CHAIRMAN Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission Dr Pervez Butt (S.I) was approached by Dawn Magazine to respond to various concerns over the Chashma-II nuclear power plant. He was not ready for an interview quoting policy restrictions, but agreed to respond to all related questions in writing. As desired, a questionnaire was sent to him and he responded through the Director Scientific Information and Public Relations (SIPR). Here is how he replied to different queries regarding the issue.
Q: Despite an indifferent experience with the Chashma-1 reactor, the Chashma-II project has been given the go-ahead. Why?
A: The operating experience of C-1 (Chashma-1) has been satisfactory. Since its commercial operation in September 2000, the availability factor of C-1 has been around 85 per cent outage to outage. Also, during the last four years of its operation, no incident that could have indicated some shortcomings in safety features was reported.
Q: It was officially said at the start of C-1 that the project would be completed in six years; but it took nine years. Now it is believed that C-II (Chashma-II) will take seven years to see the light of day. What is the guarantee that it will not take 10-11 years that would result in heavy cost over-runs?
A: C-1’s contracted construction time was more than seven years. There were some delays, as it was the first experience of the south-south cooperation in the world. However, the project was completed well before nine years. C-II is scheduled to be completed in 81 months as the main contractor is now more experienced and has built many nuclear power plants. In case of delay beyond 83 months, the contractor is liable to pay penalties.
Q: There are different cost estimates for C-1, ranging between $600 million to $1.3 billion. This translates into $3-4 million per megawatt production cost of nuclear power, which is twice the cost of the Ghazi Barotha project. In your view, what is the construction and per megawatt production cost? How would you justify C-1 compared to hydel and thermal power stations?
A: The completed cost of C-1 was well below $1.0 billion even after including the interest during construction (IDC). This cost also includes the cost of nuclear fuel for about three years. However, because of the low nuclear fuel cost, the cost of electricity generated by C-1 is less than that of the oil-fired plants. As hydel plants have multiple benefits, a comparison of nuclear/thermal plants with hydro electricity generating stations is not normally made.
Q: The budgeted cost of C-II, again, is around Rs55 billion ($900 million) that would produce 300MW. The final cost may be even higher. The thumb rule for power projects in hydel power is around $1 million per MW. What is the rationale behind going for such a high cost power production?
A: The cost of C-II, including the IDC, is much less than Rs55 billion. The cost of units generated by C-II will also be less than that produced from oil fired plants. On per MW basis, the cost of C-II is comparable to the recently undertaken French-German 1600MW Nuclear Power Plant to be set up in Finland, in spite of its much larger size.
Q: The per unit nuclear energy production cost in Pakistan is higher than all other sources including the IPPs. Wapda’s opposition to buy power from C-1 at higher tariff is a matter of record; but Wapda was forced to pay higher. Wapda officials say it was causing them a loss of Rs3 billion annually and it would continue for decades. Your comment.
A: The cost of per unit nuclear electricity production in Pakistan (KANUPP, CHASNUPP) is much less than what is paid to the IPPs. Currently, Wapda is paying CHASNUPP only Rs2.25 per unit which is less than even the fuel cost of oil fired plants.
Q: Wapda has been questioning the reliability of C-1. It says in the past C-1 shut down frequently and required long maintenance period. How do you defend this?
A: The overall capacity factor of C-1 has been around 63 per cent and this is considered satisfactory for the first few years of a nuclear power plant in the period when such plants face teething problems. It may be noted that the agreements with IPPs guarantee a capacity factor of 60 per cent.
Q: Why is Pakistan dependent on Chinese expertise in case any problem rears its head? They obviously charge us for this. Why has not the PAEC been able to join the Chinese in repair work?
A: Pakistan has been facing restrictions and embargoes on the use of nuclear technology even for peaceful purposes. China has been our only dependent friend in this area. The CHASNUPP plant is being totally operated by PAEC engineers and technicians. Vendor assistance is normally required, as it would be for any plant operating in Europe or North America.
Q: It is said that China itself has questionable competence to run plants like C-1 and C-II, because these designs are too old and they sold their first copy to Pakistan, instead of the improved one. They faced problems with the Qinshan plant in 1998 and were helped by a US company.
A: The C-1 reference plant in China (Qinshan-1) has achieved a record of 455 days of continuous operation. China currently has a very large nuclear power generation programme underway which is larger than any other country’s programme.
Q: Some people say that the Chashma plants are located in an earthquake-prone region. Another report suggests cancer-related deaths to the tune of 12,000.
A: A detailed seismic study was undertaken for the Chashma site suitability with the assistance of the IAEA and experts from Western countries. As far as cancer-related deaths, no such report is known to the PAEC. The statement is totally unfounded, not based on facts and is malicious.
Q: Keeping in mind the Chernobyl disaster, what are the chances of radioactive contamination?
A: C-1 and C-II plants should not be compared with Chernobyl which had no containment system. Such releases are not likely from a PWR like CHASNUPP. Additionally, built-in safety features have been incorporated into C-1 and C-II to minimize the chances of any radioactive releases.
Q: Economists suggest investment equal to C-1 and C-II in line loss reduction or energy conservation methods could give much higher results than three per cent energy production by nuclear power.
A: Nobody can question the wisdom of reduction in line losses and conservation of energy. It will, however, not be prudent to close down the nuclear power option which is a viable future energy resource, particularly for the countries short on fossil reserves. As per policy for power generation projects issued in 2002 by the government of Pakistan, two more nuclear power plants of 600MW capacity each, in addition to C-II project, have been envisaged in coming years.
Q: There has been no environment impact assessment of C-1 because the PEPA Act 1997 was enforced a little late. Would the PAEC meet its legal obligation under the said act to complete a public environmental impact assessment or the C-II remain beyond the law and public debate?
A: The environmental impact study for C-1 was prepared as per the PEPA Act and the same is being prepared for C-II well in advance.
Q: Can you give us the interest rate Pakistan is required to pay to China on its loan? It is believed that the cost of credit line from China is quite higher than what is available in the international market. It is also said that the agreement could not be signed last year mainly because of this reason and Pakistan had to accept all Chinese terms.
A: China has provided financial assistance for C-II at interest rates which are financially attractive and not “quite higher than what is available in the international market”. Nuclear power plant negotiations usually take two to three years. It was possible to conclude the C-II deal in short period of about a year, because of extensive efforts from both sides and support of both governments.
