Environmental risks and perspectives for large-scale nuclear power development

1. 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

2. All significant types of electric power (thermal, hydro- and nuclear)have practically similar basis for environmental consequences assessment

3. Global, regionalandlocalenvironmental problems Scaled set of negative consequences for the environment and human health has appeared at global, regional and local levels

4. The goal of objective and comprehensive environmental assessment of the long-term prospects of electric power development and other related power technologies is extremely pressing!

5. Structure of exposure for the population of the RussianFederation in 1998 Reference:Analyticalinformation «State of radiation safety of the RussianFederation in 1998 »,Ministry of Health of the RF

6. Exposure doses for the population around the plants of Minatom of the Russian Federation in 1993 - 1996 UNSCEAR report - 2000 Natural background – 2-2.5 mSv/year Medical procedures – 1-3 mSv/year

7. - natural background - medical procedures - technogenic exposure - global Average annual exposure doses to the population from different sources (mSv/year) х 100 х 100

8. Global problems of nuclear power? • Impact of global radionuclides: • quantitatively predictable; • negligible under any evolution scenario. 100 years 200 years Annual effective dose, µSv From85Kr ~ 0.1 µSv From3H and129I ~ 0.05 µSv Average annual doses caused by globally dispersed 14С from nuclear objects 95% man*Sv/GWt/y(UNSCEAR report – 2000)

9. Safety Level Achieved Basic limits established from hygienic criteria (1mSv) provide for guaranteed public and environmental protection Dose Limit1 mSv Actual Doses~µSv с Quota Actual Release or Discharge (200+50) µSv(SPAS-79) PC – (50 + 50) µSv(SPAS-03)MPR +MPD – (10+10) µSv с PermissibleRelease or Discharge Technologies

10. 5 4,7 4,4 4 4,1 3,5 4 3,3 3,1 2,9 3 2 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Average annual exposure doses for the personnel of Minatom of the Russian Federation in 1992-1999Maximum permissible annual dose for personnel was 50 mSv, since 2000 - 20 mSv Average annual exposure dose, mSv/year

11. External exposure for the personnel of Minatom of the Russian Federation with doses exceeding 1.5 rem in 1992-1999

12. Dynamics of personnel exposure at the “Mayak” plant RT 350,0 7 300,0 6 250,0 5 200,0 4 Volumes of reprocessed spent nuclear fuel, tons of U Average annual doses for the personnel, mSv 150,0 3 100,0 2 50,0 1 0,0 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 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)

13. Radiation incidents with victims in nuclear industry in the USSR and Russia for 50 years (data of SSC “Institute of Biophysics”, March 2001)

14. Nuclear Power Technology and Sustainable Development • Actually unlimited reserve of energy carrier in the fuel cycle with breeder reactors. • Retaining of the overwhelming part of potentially harmful radioactive substances in a technological cycle at all stages up to final RW disposal. • 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.

15. 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 Pu 137Cs 90Sr 10-8 10-10 10-9  10-10

16. 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.

17. Kyoto Protocol andFCCC 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

18. 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.

19. Health risks for the public living in the areas of nuclear and coal-fired PP location in Sverdlovsk region

20. Concentration of suspended substances in the air of the cities with large coal-fired TEPP and related mortality risks

21. 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 Carcinogenicrisksat normativelevelsfor permissible concentrations for most of regulated substances reach very high values S.M.Novikov, B.N.Porfiriev, O.V.Ponomareva Consulting Center on risk assessment, Moscow, Report of IBRAE RAS, 2000

22. 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.)

23. Individual annual risks of death • * - 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

24. 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. Effect of contaminated air on the population health in Western Europe (Austria, France and Switzerland)* * - N. Kunzli, R. Kaizer, S. Medina et al. «The Lancet», V.352, September 2, 2000, pp.795

25. Potential Environmental Risks from Nuclear Technologies Reverse side of NFC ecological compatibility is increased potential hazard at beyond-the-design-basis accidents.

26. 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.

27. ChNPP Accident • Limited radiological effects; • Scale social and economic consequences, including as a result of inadequate or inefficient protective actions.

28. 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) 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.

29. 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)

30. 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 – ?]

31. 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.

32. The following has become an obstacle for the public to accept advantages, strategic prospects and necessity in NP development: • 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 • 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.

33. New «controversial» initiatives 1. Dose limit for population as of 0.3 мSv/yr (ICRP) 2. Radiological protection of the environment (ICRP, IAEA)

34. 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.

35. Global problems of nuclear power? • RW disposal: • possibility of safe disposal in the geological formations which remain stable for hundred thousands and millions of years • Non-proliferation • Vulnerability

36. 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 accidentsof 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.