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.

Use of HFE Guidance for the Review of Nuclear Power Plants

2020 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
John O’Hara ◽  
Stephen Fleger
Keyword(s):  
Interface Design ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Power Plants ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ◽  
Program Review ◽  
Human Factors Engineering ◽  
Plant Design ◽  
Review Model ◽  
Regulatory Commission

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) evaluates the human factors engineering (HFE) of nuclear power plant design and operations to protect public health and safety. The HFE safety reviews encompass both the design process and its products. The NRC staff performs the reviews using the detailed guidance contained in two key documents: the HFE Program Review Model (NUREG-0711) and the Human-System Interface Design Review Guidelines (NUREG-0700). This paper will describe these two documents and the method used to develop them. As the NRC is committed to the periodic update and improvement of the guidance to ensure that they remain state-of-the-art design evaluation tools, we will discuss the topics being addressed in support of future updates as well.

Evaluation of Complex Human-Machine Systems Using HFE Guidelines

1994 ◽  
Vol 38 (16) ◽  
pp. 1008-1012 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. O'Hara
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Power Plants ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ◽  
Human Factors Engineering ◽  
Plant Safety ◽  
Plant Personnel ◽  
Machine Systems ◽  
Regulatory Commission ◽  
Development And Validation

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the role of human factors engineering (HFE) guidelines in the evaluation of complex human-machine systems, such as advanced nuclear power plants. Advanced control rooms will utilize human-system interface (HSI) technologies that can have significant implications for plant safety in that they will affect the ways in which plant personnel interact with the system. In order to protect public health and safety, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission reviews the HFE aspects of plant HSIs to ensure that they are designed to HFE principles and that operator performance and reliability are appropriately supported. Evaluations using HFE guidelines are an important part of the overall review methodology. The Advanced HSI Design Review Guideline (DRG) was developed to provide these review criteria. This paper will address (1) the issues associated with guideline-based evaluations, (2) DRG development and validation, and (3) the DRG review procedures.

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.

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.

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.

Nuclear Air Cleaning Codes and Standards Development and Use in the United States

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald R. Bellamy
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Standards ◽  
Nuclear Facilities ◽  
Gas Treatment ◽  
Air Cleaning ◽  
American Society ◽  
Regulatory Commission

The need to provide standardized guidance for the use of air cleaning systems in nuclear facilities was recognized in the 1960’s when plans for nuclear facilities were at their peak. The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) asked a group of experts to generate documents for boiling-water-reactor standby gas treatment systems for accident mitigation. These experts immediately recognized that their scope needed expansion to include all air cleaning safety systems at all types of nuclear facilities. Their efforts resulted in the issuance of documents that provided guidance for the components in air cleaning systems (ANSI N509), and guidance for the testing of these systems (ANSI N510). Subsequently, it was recognized that this guidance needed to be formalized and implemented in a code format, with requirements instead of recommendations. Various other organizations were also providing guidance in different forms. The US government (the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) issued regulatory guides, and the American Society for Testing of Materials (ASTM) issued many documents providing specifications for activated carbon used in air cleaning systems for radioiodine removal. Acknowledging the need to consolidate all of these documents in a single source, the American Society for Mechanical Engineers (ASME) requested the air cleaning experts to work on publishing a code section under ASME auspices. This code section, designated AG-1, was assigned to a newly formed committee, the ASME Committee on Nuclear Air and Gas Treatment (CONAGT). This Committee started work in the mid 1970’s, and has issued various sections of the code since then, and the document now totals 600 pages. This code section covers the design, construction, installation, operation and testing of air cleaning systems in nuclear facilities. Work continues on updates to these sections of the AG-1 Code, as well as new sections specifically addressing gas processing systems. ASME code section AG-1 is the main international document for nuclear air cleaning systems for safe operation of nuclear power facilities, to ensure the safety of workers, and to protect public health and safety and the environment. The Code has four divisions, and a membership of over 100 of the premier air cleaning experts from 11 different countries.

Finding Fault with the Nexus Pipeline? Agency Capture and the Public Good

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Andrew R. Kear
Keyword(s):  
Natural Gas ◽  
Environmental Impact ◽  
Public Good ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Environmental Impact Statement ◽  
Gas Industry ◽  
The Public ◽  
Fracturing Process ◽  
Natural Gas Industry ◽  
Regulatory Commission

Natural gas is an increasingly vital U.S. energy source that is presently being tapped and transported across state and international boundaries. Controversy engulfs natural gas, from the hydraulic fracturing process used to liberate it from massive, gas-laden Appalachian shale deposits, to the permitting and construction of new interstate pipelines bringing it to markets. This case explores the controversy flowing from the proposed 256-mile-long interstate Nexus pipeline transecting northern Ohio, southeastern Michigan and terminating at the Dawn Hub in Ontario, Canada. As the lead agency regulating and permitting interstate pipelines, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is also tasked with mitigating environmental risks through the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act's Environmental Impact Statement process. Pipeline opponents assert that a captured federal agency ignores public and scientific input, inadequately addresses public health and safety risks, preempts local control, and wields eminent domain powers at the expense of landowners, cities, and everyone in the pipeline path. Proponents counter that pipelines are the safest means of transporting domestically abundant, cleaner burning, affordable gas to markets that will boost local and regional economies and serve the public good. Debates over what constitutes the public good are only one set in a long list of contentious issues including pipeline safety, proposed routes, property rights, public voice, and questions over the scientific and democratic validity of the Environmental Impact Statement process. The Nexus pipeline provides a sobering example that simple energy policy solutions and compromise are elusive—effectively fueling greater conflict as the natural gas industry booms.

Inservice Testing Program Improvements for New Reactors Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald C. Lippy
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Power Plants ◽  
Nuclear Power Plants ◽  
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ◽  
The United States ◽  
Nuclear Industry ◽  
Small Modular Reactors ◽  
American Society ◽  
Construction Permit ◽  
Regulatory Commission

The nuclear industry is preparing for the licensing and construction of new nuclear power plants in the United States. Several new designs have been developed and approved, including the “traditional” reactor designs, the passive safe shutdown designs and the small modular reactors (SMRs). The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) provides specific Codes used to perform preservice inspection/testing and inservice inspection/testing for many of the components used in the new reactor designs. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviews information provided by applicants related to inservice testing (IST) programs for Design Certifications and Combined Licenses (COLs) under Part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants,” in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 52) (Reference 1). The 2012 Edition of the ASME OM Code defines a post-2000 plant as a nuclear power plant that was issued (or will be issued) its construction permit, or combined license for construction and operation, by the applicable regulatory authority on or following January 1, 2000. The New Reactors OM Code (NROMC) Task Group (TG) of the ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants (NROMC TG) is assigned the task of ensuring that the preservice testing (PST) and IST provisions in the ASME OM Code to address pumps, valves, and dynamic restraints (snubbers) in post-2000 nuclear power plants are adequate to provide reasonable assurance that the components will operate as needed when called upon. Currently, the NROMC TG is preparing proposed guidance for the treatment of active pumps, valves, and dynamic restraints with high safety significance in non-safety systems in passive post-2000 reactors including SMRs.

Expectations for Inservice Testing Programs at New Nuclear Power Plants

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas G. Scarbrough
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Power Plants ◽  
Nuclear Power Plants ◽  
Reactor Core ◽  
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Mechanical Equipment ◽  
American Society ◽  
Regulatory Commission ◽  
Safety Systems

In a series of Commission papers, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) described its policy for inservice testing (IST) programs to be developed and implemented at nuclear power plants licensed under 10 CFR Part 52. This paper discusses the expectations for IST programs based on those Commission policy papers as applied in the NRC staff review of combined license (COL) applications for new reactors. For example, the design and qualification of pumps, valves, and dynamic restraints through implementation of American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Standard QME-1-2007, “Qualification of Active Mechanical Equipment Used in Nuclear Power Plants,” as accepted in NRC Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.100 (Revision 3), “Seismic Qualification of Electrical and Active Mechanical Equipment and Functional Qualification of Active Mechanical Equipment for Nuclear Power Plants,” will enable IST activities to assess the operational readiness of those components to perform their intended functions. ASME has updated the Operation and Maintenance of Nuclear Power Plants (OM Code) to improve the IST provisions for pumps, valves, and dynamic restraints that are incorporated by reference in the NRC regulations with applicable conditions. In addition, lessons learned from performance experience and testing of motor-operated valves (MOVs) will be implemented as part of the IST programs together with application of those lessons learned to other power-operated valves (POVs). Licensee programs for the Regulatory Treatment of Non-Safety Systems (RTNSS) will be implemented for components in active nonsafety-related systems that are the first line of defense in new reactors that rely on passive systems to provide reactor core and containment cooling in the event of a plant transient. This paper also discusses the overlapping testing provisions specified in ASME Standard QME-1-2007; plant-specific inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria; the applicable ASME OM Code as incorporated by reference in the NRC regulations; specific license conditions; and Initial Test Programs as described in the final safety analysis report and applicable RGs. Paper published with permission.

Proposed License Structure of Small Modular Reactor in China

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zheng Hua ◽  
Wei Shuhong
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Modular Design ◽  
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ◽  
Light Water Reactor ◽  
Research Progress ◽  
Structure Characteristics ◽  
Common Structure ◽  
Small Modular Reactor ◽  
Regulatory Commission ◽  
Design Construction

Small Modular Reactor (SMR) is getting more and more attention due to its safety and multi-purpose application. License structure is an important issue for SMR licensing. Modular design, construction and operation, shared or common structure, system and components (SSC) challenge existing large light water reactor license structure. Existing nuclear power plant license structure, characteristics of SMR and its effect on license structure, and research progress of U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) are analyzed, SMR license structure in China are proposed, which can be used as a reference for SMR R&D, design and regulation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document