Results 1 - 10 of 25
Results 1 - 10 of 25. Search took: 0.014 seconds
|Sort by: date | relevance|
[en] Conclusions: • IAEA has mandate to establish nuclear security guidance and to support States, on request, in its application; • Framework is in place: → High level guidance published; → Structures and processes established. • Priority is to complete comprehensive suite of guidance: → For use by States; • As basis for Agency’s other activities.
[en] Conclusion: • Vendors provided a valuable demonstration of application of INPRO Methodology. • Vendors have important roles to (i) validate INPRO methodology, (ii) provide design information, (iii) help reduce assessor’s efforts in INPRO assessment of design specific areas. • For full scope NESA, assessors should work in close cooperation with vendors or with consultants with detailed design knowledge.
[en] The continuation of this dialog and cooperation between GIF and INPRO, and the broader nuclear energy technology community in the Agency, helps create an important link between the Agency’s diverse efforts to support Member States. It represents also an important international collaboration among several leading nuclear technology developing nations. The R&D efforts moving forward under Generation IV are pushing the forefront of reactor technology.
[en] Update of Gen IV Technology Roadmap: • What remains unchanged: – GIF goals: Sustainability, Safety & Reliability, Economics, and Proliferation resistance & Physical protection; – Six Reactor Systems; – Phase definitions: Viability – Performance – Demonstration – Industrialization.
[en] • Rationale: – INPRO methodology (safety area) requires that “a major release of radioactivity should be prevented for all practical purposes. – Innovative nuclear energy system would not need relocation or evacuation measures outside the plant site. – Satisfying this requirement is crucial for public acceptance and for the sustainability of nuclear energy. • Objective: – Demonstrate that the evolution of safety requirements and related technical and institutional innovations in nuclear technologies provide continued progress to meet the INPRO requirement.
[en] Safeguarding nuclear material in a nuclear facility is a process of verifying that the declared report of nuclear material items, quantities, locations and activities is complete and correct: • Detection of undeclared nuclear material or activities; • Detection of undeclared production of nuclear material; • Detection of diversion of nuclear material at declared facilities.
[en] LFR Status – Some of the technology developments: In these slides the status of the activities of the MoU signatories is presented through specific highlights on technical development as presented at LFR-pSSC meetings. Russian Federation: Coolant purification, corrosion control strategy; Japan: Coating development and testing; EURATOM: Coating, thermal-hydraulic testing.
[en] Conclusion: • On-going INPRO methodology update project is focused on making the guidance more transparent, efficient and ‘user friendly’; • Update of economics manual has been performed in 2013; •Work on further improvement of INPRO assessment method is going on in all areas.
[en] RSWG - Purpose: • Primary objective – promote consistent approach on risk, safety, and regulatory issues between Generation IV systems. • Elements of Work Scope: – Propose safety principles, objectives, and attributes based on Gen IV safety goals to guide R&D plans – Propose a technology-neutral framework of safety criteria and assessment methodologies; – Test and demonstrate the applicability of the framework and assessment methodologies; – Provide consultative support to System Steering Committees and other Gen IV entities; – Undertake appropriate interactions with regulators, IAEA, and other stakeholders.
[en] The objectives of the 8th GIF-INPRO/IAEA Interface meeting were to: 1. Exchange information on the progress, status and future plans of activities related to R&D and technology innovation of NES, including Gen IV reactors. 2. Monitor progress and update status of action items agreed in the previous interface meeting. 3. Continue exploring new areas having potential for cooperation and identifying action items and establishing priorities for further consideration.