DOCSLIB.ORG

Safety of RBMK Reactors: Setting the Technical Framework

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Safety of RBMK Reactors: Setting the Technical Framework FEATURES Safety of RBMK reactors: Setting the technical framework The IAEA's co-operative programme is consolidating the technical basis for further upgrading the safety of Chernobyl-type reactors by In April 1986, unit 4 of the Chernobyl nuclear Chernobyl-3; and Smolensk-1 and -2). Ignalina- Luis Lederman power plant in Ukraine was destroyed in the 2 contains safety features beyond those of other worst accident in the history of commercial nu- second generation units. These RBMKs were clear power. The reactor, which started operation designed and constructed in accordance with the in 1983, was a Soviet-designed nuclear power updated standards issued in 1982. plant known by the Russian acronym RBMK. After the Chernobyl accident, Soviet safety The RBMK evolved from Soviet uranium- standards were revised again (OPB-88). One graphite reactors whose purpose was the produc- RBMK (Smolensk-3) has been built to these tion of plutonium. The first of these plutonium "third-generation" standards. Additional design production reactors began operation in 1948. Six changes now are being incorporated in the con- years later, in 1954, a demonstration 5-MWe struction of Kursk-5. RBMK-type reactor for electricity generation Over the past decade, a considerable amount began operation in Obninsk. Subsequently a se- of work has been carried out by Russian design- ries of RBMKs were developed using the combi- ers and operators to improve the safety of RBMK nation of graphite moderation and water cooling reactors and to eliminate the causes that led to the in a channel design. Chernobyl accident. As a result, major design Today 15 RBMK power reactors are produc- and operational modifications have been imple- ing electricity in three States: 11 units in Russia, mented. However, safety concerns remain, par- two in Ukraine, and two in Lithuania. The gross ticularly regarding the first-generation units. electric power rating of all but two RBMKs is This article reviews major efforts for improv- 1000 MWe; the exceptions are the two units at ing the safety of RBMK reactors through a co- Ignalina in Lithuania which are rated at 1300 operative IAEA programme initiated in 1992. MWe gross. (See box, page 12.) Specifically covered are All operating RBMKs were connected to technical findings of safety reviews related to the electric power grids during the period 1973 (Len- design and operation of the plants, and the docu- ingrad-1) to 1990 (Smolensk-3). They represent mentation of findings through an Agency data- distinct generations of reactors having signifi- base intended to facilitate the technical co-ordi- cant differences with respect to their safety de- nation of ongoing national and international ef- sign features. forts for improving RBMK safety. Six plants are considered "first-generation" units (Leningrad-1 and -2, Kursk-1 and -2, and Chernobyl-1 and -2). They were designed and Scope of the RBMK safety programme brought on line in the early-to-mid 1970s, before new standards on the design and construction of The IAEA's RBMK safety programme aims nuclear power plants (OPB-82) were introduced to consolidate results of various national, bilat- in the Soviet Union. Units brought on line since eral, and multilateral activities and to establish the late 1970s and early 1980s are generally international consensus on required safety im- grouped as " second-generation" RBMKs (Len- provements and related priorities. It assists both ingrad-3 and -4; Kursk-3, and -4; Ignalina-1; regulatory and operating organizations and pro- vides a basis for technical and financial decisions. A wide range of activities are covered, and since Mr. Lederman is Acting Head of the Safety Assessment 1992, a number of reviews and assessments have Section in the IAEA Department of Nuclear Safety. been conducted. Smolensk-3 and Ignalina-2 10 IAEA BULLETIN, 1/1996 FEATURES RBMK nuclear power plants Operating RBMKs (light-water cooled, Operating units: graphite-moderated reactor) Lithuania. Two 1300-MWe units at Ig- nalina. Start of commercial operation: Ignalina-1 in 1984; Ignalina-2 in 1987 Russian Federation. Eleven 1000-MWe units: four units at Kursk; four units at Leningrad; three units at Smolensk. Start of commercial op- eration: Kursk-1 in 1977; Kursk-2 in 1979; Kursk-3 in 1984; Kursk-4 in 1986. Leningrad-1 in 1974; Leningrad-2 in 1976; Leningrad-3 in 1980; Leningrad-4 in 1981. Smolensk-1 in 1983; Smolensk-2 in 1985; Smolensk-3 in 1990. Ukraine. Two units at Chernobyl. Start of commercial operation: Chernobyl-1 (780-MWe) in 1978; Chernobyl-3 (1000-MWe) in 1982. Notes: Chemobyl-2 shut down since 1991; Cher- nobyl-4 destroyed in April 1986 accident. Units under construction: Russian Federation. Kursk-S, a 1000-MWe unit whose construction began in December 198S. have served as RBMK reference plants during and Development (OECD). International experts the programme's first phase. fully supported the intent of Russian designers to The IAEA conducted a first review of safety improve the RBMK shutdown systems. improvements proposed for RBMKs in October Another matter receiving attention has been 1992. In June 1993, a safety assessment of design the analysis of a multiple pressure tube rupture in solutions and proposed safety improvements of RBMK-type reactors. At a topical meeting in Smolensk-3 was organized. It was conducted by Moscow in January 1994, participants examined an international group of experts and IAEA staff the relevant regulatory approaches adopted in over a period of 2 weeks at the plant site. Member States operating channel-type reactors Smolensk-3 is the most advanced of the operat- and reviewed the methodology, criteria, and re- ing RBMK plants and its design incorporates sults from safety analyses. They agreed on the safety improvements identified from analyses of urgent need to validate computer codes used for the Chernobyl accident and other studies. A studying loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) sce- similar review was performed for the Ignalina narios in RBMKs. In November 1994, at an units in October 1994. IAEA consultants' meeting in Japan, a validation Additionally, the Agency's Assessment of matrix for code calculation was established, and Safety Significant Event Teams (ASSET) have in 1995 the IAEA started an international exer- reviewed the plant-specific operational experi- cise based on experimental results made avail- ence at all RBMK sites. An Operational Safety able by Japan. Review Team (OSART) mission also was con- Activities of the IAEA's RBMK safety pro- ducted at Ignalina in September 1995. gramme are co-ordinated with those of an inter- Experts also have reviewed the design of national consortium on the "Safety of Design plant shutdown systems at Smolensk-3. The re- Solutions and Operation of Nuclear Power Plants view — the subject of an IAEA consultants' with RBMK Reactors" established under aus- meeting in Switzerland in December 1993 — pices of the European Commission. The two pro- was based on IAEA Nuclear Safety Standards grammes use the same RBMK reference plants. (NUSS) documents; national standards (Russia, With the completion in 1994 of the safety Canada, and Germany); and regulatory practices reviews of Smolensk-3 and Ignalina-2, these two of the Organization for Economic Co-operation programmes reached important milestones. To IAEA BULLETIN, 1/1996 11 FEATURES make results available to the international tech- RBMK Safety Programme nical community, the IAEA convened a techni- cal meeting in May-June 1995. Results from At the start of the 1990s, the IAEA initiated a both the IAEA and EC programmes were pre- programme to assist countries of Central and sented, thereby reflecting the large amount of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union work done by the international experts and Rus- in evaluating the safety of their first generation sian organizations to review the safety of RBMK WWER-440/230 nuclear power plants. The nuclear power plants. main objectives were: to identify major design and operational safety issues; to establish Both projects produced a large number of international consensus on priorities for safety recommendations for enhancing the safety of improvements; and to provide assistance in the RBMK plants. Most of them correlate with the review of the completeness and adequacy of measures already included in national pro- safety improvement programmes. The grammes for RBMK units which are under way programme's scope was extended in 1992 to in Russia, Lithuania, and Ukraine. include RBMK, WWER-440/213, and Based on the initial phase of its programme, WWER-1000 plants in operation and under the IAEA prepared a consolidated list of design construction. It is complemented by national and operational safety issues for RBMKs. For and regional technical co-operation projects. this work, a database of findings and recommen- Programme elements include plant-spe- dations for RBMKs compiled by the IAEA was cific safety reviews to assess the adequacy of used. All findings and recommendations from design and operational practices; reviews un- the various technical meetings, safety reviews of der the IAEA's Assessment of Safety Signifi- Smolensk and Ignalina, and ASSET reports of cant Events Team (ASSET) service; reviews the EC's International Consortium were col- of plant design, including seismic safety stud- lected in the database and further grouped by ies; and topical meetings on generic safety topical areas into safety issues. Also included is issues. Additionally, follow-up safety missions plant-specific safety information provided by the are conducted to nuclear plants to check the status main design institute for RBMK reactors in of IAEA recommendations; assessments are Moscow. made of safety improvements implemented or proposed; peer reviews of safety studies are per- The Agency's database has an interface with formed; assistance is provided to strengthen the databank established by the G-24 Nuclear regulatory authorities; and training workshops Safety Co-ordination Group, thus making joint are organized.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Core Safety of Indian Nuclear Power Plants (Npps) Under Extreme Conditions
    Sadhan¯ a¯ Vol. 38, Part 5, October 2013, pp. 945–970. c Indian Academy of Sciences Core safety of Indian nuclear power plants (NPPs) under extreme conditions JBJOSHI1,∗, AKNAYAK2, M SINGHAL3 and D MUKHOPADHAYA4 1Homi Bhabha National Institute, Anushaktinagar, Mumbai 400 094, India 2Reactor Engineering Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay, Mumbai 400 085, India 3Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited, Anushaktinagar, Mumbai 400 0094, India 4Reactor Safety Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay, Mumbai 400 085, India e-mail: [email protected] Abstract. Nuclear power is currently the fourth largest source of electricity produc- tion in India after thermal, hydro and renewable sources of electricity. Currently, India has 20 nuclear reactors in operation and seven other reactors are under construction. Most of these reactors are indigenously designed and built Heavy Water Reactors. In addition, a 300 MWe Advanced Heavy Water Reactor has already been designed and in the process of deployment in near future for demonstration of power production from Thorium apart from enhanced safety features by passive means. India has ambi- tious plans to enhance the share of electricity production from nuclear. The recent Fukushima accident has raised concerns of safety of Nuclear Power Plants world- wide. The Fukushima accident was caused by extreme events, i.e., large earthquake followed by gigantic Tsunami which are not expected to hit India’s coast considering the geography of India and historical records. Nevertheless, systematic investigations have been conducted by nuclear scientists in India to evaluate the safety of the current Nuclear Power Plants in case of occurrence of such extreme events in any nuclear site.
    [Show full text]
  • Liquid Metal Cooled Reactors: Experience in Design and Operation
    IAEA-TECDOC-1569 Liquid Metal Cooled Reactors: Experience in Design and Operation December 2007 IAEA-TECDOC-1569 Liquid Metal Cooled Reactors: Experience in Design and Operation December 2007 The originating Sections of this publication in the IAEA were: INIS and Nuclear Knowledge Management and Nuclear Power Technology Development Sections International Atomic Energy Agency Wagramer Strasse 5 P.O. Box 100 A-1400 Vienna, Austria LIQUID METAL COOLED REACTORS: EXPERIENCE IN DESIGN AND OPERATION IAEA, VIENNA, 2007 IAEA-TECDOC-1569 ISBN 978–92–0–107907–7 ISSN 1011–4289 © IAEA, 2007 Printed by the IAEA in Austria December 2007 FOREWORD In 2002, within the framework of the Department of Nuclear Energy’s Technical Working Group on Fast Reactors (TWG-FR), and according to the expressed needs of the TWG-FR Member States to maintain and increase the present knowledge and expertise in fast reactor science and technology, the IAEA established its initiative seeking to establish a comprehensive, international inventory of fast reactor data and knowledge. More generally, at the IAEA meeting of senior officials convened to address issues of nuclear knowledge management underlying the safe and economic use of nuclear science and technology (Vienna, 17–19 June 2002), there was widespread agreement that, for sustainability reasons for fissile sources and waste management, long-term development of nuclear power as a part of the world’s future energy mix will require the fast reactor technology. Furthermore, given the decline in fast reactor development projects, data retrieval and knowledge preservation efforts in this area are of particular importance. This consensus concluded from the recognition of immediate need gave support to the IAEA initiative for fast reactor data and knowledge presevation.
    [Show full text]
  • Reactor Physics Calculations in the Nordic Countries
    ESPOO 2003 VTT SYMPOSIUM 230 The eleventh biennial meeting on reactor physics calculations in the Nordic VTT SYMPOSIUM 230 countries was arranged by VTT Processes in Otaniemi, Espoo and on board Tallink´s m/s Romantika on April 9–10, 2003. General reactor physics, calculational methods, a code system adapted for RBMK reactor analyses, and transmutation of nuclear waste were presented by representatives of universities and programme developers. Computer programmes are the most important tools of reactor physics. At the meeting there were presentations of VTT Processes’ new deterministic 3- dimensional radiation transport code MultiTrans and BWR simulator ARES based upon the AFEN model, and also of new features in internationally wellknown codes like CASMO-4E and POLCA (POLCA-T) together with Reactor physics calculations in the Nordic countries results obtained by these programmes. A code for PWR loading pattern search, called LP-fun, is being developed by Westinghouse and others. On the subject of code validation, measurements on SVEA-96+ fuel bundles in the PROTEUS facility had been analyzed with the PHOENIX4 code, reactor scram experiments in the Loviisa and Mochovce VVER reactors using CASMO-4, MCNP4B and HEXTRAN, results of gamma scanning by the PHOENIX4/POLCA7 combination. Some difficulties in predicting the power distribution in the reactor core with sufficiently good accuracy using any of the available code systems were reported by OKG. Heating of non-fuel regions by gamma radiation and neutrons had been investigated using the HELIOS lattice code. Calculational results for heat deposition from gamma radiation in the moderator tank of the Forsmark-1 reactor were reported by Risø.
    [Show full text]
  • Vver and Rbmk Cross Section Libraries for Origen-Arp
    VVER AND RBMK CROSS SECTION LIBRARIES FOR ORIGEN-ARP Germina Ilas, Brian D. Murphy, and Ian C. Gauld, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, USA Introduction An accurate treatment of neutron transport and depletion in modern fuel assemblies characterized by heterogeneous, complex designs, such as the VVER or RBMK assembly configurations, requires the use of advanced computational tools capable of simulating multi-dimensional geometries. The depletion module TRITON [1], which is part of the SCALE code system [2] that was developed and is maintained at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), allows the depletion simulation of two- or three-dimensional assembly configurations and the generation of burnup-dependent cross section libraries. These libraries can be saved for subsequent use with the ORIGEN-ARP module in SCALE. This later module is a faster alternative to TRITON for fuel depletion, decay, and source term analyses at an accuracy level comparable to that of a direct TRITON simulation. This paper summarizes the methodology used to generate cross section libraries for VVER and RBMK assembly configurations that can be employed in ORIGEN-ARP depletion and decay simulations. It briefly describes the computational tools and provides details of the steps involved. Results of validation studies for some of the libraries, which were performed using isotopic assay measurement data for spent fuel, are provided and discussed. Cross section libraries for ORIGEN-ARP Methodology The TRITON capability to perform depletion simulations for two-dimensional (2-D) configurations was implemented by coupling of the 2-D transport code NEWT with the point depletion and decay code ORIGEN-S. NEWT solves the transport equation on a 2-D arbitrary geometry grid by using an SN approach, with a treatment of the spatial variable that is based on an extended step characteristic method [3].
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Fuel Optimization and Problem of Xa9953256 Increasing Burnup and Cost Efficiency of Light Water Reactors in Russia
    NUCLEAR FUEL OPTIMIZATION AND PROBLEM OF XA9953256 INCREASING BURNUP AND COST EFFICIENCY OF LIGHT WATER REACTORS IN RUSSIA M.I. SOLONIN, Yu. K. BIBLASHCVLI, F.G. RESHETNIKOV, F.F. SOKOLOV, A.A. BOCHVAR All-Russia Research Institute of Inorganic Materials, Moscow, Russia Abstract Brief analysis is given of the results of WWER-1000 and WWER-440 fuel assembly (FA) and fuel rod operation to the average burn-up of 44 and 34 MW-day/kg U, respectively. The reliable operation of the fuel is noted which made it possible to outline the paths of further improvements in their fuel cycles. Based on a series of improvements reactors are being switched on a 4-year cycle; a 5-year cycle is contemplated for the WWER- 440. The fuel cycle of the boiling RBMK reactors is subjected to essential alterations. Specifically, the use of erbium oxide as an integral burnable absorber allows a higher enrichment of uranium and bum-up. To extend the burn-up a new zirconium alloy E-635 is assumed to be used as fuel rod claddings and other FA components; the alloy has higher corrosion and irradiation resistance. INTRODUCTION The current technical level of the PWR and BWR fuel production and the perfected system of the reactor management have allowed to provide the successful operation of PWR NPP to the average burn-up of ~45 MW* day/kg U in all countries of developed nuclear power. The differences in the reliability and FA serviceability as well as in the number of leaky fuel rods are rather small and the attention is usually not focused on this issue.
    [Show full text]
  • INIS-Mf —14954 CA9600857
    i-\ I- S I *• t. -^ INIS-mf —14954 III CA9600857 v // / A ^r^-14 i I ULJ n ^^ ISSN 0S3?-O299 CURRENT ISSUE PAPER i 17 NCIIERNOBYL, THREE MILE ISLAND AND BEYOND; LESSONS FOR ONTARIO? Prepared by: K. Lewis Yeagcr Research C fficer Legij'ative Research Service March 1991 y Ho-sonrch So THKSSSim Nuclear power has been a fact of life in the developed world for two generations. It is v. workhorse supplier of base electricity loads in Ontario, France. Belgium, Japan and many American states. Highly publicized accidents at Chernobyl, and .to.a.lesser..:. extent Three Mile Island, have raised public concern around the world about the safety of nuclear generatin;;, -nations. Since the planning process which will guide the Province's 'power generic:1. for <!ie next 25'years is now under way, it isimportant" that the public and elected officials understand how and why these and other nuclear accidents occurred and whether there are lessons.to.be learned in designing and-, operating CANUU facilities in Ontario. Tilts Current Issue Paper reviews major accidents which nave occurred at commercial and military nuclear facilities, and provides basic background on nuclear power and reactor design features to assist the novice in understanding the very complex technical issues surrounding these events. Above all, the role of human factors in the prevention of potential accident situations is emphasized. ih>- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No l-xncurivr-: SUMMARY . j INTRODUCTION , ] BACKGROUND 2 . General Principles of Nuclear Power 2 Types of Reactors " " " ~ ' 3 Nuclear Safety Philosophy 5 THREE MILE ISLAND .... 8 The Plant : 8 The Accident ; ft Local Impacts .
    [Show full text]
  • Core Design and Optimization of the High Conversion Small Modular Reactor
    Technische Universität München Fakultät für Maschinenwesen Lehrstuhl für Nukleartechnik Core Design and Optimization of the High Conversion Small Modular Reactor Denis Janin Vollständiger Abdruck der von der Fakultät für Maschinenwesen der Technischen Universität München zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Doktor-Ingenieurs (Dr.-Ing.) genehmigten Dissertation. Vorsitzender: Prof. Phaedon-Stelios Koutsourelakis, PhD Prüfer der Dissertation: 1. Prof. Rafael Macián-Juan, PhD 2. Prof. Dr. Jean-Baptiste Thomas Die Dissertation wurde am 08.05.2018 bei der Technischen Universität München eingereicht und durch die Fakultät für Maschinenwesen am 01.11.2018 angenommen. ABSTRACT This research work investigates the design and optimization of the high conversion small modular reactor (HCSMR) core. The HCSMR has a thermal output of 600 MW for 200 MW electrical. It is an integrated PWR with a tightened fuel assembly lattice. The rod-to-rod pitch is 1.15 cm in a hexagonal fuel assembly geometry. As a result the moderation ratio (1.0) is reduced compared to large PWRs (around 2.0) and the HCSMR has an improved ability to convert 238U into 239Pu and use plutonium isotopes more efficiently. The core is loaded with MOX fuel. The HCSMR concept finds its roots both in large high conversion light water reactors and small modular reactor (SMR) concepts. The reduced core size results in an increased neutron leakage rate compared to large cores. This intrinsically supports the core behavior in voided situations. The necessity to introduce fertile fuel materials in the core to keep negative void coefficients is reduced, contributing to the HCSMR safety and limited core heterogeneity.
    [Show full text]
  • Description of the Advanced Gas Cooled Type of Reactor (AGR)
    Nordisk Nordisk Poh|oismaincn Nordic kerne- karn- ydin- nuclear sikkerheds- sakcrhets- turvallisuus- safely forskning forskning lutkimus research KAK-2 NKS/RAK2(96)TR-C2 DK9700041 Description of the Advanced Gas Cooled Type of Reactor (AGR) Erik Nonbel Riso National Laboratory Roskilde, Denmark November 1996 Abstract The present report comprises a technical description of the Advanced Gas cooled Reactor (AGR), a reactor type which has only been built in Great Britain 14 AGR reactors have been built, located at 6 different sites and each station is supplied with twin-reactors The Torness AGR plant on the Lothian coastline of Scotland, 60 km east of Edinburgh, has been chosen as the reference plant and is described in some detail Data on the other 6 stations, Dungeness B, Hinkley Point B, Hunterston B, Hartlepool, Heysham I and Heysham II, are given only in tables with a summary of design data Where specific data for Torness AGR has not been available, corresponding data from other AGR plants has been used, primarily from Heysham II, which belongs to the same generation of AGR reactors The information presented is based on the open literature The report is written as a part of the NKS/RAK-2 subproject 3 "Reactors in Nordic Surroundings", which comprises a description of nuclear power plants neighbouring the Nordic countries NKS/RAK-2(96)TR-C2 ISBN 87-550-2264-2 Graphic Service, Riso, 1996 Tlic report can be obtained from NKS Secretariat Phone +45 46 77 40 45 POBox49 Fax +45 46 35 92 73 DK-4000 Roskildc hUp/Auuv nsoc dk/nks Denmark e-mail anncttc.lemmensfr nsoe dk -3- Contents 1 INTRODUCTION 8 2 SUMMARY OF DESIGN DATA 10 3 SITE AND REGION 13 3.1 Selection of the site 13 4 SAFETY CRITERIA 14 5 TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION AND DESIGN EVALUATION 15 5.1 Plant arrangement 15 5.2 Buildings and structures 16 5.3 Reactor core and other reactor vessel internals 17 5.3.1 Mechanical design..
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Fuel Cycle, KD2430
    Nuclear Fuel Cycle 2011 Lecture 8: Reactor Concepts Fission Exotherm process for all nuclides with more than 130 nucleons (A>130) Activation energy for A=130 is very high; 100 MeV For A > 230 the activation energy is <10 MeV Fission with thermal (slow) neutrons is only possible for (even,odd) or (odd,odd) nuclei with Z>90 Nuclear chain reaction 235U + n fission products + 2.4 n + 210 MeV Fission of 235U with thermal neutrons Thermal neutron is captured and forms an excited compound nuclueus 235U + n (236U)* Excitation energy = captured neutron’s binding energy (6.8 MeV). Compound nucleus must emit energy. Either as γ or by fission. Probability for these can be expressed as cross sections σn,γ and σn,f 2 fission products + ν neutrons (236U)* 236U + γ => 85% of captured neutrons will cause fission Energy balance Binding energy/nucleon for heavy nuclei: 7.6 MeV Binding energy/nucleon for semi-heavy nuclei (A=80-150): 8.5 MeV Difference: 0.9 MeV For U-235: 235×0.9 MeV = 210 MeV Kinetic energy of fission products: 175 MeV Kinetic energy of neutrons: 5 MeV Kinetic energy of γ: 7 MeV β from fission products: 7 MeV γ from fission products 6 MeV Neutrinos (energy is lost): 10 MeV Effective neutron multiplication factor, k • If the number of produced neutrons, k > 1 Supercritical => Atomic explosion • If k< 1 Subcritical=> Chain reaction will die out • In a nuclear reactor k is controlled to be 1 (critical) with control rods (containing neutron-absorbent) Moderating neutrons • Fast and slow (thermal) neutrons are produced.
    [Show full text]
  • Magnox Corrosion
    Department Of Materials Science & Engineering From Magnox to Chernobyl: A report on clearing-up problematic nuclear wastes Sean T. Barlow BSc (Hons) AMInstP Department of Materials Science & Engineering, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield S1 3JD, UK IOP Nuclear Industry Group, September 28 | Warrington, Cheshire, UK Department Of Materials Science & Engineering About me… 2010-2013: Graduated from University of Salford - BSc Physics (Hons) Department Of Materials Science & Engineering About me… 2013-2018: Started on Nuclear Fission Research Science and Technology (FiRST) at the University of Sheffield Member of the Immobilisation Science Laboratory (ISL) group • Wasteforms cement, glass & ceramic • Characterisation of materials (Trinitite/Chernobylite) • Corrosion science (steels) Department Of Materials Science & Engineering Department Of Materials Science & Engineering Fully funded project based PhD with possibility to go on secondment • 3-4 month taught course at Manchester • 2 mini-projects in Sheffield • 3 years for PhD + 1 year write up • Funding available for conferences and training • Lots of outreach work • Site visits to Sellafield reprocessing facility, Heysham nuclear power station & Atomic Weapons Authority Department Of Materials Science & Engineering Fully funded project based PhD with possibility to go on secondment • 3-4 month taught course at Manchester • 2 mini-projects in Sheffield • 3 years for PhD + 1 year write up • Funding available for conferences and training • Lots of outreach work • Site visits to Sellafield reprocessing facility, Heysham nuclear power station & Atomic Weapons Authority Department Of Materials Science & Engineering Department Of Materials Science & Engineering 2017: Junior Project Manager at DavyMarkham Department Of Materials Science & Engineering PhD projects… 4 main projects 1. Magnox waste immobilisation in glass 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Implications of the Accident at Chernobyl for Safety Regulation of Commercial Nuclear Power Plants in the United States Final Report
    NUREG-1251 Vol. I Implications of the Accident at Chernobyl for Safety Regulation of Commercial Nuclear Power Plants in the United States Final Report Main Report U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission p. o AVAILABILITY NOTICE Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications Most documents cited in NRC publications will be available from one of the following sources: 1. The NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW, Lower Level, Washington, DC 20555 2. The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082 3. The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publica- tions, it is not intended to be exhaustive. Referenced documents available for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda; NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement bulletins, circulars, information notices, inspection and investi- gation notices; Licensee Event Reports; vendor reports and correspondence; Commission papers; and applicant and licensee documents and correspondence. The following documents in the NUREG series are available for purchase from the GPO Sales Program: formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC-sponsored conference proceed- ings, and NRC booklets and brochures. Also available are Regulatory Guides, NRC regula- tions in the Code of Federal Regulations, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances. Documents available from the National Technical Information Service include NUREG series reports and technical reports prepared by other federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Fundamentals of Nuclear Reactor Physics
    Fundamentals of Nuclear Reactor Physics E. E. Lewis Professor of Mechanical Engineering McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science Northwestern University AMSTERDAM • BOSTON • HEIDELBERG • LONDON NEW YORK • OXFORD • PARIS • SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO • SINGAPORE • SYDNEY • TOKYO ELSEVIER Academie Press is an imprint of Elsevier Contents Preface xiii 1 Nuclear Reactions 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Nuclear Reaction Fundamentals 2 Reaction Equations 3 Notation 5 Energetics 5 1.3 The Curve of Binding Energy 7 1.4 Fusion Reactions 8 1.5 Fission Reactions 9 Energy Release and Dissipation 10 Neutron Multiplication 12 Fission Products 13 1.6 Fissile and Fertile Materials 16 1.7 Radioactive Decay 18 Saturation Activity 20 Decay Chains 21 2 Neutron Interactions 29 2.1 Introduction 29 2.2 Neutron Cross Sections 29 Microscopic and Macroscopic Cross Sections 30 Uncollided Flux 32 Nuclide Densities 33 Enriched Uranium 35 Cross Section Calculation Example 36 Reaction Types 36 2.3 Neutron Energy Range 38 2.4 Cross Section Energy Dependence 40 Compound Nucleus Formation 41 Resonance Cross Sections 42 Threshold Cross Sections 46 Fissionable Materials 47 vii viii Contents 2.5 Neutron Scattering 48 Elastic Scattering 49 Slowing Down Decrement 50 Inelastic Scattering 52 3 Neutron Distributions in Energy 57 3.1 Introduction 57 3.2 Nuclear Fuel Properties 58 3.3 Neutron Moderators 61 3.4 Neutron Energy Spectra 63 Fast Neutrons 65 Neutron Slowing Down 66 Thermal Neutrons 70 Fast and Thermal Reactor Spectra 72 3.5
    [Show full text]