Reactor Coolant Pumps for AP1000 still a problem

This is a story that I really don’t want to tell, but bad news is like old fish. It doesn’t smell any better as it ages.

All eight AP1000 construction projects are at risk “for want of a nail.”

In this case the nail is a reactor coolant pump, the largest one in the world, equipment that evidently doesn’t exist and for which there is only one supplier.

In May 2010, Nuclear Engineering International published an article that announced that the coolant pumps for the first AP1000 reactors had been successfully tested at normal operating temperatures and pressures. Those tests were witnessed by the customer.

But RCPs were a significant topic during the July 30 investor call held by Curtiss-Wright (NYSE:CW) on its second quarter earnings, five years after the triumphant announcement that testing had been completed.

The company’s presentation during the call included the following statement from chairman, president and CEO David Adams [no relation]:

Regarding an update to our long-term operating margin guidance, we are not prepared to provide any target at this time. As the AP1000 program is quite significant to our future growth rates, we need to finalize the pending China order before fully resetting long-term expectations for margin growth….

Next I would like to provide an update on the AP1000 program. Overall we continue to make progress in the production of our first of a kind reactor coolant pump or RCP, supporting the AP1000 nuclear program. We have successfully completed the engineering and endurance testing phase and are now working with our customer and the Chinese as we evaluate the results of those tests. We expect to begin deliveries of our RCPs to China in the latter half of the third quarter. Regarding our next AP1000 order, we anticipate contract negotiations to resume once we begin shipping pumps and remain hopeful for the order by the end of the third quarter.
(emphasis added)

CEOs of public companies are required to inform investors about issues that can materially affect their finances. That task is not always easy or welcome.

Preparing the exact wording can require an almost unbelievable amount of effort and is often a painful process for several players who must contribute. It takes experience and discernment to unravel the words.

Adams was providing forward-looking statements using words that clearly indicated he was making predictions based on currently available information. As earnings statement disclosures warn, predictive statements might not be correct.

“Working with our customer” and “expect to begin deliveries” are statements indicating that work is not only incomplete, but still somewhat undefined.

Uncertainty about completion became even more apparent during the Q&A period, as Adams answered related questions:

I said on the last call as well that we had anticipated that we would get through the E and E testing and we did over the end of last quarter and that was excellent. We were very happy. We proved out the design modifications that we had made at that point. The thrust runner, bearing and so forth. The whole purpose was to go through and to really prove that we got a 60-year-life pump.

And so everybody’s happy that we did accomplish that. And now as a result we are doing some tweaks and we anticipate that we are going to be shipping hardware in the very near term to China. And that was always the premise with our customer both domestic and China that once we started shipping product that met the requirement (of efficiently passing the E and E testing) then we would be starting resuming negotiations. So you’ve heard me say before I’ve been cautiously optimistic; I remain so. And third quarter is still what we are looking at to pick up an order as I indicated. We’re going to be shipping hardware pretty soon.
(emphasis added)

For anyone who is experienced in nuclear energy-related engineering and quality assurance programs, “doing some tweaks” is a red-flag statement.
It means that changes may still be necessary. There are few changes that can be made to critical equipment without going back into the testing and evaluation phase.

Because of the critical nature of these pumps and the harsh working environment that they must endure during their 60-year design life, testing and evaluation are time-consuming endeavors.

The current redesign and retesting effort began sometime before April 2014 when statements issued by the responsible companies indicated that some pumps that had already been delivered to China passed post installation testing and others did not. That was almost 18 months ago.

As Curtiss-Wright statements indicate, there will not be any new AP1000 commitments until after the coolant pumps have been proven. Customers have growing reasons to wonder if that finish line will be reached before they run out of patience or money.

When contacted via email about the reactor coolant pump situation described above, a Westinghouse spokesperson offered the following:

Construction of four AP1000 units in China continues to move forward at an impressive pace, with milestones being achieved on a regular basis. The related RCP issue is being resolved by all parties working together in the safest and most timely manner possible. Westinghouse does not comment on confidential project or commercial matters. Westinghouse remains focused on, and committed to, the safe and successful delivery of AP1000 units in China and around the world.

Let’s hope that the parties are working together to complete their work safely and effectively in the very near future.


The above article was first published in the August 20, 2015 issue of Fuel Cycle Week and is republished here with permission.

Who said modular construction would save money on first of a kind units?

On July 27, 2015, the Wall St. Journal published an article written by Rebecca Smith titled Prefab Nuclear Plants Prove Just as Expensive. That piece has been widely shared and discussed on social media with more than 2700 shares on Facebook and more than 150 shares on Twitter as counted from the original article. I […]

Read more »

Will North Anna 3 be lead ESBWR?

There is a growing perception that the Nuclear Renaissance in the U.S. is dead, killed off forever by low natural gas prices. Some members of the American Nuclear Society (ANS) are not so sure. At the June 7 President’s Reception for the 2015 ANS annual meeting, there were several intriguing discussions about new projects that […]

Read more »

Moving nuclear energy discussions forward

On Wednesday, June 24 Bloomberg BNA (Bureau of National Affairs) conducted a morning meeting titled A Chain Reaction: The Role of Nuclear Energy in New England’s Energy Mix at the Westin Copley Place in Boston, MA. The timing was fortuitous for me, my wife and I were visiting family in Maine the weekend before the […]

Read more »

Chevron’s John Watson should follow pronuclear words with nuclear energy investments

During an OPEC meeting in Vienna held in early June 2015, John Watson, the CEO of Chevron, the second largest oil and gas company in the United States, made a comment that deserves more attention and follow up from journalists. The context of the below comment was that Watson was explaining why his company will […]

Read more »

Stanford climate scientists promote 100% renewable revolution using natural gas money

We’ve been repeatedly told that 97% of climate scientists agree that CO2 emissions from human activity are a major cause of climate change. Scientists who question that assertion are villified as “climate change deniers” and marginalized as representing a fringe point of view. They’re frequently accused of being paid by fossil fuel interests. Politicians, journalists […]

Read more »

Tale of two Chinas – One surging forward, one retreating

Two stories caught my attention this morning. One came from the Taipei Times, one from the Beijing Review. The first one focused on a future energy supply prognostication from an American “expert” who has a light educational and professional background in energy technology, manufacturing, engineering, economics and market dynamics. The second one documents recent progress […]

Read more »

Participation opportunity – Turkey Point EIS public meeting

One of the most prolific anti-nuclear activist groups, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE), is distributing posts encouraging their followers to oppose FP&L’s plan to build two new reactors at the Turkey Point Power station. SACE is encouraging people to submit negative comments via the public comment process for the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) […]

Read more »

Atomic Show #238 – StarCore Nuclear co-founders

StarCore Nuclear is a Canadian company whose co-founders, David Dabney and David Poole, are experienced engineers and businessmen. They have spent most of the past six years developing a technology and a business model aimed at providing reliable, emission-free electrical power and heat to remote locations. The basis of their technology is a high-temperature helium […]

Read more »

SMRs – lots of noise but DOE budget that’s 1% of annual wind tax credit

I’ve been spending some time watching, rewatching and clipping interesting excerpts from the Senate Appropriations Energy and Water subcommittee hearings on the FY2016 Department of Energy budget. It’s not everyone’s idea of entertainment, but it’s fascinating to me to watch publicly accessible discussions about how our government makes decisions, sets priorities and spends the money […]

Read more »

NRC issues SER for Westinghouse Small Break LOCA PIRT

I apologize for the acronym soup in the title. Here is what I really wanted to say, but couldn’t fit into the title field. On February 27, 2015, nearly three years after it was submitted, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a letter reporting that the NRC staff had prepared a final Topical Report Safety […]

Read more »

NRC RIC 2015 – Day one observations

On March 10, 2015, I attended my first ever Regulatory Information Conference (RIC), which is an annual event hosted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I had heard from various associates that everyone who is anyone in the nuclear industry should plan to go to the RIC whenever possible. They were right. First of all, the […]

Read more »