Deputy Chief Constructor of OKB "Gidropress" department Dmitry Ermakov answers the questions of AtomInfo.Ru web-edition.
First power generating unit in Tianwan is operating and that is the principal fact
Dmitry Nikolayevich, first question is about the recent event at NPP "Tianwan" in China - about the completion of the first work production plan...
After the work production plan there was one more event - warranty testing of the first unit was successfully completed.
Let us specify the terminology. What does the warranty testing mean?
As you know the first power generating unit at NPP "Tianwan" was put into warranty exploitation. It is working at full capacity in the standard mode. But the contract contains certain warranty issues - electricity output by the certain proper needs.Task of warranty testing is to confirm parameters of the contract. In other words to prove that NPP meets the negotiated demands. A special testing program was elaborated and implemented successfully.
Generally speaking warranty testing is the next important step for putting the unit into exploitation. It is a formal juridical moment that should prove the quality of work. At this time only the first block was tested. Speaking about the second unit, it will be tested after the completion of the work production plan.
And what is still to be done at "Tianwan" NPP?
Warranty period of the both units is two years. During this time Russian side will render Chinese colleagues relatively gratuitous assistance.
What is the role of OKB "Gidropress" at the present stage of work?
We don't play any significant role at testing, as the exploitation organization provides them. From the Russian side representatives of the enterprises that prepare the facility are taking part in it. But OKB "Gidropress" was one of the elaborators of the program.By the completion of the work production plan our participation was definitely large and OKB "Gidropress" specialists were working at the facility rather active. Their prime interest was the condition of our equipment.
And how is the Podolsk equipment showing itself?
There are no any serious problems now. All the equipment is working without serious failures. The unit is working well and it is the most important fact.
During the launch there were many, let us call them, controversial situations. It means that now all the problems are removed?
Yes we had problems at that time. We think that they were connected with the issues of the equipment storage and acceptance. There were problems with steam generators where certain defects were found. Part of the failures was connected with the pumps.Nowadays we have overcome all these problems. The project was corrected and the equipment was properly modified.
We have to realize, that the project of the first unit of NPP "Tianwan" was a unique one. At soviet times we were always constructing the main facility on the territory of the USSR and were testing it and only after that we were going to the foreign market. But we had another situation with China. The first unit at "Tianwan" was the main one, as at that time we were not building anything as you remember.
Tianwan project has a lot of new. For example new pumps, reactor and drives were used there.
And what do you mean when you are speaking about new reactor?
In contrast to the serial 320 reactor (VVER-1000/320 project) Chinese one has an increased vessel length that made possible increasing the water amounts above the active zone. There were essential changes at the upper unit - for example number of safety control system drives that can be installed at this reactor is 121 in contrast to 61 at reactors of 320 series. It allows varying the number of drives and using new modern fuel cycles. For example now about 100 drives are installed at the first unit.
So transition to the MOX-fuel will be possible?
It is more difficult with the MOX-fuel. We will have to calculate and to observe. But theoretically in the future there can be such fuel cycles.
You should remember, that transition to the MOX-fuel - is a complex problem that is not related only to the number of drives. All the facility should be adjusted to it - fresh fuel unit, spent fuel storages and many other components. From this point of view "Tianwan" NPP was not projected for the MOX-fuel.
But, generally speaking, after certain modernizations such transition is possible. Lifetime of the facility is about 40 years and it is difficult to predict what demands can appear during such a period of time. My answer would be short - MOX-fuel can be used at this reactor.
China has begun in Finland
How different are Chinese and Finnish projects?
There is no any significant difference between the equipment of the facilities. But there are differences in the design of the facility. Chinese reactor has four active safety system channels. Another configuration is applied in the Indian project - passive safety systems were added, for example passive system of the heat withdrawal in by the second circuit, system of the fast boron injection by the first circuit and additional hydro volume of the second level, working by the low pressure.
Historically it happened so, that in the early nineties Finns showed interest in building of the facility. On their initiative concept design of NPP-91 was elaborated.
Do you mean the tender "Finnland-5"?
No, it was before the Finnish tender. In 1991 we have begun elaborating new project on the base of 320 series reactor - with the participation of Finnish specialists on the first stage. Atomenergoproyect from St. Petersburg was a chief designing organization, and OKB "Gidropress" - chief constructor of the facility.
This project was made for the conditions of Finland. Later the country refused temporary from its plans on political reasons, but the concept of the design remained. After signing of the intergovernmental treaty with China about the building of NPP, two alternatives were offered to the Chinese part - NPP-92, where Moscow Atomenergoproyect was a chief designer, and NPP-91.
Chinese examined both alternatives and after long debates adopted the last one. What was there motivation? Probably the reason is that NPP-91 was more evolutional and was closer to the serial 320 project.
Nevertheless, what was the main difference of NPP-91 from VVER-1000/320? You have already mentioned the reactor…
For example new types of main pumps are used there, that have never been used at any facility earlier. Technological process automatic control system is taken from "Siemens". Besides, new control, management and diagnostic systems were applied, where the volume of diagnostic systems was increased significantly in comparison with the 320 project - systems of vibrosound diagnostic were added, acoustic control and so on.
I would like to mention also new system of automatic control of reactor equipment metal and a modern nutrunner that can tighten all the studs of the main junction. Nutrunner was produced by the joint venture, created by "Wenutec" company and "Igorskye zavodi". A series of joint decisions on the issue of safety armature was also adopted.
I would like to say, that a big amount of equipment of the foreign manufactures was used, I have already mentioned technological process automatic control system, ventilation and conditioning systems and electro-technical equipment.All the mentioned facts have had an effect on the NPP "Tianwan". Novelty of the project caused certain delays by the launch of the first unit. All the new equipment had to be tested and we didn't have enough experience for that.
What will be the Bulgarian project like?
Bulgarian project is closer to the Indian one. Passive safety systems will be used there as a supplementary to the active ones. But technological process automatic control system will be produced by the French-German company CARSIB (AREVA and Siemens consortium for Belene), as for the Chinese facility.
In addition to technological process automatic control system consortium will supply electro-technical equipment and ventilation for NPP "Belene". As you can see the division of labor in Bulgaria is like it was in China.
One more distinguishing feature of NPP "Belene" - lifetime of main equipment is prolonged. It will be 60 years, at the same time that of Chinese and Indian projects is 40 years. Lifetime prolonging is realized by the little increase of the vessel volume that will reduce neutron flow there. As for other equipment, all necessary lifetime prolonging assessments are elaborated now. We are sure, that we will able to provide 60 years of lifetime.
Bulgarian project has more tough plant capacity factor demands (more than 90%). Economical factors are playing an important role there. The project contains a complex of measures to provide necessary characteristics. Overhauls are supposed to be increased.
NPP "Belene" is a project constructing or completing? Will the Czech equipment, supplied during the times of the Commonwealth of Mutual Economic Help be used?
Both alternatives are provided in the tender. Bulgarian organizations decided to build new blocks, Russia will buy the equipment supplied earlier.
By the way, not only Czech equipment is stored at the Belene site. In particular there are steam generators produced in Podolsk and other equipment, delivered to Bulgaria in the frameworks of the Commonwealth of Mutual Economic Help. There is also equipment from Hungary, DDR and other socialist countries.
I can say that this equipment is fine. Storing conditions satisfied necessary demands. That is why "Rosenergoatom" company is interested in it and offers to use it by the completion of the fourth unit of Kalininskaya NPP. A large program of equipment examination is implemented now with the participation of OKB "Gidropress" specialists.
Elaboration of the safety assessment report is close to its completion in Bulgaria, that is the first stage of the licensing process. It should be transmitted to the Bulgarian control authority, and after its consideration a license for constructing will be issued, for the "first concrete". Everything is going according to the plan there.
And when should the "first concrete" be laid at Belene?
"Atomstroyexport" should give the more detailed answer to these questions. As far as I know, it will take place on the 1 of January 2009. All the schedules are rather relative now, because only the frame agreement is signed, and the detailed contract is only elaborated now. Schedule should be the appendix of the contract and terms can be changed.
It seems to me that for such large-scale and long-term projects as constructing of nuclear power plants time variation within a year means nothing. You should realize yourself, that it is not easy to plan work for the five-six years period. It shows not only our experience, but also that of AREVA in Finland, where at "Olkilyoty-3" there are delays during a year and a half or two years.
One thing is to declare something and another is to realize what you have declared. You start constructing and face one problem after another - with the personnel and a lot of other.
They say at "Izhorskye zavodi", that equipment for the "Belene" NPP was not ordered yet…
Yes there is such a problem. The matter is that Bulgarian customers haven't found yet a general investor for the whole amount of work for their project. They find money partially. For example they have found 200 mln. euro and ordered the foremost set of work. Such sums are not enough to order equipment. There will be big risks, including risks for the NPP.
Either government should give guarantees or general investor should appear to order the equipment.
New project was started in the Eastern Europe - completion of NPP "Mohovitze" in Slovakia. Will OKB "Gidropress" take part in it?
Certainly. We are in the know of these works; mutual consultations are on the way now. "Atomstroyexport" will be our leader and we will be its subcontractors.
Chinese order has saved the industry
Speaking about steam generator for "Tianwan" NPP, what is your opinion - what has happened there? My personal believe that the problems were connected with storing conditions on the site. Something was, probably, violated. When all the demands of our design for the second unit were met, no defects were detected. Look, everything is the same - the same site, the same steam generators, the same manufacturer, the same acceptance process on the plant by the Chinese specialists. Everything is the same in comparison with the first unit by the only difference - storing conditions on the site were put under the tough control. That is why our opinion is that the problems with the first unit appeared because of the violation of storing conditions. As far as I'm concerned, steam generators where already handed over to the Chinese customer. Will that problem influence exploitation process somehow? Now, it shouldn't influence. Our steam generators have rather large reserve for tubes suppression. The project has certain reserves and this heat generating device will be enough for the designed operational lifetime at nominal capacity. And how many tubes are suppressed there now? I don't know the details. I think that it is about a percent or less. All the noise was arisen because of the fact of the defect detection. By the way, it can be regarded differently. We usually don't suppress such defects, but Chinese had an approach to "Tianwan" NPP with very tough criteria. You know, this problem is complex and demands a separate discussion. You should consider what control means are used, what defects are detected, what control methods are applied. I would rather say that this question is in the competence of the exploiting organization. It seems to be the common approach of Chinese. All our organizations are speaking about very tough control realized by the Chinese colleagues at "Tianwan" NPP.Yes, it seems to be so. But it is understandable. They buy NPPs and want to have an increased quality to have fewer problems by the exploitation in the future. From this point of view it is normal for everyone that is paying for something. It would be fine if we would do the same… Certainly it would be fine in principle. Why not? But you know, approaches can be different. For example Europe aims at the stoppages as short as it is possible. They have a task to make all the necessary operations by the stoppage during 15 days. Japanese on the contrary have a law where it is written, that a big overhaul stoppage should last for not less than 100 days. And I would like to say, that at Japanese NPPs a total control is demanded. Completely all the equipment should be examined in detail. They are not so interested in a plant capacity factor and they pay a lot of attention to the safety. As a result, Japanese reactors work longer than European ones - but they have less failures. Speaking about Tianwan, what do you think - will be there a continuation?I think, that perspectives are not bad. Chinese approach is always circumstantial and decision taking process is long. Nevertheless technical assignment for the second unit is already elaborated and OKB "Gidropress" participated in this process with "Atomenergoproyect" from St. Petersburg. Project of the assignments is already given to the Chinese. Experience of launch and exploitation of the first unit is considered there, corresponding modernizations and improvements are provided. Will the changes be significant? No. The third and the fourth units will be like the first and the second ones. There is a task to avoid changes to construct and build the second unit as soon as possible.First two units were accepted by Chinese and it means that they were pleased with our units. Chinese like to clone technologies very much. Are you not afraid that with our reactors in China will occur the same story as with the French ones? Or like with our AR-1000 supplies to China? Current contract doesn't provide the transfer of technology. Generally speaking it is very difficult to copy nuclear power generating units. These are high technologies but not consumer goods. There are a lot of peculiarities and hidden dangers on our way ignorance of those is pregnant with consequences. Speaking about Americans, Russia also participated in this tender (in southern Chinese provinces). Terms of the tender provided transfer of technologies in large volumes. Constructing of several units with gradual increasing of the Chinese organizations participation was proposed there. Chinese had to construct the last unit themselves from the beginning to the end in order to construct a large series of units in China in the future. We don't know what have finally signed China and "Westinghouse", but at first tender contained such terms as I have said. By the way I see nothing terrible in the transfer of technologies. Nowadays because of the oil prices growth developed such a deficit of nuclear capacities that there will be enough work for everyone. There are a lot of countries who want to build NPP on their territories - from Egypt and Morocco to Finland. Will Russia test its strength in new Finnish tender? Yes, and OKB "Gidropress" is already involved in this issue. This year we have to complete the stage of technical and economical assessment elaboration. Certain set of documents such as the concept of project its safety and economic characteristics is needed to claim for participation. It is necessary for the Finnish parliament to take a principal decision on the possibility of constructing new nuclear power generating unit. As far as I am concerned, similar to the project of the second unit of Leningradskaya NPP (LAES-2). Speaking the other way "NPP-2006". Is it not risky to put forward an absolutely new project? Tell me please, in China was it risky to act the same way or not? Nevertheless "Taiwan" NPP was constructed and is working successfully now. "NPP-2006" differs from the projects for China, India and Bulgaria not more than the Chinese project differs from the 320 serial reactors. Nevertheless "NPP-2006" capacity was increased… And what is the difference? I don't see fundamental problems. Anyway it is evolutional, but not revolutionary project. Besides we know more now and can afford ourselves to construct reactors with less conservatism. So, during last years peculiarity of calculations has grown significantly in comparison with the times when 320-type reactor was designed. Mathematical basis has become better and simply practical experience is collected every year. Speaking again about China - what do you think, was it reasonable for Russia to participate in "Tianwan" NPP constructing? They say that constructing of the first unit was not profitable for us, but disadvantageous. Actually there are such talks. I can't prove or disapprove them, it's a question to "Atomstroyexport". But even if it is really so… If there hadn't been any Chinese order, we should have never had neither "Izhora" nor "Gidropress" - at least in such a state as we have them now. We should have had neither Atomenergoproyect, nor many factories that survived only thanks to the Chinese project. If we should calculate each cent it may happen so that we have lost something on the Chinese orders. But we have saved our factories, institutes and design offices. Without Chinese contract we couldn't have won tender in Belene, start completion of "Kalinin-4". As a matter of the fact Chinese order afforded us to save Russian nuclear industry. And now we can start thinking of profits. Thank you for the interview for AtomInfo.Ru web-edition. SOURCE: AtomInfo.Ru DATE: July 10, 2008 Topics: NPP, Russia, OKB Gidropress