DOCSLIB.ORG

Nuclear Paper 6: Safety and Security

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nuclear Paper 6: Safety and Security sustainable development commission The role of nuclear power in a low carbon economy Paper 6: Safety and security An evidence-based report by the Sustainable Development Commission with contributions from Large & Associates and AMEC NNC March 2006 Table of contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 3 1.2 Accident risk............................................................................................................................ 3 1.3 Security issues – vulnerability to terrorism ........................................................................... 3 1.4 Implications for nuclear proliferation .................................................................................... 4 1.5 Health impacts from background radiation........................................................................... 4 2 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................. 5 3 ACCIDENT RISK ................................................................................................................................. 7 3.1 UK regulatory position ............................................................................................................ 7 3.2 Review of accidents in the nuclear industry ......................................................................... 8 3.3 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 10 4 SECURITY ISSUEs............................................................................................................................. 11 4.1.1 Motivation and nature of terrorist threats .................................................................. 11 4.2 Nuclear security .................................................................................................................... 11 4.3 Design of plant...................................................................................................................... 13 4.4 Shipments of radioactive materials and wastes................................................................. 15 4.5 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 16 5 IMPLICATIONS FOR NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION............................................................................... 18 5.1 International treaty obligations ........................................................................................... 18 5.1.1 General.......................................................................................................................... 18 5.1.2 The NPT.......................................................................................................................... 18 5.1.3 The Euratom Treaty....................................................................................................... 19 5.2 Application of safeguards at UK nuclear power stations.................................................... 19 5.3 Proliferation – a summary of more ‘critical’ perspectives.................................................. 20 5.4 Safeguards activities............................................................................................................. 21 5.4.1 Declaration of basic technical characteristics.............................................................. 21 5.4.2 Materials accountancy.................................................................................................. 21 5.4.3 Containment and surveillance ..................................................................................... 22 5.5 Disincentives to diverting PWR fuel..................................................................................... 22 5.5.1 Difficulty of processing the fuel ................................................................................... 22 5.5.2 Unsuitability of spent fuel ............................................................................................ 23 5.5.3 Inaccessibility of fuel when loaded in the reactor...................................................... 23 5.5.4 Unfavourable economics .............................................................................................. 24 5.5.5 Conflict with declared intentions ................................................................................. 24 5.6 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 24 6 HEALTH IMPACTS............................................................................................................................ 26 6.1 Potential health impacts of low effective dose exposures ................................................ 26 6.1.1 Cancers in general ........................................................................................................ 26 6.1.2 Leukaemia..................................................................................................................... 26 6.2 Policy context........................................................................................................................ 27 6.3 Regulatory framework.......................................................................................................... 28 6.4 Worker doses ........................................................................................................................ 29 6.4.1 Collective radiation exposure....................................................................................... 29 6.4.2 Individual radiation exposure....................................................................................... 29 6.5 Doses to members of the public.......................................................................................... 30 6.5.1 Radioactivity in the environment: Marina II study in the OSPAR region ................... 30 6.5.2 Estimated dose uptake from operational discharges (current UK nuclear power stations) 31 6.5.3 Prospective dose uptake from new build.................................................................... 32 Safety and security www.sd-commission.org.uk 1 7 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................34 7.1 Conclusion on accident risk .................................................................................................. 34 7.2 Conclusion on security issues............................................................................................... 34 7.3 Conclusion on nuclear proliferation ..................................................................................... 34 7.4 Conclusion on health impacts .............................................................................................. 35 8 GLOSSARY ...................................................................................................................................... 36 9 TABLES AND FIGURES..................................................................................................................... 37 10 APPENDIX A - SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF MAJOR NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS ................................. 49 10.1 Chernobyl (INES 7)................................................................................................................ 49 10.2 Three Mile Island (INES 5) .................................................................................................... 50 10.3 The Windscale fire (INES 5) .................................................................................................. 51 10.4 Saint-Laurent A2 (INES 4)..................................................................................................... 52 10.5 Tokai criticality accident (INES 4)......................................................................................... 52 11 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 54 Safety and security www.sd-commission.org.uk 2 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Introduction This report has been prepared as part of the 1.3 Security issues – vulnerability Sustainable Development Commission’s work on examining the role of nuclear to terrorism power in the low carbon economy. • There are high levels of security at It covers matters relating to safety and nuclear power stations, which are security, under four main topic headings. It regularly reviewed against current has examined relevant material in the public intelligence about the intents and domain, and has reached the following capabilities of terrorist groups. conclusions for the topics under review: • While modern reactor designs have substantial containment buildings which 1.2 Accident risk are considered unlikely to be breached • Nuclear power stations in the UK are even by a crashing airliner, and the designed to stringent standards with reactor fuel is protected against impact emergency arrangements to avoid on- and fire by other structures, no current site and off-site effects, and which operating reactor design has been ensure that all reasonably practicable specifically
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nuclear Radiation Health Effects
    (C) Safety In Engineering Ltd Radiation health effects and nuclear accident consequences – an overview Jim Thomson www.safetyinengineering.com 1 Radiation doses and radiological hazards (C) Safety In Engineering Ltd • Other issue - Doserate effects - uncertain Dose/risk• Normal cancer risk ~ 30% Additional Cancer Risk 5% Region where data are available, e.g. from Hiroshima-Nagasaki Gradient = 5%/Sv survivors Delayed health effects (cancers) – the linear dose -risk hypothesis Region of interest for societal risk in nuclear Effective dose (Sv) reactor accidents 1 Sv 100% Risk due to radiation sickness Acute effects (radiation sickness) Effective dose (Sv) 3 4 5 2 Radiation doses and radiological hazards (C) Safety In Engineering Ltd • The Emergency Reference Level (ERL) = 300mSv effective dose • Very small fractionsRadiological of a reactor core’s inventory wouldhazards yield a major radiological hazard to the public if released off-site, e.g. typically a release of about one-millionth of the I-131 inventory in a reactor would equate to the Emergency Reference Level (ERL) for someone at the site boundary. Isotopes Characteristics Iodine - 131 Volatile. Beta/gamma thyroid-seeker. Short half life (8d). Effects can be mitigated by swallowing iodate tablets. Caesium - 137 Volatile. Permeates whole body (mimics sodium). Actinides May be air-borne by fine (e.g. Plutonium, Curium, particles of U 3O8 in accidents. Americium isotopes) Alpha lung and bone seeker. Very long half lives. 3 Radiation doses and radiological hazards (C) Safety In Engineering Ltd 4 different terms used:Radiological hazards DOSE is measured in Grays (Gy). 1 Gy = 1 Joule of radiation energy absorbed per kg of organ tissue DOSE-EQUIVALENT is measured in Sieverts (Sv).
    [Show full text]
  • Chernobyl: Worst but Not First
    (reprinted with permission from Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, August/September 1986, www.thebulletin.org) Chernobyl: worst but not first Until Chernobyl, only two nuclear reactor accidents had spread significant amounts of ionizing radiation beyond the site of the mishap: a fire at the Windscale No. 1 plutonium production pile in northwest England in 1957, and a 1961 accident at an experimental prototype reactor in Idaho which killed three servicemen. Both the Stationary Low-Power reactor (SL-1) involved in the Idaho accident and the Windscale reactor were of novel and inadequate design; in a sense they were accidents waiting to happen. For that reason the Western nuclear industry now - perhaps too hastily - discounts those two accidents as minimally relevant to nuclear safety in the 1980s. It could make a similar mistake about Chernobyl. The Windscale No. 1 pile was the first large-scale reactor built in Britain; a second was built beside it. Each was cooled by blowing air through the fuel channels in the graphite core and discharging the air directly back to the atmosphere through a tall stack. This primitive system was dictated by the political urgency of Britain's bomb program, but it made the responsible scientists and engineers acutely nervous. While Sir John Cockcroft, head of Britain's Harwell nuclear center, was on a visit to Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the late 1940s, the reactor malfunctioned, sending radioactivity up the stack to settle on the site. Cockcroft returned to Britain insisting that a way be found to ensure that fuel damage in a Windscale reactor would not release uncontrolled radioactivity into the surroundings.
    [Show full text]
  • Richard Batten1 University of Exeter a Significant Moment in The
    Richard Batten Ex Historia 79 Richard Batten 1 University of Exeter A Significant Moment in the Development of Nuclear Liability and Compensation: Dealing With the Consequences of the Windscale Fire 1957. Introduction The fire at the Windscale Nuclear plant in October 1957 transformed an installation which was once a grand symbol of technological pride into a ‘dirty relic of an early nuclear age’. 2 Nuclear power became associated with destruction, accidents and unimaginable apocalyptic images which reinforced human fallibility and the erratic nature of nuclear material. 3 However, Britain’s post- war society was oblivious to the threat of a nuclear reactor experiencing a meltdown. In fact, during the fifties, politicians, scientists and the general public hoped that Britain’s ambitious atomic energy programme would offer an escape from its dependence on coal for the country’s energy requirements and restore the nation’s industrial prestige. David Edgerton pointed out in Warfare State that techno-nationalism had become a powerful ideology within the realities of ‘austerity Britain’. 4 By investing in nuclear technology, Britain was not only creating the right conditions for the country’s scientific growth but was also supporting its engineering and power- generating development. Hence, nuclear power was a key facet of Britain’s post-war future.5 1 Richard Batten's ( [email protected] ) academic interests include the development of nuclear power in the United Kingdom, the experiences of British agriculture in the twentieth century, and the social history of Britain during the First World War. He holds a BA (Hons.) in English and History (2007) and an MA in History (2008).
    [Show full text]
  • Robotics For
    TECHNICAL PROGRESS REPORT ROBOTIC TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE SRS 235-F FACILITY Date Submitted: August 12, 2016 Principal: Leonel E. Lagos, PhD, PMP® FIU Applied Research Center Collaborators: Peggy Shoffner, MS, CHMM, PMP® Himanshu Upadhyay, PhD Alexander Piedra, DOE Fellow SRNL Collaborators: Michael Serrato Prepared for: U.S. Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management Cooperative Agreement No. DE-EM0000598 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor any of its contractors, subcontractors, nor their employees makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe upon privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any other agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof. FIU-ARC-2016-800006472-04c-235 Robotic Technologies for SRS 235F TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of the Nuclear Power Industry
    Assessment of the Nuclear Power Industry – Final Report June 2013 Navigant Consulting, Inc. For EISPC and NARUC Funded by the U.S. Department of Energy Assessment of the Nuclear Power Industry Study 5: Assessment of the Location of New Nuclear and Uprating Existing Nuclear Whitepaper 5: Consideration of other Incentives/Disincentives for Development of Nuclear Power prepared for Eastern Interconnection States’ Planning Council and National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. Navigant Consulting, Inc. 77 South Bedford Street, Suite 400 Burlington, MA 01803 781.270.0101 www.navigant.com Table of Contents Forward ....................................................................................................................................... ix Basic Nuclear Power Concepts ................................................................................................ 1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 5 1. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 9 1.1 Early Years – (1946-1957) ........................................................................................................................ 9 1.1.1 Shippingport ............................................................................................................................. 11 1.1.2 Power Reactor Demonstration Program ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Graphite Waste Management
    Technical Committee meeting held in Manchester, United Kingdom, o 18-20 October 1999 o ro 00 CD O Nuclear Graphite Waste Management Foreword Copyright/Editorial note Contents Summary List of participants Related IAEA priced publications INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY Copyright © IAEA, 2001 Published by the IAEA in Austria May 2001 Individual papers may be downloaded for personal use; single printed copies may be made for use in research and teaching. Redistribution or sale of any material on the CD-ROM in machine readable or any other form is prohibited. EDITORIAL NOTE This publication has been prepared from the original material as submitted by the authors. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the IAEA, the governments of the nominating Member States or the nominating organizations. The use of particular designations of countries or territories does not imply any judgement by the publisher, the IAEA, as to the legal status of such countries or territories, of their authorities and institutions or of the delimitation of their boundaries. The mention of names of specific companies or products (whether or not indicated as registered) does not imply any intention to infringe proprietary rights, nor should it be construed as an endorsement or recommendation on the part of the IAEA. The authors are responsible for having obtained the necessary permission for the IAEA to reproduce, translate or use material from sources already protected by copyrights. FOREWORD Graphite and carbon have been used as a moderator and reflector of neutrons in more than one hundred nuclear power plants, mostly in the United Kingdom (Magnox and AGRs), France (UNGGs), the former USSR (RBMK), the United States of America (HTR) and Spain.
    [Show full text]
  • Fast Breeder Reactor Programs: History and Status
    Fast Breeder Reactor Programs: 8 History and Status Thomas B. Cochran, Harold A. Feiveson, Walt Patterson, Gennadi Pshakin, M.V. Ramana, Mycle Schneider, Tatsujiro Suzuki, Frank von Hippel A research report of the International Panel on Fissile Materials February 2010 Research Report 8 International Panel on Fissile Materials Fast Breeder Reactor Programs: History and Status Thomas B. Cochran, Harold A. Feiveson, Walt Patterson, Gennadi Pshakin, M.V. Ramana, Mycle Schneider, Tatsujiro Suzuki, Frank von Hippel www.fissilematerials.org February 2010 © 2010 International Panel on Fissile Materials ISBN 978-0-9819275-6-5 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License. To view a copy of this license, visit www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0 Table of Contents About the IPFM i 1 Overview: The Rise and Fall of Plutonium Breeder Reactors Frank von Hippel 1 2 Fast Breeder Reactors in France Mycle Schneider 17 3 India and Fast Breeder Reactors M. V. Ramana 37 4 Japan’s Plutonium Breeder Reactor and its Fuel Cycle Tatsujiro Suzuki 53 5 The USSR-Russia Fast-Neutron Reactor Program Gennadi Pshakin 63 6 Fast Breeder Reactors in the United Kingdom Walt Patterson 73 7 Fast Reactor Development in the United States Thomas B. Cochran, Harold A. Feiveson, and Frank von Hippel 89 Contributors 113 Fast Breeder Reactor Programs: History and Status Figures Overview: The Rise and Fall of Plutonium Breeder Reactors Figure 1.1 Plutonium breeding. 3 Figure 1.2 History of the price of uranium. 6 Figure 1.3 Funding in OECD countries. 7 Figure 1.4 Dose rate of separated transuranics.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Following Are Some of the Personal Testimonies from People Involved in the Fire at Windscale, Sellafield, in 1957 and Some
    The following are some of the personal testimonies from people involved in the fire at Windscale, Sellafield, in 1957 and some statistics on estimates of the health impact of the fire. The plume of radioactive contamination spread across England into Holland and Germany and also across into Ireland. In some cases I've changed the tense from when I wrote the book (Living in the Shadow, the Story of the People of Sellafield), when some of those interviewed were still alive, but of course what they said remains the same. In particular in typing this out - and with the benefit of hindsight and more knowledge – the sense of the risk they took with their own lives, and the massive gamble taken to put the fire out – seems all the more vivid. All that is asked is that you give some time to read this and remember the fire, those who fought it and the victims. Jean McSorley 9th October 2007. (If you want to use extracts please reference this material). Finding the Fire Arthur Wilson (now dead) ‘I opened the gag-port and there it was, there was a fire at the face of the reactor.’ These are the words of Mr Arthur Wilson, the ‘Man Who Found the Windscale Fire’. The blaze he discovered on the 10th October 1957 signaled the beginning of the world’s second biggest nuclear disaster. Mr Wilson was a master of understatement. ‘I can’t say I thought a lot about it at the time, there was so much to do. I didn’t think “Hurrah, I’ve found, it.” I rather thought, “Oh dear, now we are in a pickle.” In some ways I was quite lucky because I had been on duty so long that day I was allowed home quite soon after the fire itself was discovered.
    [Show full text]
  • Radiation Monitoring in Ireland – the Impact and Lessons Learned from Nuclear Accidents
    Radiation Environment and Medicine 2017 Vol.6, No.2 49–54 Special Contribution Radiation Monitoring in Ireland – The Impact and Lessons Learned from Nuclear Accidents Kevin Kelleher* Office of Radiation Protection and Environmental Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency, 3 Clonskeagh Square, Clonskeagh Road, Dublin 14, Ireland Received 24 February 2017; revised 25 April 2017; accepted 15 May 2017 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Ireland monitors both natural and man-made radioactivity in the Irish environment. This radiation monitoring programme has evolved over time as a result of legislative requirements, the inventory of anthropogenic radioactivity in the Irish environment and as a response to nuclear accidents. The three most significant nuclear accidents from an Irish perspective are the Windscale fire in October 1957, the Chernobyl accident in May 1986 and the Fukushima accident in March 2011. As a result of these accidents, the radiation monitoring capabilities and expertise in Ireland has increased and there have been significant developments in the areas of emergency preparedness and response to nuclear accidents. In order to respond effectively to nuclear accidents it is important that Ireland maintains an integrated comprehensive monitoring network, engages all relevant stakeholders, communicate effectively and to continue to develop resources taking into account the lessons learned from past accidents and international best practice. Key words: Radiation monitoring, nuclear accidents, emergency response, Windscale, Chernobyl, Fukushima 1. Int roduc t ion The radioactivity monitoring programme is conducted by the EPA in order for Ireland to fulfil a number of The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Ireland statutory requirements and international commitments monitors the levels of radioactivity in the Irish environment.
    [Show full text]
  • NKS-180, Overview of Sources of Radioactive Particles of Nordic
    Nordisk kernesikkerhedsforskning Norrænar kjarnöryggisrannsóknir Pohjoismainen ydinturvallisuustutkimus Nordisk kjernesikkerhetsforskning Nordisk kärnsäkerhetsforskning Nordic nuclear safety research NKS-180 ISBN 978-87-7893-246-4 Overview of sources of radioactive particles of Nordic relevance as well as a short description of available particle characterisation techniques Ole Christian Lind1), Ulrika Nygren2), Lennart Thaning2), Henrik Ramebäck2), Singh Sidhu3), Per Roos4), Roy Pöllänen5), Ylva Ranebo6), Elis Holm6) and Brit Salbu1) 1)Norwegian University Of Life Sciences, Norway 2)Swedish Defense Research Agency (FOI), Sweden 3)Institute For Energy Technology, Norway 4)Risø National Laboratories, Denmark 5)STUK, Finland 6)University Of Lund, Sweden October 2008 Abstract The present overview report show that there are many existing and potential sources of radioactive particle contamination of relevance to the Nordic countries. Following their release, radioactive particles represent point sources of short- and long-term radioecological significance, and the failure to recognise their presence may lead to significant errors in the short- and long-term impact assessments related to radioactive contamination at a particular site. Thus, there is a need of knowledge with respect to the probability, quantity and expected impact of radioactive particle formation and release in case of specified potential nuclear events (e.g. reactor accident or nuclear terrorism). Furthermore, knowledge with respect to the particle characteristics influencing transport, ecosystem transfer and biological effects is important. In this respect, it should be noted that an IAEA coordinated research project was running from 2000-2006 (IAEA CRP, 2001) focussing on characterisation and environmental impact of radioactive particles, while a new IAEA CRP focussing on the biological effects of radioactive particles will be launched in 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • Sediment Radiation in Sellafield, UK
    WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE INTERACTIVE QUALIFYING PROJECT Sediment Radiation in Sellafield, UK Advisors Authors Germano IANNACCHIONE Jack KAHLER Marco KALTOFEN Bailey WATERMAN David MEDICH Izabel STROE April 28, 2018 1 Abstract Since 1957, Sellafield, UK has shown varying amounts of radioactive particles in the soil. The group Radiation Free Lakeland was interested in the current radiation lev- els at and near Sellafield. The mission of this project was to determine, categorize, and map the radiation levels of soil originating from Sellafield and surrounding ar- eas. This was accomplished by using a sodium iodide crystal scintillator to measure the amount of photons emitted by the samples over a given time. When compared to recommended levels in soil samples, the result of this research showed there was a significant amount of radiation in some of the soil samples. i 2 Acknowledgements Thanks to the help from volunteers at Radiation Free Lakeland, Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment CORE, and Fairewinds Energy Education, a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. ii 3 Executive Summary The goal of this project was to determine the radioactivity of soil samples collected from the beaches of Sellafield, UK and neighboring areas. Contamination is not a new problem for the beaches of Sellafield; however, there have been few recent studies about this issue. The area has a rather lengthy history of nuclear activity, starting with a fire in one of the reactors in 1957 that caused a major release of radionuclides. More severe, however, was the dumping of radioactive effluent from the plant into the Irish sea over the course of almost two decades.
    [Show full text]
  • Radioactive Particles Released from Various Nuclear Sources B
    Radioprotection, Suppl. 1, vol. 40 (2005) S27-S32 © EDP Sciences, 2005 DOI: 10.1051/radiopro:2005s1-005 Radioactive particles released from various nuclear sources B. Salbu and O.C. Lind Isotope Laboratory, Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Agricultural University of Norway, 1432 Aas, Norway Abstract. Radionuclides released to the environment may be present in different physico-chemical forms, ranging from ionic species to colloids, particles and fragments. Following releases during nuclear events such as nuclear weapon tests or use of depleted uranium munitions, and from nuclear accidents associated with explosions or fires, radionuclides such as uranium and plutonium are predominantly present as particles, mainly fuel particles. Similarly, radioactive particles are present in effluents from reprocessing facilities, and radioactive particles are observed in sediments in the close vicinity of radioactive waste dumped at sea. Thus, releases of radioactive particles occur far more often than earlier anticipated. Soils and sediments can act as a sink for colloids, particles and fragments, while contaminated soils and sediments may also act as a potential diffuse source, depending on particle characteristics and processes influencing particle weathering and remobilisation of associated radionuclides. To assess long-term impact from radioactive particle contamination, information on the source term is essential, i.e. activity concentrations and isotopic ratios as well as the particle size distribution, crystallographic structures and oxidation states influencing particle weathering rates and the subsequent mobilisation and biological uptake of associated radionuclides. The activity concentrations and the isotopic ratios will be source dependant, while particle characteristics will also reflect the release scenario, dispersion processes and deposition conditions.
    [Show full text]