Nuclear Power in Virginia

13 states consumed more nuclear-generated  electricity than Virginia in 2011, while 36 states consumed less (19 states consumed no nuclear power)
13 states consumed more nuclear-generated kilowatts of electric power than Virginia in 2011,
while 36 states consumed less (19 states consumed no nuclear power)
Data Source: US Energy Information Administration, Table F23: Nuclear Energy Consumption, Price, and Expenditure Estimates, 2011
Map Source: Wikipedia

Nuclear power supplies both electricity and thousands of jobs in Virginia. Lynchburg and Newport News are the two focal points in Virginia for technical support services plus construction of nuclear fuel assemblies and other power plant components.

In Lynchburg and Campbell County, Areva has established its "Operational Center of Excellence for Nuclear Products and Services in North America." It upgraded its commitment to the area in 2013, committing to invest another $26 million for technical services and machinery. The governor of Virginia formally welcomed the company's latest growth with a speech that delared:1

It's a treat to be here in the nuclear energy capital of America: Lynchburg, Virginia.

Babcock & Wilcox fabricates fuel assemblies for the US Navy's nuclear submarines, pressing uranium powder into pellets and loading them into tubular fuel rods. The company plans to expand its nuclear operations and technical services group to include manufacturing new reactors that would require less capital investment for constructing new nuclear power plants.

The "small modular reactor" program of Babcock & Wilcox is based on the mPowerTM design. The company is betting that the future of massive 900MW nuclear power plants will be limited by the extraordinarily high costs for initial construction; utilities must borrow that money and repay the bonds, even if a nuclear plant is closed for safety reasons, exposing the utility to financial risk.

The low cost and high reliability of nuclear power could overcome public objections to constructing new nuclear power plants, and Babcock & Wilcox projects a bright future for a different strategy - small nuclear plants that can be assembled in modules, and buried underground.

Engineers at the Center for Advanced Engineering and Research in Bedford are prototyping this dramatically different approach with a scale model, built above ground for testing. Babcock & Wilcox also uses its facilities in Lynchburg for simulating operations in the future mPower control room, and for managing nuclear fuel.

The Department of Energy has awarded grants for design, development, and ultimately construction of up to six new SMR-powered reactors, providing 180 megawatts each, at the former Clinch River Breeder Reactor (CRBR) site in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Commercial operations are projected to start in 2022. If successful, Lynchburg could become a central manufacturing center for constructing self-contained nuclear power plants, which would then shipped as complete units to be installed in locations across the United States and even in other countries.

As described by the Department of Energy:2

Small modular reactors - which are approximately one-third the size of current nuclear power plants - have compact, scalable designs that are expected to offer a host of safety, construction and economic benefits. Small modular reactors can also be made in factories and transported to sites where they would be ready to "plug and play" upon arrival, reducing both capital costs and construction times. The smaller size also makes these reactors ideal for small electric grids and for locations that cannot support large reactors, offering utilities the flexibility to scale production as demand changes.

Also in Lynchburg, AREVA (a French company) has produced fuel assemblies for nuclear power plants. In 2009, AREVA and Huntington Ingalls Industries broke ground on a plant in Newport News that would manufacture major, heavy components for AREVA's EPRTM pressurized water reactor, with plans to start manufacturing in 2012. However, in 2010 operations were stretched out and then stopped in 2011, after construction of the Calvert Cliffs 3 reactor in Maryland was delayed and then the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster occurred in Japan.3

Virginia has commercial nuclear power plants generating low-cost electricity at two locations. There are two reactors at a plant in Surry County (Surry 1 and Surry 2, started in 1972 and 1973) capable of generating a total of 1,638 megawatts, and two nuclear reactors in Louisa County (North Anna 1 and North Anna 2, started in 1978 and 1980) capable of generating a total of 1,863 megawatts. All four units ause the Westinghouse, three-loop, pressurized water design.4

Surry nuclear power plant (through car windshield)
Surry nuclear power plant (through car windshield)

The four reactors at North Anna and Surry are most efficient when running at a steady rate, so they are used for baseload rather than peaking power. Baseload plants run 24 hours per day and supply the electricity needed even when demand is at its lowest level. In contrast, peaking plants are turned on and off during the day, and supply extra energy needed in the morning (when people wake up, get ready for work/school, and turn on lights/hairdryers etc.) or in the evening (when people come home and cook dinner, do laundry, etc.).

Between 1999-2009, 38% of the electricity generated in Virginia was produced by the four nuclear reactors at North Anna and Surry. Nuclear reactors total just 15% of the potential generating sources in Virginia, but produce 35-40% of the state's electricity because the reactors run steadily, while other generators are used only intermittently for peaking power.5

Virginia total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010)
Virginia total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, State Nuclear Profiles 2010

Nuclear reactors produce the lowest-cost electricity in the state. In 2011, Virginia Dominion Power compared the various costs of the primary sources of electricity in Virginia:6
nuclear - 0.6 cents per kilowatt hour
coal - 3.5 cents per kilowatt hour
combined cycle (natural gas) - 4.5 cents per kilowatt hour

Lake Anna was built in 1971 to provide cooling water for nuclear reactors - note channel next to (circled) reactors
Lake Anna was built in 1971 to provide cooling water for nuclear reactors - note channel next to (circled) reactors
Source: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Lake Anna West 7.5x7.5 topographic quadrangle (2010)

Dominion Resources has plans to add a new 1,470 megawatts reactor at the North Anna site, with expectations that it will operate for 60 years before being decommissioned. The third reactor, if built, would use Hitachi Economic Simplified Boiling-Water design rather than the Westinghouse, three-loop, pressurized water reactors use for Units 1 and 2. The utility had considered the Hitachi design when it submitted the Early Site Permit (ESP) proposal to the Nuclear Regultory Commission in 2007, but then decided to build a 1,700 megawatt reactor based on the Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor design developed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.

In addition to financial inducements to shift back to the Hitachi design, Dominion reconsidered safety issues after the nuclear meltdowns at Fukushima and the 5.8 magnitude earthquake with an epicenter very near the Louisa location. The Hitachi Economic Simplified Boiling-Water model has passive gravity-based safety features, including cooling water stored above the reactor, that can keep the core cool for up to seven days even if electrical power to the site was disrupted by an earthquake or other event.7

Dominion Resources obviously recognizes that the risks of using nuclear fuel differ from other sources of power. After the August, 2011 earthquake (5.8 magnitude, with the epicenter in Louisa County), the North Anna reactors automatically tripped offline. Metal casks storing spent fuel assemblies slid up to 4.5 inches on their concrete pad, and 12 casks ended up closer than the minimum 16-foot separation. The reactors were not restarted for almost three months.8

The economics of the private company are affected by the costs to manage those risks, including the day in the future when the nuclear power plants must be closed permanently (decommissioned). In its 2004 Annual Report, the utility said that it had set aside $2.6 billion to satisfy the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's minimum financial assurance amounts for the future decommissioning of its nuclear facilities:9

"There are inherent risks in the operation of nuclear facilities. Dominion operates nuclear facilities that are subject to inherent risks. These include the threat of terrorist attack and ability to dispose of spent nuclear fuel, the disposal of which is subject to complex federal and state regulatory constraints. These risks also include the cost of and Dominion's ability to maintain adequate reserves for decommissioning, costs of plant maintenance and exposure to potential liabilities arising out of the operation of these facilities. Dominion maintains decommissioning trusts and external insurance coverage to manage the financial exposure to these risks. However, it is possible that costs arising from claims could exceed the amount of any insurance coverage."

In 2010, however, the company reported:10

"The total estimated cost to decommission Virginia Power's four nuclear units is $2.2 billion in 2010 dollars and is primarily based upon site-specific studies completed in 2009... Virginia Power expects to decommission the Surry and North Anna units during the period 2032 to 2067."

Dominion Resources has purchased liability insurance in case of an accident at North Anna or Surry. The maximum coverage offered by private insurance companies is not sufficient to cover potential costs, however. In addition to the $375 million in coverage for each site that Dominion has bought from private commercial insurance pools, the utility also relies upon a $12 billion pool of insurance funded by every utility using nuclear power. The Federal government created the insurance safety net when the Price-Anderson Act was first passed in 1957, to spur commercial use of atomic energy.

Still, fear of nuclear power after the Three Mile Island incident in 1979 limited the development of additional nuclear power plants in Virginia as a source for electricity. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 included new subsidies for nuclear power, and popular support for more commercial nuclear power plants appeared to be growing untilt the meltdowns at Fukushima, Japan in 2011 after a tsunami.

Nuclear power plants generate no greenhouse gases, but the facilities do generate fear of a disaster. To present the case that nuclear power is safe, Dominion has visitor centers at each plant and even an online tour of a nuclear power plant.11

Disaster plans have been developed for the four reactors in Virginia, plus the Calvert Cliffs plant 22 miles away in Maryland. The plans document how people within 10 miles of the reactors would be evacuated from the Plume Exposure Pathway (or Ten-Mile Emergency Planning Zone), based on the assumption that "For the worst core melt sequences, immediate life-threatening doses would generally not occur outside of the zone." The Ingestion Exposure Pathway (or 50-Mile Emergency Planning Zone) was defined based on the assumption that "Much of any particulate material in a radioactive plume would have been deposited on the ground within 50 miles of the facility."

10-Mile Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone and state road map, at North Anna Power station in Louisa County
10-Mile Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone and state road map, at North Anna Power station in Louisa County
Source: Dominion Resources North Anna 3 Combined License Application, Part 5: Emergency Plan

50-Mile Site Ingestion Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone (10-mile zone marked in red)
50-Mile Site Ingestion Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone (10-mile zone marked in red)
Source: Dominion Resources North Anna 3 Combined License Application, Part 5: Emergency Plan

The Virginia Department of Emergency Services also risk management plans in case of an accidental release of radiation from nuclear-powered ships in Hampton Roads at the Naval Station Norfolk, the Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, and the Newport News Shipyard. In case of an incident, an Area of Planning Attention extending 0.5-mile from the ship will be declared instead of the 10-mile and 50-mile zones, because the amount of radioactive material on the ships and consequences of an accident is lower.12

By comparison, a 12-mile zone was evacuated around the Fukushima plant in 2011, but some locations further away are "hot spots" with excessive radiation levels. After the meltdowns at Fukushima, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission recommended that all Americans evacuate from a zone within 50 miles of the crippled plants. Later, health inspectors discovered that food from areas far outside the evacuation zone (including ocean-caught fish) were contaminated with radioactive isotopes of cesium.13

Other Nuclear Reactors in Virginia

Two nuclear reactors were built for research and educating engineering students at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. The 2-megawatt University of Virginia Reactor (UVAR) was in operation between 1960-1998, and the 100-watt "Cooperatively Assembled Virginia Low-Intensity Educational Reactor" (CAVALIER) ran from 1974-1988. In 2002, radioactive components at the facility were dismantled and shipped to Envirocare in Utah and to Barnwell, South Carolina for disposal.14

SM-1 nuclear power plant at Fort Belvoir
SM-1 nuclear power plant at Fort Belvoir
Source: Fort Belvoir

The Army Nuclear Power Program, based at Fort Belvoir, built and tested two small nuclear power plants at that site. It created the first nuclear power plant to generate electricity in Virginia, the 10-megawatt SM-1. The Army claims the SM-1 was the "first nuclear power station to be connected to an electrical grid" before it was deactivated in 1973.15 That power plant was an early model of what the Army expected to be many small nuclear power plants built for deployment to locations without electricity or conventional petroleum-based fuels, places that were not "on the grid" in an industrialized location.16

In November 1963, an Army study submitted to the Department of Defense (DOD) proposed employing a military compact reactor (MCR) as the power source for a nuclear-powered energy depot, which was being considered as a means of producing synthetic fuels in a combat zone for use in military vehicles. MCR studies, which had begun in 1955, grew out of the Transportation Corps' interest in using nuclear energy to power heavy, overland cargo haulers in remote areas. These studies investigated various reactor and vehicle concepts, including a small liquid-metal-cooled reactor, but ultimately the concept proved impractical.

The energy depot, however, was an attempt to solve the logistics problem of supplying fuel to military vehicles on the battlefield. While nuclear power could not supply energy directly to individual vehicles, the MCR could provide power to manufacture, under field conditions, a synthetic fuel as a substitute for conventional carbon-based fuels.

USS Sturgis with MH-1A nuclear power plant, operating in the Panama Canal Zone
USS Sturgis with MH-1A nuclear power plant, operating in the Panama Canal Zone
Source: Panama Historical Society Facebook page

The Army also tested its last nuclear power plant in Virginia. The MH-1A reactor capable of producing as much as 45 megawatts was installed in a World War Two Liberty ship, renamed the USS Sturgis after the recently-deceased Chief of the US Army Corps of Engineers. The ship's propulsion system was removed, in order to make space for the reactor. After a successful test of the reactor at Gunston Cove on the Potomac River, the floating power plant was towed to the Panama Canal. The USS Sturgis served in Panama as a 10-megawatt power barge during the Vietnam War. Nuclear-generated electricity replaced output from a hydropower plant, allowing more water from Gatun Lake to be used for ship transits in the canal.17

Both the SM-1 and MH-1A reactors have now been deactivated. The Army may wait as long as 50 years for radiation to decrease before complete decommissioning of the reactors.18 The USS Sturgis has been placed in the Reserve Fleet in the James River before it is recycled.19

The Navy has continued its nuclear power program in Virginia, installing and refueling nuclear reactors in aircraft carriers and submarines at Newport News.

(NOTE: In many Virginia communities, hospitals and dentist offices have radioactive isotopes in various medical equipment, but these are generating radiation for X-rays and other medical purposes rather than generating electricity.)

Links

References

1. "Areva to upgrade facilities in Lynchburg, Campbell Co.," The Roanoke Times, December 18, 2013, http://www.roanoke.com/news/2462266-12/areva-to-upgrade-facilities-in-lynchburg-campbell-co.html (last checked December 18, 2013)
2. "Energy Department Announces New Investment in U.S. Small Modular Reactor Design and Commercialization," US DEpartment of Energy news release, November 20, 2012, http://energy.gov/articles/energy-department-announces-new-investment-us-small-modular-reactor-design-and (last checked August 10, 2013)
3. "AREVA delays opening date for Newport News plant until 2013," Newport News Daily Press, August 19, 2010, http://articles.dailypress.com/2010-08-19/business/dp-nws-areva-delay-20100819_1_areva-newport-news-areva-spokesman-nuclear-power-plants; "Work on Newport News nuclear manufacturing plant halted," The Virginian-Pilot, May 9, 2011, http://hamptonroads.com/2011/05/work-newport-news-nuclear-manufacturing-plant-halted (last checked July 29, 2012)
4. "State Nuclear Profiles - Nuclear Profile 2010," U.S. Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.gov/nuclear/state/virginia/ (last checked April 26, 2013)
5. "Table 5 - Table 5. Electric Power Industry Generation by Primary Energy Source, 1990 Through 2009," Virginia Electricity Profile (2009 Edition), U.S. Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/virginia.html (last checked December 27, 2011)
6. "Nuclear energy in Virginia," Richmond Times-Dispatch, November 27, 2011, http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/commentary/2011/nov/27/tdcomm01-nuclear-energy-in-virginia-ar-1494021/ (last checked July 29, 2012)
7. "Dominion selects APWR for North Anna," World Nuclear News, March 10, 2010, http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Dominion_selects_APWR_for_North_Anna-1005104.html; "Va. Power picks new design for proposed North Anna unit," Richmond Times-Dispatch, http://www.timesdispatch.com/business/economy/va-power-picks-new-design-for-proposed-north-anna-unit/article_cf2224f8-b62b-5f9b-90c1-69191ab2cc17.html (last checked April 26, 2013)
8. "North Anna Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Response to Earthquake," Nuclear Regulatory Commission, http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/emerg-preparedness/virginia-quake-info/north-anna-isfsi-summary.pdf; "North Anna Earthquake Information," Dominion, https://www.dom.com/about/stations/nuclear/north-anna/update.jsp (last checked July 30, 2012)
9. 2004 Annual Report, Dominion Resources, p.52 and p.87, http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/11/110481/ar2004.pdf (last checked February 24, 2006)
10. "Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010," Dominion Resources, p.11, http://www.dom.com/investors/pdf/2010_10k.pdf (last checked December 27, 2011)
11. Dominion Power, animated tour of a nuclear power station, http://www.dom.com/about/stations/nuclear/nuctour.html, "Nuclear Emergency Preparedness," http://www.dom.com/about/stations/nuclear/emergency-plans/index.jsp (last checked December 27, 2011)
12. "Commonwealth of Virginia Emergency Operations Plan - Radiological Emergency Response Plan Annex, Volume III," September 2010, pp.RERP 8-10, http://www.vaemergency.gov/sites/default/files/COVEOPVolumeIIIRadiologicalPLanSeptember2007version9_1_2010.pdf (last checked December 27, 2011)
13. "Plants Face New Worries - Spread of Radiation in Japan Fuels Questions About Evacuation Plans in U.S.," Wall Street Journal, March 24, 2011, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703362904576219031025249872.html; "Japanese Tests Find Radiation in Infant Food," New York Times, December 6, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/world/asia/cesium-found-in-japanese-baby-formula.html (last checked December 27, 2011)
14. P. F. Ervin, L. A. Lundberg, P. E. Benneche, Dr. R. U. Mulder, D. P. Steva, "University of Virginia Reactor Facility Decommissioning Results," Waste Management 2003 Symposium, February 2003, http://www.wmsym.org/archives/2003/pdfs/429.pdf (last checked December 27, 2011)
15. "Nuclear era ending at Fort Belvoir," The United States Army, May 5, 2011, http://www.army.mil/article/56065/ (last checked July 30, 2012)
16. US Army Logistics Management College, "Nuclear Power: An Option for the Army's Future," www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/SepOct01/MS684.htm (last checked July 29, 2012)
17. US Army Corps of Engineers, The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: A History, Publication Number EP 870-1-68, p. 122, http://140.194.76.129/publications/eng-pamphlets/EP_870-1-68_pfl/c-3.pdf (last checked July 30, 2012)
18. Burns, Brenda, M., "Quo Vadis: Where Goes the Army Reactor Program?" in NBC Report, United States Army Nuclear and Chemical Agency, Fall-Winter 2004, pp.69-70, https://www.cbrniac.apgea.army.mil/.../NBC_Report_Fall_Winter04.pdf (last checked July 29, 2012)
19. Honerlah, Hans B. and Hearty, Brian P., "Characterization Of The Nuclear Barge Sturgis" from Proceedings of the Waste Management 2002 Conference, February 24-28, 2002, http://www.wmsym.org/archives/2002/Proceedings/44/168.pdf (last checked July 29, 2012)

power lines headed south from Surry nuclear power plant
power lines headed south from Surry nuclear power plant


Electricity in Virginia
Mining Uranium in Virginia
Nuclear Waste in Virginia
Virginia Places