Qualityworld

• Knowledge portal
• FAQs
• Information
• Qualityworld
  • Current issue
  • Reader survey
  • Editorial comment
  • Free Qualityworld
  • Past articles
  • Advertisers
  • Subscribe to Qualityworld
  • Advertise in Qualityworld
• Journal of Quality
• Jobs
• Press
• Links

Atomwise

The nuclear industry is both sinner and saint. While nuclear energy has its advantages, accidents have the potential to become a global catastrophe. But as polar ice caps melt and drought famishes whole continents, Pandita Louram asks, is this the best compromise in a climate-sensitive world?

Since nuclear technology first squared its shoulders and braced itself to face the international arena, its popularity, fuelled by the fear of alternatives, such as oil and gas running out, has been the fastest growing of the major sources of electricity in every decade since the 1970s. The World Nuclear Association (WNA) reports that today the world produces as much electricity from nuclear as it did from all sources combined in the 1960s. Nuclear energy currently provides 30 per cent of the electricity in the European Union. However, variations are significant and attitudes to nuclear diverse. According to the Energy Information Administration, France, a nation badly caught out by the 1973 oil shock, now produces the highest percentage of its electrical energy from nuclear reactors - 80 per cent as of 2006 - compared with 25 per cent in the UK. Outside of Europe, the US despite being more renowned for its thirst for the oil - produces 20 per cent of its electricity from nuclear. Nuclear energy, however, is not for everyone. Austria, for one, has no active nuclear power stations.

Friend or foe?

Nuclear energy has some significant advantages over other sources of power:

• uranium, the fuel on which almost all nuclear energy is based, is an enormous mineral resource unlike oil or natural gas. Significant amounts are found in a wide range of countries
• use of nuclear energy switches dependency away from limited fossil fuel reserves, ultimately resulting in security-of-supply
• unlike most renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar or tidal power, nuclear energy does not depend on weather conditions or the time of day in order to produce an output. This means that electricity prices are potentially more stable
• it does not involve the production of large volumes of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, but also methane and nitrous oxide, which are associated with several other ways of making energy and which are believed to be the primary cause of climate change

At present, a number of countries in east and south Asia, such as India and China, are planning and building new power reactors to meet their increasing demands for electricity. In fact, Asia is the only region in the world where electricity generating capacity, specifically nuclear power, is growing significantly. According to the WNA, projections forecast that nuclear energy generated in east and south Asian countries will account for about 36 per cent of the world's new capacity by 2020.

However, for many countries in Europe, the fate of nuclear energy still hangs in the balance. Europe-wide electricity deregulation favours low cost investment sources with a quick return. Nuclear power plants and technology are expensive to build and costly to decommission with the initial high outlay often acting as a deterrent for private investors.

Opinions on the economic viability of nuclear power vary significantly. In the UK, one of Labour's longest standing MPs, Michael Meacher, sees nuclear power as 'hopelessly uneconomic' while Keith Taylor, of the Green Party, insists that:'Nowhere in the world is nuclear power entirely self-financing. We have yet to see a single nuclear power station come in on budget.' Relatively unfavourable market conditions are exacerbated by fairly strong, although far from unanimous, public and political hostility. As Tony Juniper of Friends of the Earth states: 'Nuclear power is unsafe, uneconomic and unnecessary', a view that is echoed across political and public arenas as well as campaign groups.

Despite the challenges facing the nuclear industry, there are some positive factors at play. Since Chernobyl, nuclear operators and regulators have worked together to improve safety and harmonise standards which has led to a slight resurgence of support from the public and key decision-makers. Furthermore, as climate change becomes the behemoth of modern life, the fact that nuclear is, compared with oil and gas, relatively clean and, one could argue, infinite, has made it more attractive.

In the UK, the largest producer of electricity, British Energy, generates around one-fifth of the nation's electricity. It owns and operates the UK's seven nuclear power stations. British Energy, in a document submitted to the government regarding nuclear policy, states that: 'It is now accepted that nuclear is a near-zero emissions technology' and so 'makes a major contribution to the UK's Kyoto and national carbon targets.' However, even this point is a contentious one. While nuclear generation per se does not release carbon dioxide emissions, the industry as a whole is far from exonerated. The mining of uranium, the construction of stations and the fabrication process are all carbon intensive. Furthermore, those opposing nuclear generally view it as being a cumbersome obstacle standing in the way of a cleaner, greener future, ultimately diverting resources from improving energy efficiency and developing renewable supplies.

It is unlikely that a consensus will ever be reached. However, for the average member of the public, the biggest reservation about nuclear power is over safety. In order to allay fears, it is essential that regulation and standards are reliable, robust and internationally harmonised. This is not only needed to reassure the public, but also required by nuclear operators in order for the industry to develop. British Energy 'identifies the need for the government to set out clear expectations for radioactive waste management as part of enabling environmental regulators to establish clear standards against which nuclear stations can be assessed'. Even if agreement cannot be reached, stringent regulation can at least help prevent disasters, one of the major fears driving the opposition.

No smoke without fire

On 26 April 1986, explosions at reactor number four of the nuclear power plant at Chernobyl in Ukraine, a republic of the former Soviet Union at that time, led to huge releases of radioactive materials into the atmosphere. These materials were deposited mainly over countries in Europe, but especially over large areas of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine.

While opinions vary, it is now widely accepted that the incident at Chernobyl was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated by inadequately trained personnel and without proper regard for safety. The resulting steam explosion and fire released at least five percent of the radioactive reactor core into the atmosphere and downwind. Twenty eight people, mostly those involved in the initial clean-up - plant workers, army personnel and firemen referred to as 'liquidators' - died within four months from radiation or thermal burns. However, according to the World Health Organization, related illnesses and trauma following the incident are much more widespread, although difficult to quantify. They have identified the primary areas of concern as being:

• thyroid cancer - a large increase has occurred among those who were children living in the most contaminated areas
• mortality - 134 liquidators received radiation doses high enough to be diagnosed with acute radiation sickness (ARS). Among them, 28 persons died in 1986 due to ARS. There are very large uncertainties when making projections about future cancer deaths
• mental health and psychological effects - widespread lack of physical and emotional well-being were commonplace due to health threats, economic instability and evacuation

The Chernobyl nuclear accident highlighted weaknesses in the world's regulation and use of nuclear energy. The crucial areas for concern were seen to be:

• nuclear safety requirements - for example, standards were not international and older plants not subjected to the same safety assessments as new ones
• international emergency cooperation - for example, the former USSR failed to reveal immediately to neighbouring countries the precise details and severity of the incident
• liability for nuclear damage - this includes for transborder countries and individual compensation for loss of life or health

'As a result of this increase in public concern, some countries such as Sweden and Germany took decisions, in principle, to phase out nuclear energy over a period of many years'

The Chernobyl disaster still hangs like a dark cloud over the nuclear industry in Europe. It is this catastrophe that predominately accounts for the growing gulf between the sentiment of the developed world and the developing world towards nuclear. As a result of this increase in public concern, some countries such as Sweden and Germany took decisions, in principle, to phase out nuclear energy over a period of many years.

Regulation in the UK

It is well-documented that the nuclear industry is a diverse major hazards industry; a reputation it deserves but one which has led to the establishment of an exhaustive set of regulatory bodies to ensure that risks are kept to a minimum.

While ISO 1709:1995 is the fundamental standard for nuclear criticality safety, it is the national regulators, overseen by global regulators such as the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), that ensure safety measures are implemented and regularly reviewed.

In the UK, the Health and Safety executive (HSE) regulates the nuclear industry through its nuclear directorate. The directorate's primary goal is to ensure that those it regulates have no major nuclear accidents. It is responsible for the UK safety regulation of nuclear power stations, nuclear chemical plants, decommission- ing, defence facilities, safety research and strategy and, since April 2007, for civil nuclear operational security and safeguards matters. The Environment Agency regulates waste, for example, the Atomics Weapons Establishment (AWE) systematically reports to it on atmospheric discharge levels, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate monitors nuclear fission and fusion processes and the Office of Civil Nuclear Security regulates physical security. These regulatory bodies are underpinned by:

• the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 - this governs the construction and safe operation of nuclear plants.
• the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985 - requires employers to keep radiation exposure of workers and the public as low as practicably possible and within specified limits. The Nuclear Generating Stations (Security) Regulations 1996 and Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Act 1991 are also relevant
• the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 - this regulates waste management and discharges to the environment

Arrangements for responding to any nuclear emergency exist for all UK civil nuclear sites as part of the licensing requirements imposed by HSE's nuclear installations inspectorate.

The Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for notifying the international community under the 'International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) convention on early notification of a nuclear accident'. Bilateral arrangements also exist for early notification of a UK nuclear accident between the UK and Denmark, France, Netherlands and Norway.

As shown in table 1, only events at level four and above are accidents with a significant release of radioactivity off-site. For example, the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant had widespread environmental and human health effects and was rated as level seven. The accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in the US in 1979 resulted in a severely damaged reactor core and was therefore rated at level five on the basis of the on-site impact.

In 1957, in the early stages of development of the UK nuclear programme, an accident occurred at the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's site at the Windscale (now Sellafield) facility in Cumbria, which involved an external release of radioactive fission products. On the basis of the off-site impact, it was rated at level five, the highest rated accident in the UK.

Looking ahead

It is proven that the nuclear industry has much to offer - the chance of a reliable, cleaner source of energy, robust national defence mechanisms and revolutionary medical treatments for the treatment of the likes of cancer and cardiovascular disease to name but a few.

However, the threat and potential implications of a nuclear accident cannot be underplayed. Ultimately, it is a fine balancing act between meeting the world's needs and safeguarding the planet and its inhabitants. Mohamed El Baradei, the director general of the IAEA, sums up the dilemma when he addresses the nuclear energy issue: 'Nuclear, of course, has the risk of a severe accident. What we must do with nuclear is maximize the benefit and minimise the risk'