Augusta Economy

More News | Fort Gordon | Plant Vogtle | Savannah River Site | Editor

New Plant Vogtle reactor will likely be a year late, monitor says

  • Follow Metro

ATLANTA — Construction of a first-of-its-kind nuclear power plant in Georgia will be delayed by more than a year, likely causing hundreds of millions of dollars in extra costs, according to a report from a state-hired monitor.

The Unit 3 containment vessel bottom head in the foreground was beginning to take shape at Plant Vogtle in May.  EMILY ROSE BENNETT/FILE
EMILY ROSE BENNETT/FILE
The Unit 3 containment vessel bottom head in the foreground was beginning to take shape at Plant Vogtle in May.

Atlanta-based Southern Co. and its partners are spending an estimated $14 billion to build the first nuclear plant erected from scratch in the U.S. in a generation. The first of the new reactors at Plant Vogtle was supposed to be finished April 1, 2016, with the second reactor a year later.

Southern Co. officials have said that schedule has slipped to November 2016 for the first reactor or even early- to mid-2017. In a report filed Friday, nuclear engineer William Jacobs Jr. said he believed the first reactor will be completed no earlier than June 2017. Jacobs cautioned that additional delays are possible.

Jacobs said schedule delays could potentially drive up project and financing costs.

“The cost of a one-year delay in the project is in the range of hundreds of millions of dollars,” said Jacobs, who monitors the construction project for Georgia’s Public Service Commission, which regulates utilities.

Delays are significant because the costs might ultimately be paid by electricity customers. There are also consequences for the nuclear industry. Utility officials have hoped that the Plant Vogtle project and two identical reactors under construction at Plant Summer in South Carolina would demonstrate nuclear plants can be built without the delays and cost overruns that dogged the industry decades ago.

Buzz Miller, the executive vice president of nuclear development at Southern Co., said during a tour of the construction site Tuesday that the plant will be economically viable even if costs increase. He said the company would focus on quality and safety over speed.

“We’re not going to plan on shortening the time schedule because getting it right is far more important,” Miller said. Southern Co. subsidiary Georgia Power owns roughly 46 percent of the two new reactors. The other owners include Oglethorpe Power Corp., the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia and the city of Dalton. Utility regulators have allowed Georgia Power to spend about $6.1 billion as its share of the project. The company now projects it will cost $6.2 billion if the first reactor comes online in November 2016.

Jacobs called the performance of the team designing and building the plant – Westinghouse Electric Co. and The Shaw Group – as “unsatisfactory” in some critical areas. He faulted Southern Co. and its contractors for failing to agree on a start-to-finish schedule. Jacobs said PSC staffers would consider additional costs caused by the lack of a long-term schedule as “imprudent,” meaning customers should not pay for them. Ultimately, elected utility commissioners decide whether to make customers absorb those costs.

Metal bars in what will become a reactor foundation were not installed correctly, leading to delays, Jacobs said. This has pushed back the pouring of concrete at the site, a key task that must be finished before other work can begin. Miller said workers have successfully conducted a test pour of concrete.

Other problems have surfaced with suppliers. Rather than assembling the reactor in the field, The Shaw Group is building prefabricated submodules in Lake Charles, La. Those subcomponents are then shipped to Georgia and welded together.

But Jacobs said the construction of modules has slipped because of design, fabrication and quality assurance problems.

Shaw Modular Solutions, part of The Shaw Group, “clearly lacked experience in the nuclear power industry and was not prepared for the rigor and attention to detail required to successfully manufacture nuclear components,” Jacobs said. A Shaw spokeswoman did not return a call seeking comment.

Comments (4)

Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
OpenCurtain
10049
Points
OpenCurtain 12/12/12 - 11:39 pm
2
0

It is construction

Nothing is on time.

I would rather it be 2 years late, than to put it into operation 1 minute before its ready.

Techfan
6461
Points
Techfan 12/13/12 - 04:55 am
1
0

"Delays are significant

"Delays are significant because the costs might ultimately be paid by electricity customers." MIGHT? We're paying for the dang thing now thanks to the Ga. GOP legislature bypassing the PSC (amazing what 70 lobbyists and a little bribery will do). Why isn't the company and their shareholders responsible for anything? We always get the "Nuclear energy is almost free" mantra, but we want rate payers to foot every dime of it plus all cost overruns, even if they are the fault of Ga Power or its contractors. I wonder how many thousands of Georgians who will have been stuck paying for the thing for years will have died and never received a yoctowatt of electricty from it?

Riverman1
70933
Points
Riverman1 12/13/12 - 07:44 am
1
0

Something Went Wrong

Of course it has to be right when a reactor is built. That's a given. But to justify going HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS over budget and being YEARS LATE in construction is a problem and simply saying safety is important or some other cliche' is avoidance. Were the plans not right? The estimates? The supervision? Something went wrong is the truth of the matter.

John Runkle
2
Points
John Runkle 12/13/12 - 01:57 pm
0
0

safety is not priority

I found it surprising that Jacobs redacted the INPO
Principle 4 in his testimony. Principle 4 is "Decision-making reflects
safety first." The principle and the attributes (also redacted in the
testimony) is readily available at

http://www.efcog.org/wg/ism_pmi/docs/Safety_Culture/Dec07/INPO%20Princip...

Jacob then testifies that GP does not have a comprehensive construction plan
that complies with the principle, i.e., safety is NOT first.

Back to Top

Top headlines

Mom arrested after daughter beating

A mother is facing charges after police said she hit her daughter with an extension cord and then made her wear a sweater to hide the injuries.
Loading...