INLA WG3

The municipality of Pyhäjoki on Finland’s western coast has been selected by Fennovoima as the site of the country’s third nuclear power plant. Site preparations for the plant could start by the end of 2012.

A consortium of Finnish industrial and energy companies announced in June 2007 the establishment of the joint venture company Fennovoima Oy to construct a new nuclear power plant in Finland. Within a couple of months, almost 40 sites had been proposed as candidates to house the plant. However, by December 2009, after conducting a series of assessments, the number of sites under consideration had been narrowed to just two: Pyhäjoki and Simo, both on Finland’s western coast. Both sites are located in government-defined development areas. The environmental impact assessment report for Fennovoima’s project found no problems at either site.

Fennovoima said, “In the final site decision, safety, technical feasibility, environmental matters, construction costs and schedule were the main factors examined, as well as the ability of the site region to support a project that will bring thousands of people to work and use services there.” It added, “Hundreds of details were assessed within these key factors.”

These assessments concluded that both Pyhäjoki and Simo “are feasible for accommodating a nuclear power plant and that the plant can be implemented safely and in an environmentally feasible manner on both sites.”

However, Fennovoima said that Pyhäjoki – in North Ostrobothnia – was selected as the preferred site “on the basis of an overall consideration assessing the site as a whole.” The nuclear power plant will be built on the Hanhikivi peninsula on the coast of Bothnian Bay. The company noted, “Due to technical benefits it is more feasible to construct a nuclear power plant at Pyhäjoki. Assessments show that the bedrock in Pyhäjoki is more solid. This means that operations like excavation works are easier to carry out.” In addition, seismic design values for Pyhäjoki were lower than in Simo, which “has an impact on the design of the structures, systems and equipment of the plant.” Tunnels for cooling water also need to be about one kilometre shorter at Pyhäjoki. Fennovoima also noted that fewer permanent residents and summer houses near the Pyhäjoki site means that construction “will cause less disturbance for the neighbourhood.”

Fennovoima will now work towards gaining various licences and permits, as well as conducting further site characterization studies. The company was granted a decision-in-principle by the Finnish government for the plant in May 2010, ratified by parliament two months later. Fennovoima said that preparatory works at Pyhäjoki will begin in late 2012 at the earliest. The plant is expected to begin operating around 2020, although Fennovoima said, “The construction schedule will be elaborated after the plant supplier has been selected.”

Fennovoima has shortlisted two alternatives for the plant design: Areva’s EPR, an advanced pressurized water reactor rated about 1700 MWe; and Toshiba’s ABWR advanced boiling water reactor rated about 1600 MWe. In July 2011, Fennovoima invited Areva and Toshiba to bid for the delivery and construction of reactor and turbine islands for a new nuclear power plant in Finland. It expects to select the plant design in 2012-2013.

Fennovoima is a project company primarily owned by industrial power consumers and resellers, in line with the ‘Finnish model’ for financing nuclear power plant projects. While EOn has a major stake of 34%, the rest is held by Voimaosakeyhtiö SF which counts 69 organisations as its shareholders.

Researched and written

by World Nuclear News

The UK chief nuclear regulator’s final report on implications of the Fukushima Daiichi accident has found no fundamental safety weaknesses in the country’s nuclear industry but says it can become even safer by learning lessons from Japan’s experience.

The newly published 315-page report by Mike Weightman, the UK’s chief inspector of nuclear installations and executive head of the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), expands on an interim report published in May.

The latest report provides additional information and evidence, and draws on national and international expert opinion including a fact-finding mission to Fukushima led by Weightman on behalf of the International Atomic Energy Agency in June. It also widens the scope of the report beyond UK nuclear generation sites to include non-generation sites such as Sellafield. Like the interim report, it does not examine nuclear policy issues.

The final report restates and reinforces the conclusions and recommendations outlined in the interim version, as well as adding further recommendations of its own. In total, Weightman concludes the UK can learn from the Japanese nuclear crisis in 38 areas, including reliance on off-site infrastructure (such as electrical grid supply in extreme events), emergency response arrangements, plant layout, risks associated with flooding, planning controls for development around nuclear facilities, and prioritising safety reviews.

The report finds that the practice of regular Periodic Safety Reviews at UK nuclear sites provides a robust method of ensuring continuous safety improvements. However, the Fukushima accident demonstrated problems when the vulnerabilities of older plant were not sufficiently recognised and addressed, leading to a conclusion that work on the program to clean up legacy wastes in ponds and silos at Sellafield must be pursued “with utmost vigour and determination.”

Commenting on the report, Weightman expressed his confidence that UK nuclear facilities have no fundamental safety weaknesses, but emphasised there was no room for complacency. “Our philosophy is one of continuous improvement. No matter how high our standards, the quest for improvement must never stop. We will ensure lessons are learned from Fukushima,” he promised.

UK environment minister Chris Huhne described the report as “thorough and comprehensive”. Responding to the report in a written statement, he noted that the final report confirmed the interim report in seeing no reason to revise the strategic advice on which the UK’s nuclear national policy statement is based, or any need to change present siting strategies for new nuclear power stations in the UK.

Huhne drew particular attention to recommendations that UK regulators, government and industry should review the country’s ability to monitor and provide real-time information in an emergency; the robustness of emergency control structures and systems; and continue to promote high levels of safety culture particularly through “nuclear professionalism” schemes. He also observed that the findings of both the interim and final reports will be taken into account in the generic design assessment (GDA) process for new reactors currently underway in the UK, adding that regulators are hoping to be in a position to take a decision on the GDA by the end of the year.

UK nuclear industry players have been quick to endorse Weightman’s final report. EDF Energy chief executive Vincent de Rivaz promised to review the report’s findings in detail and build them into the company’s plans. “We have already committed to implementing his recommendations for us in full,” he said. Meanwhile a statement from Sellafield Ltd particularly welcomed the recommendations on legacy wastes. “This is an area we have seen some real progress in this year and will continue to accelerate work as we deliver the commitments in our performance plan,” the company said.

Weightman has asked for the UK nuclear industry to deliver progress reports to the ONR by June 2012, when he will make a report on the implementation of lessons learned.

Researched and written

by World Nuclear News

Click to view the Weightman Report

The worldwide use of nuclear energy will continue to grow despite the Fukushima Daiichi accident, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Yukiya Amano, told a meeting of its Board of Governors. Non-proliferation concerns remain in some countries, he noted.

“We now expect the number of operating nuclear reactors in the world to increase by about 90 by 2030, in our low projection, or by around 350, in our high projection, compared to the current total of 432 reactors,” Amano told the board. “This represents continuous and significant growth in the use of nuclear power, but at a slower growth rate than in our previous projections.”

He noted that most of this growth will occur in countries already operating nuclear power plants, especially in Asia. “China and India will remain the main centres of expansion and their nuclear power capacities by 2030 are expected to be as projected before the accident, after a temporary period of slower growth,” Amano said. “The projected slowdown in global growth reflects an accelerated phase-out of nuclear power in Germany, some immediate shutdowns and a government review of the planned expansion in Japan, and temporary delays in expansion in several other countries.”

According to Amano, interest remains strong in countries considering introducing nuclear energy. He said that the factors that contributed to increasing interest in nuclear energy before the accident remain unchanged: “increasing global demand for energy, as well as concerns about climate change, dwindling reserves of oil and gas and uncertainty of supply of fossil fuels.” However, he noted that “a few countries have cancelled or revised their plans, while others have taken a ‘wait and see’ approach.”

Amano told the board that the situation at the Fukushima Daiichi site “remained very serious for many months,” but the IAEA’s assessment now is that the reactors are “essentially stable and the expectation is that the ‘cold shutdown’ of all the reactors will be achieved as planned.”

Amano presented the IAEA board with a draft of a new Nuclear Safety Action Plan, the “result of an intensive process of consultations with member states.” He told the meeting, “The draft Nuclear Safety Action Plan represents a significant step forward in strengthening nuclear safety. We must not lose our sense of urgency. I hope the draft action plan will be approved by the board and endorsed by the General Conference next week.”

“In the aftermath of Fukushima Daiichi, the most important thing is to ensure transparency, build confidence, and meet the high expectations of the public. But it is actions, not words, that count. With this plan we will move from the planning phase to the implementation phase … Further lessons will be learned and the plan will be updated accordingly.”

“It will take rapid and visible improvements in nuclear safety – not just good intentions – to restore public confidence in nuclear power. The agency will play its central part with vigour.”

Non-proliferation issues

Amano said that the IAEA has been continuing its work to set up a low-enriched uranium (LEU) bank and in May invited expressions of interest from member states willing to host such a bank. In July, Kazakhstan offered two sites for consideration, which an IAEA technical mission visited in August to review the offer. “We are discussing relevant technical matters with the government of Kazakhstan with a view to finalizing a decision on a site,” he told the board.

The board was told that non-proliferation concerns still remained for North Korea, Iran and Syria.

The IAEA has not been able to implement any safeguards measures in North Korea since April 2009, “so our knowledge of the current status of the country’s nuclear program is limited. That nuclear program is a matter of serious concern and reports about the construction of a new uranium enrichment facility and a light water reactor are deeply troubling.”

Amano noted that during a visit by the deputy director general for safeguards to a number of Iran’s facilities in August, “Iran demonstrated greater transparency than on previous occasions.” However, he said that “greater transparency and Iran’s full proactive engagement are also needed concerning its other nuclear activities.”

The IAEA is “increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of past and current undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military-related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile, about which the agency continues to receive new information.”

The IAEA continues to verify the non-diversion of nuclear material declared by Iran under its safeguards agreements, Amano said. However, “Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation to enable the agency to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.” He called on Iran to “take steps towards full implementation of all relevant obligations in order to establish international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear program.”

The IAEA has previously concluded that “it is very likely” that the building destroyed at the Dair Alzour site in Syria was a nuclear reactor which should have been declared to the agency. In June, the IAEA board adopted a resolution finding Syria to be in non-compliance with its obligations under its safeguards agreement and reporting the matter to the UN Security Council. In a letter sent in August, Syria told the IAEA that it is ready to meet agency safeguards staff in October “to agree on an action plan to resolve the outstanding issues in regards to [the] Dair Alzour site.”

Researched and written

by World Nuclear News

Energy leaders from Russia and America have made a “commitment to supporting the safe and secure expansion of civil nuclear energy” on the sidelines of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s General Conference.

Officials from the US Department of Energy and Russia’s Rosatom signed what the US side called a “joint statement on strategic direction of US-Russia nuclear cooperation.” US energy secretary Stephen Chu said it was a milestone for the two nuclear energy pioneers. They were long separated by their opposition during the Cold War, but now share a leading role in nuclear security and disarmament.

Chu said in his address to the conference that nuclear energy’s role grows more valuable as we confront a changing climate, increasing energy demand and a struggling economy. “At the same time, Fukushima reminds us that nuclear safety and security require continued vigilance.” He noted the agreements made by Russia and the USA to reduce their weapons stockpiles and the importance of the widest possible sign-up to the framework of international conventions supporting the safe use of nuclear energy.

Russian nuclear energy chief Sergei Kiriyenko focused comments on his country’s efforts to help new nations enjoy the benefits of nuclear energy. Their entrance to the field raises “questions of nuclear safety, infrastructure, creation of licensing and safety oversight and development of a clear legal framework in accordance with the requirements and recommendations of the IAEA,” he said.

Kiriyenko noted Russia’s cooperation towards nuclear build with Bangladesh, Belarus, Nigeria and Vietnam. “In the last year,” he said, “we have proposed a new model of cooperation.. based on the principle of ‘build-speak-operate’.” The ‘speak’ component would refer to the lending of specific Russian expertise in the areas of law and regulation. This would come in addition to extensive and expanding lines of support from the IAEA. He said that “experience in this model confirms that this scheme can provide a higher level of safety and operational success.”

The nuclear project in Turkey was said to be the first example of this mode of cooperation: Russia will build, own and operate a four-unit power plant at Akkuyu, supplying the state utility with electricity at a fixed price for at least 15 years. Rosatom will initially own 100% of the project and it intends to retain at least 51% in the long term.

New approaches to the fuel cycle are on the US agenda and Chu’s speech highlighted the US stance, which has changed markedly since President George Bush launched the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership in 2005. Chu said America will “encourage commercial nuclear companies to join together, under appropriate laws and regulations, to provide secure, reliable access to both front and back-end fuel services to any country with nuclear reactors.”

This kind of open-market assurance would lessen the perceived need for a country to develop its own suite of nuclear fuel facilities as Iran has done. Chu said Iran has a choice: “it can comply with its obligations and restore international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear activities, or it can face deepening isolation and international censure.” He praised the IAEA board for referring the status of nuclear programs in Iran, Syria and North Korea to the UN Security Council.

Chu’s statement contained a message from President Barack Obama: “The tragic events at Fukushima make clear that nuclear energy, which holds great promise for global development and as a carbon-free source of power, also brings significant challenges to our collective safety and security… We must aim for a future in which peaceful nuclear energy is not only safe, but also accessible by all nations that abide by their obligations.”

Researched and written

by World Nuclear News

The Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation (Enec) has applied to the national regulator for approval to carry out additional preparatory work at the site of the United Arab Emirates’ first nuclear power plant.

Enec said that it has requested that the Federal Authority for Nuclear Regulation (FANR) make changes to its limited construction licence so that preparatory excavations can be done for the first two reactor buildings at the Braka site before the full construction licence is issued.

The company said that it wants to create a “smooth flat surface at the bottom of the excavation in preparation for pouring of the initial safety concrete for units 1 and 2.” It also wants to place “reinforcing steel and embedded piping as well as electrical conduits and electrical grounding material in preparation for pouring concrete for the reactor building.”

In July 2010, FANR and the Environment Agency approved licences for non-safety-related preparations at Braka, such as the construction of a jetty, and a limited license for the manufacture of major components taking place already in South Korea. However, Enec is currently not allowed to pour the first concrete for the reactor buildings until it has been granted a construction licence by FANC.

“We understand that they want to gain more time, and we do want to meet their schedule, but we have a responsibility to ensure safety and assess every aspect of these applications,” a FANR spokesman told UAE’s The National newspaper. FANC officials have said the agency aims to complete the review of the licensing application by mid-2012, according to the report.

In a $20 billion deal, the company has selected a Korean consortium to build four APR-1400 reactor at the site, 52 kilometres from Ruwais, coming online between 2017 and 2020.

Enec submitted its construction licence application for Braka units 1 and 2 on 27 December 2010. It plans to pour the first concrete for unit 1 in late 2012, with that for unit 2 following a year later.

The reference plant for the Braka units is Shin Kori 3 and 4, nearing completion in the south east of South Korea. Enec said its reactors will be “essentially the same” as those units “but supplemented with changes required to adapt to the UAE climatic conditions and any specific requirements for FANR.”

Researched and written

by World Nuclear News