World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant

Article Id: WHEBN0002966768
Reproduction Date:

Title: Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Anti-nuclear movement, Anti-nuclear protests
Collection:
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant

Diablo Canyon Power Plant
Diablo Canyon Power Plant
Diablo Canyon Power Plant
Location of Diablo Canyon Power Plant in California
Coordinates

35°12′39″N 120°51′22″W / 35.21083°N 120.85611°W / 35.21083; -120.85611Coordinates: 35°12′39″N 120°51′22″W / 35.21083°N 120.85611°W / 35.21083; -120.85611

Status Operational
Commission date Unit 1: May 7, 1985
Unit 2: March 13, 1986
Licence expiration Unit 1: November 2, 2024
Unit 2: August 20, 2025
Owner(s) Pacific Gas & Electric
Operator(s) Pacific Gas & Electric
Architect(s) Pacific Gas & Electric
Reactor
Reactors operational 1 x 1118 MW
1 x 1122 MW
Reactor type(s) Pressurized water reactor
Reactor supplier(s) Westinghouse
Power generation
Net generation 18,566[1]
Website PG&E Diablo Canyon
As of 2013-01-27

Diablo Canyon Power Plant is an electricity-generating nuclear power plant at Avila Beach in San Luis Obispo County, California. After the permanent shutdown of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in 2013 it is the only nuclear plant operational in the state. The plant has two Westinghouse-designed 4-loop pressurized-water nuclear reactors operated by Pacific Gas & Electric. The facility is located on about 750 acres (300 ha) in Avila Beach, California. Together, the twin 1,100 MWe reactors produce about 18,000 GW·h of electricity annually, supplying the electrical needs of more than 2.2 million people, sent along the Path 15 500-kV lines that connect to this plant. It was built directly over a geological fault line, and is located near a second fault.[2][3][4][5][6]

The plant is located in Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV. In November 2009, PG&E applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for 20-year license renewals for both reactors.[7]

Units

Unit One

Unit One is a 1,122 MWe pressurized water reactor supplied by Westinghouse. It went online on May 7, 1985 and is licensed to operate through November 2, 2024.[8] In 2006, Unit One generated 9,944,983 MW·h of electricity, at a nominal capacity factor of 101.2 percent.

Unit Two

Unit Two is a 1,118 MWe pressurized water reactor supplied by Westinghouse. It went online on March 3, 1986 and is licensed to operate through August 20, 2025.[8] In 2006, Unit Two generated 8,520,000 MW·h of electricity, at a capacity factor of 88.2 percent.

The plant draws cooling water from the Pacific Ocean, and during heavy storms both units are throttled back by 80 percent to prevent kelp from entering the cooling water intake. The cooling water is used once and is not recirculated but rather returned to the Pacific Ocean at a minutely higher temperature.

Earthquake hazard

Main article: Diablo Canyon earthquake vulnerability

Diablo Canyon was originally designed to withstand a 6.75 magnitude earthquake from four faults, including the nearby San Andreas and Hosgri faults,[9] but was later upgraded to withstand a 7.5 magnitude quake.[10] It has redundant seismic monitoring and a safety system designed to shut it down promptly in the event of significant ground motion.

History

Pacific Gas & Electric Company went through six years of hearings, referenda and litigation to have the Diablo Canyon plant approved. A principal concern about the plant is whether it can be sufficiently earthquake-proof. The site was deemed safe when construction started in 1968.

By the time of the plant's completion in 1973, a seismic fault, the Hosgri fault, had been discovered several miles offshore. This fault had a 7.1 magnitude quake 10 miles offshore on November 4, 1927, and thus was capable of generating forces equivalent to approximately 1/16 of those felt in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake.[11]

The company updated its plans and added structural supports designed to reinforce stability in case of earthquake. In September 1981, PG&E discovered that a single set of blueprints was used for these structural supports; workers were supposed to have reversed the plans when switching to the second reactor, but did not.[12] According to Charles Perrow, the result of the error was that "many parts were needlessly reinforced, while others, which should have been strengthened, were left untouched." [13] Nonetheless, on March 19, 1982 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission decided not to review its 1978 decision approving the plant's safety, despite these and other design errors.[14]

In response to concern that ground acceleration, or shaking, could cause spillage of submerged fuel rod assemblies which, upon exposure to air, could ignite, PG&E and NRC regulators insist that the foregoing scenario is anticipated and controlled for, and that there is no basis to anticipate spillage.[15] Additional seismic studies are in process, though completion of those studies is not a condition precedent to re-issuance of the operating licenses for the two onsite units.[16]

In October 2008, Unit 2 was taken offline for approximately two days due to a rapid influx of jellyfish at the intake.[17]

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's estimate of the risk each year of an earthquake intense enough to cause core damage to the reactor at Diablo Canyon was 1 in 23,810, according to an NRC study published in August 2010.[18][19] In April 2011, in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear incident in Japan, PG&E asked the NRC not to issue license renewals until PG&E can complete new seismic studies, which are expected to take at least three years.[20][21]

In February 2013, Unit 2 was shutdown for refueling and upgrading; Unit 1 will refuel beginning in April 2013.[22]

On June 24, 2013 at 9:20 PM PDT, Diablo Canyon experienced a loss of offsite power to the startup transformers of both units due to a failure on the 230kv transmission system. At the time, none of the startup transformers were loaded as both units were online and their electrical systems were at the time being powered by the plant's turbine generators. However as a precaution the emergency diesel generators started with no load during the outage in case either unit tripped offline while offsite power was unavailable. The electrical output of the plant via the 500kv transmission system was not interrupted allowing both units to remain online during the outage.

Labor

Overall, there are approximately 1200 employees of Pacific Gas and Electric and 200 employees of subcontractors at the Diablo Canyon site.[23] Several unions represent the workforce at Diablo, among them the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the International Association of Machinists. Control Technicians and electricians who work for Crane Nuclear, one of many subcontractors, are represented by the IBEW Local 1245.[24] 1245 also represents PG&E meter readers, clerical workers, etc.[25] Local 639,which is involved with Diablo but is under "spring outage", also supports solar energy development as part of the overall energy industry portfolio.[26] This outage has been retracted as of June 10, 2011 [27] The outages are routine for maintenance and the complex process of refueling, and created 1,000 temporary jobs, according to PG&E.[28] Other workers are represented by the Plumbers and Pipefitters.[29]

According to a SLO Tribune interview with PG&E's Chris Johns, "tragedy in Japan has prompted more concerns from Diablo Canyon’s 1,800 employees than any other issue, Becker said. Plant managers are holding brown-bag lunch meetings with employees to address those concerns".[30] (Johns was referring to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.)

DCISC

The Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee (DCISC) was established as a part of a settlement agreement entered into in June 1988 between the Division of Ratepayer Advocates of the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC), the Attorney General for the State of California, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“PG&E”).

The DCISC consists of three members, one each appointed by the Governor, the Attorney General and the Chairperson of the California Energy Commission. They serve staggered three-year terms. The committee has no authority to direct PG&E personnel.

Emergency planning

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission defines two emergency planning zones around nuclear power plants: a plume exposure pathway zone with a radius of 10 miles (16 km), concerned primarily with exposure to, and inhalation of, airborne radioactive contamination, and an ingestion pathway zone of about 50 miles (80 km), concerned primarily with ingestion of food and liquid contaminated by radioactivity.[31]

The 2010 U.S. population within 10 miles (16 km) of Diablo Canyon was 26,123, an increase of 50.2 percent in a decade, according to an analysis of U.S. Census data for msnbc.com. The 2010 U.S. population within 50 miles (80 km) was 465,521, an increase of 22.4 percent since 2000. Cities within 50 miles include San Luis Obispo (12 miles to city center) and Paso Robles (31 miles to city center).[32]

Emergency sirens were installed when the plant went operational. Federal law requires an early warning system that radiates out 10 miles from any nuclear facility. The county siren coverage goes farther, extending from Cayucos in the north down to upper Nipomo to the south. All businesses are required to have a siren information sticker in their business generally located within the restrooms. Schools, government offices, and any other public building will have a PAZ card (Protective Action Zone). These cards show the 12 zones of evacuation with zone one being the plant itself. The cards also show the direction of evacuation on the highways.

Public participation and protest

Diablo Canyon was built and entered service despite legal challenges and civil disobedience from the anti-nuclear protesters of the Abalone Alliance.[33] Over a two-week period in 1981, 1,900 activists were arrested at Diablo Canyon Power Plant. It was the largest arrest total in the history of the U.S. anti-nuclear movement.[33]

In spring of 2011, State Senator Sam Blakeslee [34] and US Representative Lois Capps [35] both expressed concern for a renewed safety review. Speaking before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, the congresswoman stated that she believed the "Nuclear Regulatory Commission should stay the license renewal process until the completion of independent, peer reviewed, advanced seismic studies of all faults in the area." The Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility began circulating a petition to similar effect,[36] going further and calling for an outright halt to relicensing. An array of San Luis Obispo-based anti-nuclear groups including Mothers for Peace also called for the closure of Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant.[37]

The Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility also works at the level of the California Public Utilities Commission and initiated a letter writing campaign to Governor Jerry Brown, which requests he "instruct the CPUC to rescind the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for ... Diablo Canyon ... and allow them to operate conditionally only under the agreement by the utilities to immediately begin to fully comply with completion of the state-directed AB 1632 [seismic] studies." [38]

Post-Fukushima developments

According to Victor Dricks, senior public affairs officer for NRC Region IV,[39] the Commission conducted a nationwide review of nuclear power plants for their capacity to respond to earthquakes, power outages and other catastrophic events, and Diablo was found to have "a high level of preparedness and strong capability in terms of equipment and procedures to respond to severe events."

On June 2, 2011, the NRC announced that it would delay the environmental part of the relicensing application but that it had completed the safety portion.[40] A few days later, the Atomic Safety Licensing Board indicated that it would defer adjustment of the adjudicatory schedule of the four contentions brought by SLOMFP, a community based organization, accordingly. The ASLB made no findings regarding the merits of the contentions.[41] Both parties to the dispute claim these developments as victories: Pacific Gas and Electric [42] as well as San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace.[43]

S. David Freeman, a former general manager of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District for four years and well-known anti-nuclear activist, criticized the continued operation of Diablo Canyon, calling nuclear power the "most expensive and dangerous source of energy on Earth". According to Freeman, Diablo Canyon and San Onofre are both "disasters waiting to happen: aging, unreliable reactors sitting near earthquake fault zones on the fragile Pacific Coast, with millions or hundreds of thousands of Californians living nearby".[44]

See also

References

Further reading

External links

  • PG&E Diablo Canyon
  • Conservation Fallout: Nuclear Protest at Diablo Canyon
  • Activist handbooks from 1979 and 1981 Diablo Canyon protests

This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 


Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.