DOCSLIB.ORG

Nuclear Near Misses: a Decade of Accident Precursors at U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nuclear Near Misses: a Decade of Accident Precursors at U.S 1 Nuclear Near Misses: A Decade of Accident Precursors at U.S. Nuclear Plants 2 Photo Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Fukushima and Subsequent Lessons Learned Actions, NRC Commissioner William C. Ostendorff, Pennsylvania Society of Professional Engineers September 19, 2014 http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/organization/commission/ comm-william-ostendorff/comm-ostendorff-20140919-slides.pdf Greenpeace US would like to dedicate this report to those individuals at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) who have attempted to regulate reactors and reduce the risks they pose to public health and safety. These individuals have risked their careers by speaking truth to power inside the NRC and informing the public of the risks posed by nuclear power plants. Copyright 2016 by Jim Riccio and Greenpeace Inc. TABLE of CONTENTS: 3 Executive Summary Introduction Nuclear Near Misses Terminology & Methodology Nuclear Power Plant Risk After Fukushima A Decade of Nuclear Near Misses at US Nuclear Plants Important Near Misses at US Nuclear Plants Near Misses at US Nuclear Plants: Flooding Near Misses at US Nuclear Plants: Loss of Offsite Power The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Missing Near Misses Did the NRC Mislead Congress? Conclusion Endnotes Appendix A: Nuclear Near Miss Events 2004 - 2014 Appendix B: Nuclear Near Miss Conditions 2004 - 2014 Appendix C: Nuclear Near Misses Not Modeled in Risk Assessments Appendix D: Oconee Time Line 3 Nuclear Near Misses: A Decade of Accident Precursors at U.S. NuclearPlants Greenpeace 4 Executive Summary Thirty years after Chernobyl and five years after the triple meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi in Japan, U.S. nuclear regulators are claiming that U.S. nuclear power plants are safe and that Fukushima couldn’t happen here. Nothing could be further from the truth. Contrary to these claims, Greenpeace has documented 166 near misses or acci- dent precursors at US nuclear power plants over the past decade that risk analysts have determined are precursors to a meltdown. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com- mission (NRC) documented 61 events and 102 conditions at US nuclear plants that were near misses to a meltdown. Unfortunately, NRC’s Accident Sequence Precursor program missed three of the most risk significant near misses in the past decade; the triple meltdown threat to Duke Energy’s Oconee Nuclear Station in South Carolina. According to NRC’s risk analysts, if Jocassee Dam failed all three of the nuclear reactors at Oconee were certain to meltdown. And contrary to the claims of the Nuclear Regulatory Commis- sion, the threat to the Oconee reactors was hundreds of times more probable than the tsunami that struck Japan in 2011. The NRC considers ten of these near misses to be important precursors to a core melt accident. 5 IMPORTANT NEAR MISSES AT U.S. REACTORS 2004 - 2014 66 The three reactors at Duke Energy’s only served to significantly delay the final Oconee nuclear plant weren’t the only resolution of nuclear near misses that are ones that were at risk from flooding. even more risk significant than those that The NRC has documented over a dozen caused the fiasco at Fukushima Daiichi other nuclear reactors that were threat- in Japan. The NRC’s failure to address ened by flooding over the past decade. long standing safety issues at Oconee Many of these near miss vulnerabilities and other U.S. nuclear plants further dated back decades and were only iden- serves to undermine public confidence in tified after the NRC was forced to take nuclear power and those that regulate it. a closer look at U.S. nuclear plants in the aftermath of Fukushima. In addition Greenpeace US’ report on Nuclear Near to the flooding vulnerabilities, NRC risk Misses finds that despite years of in- analysts identified a statistically signifi- spections, licensing and relicensing, cant trend in Losses of Offsite Power or safety issues continue to be identified at (LOOPs) at US nuclear plants. This trend U.S. reactors; many of which date back is a result of 20 LOOP events in just the decades, some vulnerabilities have ex- last four years. isted since the nuclear plants were first started. These long standing vulnerabil- Equally as disturbing as the 166 accident ities make nuclear power anything but precursors or near misses is the fact that safe. Greenpeace has long called for the NRC staff has had to turn whistleblow- phase out of nuclear power and this re- er on four of the top ten near misses in port further supports that determination. order to get the agency to address the risks in a timely manner. Contrary to the claims of U.S. regulators and the nuclear industry, nuclear pow- er plants can experience catastrophic failures like those we witnessed at Fuk- ushima Daiichi in Japan. This probabil- ity makes nuclear power anything but “safe”. The NRC’s failure to make public the documents that revealed the flood- ing threat to all three reactors at Duke Energy’s Oconee Nuclear Station has 7 Image: Sign in Restaurant in FukushimaSign saying that the milk is not from local cows - due to the high radiation in the area - at a restaurant in Fukushima City. Nuclear Near Misses: A Decade of Accident Precursors at U.S. NuclearPlants Greenpeace 8 Introduction Ten years ago, Greenpeace published Commissioners since the Fukushima our report American Chernobyl: Nuclear fiasco, that “(t)he NRC continues to de- Near Misses at U.S. Reactors Since 1986 termine that US nuclear plants are safe,”3 to remind the public and government Greenpeace’s review of a decade of officials that contrary to the claims made nuclear near misses shows that US reac- by the nuclear industry lobbyists and tors are still vulnerable to both flooding U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and losses of off-site power as well as (NRC) Chairman and Commissioners: other vulnerabilities to a meltdown that make them anything but “safe.” *U.S. reactors can have acci- dents with consequences equal to or NRC risk analysts have documented greater than the Chernobyl disaster; 163 events or conditions at U.S. nucle- ar power plants in the last decade that *U.S. reactors have had and will could have resulted in a meltdown. In continue to experience “near misses” addition to these 163 accident precur- that could result in a meltdown; sors or near misses identified by the NRC, Greenpeace has documented *U.S. reactor containments were three important near misses that NRC not designed to withstand a reactor risk analysts failed to review under the meltdown and the government has lit- NRC’s Accident Sequence Precursor tle confidence that any of them could. Program (ASP). Now, thirty years after Chernobyl and After Fukushima the nuclear industry and five years after the meltdown of three its regulators have been forced to reex- General Electric-designed nuclear reac- amine the holes in the nation’s nuclear tors1 at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear safety net4. But as former NRC Chair- plant in Japan, U.S. NRC Commission- man Gregory Jaczko noted “unfortunate- ers are again claiming that U.S. reactors ly, all too often, when faced with tough are “safe” and that “Fukushima couldn't policy calls, a majority of this current happen here.”2 commission has taken an approach that is not as protective of public health and Despite blithe assurances from the NRC safety as I believe is necessary.”5 Nuclear Near Misses: A Decade of Accident Precursors at U.S. NuclearPlants Greenpeace Nuclear Near Misses 9 In order to compile the last decade of To analyze initiating events, the NRC cal- nuclear near misses Greenpeace re- culates a conditional core damage prob- viewed the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ability or CCDP. CCDP represents the Commission’s (NRC) program for track- probability that the nuclear reactor would ing and evaluating near misses or as experience core damage or a meltdown the agency terms them “precursors to of the radioactive fuel rods, given an oc- severe core damage accidents” or “ac- currence of the initiating event and any cident precursors.” Accident precursors subsequent equipment failure or degra- are those actual events or conditions at dation.10 nuclear reactors that if additional failures had occurred, would have resulted in in- To analyze degraded conditions, the adequate cooling of the radioactive fuel NRC calculates the increase in core and caused it to meltdown.6 The NRC damage probability or CDP. CDP repre- analyses inspection reports and licensee sents the increase in the probability that event reports submitted by the nuclear the reactor would damage the core for plant operators to capture those events the period that safety equipment was un- or conditions that could have led to a available or incapable or performing its meltdown. function. 11 For the purpose of analyzing risk, the Once the NRC has assessed an event, NRC divides nuclear reactor risks into they determine the probability that it two categories: initiating events and could have led to a meltdown. The degraded conditions.7 Initiating events NRC’s Accident Sequence Precursor are actual occurrences such as a loss (ASP) program uses CCDP and CDP of offsite power (LOOP) or an automat- interchangeably and uses scientific no- ic or manual shutdown (SCRAM) of the tation to describe the significance. For reactor with complications like any addi- example Three Mile Island, Chernobyl tional equipment failures or degradation and Fukushima the core damage proba- of safety system function.8 Degraded bility was 1 in 1. conditions are those recognized safety system or equipment degradations or unavailability that came to light without an occurrence of an initiating event.9 Nuclear Near Misses: A Decade of Accident Precursors at U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nuclear Power Reactors in California
    Nuclear Power Reactors in California As of mid-2012, California had one operating nuclear power plant, the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant near San Luis Obispo. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) owns the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, which consists of two units. Unit 1 is a 1,073 megawatt (MW) Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) which began commercial operation in May 1985, while Unit 2 is a 1,087 MW PWR, which began commercial operation in March 1986. Diablo Canyon's operation license expires in 2024 and 2025 respectively. California currently hosts three commercial nuclear power facilities in various stages of decommissioning.1 Under all NRC operating licenses, once a nuclear plant ceases reactor operations, it must be decommissioned. Decommissioning is defined by federal regulation (10 CFR 50.2) as the safe removal of a facility from service along with the reduction of residual radioactivity to a level that permits termination of the NRC operating license. In preparation for a plant’s eventual decommissioning, all nuclear plant owners must maintain trust funds while the plants are in operation to ensure sufficient amounts will be available to decommission their facilities and manage the spent nuclear fuel.2 Spent fuel can either be reprocessed to recover usable uranium and plutonium, or it can be managed as a waste for long-term ultimate disposal. Since fuel re-processing is not commercially available in the United States, spent fuel is typically being held in temporary storage at reactor sites until a permanent long-term waste disposal option becomes available.3 In 1976, the state of California placed a moratorium on the construction and licensing of new nuclear fission reactors until the federal government implements a solution to radioactive waste disposal.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Power
    No.59 z iii "Ill ~ 2 er0 Ill Ill 0 Nuclear Family Pia nning p3 Chernobyl Broadsheet ·, _ I. _ . ~~~~ George Pritchar d speaks CONTENTS COMMENT The important nuclear development since the Nuclear Family Planning 3 last SCRAM Journal was the Government's The CEGB's plans, and the growing opposition, after Sizewell B by go ahead for Sizewell B: the world's first HUGH RICHARDS. reactor order since Chernobyl, and Britain's News 4-6 first since the go ahead was given to Torness Accidents Will Happen 1 and Heysham 2 in 1978. Of great concern is Hinkley Seismic Shocker 8-9 the CEGB's announced intention to build "a A major article on seismic safety of nuclear plants in which JAMES small fanilty• of PWRs, starting with Hinkley GARRETT reveals that Hinkley Point C. At the time of the campaign In the Point sits on a geological fault. south west to close the Hinkley A Magnox Trouble at Trawsfynydd 10-11 station, and .a concerted push in Scotland to A summary of FoE's recent report on increasing radiation levels from prevent the opening of Torness, another Trawsfynydd's by PATRICK GREEN. nuclear announcement is designed to divide Pandora's POX 12 and demoralise the opposition. But, it should The debate over plutonium transport make us more determined. The article on the to and from Dounreay continues by facing page gives us hope: the local PETE MUTTON. authorities on Severnside are joining forces CHERNOBYL BROADSHEET to oppose Hinkley C, and hopefully they will Cock-ups and Cover-ups work closely with local authorities in other "Sacrificed to • • • Nuclear Power" threatened areas - Lothian Region, The Soviet Experience Northumberland, the County Council Coalition "An Agonising Decision• 13 against waste dumping and the Nuclear Free GEORGE PRITCHARD explains why Zones - to formulate a national anti-nuclear he left Greenpeoce and took a job strategy.
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Brief Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development
    OCTOBER 2008Policy Brief ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Nuclear Energy Today Can nuclear Introduction energy help make Nuclear energy has been used to produce electricity for more than half a development century. It currently provides about 15% of the world’s supply and 22% in OECD sustainable? countries. The oil crisis of the early 1970s provoked a surge in nuclear power plant orders How safe is and construction, but as oil prices stabilised and even dropped, and enough nuclear energy? electricity generating plants came into service to meet demand, orders tailed off. Accidents at Three Mile Island in the United States (1979) and at Chernobyl How best to deal in Ukraine (1986) also raised serious questions in the public mind about nuclear with radioactive safety. waste? Now nuclear energy is back in the spotlight as many countries reassess their energy policies in the light of concerns about future reliance on fossil fuels What is the future and ageing energy generation facilities. Oil, coal and gas currently provide of nuclear energy? around two-thirds of the world’s energy and electricity, but also produce the greenhouse gases largely responsible for global warming. At the same For further time, world energy demand is expected to rise sharply in the next 50 years, information presenting all societies worldwide with a real challenge: how to provide the energy needed to fuel economic growth and improve social development while For further reading simultaneously addressing environmental protection issues. Recent oil price hikes, blackouts in North America and Europe and severe weather events have Where to contact us? also focused attention on issues such as long-term price stability, the security of energy supply and sustainable development.
    [Show full text]
  • Before the Flood Greenhouse Effect Plutonium Flights of Fancy Ministry
    ., Th~ Safe Energy ,J - Journal - July I August 19 88 75p Before the Flood Greenhouse Effect Plutonium Fl ights of Fancy Ministry of Truth - Chernobyl Lies CONTENTS COMMENT Flights of Fancy? 3 In the words of Or Tom Wheldon, at the Fourth STEVE MARTIN reviews the regulatory Annual Low Level Radiation and Health Conference log-jam in the US over planned held in Stirling, to say that radiation has existed in plutonium flights from Europe to Japan. the environment since the dawn of humankind and News 4-7 is therefore not a problem is just as daft as saying Ministry of Truth 8-9 that crocodiles have been around since the begin­ PATRICK GREEN accuses MAFF of ning with no perceived adverse effects - they will trying to rewrite history in their evidence to the Agriculture Com­ still bite your leg off, given half a chance. mittee. The Irresistible Force 10-11 The second report on the incidence of childhood meets the Immovable Object leukaemia near Dounreay from COMARE, of which ANDREW HOLMES asks what will Or Wheldon is a member, is a valuable contribution happen to nuclear research after privatisation. to the debate; but don't forget what happened to Snug as a Bug ••• 12 the 1976 Flowers Report. For the uninitiated, DON ARNOTT assesses the evidence Flowers recommended, among other things, that no that bacteria have been found in the large scale nuclear power ordering programme be burned-out core of the Three Mile Is­ land reactor. embarked on until the nuclear waste problem had Milk of Human Kindness? 14-15 been solved.
    [Show full text]
  • Low Enriched Uranium Conversion Preliminary Safety Analysis Report for the MIT Research Reactor
    LEU PSAR 6 DEC 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... a ••••••• i 1.0 MIT Research Reactor·······························································"······························· 1-1 1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Summary and Conclusions of Principal Safety Considerations .............................. 1-1 1.2.1 Consequences from Operation and Use ............................................................. 1-1 1.2.2 Safety Considerations on Choice of Site, Fue~ and Power Level.. ..................... 1-2 1.2.3 Inherent Safety Features ................................................................................... 1-3 1.2.4 Design Features for Safe Operation and Shutdown............................................ 1-4 1.2.5 Potential Accidents ........................................................................................... 1-5 1.3 General Description of the Facility ........................................................................ 1-6 1.4 Shared Facilities and Equipment.. ....................................................................... 1-10 1.5 Comparison with Similar Facilities ..................................................................... 1-11 1.6 Summary of Operation ......................................................................................... 1-11 1.7 Nuclear Waste Policy Act
    [Show full text]
  • Exelon Nuclear Fact Sheet Exelon Nuclear, a Division of Exelon Generation, Is Headquartered in Kennett Square, Pa
    Exelon Nuclear Fact Sheet Exelon Nuclear, a division of Exelon Generation, is headquartered in Kennett Square, Pa. and operates the largest U.S. fleet of carbon-free nuclear plants with more than 17,800 megawatts of capacity from 21 reactors at 12 facilities in Illinois, Maryland, New York and Pennsylvania. Dave Rhoades is President and Chief Nuclear Officer, Exelon Nuclear. There are more than 10,000 nuclear professionals working in Exelon Generation’s nuclear division. These professionals implement industry best practices to ensure safe, reliable operation throughout Exelon’s nuclear fleet. Exelon believes that clean, affordable energy is the key to a brighter, more sustainable future. Exelon’s nuclear power plants account for approximately 60 percent of Exelon’s power generation portfolio. Nuclear power plants are critical to the stability of the U.S. electrical grid because they can produce an uninterrupted flow of electricity for extended periods. This uninterrupted flow supplies the necessary level of baseload electricity for the grid to operate around-the-clock. Exelon’s nuclear stations Braidwood Generating Station Braceville, Illinois Byron Generating Station Byron, Illinois Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Lusby, Maryland Clinton Power Station Clinton, Illinois Dresden Generating Station Morris, Illinois FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Scriba, New York Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Ontario, New York LaSalle County Generating Station Marseilles, Illinois Limerick Generating Station Pottstown, Pennsylvania Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Scriba, New York Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Delta, Pennsylvania Quad Cities Generating Station Cordova, Illinois Updated: January 2021 .
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Power Summary – Licensing Actions August 2020
    NUCLEAR POWER SUMMARY – LICENSING ACTIONS AUGUST 2020 Congressional Legislative Action: o August 2020: • The American Nuclear Infrastructure Act of 2020, which was heard by the Senate’s Committee on Environment and Public Works on August 5, 2020, will enable U.S. international leadership, preserve America’s uranium supply chain, reduce carbon emissions, and strengthen our economic, energy, and national security. • The Nuclear Energy Leadership Act (NELA), included in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2021, was passed by the Senate on July 23, 2020. NELA will help facilitate the path to market for advanced reactors by allowing the federal government to be an early adopter of commercialized technologies; providing for needed scientific research facilities; demonstrating advanced reactor concepts; breaking down fuel availability barriers when the market cannot; and training the next generation of nuclear scientists. • The Nuclear Energy for the Future Act (HR 6796), which was introduced to the House on May 8, 2020, builds on the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act (NEICA) to provide full authorization for the Versatile Test Reactor. • The Nuclear Energy Research and Development Act (HR 6097) was passed by the House Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Energy on March 12, 2020 and forwarded to the full Committee. This act would authorize many programs within the Office of Nuclear Energy, including further research and development on the existing fleet of reactors, advanced reactors, hybrid energy systems, and advanced fuels. • The Integrated Energy Systems Act of 2019 (S 2702), which was heard by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on December 17, 2019, would direct the Department of Energy to establish an integrated energy systems research, development, and demonstration program.
    [Show full text]
  • Savannah River Site, 700/A Area, Site Administration, Safety, Security, And
    SAVANNAH RIVER SITE COLD WAR HISTORIC PROPERTY DOCUMENTATION 700/A AREA SITE ADMINISTRATION, SAFETY, SECURITY, AND SUPPORT Aiken County, South Carolina NEW SOUTH ASSOCIATES 6150 East Ponce de Leon Avenue Stone Mountain, Georgia 30083 SAVANNAH RIVER SITE COLD WAR HISTORIC PROPERTY DOCUMENTATION NARRATIVE AND PHOTOGRAPHY 700/A AREA – SITE ADMINISTRATION, SAFETY, SECURITY, AND SUPPORT Aiken County, South Carolina Report submitted to: Washington Savannah River Company • Aiken, SC Report prepared by: New South Associates • 6150 East Ponce de Leon Avenue • Stone Mountain, Georgia 30083 Terri Gillett Mary Beth Reed Mark T. Swanson Steven Gaither May 25, 2007 • Final Report New South Associates Technical Report 1433 ii ABSTRACT ABSTRACT This documentation was prepared in accordance with a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed by the Department of Energy–Savannah River (DOE-SR) and the South Carolina Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) dated February 17, 2004, as well as the Consolidated MOA of August 2004. The MOA stipulated that a thematic study and photographic documentation be undertaken on A Area historic properties 703-A and 708-A. In addition, a Cultural Resource Management Plan was accepted and signed by DOE-SR and the SHPO on December 9, 2004 calling for documentation of the remainder of the A Area buildings that were deemed eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as contributing resources to a Savannah River Site (SRS) Cold War Historic District. The impetus for the study was the imminent decommissioning and/or dismantling of the majority of NRHP eligible buildings in A Area. The resulting narrative is based on field analysis, oral history, primary documentation and research.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Overview of Fissile Material Transparency Technology Demonstration Executive Summary
    Technical Overview of Fissile Material Transparency Technology Demonstration Executive Summary There are two major objectives for the Fissile Material Transparency Technology Demonstration (FMTTD). The first is to demonstrate to the Russian delegation that a six- attribute measurement system with information barrier (AMS/IB) can be built with sufficient protection to allow measurement of classified components without revealing classified information. The second is to construct this AMS/IB in such a manner as to convince the Russian delegation that it would be possible for a monitoring party to fully authenticate operation of the system. Six attributes will be measured in the demonstration AMS/IB. These are: (1) plutonium isotopic ratio, (2) plutonium mass, (3) absence of oxide, (4) presence of plutonium, (5) symmetry of the plutonium, and (6) plutonium age. To measure these attributes, the demonstration AMS/IB will use three detection systems (Fig. 1) connected to four analyzing computers. Fig. 1. The three AMS/IB detectors. On the left is the Pu300/600, a medium-sized (50%), germanium- detector based, high-resolution gamma-spectroscopy (HRGS) system. In the center is a neutron multiplicity counter (NMC), with the ability to individually read out each bank of tubes. On the right is the Pu900 , a larger (66%), germanium-detector-based HRGS system. The medium-sized HRGS detector (Fig. 2) and associated analyzer will be used to measure Pu presence, isotopic ratio, and Pu age. The larger HRGS detector and associated analyzer will be used to (1) measure oxygen content, and (2) identify the presence of oxides. 1 Fig. 2. Interior view of the medium-sized HRGS Pu300/600 detector.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Energy: Statistics Dr
    Nuclear Energy: Statistics Dr. Elizabeth K. Ervin Civil Engineering Today’s Motivation The more people learn about nuclear power, the more supportive they are of it { 73% positive in Clean and Safe Energy Coalition survey in 2006. Nuclear power plants produce no controlled air pollutants, such as sulfur and particulates, or greenhouse gases. { The use of nuclear energy helps keep the air clean, preserve the earth's climate, avoid ground-level ozone formation, and prevent acid rain. One of the few growing markets { Jobs, capital… { 2006: 36 new plants under construction in 14 countries, 223 proposed. Worried about Nuclear Power Plants? Dirty Bombs? Radon? U.S. civilian nuclear reactor program: 0 deaths Each year, 100 coal miners and 100 coal transporters are killed; 33,134 total from 1931 to 1995. Aviation deaths since 1938: 54,000 “That’s hot.” { Coal-fired plant releases 100 times more radiation than equivalent nuclear reactor { Three Mile Island released 1/6 of the radiation of a chest x-ray { Despite major human mistakes, 56 Chernobyl deaths Nuclear power plants: 15.2% of the world's electricity production in 2006. 34% of EU 20% France: 78.1% 16 countries > 25% of their electricity 31 countries worldwide operating 439 nuclear reactors for electricity generation. U.S. Nuclear There are 104 commercial nuclear power plants in the United States. They are located at 64 sites in 31 states. { 35 boiling water reactors { 69 pressurized water reactors { 0 next generation reactors Nuclear already provides 20 percent of the United State’s electricity, or 787.2 billion kilowatt-hours (bkWh) Electricity demands expected to increase 30% nationally by 2030.
    [Show full text]
  • Fusion Power Capital Cost Study
    FUSION POWER CAPITAL COST STUDY . ARPA-E's ALPHA program seeks to create and systems, sensitivity analysis found that power demonstrate tools to aid in the development of systems comprised 5-20% of the total direct cost new, lower-cost pathways to fusion power and to (which includes reactor core, structures and site, enable more rapid progress in fusion research turbine plant, etc.). and development. Assuming we achieve excess energy production from a fusion core, a next . The up-front capital costs of a fusion power critical step is to understand the capital costs plant, as with many other power plant associated with a fusion power plant. An initial approaches, are likely to hinge heavily upon the capital cost study was performed by Bechtel scale of the plant and the balance of plant National’s power plant cost team, augmented by components. For example, if one treats fusion members of the fusion community who have like fission by borrowing its scaling factor of published in fusion cost estimating (Woodruff roughly 0.55, these 150 MWe designs might 1 Scientific and Decysive Systems). The study scale to $2-6 per Watt at a 1 GWe scale. was based upon four conceptual designs for a Conclusions: fusion core and present-day standard components for the balance of plant (heat . First, we conclude it is best to aggressively exchanger, turbines, etc). The cost study team pursue multiple options for the fusion core in did not attempt to compose a levelized cost of light of the cost study finding that the economics electricity (LCOE) for a fusion power plant given of a fusion plant are relatively insensitive to the juxtaposition of the conceptual nature of the which of the four fusion approaches is chosen.
    [Show full text]
  • Ornl/Nsic-176
    4 ggcBvePBtnc APR 291980 ORNL/NSIC-176 MASTER Descriptions of Selected Accidents that Have Occurred at Nuclear Reactor Facilities H. W. Bertini and Members of the Staff of the Nuclear Safety Information Center NUCLFAR SAFETY INFORMATION CENTER DIEmu'lhj \i 'uNLIMIlt.il c ORNL/NSIC-176 Contract No. W-7405-eng-26 Engineering Technology Division DESCRIPTIONS OF SFLEuTED ACCIDENTS THAT HAVE OCCURRED AT NUCLEAR REACTOR FACILITIES H. W. Bertini and Members of the Staff of the Nuclear Safety Information Center Date Published: April 1980 Prepared by the OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORArORY Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 operated by UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION for the DEPARTMENT OP ENERGY tP MTOWiOtl Cf THIS MCU«»T It IHWWTW iii CONTENTS (7 Page FOREWORD ...» v PREFACE . vli 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. NUCLEAR REACTORS: FUNDAMENTALS .' 3 2.1 Basic Theory 3 2.2 The Components of a Nuclear Reactor 8 2.3 Radioactivity , 11 2.4 Electric Power Plants .... 16 2.5 Classification of Reactors 17 2.6 Light-Water Reactors for the Production of Electricity ..... 19 3. CENTRAL STATION POWER PLANTS. 32 3.1 Fuel Melting Incideat at the Fermi Reactor (1966) 32 3.2 Electrical Cable Fires at San Onofre 1 (1968) 33 3.3 Fuel Meltdown at St. Laurent (1969) 35 3.4 Uncovering of the Core at La Crosse (1970) 38 3.5 Seven Injured When Steam Nozzle Breaks at Robinson 2 (1970) 39 3.6 Discharge of Primary System into Drywell at Did 'en 2 (1970) 42 3.7 Turbine Damage Caused by Human Error at Robinson 2 (1970) 45 3.8 Construction Fire at Indian Point 2 (1971) 46 3.9 Valve Separations at Turkey Point 3 (1971) 47 3.10 Turbine Basement Flooded at Quad Cities V?I2) 48 3.11 Steam Generator Damaged in Hot Tests at Oconee 1 (1972) 49 3.12 Two Fatalities in Steam Line Accident at Surry 1 (1972) 50 3.13 Seawater Intrusion into Primary System at Millstone 1 (1972) ..
    [Show full text]