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.

Locating nuclear power plants underground.

This paper reviews some of the questions that have been asked by experts and others as to why nuclear power plants are not located or placed undergrou...
1MB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views