Digital Proceeding of ICOCEE – CAPPADOCIA2015
66DKLQND\DDQG(.DOÕSFÕ (GLWRUV Nevsehir, TURKEY, May 20-23, 2015
New Chernobyl? Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant Altikat A.*1, Dogru S.2, Argun Y.A.3and Bayram T.4 1
Department of Civil Engineering, Engineering Faculty, Igdir University, TURKEY. (E-mail: aysun.altikat@igdir.edu.tr)
2,3
Environmental Health Programme, Vocational School of Health Services, Igdir University, TURKEY. (E-mail: sevtap.dogru@igdir.edu.tr, yusuf.argun@igdir.edu.tr)
4
Department of Environmental Engineering, Engineering Faculty, Yuzuncu Yil University, TURKEY. (E-mail: tubabayram@yyu.edu.tr)
ABSTRACT
Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant (Armenian Nuclear Power Plant-ANPP) in Metsamor, Armenia, is 30 km away from Igdir, located at the east of Turkey, and is a facility that meets the majority of Armenia's energy needs. The Armenian NPP consists of two power units with WWER-440/270 reactors. The Unit 1 was put into operation on December 22, 1976 and the Unit 2 was put into operation on January 5, 1980. The installed power of the units is 407,5 MW(e). In 1989 the The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) Ministers Council made a decision on the shutdown of the Armenian NPP. The Unit 1 and the Unit 2 were shut down on February 25, 1989 and March 18, 1989, correspondingly. After the collapse of the USSR the following events resulted in severe energy crisis in Armenia. On April 7, 1993 the Government of Armenia made a decision on restart of the Unit 2. On November 5, 1995 the ANPP Unit 2 was restarted, after 6,5 years of shutdown. With restart of the Armenian NPP after severe energy crisis Armenia moved on to day-and-night power supply schedule. In this study it has given information about the history and operation of Armenian NPP and demonstrated the factors that led to shotdown of the plant for a period and the arised risks resulting from reopening it. In addition, it has presented recommendations about foundation and safe operation of nuclear power plants by the basis of Metsamor reference.
Keywords: Igdir; Metsamor; Nuclear Power Plant.
1. INTRODUCTION
With rising concerns over energy security and climate change, interest in nuclear power has recently reemerged. Unlike oil and gas, proven uranium reserves are abundant: even in the face of large nuclear expansion, they are estimated to last at least a century and most likely well beyond [1, 2]. Uranium is also more evenly geographically distributed than oil and gas with a large portion located in OECD or other developed countries [2]. Uranium is a non-renewable resource that can not be replenished on a human time scale. Uranium is extracted from the earth through traditional mining techniques or chemical leaching. Once mined, the uranium ore is sent to a processing plant to be concentrated into enriched fuel (i.e., uranium oxide pellets). Enriched fuel is then transported to the nuclear power plant [3, 4]. In addition, nuclear energy offers greater protection from commodity price fluctuations. In 2008, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) estimated that a doubling of uranium prices resulted in a 5–10% increase in electricity generation cost while a doubling for coal and gas led to a 35–45% and 70–80% increase, respectively [5]. Thus, nuclear power is considered to provide a more secure, in both short- and long-term, supply of energy. Nuclear power has also been proposed as one strategy to address climate change [6, 7]. Since it offers significantly lower green house gas (GHG) emissions than conventional thermal power plants [8, 9, 10, 11, 12].
Nuclear energy originates from the splitting of uranium atoms in a process called fission. Fission releases energy that can be used to make steam, which is used in a turbine to generate electricity [3].
2.1. Nuclear Power Plant
In the nuclear power plant’s nuclear reactor, neutrons from uranium atoms collide with each other, releasing heat and neutrons in a chain reaction. This heat is used to generate steam, which powers a turbine to generate electricity [3]. Enriched uranium is the fuel for nuclear power plants. There may be more than 100 tons of fuel pellets (each about 1 inch long) at a single reactor. One pellet can generate about the same amount of electricity as one ton of coal [13]. Nuclear fuel consists of two types of uranium, U-238 and U-235. Most of the uranium in nuclear fuel is U-238, but U-235 splits—or fissions—easily. In U-235 atoms, the nucleus, which is composed of protons and neutrons, is unstable. As the nuclei break up, they release neutrons [14].
There are six different types of nuclear reactor using in the nuclear power plants. These are; Light water reactors (has two types; boiling water reactors and pressurized water reactors), Heavy water reactors, High temperature gas cooled reactor, Molten salt breeder reactor, Fast reactors and Accelerator driven system.Most common ones are boiling water reactors and pressurized water reactors [15]. Both boiling water reactors and pressurized water reactors are cooled by ordinary water. The water is the main link in the process that converts fission energy to electrical energy. Boiling water reactors heat the water surrounding the nuclear fuel directly into steam in the reactor vessel. Pipes carry steam directly to the turbine, which drives the electric generator to produce electricity. Pressurized water reactors heat the water surrounding the nuclear fuel, but keep the water under pressure to prevent it from boiling. The hot water is pumped from the reactor vessel to a steam generator. There, the heat from the water is transferred to a second, separate supply of water. This water supply boils to make steam. The steam spins the turbine, which drives the electric generator to produce electricity [14].
On December 20, 1951, at the Experimental Breeder Reactor EBR-I in Arco, Idaho, USA, for the first time electricity - illuminating four light bulbs - was produced by nuclear energy. EBR-I was not designed to produce electricity but to validate the breeder reactor concept. On June 26, 1954, at Obninsk, Russia, the nuclear power plant APS-1 with a net electrical output of 5 MW was connected to the power grid, the world's first nuclear power plant that generated electricity for commercial use. On August 27, 1956 the first commercial nuclear power plant, Calder Hall 1, England, with a net electrical output of 50 MW was connected to the national grid. As of January 21, 2015 in 31 countries 439 nuclear power plant units with an installed electric net capacity of about 377 GW are in operation and 69 plants with an installed capacity of 66 GW are in 16 countries under construction (Table 1). As of end 2011 the total electricity production since 1951 amounts to 69,760 billion kWh. The cumulative operating experience amounted to 15,080 years by end of 2012 [16].
Table 1. Nuclear power plants world-wide, in operation and under construction
Country
In operation Under construction
Number Electr. net output
MW Number
Electr. net output MW Argentina 3 1,627 1 25 Armenia 1 375 - -Belarus - - 2 2.218 Belgium 7 5,927 - -Brazil 2 1,884 1 1,245 Bulgaria 2 1,906 - -Canada 19 13,500 - -China 24 20,056 25 24,756 Czech Republic 6 3,884 - -Finland 4 2,752 1 1,600 France 58 63,130 1 1,630 Germany 9 12,068 - -Hungary 4 1,889 - -India 21 5,308 6 3,907 Iran 1 915 - -Japan 48 42,388 2 1.325 Korea, Republic 23 20,721 5 6,370 Mexico 2 1,330 - -Netherlands 1 482 - -Pakistan 3 690 2 630
Romania 2 1,300 - -Russian Federation 34 24,654 9 7,371 Slovakian Republic 4 1,815 2 880 Slovenia 1 688 - -South Africa 2 1,860 - -Spain 7 7,121 - -Sweden 10 9,470 - -Switzerland 5 3,333 - -Taiwan, China 6 5,032 2 2,600 Ukraine 15 13,107 2 1,900
United Arab Emirates - - 3 4,035
United Kingdom 16 9,243 -
-USA 99 98,476 5 5,633
Total 439 376,931 69 66,125
2.2. Risks to the Environment
The critics of nuclear power argue that it has not traditionally been very clean. Waste from the power plants is toxic for many centuries and there is no safe way to store it permanently or dispose of it. Transporting nuclear fuel can also be risky and there remains the risk of an accident such as that which affected Chernobyl in 1986 [4]. Nuclear power generates a number of radioactive by-products, including tritium, cesium, krypton, neptunium and forms of iodine. [3]. Nuclear power technology produces materials that are active in emitting radiation and are therefore called "radioactive". These materials can come into contact with people principally through small releases during routine plant operation, accidents in nuclear power plants, accidents in transporting radioactive materials, and escape of radioactive wastes from confinement systems [17].Low-level radioactive waste includes items used at the power plant that become contaminated with radioactive material, such as shoe covers and clothing, wiping rags, mops, filters, reactor water and tools. Low-level waste is stored at the nuclear power plant temporarily. The radionuclides in some waste decay away quickly, allowing it to be disposed of as ordinary trash. When the radionuclides are slow to decay, waste is stored until there is enough waste for shipment to a low-level waste disposal site.Spent nuclear fuel is what is left when the fuel pellets can no longer go though the fission process. It is highly radioactive and stored in specially designed pools or containers [13].
Public safety is a high priority when nuclear power plants are planned and built. There are no or very low levels of radioactive materials released during normal operations of nuclear power plants. Such releases do not require any protective actions. The reactor buildings are built to contain the radiation from an accident. Nuclear power plants are required to have plans to deal with emergencies and to practice them regularly [13]. The reactor is sealed inside concrete and steel to prevent radioactive gases and fluids leaking from the plant [4]. The principal risks associated with nuclear power arise from health effects of radiation. This radiation consists of subatomic particles traveling at or near the velocity of light 186,000 miles per second. They can penetrate deep inside the human body where they can damage biological cells and thereby initiate a cancer [17].
On the other hand nuclear power has some advantages. Nuclear power generation does emit relatively low amounts of CO2. Nowadays global warming because of the greenhouse gases is a hot topic. The contribution of nuclear power to global warming is relatively little. This is a great advantage of nuclear power plants. Otherwise it must be reconsidered that the water used in the cooling towers produces H2O vapors, which is the number one greenhouse gas. H2O causes about 2/3 of the greenhouse effect. It is possible to generate a high amount of electrical energy in one single nuclear power plant [18].
There are also many disadvantages of nuclear power. The number one problem of nuclear power is the radioactive waste. The waste from nuclear energy is extremely dangerous and it has to be carefully looked after for several thousand years (10’000 years according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards). There are not really any solutions to this problem, except for nuclear waste treatment. It is a high risk power supply. Of course a nuclear power plant has a very high security standard, but it is impossible to build a plant with a 100% security. The time frame needed for formalities, planning and building of a new nuclear power generation plant is in the range of 20 to 30 years [18]. There are two major kinds of risk associated with nuclear power. A serious accident at a nuclear power plant could release large amounts of dangerous radiation, with disastrous consequences for the environment and an increased risk of cancer for those exposed to the radiation. Security risks include both the risk of sabotage and terrorist attacks on nuclear power plants and the risk that nuclear materials will be stolen and used to create nuclear weapons [19].
It has given below nuclear power plant accidents and incidents with multiple fatalities and/or more than US$100 million in property damage occurring between 1952-2011 [20, 21].
¾ Mayak, Kyshtym, Russia (September 29, 1957); The Kyshtym Nuclear disaster was a radiation contamination incident that occurred at Mayak, a Nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in the Soviet Union. (INES Level 6)
¾ Sellafield, Cumberland, United Kingdom (October 10, 1957); A fire at the British atomic bomb project destroyed the core and released an estimated 750 terabecquerels (20,000 curies) of radioactive material into the environment. (No death, INES Level 5)
¾ Idaho Falls, Idaho, United States (January 3, 1961); Explosion at SL-1 prototype at the National Reactor Testing Station. All 3 operators were killed when a control rod was removed too far. (3 death, 22 millions US$ costs, INES Level 4)
¾ Frenchtown Charter Township, Michigan, United States (October 5, 1966); Partial core meltdown of the Fermi 1 Reactor at the Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station. No radiation leakage into the environment. (No death, 132 millions US$ costs)
¾ Lucens reactor, Vaud, Switzerland (January 21, 1969); It suffered a loss-of-coolant accident, leading to a partial core meltdown and massive radioactive contamination of the cavern, which was then sealed. (No death, INES Level 4)
¾ Sosnovyi Bor, Leningrad Oblast, Russia (1975); There was reportedly a partial nuclear meltdown in Leningrad nuclear power plant reactor unit 1.
¾ Greifswald, East Germany (December 7, 1975); Electrical error causes fire in the main trough that destroys control lines and five main coolant pumps. (No death, 443 millions US$ costs, INES Level 3) ¾ Jaslovské Bohunice, Czechoslovakia (January 5, 1976); Malfunction during fuel replacement. Fuel rod
ejected from reactor into the reactor hall by coolant (CO2). (2 death, INES Level 4)
¾ Jaslovské Bohunice, Czechoslovakia (February 22, 1977); Severe corrosion of reactor and release of radioactivity into the plant area, necessitating total decommission. (No death, 1,700 millions US$ costs, INES Level 4)
¾ Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, United States (March 28, 1979); Loss of coolant and partial core meltdown due to operator errors. There is a small release of radioactive gases. (No death, 2,400 millions US$ costs, INES Level 5)
¾ Athens, Alabama, United States (September 15, 1984); Safety violations, operator error, and design problems force a six-year outage at Browns Ferry Unit 2. (No death, 110 millions US$ costs)
¾ Athens, Alabama, United States (March 9, 1985); Instrumentation systems malfunction during startup, which led to suspension of operations at all three Browns Ferry Units. (No death, 1,830 millions US$ costs)
¾ Plymouth, Massachusetts, United States (April 11, 1986); Recurring equipment problems force emergency shutdown of Boston Edison’s Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant. (No death, 1,001 millions US$ costs)
¾ Chernobyl disaster, Ukrainian SSR (April 26, 1986); Overheating, steam explosion, fire, and meltdown, necessitating the evacuation of 300,000 people from Chernobyl and dispersing radioactive material across Europe. (56 direct death, 4,000 to 985,000 cancer, 6,700 millions US$ costs, INES Level 7) ¾ Hamm-Uentrop, Germany (May 4, 1986); Experimental THTR-300 reactor releases small amounts of
fission products (0.1 GBq Co-60, Cs-137, Pa-233) to surrounding area. (No death, 267 millions US$ costs)
¾ Delta, Pennsylvania, United States (March 31, 1987); Peach Bottom units 2 and 3 shutdown due to cooling malfunctions and unexplained equipment problems. (No death, 400 millions US$ costs)
¾ Lycoming, New York, United States (December 19, 1987); Malfunctions force Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation to shut down Nine Mile Point Unit 1. (No death, 150 millions US$ costs)
¾ Lusby, Maryland, United States (March 17, 1989); Inspections at Calvert Cliff Units 1 and 2 reveal cracks at pressurized heater sleeves, forcing extended shutdowns. (No death, 120 millions US$ costs) ¾ Sosnovyi Bor, Leningrad Oblast, Russia (March 1992); An accident at the Sosnovy Bor nuclear plant
leaked radioactive gases and iodine into the air through a ruptured fuel channel.
¾ Severesk, formerly Tomsk-7, Russia (April 6, 1993); A tank at a uranium and plutonium factory inside the plant explodes, resulting in radioactivity being dispersed into the atmosphere contaminating an area of over 120 sq km. A number of villages are evacuated and left permanently uninhabitable. (INES Level 4).
¾ Waterford, Connecticut, United States (February 20, 1996); Leaking valve forces shutdown Millstone Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2, multiple equipment failures found. (No death, 254 millions US$ costs)
¾ Crystal River, Florida, United States (September 2, 1996); Balance-of-plant equipment malfunction forces shutdown and extensive repairs at Crystal River Unit 3. (No death, 384 millions US$ costs) ¾ Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan (September 30, 1999); Tokaimura nuclear accident killed two workers, and
exposed one more to radiation levels above permissible limits. (2 death, 54 millions US$ costs, INES Level 4)
¾ Oak Harbor, Ohio, United States (February 16, 2002); Severe corrosion of control rod forces 24-month outage of Davis-Besse reactor. (No death, 143 millions US$ costs, INES Level 3)
¾ Fukui Prefecture, Japan (August 9, 2004); Steam explosion at Mihama Nuclear Power Plant killed 4 workers and injured 7 more. (4 death, 9 millions US$ costs, INES Level 1)
¾ Forsmark, Sweden (July 25, 2006); An electrical fault at Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant caused one reactor to be shut down. (No death, 100 millions US$ costs, INES Level 2)
¾ Fukushima, Japan (March 11, 2011); A tsunami flooded and damaged the 5 active reactor plants drowning two workers. Loss of backup electrical power led to overheating, meltdowns, and evacuations. One man died suddenly while carrying equipment during the clean-up. (2 direct death, results unknown, INES Level 7)
¾ Marcoule, France (September 12, 2011); One person was dead and four injured, one seriously, in a blast at the Marcoule Nuclear Site. The explosion took place in a furnace used to melt metallic waste.
3. ARMENIAN (METSAMOR) NUCLEAR POWER PLANT (ANPP)
Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant (Armenian Nuclear Power Plant-ANPP) in Metsamor, Armenia, is 30 km away from Igdir, located at the east of Turkey, and is a facility that meets the majority of Armenia's energy needs. It is the closest nuclear power plant to Turkey and only 16 km away from eastern border of Turkey and it is approximately 80 km to Iran, 110 km to Georgia and 120 km to Azerbeycan (Figure 1). The Armenian Nuclear Power Plant (ANPP) is the only nuclear installation in Armenia as well as in the South Caucasus. Built in the 1960s and 70s ANPP consists of two WWER-440 type units which is based on the first generation of V-230 reactor with the design life of 30 years. Being the example of the earliest pressurized-water nuclear plant design, it is one of the remaining nuclear reactors that were built without primary containment structures. Classified by the EU as the “oldest and least reliable”, the light water-cooled reactors WWER-440 Model V230 having “a limited functional capability of the emergency core cooling cannot cope with large primary circuit breaks”.
Although this type of reactors is similar to Western PWRs, it lacks a number of safety features, including the protection systems, emergency core cooling systems and strong containment structure [22].
Figure 1. Location of Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant
3.1. Technical Features of ANPP
The Armenian NPP Unit process flow diagram consists of two circuits. The primary circuit is radioactive and includes a WWER-440 reactor and six circulation cooling loops. Each loop comprises one reactor coolant pump (RCP), steam generator and two main loop isolation valves. A pressurizer is connected to one of the circulation loops of the primary circuit to maintain the designed pressure of water acting as a coolant of reactor and neutron moderator, at the same time (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Process flow diagram of the Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant
The secondary circuit is not radioactive. It comprises steam generators, steamlines, steam turbines, separator – reheaters, feedwater pumps, deaerators and regenerative heaters. A steam generator is a common component for primary and secondary circuits. The heat energy generated in the reactor is transfered in the steam generator via its heat exchanging tubes from primary circuit to the secondary circuit. Saturated steam generated in a steam generator is supplied by steamlines to the turbine driving the generator rotation for generation of electric current. Cooling towers are used in turbine condenser cooling system [23].
3.2. History
The Armenian NPP consists of two power units with WWER-440/270 reactors. The Unit 1 was put into operation on December 22, 1976 and the Unit 2 was put into operation on January 5, 1980. The installed power of the units is 407,5 MW(e). In 1989 the USSR Ministers Council made a decision on the shut down of the Armenian NPP. The Unit 1 and the Unit 2 were shut down on February 25, 1989 and March 18, 1989, correspondingly. After the collapse of the USSR the following events resulted in severe energy crisis in
2063
Armenia. On April 7, 1993 the Government of Armenia made a decision on restart of the Unit 2. Before the decision on the Unit 2 restart the Government of Armenia invited a number of competent international organizations and companies to issue advice and recommendations. Based on recommendations of international organizations and companies (IAEA, WANO, Framatome, Pechtel, Rosenergoatom concern, etc.) a «Concept for the ANPP Unit 2 operation restart» was developed. On November 5, 1995 the ANPP Unit 2 was restarted, after 6,5 years of shut down. With restart of the Armenian NPP after severe energy crisis Armenia moved on to day-and-night power supply schedule [23].
4. CONCLUSION
Several studies that were conducted on MNPP indicated the combination of design (old technology and unsatisfactory safety measures) and location (exposed to severe seismic waves) of MNPP demonstrated a high possibility of accidents. Previous studies indicated that NPP accidents cause permanent damage to biodiversity. Recent publications indicate that if an accident happens at MNPP, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Iran might be influenced. Because of this reason it need to have an urgent action plan and take the necessary precautions for this possible catastrophe [24]. For example The Soviet Chernobyl reactor, built on a much less safe design concept, did not have such a containment structure; if it did, that disaster would have been averted [17, 25]. Simsek et al. were found that Turkey was not included in the Atlas of Caesium deposition over Europe, and, according to the simulations, was one of the countries with largest137Cs deposition in Europe. The radioactive cloud interested Turkey from the 2nd of May until the 8th of May. Almost all Turkey was interested by the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant radioactive cloud, according to their simulations only few provinces in the South East were not affected [26].
Despite the terrible consequences associated with the Chernobyl accident in 1986, Turkish authorities have not yet paid sufficient attention to the different aspects of safety at nuclear installations in the former Soviet Union. The vulnerable Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant in neighboring Armenia has not gained enough attention in any official reports, and an emergency response system has not been constituted at this point. Kindap et al. studied about the potential threat from radiation released by a likely accident at the Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant and the subsequent atmospheric transport of radioactive materials. This nuclear power plant in Eastern Armenia is the closest (16 km) Russian-designed nuclear power plant to Turkey. In addition to old technologies and unsatisfactory safety measures, the Spitak Earthquake (1988), which was also called Leninakan Earthquake, showed that the location of the power plant is exposed to severe seismic waves, giving a high possibility of accidents. Their results indicate that although Turkish territory is influenced in its entirety, the Eastern part of Turkey is highly threatened by the hypothesized MNPP accident. It has seen that cities in proximity to the MNPP in the Eastern Anatolian Region (e.g Igdir, Kars, Agri) might be exposed to high levels of radioactive matter (at a probability of more than 61.08%) in a short time period (less than 12 h). Radionuclide transport to central Turkey (e.g. Ankara, the capital) could occur in two and a half days with 3.36% of the trajectories, but the border city of Mardin in the South-East Anatolia Region would already be influenced at the end the first day in 27% of the trajectories. The city of Izmir, in the far West of the country, is also influenced in about 5 days with a 0.43% probability after a hypothesized accident. At the same research Chernobyl accident has been evaluated. It was believed that the northern parts of Turkey were mostly affected by the Chernobyl accident. This study, however, showed that other parts of Turkish territory, such as the Marmara Region, the Aegean Region, and even the Central Anatolian Region were influenced as well. The study demonstrated that if there had been an accident at the MNPP plant on April 26, 1986 instead of the Chernobyl, Turkish territory would have faced an extremely serious problem, in particular for eastern Turkey, which would not be able to recover for many years [27]. Karakhanian et al. examined volcanic and seismic acts of this area. The data presented here point to many cases of historical volcanic activity in Armenia and adjacent areas of the Arabian plate collision. The events during the 1840 earthquake, like many others in Armenia and Turkey, emphasize the possibility of diverse natural hazards (volcanic eruptions, debris flows, river migrations and floods) during strong earthquakes. Alone, each of the listed hazards may not reach an extremely hazardous level for the population, but taken together they can cause disaster. These data also suggest a high level of volcanic and seismic hazards for the entire region [28].
2064
What can be done to make nuclear power safer question should be investigated. There are several things that can be done to reduce nuclear power risks,
1. It must be more consistent in the application of existing security rules.
2. Spent nuclear fuel, which has been allowed to accumulate in pools because of delays in finding a permanent waste storage site, should be moved as quickly as possible to dry casks to reduce the risk of a serious accident.
3. Security standards at nuclear power plants should be updated and enforced to reduce the risk of a successful attack or act of sabotage.
4. Reprocessing creates a risk of theft of materials that can be used to make weapons, and is not an effective solution to the nuclear waste problem [19].
Although Nuclear power plants (NPP) are designed to withstand earthquakes or other natural disasters and to shut down safely in the event of major earth movement, no nuclear facility is 100% safe due to a possible meltdown of the reactor (due to loss of coolant water leading to overheating). If an accident occurs, it would create a major public hazard and may cause human fatalities and biodiversity loss. Moreover, nuclear reactors produce toxic waste, which is highly radioactive and can remain in the environment for several hundred years. Because of these reasons NPPs are highly risky energy resources while they do not produce CO2and other green gasses. The question is whether we are ready for nuclear accidents. Because of all these reasons it is needed to have an urgent action plan and take the necessary precautions for this possible catastrophe [24].
REFERENCES
[1] A.M. Macfarlane and M. Miller, 2007. Nuclear energy and uranium resources. Elements 3(3), 185-192. [2] NEA (Nuclear Energy Agency), 2008. Nuclear Energy Outlook, (No. 6348), Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development, NAE, OECD, Paris, France.
[3] US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). (2015, March 30), Nuclear Energy. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/nuclear.html
[4] BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation). (2015, March 30), Climate Change, Nuclear Power. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/adaptation/nuclear_power.shtml
[5] IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), 2008. Financing of new nuclear power plants, Technical Report No. NG-T-4.2, Nuclear Energy Series, IAEA, Vienna, Austria.
[6] S. Pacala and R. Socolow, 2004. Stabilization wedges: solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current Technologies. Science, 305 (5686), 968–972.
[7] IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. [8] A. Adamantiades and I. Kessides, 2009. Nuclear power for sustainable development: current status and future
prospects. Energy Policy, 37 (12), 5149–5166.
[9] W. Nuttall, Nuclear Renaissance: Technologies and Policies for the Future of Nuclear Power (1st ed), Taylor & Francis, New York, 2005.
2065
[10] M. Sauga. (2015, March 30), The atomic age enters a new dawn. Retrieved from http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,565132,00.html
[11], J. Wolfe, (2007, November 14). Nuclear Renaissance. Forbes.
[12] J. Jewell, 2011. Ready for nuclear energy?: An assessment of capacities and motivations for launching new national nuclear power programs. Energy Policy, 39, 1041–1055.
[13] US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). (2015, March 30), Nuclear Power Plants. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb01/nuclear-power-plants.html
[14] NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute). (2015, March 30), How Nuclear Reactors Work. Retrieved from http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/How-Nuclear-Reactors-Work
[15] IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), 2005. Thorium fuel cycle — Potential benefits and
challenges, IAEA-TECDOC-1450, IAEA, Vienna, Austria.
[16] ENS (European Nuclear Society). (2015, March 30), Nuclear Power Plants, World Wide. Retrieved from https://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm
[17] B. L. Cohen, (2015, March 30). Risks of Nuclear Power. Retrieved from http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm
[18] B. V. Doninck. (2015, March 30), Advantages and disadvantages of todays nuclear power plant. Retrieved from https://materkat.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-todays-nuclear-power-plant/
[19] UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists). (2015, March 30), Nuclear Power. Retrieved from http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/nuclear-power/nuclear-power-101
[20] Wikipedia. (2015, March 30), Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents
[21] BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation). (2015, March 30), Timeline: Nuclear plant accidents. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-13047267
[22] M. Adamyan, 2014. The Closure of Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant: Costs and Benefits, Master Thesis, The Faculty of The Graduate School of Political Science and International Affairs for Partial Fulfillement of The Degree of Masters of Arts, American University of Armenia, Armenia.
>@ &-6& +$(. &ORVHG -RÕQW 6WRFN &RPSDQ\ +D\NDNDQ $WRPD\LQ (OHFWUDND\DQ 0DUFK , Armenian Nuclear Power Plant. Retrieved from http://www.anpp.am/
[24] B. Kabasakal and T. Albayrak, 2012. Effects of Nuclear Power Plant Accidents on Biodiversity and Awareness of Potential Nuclear Accident Risk Near The Eastern Border of Turkey. Fresenius
Environmental Bulletin, 21(11b), 3343-3436.
[25] M. Balonov and A. Bouville, 2011. Radiation Exposures Due to the Chernobyl Accident.Encyclopedia of
Environmental Health, 709–720.
[26] V. Simsek, L. Pozzoli, A. Unal, T. Kindap and M. Karaca, 2014. Simulation of137Cs transport and deposition after the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant accident and radiological doses over the Anatolian Peninsula. Science of The Total Environment, 499, 74–88.
2066
[27] T. Kindap, U. U. Turuncoglu, S. H. Chen, A. Unal and M. Karaca, 2009. Potential Threats from a Likely Nuclear Power Plant Accident: a Climatological Trajectory Analysis and Tracer Study. Water, Air, and Soil
Pollution, 198 (1-4), 393-405.
[28] A. Karakhanian, R. Jrbashyan, V. Trifonov, H. Philip, S. Arakelian, A. Avagyan, H. Baghdassaryan, V. Davtian and Yu. Ghoukassyan, 2003. Volcanic hazards in the region of the Armenian Nuclear Power Plant.
