US Response to the Lessons Learned From the Nuclear Accident in Japan

8/3/2019 US Response to the Lessons Learned From the Nuclear Accident in Japan

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-response-to-the-lessons-learned-from-the-nuclear-accident-in-japan 1/20

U.S. Response

To Lessons Learned from the Nuclear

Accident In Japan

Rod McCullum

Nuclear Energy Institute

POWER-GEN Int’l, Las Vegas, NVDecember 13, 2011



Nuclear Safety Lessons Learned

3/28/11 - Goldsboro, PA, 1 mile west of Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station



3/11/11 - Extreme Events Initiate

Nuclear Accident at Fukushima Daiichi•

A magnitude 9 earthquakeoccurred off the east coast of

Japan.

• A massive tsunami—about 45

feet high—struck the east coast.

• Result – All electric power lost

– All reactor cooling capability lost

3

At the time of the earthquake

Reactors 1, 2 and 3 operating

Reactors 4, 5 and 6 shut down for

maintenance and refueling



U.S. Nuclear Energy Facilities

Prepared for Extreme Events

• Industry is prepared for the unexpected; exceeds NRC safety

requirements.

• Can respond to maximum credible earthquakes, floods, other

natural events at each site.

• Can withstand loss of off-site power and station blackout.

• Since Sept. 11, 2011, have added capacity to respond to

aircraft impact, large fires and loss of large areas of the plant.

• U.S. industry dedicated to continuous learning.



U.S. Nuclear Energy Industry’s

Aggressive Response

• Verified that all critical safety components, procedures and

staffing to mitigate potential damage from extreme events are

in place and functioning .

•

Completed inspections of systems that protect nuclear energyfacilities against extreme events.

• Enhancing protection of used fuel storage pools, including the

potential for adding backup sources of cooling water.

5



Industry Goal

• Apply the lessons-learned from the Fukushima

accident to enhance the safety of the U.S. reactor

fleet

• Implement an improved and integrated approach forNuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) near term

recommendations

– Achieve greater safety benefit in a shorter time

– Establish Diverse and Flexible Mitigation Capability (FLEX)

6



U.S. Industry Steering Committee

• Includes executives and

chief nuclear officers

from:

– Electric utilities

– Industry associations

– Reactor technology

groups

.

7



U.S. Industry Response

• Coordinating activity in 8 areas:

1. Existing plant performance

2. Lessons learned from Fukushima

3. Effectiveness of industry response

4. Strategic communications and outreach

5. Regulatory response

6. Support for international organizations7. Technical research and development

8. Radiation monitoring

8



Actions to Enhance Safety• Validate design bases for natural phenomena

• Provide FLEX mitigation capability for beyond designbasis events

• Key actions – Assessing effectiveness of reactor operator training, including

guidelines for managing severe events.

– Assessing each facility’s ability to cool fuel in the reactor,maintain containment integrity and cool used reactor fuel even if a plant loses all AC power.

–

Evaluating the use of equipment and supplies located at regionalfacilities to provide additional rapid emergency responsecapability for extreme events.

9



Diverse and Flexible

Mitigation Capability (FLEX)

• Additional layer of safety to mitigate beyond design bases

events

• Focuses on maintaining key safety functions

– Core cooling, containment integrity, SFP cooling

• Multiple supplies of power and cooling water

• Portable equipment reasonably protected

• Symptom-based guidance and instructions

•

Programmatic controls• Regional support centers

10



FLEX Addresses

• Extended loss of all AC power conditions• Loss of spent fuel pool cooling

• Loss of the Ultimate Heat Sink

•Large fires and explosions

• Reliability of BWR hardened vents

• Beyond-design-basis events:

–

Seismic– Flooding

– Other extreme natural phenomena

11



NRC Staff Priorities

• Tier 1 – Near-term actions, high priority.

• Tier 2 – Priority, but need more assessment, dependencies

on Tier 1 and resources.

• Tier 3 – Need further study, resource limitations anddependent on decisions on new regulatory framework.

• Other items – Recommended by stakeholders, need more

assessment.

• Other facilities – as directed by commission.



NRC Near-Term (Tier 1) Actions

• Seismic and flood hazard re-evaluations and inspections.

• Regulatory actions related to loss of electricity at sites.

• Contingency equipment to mitigate fires and explosions.

• Reliable hardened vents for BWR Mark I containments*.• Spent Fuel Pool Monitoring**

• Integration of emergency operating procedures, severe

accident management guidelines and extensive damage

mitigating guidelines.• Regulatory action related to emergency preparedness.

*Commission also considering for Mark II Containments

**Subject to Commission approval



Longer Term Items

14

•

10-year confirmation of seismic andflooding hazards.

• Seismically-induced fires and floods.

• Reliable hardened vents for other

designs.

• Hydrogen control and mitigation

• ERDS capability.

• Radiation monitoring and public

education.

• Staff training on severe accidents.

Tier 3 – Further Evaluation

Tier 2 – Lower Priority

•Additional capability to add water tospent fuel pools.

• Emergency preparedness Emergency

preparedness

Other Items and Facilities

• Filtration of containment vents.

• Instrumentation for seismicmonitoring.

• Emergency planning zone size.

• Prestaging of KI beyond 10 miles.

•

Transfer of spent fuel to dry caskstorage.

• Loss of ultimate heat sink.

• Fuel facilities.

• Test and research reactors.

• Dry cask storage facilities.

• Fuel pools at decommissionedsites.



NRC Activity Continues Apace

• Licenses for new facilities in Georgia and South Carolinaexpected soon; significant early site work in progress.

• License renewals approved for facilities since Fukushima.

• Certification progressing for Westinghouse and GE-Hitachi

Nuclear Energy reactor designs.

• Power uprates approved for 4 facilities since Fukushima.

• Work progressing to refurbish TVA’s Watts Bar 2 reactor.

15



Outlook for U.S. Nuclear Industry

• Significant capital investment of $1.5-$2 trillion required in

electricity system over next 20 years for electricity production,

transmission, distribution and environmental projects.

• Demand for electricity will increase 24% by 2035.

– Nuclear energy will remain an option to provide low-carbon,affordable electricity.

– U.S. reactor manufacturers and suppliers will participate in the $400

billion global market for nuclear energy.

• Industry is updating equipment, training and operational

procedures to address lessons learned from Fukushima.

• Four to eight new U.S. reactors operational by 2020.

16



35

67 67

46

16 16

1 9 8 4

1 9 8 5

1 9 8 6

1 9 8 7

1 9 8 8

1 9 8 9

1 9 9 0

1 9 9 1

1 9 9 3

1 9 9 4

1 9 9 5

1 9 9 7

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 1

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 3

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 5

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 8

2 0 0 9

2 0 1 0

F e b - 1 1

S e p - 1 1

% High Safety Rating (5-7) % Low Safety Rating (1-3)

Perceptions of Nuclear Energy Facility Safety

Unchanged from February

Bisconti Research, Inc. with GfK Roper

17



Public Opinion Begins To Recover

• Slight increase in favorability of nuclear energy:

– Feb. 2011: 71%

– April: 46%

– September: 62%

• 82% agree U.S. should learn from Japan and license new plants

rather than stop progress entirely.

• 61% said it would be acceptable to build a new reactor at the

nuclear energy facility closest to where they live.

18Bisconti Research Inc./GfK Roper Sept. 2011



Summary• Nuclear Safety in the US is built on a culture of

continuous learning

• The lessons learned from the accident atFukushima are being intensively addressed

•

Industry actions and regulatory response arewell underway

• FLEX approach to provide additional layer of safety

• Foundation of US nuclear industry remainsstrong



Information Sources

• Nuclear Energy Institute (www.nei.org)

• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (www.nrc.gov)

• U.S. Department of Energy (www.energy.gov)

• International Atomic Energy Agency (www.iaea.org)

• American Nuclear Society (www.ans.org)

• Health Physics Society (www.hps.org)

• Japanese Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency

(http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english )

• Japan Atomic Industrial Forum (www.jaif.or.jp/english)

• Tokyo Electric Power Company (http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/index-

e.html)

http://www.nei.org/

http://www.nrc.gov/

http://www.energy.gov/

http://www.iaea.org/

http://www.ans.org/

http://www.hps.org/

http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/

http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/index-e.html




http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/

http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/

http://www.hps.org/

http://www.ans.org/

http://www.iaea.org/

http://www.energy.gov/

http://www.nrc.gov/

http://www.nei.org/

Documents

US Response to the Lessons Learned From the Nuclear Accident in Japan