Apr 25, 2006 - 3. 3.5. 4. 4.5. 5. '92. '94. '96. '97. '98. '99. '00. U.S. Nuclear. Plants ... Three Mile Island Unit 2 Accident ... Radiation Exposure & Health Effects.
Nuclear Nuclear Power Power Now Now and and in in the the Future Future American Physical Society Dallas, TX April 25, 2006 William E. Burchill, Ph.D. Department Head & HTRI Professor Nuclear Engineering Dept. Texas A&M University
U. S. Electricity Generation by Fuel (2005)
Oil 3.0%
Gas 18.6% Nuclear 19.4%
Hydro 6.4% Coal 49.9% Source: DOE EIA Updated 4/06
Renewable and Other 2.7%
~20% of U.S. Electricity Is Supplied by Nuclear Energy
U. S. Nuclear Power Plants
Nuclear Electricity Generation by Country (2004) 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Percent of Electricty Generated France
Lithuania Slovak RP
Belgium
Sweden Ukraine
Bulgaria
Switzerland Armenia
Slovenia
Korea Hungary
Germany Czeck Japan
Finland Spain USA
UK
Russia Canada
Romania Argentina S. Africa
Mexico
Netherlands Brazil
India
Pakistan China
15.6 15.0
22.9 19.9 19.4
33.8 32.1 31.2 29.3 26.6
41.6 40.0 38.8 38.8 37.9
10.1 8.2 6.6 5.2 3.8 3.0 2.8 2.4 Source: International Atomic Energy Agency - Updated 6/05 2.2
51.8 51.1
55.2 55.1
72.1
78.1
90
Nuclear Energy Safety Record No member of the public has ever been killed or injured in 40 years of nuclear energy use in the U.S. No nuclear power plant worker has ever been killed or injured due to nuclear energy causes in the U.S. U.S. Manufacturing
5 4.5
4.3 4.7
4.7
4.2
4.2
4
4
4 3.5
OSHA Accident Rates
3
U.S. Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
2.5
Accidents per 200,000 worker-hours
2 1.5
1.1
1 0.5
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Nuclear Energy Institute
0.9
0.8
0.8 0.6
0.77
0.64
0 '92
'94
0.7
0.46
0.45
0.29
0.34
'96
'97
'98
'99
0.7
U.S. Nuclear Plants
0.26
'00
It’s safer to work in a nuclear plant than in an office
Radiation During Normal Operation Worker Exposure 5.0
Annual dose limit under current regulations
Average Radiation Exposure Is Currently 25 Times Lower Than Regulated Limits
Avg. Measurable Dose (rem)
1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
19 7 19 3 7 19 4 7 19 5 7 19 6 7 19 7 7 19 8 7 19 9 8 19 0 8 19 1 8 19 2 8 19 3 8 19 4 8 19 5 8 19 6 8 19 7 8 19 8 8 19 9 9 19 0 9 19 1 9 19 2 9 19 3 9 19 4 9 19 5 9 19 6 9 19 7 9 19 8 9 20 9 0 20 0 0 20 1 0 20 2 03
0 Source: NRC; Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities 2003 (NUREG-0713). Updated 11/04
LWR
PWR
BWR
Three Mile Island Unit 2 Accident March 28, 1979
Major Causes of TMI-2 Accident* • Pre-existing plant equipment problems • Inadequate operator training • Inadequate instrumentation • Communication failures _________________ *”Report of the President’s Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island,” J. G. Kemeny, Chairman, U. S. Library of Congress Catalog Number 79-25694 (1979).
TMI-2 Accident Radiation Exposure & Health Effects • • • • •
Average dose within 50 miles = < 0.1 chest X-ray* Max possible off-site dose = ~ 4 chest X-rays* Max actual off-site dose = ~ 2 chest X-rays* Theoretical excess cancer fatality = 1/2,000,000 Normal cancer fatalities = 325,000/2,000,000 ____________ *1 chest X-ray ≈ 7% of annual average background radiation exposure per person in United States R. A. Knief, Nuclear Engineering – Theory and Technology of Commercial Nuclear Power, Hemisphere Publishing Corp. (1992)
TMI-2 Accident Consequences • • • • • • • • •
No deaths No injuries No significant radioactivity releases Ruined plant Billion $$ cleanup TMI Unit-1 shutdown for 6+ years Utility was near bankruptcy Major delays in new plant construction Loss of public confidence
Industry Improvements after TMI-2 Accident • Improved operator training – INPO* & NANT* formed; training programs accredited – Plant-specific training simulators installed at all plants
• Improved technical communications among owners, operators, equipment suppliers and regulators – Daily electronic messaging and databases
• New and improved equipment – New instrumentation for boiling, reactor water level, and reactor temperature – Many other equipment improvements and additions
• Improved emergency communications and planning – Technical Support Centers & Emergency Operations Facilities – Emergency Preparedness plans and organizations ____________________________ * INPO
– Institute for Nuclear Power Operations – grades plant performance NANT – National Academy for Nuclear Training – grades operator training
Chernobyl Accident April 26, 1986
Major Causes of Chernobyl Accident • Reactor Design (could not be licensed in U.S.) – – – –
Unstable response to power increase – multiplies power Slow reactor shutdown systems Safety systems easy to disable Very weak containment building
• Management (no effective independent regulator) – – – –
No review and approval of test plan Test manager knew nothing of reactor design problems Little/no reactor operator accident training Complacent-to-arrogant management attitudes
• Operator Errors (did not apply lessons learned from TMI) – Ignored warnings of plant instrumentation – Operated reactor outside of allowable limits – At least nine violations of operating procedures and limits
Chernobyl Accident Health Consequences Population
Number
• Early fatalities (non-radiation)
2 (immediate)
• Early fatalities (radiation)
28 (within 4 m)
• Late adult fatalities (radiation)
19 (as of 9/05)
• Late child fatalities (radiation)
9* (as of 9/05)
• Clinical psychological effects
~ 5,000,000
• Potential additional cancer deaths
4,000 (3% ∆ )
_____________ *All
thyroid cancer deaths in population of 4000 identified and treated cases.
Chernobyl Accident Economic Consequences • Unit 4 Recovery (Unit 4 entombment, site cleanup, area
decontamination, construct 21,000 houses & 15,000 apartments, evacuee compensation): ~$7B
• Replacement electric power: ~$7B (through 1997) • Chernobyl-type reactor (RBMK) modifications: ~$1B • Direct costs outside USSR: ~$1B • Chernobyl Units permanently shutdown • • • • • •
Unit 2 1991 Unit 1 1997 Unit 3 2000 Units 5 & 6 construction cancelled 2 RBMKs (Ignalina 1 & Leningrad 1) shutdown in 2004 11 other RBMKs scheduled to be shutdown from Feb. 2006 to July 2023
Chernobyl Accident Lessons Applied • Chernobyl-type reactor design • Design improvements made to improve safety of all Chernobyl-type plants • All Chernobyl reactors shutdown • All remaining Chernobyl-type reactors (RBMKs) to be shutdown
• Severe disciplinary actions • 10-year jail terms for Station Director, Chief Engineer, Deputy Chief Engr. • Lesser sentences for others
• International assistance • • • •
Major safety analyses of USSR reactor designs Operator training simulators and training programs Emergency operating procedures upgrades “Sister plant” exchanges
• Operations improvements • Management oversight • World Association of Nuclear Operators formed (similar to INPO on worldwide basis)
Nuclear Energy Cost Record Nuclear Energy cost is competitive with other generation 12.0
2004 cents per kilowatt-hour
Nuclear 1.68 Coal 1.92
10.0
Gas 5.87 8.0
Oil 5.39
6.0 4.0 2.0
20 04
20 03
20 02
20 01
20 00
19 99
19 98
19 97
19 96
19 95
0.0
Nuclear Energy costs less than any fossil fuel generation Source: EUCG and Energy Velocity Updated: 6/05
Nuclear Energy Capacity Factor Record Overall NPP capacity factor is steadily increasing
90.5%
Capacity Factor (%)
95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Increases in capacity factor at 103 plants in the last 15 years is equal to building 26 new 1,000-MW plants Nuclear Energy Institute
Factors that Determine the Future • Operating record of current plants – safety: can not have another major accident – economics: continue to be competitive – community: continue to be “good neighbors” All required for public confidence to continue to increase
• Solution of currently-perceived issues – high-level radioactive waste disposition – security against potential terrorist attack – non-proliferation of potential weapons material
• Public understanding of risk – nuclear risk versus risk from other fuels – nuclear risk versus commonly accepted risks
Factors that Determine the Future • Advanced reactor designs (Generation III) – safety improvements provided by • evolutionary designs – improve reliability by redundant systems • passive designs – improve reliability using “forces of nature”
– must have no “first-of-a-kind” problems – must gain public acceptance as “good neighbors”
• Future reactor designs (Generation IV) – – – –
improve safety (reliability) by at least order of magnitude reduce high-level radioactive waste to be negligible eliminate potential for proliferation operate at much higher temperature • support hydrogen production
Operating Record – Safety
Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data
4.00 3.38 3.30
3.50
3.52
3.63
3.53
3.44 3.17
3.05
3.00
2.98 2.91
2.84
2.81 2.55 2.49
2.54
2.50
2.40
2.54 2.33 2.09
2.00
1.94
1.85 1.77 1.77
1.68
1.50 1.00 0.50
Source: FERC/EUCG – Updated 6/05
04
20
03
20
02
20
01
00
20
99
20
19
98
19
97
19
96
19
95
19
94
19
93
19
92
91
19
90
19
19
89
19
88
19
87
19
86
19
85
19
84
19
83
82
19
19
81
0.00 19
U.S. Average Nuclear Production Cost, 2004 ¢/kw-hr
Operating Record – Economics
Operating Record – Community
Source: Presentation by Richard Knapik, Mayor, Bay City, Texas about South Texas Project at 2005 Annual Meeting of Texas Institute for Advancement of Chemical Technology, Houston, Texas, April 29, 2005.
Public opinion on nuclear energy is improving 80
Favor
Oppose 61
49
51
52
50 49 50
51 51
54 52 54
46
58
42
65
67 70
70%
49 46
45 44 44
43
63 62
55
48 47 40
65
62
60
39
41 36 35
38 39
24%
36
34 30
29
31
33 29 26 24
20 M ay-05
Oct-04
April-04
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
Bisconti Research Inc.
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
Percent who favor or oppose use of nuclear energy in U.S.
Nuclear Energy Public Opinion Record
Issues – Radioactive Waste Disposition
Short-Term On-Site Storage at Nuclear Power Plants LongTerm Storage Yucca Long-Term Storage at Mountain Yucca Mountain
Ultimate Options: • Fuel Reprocessing ¾Recycle Fissile Material ¾Transmute High Level Waste ¾Vitrify Residual Waste
• As demonstrated currently in France, UK, Russia, Japan and India and previously in USA.
Issues – Security
Barriers
Guards
No-Man Zones
Gates
Surveillance
Guns
Issues – Non-Proliferation • What is proliferation? – diversion of weapons-grade (>90% enrichment) fissile (fissionable) material to make weapons – potential destinations: terrorists, rogue states
• What are current proliferation barriers? – international treaties – inspections, e.g., by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) under the United Nations – material accountability – physical protection – surveillance – co-mingling with highly radioactive material
Issues – Non-Proliferation • What are future solution options? – continue current barriers – prohibit reprocessing facilities in additional countries – prohibit enrichment facilities in additional countries – establish centralized world-oversight, e.g., U.N., of all weapons-grade material – reduce inventory of weapons-grade material by fission in power reactors – remove inventory of weapons-grade material from the biosphere • e.g., disposal in geologic formations, e.g., Yucca Mountain
Relative Risk Occupational Risk from Fuel Cycles Used for Electricity Production Fuel Cycle
Worker Impact, per GWyr
Public Impact, per GWyr
Fatal
Non-fatal
Fatal
Non-fatal
Coal
0.2 – 4.3
63
2.1 – 7.0
2,018
Oil
0.2 – 1.4
30
2.0 – 6.1
2,000
Gas
0.1 – 1.0
15
0.2 – 0.4
15
Nuclear
0.1 – 0.9
15
0.006 – 0.2
16
Source: Energy Systems and Sustainability, G. Boyle, et al, Oxford University Press, Table 13.4, page 527 (2003)
Relative Risk
Source: “Reactor Safety Study,” WASH-1400, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1975)
Nuclear Power Plant Development Timeline
U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth in One Decade Equivalent to 18 new 1,000-megawatt power plants
789
Million MWh
800
700
640 600
500 Source: EIA – Updated 3/05
1994
2004
Plant Applications for License Renewal 40 35
39 29
30 25 20 15
10
10 5 0 License Applications
License Applications
License Applications
Granted
Under NRC Review
Announced
Source: NRC – Updated 12/05
Currently Announced Applications for New NPP Licenses
New NPP License Applications Company
Design
Units
Date for Filing COL Application
Dominion
ESBWR
1
2007
NuStart Energy (TVA)
AP1000
2
2007
NuStart Energy (Entergy)
ESBWR
1
2007/2008
Entergy
ESBWR
1
2008
Southern Co.
AP1000
2
2008
Progress Energy
AP1000
4
2007/8
South Carolina Electric & Gas
AP1000
2
2007
Duke Energy
AP1000
2
2008
UniStar Nuclear
U.S. EPR
1 – (4)
2008
Schedule for New NPP Licenses
Current Nuclear Power Plant Construction World Nuclear Power Reactors Under Construction - 2006 Country
Units
Total MWe
Argentina
1
692
China
2
2,000
China, Taiwan
2
2,600
Finland
1
1,600
India
8
3,602
Iran
1
915
Japan
1
866
Pakistan
1
300
Romania
1
655
Russia
4
3,775
Ukraine
2
1,900
24
18,905
Total Source: International Atomic Energy Agency (Updated 1/06)
U.S. Generation IV Nuclear Reactor Plan
Nuclear Power in the Near Future
CONCLUSIONS • Current NPPs are operating safely and economically • Lessons from TMI-2 & Chernobyl have been applied • Several key factors determine nuclear energy’s future – Excellent operating record of currents plants – Solutions of currently-perceived issues – Public understanding of risk
• Current evidence indicates increased use of nuclear – Growing public acceptance – Announced applications for new NPP licenses – DOE/Industry plans for advanced reactor designs