Skip to main content

North Anna ESP update

Yesterday I was fortunate enough to hear a presentation by Gene Grecheck of Dominion. He discussed progress on the North Anna early site permit (ESP) process. That’s a subject that dates back to some of the earliest days of this blog. Since the presentation ran for a full hour, I won’t try to repeat it here, but a couple of points seemed to be of particularly broad interest.

The first point was about how we in the industry continue to wait impatiently for a new plant order. On a personal note, I would like to observe that it’s funny how our perspectives change. Five years ago, we were thrilled when anyone would say "nuclear" in a context that was not pejorative. One year ago, we were thrilled to hear that Duke was going to pursue a construction and operating license. Now, we really want to hear about a contract to build a new plant. In a few years, even that won’t satisfy us, and we will want to hear about concrete pours.

But I digress. Gene did not discuss changes in perspective, but he did mention that some nuclear engineering professors had asked him why new plant orders were so slow in coming. Students of licensing will know the answer. The new licensing process (10 CFR 52) has numerous highly visible steps that can precede the actual order. In the old process (10 CFR 50), the early steps were not nearly so visible. (See slides 12-14 of this PowerPoint presentation on the NEI Web site for a visual comparison of the old and new processes.) Utilities, Gene explained, are taking the process one step at a time, as well they should.

The second point is that the step-by-step licensing process worked for Dominion. Those familiar with the North Anna ESP will know that cooling water has long been a bone of contention. Gene cleared up the history of that issue for me. Lake Anna was originally designed for four 800-MW (electric) units. After the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the construction permit, Congress passed the Clean Water Act, which gave the states the authority to regulate water use. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality classifies evaporative cooling as consumptive water use, and it saw an additional reactor (with evaporative cooling) as imposing an excessive demand on the Pamunkey River. Dominion accordingly modified its ESP application so that a new reactor would use a wet/dry cooling system, even though adding a third reactor at North Anna would not impose a water demand that exceeds what the NRC had approved. The ESP process identified a problem (water supply) and required that it be solved at an early date. Although there was some schedule slippage, there was substantial benefit in that Dominion was able to solve the problem without costly backfits.

Comments

Rod Adams said…
It is generally cheaper to correct problems as early as possible. This explanation makes sense to me.

It also shows how the licensing process will differ from place to place, since some sites have either larger or smaller cooling water issues.

That is one reason why we have designed a plant that can operate effectively using air as the cooling medium. Some sites that can use a reliable power source have little to no water available.

As far as we know, there is not yet any regulation that prevents us from heating air and discharging that to the environment.

Rod Adams, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…