[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Archive Top]

RE: [Bulk] Re: [cdn-nucl-l] Urgent enough to restart?



-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Daley
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 8:02 AM
 
<snip>
As far as I can tell (again, outside observer here) the CNSC is merely doing their job.... based on the latest analysis, keeping the probability below 10^-5 or 10^-6... whatever it is for NRU.
<snip>
 Andrew,
 
I think you may have put your finger on the root of the problem, so to speak.
While it makes sense to use probabilistic safety standards on complex systems like powerplants having high-pressure components, and perhaps also on automated subsystems and equipment, when it comes to pool-type reactors, I believe that the deterministic approach makes a lot more sense for severe accident analysis.
 
Let me try to illustrate what I mean, with an example taken from the local (Quebec) media twenty years ago.
While NRU is much larger than the reactor discussed in this example (the ten-megawatt SES-10  Slowpoke), the same principles apply.  
 
http://www.cns-snc.ca/branches/quebec/slowpoke/CHUS_Heiki_Tamm_Record_Oct_88.pdf
Commentary by Dr. Heiki Tamm (Manager, Technology, AECL Local Energy Systems), The Record, Eastern Townships, Oct. 1988
  : 
"It is incorrect to say that, if boiling occurred in the pool, radioactivity would be released, requiring evacuation....
As long as the fuel is in the water (boiling or not) there is no reason to expect radioactive release since the water provides cooling to the fuel."
"If boiling continued for four months, the water level in the pool would be lowered.....
This assumes that no action as simple as turning on a hose is taken within those four months to make up the water being lost.
Thus, talk of hazardous releases and evacuations in this situation is without any factual foundation."  
 
http://www.cns-snc.ca/branches/quebec/slowpoke/CHUS_Heiki_Tamm_Record_Oct_88_icon.jpg   
http://www.cns-snc.ca/branches/quebec/slowpoke/SLOWPOKE_media_clippings.html 
 
I guess I would have to agree with you that "the CNSC is merely doing their job," but I also think that if they were a bit more knowledgeable (they are NOT "nuclear experts"), they would not be making unreasonable demands of licensees.
By the same token, licensees need to get over their attitude of "whatever Lola wants, Lola gets," and agreeing to sign on to almost any demand, with little regard to realistic implementation schedules -- and of course third parties that may be adversely affected, like the hospital patients requiring nuclear medicine (presumably this includes antinuke activists).
 
Ciao,

 Jaro
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^