РОССИЙСКАЯ АКАДЕМИЯ НАУК
Институт проблем безопасного развития атомной энергетики
RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
Nuclear Safety Institute (IBRAE)
Environmental risks and perspectives
for large-scale nuclear power
development
L.A. Bolshov,
R.V. Arutyunyan,
I.I. Linge
All significant types of electric power
(thermal, hydro- and nuclear)
have practically similar basis for environmental
consequences assessment
2
Global, regional and local
environmental problems
Scaled set of negative consequences for the
environment and human health has appeared at global,
regional and local levels
3
The goal of objective and comprehensive
environmental assessment of the longterm prospects of electric power
development and other related power
technologies is extremely pressing!
4
Structure of exposure for the population
of the Russian Federation in 1998
Region
Radiation
from natural
IRS, %
Medical
exposure,
%
Radiation from
global RR fallout
and past radiation
accidents, %
Man-caused exposure from
the manufacturers,
exploiting IRS, %
ChNPP zone
Bryansk region
51.9
37.3
10.8
0.01
Kaluga region
74.9
24
0.9
0.18
64
32.7
3.3
0.03
Orlov region
SPA "Mayak" zone
Sverdlovsk region
58.7
39.5
1.7
0.14
Chelyabinsk region
74.5
24.7
0.6
0.24
NW tests influence zone
Altai region
81.9
17.8
0.29
0.01
Working NPP
Voronezhskaya obl.
62.4
36.9
0.6
0.11
Murmanskaya obl.
73.6
25.5
0.6
0.26
Smolenskaya obl.
58.5
39.8
1.7
0.04
Reference: Analytical information «State of radiation safety
of the Russian Federation in 1998 », Ministry of Health of the RF
5
Exposure doses for the population around the plants
of Minatom of the Russian Federation in 1993 - 1996
UNSCEAR report - 2000
Plant
SPA
«Mayak»
MCC
SCC
Exposed
population
(Ths.
people)
Annual effective dose
mSv/y
External Internal
Total
Life risk
for the
population
320
0.01
0.10
0.11
5.5·10-6
200
400
0.03
0.0004
0.02
0.005
0.05
0.0054
2.5·10-6
3·10-7
Natural background – 2-2.5 mSv/year
Medical procedures – 1-3 mSv/year
6
Average annual exposure doses to the
population from different sources (mSv/year)
0,0018
0,0016
8
7
- natural background
0,0014
- medical procedures
0,0012
х 100
0,001
- technogenic exposure
0,0008
- global
0,0006
6
0,0004
0,0002
0
5
SMOLENSKAYA NPP BALAKOVSKAYA NPP
GLOBAL
0,12
4
х 100
0,1
0,08
3
0,06
0,04
2
0,02
0
1
MAYAK
MCC
0
FINLAND
GERMANY
KRAS NOYARS K
REGION
MAYAK
Tomsk
S MOLENS KAYA BALAKOVS KAYA
NPP
NPP
GLOBAL
7
Global problems of nuclear power?
Annual effective dose, µSv
1. Impact of global radionuclides:
− quantitatively predictable;
− negligible under any evolution scenario.
0,18
100 years
0,15
0,12
200 years
0,09
0,06
From 85Kr ~ 0.1 µSv
From 3H and 129I ~ 0.05 µSv
0,03
0,00
1950
2000
2050
2100
2150
2200
Average annual doses caused by globally
dispersed 14С from nuclear objects
95% man*Sv/GWt/y
(UNSCEAR report – 2000)
8
Safety Level Achieved
Basic limits established from hygienic criteria (1mSv)
provide for guaranteed public and environmental protection
Dose Limit
1 mSv
Actual Doses
~ µSv
с
Quota
(200+50) µSv (SPAS-79)
PC – (50 + 50) µSv (SPAS-03)
MPR +MPD – (10+10) µSv
Actual Release
or Discharge
с
Permissible
Release or Discharge
Technologies
9
Average annual exposure doses
for the personnel of Minatom
of the Russian Federation in 1992-1999
Maximum permissible annual dose for personnel was 50
mSv, since 2000 - 20 mSv
Average annual exposure
dose, mSv/year
5
4,7
4
4,4
4,1
4
3,5
3,3
3,1
3
2,9
2
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
10
External exposure for the personnel of Minatom
of the Russian Federation with doses exceeding
1.5 rem in 1992-1999
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Minatom
3980
3817
3472
2964
2455
2144
2050
2355
NPP
3345
3180
2979
2445
1911
1499
1546
1464
11
Average dose for the personnel of plant RT-1 (reprocessing)
is 2.8 mSv/year, of plant RT-2 (storage) - 0.7 mSv/year.
Though there are still some reserves for dose decreasing.
Recent dose loads for the personnel of plant RT-1 correspond
to the dose loads for the personnel of French plants at the
beginning of 1990s (before modernization)
350,0
7
300,0
6
250,0
5
200,0
4
150,0
3
100,0
2
50,0
1
0,0
Average annual doses for the personnel, mSv
Volumes of reprocessed spent nuclear fuel,
tons of U
Dynamics of personnel exposure at the “Mayak” plant RT
0
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Year
Volumes of NSF reproc., t U
Average annual dose, mSv
12
Radiation incidents with victims in nuclear
industry in the USSR and Russia for 50 years
(data of SSC “Institute of Biophysics”, March 2001)
Classification of
Number of
the incidents
incidents
TOTAL
1. Radioisotope equipment
and their sources (total)
88
Including:
Number of victims with clinical symptoms*
Out of that
number - died
163
Including acute
radiation sickness
45
17
19
34
8
2
8
28
59
50
10
2
14
15
13
10
2
5
3
9
1
3
2. X-ray apparatuses and
accelerators (total)
38
39
1
-
Including: X-ray apparatuses
Electron accelerators
Proton accelerators
26
9
3
26
10
3
1
-
-
3. Reactor incidents and
fissible material criticality
monitoring loss
34
83
73
13
Including: fissible material criticality
monitoring loss
Reactor incidents
16
42
42
10
18
41
31
3
4
11
175
1
176
133
16
434
134
568
85
6
210
134
344
12
2
43
28
71
Co-60
Cs-137
Ir-192
other -emitters
(-)-emittersи
-emitters
4. NS accidents
5. Other accidents (total)
Total w/o Chernobyl
Chernobyl accident
TOTAL
16
13
Nuclear Power Technology and
Sustainable Development
1. Actually unlimited reserve of energy carrier in
the fuel cycle with breeder reactors.
2. Retaining of the overwhelming part of
potentially harmful radioactive substances in a
technological cycle at all stages up to final RW
disposal.
3. Human and environmental risks from
discharges and releases of current nuclear
productions under project operation conditions
are small even at large-scale NP development and
cannot infringe natural radiation balance.
14
NFC environmental safety
Fundamental characteristic of advanced and, in
particular, innovative nuclear technologies with
closed fuel cycle is to retain most of radioactive
substances within protective barriers at all process
stages up to RW final disposal.
RNG
131I
137Cs
90Sr
10-8  10-10
Pu
137Cs
90Sr
10-9  10-10
15
TEPP ecology
Thermal power consuming nonrenewable resource assumes
that detrimental products are released to the environment
during production process and affect human health and the
environment continuously and significantly.
16
Kyoto Protocol and FCCC
Greenhouse gases and
oxygen consumption
represent a complex
conglomerate of political
and economic interests of
the countries and
industrial groups
!?
Exclusion of nuclear power from
the procedures provided for in
FCCC and Kyoto Protocol
17
PP
type
Standard
Exceeding of
standard
NPP
MPR, DL, QD
No
TEPP
55% - MPR
45% - TAR (at the level of
Yes
actual releases)
Substances typical of TEPP releases are referred to
priority toxic impurities in the atmosphere of many
Russian cities.
According to Rosgidromet 30 mln. individuals live in the
cities where average annual concentration of suspended
particles and nitrogen dioxide exceeds 10 MPC.
Thermal power engineering contributes to air maximum
pollution of each second city of Russia included into in the
Priority List.
18
Health risks for the public living
in the areas of nuclear and coal-fired PP location
in Sverdlovsk region
19
Concentration of suspended substances
in the air of the cities with large coal-fired TEPP
and related mortality risks
Annual average
concentration,
MPC share
Annual
individual
mortality
risk
Population,
thous.
Annual
population
mortality risk,
man
Asbest (Reftinsk
HEPP)
2.0
1.0·10-3
117,9
117
Nazarovo
(Nazarovo HEPP)
0.5
1.08·10-4
64,2
7
Ulan-Ude
1.2
5.1·10-4
371,4
190
Cheremkhovo
3.6
1.9·10-3
50,0
96
Chita
1.8
8.8·10-4
316,7
278
Novocherkassk
(Rostov NPP)
0.8
3.2·10-4
188,7
60
Ussuriisk
2.0
1.0·10-3
158,4
158
Cities
20
Carcinogenic risks at normative levels for
permissible concentrations for most of regulated
substances reach very high values
Risk
Water in ponds
Atmospheric air
Working area
Abs.
%
Abs.
%
Abs.
%
>10-2
7
8,0
2
5,4
42
45,1
10-2-10-3
19
21,8
6
16,2
34
36,5
10-3-10-4
29
33,3
13
35,1
10
10,7
10-4-10-5
23
26,4
9
24,3
7
7,5
<10-5
9
10,5
7
19,0
0
0
Total
87
100
37
100
93
100
S.M.Novikov, B.N.Porfiriev, O.V.Ponomareva
Consulting Center on risk assessment, Moscow,
Report of IBRAE RAS, 2000
21
Specific damage (mln Euro/GW-yr) caused by three
major air pollutants for some EC countries
(according to ExternE project computation) and Russia
(Demin V.F.)
SO2
NOX
Suspended
particles
Austria
23.6
39.4 – 73.6
8.8
Belgium
30.0 – 31.9
50.4 – 53.9
12.9
France
19.7 – 40.2
47.3 – 78.8
3.2 – 30.0
4.7 – 36.0
47.7 – 66.1
10.2 –12.3
15.8 – 26.3
25.1 – 42.0
4.2 – 12.0
97.2
82.3
65.7
Country
Germany
UK
Russia
22
Individual annual risks of death
Causes
Affected,
mln
Risks
Number
of deaths
per yr
All causes
69 (men)
1.5·10-2
(average for 1996-1999)
1 060 000
Accidents
69 (men)
3.4·10-3
(average for 1996-1999)
240 000
More than 70 (extrapolation**)
10-4 – 10-3
(loss of years:
0.5 man-year***)
21 000
18700****
40 000
50 (according to monitoring data)
10-5 – 10-7
620
0.1
(contaminated regions of Ukraine,
Russia and Byelorussia)
8·10-5*(loss of years:
15 man-year)
8*
0.9
6·10-6-3х10-7*
< 3*
0.5 - 1
2·10-8-2·10-6*
<0,7*
10 - 15
10-4 – 10-3
5 000 – 7 000
Severe air pollution
Air pollution by chemical
carcinogens
Zone of resettlement of NPP
Living in the vicinity of MCC,
SCC, SPA “Mayak”
Living in the vicinity of NPP
Living in the vicinity of coalfired TEPP
43 (according to monitoring data)
* - Hypothetical risks of death for small doses within the framework of linear nonthreshold concept
** - Extrapolated for all urban population
*** - N. Künzli «Public-health impact of outdoor and traffic-related air pollution:
a European assessment»,“The Lancet”, Vol. 356, September 2, 2000
**** - According to RF Ministry of Health
23
Effect of contaminated air on the population
health in Western Europe
(Austria, France and Switzerland)*
Results. 6% of annual death rate (40,000 cases) is
caused by air pollution. About half of all deaths
connected with air pollution, is due to motor
transport, which is responsible for more than
25,000 new cases of chronic bronchitis (for
adults), above 290,000 cases of bronchitis
(children), above 0.5 million of asthma cases and
above 16 mln. man-day of restricted activity.
* - N. Kunzli, R. Kaizer, S. Medina et al. «The Lancet», V.352, September
2, 2000, pp.795
24
Potential Environmental Risks from
Nuclear Technologies
Reverse side of NFC ecological compatibility
is increased potential hazard at beyond-thedesign-basis accidents.
25
Large radiation accidents
have become an objective
obstacle in nuclear power
development
The following is of vital
importance in this
connection:
− Objective evaluation of
reasons, effects and factors
defining the scale of
accidents;
− Learning lessons from
accidents.
26
ChNPP Accident
• Limited radiological effects;
• Scale social and economic consequences, including as
a result of inadequate or inefficient protective actions.
27
ChNPP accident – long-term effects among the
population of Russia
(data of the Russian State Medical-Dosimetry Register –
acad. A.F.Tsyb, prof. V.K.Ivanov)
Cohort
Localization
Firemen, personnel,
liquidators
Participants of LCA
(116 thousand)
ARS
Died
Leucosis
Thyroid glad
cancer
Leucosis
Thyroid glad
cancer
Children in the Bryansk
Region
Number of
revealed
cases
134
31
145
55
Including
radiogenic
cases
134
28
50
12
170
55
Average
on the
RF
9235
4211
11230
The given data show that, being absolutely unacceptable from point
of view of the social and economical losses, which are connected with
the population evacuation and disturbance of their vital conditions
and the high level of psychological stress,
the Chernobyl accident cannot be regarded not only as a catastrophe,
but even as a large technogenic accident considering the number of
sufferers and died of radiation.
28
Lessons
• Safety increase for all aspects of NPP operation due to
modernization and increase in safety culture;
• Justified development of safety systems, including
localization under conditions of beyond-the-design-basis
accidents;
• Considerable upgrade for emergency response systems;
• Efforts to harmonize the normative and legal basis in the
field of anthropogenic risks;
• Scale international and national programs promote for
learning lessons.
VVER-91/99. Project.
(Practical Realization is the
Tianwan NPP in China)
29
By cumulative effects, accidents with significant «?»
radioactive release into the environment are
practically unacceptable for the present community
even at the lack or smallness of radiological
consequences
Probability of a severe accident?
Significant radioactive release?
Evacuation criteria?
[IAEA, NRB: (50-500) mSv – ?]
30
Decision-Making about Chronic
Radiation Exposure to the Public:
New Recommendations from the ICRP
Abel J. Gonzalez, 2000
«… annual radiation dose, which
approaches 10 mSv, can be used as a
control level, below which, in some
situations, connected with long
exposure, can hardly be considered as
justified»
«…while assessing the values of stochastic irradiation consequences,
there are no arguments in favour of medical and biological justification
for including in calculations the dose values below the practical threshold.
… the similar numerical values of the practical threshold on the
accumulated effective dose are within the limits of 200 mSv»
L.A.Ilin « Problems of regulating the technogenic people exposure»
Proceedings of International Conference « Radioactivity at nuclear
explosions and accidents», Moscow 2000.
31
The following has become an obstacle for the public to
accept advantages, strategic prospects and necessity in
NP development:
1. Hypertrophied and far from the actual data public
ideas of effects of radiation accidents, as a whole, and
grave fears as to a possibility to provide long-term RW
safety; and
2. Inconsistent, unbalanced and scientifically
contradictory methodologies, criteria and estimates for
risks and damages from radiation factors implemented in
the radiation safety criteria, standards and legislation.
32
New «controversial» initiatives
1. Dose limit for population as of 0.3 мSv/yr
(ICRP)
2. Radiological protection of the environment
(ICRP, IAEA)
Positive Trends of Recent Years:
−Memorandum of R.Clark, ICRP Chairman, as for
orientation to the levels of natural background and
rejection of direct collective dose utilization in order
to estimate damages from radiation factor;
− The Chernobyl Forum in the framework of which
an effort is being made to elaborate objective ideas
of the effects of the Chernobyl accident.
In fact, by cumulative scientific data and
obtained technological reserve, large-scale
nuclear power development has no limits by
environmental safety criteria.
34
Global problems of nuclear power?
2. RW disposal:
− possibility of safe disposal in the
geological formations which remain
stable for hundred thousands and
millions of years
3. Non-proliferation
4. Vulnerability
35
Insurance Against Accidents and Provision for
Implementation of Solutions on RS/RW
Management
Retaining of the overwhelming part of potentially harmful
radioactive substances in a long-term (tens or hundreds
years) technological cycle requires special organization for
RW management system as well as insurance against risks
dealt with beyond-the-design-basis accidents of low
probability.
Insurance of such risks should be performed solely out of
accumulative funds of the producer.
However, it can be guaranteed for a long-term period only
at the state’s involvement or through international
guarantees.
At such organization, the insurance against environmental
risks from energy technologies is not economically
burdensome.
36