DOCSLIB.ORG

Operating License Renewal Stage Arkansas Nuclear

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Operating License Renewal Stage Arkansas Nuclear Applicant’s Environmental Report – Operating License Renewal Stage Arkansas Nuclear One - Unit 1 Introduction Set forth below is Entergy Operations’ Environmental Report-Operating License Renewal Stage for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1. This report was prepared in conjunction with Entergy Operations’ application to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to renew the operating license for ANO-1. In compliance with applicable NRC requirements, this ER analyzes potential environmental impacts associated with renewal of the ANO-1 license. It is designed to assist the NRC staff with the preparation of the ANO-1 specific Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement that is required for license renewal. The content of the ER complies with the requirements of 10CFR Part 51, as augmented by the NRC’s “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants” (NUREG-1437). Specifically, the ANO-1 ER complies with 10CFR54.23, which requires license renewal applicants to submit a supplement to the ER that complies with requirements of Subpart A of 10CFR Part 51. This report also addresses the more detailed requirements of NRC environmental regulations in 10CFR51.45 and 10CFR51.53, as well as the underlying intent of the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. For major federal actions, the NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare a detailed statement that addresses significant environmental impacts, adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, alternatives to the proposed action, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources associated with implementation of the proposed action. The information responsive to these requirements is set forth in the following sections of the ER: Section 1.0: Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action Section 2.0: Site and Environmental Interfaces Section 3.0: Proposed Action Section 4.0: Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action Section 5.0: Alternatives Considered Section 6.0: Comparison of Impacts Section 7.0: Status of Compliance Based upon the evaluations discussed in the ER, Entergy Operations concludes that the environmental impacts associated with the renewal of the ANO-1 operating license are small. The environmental impacts from continued operation of ANO-1 are similar to those experienced during the original operating term and as evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement [Reference 1] issued in February 1973. No major plant refurbishment activities have been identified as necessary to support the continued operation of ANO-1 beyond the end of the existing operating license. Although normal plant maintenance activities may later be performed for economic and operational reasons, no significant environmental impacts associated with such activities are expected. Major refurbishment and plant maintenance activities typically receive an environmental review per ANO procedures during the planning stage for the activity. Environmental Report Page i Arkansas Nuclear One – Unit 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION .............................................................1-1 2.0 SITE AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERFACES .............................................................................2-1 2.1 GENERAL SITE ENVIRONMENT...........................................................................................................2-1 2.2 LAKE DARDANELLE ...........................................................................................................................2-6 2.3 ANO PLANT DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................................2-8 2.4 RESIDENT POPULATION ESTIMATES .................................................................................................2-12 3.0 PROPOSED ACTION.........................................................................................................................3-1 3.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION...........................................................................................3-1 3.2 PLANT MODIFICATIONS OR REFURBISHMENTS WHICH ARE REQUIRED FOR LICENSE RENEWAL .........3-1 3.3 PROGRAMS FOR MANAGING AGING ...................................................................................................3-2 3.4 EMPLOYMENT....................................................................................................................................3-2 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ..................................4-1 4.1 DISCUSSION OF GEIS CATEGORIES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES.....................................................4-1 4.1.1 Category 1 Issues ......................................................................................................................4-1 4.1.2 Category 2 Issues ......................................................................................................................4-2 4.1.3 Table B-1, Appendix B to Subpart A and 10CFR51.53(c)(3)(ii) Issues ....................................4-2 4.1.4 Review of 10CFR51.53(c)(3)(ii) Issues .....................................................................................4-2 4.2 WATER USE CONFLICTS (PLANTS WITH COOLING TOWERS AND COOLING PONDS)..........................4-19 4.2.1 Requirement [10CFR51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A)] .................................................................................4-19 4.2.2 Analysis of Environmental Impact ..........................................................................................4-19 4.3 ENTRAINMENT, IMPINGEMENT, AND HEAT SHOCK OF FISH AND SHELLFISH ......................................4-19 4.3.1 Requirement [10CFR51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B)] .................................................................................4-19 4.3.2 Findings from Table B-1, Appendix B to Subpart A of 10CFR Part 51..................................4-19 4.3.3 GEIS Background....................................................................................................................4-20 4.3.4 Analysis of Environmental Impact ..........................................................................................4-21 4.3.5 Consideration of Alternatives for Reducing Adverse Impacts.................................................4-24 4.4 GROUND-WATER USE CONFLICTS (RANNEY WELLS) ......................................................................4-24 4.4.1 Requirement [10CFR51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C)].................................................................................4-24 4.4.2 Analysis of Environmental Impact ..........................................................................................4-24 4.5 GROUND-WATER QUALITY..............................................................................................................4-24 4.5.1 Requirement [10CFR51.53(c)(3)(ii)(D)].................................................................................4-24 4.5.2 Findings from Table B-1, Appendix B to Subpart A of 10CFR Part 51..................................4-25 4.5.3 GEIS Background....................................................................................................................4-25 4.5.4 Analysis of Environmental Impact ..........................................................................................4-25 4.5.5 Consideration of Alternatives for Reducing Adverse Impacts.................................................4-26 4.6 REFURBISHMENT IMPACTS ON IMPORTANT PLANT AND ANIMAL HABITATS, AND THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES...........................................................................................................................4-26 4.6.1 Requirement [10CFR51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E)] .................................................................................4-26 4.6.2 Findings from Table B-1, Appendix B to Subpart A of 10CFR Part 51..................................4-26 4.6.3 GEIS Background....................................................................................................................4-26 4.6.4 Analysis of Impacts from Refurbishment Activities on Important Plant/Animal Habitats ......4-27 4.6.5 Analysis of Impacts of the Proposed Action on Threatened or Endangered Species..............4-27 4.6.6 Consideration of Alternatives for Reducing Adverse Impacts.................................................4-31 4.7 VEHICLE EXHAUST EMISSIONS.........................................................................................................4-31 4.7.1 Requirement [10CFR51.53(c)(3)(ii)(F)] .................................................................................4-31 4.7.2 Findings from Table B-1, Appendix B to Subpart A of 10CFR Part 51..................................4-31 4.7.3 Analysis of Environmental Impact ..........................................................................................4-32 4.8 MICROBIOLOGICAL (THERMOPHILIC) ORGANISMS ...........................................................................4-32 Environmental Report Page ii Arkansas Nuclear One – Unit 1 4.8.1 Requirement [10CFR51.53(c)(3)(ii)(G)].................................................................................4-32 4.8.2 Findings from Table B-1, Appendix B to Subpart A of 10CFR Part 51..................................4-32 4.8.3 GEIS Background....................................................................................................................4-32 4.8.4 Analysis of Environmental Impact ..........................................................................................4-33
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Analyzing the Energy Industry in United States
    +44 20 8123 2220 [email protected] Analyzing the Energy Industry in United States https://marketpublishers.com/r/AC4983D1366EN.html Date: June 2012 Pages: 700 Price: US$ 450.00 (Single User License) ID: AC4983D1366EN Abstracts The global energy industry has explored many options to meet the growing energy needs of industrialized economies wherein production demands are to be met with supply of power from varied energy resources worldwide. There has been a clearer realization of the finite nature of oil resources and the ever higher pushing demand for energy. The world has yet to stabilize on the complex geopolitical undercurrents which influence the oil and gas production as well as supply strategies globally. Aruvian's R'search’s report – Analyzing the Energy Industry in United States - analyzes the scope of American energy production from varied traditional sources as well as the developing renewable energy sources. In view of understanding energy transactions, the report also studies the revenue returns for investors in various energy channels which manifest themselves in American energy demand and supply dynamics. In depth view has been provided in this report of US oil, electricity, natural gas, nuclear power, coal, wind, and hydroelectric sectors. The various geopolitical interests and intentions governing the exploitation, production, trade and supply of these resources for energy production has also been analyzed by this report in a non-partisan manner. The report starts with a descriptive base analysis of the characteristics of the global energy industry in terms of economic quantity of demand. The drivers of demand and the traditional resources which are used to fulfill this demand are explained along with the emerging mandate of nuclear energy.
    [Show full text]
  • Byron, Units 1 & 2, Dresden, Units 2 & 3, James A. Fitzpatrick, Lasalle
    200 Exelon Way Exelon Generation ® Kennett Square. PA 19348 www.exeloncorp.com 10 CFR 50.55a RS-19-089 JAFP-19-0084 August 27, 2019 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 Byron Station, Units 1 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-37 and NPF-66 NRC Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455 Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-19 and DPR-25 NRC Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-59 NRC Docket No. 50-333 LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18 N RC Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-37 4 Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85 N RC Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353 Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-29 and DPR-30 NRC Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265 Subject: Request to Use a Provision of a Later Edition of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI Reference: NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2004-12, "Clarification on Use of Later Editions and Addenda to the ASME OM Code and Section XI," dated July 28, 2004 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Request to Use a Provision of a Later Addenda of the ASME B&PV Code, Section XI August 27, 2019 Page 2 In accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a, "Codes and standards," paragraph (g)(4)(iv), and the guidance provided in the referenced document, Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) requests NRC approval to use a specific provision of a later edition of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code, Section XI, for the units identified above.
    [Show full text]
  • Nrc Liaison Report
    SC-2Mtg07-2_Att#10 NRC LIAISON REPORT • STP first company to step forward in decades seeking new reactor license The application, a 200,000-page document submitted on a single DVD, was filed on September 24. The staff and STP officials met October 11 for the first public meeting since the application was filed. NRC staffers outlined several issues during the meeting, including a lack of supporting documents for at least two sections, outdated data for one section, missing figures for another and, in one instance, the absence of state emergency preparedness plans that were cross-referenced in the application. • TVA Opts For AP1000 Design Instead Of Completing Partially Finished Existing Reactors. TVA is submitting the combined operating license request nearly two decades after work stopped in 1988 toward building two similar-sized reactors at Bellefonte. TVA officials determined that finishing those reactors, which the agency started building in 1973, would be too costly." Application will be the first involving construction of a Westinghouse AP1000 advanced reactor, made by Westinghouse Electric Co., which is owned by Japan's Toshiba Corp. • Grid Security A video released last month by CNN illustrates the potential danger to the power grid, experts say. While in the past, most had imagined a cyberattack might shut down patches of the US grid for a few days at worst, But the video shows a demonstration by the Idaho National Laboratory that a large electric generator shaking violently, spraying metal parts, and spewing smoke before grinding to a stop. The method of attack used in that demonstration could be replicated to destroy more and larger equipment, several experts say.
    [Show full text]
  • Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment December 2003
    Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment December 2003 Ouachita Ecoregional Assessment Team Arkansas Field Office 601 North University Ave. Little Rock, AR 72205 Oklahoma Field Office 2727 East 21st Street Tulsa, OK 74114 Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment ii 12/2003 Table of Contents Ouachita Mountains Ecoregional Assessment............................................................................................................................i Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................3 BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................................................4 Ecoregional Boundary Delineation.............................................................................................................................................4 Geology..........................................................................................................................................................................................5 Soils................................................................................................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Electric Power Monthly December 1997
    DOE/EIA-0226(97/12) Distribution Category UC-950 Electric Power Monthly December 1997 With Data for September 1997 Energy Information Administration Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels U.S. Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 mmwm OF m$ mumr is mmm This report was prepared by the Energy Information Administration, the independent statistical and analytical agency within the Department of Energy. The information contained herein should not be construed as advocating or reflecting any policy position of the Department of Energy or any other organization. Contacts The Electric Power Monthly is prepared by the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration. Questions and comments concerning the contents of the Electric Power Monthly may be directed to: Ms. Sandra Smith, Project Leader Energy Information Administration, EI-524 U.S. Department of Energy Washington, DC, 20585 Telephone number: (202)426-1173 Internet E-Mail number: [email protected] or the following subject specialists: Subject Contact Phone Number Internet E-Mail Electricity Supply and Demand Forecast.. Rebecca McNerney 202-426-1251 [email protected] Industry Developments Kenneth McClevey 202-426-1144 [email protected] New Electric Generating Units Karen McDaniel 202-426-1234 [email protected] U.S. Electric Utility Net Generation Melvin E. Johnson 202-426-1172 [email protected] U.S. Electric Utility Consumption of Fuels . Melvin E. Johnson 202-426-1172 [email protected] U.S. Electric Utility Stocks of Fuels Melvin E. Johnson 202-426-1172 [email protected] U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 20071204-Ucs-Brief-Got-Water
    GOT WATER? Nuclear power plants are usually built next to lakes, rivers, and oceans.1 Not for the scenic views that such locales provide, but because water can absorb the waste heat produced by the plants. Nuclear power plants consume vast amounts of water during normal operation to absorb the waste heat left over after making electricity and also to cool the equipment and buildings used in generating that electricity. In event of an accident, nuclear power plants need water to remove the decay heat produced by the reactor core and also to cool the equipment and buildings used to provide the core’s heat removal. This issue brief describes the reliance of nuclear power plants on nearby bodies of water during normal operation and under accident conditions. All of the 104 nuclear reactors currently licensed to operate in the United States are light2 water reactors. Sixty-nine (69) are pressurized water reactors (PWRs) and 35 are boiling water reactors (BWRs). In a PWR, water flowing through the reactor core is In a BWR, water flowing through the reactor core is heated by its thermal energy. Because this water is heated by its thermal energy and boils. The steam flows maintained under high pressure (over 2,000 pounds per from the reactor vessel to the turbine. The steam spins the square inch), it does not boil even when heated to over turbine, which is connected to a generator that produces 500ºF. The hot water flows from the reactor vessel and electricity. The steam exits the turbine into the condenser. enters thousands of metal tubes within the steam Water from the nearby lake, river, or ocean flows through generator.
    [Show full text]
  • Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 & 3
    UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION III 2443 WARRENVILLE RD. SUITE 210 LISLE, IL 60532-4352 July 19, 2017 Mr. Bryan C. Hanson Senior VP, Exelon Generation Co., LLC President and CNO, Exelon Nuclear 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL 60555 SUBJECT: DRESDEN NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3—NRC INTEGRATED INSPECTION REPORT 05000237/2017002 AND 05000249/2017002 Dear Mr. Hanson: On June 30, 2017, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an integrated inspection at your Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3. On June 30, 2017, the NRC inspectors discussed the results of this inspection with Mr. J. Washko and other members of your staff. The results of this inspection are documented in the enclosed report. Based on the results of this inspection, one issue was self-revealed and was evaluated under the risk significance determination process as having very low safety significance (Green). The NRC has also determined a violation is associated with this issue. Because the licensee initiated a condition report to address this issue, the violation is being treated as a Non-Cited Violation (NCV), consistent with Section 2.3.2 of the Enforcement Policy. This NCV is described in the subject inspection report. If you contest the violations or significance of this NCV, you should provide a response within 30 days of the date of this inspection report, with the basis for your denial, to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555–0001, with copies to the Regional Administrator, Region III; the Director, Office of Enforcement; and the NRC Resident Inspector at the Dresden Nuclear Power Station.
    [Show full text]
  • Year 2020 Comprehensive Development Plan
    1 Year 2020 Comprehensive Development Plan City of Russellville, Arkansas INTRODUCTION Preparing for the future… the City of Russellville Year 2020 Comprehensive Development Plan identifies major issues facing the City’s continuous growth and development. It also provides a graphic guideline for official public policy to facilitate the orderly growth and development of the City’s emerging urban area. The Year 2020 Comprehensive Development Plan is a comprehensive and long-range physical growth plan for the City and the immediately surrounding area. The Plan represents desired land use patterns throughout the City in response to citizen input, projected population growth, utility service area, and various physical constraints imposed by the existing natural physical features of the area. The Plan is a graphic guideline for shaping the City’s future and provides a foundation for managing the City’s development. The Plan is represented by a graphic two-dimensional illustration that evolved from an 18-month process involving numerous meetings with city officials, planning commission members, various citizen groups and interested individuals. The Plan provides a consensus of Russellville’s desires relative to urban expansion for the City, the predominant types of land uses that should emerge. For a detailed discussion of the technical elements of the Russellville Year 2020 Comprehensive Development Plan, the following technical reports are available: • Existing Land Use and Capacity Analysis • Development Trends and Demand Analysis AUTHORITY AND PLANNING BOUNDARY The Planning authority for the City of Russellville to provide comprehensive planning is authorized by Arkansas State Statute Act 186 of 1957 as amended. The City’s jurisdiction for planning extends up to five miles beyond its corporate limits and can be used for the purpose of subdivision regulations.
    [Show full text]
  • Cheap Natural Gas, Stagnant Power Demand, and Power Prices That
    Cheap natural gas, stagnant power demand, and power prices that have fallen significantly since 2008 have jeopardized the economics of about two-thirds of the nation’s 100-GW nuclear capacity, according to a working paper from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research. About 21 GW in merchant deregulated markets are retiring, or are at high risk of retiring the paper suggests. Here’s a profitability outlook for all 61 nuclear plants in the U.S. over the short term (between 2017 and 2019), according to the research entity. Source: “Early Nuclear Retirements in Deregulated U.S. Markets: Causes, Implications and Policy Options,” MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research (March 2017) —Copy and artwork by Sonal Patel, a POWER associate editor. Millstone 14.8 Seabrook 14.0 Nine Mile Point 13.7 North Anna 13.7 James A. FitzPatrick 12.9 Indian Point 2 12.6 Pilgrim Nuclear 9.9 Calvert Cliffs 9.5 Indian Point 3 9.0 R.E. Ginna/Ontario Sta. 13 8.2 Surry 5.1 Davis Besse 4.5 Clinton Power Station 3.6 Perry 3.5 *Profitability is defined as the net pre-tax Limerick 1.9 Dresden 1.8 earnings of the individual facilities, Peach Bottom 1.7 calculated as the sum of energy sales, Donald C. Cook 1.4 capacity market revenue, and policy support Susquehanna 1.3 (subsidies if applicable) minus the cost of Braidwood Generating 0.8 generation. Salem 0.4 LaSalle County 0.3 St. Lucie 0.1 Beaver Valley –0.1 Palo Verde –0.5 Hope Creek –0.5 Grand Gulf –1.2 Alvin W.
    [Show full text]
  • Generic Fundamentals Examination Results
    October 7, 2019 THIS LETTER DISTRIBUTED TO THE FOLLOWING DOCKET NUMBERS: Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2, Docket No. 50-368 Columbia Generating Station, Docket No. 50-397 Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Docket Nos. 50-275/323 River Bend Station, Unit 1, Docket No. 50-458 SUBJECT: GENERIC FUNDAMENTALS EXAMINATION RESULTS On September 4, 2019, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) administered the generic fundamentals examination (GFE) section of the written operator licensing examination to employees at your facility. Enclosed with this letter are copies of both forms of the examination, including answer keys, the grading results for your facility, and copies of the individual answer sheets for each of your employees. Please forward the results to the individuals along with the copies of their respective answer sheets. A “P” in the RESULTS column indicates that the individual achieved a passing grade of 80 percent or better on the GFE, while an “F” indicates that the individual failed the examination. If you have any questions concerning this examination, please contact Mr. Eric Cushing at 301-415-1064 and/or [email protected]. Sincerely, /RA Gregory E. Werner, Chief Operations Branch Division of Reactor Safety Enclosures: As stated Reactor 50 dockets - 2 - cc w/enclosures: Dennis Kilpatrick, Training Manager Arkansas Nuclear One Entergy Operations, Inc. 1448 S.R. 333 Russellville, AR 72802 Glenn Pierce, Manager Nuclear Training Columbia Generating Station Energy Northwest, MD-1023 P.O. Box 968 Richland, WA 99352-0968 Justin Rogers, Training Manager Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon Power Plant P.O. Box 56, Mail Code 104/6 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Kevin Stupak, Manager Training Entergy Operations, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1 - Issuance of Amendment No
    May 19, 2021 Mr. David P. Rhoades Senior Vice President Exelon Generation Company, LLC President and Chief Nuclear Officer (CNO) Exelon Nuclear 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL 60555 SUBJECT: CLINTON POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 1 - ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT NO. 237 REGARDING ADOPTION OF 10 CFR 50.69, “RISK-INFORMED CATEGORIZATION AND TREATMENT OF STRUCTURES, SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS OF NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS” (EPID L-2019-LLA-0098) Dear Mr. Rhoades: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued the enclosed Amendment No. 237 to Facility Operating License No. NPF-62 for the Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1. The amendment is in response to your application dated April 30, 2020 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML20121A241) as supplemented by letter dated November 24, 2020 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20329A433). The amendment adds a new license condition to the Facility Operating License to allow the implementation of the risk-informed categorization and treatment of structures, systems, and components of nuclear power reactors in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 50.69. A copy of the Safety Evaluation is also enclosed. A Notice of Issuance will be included in the Commission’s next monthly Federal Register notice. Sincerely, /RA/ Joel S. Wiebe, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch III Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-461 Enclosures: 1. Amendment No. 237 to NPF-62 2. Safety Evaluation cc: Listserv EXELON GENERATION COMPANY, LLC DOCKET NO. 50-461 CLINTON POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 1 AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]