[en] The Republic of Croatia has no nuclear installation, no power reactors, no research reactors, nor any other nuclear fuel circle installations, on its territory. All facilities with installations and/or equipment for application of ionising radiation (irradiators, accelerators, sealed sources etc.) have operated without radiation safety relevant incidents. Also all transport activities have been carried out without any safety relevant incidents. Consequently, no one abnormal event was rated in Croatia using INES in period Oct. 1996 - Oct. 1997, and no INES report was communicated to the INES information system

[en] The INES National Officer for South Africa who is employed by the Council for Nuclear Safety (CNS), briefly presents the INES situation with other licensees of the CNS, namely the Atomic Energy Corporation (AEC) and various mining and minerals processing facilities

[en] The radiological impact of the Chernobyl accident in terms of doses to individuals in the various countries covered a wide range. The specific features of the release of radioactive material from the Chernobyl accident, particularly its relatively large duration and altitude reached by the radioactive plume, caused a widespread distribution of activity across Europe. Meteorological conditions and wind regimes during the period of release were the contributing factors. The varying distances from the source of release and long duration of the release in different directions resulted in uneven ground and foodchain contamination. Also, variable meteorological situation, characterized by frequent and localized heavy precipitation contributed to uneven deposition differs sometimes by one or two orders of magnitude between localities situated few tens of kilometers apart. In these circumstances, the doses to the individuals of critical groups appeared to be higher than the average individual dose over whole population

[en] Nuclear energy is probably unique in being an international endeavor. The US was correct in 1973 in embracing nuclear energy, and is correct even today in continuing to champion and push this technology. Several major events justify this view. They include: the world's growing dependence on oil and America's increasing dependence on the unstable Middle East; steady high growth in electricity demand; culminated in this summer's record peak demands across the country, and while it was a hot summer, most of that increased demand was industrial activity-economic activity-not due to heat and renewed emphasis on the environment. The job of nuclear utilities and manufacturers is to work with continuity towards greater reliability, safety, and economy of our plants as they exist today. Nuclear power offers clear objective advantages if one is able to look beyond the illusions of the immediate situation. Taipower believes that nuclear power should be the major energy resource for Taiwan in the future. The first problem facing Taipower is the long lead time required for project approval. The second problem Taipower faces is the difficulty in obtaining a public consensus. Three main rational and irrational reasons are decisive for this future development of nuclear energy in Germany: energy structure, economics, and public acceptance. The use of nuclear energy is ethically not irresponsible, but it is ethically irresponsible not to use nuclear energy. A lot of modifications on the European plants have taken place to try to minimize the chance of having an accident and, in case it should happen, to limit the consequences. Another problem is waste deposits. As long as there is no answer to this question, the public will continue to debate on this issue

[en] The purpose of this paper is to analyze the future prospects of nuclear power in Latin America. As part of the developing world, Latin America has a great potential for energy growth. Although there are substantial differences among the different countries of the area, one common denominator is the relatively low per-capita energy consumption. As in many other regions of the world, nuclear power makes sense to complement hydro and fossil-fueled power generation. One of the main restrictions to the growth of nuclear power has been the relatively small size of some electric system. As in most developing countries, the damage to the environment due to the energy-producing systems is very important. In countries like Cuba, nuclear power is clearly the most economical source, since the country lacks indigenous energy resources and the need to import primary energy sources favors nuclear power. The problem of the Latin American region is a severe shortage of financial resources. Standardization has been recognized as one of the better mechanisms to lower nuclear power costs. Argentina has been proposing the construction of CANDU-type reactors as the basis for their standard program, and some years ago Mexico took steps to launch a program for the installation of ∼20 identical units. As in the whole world, the general public is reluctant to accept nuclear power. So far, nuclear power plants have been important to Latin America, with varying levels of local participation, but with imported technology. Unless a major scientific breakthrough takes place, nuclear power will constitute an important component of the energy system in Latin America

[en] When the oil prices were increased at the end of 1973, small nuclear power reactors became more economical than same-size oil fired plants. On the other hand, investment costs for a power reactor fall much more rapidly than for a conventional plant as the unit size increases. But large reactors (electric output 1000 MW and above) are not easily acceptable by the relatively small interconnected system of a developing country. The aim of this investigation is to search if a large unit (1200 MW) can operate economically in reduced power for some years and to find the breakeven point with a smaller unit (660 MW). It is found that the large unit can economically operate at 660 MW for 6 years, which is a good compromise for the increasing grid demand of a developing country. (orig.)

[en] The paper concerns the campaign for the public acceptance of nuclear power and describes two recent opinion surveys of visitors to the Travelling Exhibition ''Nuclear Power in Britain'' (1988/9). The Exhibition is presented by the UKAEA at Risley in close collaboration with NEIG, BNFL, CEGB and NNC. The survey revealed that people may not be as demonstrably anti-nuclear as polls suggest, and that peoples' main reaction was one of bewilderment. These findings are discussed with respect to peoples' needs and involvement. Also the author urges members of staff of the nuclear industry to promote and encourage public interest in what they are doing. (U.K.)

[en] The public relations policy of British Nuclear Fuels with respect to the Sellafield reprocessing centre is described. Key factors in reassuring the public on the safety of the plant have been the opening of an exhibition centre and a widely advertised open invitation to visit Sellafield together with a commitment to an open information policy and the promotion of understanding through the use of less technical language. An improvement in public confidence in Sellafield is reported. (U.K.)

[en] The author presents a critical review of the situation in the country one year after the Chernobyl reactor accident, particularly reforming to the political sector. His analysis shows that the nuclear industry in the FRG has kept the upper hand. Neither legal proceedings instituted by anti-nuclear groups, nor evidence presented for malformation in man and animals due to the Chernobyl fallout could shatter the Federal German government's conservative and pro-nuclear line of policy. (DG)

[en] The author discusses the parliamentary autumn session debate on energy policy. The debate presented nothing new, nothing positive with regard to keeping a nuclear option as a safeguard for the future