Progress in Nuclear Energy 51 (2009) 225–235

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

a b s t r a c t

Keywords: The rise in oil prices and the increased concern about environmental protection from CO2 emissions have
Nuclear power promoted the attention to the use of nuclear power as a viable energy source for power generation. This
Nuclear economics review presents the recent advances in the field of nuclear power and addresses the aspects of nuclear
Safety
economics, safety, nuclear reactor design and spent fuel processing and waste management.
Reactor design
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Spent fuel processing
Waste management

1. Introduction
Nuclear power alone won’t get us to where we need to be, but we
won’t get there without it. Despite its controversial reputation,
nuclear power is efficient and reliable (Whitman, 2007). Nuclear
power is economically feasible and meets more than 20% of the
world’s demand for electricity. Whereas, the extraordinary high
energy density of nuclear fuel relative to fossil fuels is an advan-
tageous physical characteristic (IAEA, 1997). Also, it helps to reduce
environmental degradation due to electricity-generation activities.
For example, CO2 emissions from a nuclear power plant are by two
orders of magnitude lower than those of fossil-fuelled power
plants. A number of studies have been performed considering net
energy analysis for electricity-generation technologies, including
fossil-fuelled technologies, nuclear power and renewable energy
systems (IAEA, 1994; San Martin, 1989). Full energy chain analyses
demonstrate the significant greenhouse-gas emissions that can be
related to significant fuel extraction, transport, manufacturing and
construction activities (IAEA, 1995a,b).
The practical operational safety of nuclear objects is of
fundamental importance for assessing the future prospects under
discussion and selecting a strategy for the development of nuclear
power. Bennett (1991) showed that over the past 30 years, the U.S.
Government has evolved a process for the safety review. This
process ensures that the various postulated accident scenarios are
considered so that the responses of the nuclear power systems to
the accident environments are assessed. Rashad and Hammad
(2000) presented a comparative assessment of the environmental
and health impacts of nuclear power and other electricity-
generation systems. The authors studied normal operations and
* Tel.: þ962 6 4892345x185; fax: þ962 6 4894292.
E-mail address: mak@accessme.com
accidents in the full energy chain analysis and discussed the
comparison of environmental impacts arising from the waste-
management cycles associated with non-emission waste.
Whereas, Aybar and Ortego (2005) reviewed the nuclear fuel
performance codes and showed that recent fuel design and
improvement activities are focused on to extend the burn up of
fuel 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) and
Mattila and Vanttola (2001) presented the strategy and research
needs for nuclear power plant development through plant
modernization and possible new construction in Finland and
showed that the four nuclear power plants in Finland have been
in operation for about 20 years and have a very good operating
record. Also, Dazhong and Yingyun (2002) illustrated that China’s
annual energy demand is expected to amount to 3360 million
tons of oil equivalent in 2050 and that a large-scale development
of nuclear energy is essential and promising. The total installed
capacity is expected to be over 200–300 GW by around 2050, and
will be an effective response measure to mitigate the energy-
derived environmental pollution and guarantee the national
energy security (Gu and Liu, 2001). Lindenberger et al. (2006)
studied the consequences of longer lifetimes of nuclear power
plants currently in operation as compared to the provisions in
opt-out legislation and included the effects of longer nuclear
power plant lifetimes on the development of generating capac-
ities in Germany: electricity generation, fuel consumption and
fuel imports, the resultant CO2 emissions, costs of electricity
generation and electricity prices as well as the associated impact
on production and employment in this sector and in industry as
a whole.
This review presents the recent advances in the field of nuclear
power and addresses the aspects of nuclear economics, safety,
nuclear design, spent fuel processing and waste management.

0149-1970/$ – see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.pnucene.2008.05.001
226 M.M. Abu-Khader / Progress in Nuclear Energy 51 (2009) 225–235
2. Nuclear economics
Nuclear power stations are hugely expensive to build but very
cheap to run, yet the economics of nuclear power still look
uncertain. That is partly because its green virtues do not show up in
its costs, since fossil-fuel power generation does not pay for the
environmental damage it does (Economist, 2007).
Hewlett (1996) examined the factors causing the escalation in
the 1980s and subsequent leveling off of nuclear power plant non-
fuel Operating and Maintenance (O&M) costs. The author found
that the escalation in O&M costs was primarily due to increased
regulatory activity by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission due to
changes in the economic incentives to improve plant performance.
An economic efficiency of new-generation nuclear power plants
was evaluated by Afanasev et al. (1996). Also, Kazimi and Todreas
(1999) reviewed the economics of existing nuclear power plants
which have improved in the United States and worldwide. Further
economic improvements could be realized by better management
of planned outages, understanding of unplanned outages, resource
sharing among several plants and more efficient use of nuclear fuel.
Kazachkovskii (2001) assumed that labor costs uniquely
determine production costs and presented a single formula for
price of the product encompassing all cost categories from running
to capital. Whereas, Nisan et al. (2003) developed a code system,
SEMER, to evaluate the economic impact of various nuclear reactors
and associated innovations. Models for nearly all fossil energy-
based systems were also included to provide a basis for cost
comparisons. Recently, Mitenkov et al. (2007) examined the
possibility of decreasing the capital cost of building a nuclear power
plant by unifying the equipment and technological processes and
showed that it is desirable to adopt for nuclear power plants the
most effective solutions and organizational–technical and techno-
logical approaches which have been implemented in the
development 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 culture
of an organization is the product of individual and group values,
attitudes, perceptions, competencies and patterns of behavior that
determine the commitment to and the style and proficiency of an
organization’s health and safety management’’.
The current methods used for safety predictions do not contain
an analysis of the unavoidable errors and uncertainties of the
models used or the initial and boundary conditions under which
the physical processes that develop into serious accidents arise.
Rumyantsev (2007) proposed the method of quantile which
estimates the uncertainties and free of the drawbacks of the Monte
Carlo method and increases the reliability of safety predictions in
nuclear power.
The general safety objective for nuclear power plants (NPPs) is
to protect the individual, society and the environment by
establishing and maintaining in NPPs effective measures against
radiological hazards. The safety targets are: (1) no individual should
bear a significant additional risk due to nuclear power plant
operation and the societal risks from power plant operation should
not be a significant addition to other societal risks (USNRC, 1986).
(2) The calculated plant core-damage frequency (CDF) should be
less than 104 events per reactor year (R–Y) (Rathbun and
Modarres, 1987) and (3) the calculated large release frequency
(LRF) less than 106/R–Y for sequences resulting in a greater than
0.25 Sv whole-body dose over 24 h at one-half mile from the
reactor which correspond to the cancer risk to the people in the
critical population group equal to 1010/R–Y (Whipple and Starr,
1988). Presently the safety objectives developed by the US and
European utilities for the new generation of NPPs include
a maximum permissible CDF equal to 105/R–Y (NSI, 2004).
Lee and Harrison (2000) studied addresses mainly attitudes and
behaviors of working staff and the role of safety in three nuclear
stations. The authors concluded that personnel safety surveys can
usefully be applied to deliver a multi-perspective, comprehensive
and economical assessment of the current state of a safety culture
and also to explore the dynamic inter-relationships of its ‘working
parts’. It is strongly recommended that nuclear industries adopt
modern 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 key
control system for a nuclear reactor which directly concerns the
safe operation of a nuclear reactor. Much attention is paid to the
power control system performance of nuclear reactor in
engineering (Zhao et al., 2002; Zhou, 1990). Whereas, Kim and
Seong (2003, 2008) proposed an approach to quantify the
information flow of diagnosis tasks in nuclear power plants and
presented a method to quantify cognitive information flows in
diagnosis tasks, integrating a stage model (a qualitative approach)
with information theory (a quantitative approach). Also, Son and
Seong (2002, 2003) presented a method of software requirement
verification for Safety-critical software systems used in nuclear
instrumentation and control (NI&C) systems in nuclear power
plant. Carvalho et al. (2006) and Carvalho and Vidal (2003)
investigated cultural and cognitive issues related to the work of
nuclear power plant operators during their time on the job in the
control room and during simulator training (emergency situations),
in order to show how these issues impact on plant safety. Also, the
authors focused on the relationships between the courses of action
of the different operators and the constraints imposed by their
working environment. Recently, Kitamura et al. (2005) reviewed
the international standards related to the design for control rooms
in two aspects of HMI design and hardware and software design on
nuclear power plants which can be useful not only for revision of
the international standards such as IEC60964 but also for users of
the standards and guidelines.
The human model research (Yoshikawa et al., 1999) is divided
into five areas: (a) modeling for machine system, (b) measurement
and analysis of human information behavior, (c) modeling of
human internal information process, (d) modeling of human
interaction with machine system, and (e) between human
themselves. Kang and Jang (2006) proposed a practical approach to
develop a more realistic fault-tree model with a consideration of
various conditions endured by a human operator. In safety-critical
systems, the generation failure of an actuation signal is caused by
the concurrent failures of the automated systems and an operator
action. The authors proposed a condition-based human reliability
assessment (CBHRA) method in order to address these complicated
conditions in a practical way. A nuclear power plant is a complex
system 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 Chinese
NPP, using a software system named Dynamic Interaction Analysis
Support (DIAS). In the human reliability analysis of Qinshan nuclear
power 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, the
importance of human performance related problems is well
recognized. Thus a lot of effort has been spent on this area (Park and
Jung, 2007; Furuta et al., 2003; Hirschberg, 2004; Stanton, 1996).
Davies (2002) presented the contribution to the workshop
covering risk assessment in the UK nuclear power industry and
addressed the possible need for a standard for risk-based decision
making. The author concluded that the benefits may be limited for
the UK nuclear power industry and that there are many practical
 M.M. Abu-Khader / Progress in Nuclear Energy 51 (2009) 225–235
difficulties in introducing a harmonized standard across industries
and countries. Several documents on the Safety and Risk Assess-
ment Principles for Nuclear Plants in the UK (HSE, 1992a,b; Grint
and Vaughan, 1999) and USA (Garricka and Christie, 2002;
Fullwood, 2000; USNRC, 1975; Carlisle, 1997; Lenard, 2006) were
published. Keller and Modarres (2005) reviewed the historical
development of the probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) methods
and applications in the nuclear industry and presented a review of
nuclear safety and regulatory developments in the early days of
nuclear power in the United States. The omega-factor approach is
a method that explicitly incorporates organizational factors into
probabilistic safety assessment of nuclear power plants. Galan et al.
(2007) discussed some important limitations of current procedures
in 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 and
principles in nuclear fission reactor safety and took some examples
from the French–German safety approach to demonstrate how
requirements for safety improvement by means of an enhancement
of the defence in-depth principle are developed. On other hand,
Seidel and Rauh (2004) showed that the regulatory authorities
supervising the operation of German nuclear power plants on
behalf of the government have been facing increasingly the
problems of safety management and safety culture. But these
events have not affected the public or the environment. This is due
to the fault-tolerant design of nuclear power plants and their
effective supervision by government authorities. Also, Heller
(2004) expressed that the older nuclear power plants offer no
sufficient protection from terrorist attacks carried out by means of
commercial airliners and that the competent German Federal
Ministry of the Interior to this day has not been able to detect
a hazardous situation for Germany which would require nuclear
power plants (or other facilities) to be shutdown – temporarily – so
as to reduce their hazard potential. An overview of status of
accident management in Germany and containment strategies for
severe nuclear accidents was presented by Kersting (1997).
Kabakchi et al. (2002) showed that application of the concept of
deeply layered protection can be used successfully for assessing the
safety status of different types of storage sites. Whereas, Seidel
and Straub (2002) illustrated the development of key safety
requirements which can be applied to any nuclear power plant in
order to provide an overview of the current safety status and the
rules by which it is run. The authors identified six main areas of
review for light-water reactors (safety systems; integrity of the
safety barriers; risk assessment; radiation exposure of the plant
personnel and the environment; plant operations’ management;
plant safety) and the associated safety indicators. But Tarasenko
(2003) showed that during the operation of safety systems at
nuclear power plants, the principle of independence from the
power system, which is one of the basic principles incorporated in
the design of safety systems, is not satisfied and the power system,
especially if it is deficient, cannot guarantee the required electricity
and protection for safety systems from general failures. Recent
works on safety performance indicators were published (Saqib and
Siddiqi, 2005).
Strupczewski (2003) presented the results of estimates of
nuclear power plant safety based on probabilistic safety analyses
and 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 of
low radiation doses and that the effects of Chernobyl are shown
to be much smaller than feared in original estimates after the
accident.
The EU Commission had developed a Nuclear Package which
contains proposals on nuclear safety in an enlarged European
227
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 most
important aspects of the research activities organised by the
European Union (EU) in the area of reactor safety under the current
5th Euratom Framework Program 1998–2002 (FP-5). This area is
focusing on ‘‘Operational Safety of Existing Installations’’. The
fundamental safety objective for nuclear power plants consists of
protecting the public and the environment from the harmful effects
resulting from ionising radiations. Recently, Kroger and Chang
(2006) gave an overview of the safety of current nuclear power
plants and future developments and addressed basic concepts of
nuclear safety, such as defence in-depth, and the fundamentals of
probabilistic risk assessment (PRA), its strengths, limitations and its
role within the regulatory framework. Developing and expanding
a Performance Management System (PMS) allows possible
improvements 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 of
advanced 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 of
hazard scenarios that might be experienced (Lenard, 2006).
From the operational point of view, Mun et al. (2006) reviewed
the literature on ruthenium tetroxide (RuO4) behavior in nuclear
power plant severe accidents and its role in nuclear-safety issues.
4. Reactor design
The nuclear fission reactor produces heat through a controlled
nuclear chain reaction in a critical mass of fissile material. They are
classified 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 and
Porter, 2007; Jessee and Kropaczek, 2007; Sarott, 2005; Sunde
and Pazsit, 2007)
C. Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR) (Raina et al., 2006;
Bhardwaj, 2006)
D. High-Power Channel Reactor (RBMK) (Ilina et al., 1989; Yurova
et 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 and
development. 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)
228 M.M. Abu-Khader / Progress in Nuclear Energy 51 (2009) 225–235
B. The Pebble Bed Reactor, a High Temperature Gas-Cooled
Reactor (HTGCR) (Koster et al., 2004; Ion et al., 2004; Bende
et al., 1999; Gittus, 1999; Gerwin et al., 1989; Gerwin and
Scherer, 1987; Walter et al., 2006)
C. SSTAR, Small, Sealed, Transportable, Autonomous Reactor (Koo
et 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 and
Herring, 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 research
are:
A. Gas-cooled fast reactor (van Rooijen et al., 2007; van Rooijen
and Kloosterman, 2005; Choi et al., 2006)
B. Lead cooled fast reactor (Loewen and Tokuhiro, 2003; Tucek
et 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; Chikazawa
et al., 2005; Ueda et al., 2005; Poplavskii et al., 2004; Mizuno
and 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 complexities
of 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 and
neutronics of nuclear power plants still challenge the design, safety
and 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 adoption
of conservative safety limits (Bousbia-Salah and D’Auria, 2007). In
the light of the sustained development in computer technology, it is
possible to conduct advanced safety evaluations and reactor design
optimizations. March-Leuba and Rey (1993) provided a review of
the 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 considered
for burning long-life elements of spent nuclear fuel in parallel with
energy production and a principal design of FPR blanket was
examined 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 amounts
will rise with the expected growth of fission reactor power (Serikov
et al., 2002; Serikov and Sheludjakov, 2001).
Uchiyama et al. (2000) conceptually designed a multipurpose
reactor named ‘‘Nuclear Heat Generator (NHG)’’ which could be
installed in an energy consuming area. The reactor of 1 MWt output
is designed without any needs for fuel exchange and decom-
missioning on site. Whereas, Uto et al. (2000) conducted a technical
investigation on the performance of a mixed-oxide (MOX)-fuelled
small 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 reactor
that produces electric power of about 50 MW. Also, Kloosterman
et al. (2001) presented a new type of nuclear reactor that consists of
a graphite-walled tube partly filled with TRISO-coated fuel parti-
cles. Helium is used as a coolant that flows from bottom to top
through the tube, thereby fluidizing the particle bed. The fuel
particle designed for this reactor has a temperature coefficient of
reactivity that is sufficiently negative.
Gimenez et al. (2003) presented a new methodology to perform
nuclear reactor design, balancing safety and economics at the
conceptual engineering stage. This integral methodology takes into
account safety aspects in an optimization design process where the
design variables are balanced in order to obtain a better figure of
merit related with reactor economic performance. The authors
stated that this methodology turns out to be promising to
internalize cost and safety issues. It also allows one to evaluate the
incremental costs of implementing higher safety levels. The design
of integral-type reactors is of particular interest because of their
intrinsic characteristics that make them economical and safe, as
shown by several designers of reactors of small and medium power,
with the objective to satisfy the demands of the market (Carelli
et al., 2001; Chang and Yeo, 2001; Generation IV International
Forum, 2002).
Jahshan and Kammash (2005) introduced material and design
innovations to reduce the mass and volume of an established
safe gas-cooled cermet reactor design so that it can be deployed
as a multi-megawatt electric power source for plasma thrusters
including the laser accelerated plasma propulsion system.
Mitenkov et al. (2005) presented the results of design analysis
for improving nuclear plants with fast reactors, specifically, by
using cartridge-vessel generators instead of sectional-modular
generators. Agung et al. (2006) described several modifications
to the design of a fluidized bed nuclear reactor in order to
improve its performance. The goal of these modifications is to
achieve a higher power output requiring an excess reactivity of
4% at maximum expansion of the bed. The modifications are also
intended to obtain a larger safety margin when the reactor does
not operate; a shutdown margin of 4% is required when the bed
is in a packed state. The modifications include installing of an
embedded side absorber, changing the reactor cross-section area
and modifying the moderator-to-fuel ratio. The new design
based on the modifications related to the aforementioned
parameters achieves the desired shutdown margin and the
excess reactivity.
Bsebsu and Bede (2002) presented the outline of the core
thermal hydraulic design and analysis (Operational Safety Analysis)
of the Budapest nuclear research reactor (WWR-M2 type), which is
a tank-type, light crater-cooled nuclear research reactor with 36%
enriched uranium coaxial annuli fuel. The authors studied the
thermal hydraulic performance and showed that the 36% enriched
UAlx–Al fuel elements in WWR-SM fuel coolant channel do not
allow to force zip the reactor power to 20 MWt. Whereas, Sinha and
Kakodkar (2003, 2006) presented the Indian nuclear experience
which started with setting up the Pressurized Heavy Water
Reactors (PHWRs) based on natural uranium and pressure tube
technology; in the second phase, the fissile material base will be
multiplied in Fast Breeder Reactors using the plutonium obtained
from the PHWRs. Considering the large thorium reserves in India,
the future nuclear power program will be based on thorium–U-233
fuel cycle. The authors expressed that there is a need for the timely
development of thorium-based technologies for the entire fuel
cycle and the Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR) has been
designed to fulfill this need. The design of the reactor has
progressively undergone modifications and improvements based
on the feedbacks from the analytical and the experimental R&D.
 M.M. Abu-Khader / Progress in Nuclear Energy 51 (2009) 225–235
The AHWR incorporates several passive systems to fulfill several
safety functions (Sinha et al., 2000; Gupta and Lele, 2002). Also,
Koley et al. (2006) presented Regulatory practices for nuclear
power plants in India.
Li and Bernard (2002) reported the design and evaluation via
simulation of an observer for nuclear reactor fault detection. The
method used allows actuator, sensor and system dynamic faults
to be detected and localized by studying the asymptotic
response of an error signal. Also, Adda et al. (2005) designed an
intelligent controller system based on the concepts of fuzzy logic
used to control the power of a nuclear reactor. Sacco et al. (2006)
presented two stochastic optimization algorithms: the novel
Particle Collision Algorithm (PCA), and Dueck’s Great Deluge
Algorithm (GDA) applied to a core design optimization problem
which consists of adjusting several reactor cell parameters, such
as dimensions, enrichment and materials, in order to minimize
the average peak factor in a three-enrichment-zone reactor,
considering restrictions on the average thermal flux, criticality
and sub-moderation.
Cole and Bonin (2007) aimed at initiating the conceptual
design of a small nuclear reactor intended to provide sufficient
electrical power (similar to 150 kW) to maintain the ‘‘hotel’’ load
of the Victoria-class submarine. The scope of the design is to
provide the nuclear reactor system with sufficient inherent safety
features so as to permit the operation of the nuclear reactor by
crews with minimal training for automatic operation. The final
reactor concept, named the Near Boiling reactor, employs TRISO
fuel particles in zirconium-sheathed-fuel rods. The reactor is
light water moderated and cooled. The core life is specifically
designed to coincide with the refit cycle of the Victoria-class
submarine. Recently Zrodnikov et al. (2006) presented an
innovative nuclear power technology, based on the use of
modular type fast-neutron reactors SVBR-75/100 having heavy
liquid-metal coolant, i.e. eutectic lead–bismuth alloy, and that
Reactor SVBR-75/100 possesses inherent self-protection and
passive safety properties that allow excluding of many safety
systems necessary for traditional type reactors. The authors
stated that the use of this nuclear power technology makes it
possible to eliminate conflicting requirements among safety
needs and economic factors which are particularly found in
traditional reactors.
5. Waste management and storage
It is important to understand the various classifications of
radioactive waste to set up the proper management system.
Nuclear wastes are classified as follows:
1. Very low-level waste of uranium mill tailings which are
byproduct material from the rough processing of uranium-
bearing ore (Sutherland et al., 1982).
2. Low-level waste (LLW) is generated from hospitals and
industry, 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 of
radioactivity and in some cases requires shielding. ILW includes
resins, chemical sludge and metal reactor fuel cladding, as well
as 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 than
20 years and concentrations greater than 100 nCi/g (3.7 MBq/
kg), excluding high level waste (Silva, 1992).
229
The nuclear waste management plays a key role in the
nuclear power industry. The NWM strategy involves short-term
management which deals with immediate treatment of the
waste 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). The
immediate nuclear waste treatment methods are as follows:
A. Vitrification – where high-level waste is mixed with sugar and
then calcined to evaporate the water from the waste and de-
nitrate the fission products to assist the stability of the glass
produced (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 nuclear
industry to concentrate the radioactivity into a small volume.
For example, it is possible to use a ferric hydroxide floc to
remove radioactive metals from aqueous mixtures.
C. The Synroc, a synthetic Australian rock, contains pyrochlore
and 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 the
following options:
A. Storage: high-level radioactive waste is stored temporarily in
spent fuel pools and in dry cask storage facilities. This allows
the 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 deep
final repositories. There are other options such as: sea-based
options and filling empty uranium mines (Weldon, 2003;
Laverov et al., 2003; Duncan, 2003).
C. Transmutation: there are possible nuclear reactor designs that
consume nuclear waste and transmute it to other, less-harmful
nuclear 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 be
reused, such as cesium-137 and strontium-90 in the food
irradiation and radioisotope thermoelectric generators (Hay-
ashi, 2007; Kunstadt et al., 1993; Standring et al., 2007).
E. Space disposal is an attractive option where it permanently
removes nuclear waste from the environment. But economic
and risk-based reasons make it unviable option (Rice et al.,
1982; Walthert, 1981).
Riley (2004) showed that the development of nuclear energy
is hampered by the absence of a clear and unequivocal policy
regarding the storage and disposal of radioactive waste. The
actinide management has become a key issue in nuclear energy.
Recovering and fissioning transuranium elements reduce the
long-term proliferation risks and the environmental burden. But
managing nuclear power waste has distinct advantages as the
quantities are remarkably small relative to the energy produced
(IEA, 1995). In USA, there is a serious concern about how the
industry will dispose (56,000) tons of highly radioactive waste
that has already piled up at power plants across the country.
Until the waste issue is resolved, the expansion of the nuclear
industry is questionable (Kriz, 2007). Nuclear energy sustain-
ability will depend on the actual capability of reducing the
inventory and long-term radiotoxicity of nuclear waste, mainly
dominated by the amount of transuranic isotopes remaining on
the spent fuel. Rahman (2001) presented a broad overview of the
French nuclear industry in general and the nuclear waste-
management strategy in particular and the regulatory conditions
230 M.M. Abu-Khader / Progress in Nuclear Energy 51 (2009) 225–235
and research undertakings to solve problems important to the
nuclear industry.
Accelerator-Driven Systems can play a role in Radioactive Waste
Transmutation Scenarios and in innovative nuclear power plant
concepts in particular, in order to simplify the nuclear fuel cycle.
Their improved safety characteristics are also a beneficial feature in
the 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. Gudowski
et al. (2001) reviewed the European project on the Impact of
Accelerator based Technologies on Nuclear Fission Safety (IABAT)
and assessed the potential of Accelerator-Driven Systems (ADSs) for
transmutation of nuclear waste and for nuclear energy production
with minimum waste generation. Reliability studies of a high-
power proton accelerator for accelerator-driven system applica-
tions for nuclear waste transmutation were presented by Burgazzi
and Pierini (2004, 2007).
Reactor operation is much less problematic in subcritical
reactors 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 of
the ongoing international projects are converging into fast-neutron
systems. Previous designs of ADS transmuters have been essentially
derived from the Accelerator Transmutation of Wastes (ATWs) in
the United States (ATW Roadmap, 1999) and the European Energy
Amplifier Concept (Rubbia et al., 1995), the latter initially intended
to produce energy using the thorium cycle.
Park et al. (2000) presented what is so called HYPER (HYbrid
Power Extraction Reactor) program for the transmutation of
nuclear waste and energy production through the transmutation
process (National Research Council, 1996; OECD Nuclear Energy
Agency, 1994). On-power fueling concepts are employed to keep
system power constant with a minimum variation of accelerator
power. A hollow cylinder-type metal fuel is designed for the on-line
refueling concept. Lead–bismuth (Pb–Bi) is adopted as a coolant
and spallation target material.
Salvatores (2005) showed that there is widespread concern
about radioactive waste management promoted interest during the
last decade for the potential role of Partitioning and Transmutation
strategies, in order to alleviate the burden on future deep geological
repositories. The authors illustrated some examples on the
‘‘regional’’ approach, and some considerations made on the use of
Accelerator-Driven Systems (ADSs) in the frame of a progressive
strategy from present nuclear power fleets to future systems.
Wigland (2004) pointed out the beneficial effects of Partitioning
and Transmutation on a specific repository (Yucca Mountain) from
the point of view of its design and operation, accounting for both
thermal constraints and peak dose rate constraints.
Fast critical reactors and Accelerator Driven Systems (ADSs) are
the two main options to reduce the nuclear waste inventory and the
final requirements for their deep geological disposal facility.
Abánades and Pérez-Navarro (2007) explored the transmutation of
nuclear wastes for its application to waste management, a funda-
mental issue for the nuclear industry, and to enhance the efficiency
of the nuclear fuel cycle. The new recycling technology should be
able to achieve good economy with smaller plants which can
process fuels from different types of reactors on a common
technical basis. Ease in handling the higher heat load of trans-
uranium nuclides is also important. Pyroprocesses with the use of
molten salts are regarded as the strong candidate for such recycling
technology (Ogawa et al., 2007).
The Commission’s Euratom research program supported several
projects which focus on socio-economic as opposed to narrower
technical issues. These projects are concerned with risk governance
in 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 aspects
of nuclear power in the UK specially the issue of nuclear waste and
its management. Whereas, Ryhanen (2003) presented the finish
experience on nuclear waste management, and showed that a long-
term program and stepwise advancement have kept the annual
costs of nuclear waste management moderate. Nuclear power plant
areas have been found to be suitable even for location of waste
storage and disposal facilities which means benefits concerning
infrastructure. The advanced management of spent nuclear fuel
process focuses on two issues of permanent disposal: minimization
of a repository area and reduction of the probabilities of fatal risks.
The advanced management of spent nuclear fuel process removes
heat sources such as Sr and Cs (Hwang, 2005; Hwang et al., 2007).
Poinssot et al. (2005) presented the current state of the
knowledge on spent nuclear fuel long-term evolution in both long-
term dry storage and geological disposal while presenting the
current major scientific issues on R&D. The new Nuclear Power Act,
which entered into force on February 1, 2005, imposes clear
political boundary conditions on the solution to be found for the
geologic underground storage of radioactive waste. After 30 years
of studies and research, comprehensive knowledge and a basis for
decision making have been elaborated for this final step in the
waste-management chain (Fritschi, 2005).
The storage of spent fuel is considered a critical issue. Saegusa
et al. (2007) discussed topics of research and development (R&D)
being challenged for realization of concrete cask storage of spent
nuclear fuel in Japan, and addressed the comparison between metal
cask storage and concrete cask storage. Economical comparison
between 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 the
year 2050. Chang et al. (1997, 2000) and Chang and Dong (1999)
discussed the fuel storage facilities and inspection for 200-MW
nuclear heating reactor.
6. Spent fuel processing
There are several serious Nuclear-safety Problems for spent
nuclear fuel from nuclear power plants (Vnukov and Ryazanov,
2001). Most of the hazards from the spent fuel stem from only a few
chemical 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 of
spent fuel are produced annually in the EU, containing about 25 t of
plutonium and 3.5 t of the ‘‘minor actinides (MAs)’’ neptunium,
americium, and curium and 3 t of long-lived fission products (out of
a total of about 100 t of fission products) (Salvatores, 2005).
The disposal of the nuclear spent fuel, the transuranic elements
and the highly enriched uranium represents a major problem under
investigation by the international scientific community to identify
the most promising solutions. Gohar (2001) focused on achieving
the top rated solution for the problem, the elimination goal which
requires complete elimination for the transuranic elements or the
highly enriched uranium and the long-lived fission products. To
achieve this goal, fusion blankets with liquid carrier, molten salts or
liquid metal eutectics (McWherter, 1970; Thoma, 1968, 1971) for
the transuranic elements and the uranium isotopes are utilized. The
generated energy from the fusion blankets is used to provide
revenue for the system.
The United States Department of Energy’s Advanced Fuel Cycle
Initiative (AFCI) is developing advanced separation technologies to
process spent light-water reactor fuel. The purpose of these
separation processes is to remove the bulk of the mass of spent
 M.M. Abu-Khader / Progress in Nuclear Energy 51 (2009) 225–235
nuclear fuel (uranium) and the primary heat generating elements
which limit the amount of material that can be placed in a given
amount of repository space (Todd and Wigeland, 2006). Ladd-Lively
et al. (2005) developed computer model of a simple aqueous
dissolution process to separate two high-heat fission products,
cesium and strontium, from SNF fluoride residues and focused on
the fluoride residues from the voloxidation and fluorination steps
of the fluoride volatility process and was limited to SNF from
commercial light-water reactors.
Dey and Bansal (2006) showed that the success of the three
stage Indian nuclear energy program (Anil Kakodkar, 2002) is inter-
linked with the establishment of an efficient closed fuel cycle
approach with recycling of both fissile and fertile components of
the spent fuel to appropriate reactor systems. The authors stated
that the spent fuel reprocessing based on PUREX technology has
reached a matured status and can be safely deployed to meet the
additional reprocessing requirements to cater to the expanding
nuclear energy program. Side by side with the developments in the
spent 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 considered
to be slow compared with other traditional sciences. This is mainly
due 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 optimized
reactor design.
From the examined literature, it is clear that the safety level of
nuclear power in several international locations has been
successfully achieved. Also, the risks associated with nuclear power
plants are much less than those due to any other available energy
sources.
Nuclear energy sustainability will depend on the actual
capability of reducing the inventory and long-term radiotoxicity of
nuclear waste, mainly dominated by the amount of transuranic
isotopes remaining on the spent fuel. Also, Partitioning and
Transmutation imply the need of the development of sophisticated
technologies such as the use of Accelerator-Driven Systems (ADSs).
At present, there is a strong need to review educational
requirements for under and post-graduate studies at universities to
provide applied engineering skills required to design, build and
operate simulated nuclear systems. At the short term, evaluation of
carbon abatement options for power generation, carbon capture
and storage for nuclear power plants is at a high priority. On the
long-term basis, national and international R&D programs are
ought to be developed through the international forums to ensure
the highest safety and security measures in nuclear power plants
and waste management.
References
ATW, Oct 1999. A Roadmap for Developing Accelerator Transmutation of Wastes.
A Report to Congress. DOW/RW-0519.
Abánades, A., Pérez-Navarro, A., 2007. Engineering design studies for the
transmutation of nuclear wastes with a gas-cooled pebble-bed ADS. Nuclear
Engineering and Design 237, 325–333.
Advisory Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations (ACSNI), 1993. Human
Factors Study Group Third Report: Organizing for Safety. HSE Books, Sheffield.
Adamson, M.G., 1978. Chemical, thermodynamic, and selected transport properties
of thorium-based fuels for fast breeder-reactors. Transactions of the American
Nuclear Society 28 (Jun), 159–161.
Adda, F., Larbes, C., Allek, M., Loudini, M., 2005. Design of an intelligent fuzzy logic
controller 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.
231
Agung, A., Lathouwers, D., Van Der Hagen, T.H.J.J., et al., 2006. On an improved
design 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. Nuclear
Technology 158 (3), 408–430.
Akie, H., Jun 2007. Core burnup calculation of plutonium burning inert-matrix
fueled high temperature gas cooled reactor. Journal of Nuclear Science and
Technology 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 Annual
Symposium, London.
Aquaro, D., Zaccari, N., Nov 2005. Pebble bed thermal–mechanical theoretical
model – application at the geometry of test blanket module of ITER-FEAT
nuclear fusion reactor. Fusion Engineering and Design 75–79, 903–909.
Arata, Y., Zhang, Y.C., 2004. The basics of nuclear fusion reactor using solid
pycnodeuterium as nuclear fuel. Progress of Theoretical Physics 154, 241–250.
Aybar, H.S., Ortego, P., 2005. A review of nuclear fuel performance codes. Progress in
Nuclear 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. Analytical
calculation 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-power
sources. Nuclear Safety 32 (1), 1–18.
Bentivenga, M., Coltorti, M., Prosser, G., Tavarnelli, E., 2004. Recent extensional
faulting in the Gulf of Taranto area: implications for nuclear waste storage in
the vicinity of Scanzano Ionico (Basilicata). Bollettino della Societa Geologica
Italiana 123 (3), 391–404.
Bhardwaj, S.A., 2006. The future 700 MWe pressurized heavy water reactor. Nuclear
Engineering and Design 236 (7–8), 861–871.
Bousbia-Salah, A., D’Auria, F., 2007. Use of coupled code technique for best
estimate safety analysis of nuclear power plants. Progress in Nuclear Energy
49 (1), 1–13.
Bsebsu, F.M., Bede, G., 2002. Thermal hydraulic analysis and design of the WWR-M2
nuclear 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 Proton
Accelerators HPPA4, Daejeon, South Korea, 16–19 May.
Burgazzi, L., Pierini, P., 2007. Reliability studies of a high-power proton accelerator
for 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 Engineering
Journal 16 (4), 207–212.
Carelli, M.D., Conway, L.E., Fiorini, G.L., Lombardi, C.V., Todreas, N.E., 2001. Safety by
design: a new approach to accident management in the IRIS reactor. In:
Proceedings of the International Seminar on Status and Prospects for Small and
Medium Sized Reactors, Cairo, Egypt, Paper IAEA-SR-218/36.
Carlisle, R., 1997. Probabilistic risk assessment in nuclear reactors: engineering
success, 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 cultural
and 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 nuclear
heating reactor. Nuclear Engineering and Design 172, 13–16.
Chang, H., Liu, J., Wang, J., 2000. Fuel storage facilities for 200-MW nuclear heating
reactor. 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 and
Medium 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 of
human–machine interface design for a Chinese nuclear power plant. Reliability
Engineering and System Safety 87, 37–44.
Chen, Y.P., Qiu, L.J., 1998. The natural divertor design for a compact tokamak
transmutation reactor. Fusion Engineering and Design 41, 443–447.
Chikazawa, Y., Konomura, M., Uchida, S., Sato, H., 2005. A feasibility study of a steam
methane reforming hydrogen production plant with a sodium-cooled fast
reactor. 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-class
submarine. Nuclear Technology 159 (1), 1–14.
Courtney, J.C., Lineberry, M.J., 1994. Behavior of actinides in the integral fast-reactor
fuel-cycle. Spring National Meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS),
San Diego 207, 59. NUCL, Part 2.
232 M.M. Abu-Khader / Progress in Nuclear Energy 51 (2009) 225–235
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.,
Méplan, O., Nifenecker, H., Viano, J.B., Schapira, J.P., 2000. Fast subcritical hybrid
reactors for energy production: evolution of physical parameters and induced
radiotoxicities. 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 Science
40, 203–230.
Dazhong, W., Yingyun, L., 2002. Roles and prospect of nuclear power in China’s
energy supply strategy. Nuclear Engineering and Design 218, 3–12.
Degtyarev, A.M., Kalugin, A.K., Ponomarev, L.I., 2005. Cascade subcritical molten salt
reactor (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. Borosilicate
glass and synroc R&D for radioactive waste immobilization: an international
perspective. 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 nuclear
power program. Nuclear Engineering and Design 236, 723–729.
Duan, R., Wang, Z., Yang, X.Y., et al., 2001. Numerical simulation of sodium-water
reaction products transport in steam generator of Liquid Metal Fast Breeder
Reactor on small water/steam leak. Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology
38 (7), 527–532.
Duncan, I.J., 2003. What to do with nuclear waste. Nuclear Energy – Journal of the
British 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 (H2O2 þ u04) in fuel solution of an aqueous-homogeneous nuclear
reactor. Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung Part A – Astrophysik Physik und
Physikalische 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 pressurized
water reactors: design challenges and solutions. Nuclear Technology 157 (2),
157–176.
Frisch, W., Gros, G., 2001. Improving the safety of future nuclear fission power
plants. Fusion Engineering and Design 56–57, 83–93.
Fritschi, M., 2005. Nuclear waste management in Switzerland – survey and status of
activities. ATW – International Journal for Nuclear Power 50 (5), 313.
Fullwood, R.R., 2000. Probabilistic Safety Assessment in the Chemical and Nuclear
Industries. Butterworth-Heinemann, Woburn, Massachusetts.
Furuta, K., Sasou, K., Kubota, R., Ujita, H., Shuto, Y., Yagi, E., 2003. Human factor
analysis of JCO criticality accident. Cognition, Technology and Work, 182–203.
Galan, S.F., Mosleh, A., Izquierdo, J.M., 2007. Incorporating organizational factors
into probabilistic safety assessment of nuclear power plants through canonical
probabilistic models. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 92 (8),
1131–1138.
Garricka, B.J., Christie, R.F., 2002. Probabilistic risk assessment practices in the USA
for nuclear power plants. Safety Science 40, 177–201.
Generation IV International Forum, 2002. A Technology Road Map for Generation IV
Nuclear Energy Systems, GIF-002–00. Issued by the U.S. DOE Nuclear Energy
Research 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 and
Engineering 97 (1), 9–19.
Gerwin, H., Scherer, W., Teuchert, E., 1989. The TINTE modular code system for
computational simulation of transient processes in the primary circuit of
a pebble-bed high-temperature gas-cooled reactor. Nuclear Science and
Engineering 103 (3), 302–312.
Gimenez, M., Grinblat, P., Schlamp, A., 2003. A cost-effective methodology to
internalize nuclear safety in nuclear reactor conceptual design. Nuclear
Engineering 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, transuranic
elements, 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-salts
in the reprocessing of spent fuel for the integral fast-reactor. Nuclear
Technology 102 (3), 331–340.
Goncharov, G.A., 2001. The 50th anniversary of the beginning of research in the
USSR 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 Day
Conference 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 and
Renewable 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., Ramström, E., Ravetto, P., Ritter, G.,
Shubin, Y., 2001. Review of the European project - Impact of accelerator-based
technologies 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, methodology
and applications. In: Paper Presented in the First National Conference on
Nuclear Reactor Technology, Mumbai, India, 25–27 Nov.
Hayashi, T., 2007. Current status of food irradiation. Journal of the Japanese Society
for 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 pressurized
water reactors: motivation and overview. Nuclear Technology 160 (1), 2–15.
Heller, W., 2004. Safety for nuclear power plants. ATW – International Journal for
Nuclear Power 49 (8–9), 564.
Herring, J.S., MacDonald, P.E., Weaver, K.D., 2004. Thorium-based transmuter fuels
for light water reactors. Nuclear Technology 147 (1), 84–101.
Heuel-Fabianek, B., Hille, R., 2005. Benchmarking of MCNP for calculating dose rates
at an interim storage facility for nuclear waste. Radiation Protection Dosimetry
115 (1–4), 424–427. Part 1, Sp. Iss. SI.
Hewlett, J.G., 1996. Economic and regulatory factors affecting the maintenance of
nuclear power plants. Energy Journal 17 (4), 1–31.
Hill, R.N., Wade, D.C., Liaw, J.R., et al., 1995. Physics studies of weapons plutonium
disposition in the integral fast-reactor closed fuel-cycle. Nuclear Science and
Engineering 121 (1), 17–31.
Hirschberg, S., 2004. Human Reliability Analysis in Probabilistic Safety Assessment
for 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 design
concept of sodium-cooled fast reactor. Journal of Nuclear Science and
Technology 44 (3), 303–308.
Hoffman, E.A., Stacey, W.M., Jan 2004. Nuclear design and analysis of the fusion
transmutation of waste reactor. Fusion Science and Technology 45 (1), 51–54.
Hofmeister, J., Waata, C., Starflinger, J., Schulenberg, T., Laurien, E., 2007. Fuel
assembly design study for a reactor with supercritical water. Nuclear
Engineering and Design 237 (14), 1513–1521.
Horsley, D.M.C., Hallington, P.J., 2005. Nuclear power and the management of the
radioactive 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 System
Safety 40, 195–197.
Hwang, Y.S., 2005. Environmental impact of advanced management of spent
nuclear fuel on permanent disposal of high level waste in Korea. Progress in
Nuclear Energy 46 (2), 143–150.
Hwang, Y.S., Jeong, M.S., Park, S.W., 2007. Current status on the nuclear back-end
fuel 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 algorithm
for optimizing the power distribution in the core of a high-power channel
reactor. Soviet Atomic Energy 66 (3), 200–205.
International Atomic Energy Agency, 1994. Net Energy Analysis of Different
Electricity Generation Systems (IAEA-TEC DOC-754). IAEA, Vienna.
International Atomic Energy Agency, 1995a. Nuclear Power: an Overview in the
Context of Alleviating Greenhouse Gas Emissions (IAEA TEC DOC-793). IAEA,
Vienna.
International Atomic Energy Agency, 1997. Sustainable Development, and Nuclear
Power. 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 the
British Nuclear Energy Society 43 (1), 55–62.
Jahshan, S.N., Kammash, T., 2005. Multimegawatt nuclear reactor design for plasma
propulsion 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 Nuclear
Materials 362 (1), 104–115.
Jessee, M.A., Kropaczek, D.J., 2007. Coupled bundle-core design using fuel rod
optimization 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 safety
assessment of methods for handling liquid radioactive wastes from nuclear fuel
cycle enterprises. Atomic Energy 92 (3), 222–229.
Kang, H.G., Jang, S.C., 2006. Application of condition-based HRA method for
a manual actuation of the safety features in a nuclear power plant. Reliability
Engineering and System Safety 91 (6), 627–633.
Katanishi, S., Kunitomi, K., 2007. Safety evaluation on the depressurization accident
in the gas turbine high temperature reactor (GTHTR300). Nuclear Engineering
and Design 237 (12–13), 1372–1380.
 M.M. Abu-Khader / Progress in Nuclear Energy 51 (2009) 225–235
Katsuragawa, M., Kashihara, H., Akebi, M., 1993. Status of liquid-metal fast breeder
reactor-fuel development in Japan. Journal of Nuclear Materials 204, 14–22.
Kazachkovskii, O.D., 2001. Calculation of the economic parameters of a nuclear
power plant. Atomic Energy 90 (4), 329–336.
Kazimi, M.S., Todreas, N.E., 1999. Nuclear power economic performance: challenges
and opportunities. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 24, 139–171.
Keller, W., Modarres, M., 2005. A historical overview of probabilistic risk assessment
development and its use in the nuclear power industry: a tribute to the late
Professor Norman Carl Rasmussen. Reliability Engineering and System Safety
89, 271–285.
Kersting, E., 1997. Overview of status of accident management in Germany,
containment strategies for severe accidents. In the FRG, IAEA/ANL Interregional
Training Course on Prevention and Management of Accidents in NPPs. Argonne
National 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) on
Modernization 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 information
flow of diagnosis tasks in nuclear power plants. Reliability Engineering and
System 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 nuclear
power 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 standards
related to the design for control rooms on nuclear power plants. Journal of
Nuclear Science and Technology 42 (4), 406–417.
Kloosterman, J.L., Golovko, V.V., Dam, V.H., Hagen, Hagen, T.H., 2001. Conceptual
design 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. Regulatory
practices for nuclear power plants in India. Nuclear Engineering and Design
236, 894–913.
Koo, G.H., Sienicki, J.J., Moisseytsev, A., 2007. Preliminary structural evaluations of
the STAR-LM reactor vessel and the support design. Nuclear Engineering and
Design 237 (8), 802–813.
Koster, A., Matzie, R., Matzner, D., 2004. Pebble-bed modular reactor: a generation
IV high-temperature gas-cooled reactor. Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical 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 of
Nuclear Science and Technology 32 (6), 507–516.
Kwon, K.C., Ham, C.S., 1994. Proposed plan for the development of advanced
instrumentation and control technology in Korea. IAEA Technical Committee
Meeting 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 and
strontium from residues arising from fluoride volatility processing of spent
nuclear fuel. Separation Science and Technology 40 (1–3), 17–29.
Lahoda, E., Mazzoccoli, J., Beccherle, J., 2007. High-power-density annular fuel for
pressurized 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 system
economics and operability of concrete casks for fuel storage. In: Proceedings of
1993 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. Geochemistry
of 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. Safety
Science 34, 61–97.
Lenard, R.X., 2006. Nuclear safety, legal aspects and policy recommendations for
space 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 reactor
fault 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 in
Germany. 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 for
zirconium, 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 the
lead-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. Acta
Chimica Sinica 58 (12), 1608–1614.
233
Maheshwari, N.K., Saha, D., Chandraker, D.K., Raj, V., Kakodkar, A., 2001. Studies on
the behaviour of a passive containment cooling system for the Indian advanced
heavy water reactor. Kerntechnik 66 (1–2), 15–20.
March-Leuba, J., Rey, J., 1993. Coupled thermohydraulic-neutronic instabilities in
boiling 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., Méplan, 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 plant
development: 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 Ridge
National Laboratory Report, ORNL-TM-3177.
Michaille, P., Moroni, J.C., Lambert, I., 1991. Decontamination of liquid-metal fast
breeder reactor components for reuse – the French experience. Nuclear
Technology 93 (2), 147–157.
Min, B.Y., Kang, Y., Song, P.S., Choi, W.K., Jung, C.H., Oh, W.Z., 2007. Study on the
vitrification of mixed radioactive waste by plasma arc melting. Journal of
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 13 (1), 57–64.
Mischke, K., 2006. Nuclear power plant in the safety zone. ATW – International
Journal 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. Nuclear
Technology 158 (3), 348–357.
Mitenkov, F.M., Averbakh, B.A., Antyufeeva, I.N., 2007. Economic effect of the
development and operation of serially produced propulsion nuclear power
systems. 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 nuclear
power plants with fast reactors. Atomic Energy 98 (6), 375–383.
Mizuno, T., Niwa, H., 2004. Advanced MOX core design study of sodium-cooled
reactors in current feasibility study on commercialized fast reactor cycle
systems in Japan. Nuclear Technology 146 (2), 155–163.
Mohapatra, D.K., Sunny, C.S., Mohanakrishnan, P., Subbaiah, K.V., 2004. Monte Carlo
modeling of KAMINI. Annals of Nuclear Energy 31 (18), 2185–2194.
Mori, M., Maschek, W., Rineiski, A., 2006. Heterogeneous cores for improved safety
performance – a case study: The supercritical water fast reactor. Nuclear
Engineering and Design 236 (14–16), 1573–1579.
Mun, C., Cantrel, L., Madic, C., 2006. Review of literature on ruthenium behavior in
nuclear power plant severe accidents. Nuclear Technology 156 (3), 332–346.
Nagano, K., Yamaji, K., 1989. The needs and economics of spent nuclear fuel storage
in Japan. In: Slate, S.C. (Ed.), High Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear
Fuel Management, vol. II. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
pp. 473–482.
Nagano, K., 2007. An assessment of spent nuclear fuel storage demands under
uncertainty. Nuclear Engineering and Design. doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2007.
03.030.
National Research Council, 1996. Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for Separation and
Transmutation. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Nayak, A.K., Vijayan, P.K., Saha, D., Venkat, R.V., ARITOMI, M., 1998. Linear analysis of
thermo-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 accelerator
driven subcritical reactors. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics
Research Section A – Accelerators Spectrometers Detectors and Associated
Equipment 463 (3), 428–467.
Nirdosh, I., 1999. Leaching of uranium and Ra-226 from low-level radioactive waste
from 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 the
economic evaluation of nuclear and fossil energy-based power production
systems. Nuclear Engineering and Design 221 (1–3), 301–313.
Nuclear Safety Institute, 2004. Communication on Risk Reduction-International
Workshop. 7–9 June 2005. Komtechprint Publishing House, Moscow,
Russia, 60 p.
OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, 1994. Overview of Physics Aspects of Different
Transmutation Concepts.
Ogawa, T., Minato, K., Okamoto, Y., Nishihara, K., 2007. Nuclear energy and waste
management – pyroprocess for system symbiosis. Journal of Nuclear Materials
360 (1), 12–15.
Oh, C.H., Barner, R., Davis, C., Sherman, S., 2006. Evaluation of working fluids in an
indirect combined cycle in a very high temperature gas-cooled reactor. Nuclear
Technology 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 Science
and Engineering 157 (2), 236–244.
Park, J.K., Song, M.J., 1998. Feasibility study on vitrification of low- and
intermediate-level radioactive waste from pressurized water reactors. Waste
Management 18 (3), 157–167.
Park, J., Jung, W., 2007. OPERA – a human performance database under simulated
emergencies of nuclear power plants. Reliability Engineering and System Safety
92, 503–519.
234 M.M. Abu-Khader / Progress in Nuclear Energy 51 (2009) 225–235
Park, W.S., Shin, U., Han, S.J., Song, T.Y., Choi, B.H., Park, C.K., 2000. HYPER (Hybrid
Power Extraction Reactor): A system for clean nuclear energy. Nuclear
Engineering 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 nuclear
waste 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 nuclear
waste solutions using monosodium titanate 2. Actual waste testing. Separation
Science 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 Chimique
18–22 (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-1800
sodium-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 – Journal
of the British Nuclear Energy Society 40 (6), 391–395.
Raina, V.K., Srivenkatesan, R., Khatri, D.C., Lahiri, D.K., 2006. Critical facility for
lattice physics experiments for the advanced heavy water Reactor and the
500 MWe pressurized heavy water reactors. Nuclear Engineering and Design
236 (7–8), 758–769.
Raj, K., Prasad, K.K., Bansal, N.K., 2006. Radioactive waste management practices in
India. 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-generating
systems. Applied Energy 65, 211–229.
Rathbun, D., Modarres, M., 1987. Development of safety goals for nuclear power
plants. Nuclear Safety 28 (2), 155–163.
Rice, E.E., Denning, R.S., Friedlander, A.L., Priest, C.C., 1982. Preliminary risk benefit
assessment for nuclear waste-disposal in space. Technical Report, NASA/CR-
162028, United States.
Riley, P., 2004. Factors that influence a sustainable nuclear waste management
policy. 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 of
sodium–water reaction products transport in steam generator of liquid metal
fast breeder reactor on small water/steam leak. Journal of Nuclear Science and
Technology 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. Conceptual
design 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 Energy
48 (6), 525–539.
Saegusa, T., Yagawa, G., Aritomi, M., 2007. Topics of research and development on
concrete 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 the
role 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 and
transmutation. 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 performance
indicators for nuclear power plants. Reliability Engineering and System Safety
87, 275–286.
Sarott, F.A., 2005. Water chemistry in boiling water reactors – a Leibstadt-specific
overview. Chimia 59 (12), 923–928.
Sato, S., Iida, H., Nishitani, I., 2006. Development of CAD/MCNP interface program
prototype 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 of
sub-critical systems (ADS) in comparison to critical reactor systems. Nuclear
Engineering and Design 210, 95–123.
Schowalter, D.G., Basu, N., Walavalkar, A., Schultz, R.R., 2007. On the choice
between segregated and coupled solver approaches when using computa-
tional fluid dynamics for gas-cooled reactor analysis. Nuclear Technology
158 (1), 80–82.
Seidel, E.R., Rauh, H.J., 2004. Safety management in nuclear power plants as seen by
a regulatory authority. ATW – International Journal for Nuclear Power 49 (3),
166.
Seidel, E.R., Straub, G., 2002. Indicators for assessing the safety level of nuclear
power plants. ATW – Internationale Zeitschrift fur Kernenergie 47 (12), 754.
Serikov, A., Shatalov, G., Sheludjakov, S., Shpansky, Y., Vasiliev, N., 2002. Possibility
of 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 activation
analysis 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 power
plants. Journal of Nuclear Materials 297 (1), 7–13.
Silva, M., 1992. An assessment of the flammability and explosion potential of
defense transuranic waste. Nuclear Safety 33 (2), 220–228.
Sinha, R.K., Kakodkar, A., 2003. The road map for a future Indian nuclear energy
system. In: International Conference on Innovative Technologies for Nuclear
Fuel Cycles and Nuclear Power, Vienna, 23–26 Jun.
Sinha, R.K., Kakodkar, A., 2006. Design and development of the AHWR – the Indian
thorium 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 fuelled
innovative nuclear reactor, INSAC-2000. In: Annual Conference of Indian
Nuclear 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 mixed
wastes. Glass Technology 46 (1), 28–35.
Son, H.S., Seong, P.H., 2002. A quality control method for nuclear instrumentation
and control systems based on software safety prediction. IEEE Transactions on
Nuclear Science 47, 408–421.
Son, H.S., Seong, P.H., 2003. Development of a safety critical software requirements
verification method with combined CPN and PVS: a nuclear power plant
protection system application. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 80,
19–32.
Soucek, P., Lisy, F., Tulackova, R., Uhlir, J., Mraz, R., 2005. Development of
electrochemical separation methods in molten LiF–NaF–KF for the molten
salt 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 radioisotope
thermoelectric generators (RTGs) in northwest Russia. Journal of Radiological
Protection 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 Nuclear
Safety. 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 removal
system 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 decay
ratio in boiling water reactors. Kerntechnik 72 (1–2), 7–19.
Sunny, C.S., Subbaiah, K.V., 2004. Shield structure optimisation studies for the
west 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 transfer
from 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 closed
low-level waste and uranium mill tailings disposal sites. IEEE Transactions on
Nuclear Science 29 (1), 242–246.
Tarasenko, V.M., 2003. Nuclear power plant compliance with the principle of
power-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 National
Laboratory Report, ORNL-4658.
Todd, T.A., Wigeland, R.A., 2006. Advanced separation technologies for processing
spent nuclear fuel and the potential benefits to a geologic repository. ACS
Symposium Series 933, 41–55.
Tucek, K., Carlsson, J., Wider, H., 2006. Comparison of sodium and lead-cooled fast
reactors 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 of
multi-purpose heat reactor ‘‘nuclear heat generator’’. Progress in Nuclear
Energy 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 nuclear
power plants; policy statement. Federal Register 51, 30028 (51 FR 30028).
Usha, S., Ramanarayanan, R.R., Mohanakrishnan, P., Kapoor, R.P., 2006. Research
reactor KAMINI. Nuclear Engineering and Design 236 (7–8), 872–880.
USNRC, 1975. Reactor Safety Study: an Assessment of Accident Risks in US
Commercial Nuclear Power Plants. WASH-1400 (NUREG-75/014).
 M.M. Abu-Khader / Progress in Nuclear Energy 51 (2009) 225–235
Uto, N., Hayafune, H., Wakabayashi, T., 2000. A design study on MOX-fueled small
fast reactors for standardization of a small fast nuclear reactor system. Progress
in Nuclear Energy 37 (1–4), 283–290.
Van Goethem, G., Zurita, A., Manolatos, P., Martin Bermejo, J., Casalta, S., 2003. EU
research in ‘‘operational safety of existing installations’’ under the nuclear
fission 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 and
core 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 high
enriched uranium in thorium-232-based oxide fuel for light and heavy water
reactors: MOX-T fuel. Nuclear Engineering and Design 167 (2), 105–112.
Vnukov, V.S., Ryazanov, B.G., 2001. Problems and experience in guaranteeing the
nuclear safety of the storage of spent fuel from nuclear power plants. Atomic
Energy 91 (4), 801–809.
Waeterloos, C., 2003. A community approach to nuclear safety: consequences for
plant operation and decommissioning activities. ATW – International Journal
for Nuclear Power 48 (12), 745.
Walter, A., Schulz, A., Lohnert, G., 2006. Comparison of two models for a pebble bed
modular reactor core coupled to a Brayton cycle. Nuclear Engineering and
Design 236 (5–6), 603–614.
Walthert, O., 1981. Nuclear waste-disposal in outer space. Umschau in Wissenschaft
und Technik 81 (6), 183–184.
Weaver, K.D., Herring, J.S., 2003. Performance of thorium-based mixed-oxide fuels
for the consumption of plutonium in current and advanced reactors. Nuclear
Technology 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).
235
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 of
Nuclear 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 and
Design 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 and
the prospect for their industrial applications. Journal of the Atomic Energy
Society of Japan 41 (1), 2–14.
Yurova, L.N., Bushuev, A.V., Zubarev, V.N., 1988. Experimental-determination of the
physical parameters of high-power water-cooled channel reactor grids with
part 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 modular
high-temperature gas-cooled reactor HTR-PM. Nuclear Engineering and Design
236 (5–6), 485–490.
Zhang, L., Hec, X., Daia, L.C., Huang, X.R., 2007. The simulator experimental study on
the operator reliability of Qinshan nuclear power plant. Reliability Engineering
and System Safety 92, 252–259.
Zhao, F., Cheung, K.C., Yeung, R.M.K., 2002. Optimal power control system of
a 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 power
development in market, conditions with use of multi-purpose modular
fast reactors SVBR-75/100. Nuclear Engineering and Design 236,
1490–1502.