The Fearsome Reactor Meltdown Accident

  • Bernard L. Cohen


Technologies are normally developed by entrepreneurs whose primary goal is making money. If the technology is successful, the entrepreneurs prosper as a new industry develops and thrives. In the process, the environmental impacts of this new technology are the least of their concerns. Only after the public revolts against the pollution inflicted upon it does the issue of the environment come into the picture. At that point an adversarial relationship may develop, with the government serving to protect the public at the expense of the industry. Coal-burning technologies have been an excellent example of this development process.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Report of the President’s Commission on The Accident at Three Mile Island,” J.-Kemeny (Chairman), Washington, D.C., October (1979).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Rogovin (Director), “Three Mile Island, A Report to the Commissioners and to the Public,” Washington, D.C., January (1980).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. R. Lamarsh, Introduction to Nuclear Engineering (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1975); S. Glasstone and W. H. Jordan, Nuclear Power and its Environmental Effects (American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, 111., 1980 ).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Masche, “Systems Summary of a Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plant,” Westinghouse Electric Co. (1971).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Hoffman and T. Moore, “General Description of a Boiling Water Reactor,” General Electric Co. (1976).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    American National Standards for Decay Heat Power in Light Water Reactors,” American National Standards Institute ANSI/ANS-5. 1–1979.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reactor Safety Study,” Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document WASH-1400, NUREG 75/014 (1975).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Analysis of Three Mile Island Unit 2 Accident,” Nuclear Safety Analysis Center Report NSAC-1, Palo Alto, California (July 1979); “Nuclear Accident and Recovery at Three Mile Island,” Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Serial No. 96–14 (July 1980); “Investigation of the March 28, 1979 Three Mile Island Accident,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document NUREG-0600 (August 1979); Three Mile Island; The Most Studied Nuclear Accident in History,” Report to the Congress by the Comptroller-General, U.S. General Accounting Office Report EMD-80–109 (September 9, 1980 ).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Report of the Special Review Group, “Lessons Learned from Three Mile Island,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document NUREG-0616 (December 1979).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    The Safety of Nuclear Power Plants and Related Facilities,” U.S. AEC Report WASH-1250 (July 1973).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    B. L. Cohen, “Physics of the Reactor Melt-down Accident,” Nuclear Science and Engineering, 80, 47 (1982).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Gillette, “Nuclear Reactor Safety,” Science, 176, 492 (5 May 1972); 177, 111, 1 Sept; 177, 867, 8 Sept; 177, 970, 15 Sept; 177, 1080 (22 September 1972 ).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    I. Forbes, J. MacKenzie, D. F. Ford, and H. W. Kendall, “Cooling Water,” Environment (January 1972), p. 40; D. F. Ford and H. W. Kendall, “Nuclear Safety,” Environment, (September 1972).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. L. Russel, C. W. Solbrig, and G. D. McPherson, “LOFT Contribution to Nuclear Power Reactor Safety and PWR Fuel Behavior,” Proceedings, the American Power Conference, 41, 196 (1979); J. C. Lin, “Post Test-Analysis of LOFT Loss of Coolant Experiment L2–3,” EGG Idaho Report EGG-LOFT5075; J. P. Adams, “Quick Look Report on LOFT Nuclear Experiment L2–5,” EGG Idaho Report EGG-LOFT-5921 (1982).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    W. Marshall ( Chairman of Study Group), “An Assessment of the Integrity of PWR Pressure Vessels,” U.K. Atomic Energy Authority (March 1982).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    W. A. Carbiener et al., “Physical Processes in Reactor Meltdown Accidents,” Appendix VIII to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document WASH-1400 (1975).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Severe Accident Risks; An Assessment for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Doc. NUREG-1150 (1989).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    W. R. Butler, C. G. Tinkler, and L. S. Rubinstein, “Regulatory Perspective on Hydrogen Control for LWR Plants, “Workshop on Impact of Hydrogen on Water Reactor Safety, Albuquerque, New Mexico (January 1981); W. R. Butler and C. G. Tinkler, “Regulatory Perspective on Hydrogen Control for Degraded Core Accidents,” Second International Workshop on the Impact of Hydrogen on Water Reactor Safety, Albuquerque, New Mexico (1982).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hydrogen Control for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant,” Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document dated August 13, 1980.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Proposed Interim Hydrogen Control Requirements for Small Containments,” Memorandum from H. Denton to The NRC commissioners dated February 22, NRC Document SECY-80–107.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Union of Concerned Scientists, “The Risks of Nuclear Power Reactors,” Cambridge, Massachusetts (1977).22. H. W. Lewis (Chairman), “Risk Assessment Review Group Report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” NUREG/CR-400 (1978).Google Scholar
  22. 23.
    F. J. Rahn and M. Levenson, “Radioactivity Releases Following Class-9 Reactor Accidents,” Health Physics Society, Las Vegas, Nevada (June 1982); C. D. Wilkinson, “NSAC Workshop on Reactor Accident Iodine Release,” Palo Alto, California (July 1980); H. A. Morewitz, “Fission Product and Aerosol Behavior Following Degraded Core Accidents,” Nuclear Technology, 53, 120 (1981).Google Scholar
  23. 24.
    R. Wilson, S. D. Colome, J. D. Spengler, and D. G. Wilson, Health Effects of Fossil Fuel Burning. (Ballinger, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1980 ).Google Scholar
  24. 25.
    International Symposium on Areas of High Natural Radioactivity, Academy of Sciences of Brazil (June 1975).Google Scholar
  25. 26.
    W. Ramsay, The Unpaid Costs of Electrical Energy (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, 1979 ).Google Scholar
  26. 27.
    Draft NRC Evaluation of Pressurized Thermal Shock” (September 13, 1982 ); T. A. Meyer, “Summary Report on Reactor Vessel Integrity for Westinghouse Operating Plants,” Westinghouse Electric Corp. Report WCAP-10019 (December 1981); “Summary of Evaluations Related to Reactor Vessel Integrity Performed for the Westinghouse Owner’s Group,” Westinghouse Electric Corp., Nuclear Technology Division (May 1982 ).Google Scholar
  27. 28.
    M. L. Wald, “Steel Hirned Brittle by Radiation Called a Peril at 13 Nuclear Plants,” New York Times (September 27, 1981 ).Google Scholar
  28. 29.
    R. Immel, “Stress Corrosion Cracking,” EPRI Journal (November 1981).Google Scholar
  29. 30.
    Steam Generator 1\ibe Experience,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document NUREG-0886 (1982).Google Scholar
  30. 31.
    Report on the January 25, 1982 Steam Generator Tube Rupture at the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, ” NRC Document NUREG-0909 (April 1982 ).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Bernard L. Cohen 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernard L. Cohen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations