lable at ScienceDirect

Progress in Nuclear Energy 51 (2009) 225–235

Contents lists avai

Progress in Nuclear Energy

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/pnucene

Review

Recent advances in nuclear power: A review

Mazen M. Abu-Khader*

Department of Chemical Engineering, FET, Al-Balqa Applied University, P.O. Box 9515, Al-wiebdeh, 11191 Amman, Jordan

Keywords:Nuclear powerNuclear economicsSafetyReactor designSpent fuel processingWaste management

* Tel.: þ962 6 4892345x185; fax: þ962 6 4894292E-mail address: mak@accessme.com

0149-1970/$ – see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.pnucene.2008.05.001

a b s t r a c t

The rise in oil prices and the increased concern about environmental protection from CO2 emissions havepromoted the attention to the use of nuclear power as a viable energy source for power generation. Thisreview presents the recent advances in the field of nuclear power and addresses the aspects of nucleareconomics, safety, nuclear reactor design and spent fuel processing and waste management.

� 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Nuclear power alone won’t get us to where we need to be, but wewon’t get there without it. Despite its controversial reputation,nuclear power is efficient and reliable (Whitman, 2007). Nuclearpower is economically feasible and meets more than 20% of theworld’s demand for electricity. Whereas, the extraordinary highenergy density of nuclear fuel relative to fossil fuels is an advan-tageous physical characteristic (IAEA, 1997). Also, it helps to reduceenvironmental degradation due to electricity-generation activities.For example, CO2 emissions from a nuclear power plant are by twoorders of magnitude lower than those of fossil-fuelled powerplants. A number of studies have been performed considering netenergy analysis for electricity-generation technologies, includingfossil-fuelled technologies, nuclear power and renewable energysystems (IAEA, 1994; San Martin, 1989). Full energy chain analysesdemonstrate the significant greenhouse-gas emissions that can berelated to significant fuel extraction, transport, manufacturing andconstruction activities (IAEA, 1995a,b).

The practical operational safety of nuclear objects is offundamental importance for assessing the future prospects underdiscussion and selecting a strategy for the development of nuclearpower. Bennett (1991) showed that over the past 30 years, the U.S.Government has evolved a process for the safety review. Thisprocess ensures that the various postulated accident scenarios areconsidered so that the responses of the nuclear power systems tothe accident environments are assessed. Rashad and Hammad(2000) presented a comparative assessment of the environmentaland health impacts of nuclear power and other electricity-generation systems. The authors studied normal operations and

.

All rights reserved.

accidents in the full energy chain analysis and discussed thecomparison of environmental impacts arising from the waste-management cycles associated with non-emission waste.Whereas, Aybar and Ortego (2005) reviewed the nuclear fuelperformance codes and showed that recent fuel design andimprovement activities are focused on to extend the burn up offuel and the use of new materials.

The excellent operating and safety records support the nu-clear power as viable option for energy source. STUK (1998) andMattila and Vanttola (2001) presented the strategy and researchneeds for nuclear power plant development through plantmodernization and possible new construction in Finland andshowed that the four nuclear power plants in Finland have beenin operation for about 20 years and have a very good operatingrecord. Also, Dazhong and Yingyun (2002) illustrated that China’sannual energy demand is expected to amount to 3360 milliontons of oil equivalent in 2050 and that a large-scale developmentof nuclear energy is essential and promising. The total installedcapacity is expected to be over 200–300 GW by around 2050, andwill be an effective response measure to mitigate the energy-derived environmental pollution and guarantee the nationalenergy security (Gu and Liu, 2001). Lindenberger et al. (2006)studied the consequences of longer lifetimes of nuclear powerplants currently in operation as compared to the provisions inopt-out legislation and included the effects of longer nuclearpower plant lifetimes on the development of generating capac-ities in Germany: electricity generation, fuel consumption andfuel imports, the resultant CO2 emissions, costs of electricitygeneration and electricity prices as well as the associated impacton production and employment in this sector and in industry asa whole.

This review presents the recent advances in the field of nuclearpower and addresses the aspects of nuclear economics, safety,nuclear design, spent fuel processing and waste management.

M.M. Abu-Khader / Progress in Nuclear Energy 51 (2009) 225–235226

2. Nuclear economics

Nuclear power stations are hugely expensive to build but verycheap to run, yet the economics of nuclear power still lookuncertain. That is partly because its green virtues do not show up inits costs, since fossil-fuel power generation does not pay for theenvironmental damage it does (Economist, 2007).

Hewlett (1996) examined the factors causing the escalation inthe 1980s and subsequent leveling off of nuclear power plant non-fuel Operating and Maintenance (O&M) costs. The author foundthat the escalation in O&M costs was primarily due to increasedregulatory activity by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission due tochanges in the economic incentives to improve plant performance.An economic efficiency of new-generation nuclear power plantswas evaluated by Afanasev et al. (1996). Also, Kazimi and Todreas(1999) reviewed the economics of existing nuclear power plantswhich have improved in the United States and worldwide. Furthereconomic improvements could be realized by better managementof planned outages, understanding of unplanned outages, resourcesharing among several plants and more efficient use of nuclear fuel.

Kazachkovskii (2001) assumed that labor costs uniquelydetermine production costs and presented a single formula forprice of the product encompassing all cost categories from runningto capital. Whereas, Nisan et al. (2003) developed a code system,SEMER, to evaluate the economic impact of various nuclear reactorsand associated innovations. Models for nearly all fossil energy-based systems were also included to provide a basis for costcomparisons. Recently, Mitenkov et al. (2007) examined thepossibility of decreasing the capital cost of building a nuclear powerplant by unifying the equipment and technological processes andshowed that it is desirable to adopt for nuclear power plants themost effective solutions and organizational–technical and techno-logical approaches which have been implemented in thedevelopment of propulsion nuclear power systems.

3. Nuclear safety

Advisory Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations(ACSNI, 1993) has defined the safety culture as: ‘‘The safety cultureof an organization is the product of individual and group values,attitudes, perceptions, competencies and patterns of behavior thatdetermine the commitment to and the style and proficiency of anorganization’s health and safety management’’.

The current methods used for safety predictions do not containan analysis of the unavoidable errors and uncertainties of themodels used or the initial and boundary conditions under whichthe physical processes that develop into serious accidents arise.Rumyantsev (2007) proposed the method of quantile whichestimates the uncertainties and free of the drawbacks of the MonteCarlo method and increases the reliability of safety predictions innuclear power.

The general safety objective for nuclear power plants (NPPs) isto protect the individual, society and the environment byestablishing and maintaining in NPPs effective measures againstradiological hazards. The safety targets are: (1) no individual shouldbear a significant additional risk due to nuclear power plantoperation and the societal risks from power plant operation shouldnot be a significant addition to other societal risks (USNRC, 1986).(2) The calculated plant core-damage frequency (CDF) should beless than 10�4 events per reactor year (R–Y) (Rathbun andModarres, 1987) and (3) the calculated large release frequency(LRF) less than 10�6/R–Y for sequences resulting in a greater than0.25 Sv whole-body dose over 24 h at one-half mile from thereactor which correspond to the cancer risk to the people in thecritical population group equal to 10�10/R–Y (Whipple and Starr,1988). Presently the safety objectives developed by the US and

European utilities for the new generation of NPPs includea maximum permissible CDF equal to 10�5/R–Y (NSI, 2004).

Lee and Harrison (2000) studied addresses mainly attitudes andbehaviors of working staff and the role of safety in three nuclearstations. The authors concluded that personnel safety surveys canusefully be applied to deliver a multi-perspective, comprehensiveand economical assessment of the current state of a safety cultureand also to explore the dynamic inter-relationships of its ‘workingparts’. It is strongly recommended that nuclear industries adoptmodern digital and computer technology to improve NPP safety,availability and operating functions (EPRI, 1990; Kwon and Ham,1994; Kim et al., 1995, 2001). The power control system is a keycontrol system for a nuclear reactor which directly concerns thesafe operation of a nuclear reactor. Much attention is paid to thepower control system performance of nuclear reactor inengineering (Zhao et al., 2002; Zhou, 1990). Whereas, Kim andSeong (2003, 2008) proposed an approach to quantify theinformation flow of diagnosis tasks in nuclear power plants andpresented a method to quantify cognitive information flows indiagnosis tasks, integrating a stage model (a qualitative approach)with information theory (a quantitative approach). Also, Son andSeong (2002, 2003) presented a method of software requirementverification for Safety-critical software systems used in nuclearinstrumentation and control (NI&C) systems in nuclear powerplant. Carvalho et al. (2006) and Carvalho and Vidal (2003)investigated cultural and cognitive issues related to the work ofnuclear power plant operators during their time on the job in thecontrol room and during simulator training (emergency situations),in order to show how these issues impact on plant safety. Also, theauthors focused on the relationships between the courses of actionof the different operators and the constraints imposed by theirworking environment. Recently, Kitamura et al. (2005) reviewedthe international standards related to the design for control roomsin two aspects of HMI design and hardware and software design onnuclear power plants which can be useful not only for revision ofthe international standards such as IEC60964 but also for users ofthe standards and guidelines.

The human model research (Yoshikawa et al., 1999) is dividedinto five areas: (a) modeling for machine system, (b) measurementand analysis of human information behavior, (c) modeling ofhuman internal information process, (d) modeling of humaninteraction with machine system, and (e) between humanthemselves. Kang and Jang (2006) proposed a practical approach todevelop a more realistic fault-tree model with a consideration ofvarious conditions endured by a human operator. In safety-criticalsystems, the generation failure of an actuation signal is caused bythe concurrent failures of the automated systems and an operatoraction. The authors proposed a condition-based human reliabilityassessment (CBHRA) method in order to address these complicatedconditions in a practical way. A nuclear power plant is a complexsystem but requires high reliability. The human–machine interface(HMI) design plays very important role in reactor safety. Chen et al.(2001, 2005) described an assessment on HMI design of a ChineseNPP, using a software system named Dynamic Interaction AnalysisSupport (DIAS). In the human reliability analysis of Qinshan nuclearpower plant, a full-size simulator was used to conduct an experi-ment on the operator’s reliability (Zhang et al., 2007; Huang, 1993).In complex systems such as the nuclear and chemical industry, theimportance of human performance related problems is wellrecognized. Thus a lot of effort has been spent on this area (Park andJung, 2007; Furuta et al., 2003; Hirschberg, 2004; Stanton, 1996).

Davies (2002) presented the contribution to the workshopcovering risk assessment in the UK nuclear power industry andaddressed the possible need for a standard for risk-based decisionmaking. The author concluded that the benefits may be limited forthe UK nuclear power industry and that there are many practical

M.M. Abu-Khader / Progress in Nuclear Energy 51 (2009) 225–235 227

difficulties in introducing a harmonized standard across industriesand countries. Several documents on the Safety and Risk Assess-ment Principles for Nuclear Plants in the UK (HSE, 1992a,b; Grintand Vaughan, 1999) and USA (Garricka and Christie, 2002;Fullwood, 2000; USNRC, 1975; Carlisle, 1997; Lenard, 2006) werepublished. Keller and Modarres (2005) reviewed the historicaldevelopment of the probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) methodsand applications in the nuclear industry and presented a review ofnuclear safety and regulatory developments in the early days ofnuclear power in the United States. The omega-factor approach isa method that explicitly incorporates organizational factors intoprobabilistic safety assessment of nuclear power plants. Galan et al.(2007) discussed some important limitations of current proceduresin the co-factor approach for either assessing conditional proba-bilities from experts or estimating them from data.

Frisch and Gros (2001) presented the main objectives andprinciples in nuclear fission reactor safety and took some examplesfrom the French–German safety approach to demonstrate howrequirements for safety improvement by means of an enhancementof the defence in-depth principle are developed. On other hand,Seidel and Rauh (2004) showed that the regulatory authoritiessupervising the operation of German nuclear power plants onbehalf of the government have been facing increasingly theproblems of safety management and safety culture. But theseevents have not affected the public or the environment. This is dueto the fault-tolerant design of nuclear power plants and theireffective supervision by government authorities. Also, Heller(2004) expressed that the older nuclear power plants offer nosufficient protection from terrorist attacks carried out by means ofcommercial airliners and that the competent German FederalMinistry of the Interior to this day has not been able to detecta hazardous situation for Germany which would require nuclearpower plants (or other facilities) to be shutdown – temporarily – soas to reduce their hazard potential. An overview of status ofaccident management in Germany and containment strategies forsevere nuclear accidents was presented by Kersting (1997).

Kabakchi et al. (2002) showed that application of the concept ofdeeply layered protection can be used successfully for assessing thesafety status of different types of storage sites. Whereas, Seideland Straub (2002) illustrated the development of key safetyrequirements which can be applied to any nuclear power plant inorder to provide an overview of the current safety status and therules by which it is run. The authors identified six main areas ofreview for light-water reactors (safety systems; integrity of thesafety barriers; risk assessment; radiation exposure of the plantpersonnel and the environment; plant operations’ management;plant safety) and the associated safety indicators. But Tarasenko(2003) showed that during the operation of safety systems atnuclear power plants, the principle of independence from thepower system, which is one of the basic principles incorporated inthe design of safety systems, is not satisfied and the power system,especially if it is deficient, cannot guarantee the required electricityand protection for safety systems from general failures. Recentworks on safety performance indicators were published (Saqib andSiddiqi, 2005).

Strupczewski (2003) presented the results of estimates ofnuclear power plant safety based on probabilistic safety analysesand discussed the means used to decrease core-damage factors,large release frequency and cancer deaths due to nuclear acci-dents. The latest studies, Strupczewski (2005), in molecular bi-ology suggest an explanation for possible beneficial effects oflow radiation doses and that the effects of Chernobyl are shownto be much smaller than feared in original estimates after theaccident.

The EU Commission had developed a Nuclear Package whichcontains proposals on nuclear safety in an enlarged European

Union. The Nuclear Package deals with five main items (Waeterloos,2003):

- The safety of nuclear installations and facilities.- Ensuring decommissioning and dismantling of nuclear

installations.- Sustainable and safe management of spent nuclear fuel and

radioactive waste.- Optimum research and development of new technologies.- Trade in nuclear material and enrichment services.

Meanwhile, Van Goethem et al. (2003) reviewed the mostimportant aspects of the research activities organised by theEuropean Union (EU) in the area of reactor safety under the current5th Euratom Framework Program 1998–2002 (FP-5). This area isfocusing on ‘‘Operational Safety of Existing Installations’’. Thefundamental safety objective for nuclear power plants consists ofprotecting the public and the environment from the harmful effectsresulting from ionising radiations. Recently, Kroger and Chang(2006) gave an overview of the safety of current nuclear powerplants and future developments and addressed basic concepts ofnuclear safety, such as defence in-depth, and the fundamentals ofprobabilistic risk assessment (PRA), its strengths, limitations and itsrole within the regulatory framework. Developing and expandinga Performance Management System (PMS) allows possibleimprovements in power plant processes to be recognized from real-time control information. In this way, plant operations’ manage-ment can be improved at all working levels (Mischke, 2006).

A study was conducted on safety, legal and policy aspects ofadvanced nuclear power, and propulsion systems and sets recom-mendations for operations of space reactor systems in a safe,environmentally compliant fashion and develops a genetic set ofhazard scenarios that might be experienced (Lenard, 2006).

From the operational point of view, Mun et al. (2006) reviewedthe literature on ruthenium tetroxide (RuO4) behavior in nuclearpower plant severe accidents and its role in nuclear-safety issues.

4. Reactor design

The nuclear fission reactor produces heat through a controllednuclear chain reaction in a critical mass of fissile material. They areclassified as follows:

A. Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR) (Hejzlar and Kazimi, 2007;Lahoda et al., 2007; Fridman et al., 2007)

B. Boiling Water Reactors (BWR) (Ortiz et al., 2007; Janney andPorter, 2007; Jessee and Kropaczek, 2007; Sarott, 2005; Sundeand Pazsit, 2007)

C. Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR) (Raina et al., 2006;Bhardwaj, 2006)

D. High-Power Channel Reactor (RBMK) (Ilina et al., 1989; Yurovaet al., 1988)

E. Gas-Cooled Reactor (GCR) and Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactor(AGCR) (Sub et al., 2007; van Rooijen et al., 2007; Akie, 2007;Schowalter et al., 2007; Oh et al., 2006; Zhang et al., 2006)

F. Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor (LMFBR) (Katsuragawa et al.,1993; Michaille et al., 1991; Suresh et al., 2005; Duan et al.,2001; Riqian et al., 2001)

G. Aqueous Homogeneous Reactor (Ehn and Tamberg, 1970).

Advanced reactor designs are under investigation anddevelopment. Some of these reactors are:

A. The Integral Fast Reactor with a recycling spent fuel (Hill et al.,1995; Courtney and Lineberry, 1994; Goff et al., 1993)

M.M. Abu-Khader / Progress in Nuclear Energy 51 (2009) 225–235228

B. The Pebble Bed Reactor, a High Temperature Gas-CooledReactor (HTGCR) (Koster et al., 2004; Ion et al., 2004; Bendeet al., 1999; Gittus, 1999; Gerwin et al., 1989; Gerwin andScherer, 1987; Walter et al., 2006)

C. SSTAR, Small, Sealed, Transportable, Autonomous Reactor (Kooet al., 2007)

D. The Clean and Environmentally Safe Advanced Reactor(CAESAR) (Filippone, 1998)

E. Subcritical reactors (Salvatores, 2002; Nifenecker et al., 2001;David et al., 2000)

F. Thorium-based reactors (Herring et al., 2004; Weaver andHerring, 2003; Vapirev et al., 1996; Adamson, 1978)

G. Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (Raina et al., 2006;Maheshwari et al., 2001; Nayak et al., 1998)

H. KAMINI, a unique reactor using Uranium-233 isotope for fuel(Usha et al., 2006; Mohapatra et al., 2004; Sunny and Subbaiah,2004; Balakrishnan, 1991).

Theoretical nuclear reactor designs currently under researchare:

A. Gas-cooled fast reactor (van Rooijen et al., 2007; van Rooijenand Kloosterman, 2005; Choi et al., 2006)

B. Lead cooled fast reactor (Loewen and Tokuhiro, 2003; Tuceket al., 2006; Okunev, 2001; Kuznetsov and Sekimoto, 1995)

C. Molten salt reactor (Mitachi et al., 2007; Mathieu et al., 2006;Soucek et al., 2005; Degtyarev et al., 2005)

D. Sodium-cooled fast reactor (Hishida et al., 2007; Chikazawaet al., 2005; Ueda et al., 2005; Poplavskii et al., 2004; Mizunoand Niwa, 2004)

E. Supercritical water reactor (SCWR) (Hofmeister et al., 2007;Yoo et al., 2006, 2007; Mori et al., 2006)

F. Very high temperature reactor (Katanishi and Kunitomi, 2007).

Controlled nuclear fusion could in principle be used in fu-sion power plants to produce power without the complexitiesof handling actinides (Sato et al. 2006; Aquaro and Zaccari,2005; Arata and Zhang, 2004; Hoffman and Stacey, 2004;Goncharov, 2001).

The issues concerned with the thermal hydraulics andneutronics of nuclear power plants still challenge the design, safetyand the operation of Light-Water Nuclear Reactors (LWRs) (ENEL,1995). The lack of full understanding of complex mechanisms re-lated to the interaction between these issues imposed the adoptionof conservative safety limits (Bousbia-Salah and D’Auria, 2007). Inthe light of the sustained development in computer technology, it ispossible to conduct advanced safety evaluations and reactor designoptimizations. March-Leuba and Rey (1993) provided a review ofthe current state of the art on the topic of coupled neutronic–thermohydraulic instabilities in boiling water nuclear reactors(BWRs).

The possibility to use fusion power reactor (FPR) was consideredfor burning long-life elements of spent nuclear fuel in parallel withenergy production and a principal design of FPR blanket wasexamined for transmutation of long-life minor actinides (Np, Am,Cm). Production of minor actinide isotopes is equal to 20–30 kg/1 GW(e) year for new operating fission reactors, and their amountswill rise with the expected growth of fission reactor power (Serikovet al., 2002; Serikov and Sheludjakov, 2001).

Uchiyama et al. (2000) conceptually designed a multipurposereactor named ‘‘Nuclear Heat Generator (NHG)’’ which could beinstalled in an energy consuming area. The reactor of 1 MWt outputis designed without any needs for fuel exchange and decom-missioning on site. Whereas, Uto et al. (2000) conducted a technicalinvestigation on the performance of a mixed-oxide (MOX)-fuelledsmall fast reactor with a reflector-driven reactivity control system.

The results obtained from a series of neutronic and thermal–hydraulic calculations show the feasibility of a small fast reactorthat produces electric power of about 50 MW. Also, Kloostermanet al. (2001) presented a new type of nuclear reactor that consists ofa graphite-walled tube partly filled with TRISO-coated fuel parti-cles. Helium is used as a coolant that flows from bottom to topthrough the tube, thereby fluidizing the particle bed. The fuelparticle designed for this reactor has a temperature coefficient ofreactivity that is sufficiently negative.

Gimenez et al. (2003) presented a new methodology to performnuclear reactor design, balancing safety and economics at theconceptual engineering stage. This integral methodology takes intoaccount safety aspects in an optimization design process where thedesign variables are balanced in order to obtain a better figure ofmerit related with reactor economic performance. The authorsstated that this methodology turns out to be promising tointernalize cost and safety issues. It also allows one to evaluate theincremental costs of implementing higher safety levels. The designof integral-type reactors is of particular interest because of theirintrinsic characteristics that make them economical and safe, asshown by several designers of reactors of small and medium power,with the objective to satisfy the demands of the market (Carelliet al., 2001; Chang and Yeo, 2001; Generation IV InternationalForum, 2002).

Jahshan and Kammash (2005) introduced material and designinnovations to reduce the mass and volume of an establishedsafe gas-cooled cermet reactor design so that it can be deployedas a multi-megawatt electric power source for plasma thrustersincluding the laser accelerated plasma propulsion system.Mitenkov et al. (2005) presented the results of design analysisfor improving nuclear plants with fast reactors, specifically, byusing cartridge-vessel generators instead of sectional-modulargenerators. Agung et al. (2006) described several modificationsto the design of a fluidized bed nuclear reactor in order toimprove its performance. The goal of these modifications is toachieve a higher power output requiring an excess reactivity of4% at maximum expansion of the bed. The modifications are alsointended to obtain a larger safety margin when the reactor doesnot operate; a shutdown margin of 4% is required when the bedis in a packed state. The modifications include installing of anembedded side absorber, changing the reactor cross-section areaand modifying the moderator-to-fuel ratio. The new designbased on the modifications related to the aforementionedparameters achieves the desired shutdown margin and theexcess reactivity.

Bsebsu and Bede (2002) presented the outline of the corethermal hydraulic design and analysis (Operational Safety Analysis)of the Budapest nuclear research reactor (WWR-M2 type), which isa tank-type, light crater-cooled nuclear research reactor with 36%enriched uranium coaxial annuli fuel. The authors studied thethermal hydraulic performance and showed that the 36% enrichedUAlx–Al fuel elements in WWR-SM fuel coolant channel do notallow to force zip the reactor power to 20 MWt. Whereas, Sinha andKakodkar (2003, 2006) presented the Indian nuclear experiencewhich started with setting up the Pressurized Heavy WaterReactors (PHWRs) based on natural uranium and pressure tubetechnology; in the second phase, the fissile material base will bemultiplied in Fast Breeder Reactors using the plutonium obtainedfrom the PHWRs. Considering the large thorium reserves in India,the future nuclear power program will be based on thorium–U-233fuel cycle. The authors expressed that there is a need for the timelydevelopment of thorium-based technologies for the entire fuelcycle and the Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR) has beendesigned to fulfill this need. The design of the reactor hasprogressively undergone modifications and improvements basedon the feedbacks from the analytical and the experimental R&D.

M.M. Abu-Khader / Progress in Nuclear Energy 51 (2009) 225–235 229

The AHWR incorporates several passive systems to fulfill severalsafety functions (Sinha et al., 2000; Gupta and Lele, 2002). Also,Koley et al. (2006) presented Regulatory practices for nuclearpower plants in India.

Li and Bernard (2002) reported the design and evaluation viasimulation of an observer for nuclear reactor fault detection. Themethod used allows actuator, sensor and system dynamic faultsto be detected and localized by studying the asymptoticresponse of an error signal. Also, Adda et al. (2005) designed anintelligent controller system based on the concepts of fuzzy logicused to control the power of a nuclear reactor. Sacco et al. (2006)presented two stochastic optimization algorithms: the novelParticle Collision Algorithm (PCA), and Dueck’s Great DelugeAlgorithm (GDA) applied to a core design optimization problemwhich consists of adjusting several reactor cell parameters, suchas dimensions, enrichment and materials, in order to minimizethe average peak factor in a three-enrichment-zone reactor,considering restrictions on the average thermal flux, criticalityand sub-moderation.

Cole and Bonin (2007) aimed at initiating the conceptualdesign of a small nuclear reactor intended to provide sufficientelectrical power (similar to 150 kW) to maintain the ‘‘hotel’’ loadof the Victoria-class submarine. The scope of the design is toprovide the nuclear reactor system with sufficient inherent safetyfeatures so as to permit the operation of the nuclear reactor bycrews with minimal training for automatic operation. The finalreactor concept, named the Near Boiling reactor, employs TRISOfuel particles in zirconium-sheathed-fuel rods. The reactor islight water moderated and cooled. The core life is specificallydesigned to coincide with the refit cycle of the Victoria-classsubmarine. Recently Zrodnikov et al. (2006) presented aninnovative nuclear power technology, based on the use ofmodular type fast-neutron reactors SVBR-75/100 having heavyliquid-metal coolant, i.e. eutectic lead–bismuth alloy, and thatReactor SVBR-75/100 possesses inherent self-protection andpassive safety properties that allow excluding of many safetysystems necessary for traditional type reactors. The authorsstated that the use of this nuclear power technology makes itpossible to eliminate conflicting requirements among safetyneeds and economic factors which are particularly found intraditional reactors.

5. Waste management and storage

It is important to understand the various classifications ofradioactive waste to set up the proper management system.Nuclear wastes are classified as follows:

1. Very low-level waste of uranium mill tailings which arebyproduct material from the rough processing of uranium-bearing ore (Sutherland et al., 1982).

2. Low-level waste (LLW) is generated from hospitals andindustry, as well as the nuclear fuel cycle. To reduce its volume,it is often compacted or incinerated before disposal (Nirdosh,1999).

3. Intermediate level waste (ILW) contains higher amounts ofradioactivity and in some cases requires shielding. ILW includesresins, chemical sludge and metal reactor fuel cladding, as wellas contaminated materials (Raj et al., 2006).

4. High-level waste (HLW) contains fission products and trans-uranic elements generated in the reactor core (Liu et al., 2007;Ahn et al., 2007; Peters et al., 2006).

5. Transuranic waste (TRUW) which is contaminated with alpha-emitting transuranic radionuclides with half-lives greater than20 years and concentrations greater than 100 nCi/g (3.7 MBq/kg), excluding high level waste (Silva, 1992).

The nuclear waste management plays a key role in thenuclear power industry. The NWM strategy involves short-termmanagement which deals with immediate treatment of thewaste and long-term management which involves storage,disposal or transformation of the waste into a non-toxic form(Grill, 2005; Horsley and Hallington, 2005; Fritschi, 2005). Theimmediate nuclear waste treatment methods are as follows:

A. Vitrification – where high-level waste is mixed with sugar andthen calcined to evaporate the water from the waste and de-nitrate the fission products to assist the stability of the glassproduced (Min et al., 2007; Sobolev et al., 2005; Sheng et al.,2001; Park and Song, 1998).

B. Ion exchange – used for medium active wastes in the nuclearindustry to concentrate the radioactivity into a small volume.For example, it is possible to use a ferric hydroxide floc toremove radioactive metals from aqueous mixtures.

C. The Synroc, a synthetic Australian rock, contains pyrochloreand cryptomelane type minerals. It is used for the liquid high-level waste (PUREX raffinate) from a light-water reactor(Deokattey et al., 2003; Luo et al., 1998, 2000; Vance, 1994).

Whereas the long-term nuclear waste management has thefollowing options:

A. Storage: high-level radioactive waste is stored temporarily inspent fuel pools and in dry cask storage facilities. This allowsthe shorter-lived isotopes to decay before further handling(Crow, 2007; Perlot et al., 2007; Heuel-Fabianek and Hille,2005; Bentivenga et al., 2004).

B. Geological disposal: it is a process of selecting appropriate deepfinal repositories. There are other options such as: sea-basedoptions and filling empty uranium mines (Weldon, 2003;Laverov et al., 2003; Duncan, 2003).

C. Transmutation: there are possible nuclear reactor designs thatconsume nuclear waste and transmute it to other, less-harmfulnuclear waste (Hoffman and Stacey, 2004; Chen and Qiu, 1998;Qiu et al., 1994).

D. Reuse of waste: there are isotopes in nuclear waste that can bereused, such as cesium-137 and strontium-90 in the foodirradiation and radioisotope thermoelectric generators (Hay-ashi, 2007; Kunstadt et al., 1993; Standring et al., 2007).

E. Space disposal is an attractive option where it permanentlyremoves nuclear waste from the environment. But economicand risk-based reasons make it unviable option (Rice et al.,1982; Walthert, 1981).

Riley (2004) showed that the development of nuclear energyis hampered by the absence of a clear and unequivocal policyregarding the storage and disposal of radioactive waste. Theactinide management has become a key issue in nuclear energy.Recovering and fissioning transuranium elements reduce thelong-term proliferation risks and the environmental burden. Butmanaging nuclear power waste has distinct advantages as thequantities are remarkably small relative to the energy produced(IEA, 1995). In USA, there is a serious concern about how theindustry will dispose (56,000) tons of highly radioactive wastethat has already piled up at power plants across the country.Until the waste issue is resolved, the expansion of the nuclearindustry is questionable (Kriz, 2007). Nuclear energy sustain-ability will depend on the actual capability of reducing theinventory and long-term radiotoxicity of nuclear waste, mainlydominated by the amount of transuranic isotopes remaining onthe spent fuel. Rahman (2001) presented a broad overview of theFrench nuclear industry in general and the nuclear waste-management strategy in particular and the regulatory conditions

M.M. Abu-Khader / Progress in Nuclear Energy 51 (2009) 225–235230

and research undertakings to solve problems important to thenuclear industry.

Accelerator-Driven Systems can play a role in Radioactive WasteTransmutation Scenarios and in innovative nuclear power plantconcepts in particular, in order to simplify the nuclear fuel cycle.Their improved safety characteristics are also a beneficial feature inthe perspective of very innovative reactor concept. Salvatores et al.(2001) illustrated a number of arguments on the role of Accelera-tor-Driven Systems (ADSs) and gave some characteristics of an in-novative ADS (TASSE), based on a Th-molten salts fuel. Gudowskiet al. (2001) reviewed the European project on the Impact ofAccelerator based Technologies on Nuclear Fission Safety (IABAT)and assessed the potential of Accelerator-Driven Systems (ADSs) fortransmutation of nuclear waste and for nuclear energy productionwith minimum waste generation. Reliability studies of a high-power proton accelerator for accelerator-driven system applica-tions for nuclear waste transmutation were presented by Burgazziand Pierini (2004, 2007).

Reactor operation is much less problematic in subcriticalreactors as is the case of ADS, providing a safe subcriticality margin(Schikorr, 2001). Neutron energies in current ADS concepts(Gudowski, 1999) can operate from thermal to fast spectra. Most ofthe ongoing international projects are converging into fast-neutronsystems. Previous designs of ADS transmuters have been essentiallyderived from the Accelerator Transmutation of Wastes (ATWs) inthe United States (ATW Roadmap, 1999) and the European EnergyAmplifier Concept (Rubbia et al., 1995), the latter initially intendedto produce energy using the thorium cycle.

Park et al. (2000) presented what is so called HYPER (HYbridPower Extraction Reactor) program for the transmutation ofnuclear waste and energy production through the transmutationprocess (National Research Council, 1996; OECD Nuclear EnergyAgency, 1994). On-power fueling concepts are employed to keepsystem power constant with a minimum variation of acceleratorpower. A hollow cylinder-type metal fuel is designed for the on-linerefueling concept. Lead–bismuth (Pb–Bi) is adopted as a coolantand spallation target material.

Salvatores (2005) showed that there is widespread concernabout radioactive waste management promoted interest during thelast decade for the potential role of Partitioning and Transmutationstrategies, in order to alleviate the burden on future deep geologicalrepositories. The authors illustrated some examples on the‘‘regional’’ approach, and some considerations made on the use ofAccelerator-Driven Systems (ADSs) in the frame of a progressivestrategy from present nuclear power fleets to future systems.Wigland (2004) pointed out the beneficial effects of Partitioningand Transmutation on a specific repository (Yucca Mountain) fromthe point of view of its design and operation, accounting for boththermal constraints and peak dose rate constraints.

Fast critical reactors and Accelerator Driven Systems (ADSs) arethe two main options to reduce the nuclear waste inventory and thefinal requirements for their deep geological disposal facility.Abanades and Perez-Navarro (2007) explored the transmutation ofnuclear wastes for its application to waste management, a funda-mental issue for the nuclear industry, and to enhance the efficiencyof the nuclear fuel cycle. The new recycling technology should beable to achieve good economy with smaller plants which canprocess fuels from different types of reactors on a commontechnical basis. Ease in handling the higher heat load of trans-uranium nuclides is also important. Pyroprocesses with the use ofmolten salts are regarded as the strong candidate for such recyclingtechnology (Ogawa et al., 2007).

The Commission’s Euratom research program supported severalprojects which focus on socio-economic as opposed to narrowertechnical issues. These projects are concerned with risk governancein general, the governance of nuclear waste management and

stakeholder involvement in the off-site management of accidents(Forsstrom and Kelly, 2002). Butler (2002) illustrated all the aspectsof nuclear power in the UK specially the issue of nuclear waste andits management. Whereas, Ryhanen (2003) presented the finishexperience on nuclear waste management, and showed that a long-term program and stepwise advancement have kept the annualcosts of nuclear waste management moderate. Nuclear power plantareas have been found to be suitable even for location of wastestorage and disposal facilities which means benefits concerninginfrastructure. The advanced management of spent nuclear fuelprocess focuses on two issues of permanent disposal: minimizationof a repository area and reduction of the probabilities of fatal risks.The advanced management of spent nuclear fuel process removesheat sources such as Sr and Cs (Hwang, 2005; Hwang et al., 2007).

Poinssot et al. (2005) presented the current state of theknowledge on spent nuclear fuel long-term evolution in both long-term dry storage and geological disposal while presenting thecurrent major scientific issues on R&D. The new Nuclear Power Act,which entered into force on February 1, 2005, imposes clearpolitical boundary conditions on the solution to be found for thegeologic underground storage of radioactive waste. After 30 yearsof studies and research, comprehensive knowledge and a basis fordecision making have been elaborated for this final step in thewaste-management chain (Fritschi, 2005).

The storage of spent fuel is considered a critical issue. Saegusaet al. (2007) discussed topics of research and development (R&D)being challenged for realization of concrete cask storage of spentnuclear fuel in Japan, and addressed the comparison between metalcask storage and concrete cask storage. Economical comparisonbetween metal cask and concrete cask is found in the literature(Lambert et al., 1993). Nagano (2007) and Nagano and Yamaji(1989) carried out an assessment which attempts to draw quanti-tative prospects of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) management in Japan,with emphasis on uncertainty of storage needs for SNF up to theyear 2050. Chang et al. (1997, 2000) and Chang and Dong (1999)discussed the fuel storage facilities and inspection for 200-MWnuclear heating reactor.

6. Spent fuel processing

There are several serious Nuclear-safety Problems for spentnuclear fuel from nuclear power plants (Vnukov and Ryazanov,2001). Most of the hazards from the spent fuel stem from only a fewchemical elements – plutonium, neptunium, americium, curium,and some long-lived fission products such as iodine at concentra-tion levels of grams per ton. At present approximately 2500 t ofspent fuel are produced annually in the EU, containing about 25 t ofplutonium and 3.5 t of the ‘‘minor actinides (MAs)’’ neptunium,americium, and curium and 3 t of long-lived fission products (out ofa total of about 100 t of fission products) (Salvatores, 2005).

The disposal of the nuclear spent fuel, the transuranic elementsand the highly enriched uranium represents a major problem underinvestigation by the international scientific community to identifythe most promising solutions. Gohar (2001) focused on achievingthe top rated solution for the problem, the elimination goal whichrequires complete elimination for the transuranic elements or thehighly enriched uranium and the long-lived fission products. Toachieve this goal, fusion blankets with liquid carrier, molten salts orliquid metal eutectics (McWherter, 1970; Thoma, 1968, 1971) forthe transuranic elements and the uranium isotopes are utilized. Thegenerated energy from the fusion blankets is used to providerevenue for the system.

The United States Department of Energy’s Advanced Fuel CycleInitiative (AFCI) is developing advanced separation technologies toprocess spent light-water reactor fuel. The purpose of theseseparation processes is to remove the bulk of the mass of spent

M.M. Abu-Khader / Progress in Nuclear Energy 51 (2009) 225–235 231

nuclear fuel (uranium) and the primary heat generating elementswhich limit the amount of material that can be placed in a givenamount of repository space (Todd and Wigeland, 2006). Ladd-Livelyet al. (2005) developed computer model of a simple aqueousdissolution process to separate two high-heat fission products,cesium and strontium, from SNF fluoride residues and focused onthe fluoride residues from the voloxidation and fluorination stepsof the fluoride volatility process and was limited to SNF fromcommercial light-water reactors.

Dey and Bansal (2006) showed that the success of the threestage Indian nuclear energy program (Anil Kakodkar, 2002) is inter-linked with the establishment of an efficient closed fuel cycleapproach with recycling of both fissile and fertile components ofthe spent fuel to appropriate reactor systems. The authors statedthat the spent fuel reprocessing based on PUREX technology hasreached a matured status and can be safely deployed to meet theadditional reprocessing requirements to cater to the expandingnuclear energy program. Side by side with the developments in thespent natural uranium fuel reprocessing, irradiated thoria reproc-essing is also perused to develop THOREX into a robust process.

7. Conclusion

The real technical progress in the nuclear industry is consideredto be slow compared with other traditional sciences. This is mainlydue to the secrecy and limited number of research groups involved.Building nuclear plants still evolve within a closed circle of safety,waste management, and spent fuel processing and optimizedreactor design.

From the examined literature, it is clear that the safety level ofnuclear power in several international locations has beensuccessfully achieved. Also, the risks associated with nuclear powerplants are much less than those due to any other available energysources.

Nuclear energy sustainability will depend on the actualcapability of reducing the inventory and long-term radiotoxicity ofnuclear waste, mainly dominated by the amount of transuranicisotopes remaining on the spent fuel. Also, Partitioning andTransmutation imply the need of the development of sophisticatedtechnologies such as the use of Accelerator-Driven Systems (ADSs).

At present, there is a strong need to review educationalrequirements for under and post-graduate studies at universities toprovide applied engineering skills required to design, build andoperate simulated nuclear systems. At the short term, evaluation ofcarbon abatement options for power generation, carbon captureand storage for nuclear power plants is at a high priority. On thelong-term basis, national and international R&D programs areought to be developed through the international forums to ensurethe highest safety and security measures in nuclear power plantsand waste management.

References

ATW, Oct 1999. A Roadmap for Developing Accelerator Transmutation of Wastes.A Report to Congress. DOW/RW-0519.

Abanades, A., Perez-Navarro, A., 2007. Engineering design studies for thetransmutation of nuclear wastes with a gas-cooled pebble-bed ADS. NuclearEngineering and Design 237, 325–333.

Advisory Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations (ACSNI), 1993. HumanFactors Study Group Third Report: Organizing for Safety. HSE Books, Sheffield.

Adamson, M.G., 1978. Chemical, thermodynamic, and selected transport propertiesof thorium-based fuels for fast breeder-reactors. Transactions of the AmericanNuclear Society 28 (Jun), 159–161.

Adda, F., Larbes, C., Allek, M., Loudini, M., 2005. Design of an intelligent fuzzy logiccontroller for a nuclear research reactor. Progress in Nuclear Energy 46 (3–4),328–347.

Afanasev, A.A., Bolshov, L.A., Karkhov, A.N., 1996. Economic efficiency of new-generation nuclear power plants. Atomic Energy 81 (2), 572–579.

Agung, A., Lathouwers, D., Van Der Hagen, T.H.J.J., et al., 2006. On an improveddesign of a fluidized bed nuclear reactor – I: design modifications and steady-state features. Nuclear Technology 153 (2), 117–131.

Ahn, J., Cheon, M., Greenspan, E., Jun 2007. Effects of accelerator-driven trans-mutation system on radiotoxicity of high-level radioactive wastes. NuclearTechnology 158 (3), 408–430.

Akie, H., Jun 2007. Core burnup calculation of plutonium burning inert-matrixfueled high temperature gas cooled reactor. Journal of Nuclear Science andTechnology 44 (6), 853–861.

Anil Kakodkar, A., 2002. Nuclear Power in India: an Inevitable Option for Sustain-able Development of a Sixth Humanity, World Nuclear Association AnnualSymposium, London.

Aquaro, D., Zaccari, N., Nov 2005. Pebble bed thermal–mechanical theoreticalmodel – application at the geometry of test blanket module of ITER-FEATnuclear fusion reactor. Fusion Engineering and Design 75–79, 903–909.

Arata, Y., Zhang, Y.C., 2004. The basics of nuclear fusion reactor using solidpycnodeuterium as nuclear fuel. Progress of Theoretical Physics 154, 241–250.

Aybar, H.S., Ortego, P., 2005. A review of nuclear fuel performance codes. Progress inNuclear Energy 46 (2), 127–141.

Balakrishnan, M.R., 1991. Looking at fast breeder fuel with India KAMINI reactor.Nuclear Engineering International 36 (439), 50–51.

Bende, E.E., Hogenbirk, A.H., Kloosterman, J.L., Van Dam, H., 1999. Analyticalcalculation of the average Dancoff factor for a fuel kernel in a pebble bed high-temperature reactor. Nuclear Science and Engineering 133 (2), 147–162.

Bennett, G.L., 1991. The safety review and approval process for space nuclear-powersources. Nuclear Safety 32 (1), 1–18.

Bentivenga, M., Coltorti, M., Prosser, G., Tavarnelli, E., 2004. Recent extensionalfaulting in the Gulf of Taranto area: implications for nuclear waste storage inthe vicinity of Scanzano Ionico (Basilicata). Bollettino della Societa GeologicaItaliana 123 (3), 391–404.

Bhardwaj, S.A., 2006. The future 700 MWe pressurized heavy water reactor. NuclearEngineering and Design 236 (7–8), 861–871.

Bousbia-Salah, A., D’Auria, F., 2007. Use of coupled code technique for bestestimate safety analysis of nuclear power plants. Progress in Nuclear Energy49 (1), 1–13.

Bsebsu, F.M., Bede, G., 2002. Thermal hydraulic analysis and design of the WWR-M2nuclear research reactor – power upgrading. Kerntechnik 67 (2–3), 102–110.

Burgazzi, L., Pierini, P., 2004. ADS accelerator reliability activities in Europe. In:Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on High Power ProtonAccelerators HPPA4, Daejeon, South Korea, 16–19 May.

Burgazzi, L., Pierini, P., 2007. Reliability studies of a high-power proton acceleratorfor accelerator-driven system applications for nuclear waste transmutation.Reliability Engineering and System Safety 92, 449–463.

Butler, G., 2002. Nuclear power: waste management issues. Power EngineeringJournal 16 (4), 207–212.

Carelli, M.D., Conway, L.E., Fiorini, G.L., Lombardi, C.V., Todreas, N.E., 2001. Safety bydesign: a new approach to accident management in the IRIS reactor. In:Proceedings of the International Seminar on Status and Prospects for Small andMedium Sized Reactors, Cairo, Egypt, Paper IAEA-SR-218/36.

Carlisle, R., 1997. Probabilistic risk assessment in nuclear reactors: engineeringsuccess, public relations failure. Technology and Culture 38, 920–941.

Carvalho, P.V.R., dos Santos, I.L., Vidal, M.C.R., 2006. Safety implications of culturaland cognitive issues in nuclear power plant operation. Applied Ergonomics 37(2), 211–223.

Carvalho, P., Vidal, M., 2003. Ergonomics and reliability of high risk organizations:the nuclear power plant operation under the complexity theory paradigm. In:XVth Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association, Seoul,Republic of Korea, Aug 2003.

Chang, H., Dong, D., 1999. Simplified refueling scheme for nuclear heating reactor.Nuclear Engineering and Design 188, 361–366.

Chang, H., Dong, D., Xu, Y., 1997. Spent fuel storage in pressure vessel for a nuclearheating reactor. Nuclear Engineering and Design 172, 13–16.

Chang, H., Liu, J., Wang, J., 2000. Fuel storage facilities for 200-MW nuclear heatingreactor. Nuclear Engineering and Design 197, 375–379.

Chang, M.H., Yeo, J.W., 2001. Advanced design features adopted in SMART. In:Proceedings of the International Seminar on Status and Prospects for Small andMedium Sized Reactors, Cairo, Egypt. Paper IAEA-SR-218/28.

Chen, X., Zhang, Z., Gao, Z., Zhao, B., Nakagawa, T., Wei, W., Matsuo, S., Terashita, N.A.,2001. Quantitative evaluation study on control boards of an actual Chinese NPP.In: Proceedings of the Eighth IFAC Symposium, Kassel, Germany, pp. 273–278.

Chen, X., Zhou, Z., Gao, Z., Weib, W., Nakagawab, T., Matsuo, S., 2005. Assessment ofhuman–machine interface design for a Chinese nuclear power plant. ReliabilityEngineering and System Safety 87, 37–44.

Chen, Y.P., Qiu, L.J., 1998. The natural divertor design for a compact tokamaktransmutation reactor. Fusion Engineering and Design 41, 443–447.

Chikazawa, Y., Konomura, M., Uchida, S., Sato, H., 2005. A feasibility study of a steammethane reforming hydrogen production plant with a sodium-cooled fastreactor. Nuclear Technology 152 (3), 266–272.

Choi, H.B., Rimpault, G., Bosq, J.C., 2006. Physics study of a 600-MW (thermal) gas-cooled fast reactor. Clear Science and Engineering 152 (2), 204–218.

Cole, C., Bonin, H., 2007. The near boiling reactor: design of a small, inherently safe,nuclear reactor to extend the operational envelope of the Victoria-classsubmarine. Nuclear Technology 159 (1), 1–14.

Courtney, J.C., Lineberry, M.J., 1994. Behavior of actinides in the integral fast-reactorfuel-cycle. Spring National Meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS),San Diego 207, 59. NUCL, Part 2.

M.M. Abu-Khader / Progress in Nuclear Energy 51 (2009) 225–235232

Crow, J.M., 2007. Safer storage of nuclear waste. Journal of Materials Chemistry 17(30), A2.

David, S., Billebaud, A., Brandan, M.E., Brissot, R., Giorni, A., Heuer, D., Loiseaux, J.M.,Meplan, O., Nifenecker, H., Viano, J.B., Schapira, J.P., 2000. Fast subcritical hybridreactors for energy production: evolution of physical parameters and inducedradiotoxicities. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A –Accelerators Spectrometers Detectors and Associated Equipment 443 (2–3),510–530.

Davies, L.P., 2002. Risk assessment in the UK nuclear power industry. Safety Science40, 203–230.

Dazhong, W., Yingyun, L., 2002. Roles and prospect of nuclear power in China’senergy supply strategy. Nuclear Engineering and Design 218, 3–12.

Degtyarev, A.M., Kalugin, A.K., Ponomarev, L.I., 2005. Cascade subcritical molten saltreactor (CSMSR): main features and restrictions. Progress in Nuclear Energy 47(1–4), 99–105. Sp. Iss. SI.

Deokattey, S., Bhaskar, N., Kalyane, V.L., Kumar, V., Jahagirdar, P.B., 2003. Borosilicateglass and synroc R&D for radioactive waste immobilization: an internationalperspective. JOM – Journal of the Minerals Metals and Materials Society 55 (10),48–51.

Dey, P.K., Bansal, N.K., 2006. Spent fuel reprocessing: a vital link in Indian nuclearpower program. Nuclear Engineering and Design 236, 723–729.

Duan, R., Wang, Z., Yang, X.Y., et al., 2001. Numerical simulation of sodium-waterreaction products transport in steam generator of Liquid Metal Fast BreederReactor on small water/steam leak. Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology38 (7), 527–532.

Duncan, I.J., 2003. What to do with nuclear waste. Nuclear Energy – Journal of theBritish Nuclear Energy Society 42 (3), 145–148.

Economist, 9/8/2007. 00130613. Nuclear power’s new age 384 (8545).Ehn, E., Tamberg, T., 1970. Degradation kinetics and critical concentration of

peroxide (H2O2þ u04) in fuel solution of an aqueous-homogeneous nuclearreactor. Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung Part A – Astrophysik Physik undPhysikalische Chemie A 25 (11), 1670.

ENEL, 1995. European Utility Requirements for LWR Nuclear Power Plants,Electricite de France, KEMA, Nuclear Electric, Tractebel, VDE, Paris.

EPRI, Jun 1990. Advanced Light Water Reactor Requirements Document (Chapter 10).Filippone, C., 1998. ‘‘Nuclear Powered Steam Expansion Engine’’ and ‘‘Nuclear Power

Generators’’, U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/076,917.Forsstrom, H., Kelly, N., 2002. European Community research on improving the

governance of nuclear waste management and other risks. Nuclear Energy –Journal of the British Nuclear Energy Society 41 (4), 283–288.

Fridman, E., Shwageraus, E., Galperin, A., 2007. Fertile-free fuels in pressurizedwater reactors: design challenges and solutions. Nuclear Technology 157 (2),157–176.

Frisch, W., Gros, G., 2001. Improving the safety of future nuclear fission powerplants. Fusion Engineering and Design 56–57, 83–93.

Fritschi, M., 2005. Nuclear waste management in Switzerland – survey and status ofactivities. ATW – International Journal for Nuclear Power 50 (5), 313.

Fullwood, R.R., 2000. Probabilistic Safety Assessment in the Chemical and NuclearIndustries. Butterworth-Heinemann, Woburn, Massachusetts.

Furuta, K., Sasou, K., Kubota, R., Ujita, H., Shuto, Y., Yagi, E., 2003. Human factoranalysis of JCO criticality accident. Cognition, Technology and Work, 182–203.

Galan, S.F., Mosleh, A., Izquierdo, J.M., 2007. Incorporating organizational factorsinto probabilistic safety assessment of nuclear power plants through canonicalprobabilistic models. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 92 (8),1131–1138.

Garricka, B.J., Christie, R.F., 2002. Probabilistic risk assessment practices in the USAfor nuclear power plants. Safety Science 40, 177–201.

Generation IV International Forum, 2002. A Technology Road Map for Generation IVNuclear Energy Systems, GIF-002–00. Issued by the U.S. DOE Nuclear EnergyResearch Advisory Committee and The Generation IV International Forum.

Gerwin, H., Scherer, W., 1987. Treatment of the upper cavity in a pebble-bed high-temperature gas-cooled reactor by diffusion-theory. Nuclear Science andEngineering 97 (1), 9–19.

Gerwin, H., Scherer, W., Teuchert, E., 1989. The TINTE modular code system forcomputational simulation of transient processes in the primary circuit ofa pebble-bed high-temperature gas-cooled reactor. Nuclear Science andEngineering 103 (3), 302–312.

Gimenez, M., Grinblat, P., Schlamp, A., 2003. A cost-effective methodology tointernalize nuclear safety in nuclear reactor conceptual design. NuclearEngineering and Design 226 (3), 293–309.

Gittus, J.H., 1999. The ESKOM pebble bed modular reactor. Nuclear Energy 38 (4),215–221.

Gohar, Y., 2001. Fusion solution to dispose of spent nuclear fuel, transuranicelements, and highly enriched uranium. Fusion Engineering and Design 58–59,1097–1101.

Goff, K.M., Schneider, A., Battles, J.E., 1993. Cadmium transport through molten-saltsin the reprocessing of spent fuel for the integral fast-reactor. NuclearTechnology 102 (3), 331–340.

Goncharov, G.A., 2001. The 50th anniversary of the beginning of research in theUSSR on the potential creation of a nuclear fusion reactor. Physics-Uspekhi 44(8), 851–858.

Grill, K.D., 2005. Safety, justice, and transparency in nuclear waste management.ATW – International Journal for Nuclear Power 50 (7), 452–453.

Grint, G.C., Vaughan, G.J., 1999. Regulatory view of PSA. 6th International Two DayConference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment in the Nuclear Industry, London,pp. 18–19.

Gu, S.H., Liu, H.P., 2001. Development Plan for the Industry of New Energy andRenewable Energy During 2000–2015. China Economy Press, Beijing, pp. 5–9.

Gudowski, W., Arzhanov, V., Broeders, C., Broeders, I., Cetnar, J., Cummings, R.,Ericsson, M., Fogelberg, B., Gaudard, C., Koning, A., Landeyro, P., Magill, J.,Pazsit, I., Peerani, P., Phlippen, P., Piontek, M., Ramstrom, E., Ravetto, P., Ritter, G.,Shubin, Y., 2001. Review of the European project - Impact of accelerator-basedtechnologies on nuclear fission safety (IABAT). Progress in Nuclear Energy 38(1–2), 135–151. Sp. Iss. SI.

Gudowski, W., 1999. Accelerator-driven transmutation projects: the importance of nu-clear physics research for waste transmutation. Nuclear Physics A 654, 436c–457c.

Gupta, S.K., Lele, H.G., 2002. Safety analyses of AHWR: approaches, methodologyand applications. In: Paper Presented in the First National Conference onNuclear Reactor Technology, Mumbai, India, 25–27 Nov.

Hayashi, T., 2007. Current status of food irradiation. Journal of the Japanese Societyfor Food Science and Technology. (Nippon Shokuhin Kagaku Kogaku Kaishi) 54(9), 389–394.

Hejzlar, P., Kazimi, M.S., 2007. Annular fuel for high-power-density pressurizedwater reactors: motivation and overview. Nuclear Technology 160 (1), 2–15.

Heller, W., 2004. Safety for nuclear power plants. ATW – International Journal forNuclear Power 49 (8–9), 564.

Herring, J.S., MacDonald, P.E., Weaver, K.D., 2004. Thorium-based transmuter fuelsfor light water reactors. Nuclear Technology 147 (1), 84–101.

Heuel-Fabianek, B., Hille, R., 2005. Benchmarking of MCNP for calculating dose ratesat an interim storage facility for nuclear waste. Radiation Protection Dosimetry115 (1–4), 424–427. Part 1, Sp. Iss. SI.

Hewlett, J.G., 1996. Economic and regulatory factors affecting the maintenance ofnuclear power plants. Energy Journal 17 (4), 1–31.

Hill, R.N., Wade, D.C., Liaw, J.R., et al., 1995. Physics studies of weapons plutoniumdisposition in the integral fast-reactor closed fuel-cycle. Nuclear Science andEngineering 121 (1), 17–31.

Hirschberg, S., 2004. Human Reliability Analysis in Probabilistic Safety Assessmentfor Nuclear Power Plants. CSNI Technical Opinion Papers. Report No. 4, Paris,France.

Hishida, M., Kubo, S., Konomura, M., et al., 2007. Progress on the plant designconcept of sodium-cooled fast reactor. Journal of Nuclear Science andTechnology 44 (3), 303–308.

Hoffman, E.A., Stacey, W.M., Jan 2004. Nuclear design and analysis of the fusiontransmutation of waste reactor. Fusion Science and Technology 45 (1), 51–54.

Hofmeister, J., Waata, C., Starflinger, J., Schulenberg, T., Laurien, E., 2007. Fuelassembly design study for a reactor with supercritical water. NuclearEngineering and Design 237 (14), 1513–1521.

Horsley, D.M.C., Hallington, P.J., 2005. Nuclear power and the management of theradioactive waste legacy. Chemical Engineering Research and Design 83 (A7),773–776.

HSE, 1992a. Safety Assessment Principles for Nuclear Plants, ISBN 0-11-882043-5.HSE, 1992b. Tolerability of Risk for Nuclear Power Stations, ISBN 0-11-886368-1.Huang, X.R., 1993. A simulator-based evaluation of operator behavior in a Chinese

nuclear power plant under ATWS condition. Reliability Engineering and SystemSafety 40, 195–197.

Hwang, Y.S., 2005. Environmental impact of advanced management of spentnuclear fuel on permanent disposal of high level waste in Korea. Progress inNuclear Energy 46 (2), 143–150.

Hwang, Y.S., Jeong, M.S., Park, S.W., 2007. Current status on the nuclear back-endfuel cycle R&D in Korea. Progress in Nuclear Energy 49 (6), 463–472.

Ilina, L.I., Nazaryan, V.G., Postnikov, V.V., Yurkin, G.V., 1989. Analysis of an algorithmfor optimizing the power distribution in the core of a high-power channelreactor. Soviet Atomic Energy 66 (3), 200–205.

International Atomic Energy Agency, 1994. Net Energy Analysis of DifferentElectricity Generation Systems (IAEA-TEC DOC-754). IAEA, Vienna.

International Atomic Energy Agency, 1995a. Nuclear Power: an Overview in theContext of Alleviating Greenhouse Gas Emissions (IAEA TEC DOC-793). IAEA,Vienna.

International Atomic Energy Agency, 1997. Sustainable Development, and NuclearPower. IAEA, Vienna.

International Energy Agency, 1995b. World Outlook – 1995 Edition. IEA, Paris.Ion, S., Nicholls, D., Matzie, R., Matzner, D., 2004. Pebble bed modular reactor – the

first generation IV reactor to be constructed. Nuclear Energy – Journal of theBritish Nuclear Energy Society 43 (1), 55–62.

Jahshan, S.N., Kammash, T., 2005. Multimegawatt nuclear reactor design for plasmapropulsion systems. Journal of Propulsion and Power 21 (3), 385–391.

Janney, D.E., Porter, D.L., 2007. Characterization of phases in ‘crud’ from boiling-water reactors by transmission electron microscopy. Journal of NuclearMaterials 362 (1), 104–115.

Jessee, M.A., Kropaczek, D.J., 2007. Coupled bundle-core design using fuel rodoptimization for boiling water reactors. Nuclear Science and Engineering 155(3), 378–385.

Kabakchi, S.A., Kovalevich, O.M., Sharafutdinov, R.B., Kosareva, I.M., Savushkina, M.K., Akhunov, V.D., Kudryavtsev, E.G., Lebedev, V.A., 2002. Approach to safetyassessment of methods for handling liquid radioactive wastes from nuclear fuelcycle enterprises. Atomic Energy 92 (3), 222–229.

Kang, H.G., Jang, S.C., 2006. Application of condition-based HRA method fora manual actuation of the safety features in a nuclear power plant. ReliabilityEngineering and System Safety 91 (6), 627–633.

Katanishi, S., Kunitomi, K., 2007. Safety evaluation on the depressurization accidentin the gas turbine high temperature reactor (GTHTR300). Nuclear Engineeringand Design 237 (12–13), 1372–1380.

M.M. Abu-Khader / Progress in Nuclear Energy 51 (2009) 225–235 233

Katsuragawa, M., Kashihara, H., Akebi, M., 1993. Status of liquid-metal fast breederreactor-fuel development in Japan. Journal of Nuclear Materials 204, 14–22.

Kazachkovskii, O.D., 2001. Calculation of the economic parameters of a nuclearpower plant. Atomic Energy 90 (4), 329–336.

Kazimi, M.S., Todreas, N.E., 1999. Nuclear power economic performance: challengesand opportunities. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 24, 139–171.

Keller, W., Modarres, M., 2005. A historical overview of probabilistic risk assessmentdevelopment and its use in the nuclear power industry: a tribute to the lateProfessor Norman Carl Rasmussen. Reliability Engineering and System Safety89, 271–285.

Kersting, E., 1997. Overview of status of accident management in Germany,containment strategies for severe accidents. In the FRG, IAEA/ANL InterregionalTraining Course on Prevention and Management of Accidents in NPPs. ArgonneNational Laboratory, Illinois, USA.

Kim, J.T., Ham, C.S., Kwon, K.C., Lee, D.Y., 1995. The strategy for advanced I&C system(13C) development. IAEA Specialists’ Meeting (IAEA-IWG-NPPCI-95/10) onModernization of I&C Systems in Nuclear Power Plants, 4–7 July, Garching,Germany.

Kim, J.H., Seong, P.H., 2003. A quantitative approach to modeling the informationflow of diagnosis tasks in nuclear power plants. Reliability Engineering andSystem Safety 80, 81–94.

Kim, J.T., Kwon, K.C., Hwang, I.K., Lee, D.Y., Park, W.M., Kim, J.S., Lee, S.J., 2001.Development of advanced I&C in nuclear power plants: ADIOS and ASICS.Nuclear Engineering and Design 207, 105–119.

Kim, M.C., Seong, P.H., 2008. A method for identifying instrument faults in nuclearpower plants possibly leading to wrong situation assessment. Reliability Engi-neering and System Safety 93 (2), 316–324.

Kitamura, M., Fujita, Y., Yoshikawa, H., 2005. Review of international standardsrelated to the design for control rooms on nuclear power plants. Journal ofNuclear Science and Technology 42 (4), 406–417.

Kloosterman, J.L., Golovko, V.V., Dam, V.H., Hagen, Hagen, T.H., 2001. Conceptualdesign of a fluidized bed nuclear reactor. Nuclear Science and Engineering 139(2), 118–137.

Koley, J., Harikumar, S., Ashraf, S.A.H., Chande, S.K., Sharma, S.K., 2006. Regulatorypractices for nuclear power plants in India. Nuclear Engineering and Design236, 894–913.

Koo, G.H., Sienicki, J.J., Moisseytsev, A., 2007. Preliminary structural evaluations ofthe STAR-LM reactor vessel and the support design. Nuclear Engineering andDesign 237 (8), 802–813.

Koster, A., Matzie, R., Matzner, D., 2004. Pebble-bed modular reactor: a generationIV high-temperature gas-cooled reactor. Proceedings of the Institution ofMechanical Engineers Part A – Journal of Power and Energy 218 (A5), 309–318.

Kriz, Margaret, 8/11/2007. Nuclear power 2.0.. 03604217. National Journal 39 (32).Kroger, W., Chang, S.L., 2006. Reflexions on current and future nuclear safety. ATW –

International Journal for Nuclear Power 51 (7), 458.Kunstadt, P., Steeves, C., Beaulieu, D., 1993. Economics of food irradiation. Radiation

Physics and Chemistry 42 (1–3), 259–268.Kuznetsov, V.V., Sekimoto, H., 1995. Radioactive-waste transmutation and safety

potentials of the lead cooled fast-reactor in the equilibrium state. Journal ofNuclear Science and Technology 32 (6), 507–516.

Kwon, K.C., Ham, C.S., 1994. Proposed plan for the development of advancedinstrumentation and control technology in Korea. IAEA Technical CommitteeMeeting on Advanced C&I Systems in NPPs, Espoo, Finland, 20–23 Jun.

Ladd-Lively, J.L., Spencer, B.B., Counce, R.M., 2005. Separation of cesium andstrontium from residues arising from fluoride volatility processing of spentnuclear fuel. Separation Science and Technology 40 (1–3), 17–29.

Lahoda, E., Mazzoccoli, J., Beccherle, J., 2007. High-power-density annular fuel forpressurized water reactors: manufacturing costs and economic benefits.Nuclear Technology 160 (1), 112–134.

Lambert, R.W., Zabransky, D.K., Massey, J.V., 1993. Evaluation of comparative systemeconomics and operability of concrete casks for fuel storage. In: Proceedings of1993 International Conference on Nuclear Waste Management and Environ-mental Remediation, vol. 2, Prague, Czech Republic. pp. 835–839.

Laverov, N.P., Velichkin, V.I., Omel’yanenko, B.I., Yudintsev, S.V., 2003. Geochemistryof actinides during the long-term storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel.Geology of Ore Deposits 45 (1), 1–18.

Lee, T., Harrison, K., 2000. Assessing safety culture in nuclear power stations. SafetyScience 34, 61–97.

Lenard, R.X., 2006. Nuclear safety, legal aspects and policy recommendations forspace nuclear power and propulsion systems. Acta Astronautica 59 (1–5),398–412.

Li, Q., Bernard, J.A., 2002. Design and evaluation of an observer for nuclear reactorfault detection. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 49 (3), 1304–1308. Part 2.

Lindenberger, D., Wissen, R., Bartels, M., Buttermann, K.H., Hillebrand, B., 2006.Economic consequences of alternative nuclear power plant lifetimes inGermany. ATW – International Journal for Nuclear Power 51 (4), 228.

Liu, X.G., Liang, J.F., Xu, J.M., 2007. Study on the adsorption behavior of silica gel forzirconium, plutonium and other fission products in high-level liquid waste.Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 273 (1), 49–54.

Loewen, E.P., Tokuhiro, A.T., 2003. Status of research and development of thelead-alloy-cooled fast reactor. Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology 40 (8),614–627.

Luo, S.G., Li, L., Tang, B., Wang, D., 1998. Synroc immobilization of high level waste(HLW) bearing a high content of sodium. Waste Management 18 (1), 55–59.

Luo, S.G., Yang, J.W., Zhu, X.Z., 2000. Synroc solidification of actinide wastes. ActaChimica Sinica 58 (12), 1608–1614.

Maheshwari, N.K., Saha, D., Chandraker, D.K., Raj, V., Kakodkar, A., 2001. Studies onthe behaviour of a passive containment cooling system for the Indian advancedheavy water reactor. Kerntechnik 66 (1–2), 15–20.

March-Leuba, J., Rey, J., 1993. Coupled thermohydraulic-neutronic instabilities inboiling water nuclear reactors: a review of the state of the art. Nuclear Engi-neering and Design 145 (1–2), 97–111.

Mathieu, L., Heuer, D., Brissot, R., Garzenne, C., Le Brun, C., Lecarpentier, D.,Liatard, E., Loiseaux, J.M., Meplan, O., Merle-Lucotte, E., Nuttin, A., Walle, E.,Wilson., J., 2006. The thorium molten salt reactor: moving on from the MSBR.Progress in Nuclear Energy 48 (7), 664–679.

Mattila, L., Vanttola, T., 2001. Strategy and research needs for nuclear power plantdevelopment: plant modernization and possible new construction in Finland.Nuclear Engineering and Design 209, 47–56.

McWherter, J.R., 1970. Molten Salt Breeder Experiment Design Bases, Oak RidgeNational Laboratory Report, ORNL-TM-3177.

Michaille, P., Moroni, J.C., Lambert, I., 1991. Decontamination of liquid-metal fastbreeder reactor components for reuse – the French experience. NuclearTechnology 93 (2), 147–157.

Min, B.Y., Kang, Y., Song, P.S., Choi, W.K., Jung, C.H., Oh, W.Z., 2007. Study on thevitrification of mixed radioactive waste by plasma arc melting. Journal ofIndustrial and Engineering Chemistry 13 (1), 57–64.

Mischke, K., 2006. Nuclear power plant in the safety zone. ATW – InternationalJournal for Nuclear Power 51 (4), 234.

Mitachi, K., Yamamoto, T., Yoshioka, R., 2007. Three-region core design for 200-MW(electric) molten-salt reactor with thorium–uranium fuel. NuclearTechnology 158 (3), 348–357.

Mitenkov, F.M., Averbakh, B.A., Antyufeeva, I.N., 2007. Economic effect of thedevelopment and operation of serially produced propulsion nuclear powersystems. Atomic Energy 102 (1), 42–47.

Mitenkov, F.M., Averbakh, B.A., Vasil’ev, B.A., Kamashev, B.M., Suknev, K.L., 2005.Optimization of the technical and economic performance indicators of nuclearpower plants with fast reactors. Atomic Energy 98 (6), 375–383.

Mizuno, T., Niwa, H., 2004. Advanced MOX core design study of sodium-cooledreactors in current feasibility study on commercialized fast reactor cyclesystems in Japan. Nuclear Technology 146 (2), 155–163.

Mohapatra, D.K., Sunny, C.S., Mohanakrishnan, P., Subbaiah, K.V., 2004. Monte Carlomodeling of KAMINI. Annals of Nuclear Energy 31 (18), 2185–2194.

Mori, M., Maschek, W., Rineiski, A., 2006. Heterogeneous cores for improved safetyperformance – a case study: The supercritical water fast reactor. NuclearEngineering and Design 236 (14–16), 1573–1579.

Mun, C., Cantrel, L., Madic, C., 2006. Review of literature on ruthenium behavior innuclear power plant severe accidents. Nuclear Technology 156 (3), 332–346.

Nagano, K., Yamaji, K., 1989. The needs and economics of spent nuclear fuel storagein Japan. In: Slate, S.C. (Ed.), High Level Radioactive Waste and Spent NuclearFuel Management, vol. II. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers,pp. 473–482.

Nagano, K., 2007. An assessment of spent nuclear fuel storage demands underuncertainty. Nuclear Engineering and Design. doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2007.03.030.

National Research Council, 1996. Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for Separation andTransmutation. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Nayak, A.K., Vijayan, P.K., Saha, D., Venkat, R.V., ARITOMI, M., 1998. Linear analysis ofthermo-hydraulic instabilities of the advanced heavy water reactor (AHWR).Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology 35 (11), 768–778.

Nifenecker, H., David, S., Loiseaux, J.M., Meplan, O., 2001. Basics of acceleratordriven subcritical reactors. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in PhysicsResearch Section A – Accelerators Spectrometers Detectors and AssociatedEquipment 463 (3), 428–467.

Nirdosh, I., 1999. Leaching of uranium and Ra-226 from low-level radioactive wastefrom Port Hope, Ontario. Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 77 (3),508–514.

Nisan, S., Rouyer, J.L., Marcetteau, P., Duflo, D., 2003. SEMER: a simple code for theeconomic evaluation of nuclear and fossil energy-based power productionsystems. Nuclear Engineering and Design 221 (1–3), 301–313.

Nuclear Safety Institute, 2004. Communication on Risk Reduction-InternationalWorkshop. 7–9 June 2005. Komtechprint Publishing House, Moscow,Russia, 60 p.

OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, 1994. Overview of Physics Aspects of DifferentTransmutation Concepts.

Ogawa, T., Minato, K., Okamoto, Y., Nishihara, K., 2007. Nuclear energy and wastemanagement – pyroprocess for system symbiosis. Journal of Nuclear Materials360 (1), 12–15.

Oh, C.H., Barner, R., Davis, C., Sherman, S., 2006. Evaluation of working fluids in anindirect combined cycle in a very high temperature gas-cooled reactor. NuclearTechnology 156 (1), 1–10.

Okunev, V.S., 2001. Power maximization of a lead–bismuth cooled fast reactor.Atomic Energy 90 (3), 247–253.

Ortiz, J.J., Castillo, A., Montes, J.L., Perusquia, R., 2007. A new system to fuel loading-and control rod pattern optimization in boiling water reactors. Nuclear Scienceand Engineering 157 (2), 236–244.

Park, J.K., Song, M.J., 1998. Feasibility study on vitrification of low- andintermediate-level radioactive waste from pressurized water reactors. WasteManagement 18 (3), 157–167.

Park, J., Jung, W., 2007. OPERA – a human performance database under simulatedemergencies of nuclear power plants. Reliability Engineering and System Safety92, 503–519.

M.M. Abu-Khader / Progress in Nuclear Energy 51 (2009) 225–235234

Park, W.S., Shin, U., Han, S.J., Song, T.Y., Choi, B.H., Park, C.K., 2000. HYPER (HybridPower Extraction Reactor): A system for clean nuclear energy. NuclearEngineering and Design 199, 155–165.

Perlot, C., Bourbon, X., Carcasses, M., Ballivy, G., 2007. The adaptation of an exper-imental protocol to the durability of cement engineered barriers for nuclearwaste storage. Magazine of Concrete Research 59 (5), 311–322.

Peters, T.B., Barnes, M.J., Hobbs, D.T., Walker, D., Fondeur, F., Norato, M., Fink, S.,Pulmano, R., 2006. Strontium and actinide separations from high level nuclearwaste solutions using monosodium titanate 2. Actual waste testing. SeparationScience and Technology 41 (11), 2409–2427.

Poinssot, C., Gras, J.M., Ferry, C., 2005. Material chemistry for waste management:long term behaviour prediction for the spent nuclear fuel. Actualite Chimique18–22 (Suppl.), 285–286.

Poplavskii, V.M., Tsibulya, A.M., Kamaev, A.A., Bagdasarov, Y.E., Krivitskii, I.Y.,Matveev, V.I., Vasil’ev, B.A., Budyl’skii, A.D., Kamanin, Y.L., Kuzavkov, N.G.,Timofeev, A.V., Shkarin, V.I., Suknev, K.L., Ershov, V.N., Popov, S.V.,Znamenskii, S.G., Denisov, V.V., Karsonov, V.I., 2004. Prospects for the BN-1800sodium-cooled fast reactor satisfying 21st century nuclear power requirements.Atomic Energy 96 (5), 308–314.

Qiu, L.J., Wu, Y.C., Yang, Y.W., Wu, Y., Luan, G.S., Xu, Q., Guo, Z.J., Xiao, B.J., 1994.Conceptual design of a fusion–fission hybrid reactor for transmutation of high-level nuclear waste. Fusion Engineering and Design 25 (1–3), 167–177.

Rahman, A., 2001. Nuclear waste management in France. Nuclear Energy – Journalof the British Nuclear Energy Society 40 (6), 391–395.

Raina, V.K., Srivenkatesan, R., Khatri, D.C., Lahiri, D.K., 2006. Critical facility forlattice physics experiments for the advanced heavy water Reactor and the500 MWe pressurized heavy water reactors. Nuclear Engineering and Design236 (7–8), 758–769.

Raj, K., Prasad, K.K., Bansal, N.K., 2006. Radioactive waste management practices inIndia. Nuclear Engineering and Design 236 (7–8), 914–930.

Rashad, S.M., Hammad, F.H., 2000. Nuclear power and the environment: compar-ative assessment of environmental and health impacts of electricity-generatingsystems. Applied Energy 65, 211–229.

Rathbun, D., Modarres, M., 1987. Development of safety goals for nuclear powerplants. Nuclear Safety 28 (2), 155–163.

Rice, E.E., Denning, R.S., Friedlander, A.L., Priest, C.C., 1982. Preliminary risk benefitassessment for nuclear waste-disposal in space. Technical Report, NASA/CR-162028, United States.

Riley, P., 2004. Factors that influence a sustainable nuclear waste managementpolicy. Nuclear Energy – Journal of the British Nuclear Energy Society 43 (6),323–329.

Riqiang, D., Zhou, W., Xianyong, Y., Rui, L., Jul 2001. Numerical simulation ofsodium–water reaction products transport in steam generator of liquid metalfast breeder reactor on small water/steam leak. Journal of Nuclear Science andTechnology 38 (7), 527–532.

Rubbia, C., Rubio, J.A., Buono, S., Carminati, F., Fietier, N., Galvez J., Geles, C.,Kadi, Y., Klapisch, R., Mandrillon, P., Revol, J.P., Roche, C., 1995. Conceptualdesign of a fast neutron operated high power energy amplifier. CERN/AT/95–44 (ET).

Rumyantsev, A.N., 2007. Safety prediction in nuclear power. Atomic Energy 102 (2),94–99.

Ryhanen, V., 2003. Nuclear waste management. Nuclear Plant Journal 21 (1), 40–41.Sacco, W.F., de Oliveira, C.R.E., Pereira, C.M.N.A., 2006. Two stochastic optimization

algorithms applied to nuclear reactor core design. Progress in Nuclear Energy48 (6), 525–539.

Saegusa, T., Yagawa, G., Aritomi, M., 2007. Topics of research and development onconcrete cask storage of spent nuclear fuel. Nuclear Engineering and Design.

Salvatores, M., 2002. The physics of transmutation in critical or subcritical reactors.Comptes Rendus Physique 3 (7–8), 999–1012.

Salvatores, M., Slessarev, I., Berthou, V., 2001. Review and proposals about therole of accelerator driven systems nuclear power. Progress in Nuclear Energy 38(1–2), 167–178. Sp. Iss. SI.

Salvatores, M., 2005. Nuclear fuel cycle strategies including partitioning andtransmutation. Nuclear Engineering and Design 235, 805–816.

San Martin, R.L., 1989. Environmental Emissions From Energy Technology Systems:the Total Fuel Cycle. US DOE, Washington, DC.

Saqib, N., Siddiqi, M.T., 2005. Thresholds and goals for safety performanceindicators for nuclear power plants. Reliability Engineering and System Safety87, 275–286.

Sarott, F.A., 2005. Water chemistry in boiling water reactors – a Leibstadt-specificoverview. Chimia 59 (12), 923–928.

Sato, S., Iida, H., Nishitani, I., 2006. Development of CAD/MCNP interface programprototype for fusion reactor nuclear analysis. Fusion Engineering and Design 81(23–24), 2767–2772. Sp. Iss. SI.

Schikorr, W.M., 2001. Assesment of the kinetic and dynamic transient behavior ofsub-critical systems (ADS) in comparison to critical reactor systems. NuclearEngineering and Design 210, 95–123.

Schowalter, D.G., Basu, N., Walavalkar, A., Schultz, R.R., 2007. On the choicebetween segregated and coupled solver approaches when using computa-tional fluid dynamics for gas-cooled reactor analysis. Nuclear Technology158 (1), 80–82.

Seidel, E.R., Rauh, H.J., 2004. Safety management in nuclear power plants as seen bya regulatory authority. ATW – International Journal for Nuclear Power 49 (3),166.

Seidel, E.R., Straub, G., 2002. Indicators for assessing the safety level of nuclearpower plants. ATW – Internationale Zeitschrift fur Kernenergie 47 (12), 754.

Serikov, A., Shatalov, G., Sheludjakov, S., Shpansky, Y., Vasiliev, N., 2002. Possibilityof fusion power reactor to transmute minor actinides of spent nuclear fuel.Fusion Engineering and Design 63–64, 93–99.

Serikov, A.G., Sheludjakov, S.V., 2001. Method for three-dimensional activationanalysis of fusion reactor materials. Plasma Devices and Operations 9, 237–272.

Sheng, J., Choi, K., Song, M.J., 2001. Vitrification of liquid waste from nuclear powerplants. Journal of Nuclear Materials 297 (1), 7–13.

Silva, M., 1992. An assessment of the flammability and explosion potential ofdefense transuranic waste. Nuclear Safety 33 (2), 220–228.

Sinha, R.K., Kakodkar, A., 2003. The road map for a future Indian nuclear energysystem. In: International Conference on Innovative Technologies for NuclearFuel Cycles and Nuclear Power, Vienna, 23–26 Jun.

Sinha, R.K., Kakodkar, A., 2006. Design and development of the AHWR – the Indianthorium fuelled innovative nuclear reactor. Nuclear Engineering and Design 236(7–8), 683–700.

Sinha, R.K., Kushwaha, H.S., Agarwal, R.G., Saha, D., Dhawan, M.L., Vyas, H.P., Rupani,B.B., 2000. Design and development of AHWR – the Indian thorium fuelledinnovative nuclear reactor, INSAC-2000. In: Annual Conference of IndianNuclear Society, Mumbai, 1–2 Jun.

Sobolev, I.A., Dmitriev, S.A., Lifanov, F.A., Kobelev, A.P., Stefanovsky, S.V., Ojovan, M.I.,2005. Vitrification processes for low, intermediate radioactive and mixedwastes. Glass Technology 46 (1), 28–35.

Son, H.S., Seong, P.H., 2002. A quality control method for nuclear instrumentationand control systems based on software safety prediction. IEEE Transactions onNuclear Science 47, 408–421.

Son, H.S., Seong, P.H., 2003. Development of a safety critical software requirementsverification method with combined CPN and PVS: a nuclear power plantprotection system application. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 80,19–32.

Soucek, P., Lisy, F., Tulackova, R., Uhlir, J., Mraz, R., 2005. Development ofelectrochemical separation methods in molten LiF–NaF–KF for the moltensalt reactor fuel cycle. Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology 42 (12),1017–1024.

Standring, W.J.F., Dowdall, M., Sneve, M., Selnæs, O.G., Amundsen, I., 2007.Environmental, health and safety assessment of decommissioning radioisotopethermoelectric generators (RTGs) in northwest Russia. Journal of RadiologicalProtection 27 (3), 321–331.

Stanton, N., 1996. Simulators: a review of research and practices. In: Stanton, N. (Ed.),Human Factors in Nuclear Safety. Taylor & Francis Ltd., London, pp. 117–140.

Strupczewski, A., 2005. Safety of nuclear power. Nukleonika 50 (Suppl. 3), S59–S66.Strupczewski, A., 2003. Accident risks in nuclear-power plants. Applied Energy 75,

79–86.STUK, 1998. Compliance with the Obligations of the Convention on Nuclear Safety.

Finnish National Report as Referred to in Article 5 of the Convention on NuclearSafety. Finnish Centre for Radiation and Nuclear Safety (STUK), Report STUK-B-YTO 177. 32 pp.

Sub, S.Y., Young, P.R., Seyun, K., 2007. Development of a new decay heat removalsystem for a high temperature gas-cooled reactor. Annals of Nuclear Energy 34(10), 803–812.

Sunde, C., Pazsit, I., 2007. Wavelet techniques for the determination of the decayratio in boiling water reactors. Kerntechnik 72 (1–2), 7–19.

Sunny, C.S., Subbaiah, K.V., 2004. Shield structure optimisation studies for thewest beam port of the KAMINI reactor. Annals of Nuclear Energy 31 (12),1403–1413.

Suresh, C.S.Y., Sateesh, G., Das, S.K., Venkateshan, S.P., Rajan, M., 2005. Heat transferfrom a totally blocked fuel subassembly of a liquid metal fast breeder reactor –Part I: experimental investigation. Nuclear Engineering and Design 235 (8),885–895.

Sutherland, A.A., ROGERS, V.C., Macbeth, P.J., 1982. Long-term monitoring of closedlow-level waste and uranium mill tailings disposal sites. IEEE Transactions onNuclear Science 29 (1), 242–246.

Tarasenko, V.M., 2003. Nuclear power plant compliance with the principle ofpower-system indepedence from safety systems operation. Atomic Energy 94(2), 76–81.

Thoma, R.E., 1968. Chemical Feasibility of Fueling Molten Salt Reactors with PuF3.Oak Ridge National Laboratory Report, ORNL-TM-2256.

Thoma, R.E., 1971. Chemical Aspects of MSRE Operation. Oak Ridge NationalLaboratory Report, ORNL-4658.

Todd, T.A., Wigeland, R.A., 2006. Advanced separation technologies for processingspent nuclear fuel and the potential benefits to a geologic repository. ACSSymposium Series 933, 41–55.

Tucek, K., Carlsson, J., Wider, H., 2006. Comparison of sodium and lead-cooled fastreactors regarding reactor physics aspects, severe safety and economical issues.Nuclear Engineering and Design 236 (14–16), 1589–1598.

Uchiyama, Y., Ikemoto, I., Shimamura, K., Sasaki, M., 2000. Conceptual design ofmulti-purpose heat reactor ‘‘nuclear heat generator’’. Progress in NuclearEnergy 37 (1–4), 277–282.

Ueda, N., Kinoshita, I., Minato, A.S., Kasai, S., Yokoyama, T., Maruyama, S., 2005.Sodium cooled small fast long-life reactor ‘‘4S. Progress in Nuclear Energy 47(1–4), 222–230. Sp. Iss. SI.

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1986. Safety goals for the operations of nuclearpower plants; policy statement. Federal Register 51, 30028 (51 FR 30028).

Usha, S., Ramanarayanan, R.R., Mohanakrishnan, P., Kapoor, R.P., 2006. Researchreactor KAMINI. Nuclear Engineering and Design 236 (7–8), 872–880.

USNRC, 1975. Reactor Safety Study: an Assessment of Accident Risks in USCommercial Nuclear Power Plants. WASH-1400 (NUREG-75/014).

M.M. Abu-Khader / Progress in Nuclear Energy 51 (2009) 225–235 235

Uto, N., Hayafune, H., Wakabayashi, T., 2000. A design study on MOX-fueled smallfast reactors for standardization of a small fast nuclear reactor system. Progressin Nuclear Energy 37 (1–4), 283–290.

Van Goethem, G., Zurita, A., Manolatos, P., Martin Bermejo, J., Casalta, S., 2003. EUresearch in ‘‘operational safety of existing installations’’ under the nuclearfission programme 1998–2002. Nuclear Engineering and Design 221, 3–22.

van Rooijen, W.F.G., Kloosterman, J.L., van der Hagen, T.H.J.J., 2005. Fuel design andcore layout for a gas-cooled fast reactor. Nuclear Technology 151 (3), 221–238.

van Rooijen, W.F.G., Kloosterman, J.L., van der Hagen, T.H.J.J., van Dam, H., 2007.Definition of breeding gain for the closed fuel cycle and application to a gas-cooled fast reactor. Nuclear Science and Engineering 157 (2), 185–199.

Vance, E.R., 1994. Synroc – a suitable waste form for actinides. MRS Bulletin 19 (12),28–32.

Vapirev, E.I., Dimitrov, V.I., Jordanov, T.J., Christoskov, I.D., 1996. Conversion of highenriched uranium in thorium-232-based oxide fuel for light and heavy waterreactors: MOX-T fuel. Nuclear Engineering and Design 167 (2), 105–112.

Vnukov, V.S., Ryazanov, B.G., 2001. Problems and experience in guaranteeing thenuclear safety of the storage of spent fuel from nuclear power plants. AtomicEnergy 91 (4), 801–809.

Waeterloos, C., 2003. A community approach to nuclear safety: consequences forplant operation and decommissioning activities. ATW – International Journalfor Nuclear Power 48 (12), 745.

Walter, A., Schulz, A., Lohnert, G., 2006. Comparison of two models for a pebble bedmodular reactor core coupled to a Brayton cycle. Nuclear Engineering andDesign 236 (5–6), 603–614.

Walthert, O., 1981. Nuclear waste-disposal in outer space. Umschau in Wissenschaftund Technik 81 (6), 183–184.

Weaver, K.D., Herring, J.S., 2003. Performance of thorium-based mixed-oxide fuelsfor the consumption of plutonium in current and advanced reactors. NuclearTechnology 143 (1), 22–36.

Weldon, C.C., 2003. The ocean storage of nuclear waste. Sea Technology 44 (9), 29–33.Whipple, C., Starr, C., 1988. Nuclear-power safety goals in light of the Chernobyl

accident. Nuclear Safety 29 (1).

Whitman, C.T., 2007. The case for nuclear power. 00077135. Business Week (4050),9/17/2007.

Wigland, R., 2004. Yucca mountain capacity issues. AFCI Semi-Annual Meeting.Sandia National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.

Yoo, J., Ishiwatari, Y., Oka, Y., Liu, J., 2006. Conceptual design of compact super-critical water-cooled fast reactor with thermal hydraulic coupling. Annals ofNuclear Energy 33 (11–12), 945–956.

Yoo, J., Oka, Y., Ishiwatari, Y., Yang, J., Liu, J., 2007. Subchannel analysis of super-critical light water-cooled fast reactor assembly. Nuclear Engineering andDesign 237 (10), 1096–1105.

Yoshikawa, H., Furuta, K., Nakagawa, T., Yoshimura, S., Yoshida, K., Naito, N., 1999.Review on present state of human model researches in nuclear engineering andthe prospect for their industrial applications. Journal of the Atomic EnergySociety of Japan 41 (1), 2–14.

Yurova, L.N., Bushuev, A.V., Zubarev, V.N., 1988. Experimental-determination of thephysical parameters of high-power water-cooled channel reactor grids withpart of the channels loaded with thorium. Soviet Atomic Energy 65 (6),955–959.

Zhang, Z.Y., Wu, Z.X., Sun, Y.L., Li, F., 2006. Design aspects of the Chinese modularhigh-temperature gas-cooled reactor HTR-PM. Nuclear Engineering and Design236 (5–6), 485–490.

Zhang, L., Hec, X., Daia, L.C., Huang, X.R., 2007. The simulator experimental study onthe operator reliability of Qinshan nuclear power plant. Reliability Engineeringand System Safety 92, 252–259.

Zhao, F., Cheung, K.C., Yeung, R.M.K., 2002. Optimal power control system ofa research nuclear reactor. Nuclear Engineering and Design 219, 247–252.

Zhou, F.Q., 1990. The dynamic reliability analysis of nuclear reactor control system.Nuclear Power Engineering 12, 13–18.

Zrodnikov, A.V., Toshinsky, G.I., Komlev, O.G., Dragunov, Y.G., Stepanov, V.S.,Klimov, N.N., Kopytov, I.I., Krushelnitsky, V.N., 2006. Nuclear powerdevelopment in market, conditions with use of multi-purpose modularfast reactors SVBR-75/100. Nuclear Engineering and Design 236,1490–1502.