atw 2018-04v6

More documents

Recommendations

Info

atw Vol. 63 (2018) | Issue 4 ı April 262 NEWS *) Net-based values (Czech and Swiss nuclear power plants gross-based) 1) Refueling 2) Inspection 3) Repair 4) Stretch-out-operation 5) Stretch-in-operation 6) Hereof traction supply 7) Incl. steam supply 8) New nominal capacity since January 2016 9) Data for the Leibstadt (CH) NPP will be published in a further issue of atw BWR: Boiling Water Reactor PWR: Pressurised Water Reactor Source: VGB in several important respects but calls for more documentation on the copper canisters. The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM) has reviewed SKB’s applications under the Nuclear Activities Act and recommends the Government to grant a licence for a final repository for spent nuclear fuel in Forsmark and an encapsulation plant in Oskarshamn. The statement from the Land and Environment Court (MMD) is also positive in several important respects. The court says yes to the issues relating to the Forsmark site, the rock, the buffer and the environmental impact statement. The court also approves the encapsulation plant and increased capacity in the interim storage facility Clab. However, the court wants SKB to present more documentation on the properties of the canister and safety in the long term. Furthermore, it wants an investigation of the issue of responsibility after closure, which has also been requested by the munici pality. We can conclude that we have not been able to answer the court’s questions regarding the copper canister fully. At the same time, the Government’s expert authority SSM wrote in its statement that SKB has the potential to meet the legislative requirements on safe final disposal, says SKB’s managing director Eva Halldén in a comment. SKB will provide documentation That the two authorities have come to such different conclusions is in part due to the fact that they have tried the applications under different legislations, SSM under the Nuclear Activities Act and MMD under the Environmental Code. They also have different licensing procedures. SSM grants a licence in several steps with continuous updates of the safety analysis. But the court must say yes or no based on the currently available documentation. The issue now lies with the Ministry of the Environment and Energy for further investigation and SKB is working to develop the documentation on the canister required by the court. This is material that we have planned to produce for the preliminary safety analysis. The difference now is that we will prioritise the work Operating Results November 2017 Plant name Country Nominal capacity Type gross [MW] net [MW] Operating time generator [h] Energy generated. gross [MWh] Month Year Since commissioning Time availability [%] Energy availability [%] *) Energy utilisation [%] *) Month Year Month Year Month Year OL1 Olkiluoto BWR FI 910 880 720 660 116 6 744 904 253 976 759 100.00 94.12 99.88 92.69 100.75 92.46 OL2 Olkiluoto BWR FI 910 880 720 662 904 5 794 145 243 611 284 100.00 79.69 99.64 78.73 101.18 79.43 KCB Borssele PWR NL 512 484 720 367 102 3 021 010 157 825 451 99.78 74.15 99.78 74.55 99.75 72.16 KKB 1 Beznau 1,2,7) PWR CH 380 365 0 0 0 124 746 087 0 0 0 0 0 0 KKB 2 Beznau 7) PWR CH 380 365 720 276 072 2 646 900 130 879 056 100.00 87.20 100.00 86.71 100.93 86.16 KKG Gösgen 7) PWR CH 1060 1010 720 768 486 7 788 300 304 398 935 100.00 92.37 99.99 91.99 100.69 91.66 KKM Mühleberg BWR CH 390 373 720 278 340 2 838 690 124 050 935 100.00 92.24 99.85 91.61 99.12 90.80 CNT-I Trillo PWR ES 1066 1003 720 764 776 7 740 744 238 234 461 100.00 91.36 99.95 91.07 99.24 90.09 Dukovany B1 PWR CZ 500 473 720 362 651 2 456 677 108 267 051 100.00 62.82 100.00 62.46 100.74 61.29 Dukovany B2 PWR CZ 500 473 720 360 040 2 950 413 104 273 041 100.00 75.24 100.00 74.70 100.01 73.61 Dukovany B3 PWR CZ 500 473 655 314 334 2 623 607 102 248 463 90.97 75.75 86.99 65.95 87.32 65.46 Dukovany B4 PWR CZ 500 473 361 174 635 2 371 933 102 900 084 50.14 69.14 48.36 59.29 48.51 59.18 Temelin B1 PWR CZ 1080 1030 720 781 214 8 664 341 106 292 500 100.00 100.00 99.96 99.96 100.47 100.08 Temelin B2 PWR CZ 1080 1030 720 787 897 6 819 241 100 683 563 100.00 78.34 100.00 78.01 101.32 78.77 Doel 1 PWR BE 454 433 720 325 983 3 277 563 133 890 536 100.00 90.76 99.47 90.23 99.32 89.84 Doel 2 PWR BE 454 433 720 328 778 3 268 119 131 921 768 100.00 91.40 99.71 91.03 100.27 89.30 Doel 3 PWR BE 1056 1006 0 0 6 732 621 251 169 221 0 78.97 0 78.79 0 79.12 Doel 4 PWR BE 1084 1033 720 773 286 7 054 678 253 727 128 100.00 83.08 97.81 82.31 98.06 80.49 Tihange 1 PWR BE 1009 962 158 124 135 2 815 111 290 078 185 21.98 36.57 17.32 35.78 17.03 34.79 Tihange 2 PWR BE 1055 1008 720 766 981 6 637 622 248 156 690 100.00 82.44 100.00 78.63 101.62 78.83 Tihange 3 PWR BE 1089 1038 701 759 129 8 614 260 268 094 957 97.37 99.76 96.66 99.69 96.71 98.57 Operating Results January 2018 Plant name Type Nominal capacity gross [MW] net [MW] Operating time generator [h] Energy generated, gross [MWh] Time availability [%] Energy availability Energy utilisation [%] *) [%] *) Month Year Since Month Year Month Year Month Year commissioning KBR Brokdorf DWR 1480 1410 744 957 521 957 521 341 149 580 100.00 100.00 93.97 93.97 86.59 86.59 KKE Emsland 4) DWR 1406 1335 744 1 010 637 1 010 637 336 333 920 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 96.55 96.55 KWG Grohnde DWR 1430 1360 744 977 338 977 338 367 604 917 100.00 100.00 94.85 94.85 91.28 91.28 KRB C Gundremmingen 4) SWR 1344 1288 744 982 159 982 159 321 562 051 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 97.58 97.58 KKI-2 Isar DWR 1485 1410 744 1 082 908 1 082 908 342 681 231 100.00 100.00 99.98 99.98 97.73 97.72 KKP-2 Philippsburg 1,2,4) DWR 1468 1402 744 1 062 603 1 062 603 356 230 119 100.00 100.00 99.92 99.92 96.06 96.06 GKN-II Neckarwestheim DWR 1400 1310 744 1 006 200 1 006 200 321 129 334 100.00 100.00 99.40 99.39 96.80 96.80 News
atw Vol. 63 (2018) | Issue 4 ı April differently and complete it faster than what was planned, says Helene Åhsberg, SKB’s project manager for the licensing process. No referendum Östhammar Municipality planned to hold a referendum on the final repository on March 4. But at a meeting in the municipal council in the end of January, it was decided to cancel the referendum. | | (18791534), www.skb.se Yucca Mountain: Can the US Finally End the $12 Billion Impasse? (nucnet) A US federal advisory panel recently took a step in what could be a lengthy process to determine if a deep geological nuclear waste repository should finally be built at Yucca Mountain, a project that has been on the drawing board since the 1970s at a cost of around $ 12 bn (€ 9.7 bn). The panel held a meeting to receive input on reconstructing an electronic library for documents needed to decide on the US Department of Energy’s Yucca licence application. The meeting, at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s headquarters in Maryland, came one week after another development: the White House pledged $120m of funding in its 2019 federal budget proposal to restart licensing for the Yucca site, north of Las Vegas in Nevada, and to establish an interim storage programme to address the growing stockpile of nuclear waste produced by nuclear plants across the nation. After decades of wrangling, could the US finally be on course to resolve the question of what to do with the high-level nuclear waste from the nation’s 99 commercial nuclear reactors? | | www..energy.gov US Nuclear Industry Calls for Advanced Reactor Fuel Cycle Infrastructure (nucnet) The US Nuclear Energy Institute has warned that preparations should begin now to develop a national fuel cycle infrastructure to support the operation of advanced reactors that are expected to begin deployment in the 2020s and 2030s. The Washington-based nuclear industry lobby group said interest in the development of advanced nuclear reactor designs has been increasing in recent years. Many of these designs will require uranium fuel that is enriched to a higher degree than in the current worldwide fleet of lightwater reactors. Fuel for advanced reactors, enriched in U-235 to between 5% and 20%, is called high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU). Some of the advanced-performance fuels being developed for use with the existing reactor fleet also will require HALEU. However, there are no US-based facilities that manufacture HALEU on a commercial scale. While small quantities of HALEU materials may be obtained on an interim basis by “blending down” existing government stocks of surplus high-enriched uranium (HEU), those HEU materials are limited in supply and not readily available, the NEI said. “Thus, for the long-term operation of advanced reactors, as well as for advanced fuels in existing reactors, a robust new infrastructure for HALEU fuel manufacture is needed.” An NEI white paper says establishing such a capability will better position the US to advance nuclear safety and non-proliferation policies around the world, while helping to ensure a robust commercial industry domestically in the decades ahead. On the other hand, “if the United States and its allies have to depend on foreign, state-owned enterprises to meet fuel needs, it will be in a much weaker position to influence these policies globally”, the paper says. | | Details online: http://bit.ly/2FnZwOF Reactors IAEA Sees Safety Commitment at Spain’s Almaraz Nuclear Power Plant (iaea) An International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) team of experts said the operator of Spain’s Almaraz Nuclear Power Plant demonstrated a commitment to the long-term safety of the plant and noted several good practices to share with the nuclear industry globally. The team also identified areas for further enhancement. The Operational Safety Review Team (OSART) today concluded an 18-day mission to Almaraz, whose two 1,050-MWe pressurized-water reactors started commercial operation in 1983 and 1984, respectively. Centrales Nucleares Almaraz-Trillo (CNAT) operates the plant, located about 200 km southwest of Madrid. OSART missions aim to improve operational safety by objectively assessing safety performance using the IAEA’s safety standards and proposing recommendations for improvement where appropriate. Nuclear power generates more than 21 per cent of electricity in Spain, whose seven operating power reactors all began operation in the 1980s. “The team saw notable achievements made by Almaraz in recent years, such as implementing a comprehensive management system, as well as significant equipment renewal plans, to establish safety as the overriding priority at the plant,” said Team Leader Peter Tarren, Head of the IAEA’s Operational Safety Section. “We found that people at every level were willing to discuss their work and how they might learn from this OSART mission. They want to keep enhancing the safety and reliability of Almaraz.” The 14-member team comprised experts from Brazil, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Mexico, the Russian Federation, Sweden, United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, as well as three IAEA officials. The review was the 200th OSART mission conducted by the IAEA since the service was launched in 1982. It covered the areas of leadership and management for safety; training and qualification; operations; maintenance; technical support; operating experience; radiation protection; chemistry; emergency preparedness and response; accident management; human, technology and organizational interactions and long-term operation. The team identified a number of good practices that will be shared with the nuclear industry globally, including: The use of a film-forming amine compound to significantly reduce the transport of potential corrosive products to the steam generators. The use of a cross-functional indicator to show the cumulative effect of equipment status and planned activities for daily operations. The installation of a centralized vacuum system for cleaning, decontaminating and discharging liquid waste into the plant´s disposal system. The mission made a number of recommendations to improve operational safety, including: The plant should implement further actions related to management, staff and contractors to enforce standards and expectations related to industrial safety. 263 NEWS News
Page 1 and 2:
nucmag.com 2018 4 217 Heat Transfer
Page 3 and 4:
atw Vol. 63 (2018) | Issue 4 ı Apr
Page 5 and 6:
Kommunikation und Training für Ker
Page 7 and 8: atw Vol. 63 (2018) | Issue 4 ı Apr
Page 33 and 34: Kommunikation und Training für Ker
Page 57: atw Vol. 63 (2018) | Issue 4 ı Apr
Page 67 and 68: Kommunikation und Training für Ker
show all

atw 2018-04v6

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?