July-August 2011 - Digital Versions - Nuclear Plant Journal


July-August 2011 - Digital Versions - Nuclear Plant Journal




New Plants & Vendor


July-August 2011

Volume 29 No. 4

ISSN: 2162-6413

Narora, India





• Plate rolling for single-piece

construction up to 12" thick

• Precision press brake

forming up to 22" thick

• Precision parts and


Now with the biggest roll in the western hemisphere — up to 12 inches thick and

up to 14 feet wide — there’s no reason to go anywhere other than AT&F Nuclear to

roll “forging quality plate.” With access to prime materials direct from the mill, AT&F

Nuclear provides a complete range of nuclear components and complex build-to-print

fabrications for new builds, SMRs and nuclear waste containers. Our nuclear industry

experience and rolling capabilities provide high quality, tight tolerance fabrications

reducing dependence on long lead forgings.

Experience 70+ Years of Reliable Quality.

Call AT&F Nuclear to learn more about our experience

and technology for the nuclear industry.


a subsidiary of American Tank

& Fabricating Company

800-544-5316 • www.atfnuclear.com

Nuclear Plant Journal

July-August 2011, Volume 29 No. 4

29th Year of Publication


New Plants &

Vendor Advertorial Issue

Nuclear Plant Journal is published by

EQES, Inc. six times a year; January-

February, March-April, May-June,

July-August, September-October, and

November-December (Directory).

The subscription rate for non-qualified

readers in the United States is $150.00

for six issues per year. The additional air

mail cost for non-U.S. readers is $30.00.

Payment may be made by American

Express ® , Master Card ® , VISA ® or check

and should accompany the order. Checks

may be made payable to "EQES, Inc."

Checks not drawn on a United States

bank should include an additional $45.00

service fee. All inquiries should be addressed

to Nuclear Plant Journal, 1400

Opus Place, Suite 904, Downers Grove,

IL 60515; Phone: (630) 858-6161, ext.

103; Fax: (630) 852-8787, email: NPJ@


Authorization to photocopy articles is

granted by EQES, Inc. provided that

payment is made to the Copyright

Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive,

Danvers, MA 01923; Phone: (978) 750-

8400, Fax: (978) 646-8600. The fee code

is 0892-2055/02/$3.00+$.80.

© Copyright 2011 by EQES, Inc.

Nuclear Plant Journal is a registered

trademark of EQES, Inc.

Printed in the USA.


Senior Publisher and Editor

Newal K. Agnihotri

Publisher and Sales Manager

Anu Agnihotri

Assistant Editor and Marketing Manager

Michelle Gaylord

Assistant Offi ce Manager

Kruti Patel

Administrative Assistant

QingQing Zhu

*Current Circulation:

Total: 12,154

Utilities: 3,993

*All circulation information is subject to

BPA Worldwide, Business audit

Articles & Reports

A Global Enterprise 26

By Christopher Crane, Exelon Corporation

An Enhanced Design to Ensure Safety 34

By Brian Johnson, GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy

Keeping the Risk Very Low

By Finnis Southworth, AREVA Inc


Safety & Financial Assurance 44

By Jim Ferland, Westinghouse Americas

Fukushima Conclusions & Lessons 50

Fukushima Report to IAEA 53

Examples of Safe U.S. Plants 57

By Region III Staff, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Industry Innovations

Energy & Environmental Resource Center 64

By Lisa Barile, PSEG Power

Plant Profile

One of the Best for Natural Habitat 69

By Ramesh Chandra, Department of Atomic Energy, India


New Energy News 8

Utility, Industry & Corporation 10

New Products, Services & Contracts 17

New Documents 20

Meeting & Training Calendar 24

Journal Services

List of Advertisers 6

Advertiser Web Directory 52

On The Cover

Narora Atomic Power Station (NAPS), a PHWR with two Units of 220MWe

each is situated on the bank of River Ganges in India. It is connected to

Northern Grid of India through outgoing 220 KV lines. NAPS is an indigenously

designed, constructed and commissioned station of Nuclear Power

Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL). See page 69 for a profi le.

Mailing Identification Statement

Nuclear Plant Journal (ISSN 0892-2055) is published bimonthly; January-February,

March-April, May-June, July-August, September-October, and November-December by EQES,

Inc., 1400 Opus Place, Suite 904, Downers Grove, IL 60515. The printed version of the Journal

is available cost-free to qualified readers in the United States and Canada. The digital version

is available to qualified readers worldwide. The subscription rate for non-qualified readers

is $150.00 per year. The cost for non-qualified, non-U.S. readers is $180.00. Periodicals (permit

number 000-739) postage paid at the Downers Grove, IL 60515 and additional mailing offices.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Nuclear Plant Journal (EQES, Inc.), 1400 Opus Place,

Suite 904, Downers Grove, IL 60515.

Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com 5

List of Advertisers & NPJ Rapid Response

Page Advertiser Contact Fax/Email

62-63 American Crane & Equipment

Corporation Karen Norheim (610) 385-6061

4, 65 American Tank & Fabricating Kevin Cantrell (216) 252-4871

2, 33 AREVA NP, Inc. Donna Gaddy-Bowen (434) 832-3840

9 ASME James Campbell (212) 591-7061

70-71 The Babcock & Wilcox Company Stephanie Decker sadecker@babcock.com

37 Bigge Power Constructors Daniel Valluzzi (510) 639-4053

13 Birns Eric Birns (805) 487-0427

42-43 Black & Veatch Julie Nurski (913) 458-2012

61 Ceradyne Boron Products Patti Bass (714) 675-6565

14-15 Chatham Steel Corporation Chris White cwhite@chathamsteel.com

16 Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Company Arlene Corkhill (714) 528-0128

76 Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Company

Nuclear Group Arlene Corkhill (714) 528-0128

18-19 Day & Zimmermann ECM David Bronczyk (215) 656-2624

29 Divesco, Inc. Susan Kay Fisher (601) 932-5698

30-31 Ellis & Watts Global Industries, LLC Joe Menkhaus jmenkhaus@elliswatts.com

54-55 Enercon Services, Inc. Arthur Woods (770) 919-1932

48-49 Enertech, a business unit of

Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Company Christine Anderson christinea@curtisswright.com

27 GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy Karen Ellison (910) 362-5017

11 Howden North America Nicole MacLean (803) 741-2817

35 Joseph Oat Corporation John McDonald (856) 541-0864

7, 25 Kinectrics Inc. Cheryl Tasker-Shaw (416) 207-6532

38-39 Nuclear Logistics Inc. Greg Keller greg.keller@nuclearlogistics.com

45 OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) Delphine Grandrieux 33 1 45 24 11 10

58-59 Sargent & Lundy LLC Patricia Andersen (312) 269-3680

22-23 SCHOTT North America, Inc. Barbara Augenblick (914) 831-2201

66-67 Thermo Scientific- CIDTEC Tony Chapman (315) 451-9421

51 Westerman Nuclear Bill Moore (740) 569-4111

74-75 Westinghouse Electric Company LLC Karen Fischetti (412) 374-3244

21 Zachry Nuclear Engineering, Inc. Lisa Apicelli (860) 446-8292

3 Zetec, Inc. Ki Choi (418) 263-3742

Advertisers’ fax numbers may be used with the form shown below. Advertisers’ web sites are listed in the Web

Directory Listings on page 52.

Nuclear Plant Journal Rapid Response Fax Form

July-August 2011

To: _________________________ Company: __________________ Fax: ___________________

From: _______________________ Company: __________________ Fax: ___________________

Address:_____________________ City: _______________________ State: _____ Zip: _________

Phone: ______________________ E-mail: _____________________

I am interested in obtaining information on: __________________________________________________

Comments: _____________________________________________________________________________

6 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011

Improve your Nuclear Performance

with this Power Equation

Providing advanced nuclear solutions requires comprehensive technical knowledge, experience

and practical know-how to produce reliable, cost-effective performance.

With a fully-qualified team of nuclear scientists, engineers and technicians (in Canada and the

US) and almost 100 years of experience in the power industry, the Kinectrics group of companies

is uniquely positioned, equipped and experienced to deliver real-world answers to performance

issues for the nuclear industry worldwide.

Knowledge is Power







• Life Extension & Risk Assessment

• Equipment Qualification / CGD / Seismic Testing

Nuclear Parts & Reverse Engineering

Nuclear Inspection Tools

• Radioactive Materials Lab

Nuclear Waste Management

• Concrete Repair & Rehabilitation

NDE Testing and Inspection

• In-service inspection of plant equipment

• Ultrasonic Phased Array & TOFD inspection


• Advanced Flaw Sizing Techniques

• Auditing, Procurement & Surveillance

• Level III services in U/T, E/T, M/T & P/T methods

Providing Integrated Solutions

to the Nuclear Industry

• Regulatory Affairs & Licensing

• Strategic Technical & Management Consulting

• Safety Analysis & Assessment

• Health Physics

• Decommissioning Planning

Nuclear Fuel

• Engineering & Operations Support





Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com 7

New Energy


In Beijing Atomstroyexport JSC, a

company of State Corporation Rosatom,

Russia, and Jangsu Nuclear Power Corporation

(JNPC) signed an Amendment

to the General Contract for construction

of Tianwan NPP power units 3 and 4 (Lianyungang

town, China). Signing of the

document determining commercial and

payment conditions of the General Contract

means agreement upon the last contract

document necessary for entering into

force of the General Contract. According

to the agreement between the parties, the

contract will enter into force in the first

half of August 2011 at the latest, after

passing through necessary domestic procedures,

enabling in August 2011 to start

financing of the project and ordering the

equipment in accordance with the contract


The General Contract for construction

of Tianwan NPP second phase was signed

between Atomstroyexport JSC and

JNPC on November 23, 2010 in Saint-

Petersburg, Russia.

According to the General Contract,

Atomstroyexport JSC will construct

Tianwan NPP units 3 and 4 under the

design analogous to the first phase:

two power units of Russian design

with reactor plants VVER-1000, 1060

MW electric capacity each. Design and

supply of equipment for the nuclear plant

conventional island will be implemented

by JNPC.

Contact: 7 495 737 9037, website:



On June 30, 2011 in Amman

(The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan)

Atomstroyexport JSC, Russia, submitted

a technical offer for construction of the

NPP in Jordan to the Buyer - the Jordan

Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC).

Together with Atomstroyexport JSC,

Atomenergoproekt JSC, OKB Gidropress

JSC, RRC Kurchatovsky Institute, TVEL

JSC and other key companies of the

atomic engineering field took part in

preparation of the Russian tender bid.

Contact: 7 495 737 9037, website:



On July 1, 2011, Fennovoima,

Finland, sent a bid invitation to Areva

and Toshiba for the construction of

a new nuclear power plant. The bids

are requested for the delivery and

construction of reactor and turbine

islands. Fennovoima will decide the final

model of delivery during the contract

negotiations that will be carried out based

on the delivered bids.

The bid invitation does not include

infrastructure works that are performed

during the first years of the construction

phase and preparatory works including

earthmoving, excavations and water

construction. Excluded from the

bid invitation are also for example

the construction of visitor center

and residential area for some 1000


Fennovoima chose Areva and Toshiba

as plant supplier alternatives in 2008 and

since then, technical development work

has been done with both companies as

well as with alternative turbine suppliers

Alstom and Siemens.

Far progressed technical development

already before the selection of the main

supplier supports a smooth nuclear power

plant project execution and ensures the

nuclear power plant is safe in operation.

The plant supplier and the model of

delivery will be decided in 2012-2013.

Contact: Tiina Tigerstedt, telephone:

358 20 757 9211, email: tiina.tigerstedt@

fennovoima.fi .


The Ministry of Energy of the

Republic of Lithuania announced that

the Concession Tender Commission (the

Commission) for the Strategic Investment

in the Visaginas Nuclear Power Plant

(NPP) Project selected Hitachi Ltd.

together with Hitachi-GE Nuclear Energy

Ltd. (Hitachi) as the Strategic Investor.

As previously announced, the

Commission received two Proposals to

invest in Visaginas NPP Project, which

met the stated requirements. After a

period of clarification of both Proposals,

the Commission today met to draw the

evaluation conclusion regarding both

Proposals. The Commission determined

that the Proposal from Hitachi as the

most economically advantageous and has

selected Hitachi as the Strategic Investor

for the Visaginas NPP Project.

The Ministry of Energy and Hitachi

are targeting to sign the concession

agreement by the end of the year and to

commission the Visaginas NPP by the

end of 2020.

Hitachi offered as part of its Proposal

to provide an Advanced Boiling Water

Reactor (ABWR), the only generation III

nuclear reactor with a proven operational

track record around the world, with an

enhanced level of safety.

Contact: telephone: 262 0549, fax:

8 5 2615140, email: info@enmin.lt.


Nuclear Power Corporation of

India Limited’s (NPCIL) second pair

of indigenously designed 700-MW

Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors

(PHWRs) – RAPP-7&8 (Rajasthan

Atomic Power Project-7&8) – achieved

first pour of concrete on July 18, 2011 at

Rawatbhata in Rajasthan.

The First Pour of Concrete (FPC)

is an important milestone in the

construction of a nuclear power project

and signifies the start of the construction

(zero date). The reactors are scheduled

to be completed in the year 2016-17. On

their completion, 1400 MW capacity will

be added to the Northern Electricity Grid,

of which 700 MW will be allocated to the

state of Rajasthan.

Contact: Nalinish Nagaich,

telephone: 022 2550 7773, email:


8 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011



Westinghouse Electric Company

submitted Revision 19 of the AP1000 ®

Design Control Document (DCD) to the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC). The revision includes necessary

changes to address NRC comments raised

during the confirmatory review of prior

updates submitted in DCD Revision 18.

The submittal of DCD Rev. 19,

along with updated shield building and

containment vessel technical reports

being provided to the NRC separately,

provides resolution of all known NRC

open confirmatory items associated with

the pending Final Safety Evaluation

Report needed for final rule making.

Additionally, the changes incorporated

into DCD Rev.19 are clarifications and

minor corrections, which have no safety


Each new plant will create

approximately 2,000 to 3,000 onsite

jobs and hundreds of support jobs during

construction. The positive impact on

America’s manufacturing and construction

industries is significant, with materials

and labor expected to be provided from

more than 20 states. New or expanded

American manufacturing centers geared

to support these projects have opened

recently in Louisiana, Pennsylvania,

South Carolina, New Hampshire and


Contact: Vaughn Gilbert, telephone:

(412) 374-3896, email: gilberhv@


Web-Based Radiation


Next Course Starts September 12,


Website: www.radiationtraining.com

E-mail: kruti@goinfo.com

Telephone: (630) 858-6161 x105

ASME helps the global engineering

community develop solutions to real

world challenges. Founded in 1880 as

the American Society of Mechanical

Engineers, ASME is a not-for-profit

professional organization that enables

global collaboration, knowledge sharing

and skill development across all engineering

disciplines, while promoting the

vital role of the engineer in society. ASME

codes and standards, conformity

assessment programs, publications,

conferences, continuing education and

professional development programs

provide a foundation for advancing

technical knowledge and a safer world.

ASME has played a vital role in supporting

the nuclear industry since its

inception. By the early 1960s ASME had

developed the first code and conformity

assessment program for nuclear power

plants. As nuclear technology and the

industry progressed, so did ASME. In

1969, when the U.S. Atomic Energy

Commission (now known as the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission) first

published their proposal to amend

regulations – which would effectively

establish minimum quality standards

for the design, fabrication, erection,

construction, testing and inspection of

certain systems and components of

boiling and pressurized water-cooled

nuclear power plants – ASME met the

challenge. We developed the necessary

nuclear codes, standards and

conformity assessment programs to

meet industry needs worldwide.

ASME continues to look ahead in the

nuclear arena. Today we are developing

codes and standards, training and

other products for advanced nuclear

technologies, such as small modular

reactors, Gen IV designs and fusion.

Like we have been doing for 131 years,

ASME leads the way in advancing

technology, while keeping the world a

safer place.

For additional information visit

www.asme.org or contact John Bendo:

bendoj@asme.org or 212-591-7055.

To learn more about ASME’s Small

Modular Reactors Symposium (SMR

2011) – being held at the Hyatt Regency

Washington on Capitol Hill in Washington,

DC from September 28-30, 2011 – visit:


ASME Small Modular

Reactors Symposium

SMR 2011

September 28-30, 2011

Hyatt Regency Washington

on Capitol Hill

Washington, DC

ASME SMR 2011 will provide

strategic and technical considerations

for bringing SMRs from

design and concept into

fabrication and building.

Topics include:

Plant Applications, Engineering

and Design • Systems, Structures,

Components and Materials •

Fuel and Fuel Cycles • Nuclear

Engineering and Analysis (Reactor

Physics, Concepts, Thermal

Hydraulics) • Instrumentation

and Controls • Risk Assessment

Methods • Safety, Regulatory

Issues and Licensing • Advanced

Manufacturing, Modular Fabrication

and Construction • Supply

Chain Management • Plant

Economics and Financing

For additional information

and to register visit:


Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com 9

Utility, Industry & Corporation


NAYG Award

Three Entergy Nuclear engineers

received the North American Young

Generation in Nuclear Excellence Award

for 2011 during the organization’s

annual meeting. Amy Pittman, a fuel and

analysis engineer at Entergy’s national

nuclear headquarters in Jackson, Miss.;

Natalie Wood, a design engineer at the

River Bend Nuclear Station in Louisiana;

and Kristine Madden, a reactor engineer

at the Palisades Power Plant in Michigan,

were all recognized.

Entergy’s NA-YGN chapter also

was honored with the 2011 Chapter

Achievement Award for outstanding

efforts related to the growth of members

through social, community service, and

professional growth activities. This award

salutes chapters for overall excellence in

supporting the NA-YGN mission through

serving the industry.

Contact: Margie Jepson, telephone:

(601) 368-5460, email: mjepson@


License Renewal

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC) approved PSEG Nuclear’s

request to extend the operating licenses of

Salem Generating Station Units 1 and 2

an additional 20 years.

PSEG Nuclear filed its request for

license renewal in August, 2009. During

the past two years, a dedicated team

coordinated site inspections and audits by

the NRC, provided volumes of additional

information to the regulator and

participated in several meetings where the

public was provided with opportunities to

offer comment on the proposed license


Each Salem unit has a net generating

capacity of approximately 1175

megawatts. Salem Unit 1’s previous 40

year operating license was set to expire

in 2016 with Unit 2’s operating license

expiring in 2020. The plants will now

be licensed through 2036 and 2040


Contact: Joe Delmar, telephone:

(856) 339-1934.


Energy Center

On June 20, 2011, the Department

of Atomic Energy, India, signed an

MOU at Vienna with Ms. Rosatom of

Russia for cooperation in the activities

to be pursued at the Global Centre for

Nuclear Energy Partnership (GCNEP)

being set up by the Department of Atomic

Energy near Delhi in Haryana. It will

consist of 4 schools on advanced nuclear

energy systems studies, nuclear security

studies, radiological safety studies and

studies on applications of radioisotopes

and radiation technologies.

Dr. S. Banerjee, Chairman, Atomic

Energy Commission and Secretary,

Department of Atomic Energy,

Government of India signed on behalf of

Department of Atomic Energy while Mr.

S.V. Kirienko, DG, Rosatom signed on

behalf of M/s. Rosatom.

Contact: telephone: 91 22 2282

3144, email: skm@dae.gov.in.


The Nuclear Fabrication Consortium

(NFC) was established to develop

fabrication approaches to support the reestablishment

of a vibrant US nuclear industry.

NFC members include some of

the most influential OEMs, suppliers, and

innovators in the nuclear industry, who

are working together to solve the tough

issues that are currently slowing the nuclear


Contact: Nathan Ames, email:



NRU Reactor

The National Research Universal

(NRU) reactor has returned to operation

from its planned extended outage.

Vessel inspection results to date

confirm that there are no detectable

changes to the vessel wall, no detectable

corrosion, and that the inspected welds,

applied during the 2010 repairs continue

to be sound.

The NRU is currently operating at

high power, producing medical isotopes

and providing vital research and testing

support to the science community,

universities, and industry from across

Canada and around the world.

The purpose of the outage, conducted

over the past 32 days, was to perform

maintenance and inspection work

designed to enhance the reliability of NRU

and to fulfill AECL’s commitment to the

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission


Contact: Patrick Quinn, telephone:

(866) 886-2325.



The decontamination system codeveloped

by AREVA and Veolia Water

for the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear

plant has just reached the milestone of

18,000 tons of highly-radioactive waters

treated to-date, representing 15% of the

accumulated volume.

Installed on the Fukushima site, the

system was designed, constructed, and

launched in a record-short time (2 months)

and is an essential element to stabilize

the situation of the nuclear plants. It will

improve the access of workers to strategic

parts of the site, and allow TEPCO (Tokyo

Electric Power Company) to re-circulate

the waters that are used for cooling the


Constructed and commissioned by

AREVA and Veolia experts, the system

reduces the water radioactivity level

by a factor of 10,000 and can treat up

to 50 tons of contaminated waters per

hour. These technologies have a proven

track record in AREVA’s La Hague and

Marcoule facilities and across hundreds

of Veolia Water projects in the world.

Contact: Maxine Michaut, telephone:

33 1 34 96 12 15, email: press@areva.


(Continued on page 12)

10 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011





For more than 150 years, Howden

has proven ourselves the industry’s

most reliable company, offering the

broadest portfolio for your project’s

many specs. We maximize uptime with products that are

environmentally and seismically qualified for both mild

and harsh environment applications. Plus, our quality

systems have conformed to 10 CFR 50 Appendix B

for more than 40 years. Because, just like Lou, we’re

committed to getting the job done right.


Visit howden.com.

Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com 11


Continued from page 10

Service Agreements

AREVA DZ, LLC, a joint venture of

AREVA and Day & Zimmerman ECM,

has signed agreements with Entergy

Nuclear for future upgrades at all nine

Entergy nuclear plant sites.

The five-year agreements include

full-scope Engineering, Procurement

and Construction (EPC) services for

capital projects to upgrade the sites for

future operations. Entergy’s nuclear fleet

includes Pilgrim, Vermont Yankee, Indian

Point, Palisades, FitzPatrick, River Bend,

Grand Gulf, Arkansas Nuclear One, and


AREVA DZ, LLC was formed in

April 2009 to offer all U.S. operating sites

full EPC services for plant modifications

under a single contracting model.

Contact: Jarret Adams, telephone:

(301) 841-1695, email: jarret.adams@


Robotics and Inspection

Diakont, a manufacturer of robotics

and inspection equipment, has announced

the opening of its new facility in the US.

The formal grand opening of the San

Diego, California location was held on

June 27th, 2011.

The expansion into the US was a

logical next step in the company’s steady

growth, say Diakont officials, because of

the strength of the nuclear power industry,

and the US’ already-existing high demand

for Diakont products. These products

include the D40 radiation-tolerant video

camera; the principal camera used for

high-radiation visual inspection of reactor

components, welds, and nuclear fuel.

Diakont has made significant direct

investment in the US, installing the

resources, staff, and inventory to offer its

US customers the highest levels of service

and support. Diakont’s US-based staff

includes personnel in sales, engineering,

quality, and field service.

Contact: Edward Petit de Mange,

telephone: (858) 551 5551, email: ejp@


Vice President of Business Development

Art Woods. During his years at ENERCON

Mr. Woods was a design manager, site

services director and finally vice president

of business development. Prior to joining

ENERCON, Mr. Woods worked for

United Engineers & Constructors. He

also served in the U. S. Navy.

Director of Client Services Jim Gannon,

will assume Mr. Woods’ business development

responsibilities for the Power

Group. Mike Manski, previously vice

president of government services, will assume

the remaining responsibilities.

Contact: Peggy Striegel, telephone:

(918) 258-3536, email: peggy@striegela.


Valve Order

Flowserve Corporation, a provider

of flow control products and services

for the global infrastructure markets,

announced it has received a multi-million

dollar order from Korea Hydro & Nuclear

Power Co. Ltd (KHNP).

The order, which was booked in

the first quarter of 2011, includes main

steam isolation valves (MSIVs) and

main feedwater isolation valves (MFIVs)

intended to be used at the KHNP Shin-

Ulchin 1 and 2 nuclear power plant

pressurized water reactors. The Shin-

Ulchin 1 and 2 reactors are currently

under construction and scheduled for

commercial operation in 2015 and 2016,


Contact: Steve Boone, telephone:

(972) 443-6644.

Electrical Penetration


SCHOTT will be the first company

to supply all the required Electrical

Penetration Assemblies (EPA), sealed

with glass and metal, for a prototype

nuclear reactor being built in China. The

reactor is scheduled to go into operation

in China in about 4 years time. These are

currently the only EPAs in the world to be

used in such advanced nuclear reactors.

Contact: Barbara Augenblick,

telephone: (914) 831-2285, email:



CANDU Energy, a wholly-owned

subsidiary of SNC-Lavalin Group

Inc. has agreed with the Government

of Canada to acquire certain assets of

Atomic Energy of Canada’s (AECL)

commercial reactor division for a

purchase price of $15 million and royalty

payments from future new build and life

extension projects. AECL will retain its

past liabilities.

CANDU Energy will work towards

completing the Enhanced CANDU

reactor (EC6) development program,

with the support of the Government of

Canada of up to $75 million. CANDU

Energy will target new build projects

in Ontario, Canada as well as in other

countries around the world such as Jordan,

Romania, Argentina, Turkey and China.

The new company will also complete the

remaining obligations under the ongoing

life extension projects at Bruce Power,

Wolsong, Point Lepreau and Gentilly-2

through subcontract service agreements

with the Government of Canada.

The acquisition is expected to be

finalized in early fall 2011, subject to the

fulfillment of certain conditions including

Competition Act compliance and other

administrative approvals.

Contact: Leslie Quinton, telephone:

(514) 393-8000, email: leslie.quinton@



Westinghouse Electric Company

will begin shipping nuclear fuel to the

Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA) Watts

Bar site for use in the Unit 2 reactor. TVA

recently received a license from the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

to receive, inspect and store new nuclear

fuel for the reactor. This is a significant

milestone, which provides the first fuel

for a new U.S. reactor in 15 years.

Westinghouse manufactured the

fuel assemblies at its Columbia Fuel

Fabrication Facility in Columbia, S.C.

and will ship the assemblies between late

June and August 2011. Fuel loading is

expected to begin in 2012 at Watts Bar

2, which is currently under construction.

Once licensed to operate by the NRC,

Unit 2 will be the first new reactor to

achieve commercial operations in the

U.S. since Watts Bar Unit 1 in 1996 and

will add 1,180 megawatts to the TVA

power system.

Contact: Kathy Szlis, telephone:

(724) 940-8183, email: szliska@


Steam Dryer

Westinghouse Electric Company

has successfully installed a replacement


Enercon Services, Inc. announces

the retirement of executive team partner

(Continued on page 61)

12 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011


BIRNS: Three Decades of Innovation

No other company has

BIRNS, Inc.’s length

of experience or depth

of understanding in

the development and

manufacturing of

powerful, safe, high

performance nuclear lighting.

With deep engineering expertise,

advanced testing protocols and

comprehensive customer support—

BIRNS delivers unmatched lighting

solutions that have been trusted

worldwide since 1980.

Our lights both exponentially enhance safety and

decrease downtimes during critical system changes,

from the robust new 1kW BIRNS Corona, the

world’s most advanced high intensity nuclear

Emergency Light Fixture-LED. We are proud of our

long heritage of providing the most sophisticated

lights in the industry, and are constantly developing

new ways to innovate in this demanding market.


Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com 13


Chatham Steel:

A story of excellence spanning nearly a century.

-Chatham Steel provides the

benefit of experience and service

excellence to the nuclear industry.

For nearly a century, Chatham has

built a reputation for excellence in

quality, service and responsiveness.

And today, that same quality and

service ethic is available to customers

in the nuclear industry. Chatham Steel

has become the nuclear industry’s

new and better option for supplying

nuclear safety-critical materials.

-A proud history

Chatham Steel was founded in 1915.

Over the years, the company has

built a reputation for excellent service

and a highly efficient and responsive

network that includes service centers

from Ohio throughout the southeast.

Today, Chatham is part of the Reliance

Steel & Aluminum family, further

enhancing its leadership within

its markets.


technology and expertise

Because industry needs are constantly

changing and evolving,Chatham Steel

has continued to invest in facilities,

products, state-of-the-art processing

equipment and information systems

to serve all of its customers’ needs.

The combination of Chatham Steel’s

leading-edge capabilities and responsiveness

is rare in the nuclear industry.

The company’s culture emphasizes

training, teamwork and continuous

improvement. With advanced equipment,

technology, creativity and expertise,

Chatham Steel is able to deliver

customized solutions on time and

on budget.

-The advantages

of an extensive inventory

Chatham Steel maintains an extensive

inventory of products, giving customers

immediate access to carbon, alloy,

stainless steel, and aluminum. Inventory

includes plate,bar,sheet,tube,pipe,

beams, channels, angles, grating and

specialty products. Through their many

alliances across the country, Chatham

also has reliable access to even the most

difficult-to-find products and materials.

Because of the company’s large

inventory and processing capabilities,

it is able to help many of its customers

reduce their costs of operation by

processing and delivering products

on an as-needed basis.

-Chatham offers its customers

the Chatham Steel edge:

A RARE Partnership

Chatham Steel’s collaborative relationships

help its partners meet their

unique challenges. Chatham prides



itself on being a RARE partner to all

of its nuclear customers.The company

describes RARE as:

• Responsible – A company that

believes outstanding service should

co-exist with adherence to the most

stringent safety and quality standards.

A partner that delivers safety-critical

materials on time and within budget.

• Accountable –A single-source

supplier that provides complete

documentation and unparalleled


• Reliable –A proven track record of

almost 100 years of reliable service.

• Effective –A partner that offers

exceptional quality and service, and

provides the most effective solutions.

Chatham understands and adheres

to the safety-critical standards of the

nuclear industry. And, as part of the

Chatham commitment to quality

assurance and safety, the company

has attained the following:

ISO 9001:2008; Member of NIAC,

audited and compliant to ASME;

NQA-1, 10CFR50Appendix B and

10CFR Part 21.

The nuclear industry is now discovering

what other steel customers have known

for almost 100 years:Chatham Steel is a

remarkable resource and RARE partner.

For more information on

Chatham Steel, visit them online at

www.chathamsteel.com or call

1-800-869-2762 and ask for one

of their nuclear sales specialists.

14 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011

Responsive, Accountable, Reliable, Effective



At Chatham Steel, we are proud to announce our NQA-1 status.

Chatham Steel has been recognized as meeting or exceeding the strict

standards required to supply safety-critical materials to the nuclear industry.

That means you have a new and better option for your stock and

processed material needs.

Throughout our 95 years in business, we have earned a reputation for

excellence in serving the metal industry. We have proven we are responsible,

accountable, reliable and effective partners for our customers and we will

apply that same diligent service ethic to our safety-critical work for our

partners in the nuclear industry.

With a deep inventory of carbon, stainless, high-strength and specialty

metal products in plate, sheet, pipe, tube, shapes and bar, as well as

complete in-house processing services, Chatham Steel is the new and

better option for all your safety-critical needs. For more information, call

1-800-869-2762 and ask for one of our nuclear sales specialists,

email us at nuclear@chathamsteel.com or visit us online at


A member of the Reliance Steel and Aluminum family of companies.

With NQA-1 Assignation

16 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011

New Products, Services & Contracts

New Products

TV Camera

Diakont Advanced Technologies’

КТ-100M is an up-to-date tube TV

camera, which enables perfect radiation

tolerance of 50 MRad. The camera is

fitted with Chalnicon camera tube, which

combines high sensitivity with increased

radiation and temperature tolerance.

The camera features with a special

non-browning 6x zoom lens designed for

operation with the objects located at short

distances (from 200 mm to 2 m) from

camera. Besides optical zoom the camera

enables 2x analog zoom that allows

zooming in the picture and keeping a high

image quality.

Contact: telephone: 7 812 324 66 37,

email: sales@diakont.com.

Contamination Monitor

Ludlum Measurements, Inc.’s

Model 53 Gamma Personnel Portal

detects gamma radiation in or on

personnel passing through the portal from

either direction. This highly sensitive

portal uses eight large plastic scintillation

detectors, and is shielded with either

the standard 2.5 cm (1 in.) or optional

5.1 cm (2 in.) of lead. A user-friendly

interface guides personnel through the

portal monitor via automated voice

prompts, and is accompanied with 22.9

cm (9 in.) color LCD articulating screens

presenting the instrument readiness and

status at the ingress and egress. Alarms

are manifested both audibly and visually,

and can be silenced and acknowledged

via control buttons located on either side

of the instrument.

Three statistical counting modes

are available to maximize throughput,

maximize sensitivity, or fix the count time.

Several modifyable parameters adjust

the alarm set point, including the false

alarm probability, detection probability,

background sigma coefficient (KB), and

the composite sigma coefficient (KS+B).

Fast alarm and clean options provide the

ability to quickly determine if personnel

are contaminated or clean before the

entire count cycle has ended.

Contact: Mick Truitt, email: mtruitt@



HVAC Systems

Ellis & Watts Global Industries,

LLC. (E & W Global) designs and

supplies Nuclear Safety Related HVAC

systems and components. E & W Global

designs and manufactures Safety Related

and Non-Safety Related HVAC systems,

including Air Conditioners, Air Filtration

Systems, Air Handling Units, Air Heating

and Cooling Systems, Chillers, Fans,

Motors, Dampers and Electric Heaters.

E & W Global is fully capable of

designing, manufacturing, testing and

qualifying equipment to ASME AG-1

“Code on Nuclear Air and Gas Treatment”;

ASME Section Boiler and Pressure Vessel

Code, Section III, “Nuclear Power Plant

Components” and Section VIII.

Contact: Joseph Menkhaus,

telephone: (513) 638-1707, email:



Nuclear Services

AMEC, United Kingdom, the international

engineering and project management

company, has been awarded its first

major contract by URENCO UK Ltd to

provide a full range of nuclear services.

The three-year contract, the value of

which has not been announced, will see

AMEC call upon its full range of skills

and expertise to provide services against

specific tasks nominated by URENCO.

Contact: Harold Ashurst, telephone:

44 1565 684503, email: Harold.ashurst@


Uranium Studies

AMEC, United Kingdom, has been

awarded two definitive feasibility studies

to further develop uranium projects in


AMEC Minproc President, Malcolm

Brown, said: “AMEC Minproc is

delighted to be engaged in two prominent

uranium projects in southern Africa.

Under the first contract, AMEC

Minproc has commenced work for

Paladin Energy, Australia, on their

definitive feasibility study for the major

Stage 4 expansion of the flagship uranium

operation, Langer Heinrich, Namibia. The

study is targeting an overall expanded

annual production of 10 million pounds

and AMEC is designing and costing the

main processing plant out of its Perth,

Australia, office. The study is expected to

be complete by the end of 2011.

Under the second contract, AMEC

Minproc will conduct a definitive feasibility

study for Bannerman Resources’

Etango uranium project, also in Namibia.

The Etango project is one of the world’s

largest undeveloped uranium deposits,

boasting a total resource of 212 million

pounds of uranium oxide (U 3

O 8

). The

study will focus on the development of

a 5-7 million pounds per annum U 3

O 8

open-pit mining operation.

Contact: Brittni Baum, telephone:

61 8 9347 4777, email: brittni.baum@


Fuel Services

Global Nuclear Fuel-Americas

(GNF-A) has announced it has received

a $300 million dollar contract from

Constellation Energy Nuclear Group,

LLC (CENG) to supply fuel and

associated engineering reload licensing

services to the utility’s Nine Mile Point

Nuclear Station in central New York.

For the units 1 and 2 fuel reloads,

GNF-A will supply fuel that is produced

and assembled at the company’s Wilmington,

N.C. fuel fabrication plant. The

fuel assemblies will be equipped with

GNF’s Defender filter technology. This

is an added safety feature that protects the

fuel by capturing debris that may exist in

a reactor core, thus helping to prevent

damage to fuel rods.

Contact: Michael Tetuan, telephone:

(910) 819-7055, email: Michael.tetuan@


Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com 17


Nuclear Services

“Exceptional customer service. Very

responsive to our needs. Proactive

solutions rather than reactive. Engaged

at all levels of the organization.”

- Maintenance Director,

North American Nuclear Power Facility

With more than 35 years of in-depth experience, Day & Zimmermann is the leading nuclear

plant maintenance and modifi cations contractor in the U.S. and is currently ranked as the #1

O&M Contractor in Power by Engineering News-Record. We partner with more than 70 of the

nation’s 104 operating commercial nuclear power plants to deliver total plant lifecycle solutions,

from refueling outages and online support to major projects.

Day & Zimmermann provides a comprehensive range of costeffective

services that allow our customers to meet the challenges

and opportunities presented by today’s evolving utility environment.

Our success is a result of our dedication to safe, productive

work environments and our assumption of full ownership of our

assigned workscopes. Our extensive portfolio of maintenance and

modifi cation services for the nuclear sector includes:

• Extended power uprates

• Control room renovations

• ISFSI construction

• Major piping modifi cations

Plant security upgrades

• Feedwater heater replacements

• Condensate fi ltrate systems

• RWCU modifi cations

• Turbine retrofi ts

• Iron pre-fi lter systems

• Water treatment modifi cations

• Extraction steam piping and expansion joint replacement

• Cooling tower modifi cations

Alliance/Partnering Approach

Day & Zimmermann has extensive experience working under

“pay for performance” contracts, multi-unit/system-wide contracts

and long-term alliance agreements. We believe these types of

relationships are the most cost effective and mutually benefi cial for

both owners and contractors. We welcome the opportunity to earn

our fee based on our performance and the performance of the units

we service. Our major customers include AEP, APS, Constellation

Energy, Dominion, Duke Energy, Entergy, FENOC, NextEra Energy,


Industry Involvement

Day & Zimmermann is actively involved on many fronts to address

industry issues and advance the benefi ts of nuclear power and

safe, cost-effective plant operations. We work with INPO, ANS, NEI,

EPRI and numerous other industry organizations along with the

Building & Construction Trades organization and their initiatives on

labor availability, skills certifi cation and training.

Safety, Integrity, Diversity, Success

18 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011

A legacy of accomplishment, a future of possibilities.

Founded on a commitment to helping customers increase productivity through

advanced technology, Day & Zimmermann has successfully delivered on our

promise—We do what we say. ® —for 110 years. We continue that legacy

today by providing total plant lifecycle solutions to the power market. From

maintenance and modifications to engineering, construction and fabrication,

our integrated service offerings create unmatched value for our customers.

Day & Zimmermann: combining diverse capabilities, long-standing industry

experience, innovative technology, and expert teams to safely deliver your

most complex projects.


New Documents


1. Plant Engineering: Instrument Power

Supply End-of-Expected-Life Guidance.

Product ID: 1022966. Published May,


This report gives nuclear power

plant personnel a technical basis for

the refurbishment and/or replacement

of instrument power supplies prior to

their end-of-life. Recommendations are

presented that should be considered in the

development of site-specific instrument

power supply life cycle management

plans. Nuclear plant instrument power

supplies have been identified for many

years as being a high contributor to plant

forced shutdown and capacity derate.

This report provides empirical data that

can assist plant personnel in identifying

near-failure conditions and suggests

approaches to managing them prior to


2. Control Relay Aging Management

Guideline: Auxiliary, Control, and Timing

Relays. Product ID: 1022972. Published

May, 2011.

The concept for this report came from

the concern that many control relays have

been in service for an extended period of

time and an effective aging management

program may not be in place for these

relays. In addition, recent Institute of

Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) data

indicate that relays are one of the leading

component types causing scrams. With

control relay age increasing and relays

being a significant contributor to scrams,

an evaluation of control relay maintenance

and replacement strategies was needed

with the objective of providing better

guidance for addressing relay aging.

3. Plant Engineering: Fiber Bragg

Grating Monitoring of Flow-Accelerated

Corrosion. Product ID: 1023189.

Published May, 2011.

The objective of this project was to

investigate the use of fiber Bragg grating

sensors (FBGSs) for the detection of steel

pipe wall thinning due to flow-accelerated

corrosion (FAC). The reduced thickness

increases the strain in the pipe wall when

the pipe is pressurized; therefore, it should

be detectable using surface-mounted

strain sensors. Traditional inspection

techniques designed to detect FAC use

ultrasonic sensors to directly measure

the pipe wall thickness. The FBGS is a

type of fiber optic sensor that produces a

change in the wavelength of transmitted

and reflected optical signals in response

to external stimuli such as strain and


4. Instrumentation and Control

Program. Product ID: 1023214. Published

May, 2011.

EPRI’s Instrumentation and Control

program provides the technical bases

for advanced I&C and information

technologies so existing and new nuclear

plants can tap into functionality and

capabilities underutilized to date in the

nuclear sector. These capabilities support

safe plant operation with high equipment

reliability and personnel productivity

while managing I&C obsolescence.

5. Compendium of Nuclear Safety

Analysis Center Reports. Product ID:

1023213. Published May, 2011.

This CD-ROM contains 204 reports

and papers published by EPRI’s Nuclear

Safety Analysis Center. They were

published in 1980–1994 following the

Three Mile Island 2 (TMI-2) accident,

but work continued during the following

decade. A listing of the report numbers

and titles is provided here, and research

into many related issues is summarized

in 2010 Electric Power Research Institute

(EPRI) report 1020497, Technical

Foundation of Reactor Safety.

6. Structural Integrity of Advanced

Claddings During Spent Nuclear Fuel

Transportation and Storage, Volume 1:

Creep Testing of ZIRLO Cladding

Tubes. Product ID: 1022919. Published

June, 2011.

Thermal creep is the dominant

deformation mechanism of fuel cladding

during transportation and dry storage

of spent nuclear fuel. Thermal creep

data and creep models of Westinghouse

ZIRLO and LK3 cladding tubes were

generated for use in spent-fuel storage

and transportation applications. The

final report consists of two volumes.

This document (Volume 1) provides the

project results obtained on non-irradiated

and irradiated standard ZIRLO and nonirradiated

optimized ZIRLO claddings.

The above EPRI documents may be

ordered by contacting the Order Center

at (800) 313-3774 Option 2 or email at



Global Data

Nuclear Heat Exchanger Market -

Global Market Size, Pricing Analysis,

Regional Analysis and Competitive

Landscape to 2020, gives detailed

information on the global nuclear

heat exchangers market and provides

historical and forecast data for heat

exchangers demand and revenues. The

research analyzes trends in the global

heat exchanger market and gives detailed

analysis for leading countries in the


The report analyzes key factors

impacting the market. The total demand

for nuclear heat exchangers is given. The

nuclear heat exchangers markets of major

regions such as North America, Europe

and Asia Pacific are analyzed. The

countries covered in this study include the

US, Canada, France, Russian Federation,

Germany, Ukraine, Japan, Republic of

Korea, India and China.

The regulations affecting the market

and the price of heat exchangers are

included in this report. Information on

key market players such as Alstom,

Areva, Babcock and Wilcox, Bharat

Heavy Electricals Limited, Mitsubishi

Heavy Industries and others is given in

this report.

Contact: telephone: (646) 395-5460,

email: info@globaldata.com.

20 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011

Zachry brings full EPC services to changing market needs

More than 100 nuclear reactors in 31

states currently dot the nation and

provide upwards of one fifth of its

electricity, more than twice that of all

other green and low carbon sources

combined. Still, the largest source of

clean energy available, the only choice

able to meet baseload electricity

demand 24/ 7, requires consistent

maintenance, modification and safety

upgrades. That’s where Zachry Nuclear,

Inc. comes into the picture.

Zachry’s mission is simple: use

specialized skills, talent and resources to

analyze existing plant designs; evaluate

facilities’ safety robustness; and design

appropriate modifications to further

bolster the site’s depth of safety.

Already reinforcing stringent safety

standards, the American nuclear

industry anticipates enhancement

methods and facilities for storing spent

fuel rods; additional backup power

generation and battery support; and

modifications to ensure safety in the

face of “beyond design basis” events.


Zachry Nuclear Engineering focuses

on upgrading nuclear facilities to

meet new government and industry

regulation. Engineers design “power

uprates” to generate more power

with existing equipment; design

and construct service water piping

replacements; and assist in addressing

cyber security issues.

Regardless of the need, Zachry has

shown itself as a top leader in all things

power. Building the largest photovoltaic

solar generating facility in North

America, the Sempra Mesquite Solar

Plant located about 40 miles west of

Phoenix; constructing a large biomass

facility in Arkansas; and installing

myriad air quality control systems on

numerous existing coal-fired units,

Zachry has made a name in energy.

And, of course, Zachry has designed

and constructed more combined cycle

natural gas plants than any other major

contractor. Whether the future involves

solar, biomass, coal, gas, nuclear or, as

is likely, all of the above—it is certain

that Zachry will play a crucial role.

About Zachry

Zachry, a true EPC provider, is

engaged in the planning, building

and renewing of the world’s most

critical industrial infrastructures.

Zachry remains a family-owned,

privately held company whose

values—Safety, Commitment, Trust,

Integrity, Service, Economy and

Skill—lead every decision, every

time. Founded in 1924, Zachry’s long

list of experience has led to more

than 6,000 completed projects in the

United States and abroad.

As a collaborative, practical and

visionary force, the San Antoniobased

firm is one of the largest

direct-hire, merit-shop contractors

in the United States. Comprised of

their Construction and Industrial

Services Groups, Zachry Engineering

Corporation and Zachry Nuclear,

Inc., Zachry forms a full-service firm

capable of services from planning

and design, to construction and



Standing strong, we’ve seen the nuclear industry change in our 85 years; and with each

branch that reaches outward, our goal has always been for you to flourish, renew and thrive.

Zachry—overcoming obstacles, securing success



Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com 21

Electrical Penetration Assemblies from

SCHOTT: The Choice for Safety

The safety of nuclear power plants is of

utmost importance to all stakeholders involved.

This is why government bodies,

power plant designers and utility companies

take extra care and choose the

best materials and technologies available

when deciding on the key features of a

new power plant.

Electrical Penetration Assemblies

(EPAs) are one such key component, as

they allow for the safe conduction of electricity

through the fire-protective, pressure-resistant

and hermetically sealed

containment walls of nuclear power

plants. In case of an accident, they also

prevent steam, pressure and radioactivity

from escaping.

Electrical Penetration Assembly (EPA) for pressurized

water reactors (PWR) and boiling water reactors

(BWR). (Source: SCHOTT)

Safety Where It Counts

SCHOTT’s EPAs are manufactured

using a unique compression glass-tometal

sealing technology. Differing from

epoxy-sealed EPA’s, SCHOTT’s Electrical

Penetration Assemblies are based on an

inorganic, non-aging glass seal and can

therefore offer a qualified lifetime of 60

years for the conductors and the pressure

barriers. SCHOTT’s EPAs can therefore be

considered the safest solution.

Since 1962, SCHOTT has delivered

more than 12,000 Electrical Penetration

Assemblies that have been installed in

approximately 100 nuclear power plants

around the world. They are still performing

to specification without any maintenance

whatsoever after more than 40

years in service.


Designed for Reliability

Compression glass-to-metal sealed

feedthroughs basically comprise a metal

housing, a glass sealant and metal conductors.

The preassembled component is

heated up to a temperature at which the

glass melts to the metal. During the cooling

process, the metal housing contracts

to a much greater extent than the glass

does. This compression creates a highly

pressure-resistant and hermetically sealed

unit that offers the highest safety.

SCHOTT’s Electrical Penetration Assemblies

are manufactured according

to IEEE317 and KTA 3403, the quality

management system that complies with

ASME, ISO 9001, IAEA 50-C-Q and many


The hermetic penetrations offer a

high packing density of up to 118 poles

at connector solutions and more than

500 pins at flange types. This enables the

reduction of the required quantity of embedded

pipes for nuclear power plants.

Product Diversity

SCHOTT continuously optimizes its

products. The latest generation of Electrical

Penetration Assemblies uses receptive

modules with mountable connectors,

which allows for smaller construction sizes

and easy installation at the site.

Besides power and regular control/

instrumentation penetrations, SCHOTT

also produces coax and triax penetrations

in a single or double barrier version.

SCHOTT’s technological expertise has resulted

in a wide range of solutions for the

nuclear industry’s safety needs.

SCHOTT’s glass-to-metal sealed penetrations

are used in Pressurized Water

Reactors (PWR), High Temperature Reactors

(HTR) - also known as Pebble Bed

Reactors (PBR), Boiling Water Reactors

(BWR) and Fast Breeder Reactors (FBR)

around the world.

International Technology


SCHOTT is an international technology

group with more than 125 years of

experience in the areas of specialty glasses

and materials and advanced technologies.

The SCHOTT Group maintains

close proximity to its customers with manufacturing

and sales units in all major

markets. Its workforce of approximately

17,500 employees generated worldwide

sales of approximately $3.8 billion for the

2009/2010 fiscal year. Drawing on more

than 125 years of experience in developing

special materials, components, and

systems, SCHOTT has in-house development

and manufacturing capabilities to

meet any demand of the nuclear industry


Attenuation measurement of fiber-optic penetrations for PWR and BWR (Source: SCHOTT)

22 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011

Electrical Penetrations by SCHOTT

Maintenance-Free in More Than 50 Plants Worldwide

SCHOTT's glass-to-metal sealed Electrical Penetrations are the safest and

most reliable choice

• Lowest life-cycle cost

• Proven reliability since the early 1960s

• Unlimited lifetime of pressure barrier due to inorganic, glass-to-metal sealing technology

• Minimum 60 years of qualified lifetime for assembly

• Ideal for installation in EPR, APWR, AP1000, ABWR, ESBWR and HTR due to

high temperature and pressure resistance

SCHOTT Electronic Packaging

A Division of SCHOTT North America, Inc.

122 Charlton Street

Southbridge, MA 01550

Phone: 508.765.3370

Fax: 508.765.3377


Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com 23


Meeting & Training Calendar

1. International Symposium on Future

I&C for Nuclear Power Plants,

Cognitive Systems Engineering in

Process Control, and International

Symposium on Symbiotic Nuclear

Power Systems, August 21-25,

2011, Daejeon Convention Center

(DCC), Daejeon, Republic of Korea.

Organized by the Korea Nuclear

Society. Contact: website: www.


2. Spent Nuclear Fuel Dry Storage and

Transportation Seminar, September

7-9, 2011, Atlanta, Georgia. Contact:

Chris Delance, NAC International,

email: cdelance@nacintl.com.

3. Conference on Waste Management,

Decommissioning and Environmental

Restoration for Canada’s Nuclear

Activities 2011, Canadian

Nuclear Society, September 11-

14, 2011, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Contact: The Professional Edge,

telephone: (416) 977-7620, fax:

(613) 732-3386, email: Elizabeth@

theprofessionaledge.com, website:


4. International Conference on

Development and Applications of

Nuclear Technologies, September 11-

14, 2011, Krakow, Poland. Contact:

AGH University of Science and

Technology, telephone: 48 12 617

2975, fax: 48 12 634 0010, email:


5. 20 th International Conference on

Nuclear Energy for New Europe,

September 12-15, 2011, Bovec,

Slovenia. Contact: Nuclear Society

of Slovenia, telephone: 386 1 588

5298, email: nene2011@ijs.si.

6. 36 th World Nuclear Association

Annual Symposium, September 14-

16, 2011, Central Hall Westminister,

London. Contact: telephone: 44 20

7451 1520, fax: 44 20 7839 1501,

email: info@world-nuclear.org.

7. The 14 th International Conference

on Environmental Remediation and

Radioactive Waste Management,

September 25-29, 2011, Reims,

France. Contact: American Society

of Nuclear Engineers, website:



8. NEA/CSNI Workshop on Safety

Assessment of Fuel Cycle Facilities,

September 27-29, 2011, Toronto,

Canada. Contact: OECD Nuclear

Energy Agency, telephone: 33 1 45

24 10 58, email: radomir.rehacek@


9. American Society of Mechanical

Engineers Small Modular Reactors

Symposium, September 28-30, 2011,

Washington, D.C. Contact: telephone:

(212) 591-7637, website: www.


10. India Nuclear Energy 2011, September

29-October 1, 2011, Mumbai, India.

Contact: UBM India, telephone:

91 22 6612 2600, email: abhijit.

mukherjee@ubm.com, website: www.


11. International Conference on the

Future of Heavy Water Reactors,

October 2-5, 2011, Ottawa, Ontario,

Canada. Contact: Canadian Nuclear

Society, website: www.cns-snc.ca/


12. International Conference on the Safe

and Secure Transport of Radioactive

Material: The Next Fifty Years of

Transport - Creating a Safe, Secure

and Sustainable Framework, October

17-21, 2011, Vienna, Austria. Contact:

K. Morrison, IAEA, telephone: 43

2600 21317, email: k.morrison@iaea.


13. China International Nuclear Symposium,

October 20-22, 2011, Sheraton

Hong Kong Hotel and Towers, Hong

Kong, China. Contact: World Nuclear

Association, telephone: 44 20 7451

1520, fax: 44 20 7839 1501, email:


14. International Uranium Fuel Seminar,

October 23-26, 2011, Westin Kierland,

Scottsdale, Arizona. Contact: Nuclear

Energy Institute, telephone: (202)

739-8000, email: conferences@nei.


15. 2011 ICRP Symposium on the

International System of Radiological

Protection, October 23-30, 2011,

Bethesda, Maryland. Contact:

International Commission on

Radiological Protection, email:


16.2011 American Nuclear Society

Winter Meeting and Nuclear Technology

Expo, October 30-November

3, 2011, Omni Shoreham Hotel,

Washington, D.C. Contact: telephone:

(708) 579-8237.

17. AtomEco 2011, October 31-November

2, 2011, World Trade Center,

Moscow, Russia. Contact: Atomexpo,

telephone: 7 495 663 38 21, fax:

7 495 663 38 20, email: atomexpo@


18. Technical Meeting on Fast Reactor

Physics and Technology. November

14-18, 2011, Kalpakkam, India.

Contact: International Atomic

Energy Agency, telephone: 43 1 2600

21754, email: r.bojdo@iaea.org.

19. Licensing Information Forum,

November 29-30, 2011, Hyatt

Regency Washington on Capitol Hill,

Washington, D.C. Contact: Nuclear

Energy Institute, telephone: (202)

739-8000, email: conferences@nei.


20. ATOMEX III International Nuclear

Industry Suppliers’ Forum, December

6-8, 2011, World Trade Center,

Moscow, Russia. Contact: Atomexpo,

telephone: 7 495 663 38 21, fax:

7 495 663 38 20, email: newgen@


21. Nuclear Industry, China 2012, China,

April 3-6, 2012, China National

Convention Center, Beijing, P.R.

Contact: Lin Yi, telephone: 86

10 652 68 150, 65260852, email:

linyinic@126.com, website: www.


24 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011


Kinectrics: The Power

of Experience

Advanced Expertise / Full Service

Nuclear Support - Worldwide

NUPIC Audited

Commitment to Nuclear

Kinectrics offers technical capabilities

specifically focused for the nuclear

industry. We provide comprehensive

services in plant inspection, equipment

qualification and commercial grade

dedication, genuine nuclear parts

and specialized tooling, fuel channel

integrity, nuclear waste management,

environmental technologies, and

electrical testing.

History of Excellence

An internationally-recognized provider

of life cycle management services for

electricity generation and transmission

assets, Kinectrics supports utilities

with reliable engineering, complete

inspection and testing services, and

innovative products. Our award-winning

scientists and engineers deliver the

unique advantage of almost 100 years

of proven expertise and experience in

the energy industry.

Quality Assurance

Our highly-qualified nuclear specialists

are familiar with details of specific

standards throughout North America,

and have actively served on the technical

committees that developed these

important industry criteria. Kinectrics

is registered to ISO 9001, NUPIC

audited, and maintains a 10 CFR

Appendix B program.

Equipment Qualification

Kinectrics has performed equipment

qualification encompassing international

reactor designs and utility / manufacturers’

equipment requirements for over 2

decades. We have qualified thousands

of safety-related electrical and mechanical


SEISMIC TESTING - Kinectrics performs

comprehensive seismic testing for

nuclear, including expanded capabilities

for RIM (Required Input Motion) testing.

Our seismic lab facilities include

tri-axial tables with shock / response

spectrum analysis and sine sweep

capabilities up to 10,000 lbs.

THERMAL AGING - Kinectrics has a

variety of environmental chambers

and ovens used to perform accelerated

thermal aging of components, and

determine component or system

activation energies.


has unparalleled capabilities to simulate

the harsh environments associated

with advanced reactor design and

equipment qualification.

Commercial Grade


Kinectrics will procure commercial

components, evaluate all of the critical

characteristics, and create a rigorous

dedication plan. We have unsurpassed

capability in confirming conformance

to the characteristic. Our detailed

dedication plans are based on EPRI

Standards in compliance with regulatory


Expanded Facilities

Kinectrics’ expanded Steam Test

Facility permits close control of steam

conditions to meet IEEE 323 margin

standards while minimizing overtesting

during simulations.

The Kinectrics Decontamination and

Refurbishment Facility (DRF) is a new

dedicated area for the refurbishment,

repair and decontamination of active

plant equipment and components.

Nuclear Inspection Services

Kinectrics’ world-class team provides

qualified plant inspection services.

Complemented by our subsidiary

company Axiom NDT, we have the

right people, resources and experience

to deliver reliable inspection of

nuclear plant systems and components.

The Kinectrics US office in Cincinnati,

Ohio provides focused support for the

existing nuclear fleet and new build

throughout North America, incorporating

long-established industry experience

with US standards and regulations.

Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com 25

A Global Enterprise

By Christopher Crane, Exelon


1. What are Exelon’s international

interests in providing services to other

nuclear power utilities?

Our international interest started

three to four years ago when we were

approached to be part of a consortium

to bid on the UAE contracts to build

and operate nuclear facilities for the

United Arab Emirates (UAE). So we had

conversations with GE and Hitachi and

some others. It peaked our interest and

we entered into that bidding process.

We did not prevail but since then we

have continued to evaluate opportunities

in the international market. We signed

multiple MOU’s in China for training

services and we continue to think there

is a market for us in the services area.

Currently we have three people under

contract with Tokyo Electric Power

Company (TEPCO) in Japan helping the

recovery strategies at Fukushima. We’ve

been involved in multiple bids in Eastern

Europe and are continuing to evaluate

what the opportunities are. We think we

are uniquely positioned, out of all of the

world’s nuclear operators, we haven’t

found anybody that has developed as

detailed of a management model all the

way from the strategies at the top to the

policies, programs and processes that we

operate our plants under a standardized

manner. So we do believe we have an

opportunity to provide services. It gives

us not only a growth business but it also

helps expose us to other international

entities and techniques. So while we are

doing business, we’re also learning at the

same time.

2. What is Exelon’s specifi c involvement

in Fukushima?

The assistance effort nationally is

being led by Institute of Nuclear Power

Operations (INPO). We’re involved with

An interview by Newal Agnihotri, Editor

of Nuclear Plant Journal at Exelon's

Headquarters in Chicago on June 27,


Christopher Crane

Christopher Crane is President and

Chief Operating Offi cer of Exelon

Corporation and President of Exelon

Generation. Crane has worked in the

nuclear industry in progressively more

responsible positions for 30 years. He

joined Exelon (then ComEd) in 1998,

and was named Chief Nuclear Offi cer in


He was named Exelon’s President and

Chief Operating Offi cer in September,

2008. In addition to generation, he

directs the work of Exelon’s power

trading organization, corporate

INPO and that’s with WANO and NRC

and DOE. We are working with two

consortiums, Hitachi and Toshiba, bidding

on the stabilization, dismantlement

and the decontamination of the sites.

So there are more people working with

both Toshiba and Hitachi. We have three

people working in the TEPCO offices

that are helping in the scoping and the

development of the planning around “how

do you address the removal of the fuel,

how do you address the encapsulation,

contamination, and stabilization of the


development functions, and corporate

transmission activities.

Crane is an acknowledged leader

in both the U.S. and international

nuclear industry. He is a member of

the board of directors of the Institute of

Nuclear Power Operations, the industry

organization promoting the highest

levels of safety and reliability in nuclear

plant operation. He is a member of the

executive committee of the Nuclear

Energy Institute, the nation’s nuclear

industry trade association, where he

has also served as chairman of the New

Plant Oversight Committee and as a

member of the Nuclear Strategic Issues

Advisory Committee, the Nuclear Fuel

Supply Committee and the Materials

Initiative Group. He is Chairman of the

World Nuclear Association, promoting

the peaceful worldwide use of nuclear

energy. He is on the board of the

Foundation for Nuclear Studies.

Crane studied at New Hampshire

Technical College, and attended

Harvard Business School’s Advanced

Management Program. He previously

held a senior reactor operator

certifi cation.

3. Will Fukushima have an impact on

the nuclear energy renaissance in the

United States?

First of all, I think the government,

the administration, the DOE and the NRC

have been very balanced in their response

to Fukushima. They understand what

differentiates the U.S. operations from

the Japanese operations. They want to get

the lessons learned and they want to make

sure we improve our margins of safety.

But as they all reaffirmed, they believe as

we operate today, the U.S. fleet is safe,

reliable, and we should continue to be

part of the mix. Fukushima, I don’t think

will be the issue that stops the nuclear

renaissance. I think the incorporation of

lessons learned and making sure if there

(Continued on page 28)

26 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011

GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy

Talk to the experts

about alternatives

for a low-carbon future.


speaks volumes.

Talk with one of our engineers and you

never know where the conversation

might lead. Perhaps, to the proven

reliability and efficiency of our installed

GEN III ABWR (Advanced Boiling Water

Reactor) plants. Or, just as easily, to the

simplified design and passive safety

systems afforded by our next

generation ESBWR reactor designs.

A world-class knowledge resource

ready to share: that’s the beauty of

drawing upon more than 50 years

of design, construction and

operations experience.

To learn more, visit ge.com/nuclear

A Global...

Continued from page 26

is anything more we can do reasonably

for the accidents that weren’t predicted

or circumstances that weren’t predicted

they would be incorporated. The reality

is the economy has slowed the nuclear

renaissance. When you have the demand

reduced and the cost of natural gas

significantly reduced, the economics

don’t warrant building a new nuclear

plant on economics only. For a good part

of the country, the competitive market,

the merchant market is based off of

economics. So the most reliable, cheapest

source goes to market first and that should

help in helping the economy rebound. In

the regulated jurisdictions, the decision

for the states may be more than just the

current economy, but the long term fuel

diversification. So you’ll see states like

Georgia continue to endorse the Vogtle

Units 3 and 4 construction because they

are on the long run fuel diversification.

But overall I think the administration is

being balanced and the NRC hasn’t been

swayed by political pressures. They are

sticking to the science and margin of

safety. There will be individuals who

take advantage of this terrible accident in

Japan to drive their own personal agenda

and if they are anti nuclear, they are really

going to energize their purpose to try to

restate what they think the policy should


4. How does Exelon’s nuclear

generation economics compare with the

economics of non-nuclear generation?

Right now the existing fleet,

the current operating fleet, the most

economical plants we have are the

nuclear units. The nuclear units are low

cost, baseload generation, and dispatched

constantly under any weather condition;

they are the ones that dispatch first. Our

gas units continue to serve the mid merit

and peaking markets. We think if we were

to build a new unit as the demand comes

back, we would build a natural gas unit.

It’s a less cost of construction and with

the fuel cost being down they would be

the most competitive to build.

5. How has Exelon optimized its plant

refueling program?

We believe we optimize the refueling

outages. We actually work off of a 15

days template where the base amount of

work that has to be done, the preventative

maintenance, predictive maintenance and

surveillance test. But because the plants

are aging we have larger projects like

replacing the turbines and generators, and

modifications and replacement of piping,

work on the reactor internals. So our

outages are averaging 24 days which is

still much less than the national average

but we think there’s always more work

we can do to become efficient. After every

outage we look at the lessons learned and

try to apply them to the next outage. I

don’t see a significant reduction coming

in average outage duration as we work to

ready the plants for license extension.

6. What are Exelon’s current plans for

optimizing its operation and maintenance

while maintaining safety and reliability?

A lot of it is around reliability. We

have done a significant amount of work

on the active components. Motors, pumps

and valves. We spent a lot of money to build

the preventive maintenance templates in

that area. Where we’re working now, the

focus is on piping, piping replacement.

How do you predict where in the lifecycle

of the plant do you start proactively

replacing components like that? Cabling,

as the cables age, you need to have the

predictive capability and programs in

place. We’re doing a lot around that to

drive reliability. Our tritium leaks which

have caused us issues from a reputational

standpoint, come from buried piping. So

there is significant fleet projects right now

to risk categorize the entire buried pipe

to be able to go in a methodical manner

and either replace the pipe or encapsulate

the pipe, or whatever the engineering

fix is. That’s a major focus. It’s more of

a reputation management. The people

around the plants don’t want to hear, there

is radiation in the ground, no matter how

benign the radiation is, radiation needs to

be contained in the plant and that’s what

we have to work on. The next major focus

is making sure we continue even with the

decreased margins, because the market

prices are down but we continue to

budget and hire and train the talent of the

next generation. We can’t slow that focus

or that project just because of budget

constraints or profit margins. In ten years

a good portion of our top management at

all of our plants will be either retired or

retiring, so getting that next generation

through, passing on all those experiences

we all got and the construction start up

and operation of the fleet over the last

three decades, it’s imperative that we

don’t just turn this over without training

and passing on the lessons learned of the


Nuclear is such a special technology

that’s been harnessed. There is always

going to be a lot of vigilance around

communicating with the neighbors

and the communities. Exelon Nuclear

Communications has done a lot not only

around tritium but also around Fukushima,

having public open forum nights, bringing

in experts (seismic, flooding) that can

answer people’s questions. A lot of the

information we get is coordinated by the

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). We get

from NEI good lessons learned, we give

NEI good lessons learned. But after our

Braidwood tritium issue four or five years

ago now, we really tripled the effort on

getting more folks in communications,

getting more time in the communities,

communicated more, trying to be as

transparent as we can about the issues

surrounding the plants.

7. Are there any ongoing plant uprate

efforts at Exelon?

There are major uprate projects at

many of our plants. At Quad Cities, we

just finished the second unit of replacing

the turbines. We are starting replacements

of turbines at Dresden and Peach Bottom

this year. We finished an extended power

uprate at Clinton. At LaSalle, we are

pursuing an extended power upgrade,

(Continued on page 32)

28 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011



Industry’s Well-Rounded

Parts Solution.

During its three decades of service Divesco has

evolved into a full service supplier of I&C, electrical and

mechanical parts and components to the nuclear industry

worldwide. Divesco assists utilities with their Investment

Recovery Programs, giving them economically feasible

alternatives when faced with reduction of their inventories.

Additionally, Divesco specializes in the supply of obsolete

or hard-to-find parts and components back to nuclear

plants in need.

Divesco’s 25 years of experience in the nuclear field

has given them credibility in the handling, shipping,

and storage of the parts and components they

own. Their NUPIC audited Quality Assurance Program

ensures that their 50,000 square feet of Level B warehouses

conform to exacting standards. A standing inventory of

more than 15,000 items is accessible on the web 24/7.

And for parts that are not available immediately from

stock, Divesco expedites the sourcing of emergency items

via a network of partners to assure plants get what they

need, when they need it.

Powering Divesco’s expansive inventory is the Divesco

team and their industry-leading Priority One Expediting

service. Divesco has learned through years that there

is no time for down time. Their location, adjacent to

Jackson, Mississippi Airport, has enabled Divesco to

ensure that orders are delivered within the most critical

timeframes and deadlines.

Whether it is helping utilities reach their investment

recovery goals, providing the supply of obsolete and

hard-to-find parts, or their Priority One Expediting,

Divesco has put a world of qualified nuclear surplus

at their client’s fingertips. The scope of their services

and the scale of their inventory have earned

Divesco the distinction of being the leader in the nuclear

surplus industry.

Available. Fast. Reliable. DIVESCO

Your well-rounded solution!

601-932-1934 www.divesco.com

601.932.1934 www.DIVESCO.com

Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com 29

Supporting the US and International

Nuclear Industry for more than 40 years.

Custom Safety Chillers

UL555 Fire Dampers

Blast Doors

ASME Code Vessels

Ellis & Watts Global Industries, LLC

4400 Glen Willow Lake Lane

Batavia, Ohio 45203 USA

Tel: +1-513-752-9000 Fax: +1-513-752-4545



About Us

Ellis & Watts was founded in 1952 as a

designer and manufacturer of special

purpose heating, ventilation, and air

conditioning (HVAC) equipment. Since

then, we have developed a broad

capability in heat transfer, air treatment,

and environmental control systems.

Our equipment operates every day in

hundreds of commercial fossil and

nuclear power plants; industrial

facilities; military facilities; and DOE/

DOD project sites, in the United States,

Europe, and Asia. We specialize in

designing customized HVAC systems

and components that meet the

stringent requirements for military,

medical, and nuclear industries.

Since 1952, our approach and

dedication to quality, reliability, and

service have remained constant. We

are committed to proven problem

solving techniques and traditional

HVAC design methods that exceed our

customer’s requirements.


Engineering is the focal point of the

Company, and our greatest strength.

Our veteran engineers participate in the

Codes and Standards that contribute to

our industry including: ASME Boiler &

Pressure Vessel Code Section III, ASME

Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code Section

VIII, ASME Code for Nuclear Air & Gas

Treatment (AG-1), ASME Board on

Nuclear Codes & Standards.

We design HVAC systems and

components to the requirements of

ASME Code for Nuclear Air & Gas

Treatment AG-1, and qualify our

equipment to the requirements of

IEEE-323, IEEE-334, and IEEE-344. Our

capabilities include seismic/structural

analyses using Finite Element Analysis,

2D/3D CAD drawings, reliability

analyses, thermal design, P&IDs,

flammability analyses, radiation effects

analyses, mean time between failure

(MTBF) analyses, and many others.

We have been involved with the design

of next generation nuclear plant HVAC

equipment for AP1000, and others.

For existing plants, we design HVAC

equipment replacement solutions that

match existing interfaces, space, power,

and performance requirements.


With over 175,000 square feet of

manufacturing space under one roof,

we have the ability to manufacture the

HVAC equipment that we design. Our

in-house capability includes: sheet

metal; welding to ASME BPVC Section

IX and AWS; fabrication; electrical

assembly; piping; and painting. With a

total lifting capacity of 40 Tons, we can

fabricate large pressure vessels, and

assemble chillers at our facility.

Our capability for fabricating pressure

vessels includes: ASME BPVC Section

VIII “U” and “UM” Stamps, and ASME

BPVC Section III “N”, “NPT”, “NS”, and

“NA” Stamps.

Engineering better HVAC

equipment since 1952.

Quality Assurance

Our ASME NQA-1 compliant quality

assurance system meets nuclear

industry requirements. We also meet

the requirements of NUREG 0800, 10

CFR 50 Appendix B, and 10 CFR 21.

For non-safety applications, we have an

ISO 9001 Certified Quality System.

For pressure vessels, we have quality

assurance systems meeting ASME

BPVC Section III and VIII.


Our HVAC equipment is tested to

ensure performance in environments

that include: high ambient, low ambient,

electromagnetic interference, salt spray,

rain, humidity, seismic, and radiation.

We have in-house testing capability for

sound; power; and full/part load

performance at 50Hz and 60Hz. We

also perform software dedication to

IEEE 7-4.3.2 and verification and

validation (V&V) to the requirements to

IEEE 1012 and EPRI 106439.


We engineer and fabricate custom

equipment. Our past Safety and

Non-Safety Related products


Ellis & Watts

Global Industries, LLC

4400 Glen Willow Lake Lane

Batavia, Ohio 45103 USA

Tel: +1-513-752-9000

Fax: +1-513-752-4545


Air Cleaning Units

Air Conditioning Units

Air Filtration Units

Air Handling Units

Chilled Water Units

Condensing Units

Doors for Blast, Pressure, and

Radiation Shielding

General Area Room Coolers

Local Air Coolers

Recirculation Fan Coil Units

Class 1E Qualified Motors

Dampers for Fire, Smoke,

Isolation, Backdraft, and


Electric Unit Heaters

Fan/Motor Assemblies

High Pressure Blowers

Heat Exchangers

Humidifiers / Dehumidifiers


Pressure Vessels to ASME

BPVC Section III and VIII

Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com 31

A Global...

Continued from page 28

same at Peach Bottom and Limerick.

Between last year and 2017, we’ll spend

approximately $4 billion on power

uprates. This is addition to a large capital

baseline budget for just modifications

and equipment projects waiting for plant

relicensing. There are no more steam

generators to replace.

8. How much additional power will you

be adding with your above described

plant uprates?

It’s between 1300 and 1500 megawatts.

It’s like adding a new plant by just

modifying and updating existing units.

That will be done by 2017. We started the

project in the spring of 2009. They are

in three different classifications. One is

megawatt recovery, by putting more efficient

turbines and generators and transformers.

The other is measurement uncertainty

which is the Appendix K, where we

get to use a higher accuracy instrumentation

to allow us to run the reactor powers

at a couple percent more. The third are the

extended power uprates which are at primarily

three sites which gives you a 15-

17% increase at those sites. There is a lot

of investor information available on these

modifications. It’s a huge and efficient

way to increase your power base. Especially

in a very uncertain time. If we were

going to build a new nuclear power plant

it could cost about $12 billion. You’d have

to go through the licensing process, there

is all the uncertainty that comes with that.

What we are doing is spending about $4

billion and getting spread across, so you

get regional diversification, asset diversification

and you don’t have the same

regulatory uncertainty.

9. Is Exelon planning a plant extension

to 80 year life being researched by the

Electric Power Research Institute?

We are following it. We’re focused

on readying and modifying the plants for

60 year license life. We have continued

to follow the EPRI initiative. There are

pilots that we are looking for plants to

do more analysis. We’ll be interested in

the outcome, but it will all depend on the

economics. The smaller units like Oyster

Creek, we know the end of their life.

There are other units we’d have to look at

to see what the modifications, the change

out of equipment that is required. I think

a lot of the conversation is going to come

around the reactor vessels, the integrity of

the vessels, the embrittlement factors on

that. The second is the aging of the cable

and the feasibility of wide spread mass

cable replacements in that area. We’re

interested, we think there are probably

candidates in our fleet that can do that.

The newer units, Limerick, Byron,

Braidwood, and LaSalle. But there are

no plans and no specific project that has

been authorized yet to evaluate it more

than with our research folks following it

with EPRI.

10. What is your vision on the structure

of a new regulatory regime to oversee

the nuclear power plants worldwide,

including those in new nuclear power

plant countries?

I think that each sovereign government

will want to maintain its own independent

regulatory footprint so I don’t

think it’s feasible and I would not agree

with the IAEA having the ultimate authority

over each regulator. I do believe

that the INPO model that we use in the

United States, where we self police and

we share lessons learned and be very

frank on where we think standards of

excellence are not being achieved is a

model that could work. It all depends on

the willingness of the operators around

the world and the government to allow

that system to work. I think what Fukushima

has showed us is that more can be

done in the WANO analysis and more can

be done in driving pure accountability

across all the worldwide operators. There

was a significant conversation around that

at the New Delhi bi-annual WANO conference

in October 2010. I’m not sure if

WANO has taken the authority they were

already given far enough. I think there

was a lot of dialogue in lessons learned

that will need to come out of the Fukushima

event. I know among the board at

INPO, we have a focus on that. We are focusing

on what can we do to help WANO

focus their assessments and use more of

the INPO tools to drive more margins of

safety across the world?

11. Concluding remarks.

The Fukushima is a significant and

very unfortunate event. I do believe

the U.S. reaction is very balanced, it’s

thoughtful, it understands or differentiates

the U.S. plants from the Japanese plants in

operating strategy. We appreciate that. We

would expect in the months coming, for us

as all the U.S. utilities working together

under INPO and NEI to really be able to

come out to the public and announce, here

is what we learned, here is what we are

going to do, and here is why we think the

20% of nuclear the generation stack, for

the U.S., is important to maintain. I look

forward to talking more with you about

that and making sure you understand the

investment that is going to be made by

Exelon and other U.S. utilities to drive

the lessons learned.

Contact: Marshall Murphy, Exelon

Corporation; telephone: (630) 657-4206,

email: marshall.murphy@exeloncorp.com.




32 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011


Focused on Post-Fukushima

New Challenges, Proven Solutions

Within the early hours of the posttsunami

events at the Fukushima

Daiichi nuclear power plant, AREVA

launched an immediate global

mobilization response and organized

experts throughout the company. This

effort included dispatching a team

of international specialists to Japan

to provide vital support and solution

consultation to help resolve the

ongoing situation.

More than 200 employees are

currently working on related projects

both in Japan and around the world.

Embedded in this international

AREVA team, several U.S. experts

have been on assignment in

advisory, supporting, and strategic

roles assisting TEPCO to address

the circumstances and providing

technical support to formulate longterm

solutions. The background of the

team includes specialists in back end

used fuel solutions, water treatment,

boiling water reactors, and radiation

monitoring techniques and equipment.

You can be confi dent in the security of

the public and your plant — because

AREVA has proven solutions in

prevention, mitigation and emergency

preparedness. Several of the U.S.

specialists have valuable experience

with both the Three Mile Island and

Chernobyl events and are applying

lessons learned to form solutions

for the current situation. The AREVA

teams continue to provide support

both in Japan and globally across the

organization, including the ongoing

work for the development of a water

decontamination process for the

Fukushima site.

A framework to prepare,

preserve and protect

With a global presence, AREVA

maintains very close working

relationships with virtually every

nuclear utility in the world. These

relationships, combined with safety

experience as an operator of its

own nuclear industrial facilities,

give AREVA a perspective unique

among industry suppliers. From

their front-line vantage point, the

company has structured its Safety

Alliance framework for analyzing and

addressing safety issues following

Fukushima. This framework is

structured around three imperatives:

resistance to major hazards,

robustness of cooling capability, and

prevention of environmental damage.

Expertise on all reactor designs and

a depth of engineering and project

management bench strength make

the company well positioned to deploy

a comprehensive package of solutions

to help utilities to prepare, preserve

and protect their communities and

fl eets — now and for years to come.

What’s happening on the ground?

AREVA establishes a water

decontamination process and food

monitoring solutions for Japan:

Following a request from TEPCO,

AREVA proposed a solution to treat

most of the contaminated water from

the damaged Fukushima nuclear

power plant, which the Japanese

power company accepted. The

decontamination system co-developed

by AREVA and Veolia Water for the

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant has

just reached the milestone of 18,000

tons of highly-radioactive waters

treated to-date, representing 15% of

the accumulated volume. Constructed

and commissioned by AREVA and

Veolia experts, the system reduces

the water radioactivity level by a factor

of 10,000 and can treat up to 50 tons

of contaminated waters per hour.

These technologies have a proven

track record in AREVA’s La Hague

and Marcoule facilities and across

hundreds of Veolia Water projects in

the world.


AREVA’s nuclear measurement

business unit CANBERRA has

developed two food monitoring

solutions to assist Japan in this

important task to help assure public

safety. One is for rapid food screening

carried out at the source by food

producers, farmers and drinking water

companies and, for food imports, on

receipt at warehouses to ensure that

the produce is safe for consumption.

The other is for detailed spectroscopic

analysis carried out by accredited

environmental and research

laboratories as part of national

programs to determine the detailed

nuclide content of food samples and

check for compliance against

national standards.

Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com 33

An Enhanced Design to Ensure Safety

By Brian Johnson, GE Hitachi Nuclear


1. What are the main safety features of


The Economic Simplified Boiling

Water Reactor (ESBWR) shares many

design and safety features from previous

proven Boiling Water Reactor (BWR)

designs, including the basic fuel and

control rod design with scram mechanisms

to ensure the reactor is safely shutdown

when required. However, the ESBWR

also incorporates significant safety

improvements from previous reactor

designs through the use of passive safety

features. These passive safety features

eliminate the need for AC power in the

event of a Design Basis Accident (DBA).

In addition to there being no need to rely

on AC power following a DBA, the plant

is designed so that no operator action is

needed for 72 hours.

The key to ESBWR’s passive safety

is a combination of three systems that

allow for the efficient transfer of decay

heat from the reactor to pools of water

outside of containment: the Isolation

Condenser System (ICS), the Gravity

Driven Cooling System (GDCS), and the

Passive Containment Cooling System

(PCCS). These systems utilize natural

circulation based on simple laws of

physics to transfer the decay heat outside

of containment while at the same time

maintaining the water inventory inside

the reactor needed to keep the nuclear

fuel submerged in water and adequately


In a DBA-related event where the

Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary

remains intact, the ICS is used to remove

decay heat from the reactor and transfer

it outside of containment. The ICS is

a closed loop system (four redundant

trains in an ESBWR) that connects the

Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) to a heat

exchanger located in the upper elevation

Responses to questions by Newal

Agnihotri, Editor of Nuclear Plant


of the reactor building. Steam leaves the

reactor through the ICS piping and travels

to the ICS heat exchangers which are

submerged in a large pool. The steam is

condensed in the heat exchangers and the

heavier condensate then flows back down

to the reactor to complete the cooling loop.

Reactor coolant is recycled through this

flow path to provide continuous cooling

and makeup water to the reactor core.

In cases where the Reactor Coolant

Pressure Boundary does not remain intact

and water inventory in the core is being

lost, the PCCS and GDCS work in concert

to maintain water level in the core and to

remove decay heat from the reactor and

transfer it outside of containment.

If water level inside the RPV drops

to a pre-determined level due to the

Brian Johnson

As the Domestic Market Leader for

GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, Brian

is responsible for all aspects of new

plant development in the U.S. nuclear

market including customer development,

proposal activities, and engineering

product line development. Prior to

joining GE, Brian served as a Submarine

Offi cer in the US Navy with variety of

operational assignments in the U.S. and


Brian holds a Bachelor’s degree in

Mechanical Engineering from Vanderbilt

University and currently resides in

Wilmington, NC.

loss of water inventory, the reactor is

depressurized and the GDCS is initiated.

It consists of three large pools of water

inside containment above the reactor and

four separate and independent trains of

piping that connect the pools to the RPV.

When the GDCS is initiated, gravity

A cutaway of the inside of an ESBWR and its passive safety feature.

forces water to flow down from the pools

into the reactor. The pools are sized

to provide sufficient makeup water to

maintain water level above the top of the

nuclear fuel in the core. After the reactor

has been depressurized, the decay heat is

transferred to containment as water inside

the RPV boils and exits into containment

in the form of steam.

The PCCS, in which there are six units

in an ESBWR, consists of a set of heat

exchangers located in the upper portion of

34 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011

the Reactor Building. The steam from the

reactor rises through containment to the

PCCS heat exchangers where the steam

is condensed. The condensate then drains

from the PCCS heat exchangers back to

the GDCS pools where it completes the

cycle and drains back to the RPV.

Both the ICS and PCCS heat

exchangers are submerged in a pool of

water large enough to provide 72 hours

of reactor decay heat removal capability.

The pool is vented to the atmosphere and

is located outside of containment. The

combination of these features allows

the pool to be refilled easily with low

pressure makeup water and pre-piped


2. What tests were carried out to prove

the passive safety features of ESBWR?

What pilot tests have been done to

validate the passive safety features of the


The ESBWR utilizes proven

technology from existing Boiling Water

Reactors throughout the design. As a

result, there is a large experience base,

gathered over many years, for numerous

systems and components. Key design

features and components associated with

the new passive systems have undergone

extensive modeling and testing.

The Isolation Condenser System

(ICS) is a good example of this. Although

the ICS has been used in previous BWRs,

the ICS heat exchanger design for

ESBWR has been modified substantially

from previous designs. ESBWR utilizes

a vertical tube configuration rather

than the horizontal tube configuration

from previous designs. The vertical

tube configuration not only provides

superior structural, thermodynamic, and

hydrodynamic performance, but also is

easier to arrange, inspect and maintain.

The ESBWR ICS heat exchanger has

undergone substantial engineering

development testing, including the use of

a prototype test to demonstrate the proper

operability, reliability, and heat removal

capability of the design.

Other tests of significance include

qualification tests of the Gravity Driven

Cooling System (GDCS), which were

performed in a full-height, scaled

volume test facility at GE Hitachi

Nuclear Energy’s facilities in San Jose,

California. The Depressurization Valves

(Continued on page 36)

Joseph Oat is a world renown OEM designer

and fabricator of ASME Section VIII & Section

III / safety-related products for the Nuclear

Power Industry. We have supplied critical

heat exchangers, pressure vessels, tanks,

spent fuel/rad-waste canisters, and other

metal fabrications to Nuclear Power Utilities,

the DOE, national laboratories/repositories,

DOD weapons plants, and to other nuclear customers around the


Recently, we have been actively supporting the Salt Waste

Processing facility and MOX plant at the Savannah River site,

and the Waste Treatment Plant at Hanford. In regards to our

Nuclear Utility business, Joseph Oat is presently very busy

supplying replacement heat exchangers, tanks and other

equipment to many Utilities in support of their power up-rate

and life extension projects. Many of these projects involve

replacing Obsolete Vendor equipment with new Joseph Oat

designed equipment. We are also heavily involved with supplying

fabrications in support of the Nuclear “New Build” efforts.

Our QA system has been audited by NUPIC and complies with

NQA-1 & 10 CFR 50 Appendix B. We have continuously held an

'N' Stamp certifi cation since 1966.

We Make Metal Work ©



Over 100 power plants in 15 countries rely on Joseph Oat Corporation equipment.

Over 40 continuous years of maintaining

ASME SEC III CL. 1,2 and 3 “N” stamp


Joseph Oat Corporation

Camden, NJ 08104 USA

Our Quality Assurance Program is qualified for ASME Section III Class 1,2,3, and MC, and Section VIII.

It also conforms to 10CFR50 Appendix B, ANSI N45.2, NQA-1 and ISO 9001.

Chinese Manufacturing License

Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com 35

An Enhanced...

Continued from page 35

(DPVs) that are used in conjunction with

the GDCS were also tested. Although

the DPVs are similar to the squib valves

used in previous BWRs, the size and

loads expected for these valves prompted

a prototype test program specific to the

ESBWR application. This test program

included engineering development testing

using a full-size prototype to demonstrate

proper operability, reliability and flow


A vacuum breaker system, consisting

of three vacuum breakers, has been

provided between the containment Dry

Well (DW) and Wet Well (WW). Vacuum

breakers have been used in all BWR

pressure suppression containments;

however, in the ESBWR application,

the leak-tightness design criteria are

more stringent. This need for greater

leak-tightness prompted the design and

development test of a specific valve

for use in the ESBWR application that

employed a full-scale prototype of the

valve to demonstrate proper operability,

reliability, and leak-tightness.

Additionally, there have been

extensive qualification tests of the PCCS,

including full-scale component tests and

full-height scaled integral tests.

3. What is the status of ESBWR’s design

certifi cation by the U.S. NRC?

The ESBWR received Final Design

Approval and a Final Safety Evaluation

Report with no open items in early

March 2011. On June 7, 2011, the public

comment period ended with only three

comments posted, of which one was

supportive of the ESBWR technology.

The limited number of public comments

received is a reflection of the NRC staff’s

thoroughness in reviewing our application,

as well as our team’s successful efforts to

provide the NRC with the information it

needed as quickly as possible.

4. How can ESBWR achieve safe

shutdown, decay, heat removal, and

isolation in a “Beyond Design Basis”


The ESBWR has been evaluated

from many beyond design basis events,

such as Aircraft Impact and Extended

Station Blackout (SBO). The Isolation

Condenser System (ICS) provides reactor

core isolation decay heat removal for

an SBO event. There is sufficient pool

water for at least 72 hours of isolation

cooling without the need to replenish

the pools. Redundant and diverse valves

open to initiate the ICS, which is fully

automatic and neither relies on manual

operator action nor requires AC power.

Even in the very unlikely event of a loss

of all AC and DC power, the ICS fails

to an in-service condition, which allows

removal of decay heat from the reactor

and containment while keeping the fuel

submerged in water. If the SBO should

extend beyond 72 hours, the pools can

be replenished with water from the Fire

Water Storage Tanks using dedicated

piping and a diesel-driven fire pump in

the Fire Pump Enclosure. An external

building connection is also provided to

permit use of a portable pump or fire

pump truck to refill the pools. The Spent

Fuel Pool can also be refilled by the same

means as the IC/PCC pools.

5. Does the current structural design

of ESBWR take into account safety of

the plant against beyond design basis


The structural design of ESBWR

indeed takes into account the safety of the

plant against beyond design basis events,

as required by the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) for the U.S.

Standard Plant Design, and also through

examination of site specific hazards and

potential events for a specific application.

These events include natural hazards

such as earthquakes, flooding, and severe

weather, as well as sabotage, such as

an aircraft crashing into the Reactor

Building. The ESBWR design fully

complies with all applicable regulatory

standards, which include an evaluation

of the design margins for beyond design

basis events.

As an example, Safe Shutdown

Earthquake (SSE) for the ESBWR

Standard Plant Design is evaluated

deterministically using design basis

ground motion accounting for low and

high ground motion frequencies. In

addition to deterministic evaluations,

a Probabilistic Risk Assessment-based

seismic margins analysis was performed

for the ESBWR to calculate High

Confidence Low Probability of Failure

(HCLPF) accelerations for important

accident sequences and accident classes.

The ESBWR seismic margins HCLPF

accident sequence analysis concluded

that the ESBWR is inherently capable

of safe shutdown in response to beyond

design basis earthquakes,

6. How have the control room and the

plant controls and instrumentation been

improved to ensure plant safety?

ESBWR’s Instrumentation and

Controls (I&C) are designed according

to principles of simplicity, reliability,

independence, redundancy, and diversity

in order to ensure plant safety. Diverse

hardware and software platforms are

provided among the operational control

and limitation systems, the primary

safety-related protections systems, the

backup diverse protection systems, and

I&C associated with severe accident

mitigation. These platforms incorporate

advanced technology features that

enhance safety, such as use of faulttolerant

controllers that incorporate

self-diagnostics with fault detection and

module identification capability.

Furthermore, a comprehensive Human

Factors Evaluation (HFE) program is

applied to the design of the main control

room and operator interfaces. The HFE

program implements activities to review

operating experience, to analyze and allocate

functional requirements, to perform

task and human reliability analyses, and

to design the human-system interfaces.

Other elements of the HFE program include

staffing and qualification requirements,

procedure development, training

program development, human factors

verification and validation, as well as human

performance monitoring.

I&C software development is

governed by the Software Management

and Software Quality Assurance

Programs and specifically takes into

account system, HFE and cybersecurity

requirements. The software lifecycle

development model incorporates various

phases of development, including

requirements, design, implementation,

verification, installation, validation and

operations and maintenance.

Contact: Michael Tetuan, GE Hitachi

Nuclear; telephone: (910) 819-7055,

email: Michael.Tetuan@ge.com.

36 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011


Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com 37


Providing nuclear plants

with what they need.

If you knew NLI well five or so years ago, you might not even recognize NLI

today. Even if you’re familiar with NLI, you might not be aware of the changes

that have occurred in recent years.

NLI celebrates its 20 th anniversary this year.

NLI’s growth has been phenomenal and

many changes have occurred in recent years.

NLI is often described as a third-party

dedicator, and yes, NLI does do that. At

one time it was a major

part of NLI’s business.

But despite being one

of the industry’s largest

providers of third-party

dedication services, this

is actually a very small

part of NLI’s business


NLI was founded

as an engineering firm

in 1991 and was soon

approached by GNB.

GNB no longer wanted to

deal with nuclear industry requirements on

the batteries they supply to roughly half the

US fleet. NLI stepped in and this began the

transition of NLI from pure engineering to

the supply of equipment. NLI still supplies

GNB batteries today.

Around the time of NLI’s 10 th anniversary,

the company was well established,

primarily in the area of electrical products

such as breakers and motor control centers.

In 2004, NLI got an ASME III N-Stamp—this

was a game changer. Today NLI supplies a

near even mix of electrical and mechanical

products, plus instrumentation and control,

and HVAC. NLI’s product mix is also well

diversified between operating and new

NLI’s corporate facility in Fort Worth, Texas

construction, domestic and international,

and some DOE.

NLI is very well known in the nuclear

industry, but at some recent conferences

some new people have stared at our booth

and asked, “What is it that you do?” After

rattling off a long list of equipment types

a few times, we began answering, “We

supply everything except fuel.” The first few

time we said this in jest, but quickly realized

this statement was close to the truth. Of

course, NLI hasn’t yet supplied everything in

a nuclear plant, but we have supplied many

things that might surprise even those people

familiar with NLI.

NLI is very well known for switchgear,

low-voltage breakers,

motor control centers,

stationary batteries and

chargers; NLI supplies

more of this equipment

than any other nuclear

industry supplier. NLI

is also a leading

supplier of chillers and

HVAC equipment as

well as valves, actuators

and a long list of

I&C equipment. But

NLI has also recently

qualified and supplied an emergency diesel


The next time you need

equipment for your plant—

especially equipment

that is hard to get—

give NLI a call.

You’ll find out why we’re

really your single source.

38 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011

Everything Except Fuel.

Nuclear equipment: we provide it. This is not an overstatement. At NLI, we specialize in supplying our clients with the

products they need. We are problem solvers. We are pre-active—not reactive—to the needs of our clients and the industry

as a whole. Utilizing the fi nest partners, engineers, and technicians, our long list of products and services not only address

current nuclear requirements, but will stay reliable and effective for years to come while increasing the bottom line. That defi nes

our solid guarantee of service, standard-setting craftsmanship, and quality. And that’s why we’re your single source.

www.nuclearlogistics.com • 800.448.4124


Keeping the Risk Very Low

By Finnis Southworth, AREVA Inc.

1. How does the cost of nuclear

generation compare with other types of

energy generation options?

I think it compares very favorably.

The economics of nuclear power really

aren’t in question. The EPR reactor, as all

the Generation III reactors, is competitive

with coal and natural gas. Coal requires a

little less capital cost, but its fuel cost is

much more, it still comes out comparable.

The less advanced coal plants are

very equal or a little more expensive

than Generation II nuclear plants. The

Generation III coal plants, those that will

have all of the latest controls on them,

would be much more expensive than the

old coal plants. They will end up being

a little more expensive than the nuclear


In Europe, natural gas is running

about $10 per million BTU now. That

would be more expensive than nuclear.

At $10 a million BTU, it is about $80 per

megawatt hour just for the fuel. At this

price, nuclear should beat gas every time.

Here in the U.S., gas has been running at

$4 a million BTU on the spot market. If

you were to lock in 60 years at that price,

I’d take it today. But that’s not possible.

That’s what utilities are competing

against, the long-term projected price.

BTU is going to be the same price once

you buy one for 60 years. That’s the same

thing that’s happening with the existing

nuclear plants. They were 2 cents a

kilowatt hour in 1975, and they still are

2 cents a kilowatt hour. Even though

today’s new nuclear plants will cost a lot

more than 40 years ago, they are a better

deal than the competing fuel supplies.

2. Describe the compliance of the

EPR reactor with U.S. Advanced Light

Water Reactor Utility Requirement

Document (URD) and European Utility

Requirements Document (EUR).

An Interview by Newal Agnihotri, Editor

of Nuclear Plant Journal at the Nuclear

Energy Assembly in Washington, D.C. on

May 9, 2011.

Finnis Southworth

Dr. Finis Southworth is the Chief

Technology Offi cer for AREVA

Inc. As Chief Technology Offi cer,

he is responsible for Intellectual

Property Management, Research and

Development programs, University

technical relationships, and corporate

technical expertise. He is also

responsible for their High Temperature

Reactor business development and

represents AREVA on the Board of

A lot of the effort in adapting the

EPR reactor to the U.S. market was to

make sure that it complied, in principal

with the Utility Requirement Document

and secondly to adapting it to the U.S.

Standards. To look at the plant, it looks

the same, but there are many differences.

Not the least of which are the result

of 10CFR50, which causes a massive

amount of differences in details. All of

that is built into this plant. In addition,

it still has the functional characteristics

that make it compliant with European

standards. It has the severe accident

management capability that the European

standards require, but the U.S. standards

don’t require. We don’t have our design

certification yet in the U.S.; we are

working on it and expecting to get it in

early 2013.

Directors for the National Hydrogen

Association. Finis joined AREVA in


Before joining AREVA, Finis was with

the Idaho National Laboratory, serving

as Director Project Management,

Manager Systems Engineering, and, in

the early 1990’s, as Manager of Fuel

and Target Technology Development for

the gas cooled New Production Reactor


Previously, Dr. Southworth held several

management positions within Florida

Power and Light Company, including

Core Design for their four nuclear units,

then Maintenance Superintendent, and

Plant Manager, Turkey Point Nuclear

Plant. Finis also served as Assistant

Professor of Nuclear Engineering at the

University of Illinois, with a research

focus on fusion.

Dr. Southworth earned his doctorate in

Nuclear Engineering Sciences from the

University of Florida.

3. What is the status of design certifi cation

of the AREVA’s EPR reactor?

We are pursuing the design certification

at our own cost. The combined

operating license incorporates the siting

requirements, which also includes the

environmental impact statement. Some

utilities have separately done early site

permits (ESP), then the COLA (Construction

and Operating License Application).

Our customers have done combined operating

license applications. The COLAs

that are being pursued for the various

sites like Bell Bend or Calvert Cliffs, are

incorporating siting requirements in the


Constellation sold their share

of UniStar to EDF. So EDF is 100%

owner of that part of UniStar right now.

Constellation left UniStar last year. We

want to be clear that we have no part of

40 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011

any of those decisions. What the utilities

do, it’s beyond our influence.

4. Please describe AREVA’s EPR’s capability

to safely shut down, provide decay

heat cooling, and ensure containment

of the fuel in an emergency situation such

as what happened in Japan at Fukushima

Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Also describe

the safety of the spent fuel pool of

EPR in an emergency out of design basis

event situation.

What we have done with the design

of the EPR reactor was aimed in part at

driving down the core damage frequency

determined by the Probabilistic Risk

Assessment (PRA). Having four safety

trains, for example, is driven by the

thought process of PRA. Having double

shell buildings around the entire reactor

building, the used fuel building has double

walls around it for aircraft protection.

Two sets of the diesels have concrete

buildings. We have four complete sets of

diesels – one for each safety train. All of

these measures indicate our PRA numbers

should come out very well and they do.

We use PRA throughout the design

process to make sure that in higher risk

areas, we reduce the risk with how we do

the design, with redundancy and diversity

and defense in depth. For example,

we didn’t put our breaker rooms in the

basement, they are still elevated. Even

though you design for all of these floods

and on ground level they should be fine,

we put them up another level to ensure

even if a flood was even more than we

envisioned it would be up higher and

out of the flood. Part of what affected

Fukushima was their safety related circuit

breakers were in the basement.

One question is: are the plants

susceptible to a flood? For example,

the diesel rooms in the EPR design are

on ground level, but they are contained

within hardened buildings. A tsunami

wouldn’t affect them. We’ve done that

calculation since Fukushima, and the

answer is we may get a few quarts of

water around the doors but not enough to

harm the diesels. The way those buildings

are made, it shouldn’t be possible to harm

the functionality of the plant.

Another question is: does it have

long-term coping for extended station

black out? With the double containment

of an EPR reactor and its passive cooling,

you have a much longer time before

you would have to worry about it. Three

million cubic feet of containment with 4.5

foot thick walls, it has a lot of mass, so it

can absorb heat for a very long time and

passively hold whatever is going on in

the containment. In addition, there are 43

hydrogen recombiners in the containment.

They are all passive, and they don’t need

any power. If hydrogen is forming – no

problem – it’s recombined passively

through these 43 recombiners. So you

don’t have that issue of major hydrogen

explosions and major core damage. In

terms of protecting the environment and

public, you are much more passively


In terms of preventing core damage,

how do you cope with a black out caused

by devastation? The answer is that we

have six diesels – we have four diesels for

each independent safety train, any one of

which will provide long-term cooling for

the core. And they’re doubly protected

from the outside hazards. There are also

two independent station blackout diesels.

They are completely separate from all

others. They aren’t as large, but if you

lost everything, they will provide enough

power to provide cooling for the core for

quite a long time. But six diesels go a

long way when they are all independent

of each other. All we need is one of them,

and we can cope with a long-term station


If the level in the fuel pool is low,

bring in some fire trucks. The easy way

to do that is to provide water to the pool

from the outside with a spool piece. One

of the problems, it appears at Fukushima,

is that the operators didn’t have access

to the pools from the outside. It’s inside

the reactor building. Most of the pools

at American reactors are not inside

reactor building, they are in a separate

building. So no matter what is going on

in the reactor building, the used fuel pool

building is separate, you can still get to

that. Even so, if you have access to hook

up a fire hose outside, you can inject

water from the outside. It doesn’t appear

Fukushima was able to do that.

We have a combination of active and

passive safety systems on the EPR reactor.

The biggest passive one I mentioned is

this massive containment. You don’t have

to do anything. Its existence provides

huge margins of protection – both due

to the size and the fact that it’s double.

This gives you much more ability to

absorb things going on inside without

any additional activity. We also have a lot

of active systems. We have four complete

safety trains of pumps and valves and

diesels for cooling and controlling the

reactor in an accident.

Even if it took time before those four

started, as the plant cools down, we have

large accumulators filled with water and

they inject water due to pressure. And

they automatically inject water into the

core in the event of an accident. That

part is passive. But systems can always

break whether they are passive or active.

It doesn’t automatically mean you are

covered if you have a passive system. You

need to look at the probabilities. We were

driven by the PRA. We have redundant

and diverse active systems, and we have

some passive systems both for keeping

the core cooled and for preventing release

of radiation. It’s the combination of all of

those that keeps the risk very low.

I’ve been riveted since March 11,

2011 following the events at Fukushima.

All of our management is engaged in

watching and working on the Fukushima

questions. We have a number of people

over in Japan, companies, partnerships,

technical experts helping them. We are

very interested in every lesson we can

take from this and will work with the

utilities to make sure that we all feel very

confident that we are able to cope with a

severe circumstance.

Contact: Jarret Adams, AREVA Inc.;

telephone: (301) 841-1695, email: jarret.


Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com 41


Used Nuclear Fuel Storage Solutions

Bring Improved Safety and Security

How to safely store used nuclear

fuel, either in highly engineered

fuel pools or in dry casks in new

Independent Spent Fuel Storage

Installations (ISFSI) within ownercontrolled

areas, is a major decision

for nuclear plant operators.

For Boiling Water Reactor (BWR)

plants, the push is on for robust

barriers to enhance protection of the

environment and fuel pools. This

improved protection comes in the

form of “hardening the structure”

around the fuel pools, many of

which are near or at capacity. Doing

so will protect the fuel pools from

internal and external events and

contain the radiation emitted as

the used nuclear fuel assemblies

cool and their fission products


Black & Veatch has specific

experience hardening structures at

nuclear facilities that contain used

fuel pools. Such an enhancement

takes only a relatively short

time compared to a new ISFSI

or expansion of an existing

facility, and can provide sufficient

protection of used nuclear fuel until

an ISFSI is complete, which can

take three to five years.

For a recent ISFSI project,

Black & Veatch was selected for

its geotechnical and seismology

experience, familiarity working

with on-site seismic requirements,

in-depth licensing and radiological

evaluation capabilities, and

experience in designing advanced

security facilities. Black & Veatch

designed a horizontal storage

module (HSM) pad and extended

the protected area. The used nuclear

fuel assemblies were placed in

stainless steel canisters that were

then housed in HSMs and sealed.

The concrete pad where the

canisters are stored was subjected

to a geotechnical and structural

analysis similar to the design

of a new nuclear plant. Besides

engineering the pad design,

Black & Veatch also designed a

heavy haul road for moving

the used nuclear fuel from the

reactor building to the ISFSI.

Black & Veatch has the capability

to help you safely transport used

nuclear fuel from the pool to the

storage pad.

With Black & Veatch you get

experience and certainty. Your

challenging, complex project will

be completed on time, on budget,

with no surprises, regardless of

your preferred technology.

42 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011



Know the end result is success ... from the start.

From day one, you can expect your challenging nuclear

project to be completed on time, on budget, with no surprises.

Black & Veatch delivers the most complex projects – both

operating plants and new build – with reliable, disciplined,

tested processes that have earned clients’ vote of confidence,

time and time again.

We’re building a world of difference. Together.



Safety & Financial Assurance

By Jim Ferland, Westinghouse Americas.

1. How does the cost of energy generated

by the AP1000 ® reactor compare with

other types of energy?

Nuclear energy is economically

competitive with fossil fuels for electricity

generation. It is a baseload resource that

is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a

week, and the reliability of the AP1000

reactor is expected to be even better than

the existing units that operate today at 90

percent capacity.

When utilities are making decisions

regarding the type of power to use, they

value steady versus highly variable

operating costs. While nuclear energy

is comparatively expensive to build

upfront, it has extremely low and very

stable operating and fuel costs. And the

predictability that it gives to rate payers

or investors is extremely beneficial to

both utilities and consumers.

In terms of the AP1000 reactor in

particular, the manner of construction

as compared to previously built plants

is completely different. The footprint

is about one-third to one-fourth the

size of those at existing plants, and the

construction is mostly modular. Much

of it is built in the factory under a strict

quality control and quality assurance

program, and then shipped to the

site, where it is assembled. The entire

construction process takes three and a

half to four years, which is a significant

improvement over previous nuclear

power plant construction schedules. This

saves time and it saves money.

In fact, the AP1000 reactor was

designed to reduce capital costs and

to be economically competitive with

contemporary fossil-fueled plants. The

amount of safety-grade equipment

required is greatly reduced by using

the passive safety system design. And

by using advanced computer modeling

An Interview by Newal Agnihotri, Editor

of Nuclear Plant Journal at the Nuclear

Energy Assembly in Washington, D.C. on

May 10, 2011.

Jim Ferland

Jim Ferland is president, Westinghouse

Americas, where he leads the company’s

efforts to build customer relationships,

develop business plans, capture new

markets, and deliver projects and

products in North and South America.

capabilities, Westinghouse is able to

optimize, choreograph and simulate the

construction plan. The result is very high

confidence in the construction schedule.

Simplification was a major design

objective for the AP1000 technology. The

simplified plant design includes overall

safety systems, normal operating systems,

the control room, construction techniques,

and instrumentation and control systems.

The result is a plant that is easier and less

expensive to build, operate and maintain.

Furthermore, consider other available

baseload technologies, such as coal or

natural gas. A substantial issue with

these technologies is the generation of

CO 2

emissions. While we don’t know the

future cost of the effects of CO 2


for coal or natural gas, taking into

account the effects on the environment

and the health problems and subsequent

healthcare caused by those emissions, the

cost will be substantial. With the AP1000

technology, there are no CO 2


so that cost is easy to project; the price is

always going to be zero.

Mr. Ferland served the past three

years as senior vice president of Utility

Operations for PNM Resources in

Albuquerque, NM. At PNM Resources,

Mr. Ferland was responsible for all

regulated transmission and distribution

operations for PNM and TNMP, utilities

that serve electricity customers in New

Mexico and Texas. He also provided

oversight of PNM’s existing generation

facilities, future generation development,

wholesale power sales, supply chain,

safety and environmental initiatives.

He joined PNM from Westinghouse,

where he served as vice president, Field


Mr. Ferland holds a bachelor’s degree

in nuclear engineering from Rensselaer

Polytechnic Institute, and a master’s in

business administration from the Darden

School of Business at the University of


I’d also like to add that there’s

tremendous value in a worldwide

diversification of energy resources and

diversification of fuel. I don’t think

that nuclear is the only answer, nor do

I think gas or renewable energy are the

only answers. As a society, we’ve proven

over time that having a diverse source of

fuel supplies makes sense--it’s a big risk

mitigation play. As utilities, consumers,

and other stakeholders think about energy

policy, diversification must be a factor.

We shouldn’t have all of our eggs in one


Society as a whole has become

extremely dependent on electricity. When

the power went out 50 years ago, it was

an inconvenience, but everybody learned

to live with it. Today when the power goes

out, it’s more than an inconvenience. We

must have reliable 24/7 power supplies

and nuclear energy, in particular, fits that


(Continued on page 46)

44 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011

Nuclear Development


Nuclear Science


Nuclear Development


Carbon (EUR/tCO 2)




Radioactive Waste Management


Nuclear Regulation





The Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) is a specialised

agency within the Organi sation for Economic Co-operation

and Development (OECD), an intergovernmental organisation

of industrialised countries, based in Paris, France.

The OECD is a unique forum where the governments of

34 democracies work together to address the economic,

social and environmental challenges of globalisation.

The mission of the NEA is to assist its member countries

in maintaining and further developing, through

international co-operation, the scientific, technological

and legal bases required for the safe, environmentally

friendly and economical use of nuclear energy for peaceful


The NEA’s current membership consists of 30 countries:

Austria, Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Czech

Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,

Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg,

Mex ico, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the

Republic of Korea, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain,

Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and

the United States. Together they account for approximately

85% of the world’s installed nuclear capacity.

Nuclear power accounts for almost a quarter of the

electricity produced in NEA member countries.

NEA areas of work cover: nuclear safety and regulation;

radioactive waste management; radiological protection;

nuclear science; nuclear energy development

and the fuel cycle; nuclear law and liability; the Data

Bank; and information and communication.

NEA strengths are mani fold. The NEA is the only

intergovernmental nuclear energy organisation that

brings together developed countries of North America,

Europe and the Asia-Pacific region in a small, non-political

forum. It is a non-partisan, unbiased source of information,

data and analyses, drawing on one of the best

international networks of technical experts. Its system

of standing technical committees enables the Agency

to be both flexible and responsive. All NEA committees

are now mobilised to identify lessons learnt from the

Fukushima Daiichi accident and to contribute to making

nuclear safety, radiological protection and emergency

management systems stronger.



Carbon Pricing,

Power Markets and

the Competitiveness

of Nuclear Power

Carbon Pricing, Power Markets

and the Competitiveness of

Nuclear Power

108 pages

ISBN 978-92-64-11887-4

€ 33, US$ 46, £ 29, ¥ 4 200

Cost Estimation

for Decommissioning

An International Overview

of Cost Elements, Estimation

Practices and Reporting


Cost Estimation for Decommissioning

An International Overview of Cost

Elements, Estimation Practices

and Reporting Requirements

80 pages

ISBN 978-92-64-99133-0

Free: paper or web

Shielding Aspects of

Accelerators, Targets and

Irradiation Facilities –


Workshop Proceedings

Geneva, Switzerland

2-4 June 2010

Shielding Aspects of Accelerators,

Targets and Irradiation Facilities –


Workshop Proceedings,

Geneva, Switzerland, 2-4 June 2010

444 pages

ISBN 978-92-64-03467-9

€ 130, US$ 182, £ 117, ¥ 16 900

Improving Nuclear


NEA Regulatory Guidance


Volumes 1-14

Improving Nuclear Regulation

NEA Regulatory Guidance Booklets,

Volumes 1-14

270 pages

ISBN 978-92-64-99162-0

Free: paper or web

Radioactive Waste

in Perspective

Radioactive Waste in Perspective

204 pages

ISBN 978-92-64-09261-7

€ 48, US$ 67, £ 43, ¥ 6 200

The Security of Energy Supply and

the Contribution of Nuclear Energy

168 pages

ISBN 978-92-64-09634-9

€ 50, US$ 70, £ 45, ¥ 6 500

Sign up for our free monthly bulletin: www.oecd-nea.org/bulletin

For information, contact neapub@oecd-nea.org or call +33 (0)1 45 24 10 15

Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com 45

Safety & Financial...

Continued from page 44

2. What tests were carried out to prove

the passive safety features of the AP1000


All of the AP1000 passive safety

systems have been extensively tested,

and it is the first Generation III+ reactor

to receive Design Certification from the


In support of the NRC’s design

certification activities, confirmatory

integral testing was conducted at Oregon

State University’s Advanced Plant

Experiment (APEX) facility. The NRC

sponsored eight beyond-design-basis

accident (DBA) tests run in APEX, which

is a one-quarter height, one-half time

scale, reduced-pressure, integral test

facility modified to represent AP1000

conditions. Those eight beyond-DBA

tests studied circumstances with two

or more simultaneous failures of the

AP1000 passive safety system during

large- and small-break loss-of-coolant

accidents, including station blackout

and cold shutdown conditions. The

objectives of these beyond-DBA tests

were to confirm AP1000 safety margins

and provide a database to assess NRC’s

thermal-hydraulic computer codes.

As a result of the tests, the NRC

staff concluded that the AP1000 design

certification meets the applicable content

requirements of 10 CFR 52.47, as well as

the review standards of 10 CFR 52.48. 1

3. What is the status of the AP1000

reactor’s design certifi cation by the U.S.


It’s important to clarify that the NRC

certified the AP1000 design in January

of 2006. Subsequently, Westinghouse

submitted changes to the approved version

of the AP1000 Design Control Document

(DCD). This amendment, Revision 19 of


This report is published by the U.S.

NRC as NUREG-1826, “APEX-AP1000

Confirmatory Testing To Support

AP1000 Design Certification,” and can

be found at http://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1826/


the DCD, has been submitted to address

design finalization, design standardization

and updated regulatory requirements.

The amendment is now before the NRC

for approval, and we fully expect that the

NRC will approve this amendment to the

AP1000 DCD in September of 2011.

Within a few months of that

timeframe, we expect the NRC to issue the

combined operating licenses (COLs) first

to Southern Nuclear Company for Vogtle

Units 3 and 4, and then to SCANA, for

V.C. Summer Units 2 and 3, in sequence.

We’ve already started pre-construction

on these four units, and immediately

following the receipt of the combined

operating licenses, we’ll be ready to pour

safety-related concrete.

4. What specifi c changes are part of the


As I previously mentioned, the DCD

was submitted in order to address design

finalization, design standardization

and new regulatory requirements—

specifically requirements related to airline


While the amendment to the DCD

addresses certain non-safety-related

issues, the area that has received the most

attention is the redesign of the AP1000

shield building. Westinghouse voluntarily

modified the design of this structure to

use a modular, steel concrete composite

structure, replacing the previous

reinforced concrete design. The redesign

changes passive heat removal air flow and

affects seismic, aircraft impact, and other

loading analyses.

Purdue University Bowen Laboratory

2 researchers recently completed

large-scale tests to verify the structural

integrity of the shield building. They determined

that the structure is flexible and

strong enough to withstand earthquake

forces more powerful than federal design

requirements as well as other extreme


Purdue University’s Bowen Laboratory

is an international authority in civil

engineering and the research and testing

of civil structures.

design and beyond design-basis loading

scenarios including aircraft impact, tornados,

missile impacts.

5. What are the main safety features of


In the event of a design-basis

accident, the AP1000 plant is designed

to achieve and maintain safe shutdown

condition without any operator action and

without the need for AC power or pumps.

Instead of relying on active components

such as diesel generators and pumps,

the AP1000 reactor relies on the natural

forces of gravity, natural circulation and

compressed gases to keep the core and

containment from overheating. While

many active components are also included

in the AP1000 design, these are designated

as non safety-related. Additionally, the

AP1000 reactor is designed so that the

core stays inside containment in the event

of an emergency.

Following the earthquake and

tsunami in Japan on March 11, 2011

and the ensuing events at the Fukushima

Daiichi nuclear power plant, there has

been much attention on spent fuel pools.

The AP1000 spent fuel pool is designed

with thick, heavily reinforced concrete

walls and floor, lined with steel. If

power is lost, water cannot drain from

the spent fuel pool. Instead, redundant

spray headers supply water, and when the

core is off-loaded, a gravity-fed tank is

available for a continuous water supply.

When the core is off-loaded it means

that all of the fuel assemblies have been

transferred from the reactor vessel in the

containment to the spent fuel pool. The

passive containment cooling tank on the

top of the containment can then be aligned

to provide make up water to the spent fuel

pool by gravity flow. There is no need

for the containment cooling function

of the passive containment storage tank

when there is no fuel in the containment.

The AP1000 design includes multiple

redundant water sources, pumping

capabilities and flowpaths.

46 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011

The reactor building design includes

the primary steel containment vessel and

the surrounding concrete shield building

for protection against seismic events,

natural disasters and aircraft impact.

6. How can the AP1000 reactor achieve

safe shutdown, decay, heat removal, and

isolation in a “Beyond Design Basis”


The AP1000 reactor is designed to

mitigate a postulated severe accident

such as core melt. In this event, the

AP1000 operator can flood the reactor

cavity space immediately surrounding the

reactor vessel with water to submerge the

reactor vessel. The cooling will prevent

molten core debris in the lower head from

melting the steel vessel wall and spilling

into the containment.

In the unlikely event that the core

cooling fails, water will be lost from the

reactor coolant system (RCS) and the core

will overheat. When core temperature

reaches 1200 degrees Fahrenheit, the

operators drain the in-containment

refueling water storage tank (IRWST)

into the containment. Flow of water/steam

past the reactor vessel removes heat and

prevents reactor vessel failure.

The passive containment cooling

system (PCS), provides the safety-related

ultimate heat sink for the plant. The

PCS cools the containment following an

accident so that design pressure is not

exceeded and pressure is rapidly reduced.

The steel containment vessel provides the

heat transfer surface that removes heat

from inside the containment and transfers

it to the atmosphere. Heat is removed from

the containment vessel by the continuous,

natural circulation of air. During an

accident, air cooling is supplemented by

water evaporation. The water drains by

gravity from a tank located on top of the

containment shield building. The AP1000

is designed with multiple redundant

water sources, pumping capabilities and


Normally, AC-powered cooling

systems would remove the decay heat,

but in the event of a loss of that power,

the AP1000 reactor doesn’t require any

operator action or electricity because all

of these forces work without electricity.

But it should also be noted that the

AP1000 has emergency battery power

that will last for 72 hours in addition to

backup diesel generators.

7. How will an event similar to Fukushima

be prevented with an AP1000 plant?

The nuclear energy industry has an

obligation to analyze what happened at

Fukushima Daiichi--to learn from it and

to do everything in our power to prevent

it from happening again.

Following the 9.1 magnitude

earthquake in Japan, which was seven

times more powerful than the worst

earthquake the plants were built to

withstand, the three operating reactors

at the Fukushima site shut down

automatically, as designed, and the

emergency diesel power generators were

activated and provided the electricity

necessary to allow the stand by safety

systems to continue cooling the reactors.

So everything at the plant worked as

it should despite the magnitude of that

seismic event.

But when the tsunami hit about an

hour later, the wave destroyed everything

in its path around the Fukushima Daiichi

plant, including all supporting electrical

infrastructure, such as power lines

and emergency diesel generators. The

operators were unable to remove the

decay heat from the plant’s core. This

heat continued to build up steam, and

the operators had to vent that steam into

the atmosphere and eventually pump

seawater in the reactors to cool them.

The AP1000 reactor is designed to

shut down safely, without electricity, using

passive technology. So a Fukushimatype

event—a complete station blackout

event—could be handled by an AP1000


It’s important to note that there

are many safeguards that we have

implemented in the U.S. nuclear industry

that enhance the level of safety at our

current operating plants. Current U.S.

nuclear power plants are designed to

cope with a station blackout event that

involves a loss of offsite power and

onsite emergency power. The Nuclear

Regulatory Commission’s regulations

address this scenario.

And as a result of the 1979 incident

at Three Mile Island, the industry

learned valuable lessons about hydrogen

accumulation inside containment,

which is what caused the explosions at

Fukushima. After Three Mile Island,

many boiling water reactors implemented

a modification referred to as a hardened

vent or direct vent. This allows the plant

to vent primary containment via high

pressure piping and precludes buildup of

hydrogen during venting.

In addition, U.S. nuclear plant

designs and operating practices since the

terrorist events of September 11, 2001,

are designed to mitigate severe accident

scenarios such as aircraft impact, which

include the complete loss of offsite power

and all on-site emergency power sources.

It’s also important to remember that

natural disasters, such as the earthquake

and tsunami in Japan are very region- and

location-specific, based on tectonic and

geological fault line locations.

8. Concluding remarks.

Over a decade ago, Westinghouse

made a decision to invest in the AP1000

technology. And it is the right product to

take to the marketplace. It is truly a new

generation of nuclear plant that provides

the kind of safety, schedule and financial

assurances that we need as an industry to

move forward. And right now, in China,

we are proving that we can build these

units on time and on budget, and that we

can provide the world with economically

sound, safe and secure energy.

Contact: Sarah Barczyk, Westinghouse

Electric Company, 1000 Westinghouse

Drive, Cranberry Township, PA 16066;

telephone: (412) 374-3705, email:


Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com 47


Exclusively Committed to

the Nuclear Power Industry

Enertech, a business unit of Curtiss-

Wright Flow Control Company, has been

committed to the nuclear power industry

since 1967 with the development of the

first nuclear qualified hydraulic large bore

snubber. Today, Enertech exclusively

focuses on providing products and services

to the worldwide nuclear power industry

including commercial nuclear power

plants, NSSS suppliers, A&E’s and the U.S.

Department of Energy.

Nuclear Capabilities

As an engineering, manufacturing,

distribution and service company, we are

dedicated to providing solutions to meet the

unique requirements of the nuclear power

industry. Enertech provides integrated

system solutions that include advanced

valves, actuators, pumps, instrumentation,

heat exchangers, snubbers, engineered

filtration and heating systems, diagnostic

and test equipment, qualification and

dedication services, outage support services

and equipment repair and field service.

Whether it’s solving chronic component

related problems, obsolescence challenges,

maintaining and upgrading installed

equipment, assisting with power uprates

and plant life extensions or supporting new

reactor construction, we have solutions to

maximize performance.

Enertech simplifies complex design efforts

by optimizing upgraded component

compatibility, performance characteristics,

and service life. Employing only the

highest quality products for specific

applications, Enertech pre-matches pump

performance curves with control valve

trim characterization, eliminating potential

problems such as flow-induced vibration,

controllability and other uncertainties

associated with new equipment selection.

Established Team

of Leading OEMs

Knowing the importance of supply

chain stability, Enertech has established

strategic relationships with companies

whose products and services are vital to

successfully operating nuclear power plants.

Several of our partners maintain world-class

nuclear QA programs, while others rely on

Enertech’s unique, innovative and integrated

QA process to provide safety-related and

ASME Code Section III components.

By being the technical sales and

Applications Engineering team for these

companies, we have ensured the continued

supply of genuine OEM spare parts and

replacements to support nuclear utilities

worldwide. Enertech also provides

advanced technology solutions to improve

plant performance and increase safety.

Tenured Quality

Assurance Program

Enertech has established a team of leading

OEMs for pumps, valves, instrumentation,

heat exchangers and other critical

components to support safety-related and

balance of plant needs. Enertech maintains

many of these important resources on

our approved vendors list for project

consolidation of supply chain requirements

as well as to assure long-term spare

parts support.

For streamlining quality evaluations,

Enertech is audited by NIAC and NUPIC

organizations with oversight by the USNRC.

These audits include approvals of Enertech’s

commercial grade material dedication and

other progressive quality programs designed

to permit industrial manufacturer’s continued

participation in the nuclear industry. Our

products are manufactured to the highest

quality in accordance with: 10CFR50

Appendix B, ASME N, NPT, NS, and NV

Stamps, and ASME Section NQA-1.


Flow Control Company

At Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Company,

we have a history of solving tough problems.

We pioneer highly engineered solutions to

deliver profound value to our customers

and we enable them to transform the way

their business is done. It begins with a

passion for understanding the needs of our

customers. Add to that our unparalleled

technical expertise, an unmatched record

of quality and service and a long heritage of

innovative thinking.

Over the years, our engineers have been

instrumental in the design of reactor coolant

pumps, control rod drive mechanisms,

electro-hydraulic valve actuators, severe

service valves, hydraulic snubbers,

diagnostic equipment, and containment

doors. Today, we are a preferred supplier

of pumps and motors, valves, actuators,

instrumentation, connectors, nozzle dams,

safety-related fasteners, airlocks, and

specialty doors that keep power generation

plants operating safely and efficiently around

the world.

48 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011


critical plant


Filtration equipment to protect

and extend critical equipment life.

Blowdown Strainer Filters for Underground Installation Module Assembly

Engineered Filtration Systems

Enertech’s partner, CCI Thermal Technologies Inc., has supplied its 3L

Filters TM brand of custom engineered safety-related equipment to the

Nuclear Industry for more than 30 years. 3L Filters are configured for

the most demanding BWR and PWR requirements. These products for

nuclear applications adhere to a rigorous quality assurance program based

on ASME Section III NCA 4000, ASME NQA-1, 10CFR50 Appendix B,

10CFR21 and CSA N285.0.

Contact us at 866-211-6840 or enertech@curtisswright.com

Learn more about our product solutions at http://enertech.cwfc.com

Fukushima Conclusions & Lessons

The Great East Japan Earthquake on

March 11, 2011, a magnitude 9 generated

a series of large tsunami waves that struck

the east coast of Japan, the highest being

38.9 m (127.62 ft) at Aneyoshi, Miyako.

The earthquake and tsunami waves

caused widespread devastation across a

large part of Japan, with 15,391 lives lost.

In addition to this, 8,171 people remain

missing, with many more being displaced

from their homes as towns and villages

were destroyed or swept away. Many

aspects of Japan‘s infrastructure have

been impaired by this devastation and


As well as other enterprises, several

nuclear power facilities were affected

by the severe ground motions and large

multiple tsunami waves: Tokai, Dai-ni,

Higashi Dori, Onagawa, and TEPCO`s

Fukushima Dai-ichi and Dai-ni. The

operational units at these facilities were

successfully shutdown by the automatic

systems installed as part of the design

of the nuclear power plants to detect the

earthquakes. However, the large tsunami

waves affected all these facilities to

varying degrees, with the most serious

consequences occurring at Fukushima


Although all off-site power was

lost when the earthquake occurred, the

automatic systems at Fukushima Daiichi

successfully inserted all the control

rods into its three operational reactors

upon detection of the earthquake, and

all available emergency diesel generator

power systems were in operation, as

designed. The first of a series of large

tsunami waves reached the Fukushima

Dai-ichi site about 46 minutes after the


Given above is the International Atomic

Energy Agency's International Fact

Finding Expert Mission's report of the

Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power

Plant accident following the great east

Japan earthquake and Tsunami. The

mission was led by Michael Weightman,

Health and Safety Executive (HSE),

United Kingdom.

These tsunami waves overwhelmed

the defenses of the Fukushima Dai-ichi

facility, which were only designed to

withstand tsunami waves of a maximum

of 5.7 m (18.7 feet) high. The larger

waves that impacted this facility on that

day were estimated to be over 14 m (45.9

feet) high. The tsunami waves reached

areas deep within the units, causing the

loss of all power sources except for one

emergency diesel generator (6B), with no

other significant power source available

on or off-site, and a little hope of outside


The station blackout at Fukushima

Dai-ichi and the impact of the tsunami

caused the loss of all instrumentation

and control systems at reactors Units

1–4, with emergency diesel 6B providing

emergency power to be shared between

Units 5 and 6.

The tsunami and associated large

debris caused widespread destruction of

many buildings, doors, roads, tanks and

other site infrastructure at Fukushima

Dai-ichi, including loss of heat sinks.

The operators were faced with a

catastrophic, unprecedented emergency

scenario with no power, reactor control or

instrumentation, and in addition, severely

affected communications systems both

within and external to the site. They

had to work in darkness with almost no

instrumentation and control systems

to secure the safety of six reactors, six

nuclear fuel pools, a common fuel pool

and dry cask storage facilities.

With no means to confirm the

parameters of the plant or cool the

reactor units, the three reactor units at

Fukushima Dai-ichi that were operational

up to the time of the earthquake, quickly

heated up due to the usual reactor decay

heating. Despite the brave and sometimes

novel attempts of the operational staff

to restore control and cool the reactors

and spent fuel, there was severe damage

to the fuel and a series of explosions

occurred. These explosions caused

further destruction at the site, making the

scene faced by the operators even more

demanding and dangerous. Moreover,

radiological contamination spread into

the environment. These events were

provisionally determined to be of the

highest rating on the International Nuclear

Event Scale.

At the time of this report submittal,

no confirmed long term health effects to

any person have been reported as a result

of radiation exposure from the nuclear


By agreement with the Government

of Japan, the International Atomic Energy

Agency conducted a preliminary mission

to find facts and identify initial lessons to

be learned from the accident at Fukushima

Dai-ichi and share this information across

the world nuclear community. A team

of experts undertook this Fact Finding

Mission from May 24-June 2, 2011. The

results of the Mission were reported to the

IAEA Ministerial Conference on Nuclear

Safety at IAEA headquarters in Vienna

during June 20-24,2011.

During the IAEA Mission, the team

of nuclear experts received excellent

cooperation from all parties, receiving

information from many relevant Japanese

ministries, nuclear regulators and

operators. The Mission also visited three

affected nuclear power plants (NPP)

— Tokai Dai-ni, Fukushima Dai-ni and

Dai-ichi — to gain an appreciation of the

status of the plants and the scale of the

damage. The facility visits allowed the

experts to talk to the operator staff as well

as to view the on-going restoration and

remediation work.

The Mission gathered evidence and

undertook a preliminary assessment and

has developed preliminary conclusions

as well as lessons to be learned. These

preliminary conclusions and lessons have

been shared and discussed with Japanese

experts and officials. They fall broadly

under the three specialist areas of external

hazards, severe accident management

and emergency preparedness. They are

of relevance to the Japanese nuclear

community, the IAEA and the worldwide

nuclear community to learn lessons to

improve nuclear safety.

50 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011

The IAEA Mission urges the

international nuclear community to

consider the following 15 conclusions

and 16 lessons in order to take advantage

of the unique opportunity created by the

Fukushima accident to seek to learn and

improve worldwide nuclear safety.


1. The IAEA Fundamental Safety

Principles provide a robust basis in relation

to the circumstances of the Fukushima

accident and cover all the areas of lessons

learned from the accident.

2. Given the extreme circumstances of

this accident the local management of the

accident has been conducted in the best

way possible.

3. There were insufficient defense-indepth

provisions for tsunami hazards. In


· although tsunami hazards were

considered both in the site evaluation

and the design of the Fukushima

Dai-ichi NPP as described during

the meetings and the expected

tsunami height was increased to 5.7

m (18.7 ft) (without changing the

licensing documents) after 2002, the

tsunami hazard was underestimated;

thus, considering that in reality a

dry site was not provided for these

operating NPPs, the additional

protective measures taken as result

of the evaluation conducted after

2002 were not sufficient to cope

with the high tsunami run up

values and all associated hazardous

phenomena (hydrodynamic forces

and dynamic impact of large debris

with high energy); moreover, those

additional protective measures

were not reviewed and approved by

the regulatory authority; because

failures of structures, systems

and components (SSCs) when

subjected to floods are generally not

incremental, the plants were not able

to withstand the consequences of

tsunami heights greater than those

estimated leading to cliff edge effects;

and severe accident management

provisions were not adequate to cope

with multiple plant failures.

4. For the Tokai Dai-ni and Fukushima

Dai-ni NPPs, in the short term, the

safety of the plant should be evaluated

and secured for the present state of the

plant and site (caused by the earthquake

and tsunami) and the changed hazard

environment. In particular, if an external

event Probabilistic Safety Assessment

(PSA) model is already available, this

would be an effective tool in performing

the assessment.

Short term immediate measures

at Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP need to be

planned and implemented for the present

state of the plant before a stable safe

state of all the units is reached. Until that

time the high priority measures against

external hazards need to be identified

using simple methods in order to have a

timely plan. As preventive measures will

be important but limited, both on-site and

off-site, mitigation measures need to be

included in the plan. Once a stable safe

state is achieved a long term plan needs

to be prepared that may include physical

improvements to Structure, System, &

(Continued on page 52)

NQA-1 and ISO 9001/2000



Nuclear Subassemblies Radwaste Containers Material Certifications

Reactor Components Pressure Vessels Heat Exchangers



Westerman Nuclear LLC is a wholly owned

subsidiary of the Westerman Companies

Dedicated to


and SERVICE since 1909

Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com 51

Fukushima Concl...

Continued from page 51

Components (SSCs) as well as on-site

and off-site emergency measures.

5. An updating of regulatory requirements

and guidelines should be performed

reflecting the experience and data

obtained during the Great East Japan

Earthquake and Tsunami, fulfilling the

requirements and using the criteria and

methods recommended by the relevant

IAEA Safety Standards for comprehensively

coping with earthquakes and tsunamis

and external flooding and, in general,

all correlated external events. The

national regulatory documents need to include

database requirements compatible

with those required by IAEA Safety Standards.

The methods for hazard estimation

and the protection of the plant need to be

compatible with advances in research and

development in related fields.

American Crane & Equipment



American Tank & Fabricating






The Babcock & Wilcox



Bigge Power Constructors




Black & Veatch


Ceradyne Boron Products


Chatham Steel Corporation


6. Japan has a well organized

emergency preparedness and response

system as demonstrated by the handling

of the Fukushima accident. Nevertheless,

complicated structures and organizations

can result in delays in urgent decision


7. Dedicated and devoted officials

and workers, and a well organized and

flexible system made it possible to reach

an effective response even in unexpected

situations and prevented a larger impact

of the accident on the health of the general

public and facility workers.

8. A suitable follow up programme on

public exposures and health monitoring

would be beneficial.

9. There appears to have been effective

control of radiation exposures on the

affected sites despite the severe disruption

by the events.

10. The IAEA Safety Requirements and

Guides should be reviewed to ensure that

the particular requirements in design and

severe accident management for multiplant

sites are adequately covered.

NPJ Advertiser Web Directory

Curtiss-Wright Flow Control



Curtiss-Wright Flow Control

Company Nuclear Group


Day & Zimmermann ECM


Divesco, Inc.


Ellis & Watts Global Industries,



Enercon Services, Inc.


Enertech, a business unit of

Curtiss-Wright Flow Control



GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy


Howden North America


Joseph Oat Corporation


11. There is a need to consider the periodic

alignment of national regulations and

guidance to internationally established

standards and guidance for inclusion in

particular of new lessons learned from

global experiences of the impact of

external hazards.

12. The Safety Review Services available

with the IAEA’s International Seismic

Safety Centre (ISSC) would be useful

in assisting Japan’s development in the

following areas:

• External event hazard assessment;

• Walkdowns for plants that will start

up following a shutdown; and

• Pre-earthquake preparedness.

13. A follow-up mission including

Emergency Preparedness Review

(EPREV) should look in detail at lessons

to be learned from the emergency response

on and off-site.

14. A follow-up mission should be

conducted to seek lessons from the

effective approach used to provide large

scale radiation protection in response to

the Fukushima accident.

(Continued on page 73)

Kinectrics Inc.


Nuclear Logistics Inc.


OECD Nuclear Energy Agency



Sargent & Lundy LLC


SCHOTT North America, Inc.


Thermo Scientific- CIDTEC


Westerman Nuclear


Westinghouse Electric

Company LLC


Zachry Nuclear Engineering,



Zetec, Inc.


52 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011

Fukushima Report to IAEA

Discharge of

Radioactive Materials to

the Environment

1. Amount of radioactive materials

discharged to the atmosphere.

On April 12, 2011 Nuclear and

Industrial Safety Agency (NISA), Japan

and the Nuclear Safety Commission,

Japan each announced the total discharged

amount of radioactive materials to the

atmosphere so far.

NISA estimated the total discharged

amount from reactors at the Fukushima

Dai-ichi NPSs according to the results

analyzing reactor status, etc. by Japan

Nuclear Energy Safety Organization

(JNES) and presumed that approximately

1.3x10 17 Bq of iodine-131 and approximately

6.1x10 15 Bq of cesium-137 were

discharged. Subsequently, Japan Nuclear

Energy Safety Organization (JNES) reanalyzed

the status of the reactors based

on the report which NISA collected on

May 16, 2011 from Tokyo Electric Power

Company (TEPCO) on the plant data immediately

after the accident occurred.

Based on this analysis of reactor status

and others by JNES, NISA estimated

that the total discharged amount of iodine-131

and cesium-137 were approximately

1.6x10 17 Bq and 1.5x10 16 Bq,

respectively. The Nuclear Safety Commission

estimated the amount of certain

nuclides discharged into the atmosphere

(discharged between March 11, 2011 to

April 5, 2011) with assistance from the

Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA)

through back calculations, based on the

data of environmental monitoring and air

diffusion calculation; the estimations are

Given above is the report of the Japanese

government to the International Atomic

Energy Agency Ministerial conference

on Nuclear Safety- the Accident at

TEPCO’s Fukushima nuclear power

stations. The report was prepared

by the Nuclear Emergency Response

Headquarters, Government of Japan.

The report was submitted for the June

20-24 IAEA Ministerial Conference held

in Austria, Vienna.

1.5x10 17 Bq for iodine-131 and 1.2x10 16

Bq for cesium-137. The discharged

amount since early April has been declining

and is about 10 11 Bq/h to 10 12 Bq/h in

iodine-131 equivalent.

2. Discharged amount of radioactive

materials to seawater.

Water containing radioactive materials

diffused from the RPV leaked into

the PCV at the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPS.

Also, because of water injections into

the reactors from the outside for cooling,

some injected water leaked from the

PCVs and accumulated in reactor buildings

and turbine buildings. The management

of contaminated water in reactor

buildings and turbine buildings became a

critical issue from the standpoint of workability

in the buildings, and the management

of contaminated water outside of

the buildings became a critical issue from

the standpoint of preventing the diffusion

of radioactive materials into the environment.

On April 2, 2011, it was discovered

that highly contaminated water with a

radiation level of over 1000 mSv/h had

accumulated in the pit of power cables

near the water intake of Unit 2 of the

Fukushima Dai-ichi NPS and it was

flowing into the seawater. Despite that,

the outflow was halted by stopping work

on April 6, 2011, and the total discharged

amount of radioactive materials was

assumed to be approximately 4.7x10 15 Bq.

As an emergency measure, it was decided

that this highly contaminated water would

be stored in tanks. However, as no tanks

were available at the time, low-level

radioactive water was discharged into the

seawater from April 4, 2011 to April 10,

2011 in order to secure storage capacity for

the contaminated water. The total amount

of discharged radioactive materials was

presumed to be approximately 1.5x10 11


Radiation exposure

The government of Japan has changed

the dose limit for personnel engaged in

radiation work from 100 mSv to 250 mSv

in light of the present situation of the

accident in order to prevent escalation

of the accident. This was decided

based on the information that a 1990

recommendation by the International

Commission on Radiological Protection

provided for 500 mSv as the dose limit to

avoid deterministic effects that have been

set for personnel engaged in emergency

rescue work.

With regard to the activities by

personnel engaged in radiation work

in TEPCO, there was no alternative but

for the chief workers to carry personal

dosimeters and observe radioactivity for

their entire work group unit, because a lot

of personal dosimeters had been soaked

by seawater, rendering them unusable.

Afterwards, as personal dosimeters

became available, all workers have been

able to carry personal dosimeters since

April 1, 2011.

The status of exposure doses of

personnel engaged in radiation work is

as follows. As of May 23, 2011, the total

number of workers that had entered the

area was 7,800, with an average exposure

dose of 7.7 mSv. Thirty of these workers

had exposure doses above 100 mSv. The

internal exposure measurement of the

radiation workers has been delayed and

the exposure dose, including internal

exposure of a certain number of workers,

could exceed 250 mSv in the future. On

March 24, 2011, two workers stepped into

accumulated water and their exposure

doses have been estimated at less than 2

or 3 Sv.

As for radiation exposure to residents

in the vicinity, no cases of harm to health

were found in 195,345 (the number as of

May 31, 2011) residents who received

screening in Fukushima Prefecture. All

1,080 children who went through thyroid

gland exposure evaluation received results

lower than the screening level.

International Cooperation

Since the occurrence of this nuclear

accident, experts have visited Japan

from the United States, France, Russia,

the Republic of Korea, China and the

(Continued on page 56)

Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com 53


ENERCON—Committed to Nuclear Power

Safety Analysis

ENERCON’s safety analysis group has

supported operating nuclear plants

for many years. The experience and

capabilities of the group are extensive

and include: Radiation Shielding;

Nuclear Fuels Analysis; Criticality Safety;

Accident Analysis; Waste Management;

PRA; Thermal Hydraulic Analysis;

Control Room Habitability; Hydrogen

Generation, Mixing, Transport and

Combustion. ENERCON has a full line

of the most frequently used nuclear

safety and thermal hydraulic software.

Electrical Analysis

ENERCON staff has extensive

experience in performing direct

current (DC) electrical distribution

system analysis, deterministic severe

accident analysis and modeling

using ETAP and EDSA software.

ENERCON staff has conducted detailed

evaluations of DC distribution systems

for many operating nuclear plants. The

DC systems are evaluated to ensure

the existing safety related station

batteries are appropriately sized and

have suffi cient capacity to supply the

DC loads under the required operating

conditions. The operating conditions

by which the analyses were conducted

include; 4-Hour Station Blackout (SBO),

8-Hour Dark Plan (DP), 8-Hour Design

Basis Accident (DBA) and 8-Hour Fire

Safe Shutdown (FSS). ENERCON also

has extensive experience in modeling

and analysis of AC distribution systems

as well as diesel generator (D/G) loads,

using ETAP and EDSA software. The

AC simulation model is conducted

to evaluate the Under Voltage Relay

(UVR) setpoint acceptability during

degraded grid condition, fast bus

transfer, and motor starting. Also, D/G

loading is evaluated to ensure the

emergency diesel generator can start

and accelerate ESF loads during a DBA

with a coincident loss of offsite power.

Adequacy of the D/Gs is determined

by computer simulation of the static

and sequenced loading requirements.

The computer simulation accounts for

the sequencer timer uncertainties by

verifying operation under the worstcase

timer setpoint uncertainties.

Seismic Analysis

ENERCON has extensive experience in

all aspects of seismic characterization,

analysis, and design for nuclear

facilities worldwide, and is uniquely

positioned to evaluate and improve

their safety during and following

seismic events. Using state-of-the-art

computer techniques, ENERCON has

successfully developed new response

spectra for various new and existing

nuclear facilities, often demonstrating

increased margin beyond original

designs. ENERCON experts have also

been instrumental in developing

an approved methodology for

performing seismic assessments of

nuclear power plant equipment,

components, and distribution systems

that enable engineers to demonstrate

and improve their ability to survive and

function through large earthquakes.

Applying the advanced probabilistic

methods and geological data they

have used for numerous new plant

siting studies, ENERCON is able to

convolve the probability of earthquake

occurrence with structure and

component fragility to evaluate overall

plant seismic safety.

25 Plus Years Gives Clients Other

Specialized Expertise At ENERCON

In addition to the traditional

engineering expertise ENERCON has

many areas of specialized expertise.

These areas include: Licensing and

Compliance; Licensee Commitment

Management; Licensee Reportability/

Operability Determination;

Emergency Preparedness and

Response; Probable Maximum Flood

and Precipitation Assessments;

Severe Accident Management; and

Spent Fuel Management.


ENERCON is a diversified energy

consulting company offering

engineering, licensing, analysis,

environmental and management

services. ENERCON is an employee

owned company of over 1200

people located in eighteen offices

nationwide with clients including

most of the country’s nuclear power

plants, the Department of Energy

and many Fortune 500 companies.

ENERCON provides comprehensive

design, engineering, procurement and

construction management related

to nuclear plant retrofits, plant life

extension, power uprates, operations

support, efficiency management and

full life-cycle maintenance services.

ENERCON has been responsible for

the design of more than 2000 plant

changes since 1990 and has become

intimately familiar with the design and

licensing basis of the operating nuclear

fleet. ENERCON is currently focused

on developing new nuclear plant

applications and operating nuclear

plant solutions for industry challenges

such as PWR and BWR sump strainer

clogging, plant life extension, buried

piping, 316b compliance, extended

power uprate, spent fuel storage

and transport, cyber security and

instrumentation and control upgrades.

For more information

about us visit our website

at www.enercon.com

54 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011

First Generation


Next Generation


We have been an integral part of the nuclear power industry

for years and today provide engineering services to more than

75% of the operating nuclear plants in the U.S.

During the start up and operation phases of the first generation,

ENERCON delivered engineering and technical services to

every PWR and BWR nuclear power plant in the country.

Now the future is here again.

We were there before. We will be there again, ready and able

to support new operating nuclear plants when the dust from

building new nuclear plants settles.

Thanks to our high employee retention, aggressive hiring of

engineers and mentoring program, we will continue to bring

operating plant knowledge and an industry perspective to the

clients we serve.

With 18 offices stretching coast-to-coast and 1,200 employees,

we can help you with any and all phases of nuclear power

generation. No matter what challenges you face, we can overcome

them together.

This is a new era of nuclear power generation. But it’s nothing

new to us.

(770) 919-1930 enercon.com

Fukushima Report...

Continued from page 53

United Kingdom, exchanged views

with relevant organizations in Japan,

and given significant amounts of advice

regarding stabilizing the nuclear reactors

and the spent fuel pools, preventing

the diffusion of radioactive materials,

and implementing countermeasures

against radioactive contaminated water.

Japan has also received support from

these countries and accepted materials

necessary to undertake measures against

the nuclear accident.

Experts from international organizations

specializing in nuclear power such

as the IAEA and the OECD Nuclear Energy

Agency (OECD/NEA) visited Japan,

providing advice. Also, international

organizations such as the IAEA, the

World Health Organization (WHO), the

International Civil Aviation Organization

(ICAO), the International Maritime Organization

(IMO), and the International

Commission on Radiological Protection

(ICRP) have provided necessary information

to the international community from

their own technical standpoints.


Initially after the occurrence of the

accident, accurate and timely information

was not sufficiently provided, typically

demonstrated in delays in notifying

local governments and municipalities, a

situation which has been identified as a

challenge in the field of communication

regarding the accident. Transparency, accuracy

and rapidity are important in domestic

and international communication

about accidents. The Japanese Government

has utilized various levels and occasions

such as press conferences at the

Prime Minister’s Office as well as press

conferences held jointly by relevant parties.

While these have been improved as

needed, in reflection of what and how

information should be provided, efforts

to improve communication must be ongoing.

Briefings on important issues regarding

the accident have been provided

at press conferences by the Chief Cabinet

Secretary to explain to the citizens

the status of the accident as well as the

views of the Japanese Government. TEP-

CO as a nuclear operator and NISA as a

regulatory authority have also held press

conferences on the status, details and development

of the accident. The NSC has

provided important technical advice and

explained the evaluation of environmental

monitoring results and other matters at

press conferences.

Joint press conferences with the

participation of relevant organizations

have been held since April 25, 2011 in

order to share information in an integrated

manner. The Special Advisor to the Prime

Minister, NISA, MEXT, the Secretariat

of the NSC, TEPCO and other relevant

organizations have participated in these

joint press conferences.

As for inquiries from the general

public, NISA has opened a counseling

hotline on the nuclear accident and

MEXT has also opened a counseling

hotline on the impact of radiation on

health. Experts in academia, including

members of the Atomic Energy Society

of Japan, have actively explained and

provided information to citizens.

Regarding the provision of information

to the international community,

the Japanese Government reported the

accident status to the IAEA, promptly,

pursuant to the Convention on Early Notification

of a Nuclear Accident, beginning

with the first report on 16:45 pm on

March 11, 2011, immediately after the

accident occurred. The Japanese Government

has also reported the provisional

evaluations of the International Nuclear

and Radiological Event Scale (INES)

when the government made its announcement

regarding each evaluation.

For communication with countries

across the world, including neighboring

countries, briefings to diplomats in Tokyo

and press conferences for the foreign media

have been conducted.

Notification to other countries

including neighboring countries about

the deliberate discharge of accumulated

water of low-level radioactivity to the

sea on April 4, 2011 was not satisfactory.

This is a matter of sincere regret and

every effort has been made to ensure

sufficient communication with the

international community and to reinforce

the notification system.

Provisional evaluations based on the

INES have been as follows:

1. The fi rst report.

A provisional evaluation of Level 3

was issued, based on the determination

by NISA at 16:36 on March 11, 2011

that the emergency core cooling system

for water injection had become unusable.

This situation occurred because motoroperated

pumps lost function due to allaround

losses of power at Units 1 and 2

of the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPS.

2. The second report.

On March 12, 2011, the PCV venting

of Unit 1 of the Fukushima Dai-ichi

NPS was conducted, and an explosion

at its reactor building occurred. Based

on environmental monitoring, NISA

confirmed the emission of radioactive

iodine, cesium and other radioactive

materials, and made an announcement

on a provisional evaluation of Level

4, because NISA determined that over

approximately 0.1% of the radioactive

materials in the reactor core inventory

had been emitted.

3. The third report.

On March 18, 2011 as some incidents

causing fuel damage had been identified

at Units 2 and 3 of the Fukushima Daiichi

NPS, NISA announced a provisional

evaluation of Level 5 because the release

of several percentages of the radioactive

materials in the core inventory was

determined to have occurred, based on the

information ascertained at that moment,

including that of the status of Unit 1.

4. The fourth report.

On April 12, 2011, regarding the

accumulated amount of the radioactive

materials released in the atmosphere,

NISA announced its estimates from

analytical results of the reactor status,

while NSC announced its estimates from

dust monitoring data. The estimation by

NISA was 370,000 TBq of radioactivity

in iodine equivalent, while the calculated

value based on the estimate of NSC

was 630,000 TBq. Based on these

results, NISA announced a provisional

evaluation of Level 7 the same day. One

month had passed between the third and

fourth reports, and the provisional INES

evaluation should have been made more

promptly and appropriately.

56 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011

Examples of Safe U.S. Plants

By Region III Staff, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission.

1. What impact will the new NRC

requirements (post Three Mile Island and

post 9/11) related to hydrogen control will

have under a “black out” condition or

any other scenario to protect the Dresden

and Quad Cities plants with Mark 1

containment against adverse situations

caused by a terrorist attack or an out of

design basis earthquake?

The NRC has required modifications

to the plants since they were built,

including design changes to control

hydrogen and pressure in the containment.

The NRC has also required plants to have

additional equipment and measures to

mitigate damage stemming from large

fires and explosions from a beyonddesign-basis

event. The measures include

providing core and spent fuel pool cooling

and an additional means to power other

equipment on site.

Following the events of Sept. 11,

2001, NRC required all nuclear plant

licensees to take additional steps to protect

public health and safety in the event of

a large fire or explosion. In accordance

with NRC regulations, all nuclear power

plants are required to maintain or restore

cooling for the reactor core, containment

building, and spent fuel pool under the

circumstances associated with a large

fire or explosion. These requirements

include using existing or readily available

equipment and personnel, having

strategies for firefighting, operations

to minimize fuel damage, and actions

to minimize radiological release to the

environment. In general, mitigative

strategies are plans, procedures, and

pre-staged equipment whose intent is to

minimize the effects of adverse events. If

needed, these mitigative strategies could

also be used during natural phenomena

such as earthquakes, tornadoes, floods,

and tsunami.

Responses to questions by Newal

Agnihotri, Editor of Nuclear Plant

Journal. The questions relate to Exelon's

Dresden & Quad Cities Plants.

For control of hydrogen, the Dresden

and Quad Cities Mark 1 containments

are both inerted with Nitrogen while the

reactors are at power. The answer to

Question 4 describes in more detail how

the U.S. NRC’s Hydrogen Rule helps to

protect the containment from the effect of

hydrogen build-up.

For pressure in containment, at Dresden,

the Augmented Primary Containment

Vent System vents containment

(suppression chamber and/or the drywell)

to the site chimney. Use of this system is

only authorized after hydrogen and oxygen

concentration limits have been met.

At Quad Cities, a Hardened Vent was

installed to vent the containment to the

standby gas treatment system where it is

filtered prior to release.

“Black out” is addressed in the

answer to question 2 below.

2. How will the Dresden and Quad Cities

Mark 1 containments sustain a coincident

long-term loss of both onsite and offsite

power supply for an extended period of

time which is beyond design basis event?

US nuclear power plants are

designed to cope with a station blackout

(SBO) event that involves a loss of offsite

power and onsite emergency power.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s

detailed regulations address this scenario.

US nuclear plants are required to conduct

a “coping” assessment and develop a

strategy to demonstrate to the NRC that

they could maintain the plant in a safe

condition during a SBO scenario. These

assessments, proposed modifications to

the plant, and operating procedures were

reviewed and approved by the NRC.

Several plants added additional AC power

sources to comply with this regulation.

For both Dresden and Quad Cities,

the licensee elected to add additional

AC power sources to cope with a station

blackout event. Both sites installed 2

additional SBO diesel generators that

are independent and separate from the

station’s emergency diesel generators.

These SBO diesel generators are located

separate from off site power and the

emergency diesel generators, have their

own fuel supply, and are capable of

supplying 100% of the emergency electric

power needs.

3. What mitigation strategies to maintain

core cooling, containment, and spent fuel

cooling capabilities were implemented at

Dresden and Quad Cities in post TMI and

post 9/11 environment?

As a result of the Three Mile Island

(TMI) accident, improvements were

required associated with plant operation

and operator qualification. The training

curriculum for licensed operators was

expanded, including the requirement for

a site specific simulator examination to

both the initial license and continuing

license training (requalification)

programs. These training requirements

are delineated in 10CFR55 and require

that operators be trained on a variety of

postulated accidents such as, a loss of

all AC, loss of primary coolant, and all

other events that potentially result in core


At TMI, operators had difficulty

diagnosing the event and entering the

proper procedure. The Emergency

Operating Procedures (EOP) were

developed that no longer required the

operator to identify the specific accident

occurring, but to only identify the

symptoms of the event based on readily

available and highly improved control

room indications. Based on these identified

plant symptoms, the operators could then

enter the appropriate procedure. These

EOPs are designed to lead an operator

to a successful shutdown and cooldown

of a plant under accident conditions. The

NRC examines operators on a variety of

these procedures to ensure operators can

properly execute the emergency operating

procedures as well as the station’s normal

and abnormal operating procedures.

Furthermore, the facilities’ licensed

operator continuing training programs are

inspected biennially to ensure mastery of

these procedures.

It is recognized that in some cases,

equipment may not be available to

(Continued on page 60)

Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com 57


58 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011

Examples of Safe...

Continued from page 57

mitigate a loss of coolant or a loss of

station electrical power. If a plant event

occurs and an operator completes all of

the EOPs and still has not mitigated the

event, stations have been required to

develop and implement Severe Accident

Management Guidelines (SAMGs)

that provide procedural guidance for

mitigating core and plant damage after

the core has fragmented or melted as it

did at TMI. These procedures bring to

bear additional strategies that would

not normally be used during accident

mitigation, but under extreme emergency

conditions can be used to mitigate the

consequences of the accident. As a result

of the September 11, 2011 event, all

nuclear plants were required to develop

procedures and procure equipment that

could be used to respond to an event that

was beyond the design basis accident up

to, and including, the loss of the station’s

control room and all its licensed operators.

These procedures and the associated

equipment are designed to keep water

in the spent fuel pools and in the reactor


As a result of the terrorist events of

September 11, 2001, the NRC issued EA-

02-026, “Order for Interim Safeguards

and Security Compensatory Measures”

(the ICM Order) dated February 25, 2002.

Section B.5.b of the Order required all

nuclear power plants to adopt mitigation

strategies using readily available

resources (independent and portable

emergency equipment, including diesel

driven pumps) to maintain or restore core

cooling, containment, and Spent Fuel

Pool cooling capabilities to cope with the

loss of large areas of the facility due to

large fires and explosions. The initiating

event for such large fires and explosions

could be any number of beyond-design

basis events (both natural and man-made),

including earthquakes, tornadoes, floods,

and air plane crashes.

The nuclear industry subsequently

incorporated strategies and guidance

for adding make-up water to the SFP,

spraying water on the spent fuel,

enhancing initial command and control

activities for challenges to core cooling

and containment, and enhancing response

strategies for challenges to core cooling

and containment. These mitigation

strategies have been inspected and

continue to be inspected routinely by the

NRC to ensure that the nuclear facilities

meet the requirements of Section B.5.b of

the Order.

4. How does the U.S. NRC’s Hydrogen

Rule enable mitigation of the impact of

generated hydrogen as a result of beyond

design basis event and core damage?

10 CFR 50.44, “Combustible gas

control for nuclear power reactors,” also

known as the “Hydrogen Rule,” outlines

the NRC’s requirements to prevent an

atmosphere inside the containment of

Boiling Water Reactors and certain

Pressurized Water Reactors that supports

combustion or detonation that could

cause loss of containment integrity. It

does this by requiring that all BWRs with

Mark I and II containments maintain an

inerted atmosphere (less than 4% oxygen

by volume). This requirement greatly

reduces the amount of available oxygen

for any hydrogen that could be produced

from the metal-water interaction of the fuel

cladding to interact with. Additionally,

the Hydrogen Rule requires BWRs with

Mark III containments and PWRs with

Ice Condenser containments that do not

have inerted atmospheres to be able to

monitor and control the combustible gas

concentrations in containment so as to

not cause a failure of equipment or loss

of structural integrity of containment.

5. Provide brief details of the installation

of scrubbing equipment, enhanced

reliability of the automatic de-pressurization

system, and the new hardened vent

systems for the containment cooling of

BWR Mark I, which were implemented as

a part of Mark I Containment Improvement


As a part of a comprehensive plan

for closing severe accident issues, the

NRC undertook a program to determine

if any actions should be taken, on a

generic basis, to reduce the vulnerability

of BWR Mark I containments to severe

accident challenges. At the conclusion

of the Mark I Containment Performance

Improvement Program, the NRC staff

identified a number of plant modifications

that substantially enhance the plants’

capability to both prevent and mitigate the

consequences of severe accidents. The

improvements that were recommended


(1) Improved hardened wetwell vent


(2) Improved reactor pressure vessel

depressurization system reliability,

(3) An alternative water supply to the

reactor vessel and drywell sprays,


(4) Updated emergency procedures and


One of the advantages that all of

these improvements have is that they

all contribute to the scrubbing of fission

products from releases by forcing any

gaseous release during a severe accident

to be directed through the water volume

in the wetwell (suppression pool) prior to

being vented from containment.

In Generic Letter 89-16, the NRC

informed the licensees of the approved

hardened vent modification [improvement

(1)] and encouraged the licensees to

incorporate this improvement into their

design through the 10 CFR 50.59 process.

For any licensee who did not elect to

install hardened vents, the NRC would

initiate a backfit analysis to evaluate the

efficacy of requiring the installation of

hardened wetwell vents, and if supported,

would issue an order for the modification.

In response to GL 89-16, both Dresden

and Quad Cities installed hardened

wetwell vents.

The NRC concluded that improvements

(2), (3), and (4) should be addressed

and evaluated by the licensees

in their Individual Plant Examinations

(IPEs), the results of which are discussed

in NUREG-1560, "Individual Plant Examination

Program: Perspectives on

Reactor Safety and Plant Performance"

December 30, 1997. In NUREG-1560, it

is noted that in their IPEs, Dresden and

Quad Cities both had implemented containment

performance improvements.

Dresden installed a hardened vent, implemented

Revision 4 of the BWR Owners

Group (BWROG) Emergency Procedure

Guidelines (EPGs), addressed alternate

Reactor Pressure Vessel injection from

fire water, and were considering alternate

containment spray. Quad Cities installed

vent, implemented Revision 4 of BWROG

EPG's, and were considering alternate

RPV injection and drywell sprays.

Contact: Viktoria Mitlyng, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region

III; telephone: (630) 829-2662, fax: (630)

515-1096, email: Viktoria.mitlyng@nrc.


60 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011


Continued from page 12

steam dryer at Xcel Energy’s Monticello

Nuclear Generating Plant, a singleunit

GE-designed boiling water reactor

(BWR) This is the first BWR replacement

steam dryer installed by Westinghouse at

a U.S. BWR plant.

This component was designed by

Westinghouse Sweden and modified by

Westinghouse’s U.S.-based BWR engineering

team with support from Toshiba

Corporation for use in the American market.

The Westinghouse Sweden steam

dryer design has more than 200 reactor

years of event-free operation and is in use

at more than 11 BWR plants throughout

Europe and the Nordic Region.

The Monticello replacement steam

dryer was fabricated at Toshiba’s Keihin

facility, in Yokohama, Japan, and was

shipped from Yokohama to the U.S. in

December 2010, arriving at the Monticello

Nuclear Generating Plant 20 days

ahead of schedule. The one-piece assembly

is 17 feet in diameter, 16 feet tall and

weighs 60,000 pounds.

Contact: Meghan Young, telephone:

(412) 374-6702, email: young2mj@


Underwater Scanner

Westinghouse Electric Company

demonstrated a technological improvement

in the industry’s ability to take

in-vessel measurements and track cycleto-cycle

degradation with the first deployment

of a nuclear underwater laser

scanner specifically designed to deliver

precise measurements in underwater radiation

environments typical of BWR and

PWR vessel work.

The NM200UW laser scanner, developed

and manufactured by Newton Labs,

was deployed by a team of Westinghouse

engineers at NextEra Energy’s Duane Arnold

Energy Center (DAEC) to scan critical

areas of the steam dryer and separator,

as well as document the as-left condition

of a modification on the steam dryer.

This occurred during the site’s scheduled

refueling outage in October 2010.

Contact: Vaughn Gilbert, telephone:

(412) 491-9820, email: gilberhv@



Boron Products LLC, a Ceradyne, Inc.

Company, is supplying 10 B enriched boric

acid and 7 Li enriched lithium hydroxide

monohydrate for the European Pressurized

Reactor TM (EPR) designed to optimize the use

of nuclear fuel and minimize the production of

long-lived high-level radioactive waste.

Enriched boric acid is a design feature of

EPR reactors currently under construction

in Finland, France and China. Use of boric acid enriched in the 10 B isotope has

shown a safety benefi t by reducing exposure of plant personnel to ionizing radiation.

It allows a reduction in the concentration of lithium in the primary coolant that

is required to maintain pH in a regime that results in minimal corrosion rates and

maintains a positive temperature coeffi cient of solubility for the corrosion of product

oxides. Other enriched boric acid benefi ts are related to fl uid systems and

safety aspects associated with extended fuel cycles, reduced boron and lithium

costs, and reduction in size of equipment for boric acid systems.

pH buffering is required in the Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR) due to the

boric acid addition. However, natural occurring lithium contains both 6 Li and 7 Li

isotopes. 6 Li adsorbs thermal neutrons and subsequently decays the production

of unwanted tritium. Lithium hydroxide monohydrate enriched in 7 Li mitigates this

decay reaction and tritium formation in the cooling water. The extremely low levels

of tritium produced when using 7 Li enriched material offers distinct operational

advantages under existing environmental guidelines.

For more information contact Boron Products ▪ Tel 918-673-2201 x2225

Highest Purity

Stable Isotopes for Nuclear

Power Plant Chemistries

Control the nuclear reaction rate

Enriched Boric Acid (E 10 BA)

Advanced materials for very high temperature

applications, enhanced criticality control, and for

safe and efficient fuel cycle management.

Neutralize acidity

Enriched Lithium Hydroxide-Monohydrate ( 7 Li)

Flood the reactor core for emergency shutdown

Enriched Sodium Pentaborate (NaP 10 B)




Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com 61


62 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011

Energy & Environmental Resource


By Lisa Barile, PSEG Power.


On January 25, 2010, PSEG

opened the Energy & Environmental

Resource Center (EERC), a new learning

center focused on building a greater

understanding of energy, environmental

challenges, and strategies for balancing

energy demand with environmental

stewardship. PSEG renovated its former

Nuclear Training Center, located eleven

miles from the Salem and Hope Creek

Generating Stations in Salem, NJ, to

house approximately 16,000 square feet

of public use space, featuring 6,000

square feet of hands-on, interactive

exhibits. The exhibits explore the impact

of technology, lifestyle, and public

policy on energy consumption and the

environment and challenge visitors to

consider their own energy use and carbon

footprint. Other exhibits offer the basics

of electricity generation and focus on the

need for a portfolio of solutions to the

country’s energy challenges, including

conservation and efficiency efforts,

renewables, and clean, central station

power sources. A section dedicated to

nuclear energy emphasizes the important

role that nuclear power plays in providing

safe, reliable, clean, and inexpensive

baseload electricity and addresses

Nuclear Energy Institute’s Top Industry

Practice (TIP) Award’s highlight the

nuclear industry’s most innovative

techniques and ideas. They promote

the sharing of innovation and best

practices, and consequently improve the

commercial prospects and competitive

position of the industry as a whole.

This entry was a 2011NEI Process

Award winner.

The team members who participated

included: Lisa Barile, Stakeholder

Outreach Specialist, PSEG Power; Joe

Delmar, Communications Manager,

PSEG Nuclear; David DiDonato,

Creative Services, PSEG Power.

common stakeholder concerns on issues

like radiation, safety and security, and

used fuel management.

More than being recognized as a

nuclear information center, however, the

EERC exhibits emphasize that nuclear is

part of the energy solution, not the only

solution. Rather, the EERC was designed

to promote conversations about energy,

the environment, and the role that nuclear

plays in meeting the challenges of climate

change in light of ever-increasing energy

demand. In developing the content and

intended usage of the facility, PSEG

targeted a broad range of audiences, not

just children. Recognizing that building

relationships with political, environmental

and community-based audiences is key

to sustainable support, the company

designed a facility that would serve as a

community resource. The EERC features

a flexible multi-purpose room, classroom,

and hands-on lab that are available

for community use free of charge. In

keeping with PSEG’s commitment to

environmental stewardship, the facility

achieved Gold-level Leadership in Energy

and Environmental Design (LEED)

certification from the United States Green

Building Council.

Following a successful public

outreach campaign established in 2009,

PSEG Nuclear has continued with this

approach, coordinating and expanding

outreach efforts through the EERC. Free

educational programs and stakeholder

briefings on topics like electricity

generation, climate change, nuclear

power, conservation, local ecology, and an

energy overview, are tailored specifically

for each group and delivered by PSEG

leadership. Plant tours are conducted in

conjunction with an EERC visit for select

groups by communications management

and supported by station personnel. In

its first year of operation, 235 groups

and nearly 5,000 individuals visited the

EERC. Student visitors accounted for 20

percent of this total. The rest – including

public officials, environmentalists,

community members, regulators, industry

representatives, and company personnel

Lisa Barile

Lisa Barile serves as a stakeholder

outreach specialist for PSEG Power. In

her fi rst two years with the company,

Lisa focused on completing the design

and construction of the PSEG Energy &

Environmental Resource Center (EERC)

in Salem, NJ. Currently, she manages

the completed EERC, developing and

facilitating educational programs

for student fi eld trips, coordinating

functions, and assisting with community

outreach events for PSEG Nuclear.

Lisa obtained a BA in Communication

from the University of Delaware in 2007.

– represented adult stakeholders. The

EERC has been positively received by

the community as a valuable educational

tool and as a comfortable and flexible

destination for meetings and functions.

Allowing community groups to use

the facility provides opportunities for

stakeholders to get to know PSEG and

hear its message. By introducing a

broader conversation around energy and

environmental challenges, PSEG has

strengthened its reputation as a leader

in the community for providing sound,

relevant information on these issues.

The success of the EERC has

reenergized the nuclear industry’s

approach to energy education outreach.

PSEG made its exhibit designs available

to a Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)

taskforce, free of charge, to standardize

the original design and make plans for

the next generation of education centers

accessible and cost effective.

Safety Response

Although most of the exhibit space

explores a broad conversation around

energy use and environmental impacts, the

nuclear section was designed specifically

to help visitors understand basic plant

operation and address common questions,

concerns, and misconceptions. Visitors

enter the nuclear section by walking

through a cutaway of a mock containment

(Continued on page 68)

64 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011


Components for Nuclear Power

Generation Include:

• Reactor Internals

• Structural Supports

• Containment Parts

• Heat Exchangers

• Pressure Vessels/Tanks

• Piping Systems

• Tanks

• Heavy Lift Rigs

• Radioactive Material Containers

• Metals, Alloy and Ferrous

12314 Elmwood Ave.

Cleveland, Ohio 44111

p 800-544-5316 • f 216-251-4963


Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com 65


The Best Camera for Many Applications…..

The Only Camera for Some!

Thermo Scientific – CIDTEC is the preeminent supplier of

radiation hardened and high dynamic range scientific cameras

incorporating proprietary Charge Injection Device (CID)

technology for use in the most demanding imaging


These extremely resilient and compact video cameras are

available in either monochrome or color formats with remote

head cable lengths of up to 150-meters. Imagers are available in

RS-170, progressive scan, and CCIR formats.

Thermo Scientific also offers intensified versions of the

MegaRAD cameras for extremely low light level imaging, UV

signal enhancement, and for the gating of high-speed events.

The SpectraCAM scientific camera series offers unprecedented

dynamic range, exceeding 26-bits in some applications. These

cameras exhibit low noise, excellent native UV responsivity, nondestructive

readout capabilities, and user-programmable

windowing capabilities. The Thermo Scientific RACID Exposure

software supplies an intuitive interface to the SpectraCAM while

providing the user with the desired data in a wide variety of

formats at the touch of a button.

The Thermo Scientific MegaRAD series of cameras are

capable of operating in high-dose radiation environments such

as nuclear reactors, fuel inspection, hot cell monitoring,

remediation, surveillance, and X-ray imaging applications.

All of the Thermo Scientific CID based cameras offer unmatched

anti-blooming, wide dynamic range, and UV sensitivity

performance that has become synonymous with CID technology.

Charge Injection Device

The Charge Injection Device (CID) is a solid-state imaging sensor with unique capabilities that make it well suited for applications

where commercially available Charge Coupled Devices (CCDs) have difficulty. Like a CCD, the CID employs pixels to capture 2-D

images, converting light into electronic charge, which is in turn displayed on a monitor or alternatively captured digitally on a

computer. The CID architecture is designed to specifically be resistant to radiation damage, which is obviously a significant

advantage for radiation tolerant and hardened imaging applications for the nuclear power, medical, dental, and aerospace industries.

In addition, the inherent anti-blooming performance of the CID ensures accurate image detail even under extreme lighting conditions.

The CID is uniquely positioned to serve the growing imaging market and the challenges for higher levels of accuracy in the radiation

tolerant inspection market, as well as machine vision, scientific imaging applications. Thermo Scientific - CIDTEC is the leading

manufacturer of CMOS imagers using the CID pixel architecture, and Thermo Scientific provides imaging solutions to Original

Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) as well as directly to end-users throughout the world.


Thermo Scientific CID based video cameras and sensors provide solutions for the most demanding applications including:

Radiation Hardened and Tolerant Video


UV Imaging


Laser Profiling

Medical Diagnostics



Semiconductor Inspection

Synchrotron Beam Profiling

66 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011

©2009 Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. All rights reserved. All trademarks are the property of Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.

and its subsidiaries.

Got Radiation?

See what you’ve been missing

The Thermo Scientific MegaRAD series of radiation hardened CID imaging

cameras are capable of operating in high dose environments and provide

excellent image quality to total dose levels over 100 times the tolerance of

conventional solid state cameras.

• Color and Monochrome imaging to beyond 3 MegaRAD

• High resolution CID imager technology

• Small remote detachable head

Look closer at the Thermo Scientific line of radiation hardened

cameras. Visit www.thermo.com/cidtec or contact us today about new

innovative imaging products.

Tel: 1-315-451-9410 • Email: sales.cidtec@thermo.com

The world’s only color rad hard


Innovative Preamp per pixel CID design

allows high radiation tolerance and

excellent image quality even in low light


Part of Thermo Fisher Scientific

Energy & Environmental...

Continued from page 64

wall with models of steel rebar. Inside

the containment walls is a model of a

reactor core, providing a birds-eye view

into the core. A model fuel assembly is

positioned above the core and is used to

explain the fission process. The Salem

and Hope Creek Generating Stations

have two reactor technologies on a single

site, and informational panels include

diagrams and explanations of both the

Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) technology

and Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR)

technology. Graphic panels address

key topics, including radiation, the

oversight role of the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) and the Institute

of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO),

emergency planning, environmental

testing, employee training, cyber security,

and on-site security force presence.

A five-minute video updated from an

existing NEI video explains security

at nuclear sites in the United States,

including the latest training, equipment,

emergency preparedness, and site access

requirements. Much of the new training

exercise footage was shot at the Salem

and Hope Creek Generating Stations.

Used fuel management has proven

to be one of the greatest points of

concern for stakeholders. One graphic

panel covers dry cask storage containers

and independent spent fuel storage

installations (ISFSIs), transportation of

used fuel via railways, and the need for

a long-term federal repository for spent

fuel. A second panel explores used fuel

reprocessing, highlighting countries

where such processes are currently used

and explaining how concerns of cost and

proliferation have prevented the United

States from following suit. The panel also

graphically illustrates closing the fuel

cycle and shows the percentage of used

fuel in a single assembly that is available

for reprocessing. Plans are currently

underway for Holtec International to

install a dry cask storage container model

in the exhibit space to further address

increased interest in the topic.

The Conversation touch screen

interactive summarizes the entire

section by addressing the most common

questions or concerns that visitors have

about nuclear power, including how a

nuclear reactor and cooling tower operate,

the accidents at Three Mile Island and

Chernobyl, need for and cost of new

nuclear plants, job opportunities within

the industry, safe storage of nuclear fuel,

and impact of a nuclear plant on the

surrounding community.

The exhibits are used as a standalone

education tool and in conjunction with

briefings and plant tours. Typically

plant tours begin at the EERC with a

nuclear overview and briefing about

safety protocols at the site. Once on-site,

visitors meet with training personnel in

the control room simulators and shoot the

laser modified guns at the security range

with security personnel. This interaction

allows visitors to experience firsthand

the importance of nuclear safety and

learn that the nuclear security force is

comprised of highly trained individuals

prepared to protect the plants from any

security threat.

On January 25, 2010, PSEG hosted

the Grand Opening of the EERC, which

was well attended by public officials,

community leaders, and media. Several

key attendees spoke at the opening,

noting the importance of energy and

environmental education and PSEG’s

leadership role in these areas.

Innovation Response

During the summer of 2008, PSEG

Power President and Chief Operating

Officer Bill Levis and members of the

Nuclear Development team traveled

to active nuclear construction sites in

Finland, France, Japan, and Taiwan and

noted the presence of education centers.

Shortly thereafter, polling conducted by

Bisconti Research, Inc. revealed that New

Jersey residents lack an understanding

of basic energy concepts. Respondents

thought that nuclear power generation

emits carbon dioxide and believed that

natural gas is not a fossil fuel. Most

respondents showed no awareness of

the difference between baseload power

and peaking power and thought that

solar and wind sources can be used

interchangeably with existing generation

sources. New Jersey residents expressed

strong concern about the environment,

and “Opinion Elite” respondents were

the most concerned about the effects of

nuclear power, particularly safety and

waste issues.

Exhibits include introductory

content and interactive to engage student

visitors but also contain more advanced

information to initiate conversations

with adult visitors. Learning styles differ

with each generation, so information

is presented in a mix of graphic panels,

mechanical interactives, video screens,

and touch screen interactives to connect

with a range of audiences. With constant

advancements in the energy industry,

the strategic placement of technology

throughout the exhibits allows for

easy and inexpensive updates to keep

information current.



The industry formed a taskforce

organized by NEI to standardize the exhibit

design developed and provided by PSEG.

The Energy Education Center Taskforce

secured funding from more than twenty

companies to adapt PSEG’s original

design for generic use so that contributing

companies can update existing facilities

or create new education centers in their

territory. The standardization effort took

a modular approach, creating design

plans that companies can purchase

as standalone exhibits or as an entire

exhibition space, depending on space and

budget availability. Displays can also be

adapted to a traveling or mobile exhibit.

A website launched in January 2011 so

that contributing companies can view

design plans online, select options, and

determine budgets.

By collaborating across the industry,

new educational exhibits will be deployed

at significant savings. Participating

companies will be able to recreate

PSEG’s exhibits while saving more than

50 percent of PSEG’s initial investment


Education centers like the EERC

will play a critical role in developing the

broad public support needed to build the

next generation of nuclear plants in the

United States.

Contact: Lisa Barile, PSEG Power,

244 Chestnut Street, Salem, NJ 08079;

telephone: (856) 339-7917, fax: (856)

339-7911, email: lisa.barile@pseg.com.

68 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011

One of the Best for Natural Habitat

By Ramesh Chandra, Department of

Atomic Energy, India.

Narora Atomic Power Station

(NAPS), a PHWR with two Units of

220MWe each is situated on the bank

of River Ganges, in the State of Uttar

Pradesh in India. NAPS is located 150

KMs (93.2 miles) away from Delhi,

the national capital. It is connected to

Northern Grid of India through outgoing

220 KV lines. NAPS is an indigenously

designed, constructed and commissioned

station of Nuclear Power Corporation of

India Limited (NPCIL).

NAPS Unit 1 achieved first criticality

on March 12, 1989 and synchronized

to grid on July 29, 1989. The unit is in

commercial operation since January

1, 1991. Unit 2 of NAPS achieved first

criticality on October 24, 1991 and

synchronized to the grid on January 5,

1992. The unit is in commercial operation

since June 30, 1992.

Based on this design and operating

experience, other Nuclear Power Plants

namely Kakrapar Atomic Power Station,

Kaiga generating Station, Rajasthan

Atomic Power Station Units 3&4 & 5&6

have been constructed and commissioned

in India.

The Site

Around the Power Station, there is a

large cover of forestation almost covering

the 1.6 Km (.99 miles) radius around the

Plant where one finds peacock, deer, blue

bull, wild pig, monkeys, variety of chirping

birds, python, crocodiles, and dolphins.

Narora is a paradise for migratory birds

especially on the banks of River Ganges

and Canals; The Flora and Fauna are well

protected by the Plant authorities with the

help of local Forest Department. NAPS

employees are associated with sponsored

schemes for preservation of its natural

greenery and protection of the animals

around the Plant boundary. Various Non-

Government Organizations (NGOs) have

taken up study projects on these aspects

and have described the place as one of the

best for natural habitat.

Ramesh Chandra

Mr. Ramesh Chandra is the Training

Superintendent of Narora Atomic Power

Station. He joined the Department of

Atomic Energy in 1977. He worked in

various capacities of Assistant Engineer,

Assistant Shift Charge Engineer & Shift

Charge Engineer in the Main Plant

Operation of Tarapur Atomic Power

Station(BWR) and later on at Narora

Atomic Power Station(PHWR) in

various responsible positions such as

Shift Charge Engineer, Technical Audit

Engineer, Senior Technical Engineer

(Ventilation), Senior Technical Engineer

(Conventional). Apart from this, he also

worked as a counter part in WANO Peer

Review of NAPS Operating Experience

in the year 2000 and later on Training &

Qualifi cation in the year 2009. He has

participated in the Corporate Reviews of

various Nuclear Power Stations in India.

Community Interaction

NAPS being the center of nuclear

related activities in the area; there has

been a tremendous request for providing

vocational training to the students from

different Institutes of the State. Every

year about 50 to 60 students are provided

the vocational training. This has helped

in disseminating information about the

Nuclear Power and the plant among the

Technical Institutions in the nearby region

& thus bringing an awareness about the

merits, safety and radiation aspects of

nuclear power in the region. Regular visits

of colleges / schools students to the plant

are encouraged under public awareness


NAPS has been contributing in the

developmental activities in the nearby

villages in infrastructural activities like

construction of School Buildings, Roads,

Drains, and renovation of schools and

providing financial assistance and free

education to the poor students of the

nearby community in the schools run by

NAPS for its employees, distribution of

B.B. Mithal

Mr B.B.Mithal is the Station Director

of Narora Atomic Power Station. He

joined the Department of Atomic Energy

in 1974. He had the opportunity to be

associated with the Commissioning &

operations of the fi rst Indian PHWR

at Rawatbhata in Rajasthan, the

fi rst standardized indigenous PHWR

at Narora , operations of PHWR at

Kakrapar and commissioning of 540

Mwe PHWR at Tarapur. During his 34

years of association with the Indian

nuclear power programme, he has been

instrumental in promoting the safety

culture and Safety innovation for safe

operation of the nuclear power reactor

technology. He had the opportunity to

facilitate his experience and expertise,

under the programmes organized by


Argentina, DAYA BAY NPP in China,

Ukraine as well as NAGOYA and Tokyo

in Japan.

felicitation of teachers and distribution

of uniforms to the needy students. Other

neighborhood welfare activities include

organizing periodic free medical camps

and treatment in NAPS hospital.


The basic design features of the

Station are as follows:

a) NAPS is a natural uranium fuelled

Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor

with on-line refueling provisions.

The following are the design features

of NAPS Plants:

Reactor Type: PHWR

Fission Power: 802 MW (th)

Thermal Power: 756 MW (th)

Moderator & Reflector: D 2


Coolant (Pressurized): D 2


Reactor Inlet Temperature: 249°C

Reactor Outlet Temperature: 293°C

Coolant Pressure: 87Kg/Cm 2 (g)

Fuel: Natural Uranium: Natural UO 2

Fuel Load in Core: 56 T of UO 2

Refueling Method: On-line Refueling

(Continued on page 72)

Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com 69


We are nuclear experts with innovave soluons for the commercial nuclear industry.

An Original Equipment Manufacturer

With ASME N-stamp cered manufacturing facilies,

The Babcock & Wilcox Company (B&W) is the only

North American manufacturer of major reactor plant

components, including new and replacement steam

generators, reactor vessels, RV closure heads, safetyrelated

heat exchangers, pressurizers, control rod drive

mechanisms, and other primary-side auxiliary equipment.

With more than 50 years in the nuclear industry, B&W

is poised to provide quality nuclear components to

both operang and new nuclear power plants.

Providing Component Installaon

and Maintenance Support

B&W has the detailed planning, engineering and

construcon experse to successfully install a wide

range of large-scale components for the nuclear

industry. Our capabilies include steam generator

replacement, main condenser replacement, reactor

vessel head installaon, containment vessel or liner

plate fabricaon and installaon, piping replacement,

as well as modularized assemblies and BOP component

installaon. Our maintenance services include

scheduling, rigging and heavy li

analysis and design, procurement

and transportaon, and safety

management. Building on

our experience with power

plant and environmental

equipment installaon, B&W

also provides engineering

and construcon services

to the nuclear industry.

Inspecon and Repair Services

Our work doesn’t end aer manufacturing or installaon.

B&W oers a full spectrum of services for steam

generators and BOP equipment. Eddy current, visual

inspecons and a variety of eld service acvies

are performed with more than 250 engineers and

technicians available to deploy worldwide. B&W also

oers comprehensive material evaluaon as well as

chemical and radchem analycal services through

B&W’s Lynchburg Technology Center. Licensed by

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the laboratory

is equipped with a hot cell and hot machine shop

for conducng NDE and tesng on contaminated

specimens. B&W connues to develop capabilies in

concert with EPRI to meet industry inspecon needs.

At the Forefront of Innovaon

Generaon mPower LLC, an alliance between B&W and

Bechtel Power Corporaon (Bechtel), is leading the way

in small modular nuclear reactor innovaon. B&W’s

experse in nuclear engineering

and manufacturing combined with

B&W mPower reactor technology

and Bechtel’s plant engineering,

procurement and construcon

capability create a progressive energy

soluon that meets the needs of

today’s changing power generaon

industry. The reactor design is a

scalable, modular, Advanced Light

Water Reactor system in which the

nuclear core and steam generators are

contained within a single vessel. The

Generaon mPower electric generaon

plant has the capacity to match

customer demand in nominal 125 MWe

increments for a four+ year operang

cycle without refueling, using standard

pressurized water reactor fuel.

Generaon III++ technology

Integral nuclear system design

Passive safety systems

Secure underground containment

Five-percent enriched fuel

Four+ year operang cycle between refueling

With a network of ASME N-stamp cered facilies in

North America, B&W is able to design and manufacture

components for the B&W mPower Reactor – streamlining

construcon and reducing eld construcon costs.

Generaon mPower statements are based on the expected nal, cered design.

We are Babcock & Wilcox.

For more informaon about B&W, contact us today.

Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Energy, Inc.

11525 N. Community House Road, Suite 600

Charloe, NC USA 28277



70 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011

One of the...

Continued from page 69

b) It has double containment for

Reactor components and associated

Heavy water systems with recovery

provision of the leaked D 2

O vapor/

liquid. Automatic isolation of the

containment takes place within 5

Seconds in case of any abnormality.

c) It has two independent and diverse

Shut Down Systems to shutdown the

Reactor within 2 to 3 Seconds.

d) For long term guaranteed shutdown,

provision for Boron injection in

Moderator system has been provided

through the Power water ejectors.

Also another feature of Gravity

addition of Boron is made for Station

Black out condition.

e) The reactor has 306-Coolant

Channels and each channel contains

12 Fuel bundles of natural uranium

dioxide with Heavy Water as coolant

& moderator The cooling water

drawn from the River Ganges and

used after filtration and purification

in various stages including condenser

coolant system. The condenser

cooling water system is a close

loop using Natural Draft Cooling

Towers. The reactivity control in the

Reactor is achieved through regular

on-line refueling operations. Also it

is controlled by number of adjuster

rods. There are two fast acting

independent shutdown systems

based on diverse principle to prevent

common mode failure. These are,

Primary Shut down system having

14 mechanical shutoff rods which

are essentially having Cadmium

sandwiched in Stainless Steel and

the other shutdown system, based

on 12 liquid poison tubes which use

Lithium Pentaborate decahydrate

as a neutron poison. The reactors

are shutdown in about 1.5 seconds

by these shutdown systems when

required. In addition to long term

guaranteed shutdown of the reactor,

Automatic Liquid Poison System

(ALPAS) containing Boron solution

adds required quantity of Boron,

automatically, in the reactor core

when needed. A passive shutdown

system, Gravity Addition of Boron

System (GRABS) for guaranteed

shutdown of the reactors is provided

which backs up the ALPAS. The

containment system is designed for

an internal pressure of 1.25 Kg /cm2

(g) at 123°C.


Recently, in the years 2007 & 2009

En-masse Coolant Channel Replacement

(EMCCR) of the Unit No. 1 & 2 has

been completed by replacing the coolant

channels. The material of the earlier

channels Zr-2 has been changed to Zr-2

+ 2.5% Niobium. During these outages,

a number of modifications such as,

replacement of Moderator Pumps with

Canned Rotor Type from the Mechanical

Seal Type, Replacement of Control

Motor Generator Sets with Invertors,

Diesel Generator Excitation Control

system replacement, Modification of

Supplementary Control Room and

Glanding improvement of Power &

Control Cables have also been carried

out. The replacement of coolant channels

was done, based on the life assessment of

the pressure tube material.

The station has trained manpower

for carrying out the various maintenance

jobs and In-Service Inspection related


Narora Atomic Power Station has

demonstrated longest continuous run

of more than 272 days and Plant Load

Factor of more than 95%. The plant has

received the following awards in the field

of performance and safety from various

Governmental/Regulatory Agencies:

a) Serva Shrestha Suracha Purskar from

National Safety Council of India.

b) AERB Safety Award for the years

2001, 2002, 2004 & 2006.

c) NPCIL National Safety Award for

the years 2005 & 2006

d) Golden Pea Cock Award for

Environmental Management System


e) The plant is ISO-14001 & IS-18001

certified, since year 1999 & 2006

respectively and is maintaining the

certification by regular audits for

surveillance and renewal.

Contact: R.R. Kakde, Nuclear

Power Corporation of India Limited, 12 th

Floor (North), Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan,

Anushaktinagar, Mumbai 400 094, India;

telephone: 91 22 2550 7456/2599 1244,

fax: 91 22 2599 1248, email: rrkakde@


72 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011

Fukushima Concl...

Continued from page 52

15. A follow-up mission to the 2007

Integrated Regulatory Review Service

(IRRS) should be conducted in light of the

lessons to be learned from the Fukushima

accident and the above conclusions to

assist in any further development of the

Japanese nuclear regulatory system.


1. There is a need to ensure that in

considering external natural hazards:

• the siting and design of nuclear plants

should include sufficient protection

against infrequent and complex

combinations of external events and

these should be considered in the

plant safety analysis specifically

those that can cause site flooding

and which may have longer term


• plant layout should be based on

maintaining a dry site concept , where

practicable, as a defense-in-depth

measure against site flooding as well

as physical separation and diversity

of critical safety systems;

• common cause failure should be

particularly considered for multiple

unit sites and multiple sites, and for

independent unit recovery options,

utilizing all on-site resources;

• any changes in external hazards

or understanding of it should be

periodically reviewed for its impact

on the current plant configuration;


an active tsunami warning system

should be established with the

provision for immediate operator


2. For severe situations, such as total loss

of off-site power or loss of all heat sinks

or the engineering safety systems, simple

alternative sources for these functions

including any necessary equipment (such

as mobile power, compressed air and

water supplies) should be provided for

severe accident management.

3. Such provisions as are identified in

Lesson 2 should be located at a safe place

and the plant operators should be trained

to use them. This may involve centralized

stores and means to rapidly transfer them

to the affected site(s).

4. Nuclear sites should have adequate onsite

seismically robust, suitably shielded,

ventilated and well equipped buildings

to house the Emergency Response

Centres, with similar capabilities to those

provided at Fukushima Dai-ni and Daiichi,

which are also secure against other

external hazards such as flooding. They

will require sufficient provisions and

must be sized to maintain the welfare and

radiological protection of workers needed

to manage the accident.

5. Emergency Response Centres should

have available as far as practicable

essential safety related parameters based

on hardened instrumentation and lines

such as coolant levels, containment status,

pressure, etc., and have sufficient secure

communication lines to control rooms

and other places on-site and off-site.

6. Severe Accident Management Guidelines

and associated procedures should

take account of the potential unavailability

of instruments, lighting, power and

abnormal conditions including plant state

and high radiation fields.

7. External events have a potential of

affecting several plants and several units at

the plants at the same time. This requires

a sufficiently large resource in terms of

trained experienced people, equipment,

supplies and external support. An

adequate pool of experienced personnel

who can deal with each type of unit and

can be called upon to support the affected

sites should be ensured.

8. The risk and implications of

hydrogen explosions should be revisited

and necessary mitigating systems should

be implemented.

9. Particularly in relation to preventing

loss of safety functionality, the robustness

of defense-in-depth against common

cause failure should be based on providing

adequate diversity (as well as redundancy

and physical separation) for essential

safety functions.

10. Greater consideration should be

given to providing hardened systems,

communications and sources of

monitoring equipment for providing

essential information for on-site and

off-site responses, especially for severe


11. The use of IAEA Safety Requirements

(such as GS-R-2 "Preparedness and

Response for a Nuclear or Radiological

Emergency" and related guides on threat

categorization, event classification and

countermeasures, as well as Operational

Intervention Levels, could make the

off-site emergency preparedness and

response even more effective in particular


12. The use of long term sheltering is

not an effective approach and has been

abandoned and concepts of ‘deliberate

evacuation’ and ‘evacuation-prepared

area’ were introduced for effective long

term countermeasures using guidelines

of the International Commission on

Radiation Protection (ICRP) and IAEA.

13. The international nuclear community

should take advantage of the data

and information generated from the

Fukushima accident to improve and

refine the existing methods and models

to determine the source term involved in

a nuclear accident and refine emergency

planning arrangements.

14. Large scale radiation protection for

workers on sites under severe accident

conditions can be effective if appropriately

organized and with well led and suitable

trained staff.

15. Exercises and drills for on-site

workers and external responders in order

to establish effective on-site radiological

protection in severe accident conditions

would benefit from taking account of the

experiences at Fukushima.

16. Nuclear regulatory systems should

ensure that regulatory independence

and clarity of roles are preserved in all

circumstances in line with IAEA Safety


Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com 73



Westinghouse Electric Company has a proven track record for providing the safest, most

advanced and cost-effective technologies for the commercial nuclear power industry. Our research and technology is the basis

for nearly half of the world’s operating nuclear power plants. Looking to the future, Westinghouse is taking the next steps to

develop even more advanced nuclear power options to meet the world’s diverse energy needs.

Worldwide electricity demand is expected to nearly double by the year 2030 and Westinghouse is preparing to meet this increased

demand, while continuing to service existing plants. Leading the nuclear renaissance is our newest reactor design, the AP1000

nuclear power plant. What distinguishes this design from others is that it is more than 200 times safer than U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission requirements. It is designed to shut down automatically, without the need for backup power, and will

cool itself for 72 hours before any human intervention is necessary. This is made possible through the use of gravity, natural

circulation, condensation and convection. Four AP1000 units are under construction in China, six more units are under contract

in the U.S. and an additional eight units have been

announced as the technology of choice by U.S. utilities.

Westinghouse is also meeting the increased challenges

faced by today’s global power industry with the

introduction of its small modular reactor. This smallscale

reactor is based on the AP1000 design, but is

sized to be rapidly deployed in remote and developing

areas of the globe. Its size allows it to be shipped by

rail, for efficient factory fabrication and delivery that

guarantees quality control.

With demand for electricity growing, Westinghouse

has taken broad steps toward improving technologies,

designs and customer-focused behaviors, and has

embarked on a plan to attract, engage and retain


Nuclear Services

Westinghouse provides PWR and BWR support, advanced

products, component services and training; engineering

services to help plants improve reliability and sustain

regulatory compliance; and installation and modification

services, including plant engineering, welding and

machining, site installation and decommissioning, and

dismantling services.

Nuclear Automation

Westinghouse provides full-scope, word-class

instrumentation and control (I&C) solutions for operating

and new nuclear power plant designs.

Nuclear Fuel

Westinghouse partners with nuclear plant operators to

support the fullest range of facility and fuel configurations

including PWR, BWR, VVER and AGR, and Magnox reactors.

Nuclear Power Plants

With a global network of partners and suppliers,

Westinghouse provides the full range of products and

services to design, license, build and commission nuclear

power plants around the globe on a full-scope, turnkey basis.


74 www.NuclearPlantJournal.com Nuclear Plant Journal, July-August 2011

Sometimes the best ideas

are just that simple.


When we designed the AP1000 nuclear reactor, we asked

ourselves which would be more reliable, multiple arrays

of electro-mechanical systems or gravity. To us, the answer

is obvious, which is why the AP1000 nuclear power plant

makes use of the stable forces of nature to keep the nuclear

reactor safe after any unforeseen event. No need for electrical

power. No need for cooling water (that is already inside the

robust containment building). No need for an operator to

touch a single button for a full 72 hours.

Check us out at www.westinghousenuclear.com



is one of the

biggest headaches

facing nuclear

power plants.

PKMJ and Curtiss-Wright

Flow Control have

developed the cure:


20% of all parts in your plant are obsolete

Failure of an obsolete part can lead to painful headaches, such as extended

outages, loss of revenue and greater operating costs. EOS* combines the

engineering strength of PKMJ with Curtiss-Wright Flow Controls’ OBSOLUTIONS

platform – surplus, special manufacturing runs, rebuilding/repair, cannibalization,

substitution, reverse engineering, design change – to reduce obsolescence headaches.

*EOS Engineered Obsolescence Solutions (Engineering and Hardware)

To learn more contact us at 866.419.0204 or obsolutions@curtisswright.com

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines