Re: Large Light Water Reactor License Renewals (Extensions)

["Raymond Shadis" <shadis@ime.net>]

Paul,

Just for entertainment sake, you might want to drum Yankee Rowe, c.1990-1991

on the NRC web site (ADAMS). Then check out all correspondence between

Randall Pryor, NRC and Thomas Murley, NRC regarding the advisibilty of

operating just one more refueling cycle.

To be fair, my understanding is that the industry has installed additional

internal shielding  and rearranged cores to forestall embrittlement. 80

years? I'd be interested to know what you find.

                                        Regards,  Ray

----- Original Message -----

From: Paul William Shafer <paulwilliam_s@YAHOO.COM>

To: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2001 11:08 PM

Subject: Large Light Water Reactor License Renewals (Extensions)





> Dear Radsafe Professionals:

>

> Does anyone have additional information regarding

> "Probabilistic Risk Analyses or Assessment of Light

> Water Reactors Operating Up to 80 years."  I have read

> NRC TIP 7 "Reactor Pressure Embrittlement" and Chapter

> IV of NRC's Generic Aging Lessons Learned Report.

> There are a number of EPRI reports I have read as

> well. I have some concerns about these documents.

>

> The questions I am trying to get answered are:

>

>      1) Is there an increase in the probability of a

> reactor incident involving fuel support component

> degradation, degradation of other reactor internal

> components or reduced pressure vessel integrity as the

> number of full power reactor years increases?  And if

> so, by how much? What are the effects of component

> degradation on fuel integrity if any)?

>

>      2) In the 2nd license period (age 40 to 80 years)

> do the requirements for frequency of

> In-Service-Inspection and Special Inspections

> (including metallurgy) increase as the reactor gets

> older?  And if so by how much?  How much does an

> increase in ISI/SI increase occupational radiation

> dosages?  Will there be a need for additional Health

> Physics staff at these power plants as they age?

>

>      3) Will there be a need for additional chemical

> decontamination of reactor systems during the 2nd 40

> years of operation?  How much additional radioactive

> wastes will this generate?  Will this result in the

> need for additional Health Physics staff at these

> power plants as they age?

>

> I have a number of additional questions regarding this

> however it would take too much space here.

>

> Re-licensing of large light water nuclear power plants

> seems to be a Catch-22 situation.  It would of course

> help the nuclear utilities generate substantial base

> line electrical energy at hopefully continued

> reasonable rates.  However, if there is one serious

> accident due to fatigue or embrittlement factors which

> have not been assessed (in the field--1.e. by actual

> operating reactor experience beyond 40 years) this

> could spell the demise of nuclear electricity in this

> century. (There is much more than just neutron

> activation involved here---differences in reactor and

> system metallurgy, reactor chemistry, scrams, minor

> heat transients etc. are all involved and cannot be

> adequately simulated by computer models).  Also, this

> could actual delay the start up of the replacement

> advanced much higher efficiency (heat rate) modular

> inert gas cooled reactors, and accelerate the

> production of electricity by natural gas using

> mini-turbines and super-heated steam.  In other words,

> what I am trying to say is large scale relicensing of

> current large light water reactors may lead to their

> eventual replacement by rapid load following natural

> gas fueled electrical generators by 2050-2060 (unless

> there are significant technological improvements in

> advanced energy systems---solar photovoltaics,

> storage, fuel cell technology, wind generations or

> fusion).

>

> Any comments would be appreciated.

>

> Paul W. Shafer

>

>

> ************************************************************************

> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

> send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

> radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

>



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.