Browsing by Author "Summerfield, MW"

Now showing 1 - 9 of 9
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Application of a fault schedule to the periodic safety review of the OPAL deterministic safety case
    (European Nuclear Society, 2012-03-18) Summerfield, MW
    When granting the Facility Licence, Operating Authorisation for the OPAL reactor, the Australian nuclear regulator ARPANSA imposed a licence condition that a periodic safety review (PSR) should be performed at least once every 10 years, with the first to be completed within 2 years of the completion of commissioning. This first PSR has recently been completed and this paper focusses on the review of the deterministic safety assessment and specifically the application of a fault schedule to: 1. Assess the scope and extent of postulated initiating events considered in the deterministic safety assessment. 2. Determine the adequacy of the levels of defence in depth provided for postulated initiating events. 3. Identify any shortcomings in either of the above. ln addition, it is ANSTO‘s intent to revise the existing deterministic safety analysis to incorporate the fault schedule and this paper describes this process and discusses the benefits that are anticipated to result from it. For example, it is expected that a fault schedule will facilitate operations and support staff interrogating and understanding the deterministic safety assessment. The paper also outlines the methodology by which the fault schedule was developed and provides guidance to those who may wish to apply the same methodology to their own nuclear facility.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Experiencing an extreme external event – bushfires near ANSTO’s Lucas Heights site, April 2018
    (European Research Reactor Conference, RRFM, 2019-03-24) Summerfield, MW; Waters, D; Wilson, S
    In April 2018, a large, fast moving bushfire originating in the outskirts of south-west Sydney led to activation of the ANSTO emergency response plans. Whilst there was no direct impact on the Lucas Heights site and no implications for nuclear or radiological safety, there was some impact on the operational activities onsite. This paper provides an overview of the bushfire and the ANSTO response in the context of the ANSTO emergency response plans. Some of the key lessons learned by ANSTO are identified as are some other lessons that may be of benefit to other research reactors and similar facilities.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Licensing of ANSTO's Replacement Research Reactor
    (International Group On Research Reactors, 2003-03-24) Summerfield, MW; Garea, V
    This paper presents a general description of the licensing of the 20 MW Pool-type Replacement Research Reactor (RRR) currently being built by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) at their Lucas Heights site. The following aspects will be addressed: 1) The influence of ARPANSA's (the Australian regulator) Regulatory Assessment Principles and Design Criteria on the design of the RRR. 2) The Site Licence Application, including the EIS and the supporting siting documentation. 3) The Construction Licence Application, including the PSAR and associated documentation. 4) The review process, including the IAEA Peer Review and the Public Submissions as well as ARPANSA's own review. 5) The interface between ANSTO, INVAP and ARPANSA in relation to the ongoing compliance with ARPANS Regulation 51 and 54. 6) The future Operating Licence Application, including the draft FSAR and associated documentation. These aspects are all addressed from the point of view of the licensee ANSTO and the RRR Project. Particular emphasis will be given to the way in which the licensing process is integrated into the overall project program and how the licensing and regulatory regime within Australia influenced the design of the RRR. In particular, the safety design features that have been incorporated as a result of the specific requirements of ANSTO and the Australian regulator will be briefly described. The paper will close with a description of how the RRR meets, and in many aspects exceeds the requirements of ANSTO and the Australian regulator. © 2003 The Authors
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Licensing of the OPAL reactor during construction and commissioning
    (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2007-11-07) Summerfield, MW
    This paper presents a description of the licensing activities associated with the construction and commissioning of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation's (ANSTO) OPAL reactor. It addresses the Construction Licence, the interface between ANSTO, INVAP (the contractor with responsibility for design and construction of the facility) and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA, the Australian nuclear regulator) during the construction of OPAL, specific licensing issues that have arisen during the construction and commissioning process, and the Operating Licence Application. Particular emphasis will be given to the way in which the licensing process is integrated into the overall project program and the lessons learnt that may be of benefit to other licensees and regulators. © The Author
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    OPAL licensing
    (International Group On Research Reactors, 2005-09-12) Summerfield, MW; Ordoñez, JP
    Not available
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Performance indicators for research reactors
    (International Group On Research Reactors, 2010-09-19) Storr, GJ; Summerfield, MW
    Not available
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The periodic safety review of ANSTO's OPAL Reactor
    (International Group On Research Reactors, 2013-10-13) Summerfield, MW
    This paper describes the process by which the first Periodic Safety Review (PSR) of ANSTO’s OPAL reactor was performed and documented. Emphasis is given to the methodology adopted and the practical means of actually doing a PSR with the aim of providing advice and guidance to other research reactor operators intending (or required) to perform a PSR. A summary of the results is also provided, including an overview of the recommendations. Feedback received from the Australian Nuclear Regulator ARPANSA and the subsequent preparation of a PSR Supplement is discussed. © The Author
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Some suggested methodologies for use when performing periodic safety reviews and safety reassessments for research reactors
    (European Nuclear Society, 2016-03-13) Summerfield, MW
    In presentations at previous IGORR Conferences, I have covered the overall project management of a Periodic Safety Review (PSR) of the OPAL reactor, the use of a fault schedule approach in the review of the deterministic safety assessment as part of the PSR and the safety reassessment of OPAL in light of the Fukushima Daiichi NPP accident. This paper presents some additional lessons learned that may be useful to research reactor operating organisations performing either a PSR or a safety reassessment on their own facilities. It is based not only on experience with the PSR and safety reassessment of OPAL but also on feedback received during the course of various IAEA Expert Missions and Technical Workshops on these subjects. Topics covered include the project management of a PSR, the review of codes and standards, evaluating the status of SSCS, the use of a fault schedule to assess beyond design basis events, the Global Assessment and how to identify common themes and root causes across different safety factors, and what traps to avoid when documenting findings and identifying recommendations or observations.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Some thoughts on operator intervention arising from safety reassessments of research reactors in the light of the Fukushima Daiichi NPP accident
    (International Group On Research Reactors, 2017-12-03) Summerfield, MW
    Not available