Upload
elfreda-holt
View
218
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
70 Years of Radioactive Risksin America and Japan
Kevin KampsBeyond Nuclear
Medical and Ecological Consequences of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident
New York Academy of MedicineMarch 11-12, 2013
FalloutOppenheimer and Groves at “Trinity” test blast site, July 1945
Destroyed Nagasaki Buddhist temple, with flattened city in background, August 1945
Reprocessing plant fires/explosions
Tokai-mura, Ibaraki Prefecture, March 1997 West Valley, NY, 1966-1972
Inadvertent nuclear criticalitiesShika NPP, Ishikawa Prefecture, June 18, 1999
Tokai-mura, Ibaraki Prefecture, Sept. 30, 1999
EarthquakesKashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant, Niigata Prefecture, July 16, 2007
Entergy’s Indian Point Units 2 & 3, Buchanan, NY
Additional Risks: RPV Embrittlement
Genkai-1, Saga PrefectureEntergy’s Palisades atomic reactor, Covert, MI
Additional Risks: High-Level Radioactive Waste
Storage Pools
• Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4 on brink of collapse
• U.S. pools contain much more HLRW than Japanese pools
• Many warnings about risk of catastrophic pool fires
Additional Risks:High-Level Radioactive Waste Leaks
Hanford underground tanks Indian Point HLRW storage pools
False solutions: Reprocessing and Centralized Interim Storage
Rokkasho reprocessing facility, Aomori Prefecture Savannah River Site, South Carolina
Some good news: shutdownsOi, Fukui Prefecture, July 2012(the only 2 reactors in all of Japan to be restarted post-Fukushima)
Kewaunee, WI, June 2013
GE BWR Mark Is & IIs: Early Warnings
“Recent events have highlighted the safety disadvantages of pressure-suppression containments…What are the safety advantages of pressure suppression, apart from the cost saving?...I recommend that the AEC adopt a policy of discouraging further use of pressure-suppression containments, and that such designs not be accepted for construction permits filed after a date to be decided.”
Contained in a memo to his boss by AEC Safety Officer, Stephen Hanauer, Sept. 20,1972
GE Mark I/II: Early Warnings, Ignored
“The acceptance of pressure suppression containment concepts by all elements of the nuclear field…is firmly embedded in the conventional wisdom. Reversal of this hallowed policy, particularly at this time, could well be the end of nuclear power. It would throw into question the continued operation of licensed plants…and would generally create more turmoil than I can stand thinking about.”
Contained in a response by AEC Safety Head, Joseph Hendrie, September 25, 1972
GE 3 blow the whistle
In 1976 Gregory C. Minor, Richard B. Hubbard, and Dale G. Bridenbaugh blew the whistle on safety problems with atomic reactors designed by General Electric. The three resigned from their jobs after becoming increasingly convinced that the atomic reactor design they were reviewing — the Mark 1 — was so flawed it could lead to a devastating accident.
Post-Chernobyl soul searching• In 1986, Harold Denton,
then the NRC's top safety official, told an industry trade group that the "Mark I containment, especially being smaller with lower design pressure, in spite of the suppression pool, if you look at the WASH 1400 safety study, you'll find something like a 90% probability of that containment failing.”
Freeze Our FukushimasThere are 31 still operating GE Mark I and II BWRs in U.S.:
Mark Is (23 units): Browns Ferry 1, 2 and 3, Decatur, AL -- Brunswick 1 & 2, Southport, NC – Cooper, Brownville, NE -- Dresden 2 & 3, Morris, IL -- Duane Arnold, Palo, IA --Edwin Hatch 1 & 2, Baxley, GA -- Fermi 2, Monroe, MI -- Hope Creek, Artificial Island, NJ – Fitzpatrick, Scriba, NY – Monticello, Monticello, MN -- Nine Mile Point Unit 1, Scriba, NY -- Oyster Creek, Lacey Township, NJ -- Peach Bottom 2 & 3, Delta, PA – Pilgrim, Plymouth, MA -- Quad Cities 1 & 2, Cordova, IL -- Vermont Yankee, Vernon, VT.
Mark IIs (8 units): LaSalle 1 & 2, Ottawa, IL -- Nine Mile Point 2, Scriba, NY -- Limerick 1 & 2, Pottstown, PA -- Susquehanna 1 & 2, Salem Twp., PA -- Columbia Generating Station, Richland, WA.