DOCSLIB.ORG

U.S. Utility Perspective on Nuclear Energy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
U.S. Utility Perspective on Nuclear Energy U.S.U.S. UtilityUtility PerspectivePerspective onon NuclearNuclear EnergyEnergy Seminar Nuclear Energy in Chile July 8, 2008 DavidDavid JonesJones Director, Nuclear Policy & Strategy 1 Topics Overview of Duke Energy & Duke’s Nuclear Operations What Does it Mean to be a Nuclear Plant Owner/Operator? U.S. Nuclear Industry Performance Expansion of Nuclear Generation Expanding the Duke Energy Nuclear Fleet What is Driving the Renewed Interest in Nuclear? Key Issues for New Nuclear Plants 2 Duke Energy A Fortune 500 company Traded on the NYSE as DUK Assets of $50 billion in 2008 Approximately 17,800 employees 40,000 megawatts total generating capacity in North & South America Provide electric service to ~3.9 million customers in Carolinas, Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana Over 100 years of energy expertise 3 North America Generation 4 South & Central America Generation Brazil Peru & 2,307 MW Ecuador 870 MW Central Argentina America 576 MW 605 MW 5 Duke Energy Carolinas—Service Territory VA NC SC Duke Power GA Generation Facilities (22,000 sq. miles) Charlotte Nuclear Facilities Fossil Facilities Hydro Facilities Combustion Turbine 6 Nuclear Fleet Overview McGuire Nuclear Duke Energy’s Nuclear Fleet Station • Seven nuclear units • 6,996 megawatts of capacity • ~50 percent of DE-Carolinas generation Oconee Nuclear Station Catawba Nuclear Station Oconee Nuclear Station • Reactor type: pressurized water • Number of units: 3 • Station capacity: 2,538 megawatts • Located on Lake Keowee in Oconee County, South Carolina • Began generating electricity in 1973 •2nd U.S. nuclear station to have its license renewed 7 Nuclear Fleet Overview McGuire Nuclear Station • Reactor type: pressurized water • Number of units: 2 • Station capacity: 2,200 megawatts • Located on Lake Norman in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina • Began generating electricity in 1981 Catawba Nuclear Station • Reactor type: pressurized water • Number of units: 2 • Station capacity: 2,258 megawatts • Located on Lake Wylie in York County, South Carolina • Began generating electricity in 1985 • Jointly owned* *Catawba co-owners: North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number One, North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation, Piedmont Municipal Power Agency, Duke Energy and Saluda River Electric Cooperative Inc. 8 What Does it Mean to be a Nuclear Plant Owner/Operator? Openness and Transparency Internal and External Oversight Nuclear Safety Culture 9 We Are Only as Strong As Our Weakest Link We are each others keepers—if one fails we all fail Training classes Audits Partnerships Self critical nature combined with external oversight Procedure use and adherence Questioning attitude 10 External Oversight & Review 11 Safety Culture—What is it? Safety Culture An organization’s values, behaviors—modeled by its leaders and internalized by its members—that serve to make nuclear safety an overriding priority Culture is for the group what character and personality are for the individual 12 Principles for Nuclear Safety Culture Leaders demonstrate commitment to safety Everyone is personally responsible for nuclear safety Trust permeates the organization Decision-making reflects safety first A questioning attitude is cultivated Organizational learning is embraced Nuclear safety undergoes constant examination 13 U.S. Nuclear Industry Performance Then and Now: The Biggest Differences The 1970s and 1980s Cost overruns, schedule delays The industry Capacity factors in mid-50% range operating to Refueling outages 100-plus days today’s high Indestructible attitude—so much safety margin standards is Today the industry Major overhauls, plant restarts on time, on budget that will build Capacity factors in the 90% range new nuclear Refueling outages 20-30 days Self-critical attitude—maximizing safety margin plants 14 U.S. Electricity Production Costs 1995-2007, In 2007 cents per kilowatt-hour 12.0 2007 Coal - 2.47 10.0 Gas - 6.78 Nuclear - 1.76 Petroleum - 10.26 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Fuel as a Percentage of Electric Power Production Costs – 2007 4% 7% 11% Fuel 26% 26% Fuel 77% Fuel 92% O&M 74% 52% O&M 23% O&M, 8% Coal Gas Nuclear Nuclear Fuel Cost Components 16 U.S. Nuclear Industry Capacity Factors 1971 - 2007 100 91.8* 90 80 70 60 50 40 1971 1977 1983 1989 1995 2001 2007 Significant Events at U.S. Nuclear Plants: Annual Industry Average, Fiscal Year 1988-2006 Significant Events are those events that the NRC staff identifies for the Performance Indicator Program as meeting one or more of the following criteria: 0.90 •degradation of important safety equipment; 0.77 •a major transient or an unexpected plant response to a transient; •degradation of fuel integrity, the primary coolant pressure boundary, or important associated structures; •a reactor trip with complications; •an unplanned release of radioactivity exceeding the technical 0.45 specifications or regulations; 0.40 •operation outside the technical specification limits; •other events considered significant 0.25 0.26 0.21 0.17 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.01 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Source: NRC Information Digest, 1988 is the earliest year data is available. Updated: 11/07 18 Expanding Duke’s Nuclear Fleet McGuire Nuclear Proposed William S. Lee III Nuclear Station Station • Site: Gaffney, South Carolina • Station capacity: 2,234 megawatts Oconee Nuclear • Number of units: 2 Station Catawba Nuclear Lee Nuclear Station • Reactor technology: Westinghouse AP1000 Station pressurized water reactor • Architect/Engineer: Shaw • Passive design features • Construction & operating license application submitted to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in December 2007 19 What is Driving the Renewed Interest in Nuclear in the U.S. Need for baseload generation Climate change concerns and potential controls on carbon emissions Increasing support for nuclear energy from the public and policymakers Tremendous safety and performance record of existing nuclear fleet 20 Growing Need for Additional Baseload Capacity U.S. Energy Information Administration—2007 Annual Energy Outlook Electricity demand in 2030 will be 45% greater than today To maintain current fuel supply mix would mean building: 21 Climate Change Considerations 22 Public, Policymakers Support for Nuclear Power Polls show record high support for nuclear energy Governors, state and county officials express desire for new plants in their districts Energy Policy Act of 2005—bipartisan support for new nuclear plant construction 23 Key Issues for New Nuclear Plants Economics & Financing Spent Fuel Management Workforce Manufacturing 24 Economics of New Baseload New baseload capacity will be expensive Key financial considerations Loan guarantees from the federal government Supportive rate policies at the state level New nuclear plants will be competitive with other new sources of baseload electricity 25 Spent Fuel Management Spent Fuel Pool Storage Dry Cask Storage 26 U.S. Department of Energy’s Yucca Mountain Site 27 U.S. Spent Fuel Policy— Direct Disposal v. Recycle Japan’s Rokkasho Recycling Complex U.S. Department of Energy Global Nuclear Energy Partnership 28 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Environmental Radiation Sample Plan
    2018 PLAN FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION SURVEILLANCE IN NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF Health and Human Services Division of Health and Service Regulation, Radiation Protection Section 5505 Creedmor road Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 Telephone: (919) 814-2250 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. INTRODUCTION Purpose of Plan. 1 Present Objectives of Program . 1-2 2018-PLAN FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION SURVEILLANCE Summary. 3-4 Statewide Surveillance. 5-7 Nuclear Facility Surveillance. 8-10 Site and Sample Maps. 11 Introduction The 2018 Environmental Radiation Surveillance Program will continue monitoring the radioactivity levels in the North Carolina environment. The purpose of this plan and the program’s objectives are included in this brief introduction. Purpose of Plan The purpose of this plan is to present the environmental radiological sampling program in North Carolina. This plan will assist the program’s sample collection staff in scheduling their sampling frequencies and time of sampling. Program staff document information concerning procedures used in the field and the State Laboratory of Public Health, such as field sampling, sampling preparation, counting equipment operation and data analyses. This information is available by contacting the environmental group in the Radioactive Materials Branch (RAM) of the Radiation Protection Section (RPS) in the Division of Health and Service Regulation. For more information about the section, please visit the RPS Web site at www.ncradiation.net. Present Objectives The program’s basic objectives is to monitor for potential releases of radioactivity from the three nuclear power plants operating in North Carolina, which have a combined total of five reactors, and one operating nuclear plant in South Carolina.
    [Show full text]
  • Vermont Motion to Intervene Request on VY License Transfer
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) ) ENTERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT ) YANKEE, LLC AND ENTERGY ) Docket No. 50-271-LT-2 NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.; ) CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL ) June 13, 2017 OF TRANSFER OF LICENSE AND ) CONFORMING AMENDMENT ) ) (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) ) STATE OF VERMONT’S PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND HEARING REQUEST Stephanie Hoffman Kyle H. Landis-Marinello Special Counsel Assistant Attorney General Vermont Department of Public Service Vermont Attorney General’s Office 112 State Street – Drawer 20 Environmental Protection Division Montpelier, VT 05620 109 State Street (802) 828-5543 Montpelier, VT 05609 [email protected] (802) 828-1361 [email protected] Counsel for the State of Vermont TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 STANDING .................................................................................................................................... 4 THE STATE PRESENTS TWO CONTENTIONS THAT MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f) AND ARE ADMISSIBLE ...................................... 4 CONTENTION I ............................................................................................................................ 7 THE LICENSE TRANSFER AND AMENDMENT REQUEST INVOLVES A POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD; DOES NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT
    [Show full text]
  • Mcguire Nuclear Station Is Located • Nuclear Stations Have Multiple, Robust Safety Barriers in Place
    McGuire Nuclear Station Fact Sheet McGuire Nuclear Station Fact Sheet McGuire Quick Facts Groundbreaking: 1971 Commercial operation: Unit 1 – 1981 Unit 2 – 1984 Number of units: 2 Reactor type: Pressurized water reactor (PWR) Station capacity: 2,316 megawatts, enough to power 1.7 million homes General Information Nuclear Safety McGuire Nuclear Station is located • Nuclear stations have multiple, robust safety barriers in place. on Lake Norman in Mecklenburg County, N.C. • Each containment building housing the nuclear fuel core is made of concrete 3 feet thick with a 3/4 inch-thick steel liner. McGuire station personnel remain • The reactor vessels containing the nuclear fuel are 44 feet tall and 14 committed to operating the units feet in diameter and constructed of 8 1/2-inch-thick steel. safely, reliably and maintaining a • Each unit has redundant safety systems including multiple pumps good relationship with the and backup electrical supply systems. community. • Nuclear stations are built to withstand a variety of external forces, • Lake Norman is the state’s including hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, floods and earthquakes. largest manmade lake, built by • Duke Energy works closely with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Duke Energy in 1963 by (NRC), various federal agencies, state agencies and local governments damming the Catawba River with to maintain emergency response plans that ensure close coordination Cowans Ford Hydroelectric with these groups. Station. • Issued a 20-year extension on its Nuclear Security license by the NRC (all U.S. • Nuclear stations have numerous security features, seen and unseen. reactors were initially licensed for • Armed, highly-trained security professionals provide 24-hour protection.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • A Comparative Analysis of Nuclear Facility Siting Using Coalition Opportunity Structures and the Advocacy Coalition Framework
    UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE ORDER IN A CHAOTIC SUBSYSTEM: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF NUCLEAR FACILITY SITING USING COALITION OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURES AND THE ADVOCACY COALITION FRAMEWORK A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY By KUHIKA GUPTA Norman, Oklahoma 2013 ORDER IN A CHAOTIC SUBSYSTEM: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF NUCLEAR FACILITY SITING USING COALITION OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURES AND THE ADVOCACY COALITION FRAMEWORK A DISSERTATION APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE BY ______________________________ Dr. Hank C. Jenkins-Smith, Chair ______________________________ Dr. Carol L. Silva, Co-Chair ______________________________ Dr. Christopher M. Weible ______________________________ Dr. Deven E. Carlson ______________________________ Dr. Jill A. Irvine © Copyright by KUHIKA GUPTA 2013 All Rights Reserved. Dedication For my incredible parents, Anil and Alpana Gupta, for making all of this possible, and my husband, Joseph T. Ripberger, for being a constant inspiration. Acknowledgements This dissertation would not be possible were it not for the invaluable support I have received throughout my journey as an undergraduate at Delhi University in India, a graduate student at the University of Warwick in England, and my pursuit of a doctorate at the University of Oklahoma in the United States. During my time at Delhi University, Ramu Manivannan was an amazing mentor who taught me the value of making a difference in both academia and the real world. My greatest debt is to Hank Jenkins-Smith and Carol Silva at the University of Oklahoma, whose encouragement, guidance, and intellectual advice has made this journey possible. I am deeply grateful for their unending support; this dissertation would not exist without them.
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Issue (Information)
    POLICY ISSUE (INFORMATION) October 26, 2011 SECY-11-0149 FOR: The Commissioners FROM: Eric J. Leeds, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation SUBJECT: SUMMARY FINDINGS RESULTING FROM THE STAFF REVIEW OF THE 2010 DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING STATUS REPORTS FOR OPERATING POWER REACTOR LICENSEES PURPOSE: This paper informs the Commission of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff’s findings from the review of the 2010 decommissioning funding status (DFS) reports for operating power reactor licensees. The DFS reports are required under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.75(f)(1). The 2010 DFS reports were due to the NRC by March 31, 2011, reflecting information as of December 31, 2010. BACKGROUND: In 1988, the NRC established requirements to assure that decommissioning of all licensed facilities will be accomplished in a safe and timely manner and that adequate licensee funds will be available for this purpose. “Decommission” means to remove a facility or site safely from service and reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits (1) release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license; or (2) release of the property under restricted conditions and termination of the license. For reactor licensees, the costs of spent fuel management, site restoration, and other costs not related to termination of the license are not included in the financial assurance for decommissioning. CONTACTS: Michael A. Dusaniwskyj, NRR/DPR Aaron L. Szabo, NRR/DPR 301-415-1260 301-415-1985 The Commissioners 2 The requirements for reactor licensees are stated in 10 CFR § § 50.33(k), 50.75, and 50.82.
    [Show full text]
  • Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos
    Tennessee Valley Authority, 1101 Market Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402 CNL-19-012 January 30, 2019 10 CFR 50.55a ATTN: Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79 NRC Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328 Subject: Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI, Inservice Inspection Program, Request for Alternative, 18-ISI-1 In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.55a, "Codes and Standards," paragraph (z)(2), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is submitting an alternative request for Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval for the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) Units 1 and 2 for the remainder of the current renewed operating licenses for SQN Units 1 and 2. SQN Units 1 and 2 are in the fourth 10-Year inservice inspection (ISI) interval scheduled to end on April 30, 2025. The enclosure to this letter provides relief request 18-ISI-1 that requests relief from the requirements of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code, Section XI, "Rules for Inservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components," ASME Code Class 1. The ASME B&PV Code, Section XI, 2007 Edition through 2008 Addenda is the code of record for the SQN Units 1 and 2. 10 CFR 50.55a(z)(2) authorizes the NRC to grant an alternative to the requirements of paragraphs (b) through (h) of 10 CFR 50.55a when compliance with the specified requirements of this section would result in hardship or unusual difficulty without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety.
    [Show full text]
  • Initiating Event Analysis of a Lithium Fluoride Thorium Reactor
    Old Dominion University ODU Digital Commons Engineering Management & Systems Engineering Management & Systems Engineering Theses & Dissertations Engineering Summer 2017 Initiating Event Analysis of a Lithium Fluoride Thorium Reactor Nicholas Charles Geraci Old Dominion University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/emse_etds Part of the Mechanical Engineering Commons, and the Nuclear Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Geraci, Nicholas C.. "Initiating Event Analysis of a Lithium Fluoride Thorium Reactor" (2017). Master of Science (MS), Thesis, Engineering Management & Systems Engineering, Old Dominion University, DOI: 10.25777/zbn3-zr14 https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/emse_etds/19 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Engineering Management & Systems Engineering at ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Engineering Management & Systems Engineering Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INITIATING EVENT ANALYSIS OF A LITHIUM FLUORIDE THORIUM REACTOR by Nicholas Charles Geraci B.S. May 2011, University of Notre Dame A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Old Dominion University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY August 2017 Approved by: C. Ariel Pinto (Director) Adrian Gheorghe (Member) Resit Unal (Member) ABSTRACT INITIATING EVENT ANALYSIS OF A LITHIUM FLUORIDE THORIUM REACTOR Nicholas Charles Geraci Old Dominion University, 2017 Director: Dr. C. Ariel Pinto The primary purpose of this study is to perform an Initiating Event Analysis for a Lithium Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) as the first step of a Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA).
    [Show 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Kewaunee Power Station Applicant's Environmental Report Operating
    Kewaunee Power Station Applicant’s Environmental Report Operating License Renewal Stage Kewaunee Power Station Applicant’s Environmental Report Table of Contents Operating License Renewal Stage TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Acronyms and Abbreviations..............................................................................................AA-1 Chapter 1 - Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose of and Need for Action .................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Environmental Report Scope and Methodology.......................................................... 1-1 1.3 Kewaunee Power Station Licensee and Ownership ................................................... 1-2 1.4 References.................................................................................................................. 1-5 Chapter 2 - Site and Environmental Interfaces ..................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Location and Features ................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Aquatic Ecological Communities................................................................................. 2-3 2.3 Groundwater Resources ............................................................................................. 2-9 2.4 Critical and Important Terrestrial Habits ...................................................................
    [Show full text]