（本中心编译。若与原文有违反原意的出入，请指正为盼。谢谢）
(二零一一年三月八号)核管理委员会：不要批准新的核反应器的设计,在安全解决问题之前
NRC的国会议员援引高级官员的安全问题
华盛顿 - 美国国会议员爱德华J.马基（麻州），是众议院能源和商务委员会资深成员，致函核管理委员会（NRC）主席格雷格Jaczko，要求NRC不要批准西屋电气所新设计的AP1000核反应堆设计，直到严重的安全问题被得到解决。在核管理委员会工作了很长时期的一位工作人员在NRC的文件中警告说，如果受到地震或商用飞机的袭击冲撞，该反应堆的安全壳易碎“就像是一个玻璃杯”，由于它在屏蔽建筑设计上的缺陷。屏蔽建筑具有关键安全功能是，防止燃料反应堆熔化和辐射释放而导致可能的损坏。美国能源部已经批准了两个格鲁吉亚南拟建反应堆为83亿美元的贷款担保，前提条件是核管理委员会批准AP1000。 如果AP1000获得批准，阿拉巴马州，佛罗里达州，北卡罗来纳州，南卡罗来纳州，佐治亚州将申请建立新的反应堆。
“如果核管理委员会批准的AP1000，那么它可能在整个美国被广泛使用，提出疑问对于美国的国家安全有着极其关键的重要性。”众议员马凯如是说：“纳税人的钱不应该承担这样风险，反应堆可能因为飞机撞击和灾难性的大地震而导致核心部分破裂溶解。”
该核电厂的结构应变能力的重要性是显而易见的，2011年2月24日，逮捕了一位德萨斯州的学生，据称他的攻击目标就是核电站。而在同一天，美国国家研究委员会发表了一份规范给已经在联邦登记册的AP1000，尽管美国国家安全研究委员会自己的工作人员博士约翰马对AP1000的安全存在严重的担心。估计，到二○一一年五月十日公众评论期结束，美国国家研究委员会最终会批准的AP1000。
“无论威胁来自地面深处或者天空，我们必须确保，核电厂建在美国的任何地方，是可以承受灾难性事故的冲击，同时追求最高的绝对安全和遵守安全标准。”众议员马凯说：“必须使公众对新建核反应堆的安全性有足够的信心，而NRC也必须证明它，了解公众对于解决这一要求（指信心）的彻底性和（核安全）严肃性问题。”
马博士提出的关注被列入“非同行竞争”的有关核管理委员会的积极安全性评价的AP1000异议声明。根据非竞争，有关屏蔽建筑的建设几个重大问题：
*AP1000屏蔽建筑测试是失败的，因为物理测试表明它是脆弱的，故能粉碎得“就像是一个玻璃杯。”
*不足的计算机模拟被用来“证明”的反应堆屏蔽建筑是“足够强大”，尽管它主要由脆性材料构成。在布鲁克海文国家实验室核管理委员会要求审查西屋公司的计算机模拟结果，科学家说，有“无数混淆，误导或错误的言论”。
*西屋可能低估了地震的能力。西屋电气公司依赖于“地震波的不连续性模式”，降低了地震的预期力量。核管理委员会已经接受了这一西屋公司的说法，尽管它在同行评议的期刊上发表，但似乎没有得到科学的支持。
原文：
March 8, 2011: To NRC: Don’t Approve New Nuclear Reactor Design Before Safety Questions Resolved
Congressman cites senior NRC official’s safety concerns
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, sent a letter to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Chairman Greg Jaczko urging NRC not to approve Westinghouse’s design for a new nuclear reactor design, known as the AP1000, until serious safety concerns have been addressed. One of NRC’s longest-serving staff has warned in NRC documents that the reactor’s containment could shatter “like a glass cup” due to flaws in the design of the shield building if it is impacted by an earthquake or commercial aircraft. The shield building has the critical safety function of preventing damage to the reactor that could cause fuel melting and radiation releases. The Department of Energy has approved an application for a loan guarantee of $8.3 billion to Georgia Southern for two proposed reactors, conditional on NRC approving the AP1000. If the AP1000 is approved, this would allow pending applications for new reactors to go forward in Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.
“If the NRC approves the AP1000, then it may have widespread use throughout the United States, making questions about its safety of crucial national importance,” said Rep. Markey. “Taxpayer dollars should not be spent on reactors that could be at risk of suffering a catastrophic core meltdown in the event of an aircraft strike or a major earthquake.”
The importance of the structural resilience of nuclear plants was made very clear by the February 24, 2011 arrest of a student in Texas who allegedly wished to target them in attacks. On the very same day, the NRC published a rule certifying the AP1000 in the Federal Register, despite serious safety concerns raised by its own staff member, Dr. John Ma. Following a public comment period that ends May 10, 2011, the NRC is set to issue final approval to the AP1000.
“Whether the threat emanates from the ground deep below or from the skies above, we must ensure that any nuclear power plant built in this country can withstand a catastrophic impact and abides by the absolute highest standards for safety and security,” said Rep. Markey. “The public must have confidence that new reactors can be built safely, and the NRC must demonstrate that it is addressing this issue with the thoroughness and seriousness required.”
The concerns raised by Dr. Ma were included in a “Non-Concurrence ” statement of dissent about the NRC’s positive safety evaluation of the AP1000. According to the Non-Concurrence, there are several major problems with the shield building:
* The AP 1000 shield building failed tests because physical tests show it to be brittle, and it could shatter “like a glass cup”.
* Inadequate computer simulations were used to “prove” the reactor shield is “strong enough” despite it being mostly made out of a brittle material. Scientists at Brookhaven National Laboratory, asked by NRC to review Westinghouse’s computer simulation results, said there were “numerous confusing, misleading, or erroneous statements.”
* Earthquake forces may have been underestimated by Westinghouse. Westinghouse relied on a “seismic wave incoherency model” that reduces the expected force of an earthquake. NRC has accepted this argument by Westinghouse, even though it appears not to be supported by science as published in peer-reviewed journals.
No comments:
Post a Comment