Operational Reactor Safety

22.091 /22.903

Professor Andrew C. Kadak Professor of the Practice

Spring 2008

Lecture 2 3 :

Current Regulatory Issues

Present Situation

• It doesn’t get any better than this for nuclear energy!

– Very Good Nuc lear Regulatory Commission

– Combined Construction Permit and Operating License

– Early site permits supported by DOE

– Concern about Global Climate Change

– Ris i ng and highly volatile natural gas and oil prices

– Great rhetoric from the Pres ident and Congress about need for nuc lear energy for env ironment, security and stability

– Strong Pro-nuclear congressional l egislation in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Congress

• P assed Energy Policy Act of 2005

– N uclear energy provisions

• P roduction tax credit - $ 200/kw – for first movers

• Loan guarantees

• Insurance protection of up to $ 500 million for regulatory delays for first 2 plants.

– E ffort to stimulate orders for new plants

• D epartment of Energy working to develop advanced reactor designs as part of Generation IV reactors - 2030

Present New Market Offerings

• AP-1000 (Westinghouse)

– 1 ,000 Mwe – P WR

• E SBWR (General Electric)

– 1390 Mwe - B WR

• E PR ( Framatome – A NP)

– 1 ,600 Mwe – P WR

• APWR – ( Mitsubisi)_

– 1 ,700 Mwe – PWR

Certified Designs

• AP-600 (Westinghouse)

• A BWR – 1250 Mwe (General Electric)

• System 80 + - 1 300 Mwe ( Westinghouse/CE)

Trends

• More passive safety features

• Less dependency on active safety systems

• Lower core damage frequencies – 10 -6

• More back up safety systems – more trains

• S ome core catchers

• Larger plants to lower capital cost $/kw

• S implification in design

• T errorist resistant features

• C onstruction time reduced but still long 4 years

ESBWR Design Features

•Natural circulation Boiling Water Reactor

•Passive Safety Systems

•Key Improvements:

– Simplification

• R educ tion in systems and equipment

• R educ tion in operator challenges

• R educ tion in core damage frequency

• R educ tion in cost/MWe

• Reduced flow restrictions

• improved separators

• shorter core

• increase downcomer area

• Higher driving head

• chimney and taller vessel

Enhanced Natural Circulation

Compared to Standard BWR’s

Enhanced Natural Circulation Compared to Standard BWR’s

8

Source unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license. For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/fairuse .

Differences relative to ABWR

ABWR

ESBWR

Recirculation System + s upport s ystems

E liminated (Natural Circulation)

HPCF ( H igh Pressure Core Flooder) (2 each)

Combined all ECCS into one G r avity Driven Cooling System (4 divisions)

LPFL (Low Pressure Core Flooder) (3 each)

RCIC ( Isolation/Hi-Pressure s mall break makeup)

Rep l a c e d with IC heat excha nge rs (isolation) and CRD makeup (s mall break makeup)

Residual Heat Removal ( 3 each) (shutdown cooling & containment cooling)

Non-safety shutdown cooling, combined with cleanup system; Passive Containment Coo l ing

Standby Liquid Control System–2 pumps

R ep laced SLCS pumps with accumulators

Reactor Building Service Water ( S afety Grade)

And Plant Service Water (Safety G r ade)

Made non-safety grade – o ptimized for Outage duration

Safety Grade Diesel Generators (3 each)

Eliminated – only 2 non- s afety grade diesels

9

2 Major Differences – N atural Circulation and Passive Safet y

Passive Safety Systems Within Containment Envelope

Decay Heat HX’s Above Drywell

All Pipes/Valves Inside Containment

High Elevation Gravity Drain Pools

Raised Suppre s sion Pool

10

Source unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license. For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/fairuse .

Fission Research at MIT Nuclear Science and Engineering

Fusion

Fission

NST

NSED

Tracks

CANE S

Centers

Hydrogen

Gen-IV

Fuel cycle

Adv. LWRs

Research foci

Annular fuel Hy dride fuel Nanofluids

NGNP GFR LFR SCWR

Syste m Studies

TRU burning Economics

Projects

11

Annular Fuel for High Power Density PWRs

• L arge project lead by MIT (Westinghouse, Gamma Eng.

, Framatome ANP, AECL)

• Operates at low peak temperatures (1000 C lower than solid fuel)

• F uel allows increase of power density by 50% keeping same TH margins

• Allows achievement of burnup of 90MWd/kgHM

12

• Appreciably increase of rate of return (economically attractive)

Source unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license. For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/fairuse .

ADVANTAGES

Thermal Hydraulic Performance: Fuel Temperature

‡ Very low operating peak fuel temperature

2400

2200

2000

Temperatur e o ( C)

1800

1600

1400

1200

As s u mp t i o n s :

S o l i d fuel rod 17x17 , q ' =45k W / m Annular fuel rod 1 5 x15, q'=60kW / m Annular fuel rod 1 5 x15, q'=120k W / m

1000

80 0

60 0

40 0

20 0

- H o t s p ot l i ne a r p o w e r s

-S a m e core pea k i n g of 2 . 5

-S a m e core pow e r for 45kW / m and 60kW / m ca ses

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Rad i us (mm )

MIT Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems 13

Nanofluids P roject

• Nano… what? A nanofluid is an ‘engineered’ c olloid = base fluid (water, organic liqu id, gas) + nanoparticles

• Nanoparticle s ize: 1-100 nm

• Nanoparticle m aterials: Al 2 O 3 , ZrO 2 , SiO 2 , CuO, Cu, Au, C

• Critical heat flux increases

Makes nanofluids appealing

for nuclear. Possibility o f significant power dens ity increase.

But large gaps in database and understanding of the

14

enhancement mechanisms exist.

Supercritical CO2 cycle for Gen. IV

• A chieves high efficiency at medium temperature

• H as ~25% lower cost than Rankine cycle

• C O2 abundant, cheap and does not leak as eas ily as helium

• I s extremely compact (300MWe turbine fits in home size refrigerator)

• A pplicable to reactors with outlet temperature

>500 C (most GenIV reactors)

reactors

PR EC O O L ER

8

8

1

32C

7.7 MPa

FL OW SPL I T

8

MAIN COMPRE SSO R

RE CO MPRE SSING COMPRE S SOR

6

3

FL OW ME RGE

5

3

3

TU R BI N E

650C

20MPa RE ACT OR

2

4

LOW TEM P E RATURE R E CUP ER ATOR

7

8

6

HIGH TEM P E RATURE REC U P E RA TO R

Thermal/net efficiency =51%/ 48%

250MWe steam turbine

300MW S-CO2 turbine 15

Gas Cooled Fast Reactor for Gen IV Service

Wa te r C ooling Heat E x ch an g er

Gu ard Co n t ain m en t

Eme r ge nc y / Shutdown Cooling Heat Exch an g er

Ge ne r a to r

- seal s

- be a r ings

Turbine R e c upe ra t o r

M odule

Bl o w er

C l o sed C h ec k Valve

H i gh Pre s s ure

Open C o mp resso r

C h ec k Valve

Pas siv e/A ct i ve

D eca y H eat Re moval S yst em

Ref l ect o r

600 MW t h CEA

Pl ate- T yp e C o r e

Inte r c oole r M odu le

Pre c oo ler M odule

Low Pre s s u re C o mp resso r

P o w e r Con ver sion U n it

* Not to s c a l e

R eac to r V essel

•Strives to achieve Gen IV go als – sustainability, safety and economics

•Allows management of transuranics from LWR spent fuel

a

•Uses combination of active and passive decay heat removal systems (passive based on natural circulation at elevated pressure)

•Direct, highly efficient S-CO2 cycle

•Innovative tube-in-duct fuel assemblies with vibropack (U,TRU)O2 fuel

•Large power rating (1200MWe)

•Breed &Burn core, which does not require reprocessing possible

Pu/TRU

LWR Pu

burner

First Ti er

Second Tier

Fast re actor or Accelerator Driven Sys.

Recycling

MA/TRU

Reproc essing

LWR

Burndo wn

burner

TRU/Pu

Recycling

Pu/TRU

Reproc essing

LWR

Once Through

Repository

Spent fuel

LWR

Fuel Cycle Options

The CONFU Assembly Concept

Co mbined N on - F ertile and U O 2 Assembly

Guide Tubes

Fert ile Free Pins : 70 v/o – Spinel ( M g A l 2 O 4 )

U O 2 Pins

18 v/o – YSZ

.2% Enrichment

12 v/o – (TRU) O 2

Total 13.2 kg of TRU/assembly

• M u l t i - r e c y c l i n g o f a l l transuranics ( T R U ) i n f e r t i l e f r e e p i n s l e a d s t o zero net TRU generation

• Preserves the cycl e l e ngth, neutronic control and safety features of all uranium cores

Courtesy of Shwageraus, E. Used with permission.

Ņ Optimization of the LWR Nuclear Fuel Cycle for Minimum Waste Production Ó , 38

E. Shwageraus , M.S. Kazimi and P. H e j z l a r , CANES, MIT (2003)

Risk Informed Design, Safety and Licensing

• Use PRA principles in design of CO2 gas reactor – avoid problems

• T echnology neutral risk informed safety standards

• “License by test” regulatory approach for innovative reactors

The “Next” Generation

• Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP)

• N uclear Hydrogen Production

• P ebble Bed Reactors – H igh Temperature Gas

• R isk Informed Design, Safety and Licensing

Next Generation Nuclear Plant

• H igh Temperature Gas

• Indirect Cycle

• E lectric generation

• H ydrogen production

• P ebble bed reactor or block reactor?

• B uilt at the Idaho National Laboratory

Next Generation Nuclear Plant

Hydrogen - T hermo-electric plant

MIT Modular Pebble

Bed Reactor

Secondary HX

Hydrogen - T hermo-chemical plant

Very-High-Temperature Reactor (VHTR)

Characteristics

• Helium coolant

• 1000°C outlet t e mperature

• Water-cracking cycle

Benefits

• Hy drogen production

• High degree of passive safety

• High thermal eff i ciency

• Process heat applicat ions

U.S. Pro d u ct Team Leader: D r . Fi nis So ut hw orth (INEEL)

23

1150 MW Combined Heat and Power Station

Ten-Unit VHTR Plant Layout (Top View )

(distances in m e ters)

Ad m i n

Equip

9 A c ces s Ha tch

7

Equip

3 A c ces s Ha tch

1

T r aining

10

6

Equip A c ces s Ha tch

4

2

Contr o l Bldg.

Maintenanc e Par t s / T ools

T urbine H a ll Bo u nda ry

Pri m ary is land with r e actor and I H X

Turbo m achinery

8

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 1 6 0

5

Desalinization Plant

0

20

40

60

80

10 0

Oil Refinery

VHTR Characteristics

- T emperatures > 900 C

- Indirect Cycle

- C ore Options Available

- Waste Minimization

Hydrogen Production

24

Overview of the efficiency of nuclear hydrogen production options

Approach

Electrochemical

Feature

Water Electroly s is

High Temperature Steam Electroly s is

Thermochemical

Steam-

Meth an e Reformin g

Thermochemica l Water Splitting

Required temperature,

o C

Efficiency of the process,

%

Energy effici ency coupled to LWR, %

Energy effici ency coupled to MHR, ALW R , ATHR, or

S- A G R, %

< 100,

at P atm

>100,

at P atm

> 700

65 – 8 0

65-95 (200>T>800 0 C)

60-80 (T > 7 00 0 C)

> 800 for S-I WSP

> 700 for UT-3

> 600 for Cu-Cl

> ~40, depending on TC cycle and temperature

21-30

~30

Not Fea s ib le

Not Feasible

21-40

35-45

(Depending on el ect rical cycl e and temperature)

> 60 (T > 7 00 0 C)

>~ 40, depending on TC cycle and temperature

• T he hydrogen production efficiency =

LHV for gaseous product/ther mal

energy of fission

reactors

• D eviation from ideal

efficiency values can be due to:

– heat losses

– irreversibilities in the components

25

• F inal comparison shou ld take the same conditions into account

Hydrogen Production Energy Efficiency

Comparison of the thermal-to-hydrogen efficiency of the HTSE, SI and WSP related technologies as a function of temperature

26

Source unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license.

Pebble Bed Reactor Research

• R eactor physics modeling of core - M CNP

• F uel performance model

• Safety analysis – L OCA and Air Ingress with CFD tools

• Pebble Flow modeling and experiments

• Balance of plant modularity – “ lego style”

• O verall plant conceptual design

• N on-proliferation studies

• W aste disposal studies

• I ntermediate Heat Exchanger design and testing

27

What is a Pebble Bed Reactor ?

• 360,000 pebbles in core

• about 3,000 pebbles handled by FHS each day

• about 350 discarded daily

• one pebble discharged every 30 seconds

• average pebble cycles through core 10 times

• Fuel handling most maintenance-intensive part of plant

FU E L E L E M EN T D E S I G N F O R P B M R

5m m Graphi t e l ayer

C o at ed p art ic l es imbedded i n Gr aphi te M at r i x

D i a. 60m m

Py r o l y t i c C ar bon 40 / 1 0 0 0 m m

Fu e l S phe r e

S ilic o n Ca rb it e B a r r ie r C o a t in g 35 / 1 0 0 0

Ha lf S e ct ion

I n ne r Py r o l y t i c Car bon 40 / 1 0 0 0 m m

Po ro us Ca r b o n Bu f f er 9 5/ 1 00 0m m

Di a. 0 , 92m m

Coa t e d P ar t i c le

D i a. 0,5mm U r an ium D i oxi de

Fu el

Reactor Unit

Helium Flowpath

32

Source unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license.

AVR: Jülich

15 MWe R esearch Reactor

HTR- 10 China

First Criticality Dec.1, 2000

China - Rongcheng Site for 19 Pebble Bed Reactors for 3600 Mwe @ 190 Mwe each

Demonstration Plant 35

Features of MIT MPBR Design

Thermal Power

250 MW

Gross Electrical Power

132.5 MW

Net Electrical Power

120.3 MW

Plant Net Efficiency

48.1% (Not take into account cooling IHX and HPT. if considering, it is believed > 45%)

Helium Mass flowrate

126.7 kg/s

Core Outlet/Inlet T

900°C/520°C

Cycle pressure ratio

2.96

Power conversion unit

Three-shaft Arrangement

36

Current Design Schematic

28 0 C

52 0 C

12 6. 7 kg/ s

Reactor core

80 0 C

7. 75 M Pa

79 9. 2 C

HPT 52 .8M W

MPC 2

26.1 MW

HP C 26 .1M W

69 .7 C

8. 0 M Pa

90 0 C

IHX

7. 73 M Pa

6. 44 M P a

Intercool er

69.7 C

4. 67 M Pa

52 2. 5 C

7. 89 M Pa

12 5. 4 kg/ s

11 5 C

1. 3 k g/ s

Cooling RPV

50 9. 2 C

7. 59 M Pa 35 0 C

7. 90 M Pa

Circul ator

32 6 C

10 5. 7 kg/ s

69 .7 C

1. 3 k g/ s

LPT 52 .8M W

71 9. C

5. 21 M Pa

PT 13 6. 9M W

51 1. 0 C

2. 75 M Pa

LP C

26.1 MW

30 C

2. 71 M Pa

MPC 1 26 .1M W

Generator

Bypass Valve

Re cupera tor

96 .1 C

2. 73 M Pa

Precooler

Inventory control

37

Source unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license. For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/fairuse .

IHX M o dule

Re a c to r Vesse l

R e c u p e ra t o r M o du l e

TOP VIEW WHOLE PLANT

Pla nt Footpr int

Source unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license.

For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/fairuse .

~77 f t .

T u r b oge ne r a to r

MP T u r b ine LP T u r b in e

HP T u rbine

Pr e c o o le r

LP C o m p re ssor

MP Compre ssor

Int e rc o o l e r # 1

~7 0 f t .

P o we r Tu rbi n e HP Compre ssor

I n te r c oo le r #2

38

PLANT MODULE SHIPPING BREAKDOWN

Tot a l M o dul e s N e e d e d F o r P l an t A s s e m b l y ( 2 1 ) : N i n e 8 x3 0 M o dule s , F i v e 8x 4 0 M o dul e s , Se v e n 8x 2 0 M o dul e s

S i x 8x 3 0 I HX M o du l e s Six 8x2 0 R e cu pe r a to r M odu le s

8 x30 Po wer T ur bin e Mo dule

8x2 0 I n ter c o o le r #2 M odu le

8 x40 Piping a nd Pr e c ooler M odu le

8x 30 Upp e r M a n i f o ld Mo dule

8x 30 L owe r Ma nif old Modu le

8x 40 Pip i ng & I n te r c ooler # 1 Mod u le

8x 40 MP T ur b in e, MP Compr e ssor M odu le

8x 4 0 HP Tu rbi n e, L P C o m p re sso r M o du le

8x 4 0 LP T u rb in e , HP C o m p re sso r M o d u l e

39

Source unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license. For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/fairuse .

Re actor Vessel

IHX Vessel

Present Layout

High Pressure Turbine

Low Pressure Turbine

Compressor (4)

Power Turbine

Re cupera tor V essel

40

Source unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license. For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/fairuse .

Space-Frame Concept

• Standardized Frame Size

• 2 .4 x 2.6 x 3(n) Meter

• Standard Dry Cargo Container

• Attempt to Limit Module Mass to

~30t / 6m

– I SO Limit for 6m Container

– Stacking Load Limit ~190t

– I SO Container Mass ~2200kg

– Modified Design for Higher Capacity—~60t / 12m module

• O verweight Modules

– G enerator (150-200t)

– T urbo-Compressor (45t)

– Avoid Separating Shafts!

– H eavy Lift Handling Required

– D ual Module (12m / 60t)

• Stacking Load Limit Acceptable – D ual Module = ~380T

• T urbo-generator Module

<300t

• D esign Frame for Cantilever Loads – Enables Modules to be Bridged

• S pace Frames are the structural supports for the components.

• O nly need to build open vault areas for space frame installation - RC & BOP vault

• Alignment Pins on Module Corners

– High Accuracy Alignment

– Enables Flanges to be Simply Bolted Together

• Standardized Umbilical Locations

– Bus-Layout of Generic Utilities

(data/control) 41

Upper IHX Manifold in Spaceframe

3 m

10 m

Source unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license. For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/fairuse .

2.5 m

42

43

Source unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license.

“Lego” S tyle Assembly in the Field

Overall Structure

25 m

40 m

Asse m bly Contrac t or

Component Fabricator #N

e.g. Turbine M a nufact urer

Component Fabricator #1

e.g. Turbine M a nufact urer

S i t e a n d A s s e m b l y S p e c i f i c a t i o n s

M a n a g e m e n t a n d O p e r a t i o n

C om p o ne nt D e s i g n

S p a c e - F r a m e S pe c i f i c a t i o n

Distributed Production Concept

“M PBR Inc.”

Site Preparation Contrac t or

MPBR Construction Site

Labor

Component Transportati on Design Information

46

Source unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license.

Distributed Production Concept - V irtual Factory !

• Evolution of the “Reactor Factory” Concept

• T here Is NO Factory

– O ff-load Manufacturing Capital Expens e to Component Suppliers

• D ecrease follow-through capital expense by des igning to minimize new tooling—near COTS

• M ajor component fabricators become mid-level integrators— following design delivered from HQ

– R educ es Transportation Costs

• C omponent weight ≈ Module weight: Why Transport It Twice?

– E nables Flexible Capitalization

• I nitial systems use components purchased on a one-off / low quantity basis

• Once MPBR demand established, constant produc tion + fabrication learning curve lower costs

• S ite / Building Des i gn Does Not Require Specialized Expertise – E nables Selection of Construc tion Contractors By Location /

Cost

– S implified Fabrication Mini mizes “MPBR Inc.” W orkforce Required

• S imple Common Space-Frame Design

– C an be Easily Manufactured By Each Indiv idual Component Supplier

– Or if necessary sub-contracted to generic structural fabricator

• M odern CAD/CAE Techniques Enable High First-Fit Probability— Virtual “Test-Fit”

Challenges

• U nless the cost of new plants can be substantially reduced, new orders will not be forthcoming.

• T he novel truly modular way of building plants may be the right way to go – s horter construction times.

• S maller units may be cheaper than larger units – economies of production may trump the economies of scale when financial risks are considered.

• T he bottom line is cents/kwhr not $/kwe ! !

Why Helium Gas? Why Now?

Differences Between Water Reactors

• H igher Thermal Efficiencies Possible

• H elium inert gas

• M inimizes use of water in cycle - c orrosion

• S ingle Phase coolant – fewer problems in accident

• U tilizes gas turbine technology

• Lower Power Density – no meltdown !

• Less Complicated Design (No Emergency Core Cooling Systems Needed)

• Lower cost electricity

Generating Cost

PBMR vs. AP600, AP1000, CCGT and Coal

(Comparison at 11% IRR for Nuclear Options, 9% for Coal and CCGT 1 )

AP1000 @

Coal 2

CCGT @ Nat. Gas = 3

AP600

3000Th 3400T h

PBM R

‘ Clean ’ ‘ Normal ’

$ 3 . 0 0 $3. 5 0 $4. 0 0 $10.00

0.5

0.5 0.5

0.48

0.6 0.6

2 . 1 2 . 4 5 2 . 8 7.0

0.8

0.52 0.46

0.23

0.8 0.6

0 . 2 5 0 . 2 5 0 . 2 5 0.25

0.1

0.1 0.1

0.08

- -

- - -

0.1

0.1 0. 1

0.1

- _ - _

- - - _

1.5

1.22 1.16

0.89

1.4 1.2

2 . 3 5 2 . 7 0 3 . 0 5 7.25

3.4

2.5 2. 1

2.2

2.0 1.5

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

4.9

3.72 3.26

3.09

3.4 2.7

3 . 3 5 3 . 7 0 4 . 0 5 8.75

(All in ¢ /kWh)

Fue l O&M

Decommissio n i n g F u el Cy cle

Total Op Costs Capital Recovery

Tota l

1 All opti ons exclude property taxes

2 Pr elim inar y bes t c a se c o al opt i ons : “ mi ne mouth ” l o c a tio n with $ 20/to n co al , 90 % cap a city fa ctor & 10,000 BTU/k W h heat rate

3 Natural gas price in $/million Btu

51

Source unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license. For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/fairuse .

Pebble Power Applications

• Electricity – Direct or Indirect Cycle

– high temperature gas turbine

– s team cycle using steam generators

• Process Heat

– H y d rogen – h igh temperature thermo-chemical process

– D esalinization – bottoming cycle

• Electricity and Process Heat

– Oil Sands

– O il Shale

– H y d rogen – H igh Temperature Steam Electrolys is

– O il Production and Refining

– C oal – G asification and Liquifaction

• Drivers for nuclear are CO2 and Economics

Syncrude Plant Site in Alberta

I m age Court e sy of Syncrude

Summary

Main strategic research lines in fission:

1) Improve LWR economics

2) Develop NGNP Plant with Hydrogen Production

2) Develop Gen-IV systems

3) Improve nuclear fuel cycle

4) Global Nuclear Energy Partnership

Fast Neutron Reactors that “burn” waste and breed fuel – design course objective

MIT OpenCourseWare http://ocw.mit.edu

22.091 Nuclear Reactor Safety

Spring 200 8

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms .