NUCLEAR POWER PLANT- HAZARDS, DISASTERS AND SAFETY

Abstract
The construction of nuclear power plants is a major step towards reducing greenhouse gas
emissions compared to the conventional coal-fired or oil-fired power plants. However some of the
major accidents in the past have raised questions about the safety and reliability of nuclear power
plants. This paper explains the hazards and safety measures of nuclear power plant.

The primary impacts mostly involved radiation hazards such as exposure to varying doses of
radiation, uninhabitable neighborhoods and health problems; the levels of impact varied mostly
due to different intensities of warnings and precautionary measures taken by the local
governments. The research findings would serve as an important resources for the nuclear
professionals to plan proper precautionary measure in order to avoid the major issues that initiated
or resulted from the accidents in the past.

Introduction
Nuclear power is sometimes sees as the
solution to the climate crisis, as electricity
produced in large quantities from the
combustion of coal, oil and natural gas needs
to be replaced alternatives with a much more
limited climate impact. In early eras, the
societies were just threatened by natural
disaster because the world was not urbanized.
However as the world has been developing
and becoming more industrialized and
urbanized, it is getting more exposed to
severe natural and man-made disasters.4A
disaster of any kind can cause serious damage
to people, infrastructure or environment but a
nuclear disaster can be the most complicated
and perilous tragedy to handle.
However, there are several major problems
with the current ways of providing nuclear
power.
First, the mining of nuclear fuel – mostly a
natural substance called uranium – is costly
and energy intensive and causes many
environmental problems.
Second, nuclear energy production generates
significant amounts of radioactive waste,
which is extremely dangerous for humans
and animals for very long periods of time
(several thousands of years) if not handled
safely. In fact, in neither the US nor the UK
have we found an acceptable method of
disposing of this waste for good, even though
we are already producing tons of it!
Third, the power production creates
plutonium as a byproduct, which can be used
to make nuclear weapons.
This means it needs to be strictly safeguarded
from abuse.
Finally, the entire process (building the
power stations, mining and processing the
fuel, as well as transporting and storing the
waste) requires very complex and energy
intensive infrastructure, which contributes to
indirect greenhouse gas emissions.
Risk from nuclear power
Nuclear power plants are technical facilities
for electricity generation in large amounts
from nuclear fuel, characterized by high
capacity and availability factor. Like any
advanced technology, there exists a relatively
small risk related to the operation of nuclear
power plants and it is realized with three
major accidents. In general, we approach risk
assessment depending on the existing
evidence and experience. New risks from
unknown technology and small risks from
very reliable technology are estimated by
means of risk modeling. This is an approach
Where expert analysts develop
mathematical representation of a physical
facility and a risk imposed to the environment
and human health. With big risks, a situation
is simpler because it can be assessed
statistically. The risk of utilization of nuclear
energy in nuclear power plants is an example
of a small risk with few accidents where only
limited consequences have occurred, and
certain crucial characteristics are very
unique. The risk can affect people, materials
and the environment. In terms of the time of
realization, the risk is usually divided into
two categories: short-term (immediate, acute)
and delayed (subchronical and chronical).
Risk assessment
There are numerous methods developed and
used for risk assessment, and some of the
well-known are e.g. What-if, HAZOP, Fault
Tree, and Event Tree analysis. Most
comprehensive risk assessment is usually
known as probabilistic safety assessment
(PSA), where usually a combination of fault
and event tree methods is used with full
coverage of special type of events and
failures (i.e., external events, human errors,
and common cause failures). Figure 1
presents a schematic of general framework
used in all risk assessment methods.
Fig. 1.
General framework used in all risk
assessment methods
The risk of utilization of nuclear energy in
nuclear power plants is typically assessed
based on a mathematical and logical model of
a the plant. This is often referred to as
probabilistic safety analysis (PSA). PSA is
the most comprehensive approach to
quantification of risk and safety where risk is
a combination of probability and severity of
that harm, while safety is freedom from
unacceptable risk.
Fukushima Daiichi Disaster: Case-Study
On March 11, 2011, earthquake accompanied
by tsunami hit the Pacific Coast of Tohoku,
Japan. The earthquake was of magnitude 9.0
on Richter scale and is called as Great East
Japan Earthquake due to severe seismic
tremors. The earthquake and high tsunami
waves widely affected the Japan’s biggest
island, Honshu, where five nuclear power
plants were located; Higashi NPP,
Fukushima Daiichi NPP, Fukushima Daini
NPP, Tokai Daini NPP and Onagawa
NPP.The damage was caused on four NPPs
but the most serious tragedy was triggered at
Fukushima Daiichi NPP, which was placed at
Level 7 on INES. The Fukushima Daini was
put at level 3, Onagawa at level 1 while the
Tokai Daini was placed at level 0.23. The
research is thus focused on Fukushima
Daiichi NPP due to the severity of accident
happened there. Richter scale and is called as
Great East Japan Earthquake due to severe
seismic tremors. The earthquake and high
tsunami waves widely affected the Japan’s
biggest island, Honshu, where five nuclear
power plants were located; Higashi NPP,
Fukushima Daiichi NPP, Fukushima Daini
NPP, Tokai Daini NPP and Onagawa NPP.
The damage was caused on four NPPs but the
most serious tragedy was triggered at
Fukushima Daiichi NPP, which was placed at
Level 7 on INES. The Fukushima Daini was
put at level 3, Onagawa at level 1 while the
Tokai Daini was placed at level 0.23 The
research is thus focused on Fukushima
Daiichi NPP due to the severity of accident
happened there.
Safety measures
The first is to protect important safety
equipment from loads caused by external
events that do not exceed design
assumptions. Examples include seawalls,
watertight doors, and physically dispersed
location of equipment for dealing with a loss
of all alternating current (AC) power.
The second is to have portable equipment
available that can respond flexibly (respond
to external events that exceed design
assumptions) if the safety equipment is
compromised. It is also important to improve
the robustness of the reactor containment
vessel to prevent leaks of radioactive
material.
The third is to put measures in place to
ensure a coordinated on-site and off-site
response to a major external disaster by
preparing simple and practical measures that
take account of the likelihood of damage
across the entire site. These concepts can also
be applied to a defense-in-depth approach to
ensuring plant safety.
Results
Literature Review
Primary energy of nuclear power is present in
many scientific papers, but often just as an
applied number in calculations or
assessments. There are few references in
scientific papers which actually elaborate on
the issue. One study in safety policy [5]
discusses different safety measures. The
author discuss risk of Fukushima accident
[3].
Conclusions
Through the discussion with public
acceptance of nuclear energy and the nuclear
power safety goals, it can be found that the
public acceptance effect the development and
the safety goals establishment of the nuclear
power. Meanwhile the nuclear power safety
goals directly influence the public attitude
towards the nuclear power. Therefore the
defence-in-depth safety principles should be
considered in the safety goal establishment.
The answer to the question “How safe is safe
enough” should be contained in the safety
goal establishment. In this way, the safety
goals could be easily acceptable by the
public.
References
1. The Study on Safety Goals and Public
Acceptance of Nuclear Power
LI Chao-juna, ZHANG Chun-minga, CHEN
Yana, ZUO Jia-xua, CHEN Jia-yunb*
2. Disaster management at nuclear power
plant: comparative analysis of Fukushima
and Pakistan -Maimuna ashraf
3. Risk from Nuclear Power Utilization
after Fukushima Accident
Zdenko Šimic Faculty of Electrical
Engineering and Computing
4. Crisis Management for Earthquakes,
Nuclear Power Plant Accidents and Other
Events -Keiji KONDO*, Masayuki
NAKAO**, Tsutomu ARAKI*** and
Atsushi AKISAWA****
5. A report by the international nuclear
safety advisory group