1 / 10

Review of TDR Chapter 11 “ Safety ”

Review of TDR Chapter 11 “ Safety ”. F. Plewinski with thanks to C. Darve , O. Kirstein, R. Linander , A. Nordt. FINDINGS - 1. This chapter covers SAFETY including: General principles Nuclear safety Conventional facilities Accelerator Target Station Instruments

oshin
Download Presentation

Review of TDR Chapter 11 “ Safety ”

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Review of TDR Chapter 11“Safety” • F. Plewinski • with thanks to • C. Darve, O. Kirstein, R. Linander, A. Nordt

  2. FINDINGS - 1 • This chapter covers SAFETY including: • General principles • Nuclear safety • Conventional facilities • Accelerator • Target Station • Instruments • Integrated Control System • The chapter is 11 pages long which is very short to cover all safety aspects. • It does not address the ESS licensing process. • It is a very general abstract of major licensing documents: GSO, PSAR, EIA etc… TDR Internal Review, Lund, October 2012

  3. COMMENTS - General • General quality is very high for this chapter • A lot of detailed comments and questions were added by all reviewers, in documents already transmitted to the chapter Editor • A detailed summary was also transmitted and discussed prior to this review • In this version 2, English was adjusted by the final corrector, some nuances were lost (or added) which raised questions from the reviewers… TDR Internal Review, Lund, October 2012

  4. COMMENTS - 1 • 1. Does the chapter meet the requirements of the TDR Mission Statement? •  Yes, globally • 3. Is the content relevant to supporting the decision to proceed to construction? • Yes • PSAR and other docs shall be explicitly mentioned as “reference documents” concerning safety • To avoid the TDR is interpreted (by SSM) as containing formal commitments TDR Internal Review, Lund, October 2012

  5. COMMENTS - 2 • Does the chapter adequately cover the entire area of its topic? • This chapter is quite complete. • “keywords” are missing: • “Design Standards” and “Safety standards” • Radiation protection and Dosimetry • Emergency procedure and Training • Communication, Guidelines and methodology • 4. Is the content of the chapter properly balanced in length and in the depth of detail? • No • Conventional safety part shall be reinforced • Sweden has a regulation: use it! • Be prudent when adopting foreign “codes” which could not be compliant with Swedish regulation TDR Internal Review, Lund, October 2012

  6. COMMENTS - 3 • 5. Does the chapter adequately address interfaces to other related systems described in other chapters? • Some interfaces are maybe not completely addressed: • external stakeholders: Safety Authorities and Environmental authorities should be mentioned • Instrument scientist on access conditions to samples • 6. Are there duplications or inconsistencies within the chapter, and/or between related chapters? • No duplication in this chapter • There are certainly duplications with other TDR chapters • No time for reviewers to cross check them all • There are inconsistencies with other TDR chapters TDR Internal Review, Lund, October 2012

  7. COMMENTS – Inconsistencies • Too many inconsistencies were found in the TDR (where it was explored by the reviewers) • About ESS systems: • ICS, especially PPS and TSS • Confinement barriers (for TS and Exp. Halls) • ESS system naming convention • In definitions: • Barriers and physical barriers • Passive systems and Active systems • This is a major issue all along the TDR v2 TDR Internal Review, Lund, October 2012

  8. COMMENTS – 5 • 7. Does the chapter adequately address all phases of the ESS life cycle? • Yes - See detailed comments • Safety systems are defined independently from the life cycle perspective, which creates a risk of over-specifying them • (e.g. Cooling circuits) • 8. Are risks and potential risks properly addressed and handled? • Yes – see detailed comments TDR Internal Review, Lund, October 2012

  9. COMMENTS – 6 • 9. Are there some especially positive features that should be promoted and strengthened for the construction phase, and which would improve the TDR if emphasized more? • ESS safety, even in case of very unlikely accidental scenario, is entirely based on passive systems • ESS safety “philosophy” is simple and robust • Operational experience gained from other facilities (SNS, JSNS) • 10. Are there any critical remaining issues that you would like to address? • A collective dose (1 man.Sv) is proposed and could be a constraint for middle term operation TDR Internal Review, Lund, October 2012

  10. RECOMMENDATIONS • Corrected English versions SHALL NOT modify the nuances • Make sure the PSAR supersedes the TDR • We shall not over specify safety • Equilibrate the document (ToC) in favour of Conventional Safety: • Add more references to standards and regulatory texts concerning Conventional Safety • Be prudent when adopting foreign “codes” which could not be compliant with Swedish regulation • Track and resolve inconsistencies: • Set up dedicated groups to read through full TDR with a restricted point of view in mind (e.g. by searching keywords) • Use existing Standards for main Vocabulary definitions TDR Internal Review, Lund, October 2012

More Related