Transactions of the American Nuclear Society - Volume 123

10.13182/t123 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
American Nuclear Society

Status of “Low Power and Shutdown PRA Methodology Standard ANSI/ANS-58.22”

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald J. Wakefield
Keyword(s):  
Low Power ◽  
Simple Majority ◽  
Stakeholder Groups ◽  
Writing Group ◽  
American Nuclear Society ◽  
Safety Committee

The American Nuclear Society is developing a standard titled “Low Power and Shutdown PRA Methodology, ANSI/ANS-58.22.” It has been under development for more than 10 years now. During this time, drafts of the standard have been balloted by the ANS American Nuclear Society (ANS) Risk-Informed Safety Committee (RISC) on three different occasions; i.e., in 2005, 2006, and 2008. The most recent of these ballots occurred in November 2008; i.e., Reference 1. Each ballot failed to achieve a consensus for approval and numerous comments were received for improvement. Since the completion of the ballot on Version 8C in 2008, the Low Power and Shutdown (LPSD) writing group has been working on a volunteer basis to respond to the approximately 600 comments received and to revise the Standard for future ballot. A revised standard was completed in early November 2009. This latest draft was submitted in November 2009 to the ANS RISC pending a formal ballot for informal review. The intention of this informal review is to ascertain if members of the balloting RISC committee could support the revised standard and if not, to identify those issues for further work by the writing group. For approval of ANS standards, a consensus for approval must be received among all stakeholder groups, rather than a simple majority to approve.

“Begging the Question” in Licensing Basis Accident Analyses

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel Miranda
Keyword(s):  
Simultaneous Occurrence ◽  
Begging The Question ◽  
Reactor Coolant ◽  
The Third ◽  
American Nuclear Society ◽  
Safety Limit ◽  
Logical Fallacy ◽  
Coolant System

“Begging the question” describes a situation in which the statement under examination is assumed to be true (i.e., the statement is used to support itself). Examples of this can be found in analysis reports that were prepared by analysts who are not mindful (or maybe uninformed) of the analysis criteria they’re required to fulfill. This is generally seen in analyses of anticipated operational occurrences (AOOs). AOOs are defined in Appendix A of 10 CFR §50 [1], and in ANS-N18.2-1973 [2], where they’re also known as American Nuclear Society (ANS) Condition II events. This standard [2] also defines more serious, Condition III and IV events. Analyses of AOOs, or ANS Condition II events are required to show that: (1) reactor coolant system (RCS) pressure will not exceed its safety limit, and (2) no fuel damage will be incurred, and (3) a more serious accident will not develop, unless there is a simultaneous occurrence of another, independent fault. The three requirements are often demonstrated by three different analyses, each of which is designed to yield conservative results with respect to one of the requirements. Accident analyses that are performed to demonstrate compliance with the first two requirements are relatively straightforward. They rely mostly upon the design of safety valves and the timing of reactor trips. “Begging the question” is seen in analyses that are designed to demonstrate compliance with the third requirement. This paper will describe how this logical fallacy has been applied in licensees’ accident analyses, and accepted by the NRC staff.

scholarly journals Environmental effects and initiatives of nuclear power via international initiatives in 1980s as a bipolar international policy

2021 ◽  
Vol 258 ◽  
pp. 05024
Author(s):  
Çora Hakan
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Nuclear Power ◽  
Waste Heat ◽  
Specific Area ◽  
Nuclear Accumulation ◽  
International Policy ◽  
Time Period ◽  
American Nuclear Society ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Biological Outcomes

In 1980 American Nuclear Society scholars Walter Jordan and Samuel Glasstone delivered a coherent and methodological presentation of the consequences of nuclear power on the environment. Focusing on a multitude of matters extending from nuclear power and reactor safety to the discarding of waste heat and the biological outcomes of radiation, enclosed many of the concerns involving to nuclear environmental effect. Furthermore, America’s diverse legacy has allowed competing claimants to propose conflicting opinions of its position in the conclusion of the Cold War and the reduction of nuclear conflicts in the 1990s. Particular specifics, nevertheless, are beyond argument. United States headed over a immense nuclear accumulation and sprung an costly struggle to construct a defense versus strategic missiles that aggravated frictions with Soviet Union. This paper is aimed for specialists in any specific area and they will find the study presented as of a specific time period in nature and is therefore studies of later periods is recommended for advanced studies. Nevertheless, the educated scholars will possibly find the study informative and illuminating, and the paper will serve well the commitment to educating of misinformed community too. This study is thus endorsed for use in any activities engaged at public education in its subject matter.

Status of the ANS Low Power and Shutdown PRA Standard

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth L. Kiper
Keyword(s):  
Low Power ◽  
National Laboratory ◽  
Nuclear Regulatory Commission ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Public Comment ◽  
Writing Group ◽  
Draft Standard ◽  
American Nuclear Society ◽  
Regulatory Commission

The Low Power & Shutdown (LPSD) PRA Standard (ANS-58.22) is currently being drafted by a Writing Group under the auspices of the Risk Informed Standards Committee of the American Nuclear Society. The Writing Group includes representatives from nuclear utilities, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, national laboratory, university, and consultants with substantial experience producing LPSD PRAs. This draft standard is scheduled to be released for public comment in the second quarter of 2004, with publication by the end of 2004. This paper presents the current status of this standard in preparation for its public release.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document