[Date Prev][Date Next]
RE: [cdn-nucl-l] Positive Void Reactivity EC6 and CANDU 6
Ajit deserves a metal.
At 06:58 PM 09/03/2010, Daniel Meneley wrote:
Andrew: My answer could not mean
anything BUT that the licensing issue is closed – there
never was a safety issue.
The issue has been closed with the IAEA, with the CNSC, and with several
other national regulatory agencies including the Romanian. The basis for
this change of regulatory thinking is the work led by Ajit Muzumdar at
COG. More work is being done now, of course, to incorporate these new
ideas into existing and future CANDU safety reports.
From: Andrew Daley
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 3:53 PM
To: Daniel Meneley
Subject: Re: [cdn-nucl-l] Positive Void Reactivity EC6 and CANDU
As far as safety in CANDU re: postive void... well, you're preaching to
the choir... for example, I had a nice discussion with an instructor at
EPRI a few weeks ago and he was suprised to learn what a difference a few
orders of magnitude in neutron lifetime makes...
My question, however, was geared toward LICENSING in CANDU
re: positive void. And, more specifically, new build CANDU's.
Even if you can prove something is safe, doesn't mean the CNSC will let
you build it if it's against "the rules".
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Daniel Meneley
Andrew: Read the two papers on this subject in the Proceedings of the
June 2009 CNS conference.
The safety issue of positive void in CANDU is CLOSED. It never was really
an issue, but it took some work to prove this fact.
*Please note: The views expressed in this e-mail are solely those of the
author. The contents are personal opinion only. No further
meaning can be attributed in any circumstance.*
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG -
Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2733 - Release Date: 03/09/10