Case Study 2: Particulate Emission Reduction Projects

In this section, the PDRI of the three PER projects conducted by ESKOM were analysed, on their existing power station since 2011 to address the change in environmental legislation. ESKOM had to conduct several capital refurbishment projects for its existing power stations to comply with the minimum particulate emissions standards as set out in Notice No. 248 of 31 March 2010 of the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, 2004 (Act No. 39 of 2004), stipulating that all existing plants must comply with a limit of 100 mg/Nm3 by 2015 and 50 mg/Nm3 by 2020.

To comply with this regulation, ESKOM implemented several technology strategies to reduce the emissions, such as Fabric Filter Plant (FFP) installation, ESP High- Frequency Transformers (HFT) installation, sulphur trioxide (SO3) injection plant and a Dust Handling Plant (DHP) refurbishment enhancements to effectively reduce the particulate emissions. These solutions can be used individually or combined to meet the objective of reducing emissions.

4.2.1 Purpose of the Case Study 2

To what extent has the use of the PDRI in ESKOM for coal generation project achieved the objective. Is the implementation completed efficiently?

To evaluate to what extent has the use of the PDRI in ESKOM for coal generation project achieved its objective. This is completed by analysing the time-series of the case study of three projects for similar projects completed in various power stations and their PDRI score, during the FEP.

4.2.2 Particulate Emission Reduction (PER) Projects PDRI Scores

The project status was assessed using the Project Definition Readiness Index assessment (PDRI) instrument, achieving a score of 152, on 24 April 2017, well within the acceptable range of 150 to 250.

39

Figure 8: Projects PDRI score through the lifecycle of FEP

The PDRI performance score keep improving as the years progress. In Figure 8 the score of the PDRI 4 for Project C is the highest, compared to that of Project A, a low PDRI score better than a high PDRI score . Project C was completed in November 2017. This trend shows that the more the organisation gains experience in using the PDRI instrument, the more the PDRI scores are improving. Detailed analysis of the PDRI elements is completed in Appendix 2, indicating the scores’ improvement. In Project A, some of the documents were not signed at the time of the assessment. These documents included C&I and LPS engineering designed; they received a low score. The PMP was not signed; it expands on the list of crucial deliverables to be signed off and authorised by the client. The demolition and construction report was also not signed. This document specified the transportation, dismantling and demolition requirements. The project schedule was incomplete, due to uncertainty of the availability of the outage. When the documents are not signed at PDRI 4, they are considered incomplete; they all contributed to the low score and less defined aspects of the project.

In Project B, most project documentation was signed. The outstanding unsigned item was the schedule, because it was not resource loaded. EIA was conducted and submitted to Department of Environment Affairs (DEA), a letter of compliance with environmental requirements from (DEA) was still outstanding at the time of the assessment. Project accounting requirements were unknown due to the new

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

PDRI 1-CRA PDRI 2-DRA PDRI 3- ERA PDRI 4- ERA DV

Project A-Aug 2016 Project B-Apr 2017 Project C-Nov 2017

40

technology being used in some equipment. Project schedule existed but needed to be updated and maintained.

In Project C, a less defined project schedule existed. It needed to be updated and maintained. The required software, expected project output deliveries and the distribution matrix, were still scoring low in definition. Most of these elements scoring low, were part of the execution approach.

The scope definition levels are improving for capital projects, leading to improved costs and schedule planning for execution of projects. It also assists clarifying the quality of outputs from the project.

4.2.3 Project Performance Analysis

In Project A, some of the documents were not signed at the time of the assessment. These documents included C&I and LPS engineering designs. They received a low score. The PMP was not signed. The PMP expands on the list of crucial deliverables to be signed off and authorised by the client. The demolition and construction report was also not signed. This document specifies the transportation, dismantling and demolition requirements. The project schedule was incomplete, due to uncertainty of the availability of the outage. When the documents are not signed at PDRI 4, they are considered incomplete; they all contributed to the low score and less defined aspects of the project.

In Project B, most project documentation was signed, the outstanding item not signed was the schedule, because it was not resource loaded. EIA was conducted and submitted to DEA. A letter of compliance with environmental requirements from (DEA) was still outstanding at the time of the assessment. Project accounting requirements were unknown this is due to the new technology used in some equipment. A project schedule existed; it just needed to be updated and maintained. In Project C, less defined project schedule existed. It needed to be updated and maintained. The required software, expected project output deliveries and the distribution matrix were still scoring low in definition. Most of these elements scoring low were part of the execution approach.

41

4.2.4 Conclusion

The document preparation for PDRI is improving. Good documentation ensures that decisions completed for the project are documented and traceable. It emphasises the outstanding items un-covered in the FEP that must be attended to or considered being a risk to the objectives of the project. If it is a risk, a mitigation strategy must be considered.

The scope definition levels are improving for capital projects, leading to improved costs and schedule planning for execution of projects. It also assists to clarify the quality of outputs from the project.

42