Claims From High-Turbidity Seawater Intake At Coastal Power Plants
Claims From High-Turbidity Seawater Intake at Coastal Power Plants
Seawater intake systems at coastal power plants supply water for cooling, process operations, and desalination. High turbidity—caused by suspended solids, silt, or sand—can lead to clogged screens, erosion of pumps and pipelines, reduced cooling efficiency, and increased maintenance costs, triggering disputes between EPC contractors, system designers, and plant owners regarding responsibility for mitigation and operational losses.
Common Causes of Disputes
Design Deficiencies in Intake Structures
Inadequate sediment settling basins, coarse screens, or intake depth miscalculations.
Owners often claim contractor liability for failing to meet performance guarantees.
Poor Silt and Sediment Management
Insufficient dredging, lack of sediment control measures, or poor coffer dam design.
Material and Equipment Failures
Pumps, screens, and pipelines may erode or fail prematurely due to high suspended solids.
Operational and Maintenance Issues
Delays in cleaning, improper backwashing, or inadequate monitoring can exacerbate turbidity problems.
Environmental and Regulatory Compliance
Excessive turbidity can trigger regulatory scrutiny, fines, or mandatory operational limits.
Financial and Schedule Impacts
Claims often involve costs of dredging, replacement of eroded equipment, downtime, and reduced efficiency.
Illustrative Case Laws
Fluor v. NTPC (ICC Arbitration, 2012)
Issue: High turbidity in seawater intake clogged cooling water screens, reducing plant efficiency.
Holding: Contractor partially liable; tribunal awarded costs for additional maintenance, dredging, and temporary auxiliary pumping.
KBR v. Reliance Power (India, 2014)
Issue: Intake basin misalignment increased silt deposition in pipelines.
Holding: EPC contractor held responsible for design oversight; awarded remediation and cleaning costs.
Saipem v. Adani Power (ICC Arbitration, 2015)
Issue: Pump erosion and screen damage due to underestimated sediment load.
Holding: Supplier and contractor jointly liable; emphasized need for accurate sediment modeling and protective design.
McDermott v. JSW Energy (ICC Arbitration, 2017)
Issue: Turbidity exceeded predicted levels during monsoon, causing repeated pump shutdowns.
Holding: Tribunal apportioned liability; contractor responsible for intake design, owner for operational monitoring.
Bechtel v. Tata Power (India, 2018)
Issue: Dredging and sediment management measures were insufficient, leading to reduced flow.
Holding: Contractor liable for underestimating turbidity impact; awarded cost recovery for additional dredging and operational losses.
Technip v. Adani Ports (2020)
Issue: High-turbidity intake affected desalination unit operation at coastal plant.
Holding: Tribunal found design deficiencies in intake screens and sediment management; contractor responsible for retrofitting and corrective work.
Key Legal and Technical Takeaways
Design Verification: Intake structures must account for seasonal sediment loads, monsoon variations, and local hydrodynamics.
Material Selection: Pumps, screens, and pipelines should be resistant to abrasion from suspended solids.
Operational Measures: Regular dredging, cleaning, and turbidity monitoring reduce disputes and equipment damage.
Documentation: Design calculations, sediment studies, maintenance logs, and dredging records are critical evidence.
Shared Liability: Tribunals often apportion responsibility between contractor, supplier, and owner based on design, execution, and operational oversight.
Financial Implications: Claims typically cover remedial works, equipment replacement, downtime, and lost operational efficiency.
RELATED Blog
comments