an argument for nuclear power

7/30/2019 An Argument for Nuclear Power

1/12

ECEN 2060

An Argument For

Nuclear EnergyTerm Paper

Diana Olsen

Fall 2012


2/12

An Argument For Nuclear Energy Diana Olsen

ECEN 2060 Term Paper

Fall 2012 1

Table 1: Average Cost of

Energy Generation by Source3

Source Cost $/kW-h

Coal $0.09-0.14

Natural Gas $0.07-0.13

Nuclear $0.11

Wind $0.10-0.33

Solar PV $0.16

Solar Thermal $0.25

Geothermal $0.10Biomass $0.12

Hydro $0.09

Introduction

The current population on the planet today has surpassed 7 billion individuals.

According to the UNs Worlds Population Prospects, 2010 Revision1, this number will surpass 8

billion by the year 2025, 9 billion by 2045, and even 10 billion by 2085. Every new birth means new

demands on the planets finite resources and, with the exponential growth pattern we have and will

continue to face, the sheer number of humans on the planet will inarguable require new sources of such

things as food, water, and energy.

A key challenge to energy supply that has become more understood over the last century is the

lasting effect on the planet due to temporary sources of energy. Coal and oil have become named

sources of green-house pollutants that are responsible for the undeniable increase in the global

temperature. According to preliminary reports from the State of the Climate2, a report from the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the northern hemisphere land surface temperature for July

2012 was the all-time warmest July on record since such record keeping began in 1880, at 1.19:C

(2.14:F) above average. Global climate scientists worldwide have been preaching for years about the

tipping point we humans have pushed our world do, predicting dire consequences if greenhouse

emissions are not seriously curbed. And yet, despite this, there is a political power in being able to open

new lands to oil drilling, in courting the coal vote during election season, and even in denying outright

the key indicators of global warming and climate change.

One major issue involved in the discussion from switching to coal-power and oil-power is the

bottom line: renewables are simply unable to compete at this time without subsidies and tax credit from

the world governments. Table 1 shows data taken from the US Department of Energy 2012 Annual

Energy Outlook report. The cheapest sources of energy are coal, natural gas, and hydro. Because of the

relative abundance of oil, there is little financial incentive for companies to develop technologies into

the renewable sectors, meaning that technologies such as solar cells and wind turbines also suffer from

lack of efficiency that would get them to levels of energy output comparable to that of crude oil.The amount of investment needed to be able to provide a

country from fully-renewable energy sources in incredible and, in

many places, nearly impossible. Some countries happen to have the

natural resources and structure: Iceland, for example, is able to

provide fully 100% of its total energy from renewable energy, 75%

from large hydro and 25% from geothermal4. Not every country,

however, has large pockets of hot springs or massive mountain

waterfalls convenient for hydro-power.

The argument of this paper is for nuclear power to be used

as an intermediate step between energy production today andtotally renewable energy production at some time in the near future.

As far as clean energy goes, it has a proven history of near-zero CO2

emissions with very, very rare incident. It has the capacity to take care of all energy needs existing today

and the future, a capacity that purely-renewable energies presently cannot handle. Concerns about the

dangers inherently associated with nuclear power (radioactive accidents, proliferation of weapons,

meltdowns, etc) will be addressed and, hopefully, dispensed with.


3/12



Fall 2012 2

A Brief History of Nuclear Power5

The concept of atoms has been around for centuries, mentioned even in the time of the ancient

Greeks. However, the concept of exploiting the power contained in atoms and atomic emissions was

only first touched upon in the late 1800s. Work on nuclear theory continued through World War II,

though the focus was mainly on weapons manufacturing. The first evidence of nuclear fission occurred

in 1938 when Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassman showed that by bombarding uranium atoms with

accelerated neutrons, artificial radionuclides barium and others were created with about half the mass

of uranium. The mass of uranium that was transformed into a radioactive daughter had been converted

to energy.

Later experiments showed that a slower, thermal neutron produced a higher rate of fission and

that the process of fission itself could be controlled to the point of becoming able to produce

containable energy in the form of heat.

After WWII, the United States established the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to continue

research into nuclear theory, this time with a focus on energy generation. The first nuclear reactor to

produce energy was located in Idaho and called the Experimental Breeder reactor (EBR-1), started up on

December 20, 1951. Breeder refers to the fact that the reactor was able to produce more fissile

material than it consumed, thus maintaining a self-sustaining reaction. Using uranium-235 as fuel, EBR-

1 could initially generate 100kW of power and was eventually able to power the entire building it was

housed in.

At this time, the US and the USSR were entering the Cold War period. Both countries had been

partners during the nuclear weapons research of WWII; both, after the war, had the means and

motivation to generate nuclear energy. It was during this period that early experiments with alternative

core fuels took place: two years after its initial startup, EBR-1 was able to run on a plutonium core.

Experimental reactors with thorium fuel were also tested. In the end, the attractiveness of uranium won

out due to two major considerations: the relative abundance of uranium, particularly in the US, and thewaste-byproducts which had the potential to be converted into nuclear grades weapon for use against

the USSR, should the need possible arise.

In the early years after WWII, nuclear power held the promise of nearly-free energy and was

developed extensively. The US Navy took a special interest and, driven by Admiral Hyman Rickover,

launched nuclear-powered submarines by 1954. The first US commercial power plant was built in 1957

and by the late 1970s, total worldwide installed nuclear power surpassed 100GW. As of April 2012,

there were over 430 commercial nuclear power reactors operating in 31 countries with 372 GWe of

total capacity, providing about 13.5% of the worlds electricity as continuous, reliable base-load power.

Nuclear Accidents6

This history of nuclear power plant related accidents of public note is actually quite shortcompared to its total history and its generation ability. The well-known names of Three-Mile Island,

Chernobly, and Fukashima stand out as very odd exceptions rather than the rule of plant operation.

Undoubtedly minor accidents have occurred in power plants fallen workers, dropped equipment,

careless behavior that have harmed individuals or small groups of individuals, but the major concern

with nuclear power is an incident in which thousands and thousands of people are affected, where land

is contaminated to the point that it must be evacuated and left uninhabited for generations. According


4/12



Fall 2012 3

to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a nuclear accident is an event that has led to

significant consequences to people, the environment, or facility. Examples include lethal effects to

individuals, large radioactivity release to the environment, or reactor core melt. If interested, the

appendix includes the various levels of accidents as classified by the IAEA. The following is a brief

summary of incidents on that scale:

1. Dec. 12, 1952: Chalk River, nr. Ottawa, Canada, INES Level 5 a partial meltdown of thereactor's uranium fuel core resulted after the accidental removal of four control rods. No

reported injuries. A subsequent follow-up in 1982 showed no long-term health effects.

2. Oct. 7, 1957: Windscale Pile No. 1, north of Liverpool, England fire in a graphite-cooledreactor spewed radiation over the countryside, contaminating a 200-square-mile area. No

injuries were reported.

3. September 29, 1957: South Ural Mountains, INES Level 6 explosion of radioactive wastesat Soviet nuclear weapons factory 12 mi from city of Kyshtym forced the evacuation of over

10,000 people from a contaminated area. No casualties were reported.

4. July 24, 1964: Charlestown, RI - an error by a worker at a United Nuclear Corporation fuelfacility led to an accidental criticality. One casualty reported, no other injuries.

5. Winter 1966-1967 (date unknown): location unknown the Soviet icebreakerLenin,suffered a major accident in one of its three reactors. To find the leak the crew broke

through the concrete and steel radiation shield with sledgehammers, causing irreparable

damage. It was rumored that around 30 of the crew were killed.

6. December 7, 1975: Griefswald, East Germany INES Level 3 radioactive core of reactor inthe Lubmin nuclear power plant nearly melted down due to the failure of safety systems

during a fire. No injuries reported.

7. March 28, 1979: Three Mile Island, nr. Harrisburg, PA, INES Level 5 one of two reactors lostits coolant, which caused overheating and partial meltdown of its uranium core. Some

radioactive water and gases were released. There were no fatalities. Long-term follow-up

predicts between 0 and 1 long-term fatality.

8. April 26, 1986: Chernobyl, nr. Kiev, Ukraine, INES Level 7 explosion and fire in the graphitecore of one of four reactors released radioactive material that spread over part of the Soviet

Union, eastern Europe, Scandinavia, and later western Europe. The WHO reported that 50

people died as a direct result. Total casualties are unknown. Worst such accident to date.

9. Sept. 30, 1999: Tokaimura, Japan, INES Level 4 uncontrolled chain reaction in a uranium-processing nuclear fuel plant spewed high levels of radioactive gas into the air, killing two

workers and seriously injuring one other.

10.March 12, 2011 Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, Japan, INES Level 7 anexplosion in reactor No. 1 caused one of the buildings to crumble to the ground. The cooling

system at the reactor failed shortly after the earthquake and tsunami hit Japan. By Tuesday,

March 15, two more explosions and a fire had officials and workers at the plant struggling to

regain control of four reactors. The fire, which happened at reactor No. 4, was contained by

noon on Tuesday, but not before the incident released radioactivity directly into the

atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Navyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icebreakerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin_(nuclear_icebreaker)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin_(nuclear_icebreaker)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin_(nuclear_icebreaker)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin_(nuclear_icebreaker)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icebreakerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Navy


5/12



Fall 2012 4

Nuclear Risk Assessment Based on History

These are the major accidents in the entirety of the nuclear power industrys history. If we were

assuming that perhaps double that amount has actually taken place, with some being undocumented or

being missed during the research of this paper, that still amounts to only about 20 accidents of

noteworthy nature. In the list above, there are 64 confirmed fatalities with perhaps many more

unaccounted for as long-term effects are taken into account over the 50+ year span on the industry.

For comparison, here are some quick numbers of accidents from plants power by other means: 7

For 2011, in the US along, there were 37 reported mining deaths. Ounce for ounce, fly ash released as a byproduct of burning coal for power delivers

more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or a dry cask storage and carries

into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant

producing the same amount of energy.

Unofficial estimates of the casualty count from the 1975 failure of the Banqiao ReservoirDam in China range from 90,000 to 230,000.

Not even solar energy is immune: About 1000 construction fatalities injuries arereported in the US alone each year, with 33% of those reported falling from heights

making roofing the 6th most dangerous job with an average of362 fatal falls occurred

each year from 1995 to 1999. An estimated 1/6 th of total roofing job accidents are

estimated to be from solar panel installation, resulting in approximately 50 deaths per

1.5 million roof installations.

The final count of fatal work injuries in the U.S. in 2010 was 4,690. Of that, none werenuclear-related.

An interactive visualization of reported fatalities per TWh contributed to the main sources of

energy worldwide can be found at the IBM research website Many Eyes, listed in the appendix8.

If performing a risk assessment of the possible sources of energy, nuclear power does not come

close to the riskiest. Strict regulations are in play to continually monitor and minimize possible dangers,

such as radiation exposure limits: adult workers may receive a whole body dose 5 Rem per year; for

comparison, actual physical effects (minor blood changes) from radiation exposure are not expected

until a person receives 25 Rem in a short period of time. All parts of the plant are continually monitored

for possible radiation leakage with low set points for alarming components to detect even minor

radiation. Daily samples are taken of liquid components for tests able to detect possible core damage,

component failure, or simple unusual conditions. Many more operatives are in place to closely watch

every operation of plant life, with regular inspections by nuclear regulatory committees, license renewal

processes, and strict operator performance criteria. In fact, the amounts of regulations that go into

nuclear plant operation far exceed that of any other type of energy source.The risk of a nuclear accident outright is comparatively low, especially when taking into

consideration how infrequently such a thing has happened in the more than half-century that plants

have been in operation. The accidents that have happened, such as Chernobyl or Fukashima, have

causes traced back into operator error, faulty design, or completely unpredictable circumstances. Take

into consideration the Chinese dam failure in 1975: no one would point to that single incident as reason


6/12



Fall 2012 5

to ban all future dam construction or to retire all dams currently in operation. And yet that is what

happened when an event like Fukashima occurred.

Nuclear Power as a Clean Energy

With 104 operating power plants, the nuclear industry had the nameplate capacity to generate

106,731 MW in the US in 2010 and is the largest emissions-free source. The largest plant operates in

Palo Verde, AZ, with 3 reactors for a total of 3.937 GW. The smallest is in Ft. Calhoun, NE, with 1 reactor

at 478 MW. For comparison, there were 689 wind generators for a total capacity of 39,516 MW; 181

solar thermal and PV sites for 987MW; 4,020 conventional hydroelectric generators for 78,204; and 225

geothermal generators for 3,498 MW. Even compared to nonrenewable sources, nuclear power was a

formidable provider. Natural gas needed 5,529 generators for a nameplate capacity of 467,214 MW.

Thats over 50 times as many generating plants than nuclear power and yet only about 4.5 times greater

the generation capacity increase.

In generating electricity, the nuclear size of the power plant releases no greenhouse emissions.

The only greenhouse gas emissions associated with nuclear power plants come from those associated

with the construction of the plant, mining of the necessary fuel, and other non-operation phases.

Figure 1:

Estimates of

Lifecycle

Greenhouse

Gases9


7/12



Fall 2012 6

Figure 1 shows the estimated lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from the major sources of

energy today, taking into account the entire stage of the source from manufacturing of components to

daily operation. In terms of emissions, nuclear power is comparable to other non-fossil fuel sources,

even to the point of being just as green as wind or solar energy.

Considering how much more power nuclear plants generates, the fact that its still in the

renewable energy category for emissions is remarkable and denotes a very possible scenario whereby

nuclear power provides all base load demand until renewable energy sources reached the point of being

able to carry the entire load.

Nuclear power can also clear up another problem. Today, more and more cars are turning

towards electric batteries vice gas for power. However, even driving a hybrid car is not necessarily more

earth-friendly, as the power to charge up the cars battery ultimately still comes from the burning of

fossil fuels at a coal factory. Using nuclear plants could help truly reduce transportation emissions,

especially with the invention of better and farther-ranging batteries to make purely electric cars

feasible.

Concerns over Nuclear Waste

One of the major drawbacks of nuclear power is its additional cost in terms of preparing for

plant decommissioning and taking care of associated waste. A consideration needs to be made of the

fact that all the used nuclear fuel produced by the U.S. nuclear energy industry in 50 years of

operationapproximately 62,500 metric tonswould, if stacked end to end, only cover an area the size

of a football field to a depth of about 7 yards10. As a comparison, the Staten Island Fresh Kills landfill,

which has been in operation since 1947 (about the same length of time as the nuclear energy industry)

covers 2200 acres, is 225 feet tall, and can be seen from space. The waste from nuclear power is, to say

the least, much less than the waste from a single days garbage collection.

Contaminated water from nuclear sites can be scrubbed clean through purifiers and returned

to the environment. These purifiers are so effective that, to prove a point, Admirable Rickover once took

a drink from recycled nuclear water to no ill-effect.

The fact that nuclear power must take vigilant care of its waste distinguishes it from the rest of

the energy-producing industry. It is the only energy producer who takes full responsibility of its waste.

Currently, using uranium as the cores fuel produces radioactive waste with tremendously long half-lives

of greater than 10,000 years with some radioactive daughters, such as plutonium-239 having a half-life

of greater than 200,000 years.

A solution to this is the use of a different fuel element. Thorium, which was experimented with

at the beginning of the industrys history, was ultimately discarded due to the fact that it did not create

the useful byproducts that could be used for nuclear weapons. That fact is now a huge benefit in its

case. Thorium also produces byproducts and waste with lifespans much shorter than those produced by

uranium: hundreds of years instead of thousands or tens of thousands.


8/12



Fall 2012 7


9/12



Fall 2012 8

APPENDIX

References

1. Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United NationsSecretariat, World Population Prospects: The 2010

Revision,http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/index.htm

2. State of the Climate, Global Analysis, July 2012, National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration ,http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/7 , last updated 8/15/12

3. Electric Power Annual 2012, released July 12, 2012, Report Number: DOE/EIA-0383(2012)US Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration,

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm

4. Energy Statistics in Iceland 2011, Icelandic National Energy Authority,http://www.os.is/gogn/os-onnur-rit/orkutolur_2011-enska.pdf

5. Facts concerning the history of nuclear power come from the following sources:a. The World Nuclear Association,http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf54.html b. Department of Energy, Nuclear Energy Office

http://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/History.pdf

6. Facts concerning nuclear accidents come from the following sources:a. Info please, listing of nuclear and chemical accidents,

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001457.html

7. Statistics concerning casualties in energy productions come from the following sources:a. United States Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration,

Preliminary Accident Reports 2011,http://www.msha.gov/fatals/fab.htm

b. US Bureau of Labor Statistics,http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfoi_revised10.pdfc. The Scientific American, Coal Ash is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste,

December 13 2007,http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

d. The Next Big Future, Deaths Per TWh by Energy Source, March 13, 2011,http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

e. US Nuclear Regulatory Committee, NRC Regulations, Title 10, Code of FederalRegulations, Part 20 Standards for Protection Against Radiation,

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/

8. IBM research website Many Eyes, visualization of deaths per TWh by energy source,http://www-

958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/2e5d4dcc4fb511e0ae0c0002

551119769. Taken from IPCC, 2011: IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate

Change Mitigation. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change [O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P. Matschoss, S.

Kadner, T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlmer, C. von Stechow (eds)]. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA,http://srren.ipcc-

wg3.de/report/srren
http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/index.htmhttp://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/index.htmhttp://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/index.htmhttp://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/7http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/7http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/7http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfmhttp://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfmhttp://www.os.is/gogn/os-onnur-rit/orkutolur_2011-enska.pdfhttp://www.os.is/gogn/os-onnur-rit/orkutolur_2011-enska.pdfhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf54.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf54.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf54.htmlhttp://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/History.pdfhttp://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/History.pdfhttp://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001457.htmlhttp://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001457.htmlhttp://www.msha.gov/fatals/fab.htmhttp://www.msha.gov/fatals/fab.htmhttp://www.msha.gov/fatals/fab.htmhttp://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfoi_revised10.pdfhttp://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfoi_revised10.pdfhttp://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfoi_revised10.pdfhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-wastehttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-wastehttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-wastehttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-wastehttp://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.htmlhttp://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/2e5d4dcc4fb511e0ae0c000255111976http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/2e5d4dcc4fb511e0ae0c000255111976http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/2e5d4dcc4fb511e0ae0c000255111976http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/2e5d4dcc4fb511e0ae0c000255111976http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/srrenhttp://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/srrenhttp://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/srrenhttp://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/srrenhttp://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/srrenhttp://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/srrenhttp://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/2e5d4dcc4fb511e0ae0c000255111976http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/2e5d4dcc4fb511e0ae0c000255111976http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/2e5d4dcc4fb511e0ae0c000255111976http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.htmlhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-wastehttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-wastehttp://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfoi_revised10.pdfhttp://www.msha.gov/fatals/fab.htmhttp://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001457.htmlhttp://www.ne.doe.gov/pdfFiles/History.pdfhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf54.htmlhttp://www.os.is/gogn/os-onnur-rit/orkutolur_2011-enska.pdfhttp://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfmhttp://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/7http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/index.htm


10/12



Fall 2012 9

10.Nuclear Energy Institute, Nuclear Waste Disposal Fact Sheet,http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/nuclearwastedisposal/factsheet/sa

felymanagingusednuclearfuel/

11.
http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/nuclearwastedisposal/factsheet/safelymanagingusednuclearfuel/http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/nuclearwastedisposal/factsheet/safelymanagingusednuclearfuel/http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/nuclearwastedisposal/factsheet/safelymanagingusednuclearfuel/http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/nuclearwastedisposal/factsheet/safelymanagingusednuclearfuel/http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/nuclearwastedisposal/factsheet/safelymanagingusednuclearfuel/


11/12



Fall 2012 10

APPENDIX:

General Criteria for Rating Events in International Nuclear Event Scale

The structure of the scale is

shown in Table 1. Events are considered

in terms of their impact on three

different areas: impact on people and

the environment; impact on

radiological barriers and controls at

facilities; and impact on defense in

depth.

The impact on radiological

barriers and controls at facilities is only

relevant to facilities handling major

quantities of radioactive material such

as power reactors, reprocessing

facilities, large research reactors or

large source production facilities. It

covers events such as reactor core melt

and the spillage of significant quantities

of radioactive material resulting from

failures of radiological barriers, thereby

threatening the safety of people and

the environment.

Reduction in defense in depth

principally covers those events with no

actual consequences, but where themeasures put in place to prevent or

cope with accidents did not operate as

intended.

Level 1 covers only

degradation of defense in depth. Levels

2 and 3 cover more serious

degradations of defense in depth or

lower levels of actual consequence to

people or facilities. Levels 4 to 7 cover

increasing levels of actual consequence

to people, the environment or facilities.


12/12



Fall 2012 11

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/INES-2009_web.pdf
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/INES-2009_web.pdfhttp://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/INES-2009_web.pdfhttp://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/INES-2009_web.pdf

an argument for nuclear power

Documents