DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 53/Monday, March 19, 2012/Notices

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federal Register/Vol. 77, No. 53/Monday, March 19, 2012/Notices Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2012 / Notices 16091 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC–2012–0068] Order Modifying Licenses With Regard to Requirements for Mitigation Strategies for Beyond-Design-Basis External Events (Effective Immediately) In the Matter of: ALL POWER REACTOR LICENSEES AND HOLDERS OF CON- Docket Nos. (as shown in Attachment 1) License Nos. (as shown in STRUCTION PERMITS IN ACTIVE OR DEFERRED STATUS. Attachment 1) or Construction Permit Nos. (as shown in Attach- ment 1)) EA–12–049 I Approximately 40 minutes following As directed by the Commission’s staff the earthquake and shutdown of the requirements memorandum (SRM) for The Licensees and construction SECY–11–0093, the NRC staff reviewed 1 operating units, the first large tsunami permits (CP) holders identified in wave inundated the site, followed by the NTTF recommendations within the Attachment 1 to this Order hold licenses additional waves. The tsunami caused context of the NRC’s existing regulatory and CPs issued by the U.S. Nuclear extensive damage to site facilities and framework and considered the various Regulatory Commission (NRC or resulted in a complete loss of all ac regulatory vehicles available to the NRC Commission) authorizing operation and/ electrical power at Units 1 through 5, a to implement the recommendations. or construction of nuclear power plants condition known as station blackout. In SECY–11–0124 and SECY–11–0137 in accordance with the Atomic Energy addition, all direct current electrical established the staff’s prioritization of Act of 1954, as amended, and Title 10 power was lost early in the event on the recommendations based upon the of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 Units 1 and 2 and after some period of potential safety enhancements. CFR) Part 50, ‘‘Domestic Licensing of time at the other units. Unit 6 retained Since receiving the Commission’s Production and Utilization Facilities,’’ the function of one air-cooled EDG. direction in SRM–SECY–11–0124 and and Part 52, ‘‘Licenses, Certifications, Despite their actions, the operators lost SRM–SECY–11–0137, the NRC staff and Approvals for Nuclear Power the ability to cool the fuel in the Unit conducted public meetings to discuss Plants.’’ 1 reactor after several hours, in the Unit enhanced mitigation strategies intended II 2 reactor after about 70 hours, and in the to maintain or restore core cooling, Unit 3 reactor after about 36 hours, containment, and SFP cooling On March 11, 2011, a magnitude 9.0 resulting in damage to the nuclear fuel capabilities following beyond-design- earthquake struck off the coast of the shortly after the loss of cooling basis external events. At these meetings, Japanese island of Honshu. The capabilities. the industry described its proposal for a earthquake resulted in a large tsunami, Diverse and Flexible Mitigation estimated to have exceeded 14 meters Following the events at the Capability (FLEX), as documented in the (45 feet) in height, that inundated the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power Nuclear Energy Institute’s (NEI’s) letter Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant plant, the NRC established a senior-level dated December 16, 2011 (Agency site. The earthquake and tsunami agency task force referred to as the Near- Documents Access and Management produced widespread devastation across Term Task Force (NTTF). The NTTF System (ADAMS) Accession No. northeastern Japan and significantly was tasked with conducting a ML11353A008). FLEX is proposed as a affected the infrastructure and industry systematic and methodical review of the strategy to fulfill the key safety in the northeastern coastal areas of NRC regulations and processes and functions of core cooling, containment Japan. determining if the agency should make integrity, and spent fuel cooling. additional improvements to these When the earthquake occurred, Stakeholder input influenced the staff to programs in light of the events at Fukushima Dai-ichi Units 1, 2, and 3 pursue a more performance-based Fukushima Dai-ichi. As a result of this were in operation and Units 4, 5, and 6 approach to improve the safety of review, the NTTF developed a were shut down for routine refueling operating power reactors than comprehensive set of recommendations, and maintenance activities. The Unit 4 envisioned in NTTF Recommendation documented in SECY–11–0093, ‘‘Near- reactor fuel was offloaded to the Unit 4 4.2, SECY–11–0124, and SECY–11– Term Report and Recommendations for spent fuel pool (SFP). Following the 0137. Agency Actions Following the Events in Current regulatory requirements and earthquake, the three operating units Japan,’’ dated July 12, 2011. These existing plant capabilities allow the automatically shut down and offsite recommendations were enhanced by the NRC to conclude that a sequence of power was lost to the entire facility. The NRC staff following interactions with events such as the Fukushima Dai-ichi emergency diesel generators (EDGs) stakeholders. Documentation of the accident is unlikely to occur in the U.S. started at all six units providing staff’s efforts is contained in SECY–11– Therefore, continued operation and alternating current (ac) electrical power 0124, ‘‘Recommended Actions to be continued licensing activities do not to critical systems at each unit. The Taken Without Delay From the Near- pose an imminent threat to public facility response to the earthquake Term Task Force Report,’’ dated health and safety. However, NRC’s appears to have been normal. September 9, 2011, and SECY–11–0137, assessment of new insights from the ‘‘Prioritization of Recommended events at Fukushima Dai-ichi leads the 1 CP holders, as used in this Order, includes CPs, staff to conclude that additional in active or deferred status, as identified in Actions to be Taken in Response to Attachment 1 to this Order (i.e., Watts Bar, Unit 2; Fukushima Lessons Learned,’’ dated requirements must be imposed on and Bellefonte, Units 1 and 2) October 3, 2011. Licensees or CP holders to increase the VerDate Mar<15>2010 13:40 Mar 16, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19MRN1.SGM 19MRN1 emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICES 16092 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2012 / Notices capability of nuclear power plants to accident occur; and (3) emergency beyond design basis external events, mitigate beyond-design-basis external preparedness programs that include this Order requires strategies with events. These additional requirements measures such as sheltering and increased capacity to implement are needed to provide adequate evacuation. The defense-in-depth protective actions concurrently at protection to public health and safety, strategy also provides for multiple multiple units at a site. The strategies as set forth in Section III of this Order. physical barriers to contain the shall be developed to add multiple ways Guidance and strategies required by radioactive materials in the event of an to maintain or restore core cooling, this Order would be available if the loss accident. The barriers are the fuel containment and SFP cooling of power, motive force, and normal cladding, the reactor coolant pressure capabilities in order to improve the access to the ultimate heat sink to boundary, and the containment. These defense-in-depth of licensed nuclear prevent fuel damage in the reactor and defense-in-depth features are embodied power reactors. SFP, affected all units at a site in the existing regulatory requirements The Commission has determined that simultaneously. This Order requires a and thereby provide adequate protection ensuring adequate protection of public three-phase approach for mitigating of the public health and safety. health and safety requires that power beyond-design-basis external events. Following the events of September 11, reactor Licensees and CP holders The initial phase requires the use of 2001, the NRC issued Order EA–02–026, develop, implement and maintain installed equipment and resources to dated February 25, 2002, which guidance and strategies to restore or maintain or restore core cooling, required Licensees to develop mitigating maintain core cooling, containment, and containment, and SFP cooling. The strategies related to the key safety SFP cooling capabilities in the event of transition phase requires providing functions of core cooling, containment, a beyond-design-basis external event. sufficient, portable, onsite equipment and SFP cooling. NEI Document 06–12, These new requirements provide a and consumables to maintain or restore ‘‘B.5.b Phase 2 & 3 Submittal Guideline’’ greater mitigation capability consistent these functions until they can be (ADAMS Accession No. ML070090060) with the overall defense-in-depth accomplished with resources brought provides guidelines that describe the philosophy, and, therefore, greater from off site. The final phase requires necessary mitigating strategies. The NRC assurance that the challenges posed by obtaining sufficient offsite resources to endorsed these guidelines in a letter beyond-design-basis external events to sustain those functions indefinitely. dated December 22, 2006, designated as power reactors do not pose an undue Additional details on an acceptable Official Use Only. Those mitigating risk to public health and safety. In order approach for complying with this Order strategies were developed in the context to provide reasonable assurance of will be contained in final Interim Staff of a localized event that was envisioned adequate protection of public health and Guidance (ISG) scheduled to be issued to challenge portions of a single unit. safety, all operating reactor licenses and by the NRC in August 2012. This The events at Fukushima, however, CPs under Part 50 identified in guidance will also include a template to demonstrate that beyond-design-basis Attachment 1 to this Order shall be be used for the plan that will be external events may adversely affect: (1) modified to include the requirements submitted in accordance with Section More than one unit at a site with two identified in Attachment 2 to this Order.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (Wbn) - Unit 1 - Technical Specification (Ts) Change Ts-03-16, "Revision of Ultimate Heat Sink (Uhs) Temperature"
    Tennessee Valley Authority, Post Office Box 2000, Spring City, Tennessee 37381-2000 William R. Lagergren, Jr. Site Vice President, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant APR 0 7 2004 TVA-WBN-TS-03-16 10 CFR 50.90 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555 Gentlemen: In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-390 Tennessee Valley Authority ) WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT (WBN) - UNIT 1 - TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION (TS) CHANGE TS-03-16, "REVISION OF ULTIMATE HEAT SINK (UHS) TEMPERATURE" Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90, TVA is submitting a request for an amendment to WBN's License NPF-90 to change the Technical Specifications for Unit 1. The proposed TS change (TS 03-16) will revise the limiting condition for operation for TS Section 3.7.9, "Ultimate Heat Sink." The maximum essential raw cooling water (ERCW) temperature limit associated with Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.7.9.1 will be annotated with a note allowing an occasional increase from 85 degrees Fahrenheit (0F) to 880F. This proposed change is based on recent evaluations of the ERCW system and the UHS functions and maximum temperatures that will satisfy the associated safety functions. In addition, an administrative change is proposed to clarify the maximum allowable internal containment pressure. Corresponding TS Bases changes are also included for the temperature increase for UHS and the containment pressure clarification including a minor change in the maximum calculated containment pressure resulting from the increased UHS temperature. 1--~56 Pa0ted.]n ,Ededpa U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 APR 0 7 2004 TVA discussed its plans for this proposal in a meeting with NRC staff in August 2003.
    [Show full text]
  • Sequoyah Nuclear Plant
    i Tennessee Valley Authority, 1101 Market Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801 JUL 2 72004 10 CFR 50.54(f) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Gentlemen: In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-327 Tennessee Valley Authority ) 50-328 50-390 SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT (SQN) UNITS 1 AND 2 AND WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT (WBN) UNIT 1 - SIXTY-DAY RESPONSE TO NRC BULLETIN 2004-01, "INSPECTION OF ALLOY 82/182/600 MATERIALS USED IN THE FABRICATION OF PRESSURIZER PENETRATIONS AND STEAM SPACE PIPING CONNECTIONS AT PRESSURIZED-WATER REACTORS," DATED MAY 28, 2004 The purpose of this letter is to submit TVA's 60-day response to the subject bulletin for SQN and WBN, with the exception of that portion of the response identified by TVA in it.s extension request dated June 14, 2004. Specifically, as stated in the June 14 letter, TVA committed to sending a response within 60 days addressing Items (1)(a) through (1)(d) for SQN and WBN. TVA's response to Item (1)(a) would include the available information (e.g., Alloy 600/82/182 locations, joint configuration and design, etc.,) retrieved from plant records. The balance of the requested information would be obtained from the original equipment manufacturer (Westinghouse Electric Company [Westinghouse]). Westinghouse has projected that a comprehensive report would be provided to TVA by November 24, 2004. Accordingly, as committed to in the June 14 letter, TVA will submit a supplemental response within two weeks following receipt and subsequent confirmation of the information received from Westinghouse.
    [Show full text]
  • TVA Labor Relation Supplements
    Revised 01-31-2013 PROJECT AGREEMENT LABOR RELATIONS SUPPLEMENTS (LRSs not listed have been deleted) Number Subject Page LRS-2 Arbitrator Limitation Relative to Jurisdictional Issues ................................................................ 1 LRS-3 Call-By-Name ............................................................................................................................. 2 LRS-4 Staffing - Contractor vs. TVA ..................................................................................................... 3 LRS-5 Wage Determination .................................................................................................................. 4 LRS-16 Apprenticeship Programs ........................................................................................................... 5 LRS-17 Defined Incidental Work, Maintenance, & Office Work .............................................................. 8 LRS-21 Certified Apprenticeship Programs Approved to Receive Contributions From Contractors .... 11 LRS-24 Project Agreement Rates of Pay .............................................................................................. 13 LRS-25 Foremen Rates of Pay (Supervising Other Crafts) .................................................................. 14 LRS-26 Definition of First, Second, and Third Shifts (replaced 8/3/99 with Interpretation No. 21) ....... 15 LRS-27 Payroll Deductions for Political Action Committees ................................................................. 16 LRS-32 Injury - Pay
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • State Nuclear Profiles 2010
    State Nuclear Profiles 2010 April 2012 Independent Statistics & Analysis U.S. Department of Energy www.eia.gov Washington, DC 20585 This report was prepared by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the statistical and analytical agency within the U.S. Department of Energy. By law, EIA’s data, analyses, and forecasts are independent of approval by any other officer or employee of the United States Government. The views in this report therefore should not be construed as representing those of the Department of Energy or other Federal agencies. Contacts This report was prepared by the staff of the Renewables and Uranium Statistics Team, Office of Electricity, Renewables, and Uranium Statistics. Questions about the preparation and content of this report may be directed to Michele Simmons, Team Leader, Renewables and Uranium Statistics Team, or Michael Mobilia, at [email protected]. U.S. Energy Information Administration | State Nuclear Profiles 2010 i Contents Contacts ......................................................................................................................................................... i Alabama ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 Alabama total electric power industry, summer capacity and net generation, by energy source, 2010 ........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • LER 12-003-00 for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 Regarding Entry Into
    Tennessee Valley Authority, Post Office Box 2000, Spring City, Tennessee 37381 October 9,2012 10 cFR 50.73 ATTN: Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 Facility Operating License No. NPF-90 NRC Docket No.50-390 Subject: Licensee Event Report 390/,2012-003, Entry into Mode 4 without Meeting LCO 3.4.12, "Gold Overpressure Mitigation System (COMS)" The enclosed Licensee Event Report (LER) provides details concerning Watts Bar Nuclear Plant not meeting Limiting Condition for Operation3.4.12, "Cold Overpressure Mitigation System (COMS),' Conditions A and B on two occasions since August 10, 2009. This report is being submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(iXB), any operation or condition which was prohibited by the plant's Technical Specifications. There are no regulatory commitments in this letter. Please direct any questions concerning this matterto Donna Guinn, WBN Site Licensing Manager, at(23) 365-1589. Respectfully, D. E. Grissette Site Vice President Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Enclosure cc: see Page 2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 October 9,2012 Enclosure cc (Enclosure): NRC Regional Administrator - Region ll NRC Senior Resident Inspector - Watts Bar Nuclear Plant U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 3 October 9, 2012 DKG: TPM Enclosure bcc (Enclosure): NRC Project Manager - Watts Bar Nuclear Plant G. Arent T. J. Carter G.M. Cook S.M. Douglas B. M. Duckett K. D. Dutton D. H. Gronek D. K. Guinn D. E. Grissette D. E. Jernigan J. A. Perrel W. J. Pierce W.
    [Show full text]
  • Watts Bar, Units 1 and 2, Partial Response to NRC Request For
    Tennessee Valley Authority, 1101 Market Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402 CNL-19-065 July 15, 2019 10 CFR 50.69 10 CFR 50.90 ATTN: Document Control Desk U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-90 and NPF-96 NRC Docket Nos. 50-390, 50-391, and 72-1048 SUBJECT: Partial Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Regarding Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Application to Adopt 10 CFR 50.69, "Risk-informed Categorization and Treatment of Structures, Systems, and Components for Nuclear Power Reactors” (WBN-TS-17-24) (EPID L-2018-LLA-0493) References: 1. TVA letter to NRC, CNL-18-068, “Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Application to Adopt 10 CFR 50.69, ‘Risk-informed Categorization and Treatment of Structures, Systems, and Components for Nuclear Power Reactors’ (WBN-TS-17-24),” dated November 29, 2018 (ML1834A363) 2. NRC Electronic Mail to TVA, “Watts Bar Nuclear Plant - Final Request for Additional Information Related to Application to Adopt 10 CFR 50.69 (EPID L-2018-LLA-0493),” dated June 18, 2019 (ML19169A359) In Reference 1, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) submitted for Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval, a request for an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. NFP-90 and NPF-96 for the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), Units 1 and 2, to modify the WBN Facility Operating Licenses to allow for the implementation of the provisions of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50.69, “Risk-Informed Categorization and Treatment of Structures, Systems and Components for Nuclear Power Reactors.” In Reference 2, the NRC submitted a request for additional information (RAI) and requested that TVA respond by July 15, 2019, for those responses to questions not requiring uncertainty estimates and by July 29, 2019, for those responses to questions requiring uncertainty estimates.
    [Show full text]
  • Watts Bar Becomes America's 서 Rst New Nuclear Reactor of the 21St
    10/20/2016 Watts Bar becomes America's first new nuclear reactor of the 21st century [photos] | Times Free Press Watts Bar becomes America's 牦rst new nuclear reactor of the 21st century [photos] October 19th, 2016 by Dave Flessner in Business Around the Region Read Time: 5 mins. Tennessee Valley Authority Chief Nuclear O쳌cer Joe Grimes tips his hat Wednesday morning as Bill Johnson, second from right, president and CEO of TVA, announces full that Watts Bar Nuclear Plant has reached full power. Photo by Tim Barber /Times Free Press. Gallery: TVA completes first new U.S. nuclear reactor in the 21st century +12 more photos SPRING CITY, Tenn. — America's 峍rst new nuclear reactor of the 21st century was declared complete on Wednesday, helping the Tennessee Valley Authority to meet nearly half of its electricity http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/business/aroundregion/story/2016/oct/19/watts­bar­becomes­1st­new­nuclear­unit­added­us­grid­20­years/393065/ 1/4 10/20/2016 Watts Bar becomes America's first new nuclear reactor of the 21st century [photos] | Times Free Press demand with carbon-free generation as temperatures soared to a near record high on Wednesday. The Tennessee Valley Authority completed the 峍nal power ascension tests and performance measures Wednesday morning to o쳌cially declare the Unit 2 reactor at the Watts Bar Nuclear Power Plant a commercial power plant, bringing the $4.7 billion expense of 峍nishing the plant over the past four years into TVA's rate base for the 峍rst time. The achievement marks the end of a 43-year e覙ort to 峍nish what may be the last nuclear plant of its type built in the Tennessee Valley.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 174/Tuesday, September 8, 2020
    Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 174 / Tuesday, September 8, 2020 / Notices 55503 questions about Docket IDs in consented to the transfer of the March 24, 2021, the Transfer Order shall Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges; LACBWR license to Dairyland Power become null and void; provided, telephone: 301–287–9127; email: Cooperative and approved a conforming however, that upon written application [email protected]. For technical license amendment in accordance with and for good cause shown, such date questions, contact the individual listed Section 50.80, ‘‘Transfer of licenses,’’ may be extended by order. in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION and Section 50.90, ‘‘Application for This Order is effective upon issuance. CONTACT section of this document. amendment of license, construction For further details with respect to this • NRC’s Agencywide Documents permit, or early site permit,’’ of Title 10 Order, see the extension request dated Access and Management System of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 June 24, 2020, which is available (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly- CFR). By its terms, the Transfer Order electronically through ADAMS in the available documents online in the becomes null and void if the license NRC Library at https://www.nrc.gov/ ADAMS Public Documents collection at transfer is not completed within 1 year reading-rm/adams.html under https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ unless, upon application and for good Accession No. ML20188A228. Persons adams.html. To begin the search, select cause shown, the Commission extends who encounter problems with ADAMS ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For the Transfer Order’s September 24, should contact the NRC’s Public problems with ADAMS, please contact 2020, expiration date.
    [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]
  • Kewaunee Power Station Applicant's Environmental Report Operating
    Kewaunee Power Station Applicant’s Environmental Report Operating License Renewal Stage Kewaunee Power Station Applicant’s Environmental Report Table of Contents Operating License Renewal Stage TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Acronyms and Abbreviations..............................................................................................AA-1 Chapter 1 - Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose of and Need for Action .................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Environmental Report Scope and Methodology.......................................................... 1-1 1.3 Kewaunee Power Station Licensee and Ownership ................................................... 1-2 1.4 References.................................................................................................................. 1-5 Chapter 2 - Site and Environmental Interfaces ..................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Location and Features ................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Aquatic Ecological Communities................................................................................. 2-3 2.3 Groundwater Resources ............................................................................................. 2-9 2.4 Critical and Important Terrestrial Habits ...................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of the Nuclear Power Industry
    Assessment of the Nuclear Power Industry – Final Report June 2013 Navigant Consulting, Inc. For EISPC and NARUC Funded by the U.S. Department of Energy Assessment of the Nuclear Power Industry Study 5: Assessment of the Location of New Nuclear and Uprating Existing Nuclear Whitepaper 5: Consideration of other Incentives/Disincentives for Development of Nuclear Power prepared for Eastern Interconnection States’ Planning Council and National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. Navigant Consulting, Inc. 77 South Bedford Street, Suite 400 Burlington, MA 01803 781.270.0101 www.navigant.com Table of Contents Forward ....................................................................................................................................... ix Basic Nuclear Power Concepts ................................................................................................ 1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 5 1. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 9 1.1 Early Years – (1946-1957) ........................................................................................................................ 9 1.1.1 Shippingport ............................................................................................................................. 11 1.1.2 Power Reactor Demonstration Program ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]