Transcript Used Fuel Transportation - National League of Cities

Japanese Nuclear Accident
And U.S. Response
May 17, 2011
Tsunami Initiates Nuclear Accident
 On March 11 a magnitude
9.0 earthquake occurred
off the east coast of Japan
– All operating nuclear
power plants shut-down
safely
 An hour later a massive
tsunami—about 45 feet
high—struck the east coast
– Critical equipment at
Fukushima Daiichi plant
was destroyed
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant
Before the Accident
Units 5, 6
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Unit 4
At the time of the earthquake
Reactors 1, 2 and 3 operating
Reactors 4, 5 and 6 shutdown for
maintenance, inspection, refueling
Tsunami Damage
Looking Toward the Plant
No Backup Power for Cooling Systems
at Fukushima Daiichi 1-4
 Cooling systems eventually stopped working due to lack
of off-site power and back-up power systems
 Fuel in reactor heated up
– Fuel cladding reacted with water at high temperature,
generating hydrogen gas
 Containment pressure increased; TEPCO vented
hydrogen in containment to atmosphere to prevent
overpressure
 Hydrogen explosions occurred in secondary containment
 Plant operators injected sea water into reactors to cool
fuel, prevent further damage
Boiling Water Reactor Design
Boiling Water Reactor Design
At Fukushima Daiichi
Secondary Containment
Spent Fuel Pool
Steel Containment Vessel
Reactor Vessel
Primary Containment
Suppression Pool (Torus)
Continual Recovery Efforts
 Continue to cool and stabilize reactors 1-3
 Provide additional cooling water to used fuel
pools in reactors 1-4
 Provide long-term cooling systems
 Process radioactive water
 Conduct detailed evaluation of event
 Decommission Fukushima reactors
U.S. Nuclear Plants Are Safe
“Our nuclear power plants have
undergone exhaustive study, and have
been declared safe for any number of
extreme contingencies. ”
President Barack Obama
March 17, 2011
“All the plants in the United States are
designed to deal with a wide range of
natural disasters, whether it’s
earthquakes, tornados, tsunamis, other
seismic events. We require all of them
to deal with those.”
NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko
March 17, 2011
U.S. Nuclear Energy Facilities
Prepared for Extreme Events
 Maximum credible earthquakes, floods, other natural
events
 Total loss of power
 Hydrogen generated as a result of fuel damage is
removed from the plant through special vent
 Post 9/11: response for aircraft impact, loss of large
areas of the plant
 Industry is prepared for the unexpected…exceeds
NRC requirements
 U.S. industry dedicated to continuous learning
Emergency Planning for U.S.
Nuclear Energy Facilities
 10-mile emergency planning zone (evacuation or sheltering);
50-mile monitoring zone for environment and food.
 Comprehensive industry/local/state and federal response to
emergency events
 Radiation monitoring by plant site, NRC, and state and local
personnel
 Decisions on public protective action measures made by state
or local authorities based on recommendations from plant
operator and NRC
 Emergency response exercises coordinated with state, local,
and federal officials, evaluated by the NRC and FEMA
U.S. Government Response
 Multi-agency task force (Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Department of Energy, Department of
Defense) supporting Japan recovery efforts
 President Obama directed the NRC to perform a
comprehensive review of U.S. reactors
 NRC established agency task force to develop lessons
learned from Fukushima Daiichi accident to provide
short-term and long-term analysis of the events
NRC Task Force to Review the Events
in Japan
“To date the task force has not
identified any issues that
undermine our confidence in the
continued safety and emergency
planning of U.S. plants” – NRC
Task Force, May 12, 2011
Photo courtesy of the NRC
 NRC is currently reviewing seismic, flooding, station black out, severe
accident management and other guidance
 Task force will provide recommendations for near-term action and
framework and topics for longer-term review
 Final task force briefing on July 19 and near-term report issued in July
Examples of Differences Between
U.S. and Japanese Reactor Operations
United States
1. Post 9/11/01 actions to
address large fires and
explosions
2. Independent regulatory agency
with 4,000 employees and $1
billion budget
3. Industry organization for
oversight and sharing operating
experience
4. Site-specific simulator for each
reactor
Japan
1. No similar action taken
2. Regulator is part of Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry
3. No similar industry organization
4. Shared simulators for multiple
plants
NRC Licensing Actions after
March 9, 2011
 Power uprates approved for Limerick and Point Beach
reactors
 License renewals granted for Vermont Yankee and Palo
Verde 1, 2 and 3
 Final Environmental Impact Statements for new reactor
construction at Vogtle plant in Georgia and Summer plant in
S.C.
 Design certification for the GE-Hitachi advanced reactor
design (ESBWR) issued for public comment
Outlook for U.S. Nuclear Industry
 Nuclear energy remains vital part of U.S. and global
electricity portfolio
 Updates to equipment, training and operational
procedures to address lessons learned from
Fukushima
 Four to eight new reactors operational by 2020
 Demand for electricity will continue to increase
– Nuclear energy will remain an option to provide low-carbon,
affordable electricity
– U.S. reactor manufacturers and suppliers will continue to
participate in the $400 billion global market for nuclear
energy
Nuclear Industry Policy Priorities
 Stability at the NRC: renomination and
confirmation of two commissioners this year
 Full response to Fukushima accident
 Ensure loan guarantee program is workable
financing platform for new reactors
 Alignment of U.S. government agencies to
support export of U.S nuclear energy
technology and services
 Constructive congressional oversight
Used Fuel Management Requires
National Policy
 Used fuel is safely stored at
reactor sites
 Older used fuel rods pose little
additional risk due to declining
heat and radiation over time
 Federal government responsible
for used nuclear fuel disposal
 Temporary fuel storage at 1 or 2
locations important step toward
moving fuel from reactors
U.S. Industry Taking Steps to Make
Safe Nuclear Energy Facilities Safer
 Nuclear energy industry committed to take short-term
and long-term actions
 Short-term action : Verify readiness to manage
extreme events
 Long-term action:
– Exhaustive analysis of Japanese accident and how
reactors, systems, structures, components, fuel and
operators performed
– Incorporate lessons learned into U.S. reactor designs and
operating practices
Short-Term Industry
Actions to Ensure Safety
 Verify each plant's capability to respond to major
challenges, such as aircraft impacts, loss of large
areas of plant due to natural events, fires or
explosions
 Verify each plant's capability to manage loss of off-site
power
 Verify capability to mitigate flooding and the impact of
floods on systems inside and outside the plant
 Inspect important equipment needed to respond to
extreme events
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)