DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 103/Thursday, May 27

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 103 / Thursday, May 27, 2004 / Notices 30339 NUCLEAR REGULATORY is able to ensure consideration only for change for proposed adoption by COMMISSION comments received on or before this licensees. Those licensees opting to date. apply for the subject change to TSs are Notice of Opportunity To Comment on ADDRESSES: Comments may be responsible for reviewing the staff’s Model Safety Evaluation on Technical submitted either electronically or via evaluation, referencing the applicable Specification Improvement Regarding U.S. mail. technical justifications, and providing Revision to the Control Rod Scram Submit written comments to: Chief, any necessary plant-specific Time Testing Frequency in STS 3.1.4, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of information. Each amendment ‘‘Control Rod Scram Times’’ for Administrative Services, Office of application made in response to the General Electric Boiling Water Administration, Mail Stop: T–6 D59, notice of availability would be Reactors Using the Consolidated Line U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, processed and noticed in accordance Item Improvement Process Washington, DC 20555–0001. with applicable rules and NRC Hand deliver comments to: 11545 procedures. AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory NUREG–1433, SR 3.1.4.2 states, Commission. Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on ‘‘Verify, for a representative sample, ACTION: Request for comment. Federal workdays. each tested control rod scram time is within the limits of Table 3.1.4–1 with SUMMARY: Copies of comments received may be Notice is hereby given that reactor steam dome pressure ≥ [800] the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory examined at the NRC’s Public Document Room, One White Flint North, Public psig.’’ NUREG–1434, SR 3.1.4.2 states, Commission (NRC) has prepared a ‘‘Verify, for a representative sample, model safety evaluation (SE) relating to File Area O1–F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. each tested control rod scram time is changing the testing frequency for the within the limits of Table 3.1.4–1 with surveillance requirement (SR) in Comments may be submitted by ≥ electronic mail to [email protected]. reactor steam dome pressure [950] Standard Technical Specifications (STS) psig.’’ Both SRs have a frequency of FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 3.1.4, ‘‘Control Rod Scram Times.’’ The ‘‘120 days cumulative operation in Bhalchandra Vaidya, Mail Stop: O–7D1, proposed change revises the test MODE 1.’’ The proposed change revises frequency of SR 3.1.4.2, control rod Division of Licensing Project the frequency to ‘‘200 days cumulative scram time testing, from ‘‘120 days Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor operation in MODE 1.’’ The Bases are cumulative operation in MODE 1’’ to Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory revised to reference the new frequency ‘‘200 days cumulative operation in Commission, Washington, DC 20555– and to reduce the percentage of the MODE 1’’ via changes to the NUREG– 0001, telephone (301) 415–3308, or tested rods which can be ‘‘slow’’ from 1433 (BWR/4) and NUREG–1434 (BWR/ William Reckley at (301) 415–1323. 20 percent to 7.5 percent. 6). The Owners Group participants in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Industry operating experience has the Technical Specification Task Force Background shown the control rod scram times to be (TSTF) proposed this change to the STS highly reliable. For example, at the in the Improved Standard Technical Regulatory Issue Summary 2000–06, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, out of 7,660 Specifications Change Traveler TSTF– ‘‘Consolidated Line Item Improvement control rod insertion tests, only 12 460, Revision 0 1. This notice also Process for Adopting Standard control rods have been slower than the includes a model no significant hazards Technical Specification Changes for insertion time limit (with the exception consideration (NSHC) determination Power Reactors,’’ was issued on March of test data from an anomalous cycle). relating to this matter. 20, 2000. The Consolidated Line Item The control rod drive system has shown The purpose of these models is to Improvement Process (CLIIP) is to be highly reliable. This high permit the NRC to efficiently process intended to improve the efficiency and reliability supports the extension of the amendments to incorporate this change transparency of NRC licensing surveillance frequency from 120 days of into plant-specific Technical processes. This is accomplished by cumulative operation in Mode 1 to 200 Specifications (TSs) for General Electric processing proposed changes to the STS days. The current TS Bases states that (GE) boiling water reactors (BWRs). in a manner that supports subsequent the acceptance criteria have been met if Licensees of nuclear power reactors to license amendment applications. The 20 percent or fewer of the random which the models apply could request CLIIP includes an opportunity for the sample control rods that are tested amendments conforming to the models. public to comment on proposed changes within the 120-day surveillance period In such a request, a licensee should to the STS following a preliminary are found to be slow. The Bases are confirm the applicability of the SE and assessment by the NRC staff and a revised to change the control rod NSHC determination to its reactor. The finding that the change will likely be insertion time acceptance criterion for NRC staff is requesting comments on the offered for adoption by licensees. This percentage of slow rods allowed, model SE and model NSHC notice is soliciting comment on a reducing the value to 7.5 percent of the determination before announcing their proposed change to the SR in STS 3.1.4 random at-power surveillance sample availability for referencing in license ‘‘Control Rod Scram Times.’’ The when the surveillance period is amendment applications. proposed change revises the test extended to 200 cumulative days of DATES: The comment period expires frequency of SR 3.1.4.2, control rod operation in Mode 1. The more June 28, 2004. Comments received after scram time testing, from ‘‘120 days restrictive 7.5 percent acceptance this date will be considered if it is cumulative operation in MODE 1’’ to criterion for testing the random sample practical to do so, but the Commission ‘‘200 days cumulative operation in is consistent with the TS 3.1.4 objective MODE 1’’ via changes to the NUREG– of ensuring that no more than a small 1 In conjunction with the proposed change, 1433 and NUREG–1434 for the GE STS. percentage of control rods are slow at technical specifications (TS) requirements for a The CLIIP directs the NRC staff to any given time. bases control program, consistent with the TS Bases evaluate any comments received for a Control Program described in Section 5.5 of the Applicability applicable vendor’s standard TS, shall be proposed change to the STS and to incorporated into the licensee’s TS, if not already either reconsider the change or proceed This proposed change to revise the TS in the TS. with announcing the availability of the testing frequency for the SR 3.1.4.2 in VerDate jul<14>2003 15:31 May 26, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27MYN1.SGM 27MYN1 30340 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 103 / Thursday, May 27, 2004 / Notices STS 3.1.4 is applicable to GE BWR/4s (TSTF) Change TSTF–460, ‘‘Control Rod The proposed change does not affect and BWR/6s 2. Scram Time Testing Frequency.’’ any current operability requirements To efficiently process the incoming 1.0 Introduction and the test frequency being revised is license amendment applications, the not specified in regulations. As a result, staff requests each licensee applying for By application dated [Date], no regulatory requirements or criteria the changes addressed by TSTF–460 [Licensee] (the licensee) requested are affected. using the CLIIP to address the plant- changes to the Technical Specifications specific verifications identified in the (TSs) for [facility]. The proposed 3.0 Technical Evaluation changes would revise TS testing model SE. Namely, each licensee 3.1 Statement of Proposed Changes submitting amendments to extend the frequency for the surveillance surveillance frequency should requirement (SR) in TS 3.1.4, ‘‘Control NUREG–1433, SR 3.1.4.2 states, demonstrate the reliability of the control Rod Scram Times.’’ ‘‘Verify, for a representative sample, rod insertion system based on historical These changes are based on Technical each tested control rod scram time is Specifications Task Force (TSTF) control rod scram time test data, and by within the limits of Table 3.1.4–1 with change traveler TSTF–460 (Revision 0) the more restrictive acceptance criterion reactor steam dome pressure ≥[800] that has been approved generically for for the number of slow rods allowed the boiling water reactor (BWR) psig.’’ NUREG–1434, SR 3.1.4.2 states, during at-power surveillance testing. Standard TSs, NUREG–1433 (BWR/4) ‘‘Verify, for a representative sample, The CLIIP does not prevent licensees and NUREG–1434 (BWR/6) by revising each tested control rod scram time is from requesting an alternative approach within the limits of Table 3.1.4–1 with the frequency of SR 3.1.4.2, control rod ≥ or proposing the changes without the scram time testing, from ‘‘120 days reactor steam dome pressure [950] requested verifications. Variations from cumulative operation in MODE 1’’ to psig.’’ Both SRs have a frequency of the approach recommended in this ‘‘200 days cumulative operation in ‘‘120 days cumulative operation in notice may, however, require additional MODE 1.’’ A notice announcing the MODE 1.’’ The proposed change revises review by the NRC staff and may availability of this proposed TS change the frequency to ‘‘200 days cumulative increase the time and resources needed using the consolidated line item operation in MODE 1.’’ The Bases are for the review.
Recommended publications
  • Consolidated Safety Analysis Report for IF-300 Shipping Cask

    Consolidated Safety Analysis Report for IF-300 Shipping Cask

    REVISION CONTROL SHEET TITLE: Consolidated Safety DOCUMENT NO.: NEDO-10084 Analysis Report for IF-300 Shipping Cask AFFECTED | DOC. REMARKS PAGE(S) I REV. I __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .I.I by General Electric Company. 1-i 3 Last revision prepared Incorporates all C of C 9001, Revision 29 references 1-1 & 1-2 2-i & 2-ii From 2/8/84 through 5/10/85. A vertical line on the right hand margin indicates a 2-1 - 2-15 Revision. "N" denotes new information while "E" 3-i & 3-ii Denotes an editorial change. 3-1 - 3-16 4-i - 4-ii 4-1 - 4-21 5-i - 5-vi 5-1 - 5-311 6-i - 6-iv U 6-1 - 6-82 7-i - 7-ii 7-1 - 7-22 8-i & 8-ii 8-1 - 8-22 n 9-i & 9-ii 9-1 - 9-6 10-i & 10-ii 10-1 - 10-15 A-i & A-ii V1-i - V1-iv V1-1 - V1-52 V1-A-i/ii V1-A-1 - V1 -A- 3 Vl-B-i/ii V1-B-1 & V1-B-2 Vi-C-i/ii V1-C-1 - 1 of 4 V1-C-8 PAGE J. I 9906220178 990608 PDR ADOCK 07109001 iii-1 B PDR REVISION CONTROL SHEET TITLE: Consolidated Safety DOCUMENT NO.: NEDO-10084 Analysis Report for IF-300 Shipping Cask AFFECTED DOC. REMARKS PAGE(S) REV. Vl-D-i - 3 Vl-D-vi Vl-D-1 - Vl-D-132 Vl-E-i & Vl-E-ii V1-E-l - V1-E-34 U V2-i - V2-iv V2-1 - V2-64 V3-i - V3-iv V3-1 - V3-32 VI-i & VI-ii VI-1 - VI-6 i - viii First revision prepared by VECTRA Technologies, Inc.
  • Fundamentals of Boiling Water Reactor (Bwr)

    Fundamentals of Boiling Water Reactor (Bwr)

    FUNDAMENTALS OF BOILING In this light a general description of BWR is presented, with emphasis on the reactor physics aspects (first lecture), and a survey of methods applied in fuel WATER REACTOR (BWR) and core design and operation is presented in order to indicate the main features of the calculation^ tools (second lecture). The third and fourth lectures are devoted to a review of BWR design bases, S. BOZZOLA reactivity requirements, reactivity and power control, fuel loading patternc. Moreover, operating 'innts are reviewed, as the actual limits during power AMN Ansaldo Impianti, operation and constraints for reactor physics analyses (design and operation). Genoa, The basic elements of core management are also presented. The constraints on control rod movements during the achieving of criticality Italy and low power operation are illustrated in the fifth lecture. The banked position withdrawal sequence mode of operation is indeed an example of safety and design/operation combined approach. Some considerations on plant transient analyses are also presented in the fifth lecture, in order to show the impact Abstract between core and fuel performance and plant/system performance. The last (sixth) lecture is devoted to the open vessel testing during the These lectures on fundamentals of BWR reactor physics are a synthesis startup of a commercial BWR. A control .od calibration is also illustrated. of known and established concepts. These lecture are intended to be a comprehensive (even though descriptive in nature) presentation, which would give the basis for a fair understanding of power operation, fuel cycle and safety aspects of the boiling water reactor. The fundamentals of BWR reactor physics are oriented to design and operation.
  • Tracg Analysis of Boiling Water Reactor Control Rod Drop Accident to Optimize Analysis Methodology

    Tracg Analysis of Boiling Water Reactor Control Rod Drop Accident to Optimize Analysis Methodology

    TRACG ANALYSIS OF BOILING WATER REACTOR CONTROL ROD DROP ACCIDENT TO OPTIMIZE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY D. Miranda*, C. McElroy, D. G. Vreeland, J. Yang, J. Banfield, and J. Vedovi GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy 3901 Castle Hayne Road, Wilmington, NC 28402, USA [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] ABSTRACT During transient events, it is important to confirm that the plant maintains compliance to regulatory standards that provide safety criteria to prevent the release of fission products. The design basis Reactivity Insertion Accident (RIA) considered for Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs) is the Control Rod Drop Accident (CRDA). During this postulated scenario, a control blade becomes decoupled from the control rod drive mechanism as the drive is withdrawn and remains lodged in place. At a later time, the blade falls out to the position of the drive causing a reactivity insertion into the core. This leads to a power excursion and terminates due to the Doppler Effect or upon completion of the SCRAM. Many BWR plants adopt a Banked Position Withdrawal Sequence (BPWS) methodology that was developed to minimize the control rod worth and mitigate the consequences of the CRDA event. The BPWS methodology places restrictions on control rod movement to ensure that no CRDA could exceed the applicable event limits by reducing the incremental control rod reactivity worth to acceptable values. In this paper, the best estimate model code TRACG, the GE Hitachi (GEH) Nuclear Energy proprietary version of the Transient Reactor Analysis Code, TRAC, is used to model CRDA event to ensure that the plant is compliant with the new more restrictive regulatory standards.
  • Occupational Exposure at Nuclear Power Plants in Tarragona Spain in April 2000

    Occupational Exposure at Nuclear Power Plants in Tarragona Spain in April 2000

    INFORMATION SYSTEM ON OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE Ninth Annual Report OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 1999 ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960, and which came into force on 30th September 1961, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shall promote policies designed: - to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in Member countries, while maintaining financial stability, and thus to contribute to the development of the world economy; - to contribute to sound economic expansion in Member as well as non-member countries in the process of economic development; and - to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in accordance with international obligations. The original Member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The following countries became Members subsequently through accession at the dates indicated hereafter: Japan (28th April 1964), Finland (28th January 1969), Australia (7th June 1971), New Zealand (29th May 1973), Mexico (18th May 1994), the Czech Republic (21st December 1995), Hungary (7th May 1996), Poland (22nd November 1996) and the Republic of Korea (12th December 1996). The Commission of the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD (Article 13 of the OECD Convention). NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) was established on 1st February 1958 under the name of the OEEC European Nuclear Energy Agency.
  • BWRX-300 (GE Hitachi and Hitachi GE Nuclear Energy) USA DATE (2019/9/30)

    BWRX-300 (GE Hitachi and Hitachi GE Nuclear Energy) USA DATE (2019/9/30)

    Status Report – BWRX-300 (GE Hitachi and Hitachi GE Nuclear Energy) USA DATE (2019/9/30) The BWR-300 is the 10th generation Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) crated by GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH). It is a SMR evolution of the ESBWR which is licensed by the US NRC and utilizes many of the components for the operational ABWR. The first BWRX-300s are expected to start construction in in 2024 and 2025 and enter commercial operation in 2027 and 2028. INTRODUCTION Indicate which booklet(s): [ ] Large WCR [√] SMR [ ] FR GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy’s (GEH’s) BWRX-300 is a designed-to-cost, 300 MWe water- cooled, natural circulation Small Modular Reactor (SMR) utilizing simple, natural phenomena driven safety systems. It is the tenth generation of the Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) and represents the simplest, yet most innovative BWR design since GE, GEH’s predecessor in the nuclear business, began developing nuclear reactors in 1955. The BWRX-300 is an evolution of the U.S. NRC-licensed, 1,520 MWe ESBWR. It is designed to provide clean, flexible energy generation that is cost competitive with natural gas fired plants. Target applications include base load electricity generation, load following electrical generation within a range of 50 to 100% power and district heating. GEH, a world-leading provider of advanced reactor technology and nuclear services, is a global alliance created by the General Electric Company (GE) and Hitachi, Ltd. to serve the global nuclear industry. Development Milestones 2014 ESBWR DCD Issued 2017 BWRX-300 Evolution from ESBWR
  • Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 & 2, Revision 19 to Updated Final

    Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 & 2, Revision 19 to Updated Final

    LGS UFSAR CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PLANT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1.2 GENERAL PLANT DESCRIPTION 1.2.1 Site Characteristics 1.2.1.1 Location 1.2.1.2 Site Environs and Access 1.2.1.3 Geology 1.2.1.4 Seismology 1.2.1.5 Hydrology 1.2.1.6 Meteorology 1.2.2 Principal Design Criteria 1.2.2.1 General Design Criteria 1.2.2.2 System Design Criteria 1.2.2.2.1 Nuclear System Criteria 1.2.2.2.2 Safety-Related Systems Criteria 1.2.2.2.3 Process Control Systems Criteria 1.2.2.2.4 Power Conversion Systems Criteria 1.2.2.2.5 Electrical Power Systems Criteria 1.2.2.2.6 Auxiliary Systems Criteria 1.2.2.2.7 Radioactive Waste Management Systems Criteria 1.2.2.2.8 Shielding and Access Control Criteria 1.2.2.2.9 Fuel Handling and Storage Facilities 1.2.3 General Arrangement of Structures and Equipment 1.2.4 System Description 1.2.4.1 Nuclear System 1.2.4.1.1 Reactor Core and Control Rods 1.2.4.1.2 Reactor Vessel and Internals 1.2.4.1.3 Reactor Recirculation System 1.2.4.1.4 Residual Heat Removal System 1.2.4.1.5 Reactor Water Cleanup System 1.2.4.1.6 Nuclear Leak Detection System 1.2.4.2 Safety-Related Systems 1.2.4.2.1 Reactor Protection System 1.2.4.2.2 Neutron Monitoring System 1.2.4.2.3 Control Rod Drive System 1.2.4.2.4 Control Rod Velocity Limiter 1.2.4.2.5 Control Rod Drive Housing Supports 1.2.4.2.6 Nuclear System Pressure Relief System 1.2.4.2.7 Reactor Core Isolation Cooling System 1.2.4.2.8 Primary Containment CHAPTER 01 1-i REV.
  • Innovation Pathway Study: U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power

    Innovation Pathway Study: U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power

    Nuclear Industry Innovation Pathway Study Prepared for the Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis Task Order No. DE-BP0004706 Innovation Pathway Study: U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Prepared by Energetics Incorporated1 Christopher W. Gillespie, Robert A. Johnson, Marty Martinez, Emmanuel Taylor April 29, 2016 This report was prepared 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 therein 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 views of the authors do not necessarily reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. 1Energetics Incorporated, 901 D St SW, Washington, DC 20024; email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] i Nuclear Industry Innovation Pathway Study EPSA Task Order No. DE-BP0004706 Executive Summary The nuclear energy sector has one of the most idiosyncratic histories of research, development, demonstration, and deployment among widely-used energy technologies in the U.S. The unique attributes of nuclear energy and fissile materials, the historical context in which nuclear technologies were introduced, and institutional attributes of the post-war U.S.
  • Nuclear Engineering Handbook Boiling Water Reactors

    Nuclear Engineering Handbook Boiling Water Reactors

    This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 28 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: CRC Press Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK Nuclear Engineering Handbook Kenneth D. Kok Boiling Water Reactors Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.1201/9781315373829-5 Kevin Theriault Published online on: 21 Oct 2016 How to cite :- Kevin Theriault. 21 Oct 2016, Boiling Water Reactors from: Nuclear Engineering Handbook CRC Press Accessed on: 28 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.1201/9781315373829-5 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. 3 Boiling Water Reactors Kevin Theriault CONTENTS 3.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................87
  • REVIEW of FUEL FAILURES in WATER COOLED REACTORS the Following States Are Members of the International Atomic Energy Agency

    REVIEW of FUEL FAILURES in WATER COOLED REACTORS the Following States Are Members of the International Atomic Energy Agency

    IAEA Nuclear Energy Series IAEA Nuclear No. NF-T-2.1 No. Reactors Water-Cooled in Failures Fuel of Review IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NF-T-2.1 Basic Review of Principles Fuel Failures in Water Cooled Reactors Objectives Guides Technical Reports INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY VIENNA ISBN 978–92–0–102610–1 ISSN 1995–7807 10-08811_P1445_cover.indd 1 2010-06-24 14:41:44 IAEA NUCLEAR ENERGY SERIES PUBLICATIONS STRUCTURE OF THE IAEA NUCLEAR ENERGY SERIES Under the terms of Articles III.A and VIII.C of its Statute, the IAEA is authorized to foster the exchange of scientific and technical information on the peaceful uses of atomic energy. The publications in the IAEA Nuclear Energy Series provide information in the areas of nuclear power, nuclear fuel cycle, radioactive waste management and decommissioning, and on general issues that are relevant to all of the above mentioned areas. The structure of the IAEA Nuclear Energy Series comprises three levels: 1 — Basic Principles and Objectives; 2 — Guides; and 3 — Technical Reports. The Nuclear Energy Basic Principles publication describes the rationale and vision for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Nuclear Energy Series Objectives publications explain the expectations to be met in various areas at different stages of implementation. Nuclear Energy Series Guides provide high level guidance on how to achieve the objectives related to the various topics and areas involving the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Nuclear Energy Series Technical Reports provide additional, more detailed, information on activities related to the various areas dealt with in the IAEA Nuclear Energy Series.

  • NUREG-1617, Supplement 1

    NUREG-1617 Supplement 1 NU Standard Review Plan for Transportation Packages for MOX Spent Nuclear Fuel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Washington, DC 20555-0001 NUREG-1617 Supplement 1 Standard Review Plan for Transportation Packages for MOX Spent Nuclear Fuel Manuscript Completed: September 2005 Date Published: September 2005 Prepared by R.S. Hafner, G.C. Mok, J. Hovingh, C. K. Syn, E.W. Russell, S.C. Keaton, J.L. Boles, D.K. Vogt, P. Prassinos Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 7000 East Avenue Livermore, CA 94550-9234 J.A. Smith, NRC Project Manager Spent Fuel Project Office Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 NRC Job Code A0291 [THIS PAGE BLANK] ii ABSTRACT The NRC contracted with LLNL to compile this supplement to NUREG-1617 to incorporate additional information specific to mixed uranium-plutonium oxide (MOX) fuel. This supplement provides details on package review guidance resulting from significant differences between spent nuclear fuel from irradiated LEU fuel and that from irradiated MOX fuel. The information presented is not to be construed as having the force and effect of NRC regulations (except where regulations are cited), or as indicating that applications supported by safety analyses and prepared in accordance with Regulatory Guide 7.9 will necessarily be approved, or as relieving anyone from the requirements of any pertinent regulations. The principal purpose of this supplement is to ensure the quality and uniformity of staff reviews of packagings intended for transport of MOX fuel assemblies irradiated in thermal reactors only.
  • False Promises

    False Promises

    False Promises Debunking Nuclear Industry Propaganda NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 340 • Takoma Park, MD 20912 • 301-270-6477 www.nirs.org • [email protected] False Promises By the Staff of Nuclear Information and Resource Service Michael Mariotte, Executive Director Diane D’Arrigo, Radioactive Waste Project Director Mary Olson, Southeast Regional Coordinator Aja Binette, Nuclear Power Economics Campaigner Donald Keesing, Administrative Coordinator With contributions from Cindy Folkers, Paul Gunter and Kevin Kamps Revised from False Promises by Jessie Carr and Dulce Fernandes May 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 FOREWORD 23 By Michael Mariotte 3 FOREWORD TO FIRST EDITION By Robert Alvarez 30 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 34 6 INTRODUCTION 9 BRIEF HISTORY OF NUCLEAR POWER’S 38 FALSE PROMISES 11 CHAPTER 1 41 Nuclear power is counterproductive for combating climate change 14 CHAPTER 2 42 Nuclear power can be dangerously unreliable under severe weather or destabilized climate conditions 16 CHAPTER 3 47 There are many proven, sustainable alternatives to nuclear power and coal 51 21 CHAPTER 4 Nuclear power pollutes 52 23 CHAPTER 5 Reactors remain dangerous; catastrophic accidents can and likely will occur 30 CHAPTER 6 Nuclear power is expensive 34 CHAPTER 7 Radioactive waste remains a problem without a solution 38 CHAPTER 8 Nuclear weapons proliferation concerns are increasing worldwide 41 CHAPTER 9 Nuclear power does not lead to greater energy security or US energy independence 42 CHAPTER 10 Even routine operations of nuclear reactors result in radiation releases and health impacts 47 PROPAGANDA MACHINE: MISLEADING POLLS AND PSEUDO EXPERTS 51 CONCLUSION 52 NOTES FOREWORD By Michael Mariotte Executive Director, Nuclear Information and Resource Service wrote my first article on the potential resurgence States (currently 104) and probably quadruple or more of nuclear power in 1989, for the Multinational the number across the world (currently about 440), all IMonitor.
  • References – Nuclear Power Plants Company Profile and References for Architect-Engineering Services - Nuclear Projects

    References – Nuclear Power Plants Company Profile and References for Architect-Engineering Services - Nuclear Projects

    EMPRESARIOS AGRUPADOS References – Nuclear Power Plants Company Profile and References for Architect-Engineering Services - Nuclear Projects COMPANY PROFILE Empresarios Agrupados (EA) is a leading architect-engineering organisation in Spain with significant international experience, providing a complete range of consulting, project management, engineering and design, procurement, construction management, plant testing, safety assessment, quality assurance, as well as plant operation and maintenance support services to the electric utility industry. Founded in 1971, EA has a permanent multidisciplinary staff of approximately 1000, 65% of whom are university graduates, involved in engineering projects and services in the electric utility sector. Serving the electric utility industry is one of EA's primary objectives as an architect-engineering company. In the field of power generation, EA's work includes the design, construction and operation support of nuclear, fossil-fired and hydroelectric power plants and radioactive waste management facilities, as well as the safety assessment, modernisation, backfitting, repowering and life extension of operating plants and facilities. Services provided by EA in the field of power generation are: Feasibility studies Site selection and project development studies Preparation of Bid Invitation Specifications (BIS) and evaluation of bids Project management Engineering and design Procurement management Construction management Plant testing and startup Plant operation and maintenance Quality assurance/quality control EA has completed the engineering and construction of power plant projects totalling more than 39,000 MWe of power generating capacity worldwide. Nuclear – 2 (11.1) Page 1 Company Profile and References for Architect-Engineering Services - Nuclear Projects EA has provided engineering and consultancy services, and completed projects in Spain and some 35 other countries.