Npi20130304 DL

Welcome to the
Digital Edition of
A quick start guide to MAXIMIZING our interactive features.
SHARE an article via email.

Easily NAVIGATE
through the issue.
Click directly on the page to ZOOM in

or out. Fit the issue to your screen.
PRINT any or all pages.
DOWNLOAD the issue to your desktop.
SEARCH for specific

articles or content.
View the table of CONTENTS and

easily navigate directly to an article.
Publication
Headline
deck
Easily browse all BACK ISSUES.
SHARE an article or
page via social media.
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2013
Volume 6
Click PAGES to view

thumbnails of each
page and browse
through the entire issue.
No. 1
ENRICHMENT
SMR
The New Face of
NUCLEAR
POWER?
FUEL FOR THOUGHT

EVENTS
NEWS
CASE STUDY
Keeping a New Generation of Nuclear Plants Cool
ARE SMRS THE NEW FACE

OF NUCLEAR POWER?
Why SMRs are poised to change the
way we think about nuclear energy.
CHANGING MINDSETS
Why Nuclear Suppliers Need to Think Like Manufacturers
HOW TO MAKE THE MOST OF

THE SECTION 316(B) RULING DELAY
The EPAs forthcoming cooling water intake
rule is expected to be finalized this summer.
Heres how to prepare.
PREPARING THE NEXT GENERATION

OF NUCLEAR WORKERS
Amid a massive workforce transition, the nuclear
industry is training a new crop of employees.
THE PROMISE OF SMALL

MODULAR REACTORS
A conversation with B&Ws CEO, Jim Ferland.
3
5
7
8
11
12
16
23
26
30
Publication
WHAT
NUCLEAR
FUEL CYCLE
Keeping a New Generation of Nuclear Plants Cool
3
5
7
10
U.S. NUCLEAR ENERGY FACILITIES

AGGRESSIVELY IMPLEMENT SAFETY
ENHANCEMENTS
13
ENRICHMENT
FUEL FOR THOUGHT
NEWS
No. 2
CASE STUDY
Volume 6
The latest on U.S. nuclear safety

from the Nuclear Energy Institute
THE DRAGONS ARE BULLISH

A look into Chinas booming nuclear market
MARCH/APRIL 2013
WHAT NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE

Setbacks and signs of progress in
the U.S. search for spent fuel solution
WHEN BUDGETING FOR 316(B)

COMPLIANCE, CONSIDER ALL
OPTIONS
What nuclear power producers need to know
to comply with upcoming 316(b) regulations
Yucca Mountain, 2007
NUCLEAR EVENTS
17
21
25
30
1421 South Sheridan Road

Tulsa, OK 74112
P.O. Box 1260, Tulsa, OK 74101
Telephone: (918) 835-3161
Fax: (918) 831-9834
E-mail: pe@pennwell.com
World Wide Web:
http://www.power-eng.com
AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT MANAGERLinda Thomas

VICE PRESIDENT, AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT &
MARKETINGJune Griffn
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, NORTH AMERICAN POWER
GENERATION GROUP Richard Baker
(918) 831-9187 richardb@pennwell.com
CHAIRMANFrank T. Lauinger
NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL MAGAZINE

Denver Nicks, Editor
(918) 832-9339 denvern@pennwell.com
PRESIDENT/CEORobert F. Biolchini
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICE/SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT
Mark C. Wilmoth
GRAPHIC DESIGNER
Deanna Priddy Taylor
(918) 832-9378 deannat@pennwell.com
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERSPENNWELL CORP.

1421 S. Sheridan Road, Tulsa, OK 74112
Telephone: (918) 835-3161
SENIOR ILLUSTRATORKay Wayne

PRODUCTION MANAGERDaniel Greene
NOV. 1214, 2013 | ORANGE COUNTY CONVENTION CENTER | ORLANDO, FL, USA
NUCLEARPOWERINTERNATIONAL.COM
NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL is published six times a year by PennWell Corp., 1421
S. Sheridan Rd., Tulsa, OK 74112; phone (918)
835-3161. Copyright 2013 by PennWell Corp.
(Registered in U.S. Patent Trademark Offce). Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specifc
clients, is granted by POWER ENGINEERING,
ISSN 0032-5961, provided that the appropriate fee
is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 222
Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 USA 508750-5400. Prior to photocopying items for educational use, contact Copyright Clearance Center. For
reprints, contact Foster Printing for a price quote.
For more information, please call 866-879-9144 or
email us at pennwellreprints@fosterprinting.com.
NATIONAL BRAND MANAGERPaige Rogers

(918) 831-9441 paiger@pennwell.com
MARKETING MANAGERWendy Lissau
(918) 832-9391 wendyl@pennwell.com
SUBSCRIBER SERVICE
P.O. Box 3271, Northbrook, IL 60065
Phone: (847) 559-7501
Fax: (847) 291-4816
E-mail: poe@omeda.com
POWER ENGINEERING MAGAZINE
Russell Ray, Managing Editor
(918) 832-9368 russellr@pennwell.com
Owned & Produced by
Publication
Presented by
Supported by
Co-located with
ENRICHMENT
NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL
Forbes gets it half right on

Germanys nuclear phase out
BY DENVER NICKS, EDITOR
he trouble with Germanys plan to phase out nuclear

power in favor of renewables is by now an old story. The
cost alone, recently estimated by the countrys energy and
environment minister Peter Altmaier at $1.3 trillion, is enough
to make you blink twice. Add to that the fact that Germany has
had to build more new coal plants this year than in the last two
decades to replace energy once produced through nuclear fssion,
and the picture starts to look pretty bleak. As noted by Howard
Rich, writing for Forbes, most of the 5,300 MW in new coal-fred
capacity the Germans have installed involves the burning of lignite,
which is strip-mined and emits nearly 30 percent more carbon
dioxide than hard coal.
Rich tells the too-often untold story of the environmental costs
associated with switching to a so-called renewable based power
production system, noting that A typical 20-turbine wind farm
occupies an area of 250 acressix times the size of New York
City. Setting the footprint of such a massive facility aside, the
environmental and monetary cost of building and maintaining
the infrastructure needed to service all those turbines piles more
yet onto the price tag. And at the end of all that building, if the
plan succeeds, the Germans will have 25,000 MW of new wind-
powered turbines spinning over the sea,

emitting roughly the same amount of
CO2 per unit of power produced as the
nuclear plants they replaced.
The trouble with Richs argument
is that he misplaces the blame for
Germanys
dysfunctional
energy
transition. Chairman of the rightlibertarian lobbying group Americans
for Limited Government, Rich diagnoses
Germany with a case of too-much
government intrusion into the power
sector. Rich writes:
Theres nothing wrong with
expanding renewable energy sources.
The more choices available in this (or any)
marketplace the better consumers will be
served both from a price and a quality
standpoint. However serious problems
are caused when government starts
using taxpayer resources to subsidize or
incentivize these expansions.
Rich summarizes the German
experience as a cautionary tale of
command energy economics one
>
MARCH/APRIL 2013
other nations would be wise to heed.

Other nations should certainly indeed
take heed, but not of Richs reductive
warning.
All complex industrial societies
require a dash of command in their
energy economies. For starters, the state
naturally sticks its nose into the energy
sector on questions relating to power
distribution, downstream pollution, and
the service infrastructure (like roads)
necessary to manage any system so
massive.
But more to the point, the unguided
market does not make the kinds of
clear-eyed, forward-looking, investment
decisions we hope to make when
planning out a national energy policy.
In fact, for reasons that should be
obvious, an unfettered marketplace
of humans is susceptible to the same
emotional hazards as the classic mob
ofyou guessed it: humans. Left to its
own devices, the market is prone to the
same impulsive judgment calls that led
ENRICHMENT
CONTINUED
Germany to embark on the renewables

program that has Howard Rich so up
in arms.
In energy, as in fnance, a diversifed
portfolio is a healthy one. But the
marketplace responds to relatively
short term fuctuations, which can lead
to an overreliance on one volatile or
fragile energy source (a phenomenon
that may already be underway in the
United States amid the shale gas boom).
And the energy marketplace is not in
any sense the rambunctious, open-air
bazar that comes to mind when Rich
talks of more choices available in
this (or any) marketplace. The scale
of investment necessary to enter the
market is prohibitively high for most
would-be sellers. And, in the absence
of a hyper-distributed power system,
the need for stabilitya la baseload
in the power grid demands a robust
organizing authority; theres a reason
our electricity tends to be supplied by
regulated monopolies.
Finally, the market doesnt naturally
account for what economists call
>
MARCH/APRIL 2013
externalities, the spillover effects of

activitieslike emitting CO2 into the
atmosphere, or stamping a 250-acre
offshore wind farm onto the sea
that are not accounted for in the sale
price. Even without any signifcant
monetary price on carbon emissions,
there is value in not emitting CO2
in a world threatened by man-made
climate change. The state might decide
to encourage, through tax incentives,
direct investment, regulation, etc., the
development of carbon sequestration
technologies, advances in nuclear
technology, or research into power
storage systems, and, if done right, that
encouragement would be in all our
interests.
That the government would be involved in guiding a sector as fundamental in society as energy is only natural.
Germanys big bet on wind power, with
the accompanying nuclear phase out
and coal phase in, is troubling indeed,
but free market fundamentalism wont
even help us identify the problem, let
alone fnd the solution.
FUEL FOR THOUGHT

Existential Threats
BY BRIAN SCHIMMOLLER, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR
o be or not to be, that is the

question.OK, perhaps Shakespeare is a bit dramatic for a nuclear energy column, but bear with me.
All power plants face challenges each year.
Most are of relatively modest import trimming
operating and maintenance budgets, allocating
additional capital to a persistent equipment issue, responding to new or updated regulations.
Occasionally, however, some can reach existential levels; that is, challenges that can imperil the plants continued viability.
The U.S. nuclear industry faces at least three
such threats this year. While the fnal outcome
is uncertain, I wouldnt necessarily be surprised
if multiple nuclear plant owners announced decisions this year to shut plants down in the next
few years.
The three main threats confronting U.S. nuclear plant owners are the low price of natural
gas, potential plant and equipment upgrades to
address vulnerabilities exposed by Fukushima,
and possible nuclear plant requirements associ-
ated with seismic hazards. Each of these threats

could impose economic pressures that put the
assets continued viability at risk.
NATURAL GAS PRICES

The low price of natural gas in the United
States puts particular pressure on merchant
generating assets. The impact has been felt
most severely by merchant coal plants, many
of which are now slated for closure in coming years because they cannot compete on the
margin with gas-fred power plants especially
when factoring in the additional capital outlays
required to comply with pending environmental regulations.
Somewhat surprisingly, merchant nuclear
plants are now in the proverbial crosshairs. In
October 2012, Dominion announced plans to
close the Kewaunee nuclear plant in Wisconsin by second quarter 2013, placing part of the
blame on competition with gas-fred electricity.
Dominion made a point to emphasize that the
decision was not related to poor station performance, but strictly based on economics. The
plants power purchase agreements were ending
at a time of projected low wholesale electricity
>
MARCH/APRIL 2013
prices in the region due primarily to low natural gas prices rendering continued operation
uneconomic.
One UBS Securities analyst cited the current
low price environment as a key factor in projections of 2,000-3,000 MW of at-risk nuclear plant capacity, as reported in a Plattsarticle.
The analyst, Julien Dumoulin-Smith, said that
while the variable costs of nuclear plant dispatch remain low, tight margins in a gas-driven market cannot support the high fxed cost
structures of certain nuclear assets. With fxed
costs for nuclear plants 4-5 times those for a
comparably sized coal plant, maintenance costs
of about $50/kW-year, and rising fuel costs, the
economic viability of merchant nuclear generators may decline.
FUKUSHIMA VULNERABILITIES
Despite all weve learned over the past two
years about the Fukushima Daiichi accident,
about the plant response, and about the generic implications across the industry, the full
fnancial impact on U.S. nuclear plants is not
yet clear. Plants have taken a number of steps
on their own, particularly with respect to the
www.PowerGenerationWeek.com
FUEL FOR THOUGHT
CONTINUED
availability of portable emergency equipment to enhance their ability to respond

to a loss-of-cooling-capability situation.
Whether these steps are enough to satisfy potential regulatory requirements,
however, has not been answered.
Another open issue emerging from
Fukushima is whether or not fltered
vents will be mandated for certain boiling water reactor designs. This hardware
can enhance a plants ability to reduce
radiological releases to the environment
in the event of a nuclear plant accident,
but they are costly. Estimates range from
$15 million per plant on the low end to
as much as $30-$40 million on the high
end. Facing such an investment, some
plant owners may decide retirement is
the prudent business choice.
SEISMIC HAZARDS
Seismic hazard models are periodically updated to refect new data and improved analytical methods; these models
are then used to assess the risks posed
to individual plants by seismic activity
and to evaluate potential operational and
physical modifcations necessary to main-
>
MARCH/APRIL 2013
tain safe shutdown capabilities. In the

aftermath of Fukushima, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ordered
nuclear plant licensees to reevaluate the seismic and fooding hazards
against current NRC requirements and
guidance, and if necessary, update the
design basisto protect against the updated hazards.
U.S. nuclear plants are in the process
of performing screening calculations that
will characterize site-specifc ground motion responses based on recently updated
seismic hazards. If these calculations indicate that the risk to the plant is substantially higher than previously determined,
a more detailed seismic probabilistic risk
assessment may be required. This assessment may point to needed physical modifcations to ensure safe plant operation
and shutdown during a seismic event. As
with the Fukushima-induced requirements, such changes could result in economic impacts exceeding the owners
appetite for asset investment.
For some nuclear plant owners, then,
to be or not to be may indeed be a valid
question in 2013.
POWER GENERATION WEEK

4 Events. 5 Days. 1 Roof.
NOVEMBER 1214, 2013 | ORANGE COUNTY CONVENTION CENTER | ORLANDO, FL, USA
Covering every aspect of the power generation industry, POWER-GEN International, NUCLEAR POWER International,
Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America and POWER-GEN Financial Forum converge in 2013 to
form POWER GENERATION WEEK. Beneft from fve days packed with pre-conference workshops, technical tours,
over 70 conference sessions, panel discussions, three exhibition days and multiple networking events. Like never
before, youll have access to nearly every facet of the market all under one roof.
Owned & Produced by
Presented by
Supported by
NEWS
President Obama offcially

nominates heads of DOE, EPA and
Offce of Management & Budget
Mar 4, 2013
President Obama formally named his
picks to fll cabinet positions heading up
the Environmental Protection Agency,
the Department of Energy, and the Offce of Management and Budget.
After frst praising departing DOE
head Steven Chu, the president named
MIT physicist Ernest Moniz to carry on
work at the DOE to develop new energy
technologies and carry on the presidents
stated All of the Above energy strategy.
Most importantly, Obama said, Ernie knows that we can produce more energy and grow our economy while still
protecting our air and climate.
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)
said Moniz was a sensible choice as Energy secretary.
Before naming Gina McCarthy to
head up the EPA, the president gave
special attention to the work of her
predecessor, departing EPA chief Lisa
Jackson, in combating climate change.

Obama highlighted McCarthys Boston roots; she once worked as an environmental advisor to then-governor of
Massachusetts Mitt Romney.
She has earned a reputation as a
straight shooter, she welcomes different
points of view, and Im confdent shell do
an outstanding job leading the EPA.
The president also named Wal-Mart
Foundation president Sylvia Matthews
Burwell as his pick to lead the Offce of
Management and Budget.
Duke Energy to retire Crystal

River nuclear power plant
Feb 5, 2013
Duke Energy announced Feb. 5 that
it will retire the 860 MW Crystal River nuclear plant in Citrus County, Fla.
The plant began operation in 1977
and has been offine since 2009, when
it went into safe shutdown for a scheduled refueling and maintenance outage, during which a crack was discovered in the concrete containment wall.
According to Duke, the company determined the plant was salvageable but
that the cost of the repairs made the
project uneconomical.
Duke is considering building a natural gas fred power plant to replace the
power produced by Crystal River, and
has said it will work with the roughly
600 full-time employees at the retired
facility to fnd them new work in other
Duke Energy organizations.
NRC issues report card to

U.S. nuclear power plants
Mar 7, 2013
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued its annual assessment
letters to the 104 power plants in operation in the U.S. in 2012, 99 of which
scored in the two highest performance
categories.
A total of 81 of the countrys nuclear
reactors met all safety and security performance objectives, while 18 reactors,
the NRC determined, needed to resolve one or two outstanding issues of
>
MARCH/APRIL 2013
low-safety signifcance. The NRC will

conduct additional inspections at those
facilities. Since the reporting period
came to an end, Susquehanna 1 and
River Bend Station have resolved their
issues and transitioned to the highest
performance level.
The three reactors scoring in the
third category, with a degraded level
of safety and security performance, includes Columbia Generating Station in
Washington State, Perry 1 in Ohio, and
Wolf Creek in Kansas. Browns Ferry 1
in Alabama was found to have an outstanding safety issue of high signifcance and placed in the fourth performance category, requiring additional
inspection.
Fort Calhoun in Nebraska is under
special NRC oversight and was not included in the 2012 report card grading.
IAEA chief Yukiya Amano

re-appointed to four-year term
Mar 7, 2013
Yukiya Amano, who as director
NEWS
CONTINUED
general of the International Atomic

Energy Agency led the watchdog toward a more aggressive stance on Irans
uranium enrichment program, was appointed to a second term.
A Japanese diplomat with decades
of experience, Amano succeeded Mohamed ElBaradei at the helm of the
IAEA in 2009. Western powers often
accused ElBaradei of being too soft on
Iran. Cables leaked in 2010 by U.S.
soldier Bradley Manning to the secretspilling site WikiLeaks described Amano as solidly in the U.S. court on key
issues including Iran, according to a report from Reuters.
Amano was re-appointed by acclimation and uncontested to a second
term running from Dec. 1, 2013 to
Nov. 30, 2017.
Bill Gates says nuclear power is

the key to solving climate change
Mar 8, 2013
Speaking to a group of international
energy executives at the IHS CERAWeek
conference, Microsoft Chairman Bill

Gates called nuclear power the most economically viable way to combat climate
change.
The only way to solve the climate
challenge is have some source of energy
thats economic, Gates was quoted as saying by Reuters. Gates, a primary investor
in the nuclear reactor development company Terra Power, dismissed wind and solar power as unproven without the necessary large-scale energy storage systems
required to make them viable.
Gates issued a call to make nuclear
power more safe and reliable. Post-Fukushima, people are expecting to take
some of the instabilities out of the design
of nuclear reactors, he said, according to
Reuters.
First concrete pour begins

at Summer nuclear unit
Mar 11, 2013
South Carolina Electric & Gas Co., a
subsidiary of SCANA Corp., placed the
nuclear island basemat on March 11 for
V.C. Summer Unit 2 in South Carolina.

The basemat provides a foundation for
the containment and auxiliary buildings
that are within the nuclear island.
The two, 1,117 MW units are expected to add 600 to 800 permanent jobs and
will begin operations in 2017 and 2018,
respectively.
Westinghouse, the company building
the two AP1000 reactors for the Summer
plant, said in a statement that the concrete
pour for the AP1000 reactors is a major
milestone.
Basemat concrete poured

at Vogtle nuclear Unit 3
Mar 15, 2013
Georgia Power, a unit of Southern Co.,
has completed the placement of basemat
structural concrete for the nuclear island
at its Vogtle Unit 3 nuclear expansion site.
The placement at Vogtle Unit 3 encompassed approximately 7,000 cubic
yards of concrete six feet in thickness,
which will serve as the foundation for all
of the nuclear island structures, including
>
MARCH/APRIL 2013
the containment vessel and the shield

building. Once the basemat has cured,
the containment vessel will be staged for
installation. The company said the full
outlines of both nuclear islands at Vogtle
have been completed to grade level.
Unit 3 is scheduled to go on line in 2017,
and Unit 4 will follow in 2018. Southern
Nuclear is overseeing construction of and
will operate the two, 1,100 MW Westinghouse AP1000 reactors.
Macfarlane nominated to fve

year term with the NRC
Mar 22, 2013
President Barack Obama nominated
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Allison Macfarlane to a new, fveyear term.
Macfarlane became chairman in 2012
after the previous leader, Greg Jaczko, announced his resignation in May. She was
initially named to a one-year term that
expires in June.
The Nuclear Energy Institute, the
lobbying and advocacy arm of the U.S.
NEWS
CONTINUED
nuclear industry, praised the presidents

decision to reappointment Macfarlane to
the top NRC post.
In her brief tenure as NRC chairman,
Allison Macfarlane has achieved notable
progress in returning a climate of collegiality within the commission, said NEI
CEO Marvni Fertel. The nuclear energy
industry commends her for this and supports the presidents effort in seeing the
chairman continue in her leadership role.
NuScale joins race for SMR

reactor funding
Mar 28, 2013
NuScale Power LLC submitted a Letter of Intent for the Department of Energys second round of funding in order to
accelerate the development of small modular reactors (SMRs).
NuScale has developed the 45 MWe
NuScale Power Module, a light water reactor technology that is cooled by natural circulation and is installed underwater
and underground. Fluor Corp is backing
the company in developing the SMR.
Babcock & Wilcox was selected Nov.
20 for the frst round of funding from

DOE to develop the companys mPower
SMR reactor.
Kewaunee nuclear plant layoffs

to start in late May
Mar 27, 2013
Layoffs associated with the shuttering
of Wisconsins Kewaunee nuclear power
plant are scheduled to begin in late May,
the Associated Press reports.
According to the AP, the Wisconsin
Department of Workforce Development
said it was notifed that about 633 jobs
will be lost at the facility beginning May
31. Unable to fnd a buyer for Kewaunee,
plant owner Dominion Resources said it
will move forward with plans to close and
decommission the facility.
Westinghouse installs
containment vessel top head at
Chinas Haiyang 1 reactor
Apr 1, 2013
Westinghouse announced it has successfully installed the containment vessel
top head at the nuclear island of AP1000
reactor unit 1 at the Haiyang nuclear site

in China.
Placement of the 659 ton containment
vessel top head occurred at 9:36 am local
time on March 29.
The event marks a milestone in Westinghouses delivery of four AP1000 nuclear plants, coming on the heels of the successful top head placement at the Sanmen
site in late January.
Death during refueling at

Arkansas Nuclear One
Apr 1, 2013
By Wayne Barber, GenerationHub
Entergy confrmed March 31 that a fatal accident occurred over Easter weekend
during a refueling outage at Unit 1of the
Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO) facility.
The industrial accident at the plant resulted in the death of one employee. The
worker was evidently caught beneath a
piece of heavy equipment that fell during
a planned lift, and injuries to eight others. Eight employees were hospitalized.
Six were treated and released while two
remain hospitalized for their injuries.
>
MARCH/APRIL 2013
The plant informed NRC of the accident, which was deemed an unusual
event. An unusual event is the lowest of
four emergency classifcations designated
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Plant equipment was also damaged.
The plant entered the notifcation of
unusual event due to damage to a breaker
cubicle related to the accident in the plant.
Entergy exited the unusual event at
6:21 p.m. on March 31. The notifcation
of unusual event was exited after corrective actions were completed to stabilize
power supplies and the plant no longer
met the emergency action level criteria.
Both units of ANO are in a stable shutdown condition. Power to Unit 1 is being
supplied by emergency diesel generators.
Power to Unit 2 is being provided by
emergency diesel generators and off site
power.
There was no radiological release and
no impact on public health and safety.
ANO Units 1 and 2 are pressurized
water reactors (PWRs) located in Russellville, Ark. Unit 1 is listed with a generating capacity of about 900 MW.
CASE STUDY
VEOLIA & AREVAS

water decontamination system
A response in record time helps mitigate
damage at Fukushima nuclear plant
BY PHILIPPE SEBERAC (VEOLIA WATER),HO IL BAE (VEOLIA WATER),
THIERRY PRVOST (AREVA), BERTRAND YTOURNEL (AREVA)
he story of the terrible tragedy that ensued in the aftermath of the earthquake
that struck northeastern Japan on March 11, 2011 is well-known. The
earthquake, measuring nine on the Richter scale, caused a 14-meter tsunami
that devastated coastal towns and villages, leaving thousands dead, injured or missing.
At the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant, located closest to the earthquake
epicenter, the tsunami wreaked havoc, submerging the plant in debris-laden seawater.
Emergency power generators were fooded and cooling water inlets were destroyed,
causing a failure of the cooling system a key mechanism for controlling the reactors.
With no other means to lower the temperatures, the plant operator, Tokyo Electric
Power Company (TEPCO), decided to spray the reactors with seawater and attempt
to refll one of the spent fuel rod pools.
To regain control over the situation and eventually enable operations near and inside
the reactor building, the accumulating highly radioactive wastewater (106 Bq/cm3),
needed to be drained and treated as quickly as possible. With limited storage capacity,
a solution was sought for the reuse of the treated water in the cooling system.
PROVEN TECHNOLOGIES
Two companies, AREVA and Veolia, responded to the challenge of designing
the technical solution to treat the contaminated water at the plant with subsequent
reuse to cool the reactors. AREVA used

decontaminating processes in France that
were suitable for the purpose but the
necessary installations lacked suffciently
high fow rates and could not be built
within the short deadline. AREVA
contacted Veolia Water, a leading water
treatment specialist. Veolia had a readily
available, complementary technology,
the Actifo process, applied at
hundreds of sites around the world.
An existing Actifo unit at a nearby
industrial site was available and could be
rapidly dismantled and adapted for quick
implementation.
AREVA and Veolia went to work,
conducting laboratory and pilot unit tests
>
MARCH/APRIL 2013
10
initially in France and later in Japan and

launching a predesign to defne treatment
principles, equipment availability and
feasibility. Within a week, the proposed
system for treating the contaminated
water was presented to TEPCO who
gave the go-ahead to proceed with
implementation.
The equipment still needed to be
adapted to the volume and nature of
the water to be treated, as well as to the
exceptional conditions at the damaged
nuclear plant. Normally a three-year
process to design, build, install and
commission the plant, at Fukushima,
the teams were given just two and a half
months to complete the mission.
CASE STUDY
CONTINUED
The solution, designed to

respond to the emergency
situation at the Fukushima
nuclear plant and support
ongoing operations was
constructed in record time
two and a half months rather
than the usual three years.
A MULTI-STAGE TREATMENT PROCESS
The AREVA/Veolia solution is at
the heart of a comprehensive treatment
system implemented at Fukushima that is
based on technology developed by several
companies. The fve-step process selected
by TEPCO features physicochemical
treatment and water desalination. The
contaminated water is conveyed from
the reactor buildings by hose, transiting
a complex system of storage structures.
Toshibas oil removal process is applied
to the water before it fows through
the primary decontamination unit
designed by Kurion, a process that had
been used following the Three Mile
Island nuclear accident. The Kurion
technology uses columns of zeolite to

reduce the radioactivity by a factor of
100 through retention of cesium-137.
This pre-decontaminated water is then
treated through an AREVA-Veolia twostage system that reduces cesium-134 and
137 radioactivity by a factor of 10,000.
Strontium 89 and 90 are also reduced
signifcantly by a decontamination factor
up to 70. At each stage, more than 30
minutes of contact time with radionuclides
adsorbents is needed to enable particles
to settle as sludge in the lamella settling
devices (Multifo unit and Actifo
unit). The principle of lamella settling is
to use coagulant and focculant (+ microsand in the case of the Actifo process) to
achieve a faster and more effcient settling
of particles, concentrated as sludge with a
weight concentration up to 80 g/L.
Following the settling process, the
decontaminated water, now with almost
non-detectable radioactivity levels, is then
desalinated by reverse osmosis (Hitachi
and Toshiba), with the concentrates
further treated through evaporation
to reduce their volume (Toshiba and
AREVA/Veolia). Part of the treated

water is injected in the reactor for cooling
purpose, thereby closing the loop.
ACCELERATED IMPLEMENTATION
With the AREVA/Veolia Actifo
Rad solution defned, the teams turned to
the multiple challenges of implementation,
frst and foremost managing the
extremely tight schedule. Working in a
non-conventional manner compared with
normal nuclear engineering projects, all of
the major tasks were launched at the same
time, including the contract, procurement,
basic design, testing, operating manual
and training processes. TEPCO assigned
JGC to assemble the plant on site in the
radwaste building initially used to store
low activity waste (in drums).
Coordination of project teams was
another signifcant challenge. Team
members from multiple companies,
countries and cultures had their own
ways of operating and thinking. The
damage and turmoil created by the
natural disaster also created additional
logistical issues for movement of people
>
MARCH/APRIL 2013
11
and equipment. Working in a radioactive

environment added further complications
and required special training and
additional precautions. All assembling
operations had to be performed wearing
a Tyvek suit to avoid contamination. For
welding, a second freproof suit had to
be worn as well as welding gloves on top
of the three regulatory gloves required
to work in a contaminated environment.
In addition, the doorway of an existing
building housing the Actifo Rad facility
had to be enlarged by cutting through
60-cm thick concrete. Team members
also had to contend with cramped spaces
in which the equipment was housed and
multiple unplanned issues, including the
breakage of an overhead crane operating
at maximum levels.
At each step of the project, teams
accelerated normal operating procedures.
Aprocessandfowdiagramtocalculatefow
rates, doses and sludge quantities during
the basic design phase was completed in
only two weeks. At the Fukushima plant,
the nearby Japanese soccer teams training
center was converted to a decontamination
CASE STUDY
CONTINUED
center and logistics delivery base. The

production and assembly process was
reduced to only three weeks, thanks to the
responsiveness of local teams, especially
the JGC Corporation.
COMMISSIONING
TEPCO required Veolias experts to
be present during commissioning and
startup. After a careful safety review
with AREVA and a dedicated training
by ATOX, a team of Veolia employees,
who had volunteered and passed the
medical tests, were allowed to work at
the Fukushima site. On June 15 and
16, system tests were run to validate the
control-command system and an initial
trial using water with low level activity
proved satisfactory. First results on the
very low activity wastewaters (< 300 Bq/
cm3) confrmed that the targeted Cesium
decontamination factor (Cs-DF) was
achieved (DF > 104). In a combined test
with zeolite columns before Actifo
Rad, the complete system achieved a
Cs-DF > 106. When a trial with highly
>
MARCH/APRIL 2013
12
radioactive water proved conclusive,

commissioning took place on June 17 and
the system was immediately started up.
The solution, designed to respond to
the emergency situation at the Fukushima
nuclear plant and support ongoing
operations was constructed in record
timetwo and a half months rather
than the usual three years. The Actifo
Rad unit reduced the radioactivity of the
wastewater by a factor of 10,000, even
with signifcant salt content (seawater
diluted twice) at a fow-rate slightly below
the design value of 50 m3/hr. The unit
operated for three months until another
more automated decontamination system
could be installed and now remains as
a back-up system. Between June and
September 2011, the system treated
80,000 cubic meters of water with a
radioactivity of 1GBq per kilogram for a
total decontamination of 80,000 TBq.
By the end of 2011, Fukushima reactor
temperatures were considered by experts
to be under control, allowing preparations
for the site clean up to go forward.
G
N
I
CHANG
T
A
R
E
N
E
GE
FOR
T W E N T Y- F I V E Y E A R S
NOV. 1214, 2013 | ORANGE COUNTY CONVENTION CENTER | ORLANDO, FL, USA | POWER-GEN.COM
Owned & Produced by
Presented by
Supported by
Co-located with
NUCLEUS
U.S. Nuclear Energy

Facilities Aggressively Implement
Safety Enhancements
BY ANTHONY R. PIETRANGELO, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT
AND CHIEF NUCLEAR OFFICER, NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE
erformance indicators tracked by the nuclear energy industry and the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission confrm that Americas nuclear power
plants are operating safely.
The most recent report from the NRCs Industry Trend Program identifed no signifcant adverse trends in industry safety performance during fscal year 2011. In fact, looking over the past decade, there has been only
one NRC-defned abnormal occurrence at a U.S. nuclear energy facility that stemming from a valve issue in a backup cooling system that wasnt
used during an October 2010 refueling at the Browns Ferry power station.
Meanwhile, in just the past two years, the robust design of U.S. reactors,
and their ability to maintain safety through severe natural events, has been
demonstrated repeatedly. Instances include hurricanes Sandy and Irene, 2011
tornadoes in the Tennessee and Virginia, near-record fooding along the Missouri
River in 2011, and the August 2011 earthquake in the eastern half of the country.
In every circumstance, precise preparation and plant design ensured
that the facilities continued to produce electricity without incident, shut
down safely or responded as designed in the face of adverse conditions.
Safety is the industrys foremost

priority. It is imperative that nuclear
energy facilities continue to operate at
exemplary levels of safety to maintain
the far-reaching benefts of nuclear
energy. Even though nuclear power
plants constitute less than 10 percent of
the nations installed electric-generating
capacity, they produce 19 percent of U.S.
electricity supplies. They also produce
nearly two-thirds of the electricity that
comes from carbon-free electricity
sources. Moreover, each of our 100-plus
reactors creates hundreds of millions of
dollars in direct and indirect revenue
for state and local economies. Together,
they represent tens of thousands
of high-paying jobs throughout
the U.S. economyin building,
operating and supporting the plants.
Major plant events are rare, and
most measures of safety focus on
lesser, precursor events that usually are
resolved quickly. Nonetheless, it is the
industrys standard practice to review
all operating eventsfrom minor
>
MARCH/APRIL 2013
13
incidents to signifcant events such as the

Fukushima Daiichi accidentand look
for ways to make our facilities even safer.
The industry and the NRC are in
broad agreement on the high-priority
actions that should be taken at Americas
reactors. The industrys Fukushima
response priority has been to identify
those activities that provide maximum
tangible safety benefts in the shortest
time and implement them frst.
The greatest safety improvement
to protect against extreme events,
regardless of their cause, comes from
the FLEX response strategy that the
industry began implementing last year.
The heart of this effort is adding more
portable, backup safety equipment at
each reactor. More than 1,500 pieces
of equipment have been acquired or
ordered, including portable generators,
diesel-driven pumps and satellite
phones. The additional portable
equipment will provide power and water
to maintain key safety functions in the
absence of AC power and heat transfer
NUCLEUS
CONTINUED
capability from permanently installed

safety systems. These functions are
reactor core cooling, used fuel pool
cooling and containment integrity.
In addition to new equipment being
placed at all U.S. reactors, the industry
is developing regional response centers
in Memphis and Phoenix that will
serve as dispatch points for additional
equipment and resources. The regional
response centers will be capable of
delivering another full set of portable
safety equipment, radiation protection
equipment,
electrical
generators,
pumps and other emergency response
equipment to an affected site within
24 hours after an extreme event. The
regional response centers are expected
to be operational by August 2014.
The startup cost, to be shared by all
U.S. companies operating nuclear
energy facilities, is approximately $40
million. The shared average annual cost
thereafter will total about $4 million.
In addition, the Institute of Nuclear
Power Operations has upgraded its
emergency response center, and the
facility is operational. This center will

facilitate the sharing of equipment
and technical expertise whenever and
wherever it is needed. Thus, between
the equipment available via the regional
response centers and the equipment
purchased by each site, the industry will
have signifcantly enhanced its capability
to assist any site in an emergency.
The pace of regulatory interactions
has been intense. The NRC has issued
most of the requirements related to the
post-Fukushima recommendations as
highest priority, or Tier 1 requirements
(see table of Tier 1 recommendations).
The industry is implementing those
requirements in addition to the
steps that companies are taking
proactively. Guidance documents for
the Tier I orders were developed last
year, and the NRC has endorsed the
industrys path forward on these issues.
FLEX coping and mitigating
strategies used fuel pool level
instrumentation
enhancements
seismic
and
food
protection
inspections assessing and enhancing
plant emergency response staffng,

and
emergency
communications.
Seismic and food protection
inspections in accessible areas of
all facilities have been completed
by the industry. The owners of 22
plants are scheduled in March to
submit their revised fooding hazard
evaluations to the NRC. Evaluations
for the remaining facilities are due at
various points over the next two years.
The NRC also endorsed industry
guidance for re-evaluating seismic
protection at our facilities, designating
it as one acceptable approach for
responding to the NRCs request for
detailed information in this area. The
NRC has asked companies to submit
new input to the ground motion
response spectra for their sitesone
of the frst steps in performing reevaluationsby
mid-September.
Response spectra refect the peak
ground acceleration, duration and
frequency of horizontal and vertical
shaking produced by an earthquake.
One prominent area of industry/
>
MARCH/APRIL 2013
14
NRC TIER 1 RECOMMENDATIONS

Re-evaluate and upgrade as necessary
the design-basis seismic and fooding
protection of structures, systems and
components.
Perform seismic and food protection to
identify and address plant-specifc vulnerabilities.
Strengthen station blackout mitigation
capability for design-basis and beyond
design-basis external events.
Provide reasonable protection for
equipment covered under Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
50.54(hh)(2).
Reliable hardened vents for boiling water
reactor Mark I and Mark II containments.
Enhance spent fuel pool makeup capability and instrumentation for the spent
fuel pool.
Strengthening and integration of emergency operating procedures, severe accident management guidelines, and extensive damage mitigation guidelines.
Emergency preparedness regulatory actions (staffng and communications).
NUCLEUS
CONTINUED
NRC interactions of late is the NRC

staff recommendation for external,
fltered containment vents for boiling
water reactors with Mark I and II
containments. The Electric Power
Research Institute concluded after
intensive analysis that fltered vents
arent necessarily the most effective
way to flter potential radioactive
releases from fuel damage. The industry
believes the optimal fltration method
should be determined on a plantspecifc basis. The NRCs Advisory
Committee on Reactor Safeguards
shares that view. The fve-member
Commission ultimately will decide
the future course of action in this area.
The best way to reduce the risk
of radiation releases, of course, is by
preventing a severe accident from
occurring in the frst place. That is why the
industry uses safety systems that harness
advanced technology, top scientists
and engineers, and multiple layers of
oversight to ensure a commitment
to safety at every level. The postFukushima procurement, installation
and staging of portable emergency

equipment (i.e., FLEX) stems from
our commitment to prevent a severe
accident that could cause fuel damage.
As part of the ongoing efforts to
assure public health and safety in a
comprehensive manner, the industry
also is enhancing its emergency
planning which often is cited as a
model for industrial preparedness. This
activity is occurring at the same time
that facilities are implementing the
requirements of a recently completed
NRC rulemaking on emergency
preparedness. Key elements of the 2011
rule include limitations on the duties
of on-site emergency responders to
reduce burdens during an emergency,
requirements to incorporate hostile
action-based scenarios in emergency
preparedness drills and exercises;
and new requirements for back-up
notifcation
and
communications
measures. Among the post-Fukushima
concerns identifed by NRC staff was
the importance of reducing the time
that access to a site might be impeded
after an extreme event. Extensive

engagement with NRC staff was
required to develop schedules that
would allow facilities to effectively
implement the requirements of the
new EP rule while undertaking the
planning and training needed to
address that and related concerns.
Amid this activity to apply the
lessons learned from Fukushima, the
>
MARCH/APRIL 2013
15
industry is determined to maintain its

focus on safe operations every hour of
every day at every facility. As former
NRC Chairman Richard Meserve,
president of the Carnegie Institution for
Science, said last December at Japans
Fukushima Ministerial Conference,
Not everything can or should be
accomplished at once. Indeed, the
implementation
of
Fukushima-
NUCLEUS
CONTINUED
It would be a mistake
to pile new requirement
upon new requirement
in the name of
Fukushima response.
The industry and the
regulator must remain
focused on the riskinformed activities and
programs that are most
important to safety.
related improvements should not

be allowed to distract operators and
regulators from the hard day-today work of assuring that important
existing safety requirements are met.
Precisely in this vein, industry and
members of Congress are urging the
NRC to develop a system to assess
the cumulative impact of regulatory
activities to ensure that the issues
most important to safety get priority
attention. It would be a mistake to
pile new requirement upon new
requirement in the name of Fukushima
response. The industry and the
regulator must remain focused on the
risk-informed activities and programs
that are most important to safety.
Given this priority, the industry
continues to invest in nuclear energy
facilities to preserve their asset value,
to position them to operate beyond
40 yearsand possibly beyond
60 yearsand to incorporate new
requirements and upgrades to maintain
the highest possible levels of safety.
In 2012, the U.S. nuclear industrys
capital spending totaled more than $8

billion. That was on top of $7.6 billion
in capital investments in 2011, and it
raised the industrys capital spending
to more than $90 billion since 1990.
While much of this spending has been
for scheduled maintenance, including
the replacement and refurbishment of
equipment, tens of billions of dollars
have been invested as well in steam
generators, reactor vessel heads, power
uprates and other major enhancements.
This signifcant investment makes
it clear that the industry is planning
for a vibrant, long-term future. As the
U.S. economy recovers, new generating
capacity is being built to meet rising
electricity demand and to replace our
aging infrastructure. As we continue
to replace direct burning of fossil fuels
and reduce the electric sectors carbon
footprint, the value that nuclear energy
brings to our 21st century society
will become increasingly self-evident.
Nuclear energys value proposition
starts with the production of large quantities of electricity around the clock,
>
MARCH/APRIL 2013
16
safely and reliably. The value proposition also extends to the following benefts: Provide clean air compliance value (in a cap-and-trade system, nuclear
energy reduces the compliance burden
that would otherwise fall on emitting
generating capacity); provide voltage
support to the grid, helping to maintain
grid stability; provide forward price stability not subject to the price volatility
associated with natural gas-fred generating capacity, in particular; contribute
to the fuel and technology diversity that
is one of the bedrock characteristics of
a reliable and resilient electric sector.
Because the long-term fundamentals
show a continued, if not growing, need
for nuclear energy around the globe,
it is paramount that existing facilities
are operated safely even as advanceddesign reactors are brought to market
in the years ahead. Innovation, knowledge transfer, training, and strong
safety culturesare among the elements
that will defne the future ability of nuclear energy technologies to help meet
societal needs.
NUCLEUS
>
MARCH/APRIL 2013
17
The Dragons Are Bullish

A look into Chinas booming nuclear market
BY DENVER NICKS, EDITOR
ebruary of 2013 was not kind to nuclear power in most of the world. In the U.S.,
the Crystal River plant was shuttered forever, to be replaced with a natural gas
plant, and Exelon canceled $2.3 billion in planned uprates, citing competition
from cheap gas. Centrica quit the nuclear business in the UK, Germany continued its
planned nuclear phase out despite the projected $1.3 trillion price tag, and Westinghouse blamed the sluggish nuclear market for forcing the company to eliminate hundreds of jobs worldwide.
Meanwhile, China started the month with the announcement on Feb. 1 that it had
successfully installed the containment vessel top-head on what will probably be the
worlds frst fully operational Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactor. The news was followed days later by the announcement that the countrys new CAP1400 reactor will be
ready for export this year. As the month came to a close, the Chinese announced that
the Hongyanhe facility had become the frst countrys frst nuclear plant to go online
since the Fukushima disaster. In the U.S. and Europe the nuclear renaissance may have
sputtered and stalled but in China its just getting started. For a look into the future of
nuclear power, as with so many aspects of todays global economy, its time to look east.
Much of the reason for Chinas nuclear-happy February is neatly encapsulated in
events that took place just a month earlier. For years, the offcial line from Chinese
authorities had been that Beijings trademark haze was merely fog. But beginning in
2008 the U.S. embassy began independently monitoring air quality in the famously
FOUR AP-1000 REACTORS ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION ON CHINAS EASTERN SEABOARD. HERE, THE SANMEN
PLANT IS PICTURED IN JANUARY 2013. PHOTO COURTESY OF WESTINGHOUSE.
choked city, much to the irritation of its

host country. Eventually, China began
releasing its own air quality numbers and
fnally, on a windless day in mid-January,
a Chinese monitor rated Beijings air quality at more than 700 micrograms per cubic meter on a scale of 0-500, literally off
the charts and the worst it had ever mea-
sured (the World Health Organization

considers a safe number on that metric
closer to 25). The toxic air spurred public
outrage and open criticism of the government in Chinas usually reserved media,
threatening social instability in a regime
that depends on its frm and steady hand.
The cause of the air pollution prob-
NUCLEUS
CONTINUED
lem can largely be summarized in one

word: coal. China has accounted for 82
percent of the global increase in coal demand since 2001 and today accounts for
47 percent of global coal consumption,
nearly as much as the rest of the world
combined. The so-called airpocalypse
of January 2014 was a direct result of the
country getting 80 percent of its power
from coal and Chinese authorities, who
knew all along that their fog was really
smog, have been hungry for a viable alternative. The World Bank estimates
that Chinas GDP takes a six percent
hit every year as a result of pollution.
Enter: nuclear power.
China got into the nuclear power
business in 1970 by founding an institute
to study and promote the development
of the technology. The countrys frst nuclear power plant, the Qinshan Nuclear
Power Station, didnt deliver frst power to
the grid until 1991. In 2005, the Chinese
government offcially adopted a policy of
strongly supporting the development of
nuclear power, the next year releasing its

Medium and Long Term Development
Plan for Nuclear Power (2005 - 2020),
which includes ambitious targets for nuclear construction over the next decade.
Today, mainland China has 17 commercial nuclear reactors in operation
with 28 more under construction and
more yet on the way. The World Nuclear
Association (WNA) forecasts a fve or
six-fold increase in the countrys nuclear
capacity, to 58 GW by 2020. Long-term
projections put total capacity at 200
GW by 2030, and 400 GW by 2050.
This breakneck pace of nuclear constructionunmatched anywhere else in
the worldis tied entirely to the sharp
absolute increase in electricity consumption in the rapidly developing country.
In 2011, concurrent with a 10 percent
uptick in GDP, electricity consumption rose 11.7 percent. Even as 71 GW
of coal capacity has retired since 2006,
new coal plants are still being built59
percent of newly-added capacity in 2012
came from coal. For the moment, Chinas nuclear boom is more an effort to
displace future coal power production
than replace that already in existence
and shift the country to a new power
paradigm. But over the longer term, as
one senior Chinese National Energy
Administration offcial quoted in 2011
by China Daily said, nuclear power is
on track to become the foundation of
the countrys power production system.
Chinas domestic nuclear industry
has drawn on technology from Canada, Russia, and Francetwo of Arevas
European Pressurized Reactors are under construction at Taishan with two
more plannedbut the big story today
is Chinas interest in the generation III,
passively-safe technology native to the
AP-1000 reactor design from Westinghouse (owned by Japans Toshiba).
Four 1,154 MW AP-1000 pressurized
water reactors are under construction in at
Sanmen and Haiyang on Chinas eastern
seaboard, for which Westinghouse and
>
MARCH/APRIL 2013
18
the Shaw Group share an engineering,

procurement, commissioning, and project management contract. Westinghouse
hopes more orders will follow; according
to the WNA, eight more reactors at four
different sites are frmly in the works,
with as much as 30 more proposed.
Among Chinas four stated guiding
principles in its national nuclear energy
policy are two that, basically, call for the
country to become nuclear self-suffcient: that fuel for nuclear reactors will
be produced within the country (China
has substantial uranium resources), and
that domestic manufacturing, with domestic equipment, based on domestic
designs, managed by domestic managers
will be undertaken as much as possible.
To this end, China and Westinghouse
struck a deal that included a remarkable
technology transfer accord as part of the
sales agreement (another of Chinas four
guiding nuclear principles is that international competition will, despite its aim of
nuclear autarky, be encouraged). Under
NUCLEUS
CONTINUED
TRAINING IN CHINA FOR THE AP1000 REACTOR. PHOTO COURTESY OF THE NRC.
the arrangement, Westinghouse turned

over an extraordinary cache of proprietary
information concerning the reactors
about 75,000 documents, reports the Financial Timesand China is using the
information to jump start development
of its own indigenous generation III design, the CAP-1400. Sun Qin, chairman
of the state-owned China National Nuclear Corp. (CNNC), told Bloomberg the
CAP-1400, to which China holds the intellectual property rights, would be ready
for export by the end of 2013, with the
frst buyers probably in South America.
Chinas commitment to developing
generation III technology based on the
AP-1000 shouldnt be taken to mean

the country is abandoning older designs.
China is still building CNP-1000 units,
a standardized three-loop PWR design,
and the ubiquitous CPR-1000, for which
Areva retains intellectual property rights.
As World Nuclear News has noted, there
are more than 57 generation II nuclear
plants under construction or planned in
China, more than any other country on
earth, and as a result there will still be
generation II facilities operating in the
country into the 2070s when even the
generation III technology will likely have
been surpassed, perhaps long before.
The last of Chinas four guiding nuclear principles we have yet to mention is the
dictum that pressurized water reactors be
the mainstream but not the sole type of
reactor in use. And this has certainly been
the case, with the PWR functioning as a
sort of familiar, foundational technology
while substantial investments are being
made in developing innovative reactor
designs. In early 2006, according to the
>
MARCH/APRIL 2013
19
WNA, the State Council declared small,

high-temperature, gas-cooled reactors a
high priority project for the next 15 years.
Chinas frst fast-neutron reactor went
live delivering power to the grid in 2011,
and the State Council foresees the fastneutron reactor becoming the predominant nuclear technology by mid-century.
China is also getting into the small
modular reactor (SMR) business with
gusto. The WNA calls Chinas HTRPM, a 210 MW high-temperature gascooled SMR, the most advanced modular project. The ACP-100 is a 100
MW SMR with a 60-year lifespan and
a 24-month refueling cycle intended
to for electricity production, heat for
industrial processes and desalination.
Finally, as The Telegraph reported earlier this year, China has become a sort of
breakaway leader in research into thorium-fueled nuclear power, having invested $350m in a thorium project with the
countrys National Academy of Sciences
in anticipation of a staff of 750 by 2015.
NUCLEUS
CONTINUED
The story of the Chinese nuclear

boom cannot be told without a
caveat. Though the nuclear sector
in China is growing faster than
anywhere in the worldby far
it is still relatively small.
The story of the Chinese nuclear
boom cannot be told without a caveat. Though the nuclear sector in China is growing faster than anywhere in
the worldby farit is still relatively
small. There are 17 nuclear reactors in
operation in China today compared
with 103 in the U.S. (soon to be 102,
after Kewaunee closes in May 2013),
and the U.S. alone still accounts for
30 percent of the nuclear power produced worldwide. While China is eager
to cultivate an indigenous nuclear supply chain, the country is, for the time
being, still heavily dependent upon the
multinational corporations that domi-
nate the nuclear business. The Shaw

Group, for instance, has been contracted to provide technical support
and oversight at AP1000 reactors in
China. After Fukushima, the CNNC
hired Exelon Corp to provide consulting and operating training services.
In this, the U.S. is clearly ahead,
said nuclear industry consultant Bill
Linton. China and other countries that
are rapidly growing in electricity consumption are also growing their (domestic) commercial nuclear industries.
They fully intend to develop an indigenous nuclear supply chain that will be as
complete as economically makes sense.
According to Linton, there is some
concern that nuclear power in China,
once fully developed, will follow the
pattern of other manufacturing sectors
that have seen steep declines in the US.
The fear is that they will then sell into
the West, at much lower prices, he said.
Finally, there is substantial anxiety about counterfeit Chinese prod-
ucts entering the nuclear supply chain

and fnding their way into both Chinese plants and facilities elsewhere.
The dramatic discovery in November 2012 of thousands of counterfeit
parts at South Korean nuclear plants,
leading to the shutdown of six reactors
at the onset of winter, offered a dramatic illustration of the danger posed
to the nuclear sector by Chinas poor
intellectual property right protections.
As it stands today, the reliable
source for sturdy forgings, generators,
pumps, and other components is still
multinational corporations like ABB,
Siemens, Mitsubishi, Toshiba/Westinghouse, GE, Japan Steel Works, Curtiss Wright, and many others, Linton
said. I see some U.S. vendors, EPC
companies, suppliers, consultants, etc.
selling into China, but I dont see a lot.
Aforementioned limitations notwithstanding, when it comes to nuclear power China will certainly be a
major player in the decades to come.
>
MARCH/APRIL 2013
20
With technology transfer agreements,

like the one Westinghouse struck in
order to sell its AP1000 reactor in the
Middle Kingdom, indigenous Chinese
nuclear know-how is advancing rapidly. Add that factor to Chinas investment inand willingness to experiment withgroundbreaking atomic
energy technologies, and the edge held
by traditional nuclear powerhouses
looks likely to fade in coming years.
Heavy investment in R&D by the
likes of the U.S. could change that,
but budget battles, at least in the nearterm, make that eventuality unlikely;
according to the Congressional Budget
Offce, the U.S. Department of Energys R&D investment has been in long
decline, from an infation-adjusted $10
billion in 1980 to $3.4 billion in 2012.
As Beijing continues its entrance
into the global nuclear market, ensuring quality control will be a key
challengebut a challenge the Chinese seem eager to meet.
NUCLEUS
What Nuclear Energy Fuel Cycle?

BY MARY JO ROGERS, AUTHOR OF NUCLEAR ENERGY LEADERSHIP:
LESSONS LEARNED FROM U.S. OPERATORS
ecent announcements of early closures of nuclear power plants in the U.S.,

including Dominion Energys Kewaunee station in Wisconsin, and the stymied
Progress Crystal River station in Florida, have drawn attention to the fnancial
struggles currently facing nuclear power plant owners and operators. Although for many
years nuclear power had been a competitive stalwart for baseload electric generation,
cheap natural gas has begun to displace both coal and nuclear.
In the midst of the nuclear power industrys economic struggles, there has been
halting progress on one of nuclear powers most intractable issuesthe long-term storage
and disposal of used nuclear fuel. In order to understand current policy and regulatory
challenges, well take a look at the historical backdrop on used (or spent) fuel as well as the
basic components of the nuclear fuel cycle. Despite setbacks, there are signs of progress.
NUCLEAR ENERGY FUEL CYCLES

Currently in the U.S. we have a once-through nuclear energy fuel cycle, in which
nuclear fuel is used in a power plant one time and the resulting used nuclear fuel is
stored for eventual disposal in a geologic repository (Figure 1). In a more advanced
fuel cycle, used nuclear fuel is recycled to recover energy-bearing components for use
in new nuclear fuel (Figure 2). Nuclear power generation in France supports a more
advanced nuclear fuel cycle, which results in recycling of some of the fssion byproducts.
Nuclear plants in the U.S. are light water reactors (LWR), (also referred to as thermal
reactors), a technology that limits the extent of fuel reprocessing that is possible.
In an LWR, only a small percentage of the energy in the fuel has been used when
the fuel is transferred to spent fuel pools. The use of different reactor technologies,
such as heavy water reactors and fast

or advanced recycling reactors, results
in different options for reprocessing.
Canada, for instance, uses heavy water
reactor technology in its CANDU
(CANada Deuterium Uranium) reactors.
Additionally, if you use alternative fuel
sources such as thorium ore at the frontend of the nuclear fuel cycle, there are
additional reprocessing opportunities at
the back end of the fuel cycle (Figure 3).
Storage of used nuclear fuel in the U.S.
>
21
MARCH/APRIL 2013
increases by about 2,000 metric tons per

year; currently approximately 70,000
metric tons of used nuclear fuel are being
stored on site in 33 states. According to
Rodney McCullum, the Director of Fuel
Cycle Programs at the Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI), the U.S. industry would
need to develop and utilize more advanced
reactor technology in order to reduce the
waste stream from nuclear power. Even
so, reprocessing facilities are extremely
expensive to build and countries that do
Figure 1
Uranium ore
Enrichment
LWR fuel
fabrication
LWRs
Electricity
Spent fuel
Geologic
repository
THE CURRENT U.S. SYSTEM USES A ONCE-THROUGH URANIUM FUEL CYCLE.
NUCLEUS
CONTINUED
DISPOSAL OF USED NUCLEAR FUEL

GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY
better and better at extended storage,

says NEIs McCullum. The resilience of
spent fuel pools and durability of dry
cask storage was tested under extreme
conditions during the dramatic,
unfortunate events at Fukushima in
2010. Although the record-breaking
tsunami induced extensive damage
and radiological releases at the Daiichi
plants, no fuel melted in the spent fuel
pools and no damage has been found
in the stations dry cask storage units.
Without a geologic repository for the

disposal of used nuclear fuel dry cask has
become the storage method of choice.
Congress passed the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act (NWPA) in 1982 in order to
develop a geologic repository for used
nuclear fuel and high level waste. The
NWPA established that the government
would
assume
responsibility
for
permanent disposal of used nuclear fuel
Figure 2
Uranium ore
ox
id
ef
Uranium &
Plutonium
Mixed oxide
fuel fabrication
Electricity
LWRs
ue
l
Enrichment
LWR fuel
fabrication
ixe
d
coal per day and, if it is using scrubbing

technology, it will fll 120 rail cars of
waste product to be disposed of each day.
Of course, used nuclear fuel is highly
radioactive and requires extensive care
in handling and storage to minimize
exposure and proliferation risks. The
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
is responsible for policy and regulation
ensuring the safe management and
disposal of used nuclear fuel and high
level waste at U.S. power plants. For
decades, U.S. nuclear power plant
operators have been safely storing used
nuclear fuel in spent fuel pools and
dry casks. With nuclear site fuel pools
nearly full, the use of dry cask storage, or
ISFSI (Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation), has increased substantially.
The technological advancements of
dry cask storage have been impressive
and largely driven by three highly
competitive major players in the dry
cask business: Holtec International,
Transnuclear
Inc.,
and
NAC
International. These three companies
have driven a lot of innovation, getting
22
MARCH/APRIL 2013
reprocess used nuclear fuel have done so

only with extensive government backing.
While other countries use some
advanced reactor technologies, thorium is
not in use as a nuclear fuel even though
India has pursued this technology for
many years due to the extensive thorium
reserves in the country. Jim Malone,
retired VP of Nuclear Fuel Management at
Exelon, explains that thorium is currently
not used as a nuclear fuel because its fssion
characteristicsit will not fssion on its
own and it needs a drivermake it diffcult
to implement with current technology.
The amount of nuclear power
byproducts that require safe storage
is minimal compared to other large
capacity generation sources, like coal.
For comparison, if one were to compile
all the spent fuel that U.S. plants have
created since the origins of the industry
the collection would fll an American
football feld 30 feet high. France stores
its reprocessed waste products and used
nuclear fuel in glass logs in one large
building. In contrast, a 1,000 megawatt coal burner uses 110 rail cars of
>
Spent
fuel
g
sin
s
e
c es
Prowast
Geologic
repository
Separations
THE THERMAL REACTOR FUEL CYCLE WITH RECYCLING IS IN USE IN SOME LIGHT WATER REACTORS.
NUCLEUS
CONTINUED
Figure 3
U ra
accept material and any progress that

nuclear power owners, who pass on the
had been made was fought over by state
fees toUranium
consumers
ore in their electricity bills.
LWR fuel
LWRs from Nevada, in particular,
representatives
The DOE began the
siting process
in
fabrication
Enrichment
now Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid.
1982 while an amendment to the NWPA
Lawsuits were subsequently fled
in 1987 narrowed the selection of a
repository site to Yucca Mountain, despite
against the DOE and the federal
LWR found
spent
recycle was
vehement political and public resistance Uranium
government
fuel to recyclein violation of
to the site from the state of Nevada. In
its contractual obligations regarding the
1998, the Yucca Mountain repository
disposal of used nuclear fuel, which made
Processing
Advanced
project wasrecycling
far from
being
ready
to
the
U.S.
liable
to
pay utilities to cover
wastes
reactors
ni u
Separations
Electricity
Advanced
recycle
reactor recycle
n
Tra
sm
ta
ti o
n fu
el
Geologic
repository
Uranium &
Transuranics
Advanced recycling
reactor fuel fabrication
ONE FUEL CYCLE APPROACH IN DEVELOPMENT INCLUDES ADVANCED REACTOR TECHNOLOGIES THAT ALLOW
FOR GREATER RECYCLING.
from commercial nuclear power plants

and high level radioactive waste from
national defense programs, including
weapons production and the Navys
nuclear powered submarines. NWPA
assigned responsibility to the Department
of Energy (DOE) to site, build, and
operate a deep geologic repository for

this purpose by 1998. The government
began collecting fees from nuclear reactor
owners to pay for the eventual costs of
nuclear waste disposal, referred to as the
Nuclear Waste Fund. Since 1982, more
than $34 billion has been collected from
the costs of on-site storage. The federal

government has paid out $1.6 billion due
to the lack of a permanent storage and
repository site. The DOE estimates that
future liabilities will be an additional
$19.1 billion through 2020. Payments
do not come out of the Nuclear Waste
Fund, however, but separately from a
Judgment Fund out of the U.S. Treasury.
Collections for the Nuclear Waste Fund
are technically reserved to fund the
building of the fnal geologic repository.
BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION

In 2010 President Obama halted
work on the embattled Yucca Mountain
repository. The President went on to
establish the Blue Ribbon Commission
on Americas Nuclear Future (BRC)
to study options for dealing with the
current state and future goals of a nuclear
waste management program. When
the BRC submitted its report to the
DOE, it emphasized the importance
of fnding a long-term resolution for
nuclear waste in the US if the country
is to play an ongoing leadership role in
>
MARCH/APRIL 2013
23
global nuclear safety, security, carbon

reduction and non-proliferation issues.
The BRC did not address the viability
of re-opening of the Yucca Mountain
site, but instead offered a new, consentbased approach to siting future nuclear
waste management facilities. This
recommendation was clearly a reaction
to the failed Yucca Mountain initiative
where the DOE and congress had
taken a more top-down approach to
selecting a repository site, which failed
to gain public and political support.
The BRC also recommended a
number of other important changes
that would be essential to successful
implementation of interim storage
and fnal disposal repository solutions.
These included a new organization
dedicated to nuclear waste management,
the authority and resources necessary,
as well as access to funds consumers
continue to pay for a waste management
program (i.e., the Nuclear Waste Fund).
Some industry leaders as well as
legislators have not given up on Yucca
Mountain, however, and seem galled by
NUCLEUS
CONTINUED
Some industry leaders as well

as legislators have not given up
on Yucca Mountain and seem
galled by the political nature of
its apparent demise.
the political nature of its apparent demise.

The decision to stop work on Yucca
Mountain was not technical and some
suggest that it also wasnt legal. There is
an ongoing lawsuit that attempts to force
the NRC to resume its licensing review of
the Yucca Mountain site as a repository.
ADDITIONAL STORAGE CHALLENGE

WASTE CONFIDENCE RULING
The NRCs Waste Confdence
Decision and Rule that was expanded in
2010 stated that spent nuclear fuel can
be stored safely and without signifcant
environmental impacts for 60 years after
the end of the licensed life of a nuclear
power plant. In a case against the NRCs
expanded rule, a Washington D.C.
District Court of Appeals ruled against

the NRC and vacated the Decision and
Rule on the grounds that the NRCs
environmental analysis was lacking in
particular areas, based on the requirements
of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). The courts decision prompted
numerous petitions fled by anti-nuclear
groups regarding pending licenses and
license renewals. In response to the ruling
and petitions, the NRC put on hold
fnal decisions regarding new combined
construction and operating licenses (COL)
and license renewals. In the meantime,
the NRC is tasked with drafting a new
Waste Confdence Environmental Impact
Statement and Rule by September 2014.
It appears that the courts determination
and the NRCs move to put fnal licensing
decisions on hold do not affect the vast
majority reactor licenses and ISFSIs (dry
cask storage facilities). The impact is
on new COL applications and just two
ISFSI license renewals are also on hold.
In sum, the suspension of fnal action
by the NRC on these licensing activities
is expected to have little effect unless
the process drags on beyond 2014.
SMALL SIGNS OF PROGRESS

In January, the DOE responded to the
BRCs report with a strategy document
that supports the BRCs recommendations
and outlines a pathway to proceed on a
pilot interim storage facility and a geologic
repository with target dates. The DOE also
identifes congressional legislation needed
to create a new organization, provide
suffcient resources, and pilot an interim
storage facility, among other activities.
Some nuclear energy proponents will
be disappointed by the DOEs lack of
enthusiasm for developing advanced
fuel cycle technologies, but the Strategy
appears to refect current realities regarding
the state of present-day capabilities, the
type of reactors already in use in the
U.S., and the need for a disposal solution.
Regarding consensus-based siting
for storage and disposal, there are signs
of interest in New Mexico, where a
commercial alliance of by 2 cities and 2
counties in the state began the process of
applying for NRC licensing of an interim
>
MARCH/APRIL 2013
24
spent fuel storage facility. The state of

New Mexico also received a grant from the
DOE for environmental oversight at the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, near Carlsbad.
A group called the Bipartisan Policy
Center recently released a report by
retired Senator Pete Domenici calling for
support of U.S. nuclear power and made
recommendations on how to ensure a
strong nuclear energy sector, including
support for the BRC recommendations.
Along similar lines, a group of current
Senators from both parties began working
on legislation to allow progress to be
made on interim and permanent storage.
Lastly, President Obamas nomination
of Dr. Ernest Moniz as Energy Secretary
is viewed favorably by nuclear energy
advocates. Moniz, a member of the
BRC, is known as a supporter of nuclear
energy who sees it having an important
role to play in energy security and
carbon reduction. There are faint signs
of progress on used nuclear fuel storage
and disposal but it remains to be seen
whether the necessary legislation will
be passed to enable movement.
NUCLEUS
>
MARCH/APRIL 2013
25
When Budgeting for 316(b)

Compliance, Consider All Options
BY RICHARD CLUBB, PROJECT MANAGER AT ENERCON SERVICES, INC.
hroughout the country, utilities have been closely monitoring the Environmental
Protection Agencys (EPA) Section 316(b) rule requirements and compliance
timeline to determine how the regulation may affect their existing facilities.
In preparing for the rule to be issued on June 27, 2013, the industry cant help but
read the newspaper articles from states with more aggressive environmental policies
sounding an alarm that closed-loop cooling retrofts may cost utilities billions of
dollars. So, should utilities be idly waiting for the EPAs draft rule to be issued in June,
should they start budgeting for signifcant capital expenditures to ensure compliance,
or is there somewhere in between where utilities can cautiously prepare for the new
regulations?
The background for this regulation comes from Section 316(b) of the Clean Water
Act (CWA) which requires that the location, design, construction, and capacity of
cooling water intake structures refect the best technology available for minimizing
adverse environmental impact. Without getting into too much detail, this means
that facilities which draw in more than 2 million gallons of water daily (MGD) and
use at least 25% of the water withdrawn exclusively for cooling purposes need to
take steps to reduce their impact on the aquatic environment. In specifc, facilities
are required to minimize the mortality of aquatic organism due to impingement
and entrainment. The EPA provides a description of impingement and entrainment
mortality CWA 316(b) Existing Facilities Proposed Rule Qs & As document, stating:
Impingement happens when fsh and other organisms are trapped against screens
TURKEY POINT POWER PLANT USES A CLOSED-LOOP SYSTEM OF 36 INTERCONNECTED CANALS FOR COOLING.
THE OVERALL LENGTH OF THE CANALS IS 168 MILES.
when water is drawn into facilitys

cooling system. The injuries often
prove fatal within a few days, because,
for example, the fsh lose gills and
cannot breathe. Young or small fsh
are most susceptible to being killed by
impingement. Entrainment happens

when organisms are drawn into the
facility. Once inside of the facility,
entrained organisms are exposed to
pressure and high temperatures, which
kill them. Very young organisms, usually
NUCLEUS
CONTINUED
at the egg or larvae stage, are most

susceptible to death by entrainment.
Impingement mortality is a relatively
straightforward concept to understand
as it involves fsh of a size that can be
viewed by a casual observer; however,
entrainment is much more challenging
as egg or larvae are diffcult to observe
and even more diffcult to understand
in adult equivalent terms (i.e., only one
fsh may survive to become an adult
from tens or hundreds of thousands
of eggs). Moreover, since the general
public does not distinguish between
impingement of fsh and entrainment of
eggs / larvae, the local paper publishes
articles claiming that millions of fsh are
killed by a power plant, when in fact the
number of equivalent adult fsh is many
orders of magnitude below this number.
The question then arises, if the eggs
/ larvae entrained are so small that
they are diffcult to see, how is a power
plant supposed to be able to effectively
screen them from the intake fow? One
historical answer to this question is to
reduce the amount of water drawn in by

a power plant by installing a closed-loop
cooling system. A closed-loop cooling
system rejects heat to the atmosphere
via cooling towers instead of relying on
the source water body. This in fact is
how ENERCON became involved in
review of CWA 316(b) compliance
technologies.
The company had a
history of providing engineering services
related to cooling tower installations and
modifcations to existing closed-loop
cooling systems, and as such was asked
by several utility clients to review the
feasibility of converting a once-through
cooling power plant to closed-loop
cooling. Sounds simple enough, but after
conducting several feasibility studies
it was obvious that each specifc site
evaluated had a different set of physical
constraints and design considerations
that may or may not challenge the
feasibility of a closed-loop cooling retroft,
appreciably affect the implementation
cost, and result in vastly differing levels
of plant performance post retroft.
Closed-loop cooling relies on a

source of heat rejection different from
the existing water body drawn from in
once-through cooling. In most cases this
means a cooling tower (or series of cooling
towers) are used to reject heat to the
atmosphere. Other closed-loop cooling
designs are available and typically involve
a cooling pond or cooling canals, possibly
equipped with power spray modules;
however, the space required to produce
the necessary cooling capacity restricts
where these options are available.
Similarly, cooling towers can be either
wet (relying on air and evaporation for
cooling) or dry (relying solely on air
cooling); however, dry cooling towers
have limited applicability for retroft
use given their reduced capacity for
cooling. In either circumstance, cooling
towers reject heat to the atmosphere
and their ability to cool varies with
the ambient weather conditions. In
particular, wet cooling towers ability to
cool varies in relation to the wet-bulb
temperature, which is a combination
>
MARCH/APRIL 2013
26
of dry-bulb temperature and humidity.

The ability to reject the design heat
load is a basic requirement of any facility
generating electricity using a steam cycle.
Steam traveling through the turbines
is converted to water in the condenser,
which in turn transfers heat to the
circulating water system. When warm
and humid weather conditions impact
a cooling towers ability to cool the
circulating water, the condensers cooling
effciency (and thus the power plants
ability to produce power) is reduced. The
loss of power due to a reduced ability to
cool the circulating water is termed an
operational power loss. In circumstances
where a power plant was designed with
a relatively small condenser accounting
for a source of cold once-through cooling
(i.e., ocean intakes, great lakes, reservoirs,
etc.) the power plant retroft to closedloop cooling would be operating
at reduced capacity or potentially
shut down for periods of time in the
summer when energy use is typically
at its highest demand. Conversely, in
NUCLEUS
CONTINUED
circumstances where a power plant was

designed with a large condenser to allow
once-through cooling from a relatively
warm water body, a power plant may
be able to install cooling towers with
little to no operational power losses.
Conversion to closed-loop cooling
requires tie-in of piping to / from the
cooling towers to the existing circulating
water system.
Depending on how
congested the area is between the existing
intake structure and the turbine building,
tie-in may be a minor or signifcant
design obstacle. The existing circulating
water piping can be more than 10 feet
in diameter and is typically located
underground amongst fre protection
piping, electrical ductwork, and other
underground utilities, so even areas that
appear uncongested on the surface may
diffcult to retroft. Its also important
to evaluate the impact changes to the
circulating water system would have
on condenser and overall power plant
operation post a closed-loop conversion.
There are many additional design
constraints that are evaluated when

determining if a closed-loop cooling
retroft is feasible or appropriate for a
given site. If mechanical draft cooling
towers are being considered its important
to account for the power required to
operate the cooling tower fans and to
pump the water up the cooling tower.
If natural draft cooling towers are being
considered its important to review
zoning restrictions to determine if the tall
structures (some greater than 500 feet
tall) can be permitted at that location.
Cooling towers drawing make-up water
from a saltwater or brackish water source
will need to evaluate the particulate
emissions from the cooling tower drift
against local air quality standards to
ensure closed-loop operation is feasible.
Cooling tower plume, drift, water
treatment, and blowdown all need to
be reviewed to determine any ancillary
impacts cooling towers may impart on the
local area. If conversion to closed-loop
cooling is feasible, construction timelines,
cost estimates, and permit limitations
>
MARCH/APRIL 2013
27
NATURAL DRAFT COOLING TOWERS RELY ON THE CHIMNEY EFFECT TO DRAW AIR THROUGH THE COOLING
TOWER TO PROVIDE COOLING. AS SUCH, THEY DO NOT REQUIRE MECHANICAL FANS TO INDUCE AIRFLOW;
HOWEVER, THE TOWERS ARE NECESSARILY VERY TALL AND WIDE AT THE BASE TO DRAW IN THE REQUIRED
AIRFLOW. PHOTO COURTESY OF AD MESKENS VIA WIKIMEDIA COMMONS.
NUCLEUS
CONTINUED
all need to be reviewed to provide the

utility with a clear understanding of what
would be necessary should closed-loop
cooling be required at that power plant.
In summary, conversion to closed-loop
cooling involves considerable uncertainty
relative to cost and feasibility, and often
effectively derates the facility due to
associated additional power losses.
After completing a review of closedloop cooling, many clients ask the apparent
question, What other technologies are
available to reduce impingement and
entrainment? Many technologies exist
that reduce impingement or prevent it
from happening, including modifed
screens capable of returning fsh to the
water body via a fsh return system or
increasing the size of the intake structure
to reduce the approach velocity to less
than 0.5 fps (the velocity at which most
fsh can swim away from the cooling
water intake1). While more diffcult to
reduce than impingement, there are also
several technologies that can be applied
(alone or together) to reduce entrainment
mortality. The primary entrainment
reduction technologies can be broken

down into fve categories 1) fow
reduction from the source water body,
2) fne mesh traveling water screens, 3)
relocate intake offshore, 4) boomed mesh
barrier surrounding the intake, and 5)
cylindrical wedgewire (CWW) screens.
Cooling-loop cooling is not the only
available means to reduce fow from the
source water body. Dependent on the
intake water temperature and the design
of the power plant, variable speed pumps
can be utilized to adjust the intake fow
on a monthly (or even weekly) basis. In
conjunction with biological monitoring,
use of the pumps can be adjusted to
the minimum required fow rate for
power plant operation during times of
high entrainment. While undesirable,
a power plant may also select to down
power or take an outage during months
of high entrainment to reduce mortality.
In all of these circumstances, the net
result is reduced intake fow through
the intake structure, which in turn
reduces the entrainment mortality.
Power plants with traveling water
screens typically use a mesh with 3/8

openings that does little to reduce
entrainment of eggs and larvae.
Research has been conducted on the
effectiveness of reducing the mesh size
signifcantly (termed fne mesh) to allow
for screening of eggs and larvae. Once
screened, eggs and larvae can then be
returned to the source water body via a
fsh return system similar to that used
for impingement reduction. Fine mesh
traveling water screens offer an attractive
retroft solution, but must be fully
evaluated against debris loading at the
site and the potential need to increase
the size and/or number of intake bays to
reduce through screen velocity. A careful
review of entrainment and impingement
mortality during the screening and
return process is also necessary.
Intake locations for power plants
vary from shoreline to miles offshore.
Since the EPA evaluation baseline is for
that of a shoreline intake, many power
plants may be able to extend their
intake to an area with less biological
density, and in doing so reduce biological
>
MARCH/APRIL 2013
28
impacts versus a shoreline intake (i.e.,

biological density may be reduced in
deeper and cooler water with reduced
light penetration). By surveying and
mapping the local concentrations of
aquatic organisms, one can determine
if and where a location offshore exists
with measurable entrainment reductions
due to less biological density. An
engineering review of the feasibility
and cost of extending the intake to this
location can then completed, including
a determination of whether the cooler
water being drawn in from offshore
would beneft power plant performance.
In areas with relatively still water, a
boomed mesh barrier can be deployed
out from the intake structure. The
mesh openings are specifed such that
the eggs and larvae are kept outside
the barrier in the source water body.
The boomed barrier length is enlarged
to keep the through screen velocity
at a minimum. Different cleaning
mechanisms exist for a boomed mesh
barrier; however, given the sizeable area
enclosed by the barrier, debris loading
NUCLEUS
CONTINUED
WATER INTAKE SCREENS

Bar Rack
Traveling
Water
Screen
Fish and larvae are

either captured by
traveling screens
or pass through
to CW pump
Fish and
larvae proceed
unobstructed
downstream.
CW Pump
Traveling Water Screen
Cylindrical Wedgewire
Screen
and storm fooding conditions must be

thoroughly reviewed before deployment.
In contrast to a boomed mesh barrier,
CWW screens work best in areas with
a steady ambient fowrate. As shown
in the fgure below, CWW screens are
different from a typical shoreline intake
in that they allow aquatic organisms to
travel past the screens without being
drawn into the power plant. The two
ends of the CWW screen are typically
solid and divert the ambient fow of
water around the screens. As an aquatic
organism is carried around the screen

they are restricted from entering the
screen by their ability to ft through
the screen spacing, their momentum
carrying them downstream, and their
ability to actively maneuver away from
the screens hydraulic zone of infuence.
Given a defned ambient fow rate and
depth, the size and number of CWW
screens necessary can be determined
such that the through screen velocity
is less than that of the ambient fow
rate. This reduction in through screen
velocity can increase the effectiveness of

the screen by further allowing aquatic
organisms to bypass the screens. Debris
loading and frazil ice conditions can
restrict use of CWW screens; however,
an airburst system can be employed
that discharges water and air through
the screens for cleaning. CWW screen
systems can also be installed with a
bypass gate such that a power plant can
revert to use of traveling water screens
under a severe blockage condition.
There are certainly other entrainment
reduction technologies available; however,
these provide a good starting point for considering what options may be available for
a particular power plant. As with closedloop cooling, entrainment reduction technologies vary both in effectiveness and in
diffculty of installation based on the sitespecifc conditions at the power plant.
The EPA estimates that roughly 670
power plants and 590 manufacturers and
will be affected by the updated CWA
316(b) rule. Out of these 1,260 facilities,
many will be converted to closed-loop
cooling (or will be shut down), many will
>
MARCH/APRIL 2013
29
be determined to be in compliance in their

existing condition, and the remainder will
need to implement a technology that falls
somewhere in between. It is important for
each utility to consider all options available
and avoid making any decisions assuming
either the worst or best case scenarios.
Returning to the original question of
what can a utility do to cautiously prepare
for the new regulations? A utility can
begin efforts to determine the likelihood
that their plants will require a compliance
technology and if a technology is required
start work to fully explore all compliance
options to determine the most cost
effective solution for each specifc power
plant. Importantly, the utility also gains
an accurate assessment of the projected
cost and timeline for implementation
of the compliance technology. Given
the extremely wide variance in the
cost of CWA 316(b) compliance, its
important to avoid using an industry
average cost of compliance, but instead
use the time available to consider all
options and determine an accurate cost of
compliance for each power plant.
Plan today to attend NUCLEAR POWER International in Orlando, Florida,

U.S.A., Nov. 12 14, 2013. Register at www.nuclearpowerinternational.com.
NUCLEAR EVENTS
>
MARCH/APRIL 2013
30
APRIL 2013
Carnegie International
Nuclear Policy Conference
Washington, DC, USA.
http://www.carnegieendowment.
org/2013/04/09/2013-carnegie-international-nuclearpolicy-conference/a78z
8-9
World Nuclear Fuel Cycle 2013 (WNFC 2013)

Singapore.
http://www.wnfc.info/
9-11
11-12 Emergency Power Systems

at Nuclear Power Plants
Munich, Germany
http://www.tuev-sued.de/eps-symposium
22-24 MENA Nuclear Energy Summit

Abu Dhabi, UAE
http://www.neoventurecorp.com/nuclear/mena/
23- 25
14-18 International Congress on Advances in

Nuclear Power Plants (ICAPP2013)
Jeju Island, South Korea
http://www.icapp2013.org/
46th JAIF Annual Conference

Tokyo, Japan.
http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/annual/46th/
MAY 2013
Nuclear Energy Assembly
Washington, DC, USA.
http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/conferencesandmeetings/nea
13-15
15-17
19-21
2013 WANO Biennial General Meeting

Moscow, Russia
http://www.2013wanobgm.com/index.php
23-25
10th China International Exhibition on

Nuclear Power Industry (CIENPI)
Shanghai, China
http://www.coastal.com.hk/nuclear/
16-20
ANS Annual Meeting

Atlanta, USA
http://www.new.ans.org/meetings/m_80
17-20
International European Nuclear

Young Generation Forum (ENYGF 2013)
Stockholm, Sweden
WWW: http://www.enygf2013.com/
18-19
MENA Nuclear Industry

Congress (NIC)
Istanbul, Turkey
http://www.szwgroup.com/nuclear2013/
th
9 Annual China Nuclear Energy Congress

Beijing, China.
http://www.cdmc.org.cn/cnec/
29-30
Nuclear Tech India 2013

Mumbai, India
http://www.opplandcorp.com/nti/index.asp
19-20
Global Nuclear Supply Chain and

Enhancement Forum
Barcelona, Spain
http://gnsce2013.forwardnetworking.com
26-28
International Forum ATOMEXPO 2013

Moscow, Russia
http://2013.atomexpo.ru/en
JUNE 2013
4-6
9-11
11-12
POWER-GEN Europe
Conference and Exhibition
Vienna, Austria. PennWell Coroporation
http://www.powergeneurope.com/
WNFM 40th Annual Meeting
Istanbul, Turkey
http://www.wnfm.com/annualmeeting/Meeting.
aspx?id=40
The AusIMM International
Uranium Conference for 2013
Darwin, Australia
http://www.ausimm.com.au/uranium2013/
International Ministerial Conference on

Nuclear Power in the 21st Century
St. Petersburg, Russia
http://www-pub.iaea.org/iaeameetings/43049/cn206
27-29

Npi20130304 DL

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Npi20130304 DL

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Welcome to the

A quick start guide to MAXIMIZING our interactive features.

SHARE an article via email.

Click directly on the page to ZOOM in

PRINT any or all pages.

DOWNLOAD the issue to your desktop.

SEARCH for specific

View the table of CONTENTS and

Easily browse all BACK ISSUES.

page via social media.

Click PAGES to view

FUEL FOR THOUGHT

Keeping a New Generation of Nuclear Plants Cool

ARE SMRS THE NEW FACE

Why Nuclear Suppliers Need to Think Like Manufacturers

HOW TO MAKE THE MOST OF

PREPARING THE NEXT GENERATION

THE PROMISE OF SMALL

A conversation with B&Ws CEO, Jim Ferland.

Keeping a New Generation of Nuclear Plants Cool

U.S. NUCLEAR ENERGY FACILITIES

The latest on U.S. nuclear safety

THE DRAGONS ARE BULLISH

WHAT NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE

WHEN BUDGETING FOR 316(B)

Yucca Mountain, 2007

1421 South Sheridan Road

AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT MANAGERLinda Thomas

NUCLEAR POWER INTERNATIONAL MAGAZINE

CORPORATE HEADQUARTERSPENNWELL CORP.

SENIOR ILLUSTRATORKay Wayne

NATIONAL BRAND MANAGERPaige Rogers

Owned & Produced by

Forbes gets it half right on

he trouble with Germanys plan to phase out nuclear

powered turbines spinning over the sea,

other nations would be wise to heed.

Germany to embark on the renewables

externalities, the spillover effects of

FUEL FOR THOUGHT

o be or not to be, that is the

ated with seismic hazards. Each of these threats

NATURAL GAS PRICES

FUEL FOR THOUGHT

availability of portable emergency equipment to enhance their ability to respond

tain safe shutdown capabilities. In the

POWER GENERATION WEEK

Owned & Produced by

President Obama offcially

Jackson, in combating climate change.

Duke Energy to retire Crystal

NRC issues report card to

low-safety signifcance. The NRC will

IAEA chief Yukiya Amano

general of the International Atomic

Bill Gates says nuclear power is

conference, Microsoft Chairman Bill

First concrete pour begins

V.C. Summer Unit 2 in South Carolina.

Basemat concrete poured

the containment vessel and the shield

Macfarlane nominated to fve

nuclear industry, praised the presidents