DOCSLIB.ORG

Human Factors Validation of Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Designs and Modifications

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Human Factors Validation of Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Designs and Modifications Human Aspects of Nuclear Safety NEA/CSNI/R(2016)17 June 2017 www.oecd-nea.org Human Factors Validation of Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Designs and Modifications Proceedings of the Expert Workshop Charlotte, United States 19-21 February 2015 For Official Use NEA/CSNI/R(2016)17 Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 02-Jun-2017 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________ English - Or. English NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY COMMITTEE ON THE SAFETY OF NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS For Official Use Official For NEA/CSNI/R(2016)17 Human Factors Validation of Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Designs and Modifications Proceedings of the Expert Workshop Charlotte, United States 19-21 February 2015 English JT03415205 Complete document available on OLIS in its original format - This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of Or. English international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. NEA/CSNI/R(2016)17 ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT The OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 35 democracies work together to address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies. The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Commission takes part in the work of the OECD. OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering and research on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and standards agreed by its members. NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) was established on 1 February 1958. Current NEA membership consists of 31 countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Commission also takes part in the work of the Agency. The mission of the NEA is: – to assist its member countries in maintaining and further developing, through international co-operation, the scientific, technological and legal bases required for a safe, environmentally friendly and economical use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes; – to provide authoritative assessments and to forge common understandings on key issues, as input to government decisions on nuclear energy policy and to broader OECD policy analyses in areas such as energy and sustainable development. Specific areas of competence of the NEA include the safety and regulation of nuclear activities, radioactive waste management, radiological protection, nuclear science, economic and technical analyses of the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear law and liability, and public information. The NEA Data Bank provides nuclear data and computer program services for participating countries. This document, as well as any map or data included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found online at: www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda. © OECD 2017 You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgment of the OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to [email protected]. Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at [email protected] or the Centre français d'exploitation du droit de copie (CFC) [email protected]. 2 NEA/CSNI/R(2016)17 COMMITTEE ON THE SAFETY OF NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS The Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations (CSNI) is an international committee made up of senior scientists and engineers with broad responsibilities for safety technology and research programmes, as well as representatives from regulatory authorities. It was created in 1973 to develop and co-ordinate the activities of the NEA concerning the technical aspects of the design, construction and operation of nuclear installations insofar as they affect the safety of such installations. The committee’s purpose is to foster international co-operation in nuclear safety among NEA member countries. The main tasks of the CSNI are to exchange technical information and to promote collaboration between research, development, engineering and regulatory organisations; to review operating experience and the state of knowledge on selected topics of nuclear safety technology and safety assessment; to initiate and conduct programmes to overcome discrepancies, develop improvements and reach consensus on technical issues; and to promote the co-ordination of work that serves to maintain competence in nuclear safety matters, including the establishment of joint undertakings. The priority of the CSNI is on the safety of nuclear installations and the design and construction of new reactors and installations. For advanced reactor designs, the committee provides a forum for improving safety-related knowledge and a vehicle for joint research. In implementing its programme, the CSNI establishes co-operative mechanisms with the NEA Committee on Nuclear Regulatory Activities (CNRA), which is responsible for issues concerning the regulation, licensing and inspection of nuclear installations with regard to safety. It also co-operates with other NEA Standing Technical Committees, as well as with key international organisations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), on matters of common interest. 3 NEA/CSNI/R(2016)17 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The planning, organisation, implementation, and reporting of The Experts’ Workshop on Human Factors Validation of Nuclear Power Plant Control Room Designs and Modifications was a collaborative effort by many individuals who contributed substantively to the success of the workshop and the report that follows. The Working Group on Human and Organisational Factors (WGHOF) task group that was responsible for all aspects of this workshop comprised the following individuals: Per Øivind Braarud, Halden Reactor Project (HRP), Amy D’Agostino, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Cecilia De la Garza of Électricité de France (EdF), David Desaulniers (NRC), Stephen Fleger (NRC), Robert Hall (REH Technologies), Jari Laarni (VTT), Dina Notte (ERGODIN for AREVA), Daniel Tasset (Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire), and Cyril Rivere (AREVA), and the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission served as the lead organisation. In addition, the task group was fortunate to have the support of Leena Norros (VTT), John O’Hara, Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL for NRC), and Douglas Hill (Hill Engineering Consultants for NuScale). As a former representative to the WGHOF, Leena Norros was the original advocate for the WGHOF addressing the challenges of control room validation. She was instrumental in the early workshop planning and contributed substantively to the workshop’s technical programme as a challenge speaker. John O’Hara provided the workshop’s opening address and was the principal author of the post-workshop analysis section of this report. Douglas Hill served as an external reviewer for this report and his efforts helped ensure that the report is clear and that our conclusions and recommendations appropriately reflect the expert input we gathered during the workshop. Finally, we note that this workshop would not have been possible without the many experts (see Appendix A) who donated their time and freely shared their expertise as workshop participants. The WGHOF extends its appreciation to all of these individuals and their organisations for their generosity and dedication in contributing their time and expertise to this effort. 4 NEA/CSNI/R(2016)17 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 6 ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................................. 9 1. MOTIVATION FOR AND
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Equipment for Current Nuclear Plant Projects
    Ikata Nuclear Power Plant on the island of Shikoku, Japan. Owned and operated by the Shikoku Electric Power Company. This PWR has no cooling tower but cools by direct exchange with the ocean. Equipment for current nuclear plant projects The nuclear industry is undergoing a globalisation process. Companies like Westinghouse, GE, Areva and MHI are increasingly selling their expertise beyond their national borders; technology transfers and tie-ups are more frequent; plans are being laid to harness nuclear energy for desalinisation projects and - an industry first - for the manufacture of steel. Focus on Nuclear Power Generation surveys the scene, casting a particularly close eye on the role of suppliers in the slow but steady resurgence on the nuclear power industry. By James Chater he much talked about “nuclear still small. No wonder, then, that the 2007 the Finnish steel company announced renaissance” is happening, but progress is construction of nuclear power stations is put it had teamed up with Sweden's Boliden, Tslow. It takes time to choose a location, forward as a way of plugging the energy gap Rauman Energia, Katternoe and E.ON to ensure the investment funds are in place, seek - even though, if we are to believe critics of form Fennovoima, which aims to construct a the approvals, consult local communities and nuclear power, the new wave of power 1000-1800MW nuclear power plant in address the safety issues. And the market has stations being planned will not be built in Finland. Power generation requires steel, several options to choose from: APWRs from time to avert an energy shortage.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economics of Nuclear Power: Analysis of Recent Studies
    Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU) www.psiru.org The economics of nuclear power: analysis of recent studies by Steve Thomas July 2005 PSIRU University of Greenwich www.psiru.org 1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................... 3 2. THE WORLD MARKET FOR NUCLEAR PLANTS: EXISTING ORDERS AND PROSPECTS................ 4 3. OPERATING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IN THE UK ................................................................................ 7 4. CURRENT DESIGNS ............................................................................................................................................. 9 4.1. PWRS ................................................................................................................................................................ 9 4.1.1. EPR........................................................................................................................................................... 9 4.1.2. AP-1000.................................................................................................................................................. 10 4.1.3. System 80+/APR-1400............................................................................................................................ 10 4.1.4. APWR ..................................................................................................................................................... 10
    [Show full text]
  • EPRI Journal, Spring 2010: Nuclear Modular Construction
    nterest in nuclear power is growing The STory in Brief globally. A number of countries with- I out any previous nuclear history— Builders of new nuclear plants will save substantial such as Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Vietnam, time and money with modular construction tech- Belarus, and the United Arab Emirates— are actively pursuing nuclear power plant niques—installing large, integrated component development. Asia, which didn’t experi- ence the slowdown in nuclear power plant packages that have been tested at the factory development that has gripped the West for the past 20–30 years, is rapidly adding to rather than assembling and testing individual pieces its nuclear fleet. New reactors are now at the construction site. EPRI is working with utilities under construction in Europe, and the United States will likely see the first new and manufacturers to ensure that module inspect- reactors built in three decades now that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has ions, tests, and qualifications will be robust and offered conditional commitments for loan certifiable. guarantees to Southern Company. But the new generation of reactors will to ensure that inspections, tests, and quali- hours. The target for the thirtieth is below not be built the same way as those built fications conducted on the modules are not 8 million. Hitachi-GE said that since 1990, decades ago. Modular construction tech- invalidated when the modules are shipped, construction time for its projects has been niques used in Japan and by the U.S. Navy stored, and installed.” reduced by nearly 20%, and site construc- are being adopted, with the result that tion worker-hours, by nearly 40%.
    [Show full text]
  • Small Modular Reactors – Key to Future Nuclear Power Generation in the U.S.1,2
    Small Modular Reactors – Key to Future Nuclear Power Generation in the U.S.1,2 Robert Rosner and Stephen Goldberg Energy Policy Institute at Chicago The Harris School of Public Policy Studies Contributor: Joseph S. Hezir, Principal, EOP Foundation, Inc. Technical Paper, Revision 1 November, 2011 1 The research described in this paper was funded by the U.S. DOE through Argonne National Laboratory, which is operated by UChicago Argonne, LLC under contract No. DE-AC02-06CH1357. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Department of Energy. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor the University of Chicago, nor any of their employees or officers, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of document authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof, Argonne National Laboratory, or the institutional opinions of the University of Chicago. 2 This paper is a major update of an earlier paper, July 2011. This
    [Show full text]
  • MHI's Response to US-APWR DCD RAI No. 107
    MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD. 16-5, KONAN 2-CHOME, MINATO-KU December 19, 2008 Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Attention: Mr. JefferyA. Ciocco, Docket No. 52-021 MHI Ref: UAP-HF-08278 Subject: MHI's Response to US-APWR DCD RAI No. 107 Reference: 1) "Request for Additional Information No. 107-1293 Revision 0, SRP Section: 03.09.04 - Control Rod Drive Systems, Application Section: 3.9.4," dated 11/24/2008 With this letter, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. ("MHI") transmits to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") documents as listed in Enclosure. Enclosed is the response to 1 RAI contained within Reference 1. As indicated in the enclosed materials, this submittal contains information that MHI considers proprietary, and therefore should be withheld from public disclosure pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.390 (a)(4) as trade secrets and commercial or financial information which is privileged or confidential. A non-proprietary version of the document is also being submitted with the information identified as proprietary redacted and replaced by the designation "[ ]". This letter includes a copy of the proprietary version (Enclosure 2), a copy of the non- proprietary version (Enclosure 3), and the Affidavit of Yoshiki Ogata (Enclosure 1) which identifies the reasons MHI respectfully requests that all materials designated as "Proprietary" in Enclosure 2 be withheld from public disclosure pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.390 (a)(4). Please contact Dr. C. Keith Paulson, Senior Technical Manager, Mitsubishi Nuclear Energy Systems, Inc. if the NRC has questions concerning any aspect of the submittals.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economics of Nuclear Power: an Update
    The Economics of Nuclear Power: An Update By Steve Thomas March 2010 Edited by the Heinrich Böll Foundation Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung Schumannstraße 8 10117 Berlin Die grüne politische Stiftung Telefon 030.285 34-0 Fax 030.285 34-109 www.boell.de Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU) www.psiru.org The Economics of Nuclear Power: An Update Steve Thomas March 2010 Edited by the Heinrich Böll Foundation PSIRU University of Greenwich – www.psiru.org Contents 1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................... 6 2. THE WORLD MARKET FOR NUCLEAR PLANTS: EXISTING ORDERS AND PROSPECTS................ 7 3. KEY DETERMINANTS OF NUCLEAR ECONOMICS .................................................................................. 13 3.1. CONSTRUCTION COST AND TIME ...................................................................................................................... 14 3.1.1. Unreliability of data................................................................................................................................ 15 3.1.2. Difficulties of forecasting....................................................................................................................... 16 3.1.3. Learning, scale economies, and technical progress ................................................................................ 17 3.1.4. Construction time ..................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Amended MHI's Response to US-APWR DCD RAI No. 107-1293 Revision 0 (SRP 03.09.04)
    At MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD. 16-5, KONAN 2-CHOME, MINATO-KU TOKYO, JAPAN March 12, 2013 Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Attention: Mr. JefferyA. Ciocco Docket No. 52-021 MHI Ref: UAP-HF- 13041 Subject: Amended MHI's Response to US-APWR DCD RAI No. 107-1293 Revision 0 (SRP 03.09.04) References: 1) "Request for Additional Information No. 107-1293 Revision 0, SRP Section: 03.09.04 - Control Rod Drive Systems, Application Section: 3.9.4," dated November 24, 2008 2) "MHI's Response to US-APWR DCD RAI No. 107 Revision 0," MHI's Ref: UAP-HF-08278," dated December 19, 2008 3) "MHI's Amended Response to US-APWR DCD RAI No. 107-1293 Revision 0, UAP-HF-09273," dated March 29, 2009 4) "Amended MHI's Response to US-APWR DCD RAI No. 107-1293 Revision 0 (SRP 03.09.04), MHI Ref: UAP-HF-11257" dated August 11,2011 5) "Revised Design Completion Plan for US-APWR Piping Systems and Components, MHI Ref: UAP-HF-12322" dated December 7, 2012 With this letter, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. ("MHI") transmits to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") a document entitled "Amended Response to Request for Additional Information No. 107-1293 Revision 0" Enclosed is the third amended response to Question No. 1293-01 and 1293-06 of the RAI No. 107-1293 contained within Reference 1. The first amended response Reference 3 is submitted to reflect the estimated result of CRDM Analysis Result in the transmitted answers Reference 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Irradiated Assisted Corrosion of Stainless Steel in Light Water Reactors - Focus on Radiolysis and Corrosion Damage Mi Wang
    Irradiated Assisted Corrosion of Stainless Steel in Light Water Reactors - Focus on Radiolysis and Corrosion Damage Mi Wang To cite this version: Mi Wang. Irradiated Assisted Corrosion of Stainless Steel in Light Water Reactors - Focus on Radi- olysis and Corrosion Damage. 2013. hal-00841142 HAL Id: hal-00841142 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00841142 Submitted on 19 Aug 2013 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Laboratoire des Solides Irradiés, UMR 7642 Bibliography Report June 2013 Irradiated Assisted Corrosion of Stainless Steel in Light Water Reactors – Focus on Radiolysis and Corrosion Damage Mi WANG 1, 2 1 Laboratoire des Solides Irradiés – Ecole Polytechnique, CNRS, CEA, Palaiseau, France 2 Laboratoire d’Etude de la Corrosion Aqueuse – CEA/DEN/DPC/SCCME, Centre de Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France Laboratoire des Solides Irradiés Tél. : 33 1 69 33 44 80 28, route de Saclay, F91128 Palaiseau Fax : 33 1 69 33 45 54 http://www.lsi.polytechnique.fr 2 Contents 1 Light Water Reactors5 1.1 General Introduction.....................................6 1.1.A Main Components..................................6 1.2 Classification of Nuclear Reactors..............................8 1.2.A Classified via Nuclear reaction............................8 1.2.B Classified by Coolant and Moderator........................8 1.2.C Classified via Generation...............................8 1.3 Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs)..............................9 1.3.A Introduction......................................9 1.3.B Water Chemistry Control in BWRs........................
    [Show full text]
  • Transcript of the 586Th ACRS Meeting
    Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Title: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Docket Number: n/a Location: Rockville, Maryland Date: September 8, 2011 Work Order No.: NRC-1108 Pages 1-328 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC. Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 DISCLAIMER UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION’S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS The contents of this transcript of the proceeding of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, as reported herein, is a record of the discussions recorded at the meeting. This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, and edited, and it may contain inaccuracies. 1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + + 4 586TH MEETING 5 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 6 (ACRS) 7 + + + + + 8 THURSDAY 9 SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 10 + + + + + 11 ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 12 + + + + + 13 The Advisory Committee met at the 14 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Two White Flint 15 North, Room T2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, at 8:30 16 a.m., Said Abdel-Khalik, Chairman, presiding. 17 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: 18 SAID ABDEL-KHALIK, Chairman 19 J. SAM ARMIJO, Vice Chairman 20 JOHN W. STETKAR, Member-at-Large 21 SANJOY BANERJEE, Member 22 DENNIS C. BLEY, Member 23 CHARLES H. BROWN, JR., Member 24 MICHAEL L. CORRADINI, Member 25 DANA A. POWERS, Member NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 2 1 HAROLD B. RAY, Member 2 JOY REMPE, Member 3 MICHAEL T.
    [Show full text]
  • Report Prepared for Greenpeace International  the Economics of Nuclear Power Contents
    The economics of nuclear power Report prepared for Greenpeace International 2 The economics of nuclear power Contents Executive summary Part 3: A Nuclear Revival? Rising construction costs 1 Finland: The Olkiluoto order 32 Rising construction times 1 Finland’s background in nuclear power 32 Falling construction demand 1 The commercial arrangements for the order 32 Untested technology 1 The buyer 33 Unfavourable market place 2 Experience to date 33 Unreliable forecasts 2 Lessons 34 Subsidies needed 3 France: Flamanville 34 Contemporary case study: Finland’s Olkiluoto plant 3 The UK 34 The alternative 4 Scale of programme, government support and benefits 35 Biographies 5 Assumptions 36 Reactor technology and vendor choice 38 Part 1: The technology: status and prospects Evaluation of the UK’s proposed programme 39 Past experience 6 USA 39 Analysis of past construction: evidence of learning 6 China 41 Longer construction 8 Planned units 41 Economic impacts 8 Proposed units 41 Western Europe - UK 9 Declining construction 9 Part 4: The alternatives The current order book 10 Resource and potential: overview 42 A nuclear revival or decline? 10 Economic overview 43 Hang-over plants 11 Future prospects 43 New orders 13 Generation III/III+ plants: experience and status 14 Costs 43 Pressurised Water Reactors (PWRs) 15 Wind energy 43 Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs) 16 Photovoltaics 45 Candus 17 Solar Thermal Electric 46 High temperature gas reactors (HTGRs) 17 Hydro 46 Generation IV plants 18 Biomass 46 Technological gaps 18 Geothermal energy 46 Economics
    [Show full text]
  • The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2010-2011: Nuclear Power in a Post-Fukushima World
    THE WORLD NUCLEAR INDUSTRY STATUS REPORT 201 0–2011 Nuclear Power in a Post-Fukushima World 25 YEARS AFTER THE CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT Mycle Schneider Antony Froggatt Steve Thomas Mycle Schneider Consulting THE WORLD NUCLEAR INDUSTRY STATUS REPORT 2010–2011 Nuclear Power in a Post-Fukushima World 25 Years After the Chernobyl Accident By Mycle Schneider Independent Consultant, Mycle Schneider Consulting, Paris (France) Project Coordinator and Lead Author Antony Froggatt Independent Consultant, London, U.K. Steve Thomas Professor for Energy Policy, Greenwich University, U.K. Modeling and Graphic Design Julie Hazemann Director of EnerWebWatch, Paris, France Editing Lisa Mastny Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Paris, Berlin, Washington, April 2011 Commissioned by Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. with the support of the Greens-EFA in the European Parliament About the Authors Mycle Schneider is an independent international consultant on energy and nuclear policy based in Paris. He founded the Energy Information Agency WISE-Paris in 1983 and directed it until 2003. Since 1997, he has provided information and consulting services to the Belgian Energy Minister, the French and German Environment Ministries, USAID, the International Atomic Energy Agency, Greenpeace, the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the Worldwide Fund for Nature, the European Commission, the European Parliament’s Scientific and Technological Option Assessment Panel and its General Directorate for Research, the Oxford Research Group, and the French Institute for Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety. Since 2004, Mycle has been in charge of the Environment and Energy Strategies lecture series for the International MSc in Project Management for Environmental and Energy Engineering Program at the French Ecole des Mines in Nantes.
    [Show full text]
  • [Document Title]
    [EHNUR WP 4] ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER PLANT CONCEPTS AND TIMETABLES FOR THEIR COMMERCIAL DEPLOYMENT Steven C. Sholly1 VIENNA, June 2013 1 Institute of Safety/Security and Risk Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Copyright Vienna, June 2013 Media owner and editor: University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, Department of Water, Atmosphere and Environment, Institute of Safety and Risk Sciences, Borkowskigasse 4, 1190 Wien, Austria URL: http://www.risk.boku.ac.at ReportWP4 – Advanced Nuclear Power Plant Concepts and Timetables EHNUR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Most currently operating nuclear power plants are Generation II reactors (except for a few remaining Generation I units and a few Generation III units). Generation III and Generation III+ nuclear power plant concepts are widely recognized to be significant improvements over Generation II reactor designs. Both Generation III designs (standardized designs safer than Generation II) and Generation III+ designs (standardized designs safer than Generation II and with the expectation of greater economy of scale) are available for immediate deployment. The absolute minimum schedule for a Generation III or III+ nuclear power plant project is 10 years from feasibility study to completion of startup testing. Such a schedule is only achievable by: (a) an experienced utility, (b) with the reactor sited at an existing nuclear power plant site, and (c) with a design for which first-of-a-kind engineering (FOAKE) is complete. Under other circumstances (e.g. a utility new to nuclear generation, a greenfield site, a utility in a country without significant nuclear infrastructure, a nuclear power plant design where FOAKE has not yet been accomplished), the schedule would extend from fifteen to seventeen years and perhaps more.
    [Show full text]