DOCSLIB.ORG

Ornl/Nsic-176

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

4 ggcBvePBtnc APR 291980 ORNL/NSIC-176 MASTER Descriptions of Selected Accidents that Have Occurred at Nuclear Reactor Facilities H. W. Bertini and Members of the Staff of the Nuclear Safety Information Center NUCLFAR SAFETY INFORMATION CENTER DIEmu'lhj \i 'uNLIMIlt.il c ORNL/NSIC-176 Contract No. W-7405-eng-26 Engineering Technology Division DESCRIPTIONS OF SFLEuTED ACCIDENTS THAT HAVE OCCURRED AT NUCLEAR REACTOR FACILITIES H. W. Bertini and Members of the Staff of the Nuclear Safety Information Center Date Published: April 1980 Prepared by the OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORArORY Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 operated by UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION for the DEPARTMENT OP ENERGY tP MTOWiOtl Cf THIS MCU«»T It IHWWTW iii CONTENTS (7 Page FOREWORD ...» v PREFACE . vli 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. NUCLEAR REACTORS: FUNDAMENTALS .' 3 2.1 Basic Theory 3 2.2 The Components of a Nuclear Reactor 8 2.3 Radioactivity , 11 2.4 Electric Power Plants .... 16 2.5 Classification of Reactors 17 2.6 Light-Water Reactors for the Production of Electricity ..... 19 3. CENTRAL STATION POWER PLANTS. 32 3.1 Fuel Melting Incideat at the Fermi Reactor (1966) 32 3.2 Electrical Cable Fires at San Onofre 1 (1968) 33 3.3 Fuel Meltdown at St. Laurent (1969) 35 3.4 Uncovering of the Core at La Crosse (1970) 38 3.5 Seven Injured When Steam Nozzle Breaks at Robinson 2 (1970) 39 3.6 Discharge of Primary System into Drywell at Did 'en 2 (1970) 42 3.7 Turbine Damage Caused by Human Error at Robinson 2 (1970) 45 3.8 Construction Fire at Indian Point 2 (1971) 46 3.9 Valve Separations at Turkey Point 3 (1971) 47 3.10 Turbine Basement Flooded at Quad Cities V?I2) 48 3.11 Steam Generator Damaged in Hot Tests at Oconee 1 (1972) 49 3.12 Two Fatalities in Steam Line Accident at Surry 1 (1972) 50 3.13 Seawater Intrusion into Primary System at Millstone 1 (1972) ... .. 52 3.14 Fracture of Shaft of Main Reactor Coolant Pump at Surry 1 (1973) 55 3.15 Inadvertent Criticality During Refueling at Vermont Yankee (1973) . 55 3.16 Operater Sucked Through Manhole into Containment at Surry 2 (1973) 56 3.17 Malfunction of Pressurizer Relief Valve at Beznau 1 (1974) 58 3.18 Electrical Cable Fire at Browns Ferry 1 (1975) 60 3.19 Seal Failure in Main Coolant Pumps at Robinson 2 (1975) , 65 3.20 Hydrogen Explosion at Cooper injures Two (1975) ....... 66 iv Page 3.21 Explosion Destroys Off-Cas Building at Cooper (1976) *.. .i - 67 3.22 Unplanned Criticality During Refueling at Millstone 1 (1976) 69 3.23 Short Causes instrument Failures at Rancho Seco 1 (1977) .-. 69 3.24 Fire in Off-Gas System at Browns Ferry 3 (1977) 73 3.25 Stuck Pressurizer Relief Valve at Davis-Besse 1 (1977) 74 3.26 One Injured in Hydrogen Explosion at Millstone 1 (J977) . 77 3.27 Disassembly of Burnable-Poison-Rod Assembly at Crystal River 3 (1978) .. 78 3.28 The Accident at Three Mile Island 2 (1979) 80 - 3.29 Loss of Coolant Inventory at Oyster Creek (1979) ...... 86 4. PRODUCTION REACTORS 92 4.1 Blockage of Coolant Tube in the Hanford KW Reactor (1955) 92 4.2 Fuel Fire at Windscale (1957) 93 4.3 Failure of Primary Scram System in the N Reactor at Hanf ord (1970) 95 5. EXPERIMENTAL AND RESEARCH REACTORS 99 5.1 Core Damage in the NRX Reactor at Chalk River (1952) t 99 5.2 Operator Error Causes Fuel Melting in EBR-1 (1955) .... 101 5.3 Ruptured Fuel Element Causes Extensive Concamination . of Reactor Building at ERU (1958) 103 5.4 Improper Instrumentation Results in Fuel Melting in HTRE-3 (1958) '. 105 5.5 Leakage of Organic Seal Coolant Causes Fuel Damage in SRE (1959) . 106 5.6 Fuel Element Melting in WTS (1960) 108 5.7 Three Fatalities in Accident at SL-1 (1961) 109 5.8 Pressurizer Failure in SPERT-3 (1961) 112 5.9 Hydrogen Fire at PM-3A (1952) 113 5.10 Fuel Element Melting at Oak Ridge Research Reactor (1963) ................ t 115 5.11 Rupture-Loop Failure in PRTK (1965) 120 5.12 Loss of Coolant Damages Core at Lucens (1969) ......... 121 6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 124 REFERENCES 127 BIBLIOGRAPHY 135 V FOREWORD l*his report was prepared at the request of the President's Commission j.n the Accident at three Mile Island ic order to provide the members of • r.i;.- ^acr.ission with.seme insight into the nature and significance of aci' eats in nuclear tacilities. However, the report, thus conceived was :e.ix>poized to be of interest to a wider audience; therefore, we are pleased to give it the broad distribution afforded by this Oak Ridge fiGtion? 1 Laboratory-Nuclear Safety Information Center report. In selecting the accidents that are included in this compilation, . 2 screened all those available in the computerized files of the Nuclear Sa/fcty Information Center. While we can state with some certainty that chiy f4 le includes all accidents that have occurred at commercial nuclear fa -lities in the United States, we can also state with equal certainty ttett there must have been accidents in foreign nuclear power plants of which we have no,knowledge. In fact, several of the foreign accidents of which we have heard (e.g., the sodiira-water explosion in the Russian /ast breeder reactor Beloyarsk 3 in 1975 and the release of CO2 from the Czechoy'ovakian gas-cooled heavy-water-moderated reactor Bohunice 1A in 1976) are known.only through sketchy informal accounts. Such accidents cam'at be included here because so few-details are known to. us. On the other hand, this report does include six foreign accidents where the information was documented. - " Although H. W. Bertinl is principally responsible for the preparation of thi^ document, he was assisted by several members of the staff of the Nuclear Safety Information Center, including J. R. Buchanan, K. R. Casto, Wm. B. Cottreil, R. B. Gallaher, and R. L. Scott, who participated in the development of the selection criteria (for the accidents reported), prepared the draft on a few of the accidents, and reviewed the resulting document. Chapters 1 and 6 wvrr. written by Wm. B. Cottrell. Readers are encouraged *. o wiitc to the Nuclear Safety Information Centc- (c/o Wm. B.'Cottre.ll, r,n. tor. Y, Oak Ridge, TN 37830) regarding docnentauion of foreign accid< nt r. which should have been included, criiicJsra of the criteria used lor selecting those accidents which were included, or for information on the events which were included. With vi regard to this last category, it is noted that the Nuclear Safety Infor­ mation Center annually publishes a compilation of all Licensee Event Reports submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Conorission by U.S. commercial nuclear power plants (see the Bibliography). The presentation of the material in this document is aimed primarily at the educated layperson. The use of acronyms is avoided where practical and, when used, they are spelled out the first time they appear. Follow­ ing the Introduction is a brief discussion of the fundamental principles of nuclear reactors and a description of some of the reactor systems that are used in the production of electricity in the United States. In this brief presentation we did not attempt to describe all the different types of reactors — much less the special features of each. Although the information on the accidents included herein comes from a variety of sources, we have endeavored to standardize the presentations and to include identification of the facility involved, date of the accident, a brief description oi the accident (including any unique circumstances), and a discussion of the accident consequences. In all cases the docu­ mentation pertaining to each accident is cited so that interested persons may go to more detailed source material for additional information. ©. Wn. B. Cottrell, Director Nuclear Safety Information Center Oak Ridge National Laboratory Vil PREFACE The Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC), which was established in March 1963 at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, is principally supported by the U.f. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. Support is also-_prmcjbded by the division of Reactor Research end Technology of tha DeparJIIifer ofHinergy. NSIC is a focal point for the coUpcfibn,..storage, eyfljiat?tbf~ ,and dissemination of safety informa- tion to aid those concerned wixff*thaa? e analysis, design, and operation of nuclear facilities. Although^the^^iOiSt widely known product of NSIC is the technical "progress Tevlev-j'iieclear Safety, the Center prepares reports and bibliographies as listed OP the inside covers of this document. The Center has also developed a system of keywords to index the information which it catalogs. The title, author, installation, abstract, and key­ words for each document reviewed are r?corded at the central computing facility in Oak Ridge. The references are cataloged according to the following categories: 1. General Safety Criteria 2. Siting of Nuclear Facilities _..__ 3. Transportation and Handling of Radioactive Materials 4. Aerospace Safety (inactive ^1970) 5. Heat Transfer and Thermal Hydraulics 6. Reactor Transients, Kinetics, and Stability 7. Fission Product Release, Transport, and Removal 8. Sources of Energy Release under Accident Conditions 9. Nuclear Instrumentation, Control, and Safety Systems 10. Electrical Power Systems 11.. Containment of Nuclear Facilities 12. Plant Safety Features — Reactor 13. Plant Safety Features — Nonreactor 14. Radionuclide Release, Disposal, Treatment, and Management (inactive September 1973) 15. Environmental Surveys, Monitoring, and Radiation Dose Measure­ ments (inactive September 1973) 16. Meteorological Considerations VXX1 17. Operational Safety and Experience 18. Design, Construction and Licensing 19.
Recommended publications
  • Security Operational Skills 2 (Tracing).P65

    Security Operational Skills 2 (Tracing).P65

    Unit - 4 K Operating Skill for handling Natural Disasters Structure 4.1 Objectives 4.2 Introduction 4.3 Operating Skill for natural and nuclear disasters 4.4 Accident Categories 4.5 Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents 4.6 Geological disasters 4.7 Operating Skills for handling Mines and other Explosive Devices 4.8 Operating Skills for handing hijacking situation (other than an airline hijacking 4.9 Operating skills for antivehicle theft operations 4.10 Operating skills for facing a kidnapping or hostage situation 4.11 Operating Skill for handling coal mines and other explosive devices 4.12 Hostage Rights : Law and Practice in Throes of Evolution 4.12.1 Terminology 4.13 Relative Value of Rights 4.14 Conflict of Rights and Obligations 4.15 Hong Kong mourns victims of bus hijacking in the Philoppines 4.16 Rules for Successful Threat Intelligence Teams 4.16.1 Tailor Your Talent 4.16.2 Architect Your Infrastructure 4.16.3 Enable Business Profitability 4.16.4 Communicate Continuously 4.17 Construction Safety Practices 4.17.1 Excavation 4.17.2 Drilling and Blasting 4.17.3 Piling and deep foundations 234 4.18 Planning 4.18.1 Steps in Planning Function 4.18.2 Characteristics of planning 4.18.3 Advantages of planning 4.18.4 Disadvantages of planning 4.1 Objectives The following is a list of general objectives departments should consider when creating an Information Disaster Prevention and Recovery Plan: O Ensure the safety of all employees and visitors at the site/facility O Protect vital information and records O Secure business sites
  • Medical Association for Prevention of War BRIEFING PAPER

    Medical Association for Prevention of War BRIEFING PAPER

    Medical Association for Prevention of War BRIEFING PAPER NUCLEAR POWER AND PUBLIC HEALTH By Peter Karamoskos MBBS, FRANZCR1 May 2010 “… there is a linear dose-response relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the development of solid cancers in humans. It is unlikely that there is a threshold below which cancers are not induced.” – National Academy of Science, BEIR VII report, 2006 “We need to develop a very firm commitment to the elimination of nuclear power as a source of energy on the earth.” – Russell Train, former US Environmental Protection Agency administrator, 1977 “[t]he [economic] failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale.” – Forbes, 1985 1 Nuclear Radiologist; Treasurer, Medical Association for the Prevention of War (MAPW) & Treasurer, International Campaign for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons (ICAN); Public representative, Radiation Health Committee, Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) [For informational purposes and does not represent an endorsement by ARPANSA of this document.] Medical Association for Prevention of War Introduction without heavy tax-payer subsidies and loan The public health implications for a resurgence of guarantees. Throughout this period however, nuclear power appear to have taken a subordinate public health concerns increased on a backdrop of position to the economic and global warming reactor safety concerns and the effects of ionising arguments that the industry has advanced to radiation on the surrounding populations, with ten justify its expansion. The purpose of this essay core meltdowns in various nuclear reactors, therefore is several-fold: to review the scientific including several in nuclear power reactors, evidence for public health impacts of nuclear culminating in the Chernobyl disaster of 1986.
  • Learning from Fukushima: Nuclear Power in East Asia

    Learning from Fukushima: Nuclear Power in East Asia

    LEARNING FROM FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR POWER IN EAST ASIA LEARNING FROM FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR POWER IN EAST ASIA EDITED BY PETER VAN NESS AND MEL GURTOV WITH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ANDREW BLAKERS, MELY CABALLERO-ANTHONY, GLORIA KUANG-JUNG HSU, AMY KING, DOUG KOPLOW, ANDERS P. MØLLER, TIMOTHY A. MOUSSEAU, M. V. RAMANA, LAUREN RICHARDSON, KALMAN A. ROBERTSON, TILMAN A. RUFF, CHRISTINA STUART, TATSUJIRO SUZUKI, AND JULIUS CESAR I. TRAJANO Published by ANU Press The Australian National University Acton ACT 2601, Australia Email: [email protected] This title is also available online at press.anu.edu.au National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Title: Learning from Fukushima : nuclear power in East Asia / Peter Van Ness, Mel Gurtov, editors. ISBN: 9781760461393 (paperback) 9781760461409 (ebook) Subjects: Nuclear power plants--East Asia. Nuclear power plants--Risk assessment--East Asia. Nuclear power plants--Health aspects--East Asia. Nuclear power plants--East Asia--Evaluation. Other Creators/Contributors: Van Ness, Peter, editor. Gurtov, Melvin, editor. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Cover design and layout by ANU Press. Cover image: ‘Fukushima apple tree’ by Kristian Laemmle-Ruff. Near Fukushima City, 60 km from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, February 2014. The number in the artwork is the radioactivity level measured in the orchard—2.166 microsieverts per hour, around 20 times normal background radiation. This edition © 2017 ANU Press Contents Figures . vii Tables . ix Acronyms and abbreviations .
  • Benefit-Function of Two- Identical Cold Standby Nuclear Reactors System Subject to Failure Due to Radioactivity Or Overheating, Steam Explosion, Fire, and Meltdown

    Benefit-Function of Two- Identical Cold Standby Nuclear Reactors System Subject to Failure Due to Radioactivity Or Overheating, Steam Explosion, Fire, and Meltdown

    International Journal on Mechanical Engineering and Robotics (IJMER) ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Benefit-Function of Two- Identical Cold Standby Nuclear Reactors System subject to failure due to radioactivity or Overheating, steam explosion, fire, and meltdown Ashok Kumar Saini BLJS COLLEGE, TOSHAM (BHIWANI) HARYANA INDIA Email ID [email protected] The accident killed 30 people directly and damaged Abstract- A nuclear and radiation accident is defined by approximately $7 billion of property. A study published in the International Atomic Energy Agency as "an event that 2005 estimates that there will eventually be up to 4,000 has led to significant consequences to people, the additional cancer deaths related to the accident among environment or the facility." Examples include lethal those exposed to significant radiation levels. Radioactive effects to individuals, large radioactivity release to fallout from the accident was concentrated in areas of the environment, or reactor core melt." The prime Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. Approximately 350,000 example of a "major nuclear accident" is one in which people were forcibly resettled away from these areas soon a reactor core is damaged and significant amounts after the accident. of radioactivity are released, such as in the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. Benjamin K. Sovacool has reported that worldwide there have been 99 accidents at nuclear power plants from 1952 The impact of nuclear accidents has been a topic of debate to 2009 (defined as incidents that either resulted in the loss practically since the first nuclear reactors were constructed of human life or more than US$50,000 of property damage, in 1954. It has also been a key factor in public concern the amount the US federal government uses to define about nuclear facilities.
  • Nuclear Power Summary – Licensing Actions August 2020

    Nuclear Power Summary – Licensing Actions August 2020

    NUCLEAR POWER SUMMARY – LICENSING ACTIONS AUGUST 2020 Congressional Legislative Action: o August 2020: • The American Nuclear Infrastructure Act of 2020, which was heard by the Senate’s Committee on Environment and Public Works on August 5, 2020, will enable U.S. international leadership, preserve America’s uranium supply chain, reduce carbon emissions, and strengthen our economic, energy, and national security. • The Nuclear Energy Leadership Act (NELA), included in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2021, was passed by the Senate on July 23, 2020. NELA will help facilitate the path to market for advanced reactors by allowing the federal government to be an early adopter of commercialized technologies; providing for needed scientific research facilities; demonstrating advanced reactor concepts; breaking down fuel availability barriers when the market cannot; and training the next generation of nuclear scientists. • The Nuclear Energy for the Future Act (HR 6796), which was introduced to the House on May 8, 2020, builds on the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act (NEICA) to provide full authorization for the Versatile Test Reactor. • The Nuclear Energy Research and Development Act (HR 6097) was passed by the House Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Energy on March 12, 2020 and forwarded to the full Committee. This act would authorize many programs within the Office of Nuclear Energy, including further research and development on the existing fleet of reactors, advanced reactors, hybrid energy systems, and advanced fuels. • The Integrated Energy Systems Act of 2019 (S 2702), which was heard by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on December 17, 2019, would direct the Department of Energy to establish an integrated energy systems research, development, and demonstration program.
  • Savannah River Site, 700/A Area, Site Administration, Safety, Security, And

    Savannah River Site, 700/A Area, Site Administration, Safety, Security, And

    SAVANNAH RIVER SITE COLD WAR HISTORIC PROPERTY DOCUMENTATION 700/A AREA SITE ADMINISTRATION, SAFETY, SECURITY, AND SUPPORT Aiken County, South Carolina NEW SOUTH ASSOCIATES 6150 East Ponce de Leon Avenue Stone Mountain, Georgia 30083 SAVANNAH RIVER SITE COLD WAR HISTORIC PROPERTY DOCUMENTATION NARRATIVE AND PHOTOGRAPHY 700/A AREA – SITE ADMINISTRATION, SAFETY, SECURITY, AND SUPPORT Aiken County, South Carolina Report submitted to: Washington Savannah River Company • Aiken, SC Report prepared by: New South Associates • 6150 East Ponce de Leon Avenue • Stone Mountain, Georgia 30083 Terri Gillett Mary Beth Reed Mark T. Swanson Steven Gaither May 25, 2007 • Final Report New South Associates Technical Report 1433 ii ABSTRACT ABSTRACT This documentation was prepared in accordance with a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed by the Department of Energy–Savannah River (DOE-SR) and the South Carolina Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) dated February 17, 2004, as well as the Consolidated MOA of August 2004. The MOA stipulated that a thematic study and photographic documentation be undertaken on A Area historic properties 703-A and 708-A. In addition, a Cultural Resource Management Plan was accepted and signed by DOE-SR and the SHPO on December 9, 2004 calling for documentation of the remainder of the A Area buildings that were deemed eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as contributing resources to a Savannah River Site (SRS) Cold War Historic District. The impetus for the study was the imminent decommissioning and/or dismantling of the majority of NRHP eligible buildings in A Area. The resulting narrative is based on field analysis, oral history, primary documentation and research.
  • American Nuclear Society ANS 3.5

    American Nuclear Society ANS 3.5

    ANSI/ANSANSI/ANS--3.53.5 DiscussionDiscussion OrganizationalOrganizational DefinitionsDefinitions ANSANS--3.53.5 WorkingWorking GroupGroup MembersMembers ANSI/ANSANSI/ANS--33--55 UsageUsage UpdateUpdate SummarySummary ofof ChangesChanges ANSI/ANSANSI/ANS--3.53.5 OrganizationalOrganizational DefinitionsDefinitions ANSANS -- AmericanAmerican NuclearNuclear SocietySociety ANSIANSI -- AmericanAmerican NationalNational StandardsStandards InstituteInstitute ANSANS--3.53.5 -- WorkingWorking GroupGroup isis comprisedcomprised ofof Industry,Industry, Regulatory,Regulatory, andand Organizational/IndividualOrganizational/Individual VolunteersVolunteers ANSANS--3.53.5 WorkingWorking GroupGroup MembershipMembership ANSANS--3.53.5 WorkingWorking GroupGroup BalanceBalance ofof InterestsInterests NRC-1 7% VENDORS-3 20% UTILITY-9 60% ORG-2 13% ANSANS--3.53.5 WorkingWorking GroupGroup MembersMembers ANSANS--3.53.5 OfficersOfficers ListList ChairChair -- TimothyTimothy DennisDennis – Individual (chair of ANS-21/member NFSC executive committee) ViceVice--chairchair -- JimJim FlorenceFlorence – Nebraska Public Power District - Cooper Nuclear Station SecretarySecretary -- KeithKeith WelchelWelchel – Duke Energy - Oconee Nuclear Station EditorEditor -- FF JJ (Butch)(Butch) ColbyColby – L3 Communications MAPPS Inc (formerly CAE) StyleStyle EditorEditor -- WilliamWilliam MM (Mike)(Mike) ShellyShelly – Entergy Services, Inc ParliamentarianParliamentarian –– LawrenceLawrence VickVick – U S Nuclear Regulatory Commission ANSANS--3.53.5 UtilitiesUtilities JamesJames
  • Consequence Management: Evaluating and Developing International Responses to Nuclear and Radiological Disasters

    Consequence Management: Evaluating and Developing International Responses to Nuclear and Radiological Disasters

    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works Dissertations and Theses City College of New York 2015 Consequence Management: Evaluating and Developing International Responses to Nuclear and Radiological Disasters Timothy Taylor CUNY City College How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cc_etds_theses/365 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] Consequence Management: Evaluating and Developing International Responses to Nuclear and Radiological Disasters By Timothy Taylor May 2015 Master’s Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of International Relations (MA) at the City College of New York Advisor: Jean Krasno, PhD 1 Acknowledgments This research could not have happened without the inspiration and help of so many people. First and foremost, I want to acknowledge my academic and thesis advisor, Dr. Jean Krasno, for being a driving force for this research, as well as for my academic and professional success. Her level of knowledge and expertise within the field of International Relations is only surpassed by her love and compassion for others, especially those whom she inspires through her teaching. I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Barry J. Balleck for pushing me as an undergraduate student to pursue research and a graduate degree. Dr. Balleck helped me to hone my research and writing skills in International Studies, and to analyze critical global issues as a policy-maker. I will always value my friendship with him and the Balleck family.
  • Medical Association for Prevention of War1.34 MB

    Medical Association for Prevention of War1.34 MB

    LC EPC Inquiry into Nuclear Prohibition submission 34 Medical Association for Prevention of War (Australia) Submission to the Inquiry into potential benefits to Victoria in removing prohibitions enacted by the Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act 1983. February 2020 mapw.org.au | [email protected] | 03 9023 1958 3 of 23 LC EPC Inquiry into Nuclear Prohibition Submission to the Inquiry into potential benefits to Victoria in removing prohibitions enacted by the Nuclear 2 submission 34 Activities (Prohibitions) Act 1983 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 NUCLEAR POWER AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS ................................................................................................ 5 NUCLEAR POWER AND RADIATION IMPACTS ............................................................................................... 6 Children’s increased cancer risks ..................................................................................................................... 7 Childhood leukaemia near nuclear power plants ...................................................................................... 7 Childhood cancer and CT scans ........................................................................................................................
  • ML12333A320.Pdf

    ML12333A320.Pdf

    NLS2012124 Enclosure NLS2012124 ENCLOSURE COOPER NUCLEAR STATION FLOODING WALKDOWN REPORT H Nebraska Public Power District "Always there when you need us" CNS Memo 12-0002 To: Cooper Nuclear Station Licensing Department From: Cooper Nuclear Station Design Engineering Department CC: N/A Date: 11/26/2012 Re: Response to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Section 2.3 Flooding Validation and Acceptance of Vendor Provided Evaluations In response to the nuclear fuel damage at Fukushima Daiichi due to earthquake and subsequent tsunami, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is requesting information pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 50.54 (f). As part of this request which is as defined in the Recommendation 2.3, Flooding, Enclosure 4 of the 50.54(f) Letter dated March 12, 2012, CNS was required to perform walkdowns to verify that plant features credited in the current licensing basis (CLB) for protection and mitigation from external flood events is available, functional, and properly maintained. In addition, the purpose of the walkdowns was to identify and address plant-specific degraded, non-conforming, or unanalyzed conditions (through the corrective action program) and associated APM (Available Physical Margin) and verify the adequacy of monitoring and maintenance procedures. This information was obtained in accordance with NEI 12-07, "Guidelines for Verification Walkdowns of Plant Flood Protection Features". This memo is being written for CNS Design Engineering to formally accept the walkdown packages, and final walkdown report as being technically accurate. The walkdowns were developed with APM determined from 906', which is what CNS is committed to the NRC to protect up to.
  • Heavy Water Reactors: Status and Projected Development Designed in the Russian Federation

    Heavy Water Reactors: Status and Projected Development Designed in the Russian Federation

    01-01915_TRS407.qxd 17.04.2002 14:04 Uhr Seite 1 Technical Reports Series No. This report commences with a review of the historical development of heavy water reactors (HWRs), detailing the various national efforts made in developing reactor concepts and taking them to the stage of prototype operation or commercial viability. Sections cover HWR economics, safety and fuel cycles. 4 0 7 Technical Reports Series No. 407 The future directions likely to be taken in the development of HWR technology are addressed through discussion of three national programmes: the Canadian CANDU design, the Advanced HWR currently under development in India, and an 'Ultimate Safe' reactor being Reactors: Status and Projected Development Heavy Water designed in the Russian Federation. Heavy Water Reactors: Status and Projected Development ISBN 92–0–111502–4 ISSN 0074–1914 €99.00 INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, VIENNA, 2002 HEAVY WATER REACTORS: STATUS AND PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT The following States are Members of the International Atomic Energy Agency: AFGHANISTAN GREECE PARAGUAY ALBANIA GUATEMALA PERU ALGERIA HAITI PHILIPPINES ANGOLA HOLY SEE POLAND ARGENTINA HUNGARY PORTUGAL ARMENIA ICELAND QATAR AUSTRALIA INDIA REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AUSTRIA INDONESIA ROMANIA AZERBAIJAN IRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF RUSSIAN FEDERATION BANGLADESH IRAQ SAUDI ARABIA BELARUS IRELAND SENEGAL BELGIUM ISRAEL SIERRA LEONE BENIN ITALY SINGAPORE BOLIVIA JAMAICA SLOVAKIA BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA JAPAN SLOVENIA BRAZIL JORDAN SOUTH AFRICA BULGARIA KAZAKHSTAN SPAIN BURKINA FASO KENYA SRI LANKA
  • A Comparative Analysis of Nuclear Facility Siting Using Coalition Opportunity Structures and the Advocacy Coalition Framework

    A Comparative Analysis of Nuclear Facility Siting Using Coalition Opportunity Structures and the Advocacy Coalition Framework

    UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE ORDER IN A CHAOTIC SUBSYSTEM: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF NUCLEAR FACILITY SITING USING COALITION OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURES AND THE ADVOCACY COALITION FRAMEWORK A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY By KUHIKA GUPTA Norman, Oklahoma 2013 ORDER IN A CHAOTIC SUBSYSTEM: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF NUCLEAR FACILITY SITING USING COALITION OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURES AND THE ADVOCACY COALITION FRAMEWORK A DISSERTATION APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE BY ______________________________ Dr. Hank C. Jenkins-Smith, Chair ______________________________ Dr. Carol L. Silva, Co-Chair ______________________________ Dr. Christopher M. Weible ______________________________ Dr. Deven E. Carlson ______________________________ Dr. Jill A. Irvine © Copyright by KUHIKA GUPTA 2013 All Rights Reserved. Dedication For my incredible parents, Anil and Alpana Gupta, for making all of this possible, and my husband, Joseph T. Ripberger, for being a constant inspiration. Acknowledgements This dissertation would not be possible were it not for the invaluable support I have received throughout my journey as an undergraduate at Delhi University in India, a graduate student at the University of Warwick in England, and my pursuit of a doctorate at the University of Oklahoma in the United States. During my time at Delhi University, Ramu Manivannan was an amazing mentor who taught me the value of making a difference in both academia and the real world. My greatest debt is to Hank Jenkins-Smith and Carol Silva at the University of Oklahoma, whose encouragement, guidance, and intellectual advice has made this journey possible. I am deeply grateful for their unending support; this dissertation would not exist without them.