Refurbishment: maintaining Canadian nuclear expertise

If it ain’t broke, we didn’t build it.

 

Well not really, it just seems that way.

 

The need to replace the pressure tubes in CANDU reactors after 25 years or so of operation has always been considered a significant disadvantage of the design. Retubing is very complex since the tubes are integral parts of the reactor core. The whole operation must be done in high radioactivity fields in cramped spaces within the reactor confinement structure. Special remote handling tools and techniques need to be developed on a custom basis since each reactor will be somewhat different. To make matters even more complicated, often the owners “take the opportunity” to replace many other components, steam generators for example, while the reactor is down. The whole process has come to be called refurbishment.

 

To be fair other types of reactors also need mid-life repairs. In the past ten years or so the tops (lids) of several US light water reactor pressure vessels have had to be replaced due to premature corrosion. This is a big undertaking in itself but is still a much smaller job than retubing a CANDU. Many US reactors are licensed for 40 to 60 year lifetimes and the possibility of an 80 year or longer lifetime is being researched. 

 

Refurbishment of CANDUs has had a chequered history. The first two Pickering reactors had to be retubed in the 1970’s because a poor alloy was originally selected for the pressure tubes. This set the precedent for refurbishment as an expensive and lengthy undertaking. Refurbishing all four of the Pickering A reactors by OPG cost at least $3 billion total for just two of the reactors. It was subsequently decided that refurbishing the other two was too expensive and they were essentially shut down permanently.  Bruce Power has been soldiering on for the last few years refurbishing two or three of the four Bruce A reactors at a total cost apparently approaching $4 billion. The New Brunswick reactor overhaul, as reported previously in this blog, continues to be over budget and is lagging months behind  schedule with no end in sight.      

 

As for future CANDUs, it’s disappointing to me that the ACR -1000 design envisages refurbishment after 25-30 years. My hope was that they could have avoided this problem by designing more robust pressure tubes. It could be more even difficult to retube an ACR (if one is ever built) because the core has much smaller dimensions – hell in a very small place?

 

In spite of all its problems, there is an upside to refurbishment. With no possibility of building new reactors for five or ten years or more, it’s the only game in town for Canada’s nuclear industry. 

 

The funding for these projects buys goods and services provided by the many companies, great and small, that comprise the nuclear industry. Without it many of them wouldn’t survive.  Cost overruns are mainly labour costs which keep highly skilled engineers employed; preserving the specialized expertise needed to eventually build new reactors. Furthermore, it is apparent that even though refurbishing an existing reactor is costly, it is still much cheaper than building a new one.

 

So roll on refurbishment, it will likely continue to be the sustaining activity of our nuclear industry for years to come.

3 Responses to “Refurbishment: maintaining Canadian nuclear expertise”

  1. Sami Says:

    I think it is not easy to sum up (advantages- disadvantages) for LWR Vs. CANDU and come up with a quick answer. The reasons are while disadvantages listed for CANDU re; pressure tubes (P/T), and feeders’ lifespan, and the need for refurbishment after 25-30 years, versus changes to pressure vessel for PWR, there are hidden advantages for CANDU and disadvantages for LWRs. Those hidden features need to be quantified in $ value to make a fair comparison. For example;
     CANDU (& the ACR 1000) P/T concept allows for continuous refueling on power.
     Failed fuel bundles can be faster removed and stored on power, while for PWR it has to wait to scheduled maintenance outage. This can contribute to potential rise in emission relative to CANDU. Admitantly though, rate of fuel failures became recently a very small percentage.
     Price of enriched fuel versus {natural uranium (or slightly enriched) + heavy water}, over the life of the reactor}. Add to that the security cost of storing enriched fuel for PWR.
     Some maintenance activities can be performed on-power for CANDU,
     CANDU & ACR1000, can (technically) use MOX fuel spent in PWR. Providing, regulatory barriers are removed.
    In summary, we need a complex detailed study to come up with an answer

  2. Milan Says:

    Certainly, maintaining Ontario’s commitment to phase-out coal power would be even more challenging if these reactors cannot be refurbished relatively quickly and at acceptable cost.

  3. i.A. Says:

    See, it is easier said than done.
    It is like saying, “Oh, the airfare would be much less if we could get a fuel economical carrier, bigger than A-380 that would carry more passenger at the same time cost less.” See, in this argument, there are flaws, like one can argue, “Well, they are making the Airbus too luxurious, whereas they could have kept it simple and therefore lower the cost..” let us keep such arguments aside.
    CANDU systems, especially ACR-1000 (and I can’t say much about EPR or AP-1000) have the latest technology in place, hence the price tag on them. You can’t say, why don’t we put a more advanced alloy than Zr-4, because in the given reactor conditions and of the Calandria tubing, this is the best that is out there. One can’t get anything out from the blue that is the best. And as time goes by, we will realize that there was something better, but just not now.
    The biggest problem for cost overruns are not the materials, it is the bureaucratic corruption in these organizations. You will be surprised as to how purposely they slow down the projects to put money in their pockets and cover them up in front of the regulatory staff and even the Commission and media. As said above, the materials aren’t those carrying the price tag, it is the time given by the professionals and I want to add; “professionals”.
    That is why, honest and educated minds have to put their foot forward and clean the mess. It is sad that not only are the past nuclear accidents that harm the industry, it is the mismanagement that is causing the biggest dent.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: