DS397 Saf Use Mod RRs with NUSSC comments 18-06-2010

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ANNEX III:EXAMPLES OF JUSTIFICATIONS OF A MODIFICATION PROJECTAT A RESEARCH REACTORPERIODIC SAFETY REVIEWIII-1. Routine reviews of operation (including modifications to hardware and procedures,significant events, operating experience, management and personnel competence) and specialreviews following major events of safety significance are the primary means of safetyverification. In addition, systematic safety reassessment, termed periodic safety review (PSR),are being performed to assess the cumulative effects of plant ageing and plant modifications,operating experience, technical developments and siting aspects. The reviews include anassessment of the design and operation against current safety standards and practices, andthey have the objective of ensuring a high level of safety throughout the operating lifetime ofthe research reactor. They are complementary to the routine and special safety reviews and donot replace them. These reviews could indicate the need for the modification of the existingreactor systems or procedures to meet the current safety standards.AGEINGIII-2. Ageing of SSC or of an experimental facility, obsolescence of equipment, problemsrelated to spare parts, or experience from maintenance and operation may call formodification of reactor systems and operational procedures. Another incentive for suchmodification may be the availability of new materials or improved components.UPGRADINGIII-3. Reactor systems or reactor operating conditions may be upgraded in response to theneed for improved irradiation conditions, more experimental capacity or improved reactoravailability.54
NEW EXPERIMENTSIII-4. A major reason for modifications is the need to cater for new experiments or to extendexisting experiments. Such modifications can entail new hazards.ADDITIONAL REASONS FOR A PROJECTIII-5. The need for modifications may also arise from considerations of reactor economy,fuel availability, human factors, and physical security.III-6. The relevance of these or other considerations to a particular reactor depends stronglyon the reactor type, age and utilization, and on national safety criteria. Therefore, the reasonfor modification for each of the many existing research reactors cannot be identified anddiscussed in this <strong>Saf</strong>ety Guide.55
Page 1:
IAEA SAFETY STANDARDSDS 397 Draft 4
Page 7 and 8:
1. INTRODUCTIONBACKGROUND1.1. This
Page 11 and 12: - Resource management includes meas
Page 13 and 14: −−−−−Addressing the requi
Page 15 and 16: the options and the management of d
Page 17 and 18: 3.6. The proposal for the classific
Page 19 and 20: 3.18. Modifications and experiments
Page 21 and 22: SECURITY AND PHYSICAL PROTECTION AS
Page 23 and 24: Radiation protection 144.8. A utili
Page 25 and 26: Pressure4.19. Possible effects of h
Page 27 and 28: 5. PRE-IMPLEMENTATION PHASE OF A MO
Page 29 and 30: FIG. 1. Stages of a modification or
Page 31 and 32: surveillance requirements should al
Page 33 and 34: - The necessary design calculations
Page 35 and 36: 6.9. The installation of the experi
Page 37 and 38: 6.18. The reactor manager has the r
Page 39 and 40: characteristics. Any special survei
Page 41 and 42: for startup of the reactor or the e
Page 43 and 44: movable provisions (i.e. shielding,
Page 45 and 46: REFERENCES[1] EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERG
Page 47 and 48: [19] FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZAT
Page 49 and 50: 45utilization activity involve revi
Page 51 and 52: 101112Does the proposed change requ
Page 53 and 54: ANNEX IIEXAMPLE OF THE CONTENT OF A
Page 55 and 56: . A complete description of all joi
Page 57 and 58: 5.4. Thermal characteristics• Cal
Page 59: components, which have been designe
show all

DS397 Saf Use Mod RRs with NUSSC comments 18-06-2010

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?