Evaluation and benchmarking of gamma dose rate employing different nuclear data libraries for MCNP code at the decommissioning stage of Ignalina NPP

A comparative study was performed to reveal the differences of three nuclear data libraries for gamma dose rate calculations when applied to heterogeneous environment in the case of decommission of the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant (INPP). The following libraries were investigated by employing the Monte Carlo n-particle transport code (MCNP): ENDF/B-VII, JEFF-3.1 and JENDL-3.3, based on the experiments performed for gamma radiation dose rate measurements inside the emergency core cooling system (ECCS) tank with surface radioactive contamination up to 54 Bq/cm2. MCNP precise simulation and the benchmark between the libraries highlighted the differences of results for the selected case of this investigation. The results revealed that the ENDF library is trustworthy for various dose and shielding calculations and similar applications since it showed a statistically satisfied agreement between the simulation results and experimental data

SARGEN-IV: Consideration on the possible content of the safety analysis report for innovative ESNII reactors

In view of the potential deployment of demonstrators and prototypes associated with the European Sustainable Nuclear Industrial Initiative (ESNII) the present licensing framework, based on the current Light Water Reactor (LWR) technology, needs to be revised according to the new safety issues introduced by these innovative technologies. Within the SARGEN_IV project under the Euratom Framework Programme FP7, an extensive work has been done to review the critical safety features of the reactor concepts developed under ESNII. This review has also been be used as a reference to provide guidelines on the structure and content of the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) for the innovative ESNII reactors. Provided that structure and content of a SAR generally differ among States, the approach followed to provide recommendations and guidance was to remain as much as possible consistent in the format with the current practices for LWR while identifying those chapters whose subjects need to be adapted to the specific design. Due to the innovative nature of the design, it is recommended that parts of the SAR should be submitted to the regulatory body at an early stage and in accordance with an agreed timetable; this approach will permit a smoother review process and help prevent unnecessary delays.JRC.F.5-Nuclear Reactor Safety Assessmen

SARGEN-IV Consideration on the possible content of the safety analysis report for innovative ESNII reactors

International audienceIn view of the potential deployment of demonstrators and prototypes associated with the European Sustainable Nuclear Industrial Initiative (ESNII), the present licensing framework, based on the current Light Water Reactor (LWR) technology, will have to adjust as necessary taking into account to the new safety aspects introduced by these innovative technologies. Within the SARGEN-IV project under the Euratom Framework Programme FP7, an extensive work has been done to review the critical safety features of the reactor concepts developed under ESNII. This review has also been used as a reference to provide guidelines on the structure and content of the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) for the innovative ESNII reactors. Structure and content of a SAR generally differ among countries. The approach followed to give recommendations and guidance was to adopt as far as possible the format of the current practices for LWR based on the US NRC Reg Guide 1.70 together with IAEA publication GS-G-4.1 and to identify those chapters whose subjects need to be adapted to the specific design. Due to the innovative nature of the design, the licensing process for new ESNII concepts may take longer. The early involvement of regulators in defining safety objectives and criteria and acceptable solutions to meet these criteria may be beneficial to shorten this process. Therefore, it is recommended that parts of the SAR should be submitted to the regulatory body at an early stage and in accordance with an agreed timetable; this approach will permit a smoother review process and help preventing unnecessary delays. © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V