Results 1 - 10 of 27
Results 1 - 10 of 27. Search took: 0.015 seconds
|Sort by: date | relevance|
[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] • 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] 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] The presentation is structured as follows: 7th GIF-INPRO Meeting (March 13’); Potential Areas of Collaboration; 1st Exchange with EMWG in November 13’; Comparisons were drawn, based on..; Many Programmatic & Methodological Similarities/Differences were Noted; Initial Collaboration – Model Benchmarking Activity; Model Benchmarking Underway; Continued Collaboration?
[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] PROSA advice on revision of PR Manual includes: • Improved clarity in INPRO sustainability definition for PR; • Revision/rework of INPRO User Requirements, Criteria and Acceptance Limits with improved explanation of rationale; • Restructuring and reformatting of the evaluation tables to improve logic, clarity and utility; • Introduction of novelty evaluation and comparative assessment approaches • Elimination (to the extent practicable) of “expert judgement” as an INPRO PR Acceptance Limit; • Explanation of phased approach and how to use INPRO PR assessment to support sustainability planning.
[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] Summary of INPRO proposal in 2013 GIF/INPRO-IAEA interface meeting: • Closed fuel cycle system based on one of the GIF reactor types; • Scope of NESA, i.e. areas of assessment, depends on the input data availability; Example: assessment of NES based on SFR in the areas of Safety, Environmental stressors, Resources, Waste Management and Proliferation Resistance. • Different levels of consideration possible (User Requirements level or Criteria level); • INPRO prospective interest: Feedback from the assessment of systems based on innovative reactors. • GIF prospective interest: Application of INPRO methodology may help to reveal potential gaps in R&D program and to close these gaps; NESA study may be useful for future marketing of the reactor design.
[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] WIRAF preliminary conclusions: • Deployment of innovative reactors and associated fuel cycle facilities will also create waste streams that are different (by chemical properties, activity and volumes) from the waste created by current reactors and fuel cycle facilities. • Up to now, considerations related to waste were mostly focussed on impact of this development on a high level waste associated with fuel cycle of innovative concepts. • The proposed approach taken in this report is to take also into consideration L&IL waste that will be generated during routine and abnormal operating conditions as well as waste streams from decommissioning of reactors and fuel cycle facilities. • Although it is well known that designs of innovative nuclear energy systems are still in conceptual stage, the systematic approach has been proposed to collect available information to have an idea of qualitative inventory.