A Global News investigation has learned a single component of the Darlington nuclear refurbishment – that is two and a half years behind schedule and currently on pause – could cost Ontarians as much as $500 million, roughly four-times the initial estimate, when finally complete.
Ontario Power Generation – the provincially-owned company managing the project – says it has already terminated one contractor from the job – Black & McDonald – due to “unsatisfactory” work. While the company says a second contractor – the joint-venture between SNC-Lavalin and Aecon – was recently put on notice because of its unacceptable performance on the job.
“Given the scope we now realize, it will be somewhat more than that – likely in the order of 20 per cent, 30 per cent more.”
WATCH: OPG insists Darlington refurbishment within budget, despite cost overruns at storage facility
Originally budgeted at $110 million, the project could cost Ontarians as much as half a billion dollars when complete.
OPG says these delays and cost overruns are primarily due to design changes in the project – including stricter regulations imposed by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission – but Global News has uncovered auditor reports that claim inappropriate oversight and failures in management at OPG are predominantly to blame.
While the current estimate is significantly higher than first planned – and there is no guarantee the project will remain within the current budget – OPG says the additional costs were accounted for when releasing the final public estimate.
Heavy Water Storage Facility
The Heavy Water Storage and Drum Handling Facility was originally proposed in 2006. It was among the first projects started at the massive Darlington refurbishment.
Made-up from a series of large metal tanks, piping and earthquake-proof foundation, the facility will be used to store and filter radioactive water from the province’s nuclear reactors.
The project is important to the refurbishment because without it, OPG says it cannot complete work on multiple reactors at the same time.
WATCH: Consumer policy group says audit reports ‘mind-blowing’
According to industry experts – as well as OPG – this is crucial to keeping the refurbishment on-time and within budget.
Lyash acknowledges the project has been difficult – perhaps the most difficult of all the projects worked on so far – but he says it’s no canary in the coalmine.
READ MORE: Contractors told to ignore risks, lower cost estimates at Darlington nuclear plant, auditors say
Ontario’s poor track record with nuclear
Lyash says OPG and SNC-Aecon have taken steps to prevent further delays and cost overruns on the heavy water storage facility. He says the contractor has responded positively to concerns about performance issues and he’s confident the project will be completed in the near future.
This is supported in the May 2014 audit – as well as subsequent audits – that says OPG has taken “aggressive action to correct as many of the major issues as possible.”
READ MORE: Ontario to squeeze more life out of out of Pickering, spend $12.8 billion on Darlington
But energy critics who’ve spoken with Global News say Ontario has a notorious track-record when it comes to managing large-scale nuclear projects. And that energy customers in the province – who end up footing the bill for these problems – should be worried anytime they hear about such significant cost overruns and delays.
“This is just deja-vu all over again,” said Tom Adams, an energy-policy analyst who believes projects like this serve as a litmus-test for the refurbishment as a whole. “To be simply not learning from history. To repeat these mistakes. That’s really costly for society. It’s just amazing that we can’t do better”
WATCH: Canadian Taxpayers Federation says public should be wary of Darlington nuclear project
Adams and other critics point to delays and cost overruns on past nuclear projects as justification for these worries.
For example, original construction at Darlington in the 1980s was budgeted at $7.4 billion. Plagued with delays and changes in financing, the project ended up costing Ontarians nearly double – with a final price tag of $14.5 billion.
But Lyash insists OPG has learned from the past. He says the problems facing heavy water storage are unique to this project and are due to it being a “first-of-its-kind” facility. OPG says this was also the first time they used a new contractor precurment model.
“I’ve got to stress,” said Lyash. “This refurbishment is a $12.8 billion megaproject. The underlying pieces – hundreds and hundreds of them – are going to be over budget, under budget, ahead of schedule, past schedule – that’s the way a megaproject is managed.”
READ MORE: Ontario Power Generation applies for $5.25 a month rate increase to bills after five years
WATCH: On average, Canadian utility megaprojects run 40% over budget and one year behind schedule
Yauch has been involved in the approvals process for the refurbishment and questioned OPG executives during energy board hearings.
He says that while OPG may have taken steps to ensure the project is eventually completed, he’s still wary of whether other projects at the site will experience similar problems.
“This is the first project to get kicked-off in relation to what is going to be $12.8 billion of expenditures,” Yauch said. “If you were kicking-off a big renovation or a big project and the first step along the way you’re significantly over budget, you’d probably start questioning whether you should be concerned about going forward.”
READ MORE: Bruce nuclear plans $13-billion refurbishment of six reactors in Kindcardine
Lyash says OPG is reviewing the heavy water project and that the results will be shared with regulators and Ontario’s Minister of Energy, Glenn Thibeault.
But Yauch says Ontarians should be concerned – not just by this project, but by the refurbishment as a whole.
Contact Brian Hill – brian.hill@globalnews.ca
Comments