Environmental Letters
ISSN: 0013-9300 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lesa17
Locating Nuclear Power Plants Underground Frank M. Scott To cite this article: Frank M. Scott (1975) Locating Nuclear Power Plants Underground, Environmental Letters, 9:4, 333-353, DOI: 10.1080/00139307509435862 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00139307509435862
Published online: 02 Sep 2009.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 3
View related articles
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=2esa20 Download by: [University of Cambridge]
Date: 05 November 2015, At: 13:18
ENVIRONXENTAL LETTERS,
9 ( 4 ) , 333-353 (1975)
LOCATING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS UNDERGROUND Frank M. Scott Harza Engineering Company Chicago, 111inois ABSTRACT
Environmental Letters 1975.9:333-353.
T h i s paper reviews some of t h e questions t h a t have been asked by
experts and o t h e r s as to why nuclear power plants a r e not located o r placed underground.
While t h e safeguards and present designs make such i n s t a l l -
ations unnecessary, there a r e some d e f i n i t e advantages t h a t warrant the additional c o s t involved.
First of a l l , such an arrangement does s a t i s f y
the psychological concern of a number of people and, i n so doing, might gain the acceptance of the public so t h a t such plants could be constructed i n urban areas of load centers.
The r e s u l t s of these studies are presented
and some of the requirements necessary f o r underground i n s t a l l a t i o n s described, including rock conditions, depth o f f a c i l i t i e s , and economics. INTRODUCTION The question has been raised by a number of people as t o why nuclear power plants a r e not located underground.
The obvious answer, of course,
i s t h a t placing such an i n s t a l l a t i o n underground does add to the c o s t of the f a c i l i t y , b u t i t does have some advantages t h a t will be discussed . i n this paper.
I would l i k e to s t r e s s t h a t I am not implying t h a t such
plants a r e unsafe constructed as they a r e on the surface.
The procedures
333 Copyright 0 1975 by hlnrcd Dckker, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Neither this &ork nor any p ~ r tmay be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechnnical, including photocopying, microfilming, nnd recording,or by any informationstorage and retrievnlsystrm,without permission in uriting from the publisher.
334
SCOTT
and c r i t e r i a established by the Atomic Energy Commission, perhaps, make these i n s t a l l a t i o n s safer than any o t h e r p l a n t o r f a c i l i t y . Locating o r p l a c i n g a nuclear power p l a n t underground does s a t i s f y the psychological concerns o f some o f t h e people and, consequently, m i g h t be the means t h a t w i l l a l l o w the l o c a t i o n o f such f a c i l i t i e s near load centers and urban areas.
Such i n s t a l l a t i o n s a l s o provide a d d i t i o n a l
p r o t e c t i o n from sabotage, f a l l i n g a i r c r a f t , m i s s i l e s , and elements such as tornadoes and hurricanes.
Locating power p l a n t s near l o a d centers
Environmental Letters 1975.9:333-353.
also reduces the transmission costs which, i n many cases, might have t o be underground, and i f so, t h i s i n i t s e l f can more than o f f s e t t h e a d d i t i o n a l c o s t involved. As Mr. Roddis o f Consolidated Edison pointed o u t i n a t a l k e n t i t l e d "Metropolitan S i t i n g o f Nuclear Power P l a n t s " presented t o the IAEA Symposium on Environmental Aspects o f Nuclear Power S t a t i o n s i n August,
1970, a t the United Nations, the c o s t c i t e d t o b r i n g 1,000 Mde i n by underground transmission 25 miles i n t o the l o a d c e n t e r would be $180 m r e per k i l o w a t t than an i n - c i t y s i t e . There a r e a number o f areas t h a t a r e m r e susceptible t o seismic disturbances and i n such areas p l a c i n g a nuclear power p l a n t underground does increase the a b i l i t y o f the f a c i l i t y t o withstand seismic shock. Although the analyses o f such disturbances a r e complex, t h e stresses caused from such shocks a r e f r e q u e n t l y a f u n c t i o n o f the h e i g h t o f the s t r u c t u r e s above rock foundations.
Rizzo
1 i n d i c a t e d t h a t underground r o c k
caverns should have seismic accelerations h a l f t h a t o f those experienced on the surface. While the s h i e l d i n g now provided on nuclear power p l a n t s i s more adequate, p l a c i n g t h e r e a c t o r s i n rock chambers provides n a t u r a l b i o l o g i c a l s h i e l d i n g way i n excess o f t h e requirements.
Underground i n s t a l l a t i o n s
UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
335
located i n s o l i d rock a l s o provide an excellent answer a s to how t o decomnission nuclear plants i n t h e future.
The same cond tions apply and
are a v a i l a b l e i n the unlikely event of a serious accident, as the s t a t i o n can be arranged t o be flooded and sealed if the need would a r i s e . Placing f a c i l i t i e s underground is not a new idea, and as Mr. Sorensen brought o u t i n his paper "A Fourth Dimension f o r Urban Environments,"* the trend i n the f u t u r e may be more from the highrise building t o underground
Environmental Letters 1975.9:333-353.
installations.
Most of you a r e f a m i l i a r with the use of underground
caverns and tunnels f o r t h e storage of energy, i.e.
, o i l , gas
and water.
In the f i e l d of transportation, subways have been used f o r years around the world and the storage of meat and o t h e r foods have a l s o been i n underground
facilities. There have been a number of papers and s t u d i e s presented and conducted involving the placement of nuclear power plants underground. some of these s t u d i e s was presented by Mr. F. C. Olds i n i n October, 1971.3
A review of
Power Engineering
Mr. Harza a l s o discussed this i n a paper a t the Annual
4 Meeting of the ASCE i n October, 1969 and reviewed some of the i n s t a l l a t i o n s
outside of t h e U.S.
I p a r t i c u l a r l y want to give c r e d i t t o Mr. Rogers of
Harza Engineering Company f o r t h e s t u d i e s he conducted
5
.
Since I worked
w i t h Mr. Rogers f o r several years before he elected t o take e a r l y retire-
ment i n 1973, I am using some of t h e information he developed and presented a t the 1971 Pmerican Power Conference and published i n t h e October, 1971 Bulletin of The Atomic S c i e n t i s t s .
He a l s o conducted a seminar on Under-
ground S i t i n g of Nuclear Power Plants a t Oak Ridge on September, 1971. While there have been many s t u d i e s , there seem to be only four underground nuclear power plants, t o my knowledge, t h a t have been a c t u a l l y
336
SCOTT
constructed.
All of these were i n Europe.
These have been q u i t e small and
I understand t h e one i n Lucerne, Switzerland of 30 b h t , which was a gascooled heavy water experimental p l a n t has been decommissioned. a f t e r a pressure tube rupture occurred i n 1969.
This was
A larger installation
located i n the s i d e of a mountain i n the Meuse Valley i n France i s a PWR now rated a t 275 the.
A good current summary o f the four nuclear reactors placed underground
Environmental Letters 1975.9:333-353.
i n Europe; namely, Lucerne S t a t i o n and t h e Chooz Plant (lleuse Valley) mentioned above, the 25
plant i n Halden, Norway and the 70 b h t (70 Ftwt
used f o r central heating) plant i n Agerta, Sweden, was outlined by R. K. Dodds6 i n a February, 1974 Foundation Sciences Newsletter. The l a r g e s t one t h a t I have heard about was a 1200 b h t p l a n t , which was reported t o be considered t o be i n s t a l l e d underground near a populated area of 500,000 people i n Germany, b u t t o the best of my knowledge, this has not gone ahead
t o date. For many years underground hydroelectric power plants have been constructed and, i n many cases, a r e on a s c a l e t h a t would be s i m i l a r to i n s t a l l i n g nuclear reactors underground; such as a 700 megawatt hydroelectri power plant t h a t is 2,100 f e e t underground i n Colombia.
Figure 1 shows a
1 i s t of underground hydroelectric power plants t h a t have been constructed
or a r e planned by the Harza Engineering Company. Type of Plant and Arrangement The studies made by Harza have been based on placing two 1,100 megawat
units underground.
We have considered primarily the BWR and PWR, b u t there
i s no reason why the HTGR could not be a l s o i n s t a l l e d underground.
So we
would have a s p e c i f i c base and dimensions our studies u t i l i z e d the BWR,
DIMENSIONS OF MAIH CAVERN IFEETI
YEAH
INITIAL
Environmental Letters 1975.9:333-353.
mbre
ien
CX'ACITY
OPERnTI3EI (Mw -
NO.
HEAD (FEI:T)
L
5
!!
Lempa R i v e r , E l Salvador
1951
81.4
5
161
235
43
66
Agno Kivcr, Philippines
1956
75.0
3
506
260
45
70
Barakar R i v e r , India
1958
60.0
3
128
235
45
66
Nare R i v e r ,
1971
132.0
2
2640
300
55
100
1971
360.0
4
902
295
70
115
500.0
4
1640
300
72
120
1,710.0
6
886
894
60
120
LOCATION
UNITS
PUNNING DESIm ENGINW -~
Colombia Tachia River, Taiwan G i l a River, I n d i a n Rcs., Arizona
Pending?'
orage
k orage
Stony Creek, Pennsylvania
Pending
'
C l i e n t engineers shared engineering responsibility. Harza s e r v e d under SubContract t o l o c a l Colombian firm. L i c e n s e of U.S.
F e d e r a l Power C o m i s s i o n h a s been r e c e i v e d .
FIG.
1
UNDERGROUND POWER PLANTS ENGINEERED BY IIARZA
X
X
X
338
SCOTT
b u t another type could have been used j u s t as well.
For ease i n discussing
c o s t s , this paper will review some of our findings f o r two u n i t s rated l , l N megawatts.
These costs a r e based on placing the e n t i r e conventional plant
underground, including a l l the conventional shielding used on the sdrface. Three arrangements were considered.
One was t o place the two reactors
underground with the turbine/generators, radwaste and o t h e r f a c i l i t i e s on t h e surface.
The second arrangement was t o place the reactors underground
Environmental Letters 1975.9:333-353.
b u t with the turbine/generator and other f a c i l i t i e s i n a p i t below the
surface of the gound.
The t h i r d arrangement was t o place a l l of t h e
f a c i l i t i e s , including the reactors and turbine/generators, underground. These t h r e e arrangements a r e shown on Figure 2. S i t e Requirements Some of t h e requirements t h a t must be considered before placing a nuclear power plant underground a r e the rock conditions i n a given area, depths involved and water a v a i l a b i l i t y .
First of a l l , t h e r e must be suit-
able and competent rock formations i n any area where the plant i s t o be located.
As f a r as t h e depth i s considered, f o r biological shielding only
10 o r 20 f e e t would be required.
However, to provide s t r u c t u r a l i n t e g r i t y
o f an arch above the chamber i t would require approximately 100 f e e t of
s o l i d rock.
psi.
This would a l s o withstand the design pressures of 45 t o 60
To insure t h a t the groundwater seepage i s inward t o the chamber and
would not be contaminated by the design overpressures, t h i s would require the roof t o be 150 f e e t t o 250 f e e t below the groundwater table. Although, i n most cases, there would be no problem with groundwater, there i s always a p o s s i b i l i t y i n some areas t h a t i n the event of an extended dry s p e l l t h e seepage i n t o the chambers would completely drain
Environmental Letters 1975.9:333-353.
UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR POIJER PLANTS 339
340
SCOTT
t h e groundwater above the chamber. thereby eliminating the hydrostatic pressures which would r e s i s t overpressures i n the event of an accident. In such cases, positive protection can be achieved by surrounding t h e excavated area with a s e r i e s of wells, which would be recharged t o maintain t h e groundwater level i n the v i c i n i t y of t h e reactor and o t h e r chambers, thereby assuring the continuing flow of seepage i n t o t h e chambers (Figure
Environmental Letters 1975.9:333-353.
3).
This, i n my opinion, answers t h e concern as to t h e e f f e c t on groundwat,
expressed by Mr. Golze mentioned i n the March, 1973 Professional Engineer
7
.
Chambers and Shafts The reactor chambers, as studied, t h a t s h o u l d be adequate f o r the i n s t a l l a t i o n considered are 80 f e e t wide and 550 f e e t long. a r e practical.
Such widths
The maximum height required from the f l o o r t o the roof i s
240 f e e t a t both ends of t h e chamber where the two reactors would be installed.
The center section can be stepped up 175 f e e t i n height so t h a t
the c e n t e r or surface area would be 70 f e e t h i g h . mately 300,000 t o 400,000 cubic f e e t of excavation.
T h i s requires approxiThe arrangement of
this chamber i s shown on Figure 4. Equiprnent Considerations
The turbine/generator room is shown on Figure 5 and is approximately 260 f e e t wide, 685 f e e t l o n g , and 150 f e e t h i g h , so i f this was placed below the surface as proposed f o r t h e second arrangement, this involves excavation of approximately one m i l l i o n cubic yards o f material. The s h a f t s required would involve an operational access s h a f t 25 f e e t i n diameter which would contain the e l e v a t o r and control wiring.
I f the
turbine/generator f a c i l i t y was placed on t h e surface o r i n a p i t below the ground level two additional s h a f t s , 22 f e e t i n diameter, would be required
'
34 1
Environmental Letters 1975.9:333-353.
UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
FIG.
3
AQUIFIER PROTECTION
SCOTT
Environmental Letters 1975.9:333-353.
34 2
i FIG.
4
UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
Environmental Letters 1975.9:333-353.
UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
-
34 3
344
SCOTT
f o r t h e steam and f e e d w a t e r l i n e s .
The main c o n s t r u c t i o n s h a f t would be
about 27 f e e t i n diameter and would be c e n t r a l l y l o c a t e d .
These s h a f t s
would r e q u i r e a t o t a l e x c a v a t i o n o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 50,000 c u b i c yards. The p r e s s u r e containment f o r t h e r e a c t o r would be p r o v i d e d by a c y l i n d r i c a l s t e e l p l a t e v e s s e l a p p r o x i m a t e l y 100 f e e t h i g h and supported on an 80 f o o t diameter c o n c r e t e c y l i n d e r w h i c h a l s o serves as t h e p r e s s u r e suspension chamber.
B i o l o g i c a l s h i e l d i n g would be p r o v i d e d by c o n c r e t e
Environmental Letters 1975.9:333-353.
s u r f a c e d r o c k on t h r e e s i d e s w i t h a r e i n f o r c e d c o n c r e t e w a l l e x t e n d i n g across t h e chamber t o f o r m t h e f o u r t h s i d e . Some c o n s i d e r a t i o n s as t o o t h e r r e l a t e d equipment i n v o l v e t h e t u r b i n e / g e n e r a t o r room, condensers, and t r a n s f o r m e r s .
Locating the turbine/generator
room a t t h e s u r f a c e o r i n a p i t means t h a t one o f t h e m a i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a r e the steam l i n e s .
I f t h i s i s l o c a t e d a t t h e same l e v e l as t h e r e a c t o r ,
t h i s involves other considerations.
Assuming t h a t t h e t u r b i n e / g e n e r a t o r
room ( F i g u r e 6) i s a t t h e same l e v e l , say 600 f e e t , t h i s would mean t h a t t h e condenser and a s s o c i a t e d p i p i n g would have t o w i t h s t a n d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 275 pounds p e r square inch.
I n t h e condensers, t h i s p r o b a b l y would be done by
u t i l i z i n g s t a n d a r d 7/8 i n c h tubes w i t h .018 i n c h w a l l t h i c k n e s s b u t w i t h stainless steel.
T h i s s h o u l d p r o v i d e a reasonable s a f e t y f a c t o r o f about 7
o r 8 t o 1 and w i t h no change i n t h e f r i c t i o n l o s s .
C o n s i d e r a t i o n would be
g i v e n t o going t o a h e a v i e r w a l l t h i c k n e s s u t i l i z i n g a d m i r a l t y metal which would reduce t h e e f f i c i e n c y somewhat.
P r e v i o u s l y , t h e a d m i r a l t y metal
would be l e s s expensive and t h e use o f s t a i n l e s s s t e e l would be a f a c t o r as you need a p p r o x i m a t e l y 800,000 square f e e t o f condenser s u r f a c e f o r each 1,100 M I u n i t .
However, t h e copper market today i s most u n p r e d i c t a b l e and
so t h i s i s i n c l u d e d i n o u r contingency estimates.
UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR POWEX PLANTS
345 ,Cabla Shaft
,
.Condenser Water
Shafts
Environmental Letters 1975.9:333-353.
Heaters, D~mineralixerr.Control,Radwaste,Condensate
Storow
1
Steam lines and Fee dwater Lines
Tunnels Shaft For Removal Of S p Fuel ond Salad Waste Dru
Reactor No1
Reactor N 9 2
'Primary Containment Vessel
FIG.
6 'UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR PLANT
Locating t h e turbine/generator a t the surface o r i n a p i t involves l i t t l e o r no problems as f a r as t h e transformers and generator t o transformer connections are concerned.
However, i f t h e turbine/generator room f a c i l i t i e s
are l o c a t e d a t t h e same l e v e l as the reactors, a study would have t o be made t o determine whether o r n o t the transformers should be placed a t the surface
o r i n the lower l e v e l .
Losses o f 1,100 MVA transformer would be approxi-
mately 5,500 k i l o w a t t s and i t probably would be best t o use water t o o i l heat exchangers i f i n s t a l l e d underground.
Consideration a l s o should be
given t o u t i l i z i n g two h a l f capacity 3-phase transformers as opposed t o one s i n g l e 3-phase 1,100 MVA transformer.
Another arrangement would be t o
u t i l i z e s i x s i n g l e phase transformers with an a d d i t i o n a l u n i t as a spare. The cost o f such equipment can change depending on economic conditions b u t
346
SCOTT
f o u r s i n g l e phase u n i t s should be c o n s i d e r e d and s t u d i e d .
W h i l e t h e operatins
r e c o r d o f l a r g e t h r e e phase t r a n s f o r m e r s i s good, t h e r e p a i r of such a l a r g e u n i t , i f i t was l o c a t e d underground, would p r e s e n t problems, and a spare s i n g l e u n i t has some m e r i t . Ift h e transformers a r e l o c a t e d underground, i t p r o b a b l y would be b e s t
t o come o u t w i t h 345 kV SF6 gas i n s u l a t e d bus.
I f the generator i s a t the
lower r e a c t o r l e v e l and t h e t r a n s f o r m e r s a r e o n t h e s u r f a c e , t h e use o f s o l i d d i e l e c t r i c c a b l e o r i s o l a t e d phase bus would be a p o s s i b i l i t y , SO as
Environmental Letters 1975.9:333-353.
t o t a k e t h e v o l t a g e d i r e c t l y f r o m t h e g e n e r a t o r a t 20 t o 23 kV.
T h i s would
depend t o some e x t e n t on t h e r e l a t i v e c o s t of aluminum bus vs aluminum o r copper cable.
There i s a pumped s t o r a g e p l a n t i n Japan t h a t went i n t o
s e r v i c e i n 1970 where t h e g e n e r a t o r l e a d s were b r o u g h t o u t by 16.5 kV i s o l a t e d phase bus 780 f e e t .
T h i s i n v o l v e d 9000 amperes and a 250 bfi4 u n i t .
Another 250 MI4 u n i t i s t o be added.
These arrangements and d e c i s i o n s must
always be r e e v a l u a t e d and a r e t h e f u n c t i o n o f s e v e r a l f a c t o r s , i n c l u d i n g new developments. C o n s t r u c t i o n Proqram and Schedule One o f t h e m a j o r problems i n o u r s t u d y was i n s t a l l i n g t h e r e a c t o r vessel underground, as t h i s was t h e h e a v i e s t and l a r g e s t l i f t w i t h t h e BWR facility.
Such a vessel weighs i n t h e o r d e r o f 900 t o 1,000 t o n s , and w h i l e
t h i s c o u l d be handled, i t would be expensive and t i m e consuming t o p l a c e i t underground.
Our p l a n was t o f a b r i c a t e t h e r e a c t o r vessels underground as
was done on t h e M o n t i c e l l o P l a n t i n Minnesota.
The procedure i n t h i s case
would be t o s h i p t h e r e a c t o r i n a number o f m a j o r pieces w i t h t h e f i e l d w e l d i n g and s t r e s s r e l i e v i n g t h e vessel done on t h e s i t e o r underground.
It
i s e s t i m a t e d t h a t f o r a BUR o f 1,100 megawatts t h e h e a v i e s t p i e c e s would be a p p r o x i m a t e l y 110 tons and 22-1/2 f e e t i n diameter.
We have been assured
t h a t f i e l d f a b r i c a t i o n o f PWR r e a c t o r s i s a l s o p r a c t i c a l and, i n f a c t , t h e r e
347
UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
have been s e v e r a l committments f o r p a r t i a l f i e l d assembly o f such v e s s e l s , which i n v o l v e s w e l d i n g s t e e l s e c t i o n s 10-1/2 t o l l - i / 2 . inches t h i c k .
The
o u t s i d e d i a m e t e r o f a PWR i s l e s s than t h a t o f a BWR o r on t h e o r d e r o f 15 feet. Other types o f r e a c t o r s would have d i f f e r e n t requirements and, i n t h e case o f t h e HTGR, t h e g e n e r a t o r s t a t o r would p r o b a b l y be t h e h e a v i e s t piece, b u t a l l o f t h e s e can be accommodated w i t h p r o p e r p l a n n i n g and p r e p a r a t i o n . F i g u r e 7 shows a schedule w h i c h i s based o n what we c o n s i d e r r e l a t i v e l y
Environmental Letters 1975.9:333-353.
c o n s e r v a t i v e r a t e s of excavation.
As shown on t h e E x h i b i t , t h e e l e v a t o r s ,
cranes, and w a t e r c o n t r o l d e v i c e s would r e q u i r e a p p r o x i m a t e l y two years f r o m t h e s t a r t o f c o n s t r u c t i o n u n t i l t h e underground chamber i s ready t o r e c e i v e the reactor.
T h i s p a r t i c u l a r schedule i s based on a t w e n t y - f i v e w o r k i n g day
month w i t h two s h i f t s p e r day.
YEAR, QTR.MOVE- I N AND SET-UP EXCAVATE ACCESS S H A F T D R I F T TO OTHER SHAFTS RAISE DRILL OTHER S H A F T S SLASH SHAFTS REACTOR CHAMBER CONCRETE
(1)
I
2
I
2
3
4
I
2
3
4
I -
I I
(2) (3) (4)
I
I 1
34 0
SCOTT
Cost Analysis The costs considered i n t h i s study have been l i m i t e d t o the additional costs involved by placing the nuclear power p l a n t underground.
No c r e d i t
has been taken f o r reduction o f housing requirements which would have t o be provided on the surface.
The foundation a v a i l a b l e i n such underground
s t a t i o n s are superior t o those i n conventional surface arrangements and no
,
c r e d i t has been taken f o r the s i m p l i f i c a t i o n i n the design and the reduction
Environmental Letters 1975.9:333-353.
i n s i z e o f the foundations t h a t would be required t o support the various
components on the surface.
Layouts 1 t h r u 3 show the incremental costs o f
placing two 1,100 megawatt nuclear power plants underground.
The quantities
o f excavation are shown and the actual c o s t i n d o l l a r s i s shown f o r the d i f f e r e n t types o f excavation, concrete,and the a d d i t i o n a l h o i s t s and elevators required. Excavation o f the underground chambers was p r i c e d a t approximately $27 per cubic yard, i n c l u d i n g an allowance f o r p r o t e c t i v e measures, such as rock b o l t i n g and anchors.
The excavation o f the p i t as provided f o r Layout No. 2
i s p r i m a r i l y a q u a r r y i n g operation and so i s estimated a t a much lower figure, o r $2.20 per cubic yard. Additional costs are included f o r concrete, h o i s t s , cranes, shafts and elevators.
These are a l l shown on Layouts Nos. 1 through 3.
Sununarizing, the incremental o r a d d i t i o n a l costs f o r Layout No. 1 i s on the order o f $26 m i l l i o n t o place the two 1,100 b e u n i t s underground, o r approximately $12 per k i l o w a t t .
Arrangement o f Layout No. 2 would come t o
$29 m i l l i o n o r $13 t o $13.50 per kilowatt.
Placing a l l f a c i l i t i e s underground
as shown on Layout No. 3 would be on the order o f $50.5 m i l l i o n o r $23 per k i 1 owatt.
INCREMENTAL COST OF COMPLETE UNDERGROUND SITING FOR TWO 1 , 1 0 0 MFle UNITS
Environmental Letters 1975.9:333-353.
Layout 1
Quantity
cost ( I n $1,000)
xcavation N u c l e a r Chamber
300,000 c y
$ 8,000
Shaf ts
40,000 c y
2 I200
Water S t o r a g e a n d P a s s a g e s
10,000 c y
550
oncrete N u c l e a r Chamber Arch
10,000 c y
1,200
S h a f t , Water S t o r a g e a n d Passage L i n i n g
17,000 c y
1,eoo
L.S.
1,150
A d d i t i o n a l Hoists, C r a n e s , a n d E l e v a t o r s
A d d i t i o n a l Steam and Feedwater L i n e s S u b t o t a l Direct C o s t Contingencies and Engineering
OTAL
4 , 5 0 0 If
5 ,100 $20,000
6,000 $26,000
INCREMENTAL COST OF COMPLETE UNDERGROUND SITING F O R TWO 1 , 1 0 0 NWe UNITS
Environmental Letters 1975.9:333-353.
Layout 2
cost
Quantity
(In
$1,000)
Excavation N u c l e a r Chamber Shafts
Water Storage a n d P a s s a g e s
300,000 c y
$ 8,000
40,000 c y
2,200
10,000 cy
550
1,000,000 cy
2,200
N u c l e a r Chamber A r c h
10,000 c y
1,200
S h a f t , Water S t o r a g e a n d Passage L i n i n g
17,000 c y
1,800
L.S.
1,150
4 , 5 0 0 If
5,100
Turbine-Generator and A u x i l i a r y P i t
Concrete
A d d i t i o n a l Hoists, C r a n e s , and E l e v a t o r s A d d i t i o n a l Steam and Feedwater L i n e s S u b t o t a l Direct C o s t Contingencies and Engineering
TOTAL
$22,200' 6,800
$29,000
35 1
UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
0 0 0
u lnrl
0-
V
0
0
0
0
c o o m o m o r l
....
m
m
rl
m
d
0
0
0
N
m
4
0 cf
o c
N
(j\
L "
m
d
m
c\I
A
m
r n d m r l
0
v)
v)
O
0
. -
C
m
Ui-
0
..
H
Environmental Letters 1975.9:333-353.
-I
h h h h
h
h
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
O
O
W
d
O
A
m
N
u u v v
v u
. . - . o. w.
m m
0 0
C
0
G
r l N
ln
V C
D
.4
il
.4
(I!
h
0
5 C
a
LI V
Lc
V
u
4J
>
0 C
3 5
.A
a
c) 4
w
5
a ln
u
ln .rl
0
a
0
o
t 5 5
E u
z
m
4
4
a C
a
0
0
4
Ti
4
4
u
5 T l
u
a
5 a: a:
u
tr
c
l n w
0
v a u
C n
m
352
SCOTT
As mentioned e a r l i e r , no c r e d i t has been taken f o r some savings t h a t
would be inherent i n the underground i n s t a l l a t i o n .
I f t h e rock removed
could be sold f o r aggregate, this would reduce the excavation costs. However, i t i s believed t h e range i n additional costs involved, depending on the arrangement used, would be $12 t o $23 per kilowatt. CONCLUSION
I t i s my opinion t h a t i t is just a question of time before there a r e
Environmental Letters 1975.9:333-353.
major sized nuclear plants constructed underground i n those areas t h a t have s u i t a b l e rock formations.
Psychologically the concern of the public w i l l
be s a t i s f i e d more r e a d i l y when such i n s t a l l a t i o n s , t h a t a r e to be near urban o r population centers , will be embedded several hundred f e e t below the surface i n s o l i d rock.
The advantages c i t e d i n the paper a r e most
s i g n i f i c a n t when such power plants a r e near load centers. The geometry and arrangements of t h e reactors , turbines , generators , etc., studied i n this paper a r e overly conservative, and i f we examine the biological needs and t h e pressure containment requirements, i t i s logical t h a t i t is not necessary t o provide the same degree o f protection i n chambers below 400 f e e t of rock t h a t i s required on the surface.
would allow a reduction i n the cost.
This
However, the incremental o r
additional c o s t s of $12 t o $23 a kilowatt, depending on t h e arrangement, compares q u i t e favorably t o o t h e r extras or additional expenses t h a t have been accepted t o meet environmental needs. REFERENCES 1. P. C. Rizzo, "Seismologic/Geologic C r i t e r i a and Considerations f o r Siting Surface and Underground Nuclear Plants." From Preprint f o r Meeting on Anti-Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants, Pisa, I t a l y , 1972.
2.
K. E. Sorensen, "A Fourth Dimension For the Urban Environment," Volume UP1, Paper 8064, April, 1971. Proceedinqs
m,
Environmental Letters 1975.9:333-353.
UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
35 3
3.
F. C. Olds, "Underground S i t i n g f o r Nuclear Power Plants, Power Engineering, October, 1971.
4.
R. D. Harza, "The Role of Underground Construction i n Better Urban Environment," Annual Meeting ASCE, October, 1969.
5.
F. C. Rogers, "Underground Nuclear Power Plants," Bulletin o f the Atomic S c i e n t i s t s , October, 1971.
6.
R. K. Dodds, Foundation Sciences, Incorporated, Newsletter, Volume 8, No. 1, dated February 15, 1974.
7.
A. R. Golze, "Impact of Urban Planning on E l e c t r i c U t i l i t i e s , " presented a t ASCE's Water Resources National Meeting i n Washington, D.C. , Professional Enqineer, March, 1973.