insights from chernobyl on severe accident health and
TRANSCRIPT
Editorial 95
Table of Contents / Table de matieres
The Drift Flux Model in the ASSERT
Subchannel Code. M.B. Carver, R.A. Judd,J.C Kiteley, and A. Tahir 153
Waste ManagementA Review of Low-Level Radioactive WasteManagement Technology in the Canadian
ucleal' Indu~lry. T./. Cartel urlLi P. K.M. Ruu 166
Early Decisions in the Development of theCANDU Program. J.L. Gray 99
Health and Public AffairsInsights from Chernobyl on Severe AccidentAsse sment of CANDU Reactor .J. T. Rogers 107
Whole-Body Retention of 99rnTc-imidodiphosphate: A Measurement of Total BodyBone Turnover Rate. CL. Schultz, J. G. Roberts,CE. Webber, CA. Woolever, alld J.D. Adachi 119
Volume 1 No.2 June 1987 juin
Journal
JournalofNuclear
duCanadaNucleaire
Canada
179
185
173
CNS Conferences and Seminars
Characterization of Radioactive WastesIncorporated in a Cement Matrix.E.R. Merz, U. Uyckerilo!f, and 1<. Udo)
Spent-Fuel Storage and TransportationExperience for the Idaho NationalEngineering Laboratory. CP. Gertz,D.H. Sc!loonen, and B.H. Wakeman
Design and MaterialsCorrosion of Heat Exchange Materialsunder Heat Transfer Conditions.R.L. Tapping, P.A. Lavoie, mId D.f. Disney 123
Concentration Processe under TubesheetSllIrlep Pilp<; in lIclear Steam Generators.
F. Gonzalez and P. Spekkens 129
Simulation Methodology for Pressure Tubeintegrity Analysis and Comparison withExperiments. G.H. Archinoff, J.C LlIxat,P.O. Lowe, K.E. Locke, and A.P. Muzumdar 141
Canadian Nuclear SocietySociete Nucleaire Canadienne
NuclearJournalofCanadaJournal Nucleairedu Canada
Volume 1 No 2 June 1987 juin EDITORAlan Wyatt - Consulting Engineer
PRODUCTION MANAGERLynda Moxley
EDITORIAL BOARDA. W. Ashbrook - Eldorado ResourcesB.M. Bowen - Chedoke McMaster HospitalsF.e. Boyd - Atomic Energy Control BoardG.L. Brooks - AECL-CANDU OperationsD.R Chambers - SENES ConsultantsT.S. Drolet - Ontario HydroD,f.R. Evans - AECL Radiochemical CompanyI.S. Hewitt - Energy Conversion SystemsI. W. Hilborn - AECL Research CompanyR.E. Jervis - University of TorontoF.e. Lendrum - F. Clyde Lendrum ConsultingA.M. Marko - AECL Research CompanyJ.R. MacEwan - AECL Research CompanyD.A. Meneley - University of New BrunswickI.T. Rogers - Carleton UniversityM.L. Ross - Hydro-QuebecS. Roy - Ba~cock & Wilcox CanadaD. Rozon - Ecole PolytechniqueO.I.e. Runnalls - University of TorontoI.S. Skidd - Ontario Hydro1. W. Woodhead - Ontario HydroD.M. Wuschke - AECL Nuclear Fuel Waste ManagementOverseas RepresentativesR.I. Haslam - UKAEA RisleyR. Martinelli - ENEA ItalyI.B. van Erp - Argonne National Laboratory
Published by University of Toronto Pressfor The Canadian Nuclear Society111 Elizabeth Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5G 1P7
copyright © 1987, The Canadian Nuclear Society
Annual Subscription Rates:Institutional in Canada $90.00 Canadian
outside of Canada $90.00 U.S. (includes postage and handling)Single issue in Canada $25.00 Canadian
outside of Canada $25.00 U.S. (includes postage and handling)Replacement Issue in Canada $20.00 Canadian
outside of Canada $20.00 U.S. (includes postage and handling)Note: Supplements to the journal will be published periodically
and will be priced separatelyDesigned and Printed University of Toronto PressISSN 0833-1758
Second Class Mail Registration Pending
Editorial
Alan WyattEditor
In this, our second issue, the Nuclear Journal of Canadaincludes its first paper on the Chernobyl accident.Although the accident took place over a year ago, on26 April 1986, we make no apology for scientific paperstaking a considerable length of time to appear in print.The process of ascertaining the facts, checking Lhem,analysing them for pertinent lessons, submitting ascientific paper for peer review, and journal production will take from 12 to 18 months and maybe more.This may not satisfy the desires of the mass media, butseeking the truth is more important, in the long run,than an eye-catching but wildly inaccurate headline.
The paper by Professor Rogers in this issue is auseful overview of many of the major implications ofthe Chernobyl accident. In our next issue there willbe a more detailed technical evaluation by V.G. Snelland J.Q. Howieson. It is expected that these paperswill generate an interesting discussion.
The Chernobyl accident also raises many interesting questions that are not strictly in the scientific areas.Since nuclear power is a global energy source, anyproblems with it have global implications. If there weremajor shortcomings in the RBMK design and operatingprocedures, why did the professional critics of nuclearpower not draw proportionate attention to them proportionate to the attention that they gave to theirperception of the shortcomings of designs in the Western World?
The Three Mile Island Unit #2 accident in 1979 hadnegligible health implications, but a side-effect was adelay of six years in starting up the adjacent undamaged and uncontaminated Unit #1. At Chernobyl,Units #1 and 2 were decontaminated and restartedsome six months after the accident to Unit #4. Theadjacent Unit #3, which shared the control room withthe destroyed reactor, is scheduled to go back intoservice about now, and a new fifth unit will be inservice by year end. To what extent are these differences between TMI and Chernobyl due to differencesin political systems, to the Soviet need for electric
power, and to the actual level of hazard involved inworking on the Chernobyl site?
About 30 lives were lost in the actual Chernobylaccident, mainly among firefighters. Best estimatesare that, over the course of the next 70 years in apopulation of about 70 million, the number of additional cancer deaths resulting from the release of radioactivity is in the range of 2,000 to 5,000 people. In thatsame period, in that same population, many morepeuple will die from tobacco and alcohol-related diseases, and more than one thousand times as many willdie from 'natural' cancers. The Soviets have already. ..announced a major program of health monitoring ofthe population of European Russia in order more accurately to assess the effects of the accident. From theevidence of similar programs carried out over the past40 years on the survivors of the Hiroshima-Nagasakibombs, the resulting early diagnosis of other medicalproblems will probably save more lives than will belost from the effects of the radioactivity released. Thisshould surely raise some pertinent questions of thevalue, or lack of value, that is placed on preventivemedicine in countries that spend billions un weapons.
Steady day-by-day carnage on our highways doesnot seem to provoke much soul-searching for remedies. Even major single disasters that kill hundreds ina few minutes, such as aircraft crashes or ferry sinkings, rarely rate headlines for more than a few days.Even a nuclear accident that injures nobody oftenattracts more attention. Although many in the nuclearindustry feel somewhat paranoid about this, my ownopinion is that it is a reflection of the exceedingly highstandards uf safety set and practiced throughout thenuclear industry. When any accident occurs we tryharder to learn more from it - and that is as it shouldbe.
Since our first issue went to press we have beensaddened to learn of the deaths of Dr W.B. Lewis, onJanuary 10, at the age of 78, and of J.L. Gray, onMarch 2, at the age of 74. Both died in Deep River,close to the Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories thatwere the centrepiece of their professional lives. Their
95
departure marks the end of an era. Neither of themwas involved with the Canadian work on the Manhattan Project at the end of the Second World War.Both were architects of 'atoms for peace,' nationallyand internationally.
Both men were members of the Canadian NuclearSociety. Much will be written about them when thehistories of Canada's involvement in the nuclear ageare written. The highlights of their lives are given onthe following pages; however, I would like to add mypersonal tribute to these two great Canadians.
My first contacts with Dr Lewis occurred in 1958. Iwas a recent immigrant from the UK, working, in thevery early days of the Douglas Point Project, on tryingto develop a new steam cycle suitable for the commercial CANDU reactors. I was surprised, and somewhatalarmed, to start receiving lengthy memos from a remote figure at Chalk River, whom I had never met,raising detailed questions about steam cycle thermodynamics and the design of a steam turbine plant. Iwas yet another recipient of the probes by Dr Lewisinto every aspect of the plant design. He wanted thebest and he was determined that you were going toproduce it. Shortly afterwards he cornered me in mycubby-hole of an office in order to carry on his questioning at first hand. His keen interest certainly spurredme on to do my best, and for the next 15 years, upuntil his retirement, even though for much of thattime I was pursuing a career outside the nuclear industry, he corresponded with me, forever seekingrefinements and improvements in cycle efficiency. Hisgrasp of the fundamentals of science and technologywas awe-inspiring. He was a true scientific genius, inthe full sense of the word.
Although I first met Lome Gray in the discussionson the selection of the turbine generator for Douglas
96
Point, it was not until the mid-sixties that I was to seehim in action at close quarters. At that time I wasworking directly for AECL on the Gentilly-1 Projectand had been the principal force behind recommending the selection of a high-speed (3,600 rpm) turbinegenerator instead of the almost universal low-speed(1,800 rpm) machines. In the usual fiercely competitive bid negotiations for these large contracts, thishad become a political issue and had been raised withministers and deputy ministers in Ottawa. I was askedto attend a meeting with Lome Gray to settle this. Inthe morning Lome took me through every step andevery possible question on the entire contract. In theafternoon a meeting was held with the DM or ADMfrom every department in Ottawa evenly remotelyconnected with the contract - a horde of mandarins!Apart from my being asked to confirm some veryminor technical points, Lome answered every singlequestion concisely and accurately, and the contractaward was approved as recommended. I was impressedthat a topic that had involved my full attention forseveral months, and had a host of nuances and implications, could be handled in such masterly fashion.
I would hope that these two anecdotes illustratehow fortunate AECL and Canada were to have suchoutstanding scientific and administrative leadership.The conjunction of the unique talents of these twomen, over the quarter-century 1948-1973, was a majorfactor in establishing the CANDU system as a uniqueCanadian achievement on the world scene. The firstpaper in this issue was prepared for the sessionssponsored by the Canadian Nuclear Society at therecent Engineering Centennial Conference in Montreal. In it Lome Gray details some of the key decisionsin the development of the CANDU program.
Wilfred Bennett Lewis
1908 June 24
Education
1930-39
1939-46
1945
1946
1952
1955-64
1963
1966
1967
1968
1971
1972
1973
1981
Born Castle Carrock, Cumberland, England
Clare House SchoolHaileybury CollegeCambridge University
Cavendish Laboratory, CambridgeWorked on alpha radioactivity with Lord
RutherfordWorked on nuclear disintegration by
particles accelerated by high voltage andon the construction and operation of theCambridge cyclotron
On loan to the British Air Ministry. At endof the war was Chief Superintendent ofthe Telecommunications ResearchEstablishment
Fellow of the Royal Society (London)
Appointed Director, Division of AtomicEnergy Research, NRC at Chalk River
On formation of Atomic Energy of Canadabecame Vice-President, Research andDevelopment
Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada
Director of the American Nuclear Society(President 196]-62)
Appointed Senior Vice-President (Science)of AECL
First recipient Outstanding AchievementAward of the Public Service of Canada
u.s. Atoms for Peace Award
Companion of the Order of Canada
Honorary Fellow of Gonville and CaiusCollege, Cambridge University
Royal Medal of the Royal Society of London
Retired from AECL Appointed DistinguishedProfessor of Science, Queen's University
u.s. Department of Energy Enrico FermiAward
In the international sphere Dr Lewis was a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee to the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency and Canadian delegate to theScientific Advisory Committee to the Secretary General of theUnited Nations. He was also active in the organization ofthe various UN Geneva Conferences on the pc,)ccful uses ofnuclear energy.
97
98
James Lorne Gray
1913 March 2
Education
1938
1939
1939-45
1945-6
1946-8
1948
1949
1952
1954
1958-74
1961
1962-73
1969
1973
Born Brandon, Manitoba
Winnipeg Public SchoolSaskatoon High SchoolUniversity of Saskatchewan
B. Eng. 1935M.Sc. (Mech. Eng.) 1938
Canadian General Electric Test Course
University of Saskatchewan - Lecturer inEngineering
RCAF (retired as Wing Commander)
Associate Director-GeneraL Research andDevelopment Division, Department ofReconstruction and Supply, Ottawa
Montreal Armature Works Limited,Montreal
Scientific Assistant to the President,National Research Council
Chief of Administration, National ResearchCouncil - Chalk River Project
General Manager - Atomic Energy ofCanada Limited
Vice-President, Administration andOperations. AECL
President, AECL
D.Sc. University of British ColumbiaLL. D. University of Saskatchewan
Member, Board of Governors, CarletonUniversity (Chairman 1970-73)
Appointed a Companion of the Order ofCanada
Awarded The Professional Engineers GoldMedal by the Association of ProfessionalEngineers of Ontario