DOCSLIB.ORG

Decommissioning Study of Forsmark NPP

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Decommissioning Study of Forsmark NPP R-13-03 Decommissioning study of Forsmark NPP Åke Anunti, Helena Larsson, Mathias Edelborg Westinghouse Electric Sweden AB June 2013 Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co Box 250, SE-101 24 Stockholm Phone +46 8 459 84 00 ISSN 1402-3091 Tänd ett lager: SKB R-13-03 P, R eller TR. ID 1400307 Decommissioning study of Forsmark NPP Åke Anunti, Helena Larsson, Mathias Edelborg Westinghouse Electric Sweden AB June 2013 This report concerns a study which was conducted for SKB. The conclusions and viewpoints presented in the report are those of the authors. SKB may draw modified conclusions, based on additional literature sources and/or expert opinions. A pdf version of this document can be downloaded from www.skb.se. SKB R-13-03 3 Abstract By Swedish law it is the obligation of the nuclear power utilities to satisfactorily demonstrate how a nuclear power plant can be safely decommissioned and dismantled when it is no longer in service as well as calculate the estimated cost of decommissioning of the nuclear power plant. Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB (SKB) has been commissioned by the Swedish nuclear power utilities to meet the requirements of current legislation by studying and reporting on suitable technologies and by estimating the costs of decommissioning and dismantling of the Swedish nuclear power plants. The present report is an overview, containing the necessary information to meet the above needs, for the Forsmark NPP. Information is given for the plant about the inventory of materials and radioactivity at the time for final shutdown. A feasible technique for dismantling is presented and the waste manage­ ment is described and the resulting waste quantities are estimated. Finally a schedule for the decommis­ sioning phase is given and the costs associated are estimated as a basis for funding. SKB R-13-03 5 Contents 1 Introduction and methodology 9 1.1 Introduction 9 1.1.1 General 9 1.1.2 Earlier studies 9 1.1.3 Present study 11 1.1.4 Prerequisites 11 1.1.5 Reference reports 14 1.1.6 Structure of the report 15 1.2 Methodology 16 1.2.1 Introduction of methodology 16 1.2.2 Methodology applied in the present study 20 2 General description of Forsmark 25 2.1 Introduction 25 2.2 Main data 25 2.2.1 Main technical data 26 2.3 General site description 28 2.3.1 Reactor building 28 2.3.2 Turbine building 29 2.3.3 Electric building 29 2.3.4 Waste treatment building, (System 10145) 30 2.3.5 Waste treatment building, (System 30128) 30 2.4 General plant description and description of mutual buildings 31 3 Dismantling and waste management techniques 33 3.1 Dismantling techniques, sequences and logistics 33 3.1.1 Introduction 33 3.1.2 Dismantling techniques 33 3.1.3 Assumptions 33 3.1.4 Dismantling sequences 35 3.2 Management of residual materials 49 3.2.1 Introduction 49 3.2.2 Design assumptions and exclusions 50 3.2.3 Sequence for dismantling and removal of decommissioning wastes 51 3.2.4 Waste management system 53 4 Material inventory, radioactivity inventory and resulting waste amounts 61 4.1 Material inventory 61 4.1.1 Introduction 61 4.1.2 Source of information 61 4.1.3 Site metal inventory 62 4.1.4 Site building data and concrete inventory 63 4.1.5 Site sand inventory 63 4.2 Radioactivity characterization 64 4.2.1 General 64 4.2.2 Process equipment contamination 64 4.2.3 Building contamination 77 4.3 Radioactivity inventory 78 4.3.1 Introduction 78 4.3.2 Source of information 80 4.3.3 Accuracy and uncertainties in the study 80 4.3.4 Radioactivity levels 81 4.3.5 Plant metal activity inventory 81 4.3.6 Concrete activity inventory 84 4.3.7 Sand activity inventory 85 SKB R-13-03 7 4.4 Waste amounts and activity categories 86 4.4.1 Waste containers 86 4.4.2 Optional treatments 90 5 Decommissioning programme for the Forsmark site 93 5.1 Introduction 93 5.2 Conditions and assumptions 93 5.3 General basis of the decommissioning programme 94 5.4 Scope of decommissioning activities (WBS) 96 5.5 Duration of the decommissioning activities 96 5.6 Characteristics of the time schedule for forsmark site 97 6 Decommissioning cost estimate 99 6.1 Introduction 99 6.2 Conditions and assumptions 99 6.3 Cost elements 100 6.3.1 General 100 6.3.2 Personnel rates 100 6.3.3 Personnel and project costs 100 6.3.4 Operational costs 101 6.3.5 Fixed costs 101 6.3.6 Organizational costs 101 6.3.7 Project costs during defueling 102 6.3.8 Nuclear dismantling and demolition 102 6.3.9 Waste handling and storage 104 6.3.10 Building demolition 106 6.4 Cost estimation results 110 6.4.1 WBS structure 110 6.4.2 OECD/NEA structure 112 6.4.3 Annual costs and work 122 6.5 Contingency 123 7 Summary, results and conclusions 125 7.1 Introduction 125 7.2 Summary results 125 7.2.1 General 125 7.2.2 Plant inventory 125 7.2.3 Waste quantities and classification 125 7.2.4 Decommissioning programme 126 7.2.5 Organization 127 7.2.6 Cost estimate 128 7.2.7 Uncertainties and accuracies 128 7.3 Techniques and strategies 130 7.3.1 Segmentation of the reactor internals 130 7.3.2 One­piece removal of the reactor pressure vessel 131 7.3.3 Process equipment size reduction off­site 131 Abbreviations 133 References 135 Appendix 1 Dismantling and waste management techniques 137 Appendix 2 Waste activity and nuclide vectors 171 Appendix 3 WBS structure and decommissioning plan 183 Appendix 4 ISDC structure and compositions and rates 201 8 SKB R-13-03 1 Introduction and methodology 1.1 Introduction 1.1.1 General According to Sweden’s Act on Nuclear Activities (“kärntekniklagen”) (SFS 1984:3) it is the obliga­ tion of the nuclear power companies to satisfactorily demonstrate how a nuclear power plant can be safely decommissioned and dismantled when it is no longer in service. In addition, the Financing Act (“finansieringslagen”) (SFS 2006:647) states that a reactor owner shall calculate the estimated cost of decommissioning of the nuclear power plant. Svensk Kärnbränslehantering AB (Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co, SKB) has been commissioned by the Swedish nuclear power utilities to meet the requirements of current legislation by studying and reporting on suitable technologies and by estimating the costs of decommissioning and dismantling of the Swedish nuclear power plants. SKB shall every third year present updated cost data to the authorities in order to define a proper size of the national fund that has been established by the utilities to cover for the nuclear waste management and plant decommissioning costs for the Swedish reactor sites. These data are presented in the Plan report (SKB 2010). The fund covers for two areas related to decommissioning, one for “Operation of Nuclear Power Plant Units after Final Shutdown” and one for “Dismantling & Demolition Costs”, the first for the costs generated before the actual dismantling work starts and the latter for the costs after the dismantling start. The Swedish system for handling of radioactive waste is described in Figure 1­1. The short­lived low and intermediate level waste from both nuclear plants and other industries is transported by ship to the final repository for short­lived radioactive waste (SFR) at Forsmark. The spent nuclear fuel is transported by the same ship to the central interim storage facility for spent nuclear fuel (CLAB) at Oskarshamn. The strategy is to encapsulate the spent fuel in copper and send it to the final repository for spent nuclear fuel, approx. 500 meter below ground. Neither the encapsulation plant nor the final repository for spent nuclear fuel is yet constructed. 1.1.2 Earlier studies SKB has performed a large number of investigations and studies to establish a reference technology for decommissioning and, based on that, estimate the costs to carry out decommissioning of the Swedish nuclear power plant sites. Examples of such studies are presented in Section 1.5. The conclusions have been summarized a number of times, two of the latest being in the reports “Swedish BWR reference plant decommissioning study” (Gustafsson et al. 2006) and “Technology and costs for decommissioning Swedish nuclear power plants” (Hedin et al. 2004). The previous decommissioning plans for the Swedish nuclear power plants, which serve as the basis for the SKB cost estimates for the Swedish national back­end funds, are based on several in­depth studies that each of them describes a specific part of the decommissioning technology or programme. Separate studies have in this manner been carried out for areas such as dismantling of process sys­ tems, reactor pressure vessels and plant buildings as well as for the plant shutdown operation. These studies have been done over a longer period of time (some of the still used reference reports are from the early nineties) and by different authors and organizations. The reports could thus have been made with somewhat different boundary conditions. The emphasis of different aspects could also have been changed or developed over time. The consequence is that the different pieces of information do not necessarily fit perfectly together when they are added into the overall plan. In certain areas there might be an overlap, where the costs are calculated twice, and in other there might be gaps, where the costs are neglected.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 2 Design and Operation of a Pressurised Water Reactor
    Chapter 2 Design and Operation of a Pressurised Water Reactor 2.1. General information about reactor operation The nuclei of some isotopes contained in nuclear fuel, such as 235U and 239Pu, can split up (fission) into two1 smaller fragments called “fission products”. These fragments have large amounts of kinetic energy that is mainly released as kinetic thermal energy in the surrounding fuel material. This release of energy is used to generate electricity in power reactors. Fission into two fragments can either be induced by neutrons (induced fission) or occur spontaneously in the case of heavy isotopes (spontaneous fission). Fission is accompanied by the release of two to three neutrons. Some of these neutrons may in turn initiate other fissions (the principle behind a nuclear chain reaction), be absorbed into the fuel without initiating any nuclear fission, or escape from the fuel. Neutrons produced by fission from the neutrons of one generation form the neu- trons of the next generation. The effective neutron multiplication factor, k, is the aver- age number of neutrons from one fission that cause another fission. The value of k determines how a nuclear chain reaction proceeds: – where k < 1, the system is said to be “subcritical”. The system cannot sustain a chain reaction and ends up dying out; 1. In about 0.4%-0.6% of cases the fission can be into three fission products, this is termed “ternary fission”. 12 Nuclear Power Reactor Core Melt Accidents – where k = 1, the system is “critical”, i.e., as many neutrons are generated as are lost. The reaction is just maintained.
    [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]
  • Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) Systems
    Reactor Concepts Manual Pressurized Water Reactor Systems Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) Systems For a nuclear power plant to perform the function of generating electricity, many different systems must perform their functions. These functions may range from the monitoring of a plant parameter to the controlling of the main turbine or the reactor. This chapter will discuss the purposes of some of the major systems and components associated with a pressurized water reactor. USNRC Technical Training Center 4-1 0603 Reactor Concepts Manual Pressurized Water Reactor Systems CONTAINMENT BUILDING REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM MSR S/G ELECTRIC P GENERATOR Z HP LP R MAIN COOLING TOWER TURBINE MAIN CONDENSER RHR CORE HX RCP FW RHR HTR PUMP MAIN FEED CONDENSATE PUMP PUMP CIRC. WATER PUMP CONTAINMENT AUXILIARY BUILDING SUMP TURBINE BUILDING There are two major systems utilized to convert the heat generated in the fuel into electrical power for industrial and residential use. The primary system transfers the heat from the fuel to the steam generator, where the secondary system begins. The steam formed in the steam generator is transferred by the secondary system to the main turbine generator, where it is converted into electricity. After passing through the low pressure turbine, the steam is routed to the main condenser. Cool water, flowing through the tubes in the condenser, removes excess heat from the steam, which allows the steam to condense. The water is then pumped back to the steam generator for reuse. In order for the primary and secondary systems to perform their functions, there are approximately one hundred support systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Section IB INL Accident History
    Environmental Defense Institute Section I.B. Page | 1 Section I.B. INL Accident History Of the 52 reactors built and operated at INL, forty-two (42) reactors melted downed so far in its history of operations. Sixteen (16) of these meltdowns were accidents. The remaining twenty-six (26) were experimental/intentional meltdowns to test reactor design parameters, fuel design, and radiation releases. These nuclear experiments were conducted with little regard to the radiation exposure to workers and surrounding residents. Below is a partial listing of the more notable meltdowns and criticality releases. (See IX Appendix (A)) for a listing of acknowledged melt-downs, accidents, and experimental radioactive releases. The term accidental, used by DOE, is perhaps not an appropriate term any more than when the term is applied to a hot-rodder who "accidentally" crashes his car while speeding at 100 miles per hour down a road designed for 30 mph. Hot-rodding a nuclear reactor just to see what it will take is no accident and no less irresponsible. According to Boyd Norton, manager of the SPERT tests in the early 1960s notes, "These reactors are, essentially, stripped-down “hot-rodders,” [sic] they had no radiation shielding and no elaborate safety systems. Sitting as they were, in the middle of more than nine hundred square miles of desert, there wasn't much concern over such things. Not back then." [ Norton] See discussion below on SPERT Tests. An ICPP/INTEC criticality accident on October 16, 1959 required evacuation of the facility. "Outside the building and for 130 yards west to the area entrance the radiation field was 5 R/hr or greater." [IDO-10035 @ 4] Thankfully, it was a night shift and less than 10% of the normal work-force was on the site.
    [Show full text]
  • EPR Design Description. Section 5, Page 5-1 Through End
    Design Description 5.0 REACTOR BUILDING AND SUPPORTING SYSTEMS 5.1 Reactor Building Structure The Reactor Building consists of a cylindrical reinforced concrete outer Shield Building, a cylindrical post-tensioned concrete inner Containment Building with a 0.25-in thick steel liner, and an annular space between the two buildings. The Shield Building functions to protect the Containment Building from external hazards. The Containment Building contains the RCS and portions of associated structures, systems, and components. In the event of a LOCA or severe accident, the Containment Building serves to retain all radioactive material and to withstand the maximum pressure and temperature resulting from the release of stored energy. Figure 5-1 through Figure 5-6 show elevation and plan views of the Nuclear Island. The Reactor Building is located at the center of the Nuclear Island and is situated on a common basemat with the other Nuclear Island structures. The Reactor Building is designed to withstand internal accidents as well as external hazards including the following: aircraft hazard, EPW, seismic events, missiles, tornado, and fire. The EPR design bases are expected to envelope potential sites in the central and eastern U.S. The Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) design includes consideration of various soil conditions, including rock sites. Figure 5-7 shows the free-field ground motions anchored to a 0.3g peak ground acceleration. The U.S. design will be anchored to a peak ground acceleration to ensure that potential U.S. sites are enveloped. The soil conditions identified in Table 5-1 are representative of the wide spectrum of sites that are considered.
    [Show full text]
  • Gate Frame Question
    UNIT TEN INTRODUCTION TO NUCLEAR REACTORS The licensees of nuclear facilities have primary responsibility for planning and implementing emergency measures within their site boundaries. These emergency measures include corrective actions at the site and protective measures and aid for persons onsite. Since facility licensees cannot do this alone, it is a necessary part of the facility’s emergency planning to make advance arrangements with State and local organizations for special emergency assistance such as ambulance, medical, hospital, fire and police services. State and local governments have responsibility for planning and implementing protective actions outside the site boundaries. Radiological response team members from State and local emergency services will be better prepared to carry out these responsibilities with some knowledge of nuclear power plant structure, operations and emergency response procedures. The teaching points included in this unit should be recognized as a review by those who have completed the FEMA radiological series prerequisites or who have experience in the nuclear power industry. You are notified of a site area emergency at a nuclear power GATE FRAME plant located nine miles from your town. The meteorologist QUESTION has confirmed that if a release occurs, the town will be directly in the path of the plume. Part of the town is in the plume exposure pathway and the rest is within the ingestion pathway. How do you interpret this information? ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ 1-1 Unit Ten Introduction to Nuclear Reactors ANSWER A site area emergency means that events are in process or have occurred that involve actual major failures of plant functions needed for protection of the public.
    [Show full text]
  • The Containment Building Dimensions Are: Inside Di- Proximately 5.6 X 106 Lb/Li (705.6 Kg/S) of Steam at 910 1
    Babcock & Wilcox lowing general description applies to Oconee Unit 1, al ameter 116 ft (35.4 m); inside height 208 ft (63.4 in); wall though it is generally applicable to all U.S. B&W plants; thickness 3.75 ft (1.143 m); dome thickness 3.25 ft (0.99 the concepts are applicable to all PWRs. m); and foundation slab thickness 8.5 ft (2.59 m). The building encloses the reactor vessel, steam generators, Containment building reactor coolant loops, and portions of the auxiliary and Fig. 2 is a vertical section of the reactor containment safeguard systems. The interior arrangement meets the building. The structure is post-tensioned, reinforced con requirements for all anticipated operating conditions and crete with a shallow domed roofand a flat foundation slab. maintenance, including refueling. The building is de The cylindrical portion is prestressed by a post-tensioning signed to sustain all internal and external loading con system consisting ofhorizontal and vertical tendons. The ditions which may occur during its design life. dome has a three way post-tensioning system. The foun dation slab is conventionally reinforced with high Reactor vessel and steam generators strength steel. The entire structure is lined with 0.25 in. Also shown in Fig. 2 are the reactor vessel and the two (6.3 mm) welded steel plate to provide a vapor seal. vertical steam generators, each of which produces ap The containment building dimensions are: inside di- proximately 5.6 x 106 lb/li (705.6 kg/s) of steam at 910 1 OnceThrough Steam Generators (2) fl / Reactor/coolant Pressurizer Pumps (4) I Reactor Vessel Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Reactors and Safety
    30 – Nuclear Reactor and Safety 30. Nuclear Reactors and Safety April 30 – May 18, 2018 Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA Sandia National Laboratories is a multimission laboratory managed and operated by National Technology and Engineering Solutions of Sandia LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International Inc. for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under SAND2018-4015 PE contract DE-NA0003525. Reactors and Safety Learning Objectives After completing this module, you should be able to: • Describe key characteristics of pressurized water reactors (PWR) and research reactors • List five generic types of reactor safety systems • Recognize importance of protecting safety equipment 2 The Twenty-Seventh International Training Course Page 1 30 – Nuclear Reactor and Safety Reactors and Safety Reactor Steam Cycle • Fission heat transferred to water • Water heated to steam Water also is necessary to slow down (moderate) . Direct (1-Loop) – Within reactor neutrons for the chain . Indirect (2-Loop) – Outside reactor in reaction to occur heat exchanger / steam generator Boiling Water Pressurized Water Reactor (BWR) Reactor (PWR) Courtesy of Nuclear Engineering International 3 Reactors and Safety Reactor Steam Cycle (cont’d) • Fission heat transferred to liquid water • Water heated to steam • Steam turns turbine-generator to produce electricity • Condenser water removes heat to increase efficiency . Once-through – natural or artificial body of water . Cooling towers • Wet • Dry 4 The Twenty-Seventh International Training Course Page 2 30 – Nuclear Reactor and Safety Reactors and Safety Multiple Barrier Containment • Four major elements of reactor multiple-barrier containment for fission products 1. Pellet 2. Cladding 3. Primary System 4.
    [Show full text]
  • ASAMPSA2ASAMPSA2 Methodologies: Level 2 PSA
    Advanced Safety Assessment ASAMPSA2ASAMPSA2 Methodologies: Level 2 PSA "NUCLEAR FISSION" Safety of Existing Nuclear Installations Contract 211594 ASAMPSA2 BEST-PRACTICES GUIDELINES FOR L2 PSA DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATIONS Volume 3 - Extension to Gen IV reactors Technical report ASAMPSA2/WP4/D3.3/2013-35 Reference IRSN - Rapport PSN-RES/SAG/2013-0177 This document has been established through collaboration between CEA, IRSN, AREVA-NP, ERSE, ENEA and NRG Period covered: from 01/01/2008 to Actual submission date: 31/12/2011 Start date of ASAMPSA2: 01/01/2008 Duration: 48 months WP No: 4 Lead topical coordinator: C. Bassi His organization name: CEA Project co-funded by the European Commission Within the Seventh Framework Programme (2008-2011) Dissemination Level PU Public Yes RE Restricted to a group specified by the partners of the ASAMPSA2 No project CO Confidential, only for partners of the ASAMPSA2 project No ASAMPSA2ASAMPSA2 Advanced Safety Assessment Methodologies: Level 2 PSA ASAMPSA 2 Quality Assurance page Partners responsible of the document: IRSN Nature of document Reference(s) Technical report ASAMPSA2 WP4/D3.3/2013-35 Rapport IRSN PSN-RES/SAG/2013-0177 Note technique CEA DEN/DER/SESI/LSMR/NT DO 8 26/10/10 (draft) Title ASAMPSA2 - BEST-PRACTICES GUIDELINES FOR L2 PSA DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATIONS Volume 3 - Extension to Gen IV reactors Authors C. Bassi (CEA), H. Bonneville (IRSN), H. Brinkman (NRG), L. Burgazzi (ENEA), F. Polidoro (ERSE), L. Vinçon (AREVA-NP), S. Jouve (AREVA- NP) Delivery date Topical area L2PSA / Generation IV For Journal & Conf. papers Summary: The main objective assigned to the Work Package 4 (WP4) of the “ASAMPSA2” project (EC 7th FPRD) consist in the verification of the potential compliance of L2PSA guidelines based on PWR/BWR reactors (which are specific tasks of WP2 and WP3) with Generation IV representative concepts.
    [Show full text]
  • Kalinin VVER-1000 Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 PRA. Procedure Guides for a Probabilistic Risk Assess
    NUREG/CR-6572, Rev. 1 BNL-NUREG-52534-R1 Kalinin VVER-1000 Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 PRA Procedure Guides for a Probabilistic Risk Assessment English Version Brookhaven National Laboratory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research REG, Washington, DC 20555-0001 AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS IN NRC PUBLICATIONS NRC Reference Material Non-NRC Reference Material As of November 1999, you may electronically access Documents available from public and special technical NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at libraries include all open literature items, such as NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at books, journal articles, and transactions, Federal hHtD://www.nrc.aov/readinc-rm.html. Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and Publicly released records include, to name a few, congressional reports. Such documents as theses, NUREG-serles publications; Federal Register notices; dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and applicant, licensee, and vendor documents and non-NRC conference proceedings may be purchased correspondence; NRC correspondence and internal from their sponsoring organization. memoranda; bulletins and information notices; inspection and investigative reports; licensee event reports; and Commission papers and their attachments. Copies of industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner In the NRC regulatory process are NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC maintained at- regulations, and Ttle 10, Energy, in the Code of The NRC Technical Library Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one Two White Flint North of these two sources. 11545 Rockville Pike 1. The Superintendent of Documents Rockville, MD 20852-2738 U.S. Government Printing Office Mall Stop SSOP Washington, DC 20402-0001 These standards are available In the library for Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov reference use by the public.
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Containment Systems for Next Generation Water Reactors
    IAEA-TECDOC-752 Status of advanced containment systems for next generation water reactors sL£_^ n M INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY Uu~\P IAEe Th A doe t normallsno y maintain stock f reportso thin si s series. However, microfiche copie f thesso e reportobtainee b n sca d from INIS Clearinghouse International Atomic Energy Agency Wagramerstrasse5 0 10 x P.OBo . A-1400 Vienna, Austria Orders should be accompanied by prepayment of Austrian Schillings 100, in the form of a cheque or in the form of IAEA microfiche service coupons which may be ordered separately from the INIS Clearinghouse. The originating Sectio f thino s documen IAEe th An i t was: Nuclear Power Technology Development Section International Atomic Energy Agency Wagramerstrasse 5 0 10 P.Ox Bo . A-1400 Vienna, Austria STATUS OF ADVANCED CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS FOR NEXT GENERATION WATER REACTORS IAEA, VIENNA, 1994 IAEA-TECDOC-752 ISSN 1011-4289 Printe IAEe th AustriAn y i d b a June 1994 PLEASE BE AWARE THAT MISSINE TH AL F LO G PAGE THIN SI S DOCUMENT WERE ORIGINALLY BLANK FOREWORD The nuclear industry has always pursued excellence in enhancing and maintaining a high level of quality in plant design, manufacturing, construction, operation and maintenance. Because of this and because of developments in technology and public concern about the safety of NPPs a number of design improvements will take place for the next generation of nuclear power plants. Containment is a key component of the mitigation part of the defense in depth philosophy, since it is the last barrier designed to prevent large radioactive releases to the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Areva/EDF UK
    Health and Safety Executive Public Report on the Generic Design Assessment of New Nuclear Reactor Designs AREVA NP SAS and Electricité de France SA UK EPR Nuclear Reactor Conclusions of the Fundamental Safety Overview of the UK EPR Nuclear Reactor (Step 2 of the Generic Design Assessment Process) Health and Safety Executive Contents Foreword 3 Executive summary 4 Background 5 Introduction 6 HSE expectations for modern reactors 7 HSE expectations from the GDA process 8 The safety standards and criteria used and links to WENRA reference levels and IAEA Standards 8 Assessment strategy 8 Main features of the design and safety systems 9 Reactor shutdown 10 Emergency cooling 10 Containment 10 Core meltdown 11 Summary of HSE findings 11 Quality management and safety case development arrangements 11 Standards 12 The approach to ALARP 13 The design basis analysis/fault study approach 13 The probabilistic safety analysis (PSA) approach 14 Structural integrity 15 Waste and decommissioning 16 Civil engineering and external hazards 17 Internal hazards 17 Reactor protection and control 18 Novel features 19 Long-lead items 19 International Atomic Energy Agency technical review 20 Any matters that might be in conflict with UK Government policy 20 Security 20 Issues raised through the public involvement process 20 Overseas regulators’ assessments 21 Conclusions 24 Abbreviations 25 Annex 1: Summary of HSE’s expectations for Step 2 of the GDA process 26 References 28 Contacts 29 Generic Design Assessment of New Nuclear Reactor Designs 2 of 29 pages AREVA NP SAS and Electricité de France SA UK EPR Health and Safety Executive Foreword Our job is about protecting people and society from the hazards presented by the nuclear industry.
    [Show full text]