AP1000

The AP1000 design traces its history to two previous designs, the AP600 and the System 80.

The System 80 design was created by Combustion Engineering and featured a two-loop cooling system with a single steam generator paired with two reactor coolant pumps in each loop that makes it simpler and less expensive than systems which pair a single reactor coolant pump with a steam generator in each of two, three, or four loops.[http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/sys80/sys80.html The System 80] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071230045108/http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/sys80/sys80.html |date=December 30, 2007 }} Three completed reactors in the US and another four in South Korea made it the most successful Generation II+ design.

ABB Group bought Combustion Engineering in 1990{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1989/11/14/business/combustion-to-merge-with-abb.html |title= Combustion To Merge With ABB |date=November 14, 1989 |newspaper=The New York Times}} and introduced the System 80+, with a number of design changes and safety improvements.{{cite conference |first1=R.A. |last1=Matzie |first2=S.E. |last2=Ritterbusch |url=https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:31007062|title=System 80+ standard plant: Design and operations overview |conference= International symposium on evolutionary water cooled reactors |publisher=International Atomic Energy Agency |date=1999}} As part of a series of mergers, purchases, and divestitures by ABB, in 2000 the design was purchased by Westinghouse Electric Company, who had itself been purchased in 1999 by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL).{{cite news |work=Nuclear Engineering International |date=August 9, 2016 |title=Goodbye to BNFL}}

Through the 1990s, Westinghouse had been working on a new design known as the AP600 with a design power of about 600 MWe. This was part of the United States Department of Energy's Advanced Light Water Reactor program that worked on a series of Generation III reactor designs. In contrast to Generation II designs, the AP600 was much simpler, with a huge reduction in the total number of parts, and especially pumps. It was also passively safe, a key feature of Gen III designs.

The AP600 was at the small end of the reactor scale. Smaller plants are periodically introduced because they can be used in a wider variety of markets where a larger reactor is simply too powerful to serve the local market. The downside of such designs is that the construction time, and thus cost, does not differ significantly compared to larger designs, so these smaller designs often have less attractive economics. The AP600 addressed this through modular construction and aimed to go from first concrete to fuel load in 36 months. In spite of these attractive features, Westinghouse had no sales of the AP600.{{cite tech report |publisher=IAEA |url=https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/31/007/31007051.pdf |title= Westinghouse AP600 Advanced Nuclear Plant Design |first=W. |last=Gangloff}}

With the purchase of the company by BNFL and its merger with ABB, a design combining the features of the System 80+ with the AP600 started as the AP1000. BNFL in turn sold Westinghouse Electric to Toshiba in 2005.{{cite news |newspaper=BusinessWire |url=https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20060206005466/en/Toshiba-Acquires-Westinghouse-BNFL |title= Toshiba Acquires Westinghouse From BNFL |date=February 6, 2006}}

In December 2005, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved the final design certification for the AP1000. This meant that prospective US builders could apply for a Combined Construction and Operating License before construction starts, the validity of which is conditional upon the plant being built as designed, and that each AP1000 should be identical. Its design is the first Generation III+ reactor to receive final design approval from the NRC.{{cite web|title=AP 1000 Public Safety and Licensing |publisher=Westinghouse |date=September 13, 2004 |url=http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/AP1000/public_safety_licensing.shtm |format=web |access-date=January 21, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070807115318/http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/AP1000/public_safety_licensing.shtm |archive-date=August 7, 2007 |url-status=dead }} In 2008 China started building four units of the AP1000's 2005-design.

In December 2011, the NRC approved construction of the first US plant to use the design.{{cite news| url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/23/business/energy-environment/nrc-clears-way-for-new-nuclear-plant-construction.html | work=The New York Times | first=Matthew L. | last=Wald | title=N.R.C. Clears Way for Nuclear Plant Construction | date=December 22, 2011}} On February 9, 2012, the NRC approved the construction of two new reactors.{{cite news| url=https://money.cnn.com/2012/02/09/news/economy/nuclear_reactors/ | work=CNN | title=First new nuclear reactors OK'd in over 30 years | date=February 9, 2012 }}

In 2016 and 2017 cost overruns constructing AP1000 plants in the U.S. caused Westinghouse's owner Toshiba to write down its investment in Westinghouse by "several billion" dollars.{{cite news|last1=Mochizuki|first1=Takashi|title=Toshiba Expects Write-Down of as Much as Several Billion Dollars|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/toshiba-expects-hefty-write-down-related-to-u-s-nuclear-unit-westinghouse-1482813231|website=Wall Street Journal|date=December 27, 2016 |access-date=December 28, 2016}}

On February 14, 2017, Toshiba delayed filing financial results, and Toshiba chairman Shigenori Shiga, formerly chairman of Westinghouse, resigned.{{cite news |url=http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-toshiba-accounting-results-idUKKBN15T0AY |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170214100107/http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-toshiba-accounting-results-idUKKBN15T0AY |url-status=dead |archive-date=February 14, 2017 |title=Delays, confusion as Toshiba reports $6.3 billion nuclear hit and slides to loss |author=Makiko Yamazaki, Taiga Uranaka |publisher=Reuters |date=February 14, 2017 |access-date=February 14, 2017}}{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38965380 |title=Toshiba chairman quits over nuclear loss |work=BBC News |date=February 14, 2017 |access-date=February 14, 2017}}{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38969273 |title=Toshiba: Why troubled Japanese firms survive |author=Karishma Vaswani |work=BBC News |date=February 14, 2017 |access-date=February 14, 2017}} On March 24, 2017, Toshiba announced that Westinghouse Electric Company will file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy because of US$9 billion of losses from nuclear reactor construction projects, which may impact the future of the AP1000.{{cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toshiba-accounting-idUSKBN16V04G |title=Toshiba decides on Westinghouse bankruptcy, sees $9 billion in charges: sources |first=Taro |last=Fuse |publisher=Reuters |date=March 24, 2017 |access-date=March 25, 2017}} Westinghouse emerged from bankruptcy in August 2018.{{cite news |title=Westinghouse emerges from Chapter 11 - World Nuclear News |url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Westinghouse-sale-to-Brookfield-completed |access-date=August 27, 2018 |work=www.world-nuclear-news.org}}

The AP1000 is a pressurized water reactor with two cooling loops, planned to produce a net power output of 1,117 MW_e. It is an evolutionary improvement on the AP600, essentially a more powerful model with roughly the same footprint.{{cite journal | last =T.L. Schulz | title =Westinghouse AP1000 advanced passive plant | journal = Nuclear Engineering and Design | volume =236 | issue =14–16 | pages =1547–1557 | doi=10.1016/j.nucengdes.2006.03.049| year =2006 | bibcode =2006NuEnD.236.1547S | citeseerx =10.1.1.175.1734 }}

A design objective was to be less expensive to build than other Generation III reactor designs, by both using existing technology, and needing less equipment than competing designs that have three or four cooling loops. The design decreases the number of components, including pipes, wires, and valves. Standardization and type-licensing should also help reduce the time and cost of construction. Because of its simplified design compared to a Westinghouse generation II PWR, the AP1000 has:{{citation|url=http://www.nuclearinst.com/uploads/Branch%20Presentations/The%20AP1000%20-%20A%20Bull%20-%2016th%20Nov%2010.pdf |title=The AP1000 Nuclear Power Plant - Global Experience and UK Prospects |format=presentation |author=Adrian Bull |work=Westinghouse UK |publisher=Nuclear Institute |date=November 16, 2010 |access-date=May 14, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110722031413/http://www.nuclearinst.com/uploads/Branch%20Presentations/The%20AP1000%20-%20A%20Bull%20-%2016th%20Nov%2010.pdf |archive-date=July 22, 2011 |url-status=dead }}

• 50% fewer safety-related valves
• 35% fewer pumps
• 80% less safety-related piping
• 85% less control cable
• 45% less seismic building volume

The AP1000 design is considerably more compact in land usage than most existing PWRs, and uses under a fifth of the concrete and rebar reinforcing of older designs. Probabilistic risk assessment was used in the design of the plants. This enabled minimization of risks, and calculation of the overall safety of the plant. According to the NRC, the plants will be orders of magnitude safer than those in the last study, NUREG-1150. The AP1000 has a maximum core damage frequency of 5.09 × 10⁻⁷ per plant per year.[http://www.hse.gov.uk/newreactors/reports/ap1000psa.pdf] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130514081642/http://www.hse.gov.uk/newreactors/reports/ap1000psa.pdf|date=May 14, 2013}} Westinghouse AP 1000 Step 2 PSA Assessment Used fuel produced by the AP1000 can be stored indefinitely in water on the plant site.[http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09088/959091-96.stm Westinghouse certain of safety, efficiency of nuclear power] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090401185325/http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09088/959091-96.stm |date=April 1, 2009 }}, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, March 29, 2009 Aged used fuel may also be stored in above-ground dry cask storage, in the same manner as the currently operating fleet of US power reactors.

Power reactors of all types continue to produce heat from radioactive decay products even after the main reaction is shut down, so it is necessary to remove this heat to avoid meltdown of the reactor core. In the AP1000, Westinghouse's Passive Core Cooling System uses a tank of water situated above the reactor. When the passive cooling system is activated, the water flows by gravity to the top of the reactor where it evaporates to remove heat. The system uses multiple explosively-operated and DC operated valves which must operate within the first 30 minutes. This is designed to happen even if the reactor operators take no action.{{cite web|title=UK AP1000 Pre-Construction Safety Report |website=UKP-GW-GL-732 Revision 2 explains the design of the reactor safety systems as part of the process of seeking approval for construction in the UK |publisher=Westinghouse Electric Company |url=https://www.ukap1000application.com/PDFDocs/Safety/UKP-GW-GL-732%20Rev%201.pdf |access-date=February 23, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110717145503/https://www.ukap1000application.com/PDFDocs/Safety/UKP-GW-GL-732%20Rev%201.pdf |archive-date=July 17, 2011 }} The electrical system required for initiating the passive systems doesn't rely on external or diesel power and the valves don't rely on hydraulic or compressed air systems.R.A. and Worrall, A. "The AP1000 Reactor the Nuclear Renaissance Option." Nuclear Energy 2004. The design is intended to passively remove heat for 72 hours, after which its gravity drain water tank must be topped up for as long as cooling is required. The reactor uses canned motor pumps that are hermetically sealed, use no reactor coolant pump seals and are mounted directly on the bottom of the steam generators. This reduces the amount of large diameter primary loop piping.Schulz, T. L. (2006). Westinghouse AP1000 advanced passive plant. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 236(14-16), 1547–1557. doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2006.03.049

10.1016/j.nucengdes.2006.03.049

{{Cite web |last=Schene |first=Roger |date=March 2009 |title=The Westinghouse Advanced Passive Pressurized Water Reactor, AP1000TM |url=https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/42/026/42026956.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211215070217/https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/42/026/42026956.pdf |archive-date=15 Dec 2021 |website=International Atomic Energy Agency}}{{Cite web |date=4 April 2011 |title=Status report 81 - Advanced Passive PWR (AP 1000) |url=https://aris.iaea.org/PDF/AP1000.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230827015149/https://aris.iaea.org/PDF/AP1000.pdf |archive-date=27 Aug 2023 |website=International Atomic Energy Agency: Advanced Reactors Information System}}

Revision 15 of the AP1000 design has an unusual containment structure which has received approval by the NRC, after a Safety Evaluation Report,{{cite web|url=https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/ap1000.html#ser|title=NRC: Issued Design Certification - Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000)|website=www.nrc.gov}} and a Design Certification Rule.{{cite web|url=https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/ap1000.html#dcrule|title=Issued Design Certification - Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000), Rev. 15 Design Certification Rule for the AP1000 Design}}

Revisions 17, 18, and 19 were also approved.{{cite web|url=https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.html|title=Design Certification Application Review - AP1000 Amendment}}

In April 2010, some environmental organizations called on the NRC to investigate possible limitations in the AP1000 reactor design. These groups appealed to three federal agencies to suspend the licensing process because they believed containment in the new design is weaker than existing reactors.{{cite news

|title = Groups say new Vogyle Reactors need study

|publisher = August Chronicle

|url = http://m.chronicle.augusta.com/latest-news/2010-04-21/groups-say-new-vogtle-reactors-need-study?v=1271900068

|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110707185219/http://m.chronicle.augusta.com/latest-news/2010-04-21/groups-say-new-vogtle-reactors-need-study?v=1271900068

|url-status = dead

|archive-date = July 7, 2011

|access-date = April 24, 2010

}}

In April 2010, Arnold Gundersen, a nuclear engineer commissioned by several anti-nuclear groups, released a report which explored a hazard associated with the possible rusting through of the containment structure steel liner. In the AP1000 design, the liner and the concrete are separated, and if the steel rusts through, "there is no backup containment behind it" according to Gundersen. If the dome rusted through the design would expel radioactive contaminants and the plant "could deliver a dose of radiation to the public that is 10 times higher than the N.R.C. limit" according to Gundersen. Vaughn Gilbert, a spokesman for Westinghouse, has disputed Gundersen's assessment, stating that the AP1000's steel containment vessel is three-and-a-half to five times thicker than the liners used in current designs, and that corrosion would be readily apparent during routine inspection.Matthew L. Wald. [http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/critics-challenge-safety-of-new-nuclear-reactor-design/?src=busln Critics Challenge Safety of New Reactor Design] New York Times, April 22, 2010.

Edwin Lyman, a senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, has challenged specific cost-saving design choices made for both the AP1000 and ESBWR, another new design. Lyman is concerned about the strength of the steel containment vessel and the concrete shield building around the AP1000, claiming its containment vessel does not have sufficient safety margins.{{cite web |title=Nuclear energy: Planning for the Black Swan |last=Piore |first=Adam |url=http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v304/n6/box/scientificamerican0611-48_BX1.html |date=June 2011 |website=Scientific American }}

John Ma, a senior structural engineer at the NRC was quoted on his stance about the AP1000 nuclear reactor.

In 2009, the NRC made a safety change related to the events of September 11, ruling that all plants be designed to withstand the direct hit from a plane. To meet the new requirement, Westinghouse encased the AP1000 buildings concrete walls in steel plates. Last year Ma, a member of the NRC since it was formed in 1974, filed the first "non-concurrence" dissent of his career after the NRC granted the design approval. In it Ma argues that some parts of the steel skin are so brittle that the "impact energy" from a plane strike or storm driven projectile could shatter the wall. A team of engineering experts hired by Westinghouse disagreed...

In 2010, following Ma's initial concerns, the NRC questioned the durability of the AP1000 reactor's original shield building in the face of severe external events such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and airplane collisions. In response to these concerns Westinghouse prepared a modified design.Robynne Boyd. [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=slow-reactor-safety Safety Concerns Delay Approval of the First U.S. Nuclear Reactor in Decades.] Scientific American, July 29, 2010. This modified design satisfied the NRC, with the exception of Ma, hence the "non-concurrence". In contrast to the NRC's decision, Ma believed that the computer codes used to analyze the modified design were not precise enough and some of the materials used were too brittle.{{cite web

|url=http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/reactor-design-edges-toward-approval-but-not-without-complaints/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0|title=Reactor Design Edges Toward Approval, but Not Without Complaints|author=Matthew L. Wald|date=March 2011|website=The New York Times Company|access-date=May 15, 2014}}

The NRC completed the overall design certification review for the amended AP1000 in September 2011.[http://westinghousenuclear.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=294 ACRS Concludes AP1000 Maintains Robustness of Previously Certified Design and is Safe] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111008134656/http://westinghousenuclear.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=294 |date=October 8, 2011 }} Westinghouse. Retrieved November 4, 2011.

In May 2011, US government regulators found additional problems with the design of the shield building of the new reactors. The chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said that: computations submitted by Westinghouse about the building's design appeared to be wrong and "had led to more questions."; the company had not used a range of possible temperatures for calculating potential seismic stresses on the shield building in the event of, for example, an earthquake; and that the commission was asking Westinghouse not only to fix its calculations but also to explain why it submitted flawed information in the first place. Westinghouse said that the items the commission was asking for were not "safety significant".[https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/business/energy-environment/21nuke.html?_r=1& Matthew L. Wald, Washington DC, "Regulators Find Design Flaws in New Reactors"]. The New York Times, May 20, 2011.

In November 2011, Arnold Gundersen published a further report on behalf of the AP1000 Oversight Group, which includes Friends of the Earth and Mothers against Tennessee River Radiation. The report highlighted six areas of major concern and unreviewed safety questions requiring immediate technical review by the NRC. The report concluded that certification of the AP1000 should be delayed until the original and current "unanswered safety questions" raised by the AP1000 Oversight Group are resolved.[http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Rept-Fukushima-AP1000-Fairewinds_11_10_11.pdf "Fukushima and the Westinghouse-Toshiba AP1000: A Report for The AP1000 Oversight Group"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180813081634/http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Rept-Fukushima-AP1000-Fairewinds_11_10_11.pdf |date=August 13, 2018 }} Arnie Gundersen, November 10, 2011

In 2012, Ellen Vancko, from the Union of Concerned Scientists, said that "the Westinghouse AP1000 has a weaker containment, less redundancy in safety systems, and fewer safety features than current reactors".{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/opinion/sunday/sunday-dialogue-nuclear-energy-pro-and-con.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all |title=Sunday Dialogue: Nuclear Energy, Pro and Con |date=February 25, 2012 |work=New York Times }}

In response to Ms. Vancko's concerns, climate policies author and retired nuclear engineer Zvi J. Doron, replied that the AP1000's safety is enhanced by fewer active components, not compromised as Ms. Vancko suggests. As in direct contrast to currently operating reactors, the AP1000 has been designed around the concept of passive nuclear safety.

In October 2013, Li Yulun, a former vice-president of China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC), raised concerns over the safety standards of the delayed AP1000 third-generation nuclear power plant being built in Sanmen, due to the constantly changing, and consequently untested, design. Citing a lack of operating history, he also questioned the manufacturer's assertion that the AP1000 reactor's "primary system canned motor pumps"{{cite news |url=https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurethe-world-s-largest-canned-motor-pump/ |title=The world's largest canned motor pump |publisher=Nuclear Engineering International |date=January 1, 2013 |access-date=July 23, 2019}} were "maintenance-free" over 60 years, the assumed life of the reactor and noted that the expansion from 600 to 1,000 megawatts has not yet been commercially proven.[http://www.scmp.com/business/china-business/article/1325973/china-nuclear-plant-delay-raises-safety-concern "China nuclear plant delay raises safety concern"] Eric Ng, October 7, 2013, South China Morning Post.

{{Further|CAP1400}}

In 2008 and 2009, Westinghouse made agreements to work with the Chinese State Nuclear Power Technology Corporation (SNPTC) and other institutes to develop a larger design, the CAP1400 of 1,500 MW_e capacity, possibly followed by a 1,700 MW_e design. China will own the patent rights for these larger designs. Exporting the new larger units may be possible with Westinghouse's cooperation.{{cite web |url= http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html |title=Nuclear Power in China |publisher=World Nuclear Association |date=July 2, 2010 |access-date=July 18, 2010| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100731142459/http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html| archive-date=July 31, 2010 | url-status=live}}{{cite web |url=https://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloadable/Meetings/2013/2013-06-24-06-28-TM-NPTD/14-snerdi.pdf |title=CAP 1400 Design & Construction |author=Lin Tian |publisher=IAEA |website=SNPTC |date=June 27, 2013 |access-date=September 20, 2016}}

In September 2014, the Chinese nuclear regulator approved the design safety analysis following a 17-month review.{{cite news |url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-CAP1400-preliminary-safety-review-approved-0909145.html |title=CAP1400 preliminary safety review approved |publisher=World Nuclear News |date=September 9, 2014 |access-date=September 10, 2014}} In May 2015 the CAP1400 design passed an International Atomic Energy Agency's Generic Reactor Safety Review.{{cite news |url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Large-scale-Chinese-reactor-design-passes-IAEA-safety-review-0505164.html |title=Large-scale Chinese reactor design passes IAEA safety review |publisher=World Nuclear News |date=May 5, 2016 |access-date=September 20, 2016}}

In December 2009, a Chinese joint venture was set up to build an initial CAP1400 near the HTR-PM at Shidao Bay Nuclear Power Plant.{{cite news |url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_New_reactor_design_taking_shape_in_China_1501141.html |title=New reactor design taking shape in China |publisher=World Nuclear News |date=January 15, 2014 |access-date=January 16, 2014}} In 2015, site preparation started, and approval to progress was expected by the end of the year.{{cite news |url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-China-looks-forward-to-reactor-firsts-1409157.html |title=China looks forward to reactor firsts |publisher=World Nuclear News |date=September 14, 2015 |access-date=September 24, 2015}}{{cite report |url=https://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloadable/Meetings/2015/2015-09-01-09-03-NPTDS41894/DAY2/9_CAP1400_introduction_for_IAEA-201509.pdf |title=Introduction of CAP1400 |author=Liao Liang |publisher=IAEA |work=SNERDI |date=September 2015 |access-date=February 24, 2016}} In March 2017, the first CAP1400 reactor pressure vessel passed pressure tests.{{cite news |url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-CAP1400-reactor-vessel-passes-pressure-tests-2203174.html |title=CAP1400 reactor vessel passes pressure tests |publisher=World Nuclear News |date=March 22, 2017 |access-date=March 22, 2017}} Equipment for the CAP1400 is being manufactured, and as of 2020 preliminary construction is underway.{{cite news |url=https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsksb-coolant-pump-certified-for-use-in-chinese-npps-7378870/ |title=KSB coolant pump certified for use in Chinese NPPs |publisher=Nuclear Engineering International |date=August 22, 2019 |access-date=September 11, 2020}}{{cite news |url=https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/China-readying-for-nuclear-expansion-says-Zheng |title=China readying for nuclear expansion, says Zheng |publisher=World Nuclear News |date=September 11, 2020 |access-date=September 11, 2020}}

In February 2019, the Shanghai Nuclear Engineering Research & Design Institute announced that it had begun the conceptual design process for the CAP1700.{{cite web |title=上海核工院召开专家技术咨询会 |url=http://www.smnpo.cn/tpxw/1659991.htm |publisher=上海核电办公室 |access-date=August 24, 2019 }}

{{main|Nuclear energy in China}}

File:Sanmen Nuclear Power Station.jpg, the world's first AP1000, was commissioned in 2018.]]

Four AP1000 reactors have been constructed in China, two at Sanmen Nuclear Power Plant in Zhejiang, and two at Haiyang Nuclear Power Plant in Shandong.{{cite web |url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Second-Summer-AP1000-under-construction-0611134.html |title=Second Summer AP1000 under construction |date=November 6, 2013 |website=World Nuclear News }}

The Sanmen 1 & 2 AP1000s were connected to the grid on July 2, 2018, and August 24, 2018, respectively.{{cite news |url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Second-Sanmen-AP1000-connected-to-grid |title=Second Sanmen AP1000 connected to grid |publisher=World Nuclear News |date=August 24, 2018 |access-date=August 27, 2018}}

Haiyang 1 started commercial operation on October 22, 2018,{{Cite web | url=https://www.nucnet.org/all-the-news/2018/10/24/china-s-haiyang-1-becomes-second-westinghouse-ap1000-to-begin-commercial-operation | title=China's Haiyang-1 Becomes Second Westinghouse AP1000 to Begin Commercial Operation| date=August 20, 2018}} and Haiyang 2 on January 9, 2019.{{cite web |url= http://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Fourth-Chinese-AP1000-enters-commercial-operation |title= Fourth Chinese AP1000 enters commercial operation |date= January 9, 2019 |work= World Nuclear News |access-date= January 9, 2019 }}

In 2014, China First Heavy Industries manufactured the first domestically produced AP1000 reactor pressure vessel, for the second AP1000 unit of Sanmen Nuclear Power Station.{{cite news |url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-China-produces-first-AP1000-vessel-1106144.html |title=China produces first AP1000 vessel |publisher=World Nuclear News |date=June 11, 2014 |access-date=August 6, 2014}}

The first four AP1000s to be built are to an earlier revision of the design without a strengthened containment structure to provide improved protection against an aircraft crash.{{Citation |url=http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=40685 |title=Pakistan Deal Signals China's Growing Nuclear Assertiveness |author=Mark Hibbs |work=Nuclear Energy Brief |date=April 27, 2010 |publisher=Carnegie Endowment for International Peace |access-date=February 25, 2011| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110117134550/http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=40685| archive-date= January 17, 2011 | url-status= dead}} China had officially adopted the AP1000 as a standard for inland nuclear projects.{{cite news| url= http://english.caijing.com.cn/2008-09-11/110011665.html| title= U.S. Technology Picked for Nuclear Plants| author= Li Qiyan| date= September 11, 2008| work= Caijing| access-date= October 29, 2008| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20081015232723/http://english.caijing.com.cn/2008-09-11/110011665.html| archive-date= October 15, 2008| url-status= dead}} Following Westinghouse's bankruptcy in 2017, China decided in 2019 to build the domestically designed Hualong One rather than the AP1000 at Zhangzhou.{{cite news |url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Permits-issued-for-construction-of-new-Chinese-pla |title=Permits issued for construction of new Chinese plant |publisher=World Nuclear News |date=October 15, 2019 |access-date=October 15, 2019}}

After 2019, all plans for future AP1000 units were superseded by CAP1000 units, which are a local standardization of the AP1000 design, transitional to the CAP1400. It is said to have reduced cost and improved operation and maintenance attributes.{{Cite web |title=China Nuclear Power {{!}} Chinese Nuclear Energy - World Nuclear Association |url=https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221213012109/https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx |archive-date=2022-12-13 |access-date=2022-12-19 |website=world-nuclear.org}}

As of 2021, site preparations have been done for Haiyang, Lufeng, Sanmen, and Xudabao for the construction of eight additional CAP1000 units. However, most of these projects are at a standstill, as construction of all CAP-1000 units has been slowed down significantly.

At the Xudabao site, construction of two VVER-1200 units for Xudabao 3 & 4 was started in 2021 while the planned CAP1000 units for phase 1 & 2 are still on hold. On 20 April 2022, the construction of Haiyang 3 & 4 and Sanmen 3 & 4 was approved by the State Council. However, Lufeng 5, using a Hualong One unit, was decided to be built first instead of the CAP1000 units for Lufeng 1-4 which had already been approved by the National Development and Reform Commission.{{cite news |title= China approves construction of six new reactors |url=https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/China-approves-construction-of-six-new-reactors |accessdate=23 April 2022 |work=www.world-nuclear-news.org}} On 14 September 2022, the State Council approved construction of Lianjiang 1 & 2.{{cite news |title= Approval for four new reactors in south China |url=https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Approval-for-four-new-reactors-in-south-China |accessdate=20 September 2022 |work=www.world-nuclear-news.org}}

{{main|Nuclear energy in Turkey}}

In October 2015 it was announced that technology for the İğneada Nuclear Power Plant in Turkey will come from US based firm Westinghouse Electric Company in the form of two AP1000 and two Chinese CAP1400.{{cite web|url=http://www.novinite.com/articles/171329/Turkey+Plans+to+Build+Nuclear+Power+Plant+Close+to+Border+with+Bulgaria |title=Turkey Plans to Build Nuclear Power Plant Close to Border with Bulgaria|date=October 14, 2015 |access-date=July 12, 2020 |website=novinite.com}}

In 2016, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources of the Republic of Turkey, Berat Albayrak, inspected the AP 1000 Shangdong Haiyang Nuclear Power Plant, which belongs to the China National State Nuclear Technology Corporation (SNPTC), a subsidiary of the China State Electricity Investment Corporation (SPIC).[https://enerji.gov.tr/haber-detay?id=165]

{{See also|Nukegate scandal}}

Two reactors have been brought online at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in the state of Georgia (Units 3 & 4).

In South Carolina, two units were being constructed at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station (Units 2 & 3).{{cite web|url=http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_nui_ic_VCSummer.html |title=AP1000 Construction Project Updates - VC Summer |author=Westinghouse |year=2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131019154347/http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_nui_ic_VCSummer.html |archive-date=October 19, 2013 }}

The project was abandoned in July 2017, 4 years after it began, due to Westinghouse's recent bankruptcy, major cost overruns, significant delays, and other issues.{{cite news|title=Scana to evaluate Summer options|url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-Scana-to-evaluate-Summer-options-3003177.html|access-date=April 11, 2018|work=www.world-nuclear-news.org|date=March 30, 2017}} The project's primary shareholder (SCANA) initially favored a plan to abandon development of Unit 3, while completing Unit 2. The plan was dependent on approval of a minority shareholder (Santee Cooper). Santee Cooper's board voted to cease all construction resulting in termination of the entire project.

All four reactors were identical and the two projects ran in parallel, with the first two reactors (Vogtle 3 and Summer 2) planned to be commissioned in 2019 and the remaining two (Vogtle 4 and Summer 3) in 2020.{{cite web |url=http://www.scana.com/en/investor-relations/nuclear-development/schedule/default.htm |title=Nuclear Financial Information |author=SCANA |year=2013 |access-date=October 15, 2013 |archive-date=October 22, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141022005217/http://www.scana.com/en/investor-relations/nuclear-development/schedule/default.htm |url-status=dead }}{{cite web|url=http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/metro/2015-08-28/plant-vogtle-track-after-schedule-revised|title=The Augusta Chronicle: Local & World News, Sports & Entertainment in Augusta, GA|website=The Augusta Chronicle}} After Westinghouse filed for bankruptcy protection on March 29, 2017, the construction has stalled.

On April 9, 2008, Georgia Power Company reached a contract agreement with Westinghouse and Shaw for two AP1000 reactors to be built at Vogtle.{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/10/nuclear.nuclearpower |title=Westinghouse wins first US nuclear deal in 30 years |author=Terry Macalister |work=The Guardian |date=April 10, 2008 |access-date=April 9, 2008 |location=London| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20080411141939/http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/10/nuclear.nuclearpower| archive-date= April 11, 2008 | url-status= live}} The contract represents the first agreement for new nuclear development since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.{{cite news

|title=Georgia Power to Expand Nuclear Plant

|publisher=Associated Press

|url=https://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/04/09/ap4870687.html

|access-date=April 9, 2008

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080413080429/http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/04/09/ap4870687.html

|archive-date=April 13, 2008

|url-status=dead

}}

The license request for the Vogtle site is based on revision 18 of the AP1000 design.{{cite news

|title=NRC: Combined License Application Documents for Vogtle, Units 3 and 4 Application

|publisher=NRC

|url=https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/vogtle/documents.html

|access-date=March 11, 2011

|url-status=dead

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721061354/http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/vogtle/documents.html

|archive-date=July 21, 2011

}}

On February 16, 2010, President Obama announced $8.33 billion in federal loan guarantees to construct the two AP1000 units at the Vogtle plant.{{cite news

|title = Obama Administration Announces Loan Guarantees to Construct New Nuclear Power Reactors in Georgia

|publisher = The White House Office of the Press Secretary

|url = https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/obama-administration-announces-loan-guarantees-construct-new-nuclear-power-reactors

|access-date = April 30, 2010

|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170121023107/https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/obama-administration-announces-loan-guarantees-construct-new-nuclear-power-reactors

|archive-date = January 21, 2017

|url-status = live

}} The cost of building the two reactors was projected to be $14 billion, but has since increased to $30B with only one reactor online and the second remaining under construction.{{cite news |url=http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/business/local-business/2012-05-11/price-vogtle-expansion-could-increase-900-million |title=Price of Vogtle expansion could increase $900 million |author=Rob Pavey |newspaper=The Augusta Chronicle |date=May 11, 2012 |access-date=July 25, 2012}}{{cite news |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/31/vogtle-unit-3-nuclear-reactor-long-delayed-starts-delivering-power.html |title=America's first new nuclear reactor in nearly seven years starts operations|access-date=July 31, 2023}} Georgia Power, which owns 45.7% of Vogtle, delayed the projected in-service dates to the fourth quarter of 2023, or first quarter of 2024, for Unit 4.{{Cite news |last=DiSavino |first=Scott |date=2022-02-17 |title=Southern delays startup of new Georgia nuclear reactors, boosts costs |language=en |work=Reuters |editor-last=Zieminski |editor-first=Nick |url=https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/southern-delays-startup-new-georgia-nuclear-reactors-boosts-costs-2022-02-17/ |url-status=live |access-date=2022-07-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220621081102/https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/southern-delays-startup-new-georgia-nuclear-reactors-boosts-costs-2022-02-17/ |archive-date=2022-06-21}}

Environmental groups opposed to the licensing of the two new AP1000 reactors to be built at Vogtle filed a new petition in April 2011 asking the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's commission to suspend the licensing process until more is known about the evolving Fukushima I nuclear accidents.{{cite web |url= http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/metro/2011-04-06/groups-want-licensing-reactors-suspended |title=Groups want licensing of reactors suspended |author=Rob Pavey |date=April 6, 2011 |website=Augusta Chronicle }} In February 2012, nine environmental groups filed a collective challenge to the certification of the Vogtle reactor design and in March they filed a challenge to the Vogtle license. In May 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

In February 2012, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the two proposed reactors at the Vogtle plant.{{cite news | title=NRC Approves Vogtle Reactor Construction | publisher=Nuclear Street | url=http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2012/02/09/nrc-approves-vogtle-reactor-construction-_2d00_-first-new-nuclear-plant-approval-in-34-years-_2800_with-new-plant-photos_2900_-020902.aspx | access-date= February 9, 2012 }}

For VC Summer, a delay of at least one year and extra costs of $1.2 billion were announced in October 2014, largely due to fabrication delays. Unit 2 was then expected to be substantially complete in late 2018 or early 2019, with unit 3 about a year later.{{cite news |url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Cost-of-Summer-AP1000s-increases-0310144.html |title=Cost of Summer AP1000s increases |publisher=World Nuclear News |date=October 3, 2014 |access-date=October 6, 2014}}

In October 2013, US energy secretary Ernest Moniz announced that China was to supply components to the US nuclear power plants under construction as part of a bilateral co-operation agreement between the two countries. Since China's State Nuclear Power Technology Corporation (SNPTC) acquired Westinghouses's AP1000 technology in 2006, it has developed a manufacturing supply chain capable of supplying international power projects. Industry analysts have highlighted a number of problems facing China's expansion in the nuclear market including continued gaps in their supply chain, coupled with Western fears of political interference and Chinese inexperience in the economics of nuclear power.[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e8a83158-4164-11e3-9073-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Fe8a83158-4164-11e3-9073-00144feabdc0.html%3Fsiteedition%3Duk&siteedition=uk&_i_referer=#axzz2vrcm115V "China set to supply components to US nuclear power plants." Lucy Hornby (Beijing) and Ed Crooks (New York)], Financial Times, October 30, 2013 [https://web.archive.org/web/20160307095935/http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-nuclear-britain-china-analysis-idUKBRE9BG06D20131217 "Analysis - China needs Western help for nuclear export ambitions" David Stanway (Beijing)] Reuters, December 17, 2013

On July 31, 2017, after an extensive review into the costs of constructing Units 2 and 3, South Carolina Electric and Gas decided to stop construction of the reactors at VC Summer and will file a Petition for Approval of Abandonment with the Public Service Commission of South Carolina.{{cite news|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-31/scana-to-cease-construction-of-two-reactors-in-south-carolina|title=Terms of Service Violation|newspaper=Bloomberg.com|date=July 31, 2017}}

On October 14, 2022, Georgia Power announced that loading of nuclear fuel at Vogtle Unit 3 had begun.{{Cite web |date=2022-10-14 |title=Vogtle Unit 3 starts nuclear fuel load |url=https://apnews.com/press-release/pr-newswire/health-business-georgia-covid-935559a8a682ea57416eab6fea47fceb |access-date=2023-05-30 |website=AP NEWS |language=en}}

On April 1, 2023, Georgia Power announced that Vogtle Unit 3 had made a connection to the grid and began supplying electricity for the first time,{{Cite web |title=Grid connection for Vogtle unit 3 : New Nuclear - World Nuclear News |url=https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Grid-connection-for-Vogtle-unit-3 |access-date=2023-05-30 |website=www.world-nuclear-news.org}} and on May 29, Unit 3 reached its maximum designed power output.{{Cite web |date=2023-05-29 |title=Third nuclear reactor reaches 100% power output at Georgia's Plant Vogtle |url=https://apnews.com/article/nuclear-reactor-georgia-power-plant-vogtle-63535de92e55acc0f7390706a6599d75 |access-date=2023-05-30 |website=AP NEWS |language=en}}

Hot functional testing on Vogtle Unit 4 was completed on May 1, 2023.{{Cite web |title=Hot Functional Testing completed for Vogtle Unit 4 |url=https://www.georgiapower.com/company/news-center/2023-articles/hot-functional-testing-completed-for-vogtle-unit-4.html |access-date=2023-05-30 |website=www.georgiapower.com |language=en}} It went into commercial operation in March 2024.{{Cite web |title=Plant Vogtle Unit 4 begins commercial operation |url=https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61963 |access-date=2024-07-18 |website=www.eia.gov/ |language=en}}

{{main|Nuclear power in Ukraine}}

On August 31, 2021, the head of SE NNEGC Energoatom Petro Kotin and the President and chief executive officer of Westinghouse Patrick Fragman signed a memorandum of cooperation for building Westinghouse AP1000 reactors in Ukraine. The contract was signed on November 22, 2021.

The memorandum and contract between the two companies concerns the completion of unit 4 of the Khmelnytskyi Nuclear Power Plant with the AP1000 as well as four more power units of other nuclear power plants in Ukraine.{{cite web |url=http://www.energoatom.com.ua/en/press_center-19/company-20/p/memorandum_on_construction_of_new_power_units_in_ukraine_signed_between_energoatom_and_westinghouse-47993 |title=Memorandum on construction of new power units in Ukraine signed between Energoatom and Westinghouse |access-date=September 14, 2021 |website=energoatom.com.ua |archive-date=September 14, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210914132132/http://www.energoatom.com.ua/en/press_center-19/company-20/p/memorandum_on_construction_of_new_power_units_in_ukraine_signed_between_energoatom_and_westinghouse-47993 |url-status=dead }}{{cite web|url=https://www.ans.org/news/article-3459/contract-signed-for-first-ap1000-unit-in-ukraine/ |title=Contract signed for first AP1000 unit in Ukraine |access-date=December 29, 2021}}

Poland plans to build three AP1000 reactors in Choczewo near the Baltic Sea,{{cite web|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-28/poland-picks-us-westinghouse-for-its-first-nuclear-power-plant |title=Poland Picks US, Westinghouse for First Nuclear Power Plant |website=Bloomberg News |date=October 28, 2022 |access-date=October 29, 2022}} the site is called Lubiatowo-Kopalino.{{cite web|url=https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Poland-s-Pomerania-backs-proposed-nuclear-plant-lo|title=Poland's Pomerania backs proposed nuclear plant location|publisher=World Nuclear News}}

Bulgaria plans to build two AP1000 reactors in Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant.{{cite web|url=https://www.economic.bg/en/a/view/bulgaria-extended-its-contract-with-westinghouse-for-the-new-nuclear-units |title=Bulgaria extended its contract with Westinghouse for the new nuclear units |date=October 10, 2024}}

{{see also|India–United States Civil Nuclear Agreement}}

In June 2016, the US and India agreed to build six AP1000 reactors in India as part of civil nuclear deal signed by both countries.{{cite news|url=https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/n-joy-us-firm-to-finally-start-work-on-nuclear-power-plants-in-india-116060800074_1.html|title=N-joy: US firm to finally start work on nuclear power plants in India|last=IANS|date=June 8, 2016|via=Business Standard|newspaper=Business Standard India}} Westinghouse's parent company Toshiba decided in 2017 to withdraw from the construction of nuclear power plants, following financial difficulties, leaving the proposed agreement in doubt.{{cite news |url=http://www.millenniumpost.in/opinion/news-183936 |title=India-US N-deal Under Threat |first=Nitya |last=Chakraborty |newspaper=Millinium Post |date=February 10, 2017 |access-date=February 24, 2017}} During a visit to India in February 2020 by U.S. President Donald Trump, Westinghouse was expected to sign a new agreement with state-run Nuclear Power Corporation of India for the supply of six nuclear reactors. However, because of disagreements over liability and layout, this did not take place.{{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-usa-trump-westinghouse-exclusiv/exclusive-westinghouse-set-to-sign-pact-with-indian-firm-for-nuclear-reactors-during-trump-visit-idUSKBN20E1PM|title=Exclusive: Westinghouse set to sign pact with Indian firm for nuclear reactors during Trump visit|date=February 20, 2020| access-date= March 1, 2020}}{{cite news|url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/energy/power/npcil-westinghouse-deal-still-many-differences-to-resolve/articleshow/74328698.cms|title=NPCIL-Westinghouse deal: Still many differences to resolve|work=The Economic Times|date=February 27, 2020| access-date= March 8, 2020}}

In December 2013, Toshiba, through its Westinghouse subsidiary, purchased a 60% share of NuGeneration, with the intention of building three AP1000s at Moorside near the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing site in Cumbria, England, with a target first operation date of 2024.{{cite news |url=http://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsfirst-ap1000-at-moorside-online-by-2024-westinghouse-says-4159583 |title=First AP1000 at Moorside online by 2024, Westinghouse says |publisher=Nuclear Engineering International |date=January 14, 2014 |access-date=January 15, 2014}}

On March 28, 2017, the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR, UK) issued a Design Acceptance Confirmation for the AP1000 design, stating that 51 issues identified in 2011 had received an adequate response.{{cite web|title=AP1000 design completes UK regulatory assessment|publisher=World Nuclear News|url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-AP1000-design-completes-UK-regulatory-assessment-30031701.html|date=March 30, 2017|access-date=April 8, 2017}}{{cite web|url=http://www.onr.org.uk/new-reactors/ap1000/reports/ap1000-signed-dac.pdf|title=New nuclear power stations: Generic Design Assessment: Design Acceptance Confirmation for the AP1000® Reactor |publisher= ONR|date=March 28, 2017|access-date=April 8, 2017}} However, the following day the designer, Westinghouse, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. because of $9 billion of losses from its nuclear reactor construction projects, mostly the construction of four AP1000 reactors in the U.S.{{cite news |url=http://www.neimagazine.com/news/newswestinghouse-files-for-bankruptcy-5773901 |title=Westinghouse files for bankruptcy |publisher=Nuclear Engineering International |date=March 29, 2017 |access-date=April 4, 2017}} In 2018, following an unsuccessful attempt to sell NuGeneration Toshiba decided to liquidate the company and abandon the project.{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/08/toshiba-uk-nuclear-power-plant-project-nu-gen-cumbria |title=UK nuclear power station plans scrapped as Toshiba pulls out |last=Vaughan |first=Adam |newspaper=The Guardian |date=November 8, 2018 |access-date=November 24, 2018}}{{Cite web|url=https://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/ir/en/news/20181108_4.pdf |title=Toshiba Nugen Liquidation Announcement |publisher=Toshiba Corporation |access-date=November 9, 2018}}{{cite web |title=Nuclear power: Moorside |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/nuclear-power-moorside |website=Gov.uk |date=November 5, 2019 |publisher=Uk Government |accessdate=6 September 2020}}

In March 2019, Sanmen Unit 2 was shut down because of a reactor coolant pump defect. A replacement pump has been shipped from the U.S. by Curtiss-Wright. There have been previous problems with these pumps, with several pumps returned from China. The pumps are the largest hermetically sealed pumps used in a nuclear reactor. Westinghouse and Curtiss-Wright are in a financial dispute over responsibility for the costs of pump delivery delays.{{cite news |url=https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/electric-power/031419-us-designed-chinese-nuclear-reactor-forced-to-shut-by-pump-defect |title=US-designed Chinese nuclear reactor forced to shut by pump defect |publisher=S&P Global |work=Platts |date=March 14, 2019 |access-date=July 23, 2019}}{{cite news |url=https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190401005456/en/Curtiss-Wright-Update-AP1000-Reactor-Coolant-Pumps |title=Curtiss-Wright Provides Update on AP1000 Reactor Coolant Pumps |publisher=Business Wire |date=April 1, 2019 |access-date=July 23, 2019}}

{{portal|Energy|Nuclear technology}}

• Nuclear safety in the United States
• Nuclear power in the United States
• Nuclear power in China
• Nuclear power in the United Kingdom
• Nuclear power in Bulgaria
• Economics of nuclear power plants
• Nuclear Power 2010 Program

{{Reflist|30em}}

• {{cite web |archive-date=July 23, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140723001334/http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/docs/AP1000_brochure.pdf|url=http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/docs/AP1000_brochure.pdf |title=AP1000: The Nuclear Renaissance Starts Here |access-date=July 8, 2015}} (Westinghouse AP1000 brochure).
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20080314035319/http://ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/index.html The AP1000 advanced 1000 MWe nuclear power plant]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20110716051553/http://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/idmws/ViewDocByAccession.asp?AccessionNumber=ML050750293 AP1000 design review documents] Revision 14.
• [http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/newreactors/fairewindsassociates_ap1000_11011.pdf Fairewinds Associates Presentation] AP1000 - extra risk of containment failure

{{Nuclear fission reactors}}

{{Westinghouse}}

{{Toshiba}}

Category:Nuclear power reactor types

Category:Nuclear power in China

Category:Nuclear power in the United States

Category:Nuclear power in Bulgaria

Category:Nuclear power in the United Kingdom