DOCSLIB.ORG

Regulatory Justification Decision on Nuclear Reactor: AP1000

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Regulatory Justification Decision on Nuclear Reactor: AP1000 The Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 2004 The reasons for the Secretary of State’s Decision as Justifying Authority on the Regulatory Justification of the Class or Type of Practice being: “The generation of electricity from nuclear energy using oxide fuel of low enrichment in fissile content in a light water cooled, light water moderated thermal reactor currently known as the AP1000 designed by Westinghouse Electric Company LLC.” October 2010 Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 1 PART 1 – DECISION ................................................................................................. 2 Chapter 1: The Secretary of State’s Decision ......................................................... 2 PART 2 – BACKGROUND ....................................................................................... 13 Chapter 2: Background, Regulation and Consultation .......................................... 13 Chapter 3: Overall Approach of the Application .................................................... 26 PART 3 – BENEFITS AND DETRIMENTS .............................................................. 28 Chapter 4: Carbon Reduction ............................................................................... 28 Chapter 5: Security of Supply and other Economic Effects ................................... 35 Chapter 6: Radiological Health Detriment ............................................................. 52 Chapter 7: Radioactive Waste .............................................................................. 91 Chapter 8: Environmental Detriment ................................................................... 128 Chapter 9: Safety, Security and Safeguards ....................................................... 142 Annex A: Note on the Classification of Nuclear Reactors ....................................... 151 Annex B: Roles of Independent Regulators and Advisory Bodies in the UK .......... 153 Annex C: Consultation and Decision Timetable ..................................................... 157 Annex D: Regulation 16 Request to the Applicant for Further Information, and the Applicant’s response .............................................................................................. 158 Annex E: References to epidemiological studies provided by respondents to the consultation on the Proposed Decision .................................................................. 164 Annex F: Advice from Health Protection Agency (HPA) on main points made in studies cited by respondents .................................................................................. 169 Annex G: List of acronyms and abbreviations ........................................................ 175 Regulatory Justification decision on nuclear reactor: AP1000 Executive Summary 1. This document sets out the reasons for the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change’s decision as Justifying Authority on the Regulatory Justification of the class or type of practice being: “the generation of electricity from nuclear energy using oxide fuel of low enrichment in fissile content in a light water cooled, light water moderated thermal reactor currently known as the AP1000 designed by Westinghouse Electric Company LLC”1. 2. Regulatory Justification is a process required under the Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 20042, under which the Secretary of State must decide whether a new class or type of practice resulting in exposure to ionising radiation is justified by its economic, social or other benefits in relation to the health detriment it may cause. 3. The decision, set out in Chapter 1 with a summary of the reasons behind it, is that the class or type of practice is Justified under the Regulations. 4. The background to the decision is set out in Chapters 2 and 3 of this document. The information and evidence that the Secretary of State has taken into account , including responses to the public consultation on the Proposed Decision held between November 2009 and February 2010, is summarised in Chapters 4 to 9. 5. The decision will be taken by the making of Regulations by way of statutory instrument and this has been laid in draft in both Houses of Parliament. 1 The AP1000 is a Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR), which is the most common type of nuclear reactor in operation throughout the world. More detail on the classification of nuclear reactors is set out in Annex A (Note on the Classification of Nuclear Reactors). 2 The Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 2004, Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 1769 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/20041769.htm 1 Regulatory Justification decision on nuclear reactor: AP1000 PART 1 – DECISION Chapter 1: The Secretary of State’s Decision 1.1 The Secretary of State’s decision is that the class or type of practice being: “The generation of electricity from nuclear energy using oxide fuel of low enrichment in fissile content in a light water cooled, light water moderated thermal reactor currently known as the AP1000 designed by Westinghouse Electric Company LLC” is Justified under the Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 2004. 1.2 In this Chapter, the Secretary of State summarises the reasons for his decision. Benefits and Detriments – A summary 1.3 The Secretary of State considers that the AP1000 is Justified by its economic, social and other benefits in relation to the health detriments it may cause. The evidence about these benefits and detriments which the Secretary of State has taken into account in reaching his conclusion is summarised below and in Chapters 4 to 9. 1.4 In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State has had to consider and balance benefits and detriments in areas which are not obviously comparable in their substance and effect. The Secretary of State has not found that this has been an obstacle to his making of a decision and considers that the benefits of the AP1000 will outweigh any detriments. 1.5 The Secretary of State sees a clear need for the generation of electricity by the AP1000 through the contribution it can make to securing the UK’s energy supplies, helping the UK decarbonise and meet legal low-carbon obligations and benefiting the economy more widely. Both security of energy supply and the move towards low carbon electricity are issues of considerable national importance. An AP1000 will be able to produce large quantities of low carbon electricity over an extended period, giving it the capacity to make a significant contribution to a secure, low carbon electricity supply in the UK. 2 Regulatory Justification decision on nuclear reactor: AP1000 1.6 The Secretary of State is confident that there will be important economic benefits for the UK in the event that companies decide to invest in new nuclear power stations. Beyond the direct investment and employment necessary for the construction and operation of any AP1000, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the UK economy can benefit through the development of a globally competitive nuclear supply chain and improvement in the quality of a skilled UK workforce. 1.7 Against this, although there is potential detriment to health, safety and the environment from the AP1000, this potential is small, well understood and guarded against by an established regulatory regime, which actively and effectively works to keep detriments within acceptable limits. The Secretary of State considers that the risk of health detriment from the building and operation of AP1000s in the UK is very low. As a proportion of the overall radiation to which members of the public are exposed from all sources, including natural sources, the evidence he has reviewed suggests that the contribution from any AP1000 would be very small. The radiation dose which members of the public would receive from the normal operation of an AP1000 on an annual basis would be below detectable risk levels in the context of overall radiation exposure. The inherent safety features of the design combined with the UK’s strong and effective regulatory regime will ensure that gaseous and aqueous emissions will be kept to a minimum and the risk of accidental release of radioactive or other harmful material will be reduced and mitigated. Any potential detriment to health which the AP1000 could cause would therefore be very small, and satisfactorily minimised. 1.8 The Secretary of State is satisfied that the licensing and planning regime would ensure that potential environmental detriment caused by any proposed AP1000 would be prevented or mitigated. The Secretary of State also considers that radioactive waste and spent fuel arising from any AP1000 built in the UK could be effectively managed to ensure that the potential risks or detriments from its handling, storage, transport or disposal are within acceptable limits. 1.9 The Secretary of State is therefore satisfied that the benefits of building and operating the AP1000 in the UK clearly outweigh the detriments. Carbon Reduction – Chapter 4 1.10 The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) said in its first report that “climate change resulting from CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions poses a huge threat to human welfare”. There is overwhelming evidence indicating that human activities are causing this global climate change. The burning of fossil fuels, changes in land use and various industrial processes are adding greenhouse gases,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • France USA Research
    atw Vol. 61 (2016) | Issue 2 ı February safety and was subject to a separate After joint examination of this file global markets, and submitted the set of “conventional” permits. with IRSN, ASN convened the Advi- license application to the NRC in Hanhikivi­1 will be a 1,200­mega­ sory Committee for nuclear pressure September. watt VVER pressurised water reactor equipment (GP ESPN) on 30 Septem­ Westinghouse and Toshiba Corpo­ 141 of the Russian AES-2006 type. Start of ber 2015. The GP ESPN submitted its ration are working collaboratively on commissioning is scheduled for 2022 opinion and its recommendation to a limited number of customized mate­ and commercial operation for 2024. ASN. On this basis, ASN issued a rials and/or reinforcements that will | www.fennovoima.fi | 7304 position statement on the procedure allow new units to be built in areas adopted by Areva, with a certain that have a higher seismic condition. NEWS number of observations and add­ This Specialized Seismic Option will itional requests. provide the same advanced safety France The results of the new test pro­ features, modular design and simpli­ gramme will be crucial to ASN’s fied systems as the standard, NRC- Flamanville 3 EPR: ASN has decision on the suitability for service certified AP1000 plant technology. no objection to the initiation of the Flamanville 3 RPV closure head | www.westinghousenuclear.com of a new test programme and bottom head. This test pro­ | 7283 (asn) On 12 December 2015, ASN gramme will take several months. issued a position statement concern­ | www.asn.fr | 7290 ing the approach used to demonstrate the mechanical properties of the Research Flamanville 3 EPR reactor pressure vessel (RPV) closure head and bottom USA IPP: The first plasma: head proposed by Areva.
    [Show full text]
  • Deployability of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors for Alberta Applications Report Prepared for Alberta Innovates
    PNNL-25978 Deployability of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors for Alberta Applications Report Prepared for Alberta Innovates November 2016 SM Short B Olateju (AI) SD Unwin S Singh (AI) A Meisen (AI) DISCLAIMER NOTICE This report was prepared under contract with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), as an account of work sponsored by Alberta Innovates (“AI”). Neither AI, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), DOE, the U.S. Government, nor any person acting on their behalf makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by AI, PNNL, DOE, or the U.S. Government. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of AI, PNNL, DOE or the U.S. Government. Deployability of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors for Alberta Applications SM Short B Olateju (AI) SD Unwin S Singh (AI) A Meisen (AI) November 2016 Prepared for Alberta Innovates (AI) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352 Executive Summary At present, the steam requirements of Alberta’s heavy oil industry and the Province’s electricity requirements are predominantly met by natural gas and coal, respectively. On November 22, 2015 the Government of Alberta announced its Climate Change Leadership Plan to 1) phase out all pollution created by burning coal and transition to more renewable energy and natural gas generation by 2030 and 2) limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from oil sands operations.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of Advanced Nuclear Technologies
    A COMPARISON OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES Andrew C. Kadak, Ph.D MARCH 2017 B | CHAPTER NAME ABOUT THE CENTER ON GLOBAL ENERGY POLICY The Center on Global Energy Policy provides independent, balanced, data-driven analysis to help policymakers navigate the complex world of energy. We approach energy as an economic, security, and environmental concern. And we draw on the resources of a world-class institution, faculty with real-world experience, and a location in the world’s finance and media capital. Visit us at energypolicy.columbia.edu facebook.com/ColumbiaUEnergy twitter.com/ColumbiaUEnergy ABOUT THE SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS SIPA’s mission is to empower people to serve the global public interest. Our goal is to foster economic growth, sustainable development, social progress, and democratic governance by educating public policy professionals, producing policy-related research, and conveying the results to the world. Based in New York City, with a student body that is 50 percent international and educational partners in cities around the world, SIPA is the most global of public policy schools. For more information, please visit www.sipa.columbia.edu A COMPARISON OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES Andrew C. Kadak, Ph.D* MARCH 2017 *Andrew C. Kadak is the former president of Yankee Atomic Electric Company and professor of the practice at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He continues to consult on nuclear operations, advanced nuclear power plants, and policy and regulatory matters in the United States. He also serves on senior nuclear safety oversight boards in China. He is a graduate of MIT from the Nuclear Science and Engineering Department.
    [Show full text]
  • APR1400 Chapter 12, "Radiation Protection," Final Safety Evaluation Report
    12 RADIATION PROTECTION Chapter 12, “Radiation Protection,” of this safety evaluation report (SER) describes the results of the review by the staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), hereinafter referred to as the staff, of the Design Control Document (DCD), for the design certification (DC) of the Advanced Power Reactor 1400 (APR1400), submitted by Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) and Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co., Ltd (KHNP), hereinafter referred to as the applicant. This chapter also provides information on facility and equipment design and programs used to meet the radiation protection standards of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 20, “Standards for Protection Against Radiation,” Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,” and Part 70, “Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material.” The staff evaluated the information in Chapter 12, “Radiation Protection,” of the APR1400 DCD against the guidance in NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition” (hereafter referred to as the SRP), Chapter 12, “Radiation Protection.” Compliance with these criteria provides assurance that doses to workers will be maintained within the occupational dose limits of 10 CFR Part 20, “Standards for Protection Against Radiation.” These occupational dose limits, applicable to workers at NRC- licensed facilities, restrict the sum of the external whole-body dose (deep-dose equivalent) and the committed effective equivalent doses resulting from radioactive material deposited inside the body (deposited through injection, absorption, ingestion, or inhalation) to 50 millisievert (mSv) (5 roentgen equivalent man [rem]) per year with a provision (i.e., by planned special exposure) to extend this dose to 100 mSv (10 rem) per year with a lifetime dose limit of 250 mSv (25 rem) resulting from planned special exposures.
    [Show full text]
  • Fusion Public Meeting Slides-03302021-FINAL
    TitleDeveloping Lorem a Regulatory Ipsum Framework for Fusion Energy Systems March 30, 2021 Agenda Time Topic Speaker(s) 12:30-12:40pm Introduction/Opening Remarks NRC Discussion on NAS Report “Key Goals and Innovations Needed for a U.S. Fusion Jennifer Uhle (NEI) 12:40-1:10pm Pilot Plant” Rich Hawryluk (PPPL) Social License and Ethical Review of Fusion: Methods to Achieve Social Seth Hoedl (PRF) 1:10-1:40pm Acceptance Developers Perspectives on Potential Hazards, Consequences, and Regulatory Frameworks for Commercial Deployment: • Fusion Industry Association - Industry Remarks Andrew Holland (FIA) 1:40-2:40pm • TAE – Regulatory Insights Michl Binderbauer (TAE) • Commonwealth Fusion Systems – Fusion Technology and Radiological Bob Mumgaard (CFS) Hazards 2:40-2:50pm Break 2:50-3:10pm Licensing and Regulating Byproduct Materials by the NRC and Agreement States NRC Discussions of Possible Frameworks for Licensing/Regulating Commercial Fusion • NRC Perspectives – Byproduct Approach NRC/OAS 3:10-4:10pm • NRC Perspectives – Hybrid Approach NRC • Industry Perspectives - Hybrid Approach Sachin Desai (Hogan Lovells) 4:10-4:30pm Next Steps/Questions All Public Meeting Format The Commission recently revised its policy statement on how the agency conducts public meetings (ADAMS No.: ML21050A046). NRC Public Website - Fusion https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/advanced/fusion-energy.html NAS Report “Key Goals and Innovations Needed for a U.S. Fusion Pilot Plant” Bringing Fusion to the U.S. Grid R. J. Hawryluk J. Uhle D. Roop D. Whyte March 30, 2021 Committee Composition Richard J. Brenda L. Garcia-Diaz Gerald L. Kathryn A. Per F. Peterson (NAE) Jeffrey P. Hawryluk (Chair) Savannah River National Kulcinski (NAE) McCarthy (NAE) University of California, Quintenz Princeton Plasma Laboratory University of Oak Ridge National Berkeley/ Kairos Power TechSource, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Westinghouse AP1000 Design Control Document Rev. 18
    1. Introduction and General Description of Plant AP1000 Design Control Document 1.9 Compliance with Regulatory Criteria 1.9.1 Regulatory Guides Regulatory guides are issued by the NRC in the following 10 broad divisions: • Division 1 - Power Reactors • Division 2 - Research and Test Reactors • Division 3 - Fuels and Materials Facilities • Division 4 - Environmental and Siting • Division 5 - Materials and Plant Protection • Division 6 - Products • Division 7 - Transportation • Division 8 - Occupational Health • Division 9 - Antitrust and Financial Review • Division 10 - General Divisions 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, and 10 of the regulatory guides do not apply to the design and design certification phase of AP1000. The following sections provide a summary discussion of NRC Divisions 1, 4, 5, and 8 of the regulatory guides applicable to the design and design certification phase of AP1000. Appendix 1A provides a discussion of AP1000 regulatory guide conformance. 1.9.1.1 Division 1 Regulatory Guides - Power Reactors Currently there are approximately 190 Division 1 regulatory guides that have been issued by the NRC for implementation or for comment. Appendix 1A provides an evaluation of the degree of AP1000 compliance with NRC Division 1 regulatory guides. The revisions of the regulatory guides against which AP1000 is evaluated are indicated. Any exceptions or alternatives to the provisions of the regulatory guides are identified and justification is provided. For those regulatory guides applicable to the AP1000 Table 1.9-1 identifies the appropriate DCD cross-references. The cross-referenced sections contain descriptive information applicable to the regulatory guide positions found in Appendix 1A. The superseded or canceled regulatory guides are not considered in Appendix 1A or Table 1.9-1.
    [Show full text]
  • Cost Estimates and Economics of Nuclear Power Plant Newbuild: Literature Survey and Some Modeling Analysis
    IAEE Energy Forum / Groningen Special Issue Cost Estimates and Economics of Nuclear Power Plant Newbuild: Literature Survey and Some Modeling Analysis BY Ben Wealer, Claudia Kemfert, Clemens GerBaulet, and Christian von hirsChhausen Introduction the current newbuild projects: in China by majority-owned The authors are with The perspectives of nuclear power deployment in the German Institute Chinese companies, in Korea the long-term depend very much on the development for Economic Research by the state-owned KEPCO, of costs, in relation to other low-carbon options, and (DIW Berlin), where they or in Russia by state-owned the economics of investments into new capacities. are part of a long-term Rosatom. Near-term future While there is a consensus in the literature that research program on deployment in the “West” nuclear power is not competitive under regular nuclear energy, run currently consists of the EPR or jointly with Workgroup market economy, competitive conditions1, at least the AP1000. But, especially the for Infrastructure two issues need to be considered going forward. EPR could never meet its high Policy at the Berlin First, the evolution of future technologies, and expectations and today all three University of Technology. second, the treatment of “costs” in other, non-market construction projects are well Corresponding Author: institutional contexts, such as indigenous suppliers Ben Wealer: bw@ behind schedule and well over or “home suppliers” or the new (heavily subsidized) wip.tu-berlin.de, their initial cost estimate. In the export models of countries like China or Russia. The [email protected]. For U.S, no Gen III/III+ has finished objective of this paper is to provide insights into the other publications, construction too economics of nuclear power for electricity generation see: https://www.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economics of Nuclear Power for Institutional Investor Use Only
    November 2008 The Economics of Nuclear Power For Institutional Investor Use Only. This article was reprinted with permission by World Nuclear Association. Note: Not all products, materials or services available at all firms. Advisors, please contact your home office. Shares are not FDIC insured, may lose value and have no bank guarantee. Shares are not individually redeemable and owners of the shares may acquire those shares from the Funds and tender those shares for redemption to the Funds in Creation Unit aggregations only, typically consisting of 100,000 shares. Invesco Aim Distributors, Inc. is the distributor of the PowerShares Exchange-Traded Fund Trust I, the PowerShares Exchange-Traded Fund Trust II, the PowerShares Actively Managed Exchange-Traded Fund Trust and the PowerShares India Exchange-Traded Fund Trust . PowerShares® is a registered trademark of Invesco PowerShares Capital Management LLC. Invesco PowerShares Capital Management LLC and Invesco Aim Distributors, Inc. are indirect, wholly owned subsidiaries of Invesco Ltd. Invesco Aim and Invesco PowerShares do not warrant or guarantee the information provided by World Nuclear Association and World Nuclear Association is not affiliated with Invesco Aim or Invesco PowerShares. An investor should consider the Funds’ investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses carefully before investing. For this and more complete information about the Funds call 800.983.0903 or visit the website www.invescopowershares.com for a prospectus. Please read the prospectus carefully before investing. The Economics of Nuclear Power Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels. Fuel costs for nuclear plants are a minor proportion of total generating costs, though capital costs are greater than those for coal-fired and much greater than those for gas-fired plants.
    [Show full text]
  • Monte Carlo Simulation of the UK's First EPR Nuclear Reactor Startup Core Using Serpent
    Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 5 August 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202008.0111.v1 Article Monte Carlo Simulation of the UK’s First EPR Nuclear Reactor Startup Core using Serpent Jinfeng Li 1,2 * 1 Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Imperial College London; [email protected] 2 Centre for Electronics Frontiers, University of Southampton; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Computationally modelling a nuclear reactor startup core for a benchmark against the existing models is highly desirable for an independent assessment informing nuclear engineers and energy policymakers. This work presents a startup core model of the UK’s first Evolutionary Pressurised Water Reactor (EPR) based on Monte Carlo simulations of particle collisions using Serpent 2, a continuous-energy Monte Carlo reactor physics burnup code. Coupling between neutronics and thermal-hydraulic conditions with the fuel depletion is incorporated into the multi-dimensional branches, obtaining the thermal flux and fission rate (power) distributions radially and axially from the three dimensional (3D) single assembly level to a 3D full core. Shannon entropy is employed to characterise the convergence of the fission source distribution, with 3 billion neutron histories tracked by parallel computing. Source biasing is applied for the variance reduction. Benchmarking the proposed Monte Carlo 3D full-core model against the traditional deterministic transport computation suite used by the UK Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), a reasonably good agreement within statistics is demonstrated for the safety-related reactivity coefficients, which creates trust in the EPR safety report. Keywords: computational neutronics; European Pressurised Reactor; Monte Carlo simulation; nuclear physics; nuclear reactor core modelling; nuclear energy; nuclear power; nuclear safety; Shannon entropy; thermal hydraulics.
    [Show full text]
  • SOURCE TERMS for POTENTIAL NPPS at the LUBIATOWO SITE | Greenpeace
    Universität für Bodenkultur Wien Institut für Sicherheits- und Risikowissenschaften (ISR) Department für Wasser-Atmosphäre-Umwelt SOURCE TERMS FOR POTENTIAL NPPS AT THE LUBIATOWO SITE, POLAND AUTHORS Steven Sholly Nikolaus Müllner Nikolaus Arnold Klaus Gufler PREPARED FOR: Greenpeace Germany 1 Vienna, January 2014 University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Department of Water, Atmosphere and Environment, Institute of Safety and Risk Sciences, Borkowskigasse 4, 1190 Wien, Austria URL: http://www.risk.boku.ac.at 2 CONTENT Abstract .................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Scope of work ...................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Method .................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Background........................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Site ......................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Program
    PRELIMINARY PROGRAM 55th Annual Meeting of the Health Physics Society 22nd Biennial Campus Radiation Safety Officers Meeting (American Conference of Radiological Safety) 27 June - 1 July 2010 Salt Palace Convention Center Salt Lake City, Utah Key Dates Current Events/Works-In-Progress Deadline . .28 May Social/Technical Preregistration Deadline . .31 May HPS Annual Meeting Preregistration Deadline . 31 May PEP Preregistration Deadline . .31 May Hotel Registration Deadline . 5 June AAHP Courses . 26 June Professional Enrichment Program . 27 June - 1 July HPS 55th Annual Meeting . 27 June - 1 July American Board of Health Physics Written Exam . 28 June Registration Hours and Location Registration at the Salt Palace Convention Center - Foyer of Exhibit Hall A Saturday, 26 June . 2:00 - 5:00 pm Sunday, 27 June . 10:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday, 28 June . 8:00 am - 4:00 pm Tuesday, 29 June . 8:00 am - 4:00 pm Wednesday, 30 June . 8:00 am - 4:00 pm Thursday, 1 July . 8:00 - 11:00 am Saturday Saturday AAHP Courses will take place in the Hilton Hotel Sunday - Thursday All PEPs, CELs and Sessions will be at the Salt Palace Convention Center HPS Secretariat 1313 Dolley Madison Blvd. Suite 402 McLean, VA22101 (703) 790-1745; FAX: (703) 790-2672 Email: [email protected]; Website: www.hps.org 1 Table of Contents Important Events . 6 General Information . 7 Hotel Reservation Information . 7 Tours and Events Listing . 9 Scientific Program . 12 Placement Information . 32 AAHP Courses . 33 Professional Enrichment Program . 34 Continuing Education Lecture Abstracts . 46 Annual Meeting Registration Form . 48-49 CURRENT EVENTS/WORKS-IN-PROGRESS The submission form for the Current Events/Works-in-Progress poster session is on the Health Physics Society Website at www .hps .org under the Salt Lake City Annual Meeting section .
    [Show full text]
  • In-Vessel Core Melt Retention(IVR) As a Severe Accident Management Strategy of the APR1400 and the Uncertainty Related To
    Effectiveness of External Reactor Vessel Cooling (ERVC) Strategy for APR1400 and Issues of Phenomenological Uncertainties S. J. Oh and H.T.Kim Nuclear Environmental Technology Institute, Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co., Ltd (KHNP) 103-16, Munji-Dong, Yuseong-Gu, Taejon, 305-380, Korea Tel: 82-42-865-7603, Fax: 82-42-865-7609, E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] 1. Introduction The APR1400(Advanced Power Reactor 1400) is an evolutionary advanced light water reactor with rated thermal power of 4000MWt [1]. For APR1400, External Reactor Vessel Cooling (ERVC) is adopted as a primary severe accident management strategy for in-vessel retention (IVR) of corium. The ERVC is a method of IVR by submerging the reactor vessel exterior. At the early stage of the APR1400 design, only ex-vessel cooling, cooling of the core melt outside the vessel after vessel is breached, is considered based on the EPRI Utility Requirement Document for Evolutionary LWR [2]. However, based on the progress in implementation of Severe Accident Management Guidance(SAMG) for operating plants, as well as the research findings related to ERVC, ERVC strategy is adopted as a part of key severe accident management strategies. To improve its success, the strategy is reviewed and we implemented necessary design arrangement to increase its usefulness in managing the severe accident. In this paper, we examine the evolution of ERVC concept and its implementation in APR1400. Then, we review possible approach, including Risk-Oriented Accident Analysis Methodology (ROAAM), to evaluate the effectiveness of the strategy. 2. ERVC Strategy The idea of submerging the reactor vessel during the severe accident has been considered since mid 80s.
    [Show full text]