The Science of Nuclear Reactors and the Regulatory Framework

advertisement

The Science of

Nuclear Reactors and the Regulatory

Framework

A Presentation to Wake Forest University

School of Physics

September 12, 2002

M.T. Cash

Historical Perspective

 Science and Law are often best understood in a historical perspective

 The regulation of nuclear power reactors involves science, law, politics and many other influencing forces

 A review of the development of science along with the regulatory framework is interesting and illuminating

Discovery of Nuclear Fission

James Chadwick “discovery” of the neutron

(1932)

Hahn and Strassman “discovery” of barium atoms resulting from neutron bombardment of uranium (1937)

 Frisch and Meitner using ideas from others develop the liquid drop model of fission to explain Hahn Strassman (January 1939)

Mass Defect

 Splitting atoms was all very exciting and fascinating in 1939, but practical value?

 The observed nuclear mass is always less than the summation of the constituent nucleon masses

 This mass defect is embodied in the binding energy of the nucleus pursuant to E = m c 2 (A. Einstein 1905)

Application to Uranium Fission

 It can be shown that the binding energy per nucleon in Uranium is approximately 7.59

Mev/nucleon

U-235 FP a

+ FP b

+ Energy

The resultant energy from fission will be found to be approximately 200 Mev/Fission

 Combustion of Carbon atom results in an energy release of approximately 4 ev

Chain Reacting System

 Even with the enormous energy release the reaction still needed a supply of neutrons

 In early 1939 it became apparent that a number of neutrons (2 to 3) were emitted per fission.

 A nuclear chain reaction was possible.

Neutron Slowing Down Theory

 Using computers of the day (??) Fermi and others developed a neutron slowing down model

 Neutrons born at high energies

 Fission likelihood (cross section) changes in relation to neutron energy

 Neutrons slow down through collisions as they move through materials (loose energy)

Factors Affecting Chain

Reacting System

 Composition of Fuel

 Composition of Surrounding Materials

 Physical Arrangement of Fuel

 Physical Arrangement of other Materials

 Quantity of Fissionable Isotope in Fuel

Four Factor Formula

Simplified Algebraic View of Chain Reaction

Material Potential for Self Sustaining Chain

Reaction (Infinite Media)

K

= ή έ p f ή Average Number of Fast Neutrons έ Neutrons from high to low energy

 p Resonance Escape Probability

 f Thermal Utilization

Six Factor Formula

Simple algebraic representation estimating the chain reacting state of a physically real system

Keff = K ∞ P nlth

P nlfst

P represents the non-leakage probability for either fast or thermal neutrons

P represented by a formula largely dependent on physical geometry of system

The solution of the relative geometric size values given certain materials will yield the “critical size” of the reactor

Fermi and colleagues would undertake a famous experiment in this regard

An important point: The systems self sustaining capability is not dependent on the magnitude of the neutron population

Moving from Subcritical to

Critical Conditions

 The previous discussion focused on a chain reacting system in a a steady state condition

 A physical reactor however must be assembled, and started up, hopefully not at the same time

 The concept of neutron kinetics or reactor kinetics is useful and fundamental

Basic Kinetics and Inhour

It can be shown, that the time dependent neutron population in a reactor is:

Φ(t) = Φ

0 e (t/Tp)

T p is known as the reactor period or time for reactor power to increase by a factor of e.

Reactor period can be estimated from certain changes in K eff

These relationships demonstrate that T p will establish a stable value shortly after a change in K eff

Basic Kinetics and Inhour

These relationships will show that for a certain range of K eff the reactor will be supercritical on delayed neutrons

For certain large values of K eff the reactor would be supercritical on prompt neutrons (not controllable)

Delayed neutrons come from fission products, some of which have neutrons in the decay scheme. These

“delayed neutrons” enter the chain reacting system.

This time delayed contribution to the chain reaction acts a natural control mechanism.

Inhour Approximation for

Changes in Neutron Population

Neutron population is important because fission rate is proportional to neutron population

Neutron population and fission rate starts low

(at an artificial source level)

By changing reactor composition (control rods) the population is allowed to increase (by several orders of magnitude) to increase power

Control rods are re-adjusted to restore criticality and maintain constant power

Basic Kinetics and Inhour

Basic Kinetics and Inhour

(Startup of CP 1)

Affects of Fission on

Surrounding Materials

Fission Products deposit kinetic energy very near the site of fission. Potential for high localized heat production

Heat must be transported from the fuel to avoid melting the fuel material.

Following reactor shutdown, subcritical state, decay of fission products generate heat. Heat must be removed to avoid melting the fuel

Fission Products may exist in gaseous state in fuel rods and represent a potential hazard

Radiation from fission and decay products requires shielding of immediate environment (Particularly high energy neutrons and gamma)

Development of Modern

Methods and Tools

Current nuclear analysis for neutron transport, radiation dose analysis and heat transfer relies on sophisticated computer models

Typical neutron transport is based on neutron group theory or a modified version of group theory.

Heat Transfer and Fluid Mechanics use various numerical methods solution techniques for Navier-Stokes differential equations.

The four factor and six factor formula are largely only of interest from a historical perspective

Reactor Technology

Development

Chicago Pile Number One

First Man Made Chain Reacting System

Chicago Squash Court

Team led by Enrico Fermi

Graphite blocks with Uranium Slugs in the blocks

Taken Critical in December 1942

Operated a very low “neutron flux” (power levels)

Crude safety features, no physical containment structure

Early Production Reactors

By 1943 Large Plutonium production reactors were under construction in the middle of the Eastern Washington

Desert

Design was large 28 by 36 foot graphite cylinder on its side

Approximately 200 tons of small uranium plugs in aluminum tubes (1000)

Approximately 75000 gallons per minute of cooling water flowing over the uranium inside the tubes for cooling

Irradiate each plug for about 100 days then push it out to decay for about 60 days

Plugs would go to chemical separation plants to extract

Plutonium for first atomic bomb

Developmental Reactors

The Atomic Energy Act of 1946 as amended in 1954 established the Atomic Energy Commission to oversee weapons production and the development of commercial nuclear power

A number of different reactor types were investigated in this early phase of reactor development

The Nuclear Navy Under Admiral Rickover functioned under the

AEC umbrella

By 1950 the Navy had focused on a Pressurized Water Reactor

Design for a propulsion plant

Prototype PWR plant in 1953

Nautilus launches in 1954

The pressurized water reactors place as dominant reactor design is set

Shippingport

The first commercial nuclear power generating station

Pressurized water reactor design based on naval prototype

Ground broken in 1954 and generated electricity to the grid in 1958

Part of President Eisenhower’s Atoms to

Peace Program

Concept of Fission Product Barriers as a

Primary Safety Concept

Light Water Reactors

 The United States 103 power reactors are all light water reactors

 The moderator/coolant is ordinary water

 There are two designs, boiling water reactor (BWR) and pressurized water reactor (PWR)

 The PWR is the dominant reactor design

Typical Pressurized Water

Reactor

Safety Considerations in Early

Reactor Designs

Defense in Depth and Fission Product Barriers

The fuel cladding

The reactor coolant boundary

Containment structure

An early AEC analysis of severe accidents raised concern over large scale fission product release

Concerns in the public regarding atmospheric weapons testing became more pronounced

Remote siting and engineered safety features as alternatives were debated in early decisions

AEC at that time had a dual mandate, reactor technology development and reactor safety regulation

Development of Reactor

Regulation

In the 1940s and 1950s a form of governmental entity was emerging, arguably as the dominant “branch of government”

The administrative agency was becoming a major policy setting, law making, law enforcing entity

Administrative Agencies typically have congressional delegations of power that allow rulemaking, adjudication and enforcement

These powers are parallel to legislative, judicial and executive powers

The emergence of administrative agencies is coincidental in time with the early growth of commercial atomic energy

The Atomic Energy Act

The 1946 Act created the Atomic Energy Commission coming out of World War II with exclusive control of nuclear weapons and nuclear reactor technology vested in the federal government. No civilian use authorized at that time.

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 established the legal framework allowing commercial operation of nuclear reactors

The 1954 Amendment to the Act established a dual development and regulatory role for AEC regarding commercial reactors.

The dual role of development and oversight became increasingly problematic over a period of years

In 1974 the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 abolished the

AEC gave the weapons production responsibility to ERDA and created the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The promotional role for government was largely abolished.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The NRC is a “typical” Commission based administrative agency

There are five commissioners, nominated by the President and approved by the Senate

There is a Chairman of the Commission

There is a professional staff of non-political appointees (approximately 2000 now)

The professional staff act in response to general policy direction of the Commission

Regulatory Framework

The NRC has authority to:

Promulgate rules

Issue Violations and Civil Penalties

Grant Licenses to Operate Reactors

Suspend or Revoke Licenses to Operate Reactors

Issue Orders

Conduct adjudicatory hearings

Federal Agency Regulations are in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

NRC regulations are in Title 10 Energy (10

CFR)

NRC Regulatory Framework

 NRC Staff and Commission Authority can be placed in two broad categories

Licensing Activities

Centered in Washington DC in the Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

Maintain and Issue Revisions to Operating Licenses

Enforcement and Inspection Activities

Centered in Four Regional Offices with Resident

Inspectors at Each Nuclear Power Reactor.

Southeast Region (Region IV) is Headquartered in

Atlanta

Key Regulations as Relate to

Underlying Science and External

Forces

General Design Criteria

10 CFR 50 Appendix A

The GDC were developed in the early phases of licensing initial power reactors after the 1954 Act.

Give objective criteria which licensees were to include in the design of facilities

Criterion 10 through 19 (Under the General Heading Protection by Multiple Fission Product Barriers) examples

14 Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary integrity standards

16 Containment Design

These fission product barrier “regulations" reflect the scientific principles associated with the cladding, coolant boundary and containment vessel as engineered features

Siting Reactors 10 CFR 100.11

As noted earlier scientific analysis had calculated potential consequences of hypothetical accidents

In addition, public concern arising mainly from weapons fallout emphasized the focus on public safety concerns

As a means of addressing the issue a regulation and review process surrounding reactor siting was put into place

Meant to weigh and consider, actual site relative to population

Engineered Safety Features

Current Regulation is 10 CFR 100.11 “Factors to be Considered

When Evaluating Site”

Sets radiation dose limits following certain postulated accidents

Exclusion Area Two Hour Dose Limits

Low Population Zone with same Limits for the entire period of the accident

Three Mile Island and Hydrogen

Generation (10 CFR 50.46)

Approximately 4:00 am on March 28, 1979 an unexpected but nonemergency automatic reactor shutdown (trip or scram) occurred at TMI

Do to a number of human errors and design problem a relatively minor operational event cascaded into a major core damage event

Late into the sequence of events concern arose regarding an unanticipated buildup of hydrogen gas in containment

Experts debated at that time whether the hydrogen gas could reach

“explosive levels”

Combustible levels did exist however the explosive concentrations and conditions likely did not exist (4% by volume in air)

The hydrogen was generated from a high temperature water zirconium reaction. (Fuel clad is made of Zirconium)

Normal operating temperatures of the clad during operation are approximately 700 to 800 F 0

In the accident conditions at TMI the cladding exceeded the melting point of Zirconium and the temperature for rapid hydrogen generation

Three Mile Island and Hydrogen

Generation (10 CFR 50.46)

 The Accident at Three Mile Island was followed by extensive changes in regulations and regulatory oversight

Including the Promulgation of 10 CFR 50.46

(Acceptance Criteria for ECCS)

Includes limits for peak clad temperature, maximum cladding oxidation and maximum hydrogen generation

Which might result from loss of cooling accidents

Concluding Remarks

The nuclear power industry in the United States is extensively regulated by the NRC

The Three Mile Island Accident had no documented health effects but resulted in a loss of public trust and led to significant improvements in operations, training, emergency planning and regulation

The existing regulatory framework is largely a reflection of the initial development of reactor technology and science, political forces surrounding initial reactor licensing and the Three Mile

Island Accident

The technology is fundamentally sound from a public policy perspective

No greenhouse gases

Cost competitive with coal for electrical generation

Domestic Source of Energy with stable fuel cost

Download