DOCSLIB.ORG

Development of a Technology-Inclusive Methodology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Development of a Technology-Inclusive Methodology Development of a Technology-Inclusive Methodology to Analyze the Environmental, Safety, and Health Risks Associated with Advanced Nuclear Reactor Designs as Demonstrated on the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment By Brandon M. Chisholm Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Vanderbilt University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSPHY in Environmental Engineering May 8, 2020 Nashville, Tennessee Approved: Steven L. Krahn, D.P.A. David S. Kosson, Ph.D. Mark D. Abkowitz, Ph.D. James H. Clarke, Ph.D. Askin Guler Yigitoglu, Ph.D. Copyright © 2020 by Brandon M. Chisholm All Rights Reserved ii To Mom, Nick, and Dad, for making me who I am today and To Lauren, for inspiring me to never give up iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Honestly, there are so many people without whom I would have never been able to achieve what I have so far; I don’t even know where to begin to express my gratitude. First of all, I’d like to thank my family for setting me up for success. Mom, words cannot describe how much your relentless care and hard work means to me. Nick, you’ve been the best right-hand man that anyone could ever ask for. Dad, thank you for sending me down the path to be an engineer and for giving me the motivation to always do better. GramHoney and Pa, your love and support has allowed me to follow my passion. To the rest of the Chizners, thank you for always being there when I need you and for always making me laugh and laughing with me (sometimes at me). I also want to thank all the friends who have been a part of my life so long that you’re a part of my family too: Mr. Lloyd and Miss Rita, Zach, Conner, Stroudly, the rest of the Rhodes family, Erik, Charles, Aaron, and so many others. You’ll never know how much you have helped me along the way, and how thankful I am. Dr. Krahn, thank you for all of your guidance during my graduate studies and for the opportunities and doors that you have opened up for me. I sincerely appreciate the foundation that you have helped develop for me as I begin my professional career. Thank you to everyone else at Vanderbilt who has helped me out since I got to Nashville. To my committee members, your feedback and encouragement has been instrumental in making this dissertation a success. Allen, Paul, Megan, Carole, Bethany, and Tim, this work wouldn’t have been possible without your guidance and technical assistance. Jack, Bowen, Yanqing, Peng, Chris, and Chelsea, thank you for always helping to put a smile on my face. Charity, Bev, Karen Fuller, Karen Page, and Jackie, I owe you each quite a few favors for always helping me figure out how to get things done. Thank you to all of the organizations (and the people in the organizations) that made this project possible and helped shape both this research and my future. Thank you to the US Department of Energy and the Nuclear Energy University Programs. Your fellowship support has permitted me to dream big and tackle some important problems that I may have not had the opportunity to address otherwise. I would especially like to thank George, Gary, Askin, David, Zack, Tommy, and Anita at ORNL; Lauren, Irvin, Amir, Smith, and Lance at Southern; Andrew and Cristian at EPRI; and the B. John Garrick Institute for the Risk Sciences at UCLA. Karl and Joe, thank you also for your help over the past 4 years. iv Last, but certainly not least, I’d like to thank the two beautiful souls that dealt with me pretty much every day and got me through the toughest moments of the work for this dissertation. Hattie, thank you for napping next to me while I stared at a computer screen for hours on end, all the while never forgetting to remind me when it was time for your dinner. Lauren, thank you for constantly putting up with my nonsense and making all the hard work worthwhile. I’m so excited for the next chapter of our lives together as a family. Disclaimers This material is based upon work partially supported under a Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy, Integrated University Program Graduate Fellowship. As such, this report was prepared in part as an account of work sponsored by an Agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, 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 the United States Government or any agency thereof. The research in this dissertation was also partially supported by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Agreement #10007945, “Vanderbilt University Support for Developing Best Practices for Integrating Safety Assessment in the Advanced Reactor Design (PHA to PRA).” As such, this report was prepared in part as an account of work sponsored by EPRI. Neither EPRI nor any of their employees makes any warranty, expressly or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained herein. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... xi LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................... xii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................... xv DEFINITIONS ....................................................................................................................................... xvii GLOSSARY OF RELEVANT NUCLEAR ENGINEERING TERMS ................................................ xix Chapter 1. Introduction and Motivation ................................................................................................................ 1 1.1. Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Research Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 5 1.3. Key Questions and Dissertation Structure .................................................................................. 6 1.4. Dissertation Scope ........................................................................................................................... 8 2. Literature Review of Relevant Risk Assessment and Safety-in-Design Approaches and Prior Efforts ......................................................................................................................................................... 11 2.1. Industry-Standard Approaches for Quantitative Risk Assessment ....................................... 11 2.2. PHA and Early Stage Safety Analysis ........................................................................................ 15 2.3. Safety-in-Design and Risk-Informed Frameworks for Safety Assessment ........................... 18 2.4. Prior Safety and Risk Assessments of Liquid-Fueled Molten Salt Reactors ......................... 21 2.4.1. Original Safety Basis for the MSRE ..................................................................................... 21 2.4.2. Recent LF-MSR Safety Assessment Efforts ......................................................................... 25 2.5. Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 34 3. Overview of a Technology-Inclusive Methodology to Analyze ES&H Risks associated with Advanced Reactor Designs ..................................................................................................................... 38 3.1. Overall Methodology Structure .................................................................................................. 38 3.2. Analysis Tools and Interfaces between Methods ..................................................................... 41 3.2.1. Hazard Identification ............................................................................................................. 41 3.2.2. Operating Experience and Stylized Accidents ................................................................... 42 3.2.3. Hazards and Operability (HAZOP) Study Method .......................................................... 42 3.2.4. Key Phenomena Identification and Ranking ..................................................................... 47 vi 3.2.5. Exhaustive Identification of Initiators ................................................................................. 47 3.2.6. Event Sequence Development .............................................................................................. 48 3.2.7. Quantitative Consequence Analysis ................................................................................... 49 3.2.8. Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) ..................................................................... 50 3.2.9. Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) ....................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Declaration of David Lochbaum
    Critique of the Analysis of Safety and Environmental Risks Posed by Spent Fuel Pool Leaks in the NRC’s Draft Waste Confidence Generic Environmental Impact Statement Declaration of David Lochbaum Under penalty of perjury, I, David Lochbaum, declare as follows: I. INTRODUCTION 1.1 I am the director of the nuclear safety project for the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The UCS puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet's most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future. The UCS has over 93,000 members. 1.2 I have been retained by a group of environmental organizations to assist in the preparation of comments invited by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), on its Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Waste Confidence Decision (WC DGEIS). 1.3 The purpose of my declaration is to address the adequacy of the discussion of spent fuel pool leak risks in the WC DGEIS to support the NRC’s proposed finding in 10 CFR. § 51.23(a)(2) that it is feasible to safely store spent nuclear fuel in spent fuel pools after nuclear power reactors permanently cease operation. 1.4 My declaration is organized as follows: Section II (page 3) discusses my professional qualifications. Section III (page 5) provides introductory material on spent fuel storage in the United States and treatment of spent fuel pool leaks within the WC DGEIS. Section IV (page 10) discusses the NRC’s failure to evaluate experience from past spent fuel pool leaks in assessing future spent fuel pool leak risks for the WC DGEIS.
    [Show full text]
  • Westinghouse Hanford Company Reference Guide Acronyms and Abbreviations
    00 3087 WHC-EP-0009 Volume 1 Westinghouse Hanford Company Reference Guide Acronyms and Abbreviations Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary for Management and Administration ~ Westinghouse \::::) Hanford Company Richland, Washington Hanford Operations and Engineering Contractor for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-87RL 10930 Approved for Public Release RECORD OF (1) Document Number I REVISION Page lofl J WHC-EP -0009 J W Title and Abbreviations V-: estinghouse Hanford Company Rl:fe-=r~nce- ~ui-de . Acronyms CHANGE CONTROL RECORD Authorized for Release (3) Rev1s1on (4) Description of Change - Replace, Add. and Delete Pages (5) Cog.1Pro1. Engr. (6) Cog./Pr0J . Mgr. Date (7) Revision 1 Page 7 20 52 100 103 110 258 318 7)0/fc Replace all to show minor mJ. ,-~ X't~ corrections to content ' A-7320-005 (12189) The following is a summary of instructions to be used in preparing Record of Revision page and how appropriate Engineering Change Notice (ECN) and revisions are identified. NOTE: Prior to revision of an engineering document, all proposed changes shall have been approved by an ECN. The Record of Revision sheet shall include the following information. 1) The engineering document number. 2) The title of the engineering document. Change Control Record 3) The revision number of the change. 4) A description of the change, including page changes, additions, and deletions where appropriate. List the approved ECN number(s) which have been incorporated. 5) The authorizing signature of the Cognizant/Project Engineer signifying accurate editorial incorporation of the previously approved change.
    [Show full text]
  • NRC Collection of Abbreviations
    I Nuclear Regulatory Commission c ElLc LI El LIL El, EEELIILE El ClV. El El, El1 ....... I -4 PI 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 20555-0001 2. The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P. 0. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20402-9328 3. The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161-0002 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 bulletins, circulars, information notices, inspection and investigation notices; licensee event reports; vendor reports and correspondence; Commission papers; and applicant and licensee docu- ments and correspondence. The following documents in the NUREG series are available for purchase from the Government Printing Office: formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC-sponsored conference pro- ceedings, international agreement reports, grantee reports, and NRC booklets and bro- chures. Also available are regulatory guides, NRC regulations in the Code of Federal Regula- tions, 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. Documents available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items, such as books, journal articles, and transactions.
    [Show full text]
  • Safety Issues at the DOE Test and Research Reactors. a Report to the U.S
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 299 107 SE 049 603 TITLE Safety Issues at the DOE Test and Research Reactors. A Report to the U.S. Department of Energy. INSTITUTION National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council, Washington, DC. Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Resources. SPONS AGENCY Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. PUB DATE 88 CONTRACT DE-FG01-86ER35012 NOTE 151p.; Contains drawings and colored photographs which may not reproduce well. AVAILABLE FROMNational Research Council, Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Resources, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20418 (free while supply lasts). PUB TYPE Reports - Evaluative/Feasibility (142) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC07 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Accident Prevention; Engineering; Higher Education; *Mechanics (Process); Nuclear Energy; *Nuclear Physics; Nuclear Power Plants; *Nuclear Power Plant Technicians; *Nuclear Technology; Radiation Effects; Safety; Science Education; *Scientific Research IDENTIFIERS Department of Energy; National Academy of Sciences; *Nuclear Engineering; Nuclear Reactors; Nuclear Wastes ABSTRACT This report provides an assessment of safety issues at the Department if Energy (DOE) test and research reactors. Part A identifies six safety issues of the reactors. These issues include the safety design philosophy, the conduct of safety reviews, the performance of probabilistic risk assessments, the reliance on reactor operators, the fragmented character of the DOE management structure, and the safety implications of the current budgetary climate. Part B provides an assessment of technical issues to each of five reactors, such as (1) Advanced Test Reactor (ATR); (2) Experimental Breeder Reactor II (EBRII); (3) Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF); (4) High Flux Beam Reactor (HFBR); and (5) High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR).
    [Show full text]
  • Final Environmental Impact Statement Construction and Operation of The
    DOE/EIS-0247 SNS FEIS Cover Sheet COVER SHEET RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) TITLE: Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Construction and Operation of the Spallation Neutron Source (DOE/EIS-0247) LOCATIONS OF ALTERNATIVE SITES: Illinois, New Mexico, New York, and Tennessee. CONTACT: For further information on this document, write or call: Mr. David Wilfert, EIS Document Manager Mr. Jeff Hoy, SNS Program Manager Oak Ridge Operations Office Office of Basic Energy Research U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of Energy (ER-10) 200 Administration Road, 146/FEDC Germantown, MD 20874 Oak Ridge, TN 37831 Telephone: (301) 903-4924 Telephone: (800) 927-9964 Facsimile: (301) 903-9513 Facsimile: (423) 576-4542 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] For general information on DOE's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, contact: Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH-42) U. S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20585 Telephone: (202) 586-4600, or leave a message at (800) 472-2756 Facsimile: (202) 586-7031 ABSTRACT: DOE proposes to construct and operate a state-of-the-art, short-pulsed spallation neutron source comprised of an ion source, a linear accelerator, a proton accumulator ring, and an experiment building containing a liquid mercury target and a suite of neutron scattering instrumentation. The proposed Spallation Neutron Source would be designed to operate at a proton beam power of 1 megawatt. The design would accommodate future upgrades to a peak operating power of 4 megawatts.
    [Show full text]
  • Highly Enriched Uranium: Striking a Balance
    OFFICIAL USE ONLY - DRAFT U.S. HEU SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL INVENTORY APPENDIX C U.S. HEU SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL INVENTORY This appendix provides information on the location and quantity of spent nuclear fuel and other reactor irradiated nuclear materials containing highly enriched uranium (HEU) in storage at DOE facilities throughout the United States (U.S.) as of September 30, 1996. These quantities (summarized in Table C-1) are included as part of the overall U.S. HEU inventory (see Table 3- 1). HEU in spent nuclear fuel is not weapons-usable unless it is reprocessed. While natural as well as low enriched uranium can be used as a reactor fuel, spent fuel produced from these materials is beyond the scope of this report. BACKGROUND When a reactor is operated, uranium atoms in the fuel undergo a process known as fission, where atoms are split and create energy. Fission also creates radioactive waste products (fission products) inside the fuel elements. After a time, but before all the uranium atoms are consumed, the radioactive fission products build up, causing inefficient use of the fuel. At this point, fuel elements are considered “spent” and are removed from the reactor, and new fuel elements are installed. When removed from a reactor, spent fuel elements are intensely radioactive due to the fission product content. To allow time for some of the radioactivity to die down, spent fuel is stored, usually under water, for several months, a step known as decay cooling. Once the decay cooling step is complete, the valuable unused uranium can be recovered from the spent fuel and used in new fuel elements.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2000
    Annual Report to Congress on Federal Government Energy Management and Conservation Programs Fiscal Year 2000 December 13, 2002 U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Federal Energy Management Program Washington, DC 20585 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE S UMMARY ................................................... 1 I. OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ...... 7 A. Overview of Federal Energy Management Policy and Legislative Mandates . 7 B. Overall Federal Energy Consumption, Costs, and Carbon Emissions ....... 10 C. Energy M anagement I nfrastructure a nd T ools ......................... 19 1. Federal Coordination ...................................... 19 2. Training ................................................ 21 3. Awards and Recognition ................................... 22 4. Federal Energy Saver Showcase Facilities ...................... 26 5. Energy A wareness ........................................ 27 6. Public Education Programs ................................. 28 D. Financing Mechanisms for Energy Efficiency Improvements in Federal Facilities ............................................... 31 1. Direct Appropriations ..................................... 31 2. Federal Energy E fficiency F und .............................. 35 3. Energy S avings P erformance C ontracting ...................... 36 4. Utility Energy Service Contracts ............................. 41 5. Life-Cycle C osting ( LCC) .................................. 42 E. ENERGY STAR® and Energy Efficient
    [Show full text]
  • Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU)
    OFFICIAL USE ONLY - DRAFT SITES DISCUSSED IN THIS REPORT APPENDIX B SITES DISCUSSED IN THIS REPORT This appendix lists the sites discussed in this report that contributed to the production and utilization of highly enriched uranium (HEU). Sites are grouped into four geographical regions: (1) northeast, (2) southeast, (3) midwest, and (4) west. Within each region, sites are listed in alphabetical order along with location and a brief description of activities in support of HEU production and utilization. The intent of this appendix is not to provide information on the final disposition of each site or on the environmental legacy remaining at each site. Such information is outside of the scope of this HEU report. However, when such information was available, it was included in this appendix. 1 4 3 2 OFFICIAL USE ONLY - DRAFT 117 OFFICIAL USE ONLY - DRAFT HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM: STRIKING A BALANCE NORTHEAST Gulf United Nuclear Corporation Brookhaven National Laboratory Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory - National Lead Kesselring Site Company Knolls Atomic Texas Instruments Power Laboratory - NY Schenectady Site United Nuclear Corporation - Wood River Junction Plant Indian Point 1 Shippingport Atomic Power Station United Nuclear Corporation - Naval Products Division PA Nuclear Materials Westinghouse Electric Corporation Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory - Windsor Site & Equipment Corp. Combustion Engineering Sylvania Electric Products MD Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology BETTIS ATOMIC POWER LABORATORY The Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory, established in 1948 near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is engaged solely in research and development for design and operation of naval nuclear propulsion plants. Bettis operates the Naval Reactors Facility at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory.
    [Show full text]
  • Scoping Comments Received on the Waste Confidence Generic
    Scoping Comments on the Waste Confidence Generic Environmental Impact Statement This document accompanies the Waste Confidence scoping summary report (ADAMS Accession No. ML13060A128). Comment excerpts are listed below by category. Comments are identified by the comment identification number (correspondence number-comment number) and the name of the commenter at the end of each excerpt. Comment Category Page Number 1. Land Use ........................................................................................................................... 1 2. Socioeconomics ................................................................................................................ 1 3. Environmental Justice ...................................................................................................... 3 4. Meteorology and Air Quality .............................................................................................. 5 5. Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 8 6. Aquatic Ecology ................................................................................................................ 9 7. Transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel ............................................................................... 9 8. Nonradiological Health .................................................................................................... 12 9. Radiological Health ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • SEC-00196, Brookhaven National Laboratory
    SEC Petition Evaluation Report Petition SEC-00196 Report Rev #: 0 Report Submittal Date: January 5, 2012______ Subject Expert(s): Jason Davis, Ray Clark Site Expert(s): N/A Petitioner Administrative Summary Petition Under Evaluation Petition Petition A Petition # DOE/AWE Facility Name Type Receipt Date SEC-00196 83.14 November 3, 2011 Brookhaven National Laboratory NIOSH-Proposed Class Definition All employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies, and its contractors and subcontractors who worked in any area at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York, from January 1, 1980 through December 31, 1993, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment, or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees in the Special Exposure Cohort. Related Petition Summary Information SEC Petition Tracking #(s) Petition Type DOE/AWE Facility Name Petition Status SEC-00113 83.13 Brookhaven National Class added to the SEC: Laboratory January 1, 1947 through December 31, 1979 Related Evaluation Report Information Report Title DOE/AWE Facility Name SEC Petition Evaluation Report for Petition SEC-00113 Brookhaven National Laboratory ORAU Lead Technical Evaluator: Jason Davis ORAU Peer Review Completed By: Daniel Stempfley Peer Review Completed By: [Signature on File] 01/06/2012 Grady Calhoun Date SEC Petition Evaluation Reviewed By: [Signature on File] 01/06/2012 J. W. Neton Date SEC Evaluation Approved By: [Signature on File] 01/06/2012 Stuart L. Hinnefeld Date Page 1 of 58 SEC-00196 1-05-12 BNL This page intentionally left blank Page 2 of 58 SEC-00196 1-05-12 BNL Evaluation Report Summary: SEC-00196, Brookhaven National Laboratory This evaluation report by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) addresses a class of employees proposed for addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) per the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • "Handbook of Acronyms & Initialisms."
    NUREG-0544 A HANDBOOK OF ACRONYMS AND INITIALISMS p* "muq % 5 ..... Office of Administration U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission '9 05 140 f73 NUREG4544 A HANDBOOK OF ACRONYMS AND INITIALISMS Manuscript Completed: March 1979 Date Published: March 1979 Division of Technical Information and Document Control Office of Administration U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 PREFACE This " Handbook of Acronyms and Initialisms" is a dictionary of acro- nyms, initialisms and similar condensed forms observed in use in the nuclear industry. It was compiled to serve as a source for learning the meaning of undefined acronyms found in the literature. The use of these acronyms in NRC documents is neither recommended or condemned, and, similarly, the accuracy and completeness of this document is not assured. If you use these or similar condensed forms in your writing we strongly recommend the practice of writing out the condensed form first and following it with the acronym or initialism in parentheses; for example, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). After the ini- tial writing out of the full name, the acronym may be used by itself. For the purposes of this document the following definitions apply: Acronym - a pronounceable term formed from the initial letters of a compound expression, e.g. NASA (National Aeronautics andSpaceAdministration)orRem({oentgen[quivalent man). Initialism - a term, not pronounceable, formed from the initial letters of a compound expression, e.g. CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) or ac (alternating current). Comments, criticisms or suggestions regarding this publication are en- couraged. In so far as possible, we would like this document to be a valuable part of your reference material.
    [Show full text]
  • R&D and Innovation Needs for Decommissioning of Nuclear
    Radioactive Waste Management 2014 R&D and Innovation Needs for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities NEA Radioactive Waste Management R&D and Innovation Needs for Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities © OECD 2014 NEA No. 7191 NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT The OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 34 democracies work together to address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies. The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Commission takes part in the work of the OECD. OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering and research on economic, social and environmental issues, as well
    [Show full text]