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

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...