Review and Impact Evaluation of ASME NQA-1 (2008)

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taunia Wilde ◽  
Tim McEvoy ◽  
Richard Holmes ◽  
Gary M. Sandquist
Keyword(s):  
Impact Evaluation ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Nuclear Facilities ◽  
Design Changes ◽  
Nuclear Plants ◽  
The Us ◽  
Safety Features ◽  
New Generation ◽  
Regulatory Actions ◽  
Design Construction

ASME has issued a 2008 revision to the Nuclear Quality Assurance Standard, NQA-1 that impacts the siting design, construction, startup and operations of new generation nuclear power plant designs as well as other nuclear facilities. In view of new nuclear plants recently certified by the NRC, the NQA-1 2008 revision is poised to meet those QA issues and requirements that have or may arise during ESP, COL and other regulatory actions by the NRC. In view of the enhanced safety features and significant design changes associated with this new generation of nuclear infrastructure including the DOE development of the CMRR (Chemical and Metallurgy Research Replacement) at Los Alamos, present QA programs and procedures require a re-evaluation and assessment if the 2008 revision of NQA-1 is widely adapted in the US and possibly other countries. A synopsis of the revisions posed by the 2008 revision to former QA standards is given together with ancillary impacts for the nuclear community.

The organisation & the costs of the decommissioning nuclear plants in the UK

2009 ◽  
pp. 63-82
Author(s):  
Steve Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Key Words ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Nuclear Fuels ◽  
Nuclear Facilities ◽  
Nuclear Decommissioning ◽  
Nuclear Plants ◽  
New Public ◽  
Public Body ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Jel Classifications

- UK electricity consumers have paid provisions for decommissioning since before 1980 but by 2002, there were still negligible funds available to pay for decommissioning civil nuclear facilities. By then, the two major UK nuclear companies, British Energy and British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL), were both effectively bankrupt. This paper examines: the pre-2002 provisions for decommissioning and how they were lost; the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, a new public body which took over ownership of BNFL's facilities including the duty to manage their decommissioning and how it expects to carry out and fund decommissioning of its sites; how the re-launched British Energy will contribute to decommissioning its eight plants; and government plans for collecting decommissioning provisions for any new plants.JEL classifications: L50, L38, H23, H44, L71Key words: Nuclear power, decommissioning cost, funding and polluter pays.

Decontamination and Provenance Tracking

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Bradbury ◽  
George R. Elder ◽  
John C. Ritchie ◽  
Robert G. Ward
Keyword(s):  
Electricity Generation ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Nuclear Industry ◽  
Public Confidence ◽  
Nuclear Facilities ◽  
The Public ◽  
Nuclear Plants ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Continued Use ◽  
Contamination Levels

Decommissioning of retired nuclear plants and facilities demands the proper management of the process, both for economic reasons and for retaining public confidence in the continued use of nuclear power for electricity generation. There are significant potential benefits, both economic and environmental, in recycling materials from retired nuclear facilities for new uses rather than disposing of them as radioactive waste. Although it is technically possible to decontaminate many retired nuclear components to reduce contamination levels to below those appropriate for free release into the public domain, there is some public unease at the prospect of formerly contaminated materials passing into unrestricted public use. Greater support for recycle can be achieved by converting decontaminated materials into products for new controlled uses, particularly within the nuclear industry. Irrespective of the future of nuclear power, the industry has a need for many new items such as waste containers, replacement components etc. Good economics can be achieved by decontaminating the materials and then using existing non-radioactive manufacturing facilities for fabrication of new components. Provided that materials have first been decontaminated to below unrestricted release levels, there is no objection in principle to using non-radioactive facilities for recycling and manufacturing activities, so long as the materials are properly tracked to prevent their uncontrolled release. Surface decontamination has an important role to play in these activities. Efficient and economic decontamination processes are needed to prepare materials for recycle. The EPRI DFDX Process is a process for achieving these objectives. Recent progress with this process is described.

scholarly journals The Code Builders

2014 ◽  
Vol 136 (05) ◽  
pp. 36-41
Author(s):  
Sidney Bernsen ◽  
Bryan Erler ◽  
Dana K. Morton ◽  
Owen Hedden
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Power Plants ◽  
Nuclear Power Plants ◽  
Pressure Vessels ◽  
Reactor Vessel ◽  
National Standards ◽  
Nuclear Facilities ◽  
Consensus Process ◽  
Internal Structures ◽  
Design Construction

This article elaborates the evolution of code and standards for nuclear power plants. In the 1950s, need was felt for a revised set of design and fabrication rules to facilitate the development of safe, economically competitive water-cooled reactors contained in pressure vessels. These rules were codified in the first edition of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III, which was completed in 1963 and published in 1964. From the outset, both regulators and industry realized that the best way to develop many of the needed rules for the design, construction, and operation of nuclear facilities was the national standards consensus process. This process, followed by the American National Standards Institute and other recognized standards-issuing bodies such as ASME, brings together the expertise of individuals from government, industry, academia, and other stakeholders. In the years following the first publication of Section III, the coverage of the Code expanded to incorporate piping requirements, pressure-retaining components for pumps and valves, equipment and piping supports, reactor vessel internal structures, and other features of nuclear power plants.

Codes, Standards and Regulatory Topics for Nuclear Facilities

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taunia Wilde ◽  
Shannan Baker ◽  
Gary M. Sandquist
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Power Plants ◽  
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ◽  
Department Of Energy ◽  
Quality Assurance Program ◽  
Nuclear Facilities ◽  
The Us ◽  
Regulatory Commission

The design, construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning and decontamination of nuclear infrastructure particularly nuclear power plants licensed in the US by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or operated by the US Department of Energy (DOE) or the US Department of Defense (DOD) must be executed under a rigorous and documented quality assurance program that provides adequate quality control and oversight. Those codes, standards, and orders regulate, document and prescribe the essentials for quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) that frequently impact nuclear facilities operated in the US are reviewed and compared.

Nuclear Power An Optimistic Beginning, A Clouded Future

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael B. McElroy
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Electricity Market ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Public Support ◽  
The United States ◽  
Nuclear Facilities ◽  
The Us ◽  
Fukushima Daiichi ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Offshore Earthquake

Nuclear power was widely regarded as the Holy Grail for energy supply when first introduced into the US electricity market in the late 1950s and early 1960s— power so cheap that utilities could scarcely afford the cost of the meters needed to monitor its consumption and charge for its use. The first civilian reactor, with a capacity to produce 60 MW of electricity (MWe), went into service in Shippingport, Pennsylvania, in late 1957. By the end of 1974, 55 reactors were in operation in the United States with a combined capacity of about 32 GWe. The largest individual power plant had a capacity of 1.25 GWe: the capacity of reactors constructed since 1970 averaged more than 1 GWe. The industry then went into a state of suspended animation. A series of highly publi¬cized accidents was responsible for this precipitous change in the fortunes of the industry. Only 13 reactors were ordered in the United States after 1975, and all of these orders were subsequently cancelled. Public support for nuclear power effectively disappeared in the United States following events that unfolded at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania on March 28, 1979. It suffered a further setback, not only in the United States but also worldwide, in the wake of the disaster that struck at the Chernobyl nuclear facility in the Ukraine on April 26, 1986. The most recent confidence- sapping development occurred in Japan, at the Fukushima- Daiichi nuclear complex. Floodwaters raised by a tsunami triggered by a major offshore earthquake resulted in a series of self- reinforcing problems in March 2011, culminating in a highly publicized release of radioactivity to the environment that forced the evacuation of more than 300,000 people from the surrounding communities If not a death blow, this most recent accident certainly clouded prospects for the future of nuclear power, not only in Japan but also in many other parts of the world. Notably, Germany elected to close down its nuclear facilities, leading to increased dependence on coal to meet its demand for electricity, seriously complicating its objective to markedly reduce the nation’s overall emissions of CO2.

Environmental Safety of Nuclear Power Plants

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 44-50
Author(s):  
V.A. Grachev
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Power Plants ◽  
Nuclear Power Plants ◽  
Environmental Safety ◽  
Stress Tests ◽  
Safety Barriers ◽  
Nuclear Plants ◽  
High Level ◽  
New Generation

This article provides an analysis of issues in relation to the environmental safety of nuclear power plants, based on the international and Russian experience. The author demonstrates that Russian nuclear plants have a high level of environmental safety. Brief characteristics of all safety barriers have been given. And attention has been paid to the stress tests of the operating nuclear powers plants. Statistic data over recent decades confirm the high level of safety. Special attention is given to nuclear power plants having new-generation 3+ VVER reactors with the capacity of 1,200 MW.

A Normal Accident or a Sea-Change? Nuclear Host Communities Respond to the 3/11 Disaster

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 261-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
DANIEL P. ALDRICH
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Power Plants ◽  
Qualitative Data ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Crisis Response ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Nuclear Facilities ◽  
Decay Function ◽  
Plant Host ◽  
Nuclear Plants

AbstractWhile 3/11 has altered energy policies around the world, insufficient attention has focused on reactions from local nuclear power plant host communities and their neighbors throughout Japan. Using site visits to such towns, interviews with relevant actors, and secondary and tertiary literature, this article investigates the community crisis management strategies of two types of cities, towns, and villages: those which have nuclear plants directly in their backyards and neighboring cities further away (within a 30 mile radius). Responses to the disaster have varied with distance to nuclear facilities but in a way contrary to the standard theories based on the concept of the ‘distance decay function’. Officials in communities directly proximal to nuclear power plants by and large remain supportive of Japan's nuclear power program, while those in cities and towns at a distance (along with much of the general public) have displayed strong opposition to the pre 3/11 status quo. Using qualitative data, this article underscores how national energy and crisis response policies rest strongly on the political economy, experiences of, and decisions made at the subnational level.

Nuclear Weapons, South Asia and Morality

Think India ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 535-546
Author(s):  
ABHISHEK CHOUDHARY
Keyword(s):  
South Asia ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Rational Choice Theory ◽  
Choice Theory ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
Moral Perspective ◽  
The Us ◽  
Positive Duties ◽  
Nuclear Development ◽  
Asian Context

The paper analyses the concerns arising from a moral perspective in the context of a renewed arms race in South Asia. It challenges the idea that possession of nuclear power could in any way contribute to any sort of balance. The emulation of so-called great powers and expecting that balance would arrive as it did in the case of the US and the erstwhile-USSR during cold war is detrimental to the temporal and spatial uniqueness of South Asia. Deterrence, based on rational choice theory, does not apply to the South Asian context due to ambiguity owing to mutual mistrust especially in the case of India and Pakistan. Also, it no longer only sates that are sole actors in the international arena. One cannot expect the non-state actors to behave in a rational manner. Furthermore, the idea of ‘credible minimum deterrence’ itself is questionable as it is a flexible posture adjusted to relative prowess and ambiguity in policy further aggravates the situation. The paper argues from a consequentialist notion of ethics and argues that the principles of harm and equity ought be part of nuclear decision-making. Another aspect that the paper uncovers relates to the ‘reification’ of nuclear power. Using a neo-Marxist framework and concept of Lukács, the paper argues that it is no longer the state as a repository of power that decides the trajectory of nuclear development. Rather the nuclear technology has started to dictate the way states are looking at regional and international relations. This inverted relationship has been created due to neglect of any ethical toolkit. The paper thus proposes an ethical toolkit that focuses on the negative duties of not to harm and also the positive duties to create conditions that would avoid harm being done to people.

Looking for and replicating model programs for ‘at risk’ children and families

2004 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-36
Author(s):  
Frank Ainsworth
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Family Preservation ◽  
Children And Families ◽  
Cultural Traditions ◽  
At Risk Children ◽  
Systematic Effort ◽  
The Us ◽  
Program Innovation ◽  
New Generation ◽  
Model Programs

At the present time there is a need for a new generation of programs to address the needs of ‘at risk’ children and families. This is an issue that is exercising the minds of service planners in both government and non-government community service organisations. This need arises from the fact that many existing programs have yet to be rigorously evaluated and are of questionable effectiveness. This lack of evidence of effectiveness does not sit well in the current climate of accountability. It also runs contrary to the increasingly strident calls for evidence based practice.Many new programs arrive in Australia from the US as this country is often the source of program innovation as illustrated by the importation in the 1980s and 1990s of family preservation and family reunification programs. In the US, promotion of ‘model programs' has taken another step and a systematic effort at program replication is now in evidence. The question is, how might model programs from overseas be successfully replicated in Australia? And what is required, if anything, to replicate these models effectively taking account of our different cultural traditions?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document