Whiteshell Laboratories – Manitoba’S Contribution to Nuclear Engineering in Canada

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Whiteshell Laboratories – Manitoba’S Contribution to Nuclear Engineering in Canada Whiteshell Laboratories – Manitoba’s Contribution to Nuclear Engineering in Canada Prepared By Chris Saunders, P. Eng. and Ray Sochaski, P.Eng; Life Member Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) established a role in Manitoba in 1963 when the Whiteshell Nuclear J.L. Gray Research Establishment (WNRE; later renamed Whiteshell James Lorne Gray was born in Brandon, Laboratories) first took shape. WNRE was Canada’s second Manitoba in 1913. After nuclear science research and development laboratory and public school in the first facility of its kind in western Canada. Through its Winnipeg, he graduated years of operation, the people of the WNRE made with a Masters in Mechanical Engineering significant contributions to the science and engineering from the University of knowledge of Canada’s nuclear industry. This article Saskatchewan in 1938. He highlights just a few of these many accomplishments. joined the Royal Canadian Air Force in 1939. In the Beginning Mr. Gray’s scientific career began at the National Research In the late 1950s AECL’s managers thought Chalk River Council in 1948. He was assigned to the “Chalk River” Laboratories (CRL) was nearing the saturation point. A project. He advanced to become President of AECL in 1958. For the next 16 years he led the corporation through quick survey indicated that three provinces were lacking an impressive growth period that saw Canada become a federal research facilities: Newfoundland, Alberta and leader in nuclear engineering and technologies. Manitoba. Newfoundland, it was felt was not an option at Mr. Gray was appointed a Companion of the Order of the time, having joined Canada less than ten years Canada in 1969 and was awarded the Professional previously in 1949. Alberta had no need of atomic energy, Engineers Gold Medal by the Association of Professional blessed as it was with abundant oil and gas. So it would be Engineers of Ontario in 1973. Manitoba. AECL wanted this new research laboratory to develop the organically cooled reactor. A preliminary survey went forward under the supervision of Shawinigan Engineering. AECL president J.L. Gray journeyed to Manitoba to meet with premier Duff Roblin. In November, 1959, he reported progress to the board: a probable site near the Seven Sisters Falls on the Winnipeg River; and an opinion by the federal government's housing agency that a new town would be developed. Negotiations with Manitoba were complicated. The new research centre would not be costless for the province. It would have to look after some of the infrastructure, such as roads and a bridge across the Winnipeg River, as well as housekeeping details. With help from the federal government, an agreement was approved by cabinet on July 21, 1960 and the Whiteshell Nuclear Research Establishment (WNRE) was born. Whiteshell Nuclear Research Establishment in 1965 1 Final agreement was reached on joint facilities, between AECL and Manitoba, just as the company was finalizing their plans for demonstrating organic cooled reactors. It was called simply OTR for Organic Test Reactor. A design would be ready for the start of the construction season in April 1962. Whiteshell Reactor #1 – A Manitoba Milestone The Whiteshell Reactor #1 (WR-1), WNRE’s signature facility, was built starting in 1962. The 60 Megawatt reactor was designed and built by Canadian General Electric for $14.5 million in only three years. By June 1965, WR-1 was substantially complete. WR-1 was built to test the concept of using an organic fluid to cool the reactor. The expected advantage was that they they can operate hotter and at lower pressures than water-cooled reactors. This was because the organic coolant had a lower vapour pressure than water. Higher operating temperatures increase the thermal efficiency of the attached turbine system (the amount of electricity produced divided by the amount of heat produced in the reactor core). Lower pressures reduce maintenance costs and pressure vessel design requirements. It allowed WR-1designers to use thinner-walled pressure tubes, which reduced the number of neutrons absorbed in the tubes, giving the reactor a high Construction in 1964 2 neutron flux. The reactor had vertical fuel channels. Neutrons were moderated by heavy water in a large calandria vessel surrounding the fuel channels. This calandria was a stainless steel tank approximately 5 m high and 2.75 m in diameter. Fifty-four aluminum tubes penetrate the calandria vessel. Pressure tubes, which contained the fuel and circulating organic coolant, were located inside these calandria tubes. The fuel was compacted and sintered uranium dioxide, slightly enriched to provide a useful neutron flux (2.4% U-235 in natural uranium, clad in zirconium-2.5% niobium alloy). The vessel was divided into an upper and lower section. The upper section contained the fuel and, when the reactor was operating, the heavy water moderator. The lower section contained helium gas and collected the moderator spillage from the upper section. The reactor control system maintained the moderator level in the upper section by varying the differential helium Installing the Reactor Vessel pressure between the two reactor sections. When the reactor tripped, the helium gas pressure in the lower section was equalized with the upper section allowing the lower section to rapidly receive the moderator from the upper section and drain to the moderator dump tank. The annuli between the fuel channels and the calandria tubes were purged with CO2 gas to insulate the hot fuel channels from the moderator. Sampling of the CO2 gas provided a means of detecting moderator or organic coolant leaks between the fuel channel and calandria tube. The reactor was surrounded by heavy concrete shielding (> 2 m thick), which formed the reactor vault walls. Heavy concrete (density of 3,500 kg/m3) was also used in the vicinity of the upper and lower access rooms and the shutdown shields. Stepped pipe chases through the concrete provided access for heavy water and helium lines and for the reactor vault exhaust duct. There were also three penetrations for the ion chambers. The inner surfaces of the concrete walls were cooled by embedded cooling coils. The top deck plates provide an operational shield between the upper access space and the reactor hall. The deck plates also supported the fuel transfer flask and provided the necessary radiation shielding during fuelling operations. It consisted of two rotating plates and an outer WR-1’s Fuel Transfer Flask 3 stationary ring. The plates were comprised of cast steel (0.45 m thick) topped by wood fibre hardboard (Masonite; 9 cm thick) and a steel cover plate (0.5 cm thick). The inner (small) rotating plate was supported by the large rotating plate on large ball bearings. The large plate was similarly supported on the stationary outer ring, which, in turn, was supported by the shielding walls of the upper access space. The rotating plates were driven by pinion gears located on the stationary ring and on the large rotating plate, which meshed with gears located at the outer periphery of the large and small rotating plates, respectively. The small rotating plate had two holes for fuelling operations and periscope viewing in the upper access space. The Primary Heat Transport System (PHT) was designed to remove the heat produced in the reactor core. The system was divided into three circuits. The removed heat was dissipated to the Winnipeg River through Whiteshell’s WR-1 Reactor three conventional tube-and-shell heat exchangers. River water was used as the secondary coolant. The PHT system had three similar circuits to achieve flexibility for experimental research. To the outside world the most noticeable feature of the WR-1 reactor was the ventilation stack. The stack was known as the "stank" - a combination emergency coolant tank and ventilation stack. WR-1 Control Room 4 The WR-1 reactor was housed in a building that had 7 floors, 5 of which were below grade. The building was divided into two areas: the lower 4 levels (with restricted access) contained shutdown reactor components, while the upper 3 floors provided office space or laboratory space for experimental programs. The reliability of the WR-1 safety systems was achieved by means of instrument triplication, parameter duplication and frequent testing. Each trip parameter was monitored by three independent sets of instrumentation. Used fuel, irradiated fuel channels and equipment could be safely transferred from the reactor to water-filled storage facilities. After the fuel or equipment had been cleaned or decayed sufficiently, it would be transferred to long-term site storage. WR-1 Operations – Dick Meeker and Phil Roy Experimental Loops A unique feature of WR-1 was its four experimental loops and one out-of-reactor hydraulic test loop. Each in-reactor loop consisted of a fuelled test section in a reactor lattice position and piping equipment and instrumentation in an adjacent loop room to maintain required operating conditions of flow, pressure and temperature in the test section. A fuel position was converted to a loop by disconnecting the inlet and outlet feeders from the PHT and connecting the feeders to the loop inlet and outlet piping. The out-of- reactor hydraulic test facility was capable of handling full-sized fuel channels and fuel assemblies. The loop consisted of a circulation pump, a pressurizing pump, three test sections, three electric heaters, a make-up tank/degassifier, a condenser circuit, a purification circuit, a loop cooler, piping and instrumentation. Frank Orvec and Alex Robertson in WR-1 Control Room 5 November 1, 1965 – Manitoba History WR-1 commissioning proceeded smoothly. As might F.W. Gilbert be expected with a new reactor design, some Fred Gilbert was the forefather modifications were required in the pre-critical phase to of AECL in Manitoba.
Recommended publications
  • Inventory of Rad Waste in Canada 2012.Qxd
    Inventory of Radioactive Waste in Canada Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Office Ottawa, Canada 2012 Inventory of Radioactive Waste in Canada March 2012 LLRWMO-01613-041-10003 CC3-1/2012 978-1-100-54191-4 Inventory of Radioactive Waste in Canada Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Office 1900 City Park Drive, Suite 200 Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1J 1A3 Inventory of Radioactive Waste in Canada Executive Summary This report presents the inventory of radioactive waste in Canada to the end of 2010. It is intended to provide an overall review on the production, accumulation and projections of radioactive waste in Canada. The data presented in this report has been gathered from many sources including regulatory documents, published reports and supplemental information provided by the nuclear regulator, waste producers and waste management facilities. Radioactive waste has been produced in Canada since the early 1930s when the first radium mine began operating at Port Radium in the Northwest Territories. Radium was refined for medical use and uranium was later processed at Port Hope, Ontario. Research and development on the application of nuclear energy to produce electricity began in the 1940s at the Chalk River Laboratories (CRL) of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL). At present, radioactive waste is generated in Canada from: uranium mining, milling, refining and conversion; nuclear fuel fabrication; nuclear reactor operations; nuclear research; and radioisotope manufacture and use. Radioactive waste is primarily grouped into three categories: nuclear fuel waste, low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste, and uranium mining and milling waste. In accordance with Canada’s Radioactive Waste Policy Framework, the owners of radioactive waste are responsible for the funding, organization, management and operation of long-term waste management facilities required for their waste.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 13 Reactor Safety Design and Safety Analysis Prepared by Dr
    1 CHAPTER 13 Reactor Safety Design and Safety Analysis prepared by Dr. Victor G. Snell Summary: The chapter covers safety design and safety analysis of nuclear reactors. Topics include concepts of risk, probability tools and techniques, safety criteria, design basis accidents, risk assessment, safety analysis, safety-system design, general safety policy and principles, and future trends. It makes heavy use of case studies of actual accidents both in the text and in the exercises. Table of Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 6 1.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................. 6 1.2 Learning Outcomes............................................................................................................. 8 1.3 Risk ...................................................................................................................................... 8 1.4 Hazards from a Nuclear Power Plant ................................................................................ 10 1.5 Types of Radiation in a Nuclear Power Plant.................................................................... 12 1.6 Effects of Radiation ........................................................................................................... 12 1.7 Sources of Radiation ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Written Submission from the Whiteshell Laboratories Public
    CMD 19-H4.3 File / dossier : 6.01.07 Date: 2019-09-02 Edocs: 5984562 Written submission from the Mémoire du Whiteshell Laboratories Public Whiteshell Laboratories Public Liaison Committee Liaison Committee In the Matter of the À l’égard de Whiteshell Laboratories Laboratoires de Whiteshell Application to renew the Nuclear Research Demande pour le renouvellement, pour une and Test Establishment Decommissioning période de dix ans, du permis de déclassement Licence for the Whiteshell Laboratories site d’un établissement de recherche et d’essais for a period of ten years nucléaires pour les Laboratoires de Whiteshell Commission Public Hearing Audience publique de la Commission October 2-3, 2019 Les 2 et 3 octobre 2019 This page was intentionally Cette page a été intentionnellement left blank laissée en blanc August 19, 2019 Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 280 Slater Street, P.O. Box 1046, Station B Ottawa, ON K1P 5S9 RE: Application from Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Ltd. (CNL) to renew its Nuclear Research and Test Establishment Decommissioning Licence (NRTEDL) for the Whiteshell Laboratories (WL) The Public Liaison Committee (PLC) offers this letter as documentation of the committee’s awareness and involvement in the CNL application to renew its Nuclear Research and Test Establishment Decommissioning Licence (NRTEDL) for the Whiteshell Laboratories (WL). The committee has been in place since 2003 to facilitate two-way communication and consultation with surrounding communities and stakeholders. The committee meets approximately two times a year and includes the following representatives: Acsion Industries Inc.; RM of Lac du Bonnet; Town of Beausejour; Town of Lac du Bonnet; RM of Whitemouth; RM of Brokenhead; The Local Government District of Pinawa; Powerview/Pine Falls; RM of Alexander; Manitoba Sustainable Development (formerly Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship).
    [Show full text]
  • CMD19-H100-8.Pdf
    CMD 19-H100.8 File/dossier : 6.01.07 Date : 2019-08-30 Edocs pdf : 5983279 Oral Presentation Exposé oral Submission from Nuclear Waste Mémoire d’Action Déchets Nucléaires et Watch and Inter-Church Uranium Inter-Church Uranium Committee Committee Educational Cooperative Educational Cooperative In the Matter of À l’égard de Saskatchewan Research Council, Saskatchewan Research Council SLOWPOKE-2 Reactor Installation nucléaire SLOWPOKE-2 Request by the Saskatchewan Research Demande du Saskatchewan Research Council Council to authorize the decommissioning of afin d’autoriser le déclassement du réacteur the SLOWPOKE-2 reactor SLOWPOKE-2 Commission Public Hearing Audience publique de la Commission September 26, 2019 Le 26 septembre 2019 This page was intentionally Cette page a été intentionnellement left blank laissée en blanc Decommissioning of Saskatchewan Research Council SLOWPOKE-2 Reactor (Ref. 2019-H-100) Nuclear Waste Watch and Inter-Church Uranium Committee Educational Cooperative’s Submission to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Prepared by: Jessica Karban Legal Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association August 30, 2019 ISBN: 978-1-77189-996-3 Publication No. 1290 Report from NWW & ICUCEC | 2 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation 1: In order to facilitate public participation, all Commission Member Documents (CMDs) and accompanying references should be made available on the CNSC’s website at least 60 days in advance of intervention deadlines and remain on the website for future public use. Recommendation 2: Based on our review of applicable requirements governing decommissioning in Canada, we request that the CNSC: 1. Develop a principled overall policy framework underpinning a robust, clear, and enforceable regulatory regime for the decommissioning of nuclear facilities as well as the waste that arises from nuclear and decommissioning activities; 2.
    [Show full text]
  • XA04CO125 the DESIG 0 0 REA= W. Heeds', A.G. Lee P.A. Carlsono
    1101111IN111 XA04CO125 THE DESIG 0 0 REA= W. Heeds', A.G. Lee P.A. Carlsono H. McIlvain, J.R. Lebenhait' and R.F. LidStone AECL Research Whiteshell Laboratories Pinava, Manitoba, Canada ABSTRACT ARCL Is currently building the 10-MV APLE-XIO reactor at the Chalk River Laboratories to operate as a dedicated producer of commerclal-scale quantities of key medical and ndustrial radioisotopes and as a demonstration of the MAPL.R reactor design. In support of the safety and licensing analyses, static physics calculations have been performed to determine the neutronic performance and safety characteristics of the APLE-XIO reactor. This report summarizes results from the static physics calculations for several core conditions prior to commencing radioisotope production. 1. INTRODUCTION Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) is currently undertaking a Research Reactor Rationalization Program [1) hich ill define AECL's research reactor capabilities for the next ten to fifteen years. This rationalization program has been initiated to address several issues: 1. AECL's current research reactors, NRX and NRU, have operated for 44 and 34 years respectively. These reactors are ageing and are in need of rehabilitation or replacement. 2. There is a growing demand for radioisotopes hich has increased the number of radioisotope targets installed in the prime irradiation space in the NRU and NRX reactors. 3. The CANDU power reactor has achieved a successful operating and maintenance record and the demands for supporting research have changed significantly. 1. These authors are located at the Chalk River Laboratories, Chalk River, Ontario, Canada. 271 One major step in the rationalization program has been to develop the MAPLE reactor 12,3] to meet contemporary Canadian and international requirements for modest-cost, ultipurpose neutron sources.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comprehensive Approach to Elimination of Highly-Enriched
    Science and Global Security, 12:137–164, 2004 Copyright C Taylor & Francis Inc. ISSN: 0892-9882 print DOI: 10.1080/08929880490518045 AComprehensive Approach to Elimination of Highly-Enriched-Uranium From All Nuclear-Reactor Fuel Cycles Frank von Hippel “I would be prepared to submit to the Congress of the United States, and with every expectation of approval, [a] plan that would ... encourage world-wide investigation into the most effective peacetime uses of fissionable material...with the certainty that the investigators had all the material needed for the conducting of all experiments that were appropriate.” –President Dwight D. Eisenhower at the United Nations, Dec. 8, 1953, Over a period of about a decade after President Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” speech, the U.S. and Soviet Union exported research reactors to about 40 countries. By the mid-1970s, most of these reactors were fueled with weapon-useable highly-enriched uranium (HEU), and most of those with weapon-grade uranium. In 1978, because of heightened concern about nuclear proliferation, both countries launched programs to develop low-enriched uranium (LEU) replacement fuel containing less than 20 percent 235U for foreign research reactors that they were supplying with HEU fuel. By the time the Soviet Union collapsed, most of the Soviet-supplied research reactors outside the USSR had been converted to 36% enriched uranium but the program then stalled because of lack of funding. By the end of 2003, the U.S. program had converted 31 reactors to LEU, including 11 within the U.S. If the development of very high density LEU fuel is successful, it appears that conversion of virtually all remaining research Received 12 January 2004; accepted 23 February 2004.
    [Show full text]
  • Inventory of Radioactive Waste in Canada 2016 Inventory of Radioactive Waste in Canada 2016 Ix X 1.0 INVENTORY of RADIOACTIVE WASTE in CANADA OVERVIEW
    Inventory of RADIOACTIVE WASTE in CANADA 2016 Inventory of RADIOACTIVE WASTE in CANADA 2016 Photograph contributors: Cameco Corp.: page ix OPG: page 34 Orano Canada: page x Cameco Corp.: page 47 BWX Technologies, Inc.: page 2 Cameco Corp.: page 48 OPG: page 14 OPG: page 50 OPG: page 23 Cameco Corp.: page 53 OPG: page 24 Cameco Corp.: page 54 BWX Technologies, Inc.: page 33 Cameco Corp.: page 62 For information regarding reproduction rights, contact Natural Resources Canada at [email protected]. Aussi disponible en français sous le titre : Inventaire des déchets radioactifs au Canada 2016. © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Natural Resources, 2018 Cat. No. M134-48/2016E-PDF (Online) ISBN 978-0-660-26339-7 CONTENTS 1.0 INVENTORY OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE IN CANADA OVERVIEW ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1 1�1 Radioactive waste definitions and categories �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 3 1�1�1 Processes that generate radioactive waste in canada ����������������������������� 3 1�1�2 Disused radioactive sealed sources ����������������������������������������� 6 1�2 Responsibility for radioactive waste �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 6 1�2�1 Regulation of radioactive
    [Show full text]
  • Tritium Releases and Dose Consequences in Canada in 2006 Part of the Tritium Studies Project
    Canada’s Nuclear Regulator Tritium Releases and Dose Consequences in Canada in 2006 Part of the Tritium Studies Project INFO-0793 December 2009 TRITIUM RELEASES AND DOSE CONSEQUENCES IN CANADA IN 2006 Tritium Releases and Dose Consequences in Canada in 2006 © Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada 2009 Catalogue number CC172-52/2009E-PDF ISBN 978-1-100-13930-2 Published by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) Catalogue number: INFO-0793 Extracts from this document may be reproduced for individual use without permission provided the source is fully acknowledged. However, reproduction in whole or in part for purposes of resale or redistribution requires prior written permission from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Également publié en français sous le titre de : Rejets de tritium et conséquences sur les doses au Canada en 2006 Document availability This document can be viewed on the CNSC Web site at nuclearsafety.gc.ca. To order a printed copy of the document in English or French, please contact: Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 280 Slater Street P.O. Box 1046, Station B Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5S9 CANADA Tel.: 613-995-5894 or 1-800-668-5284 (in Canada only) Facsimile: 613-995-5086 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: nuclearsafety.gc.ca Cover images (from left to right) 1. Tritium occurs as a byproduct of the operation of nuclear and research reactors. Pictured is a stack at Bruce A nuclear generating station. 2. Tritium is used in the production of self-luminescent lights, like Exit signs. 3. Environmental monitoring is a requirement of a CNSC licence.
    [Show full text]
  • The Slowpoke Licensing Model
    AECL—9981 CA9200276 AECL-9981 ATOMIC ENERGY ENERGIEATOMIQUE OF CANADA LIMITED DU CANADA LIMITEE THE SLOWPOKE LICENSING MODEL LE MODELE D'AUTORISATION DE CONSTRUIRE DE SLOWPOKE V.G. SNELL, F. TAKATS and K. SZIVOS Prepared for presentation at the Post-Conference Seminar on Small- and Medium-Sized Nuclear Reactors San Diego, California, U S A. 1989 August 21-23 Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories Laboratoires nucleates de Chalk River Chalk River, Ontario KOJ 1J0 August 1989 aout ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED THE SLOWPOKE LICENSING MODEL by V.G. Snell, F. Takats and K. Szivos Prepared for presentation at the Post-Conference Seminar on Small- and Medium-Sized Nuclear Reactors San Diego, California, U.S.A. 1989 August 21-23 Local Energy Systems Business Unit Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories Chalk River, Ontario KOJ 1JO 1989 August ENERGIE ATOMIQUE DU CANADA LIMITED LE MODELS D'AUTORISATION DE CONSTRUIRE DE SLOWPOKE par V.G. Snell, F. Takats et K. Szivos Resume Le Systeme Energetique SLOWPOKE (SES-10) est un reacteur de chauffage de 10 MW realise au Canada. II pent fonctionner sans la presence continue d'un operateur autorise et etre implante dans des zones urbaines. II a des caracteristiques de surete indulgentes dont des echelles de temps transitoires de l'ordre d'heures. On a developpe, au Canada, un precede appele autorisation de construire "d'avance" pour identifier et resoudre les questions reglementaires au debut du processus. Du fait du marche possible, en Hongrie, pour le chauffage nucleaire urbain, on a etabli un plan d'autorisation de construire qui comporte 1'experience canadienne en autorisation de construire, identifie les besoins particuliers de la Hongrie et reduit le risque de retard d'autorisation de construire en cherchant 1'accord de toutes les parties au debut du programme.
    [Show full text]
  • Workshop on Proposed Amendments to the Nuclear Security Regulations
    Workshop on Proposed Amendments to the Nuclear Security Regulations Michael Beaudette Director Nuclear Security Division October 12, 2016 e-Doc: 5054938 nuclearsafety.gc.ca Focus of Today’s Workshop • Licensees currently listed in Schedule 2 of the Nuclear Security Regulations – Cameco, GE-Hitachi, Nordion, SRB Technologies • Licensees who process, use and store Category III nuclear material – examples include Slowpoke Reactors, McMaster Nuclear Reactor • Licensees and stakeholders who transport or arrange for the transport of nuclear material – examples include RSB Logistic, TAM International, Laurentide Forwarders Inc. Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 2 Today’s Goals • Provide an overview of several proposed amendments that CNSC staff is considering making to the Nuclear Security Regulations (NSR) and receive preliminary feedback from stakeholders • Provide an opportunity for stakeholders to suggest additional areas for potential amendments to the NSR Please note that this is a CNSC staff assessment for prompting early discussion Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 3 Objectives of Amendments • Ensure that the regulations continue to fulfill their role in effectively addressing Canada’s nuclear security • Ensure that Canada continues to fulfill its international obligations for the security of nuclear and radioactive materials Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 4 Overview of the Regulatory Amendment process Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 5 Context: Changes Since Last Amendments • Last major amendments to NSR published in 2006 •
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes of the CNSC Meeting Held Wednesday and Thursday
    December 9 and 10, 2009 Minutes of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) Meeting held Wednesday, December 9, 2009 beginning at 9:07 a.m. at the CNSC Headquarters, 14th floor, 280 Slater Street, Ottawa, Ontario. The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. on Wednesday, December 9 and reconvened on Thursday, December 10, 2009 at 9:05 a.m. at the same location. The public meeting was adjourned again at 12:37 p.m., reconvened at 3:32 p.m. and closed at 4:05 p.m. Present: M. Binder, President A. Graham C.R. Barnes A. Harvey R.J. Barriault M. J. McDill M. Leblanc, Secretary J. Lavoie, Senior General Counsel P. Reinhardt, Recording Secretary M. Young, Recording Secretary CNSC staff advisors were: P. Webster, F. Rinfret, P. Elder, K. Lafrenière, T. Schaubel, B.R. Ravishankar, L. Desaulniers., J. Schmidt, M. Ilin, J. Jaferi, G. Cherkas, S. Lei, M. Rinker and D. Werry Other contributors were: • Atomic Energy Canada Limited: W. Pilkington and A.J. White • Bruce Power Inc.: F. Saunders • Hydro-Québec: C. Gélinas • University of Alberta: G. Pavlich and M. J. M. Duke • Ecole Polytechnique de Montréal: G. Kennedy, G. Marleau and C. Chilian • Royal Military College of Canada: K. Nielsen and R. Weir • Saskatchewan Research Council: J. Muldoon, Y. Wo and W. Yuen • Ontario Power Generation Inc.: M. Elliott and R. Leavitt, • Province of Ontario: S. Imbrogno • Cameco Corporation: A. Thorne, C. Astles, A. Oliver, D. Clark, J. Degraw, K. Vetor, R. Peters, A. Kodarin, M. Longinov, T. Rouse and M. Garrard • NB Power Nuclear: G.
    [Show full text]
  • Q L'energieatomique of Canada Limited Vasv Du Canada Limitee
    AECL-8252 ATOMIC ENERGY flF*~Q L'ENERGIEATOMIQUE OF CANADA LIMITED VASV DU CANADA LIMITEE SLOWPOKE: THE FIRST DECADE AND BEYOND SLOWPOKE: La premiere decennie et apres J.W. HILBORN and G.A. BURBIDGE Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories Laburatoires nucleates de Chalk River Chalk River, Ontario October 1983 octobre ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED SLOWPOKE: The First Decade and Beyond by J.U. Hilborn and G.A. Burbidge* *Radiochemical Company Reactor Physics Branch Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories Chalk River, Ontario KOJ 1J0 Canada October 1983 AECL-8252 L'ENERGIE ATOMIQUE DU CANADA, LIMITEE SLOWPOKE: La premiere décennie et aprës* par J.W. Hilborn et G.A. Burbridge** Resume Depuis le démarrage du premier réacteur SLOWPOKE dans les Laboratoires nucléaires de Chalk River en 1970, six réacteurs de recherche SLOWPOKE-2 ont été installés ailleurs au Canada et un septième est en voie d'instal- lation en Jamaïque. Conçu principalement pour les analyses par activation neutronique, le SLOWPOKE de 20 kW produit un flux de neutrons thermiques de 10i2 n.cnr^s"' dans cinq alvéoles destinées aux échantillons situées dans un réflecteur en béryllium entourant le coeur du réacteur. Il y a cinq autres alvéoles dans le réflecteur rempli d'eau situé ä l'extérieur du réflecteur en béryllium. Le SLOWPOKE a d'excellentes propriétés en matière de sécurité provenant de la température négative et des coefficients de vide du coeur, d'une réactivitê maximale limitée et de l'accès interdit au coeur par les utilisateurs. Il en résulte que le réacteur n'a pas besoin d'un système d'arrêt automatique, de chambres d'ionisation de neutrons ou d'instruments de démarrage â faible puissance.
    [Show full text]