Focus on Nuclear Power Generation, January 2011 30

progress which was evident on the

Finnish EPR site at Olkiluoto. Indeed

some aspects of construction relating to

deviations from the project’s technical

specifications have also been reported for

the EPR site at Flamanville in France.

What struck me about this article in

Der Spiegel was not that it was nuclear

related, but that it was just an example

of a project demonstrating deficient skills

in project management and construction.

It’s not as if such occurrences haven’t

happened before, they have. To me the

surprise was that they were happening

again on such a prestige project, when

there is a ready skill base out there,

which is schooled in delivering projects of

equal complexity, albeit at a smaller scale

and without a nuclear tag. It appears

several factors were overlooked when

the inevitable question was asked; how

are these new nuclear plants going to get

built?

Learn from the past

We cannot predict the future but we can

certainly learn from the past. The origins

of nuclear power began in 1954, but it

was not until 1970 that the technology

began to be rolled out, with 90 GW of

capacity coming on-stream in the 1970s,

rising to 200 GW in the 1980s, before

going into rapid decline. Most of these

plants are still with us today providing

reliable and cost effective power.

Without question the nuclear industry

requires the application of science

and engineering in a highly technical

As nuclear power plants are planned for construction around the globe much attention has been given to where qualified staff will be found to build and run these complex projects. However other industrial sectors offer an existing pool of highly talented professionals who are already trained in the safety culture and ‘gold standard’ required for the nuclear industry.

By Pat Swords, Associate Director, PM Group, Ireland

As a chemical engineer with more than

twenty years of experience in the design

and regulatory compliance of industrial

facilities in the chemical, pharmaceutical

and power generating sectors, it is

extremely unlikely that I will ever design

a nuclear plant. However, the skills I and

other similarly experienced professionals

have developed can certainly play a

major role in contributing to the inevitable

nuclear renaissance that is on the horizon.

The ‘spark’ for this article originated

when reading an article in Der Spiegel

in October 2009, which later appeared

in English on the on-line version as

“Nuclear Renaissance Stalls: Problems

Plague Launch of ‘Safer’ Next-Generation

Reactors”. The content of this was

related to the poor quality of project

Nuclear skills – is the glass half full?

The skills required to meet the ‘gold standard’ of the nuclear industry are

now available in a variety of complex industrial sectors. Pictured is

the placement of the containment liner at Olkiluoto, Finland.

Photo: Areva NP

31 Focus on Nuclear Power Generation, November 2010

environment, to ultra high standards and

driven by a demanding statutory and

regulatory environment. In those days it

was probably the only ‘kid on the block’

operating to those standards. These days

it most certainly is not.

There is no reason why 200 GW of

capacity per decade cannot be achieved

again, even exceeded, as is projected

by the International Energy Agency. It

will require a huge application of skilled

manpower, but the glass is very much

half full and not half empty, the starting

base is very much stronger than it was

in 1970.

Cogent, the UK Skills for Science based

Industries has produced an excellent

document on “Next Generation: Skills

for New Build Nuclear”. This document

clearly outlines the resource requirements

and timeframes associated with the

delivery of 16 GW of nuclear new build

in the UK, an average of 10,000 jobs per

year. It states: “To deliver a new nuclear

programme in the UK of this scale or

larger will require a significant number

of people across a range of disciplines.

Meeting this requirement will be a

challenge, given the existing size and

demographics of the sector”.

As Cogent rightly points out: “Skills

planning for a nuclear build requires long

induction periods for some skills due to

the high levels of training and experience

required to produce the highest levels

of workmanship, quality assurance and

quality control for many aspects of a

safety critical sector”.

There is a natural tendency to

concentrate on the fact that the majority

of employees in the nuclear industry are

rapidly closing in on retirement age, and

on the very long timeframe it would take

to bring school leavers through additional

education and job experience to reach

the necessary standards. The conclusion

therefore is that the glass is half empty,

if even that. However, let’s consider the

other ‘kids on the block’.

Meeting the gold standard

Huge advances in both technical and

organisation measures have occurred in

many companies and corporations in the

last three decades. The consequence

of this is that accidents with adverse

impacts to both man and environment

have significantly reduced in many

Western Countries over that period, with

in many cases a parallel development in

the system of regulation and inspection,

which in many cases enforced these

more advanced measures of control

over a wide range of industrial sectors.

While in the past the nuclear industry

was the ‘gold standard’ and the rest were

very much also-rans, currently there are

a lot of ‘gold standard’ projects being

delivered in a variety of complex industrial

sectors. The skill base is there, just

slightly different. Most importantly the

required culture and behaviour to operate

safely in a nuclear environment is already

ingrained.

What is also a recurrent theme is that

many technical and organisational

measures that evolved in the nuclear

industry and then stagnated, got ‘picked

up’ by other sectors and were refined

and became common practice. For

instance, from a regulatory perspective,

radiological emergency response was

well established in the 1970s, but the

equivalent level of off-site emergency

preparedness was not extended to the

non-nuclear high risk industrial sectors

until the mid-1980s (Seveso I Directive

in Europe and the EPCRA Act in the

US). These days risk assessment, risk

mitigation and emergency preparedness

are key aspects to be found right

throughout the processing sector.

Another example is that both

the chemical and pharmaceutical

sectors process compounds that are

carcinogenic, mutagenic and toxic for

reproduction (CMR). Sealed systems,

such as gloveboxes, originally developed

for the nuclear industry, are now routine

About Pat SwordsPat Swords is a Fellow of the Institution of Chemical Engineers and a Chartered Environmentalist. Since graduation from University College Dublin in 1986 Pat has worked for PM Group in developing the high technology manufacturing industry in Ireland. His work experience has also included projects in over a dozen other countries throughout Europe and North America. Since 1999 he has worked extensively on EU Technical Aid Projects in Central and Eastern Europe helping to implement EU Industrial Pollution Control and Control of Major Accident Hazards legislation. See www.pmgroup.eu

Risk based Verification

Focus on Nuclear Power Generation, January 2011 32

in that sector, in which occupational

exposure below 1 μg/m3 and even as

low as 1 ng/m3 are to be found (Note:

A nanogram is one billionth of a gram).

Indeed the engineering challenge is even

greater, the release of radioactivity is easy

to detect while that of complex chemical

compounds is not. There therefore

has to be an enormous emphasis on

Commissioning and Qualification (C&Q)

to ensure that the system performs

continuously to its design intent. This also

applies to product quality, such as where

sterile solutions are routinely produced for

direct intravenous applications.

The field of C&Q has thus been highly

refined in the pharmaceutical sector.

The latest approach is based on the

ASTM E2500 – 07: “Standard Guide for

Specification, Design, and Verification of

Pharmaceutical and Biopharmaceutical

Manufacturing Systems and Equipment”.

Application of this is intended to satisfy

international regulatory expectations in

ensuring that manufacturing systems

and equipment are fit for intended use,

and to satisfy requirements for design,

installation, operation, and performance.

See the Figure 1 for Risk Based

Verification.

Look after your people

Construction safety is also a key item

in the chemical and pharmaceutical

industries. Not only are there the

obvious ethical considerations, but large

multinational companies, particularly in

the healthcare sector, have a standing

and image in the community that they

wish to maintain. Furthermore, that

people are your strongest asset is not

a cliché. If you want to operate at the

cutting edge of science and technology

you have to look after your people, if

you don’t they will go elsewhere. The

benchmark used for construction safety

is the OSHA Day Away / Restricted or

Transfer (DART) rate; US Bureau of Labor

Statistics gave a national average OSHA

DART rate reported for the construction

industry in 2008 of 2.5. PM Group has

achieved figures ranging from 0.25 to

2.5 on a variety projects throughout

Europe. Safe construction sites can be

realised, for instance on the Shell Corrib

gas terminal in the West of Ireland on

two occasions a million manhours were

worked without a lost time accident.

The key is a proper safety culture and

a constant attention to detail, i.e. a

disciplined approach.

In conclusion you do not need to be a

nuclear scientist to contribute to the

nuclear new build programme, indeed

the approach of the Generic Design

Assessment will be that a limited number

of standard designs will be implemented.

The necessary skills to be deployed for

the nuclear new build are already present,

but currently operating in a different

sector.