Standardized nuclear plant design eluding utility firms - Triangle Business Journal:

sucujovide.wordpress.com
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission certified the plant designof ’s AP1000 at the end of 2005. Pre-certificatiomn was intended to help streamline an approvalws process that takes yearx before plant constructioneven begins. Along with Duke and the , and the of Atlanta have applier to the NRC for licenses to buildAP1000 plants. According to a Feb. 15 NRC letter that sets an application review schedule for the design ofthe AP1000, March 2010 is the target date for completint the review process for the plant’w design.
Westinghouse spokesman Vaughn Gilbert acknowledge s that design changes have been but he says the changes are minor and represenrt less than 10 percent of the overall He says Westinghouse is respondingt to newNRC requirements, such as demonstration of safetty in the event of an airplane crash. He says the utilitiesa have not requested the changes under But correspondence between regulators and Westinghouse suggesg that the company is pursuing design In a June 27 letter from the NRCto Westinghouse’ s Robert Sisk, a managed in regulatory affairs, the NRC noted problems with the scheduling due to changes soughtt by Westinghouse.
Thomas Bergman, deputy director of the NRC divisio that oversees newreactor licensing, writes in the letterr that “there remains uncertaint about the schedule outlined in the February 15, 2008 lettert in light of This uncertainty is created as a result of changes in the scopde of work of the review requestedf by Westinghouse since developing that schedule, and delayed Westinghouse’s latest revision, No. 17, was submitted 22. Those changes are not yet publicly available. NRC spokesman Scott Burnell characterizesw the numerous changes asthe “back and forth” that is a routinwe part of the approvalas process.
He says the plant design is soundf and that the modifications are open items that came up as Westinghouswe talked with its He says that because several utilities are interested in theAP100p design, it was more efficient for Westinghousew to submit changes on their behalff rather than for applicants to pursue changes individually. Burnell says the final desighn for these utilities or subsequent applicants will be the He characterized the latest revisioh asthe “17th time that Westinghouse respondedf to staff questions.” Ed Lyman, a senior stafft scientist at the who has tracked the says utilities are requesting the desigj changes to suit individual sites.
For he says TVA sought modifications forits Ala., plant’s seismic design to fit the soil type of the Lyman says that if each applicant seeks reactot modifications for its site, the result could be many more each of them requiringt regulatory review. Lyman says design changes add time to the reviesw process and likely would add cost tothe plants. He says the outcomee of the AP1000 review coulcd affect how other utilities move forward with their plans for newnuclear generation.
“It is a blow to NRC’sw concept of standardizing designs,” he Progress spokesman Rick Kimbler says that while Progress submitted an applicatioj to the NRC so it woul d have the option of pursuing newnuclead generation, it has not committed to buildinb new reactors at its Shearon Harris site in Wake The utility does plan to build a new nucleaer plant in Florida. Kimble says design changes to the AP1000 have no impact on the He likens the changes to modificatione one might make when buildinga house. Fixtures may but the overall design remains he says. But the if built, will cost more than originallyh estimated. In an Oct. 3 letter to the NRC, Progress uses the $9.
3 billionm cost projection of two new Florida plants as thenew upper-bounsd cost estimate for two new reactors at That’s more than doublew Progress’ previous estimate of $4.4 But even with the higher projection, Progress says in documents filed with the NRC that the constructiomn at Harris should not be as expensive as the work at the Floridw plant, which is a greenfield Although the Harris site now has only one reactor, it was originallyh designed for four and will require less constructiom work than the Florida site.
Jim executive director of watchdoggroup , says plans to raise the level of Harris Lake for cooling water woulds contribute to the cost of new nuclear