The Nuclear Power Thread

[Hiddencamper]

The shutdown of Fitzpatrick as been postponed until 2017.

Meanwhile, Exelon followed through with plans to close Clinton and Quad Cities (3 reactors).
http://www.powermag.com/exelon-makes-good-on-threat-quad-cities-and-clinton-nuclear-plants-to-close/

Clinton is one of the youngest NPPs - Operating License: Issued - 04/17/1987, Expires - 09/29/2026
With life extension, it could operate another 30 years.

Apparently, at the root of the problem, is generation vs demand. Some areas have excess capacity, while other areas are deficient. Unfortunately, the markets are separated geographically. Some of Exelon's plants can't sell their power at reasonable rates, while NY is hurting for affordable power.

Some stuff about Clinton, for the interested:

It's the only GE BWR to utilize a solid state protection system. It also is the most energy dense BWR core in the US (and possibly in the world). It's 624 bundle core producing 3473 MWth (compare to Columbia Generating Station's 764 fuel bundles producing 3468 MWth). The plant essentially had a first power uprate during initial design. The plant was overbuilt for its initial power rating, including additional pumps, valves, larger steam lines, higher pressure scram accumulators, and other design features which ultimately allowed the high power density.

Because of Clinton's small core, it means to maintain its high power density, a 2 year fuel cycle requires close to 50% of the fuel to be reloaded. Clinton has just finished its first single year fuel cycle, where much less fuel is required to maintain a high power density, bringing cost reductions along with it. Clinton set a world record for 11 days for the fastest refuel outage in the world, and set the record for lowest refuel outage dose for a BWR (around 16 Rem I believe), while also setting a record for station capacity factor in the previous cycle.

What people at Clinton have been told, is that the only thing wrong with Clinton is where they poured the concrete. It's one of the most cost efficient single units to run (from what I've been told), but suffers from issues in MISO zone 4, where power prices are depressed and the region is surrounded by regulated markets.

 

[Astronuc]

It's the only GE BWR to utilize a solid state protection system. It also is the most energy dense BWR core in the US (and possibly in the world). It's 624 bundle core producing 3473 MWth

It's the leader in the US BWR fleet and among the BWR/6 group. On a MW/assy basis, Leibstadt is a close second.

    BWR/6 units
Unit        Assy/core  MWt  MW/assy
Clinton        624     3473  5.5657
Leibstadt      648     3600  5.5556
Grand Gulf     800     4408  5.5100
Cofrentes      624     3237  5.1875
Perry          748     3758  5.0241
River Bend     624     3091  4.9535
Kuosheng 1,2   624     2940  4.7115

I assume Kuosheng did a MUR uprate of 1.7%, otherwise, it would be at it's original thermal rating of 2984 MWt.

Some BWR/4 and /5 units have realized 20% uprates.

Unit           Assy/core     MWt    MW/assy
Nine Mile Pt2    764         3988    5.2199      BWR/5
Brunswick        560         2923    5.2196      BWR/4
Susquehanna      764         3952    5.1728      BWR/4
Peach Bottom     764         3951    5.1715      BWR/4

However, Oskarshamn 3 (ABB-III, BWR-3000) producing 3900 MWt in 700 assemblies has a slightly higher power density 5.5714 MWt/assy.

 

[mheslep]

... It's one of the most cost efficient single units to run (from what I've been told), ...

So, in what sense is Clinton cost efficient? Is there a way to ascertain staff required, and compare that to coal and gas plants? Are there other significant costs beyond staff?

 

[anorlunda]

What people at Clinton have been told, is that the only thing wrong with Clinton is where they poured the concrete.

IMO one of the saddest facts in the history of the industry was the failure of Offshore Power Systems (OPS). If nukes could be built on barges and then semi-permanently moored, then they also could be moved if needed. (Yeah I know that is just a pipe dream, but those people who backed OPS were not fools. The arguments in favor of OPS were powerful.)

Barsebäck 1 is an example. It was a perfectly good plant that was sacrificed to the anti-nuclear political forces in Sweden. If it could have been re-floated, instead of decommissioning it could have been floated to Finland to become Olkiluoto 3 thus making today's Olkiluoto 3 project unnecessary. It would have been a very big win-win. In the 1990s I tried to promote a study to look at the feasibility of digging underneath Barsebäck 1 to build a barge underneath it and ship it to Finland. Nobody would listen to me.

Moving the Clinton plant elsewhere is a similar idea. Too bad it can never happen.

 

[Hiddencamper]

So, in what sense is Clinton cost efficient? Is there a way to ascertain staff required, and compare that to coal and gas plants? Are there other significant costs beyond staff?

On a cost per MWh basis, it is one of the most efficient single unit nuclear plants.

 

[mheslep]

On a cost per MWh basis, it is one of the most efficient single unit nuclear plants.

Then based on utility comments about the closure, it is fair to assume that this cost, well after the capital cost has been retired, is still considerably higher than that of the several coal plants in the region for some reason, requiring delivery from 100 car coal trains every day. Why this is so is escapes me.

 

[jim hardy]

it is fair to assume that this cost, well after the capital cost has been retired, is still considerably higher than that of the several coal plants in the region for some reason, requiring delivery from 100 car coal trains every day. Why this is so is escapes me.

Bureaucracy.
When it takes a couple thousand extra employees just to shuffle 'The Paperwork Blob' , the fuel differential gets eaten up.
To re-phrase Parkinson's Law : bureaucracy expands to occupy the available money.
.............

http://herald-review.com/news/local...cle_d0f310ba-5d3c-59c9-8d1b-5c9423b1c926.html
Exelon had previously said it would close the Clinton plant on June 1, 2017, and the Quad Cities plant a year later if the General Assembly did not pass the Next Generation Energy Plan this spring. Its main provision would extend to nuclear plants state subsidies given to wind and solar power suppliers for the production of carbon-free electricity.

Political pushback ?

 

[anorlunda]

Then based on utility comments about the closure, it is fair to assume that this cost, well after the capital cost has been retired, is still considerably higher than that of the several coal plants in the region for some reason, requiring delivery from 100 car coal trains every day. Why this is so is escapes me.

As @jim hardy said, fuel is just a fraction of the costs of running a power plant. There can also be long term contacts that would be expensive to cancel. To fully understand a financial decision by anybody public or private, you need access to all the confidential data they used.

 

[mheslep]

As @jim hardy said, fuel is just a fraction of the costs of running a power plant. There can also be long term contacts that would be expensive to cancel. To fully understand a financial decision by anybody public or private, you need access to all the confidential data they used.

That's not the case with a natural gas plant, or least it didn't use to be the case. There, gas was easily the dominant cost when gas was ~$8 per million btu.
EIA LCOE by component, for gas fired CC ($/MWH for new plants as of 2020)
capital: 14
fixed O&M: 2
variable O&M including fuel: 58
transmission: 1

Aside: I see the fixed O&M of a nuclear plant is six times higher than that of gas CC: 12

 

[mheslep]

Bureaucracy.
When it takes a couple thousand extra employees just to shuffle 'The Paperwork Blob' , the fuel differential gets eaten up.
?

It doesn't take a "couple thousand" people to run a gas plant, or to do the paper work. More like a couple dozen on a shift. So, what bureaucracy? I'll grant the nuclear operators, not the entire staff, need intensive training, but I don't grant 100 times the number of people per Watt.

http://www.power-eng.com/articles/2001/12/intergen-completes-financing-on-900-mw-project-in-mississippi.html

The project [Magnolia Energy Project, a 900-megawatt (MW) natural gas-fired, combined cycle power facility located near the town of Ashland in Benton County, Mississippi] will have a significant positive economic impact on the area, creating approximately 25 permanent, full-time operations period jobs

To re-phrase Parkinson's Law : bureaucracy expands to occupy the available money.

BTW, for the long term, that "law" only applies in the public sector, in government. In the private sector, when the incumbent has grown bureaucratic, somebody *always* sooner or later comes along that can do the same job or a better one for less money, and the money goes away, because there money is the boss and not bureaucracy. Thus, I suppose, the closing of Clinton.

 

[mheslep]

Per the News-Gazette in Il, Clinton is 1.1 GWe, with staff size:

The 29-year-old Clinton nuclear power plant, which employs some 700 people in central Illinois,

For Clinton and Quad Cities combined (3 GWe):

"The premature closures will lead to a loss of 1,500 direct jobs, 4,200 indirect jobs

 

[jim hardy]

So, what bureaucracy?

When you decide to run a nuke plant
you become obligated to exchange letters with USNRC's bureaucracy regarding every "what if" scenario anybody in the world can think up.

This involves analyzing the systems and structures in minute detail , figuring out whether the "what if du jour " could result in a compromise of safety,
writing up reports on same, running computer programs to analyze and support your conclusion, and proposing what if anything to do about it.
That's how you wind up with a support staff of a few thousand people for a single nuke plant. It is to utility's advantage to have either several nuke plants and enjoy economy of scale via one engineering staff serving them all, or to have no nukes and enjoy a lean organization.

Sadly it can deteriorate to a parlor game or a means for aspiring bureaucrats to grow an organization underneath them dealing in faux worries .
Fortunately the NRC came up with the concept of "Probabilistic Risk Assessment" which evaluates significance of "What If's" and allows dismissal of ones that were thought up just for harassment or self aggrandizement. An attempt to put a number on practicality of an idea, if you will. (edit- Somehow it dismissed the Fukushima tidal wave risk, though.. i assume they use something similar there)

"The premature closures will lead to a loss of 1,500 direct jobs, 4,200 indirect jobs

I don't know that utility. Would be interesting to see how much of those 4200 indirects is their design&review organization.
4000 engineers at $75K a year is 300 million bucks
at today's price of $40 for Appalaichan ( www.quandl.com/collections/markets/coal )
that'd buy 7.5 million short tons of coal

per EIA

Kilowatthour generated per unit of fuel used:
1,927 kWh per ton, or 0.96 kWh per pound, of coal

that 7.5 million tons would make 1.927 X 7.5E6 = 1.445E10 kwh
spread over the 8766 hours in a year is 1.66 E6 kw, or 1.66 gw
So,,,,,
it's about same cost to buy coal for a 1.6 gigawatt coal plant as to pay 4000 engineers to shuffle paper for a 1.1 gigawatt nuke.
Hence my earlier remark "Bureaucracy expands to occupy the available money."

A wag at my plant said : "This industry went from infancy to senility without passing through maturity."

Nuke is a great way to make electricity . Societally we're almost ready for it.

 

[Astronuc]

Duke Energy says it is poised to get a federal license to build and operate the plant this fall. On June 6, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced it had completed a final safety evaluation report for the plant, which could lead to a vote on issuing the license.

http://www.politico.com/states/flor...ant-even-after-scrapping-plans-in-2013-102735

I believe they plan for two AP-1000 units.
https://www.duke-energy.com/about-us/nuclear-overview.asp
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/levy.html

Meanwhile, Watts Bar 2 is up and running.
https://www.tva.gov/Energy/Our-Power-System/Nuclear/Watts-Bar-Nuclear-Plant
https://www.tva.gov/Newsroom/Watts-Bar-2-Project

From the NRC Plant Status Reports

Date     %RatedPower
June  7,   0
June  8,   3
June  9,  12
June 10,   8
June 11,  14
June 12,  22
June 13,  28
June 14,  28
June 15,  28

 

[mheslep]

I'm curious about the staffing levels at nuclear power plants in the other 30 countries that have them.

Something will have to change in staff requirements for the several small modular companies to succeed. Nuscale plans to be up and running in Utah by 2024 with its 50 and 100 MW scale reactors. And, if the staffing per MW is reduced to accommodate SMR, just for SMR, is that not a direct threat to all the existing and aging large GW scale nuclear plants with their high overhead?

 

[Astronuc]

In a reversal of sorts, a NY State representative is seeking a way for NY Power Authority to take back Fitzpatrick. NYPA ran Fitzpatrick for years until they sold it to Entergy, now Entergy wants to shut it down since it is not profitable. NYPA also operated Indian Point, two Westinghouse PWRs (193 assemblies of 15x15 in the cores). Some in NY State government want to shutdown Indian Point since it is in the midst of a populated area (Westchester County).

Last week, New York State Sen. Patty Ritchie (R-Heuvelton) proposed a bill (S08032) that would authorize and direct the New York Power Authority (NYPA) to acquire the James A. Fitzpatrick nuclear power plant either by a direct purchase or by using the power of eminent domain.

She http://www.oswegocountynewsnow.com/ritchie-proposes-nypa-takeover-of-fitzpatrick/article_00d7a9dc-2e5e-11e6-b617-5ffedd5530ad.html as part of an effort to do everything in her power to keep the plant operating. Her “number one priority” is saving the 615 jobs associated with operating the plant; she noted that achieving her goal requires continued conversation, prompt decisions and effective actions.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rodadam...-plant-seized-by-eminent-domain/#3b7a8f456073
http://www.oswegocountynewsnow.com/...cle_00d7a9dc-2e5e-11e6-b617-5ffedd5530ad.html

Being a merchant producer is a bit of a challenge in some regions.

 

[Hiddencamper]

Then based on utility comments about the closure, it is fair to assume that this cost, well after the capital cost has been retired, is still considerably higher than that of the several coal plants in the region for some reason, requiring delivery from 100 car coal trains every day. Why this is so is escapes me.

3 GW of coal generation in Illinois is also retiring right now. Some have must run orders from MISO.

The cost of both coal and nuclear most parts of southern Illinois is higher than out of state energy from the other portions of zone 4. The fact that southern illinois is the only deregulated market in that zone of MISO has made it difficult to make money.

 

[mheslep]

The fact that southern illinois is the only deregulated market in that zone of MISO has made it difficult to make money.

Difficult for nuclear and coal, but if closures are an indicator of financial soundness, not for gas and wind.
Looking at Illinois electric capacity, coal (34%), nuclear (26%) remained nearly constant 2003-2014, gas capacity actually declined by 2 or 3 GW to 30% in 2014. Wind increased from ~nothing to 3.5 GW nameplate over the same period.

Electric generation over the period shows a different story. Nuclear and coal generation were the same within 3 or 4%, but gas generation was up 38% over 2003. That is, in 2003 gas was 2% of total generation and wind insignificant. In 2014, wind was 5% and gas was 3% of total Illinois generation. Indeed, in 2012 when some coal went temporarily offline gas spiked up to 5% of generation. Total consumption in Illinois has been relatively flat since 2010, and 2014 was actually down 0.5% from 2013.

Unfortunately, given the status quo something had to go. The continuing federal Production Tax Credit of http://energy.gov/savings/renewable-electricity-production-tax-credit-ptc going into wind, and the Illinois RPS that excludes nuclear power are, IMO, unwise for long term clean power outcomes.

 

[mheslep]

Nuke is a great way to make electricity ...

Great way to make clean electricity. In the US, nuclear is also currently an expensive and decades long way to make electricity. It was not so in the US under the AEC, and is not so in China, S. Korea.

 

[Astronuc]

Australian Nuclear Association

Past Presentations - http://www.nuclearaustralia.org.au/pastpresentations/
Papers on nuclear technology - http://www.nuclearaustralia.org.au/nuclearreactors/

UNSW Nuclear Engineering - Presentation by Prof. John Fletcher
http://www.nuclearaustralia.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Fletcher20160504.pdf

Australian challenges for nuclear energy (Australian perspective)
The Grid
• Integration of large scale nuclear plant may require a rethink of the way the grid is operated e.g. contingencies. This presents opportunities for small, modular reactors.

The Investment Environment
• Who would invest $1-10B in an energy generation station in the current investment climate? Small, modular is an alternative with a lower capital cost.

The Community
• Is there support? Does the community understand the alternatives and their pros/cons?

The Government
• Will there be a government capable of making such a bold decision?

The questions on investment and community are questions that any utility would be asking. Modern day grids were built around central power stations and have evolved over time as population increases. There is typically a base load and peak loads that require part-time operation. Large nuclear plants are more or less designed for baseload (continuous) operation, in order to payoff the high capital costs for construction.

The problem for economic plants like Clinton is that they are effectively prevented from selling their power to markets outside their territory. Meanwhile, with government incentives and subsidies, wind power has been added to the region. When there is excess capacity, some of the established have to reduce power to accommodate the excess generation on the grid.

 

[Astronuc]

More on Illinois and Exelon's Clinton and Quad Cities plants
http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/07/02/illinois-doesnt-value-exelons-nuclear-power-and-th.aspx

Metric                      Clinton and QC  All Wind and Solar
Capacity                              3 GW           3.8 GW
Net generation               24,600,000 MWh   10,800,000 MWh
% of total state generation        12.2 %            5.6 %

Note that the MWh for the two plants is more than twice the generation for Wind and Solar.

According to the article, "taking Quad Cities and Clinton offline will remove more carbon-free energy from the grid than the total renewable energy generation from Illinois, Colorado, and Washington combined -- all because Illinois didn't think it was a good idea to approve a fee of $0.25 per monthly electric bill to keep its nuclear power plants operational."

 

[Astronuc]

Expanded Materials Degradation Assessment (EMDA) (NUREG/CR-7153, Volume 1 - 5)
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contract/cr7153/

I recently attended a meeting on this subject. It is relevant as plants continue beyond their initial 40 year lifetime to 60 years. There is now consideration for a second license renewal with life extension to 80 years for some plants.

 

[Astronuc]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/york-could-show-way-rescue-u-nuclear-plants-194556685--finance.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - New York state and nuclear power have never been best friends, but the state is expected to decide as soon as Monday on a proposed subsidy plan that could furnish the rest of the country with a model for saving a struggling industry while reducing carbon emissions.

Power company Exelon Corp has said that if the CES is not approved, it will close two upstate New York nuclear plants, Nine Mile Point and Ginna. Most of the power they generate would probably be replaced by natural gas plants, making it harder for New York state to meet targets to slash carbon emissions.

Nuclear power generates nearly 20 percent of U.S. electricity, and about 60 percent of the country's emissions-free power.

But the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group, estimates that 15 to 20 of the country's 100 nuclear reactors are at risk of shutting in states such as Illinois, Pennsylvania and Michigan, and more could shut if the economy sours.

 

[schmikah]

I know I'm probably switching topics a little, but making generalities ( I understand its bad manner's in a physics forum) nuclear power as a whole can be summed up into three major categories/questions:
1. Is is safe in the area that it is produced: Yes, mostly. If one discounts the major meltdowns/nuclear incidents that have occurred in the first 50 years of major power plant operations, nuclear reactors are very safe in the localities that they reside. Naval nuclear power ( I'm a bit biased since I'm a navy nuke) has never had an incident and routinely operates in at least 10 countries ports that I'm aware of, including Spain, Greece and the UK.
2. Can we deal with the waste: Yes. Not disclosing classified information, but the US alone has enough facilities to deal with the next century of nuclear power generation waste for the entire world alone. I personally believe that we should be accept the waste from a menagerie of countries and make a boat load of cash doing it. To my knowledge, and from what I have experienced and been able to find through research, there has never been any significant incident from nuclear waste disposal.
3. Is it economically viable to build and maintain the facilities: For the third time yes. If we provide what I like to call a "Front end first" method to nuclear plant design and building the overall costs to produce energy could be greatly reduced. We need (and the power companies) to accept the front end costs of building large scale, safe and efficient power plant designs. If we can do that, then it is possible, for the foreseeable future, to produce essentially clean energy until we have mastered the technical and physics based issues of fusion energy.

Just my two cents, i know we've covered some of these topics before but i felt like this was a good cap to get those reading to ask the important questions. If you can say yes to these three questions, then why not use nuclear power to its utmost extent until more advanced and "green" energy comes along.

 

[etudiant]

I know I'm probably switching topics a little, but making generalities ( I understand its bad manner's in a physics forum) nuclear power as a whole can be summed up into three major categories/questions:
1. Is is safe in the area that it is produced: Yes, mostly. If one discounts the major meltdowns/nuclear incidents that have occurred in the first 50 years of major power plant operations, nuclear reactors are very safe in the localities that they reside. Naval nuclear power ( I'm a bit biased since I'm a navy nuke) has never had an incident and routinely operates in at least 10 countries ports that I'm aware of, including Spain, Greece and the UK.
2. Can we deal with the waste: Yes. Not disclosing classified information, but the US alone has enough facilities to deal with the next century of nuclear power generation waste for the entire world alone. I personally believe that we should be accept the waste from a menagerie of countries and make a boat load of cash doing it. To my knowledge, and from what I have experienced and been able to find through research, there has never been any significant incident from nuclear waste disposal.
3. Is it economically viable to build and maintain the facilities: For the third time yes. If we provide what I like to call a "Front end first" method to nuclear plant design and building the overall costs to produce energy could be greatly reduced. We need (and the power companies) to accept the front end costs of building large scale, safe and efficient power plant designs. If we can do that, then it is possible, for the foreseeable future, to produce essentially clean energy until we have mastered the technical and physics based issues of fusion energy.

Just my two cents, i know we've covered some of these topics before but i felt like this was a good cap to get those reading to ask the important questions. If you can say yes to these three questions, then why not use nuclear power to its utmost extent until more advanced and "green" energy comes along.

All of these assertions should be qualified imho.
The safety of the operations appear to be about 1 disaster with substantial local impact every 5-10,000 reactor years, counting Fukushima as a single event.
Also, while US nuclear vessels may have a great safety record, the performance elsewhere is less clear
The waste management may be all that is asserted, but the WIPP incident was not insignificant and showed really crass negligence by both the waste producer as well as the site operator. In Germany, the Asse waste disposal effort shows similar industry behavior.
I agree that nuclear design should be front loaded, but in our economic system, power companies must earn a return. Even at todays rock bottom interest rates, nuclear plants are financially very challenging to build. Plants using cheap gas from fracking to feed combined cycle gas turbines are tough competition.

 

[Astronuc]

but the WIPP incident was not insignificant and showed really crass negligence by both the waste producer as well as the site operator.

Indeed.

Nuclear accident in New Mexico ranks among the costliest in U.S. history
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/af105bc8-0a83-3f0e-a29c-243f6df319aa/ss_nuclear-accident-in-new.html

As I understand it, organic material was improperly added to a drum. In the repository, with enough heat, the organic material reacted and the drum exploded.

From LA Times article:

The problem was traced to material — actual kitty litter — used to blot up liquids in sealed drums. Lab officials had decided to substitute an organic material for a mineral one. But the new material caused a complex chemical reaction that blew the lid off a drum, sending mounds of white, radioactive foam into the air and contaminating 35% of the underground area.
. . .
Though the error at the Los Alamos lab caused the accident, a federal investigation found more than two dozen safety lapses at the dump. The dump’s filtration system was supposed to prevent any radioactive releases, but it malfunctioned.

 

[Astronuc]

Where the nuclear industry suppliers are today.

Advanced Nuclear Power Reactors
(Updated 24 August 2016)
http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...reactors/advanced-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx

I recommend cutting and pasting the page contents into Word or print as a pdf, since it is bound to be revised/changed in time. I also noticed a problem with the link to fast neutron reactors (FNRs), so use instead
http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...-future-generation/fast-neutron-reactors.aspx

 

[mheslep]

Indeed.

Nuclear accident in New Mexico ranks among the costliest in U.S. history
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/af105bc8-0a83-3f0e-a29c-243f6df319aa/ss_nuclear-accident-in-new.html

As I understand it, organic material was improperly added to a drum. In the repository, with enough heat, the organic material reacted and the drum exploded.

From LA Times article:

The cost of the cleanup for this incident, if correct, is outrageous. *One* drum exploded at WIPP. No personnel injuries. Yes the drum contained radioactive waste, not lawnmower parts, so some extensive cleanup might be expected. But $640M, as inferred by the LA Times? That's a large fraction of the Three Mile Island accident costs.

From the same LA Times story.

... James Conca, a consultant who has advised the Energy Department on nuclear waste issues, described the accident as a comedy of errors and said that federal officials are being “overly cautious” about the cleanup. “It got contaminated, but a new exhaust shaft is kind of ridiculous,” he said.

I can imagine US power utilities observing this incident. They perhaps weigh investment in a new nuclear plant. The planf incurs a contained accident of 40 gallons of nuclear waste where nobody gets hurt, yet in come federal regulators and the cleanup cost is 3/4 of a $billion. Perhaps the otherwise completely operational plant is shuttered for years.

Against that, they observe, say, a new gas plant which suffered a major explosion in Connecticut several years ago, actually killing people on site and demolishing much of the plant. Outcome: a few dozen $million in damages and compensation costs and the plant can be rebuilt in months. A new gas plant is easily the better choice.

 

[anorlunda]

yet in come federal regulators and the cleanup cost is

Vote libertarian

 

[mheslep]

Vote libertarian

Aye, or for whoever can make regulation transparent, streamlined as in Korea, China.

 

[etudiant]

The cost of the cleanup for this incident, if correct, is outrageous. *One* drum exploded at WIPP. No personnel injuries. Yes the drum contained radioactive waste, not lawnmower parts, so some extensive cleanup might be expected. But $640M, as inferred by the LA Times? That's a large fraction of the Three Mile Island accident costs.

From the same LA Times story.I can imagine US power utilities observing this incident. They perhaps weigh investment in a new nuclear plant. The planf incurs a contained accident of 40 gallons of nuclear waste where nobody gets hurt, yet in come federal regulators and the cleanup cost is 3/4 of a $billion. Perhaps the otherwise completely operational plant is shuttered for years.

Against that, they observe, say, a new gas plant which suffered a major explosion in Connecticut several years ago, actually killing people on site and demolishing much of the plant. Outcome: a few dozen $million in damages and compensation costs and the plant can be rebuilt in months. A new gas plant is easily the better choice.

The reporting on the event was very limited, because secrecy is very much the norm for government nuclear related operations. Any disclosure was very uneven and really driven by responses to local community fears, rather than any coherent plan.
Afaik, the contamination originated in just one drum containing nitric acid wastes from Los Alamos that had been soaked up with organic kitty litter rather than diatomaceous earth. The excursion damaged other barrels that also contributed to the damage. I believe that the ceiling in one affected chamber collapsed, which is apparently the expected outcome in the salt mine environment. The smoke from the fire spread widely because the fire doors had been wired open after the automatic opening system proved too unreliable. The ventilation/filtration system also fell short, so radioactive contamination spread well beyond the plant, although apparently in relatively limited amounts. No full accounting has been published that I've seen.
My guess is that the $640MM clean up cost includes the bill for putting a lot of other deficiencies to right. However, as mheslep correctly observes, no sensible management would want to get involved with a business that generates this kind of unexpected cost with so little explanation or serious lessons learned publication. When no one knows exactly what went wrong or what was fixed, the same mistakes will happen again.