Results 1 - 10 of 18
Results 1 - 10 of 18. Search took: 0.019 seconds
|Sort by: date | relevance|
[en] The Dounreay nuclear licensed site, located in Caithness on the north coast of Scotland, was the United Kingdom's (UK) site for Fast Reactor research and development. The Dounreay facilities are now being decommissioned and the site restored in accordance with UK Government policy to manage civil nuclear liabilities. This site closure and environmental restoration programme is to achieve levels of residual radiological and chemical contamination sufficiently low that the site will be safe for future use. This document sets out the Environmental Safety Strategy for the site remediation and closure programme, which will follow completion of facility decommissioning and demolition. The document summarises the contractual definition of the Dounreay site end states and also the associated regulatory regimes. An overview of the approach and processes for achieving the Interim End State (IES) are provided, along with consideration of how Dounreay will demonstrate that the IES has been achieved. (authors)
[en] Highlights: • Indian law on civil liability for nuclear damage. • Role of a system designer. • Explanation about a Supplier. • Right of recourse by the Operator against a Supplier. - Abstract: Civil liability for nuclear damage regime established in India follows global practice in this area and has a unique provision that enables an Operator to exercise a right of recourse against a Supplier. Rules promulgated under the Act provide ‘explanation’ about the Supplier which has been formulated based on practices in nuclear industry. The paper analyses the ‘explanation’ and concludes that India's legislation designates the plant system designer as the Supplier. Any examination of the Indian law without studying the ‘explanation’ leads to erroneous conclusions. To protect his interest against the Right of Recourse, the system designer can avail of the insurance policy that is meant for the suppliers. Vendors, other than the system designer, have no liability under the Right of Recourse. A harmonious analysis of debates and various documents indicates that the Section 46 of the Act is directed only towards the Operator. This paper examines the issue of Supplier's liability in the light of explanation about a supplier as included in the Rules.
[en] The Active Facilities Data Collection System (AFDCS) is a major means the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or Department) uses to estimate its out-year environmental liability for the active and surplus facilities across the Department. The previous AFDCS cost model was based on cost assumptions that date back to the mid-1990s. The model is being replaced with a model that reflects more recent facility disposition experience and costs. DOE's Office of Environmental Management's (DOE-EM) historical cost collection database provides the basis for the new AFDCS cost model. This paper describes the process that was used to update the AFDCS facility data inputs, analyze this data, and formulate historical costs and parameters. This process created a robust and reliable cost model that will provide DOE with a valid estimate of the facilities' disposition costs. (authors)
[en] It just so happens that achieving world-class performance in a nuclear facility also reduces the risks that are of concern to insurers who underwrite nuclear liability and nuclear peril. Our objectives being the same, insurance inspections of the past have now become 'surveys' that are far more collaborative in nature. These surveys are performed by engineers and specialists with significant experience in the Canadian nuclear industry. Survey outcomes play a major role in determining insurability and establishing premiums. The Nuclear Insurance Association of Canada (NIAC), the Canadian nuclear insurance pool, boasts a team of three surveyors with more than 120 years of nuclear power plant experience. Their surveys touch on all aspects of a nuclear facility's operation as defined by international guidelines that have been written by surveyors from insurance pools around the world including Canada, and incorporate industry best practices. Nuclear liability insurance is concerned with the risk to the public from reactor operation, while nuclear peril insurance is concerned with casualties and equipment damage from radioactivity arising from a facility's operation. The survey guidelines are therefore aligned to best address these risks: Nuclear Safety, Operations and Third-Party Liability (NSO-TPL); Fire Safety (FP), in support of NSO-TPL; Machinery Breakdown Prevention (MB), in support of NSO-TPL); and Nuclear Safety Culture, in support of all of the above. Fire and Machinery Breakdown have been the focus of the conventional insurance industry for well over a century. In the nuclear context, they continue to be significant contributors to a much broader scope that includes such themes as organizational effectiveness, training, emergency preparedness, radiation protection, to name but a few. This presentation will walk you through a typical survey cycle, focusing on survey methodology and the interface with the facility operator.
[en] A special legislation on criminal liability for offences against critical infrastructure objects is currently under development in Ukraine. The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine adopted the Concept for the development of a state system for critical infrastructure protection.The paper considers this legal area with regard to objects in the nuclear industry in the general context of critical infrastructure protection. It provides the current state in the legal regulation of fundamentals of criminal liability for offences against the critical infrastructure objects in the nuclear industry. The issue on the sufficiency and appropriateness of the existing level of such a liability is discussed further.The paper presents the list of some main critical infrastructure objects in accordance with the regulatory documents in the sphere of critical infrastructure protection and their classification.In addition, such concepts as “critical infrastructure” (relatively new notion in the national legislation), “unlawful intrusion”, “computer crimes”, “critical information infrastructure” and other concepts important to the nuclear industry were considered in this research. The notions presented in different regulatory documents were analyzed.The paper emphasizes that the legislation of Ukraine does not currently present special (separate) standards on the criminal liability for offences against critical infrastructure objects. Some promising issues related to fundamentals of the criminal liability and protection of critical infrastructure objects in the nuclear industry were also considered.The research involves the prospect of further development of a special law to define the area for improving relevant legislation on general regulation of these issues.The paper also stresses on the need to introduce some changes to the Criminal Code of Ukraine with respect to certain articles of section XIV. (author)
[en] This section treats of the following Intergovernmental organisation activities: 1 - European Atomic Energy Community - Institutional issues and regulatory proposals: Communication on a more efficient and democratic decision-making in EU energy and climate policy; Published studies: Study for the European Parliament PETI Committee: 'Cross-border nuclear safety, liability and cooperation in the European Union'; European Study on Medical, Industrial and Research Applications of Nuclear and Radiation Technology. 2 - International Atomic Energy Agency - Nuclear safety: Organizational Meeting for the Eighth Review Meeting of Contracting Parties to the Convention on Nuclear Safety; Officers' Turnover Meeting; Nuclear security: Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and its Amendment; International Conference on the Security of Radioactive Material; Nuclear liability: Workshops on civil liability for nuclear damage; International Expert Group on Nuclear Liability (INLEX); Legislative assistance. 3 - OECD Nuclear Energy Agency: NEA Nuclear Education, Skills and Technology Framework (NEST) Agreement enters into force; 2019 International Nuclear Law Essentials (INLE)
[en] This document defines operational and technical arrangements to be implemented to conduct remediation efforts in polluted sites under good conditions of radiation protection. It describes work organisation and identifies responsibilities regarding radiation protection. It indicates general instructions of radiation protection: radiological zoning, access and working conditions in the different zones, protection against atmospheric contamination and against contamination dissemination, controls during zone exit, work interruptions, management of radioactive wastes, radiological property, dosimetry, incidents or accidents. An updating version (2013) is also proposed.
[en] The principal activities of EDF Energy Holdings Limited and subsidiaries together during the year continued to be the provision and supply of electricity and gas to commercial, residential and industrial customers, and the generation of electricity through a portfolio of generation assets including nuclear, coal, gas and renewable generation. The Group is also involved in the construction of nuclear new build assets. This document is EDF Energy group annual report for the year 2018. It includes: the Strategic report, the Directors' report, the Directors' responsibilities statement, the independent Auditor's report to the Members of EDF Energy Holdings Limited, the Consolidated income statement, the Consolidated statement of comprehensive income, the Consolidated balance sheet, the Consolidated cash flow statement, the Consolidated statement of changes in equity, the Notes to the consolidated financial statements, the Company balance sheet, the Company statement of changes in equity, and the Notes to the Company financial statements
[en] Sweden - as well as Poland - is at present in processes that evaluate the possibility to use nuclear power in the energy mix for a number of generations to come. This has been manifested by inter alia reformation of the legislation in the field in both countries. One of the major energy enterprises in Sweden - the state owned enterprise Vattenfall AB - has recently applied to begin a process to evaluate the possibilities to construct one or two new nuclear power plants (NPP) in replacement of existing reactors in the early 2030's. In Poland on the other hand the process has developed faster with an announcement to build nuclear reactors according to the Esbo convention in 2011. At present there is a national process for gaining national as well as local public acceptance, inter alia with local referendums at potential sites. The nuclear renaissance is primarily driven by a low marginal cost for production of nuclear electricity which contributes to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the short run. Whether it is the prolongation of the use of nuclear power as in the case of Sweden, or the introduction of commercial nuclear power as in the case of Poland, strong industrial and sustained governmental support is essential for a successful outcome. Another prerequisite for the credible sustainability of nuclear power in the eyes of the investment community is demonstrable control of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive management. According to the Council Directive 2011/70/EURATOM of 19 July 2011, establishing a Community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste funding for the future costs for handling of nuclear waste is a crucial task. In addition the recommendation of the European commission concerning funding dated October 26, 2006, recommends that funding for the cost of decommissioning of new NPP shall be funded in an individual segregated fund for each NPP. The task to estimate nuclear waste liabilities is not trivial. Potential operators of new NPP's need to work together with the rest of the Society in a transparent way. It is crucial to assess future nuclear liabilities with a degree of confidence that control in the eyes of all the relevant stakeholders. Besides, a good financial control of existing funds for this purpose must be safe guard so that any cost for decommissioning is not 'rolled-over' to future generations. One central criterion for acceptance of new build of nuclear power is that the management of radioactive waste is done in a safe way. The first step in this process to secure that financial resources are continuous funded in segregated state controlled or state supervised enterprise fund. Another vital criterion is that the basis of the estimates of the nuclear waste liability must cover all future costs. It is appropriate to stress that it is of critical importance that all cost items and types of costs are included in the assessment of the nuclear waste liabilities. The results and lessons learned for the above presented study illustrate how interviews can provide insight in the views and opinions of the next generation. We have stated that it is possible to make estimates with a high level of confidence with a traditional bottom-up method. However, the draw-back of this method is that this is a very expensive technique that requires many man-hours in the calculation process. When the numbers of similar facilities are plenty - or at least a couple - there is a need to search for more cost-efficient estimates, especially when the decommissioning is in a diffuse remote future date. It is then argued that development of a parametric method is more straight-forward when a trade-off is made between costs and accuracy at an early date. A parametric approach fulfils the conditions on accounting precision defined in IFRS/IAS. None withstanding, it is also supposed to meet the requirements of the Council Directive from 19 July 2011 and therefore the model must be supplemented by data of future generations if an unbiased inter-generational estimate shall be achieved. The field study data that have been presented supports the statement that it should be prudent to include the assumed cost for compensation - for the risk of fall in land and house prices when a repository or local landfill is located in the neighbourhood - to the perceived draw-back for future generations. Another example of a potential cost raiser for future generations is the risk of retrieval of the spent nuclear fuel. Hence, if for some reason, future generations find that they wish to manage already deposited waste in some other way, then there will be costs for retrieving it as well as costs for whatever new alternative that is to be implemented. One reflection on this argument is that the spent nuclear fuel of today theoretical can be an asset tomorrow. And then there will be enough incitement for the future generation to make retrieval regardless of the available funds. Hence, it may be stated that under this circumstance there is only a limited risk for leakages of fund capital. From a more practical point of view it is possible to find many other similar scenarios that give opposite result, so in general it seems appropriate to anticipated that the cost for compensating future generations can be a potential cost driver.