Westinghouse plant design rejected


NFPA 70E Training

Our customized live online or in‑person group training can be delivered to your staff at your location.

  • Live Online
  • 6 hours Instructor-led
  • Group Training Available
Regular Price:
$199
Coupon Price:
$149
Reserve Your Seat Today

Westinghouse AP1000 reactor faces NRC review setback as shield building tests delay design certification, raising construction risks for standardized licensing in Georgia and South Carolina; passive safety, seismic and tornado resilience remain under evaluation.

 

In This Story

A Generation III+ nuclear plant with passive safety, now under NRC scrutiny for shield building resilience.

  • NRC staff question shield building against quakes, winds
  • Design certification withheld pending full-scale tests
  • Passive safety uses rooftop gravity-fed emergency cooling

 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said that it had rejected a design by Westinghouse for a new reactor because a key component might not withstand events like earthquakes and tornadoes.

 

The rejection raises the possibility of delays in new U.S. nuclear builds affecting 14 planned reactors in the United States, including two twin-reactor projects in Georgia and South Carolina that are leading the pack. Westinghouse, which is owned by Toshiba, promised to conduct tests as quickly as possible to try to satisfy the agency staff that the design was sound.

The new reactor, called the AP1000, is intended to be faster to build and safer to run than previous models. The letters stand for “advanced passive” and the number is the estimated electrical output in megawatts.

Resolving design issues before construction is viewed as a crucial part of the nuclear industry’s plan for a nuclear renaissance without the delays and cost overruns that bedeviled the industry in the 1970s and ’80s.

The agency staff’s decision, relayed in a letter to Westinghouse, is a glitch in the move toward new nuclear plant licensing changes adopted by the commission in the 1990s. The goal was to establish a system through which a library of pre-approved, standardized designs would be available whenever a company set out to build a reactor.

In a conference call with reporters, David Matthews, director of the division of new reactor licensing in the commission’s Office of New Reactors, said staff members were not convinced that a crucial part of the design, a structure called a shield building, would protect the reactor from “external” events like earthquakes, tornadoes and high winds.

The shield consists of 35 inches of concrete sandwiched between two sheets of steel, each of which is half an inch thick. Existing Westinghouse reactors designed in the 1960s and ’70s do not have shield buildings.

In another shift, the new design puts the emergency cooling water on the roof, so that no pumps are needed to deliver it in case of an accident.

Ed Cummins, vice president for regulatory affairs at Westinghouse, said that his company had designed the shield wall to meet a different commission requirement, that the plant be able to withstand the impact of an airliner. But the change had caused the commission staff to question the design’s adequacy to meet natural hazards amid the NRC input on new reactor design efforts underway.

Mr. Cummins said the company was setting up a series of tests, mostly of full-scale models of small parts of the structure, to demonstrate that the shield building could meet the anticipated loads. Utilities in Georgia and South Carolina have begun clearing sites for reactor construction work.

Westinghouse did not expect the commission’s concerns to have a “significant impact” on the construction schedule even as DOE loan guarantees face scrutiny, Mr. Cummins said.

But he added that company officials and the commission staff had not yet determined what kind of work would be needed to demonstrate the structure’s safety.

 

Related News

Related News

West Coast consumers won't benefit if Trump privatizes the electrical grid

BPA Privatization would sell the Bonneville Power Administration's transmission lines, raising FERC-regulated grid rates for…
View more

Cheap oil contagion is clear and present danger to Canada

Canada Oil Recession Outlook analyzes the Russia-Saudi price war, OPEC discord, COVID-19 demand shock, WTI…
View more

Nunavut's electricity price hike explained

Nunavut electricity rate increase sees QEC raise domestic electricity rates 6.6% over two years, affecting…
View more

Brazil tax strategy to bring down fuel, electricity prices seen having limited effects

Brazil ICMS Tax Cap limits state VAT on fuels, natural gas, electricity, communications, and transit,…
View more

Congressional Democrats push FERC to act on aggregated DERs

FERC DER Aggregation advances debates over distributed energy resources as Congress presses action on Order…
View more

NDP takes aim at approval of SaskPower 8 per cent rate hike

SaskPower Rate Hike 2022-2023 signals higher electricity rates in Saskatchewan as natural gas costs surge;…
View more

Sign Up for Electricity Forum’s Newsletter

Stay informed with our FREE Newsletter — get the latest news, breakthrough technologies, and expert insights, delivered straight to your inbox.

Electricity Today T&D Magazine Subscribe for FREE

Stay informed with the latest T&D policies and technologies.
  • Timely insights from industry experts
  • Practical solutions T&D engineers
  • Free access to every issue

Live Online & In-person Group Training

Advantages To Instructor-Led Training – Instructor-Led Course, Customized Training, Multiple Locations, Economical, CEU Credits, Course Discounts.

Request For Quotation

Whether you would prefer Live Online or In-Person instruction, our electrical training courses can be tailored to meet your company's specific requirements and delivered to your employees in one location or at various locations.