Population Considerations for the Nuclear Field Danny Smith, PhD, PE COPAFS Quarterly Meeting June 3, 2011

PREVIEW Basic Nuclear Concepts Shoreham (Wading River, New York) Fukushima Daiichi (Okuma and Futaba) Chernobyl (Pripyat, Ukraine) June 3,

Basic Nuclear Concepts Radiation versus Radioactive Material Radiation: energy, transience Radioactive Material: substance, persistence June 3,

Basic Nuclear Concepts Chronic Dose versus Acute Dose Chronic: smaller exposures, longer exposure periods, genetic damage Acute: larger exposures, shorter exposure periods, immediate tissue damage June 3,

Basic Nuclear Concepts Time, Distance, Shielding Time: minimum exposure duration Distance: maximum distance from source Shielding: maximum absorber between source and receptor June 3,

Basic Nuclear Concepts Latent Cancer Goal 10 probability of fatal cancer for members of the public Higher probability allowed for nuclear workers -6 June 3,

Basic Nuclear Concepts Dose Perspective (in mSv per yr or event) 0.04NY to LA flight 0.4Dose from typical diet 1EPA public dose limit 2Natural background 10average CT scan 100Evident lifetime cancer increase 1000Temporary radiation sickness 10000Fatal dose Immediate fatal dose June 3,

Shoreham (Long Island) Background On Long Island Sound about 60 miles from Manhattan Largely rural in 1960’s Increasing demand for electric power LILCO filed NRC application for 540 MW nuclear plant in 1968 Estimated cost of $70 million June 3,

Shoreham Complications Increased designed output to 820 MW Two additional plants proposed by LILCO closer to Manhattan Protests by residents killed plans for the two additional plants Three Mile Island Accident in 1979 Revamped NRC regulations Chernobyl accident in 1986 Long Island demographics changed June 3,

Shoreham Key Events 1981NRC declared the design safe 1983 Suffolk County declared evacuation impossible; Gov. Cuomo concurred 1985 NRC approved low-power testing Equivalent to 2 full power days 1989 Gov. Cuomo and LILCO reached agreement on shutdown of Shoreham June 3,

Shoreham Consequences Shoreham sold to LIPA for $1 $6 billion cost of Shoreham to be repaid with electricity surcharge $50 million paid to Philadelphia Power to take slightly used fuel $186 million cost of decontamination and decommissioning NEVER connected to the grid June 3,

Shoreham Twin at Waterford, CT 50 miles away on Long Island Sound Operational in 5 years Cost $100 million Continued operation until 1998 What was the difference? June 3,

Fukushima Daiichi Background 6 Boiling Water Reactors: 3 operating, 3 under maintenance (total 4700 MW) Located in the towns of Okuma and Futaba, Fukushima Prefecture Approximately 50,000 households within 20 km Design basis 19 foot tsunami June 3,

Fukushima Daiichi Accident Sequence Tohoku Earthquake: auto shutdown 46 foot tsunami Offsite Power: connection destroyed Diesel Generators: flooded Battery Power: limited life Hydrolysis via hot zirconium cladding Hydrogen conflagration June 3,

Fukushima Daiichi Reactor Consequences Partial core meltdown in Units 1, 2, 3 Hydrogen explosions in Units 1 and 3; Unit 2? Exposed spent fuel in Unit 1, 3, and 4 pools? Release of about one tenth of the activity released from Chernobyl 24 million gallons of contaminated water Accident rating of 7 for Units 1, 2, and 3 Goal: cold shutdown in 6 to 9 months Estimated 30 years to clean up site June 3,

6 Fukushima Daiichi Demographic Consequences 20 km exclusion zone 30 km evacuation zone Extermination of contaminated livestock Destruction of contaminated crops Water contamination scare in Tokyo June 3,

Basic Nuclear Concepts Dose Perspective (in mSv per yr or event) 0.04NY to LA flight 0.4Dose from typical diet 1EPA public dose limit 2Natural background 10average CT scan 100Evident lifetime cancer increase 1000Temporary radiation sickness 10000Fatal dose Immediate fatal dose June 3, b

Fukushima Daiichi Worker Dose and Implications for Oldsters Normal worker dose Limit: 50 mSv 250 mSv for emergency conditions Dose is based on latent cancer risk Latent cancer incubation period: 20 to 30 years Older workers asked to volunteer Skilled Veterans Corps June 3,

Fukushima Daiichi Skilled Veterans Corps “Radiation exposure of the generation that will reproduce the next generation should be avoided.” -- Yasuteru Yamada (age 72) June 3,

Chernobyl Consequences Dozens of deaths from acute exposure Thousands of excess cancer deaths 30 km exclusion zone 140 million curies released Damage: $100’s of billions Population displaced: over 100,000 June 3,

Basic Nuclear Concepts Dose Perspective (in mSv per yr or event) 0.04NY to LA flight 0.4Dose from typical diet 1EPA public dose limit 2Natural background 10average CT scan 100Evident lifetime cancer increase 1000Temporary radiation sickness 10000Fatal dose Immediate fatal dose June 3, b

Chernobyl: Contaminated Areas June 3,

Chernobyl Interesting USSR Responses Distribution of contaminated foods throughout Russian republics By decree, radiation from Chernobyl not allowed as cause of death “Washing” of clouds moving toward Moscow June 3,

Chernobyl Washing of Clouds Seeding to cause rainfall Less populated area selected (Novozibkov) Total population of about 70,000 Approximately 10,000 times greater than normal radioactive material in soil 95% of dose to downwinders is from food, water, and milk intake Coffin supplement June 3,