- Email: [email protected]
Preface to Shippingport Atomic Power Station thematic issue
Progress in Nuclear Energy xxx (2017) 1e6
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Progress in Nuclear Energy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pnucene
Preface to Shippingport Atomic Power Station thematic issue Progress in Nuclear Energy Paul J. Turinsky North Carolina State University, P.O. Box 7926, Raleigh, NC 27695-7926, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 24 February 2017 Accepted 28 March 2017 Available online xxx Keywords: Shippingport Light Water Reactors Pressurized Water Reactors
On December 2, 1957 the core of the Shippingport Atomic Power Station achieved first criticality. Some sixteen days later electrical energy was put on the grid, and on December 23, 1957 full power was achieved (see Fig. 1). This thematic issue of Progress in Nuclear Energy pays homage to these events of sixty years ago via a collection of articles on the evolution of commercial nuclear energy from those times to today and beyond. But before providing an overview of the content of this thematic issue, it is interesting to examine the similarities of the Shippingport Atomic Power Station, a pressurized water reactor, to modern day light water reactors to better grasp this plant's influence on what was to follow. In doing this, there is intended no disrespect to the other nuclear plants of the time regarding their contributions. Given that I was in junior high school at the time of the Shippingport Atomic Power Station startup with the closest association to nuclear energy being nuclear weapon motivated air raid drills of the cold war era, the content of what follows is drawn heavily from two references (The Shippingport Pressurized Water Reactor, 1958; Clayton, 1993). Shippingport was a Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) with an initial rating of 60 MWe and core designed to operate at 225 MWth. Active construction started in May 1955 following the ground breaking ceremony in September 1954, implying start of construction to full power in 31 months. Shippingport was an outgrowth of a naval project regarding a prototype
E-mail address: [email protected].
plant for aircraft carriers, which apparently got derailed due to USA federal budget concerns. With President Dwight Eisenhower actively promoting the peaceful utilization of atomic (nuclear) energy, a demonstration plant was deemed necessary to supportive his initiative. Partnered together were the United States Atomic Energy Commission, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, and Duquesne Light Company, with a number of prominent subcontractors such as Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, Dravo Corporation, and Burns and Roe, Incorporated. The plant was located at the current site of the Beaver Valley Nuclear Power Station some twenty-five miles west of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, conveniently located to the Bettis Atomic Laboratory that Westinghouse managed at the time. Leading the project was Rear Admiral H. G. Rickover, Chief of the Naval Reactors Branch of the United States Navy, with Captain J. H. Barker, Jr., Naval Reactors Branch, being assigned project officer and with reactor core design heavily influenced by Dr. Alvin Radkowsky, Chief Scientist for the Naval Reactors Branch. The primary purpose of the Shippingport Atomic Power Station was to advance the technology of PWRs, but of equal consequence was the development of training and operational practices to be followed by the civilian nuclear energy industry. The development and usage of standards was also an important role that the
Fig. 1. Shippingport atomic power station.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2017.03.030 0149-1970/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Turinsky, P.J., Preface to Shippingport Atomic Power Station thematic issue Progress in Nuclear Energy, Progress in Nuclear Energy (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2017.03.030
2
P.J. Turinsky / Progress in Nuclear Energy xxx (2017) 1e6
Table 1 Similarities in station configuration for PWRs. Attribute Coolant Loops
Shippingport
Contemporary PWRs
4
2-6 2/4 configurations
Comments
Shippingport was designed for full rated power with one loop out of service. Accident consequences, equipment capacities, and component layout considerations determined the number of loops. For the same reasons multi-loops are used today for PWRs. Loop Isolation Valves Yes Sometimes Allowed continued operation and loop component repair with loop isolation valves. Today loop isolation valves are less common because of impact on cost, need, servicing, testing, and nuclear safety. Reactor Vessel Head on Yes No Shippingport allowed individual fuel assemblies to be replaced without taking off Refueling the reactor vessel head. Individual fuel assemblies or entire cores could be replaced with the reactor vessel head off. This supported a flexible fuel development program that contrasts with the limited lead test assembly approach of today. Containment (see Fig. 2) Yes Yes Shippingport placed interconnected chambers around the NSSS components, designed to withstand the pressure from flashing of the Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) total water inventory and secondary side inventory of one steam generator. Similar considerations are considered today, with some containment's subdivided into higher and lower pressure compartments, e.g. BWR and PWR icecondenser. Reactor Vessel (see Fig. 3) Carbon-steel Carbon-steel Shippingport reactor vessel was manufactured from carbon-steel plates and forgings with quarter inch stainless-steel liner to mitigate corrosion. Similar construction has since been used, with improvements in materials and manufacturing technologies and recently greater reliance on forgings. Inlet-Below Core OutletInlet-Above Core Outlet- Shippingport with its ability to isolate both the cold and hot legs using isolation and Reactor Vessel Above Core Above Core check valves, had the flexibility of being able to locate the cold leg inlet below the Penetrations core height. (see Fig. 4) Tube-Shell Horizontal or Shippingport employed saturated steam, which introduced the requirement for Steam Generators 2 Tube-Shell Horizontal adding moisture-separators/reheaters to the main turbine’s configuration. Current Vertical (see Fig. 5) Straight Tube plants utilize mainly U-tube steam generators, but horizontal steam generators and U-Tube 2 U-Tube once through vertical [some with super-heat] configurations have also been used. Reactor Coolant Pumps Dual Speed Single or Dual Speed Shippingport utilized a canned wet pump-motor design avoiding the need for (see Fig. 6) reactor coolant pump (RCP) seals. Most RCPs today utilize a multi-seal configuration, but canned RCPs have reappeared in generation III þ designs. Pressurizer Steam-Water Design Steam-Water Design Shippingport utilized a typical steam-water design using electric heaters and sprays as has been subsequently used by PWRs. Power Operated Relief Valves (PORV) and safety valves are used to protect the NSSS from over pressurization. Reactivity Control Control Rods Soluble Poison Burnable Shippingport considered the usage of both soluble poison and burnable poison, but Poison Control Rods elected to solely utilize control rods. Shippingport's control rods utilized a hafnium absorber, which is also utilized today in addition or combination with Ag-In-Cd and B4C. Zirc2 cladding was employed for these cruciform shaped rods. Like current PWRs, control rods were grouped and overlapped. Emergency Feedwater 2 Main FW Pumps 2-4 Safety (Auxiliary) FW Shippingport oversized two normal FW pumps so each had full rated power (FW) System Pumps capacity, instead of providing separate safety FW pumps. Emergency Core Cooling Yes Yes Shippingport system leveraged normal plant equipment to a larger extent than System subsequent PWRs do. Decay Heat Removal Yes Yes Shippingport appears to complete cooldown by blowing secondary side steam to System the atmosphere. Residual heat removal, once the plant is cooled down and depressurized, is done using equipment needed for normal operations versus a dedicated residual heat removal system. Core Design 1 (see Fig. 7) Seed: U-Zirc2 Alloy Plates Cladding: Zircaloy 2, 4 and Shippingport was designed to allow substantial changes in the core configuration and fuel design. All designs were based upon the heterogeneous seed-blanket derivatives Fuel: UO2 (93%) Enrichment: <5% Loading concept, with seed fuel replaced more frequently than blanket fuel. Three core Blanket: UO2 Pellets Pattern: Typically Checker- designs were deployed in Shippingport, with the third design demonstrating the (0.71%) Zirc2 Clad Core Design 2 Seed: UO2-ZrO2-CaO capability to achieve breeding in a PWR. Metallic seed fuel what used in the first board Low Leakage (enriched) Plates design but not subsequently employed. Metallic fuel has been considered for fast Blanket: UO2 Plates (0.71%) reactors and most recently Light Water Reactors (LWRs). Zirc4 Clad Core Design 3 Seed: UO2-ThO2 Pellets (U233 enriched) Blanket: ThO2 Pellets Zirc4 Clad Representative Fluid Parameter Values (@ Rated Power) Primary Side Pressure 2000 psia 2250 psia Shippingport's low coolant temperatures were the result of assuring that the maximum fuel cladding temperature limit was not violated during normal Outlet Temperature 538 F 600-620 F operation. This in turn lowered steam pressure, which was further impacted by RV Pressure Drop 40.5 psi 45-50 psi usage of a constant TAvg program. Secondary Side Steam Pressure 600 psia 800-850 psia Containment Design Pressure 52.8 psi ~60 psi (dry type)
Please cite this article in press as: Turinsky, P.J., Preface to Shippingport Atomic Power Station thematic issue Progress in Nuclear Energy, Progress in Nuclear Energy (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2017.03.030
P.J. Turinsky / Progress in Nuclear Energy xxx (2017) 1e6
Fig. 2. Erection of one of the boiler chambers.
Fig. 3. Reactor vessel being placed.
Please cite this article in press as: Turinsky, P.J., Preface to Shippingport Atomic Power Station thematic issue Progress in Nuclear Energy, Progress in Nuclear Energy (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2017.03.030
3
4
P.J. Turinsky / Progress in Nuclear Energy xxx (2017) 1e6
Fig. 4. Reactor vessel and its content.
Please cite this article in press as: Turinsky, P.J., Preface to Shippingport Atomic Power Station thematic issue Progress in Nuclear Energy, Progress in Nuclear Energy (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2017.03.030
P.J. Turinsky / Progress in Nuclear Energy xxx (2017) 1e6
5
Fig. 5. Straight tube heat exchanger portion of steam generator. Fig. 6. Reactor coolant pump installation.
Shippingport project would contribute to. The original planned budget for the station was $38M with the actual expenditures being $55M. Training was done using the Nautilus prototype since no realistic, real-time simulator was available at that time. Staffing level was 132 individuals. In contrast to some other nuclear energy facilities of the time where co-production of plutonium occurred, the station was operated for the sole purpose of generating electrical energy. Independently overseeing the project was the Reactor Safety Commission, perhaps a pre-runner to the USA Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). A government representative was on-sight, perhaps a pre-runner to NRC resident site inspectors. Regarding similarity with present day nuclear power stations, Table 1 contrast some of the key attributes of Shippingport versus the dominant PWR designs to follow. What is apparent from Table 1 is how many of Shippingport's attributes regarding components, materials, and operating conditions are similar to those used in today's PWRs and to a lesser extent Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs), an indication of the thoughtfulness of the Shippingport design team. In this thematic issue, the intent is to review the evolution of power reactors from different aspects from the time of Shippingport startup to the present and beyond. This is accomplished through a series of articles on those different aspects authored by individuals who have expertise in each of these aspects. Table 2 indicates the articles and their intended content in the order they appear in this thematic issue.
As expected, Articles 2 through 4 focuses on the evolution of PWR, BWR and Generation IV NSSSs. Article 5 does likewise, but now focused on LWR fuel evolution. Article 6 discusses the development of the regulatory framework, followed by Article 7 discussion of the impact of PRA and severe accident analysis which have increasingly impacted this framework. Articles 8 and 9 are intended to bring in electric utilities’ perspectives with regard to operations and role on nuclear power production today and into the future. This thematic issue is concluded by Article 10, which traces the changes in public attitudes and underlying reasons for these changes. A sincere thank you to all the authors who have contributed to this thematic issue. Writing an article that spans six decades of evolution is not a task to be taken lightly. One may wonder why so many of the authors are associated with the USA nuclear power program. One obvious reason is that the special editor, yours truly, is from the USA and knows individuals from this community better. Another more defensible reason is that the birthplace of commercial nuclear power was the USA with regard to PWRs and BWRs, and the NRC regulatory framework has served as a model for many regulatory agencies around the world. I hope that you find the content of this thematic issue does do due homage to the 60th anniversary of first criticality and electrical energy placement on the grid by the Shippingport Atomic Power Station.
Please cite this article in press as: Turinsky, P.J., Preface to Shippingport Atomic Power Station thematic issue Progress in Nuclear Energy, Progress in Nuclear Energy (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2017.03.030
6
P.J. Turinsky / Progress in Nuclear Energy xxx (2017) 1e6
Fig. 7. Core 1 loading showing seed, blanket and control rod locations.
Table 2 Articles descriptive title and intended content. Article Descriptive Title
Abstract
1 2 3 4 5
Preamble: Remembering Shippingport Design Evolution of PWRs: Shippingport to Generation IIIþ Design Evolution of BWRs: Dresden to Generation IIIþ Looking Ahead at Reactor Development Nuclear Fuel‘s Maturing: Past to Accident Tolerant Fuels
6 7 8
Development of the Regulatory Framework Impact of Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) and Severe Accidents Analysis on Plant Design and Operations Recognizing Role of Operations on Nuclear Plant Performance
9
An Electric Utility's Perspective on Nuclear Energy's Role
10
Changing Public Attitudes Towards Nuclear Energy
An overview of the Shippingport Nuclear Power Station and this thematic volume's content. Review of the advancement of PWR designs from Shippingport to Generation III þ reactors Review of the advancement of BWR designs from Dresden to Generation III þ reactors Review of the development and demonstration of Generation IV reactor designs Review of LWR fuel development from stainless steel claddings to proposed accident tolerant fuels Review of the maturing of the regulatory process as reflected by example in NRC maturing Review of the roles that PRA and severe accident analysis has played in plant designs, normal operations, and severe accident management Lessons learned from operating experiences as reflected in changes to operating practices through communal learning Considerations that an electric utility operator accounts for in deciding on plant lifetime extension, new build, and support for new technology development The changes in public attitudes toward nuclear energy with time and the underlying reasons for these shifts in public attitudes
References Clayton, J.C., 1993. The Shippingport Pressurized Water Reactor and Light Water Breeder Reactor. WAPD-T-3007. Westinghouse Electric Corporation.
The Shippingport Pressurized Water Reactor, written by personnel of the Naval Reactor Branch, 1958. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, and Duquesne Light Company. Reading. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc. (Note all figures are taken from this reference).
Please cite this article in press as: Turinsky, P.J., Preface to Shippingport Atomic Power Station thematic issue Progress in Nuclear Energy, Progress in Nuclear Energy (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2017.03.030
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Progress in Nuclear Energy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pnucene
Preface to Shippingport Atomic Power Station thematic issue Progress in Nuclear Energy Paul J. Turinsky North Carolina State University, P.O. Box 7926, Raleigh, NC 27695-7926, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 24 February 2017 Accepted 28 March 2017 Available online xxx Keywords: Shippingport Light Water Reactors Pressurized Water Reactors
On December 2, 1957 the core of the Shippingport Atomic Power Station achieved first criticality. Some sixteen days later electrical energy was put on the grid, and on December 23, 1957 full power was achieved (see Fig. 1). This thematic issue of Progress in Nuclear Energy pays homage to these events of sixty years ago via a collection of articles on the evolution of commercial nuclear energy from those times to today and beyond. But before providing an overview of the content of this thematic issue, it is interesting to examine the similarities of the Shippingport Atomic Power Station, a pressurized water reactor, to modern day light water reactors to better grasp this plant's influence on what was to follow. In doing this, there is intended no disrespect to the other nuclear plants of the time regarding their contributions. Given that I was in junior high school at the time of the Shippingport Atomic Power Station startup with the closest association to nuclear energy being nuclear weapon motivated air raid drills of the cold war era, the content of what follows is drawn heavily from two references (The Shippingport Pressurized Water Reactor, 1958; Clayton, 1993). Shippingport was a Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) with an initial rating of 60 MWe and core designed to operate at 225 MWth. Active construction started in May 1955 following the ground breaking ceremony in September 1954, implying start of construction to full power in 31 months. Shippingport was an outgrowth of a naval project regarding a prototype
E-mail address: [email protected].
plant for aircraft carriers, which apparently got derailed due to USA federal budget concerns. With President Dwight Eisenhower actively promoting the peaceful utilization of atomic (nuclear) energy, a demonstration plant was deemed necessary to supportive his initiative. Partnered together were the United States Atomic Energy Commission, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, and Duquesne Light Company, with a number of prominent subcontractors such as Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, Dravo Corporation, and Burns and Roe, Incorporated. The plant was located at the current site of the Beaver Valley Nuclear Power Station some twenty-five miles west of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, conveniently located to the Bettis Atomic Laboratory that Westinghouse managed at the time. Leading the project was Rear Admiral H. G. Rickover, Chief of the Naval Reactors Branch of the United States Navy, with Captain J. H. Barker, Jr., Naval Reactors Branch, being assigned project officer and with reactor core design heavily influenced by Dr. Alvin Radkowsky, Chief Scientist for the Naval Reactors Branch. The primary purpose of the Shippingport Atomic Power Station was to advance the technology of PWRs, but of equal consequence was the development of training and operational practices to be followed by the civilian nuclear energy industry. The development and usage of standards was also an important role that the
Fig. 1. Shippingport atomic power station.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2017.03.030 0149-1970/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Turinsky, P.J., Preface to Shippingport Atomic Power Station thematic issue Progress in Nuclear Energy, Progress in Nuclear Energy (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2017.03.030
2
P.J. Turinsky / Progress in Nuclear Energy xxx (2017) 1e6
Table 1 Similarities in station configuration for PWRs. Attribute Coolant Loops
Shippingport
Contemporary PWRs
4
2-6 2/4 configurations
Comments
Shippingport was designed for full rated power with one loop out of service. Accident consequences, equipment capacities, and component layout considerations determined the number of loops. For the same reasons multi-loops are used today for PWRs. Loop Isolation Valves Yes Sometimes Allowed continued operation and loop component repair with loop isolation valves. Today loop isolation valves are less common because of impact on cost, need, servicing, testing, and nuclear safety. Reactor Vessel Head on Yes No Shippingport allowed individual fuel assemblies to be replaced without taking off Refueling the reactor vessel head. Individual fuel assemblies or entire cores could be replaced with the reactor vessel head off. This supported a flexible fuel development program that contrasts with the limited lead test assembly approach of today. Containment (see Fig. 2) Yes Yes Shippingport placed interconnected chambers around the NSSS components, designed to withstand the pressure from flashing of the Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) total water inventory and secondary side inventory of one steam generator. Similar considerations are considered today, with some containment's subdivided into higher and lower pressure compartments, e.g. BWR and PWR icecondenser. Reactor Vessel (see Fig. 3) Carbon-steel Carbon-steel Shippingport reactor vessel was manufactured from carbon-steel plates and forgings with quarter inch stainless-steel liner to mitigate corrosion. Similar construction has since been used, with improvements in materials and manufacturing technologies and recently greater reliance on forgings. Inlet-Below Core OutletInlet-Above Core Outlet- Shippingport with its ability to isolate both the cold and hot legs using isolation and Reactor Vessel Above Core Above Core check valves, had the flexibility of being able to locate the cold leg inlet below the Penetrations core height. (see Fig. 4) Tube-Shell Horizontal or Shippingport employed saturated steam, which introduced the requirement for Steam Generators 2 Tube-Shell Horizontal adding moisture-separators/reheaters to the main turbine’s configuration. Current Vertical (see Fig. 5) Straight Tube plants utilize mainly U-tube steam generators, but horizontal steam generators and U-Tube 2 U-Tube once through vertical [some with super-heat] configurations have also been used. Reactor Coolant Pumps Dual Speed Single or Dual Speed Shippingport utilized a canned wet pump-motor design avoiding the need for (see Fig. 6) reactor coolant pump (RCP) seals. Most RCPs today utilize a multi-seal configuration, but canned RCPs have reappeared in generation III þ designs. Pressurizer Steam-Water Design Steam-Water Design Shippingport utilized a typical steam-water design using electric heaters and sprays as has been subsequently used by PWRs. Power Operated Relief Valves (PORV) and safety valves are used to protect the NSSS from over pressurization. Reactivity Control Control Rods Soluble Poison Burnable Shippingport considered the usage of both soluble poison and burnable poison, but Poison Control Rods elected to solely utilize control rods. Shippingport's control rods utilized a hafnium absorber, which is also utilized today in addition or combination with Ag-In-Cd and B4C. Zirc2 cladding was employed for these cruciform shaped rods. Like current PWRs, control rods were grouped and overlapped. Emergency Feedwater 2 Main FW Pumps 2-4 Safety (Auxiliary) FW Shippingport oversized two normal FW pumps so each had full rated power (FW) System Pumps capacity, instead of providing separate safety FW pumps. Emergency Core Cooling Yes Yes Shippingport system leveraged normal plant equipment to a larger extent than System subsequent PWRs do. Decay Heat Removal Yes Yes Shippingport appears to complete cooldown by blowing secondary side steam to System the atmosphere. Residual heat removal, once the plant is cooled down and depressurized, is done using equipment needed for normal operations versus a dedicated residual heat removal system. Core Design 1 (see Fig. 7) Seed: U-Zirc2 Alloy Plates Cladding: Zircaloy 2, 4 and Shippingport was designed to allow substantial changes in the core configuration and fuel design. All designs were based upon the heterogeneous seed-blanket derivatives Fuel: UO2 (93%) Enrichment: <5% Loading concept, with seed fuel replaced more frequently than blanket fuel. Three core Blanket: UO2 Pellets Pattern: Typically Checker- designs were deployed in Shippingport, with the third design demonstrating the (0.71%) Zirc2 Clad Core Design 2 Seed: UO2-ZrO2-CaO capability to achieve breeding in a PWR. Metallic seed fuel what used in the first board Low Leakage (enriched) Plates design but not subsequently employed. Metallic fuel has been considered for fast Blanket: UO2 Plates (0.71%) reactors and most recently Light Water Reactors (LWRs). Zirc4 Clad Core Design 3 Seed: UO2-ThO2 Pellets (U233 enriched) Blanket: ThO2 Pellets Zirc4 Clad Representative Fluid Parameter Values (@ Rated Power) Primary Side Pressure 2000 psia 2250 psia Shippingport's low coolant temperatures were the result of assuring that the maximum fuel cladding temperature limit was not violated during normal Outlet Temperature 538 F 600-620 F operation. This in turn lowered steam pressure, which was further impacted by RV Pressure Drop 40.5 psi 45-50 psi usage of a constant TAvg program. Secondary Side Steam Pressure 600 psia 800-850 psia Containment Design Pressure 52.8 psi ~60 psi (dry type)
Please cite this article in press as: Turinsky, P.J., Preface to Shippingport Atomic Power Station thematic issue Progress in Nuclear Energy, Progress in Nuclear Energy (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2017.03.030
P.J. Turinsky / Progress in Nuclear Energy xxx (2017) 1e6
Fig. 2. Erection of one of the boiler chambers.
Fig. 3. Reactor vessel being placed.
Please cite this article in press as: Turinsky, P.J., Preface to Shippingport Atomic Power Station thematic issue Progress in Nuclear Energy, Progress in Nuclear Energy (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2017.03.030
3
4
P.J. Turinsky / Progress in Nuclear Energy xxx (2017) 1e6
Fig. 4. Reactor vessel and its content.
Please cite this article in press as: Turinsky, P.J., Preface to Shippingport Atomic Power Station thematic issue Progress in Nuclear Energy, Progress in Nuclear Energy (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2017.03.030
P.J. Turinsky / Progress in Nuclear Energy xxx (2017) 1e6
5
Fig. 5. Straight tube heat exchanger portion of steam generator. Fig. 6. Reactor coolant pump installation.
Shippingport project would contribute to. The original planned budget for the station was $38M with the actual expenditures being $55M. Training was done using the Nautilus prototype since no realistic, real-time simulator was available at that time. Staffing level was 132 individuals. In contrast to some other nuclear energy facilities of the time where co-production of plutonium occurred, the station was operated for the sole purpose of generating electrical energy. Independently overseeing the project was the Reactor Safety Commission, perhaps a pre-runner to the USA Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). A government representative was on-sight, perhaps a pre-runner to NRC resident site inspectors. Regarding similarity with present day nuclear power stations, Table 1 contrast some of the key attributes of Shippingport versus the dominant PWR designs to follow. What is apparent from Table 1 is how many of Shippingport's attributes regarding components, materials, and operating conditions are similar to those used in today's PWRs and to a lesser extent Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs), an indication of the thoughtfulness of the Shippingport design team. In this thematic issue, the intent is to review the evolution of power reactors from different aspects from the time of Shippingport startup to the present and beyond. This is accomplished through a series of articles on those different aspects authored by individuals who have expertise in each of these aspects. Table 2 indicates the articles and their intended content in the order they appear in this thematic issue.
As expected, Articles 2 through 4 focuses on the evolution of PWR, BWR and Generation IV NSSSs. Article 5 does likewise, but now focused on LWR fuel evolution. Article 6 discusses the development of the regulatory framework, followed by Article 7 discussion of the impact of PRA and severe accident analysis which have increasingly impacted this framework. Articles 8 and 9 are intended to bring in electric utilities’ perspectives with regard to operations and role on nuclear power production today and into the future. This thematic issue is concluded by Article 10, which traces the changes in public attitudes and underlying reasons for these changes. A sincere thank you to all the authors who have contributed to this thematic issue. Writing an article that spans six decades of evolution is not a task to be taken lightly. One may wonder why so many of the authors are associated with the USA nuclear power program. One obvious reason is that the special editor, yours truly, is from the USA and knows individuals from this community better. Another more defensible reason is that the birthplace of commercial nuclear power was the USA with regard to PWRs and BWRs, and the NRC regulatory framework has served as a model for many regulatory agencies around the world. I hope that you find the content of this thematic issue does do due homage to the 60th anniversary of first criticality and electrical energy placement on the grid by the Shippingport Atomic Power Station.
Please cite this article in press as: Turinsky, P.J., Preface to Shippingport Atomic Power Station thematic issue Progress in Nuclear Energy, Progress in Nuclear Energy (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2017.03.030
6
P.J. Turinsky / Progress in Nuclear Energy xxx (2017) 1e6
Fig. 7. Core 1 loading showing seed, blanket and control rod locations.
Table 2 Articles descriptive title and intended content. Article Descriptive Title
Abstract
1 2 3 4 5
Preamble: Remembering Shippingport Design Evolution of PWRs: Shippingport to Generation IIIþ Design Evolution of BWRs: Dresden to Generation IIIþ Looking Ahead at Reactor Development Nuclear Fuel‘s Maturing: Past to Accident Tolerant Fuels
6 7 8
Development of the Regulatory Framework Impact of Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) and Severe Accidents Analysis on Plant Design and Operations Recognizing Role of Operations on Nuclear Plant Performance
9
An Electric Utility's Perspective on Nuclear Energy's Role
10
Changing Public Attitudes Towards Nuclear Energy
An overview of the Shippingport Nuclear Power Station and this thematic volume's content. Review of the advancement of PWR designs from Shippingport to Generation III þ reactors Review of the advancement of BWR designs from Dresden to Generation III þ reactors Review of the development and demonstration of Generation IV reactor designs Review of LWR fuel development from stainless steel claddings to proposed accident tolerant fuels Review of the maturing of the regulatory process as reflected by example in NRC maturing Review of the roles that PRA and severe accident analysis has played in plant designs, normal operations, and severe accident management Lessons learned from operating experiences as reflected in changes to operating practices through communal learning Considerations that an electric utility operator accounts for in deciding on plant lifetime extension, new build, and support for new technology development The changes in public attitudes toward nuclear energy with time and the underlying reasons for these shifts in public attitudes
References Clayton, J.C., 1993. The Shippingport Pressurized Water Reactor and Light Water Breeder Reactor. WAPD-T-3007. Westinghouse Electric Corporation.
The Shippingport Pressurized Water Reactor, written by personnel of the Naval Reactor Branch, 1958. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, and Duquesne Light Company. Reading. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc. (Note all figures are taken from this reference).
Please cite this article in press as: Turinsky, P.J., Preface to Shippingport Atomic Power Station thematic issue Progress in Nuclear Energy, Progress in Nuclear Energy (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2017.03.030