DOCSLIB.ORG

NUCLEAR ENERGY in TEXAS, 1945-1993 By

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

THE LONE STAR AND THE ATOM: NUCLEAR ENERGY IN TEXAS, 1945-1993 by TODD WALKER, B.A., M.A. A DISSERTATION IN HISTORY Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas' Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Approved Chairperso/i ot tlie Committee Accepted Dean of the Graduate School August, 2002 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I extend my thanks and much appreciation to the many people who helped and encouraged my efforts in completing this dissertation. Certainly, I must thank Dr. Paul Carlson for his guidance and unending patience and for devoting large amounts of his personal time in reviewing and editing my many drafts. His direction and knowledge were invaluable in helping me keep my focus. I also must thank the other members of my doctoral committee: Dr. Donald Walker, Dr. Joseph King, Dr. James Harper, and Dr. Grant Hall. Their suggestions and encouragement helped greatly in preparing this dissertation. All of the faculty and staff in the Department of History were helpful and invaluable. In addition, I thank Steve Porter for allowing access to his papers. They supplied a wealth of information without which this dissertation would have been impossible. No amount of thanks can show my gratitude towards my parents, Thomas and Martha Walker, for their support. Without their encouragement, this dissertation would not have been possible. I would also like to thank my sister and brother and their families who also supported me. Last, but certainly not least, I would like to express my gratitude to my fellow graduate students and friends in the Department of History. Without Les Cullen, Boyd Trolinger, Joe Brown, Ron Power, Scott Sosebee, Dave Weir, Bill Clayson, Steve Short, Dana Magill, Jenny Board and many others, graduate school would not have been as rewarding or entertaining. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS II ABSTRACT iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS vi CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF NUCLEAR POWER IN AMERICA 23 III. THE DECISION TO BUILD THE COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR POWER STATION 58 IV. MISMANAGEMENT AND CONFLICT AT COMANCHE PEAK 95 V. GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION AND THE COMPLETION OF COMANCHE PEAK 138 VI. THE EARLY YEARS OF THE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT 176 VII. THE DISMISSAL OF BROWN & ROOT 225 VIII. THE COMPLETION OF THE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT 274 IX. CONCLUSION 315 BIBLIOGRAPHY 328 ABSTRACT Nuclear energy, since its inception in 1945, has been one the United States' most controversial technologies. Even before the well-publicized incidences at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, nuclear projects encountered a variety of problems and obstacles that decreased their cost-effectiveness. Nuclear power, as time progressed, transformed from a possible answer to the world's energy needs into an economic, social, and political nightmare for many people and regions. The experience of Texas with nuclear energy was no different. This dissertation is the first in-depth study of the development of nuclear power in the Lone Star State. In Texas, utilities did not implement nuclear power until the early 1970s, much later than in many other areas of the country. Because of the state's abundant natural resources, utilities did not foresee an immediate need for alternative energy. The increases in energy requirements in the 1960s created a sudden surge in interest in nuclear power. Texas utilities rushed to develop nuclear projects, but, in doing so, failed to consider many of the unique characteristics of nuclear power. Utilities completed two nuclear projects in Texas: the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, near Fort Worth and owned by Texas Utilities, Inc., and the South Texas Project, near Houston and owned by the partnership of Houston Lighting & Power, Central Power & Light, and the cities of San Antonio and Austin. Both projects encountered lengthy delays and tremendous cost iv overruns. Anti-nuclear activists, the Public Utility Commission of Texas, and consumer advocates opposed the projects because of safety and financial concerns. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued numerous citations and fines against the projects and, in both cases, came near to canceling the troubled projects. Despite the problems, the owners of Comanche Peak and South Texas persisted in their attempts to implement nuclear power. By the time the projects reached completion, nuclear energy was, however, no longer cost effective nor considered safe by many citizens. After nearly twenty years of construction and licensing, the two nuclear facilities were two of the costliest plants in American history. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ACORN - Association of Community Organization for Reform Now ACRS - Atomic A/E - Architect/Engineer AEC - Atomic Energy Commission ASLB - Atomic Safety & Licensing Commission CASE - Citizens' Association for Sound Energy CAT - Construction Appraisal Team CFUR - Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation CPRT - Comanche Peak Response Team CPSES - Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station DP&L - Dallas Power & Light EPA - Environmental Protection Administration ER - Environmental Report FSAR - Final Safety Analysis Report GAP - Government Accountability Project GSU - Gulf States Utilities JCAE - Joint Committee on Atomic Energy LCRA - Lower Colorado River Authority LWA - Limited Work Authorization MAC - Management Analysis Company NRC - Nuclear Regulatory Commission vi NSSS - Nuclear Steam System NUS - Nuclear Utility Services PSAR - Preliminary Safety Analysis Report PUC - Public Utility Commission QA/QC - Quality Assurance/Quality Control REA - Rural Electrification Administration SER - Safety Evaluation Report SPP - Steve Porter Papers STIS - South Texas Interconnected System STP - South Texas Project SWEC - Stone & Webster Engineering Services TESCO - Texas Energy Services Company TMI - Three Mile Island TMPA-Texas Municipal Power Association TP&L - Texas Power & Light TRT - Technical Review Team TU - Texas Utilities TUGCO - Texas Utilities Generating Company TUSI -Texas Utilities Services, Inc. WPPSS - Washington Public Power Supply System VII CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION "Nuclear Reactors Make Good Neighbors" was the titie of a film shown to Austin, Texas, residents in 1973.'' Using the film, utilities hoped to convince area residents that nuclear power was safe, inexpensive, and the answer to their energy needs for the foreseeable future. The citizens of Austin, however, were not persuaded and remained cautious about approving the city's involvement in the South Texas Project. Nonetheless, over the next twenty years, the city joined the nuclear project, but after a number of voter referenda, attempted to withdraw and subsequently got involved in several lawsuits regarding Austin's involvement with the project. The confusion, the uncertainty, and the litigation reflect not only Austin's experience with nuclear power, but also the larger state's experience with nuclear energy as a whole. Atomic energy in the Lone Star state has been controversial and nearly disastrous for those involved. Utility companies completed two large nuclear facilities but not before experiencing nearly every problem possible for a nuclear project. Nuclear power in Texas began slowly and developed amid strong opposition from many areas. The full-scale implementation of the technology, as predicted in the 1950s when atomic energy appeared to be the future, never ^ Texas Obsen/er, November 16, 1973. occurred. The end of the 1970s energy crisis, safety concerns, and decreasing fuel costs removed the greatest reason for nuclear power. Additionally, federal courts and regulatory agencies became increasingly more sympathetic to the concerns of anti-nuclear activists. The larger problem, however, came from the general population. Many people felt nuclear energy was not worth the environmental and safety risks. Opponents, already present to varying degrees wherever nuclear power existed, became more and more vocal. As the development of nuclear power progressed, the opposition organized and found sympathetic licensing boards. The combination of difficulties produced a situation in which the utility companies often felt beleaguered. The resulting situation in turn led to tensions within the utilities and betiween the utility companies and their contractors. Frequent changes of personnel and adjustments in the management organization were symptomatic of the problems.^ Anti-nuclear advocates used the personnel changes as proof of their allegations of mismanagement. In the early stages of the projects, the opponents were not organized enough to impede the initial licensing hearings. Most of the opponents were individuals without the financial resources to challenge legally the projects. Interestingly, the one group that might have ^ Two interesting examinations of the problems encountered by nuclear power are John N. Campbell, Collapse of an Industry: Nuclear Power and the Contradictions of U.S. Po//cy (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1988) and James M. Jasper, Nuclear Politics: Energy and the State in the United States, Sweden, and France (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990). efl'ectively confronted nuclear development, the major oil and gas concerns within Texas, did not oppose nuclear power publicly. Perhaps the companies never felt threatened by nuclear power. Whatever the case, large-scale nuclear power remains something for the future. The history of nuclear power in Texas is not unlike that of the larger nation, but certain elements make it a unique part of the national story. Moreover, a study of nuclear power development
Recommended publications
  • Fizzling the Plutonium Economy: Origins of the April 1977 Carter Administration Fuel Cycle Policy Transition

    Fizzling the Plutonium Economy: Origins of the April 1977 Carter Administration Fuel Cycle Policy Transition

    Fizzling the Plutonium Economy: Origins of the April 1977 Carter Administration Fuel Cycle Policy Transition The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Williams, Peter King. 2010. Fizzling the Plutonium Economy: Origins of the April 1977 Carter Administration Fuel Cycle Policy Transition. Master's thesis, Harvard University, Extension School. Citable link https://nrs.harvard.edu/URN-3:HUL.INSTREPOS:37367548 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Fizzling the Plutonium Economy: Origins of the April 1977 Carter Administration Fuel Cycle Policy Transition Peter Williams A Thesis in the Field of History for the Degree of Master of Liberal Arts in Extension Studies Harvard University May 2010 © 2010 Peter Williams Abstract This study examines the scientific advocacy that shaped President Carter’s April 1977 policy decision to block the domestic implementation of so-called “plutonium economy” technologies, and thereby mandate the use of an “open” or “once–through” fuel cycle for U.S. nuclear power reactors. This policy transition was controversial, causing friction with U.S. allies, with the nuclear power industry, and with Congress. Early in his presidential campaign, Carter criticized the excessive federal financial commitment to developing plutonium-based reactors and adopted the view that the weapons proliferation risks of plutonium economy technologies were serious and needed to be addressed.
  • Significant Incidents in Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities

    Significant Incidents in Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities

    IAEA-TECDOC-867 Significant incidents in nuclear fuel cycle INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY The IAEA does not normally maintain stocks of reports in this series. However, microfiche copie f thesso e reportobtainee b n sca d from INIS Clearinghouse International Atomic Energy Agency Wagramerstrasse 5 P.O. Box 100 A-1400 Vienna, Austria Orders should be accompanied by prepayment of Austrian Schillings 100, in the form of a cheque or in the form of IAEA microfiche service coupons which may be ordered separately from the INIS Clearinghouse. The originating Section of this publication in the IAEA was: Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Materials Section International Atomic Energy aoiicy A Wagramerstrasse 5 0 10 P.Ox Bo . A-1400 Vienna, Austria SIGNIFICANT INCIDENT NUCLEASN I R FUEL CYCLE FACILITIES IAEA, VIENNA, 1996 IAEA-TECDOC-867 ISSN 1011-4289 ©IAEA, 1996 Printe IAEe th AustriAn y i d b a March 1996 FOREWORD significano Tw t accidents have occurre histore th n di f nuclea yo r power, namely t Threa , e Mile Islan Chernobyld dan orden I . preveno rt t such accidents, causes were investigate actiond dan s were taken r exampleFo . , reporting systems were establishe accumulato dt disseminatd ean e information on accidents such as INES (International Nuclear Event Scale) and IRS (Incident Reporting System). Operators of nuclear power plants also established an information system to share incident information. The purpose of INES is to facilitate prompt communication between the nuclear community, the media and the public. The purpose of IRS is to analyse causes of significant incidents. Those systems serve to promote safety culture in nuclear power plants.
  • Challenging Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspection Findings Robert M

    Challenging Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspection Findings Robert M

    Georgia State University College of Law Reading Room Law Library Student-Authored Works Law Library 12-1-2011 Challenging Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspection Findings Robert M. Berryman, P.E. Georgia State University College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/lib_student Part of the Law Commons Institutional Repository Citation Berryman,, Robert M. P.E., "Challenging Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspection Findings" (2011). Law Library Student-Authored Works. 34. https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/lib_student/34 This Article was created by a Georgia State University College of Law student for the Advanced Legal Research class. It has been preserved in its original form, and may no longer reflect the current law. It has been uploaded to the Digital Archive @ GSU in a free and open access format for historical purposes. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Challenging Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspection Findings - LibGuides at Georgia State University College of Law Challenging Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspection Findings Guide Information Last Updated: Jan 24, 2012 Guide Index Home Guide URL: http://libguides.law.gsu.edu/content.php?pid=258191 Primary Sources Tags: advanced_legal_research Secondary Sources RSS: Subscribe to Updates via RSS Interest Groups and Associations Home Overview The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is granted broad authority relative to the regulation of commercial nuclear power plants. The NRC implements an inspection program consisting of both announced inspections and daily oversight conducted by resident inspectors. In the course of these NRC inspection activities, violations of regulatory requirements may be discovered. The NRC screens these violations of regulatory requirements using the significance determination process (SDP).
  • Renewable Energy: Wind and Solar

    Renewable Energy: Wind and Solar

    Renewable Energy: Chapter | 19 Wind and Solar ❖ Can Texans harness the wind and sun and even the jobs that go with these energy sources? 600-turbine development across 336,000 Introduction acres of West Texas. Financed by Chinese In late 2009, German utility giant E.ON banks, the development will feature new constructed the world’s largest wind farm in turbines made in China and will bring the tiny West Texas town of Roscoe. The 300 temporary construction jobs and 30 Roscoe wind farm has the capacity to produce permanent jobs to the area. Renewable 781.5 megawatts — enough electricity for energy in Texas is new — and it has already every home in Plano, McKinney and the been globalized. rest of the 265,000 households in Collin These giant wind projects illustrate County. The $1 billion project in Roscoe two key trends: Texas is emerging as took 21 months to complete and employed the capital of renewable energy, and 500 construction workers, who built 627 wind foreign companies are moving fast to take turbines on the fields of 300 property owners advantage. “People in Texas think it has — land that once pumped oil. got to be conventional energy or renewable The wind turbines of West Texas spin at energy. It’s not. It’s both,” said Michael 7 miles per hour. And one turbine produces Webber, an engineering professor at the about as much electricity as 350 households University of Texas at Austin and associate consume in a year. These economics are director of the Center for International attracting more wind turbines to the state, Energy and Environmental Policy.
  • Renewable Energy Potential in Texas and Business Opportunities for the Netherlands

    Renewable Energy Potential in Texas and Business Opportunities for the Netherlands

    Renewable energy potential in Texas and business opportunities for the Netherlands Commissioned by the ministry of Foreign Affairs 2016-2017 Renewable energy potential in Texas and business opportunities for the Netherlands Elène Lenders Wageningen University Environmental Economics and Natural Resources Group, Wageningen, The Netherlands The Netherlands Business Support Office, Houston, Texas, United States of America September 2016 – February 2017 Content 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1. Research Question ........................................................................................................................ 4 1.2. Method .......................................................................................................................................... 4 1.3. Definition of renewable energy ..................................................................................................... 5 1.4. Units .............................................................................................................................................. 5 2. The current market situation for energy in Texas ................................................................................. 6 2.1. An independent electricity grid ..................................................................................................... 6 2.2. The main fuel types supplied .......................................................................................................
  • Nuclear-Spent Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Preface and Acknowledgments 5

    Nuclear-Spent Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Preface and Acknowledgments 5

    Nuclear-Spent Science Matters, LLC Science Matters, Bethesda, Maryland Fuel and High-Level Radioactive December 2019 Waste Disposal A Review of Options Considered in the United States An independent report Deepcommissioned Inc. Isolation, by Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D. Table of Contents Preface and Acknowledgments 4 Executive Summary 8 i. Early considerations 9 ii. The 1980 Environmental Impact Statement and geologic disposal 11 iii. Retrospective on the geologic disposal decision 13 iv. The 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act 14 v. The Continued Storage Rule 15 vi. Conclusions 16 I. From the 1950s to the mid-1970s 18 i. The 1957 National Research Council Report 20 ii. Lyons, Kansas 26 II. The changing framework in the 1970s 33 i. The energy front 34 ii. A change in nuclear power prospects 35 iii. The Indian nuclear test 38 III. Options for spent-fuel and high-level waste disposal 41 i. Transmutation 45 ii. Disposal in space 48 iii. Ice-sheet disposal 54 iv. Sub-seabed disposal 58 v. Island disposal 61 vi. Well injection 61 vii. Rock melt 64 viii. Disposal in very deep holes 66 ix. Disposal in a mined geologic repository 69 IV. Retrospective on disposal options 78 i. Breeder reactors and reprocessing 80 ii. Reprocessing-dependent disposal approaches 83 iii. Non-reprocessing dependent disposal concepts 88 iv. Deep-vertical borehole disposal 93 v. Horizontal borehole disposal 95 V. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act 98 VI. The NRC’s Continued Storage Rule and geologic isolation 106 i. The Continued Storage Rule 107 ii. Comments on continued storage and geologic isolation 108 VII.
  • State Auditor Finds UCOP Mismanaged Funds

    State Auditor Finds UCOP Mismanaged Funds

    VOLUME 50, ISSUE 35 MONDAY, MAY 1, 2017 WWW.UCSDGUARDIAN.ORG CAMPUS LOCAL SUN GOD Students, Faculty FESTIVAL March for Climate Change ILLUSRTATION BY JUAREZ DAVID ILLUSRTATION The goal of the march was to call attention to the causes and importance of global warming. BY Kevin Pichinte Contributing Writer Thousands of activists marched the streets of Downtown San Diego for The People’s Climate March on April 29 to raise awareness about NOT FEELING THOSE POST- both the planetary and political SUN GOD FESTIVAL BLUES? factors causing Earth’s warming READ OUR GUIDE TO GET BACK climate. The demonstration featured Students dance in the crowd at the Sun God Festival that took place on Saturday on RIMAC feld. Photo by Christian Duarte//Guardian INTO SHAPE FOR MIDTERM speeches from former teachers, locals, SEASON AND THE REST OF THE Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher and UC San Diego student LONG, HOT DAYS THAT MAKE Mukta Kelkar. UP SPRING QUARTER. UC SYSTEM The San Diego People’s Climate March was one of 300 marches across lifestyle, PAGE 10 the nation including The People’s State Auditor Finds UCOP Mismanaged Funds Climate March in Washington D.C., By Lauren HOlt and the goal was to call on leaders to News Editor use clean energy sources and put a SUN GOD REFLECTION halt on climate change policies that he Office of the California State Auditor paying more campus assessment, which in turn OVERBEARING VIBES are being implemented by the current released a report today finding that the has potentially necessitated the recent increases OPINION, Page 4 administration.
  • Texas Wind Industry's Rapid Growth Creates New Challenges

    Texas Wind Industry's Rapid Growth Creates New Challenges

    BU S I NES SEX R E V I E W A TBureau of Business Research • IC2 institute •The University of Texas at AustinSFebruary 2010 In the past decade, Texas began to harness in carbon emissions and other harmful by- Texas Wind some of its abundant wind potential and, in products associated with some conventional the process, became an international wind forms of power, decreased dependence on Industry's energy leader. The state currently accounts for foreign oil, and economic revitalization of more than 25 percent of installed wind energy rural areas, to name but a few. As compelling Rapid capacity in the United States (see Table 1). as the arguments for wind energy may be, the But while 2009 brought a new pro-renewable growth of wind energy in Texas hinges upon Growth energy administration in Washington, the industry’s ability to address issues that may increased public awareness and interest in limit future development. green technology, and an ever-expanding Creates New demand for energy, the growth of the state’s For example, although wind energy has been new installed capacity fell below 40 percent touted as a green alternative to traditional Challenges for the first time since 2006 (see Table 2, p. generation, there is growing concern about 2). While the recession-induced credit crunch the environmental impact of development by and falling natural gas prices were two obvious on certain key species. And on the political culprits, Texas faces a host of other challenges as front, while the wind industry successfully Will Furgeson avoided any major setbacks during the 81st Development Manager, it seeks to retain its position atop the domestic Invenergy wind energy market and attract the capital and Legislative Session in 2009, the industry must new jobs that the booming renewable energy navigate through another session in 2011.
  • Bibliography on Saskatchewan Uranium Inquiries and the Northern and Global Impact of the Uranium Industry

    Bibliography on Saskatchewan Uranium Inquiries and the Northern and Global Impact of the Uranium Industry

    University of Regina iNis-mf—13125 __ CA9200098 Prairie Justice Research Bibliography on Saskatchewan Uranium Inquiries and The Northern and Global Impact of the Uranium Industry :• IN THF PimhlC INTEREST BIBLIOGRAPHY ON SASKATCHEWAN URANIUM INQUIRIES AND THE NORTHERN AND GLOBAL IMPACT OF THE URANIUM INDUSTRY Jim Harding, B.A. (Hons.), M.A., Ph.D. Director, Prairie Justice Research Beryl Forgay, B.Ed., B.HE., M.A. Research Officer, Prairie Justice Research Mary Gianoli, B.Ed. Research Co-ordinator, Prairie Justice Research Cover Design: Rick Coffin Published by PRAIRIE JUSTICE RESEARCH 1988 SERIES: IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST (Research Report No. 1) Published by: Prairie Justice Research Room 515 Library Building University of Regina Regina, Saskatchewan Canada S4S OA2 Cataloguing in Publication Data Harding, Jim, 1941- Bibliography on Saskatchewan uranium inquiries and the northern and global impact of the uranium industry ISBN 0-7731-0052-0 I. Uranium mines and mining - Environmental aspects - Saskatchewan - Bibliography. 2. Uranium industry - Environmental aspects - Saskatchewan - Bibliography. 3. Uranium industry - Government policy - Saskatchewan - Bibliography. I. Forgay. Beryl, 1926- II. University of Regina. Prairie Justice Research. III. Title. Z6738.U7H37 1986 016.3637'384 C86-091166-: ISBN 0-7731-0135 (Set) This is a publication of Prairie Justice Research at the University of Regina. Prairie Justice Research is funded by an operating contract with the Ministry of the Solicitor General and has the capacity to conduct socio-legal research for a diverse range of constituencies. For further informaiton contact: Dr. Jim Harding Director Prairie Justice Research Library Building University of Regina Regina, Saskatchewan Canada S4S 0A2 (306) 584-4064 NOTE: This research project was funded through "Human Context of Science and Technology" strategic grants of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
  • The Economic Value of Renewable Energy in Texas

    The Economic Value of Renewable Energy in Texas

    The Economic Value of Renewable Energy in Texas Wind Solar Alliance (WSA) American Wind Energy Association Fall 2018 Prepared by & TXP, Inc. 1310 South 1st Street, Suite 105 Austin, Texas 78704 www.txp.com Commissioned by: Wind Solar Alliance (WSA) American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1 Background: Renewables in the Texas Energy Market ............................................................ 3 Renewable Energy in Texas: Providing Revenue to Local Governments ................................. 7 Renewable Energy in Texas: Providing Revenue to Landowners .......................................... 11 Renewable Energy in Texas: Reducing Energy Costs for Customers ..................................... 13 The Model ............................................................................................................................. 13 Model Results: Impact on the Wholesale Electricity Costs .................................................. 14 Renewable Energy in Texas: Providing Well-Paying Jobs ...................................................... 17 Industry-Related Employment.............................................................................................. 17 Backward & Forward Linkages/Supply Chain ....................................................................... 17 Renewable Energy in Texas: Stimulating Economic
  • Compare and Contrast Major Nuclear Power Plant Disasters: Lessons Learned from the Past

    Compare and Contrast Major Nuclear Power Plant Disasters: Lessons Learned from the Past

    163 10th International Conference of the International Institute for Infrastructure Resilience and Reconstruction (I3R2) 20–22 May 2014 Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA Compare and Contrast Major Nuclear Power Plant Disasters: Lessons Learned from the Past Sayanti Mukhopadhyay and Makarand Hastak Construction Engineering and Management, Purdue University Jessica Halligan School of Nuclear Engineering, Purdue University ABSTRACT The construction of nuclear power plants is a major step towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions compared to the conventional coal-fired or oil-fired power plants. However, some of the major nuclear accidents in the past have raised questions about the safety and reliability of nuclear power plants. This paper compares and contrasts the major nuclear accidents of the past for example, the Chernobyl disaster (USSR), the Fukushima Daiichi disaster (Japan), and the Three Mile Island incident (USA). Although each of the accidents was unique, a thorough comparison found some common issues, such as faulty design of reactors and safety systems, safety rules violations, and lack of trained operators. The primary impacts mostly involved radiation hazards such as exposure to varying doses of radiation, uninhabitable neighborhoods and health problems; the levels of impact varied mostly due to different intensities of warnings and precautionary measures taken by the local governments. The research findings would serve as an important resource for the nuclear professionals to plan proper precautionary measures in order to avoid the major issues that initiated or resulted from the accidents in the past. 1. INTRODUCTION summarizes the important lessons learned from the past instances which could serve as an Nuclear power plants are one of the most complex information tool for the nuclear professionals to and sophisticated energy systems designed to plan for proper preventive measures well in produce low carbon electrical energy in contrast to advance to avoid similar accidents in future.
  • The Nuclear Accident at Chernobyl: Immediate and Further Consequences

    The Nuclear Accident at Chernobyl: Immediate and Further Consequences

    The article was received on September 10, 2020, and accepted for publishing on February 13, 2021. VARIA The nuclear accident at Chernobyl: Immediate and further consequences Symeon Naoum1, Vasileios Spyropoulos1 Abstract: The accident at Chernobyl occurred in April 1986 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Soviet Union. The incident occurred during a scheduled safety test. A combination of inherent reactor design flaws and operators’ mistakes resulted in reactor’s No.4 disaster and the emission of a large quantity of radiation. The immediate actions involved the fire extinguishing, the cleanup of radioactive residues and the prevention of a new explosion. For this purpose, plenty of people worked with self-sacrifice. The people who lived nearby were removed. As far as the socio-economic impact for the Soviet Union is concerned, it was quite serious. Moreover, the environmental and human health consequences were also alarming with thyroid cancer being the most studied. Useful conclusions, especially for the safety both of reactors and nuclear power, as well as for the impact of radiation at ecosystems have been drawn. The debate about the use of nuclear power has remained open ever since. Keywords: nuclear power, thyroid cancer, RBMK reactor, radiation, radioactivity, liquidators INTRODUCTION while 28 firemen and employees finally died. The Chernobyl The Chernobyl nuclear accident occurred on 26 April 1986 in accident is considered the most damaging nuclear power the light water graphite moderated reactor No 4 at the plant accident in history. The Chernobyl and the Fukushima Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, close the town of Pripyat, in accident are the two nuclear accidents classified as a level 7 Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic Soviet Union, roughly (the maximum classification) on the International Nuclear 100km of the city of Kiev [1].