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