【美國核管會回信核電廠與斷層距離】
#別再相信資深反核人士的謠言 #寫信去問NRC囉
大概兩個月前寫信去給美國核管會NRC,今天打開信箱發現他們在我生日休假那天回信了XDD,人生成就解鎖(1/1 美國核管會回覆信件)。
我主要是想詢問到底核電廠選址與斷層的距離是否有清楚的規範?答案是 #沒有規定電廠選址與斷層的距離到底要多少或禁止核電廠建置於斷層周邊,而是要求特定距離的核電廠設施必須做地質危害評估以及禁得起地震考驗這樣。台灣也有做SSHAC,但還沒看到正式出爐的報告(就陳大教授搶先披露那個)。
然後她詳細列了一堆NRC評估核電廠附近能動斷層的步驟以及法條,我相信陳教授或DPP不分區第二名應該都沒看過任何一條啦。
************************************************
Dear Mr. Chen,
Thank you for your questions related to whether the NRC has regulations that state how far a nuclear power plant (NPP) should be located from a fault that might move and cause earthquakes. The following paragraphs respond to your questions. As you requested, this response also cites NRC regulations that explain how the NRC analyzes potential hazard at a NPP resulting from earthquakes caused by movement along a fault located near the NPP.
#這段很重要
The US NRC does not have a regulation that specifies the distance required between a fault and a nuclear power plant (NPP). However, in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), specifically 10 CFR Part 50 (Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Materials), Appendix A, Criterion 2, the NRC requires safety-related structures, systems, and components (SSCs) of a NPP to be designed to withstand the effects of natural phenomena such as earthquakes without losing the capability to perform their safety functions.
美國NRC沒有規定斷層和核電廠(NPP)之間所需距離的法規。但是,在聯邦法規(10 CFR)的標題10中,尤其是10 CFR第50部分(生產和使用材料的國內許可)附錄A,準則2中,NRC要求與安全相關的結構,系統和組件( NPP的SSC)旨在承受地震等自然現象的影響而又不喪失執行其安全功能的能力。
As defined in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix S (Earthquake Engineering Criteria for Nuclear Plants), a Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) is the vibratory ground motion for which certain SSCs must be designed to remain functional if an earthquake occurs. 10 CFR Part 100.23(c) (Geological, Seismological, and Engineering Characteristics) requires that geological, seismological, and engineering characteristics of a site and its environs be investigated in sufficient scope and detail to permit an adequate evaluation of the proposed site, provide sufficient information to support evaluations performed to estimate the SSE vibratory ground motion, and permit adequate engineering solutions to actual or potential geologic and seismic effects at the proposed site. Part 100.23(d) (Geologic and Seismic Siting Factors) requires that geologic and seismic siting factors considered for design include a determination of the SSE vibratory ground motion for the site and the potential for surface deformation due to faulting (i.e., tectonic deformation of the ground surface). Part 100.23(d)(1) (Determination of the Safe Shutdown Earthquake Ground Motion) requires that uncertainties in SSE vibratory ground motion estimates be addressed through an appropriate analysis (e.g., a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, or PSHA) with due consideration for the geologic characteristics specified in 10 CFR Part 100.23(c). For a fault that is considered to be a potential source of earthquakes (i.e., a seismic source), that geologic feature can be analyzed using the Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC) process. That process is a formal approach for incorporating information about the fault into a model used to characterize the fault as a seismic source, which is analyzed as part of the SSHAC process.
In Regulatory Guide 1.208 (A Performance-Based Approach to Define the Site-Specific Earthquake Ground Motion). the NRC provides guidance for applicants and licensees regarding how to meet the regulatory requirements discussed above. In addition, criteria for NRC staff to review applications for constructing and operating a nuclear power plant related to geologic, seismic, and geotechnical site characteristics are found in Chapter 2.5 of NUREG-0800, the NRC’s Standard Review Plan. If assessment of the potential for surface deformation must be considered because a fault is located such that it could result in surface rupture at the NPP site and deformation of engineered plant structures as required in 10 CFR Part 100.23(d), guidance for evaluating surface deformation is provided in NUREG-0800, Chapter 2.5.3. NUREG-2213 presents updated implementation guidelines for SSHAC studies in case you might wish to learn more about that process.
同時也有10000部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル,也在其Youtube影片中提到,...
「criterion standard」的推薦目錄:
- 關於criterion standard 在 說說能源 Talk That Energy Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於criterion standard 在 Sam Tsang 曾思瀚 Facebook 的最佳解答
- 關於criterion standard 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的最佳貼文
- 關於criterion standard 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳貼文
- 關於criterion standard 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最讚貼文
- 關於criterion standard 在 Criterion Meaning - Standard Examples - Criteria in a Sentence 的評價
criterion standard 在 Sam Tsang 曾思瀚 Facebook 的最佳解答
The very fact it's called "Third World" says a lot, and then they publish an article on the "benefit" of colonialism using selective data. I guess that didn't take long...You can't make this stuff up. Occidental hegemony corrected?
19 September 2017
LETTER OF RESIGNATION FROM MEMBERS OF THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF THIRD WORLD QUARTERLY
Dear Shahid Qadir, Taylor & Francis, Colleagues and Interested Public,
We are deeply disappointed by the unacceptable process around the publication of Bruce Gilley’s Viewpoint essay, “The case for colonialism,” which was published in Third World Quarterly without any consultation with the Editorial Board. As International Editorial Board Members, we were told in an email on 15 September from Shahid Qadir that this piece was put through the required double-blind peer review process. We asked for these reviews to be sent to the Editorial Board, and they were not.
We have now been informed by our colleagues who reviewed the piece for a Special Issue that they rejected it as unfit to send to additional peer review, and they stated in an email to us:
“We would question the editorial process that has led to the publication of the piece. It was initially offered to guest editors Dr John Narayan and Dr Leon Sealey-Huggins as an article to consider for inclusion in the aforementioned special issue. The guest editors relayed their unease with the article and rejected considering the piece for peer review. It has subsequently come to light that the article was later reviewed as a standard article and rejected by at least one reviewer and then repackaged as an opinion piece.”—email from Dr John Narayan (Birmingham City University)
Dr Leon Sealey-Huggins (Warwick University)
Dr Kehinde Andrews (Birmingham City University)
Dr Eugene Nulman (Birmingham City University)
Dr Goldie Osuri (University of Warwick)
Dr Lucia Pradella (King’s College London)
Professor Vijay Prashad (Trinity College)
Dr Sahar Rad (SOAS, University of London)
Professor Satnam Virdee (University of Glasgow)
Dr Helen Yaffe (London School of Economics)
We have also been informed through correspondence between Prof Ilan Kapoor and our colleague who was the peer-reviewer, after the piece was rejected by the Special Issue editors, that her review also rejected the Viewpoint. Thus, the fact is established that this did not pass the peer-review when we have documentation that it was rejected by three peer reviewers.
As the Viewpoint did not pass the double-blind peer review as claimed by the editor in the statement he issued in the name of the journal, it must be retracted and a new statement issued.
The Viewpoint fails criterion #1 of the Committee on Publication Ethics COPE guidelines that state: “Journal editors should consider retracting a publication if: they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error).” https://publicationethics.org/…/Retractions_COPE_gline_fina…
These COPE guidelines are Taylor & Francis’s reference documents for ethics of retracting a publication the editorial board was told in an email on 18 September by Shahid Qadir.
Thus, Bruce Gilley’s Viewpoint essay, “The case for colonialism” must be retracted, as it fails to provide reliable findings, as demonstrated by its failure in the double-blind peer review process.
We all subscribe to the principle of freedom of speech and the value of provocation in order to generate critical debate. However, this cannot be done by means of a piece that fails to meet academic standards of rigour and balance by ignoring all manner of violence, exploitation and harm perpetrated in the name of colonialism (and imperialism) and that causes offence and hurt and thereby clearly violates that very principle of free speech.
The Editor of TWQ has issued a public statement without any consultation with the Editorial Board that is not truthful about the process of this peer-review, and thus, as we fully disagree with both the academic content of the Viewpoint and the response issued in the name of the journal, we are forced to resign immediately from the Editorial Board of Third World Quarterly.
As scholars, we remain ever-committed to the ideals that this journal has stood for over the past 40 years, and we would consider serving on an Editorial Board under different editorial arrangements.
Sincerely,
Ilan Kapoor (York University, Canada)
Stefano Ponte (Copenhagen Business School, Denmark + Duke University, US)
Lisa Ann Richey(Roskilde University, Denmark + Duke University, US)
Mahmood Mamdani (Makerere Institute of Social Research, Uganda + Columbia University, US)
Asef Bayat (University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, US)
Naila Kabeer (London School of Economics and Political Science, UK)
Katie Willis (Royal Holloway University of London, UK)
David Simon (Chalmers Univ. of Technology, Sweden + Royal Holloway Univ. of London, UK)
Walden Bello (State University of New York at Binghamton, US)
Giles Mohan (The Open University, UK)
Ayesha Jalal (Tufts University, US)
Uma Kothari (University of Manchester, UK)
Vijay Prashad (Trinity College, US)
Klaus John Dodds (Royal Holloway University of London, UK)
Richard Falk (Princeton University, US)
criterion standard 在 Criterion Meaning - Standard Examples - Criteria in a Sentence 的美食出口停車場
Criteria or Standards - Criterion Meaning - Standard Examples - Criteria in a Sentence http://www.iswearenglish.com/ ... ... <看更多>