NRC Expects Applications To Operate Reactors Beyond 60 Years

mdsolar writes with news that the aging reactor fleet in the U.S. will likely see units hitting 80 or more years of use before being decommissioned. From the article: "Officials of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the nuclear power industry expect the first application to be filed with the agency in 2018 or 2019 for a license renewal to operate a power reactor or reactors beyond 60 years. At a Nuclear Energy Institute forum in Washington Tuesday, neither NRC nor industry officials named specific plants considered likely to apply, and it was not clear from their remarks if any nuclear operator has yet volunteered to be the first to apply." Also see the staff report on preparing for the first applications. The proposed operating license changes would place no limit on the number of 20 year extensions, so perhaps a few reactors will end up in operation for a full century (if there's anyone left who can remember how to operate them then).

Comments

Oh NRC... get your crap together

[erroneus]

The existing nuclear plants are definitely approaching end of life. New nuclear plants and technologies are pretty damned far away. The NRC definitely needs to shut down some of the older plants. What's more, the NRC definitely needs to start approving new plants and nuclear technologies more quickly. The licensing process is amazingly expensive. We're quickly going to arrive at an energy crisis due to lack of action.

Re:Oh NRC... get your crap together

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

The problem is that they don't want to allow any new reactors to be built. Also if the existing reactors are shutdown they all end up out of work.
The best solution, as far as any employee of the NRC is concerned, is extend the existing reactors life.

For the record, I am pro Nuclear power.
But I am also cynical as hell.

Re:Oh NRC... get your crap together

[nojayuk]

I recall reading somewhere that the NRC has a two-year backlog in its approvals process i.e. a power generating company submitting paperwork for a Construction and Operating Licence (COL) today will get it looked at in 2016 at the earliest with a three to five year delay after that for a yes/no decision. The NRC is a US government department hence it's underfunded and woefully understaffed especially in the technical divisions as there are better career opportunities for the qualified engineers needed to go analyse the intensely technical submission documents for a new build.

As for existing plants reaching end-of-life, that's debatable. Usually by the thirty-year mark a plant's non-core units are in train to be replaced, things like steam generators, main pumps etc. Almost all of the current US reactors have upgraded to digital control systems if they were originally built with anaogue controls back in the 1970s. The key irreplaceable parts of a reactor are the reactor vessel and its containment and since they were originally overspecified and overbuilt to an almost ludicrous degree and they have no moving parts in themselves they usually pass inspection with flying colours. It tends to be external factors that will downcheck a reactor -- safety systems, steam generators etc.

If the NRC was to shut down older plants simply because they are old their capacity will be replaced with gas and coal, not nuclear because they're a lot less effort in terms of paperwork and currently they're about as cheap to run assuming no-one cares about the pollution they spew into the atmosphere 24/7.

Re:Oh NRC... get your crap together

[ChefInnocent]

Although very limited, there are 4 new reactors being built. 2 at Vogtle, and 2 at VC Summer. It would be nice if we could move a little faster, but at least it is a start. There is also an older style one being built at Watts Bar.

Re:Oh NRC... get your crap together

[Void2258]

The problem is that nuclear power has accrued such a bad reputation. And this with comparatively few accidents. But 'nuclear' is such a huge bogeyman that it is virtually impossible to build any new plants now, regardless of advances in technology. No one wants to have one in their 'back yard' under any circumstances. Given the psychological climate, we are better off working to move on without nuclear energy.

The current plants will stay operational indefinitely until there is an accident or there is simply a lack of ability to operate them. No new plants will be built. There was a brief window before Fukushima when public opinion was turning around, but after that accident, no amount of propaganda or new technology will be able to overcome the deep cultural fear of nuclear accidents.

Re:Training is allowed

[gstoddart]

You know, my experience with older technology is you can often teach someone the high-level stuff, but when you get into the really low-level stuff there's invariably a zillion little things which come down to lore and things you've seen before and just know about them but which aren't written down.

I have yet to see any sufficiently old system which is fully documented, actually matches what the documentation says, and doesn't have a bunch of little 'quirks' which prevent the new guy from ever truly understanding it beyond the basics.

Not knowing that you need to jiggle the control rod 3 times and do a quarter turn to the left to operate it is likely the kind of thing which is going to end badly.

Which is precisely why I've known mainframe programmers who retired, started collecting their pension, and then started getting 5x their salary in consulting fees to keep it running for their previous employer. Because, try as they might, you just can't find someone who really grasps the entire system.

I can't tell you how many times in my professional career the answer to "why does this work like this?" has been followed up with "now that's a funny story" followed by a description of some bit of arcane knowledge which nobody else truly understands except the guy telling the story.

Re:"the aging reactor fleet"

[Mike Kirk]

The company I work for is involved in the Nuclear Work Management industry: and companies owning a "fleet" of reactors is common terminology. "Legendary Slashdot commenting"? (after carefully avoiding Google :) )

Re:"the aging reactor fleet"

[Maury Markowitz]

> You don't talk about a "fleet" of reactors unless you mean a nuclear-powered Navy

Everyone calls it a fleet.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/France/
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-Cool-running-reactor-fleets-0801141.html
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/China--Nuclear-Power/
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-G-N/Japan/

I like that righteous indignation you used while illustrating that you know absolutely zero about the topic you are pontificating on.

Run to failure

[mdsolar]

Looks like they want the closing of a nuclear power plant to happen on the Fukushima model. Run them till they are overwhelmed by circumstance.

Re:Training is allowed

[BUL2294]

Except that nuclear reactors are, by regulation, among the most-documented entities on earth. From functionality to maintenance logs to upgrades, nuclear plants & their owners are extreme documenters--to decrease liability and meet government regulation. You don't hear stories of nuclear reactors in places like the US, Canada, UK, Western Europe, etc., with "documentation problems" or knowledge transfer continuity. (Pay people to stay to do an easy job & they will...) Sure, a part schematic may be on paper as opposed to stored electronically, but they'll have multiple copies onsite, a few copies at the power utility offsite, and at the NRC or other national nuclear regulatory agency--and everyone who should know where those copies are, do know... And that documentation would be designed so that anyone with the requisite engineering knowledge & skills should be able to read it...

Nuclear plants are not run like IT shops--and thank God for that...

The NRC's job is safety

[TroyHaskin]

The NRC's job is safety. That's it. They have people stationed at power plants, and their only job is to ask questions and enforce policies such that the plant operates safely. With that beaten home, let's get to some specifics.

The biggest concern for the current fleet of U.S. reactors (mostly all Generation II designs) in terms of long operation is embrittlement of the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) due to radiation damage (mostly neutronic). Embrittlement of the RPV comes into play when severe accident responses (for either Design Basis Accidents (DBAs) or Beyond Design Basis Accidents (BDBAs)) dictate fast, extreme cooling of the RPV that can lead to pressurized thermal shock (PTS) events. The biggest hurdle toward getting approval is proving which-and-every way to a high confidence level that a PTS breach of the RPV will not occur from this embrittlement. If plants cannot do this, the NRC will not issue a license extension because the plant cannot prove its safety. If you care to read more on it, consult 10 CFR 50.61 for details (or the whole thing at the10 CFR 50 Part Index.

Are there other requirements? Yes (see the 10 CFR 50 index above). However, this is the one aspect I wanted to expound upon since turbomachinery has been replaced/upgrade, fuel is refreshed every 18 months or so, and piping is constantly checked. But I wanted to stress the safety issue. The NRC has 100% no qualms about telling a plant "no" if that plant cannot prove it is safe to operate.

Re:Slashdot Users Expect Dice to Operate Beta Fore

[Iniamyen]

Why would you want to reject a cheese? This makes no sense.