Site Design Parameters

The System 80+ Standard Design is designed to meet the requirements of GDC 2 as described in CESSAR-DC, Section 3.1.2. The System 80+ Standard Design is based upon a set of assumed site-related parameters. These parameters were selected to envelope most potential nuclear power plant sites in the United States. A summary of the assumed site design parameters, including maximum flood level, is given in CESSAR-DC, Section 2.0, Table 2.0-1. 

The AP1000 is a standardised plant designed for construction and operation at a site that meets a broad range of site design parameters. These parameters are set out in the European Design Control Document (EDCD) (Reference 3.1) and are reproduced in Table 3-1. 

The site design parameters relate to seismology, hydrology, meteorology, geology, and other site related aspects. A site is acceptable for construction/operation of an APIOOO plant provided that site specific conditions are within the site design parameters. Such a site is described as acceptable from an engineering point of view. 

That a site is identified as strategically suitable under the SSA process does not imply that site-specific conditions are such that it is acceptable for construction with regard to site design parameters. Hence, for a site to be taken forward for new build construction, it will need to be both strategically suitable and acceptable from an engineering point of view. 

The bounding site design parameters provided in the EDCD (Reference 3.1) (and summarised in Table 3-1 of the PCSR) include parameters relating to naturally occurring environmental conditions and to anthropomorphic factors. The parameters relating to the natural environment can be grouped as follows ... 

Section 3.2 provides an outline demonstration that the natural environmental conditions for the candidate sites in the UK will be within the bounds of the relevant site design parameters. 

Effect of Uncertainties in Thermal Design Parameters. The parameters that are used ia the basic siting calculations of a heat exchanger iaclude heat-transfer coefficients tube dimensions, eg, tube diameter and wall thickness and physical properties, eg, thermal conductivity, density, viscosity, and specific heat. Nominal or mean values of these parameters are used ia the basic siting calculations. In reaUty, there are uncertainties ia these nominal values. For example, heat-transfer correlations from which one computes convective heat-transfer coefficients have data spreads around the mean values. Because heat-transfer tubes caimot be produced ia precise dimensions, tube wall thickness varies over a range of the mean value. In addition, the thermal conductivity of tube wall material cannot be measured exactiy, a dding to the uncertainty ia the design and performance calculations. 

Much of the experience and data from wastewater treatment has been gained from municipal treatment plants. Industrial liquid wastes are similar to wastewater but differ in significant ways. Thus, typical design parameters and standards developed for municipal wastewater operations must not be blindly utilized for industrial wastewater. It is best to run laboratory and small pilot tests with the specific industrial wastewater as part of the design process. It is most important to understand the temporal variations in industrial wastewater strength, flow, and waste components and their effect on the performance of various treatment processes. Industry personnel in an effort to reduce cost often neglect laboratory and pilot studies and depend on waste characteristics from similar plants. This strategy often results in failure, delay, and increased costs. Careful studies on the actual waste at a plant site cannot be overemphasized. 

Laboratory development of the in situ microbial filter has been completed. According to LLNL, the key engineering design parameters have been measured under controlled conditions, and scaled laboratory experiments have demonstrated the success of the approach. A field demonstration of the biofilter concept was conducted at a contaminated site in Chico, California. 

DeNOx reaction involves a strongly adsorbed NH3 species and a gaseous or weakly adsorbed NO species, but differ in their identification of the nature of the adsorbed reactive ammonia (protonated ammonia vs. molecularly coordinated ammonia), of the active sites (Br0nsted vs. Lewis sites) and of the associated reaction intermediates [16,17]. Concerning the mechanism of SO2 oxidation over DeNOxing catalysts, few systematic studies have been reported up to now. Svachula et al. [18] have proposed a redox reaction mechanism based on the assumption of surface vanadyl sulfates as the active sites, in line with the consolidated picture of active sites in commercial sulfuric acid catalysts [19]. Such a mechanism can explain the observed effects of operating conditions, feed composition, and catalyst design parameters on the SO2 SO3 reaction over metal-oxide-based SCR catalysts. 

Tmovsky, M. Yaniga, P.M. McIntosh, R.S. Lead Removal — The Main Remedial Design Parameter for Two Florida Superfund Sites, In Seventh Internat. Conf. on Heavy Metals in the Environ. Vemet, J.-P., Ed, Geneva, Switzerland, 1989, Vol. H pp 233-236. 

Through this systematic study, Exelus was able to identify an optimal window of design parameter values that were then used to develop the catalyst. By judicious manipulation of the active material composition, researchers at Exelus developed a unique solid-acid catalytic system that has roughly 400% more active sites than a typical solid-acid catalyst. The catalyst activity was found to be higher than a typical liquid acid catalyst, which means that smaller amounts of catalyst are required, allowing one to design alkylation reactors with significantly lower volumes. 

Phase I study showed the project could yield an 11.9% internal rate of return by assuming a zero cost for coke feedstock and selling electric power at market price and F-T wax as premium products. Based on this favorable result, Texaco proceeded to Phase II experimental work which validated the key design parameters used in Phase I study. The Texaco EECP project was completed in 2003 after the completion of Phases I and II (4,5). Phase III work was cancelled because of the unavailability of the project host site after the Chevron and Texaco merger. 

---