Abstract
The operation of nuclear facilities has, fortunately, not led to many accidents with off-site consequences. However, it is well-recognised that should a large release of radioactivity occur, the effects in the surrounding area and population will be significant. These effects can be mitigated by developing emergency preparedness and response plans prior to the operation of the nuclear facility that can be exercised regularly and implemented if an accident occurs. This review paper details the various stages of a nuclear accident and the corresponding aspects of an emergency preparedness plan that are relevant to these stages, both from a UK and international perspective. The paper also details how certain aspects of emergency preparedness have been affected by the accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi and as a point of comparison how emergency management plans were implemented following the accidents at Three Mile Island 2 and Chernobyl. In addition, the UK’s economic costing model for nuclear accidents COCO-2, and the UK’s Level-3 Probabilistic Safety Assessment code “PACE” are introduced. Finally, the factors that affect the economic impact of a nuclear accident, especially from a UK standpoint, are described.
Highlights
Since the development of civil nuclear power in the 1950s, it is fortunate that relatively few accidents have occurred with off-site consequences
Upon the release caused by the hydrogen explosion at Unit #1 of Fukushima Dai-ichi, the evacuation zone was extended to a radius of 20 km from the nuclear power plant — this was partly driven by the anticipation of the potential for further incidents to occur at the other Units
This paper has reviewed, from a UK perspective, the role of emergency preparedness and response plans, drawing on information from both Chernobyl and Fukushima Dai-ichi
Summary
Since the development of civil nuclear power in the 1950s, it is fortunate that relatively few accidents have occurred with off-site consequences Such events are rare due to the effort expended to provide the necessary preventive, protective, and mitigative safety measures for all types of nuclear facility. A recent analysis has posited that, from an economic perspective, large-scale permanent relocation of people within the evacuation zones of Chernobyl has proven significantly less optimal than an alternative policy that could have been adopted: short-term evacuation coupled with aggressive remediation followed by a later return of those displaced (Waddington et al, 2017a) Two examples of such challenges from the incident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi in 2011 are as follows: (a) in the instance of protracted radionuclide releases it has been suggested that short-term sheltering may be detrimental if later evacua-. Nuclear power station with realistic demography (Ashley et al, 2017)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
