Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station
CountryUnited States
LocationPlymouth, Plymouth County, Massachusetts
Coordinates41°56.7′N 70°34.7′W / 41.9450°N 70.5783°W / 41.9450; -70.5783
StatusBeing decommissioned
Construction beganAugust 26, 1968 (1968-08-26)
Commission dateDecember 1, 1972 (1972-12-01)
Decommission datebeginning May 31, 2019 (2019-05-31)
Construction cost$462.25 million (2007 USD)[1]
Owner(s)Entergy
Operator(s)Entergy
Nuclear power station
Reactor typeBWR
Reactor supplierGeneral Electric
Cooling sourceCape Cod Bay
Thermal capacity1 × 2.028 GWth
Power generation
Units operational1 × 677 MW
Make and modelBWR-3 (Mark 1)
Units cancelled2 × 1.18 GW
Nameplate capacity677 MW
Capacity factor85.10% (2017)
70.6% (lifetime)
Annual net output5.047 TWh (2017)
External links
WebsitePilgrim Nuclear Power Station
CommonsRelated media on Commons

Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (PNPS) is a closed nuclear power plant in Massachusetts in the Manomet section of Plymouth on Cape Cod Bay, south of the tip of Rocky Point and north of Priscilla Beach. Like many similar plants, it was constructed by Bechtel, and was powered by a General Electric BWR 3 boiling water reactor inside of a Mark 1 pressure suppression type containment and generator.[2] With a 690 MWe production capacity, it produced about 14% of the electricity generated in Massachusetts.[3]

On October 13, 2015, the plant's owners announced that it would close by June 1, 2019, citing "market conditions and increased costs," which would have included tens of millions of dollars of necessary safety upgrades. Following closure, decommissioning is expected to take decades for radiation to decay.[4]

History

Built at a cost of $231 million in 1972 by Boston Edison, the plant was sold in 1999 to the Louisiana-based Entergy Corporation, part of a complex deal that was the result of deregulation of the electrical utility industry.

On April 11, 1986, a recurring equipment problem forced an emergency shutdown of the plant. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) called it ″one of the worst-run″ nuclear plants in the country.[5]

Pilgrim kept its spent nuclear fuel in an on-site storage pool, waiting for federal direction on the correct disposal process. The Yucca Mountain site in Nevada was being considered for this purpose until its deselection in 2009.

Pilgrim's original license to operate would have expired in 2012. In 2006, Entergy filed an application for an extended operating license (until 2032) with the NRC.[6] In May 2012, the NRC approved the 20-year extension, with chairman Gregory Jaczko the lone dissenting vote.[7]

Opposition to Pilgrim's license extension came mainly from Pilgrim Watch, a local group which filed numerous legal and procedural challenges. The state attorney general also raised questions about, among other issues, the dangers posed by the onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel.[8]

In April 2013, the station increased its security following the Boston Marathon bombing.[9]

In July 2013, the plant had to reduce output during a heat wave despite very high electricity demand, because the temperature of water drawn from Cape Cod Bay exceeded 75 °F, the limit set by the NRC.[10]

On August 22, 2013, with the plant online at 98% power, two of the plant's main feedwater pumps tripped, causing a drop of the reactor water level. Operators inserted a manual SCRAM to shutdown the reactor prior to the third feedwater pump subsequently tripping. The loss of feedwater and sudden trip from the high power level caused the reactor water level to drop below -46 inches. After passing this point, the emergency core cooling system automatically activated. Operators using the RCIC and HPCI systems promptly restored the reactor water level to normal. Ironically, it was found that the pumps tripped due to a design flaw in a recent SCRAM reduction program intended to make the pumps less likely to trip.[11] Quick action by the operators prevented a more serious low-water incident. It was the first time in the station's history that reactor water level reached a low-low condition and activated emergency core cooling systems.

On January 27, 2015, the plant underwent a storm-induced unplanned shutdown.[12]

The plant was shut down May 31, 2019 and began the process of decommissioning.[13]

Electricity Production

Generation (MWh) of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station[14]
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual (Total)
2001 491,137 449,547 490,652 315,658 149,753 455,358 491,576 411,345 475,870 497,586 484,169 431,382 5,144,033
2002 497,784 452,918 492,733 481,927 493,183 460,816 466,456 493,256 461,774 496,480 480,311 491,128 5,768,766
2003 497,165 316,163 464,668 283,436 181,530 435,051 508,524 498,276 456,319 337,364 491,003 508,456 4,977,955
2004 512,970 479,839 455,553 494,514 510,344 489,062 502,238 507,669 480,302 506,741 487,798 511,570 5,938,600
2005 507,583 453,958 495,507 242,596 291,667 488,551 506,701 502,668 491,688 496,574 486,613 510,951 5,475,057
2006 475,558 461,696 417,109 492,887 508,402 479,200 507,333 498,435 487,899 501,301 491,784 508,054 5,829,658
2007 496,378 434,146 382,851 73,456 345,315 491,401 443,982 500,238 487,024 503,198 494,987 466,813 5,119,789
2008 511,679 478,576 510,487 448,398 506,841 484,157 507,534 496,811 487,785 502,739 492,357 441,275 5,868,639
2009 510,067 451,656 507,752 263,007 185,075 488,015 499,073 499,942 487,629 503,203 491,784 508,818 5,396,021
2010 509,476 460,217 505,149 492,103 496,145 489,418 496,441 497,437 485,461 497,636 485,472 502,858 5,917,813
2011 507,453 394,924 482,848 235,351 200,811 486,064 497,546 500,808 480,965 502,863 354,234 441,353 5,085,220
2012 506,958 468,256 504,978 489,186 442,317 477,496 491,625 497,598 485,638 505,011 483,192 507,285 5,859,540
2013 352,154 315,145 469,668 189,221 7,788 473,949 499,580 380,750 327,986 386,722 486,474 441,206 4,330,643
2014 508,677 459,371 502,304 491,227 413,473 482,972 506,160 426,297 486,567 499,872 492,016 500,218 5,769,154
2015 429,392 252,653 505,736 302,697 107,757 475,870 503,035 442,078 485,608 497,922 490,691 501,367 4,994,806
2016 508,090 402,912 498,382 489,091 495,025 471,322 501,420 397,177 297,304 490,224 488,314 375,057 5,414,318
2017 505,324 344,134 496,099 134,928 126,473 482,305 501,875 494,508 476,799 490,220 488,578 505,927 5,047,170
2018 393,142 455,535 82,968 114,483 443,221 436,915 491,071 390,998 308,016 372,125 448,844 504,245 4,441,563
2019 450,438 455,294 492,267 476,826 302,379 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2,177,204

Surrounding population

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission defined two emergency planning zones around nuclear power plants: a 10 mile (16 km) plume exposure pathway zone, 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.[15]

In 2010, 75,835 people lived within 10 miles (16 km) of Pilgrim, an increase of 40.5% in a decade (according to an analysis of U.S. Census data for msnbc.com). 4,737,792 people lived within 50 miles (80 km), an increase of 10.2% since 2000. Cities within 50 miles included Boston (35 miles to city center).[16]

Environmental impacts on Cape Cod Bay

PNPS operated a single reactor unit with a boiling water reactor and a steam turbine generator. The cooling and service water systems operated as a once-through cooling system, with Cape Cod Bay being the water source. The water was circulated in the plant's heat exchanger in the same manner as any fossil-fuel powered power plant, using the seawater to remove heat from primary coolant away from sources of radioactive contamination. Approximately 480 million gallons of seawater were withdrawn daily from the bay through an intake embayment formed by two breakwaters, and then re-deposited into the bay causing a change in temperature at peak times (ΔT) of 3 °C (5.4 °F).[17]

During that process, the greatest environmental impact to the bay occurred through impingement and entrainment (I&E) of sea organisms and species. Entrainment occurs when small aquatic life forms are carried into and through the cooling system during water withdrawals. Impingement occurs when organisms are trapped against cooling water intake screens or racks by force of moving water.[17]

PNPS has been regularly monitoring I&E levels since 1974. They have reported I&E losses of millions of aquatic organisms each year. The EPA evaluated all species known to be impinged and entrained by the facility, including commercial, recreational, and forage fish species. Based on information provided in facility I&E monitoring reports, approximately 68 species have been identified in I&E collections since 1974, and 26 of these have commercial or recreational value.[18]

During the license renewal process, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission found that the significance of the potential environmental impacts of renewal would be small, with the exception of marine aquatic resources. Due to I&E, the continued operation of the cooling water system would rarely have impact on the local winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) population, and the Jones River population of rainbow smelt, and cumulative impacts on other marine aquatic species would be small to moderate.[18]

After the aquatic organisms were impinged into the cooling system, they were discharged back into the bay as sediment. The resulting shadow effect killed plant and animal life around reactor discharge systems by curtailing the light and oxygen they need to survive;[19] however, the intake and discharge canals remained a popular and lucrative local recreational fishing spot for local residents.[20]

Seismic risk

The NRC's estimate of the yearly risk of an earthquake strong enough to cause core damage to the Pilgrim reactor was 1 in 14,493, according to their study published in August 2010, making it the second-most-at-risk plant when it was still operating.[21][22]

Notes

  1. ↑ "EIA - State Nuclear Profiles". www.eia.gov. Retrieved 3 October 2017.
  2. ↑ "General Electric Mark I Reactors in the United States" (PDF). Nuclear Information and Resource Service.
  3. ↑ "Massachusetts Nuclear Profile 2010". Energy Information Administration (EIA), United States Department of Energy (DOE). April 26, 2012. Retrieved May 25, 2012.
  4. ↑ Abel, David (October 13, 2015). "Pilgrim nuclear power plant to close in Plymouth". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on July 8, 2017. Retrieved June 22, 2017.
  5. ↑ "Nuclear Power Reactor Restarted After 33 Months Idle". AP NEWS. Retrieved 2022-04-12.
  6. ↑ "Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station — License Renewal Application". U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. March 29, 2012. Retrieved May 25, 2012.
  7. ↑ Adams, Steve (May 25, 2012). "NRC votes to renew Pilgrim nuclear power plant's license". The Patriot Ledger. Retrieved May 25, 2012.
  8. ↑ "Nuclear power foes not stilled in N.E. [Correction 5/15/09] ; Approval nationwide higher than in region". highbeam.com. Archived from the original on 2016-01-10.
  9. ↑ "Security at nuke plant beefed up". 3 News NZ. April 16, 2013. Archived from the original on July 3, 2013.
  10. ↑ Schworm, Peter (July 18, 2013). "Warming bay water threatens to shut down nuclear reactor". The Boston Globe.
  11. ↑ Event Notification Report for August 23, 2013
  12. ↑ "NRC Initiates Special Inspection at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant" (PDF). US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. February 2, 2015.
  13. ↑ "Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Shut Down Permanently". www.entergynewsroom.com. Retrieved 2019-06-02.
  14. ↑ "Electricity Data Browser". www.eia.gov. Retrieved 2023-01-08.
  15. ↑ "Backgrounder on Emergency Preparedness at Nuclear Power Plants". US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. January 6, 2006. Archived from the original on October 2, 2006.
  16. ↑ Dedman, Bill (April 14, 2011). "Nuclear neighbors: Population rises near US reactors". NBC News. Retrieved May 1, 2011.
  17. 1 2 "Transmittal of National Marine Fisheries Service Letter Concluding Section 7 Consultation for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station" (PDF). June 19, 2012.
  18. 1 2 "Cooling Water Intakes" (PDF). epa.gov. 22 January 2015.
  19. ↑ "Licensed to Kill: How the nuclear power industry destroys endangered marine wildlife and ocean habitat to save money" (PDF). Nuclear Information and Resource Service.
  20. ↑ "The Recreational Fishery at Pilgrim Shorefront" (PDF). American Geophysical Union. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 20, 2014.
  21. ↑ Dedman, Bill (March 17, 2011). "What are the odds? US nuke plants ranked by quake risk". NBC News. Retrieved April 19, 2011.
  22. ↑ Hiland, Patrick (September 2, 2010). "Safety/Risk Assessment Results for Generic Issue 199, 'Implications of Updated Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Estimates in Central and Eastern United States on Existing Plants'" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on May 25, 2017. Retrieved April 19, 2011.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.