DOCSLIB.ORG

DOE-HDBK-3010-94; Airborne Release Fractions/Rates and Respirable Fractions for Nonreactor Nuclear Facilities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DOE-HDBK-3010-94; Airborne Release Fractions/Rates and Respirable Fractions for Nonreactor Nuclear Facilities TS NOT MEASUREMENT SENSITIVE DOE-HDBK-3010-94 December 1994 DOE HANDBOOK AIRBORNE RELEASE FRACTIONS/RATES AND RESPIRABLE FRACTIONS FOR NONREACTOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES Volume I - Analysis of Experimental Data U.S. Department of Energy AREA SAFT Washington, D.C. 20585 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. This document has been reproduced directly from the best available copy. Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831; (615) 576-8401. Available to the public from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161; (703) 487-4650. Order No. DE95004712 DOE-HDBK-3010-94 FOREWORD 1. This Department of Energy (DOE) Handbook is approved for use by the DOE and its contractors as an information source. 2. Beneficial comments (recommendations, additions, deletions) and any pertinent data that may be of use in improving this document should be addressed to: Director, Office of Engineering, Operations, Security and Transition Support (DP-31, GTN), U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., 20585. 3. The issue of airborne releases of radioactive material from nonreactor nuclear facilities has been a subject of investigation for almost four decades, during which time a large number of individuals have contributed to the current knowledge base. Beginning in the 1960’s, a number of experiments were conducted in the United States and other countries to develop actual data on release potentials. In the late 1970s, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) sponsored a research program to develop improved methods for realistically evaluating the consequences of major accidents in nuclear fuel cycle facilities. This program culminated in the development of NUREG-1320 (5/88), "Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facility Accident Analysis Handbook." The U.S. DOE began placing an increased emphasis on environmental, health, and safety issues in the mid- to late-1980s. In response to these efforts, the DOE Office of Defense Programs (DP) sponsored the Defense Programs Safety Survey (11/93). One of the objectives of this study was to build upon previous work to "develop consistent data and methodologies for making conservative estimates of basic consequence derivation parameters." As part of this effort, experimental data for airborne release fractions and respirable fractions were summarized and evaluated to estimate reasonably bounding values for physical stresses associated with the experiments. The unique and valuable nature of that compilation has been judged to merit further development as a handbook that can be directly used by technical analysts. 4. This handbook contains (1) a systematic compilation of airborne release and respirable fraction experimental data for nonreactor nuclear facilities, (2) assessments of the data, and (3) values derived from assessing the data that may be used in safety analyses when the data are applicable. To assist in consistent and effective use of this information, the handbook provides: Identification of a consequence determination methodology in which the information can be used; Page i DOE-HDBK-3010-94 Discussion of the applicability of the information and its general technical limits; Identification of specific accident phenomena of interest for which the information is applicable; Examples of use of the consequence determination methodology and airborne release and respirable fraction information. It is acknowledged that the data examined in this handbook is limited to that available during the preparation process. Other data may exist or be developed, and individuals are invited to submit such material for consideration for any future revisions. Page ii DOE-HDBK-3010-94 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This Department of Energy Handbook was prepared by Mr. Jofu Mishima and Mr. David Pinkston of SAIC under the technical direction of Mr. Dae Chung, DOE Office of Defense Programs. No one group of individuals, however, can appropriately take sole credit or responsibility for an undertaking of this magnitude. The preparers would like to gratefully acknowledge the specific authors whose works are referenced in this document and analysts, operators, scientists, and managers throughout the Department of Energy weapons complex and NRC fuel cycle licensee process who have labored for decades to define a context in which this information is meaningful. This broad thanks extends likewise to the large number of individuals who have provided comments on the handbook. Additional individuals involved in the development and refinement of this document merit special mention. Mr. Roger Blond of SAIC was the initiator of this effort under the sponsorship of Mr. Jeff Woody and Mr. Gerald Gears, DOE-DP. The task of editing and word processing this document was performed by William Benton, Collise Bohney, Sandra Marks, Carla Merrill, Elizabeth Owczarski, and Dawn Standley. Beyond the formal comment process used for documents of this type, the following individuals provided valuable technical insights and/or specific reviews of this document in its various stages of development: Dr. Chris Amos, SAIC Mr. John Joyce, WHC Ms. Marcel Ballinger, PNL Mr. Randy Kircher, H&R Tech. Assoc. Dr. Sanford Bloom, MMES-OR Dr. Bob Luna, SNL Dr. Bruce Boughton, SNL Ms. Lenna Mahonney, PNL Dr. Sandra Brereton, LLNL Mr. Bob Marusich, PNL Dr. Donald Chung, Scientech Dr. Louis Muhlenstein, WHC Mr. Chris Everett, SAIC Dr. Louis Restrepo, SNL Dr. Roland Felt, WINCO Mr. Fred Stetson, SAIC Mr. Terri Foppe, EG&G-Rocky Flats Dr. Doug Stevens, LLNL Mr. Abel Garcia, LLNL Mr. Ray Sullivan, SAIC Dr. Norman Grandjean, SNL Ms. Wendy Ting, SAIC Dr. John Haschke, LANL Mr. John Van Kieren, WHC Mr. Hans Jordan, EG&G-Rocky Flats Dr. David Wilson, WSRC One additional special effort merits final mention. In precursor efforts to this document, the DOE Office of Nuclear Safety provided the services of a review panel organized and directed by Dr. Vinod Mubayi, BNL, whose members were Dr. Brian Bowsher, AEA Tech. UK, Dr. Bob Einzinger, PNL, Dr. Jim Gieseke, BCL, and Dr. Dana Powers, SNL. This group reviewed draft versions of this document as well. Page iii DOE-HDBK-3010-94 Page iv DOE-HDBK-3010-94 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1: MAIN TEXT List of Figures .................................................... xii List of Tables ................................................... xiv List of Acronyms ................................................ xviii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Handbook .................................... 1-1 1.2 Source Term Formula .................................... 1-1 1.3 Applicability of Data .................................... 1-7 1.4 Accident Stresses ...................................... 1-10 1.5 Handbook Organization .................................. 1-12 2.0 MATERIALS IN THE GASEOUS STATE 2.1 Noncondensible Gases .................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Summary of Analysis of Data ......................... 2-1 2.1.2 Discussion ....................................... 2-1 2.2 Vapors (Condensible Gases) ................................ 2-2 2.2.1 Summary of Analysis of Data ......................... 2-2 2.2.2 Discussion ....................................... 2-2 3.0 LIQUIDS 3.1 Summary of Analysis of Data .............................. 3-1 3.2 Aqueous Solutions ...................................... 3-7 3.2.1 Thermal Stress: Evaporation and Boiling ................. 3-7 3.2.1.1 Heating Of Shallow Pools ..................... 3-10 3.2.1.2 Heating of Pools ........................... 3-13 3.2.1.3 Additional Evaporation and Bubbling Release Studies . 3-15 3.2.2 Explosive Stress: Shock, Blast, and Venting .............. 3-18 3.2.2.1 Shock Effects ............................. 3-18 3.2.2.2 Blast Effects .............................. 3-19 3.2.2.3 Venting of Pressurized Liquids ................. 3-19 3.2.2.3.1 Venting Below the Liquid Level ........ 3-20 3.2.2.3.2 Venting Above the Liquid Level or Overall Containment Failure ................. 3-22 3.2.2.3.3 Flashing Spray .................... 3-26 3.2.3 Free-Fall Spill ................................... 3-33 Page v DOE-HDBK-3010-94 3.2.3.1 Solutions ................................ 3-33 3.2.3.2 Slurries ................................. 3-35 3.2.3.3 Viscous Solutions .......................... 3-36 3.2.4 Aerodynamic Entrainment and Resuspension .............. 3-37 3.2.4.1 Spray Release From Large Outdoor Pond .......... 3-37 3.2.4.2 Suspension of Liquids From Shallow Pools of Concentrated Heavy Metal Solutions on Stainless Steel ............................. 3-40 3.2.4.3 Estimate of the Resuspension of Liquids From Soil ................................ 3-40 3.2.4.4 Suspension From Soil at Higher Windspeeds ........ 3-41 3.2.4.5 Bounding Assessments ....................... 3-41 3.3 Organic, Combustible Liquids ............................. 3-42 3.3.1 Burning of Small Volume/Surface Area 30% TBP-Kerosine Solutions, No Vigorous Boiloff ....................... 3-43 3.3.2 Pool Fires of 30% TBP-Kerosine ...................... 3-44 3.3.3 Combustion of TBP-Kerosine Solutions Over Pools of Acid, Vigorous Boiloff ................................. 3-44 3.3.4 Airborne Release of Uranium During the Burning of Process Solvent .................................. 3-46 3.3.5 Airborne Release During Combustion of TBP-Kerosine ....... 3-46 3.3.6 UNH and Air-Dried UNH on Various Surfaces During a Shallow Pool Gasoline Fire .........................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • From Wilderness to the Toxic Environment: Health in American Environmental Politics, 1945-Present
    From Wilderness to the Toxic Environment: Health in American Environmental Politics, 1945-Present The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Thomson, Jennifer Christine. 2013. From Wilderness to the Toxic Environment: Health in American Environmental Politics, 1945- Present. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:11125030 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 From Wilderness to the Toxic Environment: Health in American Environmental Politics, 1945-Present A dissertation presented by Jennifer Christine Thomson to The Department of the History of Science In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of History of Science Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts May 2013 @ 2013 Jennifer Christine Thomson All rights reserved. Dissertation Advisor: Charles Rosenberg Jennifer Christine Thomson From Wilderness to the Toxic Environment: Health in American Environmental Politics, 1945-Present Abstract This dissertation joins the history of science and medicine with environmental history to explore the language of health in environmental politics. Today, in government policy briefs and mission statements of environmental non-profits, newspaper editorials and activist journals, claims about the health of the planet and its human and non-human inhabitants abound. Yet despite this rhetorical ubiquity, modern environmental politics are ideologically and organizationally fractured along the themes of whose health is at stake and how that health should be protected.
    [Show full text]
  • Losalarms NATIONAL LABORATORY
    LA-12388-M MANUAL UC-714 Issued:No#ember1992 NUCLEARCRITICALITYSAFETY: 5-DAYTRAININGCOURSE offered at The Los AlamosNationalLaboratory Editedand Compiledby JohnA. SchIesser LosAlarms NATIONAL LABORATORY LosAlamos,New Mexico87S45 A’ L P : ., . , LA--12388-M DE93 002308 ABSTRACT This com ilation of notes is .prescnted as a source re?erence for the cri~icahty safety course. It represents the contributions of many people, particularly Tom McLaughlin, the course’s primary instructor. Table of Contents I. General 5-Day Course Objectives Cours,” Critique Il. History Early History of Criticality Safety Criticality Control in Operations with Fissile Material Criticality Risk in Perspective III. Fundamentals Fundamental Concepts and Simple Fissioning Systems Factors AfYectingCriticality Safety IV. Analysis Methods Critical Dimensions of Systems Containing ‘U, WPu, and ‘U Buckling Conversion Example Storage and Transportation v. Administrative Practices Communication Links in Nuclear Criticality Safety American National Standards VI. Accidents and Incidents A Review of Criticality Accidents Process Criticality Accident Likelihoods, Consequences, and Emergency Planning Probabilistic Risk Assessment Applications VII. Glossary Glossary of Nuclear Criticality Terms Reference List vm. Experiments Experimental Plans Revisions Date Description of revision 11/92 Original issue . 5-Day NuclearCriticality Safety Course Objectives At the completion of this training course, the attendee will: be able to define terms commonly used in nuclear criticality) safety. be able to appreciate he fundamentals of nuclear criticality safety. be able to identify facmrs which iiffect nuclear criticality safkty. be able to identify examples 01’criticality contro!s ac;used at k .Alamos. be able to identify examples of circumstances present during criticality acciu~nts. be able to identify examples of computer codes used by the nuclear criticality safety specialist.
    [Show full text]
  • High Cost of Fear V2
    The High Cost of Fear Understanding the Costs and Causes of South Korea’s Proposed Nuclear Energy Phase-Out By Michael Shellenberger, Mark Nelson, Madi Czerwinski, Michael Light, John Lindberg, and Minshu Deng August 2017 The High Cost of Fear Page !1 of !62 Cover photo credit: Kenneth Lu/Flickr The High Cost of Fear Page !2 of !62 Table of Contents Executive Summary About the Authors Introduction I. South Korea’s Proposed Nuclear Phase-out A. Political Reform and Democratization B. Challenges and Opportunities 1. Methodology 2. Findings II. Understanding Anti-Nuclear Fear A. Why Prosperity Breeds Paranoia B. Why Environmentalists Turned Against Nuclear in the 1970s C. Foreign Funding and Misinformation in South Korea D. The Truth About Fukushima E. Fukushima as Panic F. Hyping Earthquake and Corruption Fears III. Lessons and Recommendations A. Lessons Learned B. Recommendations IV. Appendix A: Environmental Progress Donors V. Appendix B: Open Letter to President Moon from Climate Scientists and Conservationists VI. Appendix C: “Why I Changed My Mind about Nuclear Power” by Michael Shellenberger. Chosun Ilbo. July 21, 2017. VII. Appendix D: Supplementary Charts and Figures The High Cost of Fear Page !3 of !62 Executive Summary “The High Cost of Fear” uses publicly available data, the best-available peer-reviewed scientific research and simple methods to calculate economic and environmental impacts of a nuclear phase-out in South Korea. We find a nuclear phase-out would: • Cost at least $10 billion per year for additional natural gas purchases
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear and Coal in the Postwar US Dissertation Presented in Partial
    Power From the Valley: Nuclear and Coal in the Postwar U.S. Dissertation Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Megan Lenore Chew, M.A. Graduate Program in History The Ohio State University 2014 Dissertation Committee: Steven Conn, Advisor Randolph Roth David Steigerwald Copyright by Megan Lenore Chew 2014 Abstract In the years after World War II, small towns, villages, and cities in the Ohio River Valley region of Ohio and Indiana experienced a high level of industrialization not seen since the region’s commercial peak in the mid-19th century. The development of industries related to nuclear and coal technologies—including nuclear energy, uranium enrichment, and coal-fired energy—changed the social and physical environments of the Ohio Valley at the time. This industrial growth was part of a movement to decentralize industry from major cities after World War II, involved the efforts of private corporations to sell “free enterprise” in the 1950s, was in some cases related to U.S. national defense in the Cold War, and brought some of the largest industrial complexes in the U.S. to sparsely populated places in the Ohio Valley. In these small cities and villages— including Madison, Indiana, Cheshire, Ohio, Piketon, Ohio, and Waverly, Ohio—the changes brought by nuclear and coal meant modern, enormous industry was taking the place of farms and cornfields. These places had been left behind by the growth seen in major metropolitan areas, and they saw the potential for economic growth in these power plants and related industries.
    [Show full text]
  • Copies of Environmental Assessment (EA) References
    4c Wm Proiect // Department of Energy Docket No. Nevada Operations Office P 0RL V'( ý..-;(-.T CONTRCL- P. 0. Box 14100 Distr b ytý U- Las Vegas, NV 89114-4100w'- - Z 3 (Re'turnto Wf, 623-SSj MAR 2 7 1986 N. K. Stablein Division of Waste Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7915 Eastern Avenue Silver Spring, MD 20910 COPIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) REFERENCES Enclosed are the EA references that you recently requested. This set represents those references that are expected to be cited in the final EA that did not appear in the December 1984 draft EA. Enclosure 1 is an alphabetical listing of all the references in this shipment. Enclosure 2 is a list of references expected to be cited in the final EA which are not yet available. The references on enclosure 2 will be shipped to you as soon as possible. Donald L. Vieth, Director WMPO:MBB-928 ,Waste Management Project Office Enclosure: As stated cc w/encl 1 and 2 only: V. J. Cassella, DOE/HQ (RW-22), FORS M. B. Blanchard, WMPO, DOE/NV J. C. Rotert, WMPO, DOE/NV J. D. D'Lugosz, WMPO, DOE/NV M. D. Voegele, SAIC, Las Vegas, NV M. I. Foley, SAIC, Las Vegas, NV M. A. Glora, SAIC, Las Vegas, NV J. L. Younker, SAIC, Las Vegas, NV M. L. Brown, SAIC, Las Vegas, NV S. B. Jones, SAIC, Las Vegas, NV 0. K. Lewis, SAIC, Las Vegas, NV P. T. Prestholt, NRC, Las Vegas, NV 8604210090 860327 PDR WASTE WM-L1 PDR ENCLOSURE 1 REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER NEW Test Data for Test Well Barr, G.
    [Show full text]
  • 70 Years of and Counting
    Federation of American Scientists 70 years of and counting Alexander DeVolpi Retired, Argonne National Laboratory Freeman Dyson Retired, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University Charles D. Ferguson President, FAS Richard L. Garwin IBM Fellow Emeritus, IBM Thomas J. Watson CHARLES D. FERGUSON Research Center Editor in Chief Frank von Hippel ALLISON FELDMAN Co-Director, Program on Science and Global Managing and Creative Editor Security, Princeton University ___________ Robert S. Norris Senior Fellow for Nuclear Policy, FAS B. Cameron Reed Charles A. Dana Professor of Physics, Alma FAS Public Interest Report College 1725 DeSales Street NW Megan Sethi Suite 600 U.S. Historian and Adjunct Professor, Cal Poly Washington, DC 20036 Pomona and Southern New Hampshire PHONE: 202.546.3300 University FAX: 202.675.1010 Daniel Singer EMAIL: [email protected] Of Counsel, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & The PIR welcomes letters to the editor. Letters Jacobson LLP should not exceed 300 words and may be edited Jeremy J. Stone for length and clarity. Founder, Catalytic Diplomacy ___________ Annual print subscription is $100.00. An archive of FAS Public Interest Reports is available online at: http://fas.org/publications/public-interest- reports/. Cover image: U.S. military observe the explosion during Operation Crossroads Baker, a nuclear test conducted on Bikini Atoll on July 25, 1946. Source: U.S. Department of Defense. PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE: REINVENTION AND RENEWAL Charles D. Ferguson………………………………………………………………………………..1 THE LEGACY OF THE FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS Megan Sethi………………………………………………………………………………………...5 SCIENTISTS AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS, 1945-2015 Robert S. Norris…………………………………………………………………..…………….....12 GOVERNMENT SECRECY AND CENSORSHIP Alexander DeVolpi……………………………………………………………………………......15 FAS HISTORY, 1961-1963 Freeman Dyson…………………………………………………………………………...………23 FAS IN THE 1960s: FORMATIVE YEARS Daniel Singer………………………………………………………………………………...……26 REVITALIZING AND LEADING FAS: 1970-2000 Jeremy J.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Power: How Environmentalism Lost Its Way
    Nuclear power: How environmentalism lost its way With all of nuclear power’s environmental benefits, many have wondered at the intensity behind the antinuclear movement. History shows how influential ideologies shaped the early movement. Today, however, some environmentalists are beginning to rethink old dogmas. By Paul Lorenzini With the current concerns about cli- nuclear power remained broad-based into mate change, some environmentalists the early 1960s. or four decades, nuclear power ad- have begun to challenge this dogma, as During the next decade, all of that vocates have been fighting—and, for highlighted by Robert Stone’s 2013 docu- would change. By 1974, a full-fledged Fthe most part, losing—an ideological mentary, Pandora’s Promise. It is not just anti nuclear movement had become well battle. Today, the nuclear power industry carbon emissions that are involved, as organized and had begun mobilizing a na- faces policy-imposed challenges ranging recent studies have shown that the exclu- tional resistance, including plans in 1976 from legislated prohibitions, to punitive sion of nuclear power from current energy for antinuclear initiatives in seven states. economic policies, to mandates and stat- policies is posing an unreasonable threat In spite of these efforts, public opinion was ed policy goals that specifically push re- to biodiversity.[2] But nuclear still faces still supportive of nuclear power, as evi- newable energy to the exclusion of nuclear an uphill battle. After years of intellec- denced by the sound rejection of all sev- power. The specter of the premature closing tual, political, and financial investment, en of those antinuclear ballot measures.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Nrc Slams Westinghouse Ap1000's Flawed Design
    NOVEMBER 6, 2009 | No. 697 U.S. NRC SLAMS WESTINGHOUSE AP1000’S FLAWED DESIGN Two new reactor designs were forecast (at least in Europe and North-America) make the nuclear renaissance happen: the Westinghouse AP1000 and Areva’s EPR. The EPR-design, is as we U.S. NRC SLAMS all know, under heavy fire, and now also from the French nuclear WESTINGHOUSE AP1000’S regulator (see next article). But in the U.S., the AP1000-design is FLAWED DESIGN 1 also running into all kind of problems with the Nuclear Regulatory REGULATORS HIGHLY Commission. CRITICAL ON EPR CONTROL AND COMMAND SYSTEM 2 (697.5987) NIRS Southeast - In a highly unusual move, on 15 October 2009, the The “Safety Shield Building” which NGO'S FORCE RWE OUT OF U.S. nuclear regulator sent a key surrounds the containment has several BELENE PROJECT 3 component of the Westinghouse AP1000 functions, among these to hold a large (not-yet-licensed) “standardized design” tank of water over containment so that in CRACK IN FLORIDA REACTOR CONTAINMENT SIGNALS back to the drawing board. The NRC staff the event of an accident the water is HIDDEN DANGER IN PWR'S 4 is quoted in a press release stating that dribbled over the surface of the steel the AP1000 “Safety Shield Building,” the containment dome (the so-called gravity- U.S.A.: SOUTHWEST outer structure surrounding the AP1000 fed cooling). The AP1000 containment is INDIGENOUS URANIUM containment, does not meet “fundamental a separate, inner structure made of 1 FORUM engineering standards” with respect to inch (2.54 cm) thick steel.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    JOURNAL OF WORLD-SYSTEMS RESEARCH ISSN: 1076-156X | Vol. 26 Issue 2 | DOI 10.5195/JWSR.2020.982 | jwsr.pitt.edu Nuclear Weapons and the Treadmill Vol.of Destruction 1 | DOI 10.5195/JWSR.1 in the Making of the Anthropocene Michael Lengefeld Goucher College [email protected] Abstract This research analyzes the human dimensions of environmental degradation and injustice in the age of nuclear weapons. Human societies are fundamentally linked to global environmental systems and are transforming ecological conditions in dramatic ways, such that the current epoch has been termed the Anthropocene. This article highlights the human health consequences, ecological transformations, and threats to biodiversity imposed by military institutions in the Anthropocene; emphasizing how these outcomes can be traced to specific interrelated sets of processes and generative conditions. I advance the treadmill of destruction theory as one useful theoretical framework for examining these socio-ecological interrelationships. The investigation focuses on the institutional foundations of nuclear war strategy and preparations for nuclear war, and their interactions with ecosystems. I provide an analysis of the American nuclear weapons production process, revealing how a treadmill of destruction emerged after World War II. This analysis of how the developmental dynamics of nuclear weapons have changed over time brings greater clarity to the Anthropocene concept and the distinct role of military institutions in shaping the new era. Keywords: treadmill of destruction, exterminism, nuclear weapons, mutant ecology, Anthropocene Articles in vol. 21(2) and later of this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 United States License. This journal is published by the University Library System, University of Pittsburgh as part of its D-Scribe Digital Publishing Program and is cosponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press.
    [Show full text]
  • Organic Farmers, German Vintners, and the Atomic Monster Of
    ORGANIC FARMERS, GERMAN VINTNERS, AND THE ATOMIC MONSTER OF SEABROOK: A TRANS-ATLANTIC HISTORY OF SOCIAL ACTIVISM AND NUCLEAR POWER FROM NEW ENGLAND TO WEST GERMANY by DAVID C. SMITH Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Arlington in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON May 2015 Copyright © by David C. Smith 2015 All Rights Reserved ii Acknowledgements This project was possible thanks in part to the help and participation of Renny Cushing, Sam Lovejoy, Randy Kehler, Anna Gyorgy, Harvey Wasserman, Charles Light, and Green Mountain Post Films. I also want to thank Volkmar Vogt of the Social Movements Archive in Freiburg im Breisgau and the Archives and Special Collections staff at the University of New Hampshire. I would like to acknowledge Dr. Christopher C. Morris at the University of Texas at Arlington for his leadership and mentorship as the chair of my dissertation committee as well as Drs. Marvin Dulaney and Patryk Babiracki for their contributions. I also want to recognize Drs. Paul Rosier, Paul Steege, and Maghan Keita of Villanova University as well as Drs. Joshua Landis, James L. Goldsmith, and Roberta Magnusson of the University of Oklahoma for their previous tutelage and support. I want to say a very special thank you to my wife Jenny Tan Smith for her love, support, inspiration, and patience along this long journey. Without her by my side, I strongly doubt this project would have been possible. I also want to thank my dog Boomer for his companionship during many late night writing sessions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Clash of Values Over Oregon's Trojan Nuclear Plant
    Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses 1-1-2005 Progress and economy: the clash of values over Oregon's Trojan Nuclear Plant Gregory Nipper Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Nipper, Gregory, "Progress and economy: the clash of values over Oregon's Trojan Nuclear Plant" (2005). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 249. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.249 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. THESIS APPROVAL The abstract and thesis of Gregory Nipper for the Master of Arts in History were presented June 2, 2005. and accepted by the thesis committee and the department. COMMITTEE APPROVALS: Craig _ Craig Shinn Representative of the Office of Graduate Studies DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: Department of History ABSTRACT An abstract of the thesis of Gregory Nipper for the Master of Arts in History presented June 2, 2005. Title: Progress and Economy: The Clash of Values Over Oregon's Trojan Nuclear Plant. From 1976 to 1992 Portland General Electric (PGE) -- a private utility based in Portland, Oregon -- operated the Trojan Nuclear Plant near Rainier, Oregon, on the bank of the Columbia River. Trojan was the first commercial nuclear facility in the Pacific Northwest and was the largest such facility in U.S. history. From its origins, Trojan was the focus of growing conflict over atomic energy facilities and their environmental effects, risks, and costs.
    [Show full text]
  • High Cost of Fear V2
    The High Cost of Fear Understanding the Costs and Causes of South Korea’s Proposed Nuclear Energy Phase-Out By Michael Shellenberger, Mark Nelson, Madi Czerwinski, Michael Light, John Lindberg, and Minshu Deng August 2017 The High Cost of Fear Page !1 of !62 Cover photo credit: Kenneth Lu/Flickr The High Cost of Fear Page !2 of !62 Table of Contents Executive Summary About the Authors Introduction I. South Korea’s Proposed Nuclear Phase-out A. Political Reform and Democratization B. Challenges and Opportunities 1. Methodology 2. Findings II. Understanding Anti-Nuclear Fear A. Why Prosperity Breeds Paranoia B. Why Environmentalists Turned Against Nuclear in the 1970s C. Foreign Funding and Misinformation in South Korea D. The Truth About Fukushima E. Fukushima as Panic F. Hyping Earthquake and Corruption Fears III. Lessons and Recommendations A. Lessons Learned B. Recommendations IV. Appendix A: Environmental Progress Donors V. Appendix B: Open Letter to President Moon from Climate Scientists and Conservationists VI. Appendix C: “Why I Changed My Mind about Nuclear Power” by Michael Shellenberger. Chosun Ilbo. July 21, 2017. VII. Appendix D: Supplementary Charts and Figures The High Cost of Fear Page !3 of !62 Executive Summary “The High Cost of Fear” uses publicly available data, the best-available peer-reviewed scientific research and simple methods to calculate economic and environmental impacts of a nuclear phase-out in South Korea. We find a nuclear phase-out would: • Cost at least $10 billion per year for additional natural gas purchases
    [Show full text]