DOCSLIB.ORG

Developing an Intergovernmental Nuclear Regulatory Organization

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Developing an Intergovernmental Nuclear Regulatory Organization Developing an Intergovernmental Nuclear Regulatory Organization: Lessons Learned from the International Civil Aviation Organization, the International Maritime Organization, and the International Telecommunication Union Clarence Eugene Carpenter, Jr. Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, May 1988 Seattle University, Seattle, WA Master of Science in Technical Management, May 1997 The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD Master of Arts in International Science and Technology Policy, May 2009 The George Washington University, Washington, DC A Dissertation submitted to The Faculty of The Columbian College of Arts and Sciences of The George Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy January 10, 2020 Dissertation directed by Kathryn Newcomer Professor of Public Policy and Public Administration The Columbian College of Arts and Sciences of The George Washington University certifies that Clarence Eugene Carpenter, Jr. has passed the Final Examination for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy as of November 26, 2019. This is the final and approved form of the dissertation. Developing an Intergovernmental Nuclear Regulatory Organization: Lessons Learned from the International Civil Aviation Organization, the International Maritime Organization, and the International Telecommunication Union Clarence Eugene Carpenter, Jr. Dissertation Research Committee: Kathryn Newcomer, Professor of Public Policy and Public Administration, Dissertation Director Philippe Bardet, Assistant Professor, Committee Member Emily Hammond, Glen Earl Weston Research Professor, Committee Member ii © 2020 by Clarence Carpenter All rights reserved iii Dedication For my wife and daughters. Finishing would not have been possible without you. iv Acknowledgements The author wishes to thank his Dissertation Director, Professor Katheryn Newcomer, for her encouragement and dedication; my dissertation committee members, Professors Philippe Bardet and Emily Hammond; and, my defense committee chair and members, Professors Michael Worth, Joseph Arleth, and William Adams. I also thank the faculty and staff of The George Washington University’s Columbian College of Arts and Sciences for their support. v Abstract Developing an Intergovernmental Nuclear Regulatory Organization: Lessons Learned from the International Civil Aviation Organization, the International Maritime Organization, and the International Telecommunication Union I suggested that global adherence to a common set of nuclear regulatory standards would improve nuclear safety, security, and safeguards world-wide. I proposed there is a need for a new autonomous, competent, and authorized nuclear oversight intergovernmental organization (IGO) that could support and augment the capabilities and competencies of national-level nuclear regulatory authorities (NNRAs) that oversee the safety and security of nuclear energy programs in their respective States. I examined three cases where States readily accept such external assistance, specifically in the areas of civil aviation, maritime shipping, and telecommunications regulations, as well as multilateral environmental agreements and international standards, to determine if lessons learned from these case studies can be applied to developing the proposed nuclear oversight IGO’s capability to support NNRAs in expanding their ability to oversee the safe and secure use of nuclear materials and energy in their respective States. I also examine the ability of three existing IGOs – the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the OECD’s Nuclear Energy Agency, and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) – to provide for the future harmonization and normalization of nuclear regulatory practices world- wide. Finally, I examined various regional cooperative nuclear regulatory networks and a number of NNRAs. I determined that the proposed nuclear oversight IGO, while desirable, is simply not feasible, mostly for political reasons. I provided five recommendations and three areas for future research. vi Table of Contents Dedication ......................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................v Abstract ............................................................................................................................. vi List of Figures .................................................................................................................. xii List of Tables .................................................................................................................. xiii 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................1 1.1 Synopsis ...................................................................................................................1 1.2 Background ............................................................................................................3 1.2.1 Uses of Nuclear Science and Technologies .................................................4 1.2.2 NNRA Overview .........................................................................................8 1.2.3 Characteristics of an Effective NNRA .......................................................11 1.2.4 Comparison of Existing NNRAs to Ideal ..................................................13 1.3 Organizations Reviewed ......................................................................................21 1.3.1 International Civil Aviation Organization .................................................24 1.3.2 International Maritime Organization .........................................................26 1.3.3 International Telecommunication Union ...................................................28 1.3.4 Other IGOs Examined................................................................................29 1.3.5 International Atomic Energy Agency ........................................................29 1.3.6 Nuclear Energy Agency .............................................................................34 1.3.7 Nuclear Suppliers Group............................................................................36 1.3.8 Standards Developing Organizations .........................................................40 1.3.9 Institute of Nuclear Power Operations .......................................................44 1.3.10 World Association of Nuclear Operators ...................................................46 1.3.11 Electric Power Research Institute ..............................................................48 1.4 Challenges of Adding Nuclear ............................................................................50 1.5 Nuclear Today ......................................................................................................52 1.5.1 Developed States ........................................................................................59 1.5.2 Developing States ......................................................................................60 1.5.3 Embarking States .......................................................................................61 1.5.4 Russian Federation and PRC Nuclear Marketing ......................................65 1.6 Nuclear Governance ............................................................................................66 1.6.1 Need for International Technical and Scientific Support Organization .....67 vii 1.6.2 Collaboration with Mature NNRAs ...........................................................68 1.6.3 Challenges with Indigenously-created Nuclear Regulatory Infrastructure 69 1.6.4 Benefits of Globally-Consistent Nuclear Regulatory Regime ...................71 1.7 Categories of Existing NNRAs ............................................................................72 1.7.1 Category 1 NNRAs ....................................................................................73 1.7.2 Category 2 NNRAs ....................................................................................76 1.7.3 Category 3 NNRAs ....................................................................................80 1.8 Early Attempts at Nuclear Governance .............................................................87 1.8.1 Acheson-Lilienthal Report and the Ba .......................................................87 1.8.2 Establishment of the IAEA ........................................................................87 1.8.3 Subsequent Proposals.................................................................................89 1.8.4 Proliferation Fears ......................................................................................91 1.9 Options for Developing NNRAs ..........................................................................94 1.9.1 Option 1 – Indigenously Created ...............................................................95 1.9.2 Option 2 – Assistance from Another NNRA .............................................95 1.9.3 Option 3 – Work with IAEA ......................................................................96 1.9.4 Regional Cooperative Nuclear Regulatory Networks................................96 1.9.5 Thematic Cooperative Nuclear Regulatory Networks .............................100 1.9.6 Option 4 – Contract the Development .....................................................101 1.10
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Grappling with the Bomb: Britain's Pacific H-Bomb Tests
    Timeline and glossary Nuclear timeline, 1945–1963 16 July 1945 Alamogordo, United States conducts first-ever nuclear New Mexico, USA test, codenamed ‘Trinity .’ 6 August 1945 Hiroshima, Japan US aircraft Enola Gay drops the atomic weapon ‘Little Boy’ on Hiroshima, killing 80,000 people immediately and an estimated 100,000 people within six months . 9 August 1945 Nagasaki, Japan US aircraft Bockscar drops the atomic weapon ‘Fat Man’ on Nagasaki, killing 70,000 people immediately and tens of thousands in following months . 30 June 1946 Bikini Atoll, Marshall Under Operation Crossroads, United Islands States conducts the first of two atomic tests at Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands. ‘Able’ and ‘Baker’ are the first of 67 atmospheric tests in the Marshall Islands between 1946–1958 . 6 August 1948 Hiroshima, Japan Hiroshima’s first Peace Festival. 29 August 1949 Semipalatinsk, USSR conducts first atomic test Kazakhstan RDS-1 in Operation Pervaya molniya (Fast lightning), dubbed ‘Joe-1’ by United States . 1950–1954 Korean peninsula United States, Britain and Australia, under a United Nations mandate, join military operations in Korea following clashes between forces from the south and north of Korea. The Democratic People’s Republic is backed by the newly created People’s Republic of China . 3 October 1952 Monte Bello Islands, Under Operation Hurricane, United Western Australia Kingdom begins its nuclear testing program in Australia with a 25 kiloton atomic test . xi GRAPPLING WITH THE BOMB 1 November 1952 Bikini Atoll, Marshall United States conducts its first Islands hydrogen bomb test, codenamed ‘Mike’ (10 .4 megatons) as part of Operation Ivy .
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of Design and Regulatory Requirements for New Small Reactors, Contract No
    Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission - R550.1 Survey of Design and Regulatory Requirements for New Small Reactors, Contract No. 87055-13-0356 Final Report - July 3, 2014 RSP-0299 Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission R550.1 Survey of Design and Regulatory Requirements for New Small Reactors, Contract No. 87055-13-0356 Final Report July 3, Released for Brian Gihm 0 Victor Snell Jim Sarvinis Milan Ducic 2014 Use Victor Snell Date Rev. Status Prepared By Checked By Approved By Approved By Client - CNSC H346105-0000-00-124-0002, Rev. 0 Page i © Hatch 2015 All rights reserved, including all rights relating to the use of this document or its contents. Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission - R550.1 Survey of Design and Regulatory Requirements for New Small Reactors, Contract No. 87055-13-0356 Final Report - July 3, 2014 Executive Summary The objectives of this report are to perform a design survey of small modular reactors (SMRs) with near-term deployment potential, with a particular emphasis on identifying their innovative safety features, and to review the Canadian nuclear regulatory framework to assess whether the current and proposed regulatory documents adequately address SMR licensing challenges. SMRs are being designed to lower the initial financing cost of a nuclear power plant or to supply electricity in small grids (often in remote areas) which cannot accommodate large nuclear power plants (NPPs). The majority of the advanced SMR designs is based on pressurized water reactor (PWR) technology, while some non-PWR Generation IV technologies (e.g., gas-cooled reactor, lead-cooled reactor, sodium-cooled fast reactor, etc.) are also being pursued.
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of Military Nuclear Strategy And
    The Development of Military Nuclear Strategy and Anglo-American Relations, 1939 – 1958 Submitted by: Geoffrey Charles Mallett Skinner to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History, July 2018 This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. (Signature) ……………………………………………………………………………… 1 Abstract There was no special governmental partnership between Britain and America during the Second World War in atomic affairs. A recalibration is required that updates and amends the existing historiography in this respect. The wartime atomic relations of those countries were cooperative at the level of science and resources, but rarely that of the state. As soon as it became apparent that fission weaponry would be the main basis of future military power, America decided to gain exclusive control over the weapon. Britain could not replicate American resources and no assistance was offered to it by its conventional ally. America then created its own, closed, nuclear system and well before the 1946 Atomic Energy Act, the event which is typically seen by historians as the explanation of the fracturing of wartime atomic relations. Immediately after 1945 there was insufficient systemic force to create change in the consistent American policy of atomic monopoly. As fusion bombs introduced a new magnitude of risk, and as the nuclear world expanded and deepened, the systemic pressures grew.
    [Show full text]
  • The Question of Reducing the Threat Posed by Nations Possessing
    Mesaieed International School Model United Nations Forum: General Assembly 1 Issue: The Question of reducing threat posed by nations possessing nuclear Weapons. Student Officer: Subhan Khan Position: Deputy Chair Introduction The issue of nuclear weapons has been an ever-present issue within the world and was the first issue adopted by the UN (United Nations) in 1946. Nuclear armaments when detonated have devastating effects both environmentally and socio-economically via the fallout that it left behind from the bomb exploded. Many nations throughout the world are working to combat the issue, and the dismantling of all these weapons would be the perfect solution to all these issues, but this would be very difficult to do. Over 14,900 reported missiles remain on the Earth, and the decommissioning of all these weapons would be a feat for the human race. There is also the issue that nuclear weapons provide a sense of security and defence to a nation as they can pose a severe threat to any potential adversaries looking to harm a country. The decommissioning of nuclear weapons is an effort to preserve peace in the world and eradicate further complications that are to arise due to the threat of atomic weapons. Nations such as the US (United States) and formally the Soviet Union are unwilling to decommission their nuclear arsenals due to the risk of an attack that may occur at any point with the invention of ICBM’s (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles). Definition of Key Terms WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) Regarded as a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapon that is capable of causing great damage to humans, infrastructure and biological systems in the vicinity of its deployment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Chronicle Thursday
    THE CHRONICLE THURSDAY. FEBRUARY 4, 1988 © DUKE UNIVERSITY DURHAM. NORTH CAROLINA CIRCULATION: 15,000 VOL. 83. NO. 93 Ticket Reagan to speak on campus Monday information By DAN BERGER all students who don't get tickets to the President Reagan will visit the Univer­ speech will come out to see the landing," Undergraduates: ASDU will distribute sity Monday to speak at a conference on he said. Several local high school bands 2,500 free tickets for President substance abuse, the White House an­ and community groups will also attend Reagan's speech to undergraduates nounced Wednesday. the ceremony at the landing site, Mizell presenting a student ID between 10 Reagan will address the conference said. He added that the men's basketball a.m. and 4 p.m. Thursday at the upper "Substance Abuse in the Workplace: team will likely participate in the fevet of the Bryan Center. Another dis­ Strategies for the 1990s," which is being program at the lacrosse field prior to the tribution table may be set up at the East sponsored by the University and the office president's landing and to a lesser extent Campus Union during the same hours, of North Carolina Gov. Jim Martin. The after he arrives. but a final decision will not be made un­ president's trip from Washington D.C. Before taking the dais, Reagan will hold til Thursday morning. Of the 2,500 tick­ will be made exclusively to attend the a closed meeting in Cameron with several ets, 750 will be allocated to East Cam­ event. community leaders affiliated with the pus.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia Highly Appreciates the Activity of IAEA and Its Role in Promoting "Peaceful Atom” in Every Aspects of Life
    Unofficial translation Dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen! Russia highly appreciates the activity of IAEA and its role in promoting "peaceful atom” in every aspects of life. We strongly support Agency's activities in the field of nuclear science and technology, participate in virtually all areas of activity and provide our knowledge, experience, educational opportunities and experimental facilities to promote this important industry. We are convinced that nuclear and radiation technologies, based on solid foundation of science, will make a significant contribution to achievement of Sustainable Development Goals of mankind, including problems of climate and power supply. The strategic goal of Russian nuclear industry is to ensure the innovative development of our country based on the expansion of application of nuclear technologies in various sectors of the economy. The focus is traditionally set on the development of nuclear energy technologies. We are convinced that the future of nuclear energy is inextricably linked with the closure of the nuclear fuel cycle. Russian scientists have already made a significant contribution to the development and commercialization of this direction, demonstrating to the world the operability and attractiveness of its key element - fast neutron reactor of 4th generation. This was the basis for the development and implementation of the Breakthrough project with a demonstration of technical solutions for existing challenges, nuclear power industry faces today: critical decision to increase the safety of nuclear power generation is the transition to “natural safety” reactor systems and the resolution of issues related to the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste. Undoubtedly, one of the components of new technological platform is the development of low and medium power sector of nuclear power industry.
    [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]
  • Human Factors and Ergonomics Society: Stories from the First 50 Years
    THE HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS SOCIETY: STORIES FROM THE FIRST 50 YEARS Edited By Jack Stuster P.O. Box 1369 Santa Monica, CA 90406-1369 USA Copyright © 2006 by the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Inc. All rights reserved. PREFACE One of the great moves of my 47-year career in human factors was asking my colleague, Jack Stuster, to collect and document stories from the first 50 years of the Society. His many pleasurable interactions with those who contributed to this effort and the wonderful stories that resulted turned out to be, according to Jack, truly a labor of love. Moreover, I think that whatever time you spend with these stories will be enjoyable for the insights and humor they contain, and for the understanding and appreciation they provide of our profession. The stories are still coming in even as I write this. Jack had several new stories waiting for him as he returned to work at the start of the week; Stu Parsons just called to make sure that an additional story he rounded up will make it in before the publica- tion deadline. Although it took some initial effort to get members thinking about their professional and Society experiences, and still more effort to convince them that their stories would be of sufficient interest to document in a Society publication, once the dam broke, the stories flooded in. So, this document has one editor and many authors. Some have written about the formation and early years of the profession and the Society. Fortunately, these reports come from members who were there and can provide first-hand accounts of these significant events.
    [Show full text]
  • Leonard Abdale and Others
    IN THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL WPAFCC Refs: as below WAR PENSIONS AND ARMED FORCES COMPENSATION CHAMBER Sitting at Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 16th December 2016 TRIBUNALS COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007 TRIBUNAL PROCEDURE (FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL) (WAR PENSIONS AND ARMED FORCES COMPENSATION CHAMBER) RULES 2008 BEFORE: THE HON MR JUSTICE BLAKE MRS I MCCORD DR J RAYNER BETWEEN 1. LEONARD ABDALE (Deceased) ENT/00203/2015 2. DARRYL BEETON ENT/00202/2015 3. TREVOR BUTLER (Deceased) ENT/00258/2015 4. DEREK HATTON (Deceased) ENT/00200/2015 5. ERNEST HUGHES ENT/00254/2015 6. BRIAN LOVATT ENT/00201/2015 7. DAWN PRITCHARD (Deceased) ENT/00258/2015 8. LAURA SELBY ENT/00199/2015 9. DENIS SHAW (Deceased) ENT/00253/2015 10. JEAN SINFIELD ENT/00204/2015 11. DONALD BATTERSBY (Deceased) ENT/00250/2015 12. ANNA SMITH ENT/00251/2015 Appellants - and - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE Respondent Hearing Dates: 13 to 30 June 2016 Representation: Roger Ter Haar QC and Richard Sage (instructed pro bono by HOGAN LOVELLS) for Appellants 1 to 10. Christopher Busby, Hugo Charlton and Cecilia Busby acting as pro bono lay representatives for Appellants 11-12. Adam Heppinstall and Abigail Cohen instructed by the Government Legal Department for the Respondent. TRIBUNAL’S DECISION AND REASONS The unanimous DECISION of the Tribunal is: the appeal of each appellant is dismissed save for the appeal of Leonard Abdale deceased in respect of his claim for cataracts. On this issue his appeal is allowed. INDEX TO DETERMINATION PART ONE INTRODUCTION p.5 Outline
    [Show full text]
  • Russia's Akademik Lomonosov – the First Modern Floating Nuclear
    Russia’s Akademik Lomonosov – The First Modern Floating Nuclear Power Plant (FNPP) Peter Lobner, 15 May 2021 1. Introduction Designated Project 20870, construction of Akademik Lomonosov started on 15 April 2007, when the keel was laid at the Sevmash shipyard in Severodvinsk, which also is Russia’s premier submarine building shipyard. Originally, Akademik Lomonosov was expected to supply power to the Sevmash shipyard itself and the town of Severodvinsk, in Northwest Russia. Cutaway drawing showing the general arrangement of the Akademik Lomonosov. Source: Rosatom In August 2008, the hull of Akademik Lomonosov was transferred to the Baltic Shipyard in St. Petersburg, where a second “keel laying” was held in May 2009. Plans for deploying the FNPP were reconsidered, leading to the final selection of Pevek, a remote Arctic coastal city in Russia’s Far East. The FNPP was launched on 30 June 2010 and outfitting continued with the vessel secured dockside at the Baltic Shipyard. Two un-fueled OKBM Afrikantov KLT-40S modular pressurized water reactors (PWRs) were installed in October 2013. 1 After work on the vessel and reactor systems was completed in April 2018, Akademik Lomonosov was towed 4,000 km (2,485 miles) around Norway to Murmansk, where the reactors were fuelled and tested at Rosatomflot facilities, which also support their nuclear- powered icebreaker fleet. In June 2019, the Russian nuclear regulatory agency Rostekhnadzor issued a 10-year license to Rosenergoatom to operate Akademik Lomonosov until 2029. After successfully completing testing, Akademik Lomonosov departed Murmansk on 23 August 2019 and was towed 4,770 km (2,964 miles) along the Northern Sea Route, arriving at its final destination on 9 September 2019 at a new protected pier at Pevek, which is about 980 km (609 miles) west of the Bering Strait.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C October 8, 2014
    Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation and Screening – Final Report – Appendix C October 8, 2014 APPENDIX C EVALUATION CRITERIA AND METRICS Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation and Screening – Final Report – Appendix C ii October 8, 2014 Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation and Screening – Final Report – Appendix C October 8, 2014 iii CONTENTS C. Evaluation Criteria and Metrics ......................................................................................................... 1 C-1. Nuclear Waste Management Criterion ..................................................................................... 1 C-1.1 Background on Nuclear Waste Management .............................................................. 1 C-1.2 Metric Development for the Nuclear Waste Management Criterion .......................... 5 C-1.3 Mass of SNF+HLW Disposed per Energy Generated ................................................ 6 C-1.4 Activity of SNF+HLW (@100 years) per Energy Generated ..................................... 7 C-1.5 Activity of SNF+HLW (@100,000 years) per Energy Generated .............................. 7 C-1.6 Mass of DU+RU+RTh Disposed per Energy Generated ............................................ 8 C-1.7 Volume of LLW per Energy Generated ...................................................................... 9 References for C-1. ........................................................................................................................... 25 C-2. Proliferation Risk Criterion ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The French Approach for the Regulation of Research Reactors
    The French approach for the regulation of research reactors D. Conte, A. Chevallier Autorité de sûreté nucléaire, Paris, France Abstract. The French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) regulates civil nuclear facilities in France. In addition to the pool of 58 pressurized water reactors ASN also regulates several research reactors which are all unique installations. The regulatory approach for research reactors takes cognisance of the different level of hazard encountered in their operation and hence requires a different approach to the management of safety in comparison with nuclear power reactor operations. For a number of years, ASN has been striving to optimise its regulation of experimental reactors. To ensure the optimum level of safety by focusing on the most important safety issues and allowing the licensee to exercise its full responsibilities through the use of internal authorisations. The internal authorisations system, which has been in operation for several years now with a number of experimental reactors, is designed to achieve this two-fold objective. In addition to the careful use of a new range of tools for its regulatory framework in the research reactors area, ASN has other safety challenges for example the ageing of most of the existing facilities and the licensing of new reactors with a high international profile such as the Jules Horowitz reactor or the ITER fusion reactor. 1. Introduction The French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) regulates civil nuclear facilities in France (164). In addition to the pool of 58 pressurized water reactors ASN also regulates research reactors which are all unique installations. Most of the research reactors are operated by the atomic energy commission (CEA).
    [Show full text]