HAPL - 19

1
Fission Reactor Operations and Availabilityand
How These Influence Our Choices for IFE
C. A. Gentile
HAPL - 19 University of Wisconsin Madison,
Wisconsin October 22 - 23, 2008
2
Motivation

• Compare fission light water PWRs operations,
  maintenance, and outages for comparison with
  conceptual design of IFE direct drive power
  reactor. Evaluate advantages and disadvantages of
  both technologies.
• Begin to define maintenance requirements, duty
  cycle, ESH items. Where possible relate to
  current ESH criteria for DOE, NRC, CFR (i.e.
  10CFR835 / 10CFR part 20). Begin to consider
  PSAR, Technical Specifications.
• Establish lines of communication with people who
  are currently producing electricity with fission
  power reactors. Identify areas of common ground.
  Develop a common technical / regulatory language.
  Provide solutions to those aspects which hinder
  greater exploitation of fission generated power.
  Perception with some that fission is not safe.
  Spent fuel a very big problem. On-site fission
  reactor spent fuel pools are reaching capacity.
  Building new on-site storage for spent fuel
  capacity, or high density storage racks, not
  always embraced by the public.
• Pointed out at TOFE - 18 that in the book The
  World is Flat Thomas Friedman does not mention
  fusion energy as a future power source.
  Interactions with the fission community healthy
  in getting our message understood.

3
Presentation Outline

• PWR fission reactor operations / outages - Palo
  Verde Nuclear Generating Station. Three PWR light
  Water Reactors costing 9.3B. Entering the
  second 20 year cycle of operational life. NSSS
  Combustion Engineering, A/E Bechtel
• Producing 3825 MW(e). Approximately twice the
  output of the Hoover Dam.
• Unit 2 (with new steam generators) _at_ 1335 MW(e)
  is currently the largest US reactor
• Remote Maintenance for IFE
• ESH
• Summary

4
PWR Refueling Outages / Operations

• Palo Verde Unit 1 Coasts to Continuous
  Operation Record PHOENIX--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct.
  1, 2002 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station's
  Unit 1 operated for its entire fuel cycle --
  running "breaker-to-breaker" for a unit-record
  502 continuous days -- when it shut down for its
  scheduled 10th refueling over the weekend. In
  1999, Palo Verde Unit 2 set the station's
  existing record of 515 days of continuous
  operation, prior to its eighth refueling. In
  2000, Unit 3 completed a run of 509 continuous
  days prior to its eighth refueling.Unit 1's
  refueling is expected to be completed in about 40
  days. Palo Verde's previous refueling -- the 10th
  for Unit 2 -- was completed this past April in 32
  days, the second shortest for the site and part
  of an ongoing record of short refueling
  durations.
• During PWR refueling outage, 25 to 40 of the
  fuel assemblies are typically replaced depending
  on the cycle length and number of fuel assemblies
  in the reactor.

5
Cost Savings and Reliability

• Reducing the refueling outages at the station by
  1 day saves the rate payers gt 1M due
  to the replacement fuel costs _at_ gt 1 M / day
  when the reactor is not producing electricity
  (not including replacement by hydro-power).
• Efficient refueling / maintenance outage planning
  second only to operating the reactor safely. Same
  as in fusion.
• Limited supply of qualified / certified nuclear
  workers. The cost of occupational radiation doses
  a factor in fission outage planning and will be
  the same for fusion. Robotic and remote handling
  can help alleviate this problem.
• Nuclear power becoming more relied upon. The
  South Texas Project (2 - PWRs) sited 60 miles SW
  of Galveston stayed on-line throughout hurricane
  Ike, although Waterford - 3 and River Bend - 1
  (both in Louisiana ) were taken off-line during
  hurricane Gustav.
• Deregulation has emphasized the need for
  affordable power to ratepayers.business,
  municipalities.

6
IFE power reactor - PWR Fission light water
reactor. The two technologies lead to
similarities in general arrangement. Goal of
bothproduce safe, economical electricity.

7
Most significant maintenance task at PWR is
repair and replacement of steam generator(s). Can
take up to 1 year but have been completed at some
stations in 6 months. Occupational
radiation doses in fission industry coming down.
Average PWR annual dose last year was 97 person
rem. IFE will need to address the change out of
primary components.
8

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station

• Site construction started in 1976. Unit 1 came
  on-line 1986. Unit 2 3 came on-line1988. Site
  cost 9.3B
• Palo Verde Unit 1 rated at 1,314 MW (e). After
  house power requirements the reactor sends out
  1250 MW to the US South Western grid ( note 1 MW
  runs 400 houses )
• Location 40 miles west of Phoenix, AZ
• Combustion Engineering PWR
• Noterefueling / maintenance outage durations are
  on the order of 30 - 40 days. Outages planned
  for non-peak periods

9
Palo Verde, the USA largest nuclear power site.
Palo Verde 2 was recently uprated to 1,335 MW(e).
Palo Verde 2 currently the Nation's largest
nuclear reactor, surpassing the South Texas
Project Unit 1 and Unit 2 reactors.
Unit 2 steam generator replacement successfully
completed. This is a large complicated gt 300
M task taking 1 year. Other large tasks include
maintenance and repair of reactor cooling pumps.
In fission power industry large primary
components are replaceable, as should be for IFE.
10
Maintenance Operations - Requirements,
Similarities, Advantages

• No PWR maintenance or repair while reactor under
  power or within confines of bio-shield.
• Very little human activity inside the containment
  building, when needed only at reduced power
  (typically lt 50 ).
• Need to operate for relatively long periods of
  time 24/7 for up to 1.5 years.
• Maybe possible to perform some IFE maintenance
  activities while the reactor is running using
  robotics. Robotics maintenance video.
• Need to maintain occupational radiological doses
  in accordance with 10CFR835 / 10 CFR part 20.
  Including ALARA levels. Off-site consequences due
  to misadventure at fission plant an issue. Ten
  mile emergence planning zone (EPZ) with plans for
  evacuation a condition of USNRC fission licensing
  process. 50 mile ingestion pathway zone also
  required as part of the licensing process. Should
  be much less restrictive for fusion.
• Need to conform to limits of Technical
  Specifications, FSAR, and licensing conditions
  and limiting conditions of operation(s).

11
CANDU reactors capable of refueling on-line. New
fuel assemblies are added horizontally and the
spent fuel assemblies are pushed out to the spent
fuel storage area.
The fuel assemblies used in the reactor are 1.5
feet (0.5 m) long, consisting of individual
rods. The cladding is Zircaloy and the fuel
pellets consist of uranium dioxide.
12
Components within the confines of the bio-shield
must last for the duration of the run. Components
within the confines of the containment should
last for the duration of the run.

• Primary nuclear systems
• need to be robust reliable and where possible
  modular to support maintenance and replacement.
• - GIMMs
• - Vacuum Pumping System
• First wall
• - Blankets
• - Magnets
• Dumps
• Cooling Systems
• - Target Injector

Please see poster presentations on sub-systems
and infrastructure - MI I. Zatz , et. al., -
Helium Brayton Cycle S. Wagner, et. al., - IFE
Structure, T. Kozub, et. al.
13
ESH

• Conceptual design(s) can be evaluated for
  regulatory requirements where applicable.
• Level and sophistication of safety systems
  presumed to be less in a IFE direct drive
  environment due to limiting off-site consequence.
  
• ALARA systems engineered into the design.
  T-cleanup systems, bio-shield, remote
  maintenance, automated systems, evaluate the MTBF
  for sub-system components.
• Off-site doses from normal and off-normal
  operations manageable. Although a large inventory
  of T on a daily basis, T at risk can be
  attenuated and managed between multiple MCA
  locations.

14
ESH

• Engineered containment and confinement systems
  and strategy incorporated into conceptual
  designs. Modular design important for maintenance
  and replacement tasks.
• Pre-Licensing components, in the form of a
  regulatory compliance plan should be developed (
  NEPA, FONSI documentation, PSAR, FSAR, Technical
  Specifications, etc.)

15
Conceptual View of the IFE Laser Driven Direct
Drive Power Reactor at the Existing Palo Verde
Nuclear Power Site. Builds upon existing
infrastructure
16
Summary

• Great advantage of IFE Direct Drive. Low cost
  targets. No spent fuel. Level of safety class
  systems most likely less (perhaps less than MFE
  due to more stringent vacuum requirements in
  torus). No refueling outages, only maintenance
  outages.
• Developing technology moving toward robotic
  maintenance.
• Robotic maintenance may preclude the need to shut
  down the reactor to do repairs.
• To be competitive with current (fission) nuclear
  generation production maintenance periods need to
  be comparable. Replacement energy costs are
  expensive.
• ESH issues need to be identified and considered
  during the developing conceptual designs.
• A dialogue with the US commercial fission
  industry being put into place to establish open
  lines of communication.
• In the near future an IFE direct drive power
  reactor information article in a main stream
  fission publication.Nuclear News or Nuclear
  Plant Journal may be valuable.

17
Advanced technology may not win the day if not
economical, not reliable, or has perceived
regulatory impediments

• Need to design and build a competitive
• power reactor for the production of commercial
  electricity.
• Faster or even better may not survive
• market forces if reliability, cost,
• effectiveness, and safety are not part of the
• package.
• IFE direct drive power generation is
• Green need to keep our fission colleagues
  engaged in IFE direct drive fusion power
  development.
• no green-house gases
• no spent fuel no spent fuel storage
• - low proliferation threat
• produces its own fuel
• no critically - limited safety class systems
• but ( same as fission ) fusion power reactor
  will be a capital intensive enterprise