IAEA General Conference 2013 General Conference 2013 ... (specification, method statement ... Full prefabrication No more welding nor inspection in situ

IAEA General Conference 2013 Nuclear Operating Organizations cooperation Forum

Strengthening the effectiveness of operating organizations

EDF’s EPRTM lessons learned

EDF / Areva

Philippe Leigné – EDF Generation & Engineering Division

Daniel Turon – Areva Construction Division

IAEA General Conference – Septembre 2013 – Nucmear Operator Organizations Cooperation Forum 1

Background

Experience feedback process

Lessons learned example

Conclusion

Agenda


Background Experience feedback process


Conclusion

Agenda


EDF’s NUCLEAR FLEET

Powerful, competitive, low CO2 emissions

The demands of a zero error safety culture

EDF Group: the world’s No. 1 nuclear power operator □ 485.5 TWh generated

□ France: 58 PWRs* at 19 sites

• 404.9 TWh generated: 74.8% of production

• €2.7bn invested in maintenance

□ United Kingdom: 14 AGRs**, 1 PWR* at 8 sites

• 60 TWh generated

□ USA: 5 PWRs* via CENG (49.99% EDF stake) at 3 sites

Building the future □ 3 PWRs under construction

• 1 in France: Flamanville

• 2 in China: Taishan (30% EDF stake)

□ 1 PWR project in the United Kingdom:

• 2 reactors at Hinkley Point

• Authorizations granted

• Design approved by safety authorities

• Final Investment Decision not yet taken.


* Pressurized water reactor

** Advanced gas-cooled reactor

AREVA and EDF’s long story in NPP projects


AREVA and EDF involved in design and construction of

more than100 units worldwide : Experience of adapting to a diverse range of licensing

frameworks

Experience of end to end process : Owner/Operator organization,

Project management,

Licensing,

EPC,

Fuel,

Waste,

Operation & maintenance,

Training (Initial, Continuing and advanced),

Decommissioning.

AREVA and EDF participate in international Working

Groups, aiming to harmonize nuclear safety approaches and

practices (IAEA, EU, EUR, …)

AREVA and EDF’s worldwide engagement in EPR Projects


EDF-Framatome N4 Siemens KONVOI

Feedbak of experience From 58 + 17

reactors in operation

Evolutionary

design concept

Increase nuclear safety More competitive


Design derived from French N4 and German Konvoi series.

EPR = European (Evolutionary) Pressurised water Reactor

4 independent safety trains

Air Plane Crash shelter

Made with very thick concrete

structure

EPR : some design features to enhance safety


Core melt stabilisation system

Digital Instrumentation & Control system

Computerised Man Machine Interface

In-containment water storage

+ passive cooling system

EPR : some design features to enhance safety


Background

Experience feedback process Lessons learned example

Conclusion

Agenda


Experience Feedback - Overview

Goal

Avoid repetition of problems encountered on in-progress EPR Projects,

Inform about good practices and engineering choices.

Method

Establish a continuous improvement culture across organizations,

Implement a process which quickly defines, assesses applicability and

implements project Lessons learned.

Targeted users

All EPR Projects.

Sharing for mutual benefit


AREVA and EDF have joined forces to optimize experience feedback and

continuous improvements.

Regular technical meetings are organized :

Topics are defined in advance (ex: liner, pools, pre-stressing,…),

Design, Construction, and Time-Schedule aspects are discussed.

The goal is to improve the overall performance of nuclear new builds. Reduce

uncertainty and risks for the investors.


Experience Feedback - Overview

Flamanville 3 Taishan 1&2 Olkiluoto 3 Hinkley Point C Future EPR

Lessons learned process

Capture Lessons Learned

Launch investigation on critical topics (top-down process)

Encourage LL implementation in the database (bottom-up process)

Analyze LL

Sorting of LL by leader entities, by impact (cost, schedule, constructability)

Analysis (relevance, applicability to other projects)

Process the LL

Appoint a pilot for each LL

Launch investigation & action plans

Follow-up of actions

Implement solution (best practices, issues, know-how)

Communicate

Report

Share

Transforms experiences

into valuable knowledge

Take

away:


Why ?

To prevent & eliminate difficulties for further projects, offers and

ongoing projects: Enhance constructability

To reduce and secure cost & time schedule

How ?

Implement Lessons Learned in the database

Redaction of REX report, interviews

Missions on site

With support of a LL network positioned in key entities

To improve the

performance Take

away:

By dedicating people to

this task Take

away:



When ?

Day to day

Lessons Learned is an ongoing process

For which result ?

Information to projects

Update of project documentation

Establishment of a set of standard document (specification, method

statement…)

Consolidation of a level 3 construction time schedule

Update of cost baseline

Every day Take

away:

To master the EPR Opt Take

away:



Optimized EPR

AREVA & EDF launched a Optimized EPR (EPR Opt) which is a virtual &

changing EPR based on a:

3D model

Configuration

level 3 time schedule (engineering, procurement, construction & commissioning)

documentation set including specifications & method statements…

It evolutes with the Lessons Learned received, in order to

capture best technical & economic solutions.


Background


Lessons learned example Conclusion

Agenda


Lessons learned examples

Design improvement


Improved constructability with adapted design

Rationalization of fuel building structure in order to optimize the

building’s response under a seismic solicitation;

Enhanced constructability, thanks to realigned walls and slabs.


Digital engineering

Problems detected and resolved during the design phase giving better certainty

on construction programme due to:

• Clash detection of rebars, anchor plates and other embedded items

• Detailed construction sequencing taking into account all activities

• Material control on site – lean processes using manufacturing

techniques

• Improved quality and productivity


Illustration

TSN base slab one-step pouring

Thick concrete slab (4m at FA3

and TSN)

One-step pouring challenging

Improvement

Context

Improve-

ment

One-step pouring method

validated at Taishan thanks to

temperature control

Use of ice

Use of integrated piping

Use of heating cover


Concrete Slab Pouring


Avoid buckling

Implement positive experience

feedback

Improvement

Context

Improve-

ment

Liner cup installed in one

element on the base slab

(instead of 2)

Specific lifting frame

Gain

Full prefabrication

No more welding nor inspection in situ

Improve in situ time schedule

Liner cup lifting

Illustration


Modularization: Liner Cup


Illustration

Optimize pools construction

method

Improvement

Context

Improve-

ment

Use pool as lost formwork

Design improvement

Enhance modularity

Tests under a protective cover

Gain Schedule flexibility

Improve in situ time schedule

Pool module


Modularization :Pools



Modularization : Main Control Room


The MCR is base on a “box-in-a-box” concept

To limit noise levels and increase worker’s comfort

The steel box for the MCR has been fully prefabricated and lifted onto its final

location with the heavy-load crane


Illustration

Codes discussions

Specific tooling

Improvement

Context

Improve-

ment

Modularization of liner

Use of a lifting truth

Review of the design

requirement and erection

tolerances for the liner

Gain Firmed-up construction

schedule (already implemented

on Taishan)

OL3 liner double ring & dome lifting


Modularization : Liner

Background



Conclusion

Agenda


Some Key success factors

Risk analysis change request vs. standard :

Ensure licensing certainty - avoid changes in the licensing approach,

Design must be mature (Avoid changes in the Design), and licensing issues

resolved prior to start of construction and sufficient project pre-planning done.

Anticipation :

Assign high priority to safety and schedule,

Start Detailed Design as early as possible,

Smooth execution of the civil work,

Ensure that contractors are of high quality and experienced in nuclear field.

Minor costs in the beginning saves huge costs later!

Nuclear reactor’s life time cost is concentrated upfront as capital cost, and therefore

delays in construction may become intolerable in terms of both lost revenues and

interest on the capital; (IAEA NP-T- 2.7)

Don’t start until you know you won’t need to stop!


Thank you for your attention.


…Questions and comments?

IAEA General Conference 2013 General Conference 2013 ... (specification, method statement ... Full prefabrication No more welding nor inspection in situ

Documents