View
209
Download
2
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Patrice Bubar's presentation 2014 ORAU Council Meeting
Citation preview
William D. Magwood, IV Commissioner
Nuclear Energy After Fukushima
Oak Ridge Associated Universities
Symposium
Patrice M. BubarChief of Staff – Commissioner Magwood
March 5, 2014
!2
!3
Clockwise: December 1951 photo of EBR-1 team after the first production of electric power from atomic energy. Hanford PUREX Process “Canyon” Building, circa 1956. Shippingport Atomic Power Station outside Pittsburgh, PA, circa 1957. All photos courtesy the U.S. Department of Energy.
The AEC’s Role in Nuclear Power
• AEC was created in 1946 to take over Manhattan Project assets and develop civilian applications for nuclear technology. !
• The AEC: – Sponsored or supported early commercial plants – Created and managed the uranium market – Supplied essentially all uranium enrichment services to US plants
and to allied countries – Conducted and supported most U.S. reactor R&D – Regulated nuclear power and nuclear safety !
• However, by the late 1960s, AEC’s power, scope, and potential conflicts of interest became a matter of public debate.
!4
Glenn T. Seaborg Chaired AEC from 1961 to 1971
• The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 divided the Atomic Energy Commission into a “promotional” technology development agency – the Department of Energy – and a regulatory agency – the NRC.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Who We Are
• NRC is 4000 people dedicated to assuring the safe and secure use of nuclear materials in the United States in order to protect the health and safety of the American people.
!5
Nuclear Regulatory Commission What We Regulate
• Nuclear Reactors - commercial power reactors, research and test reactors, new reactor designs. !
• Nuclear Materials - nuclear reactor fuel, radioactive materials for medical, industrial and academic use. !
• Nuclear Waste – transportation, storage and disposal of nuclear material and waste, decommissioning of nuclear facilities.
!6
• The Commission is a collegial, quasi-judicial body !• Five members with staggered five-year terms:
– Each is nominated by the President, approved by the Senate !– President designates one commissioner to serve as Chairman !
• Decisions on all regulatory issues are determined by majority voting:
The Commission Independence and Transparency
!7
Regulatory Independence in the United States
• Independence from economic interests regarding the use of any nuclear materials or technology. – NRC does not consider financial costs to nuclear plant operators when
considering matters of safety significance. !• Independence from policy interests.
– NRC’s actions are based on scientific analysis and legal precedent – not on energy policy considerations. !
• Independence from political interests. – NRC does not report to a Ministry or to the White House – Standing committees of Congress oversee NRC operations – NRC decisions are subject to review by the courts.
!8
Why Is Nuclear Power Different?Because it is
!9
• Accidents are Rare, But Can be High-Consequence !
• Nuclear Waste !
• Plants Must Operate at a High Level of Safety for 60 years – perhaps longer !
• Most Difficult of all Industrial Activities to Explain to the General Public !
• Among Others Globally, the U.S. Industry is Unusual − The largest program – 99 operating power reactors − Almost entirely privately-owned, operating on a commercial
basis
Fukushima Daiichi Leading to Changes in Regulation
10
Fukushima Daiichi on March 11 A Bad Day At the Plant
!11
!• Magnitude 9.0 earthquake followed by 15
meter tsunami at the plant !• Extended Station Blackout !
• Batteries depleted and subsequent loss of all reactor cooling !
• Core damage in units 1, 2, and 3 !
• Hydrogen explosions in reactor buildings housing units 1, 3, and 4
NRC Near-Term Task Force U.S. Plants Are Safe – But More Can Be Done
• Continued operation and licensing of nuclear power plants do not pose an imminent risk to safety.
!• Mitigation measures already in
place (i.e., “B.5.b”) could reduce likelihood of core damage and radiological releases. !
• 12 technical recommendations to further enhance nuclear safety.
12
After Fukushima Learn the Big Lessons
• Must Understand the Natural Hazard Risks Facing Each Plant !
• We Can’t Predict Every Event !
• Recovering from Disaster is At Least as Important as Preparing for Disaster!
• New, Challenging Scenarios: − Multi-Unit Events − Potential for Common Cause Failure of On-Site and Off-
Site AC Power (SBO)13
Fukushima Teaches The Public Also Learns
!14
!15
After Fukushima Reinvigorated Anti-Nuclear Protests
Recent Nuclear Power Plant ClosuresA Trend in the Making?
Plant IssueSONGS (CA) Installation of Flawed
Steam GeneratorsCrystal River (FL) Flawed Civil Work Damaged
Concrete ContainmentKewaunee (WI) Not Financially Competitive in
Wisconsin MarketVermont Yankee (VT) Significant Local Political and
Financial Challenges
!16
!“The AEO96 reference case forecast assumes that all nuclear units will operate to the end of their current license terms, with 49 units (37 gigawatts) retiring through 2015. !Given these assumptions, 61 nuclear units are projected to provide 10 percent of total electricity generation in 2015…” !!
U.S. Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Outlook 1996
!17
A Look Back The Future Outlook 17 Years Ago
0
500
1000
1500
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
U.S. Undergrad Nuclear Engineering Enrollment
(1990-1999) !Through the 1990s,
the U.S. experienced: !▪ A sharp decline in number of
research reactors (66-24) !
▪ Collapse in enrollment in nuclear engineering programs !
▪ A negative shift in public perception regarding the future of nuclear energy
U.S. Nuclear Technology EducationA Decade of Decline
!18
U.S. Nuclear Technology EducationReversing the Trend
!19
• Federal (DOE and later NRC) Investments in: • Scholarships and fellowships • Research • Minority Institutions • Research reactors and other infrastructure • Time !
• Resurgence of Prospects of New Plants • Onrushing Retirements • High Salaries
!20
Nuclear Engineering Enrollment (2004-2011)
0
1500
3000
4500
6000
2004-2005 2006-2007 2008-2009 2010-2011
1620
1687
1482123911531110
1092 39853065
23232102193318311520
Undergraduate Graduate
2941 3086 33413805
4752
2612
5605
Undergraduate enrollment increased 30% in one year
NRC Grant Program History
• NRC Implemented Grants to Universities – Made First Grant Awards for Curriculum Development in 2007 for total of $4.7M
!• NRC Implemented Scholarship (including scholarships
to 2-year community college and trade schools) and Fellowship, and Faculty Development – Made First Grant Awards in 2008 for total of $15M
21
Programs – NRC Grants Today
• Two Nuclear Education Grant Programs Currently !
– Grants to Universities Program (Up to $5M ) • Curriculum Development
!– Integrated University Program (Up to $15M)
• Faculty Development • Scholarships and Fellowships • Scholarships to 2-year Trade Schools and Community
Colleges
22
Grants to Universities – Curriculum Development
• Supports Development or Enhancement of Curricula Related to Nuclear Safety, Nuclear Security, or Nuclear Environmental Protection (or other areas)
!• Funding - Up to $5M Annually !• Awards - 2-Year Grant Awards for up to $200,000 !•All Grants Fully Funded Upon Award
23
Integrated University Program
• Scholarships* – For undergraduate students – 2 years, up to $200,000 – Maximum of $10,000 per student per year
• Fellowships*
– For graduate students – 4 years, up to $400,000 – Maximum of $50,000 per student per year
• Trade Schools/Community College Scholarships*
– For undergraduate students at 2-year educational institutions – 2 years, up to $150,000 – Maximum of $10,000 per student per year
24
• *NOTE:Service Agreement Component to all scholarships and fellowships – 6 months in nuclear-related employment for each year or partial year of academic supportFaculty Development:- For probationary, tenure-track faculty during the first 6 years of their career- 3 years, up to $600.00 ($450, 000 from NRC; $150,000 institution match)
Integrated University Program
25
Awards Overview
Total Dollar Amount of Grant Awards
Dol
lars
in M
illio
ns
$0.0
$4.0
$8.0
$12.0
$16.0
FY 2007 FY 2009 FY 2011 FY 2013
26
NRC Grant Outcomes To Date
• 487 Individual Grants Awarded to 141 Institutions – 204 Curriculum Development Grants – 87 Faculty Development Grants – 67 Fellowships – 69 Scholarships – 4-year institutions – 60 Scholarships – 2-year Trades/CCs
• Over 1700 Students Supported by Scholarships/Fellowships
• 89 Faculty Supported • Over 200 Courses Developed/Modified
27
FY 2014 IUP Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) Schedule
• FOAs for IUP only issued on January 29, 2014 (no new FOA for Curriculum Development) – posted on www.grants.gov
!• Applications due March 31, 2014 !• Review Panels to be held in April/May 2014 !• Final award notifications by August 2014
28
Grant Program Integration with Recruitment
• Nuclear Safety Professional Development Program (NSPDP) – entry-level hiring program – 15% of 2013 NSPDP hires were NRC
Scholarship/ Fellowship recipients
29
Grant Program Integration with Recruitment (continued)
• All of these institutions have received NRC grant funding2013 NSPDP Hires by Educational Institution
* Min
ority
Ser
ving
In
stitu
tion
Drexel UniversityGeorgia TechNC StateOregon State UniversityPenn State UniversityPurdue UniversityRenssalaer Polytechnic InstituteSC State*The Ohio State UniversityUniversity of MDUniversity of MichiganUniversity of MOUniversity of MO S&TUniversity of New MexicoUniversity of PittsburghUniversity of Puerto Rico-Mayaguez*University of South CarolinaUniversity of Southern CaliforniaUniversity of TennesseeVirginia Commonwealth UniversityVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
11
4
1111111
2
1111111111
31
What’s Next? Prognostications of the End
Georgia Power has initiated full scale construction of Vogtle units
3 and 4 after receipt of a combined Construction and
Operating License from the NRC
!32
What’s Next?The Work Continues
SCANA was the most recent power company to receive a license to
build and operate a Generation III+ nuclear plant. Work is now
underway at the V.C. Summer site in South Carolina to construct two
AP1000 reactors
!33
What’s Next?The Work Continues
NRC continues to evaluate: !• Four additional ALWR designs !• 8 additional new plant
applications !• Power uprates !• License renewals
• A New Deployment Model—Modules can come online as investment continues to build additional units !
• Higher Flexibility—small reactors can be deployed in more places by a wider range of users !
• Manufacturability—enables factory construction of more or less complete units, increasing quality and reducing cost, uncertainty, and schedule risk
Key Regulatory Issues !• Control Room Staffing !• Security !• Emergency Planning
Zone Requirements
What’s Next?Small Modular Reactors
!34
WWW.NRC.GOVWWW.NRC.GOV
Recommended