DOCSLIB.ORG

Methods of Exploitation of Different Types of Uranium Deposits

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Methods of Exploitation of Different Types of Uranium Deposits IAEA-TECDOC-1174 Methods of exploitation of different types of uranium deposits September 2000 The originating Section of this publication in the IAEA was: Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Materials Section International Atomic Energy Agency Wagramer Strasse 5 P.O. Box 100 A-1400 Vienna, Austria METHODS OF EXPLOITATION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF URANIUM DEPOSITS IAEA, VIENNA, 2000 IAEA-TECDOC-1174 ISSN 1011–4289 © IAEA, 2000 Printed by the IAEA in Austria September 2000 FOREWORD The choice and evaluation of mining and milling methods in terms of costs are complex processes that require the evaluation of abundant data and in depth analysis of multiple options before making a production decision. Modern operation must take into consideration the regulations of the country in which they operate, the future decommissioning costs of the operation and the medium and long term economics of the metal they sell when opening new mines or improving existing mines. The wrong appraisal of a deposit or the wrong choice of methods can incur costs that will make the deposits non-viable, and, at times, a liability for the public or the country. It is therefore necessary to have a maximum of information before assessing and choosing mining methods that best fit the characteristics of the planned mine. It is important to note that proper mining methods can improve both the capital and operating costs of an operation. Increasing the grade of ore through ore beneficiation prior to processing it through the mill will decrease the amount of ore being processed in the mill and thus decrease the consumption of expensive chemical reagents. Deposits are mined using three broad types of mining methods: open pit, underground and in situ leaching. This publication addresses all aspects of mining and milling methods for several types of deposits and provides information to assist in the selection process of methods and also considers what actions must be taken into account for obtaining regulatory approvals for a project and for final decommissioning and reclamation of a project. The objective of this publication is to provide a process of selections of methods for mining engineers and managers involved in modernising ongoing operations or considering opening new operations. Several practical examples are given. These guidelines can be consulted and used in many countries involved in uranium mining and milling operations. The examples where costs are given can also be adjusted to specific economic conditions of various countries. The authors are from four uranium producing countries. They bring diversified experience for all types of mining and milling operations from the opening of a mine to the decommissioning of the complete operation. This technical publication is one of a series of IAEA publications covering all aspects of the uranium mining industry, from exploration to exploitation and decommissioning. Reports already published address topics such as feasibility study (Steps for Preparing Uranium Production Feasibility Studies: A Guidebook, IAEA-TECDOC-885, 1996), development of regulations (Guidebook on the Development of Regulations for Uranium Deposit Development and Production, IAEA-TECDOC-862, 1996), environmental impact assessment (Environmental Impact Assessment for Uranium Mine, Mill and In Situ Leach Projects, IAEA-TECDOC-979, 1997) closeout of uranium mines (Closeout of Uranium Mines and Mills: a Review of Current Practices, IAEA-TECDOC-939, 1997), planning for environmental restoration (Planning for Environmental Restoration of Uranium Mining and Milling Sites in Central and Eastern Europe, IAEA-TECDOC-982, 1997), strategies for environmental restoration (Factors for Formulating Strategies for Environmental Restoration, IAEA-TECDOC-1032, 1998). The IAEA officer responsible for this publication was J.P. Nicolet of the Division of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Technology. EDITORIAL NOTE The use of particular designations of countries or territories does not imply any judgement by the publisher, the IAEA, as to the legal status of such countries or territories, of their authorities and institutions or of the delimitation of their boundaries. The mention of names of specific companies or products (whether or not indicated as registered) does not imply any intention to infringe proprietary rights, nor should it be construed as an endorsement or recommendation on the part of the IAEA. CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................1 2. HISTORY OF URANIUM MINING...................................................................................................1 3. CLASSIFICATION OF DEPOSITS ....................................................................................................3 3.1. Definition and examples ...........................................................................................................4 3.1.1. Unconformity-related....................................................................................................4 3.1.2. Sandstone.......................................................................................................................5 3.1.3. Quartz-pebble conglomerate.........................................................................................6 3.1.4. Veins..............................................................................................................................7 3.1.5. Breccia complex............................................................................................................8 3.1.6. Intrusive.........................................................................................................................8 3.1.7. Phosphorite....................................................................................................................9 3.1.8. Collapse breccia pipe ....................................................................................................9 3.1.9. Volcanic.........................................................................................................................9 3.1.10. Surficial..........................................................................................................................9 3.1.11. Metasomatite...............................................................................................................10 3.1.12. Metamorphic................................................................................................................11 3.1.13. Lignite..........................................................................................................................11 3.1.14. Black shale...................................................................................................................11 3.2. The exploitable deposits .........................................................................................................11 4. PARAMETERS TO BE CONSIDERED WHEN ASSESSING A URANIUM ORE RESOURCE ..........................................................................................................11 4.1. Location...................................................................................................................................12 4.2. Shape.......................................................................................................................................12 4.3. Size..........................................................................................................................................12 4.4. Depth.......................................................................................................................................12 4.5. Orientation...............................................................................................................................13 4.6. Geotectonics............................................................................................................................13 4.7. Mineralogy..............................................................................................................................13 4.8. Hydrology................................................................................................................................13 4.9. Boundary conditions...............................................................................................................13 5. PROJECT IMPACT AND APPROVAL...........................................................................................14 5.1. Project proposal.......................................................................................................................14 5.2. EIS guidelines..........................................................................................................................15 5.3. EIS report.................................................................................................................................15 5.4. EIS approval process...............................................................................................................16 6. MINING ..............................................................................................................................................16 6.1. Benefits greater than liabilities ...............................................................................................16 6.2. ALARA...................................................................................................................................16
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Table 2.Iii.1. Fissionable Isotopes1
    FISSIONABLE ISOTOPES Charles P. Blair Last revised: 2012 “While several isotopes are theoretically fissionable, RANNSAD defines fissionable isotopes as either uranium-233 or 235; plutonium 238, 239, 240, 241, or 242, or Americium-241. See, Ackerman, Asal, Bale, Blair and Rethemeyer, Anatomizing Radiological and Nuclear Non-State Adversaries: Identifying the Adversary, p. 99-101, footnote #10, TABLE 2.III.1. FISSIONABLE ISOTOPES1 Isotope Availability Possible Fission Bare Critical Weapon-types mass2 Uranium-233 MEDIUM: DOE reportedly stores Gun-type or implosion-type 15 kg more than one metric ton of U- 233.3 Uranium-235 HIGH: As of 2007, 1700 metric Gun-type or implosion-type 50 kg tons of HEU existed globally, in both civilian and military stocks.4 Plutonium- HIGH: A separated global stock of Implosion 10 kg 238 plutonium, both civilian and military, of over 500 tons.5 Implosion 10 kg Plutonium- Produced in military and civilian 239 reactor fuels. Typically, reactor Plutonium- grade plutonium (RGP) consists Implosion 40 kg 240 of roughly 60 percent plutonium- Plutonium- 239, 25 percent plutonium-240, Implosion 10-13 kg nine percent plutonium-241, five 241 percent plutonium-242 and one Plutonium- percent plutonium-2386 (these Implosion 89 -100 kg 242 percentages are influenced by how long the fuel is irradiated in the reactor).7 1 This table is drawn, in part, from Charles P. Blair, “Jihadists and Nuclear Weapons,” in Gary A. Ackerman and Jeremy Tamsett, ed., Jihadists and Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Growing Threat (New York: Taylor and Francis, 2009), pp. 196-197. See also, David Albright N 2 “Bare critical mass” refers to the absence of an initiator or a reflector.
    [Show full text]
  • FT/P3-20 Physics and Engineering Basis of Multi-Functional Compact Tokamak Reactor Concept R.M.O
    FT/P3-20 Physics and Engineering Basis of Multi-functional Compact Tokamak Reactor Concept R.M.O. Galvão1, G.O. Ludwig2, E. Del Bosco2, M.C.R. Andrade2, Jiangang Li3, Yuanxi Wan3 Yican Wu3, B. McNamara4, P. Edmonds, M. Gryaznevich5, R. Khairutdinov6, V. Lukash6, A. Danilov7, A. Dnestrovskij7 1CBPF/IFUSP, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2Associated Plasma Laboratory, National Space Research Institute, São José dos Campos, SP, Brazil, 3Institute of Plasma Physics, CAS, Hefei, 230031, P.R. China, 4Leabrook Computing, Bournemouth, UK, 5EURATOM/UKAEA Fusion Association, Culham Science Centre, Abingdon, UK, 6TRINITI, Troitsk, RF, 7RRC “Kurchatov Institute”, Moscow, RF [email protected] Abstract An important milestone on the Fast Track path to Fusion Power is to demonstrate reliable commercial application of Fusion as soon as possible. Many applications of fusion, other than electricity production, have already been studied in some depth for ITER class facilities. We show that these applications might be usefully realized on a small scale, in a Multi-Functional Compact Tokamak Reactor based on a Spherical Tokamak with similar size, but higher fields and currents than the present experiments NSTX and MAST, where performance has already exceeded expectations. The small power outputs, 20-40MW, permit existing materials and technologies to be used. The analysis of the performance of the compact reactor is based on the solution of the global power balance using empirical scaling laws considering requirements for the minimum necessary fusion power (which is determined by the optimized efficiency of the blanket design), positive power gain and constraints on the wall load. In addition, ASTRA and DINA simulations have been performed for the range of the design parameters.
    [Show full text]
  • ESTIMATION of FISSION-PRODUCT GAS PRESSURE in URANIUM DIOXIDE CERAMIC FUEL ELEMENTS by Wuzter A
    NASA TECHNICAL NOTE NASA TN D-4823 - - .- j (2. -1 "-0 -5 M 0-- N t+=$j oo w- P LOAN COPY: RET rm 3 d z c 4 c/) 4 z ESTIMATION OF FISSION-PRODUCT GAS PRESSURE IN URANIUM DIOXIDE CERAMIC FUEL ELEMENTS by WuZter A. PuuZson una Roy H. Springborn Lewis Reseurcb Center Clevelund, Ohio NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D. C. NOVEMBER 1968 i 1 TECH LIBRARY KAFB, NM I 111111 lllll IllH llll lilll1111111111111 Ill1 01317Lb NASA TN D-4823 ESTIMATION OF FISSION-PRODUCT GAS PRESSURE IN URANIUM DIOXIDE CERAMIC FUEL ELEMENTS By Walter A. Paulson and Roy H. Springborn Lewis Research Center Cleveland, Ohio NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION For sale by the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information Springfield, Virginia 22151 - CFSTl price $3.00 ABSTRACl Fission-product gas pressure in macroscopic voids was calculated over the tempera- ture range of 1000 to 2500 K for clad uranium dioxide fuel elements operating in a fast neutron spectrum. The calculated fission-product yields for uranium-233 and uranium- 235 used in the pressure calculations were based on experimental data compiled from various sources. The contributions of cesium, rubidium, and other condensible fission products are included with those of the gases xenon and krypton. At low temperatures, xenon and krypton are the major contributors to the total pressure. At high tempera- tures, however, cesium and rubidium can make a considerable contribution to the total pressure. ii ESTIMATION OF FISSION-PRODUCT GAS PRESSURE IN URANIUM DIOXIDE CERAMIC FUEL ELEMENTS by Walter A. Paulson and Roy H.
    [Show full text]
  • Compilation and Evaluation of Fission Yield Nuclear Data Iaea, Vienna, 2000 Iaea-Tecdoc-1168 Issn 1011–4289
    IAEA-TECDOC-1168 Compilation and evaluation of fission yield nuclear data Final report of a co-ordinated research project 1991–1996 December 2000 The originating Section of this publication in the IAEA was: Nuclear Data Section International Atomic Energy Agency Wagramer Strasse 5 P.O. Box 100 A-1400 Vienna, Austria COMPILATION AND EVALUATION OF FISSION YIELD NUCLEAR DATA IAEA, VIENNA, 2000 IAEA-TECDOC-1168 ISSN 1011–4289 © IAEA, 2000 Printed by the IAEA in Austria December 2000 FOREWORD Fission product yields are required at several stages of the nuclear fuel cycle and are therefore included in all large international data files for reactor calculations and related applications. Such files are maintained and disseminated by the Nuclear Data Section of the IAEA as a member of an international data centres network. Users of these data are from the fields of reactor design and operation, waste management and nuclear materials safeguards, all of which are essential parts of the IAEA programme. In the 1980s, the number of measured fission yields increased so drastically that the manpower available for evaluating them to meet specific user needs was insufficient. To cope with this task, it was concluded in several meetings on fission product nuclear data, some of them convened by the IAEA, that international co-operation was required, and an IAEA co-ordinated research project (CRP) was recommended. This recommendation was endorsed by the International Nuclear Data Committee, an advisory body for the nuclear data programme of the IAEA. As a consequence, the CRP on the Compilation and Evaluation of Fission Yield Nuclear Data was initiated in 1991, after its scope, objectives and tasks had been defined by a preparatory meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Power
    No.59 z iii "Ill ~ 2 er0 Ill Ill 0 Nuclear Family Pia nning p3 Chernobyl Broadsheet ·, _ I. _ . ~~~~ George Pritchar d speaks CONTENTS COMMENT The important nuclear development since the Nuclear Family Planning 3 last SCRAM Journal was the Government's The CEGB's plans, and the growing opposition, after Sizewell B by go ahead for Sizewell B: the world's first HUGH RICHARDS. reactor order since Chernobyl, and Britain's News 4-6 first since the go ahead was given to Torness Accidents Will Happen 1 and Heysham 2 in 1978. Of great concern is Hinkley Seismic Shocker 8-9 the CEGB's announced intention to build "a A major article on seismic safety of nuclear plants in which JAMES small fanilty• of PWRs, starting with Hinkley GARRETT reveals that Hinkley Point C. At the time of the campaign In the Point sits on a geological fault. south west to close the Hinkley A Magnox Trouble at Trawsfynydd 10-11 station, and .a concerted push in Scotland to A summary of FoE's recent report on increasing radiation levels from prevent the opening of Torness, another Trawsfynydd's by PATRICK GREEN. nuclear announcement is designed to divide Pandora's POX 12 and demoralise the opposition. But, it should The debate over plutonium transport make us more determined. The article on the to and from Dounreay continues by facing page gives us hope: the local PETE MUTTON. authorities on Severnside are joining forces CHERNOBYL BROADSHEET to oppose Hinkley C, and hopefully they will Cock-ups and Cover-ups work closely with local authorities in other "Sacrificed to • • • Nuclear Power" threatened areas - Lothian Region, The Soviet Experience Northumberland, the County Council Coalition "An Agonising Decision• 13 against waste dumping and the Nuclear Free GEORGE PRITCHARD explains why Zones - to formulate a national anti-nuclear he left Greenpeoce and took a job strategy.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of U Rani Urn Deposits in Triassic Rocks of the Colorado Plateau Region
    Geology of U rani urn Deposits in Triassic Rocks of the Colorado Plateau Region By W. I. FINCH CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE GEOLOGY OF URANIUM GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1074-D This report concerns work done on behalf ~1 the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission -Jnd is published with the permission of ~he Commission NITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1959 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FRED A. SEATON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printin~ Office Washin~ton 25, D. C. CONTENTS Page Abstract---------------------------------------------------------- 125 Introduction__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 125 History of mining and production ____ ------------------------------- 127 Geologic setting___________________________________________________ 128 StratigraphY-------------------------------------------------- 129 ~oenkopiformation_______________________________________ ~29 Middle Triassic unconformity_______________________________ 131 Chinle formation__________________________________________ 131 Shinarump Inernber____________________________________ 133 ~udstone member------------------------------------- 136 ~oss Back member____________________________________ 136 Upper part of the Chinle formation______________________ 138 Wingate sandstone_________________________________________ 138 lgneousrocks_________________________________________________ 139 Structure_____________________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Uranium (Nuclear)
    Uranium (Nuclear) Uranium at a Glance, 2016 Classification: Major Uses: What Is Uranium? nonrenewable electricity Uranium is a naturally occurring radioactive element, that is very hard U.S. Energy Consumption: U.S. Energy Production: and heavy and is classified as a metal. It is also one of the few elements 8.427 Q 8.427 Q that is easily fissioned. It is the fuel used by nuclear power plants. 8.65% 10.01% Uranium was formed when the Earth was created and is found in rocks all over the world. Rocks that contain a lot of uranium are called uranium Lighter Atom Splits Element ore, or pitch-blende. Uranium, although abundant, is a nonrenewable energy source. Neutron Uranium Three isotopes of uranium are found in nature, uranium-234, 235 + Energy FISSION Neutron uranium-235, and uranium-238. These numbers refer to the number of Neutron neutrons and protons in each atom. Uranium-235 is the form commonly Lighter used for energy production because, unlike the other isotopes, the Element nucleus splits easily when bombarded by a neutron. During fission, the uranium-235 atom absorbs a bombarding neutron, causing its nucleus to split apart into two atoms of lighter mass. The first nuclear power plant came online in Shippingport, PA in 1957. At the same time, the fission reaction releases thermal and radiant Since then, the industry has experienced dramatic shifts in fortune. energy, as well as releasing more neutrons. The newly released neutrons Through the mid 1960s, government and industry experimented with go on to bombard other uranium atoms, and the process repeats itself demonstration and small commercial plants.
    [Show full text]
  • Uranium Fact Sheet
    Fact Sheet Adopted: December 2018 Health Physics Society Specialists in Radiation Safety 1 Uranium What is uranium? Uranium is a naturally occurring metallic element that has been present in the Earth’s crust since formation of the planet. Like many other minerals, uranium was deposited on land by volcanic action, dissolved by rainfall, and in some places, carried into underground formations. In some cases, geochemical conditions resulted in its concentration into “ore bodies.” Uranium is a common element in Earth’s crust (soil, rock) and in seawater and groundwater. Uranium has 92 protons in its nucleus. The isotope2 238U has 146 neutrons, for a total atomic weight of approximately 238, making it the highest atomic weight of any naturally occurring element. It is not the most dense of elements, but its density is almost twice that of lead. Uranium is radioactive and in nature has three primary isotopes with different numbers of neutrons. Natural uranium, 238U, constitutes over 99% of the total mass or weight, with 0.72% 235U, and a very small amount of 234U. An unstable nucleus that emits some form of radiation is defined as radioactive. The emitted radiation is called radioactivity, which in this case is ionizing radiation—meaning it can interact with other atoms to create charged atoms known as ions. Uranium emits alpha particles, which are ejected from the nucleus of the unstable uranium atom. When an atom emits radiation such as alpha or beta particles or photons such as x rays or gamma rays, the material is said to be undergoing radioactive decay (also called radioactive transformation).
    [Show full text]
  • A Prospector's Guide to URANIUM Deposits in Newfoundland and Labrador
    A Prospector's guide to URANIUM deposits In Newfoundland and labrador Matty mitchell prospectors resource room Information circular number 4 First Floor • Natural Resources Building Geological Survey of Newfoundland and Labrador 50 Elizabeth Avenue • PO Box 8700 • A1B 4J6 St. John’s • Newfoundland • Canada pros pec tor s Telephone: 709-729-2120, 709-729-6193 • e-mail: [email protected] resource room Website: http://www.nr.gov.nl.ca/mines&en/geosurvey/matty_mitchell/ September, 2007 INTRODUCTION Why Uranium? • Uranium is an abundant source of concentrated energy. • One pellet of uranium fuel (following enrichment of the U235 component), weighing approximately 7 grams (g), is capable of generating as much energy as 3.5 barrels of oil, 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas or 807 kilograms (kg) of coal. • One kilogram of uranium235 contains 2 to 3 million times the energy equivalent of the same amount of oil or coal. • A one thousand megawatt nuclear power station requiring 27 tonnes of fuel per year, needs an average of about 74 kg per day. An equivalent sized coal-fired station needs 8600 tonnes of coal to be delivered every day. Why PROSPECT FOR IT? • At the time of writing (September, 2007), the price of uranium is US$90 a pound - a “hot” commodity, in more ways than one! Junior exploration companies and major producers are keen to find more of this valuable resource. As is the case with other commodities, the prospector’s role in the search for uranium is always of key importance. What is Uranium? • Uranium is a metal; its chemical symbol is U.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Energy & the Environmental Debate
    FEATURES Nuclear energy & the environmental debate: The context of choices Through international bodies on climate change, the roles of nuclear power and other energy options are being assessed by Evelyne ^Environmental issues are high on international mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which Bertel and Joop agendas. Governments, interest groups, and citi- has been active since 1988. Since the energy Van de Vate zens are increasingly aware of the need to limit sector is responsible for the major share of an- environmental impacts from human activities. In thropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, interna- the energy sector, one focus has been on green- tional organisations having expertise and man- house gas emissions which could lead to global date in the field of energy, such as the IAEA, are climate change. The issue is likely to be a driving actively involved in the activities of these bodies. factor in choices about energy options for elec- In this connection, the IAEA participated in the tricity generation during the coming decades. preparation of the second Scientific Assessment Nuclear power's future will undoubtedly be in- Report (SAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on fluenced by this debate, and its potential role in Climate Change (IPCC). reducing environmental impacts from the elec- The IAEA has provided the IPCC with docu- tricity sector will be of central importance. mented information and results from its ongoing Scientifically there is little doubt that increas- programmes on the potential role of nuclear ing atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, such power in alleviating the risk of global climate as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane, will cause change.
    [Show full text]
  • Before the Flood Greenhouse Effect Plutonium Flights of Fancy Ministry
    ., Th~ Safe Energy ,J - Journal - July I August 19 88 75p Before the Flood Greenhouse Effect Plutonium Fl ights of Fancy Ministry of Truth - Chernobyl Lies CONTENTS COMMENT Flights of Fancy? 3 In the words of Or Tom Wheldon, at the Fourth STEVE MARTIN reviews the regulatory Annual Low Level Radiation and Health Conference log-jam in the US over planned held in Stirling, to say that radiation has existed in plutonium flights from Europe to Japan. the environment since the dawn of humankind and News 4-7 is therefore not a problem is just as daft as saying Ministry of Truth 8-9 that crocodiles have been around since the begin­ PATRICK GREEN accuses MAFF of ning with no perceived adverse effects - they will trying to rewrite history in their evidence to the Agriculture Com­ still bite your leg off, given half a chance. mittee. The Irresistible Force 10-11 The second report on the incidence of childhood meets the Immovable Object leukaemia near Dounreay from COMARE, of which ANDREW HOLMES asks what will Or Wheldon is a member, is a valuable contribution happen to nuclear research after privatisation. to the debate; but don't forget what happened to Snug as a Bug ••• 12 the 1976 Flowers Report. For the uninitiated, DON ARNOTT assesses the evidence Flowers recommended, among other things, that no that bacteria have been found in the large scale nuclear power ordering programme be burned-out core of the Three Mile Is­ land reactor. embarked on until the nuclear waste problem had Milk of Human Kindness? 14-15 been solved.
    [Show full text]
  • Low Enriched Uranium Conversion Preliminary Safety Analysis Report for the MIT Research Reactor
    LEU PSAR 6 DEC 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... a ••••••• i 1.0 MIT Research Reactor·······························································"······························· 1-1 1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Summary and Conclusions of Principal Safety Considerations .............................. 1-1 1.2.1 Consequences from Operation and Use ............................................................. 1-1 1.2.2 Safety Considerations on Choice of Site, Fue~ and Power Level.. ..................... 1-2 1.2.3 Inherent Safety Features ................................................................................... 1-3 1.2.4 Design Features for Safe Operation and Shutdown............................................ 1-4 1.2.5 Potential Accidents ........................................................................................... 1-5 1.3 General Description of the Facility ........................................................................ 1-6 1.4 Shared Facilities and Equipment.. ....................................................................... 1-10 1.5 Comparison with Similar Facilities ..................................................................... 1-11 1.6 Summary of Operation ......................................................................................... 1-11 1.7 Nuclear Waste Policy Act
    [Show full text]