[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Archive Top]

RE: [cdn-nucl-l] CANDU Rehab: can someone tell me why?

Speaking of refurb costs, here's an interesting item.....

 Jaro
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

Navy Taps Northrop Grumman To Overhaul Nuclear Carrier

Aviation Week & Space Technology Sep 07 , 2009 , p. 12

Edited by Edward H. Phillips

Northrop Grumman Corp. will conduct a refueling and complex overhaul of the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt under a $2.4-billion contract that will prepare the ship for its second 25 years of fleet service. The work, which is scheduled to take more than three years and involve up to 3,800 workers at the company’s Newport News, Va., facilities, will include refueling the nuclear reactors and extensive overhaul of combat systems, catapults, the flight deck and the island. The Theodore Roosevelt joined the fleet in 1986 and is the fourth Nimitz-class carrier to undergo the major life-cycle fueling and upgrade.

=====================================

 
 
 -----Original Message-----
From: cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA [mailto:cdn-nucl-l-admin@mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA]On Behalf Of Andrew Daley
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 9:22 AM
To: Nuclear
Subject: Re: [cdn-nucl-l] CANDU Rehab: can someone tell me why?

Just a clarification...
 
I understand that most large, complex projects are very prone to schedule and budget creep.  Nuclear is not the exception here.... however... for Nuclear (it is my perception anyway) that the stakes are SO much higher. 
 
Future development really does depend on how good we do RIGHT NOW.
 
As a part of the renaissance one of our main arguments has been: we have learned from the past.  We will do better this time.   This argument is generally most effectively applied to Cost and Schedule.
 
But, can we back this claim up?  This huge 50% schedule increase on Pt. Lepreau (as well as other projects such as the first Pickering unit to come back up) suggests to me that we can't.
 
Now, that right there is enough for the anti-nukes to jump on and claim that nuclear is dead.  That is why I want to understand WHY these delays are happening.  I need ammunition to refute anti-nuke claims that cost and schedule overruns are inherent to nucelar projects
 
There are a myriad of legitimate reasons why a project could go over schedule/ over budget.  If that is the case for Lepreau... I want to undertsand why... I want to be reassured.
 
All the regulatroy work should have been taken care of up front (ISR as per RD-360).  So, if CANDU 6 has had unexpected FOAK challenges... what are they?  What makes it different than Pickering A, what makes it different than the Bruce where we already have refurb/ re-tube OPEX?
 
Thee are also a whole host of illegitimate reasons why schedule could creep.  In my opinion, this includes such scenarios as: " in some cases there is significant pressure before the project starts to reduce the estimated time, even when the hands on experts KNOW that the project time length is being underestimated without enough contingency time built in for taking care of unexpected conditions."
 
If the above has happened in the past, and it keeps happening... that is unaccetpable to me.  maybe from a "getting the project approved" perspective this is a good approach?  Call me an idealist but in my opinion it does not outweight the black eye we receive from massive overruns.
 
Even if this has happened in the past... we can't continue to use it as an excuse, we need to CHANGE the way we do business...
 
Who was it that said "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results"?
 
If we want results... if we want the reaniassance to actually happen it's time to do thigns differently, it's time to do things the RIGHT way...  yes, we need to acknowledge there are legitimate reasons for overruns but we also need to fight for fair and accurate estimates and fair and accurate expression of the project risks BEFORE the project starts.  It does no one any good to live in a dream world.
 
Sorry, for the rant... and, as you can probably tell, I am NOT involved in the "project managmeent world".  I have, however, taken enough classes/ seminars to know that the thoery and application of project management are two different things. 
 
My pet peeve is "talking the talk, but not walking the walk" and I want to stamp that out wherever I can... as mentioned... I may still be an idealist...
 
:-)
 
Cheers all,
 
Andrew