nach oben

Erschienen in:

2012 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

14. Protected Transients

verfasst von : John Sackett

Erschienen in: Fast Spectrum Reactors

Verlag: Springer US

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

As one of the fundamental principles of defense-in-depth, there are multiple physical barriers to prevent radiation release and redundant defenses to protect them. In this way, the failure of any single physical barrier does not result in a risk to public health and safety. A typical example of the multiple barrier approach for previous sodium-cooled fast reactor designs such as EBR-II, FFTF, and CRBRP has been the use of cladding on the fuel as the first barrier, the closed primary coolant loop as the second barrier, and the containment building as the third barrier. There are other examples of fast reactors with both fewer and greater numbers of such barriers, and the adequacy of any specific approach is one of the evaluations performed by the appropriate national nuclear regulating body as part of reviewing a license application, such as the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel General Safety Considerations

Nächstes Kapitel Unprotected Transients

See Table 14.2.

For example, LWRs typically can add boron compounds to the coolant as an alternate way to shut the plant down in case the control rods fail to insert.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Safety Evaluation Report related to Operation of the Fast Flux Test Facility, NUREG-0358, August 1978.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Construction of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant, NUREG-0968, Vols. 1 and 2, March 1983.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Preapplication Safety Evaluation Report for the Sodium Advanced Fast Reactor (SAFR) Liquid Metal Reactor, NUREG-1369, December 1991.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Preapplication Safety Evaluation Report for the Power Reactor Innovative Small Module (PRISM) Liquid Metal Reactor, NUREG-1368, February 1994.

L. E. Strawbridge, “Safety-Related Criteria and Design Features in the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant,” Proceedings of the Fast Reactor Safety Meeting, CONF-740401-P1, pp. 72–92, American Nuclear Society, Beverly Hills, CA, April 2–4, 1974.

R. J. Jackson, Evaluation of FFTF Fuel Pin Design Procedures Vis-Vis Steady State Irradiation Performance in EBR-II, Addendum to HEDL-TME 75-48, Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory, Richland, WA, October 1975.

R. E. Baars, Evaluation of FFTF Fuel Pin Transient Design Procedure, HEDL-TME 75-40, Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory, Richland, WA, September 1975.

R. B. Baker, F. E. Bard, and J. L. Ethridge, “Performance of Fast Flux Test Facility Driver and Prototype Driver Fuels, LMR: A Decade of LMR Progress and Promise,” ANS Winter Meeting, Washington, D.C., pp. 184–195, November 11–15, 1990.

T. H. Baur, et al., “Behavior of Metallic Fuel in TREAT Transient Overpower Tests,” Proceedings of the International Topical Meeting on Safety of Next Generation Power Reactors, Seattle, WA, p. 857, May 1988.

10.

R. J. Forrester, et al., “EBR II High-Ramp Transients under Computer Control,” American Nuclear Society Annual Meeting, Detroit, MI, June 12–17, 1983.

11.

American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Division I, 1975 edition.

12.

L. K. Chang and M. J. Lee, “Thermal and Structural Behavior of EBR II Plant During Unprotected Loss-of-Flow Transients,” 8th International Conference, Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, Brussels, Belgium, August 19–23, 1985.

13.

J. J. Lorenz and P. A. Howard, A Study of CRBR Outlet Plenum Thermal Oscillation during Steady State Conditions, ANL-CT-76-36, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, July 1976.

14.

R. C. Berglund, et al., “Design of PRISM, an Inherently Safe, Economic, and Testable Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor Plant,” Proceedings of the ANS/ENS International Conference on Fast Breeder Systems, Vol. 2, Pasco, WA, September 13–17, 1987.

15.

E. B. Baumeister, et al., “Inherent Safety Features and Licensing Plan of the SAFR Plant,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Fast Breeder Systems, Vol. 1, p. 3.4-1, Pasco, WA, September 13–17, 1987.

16.

D. J. Hill, “An Overview of the EBR II PRA,” Proceedings of the 1990 International Fast Reactor Safety Meeting, Vol. IV, p. 33, American Nuclear Society, Snowbird, UT, August 12–16, 1990.

17.

J. Graham, “Nuclear Safety Design of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant,” Nuclear Safety, 16, 5, September–October 1975.

18.

F. H. Morgenstern, J. Bucholz, H. Kruger, and H. Rohrs, “Diverse Shutdown systems for the KNK-1, KNK-2, and SNR-300 Reactors,” CONF-740401, Proceedings of the Fast Reactor Safety Meeting, Beverly Hills, CA, April 1974.

19.

E. R. Specht, R. K. Paschall, M. Marquette, and A. Jackola, “Hydraulically Supported Absorber Balls Shutdown System for Inherently Safe LMFBRs,” CONF-761001, Proceedings of the International Meeting on Fast Reactor Safety and Related Physics, Vol. III, p. 683, Chicago, IL, October 1976.

20.

L. R. Campbell, et al., FFTF Loss of Flow Without Scram Experiments with GEMS, HEDL-TC-2947, Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory, Richland, WA, June 1987.

21.

J. I. Sackett, et al., “EBR II Test Program,” Proceedings of the 1990 International Fast Reactor Safety Meeting, Vol. III, p. 181, American Nuclear Society, Snowbird, UT, August 12–16, 1990.

22.

A. K. Agrawal and J. G. Guppy, editors, Decay Heat Removal and Natural Convection in Fast Breeder Reactors, Hemisphere Publishing Corp., New York, NY, 1981.

23.

T. R. Beaver, et al., “Transient Testing of the FFTF for Decay Heat Removal by Natural Convection,” Proceedings of the LMFBR Safety Topical Meeting, Vol. II, pp. 525–534, European Nuclear Society, Lyon, France, July 19–23, 1982.

24.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Anticipated Transients Without SCRAM for Water-Cooled Power Reactors, WASH-1270, September 1973.

25.

51 FR 30028, “Safety Goals for the Operation of Nuclear Power Plants; Policy Statement,” Republication, 08/21/86.

26.

C. Starr, “Social Benefit Versus Technological Risk,” Science, 165, 1969, 1232–1238.CrossRef

27.

U.S. Congress, “Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,” Possible Modification or Extension of the Price-Anderson Insurance and Indemnity Act, Hearings Before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy on Phase II: Legislative Proposals, H.R. 14408, S. 3252, and S. 3254, 93rd Congress, 2nd Session, Pt. 2, Testimony of C. Starr, p. 617, May 16, 1974.

28.

J. van Erp, T. C. Chawla, R. E. Wilson, and H. K. Fauske, “Pin-to-Pin Failure Propagation in Liquid-Metal-Cooled Fast Breeder Reactor Fuel Subassemblies,” Nuclear Safety, 16, 3, May–June 1975, 391–407.

29.

N. J. McCormick and R. E. Schenter, “Gas Tag Identification of Failed Fuel I. Synergistic Use of Inert Gases,” Nuclear Technology, 24, 1974, 149–155. See also Part II. “Gas Tag Identification of Failed Fuel II. Resolution Between Single and Multiple Failures,” Nuclear Technology, 24, 1974, 156–167.

30.

J. D. B. Lambert, et al., “Performance of Breached LMFBR Fuel Pins During Continued Operation,” BNES Conference on Nuclear Fuel Performance, March 25–29, 1985.

31.

R. M. Crawford, et al., The Safety Consequences of Local Initiating Events in an LMFBR, ANL-75-73, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, December 1975.

32.

C. E. Branyan, “U.S. Experience with Fast Power Reactors, FERMI-I,” American Power Conference, Chicago, IL, April 20–21, 1971.

33.

A. E. Waltar, W. L. Partain, D. C Kolesar, L. D. O’Dell, A. Padilla, J. C. Sonnichsen, N. P. Wilburn, H. J. Willenberg (HEDL), and R. J. Shields (CSC), MELT-III, A Neutronics Thermal-Hydraulics Computer Program for Fast Reactor Safety, HEDL-TME 74-47, Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory, Richland, WA, December 1974.CrossRef

34.

S. L. Additon, T. B. McCall, and C. F. Wolfe, Simulation of the Overall FFTF Plant Performance (IANUS—Westinghouse Proprietary Code), HEDL-TC 556, Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory, Richland, WA, December 1975.

35.

FFTF Final Safety Analysis Report, HEDL-TI-75001, Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory, Richland, WA, December 1975.

Titel: Protected Transients
verfasst von: John Sackett
Verlag: Springer US
Buch: Fast Spectrum Reactors
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-9571-1

Electronic ISBN: 978-1-4419-9572-8

Copyright-Jahr: 2012
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9572-8_14