Rationale for Independent Site Clean-Up and Radiological Clearance Standards

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul H. Genoa
Keyword(s):  
Learning Curve ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ◽  
Large Power ◽  
Steep Learning Curve ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Past ◽  
Regulatory Commission ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Independent Site

Over the past few years, the U.S. nuclear power industry has gained substantial experience and appreciation of the technical complexity and rigor required to meet a performance-based site clean-up standard. Five large power reactors and several smaller ones are now well along the path to license termination. They have not been on this journey alone. There has been a steep learning curve for all stakeholders involved in the process including state and federal radiation regulators, legislators, and the public. We have all learned that the translation of results from a post remediation survey interpreted through pathway modeling for comparison with a dose-based clean-up standard is for many a leap of faith. Our regulator has an understandable desire to address this uncertainty by demanding conservative analysis at each turn. As a result, it is extremely demanding to demonstrate that a clean-up standard in the 0.15–0.25 mSv/a range has been met. It is not likely that a standard in the 10 μSv/a level, typically associated with radiological clearance standards, can be practically demonstrated while still meeting the current expectations of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for technical rigor.

Potential Ways to Modify the NRC Safety Goal Policy

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven A. Arndt ◽  
Richard Denning
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Statement ◽  
The Past ◽  
Core Damage ◽  
Comparative Risk ◽  
Regulatory Commission ◽  
Health Objectives ◽  
The U.S

There have been significant discussions over the past few years by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff and the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), as to the adequacy of the safety goals for use with the next generation of nuclear power reactors to be built in the United States. The NRC, in its safety goals policy statement, has provided general qualitative safety goals and basic quantitative health objectives (QHOs) for nuclear reactors in the U.S. Risk metrics such as core damage frequency (CDF) and large early release frequency (LERF) have also been used as surrogates for the QHOs. This study will examine a potential approach to update the safety goals that includes the establishment of new qualitative goals associated with the comparative risk of generating electricity by viable competing technologies, and the development of preliminary tests in support of a new qualitative goal.

Long Term Operation of Nuclear Power Plants: Status in the U.S.

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Garry G. Young
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Power Plants ◽  
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ◽  
Safe Operation ◽  
Term Operation ◽  
The Status ◽  
Regulatory Commission ◽  
License Renewal ◽  
The U.S

As of January 2013, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has renewed the operating licenses of 73 nuclear units out of a total of 104 licensed units, allowing for up to 60 years of safe operation. In addition, the NRC has license renewal applications under review for 15 units and more than 13 additional units have announced plans to submit applications over the next few years [1]. This brings the total of renewed licenses and plans for renewal to over 97% of the 104 operating nuclear units in the U.S. This paper presents the status of the U.S. license renewal process and issues being raised for possible applications for subsequent renewals for up to 80 years of operation. By the end of 2013 there will be 26 nuclear plants in the U.S. (or 25% of the 104 units) that will be eligible to seek a second license renewal and by the end of 2016 this number will increase to about 50% of the 104 licensed units. Although some nuclear plant owners have announced plans to shutdown before reaching 60 years, the majority are keeping the option open for long term operation beyond 60 years. The factors that impact decisions for both the first license renewals and subsequent renewals for 80 years of safe operation are presented and discussed in this paper.

Human Reliability Data Bank: Pilot Implementation

1983 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-179
Author(s):  
Kay Comer ◽  
Dwight P. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Data Bank ◽  
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ◽  
Human Reliability ◽  
Reliability Data ◽  
Three Phase ◽  
Pilot Implementation ◽  
Feasibility Test ◽  
Regulatory Commission ◽  
The U.S

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Sandia National Laboratories have initiated a three-phase research program to develop a plan for a human reliability data bank. This research is in response to the data needs of the nuclear power industry's probabilistic risk assessment community. The three phases are: A - Develop the data bank concept, B - Develop an implementation plan and conduct a feasibility test, and C - Assist sponsor in implementing the data bank. This paper describes the results of work performed during Phase A and the program tasks scheduled for Phase B.

scholarly journals Development of U.S. Regulations for the Transportation of Radioactive Materials: A Look Back Over the Past 40 Years

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald S. Hafner
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ◽  
Atomic Energy ◽  
Regulatory Agencies ◽  
Radioactive Materials ◽  
Energy Agency ◽  
The Past ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Complex Approach ◽  
Regulatory Commission ◽  
The U.S

This paper describes an overview of the development of U.S. regulations for the transportation of radioactive materials over the past 40 years. In general, the primary focal points are multifaceted. In particular, however, this rather complex approach has been reduced to two major topical areas: 1) The detailed interactions that have long been in place between the U.S. Regulatory agencies involved, i.e., the older U.S. Interstate Commerce Commission and its more modern counterpart, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the older U.S. Atomic Energy Agency and its more modern counterpart, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and 2) the detailed interactions that have long been in place between the U.S. Regulatory agencies and those of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Although the primary time period covered in this work will be between 1965 and 2004, some of the discussion, by necessity, dates back to 1958.

scholarly journals Inservice Examination and Testing Issues for Dynamic Restraints (Snubbers) in Nuclear Power Plants

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gurjendra S. Bedi
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Power Plants ◽  
Nuclear Power Plants ◽  
Operating Experience ◽  
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ◽  
Regulatory Commission ◽  
The U.S

This paper discusses recent issues related to inservice examination and testing of dynamic restraints (snubbers) at U.S. nuclear power plants. These issues were identified during the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff review of snubber examination and testing programs, relief requests, and applicable operating experience. This discussion includes information that could have generic applicability in the implementation of effective snubber programs at U.S. nuclear power plants. Paper published with permission.

Inservice Examination and Testing Issues for Dynamic Restraints (Snubbers) in Nuclear Power Plants

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gurjendra S. Bedi
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Power Plants ◽  
Nuclear Power Plants ◽  
Operating Experience ◽  
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ◽  
Regulatory Commission ◽  
The U.S

This paper discusses recent issues related to the inservice examination and testing of dynamic restraints (snubbers) at U.S. nuclear power plants. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff identified these issues during its review of examination and testing snubber programs and relief requests, as well as operating experience. This discussion includes information that could apply generically to the implementation of effective snubber programs at U.S. nuclear power plants. Paper published with permission.

Control

1997 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Pool
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Vice President ◽  
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ◽  
The Public ◽  
Lawn Mower ◽  
Executive Vice President ◽  
Original Estimate ◽  
Standing Up ◽  
Regulatory Commission ◽  
The Cost

Texas Utilities is a big company. Through its subsidiary, TU Electric, it provides electric service to a large chunk of Texas, including the Dallas- Fort Worth metropolitan area. It employs some 10,000 people. Its sales are around $5 billion a year. It has assets near $20 billion. Yet this corporate Goliath was brought to its knees by a single determined woman, a former church secretary named Juanita Ellis. For nearly a decade, Ellis fought Texas Utilities to a standstill in its battle to build the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant. During that time the cost of the plant zoomed from an original estimate of $779 million to nearly $11 billion, with much of the increase attributable, at least indirectly, to Ellis. Company executives, who had at first laughed at the thought of a housewife married to a lawn-mower repairman standing up to their covey of high-priced lawyers and consultants, eventually realized they could go neither around her nor through her. In the end, it took a negotiated one-on-one settlement between Ellis and a TU Electric executive vice president to remove the roadblocks to Comanche Peak and allow it to begin operation. No one was really happy with the outcome. Antinuclear groups denounced the settlement as a sellout and Ellis as a traitor. Texas Utilities bemoaned the years of discord as time wasted on regulatory nit-picking with no real improvement in safety. And the utility’s customers were the most unhappy of all, for they had to pay for the $11 billion plant with large increases in their electric bills. So it was natural to look for someone to blame. The antinuclear groups pointed to the utility. TU Electric, they said, had ignored basic safety precautions and had built a plant that was a threat to public health, and it had misled the public and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The utility, in turn, blamed the antinuclear groups that had intervened in the approval process and a judge who seemed determined to make TU Electric jump through every hoop he could imagine. The ratepayers didn’t know what to believe.

Foundation Engineering for Nuclear Plants: U.S. vs. European Code and Practice

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nasser Massoudi
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Power Plants ◽  
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ◽  
Foundation Engineering ◽  
Regulatory Requirements ◽  
Nuclear Plants ◽  
Geotechnical Investigations ◽  
European Code ◽  
Regulatory Commission ◽  
The U.S

This paper reviews the current regulatory and industry practices in geotechnical investigations for nuclear power plants in the U.S. and Europe, with the intent to highlight the common features and underscore the differences. Specifically, applicable sections of regulatory and industry-established codes and practices are reviewed as relate to geotechnical practices and foundation engineering. Similarly, regulatory requirements such as those established by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the European equivalents will be reviewed. The paper serves as a vehicle to highlight industry and regulatory common grounds, as well as variations in the two practices, in the spirit of disseminating knowledge on codes and standards and facilitating international cooperation between the foundation engineering community in the U.S. and Europe.

Comprehensive Guidance for the Evaluation of Human-Systems Interfaces in Complex Systems

1995 ◽  
Vol 39 (18) ◽  
pp. 1160-1164 ◽  
Author(s):  
John O'Hara ◽  
William Stubler ◽  
William Brown ◽  
Jerry Wachtel ◽  
J. Persensky
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ◽  
Evaluation Methodology ◽  
Plant Safety ◽  
Nuclear Plants ◽  
Machine Systems ◽  
Regulatory Commission ◽  
Plant Evaluation ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Guidance Development

Advanced human-system interface (HSI) technologies are being developed in the commercial nuclear power industry. These HSIs may have significant implications for plant safety in that they will affect the ways in which the operator interacts with and supervises an increasingly complex system. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviews the HSI aspects of nuclear plants to ensure that operator performance and reliability are supported. The NRC is developing guidance to support its review of these advanced designs. The guidance consists of an evaluation methodology and an extensive set of human factors guidelines which are used in one aspect of the evaluation. The paper describes the guidance development of the evaluation methodology and the guidelines. While originally developed for nuclear plant evaluation, the methodology is applicable to other types of complex human-machine systems as well.

scholarly journals Status of the NRC Decommissioning Program

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominick Orlando ◽  
Claudia M. Craig
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ◽  
Management Plan ◽  
Potential Health ◽  
Radiological Criteria ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Status ◽  
Final Rule ◽  
Regulatory Commission

On July 21, 1997, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published the final rule on Radiological Criteria for License Termination (the License Termination Rule or LTR) as Subpart E to 10 CFR Part 20. NRC regulations require that materials licensees submit Decommissioning Plans to support the decommissioning of its facility if it is required by license condition, or if the procedures and activities necessary to carry out the decommissioning have not been approved by NRC and these procedures could increase the potential health and safety impacts to the workers or the public. NRC regulations also require that reactor licensees submit Post-shutdown Decommissioning Activities Reports and License Termination Plans to support the decommissioning of nuclear power facilities. This paper provides an update on the status of the NRC’s decommissioning program. It discusses the staff’s current efforts to streamline the decommissioning process, current issues being faced in the decommissioning program, such as partial site release and restricted release of sites, as well as the status of the decommissioning of complex sites and those listed in the Site Decommissioning Management Plan. The paper discusses the status of permanently shut-down commercial power reactors and the transfer of complex decommissioning sites and sites listed on the SDMP to Agreement States. Finally the paper provides an update of the status of various tools and guidance the NRC is developing to assist licensees during decommissioning, including an effort to consolidate and risk-inform decommissioning guidance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document