Lecture 5-Societal Aspects of Nuclear Technology
Download as PPT, PDF1 like873 views
This document outlines the topics that will be covered in a course on societal aspects of nuclear technology taught by Dr. Jose N. Reyes, Jr. at Oregon State University. The course will examine definitions of risk and safety. It will look at how risks are estimated and quantified using metrics like fatalities per year. Attitudes toward different levels of risk will also be explored. The document provides examples of risk levels from various hazardous activities and natural phenomena for comparison. It introduces the concept of probabilistic risk assessment and how it has informed "risk-based" regulation. Several examples of PRA results for nuclear power plants are also given.
Lecture 5-Societal Aspects of Nuclear Technology
- 1. NE 319 Societal Aspects of Nuclear Technology How Safe is Safe Enough? Dr. Jose N. Reyes, Jr. Department of Nuclear Engineering Oregon State University Spring Term 2001 Nuclear Engineering & Radiation Health Physics Oregon State University
- 2. Outline • • • • • • • • • Risks - Everywhere You Look! A Survey of Risks A Definition of Safety A Definition of Risk Estimating Risk Attitudes Towards Risk The Move Towards “Risk-Based” Regulation PRA for Nuclear Power Plants An Exercise in Funding Safety Research Nuclear Engineering & Radiation Health Physics Oregon State University
- 3. Washington man survives attack by deadly bacteria A 41-year-old recovers from flesh-eating and toxic-shock streptococcal infections. Sunday, January 30, 2000 From The Associated Press _____________________________________________________________ Risk of being infected with flesh-eating bacteria: 1 in170,000 Risk of dying once infected: 1 in 4 Nuclear Engineering & Radiation Health Physics Oregon State University
- 4. Lightning Risks • Risk of being struck by Lightning in any given year: 1 in 750,000 • The chances of surviving: 3 in 4 Nuclear Engineering & Radiation Health Physics Oregon State University
- 5. An Electrifying Personality • According to the Guinness Book of World Records, Former Park Ranger Roy "Dooms" Sullivan Sullivan has the dubious distinction of being the most lightningstruck person ever recorded. • Between 1942 and his death in 1983, Roy Sullivan was struck by lightning seven times. Nuclear Engineering & Radiation Health Physics Oregon State University
- 6. An Electrifying Personality 1. The first lightning strike shot through Sullivan's leg and knocked his big toenail off. 2. In 1969, a second strike burned off his eyebrows and knocked him unconscious. 3. Another strike just a year later, left his shoulder seared. 4. In 1972 his hair was set on fire and Roy had to dump a bucket of water over his head to cool off. Nuclear Engineering & Radiation Health Physics Oregon State University
- 7. An Electrifying Personality 5. In 1973, another bolt ripped through his hat and hit him on the head, set his hair on fire again, threw him out of his truck and knocked his left shoe off. 6. A sixth strike in 1976 left him with an injured ankle. 7. The last lightning bolt to hit Roy Sullivan sent him to the hospital with chest and stomach burns in 1977. Nuclear Engineering & Radiation Health Physics Oregon State University
- 8. Survey • Rank the activities according to your perception of the risk involved in participating! • For Example: SPORTS ACTIVITIES Archery Very Risky Somewhat Risky Little or No Risk Nuclear Engineering & Radiation Health Physics Oregon State University
- 9. Occupation Number of Fatalities - 1993 Executive/Managerial Technicians 5 Sales 4 Administrative/Clerical 1 Farming Occupational Fatalities per 100,000 Employed 3 20 Forestry/Logging 142 Mechanics 6 Construction Supervisor 12 Construction Laborer 34 Truck Drivers 25 Taxi Drivers/Chauffeurs 50 Resident Military 10 Quarry Worker 28 Coal Miner 38 Metal Miner 22 Nuclear Engineering & Radiation Health Physics Oregon State University
- 10. SPORTS ACTIVITIES INJURIES (Thousands) INJURY PER PARTICIPANT Archery 5.8 4.94 1 in 1170 Baseball 34.6 437 1 in 80 Basketball 29.6 761 1 in 40 Bicycle Riding 63.0 604 1 in 105 Billiards, pool 29.4 5.19 1 in 5660 Bowling Sports Injuries PARTICIPANTS (Millions) 41.3 23.8 1 in 1730 Boxing 0.70 7.54 1 in 90 Fishing 51.2 76.0 1 in 670 Football 14.7 409 1 in 40 Golf 22.6 38.0 1 in 600 Ice Hockey 1.7 61.3 1 in 30 Ice Skating 6.9 36.4 1 in 190 Racquetball 5.4 15.4 1 in 350 Skateboarding 5.6 27.7 1 in 200 Soccer 10.3 146 1 in 70 Swimming 61.4 146 1 in 420 Waterskiing 8.1 15.3 1 in 530 Nuclear Engineering & Radiation Health Physics Oregon State University
- 11. Deaths Due to Injuries in 1992 Accident Type Motor-vehicle Falls from stairs, ladders, etc Poisoning by drugs and medications Fires Drowning Medical care mistakes Inhalation and ingestion of food Air and space transport Water transport Railway Alcohol poisoning Deaths per Million Population 161 50 23 16 14 10 4.7 4.3 3.3 2.5 1.3 Nuclear Engineering & Radiation Health Physics Oregon State University
- 12. How Do You Define Safety? • “Safety” is the relative absence of the risk of realizing a set of undesirable consequences. Nuclear Engineering & Radiation Health Physics Oregon State University
- 13. Definition of Risk • Risk: The likelihood of experiencing a defined set of undesired consequences. – Involves both “likelihood” and “consequences” of an event. • Likelihood: Slightly different then probability. Implies that some subjective judgement is used as a basis for determining the probability of an event. Typically assumes: – Magnitude of consequences will remain relatively constant (e.g. fatalities /yr) with time. – All members of the population are equally exposed or susceptible to risk. Nuclear Engineering & Radiation Health Physics Oregon State University
- 14. Estimating Societal Risk SOCIETAL RISK = FREQUENCY x MAGNITUDE • • • • Risk (Consequences/time) Frequency (Events/time) Magnitude (Consequence/Event) e.g.: 50,000 Deaths/yr = (15 x 106 Accidents/yr) x ( 1 Death/300 accidents) Nuclear Engineering & Radiation Health Physics Oregon State University
- 15. Estimating Individual Risk INDIVIDUAL RISK = SOCIETAL RISK/(POPULATION AT RISK) e.g.: If 200 million people in US: (50,000 Deaths/yr)/(200 x 106 people) = 2.5 x 10-4 Deaths/(person-yr) Societal Risk / Pop. At Risk = Individual Risk or 25 Deaths/100,000 people Nuclear Engineering & Radiation Health Physics Oregon State University
- 16. Estimating Cost Risk • Cost Risks for Injuries and Property Damage are expressed in terms $Dollar values associated with injuries and/or property damage. Cost Risk = (Total $ Value)/ (Population at Risk) Nuclear Engineering & Radiation Health Physics Oregon State University
- 17. Attitudes Towards Risk • Types of activities with a fatality risk greater than 1 x 10-3 deaths/(person-yr) to the general public are generally unacceptable. – – – – – – – cars falls fires drowning firearms poisoning lightning ~ 3 x 10-4 deaths/(person-yr) ~1 x 10-4 deaths/(person-yr) ~4 x 10-5 deaths/(person-yr) ~4 x 10-5 deaths/(person-yr) ~1 x 10-5 deaths/(person-yr) ~1 x 10-5 deaths/(person-yr) ~8 x 10-7 deaths/(person-yr) Nuclear Engineering & Radiation Health Physics Oregon State University
- 18. Attitudes Towards Risk • High Risk Activities are usually on the order of the Disease Mortality Rate : 10-2 deaths/(person-yr) • Low Risk Activities are usually on the order of the Natural Hazards Mortality Rate: 10-6 deaths/(person-yr) Nuclear Engineering & Radiation Health Physics Oregon State University
- 19. Attitudes Towards Risk • If some sports have a high likelihood of injury, (e.g., greater than 1 x 10-3 deaths/ (person-yr), why do people participate in them? • If the risk of dying in an airplane crash is less than dying in a car accident why would some people rather drive than fly? Nuclear Engineering & Radiation Health Physics Oregon State University
- 20. Attitudes Towards Risk • Acceptability Towards Risk depends on: – – – – Benefits of Activity Voluntary Nature of Activity Perception Consequence Distribution Nuclear Engineering & Radiation Health Physics Oregon State University
- 21. Attitudes Towards Risk • Consequence Distribution: – Given two activities with equal risk, the public will tend to accept Low Consequence-High Frequency Events more readily than High Consequence-Low Frequency Events. • Need a quantitative method to distinguish between “Perceived Risk” and “Actual Risk.” This method is known as a Risk Analysis. Nuclear Engineering & Radiation Health Physics Oregon State University
- 22. The Move Towards “RiskBased” Regulation • A Risk Analysis can answer the following questions: – How can government, industry, community use its “safety” dollars most effectively to reduce overall risk to its workers or the public it serves? – How can an industry reduce plant down-time? – How much should be spent on safety improvements? – How can industry minimize the likelihood of occurrence of a hazard? – What would be the most effective emergency strategies given the occurrence of a hazard? • Government regulators are now using Risk Analyses to determine: How safe is safe enough? Nuclear Engineering & Radiation Health Physics Oregon State University
- 23. Risk Analysis • Risk analysis is a technique of identifying, characterizing, quantifying and evaluating hazards. • Two Phases: – A qualitative step of identifying, characterizing and ranking hazards. – A quantitative step of risk evaluation, which includes estimating likelihood and consequences of hazard occurrence. Nuclear Engineering & Radiation Health Physics Oregon State University
- 24. Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) for Nuclear Power Plants Nuclear Engineering & Radiation Health Physics Oregon State University
- 25. Sequoyah PRA Results Identifying Areas for Safety Improvements NUREG-1150 ATWS 1% Loss of Component Cooling Water 31% LOCA 59% Other 1% Station Blackout 5% Loss of Bus 3% Nuclear Engineering & Radiation Health Physics Oregon State University
- 26. Grand Gulf PRA Results Identifying Areas for Safety Improvements NUREG-1150 ATWS 1% Station Blackout 99% Nuclear Engineering & Radiation Health Physics Oregon State University
- 27. Surry PRA Results Identifying Areas for Safety Improvements NUREG-1150 Loss of Offsite Power 4% Loss of Bus 20% Station Blackout 38% ATWS 6% LOCA 28% SGTR 4% Nuclear Engineering & Radiation Health Physics Oregon State University
- 28. NRC Safety Goal (Latent Cancer Fatalities NUREG-1150) Nuclear Engineering & Radiation Health Physics Oregon State University
- 29. An Exercise in Funding Public Safety Research • Organizations – – – – – – Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) • Each Team will be asked to share with the class: – What they think are the top 2-3 safety issues their agency needs to address. – Why they should get funding over other agencies. Nuclear Engineering & Radiation Health Physics Oregon State University
- 30. NRC Safety Goal (Early Fatalities NUREG-1150) Nuclear Engineering & Radiation Health Physics Oregon State University
- 31. Comparison of U.S. Nuclear Power Plant Risks to Natural Events WASH-1400 Study Nuclear Engineering & Radiation Health Physics Oregon State University
- 32. Comparison of U.S. Nuclear Power Plant Risks to Man-Made Events WASH-1400 Study Nuclear Engineering & Radiation Health Physics Oregon State University