and waste and cleanup side. We also have a strong track record in supplying related sectors such as defence, aerospace, oil and gas, where quality requirements are also very high. A lot of work is going on across the industry to engage UK suppliers and Westinghouse have an approach of "We Buy Where We Build" which means we work particularly hard to identify local and regional suppliers to support our programmes. Even without a UK order for an AP1000, we have had over 200 companies register on our UK supplier website, and over 30 of those are already approved suppliers for us.

NEI: The Westinghouse AP 1000 Reactor has been very successful around the world, especially in the USA. What is it about the reactor that has convinced decision makers to build new nuclear plants, despite the surmounting regulatory and consumer opinion challenges?

AB: There are two issues here. The first is why utility customers want nuclear. Largely, that's because they see uncertain (and rising) costs ahead for fossil fuels, and also for the costs of carbon emissions (whether paid by taxation, by buying permits to emit, or some other means). Nuclear provides a large scale reliable source of electricity, which is essentially immune to rising fossil fuel or carbon prices. That helps the utilities to know they can provide their customers at a predictable cost.

The next question for them is: why choose the AP1000? They want a vendor with a strong track record, and a reactor design which has had regulatory approval and which is established as one of the standard international designs. That way they can build in the knowledge that they are treading in the proven footsteps of other developers around the world. The AP1000 is a modern reactor design with a global order book, which already stands in double figures (four in China and six in the US).

NEI: What has enabled purchasers of the AP1000 to apply for a Combined Construction and Operating License (COL)?

AB: The scrutiny already given to the design by US regulators means the developers have a great deal of confidence in their ability to deploy the AP1000. The way the system works in the US, a Combined COL licence is a sensible way to proceed.

NEI: What do you believe has to be implemented in order for the Nuclear Directorate of HSE to be satisfied with extended licenses and the ongoing safety of the reactors in the UK?

AB: The safety of UK reactors is a matter for the regulators, The Nuclear Directorate (still widely known as the NII - Nuclear Installations Inspectorate), which will need to be assured that the reactors continue to be fully safe and that the components and materials within can be guaranteed to operate as intended, despite prolonged exposure to high temperatures and / or radiation fields.

NEI: What are the maximum license extensions being given in the UK and the US and do you think these will increase as reactor safety and management improves? How will this affect the industry as a whole?

AB: Typically in the UK, reactors have been granted 5 or 10 year lifetime extensions. That is partly down to the fact that most of our reactors are of unique designs, so the body of operational experience and materials performance data for any specific design is inevitably limited. In other countries, such as the US, longer extensions of 20 years have been granted. In these cases there is a bigger body of data on PWR reactors and their materials to allow such an extension to be approved with confidence.

NEI: How do decommissioning costs get factored into the overall cost of new build projects?

AB: The exact details will depend on the nature of the market in any specific country, but in the UK where the projects are being taken forward by the major private-sector utilities, a lot of work has gone in to ensuring a robust financial framework to accumulate these costs during the reactor's operating life, in a segregated fund. Modern reactors such as the AP1000 are designed with decommissioning firmly in mind, and as a result these costs are only a very small proportion of the overall costs of power generation.

NEI: How does Westinghouse address its portion of risk within its contracts for both decommissioning and new build sides? How do you negotiate which percentage of the risk falls on the contractor, the utility company, etc.?

AB: Westinghouse does a limited amount of decommissioning, certainly in the UK. But issues such as this will depend on the details of commercial discussions with customers, and the kind of delivery model they prefer. For instance - it is up to the customer to decide if they want Westinghouse to be responsible for reactor construction - or simply the engineering and procurement of components. There is also a discussion to be had with the architect/engineer company as to which risk they will bear.

NEI: The modular style construction method has proven its cost-effectiveness in markets such as Japan. But what are the alternatives for markets that do not have the experienced workforce or the convenient transportation links (sea to rail, for example) to easily go for the modular method?

AB: The AP1000 is a modular design, so fabrication and delivery of the modules are essential steps. There is flexibility in how some of the larger modules can be delivered - either as a single component, or in sub-modules which are then assembled on or near the reactor site. There is also scope to transport by road, rail or sea.

NEI: France is the world's largest net exporter of electric power and its electricity cost is among the lowest in Europe. Why have markets such as France embraced nuclear at a much faster pace than the UK? And what do you think it will take for the UK to change its popular opinion on nuclear?

AB: France adopted nuclear in the aftermath of the 1970s oil crisis, recognising that it did not have great natural reserves of fuel. The approach adopted - taking a design and building a substantial series of the same reactor across the nation - has been widely recognised as the benchmark for nuclear deployment. Having demonstrated that series build of standard designs allowed delivery to time and budget, it was more straightforward to continue down the same path. This approach is the basis for Westinghouse's desire to have the AP1000 as a global - rather than a national - standard, and to reap these benefits across an international series of identical plants.

NEI: If there was one thing that you would change concerning the nuclear sector, what would it be?

AB: It would be great to "fast forward" to a time in the not too distant future when the first few AP1000 plants were up and running successfully! More seriously, international harmonisation of regulatory standards would be a huge benefit to the industry. There are steps in place to work towards that goal, but it will inevitably be a slow process, as nations are understandably keen to retain sound and robust regimes, which have served them well for decades.