SCH 2203 NUCLEAR AND RADIOCHEMISTRY

Lecturer: Abu Muka

Email: [email protected]
Phone: 0704875661
Course content
A brief introduction into radioactivity and nuclear reactions, half-life, factors determining stability of
nuclei; different kinds of ionising radiations and their properties, modes of radioactive decay,
interaction of radiation with matter; effects of high energy radiations, applications of radio isotopes
and radiation Chemistry in areas such as industry, biology, medicine, agriculture and nuclear reactors.
Handling nuclear waste, nuclear accidents.
Expected Outcomes
At the end of this course Learner should be able to:
1.Describe the interaction of radiation with matter and the various modes of decay.
2.Explain the various applications of radio isotopes and radio chemistry.
3.Have knowledge on nuclear safety and management.
Textbooks and References
1. Textbooks
a) Jozsef, K. and Noemi, M.N. (2012): Nuclear and Radiochemistry, Elsevier.
b) Gerhart, F. (2008): Introduction to Radiochemistry. Munshi Press.
c) Walter, D. L. David, J. M. and Glenn, T. S. (2006): Modern Nuclear Chemistry, John Wiley and sons, New Jersey
.
2. References for Nuclear and Radiochemistry
a) Attila, V. Sandor, N. Zoltan, K. and Rezso, G. L. (2003): Hand Book of Nuclear Chemistry: Basics of Nuclear Sc
ience, Springer.
b) William, D. E. and Diane, E. V. (1991): Radiochemistry and Nuclear Methods of analysis, Wiley, USA.
c) Karl, H. L. (2001): Nuclear and Radiochemistry: Fundamentals and application, Wiley-VCH, USA.
d) Gregory, R. C. Jan-Olov, L. and Jan, R. (2002): Radiochemistry and Nuclear Chemistry, Butter Worth-Heinema
nn, USA.
Course Journals
1. Journal of radiochemistry
2. Journal of radioanalytical and nuclear chemistry

Reference Journals
1. Journal of nuclear and radiochemical sciences
1|Page
2. Journal of radiochemistry & nuclear Chemistry
Course Assessment
Evaluation will involve CATs, regular assignments and afinal examination at end of the unit.

Assignments- 5 %
Tests 25 %
Examination at end of semester 70 %.

2|Page
 Introduction
The atomic theory
In 1911, Ernest Rutherford published his atomic theory and he based his theory on a model of
the atom known as the nuclear atom and having these features
1. Most of the mass and all of the positive charge of an atom are centered in a very small
region called the nucleus. The remainder of the atom is mostly empty space.
2. The magnitude of the positive charge is different for different atoms and is
approximately one-half the atomic weight of the element.
3. There are as many electrons outside the nucleus as there are units of positive charge on
the nucleus. The atom as a whole is electrically neutral.
Rutherford’s nuclear atom suggested the existence of positively charged fundamental particlesof
matter in the nuclei of atoms. Rutherford himself discovered these particles, called protons,in
1919 in studies involving the scattering of particles by nitrogen atoms in air. The protons were
freed as a result of collisions between particles and the nuclei of nitrogen atoms. At aboutthis same
time, Rutherford predicted the existence in the nucleus of electrically neutral fundamental
particles. In 1932, James Chadwick showed that a newly discovered penetrating radiation
consisted of beams of neutral particles. These particles, called neutrons, originated from the nuclei
of atoms.
Properties of the Three Fundamental Particles

A neutron and a proton have approximately the same mass and, relative to these, an electron has
negligible mass
The nucleus of an atom consists of protons and neutrons and is positively charged. The electrons
occupy a region of space around the nucleus. Nearly all the mass of an atom is concentrated in the
nucleus
Atomic number, mass number and isotopes
A nuclide is any atomic species of which the proton/atomic number, Z, and nucleon/mass
number, A, are specified. Nucleon refer to the total number of protons and neutrons
A shorthand method of showing the atomic number and mass number of a nuclide along with its
symbol, E, is:

3|Page
 Relative atomic mass

Since the electrons are of minute mass, the mass of an atom essentially depends upon the
number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus. the mass of a single atom is a very small, non-
integral number, and for convenience we adopt a system of relative atomic masses.

We define the atomic mass unit as 1/12th of the mass of a atom so that it has the value

1.660 x10-27 kg. Relative atomic masses (Ar) are thus all stated relative to .
The masses of the proton and neutron can be considered to be ≈ 1 u where u is the atomic mass
unit
(1 u ≈ 1.660 x10-27 kg).

Atoms that have the same atomic number (Z) but different mass numbers (A) are called
isotopes.
Electromagnetic Radiation and Introduction to Ionizing Radiations

Radiation can be defined as the propagation of energy through matter or space. It can be in the form
of electromagnetic waves or energetic particles.
Electromagnetic radiation is most simply defined as light, not all light is visible to the human eye.
Electromagnetic radiation is broken up in to regions based on the frequency of the light, the full
range of radiation is called the electromagnetic spectrum
The major regions are radio, micro, infrared, visible, ultra violet, x-rays and gamma rays.

4|Page
 Figure 1: Electromagnetic spectrum

Ionizing radiation has the ability to knock an electron from an atom, i.e. to ionize. Examplesof
ionizing radiation include:
i. alpha particles
ii. beta particles
iii. neutrons
iv. gamma rays
v. x-rays
Non-ionizing radiation does not have enough energy to ionize atoms in the material it interacts
with. Examples of non-ionizing radiation include:
i. microwaves
ii. visible light
iii. radio waves
iv. TV waves
v. Ultraviolet radiation (except for the very shortest wavelengths)

RADIOACTIVITY
Radioactivity is the spontaneous emission of particles and/or electromagnetic radiation by unstable

5|Page
 nuclei, also known as radionuclides.
Radioactivity was discovered in 1896 by the French scientist Henri Becquerel, while working on
phosphorescent materials. These materials glow in the dark after exposure to light, and he suspected
that the glow produced in cathode ray tubes by X-rays might be associated with phosphorescence. He
wrapped a photographic plate in black paper and placed various phosphorescent salts on it. All results
were negative until he used uranium salts. The result withthese compounds was a blackening of the plate.
These radiations were called Becquerel Rays.Soon after Becquerel's discovery, Marie Sklodowska Curie
began studying radioactivity and completed much of the pioneering work on nuclear changes. Curie
found that radiation was proportional to the amount of radioactive element present, and she proposed
that radiation wasa property of atoms (as opposed to a chemical property of a compound). Marie Curie
was the first woman to win a Nobel Prize and the first person to win two (the first, shared with her
husband Pierre and Becquerel for discovering radioactivity; the second for discovering the radioactive
elements radium and polonium).

Differences between Chemical and Nuclear Reactions:

Chemical and nuclear reactions are very different:

Nuclear reactions involve changes in particles in an atom's nucleus and thus cause a change inthe atom itself.
All elements heavier than bismuth (Bi) (and some lighter) exhibit natural radioactivity and thus can "decay"

6|Page
into lighter elements. Unlike normal chemical reactions thatform molecules, nuclear reactions result in the
transmutation of one element into a different isotope or a different element altogether (remember that the
number of protons in an atom defines the element, so a change in protons results in a change in the atom).

Nuclear Stability

A key factor that determines the stability of a nuclide is the ratio of the number of neutrons tothe number of
protons, the N/Z ratio. For lighter nuclides, one neutron for each proton is enough to provide stability (N/Z
= 1).
For heavier nuclides, in which the number of protons and their corresponding repulsions increases, the
number of neutrons increases even more to stabilize them. If the N/Z ratio is either too high or not high
enough, the nuclide is unstable and decays.
There is a narrow band of stability that gradually increases from an N/Z ratio of 1 near Z=10 for 20Ne to an
N/Z ratio slightly greater than 1.5 near Z=83 for 209Bi.

Nuclear scientists explain these data in terms of two opposing forces. Electrostatic repulsive forces between
protons would break the nucleus apart if not for the presence of an attractive force that exists between all
nucleons (neutrons and protons) called the ‘strong force’. It is about 100 times stronger than the repulsive force
but operates only over short distances withinthe nucleus. Competition between the attractive strong force and
the repulsive electrostatic force determines nuclear stability.
Nuclear stability follows some general trends – stable isotopes with an even number of protonsand an even
7|Page
number of neutrons are the most abundant (168). Isotopes with an even number ofprotons and an odd number
of neutrons (57), or vice versa (50), are relatively stable. Stable isotopes with an odd number of protons and an
odd number of neutrons are fairly rare. One model of nuclear structure postulates that protons and neutrons lie
in nucleon shells, or energylevels, and that stability results from the pairing of like nucleons. This leads to stability
of even values of N and Z (like the stability of electron pairing)
Nuclei that contain a magic number (2, 8, 20, 50, 82, or 126) protons or neutrons are very stable. These magic
numbers are thought to correspond to the numbers of protons or neutronsin filled nucleon shells.

8|Page
As indicated in the diagram, the curve is not linear but gently curves upward as a function of increased proton
number, meaning that to achieve stability, the number of neutrons must increase at a somewhat greater rate
than the number of protons. For example, for a Z number of 80, it might require 120 neutrons and 80 protons
to achieve stability whereas for a Z numberof 10, it would take 10 neutrons and 10 protons to achieve stability.
These would represent n/pratios of 1.5:1.0 and 1:0:1.0, respectively. In reality, the relationship is linear only
through Z =8, after which there are deviations. For example, F-18 has 9 neutrons and 9 protons, with a n/p
ratio of 1.0:1.0, but it is radioactive.

Types of Radioactivity

9|Page
10 | P a g e
 Assignment

11 | P a g e
1) Write balanced equations for the following nuclear reactions:

i. Naturally occurring thorium-232 undergoes  decay.

ii. Chlorine-36 undergoes electron capture.

iii. A nuclide undergoes  decay and produces cesium-133.

2) Describe the nuclear model of the atom, including the general location of the protons, neutrons, and
electrons, the relative size of the nucleus compared to the size of the atom,and the modern description of the
electron.
3) Explain why gamma rays often accompany alpha emission, beta emission, positron emission, and electron
capture.
4) Oxygen-13 atoms undergo positron emission, so they can be used to generate PET (positron emission
tomography) scans. Write the nuclear equation for this reaction.

Thermodynamic Stability: The amount of energy inside a nucleus versus total potential energy of all
nucleons. The energy difference is given by Einstein’s equation, ΔE = Δmc2.

12 | P a g e
13 | P a g e
All nuclei with more than 83 protons are naturally radioactive. These nuclei will undergo spontaneous decay by
emitting electromagnetic energy and/or particles (i.e., alpha, beta, neutron, or positron) or through electron
capture. Some nuclei undergo a sequence of nuclear reactions that result in the formation of a stable nuclide.

14 | P a g e
To calculate the exact time for a given mass to remain, one can use this equation:

t = time
t1/2 = half-life
N = beginning activity or reactivity or mass of radioactive isotope No = starting activity or reactivity or mass of
radioactive isotope

15 | P a g e
16 | P a g e
Example 6:
How long would it take for 500 grams for protactinium-234 to decay to 10 grams? The half-life of Pa-234 is 72
seconds.
mass time
500 0
250 72
125 144
62.5 216
31.25 288
15.6 360
7.8 432
Between 360 sec and 432 sec
17 | P a g e
To calculate the exact time you can use this equation:

t = time while t1/2 = half-life

N = beginning activity or reactivity or mass of radioactive isotope No = starting activity or reactivity or mass of
radioactive isotope

Radiation from Natural and Artificial Sources

Source of Radiation Average Adult Annual

Exposure (mrem/yr)

cosmic radiation 30 – 50

Radiation from the Ground

from clay soil and rocks 25 – 170

wooden houses 10 – 2 0

brick houses 60 – 70

concrete houses 60 – 160

Radiation from the Air (mainly radon)

outdoors 20

in wooden houses 70

in brick houses 130

in concrete houses 260

18 | P a g e
 Internal radiation from ingested food and 20
water

Diagnostic X-ray methods

lung (local) 0.04 – 0.2 per exposure

kidney (local) 1.5 – 3.0 per exposure

dental 1 per exposure

Other sources

jet flight (4 hr) 1

nuclear test 100 - 200

Data on health effects of radiation exposure is limited since it is only available from test animals, and
victims of nuclear accidents and Japanese atomic bomb survivors. The followingtable lists acute health
effects of single dose, whole body irradiations.

rems Effect

5 - 20 possible chromosomal aberrations

20 - 100 temporary reduction in white blood cells

50 - 100 temporary sterility in men

100 - 200 ‘mild radiation sickness’ – diarrhea, vomiting, reduced

infection resistance, possible bone growth retardation in
children

300+ permanent sterility in women

300 - 400 ‘serious radiation sickness’ – marrow, intestine destruction

400 - 1000 acute illness, early deaths

3000+ acute illness, death in hours to days

19 | P a g e
Both large acute doses and lower chronic doses are found to be harmful. There appears to be no lower limit or
tolerance level below which genetic effects become negligible.

Although the effects sound fearful, the average radiation dose received annually by most peopleis only about 120
mrem. About 70% of this radiation comes from natural sources (rocks and cosmic rays); the remaining 30%
comes from medical procedures such as X rays. The amountdue to emissions from nuclear power plants and to
fallout from atmospheric testing of nuclearweapons in the 1950s is barely detectable.

20 | P a g e
 DETECTING AND MEASURING RADIOACTIVITY

The fact that the human body cannot detect a lethal dose of ionising radiation has done muchto
raise apprehension in the public about this type of hazard.
In order to detect radiation we rely on devices that are based on the physical or chemical effectsof

radiation and they can be found in the following categories.

(a) The ionization in gases

(b) The ionization and excitation in certain solids
(c) The changes in chemical systems
(d) The activation by neutrons

Instruments used for the measurement of radiation fall into two classes; survey instruments and
personal monitoring devices. The majority of survey instruments rely on detectors that utilis e the
ionisation of gases. Others use crystalline materials that react to gamma ray photons by producing
a Compton effect electron or a photo-electron. Personal dosimeters rely on thermo-luminescence,
photographic or optical luminescence effects.
SURVEY INSTRUMENTS
The Ion Chamber
This is the simplest device used to measure the strength of radiation. An ionisation chamber is fitted
with two metal plates separated by air. When radiation passes through this chamber, it knocks
electrons from gas molecules and positive ions are formed. The electrons migrate to the anode and
positive ions to the cathode. Thus a small current passes between the plates. This current can be
measured with an ammeter, and gives the strength of radiation that passes through the ionisation
chamber. In an ionization chamber called Dosimeter, the total amount of electric charge passing
between the plates in a given time is measured. This is proportional to the total amount of radiation
that has gone through the chamber.

21 | P a g e
 Fig 1: The Ion Chamber

The Geiger-Muller Counter

This device (Fig. 2) is used for detecting and measuring the rate of emission of α- or β-particles. It
consists of a cylindrical metal tube (cathode) and a central wire (anode). The tube is filled with argon
gas at reduced pressure (0.1 atm). A potential difference of about 1000 volts is applied across the
electrodes. When an α- or β-particle enters the tube through the mica window, it ionises the argon
atoms along its path.

Fig 2: The Geiger – Muller –Counter.

The argon ions (Ar+) are drawn to the cathode and electrons to anode. Thus for a fraction of a second, a
pulse of electrical current flows between the electrodes and completes the circuit around. Each electrical
pulse marks the entry of one α- or β-particle into the tube and is recorded in an automatic counter. The
number of such pulses registered by a radioactive material per minute, gives the intensity of its radioactivity.

Solid State Detectors

The term solid state detectors refers to certain classes of crystalline substances which exhibit
measurable effects when exposed to ionising radiation. In these substances electronsexist discrete
energy bands separated by forbidden bands. The highest energy band in whichelectrons normally exist
is the valence band. The transfer of energy from a photon or charged particle to a valence may raise
it to through the forbidden band into the excitation band or the conduction band. The vacancy left
behind by the electron is known as a hole and is analogous to a positive ion in a gas system.

22 | P a g e
 Fig 3: Ionisation, excitation and trapping

The three states shown above may be permanent or only exist for a short time depending on the
material and temperature. In returning to the valence band the difference in energy is emitted as
fluorescent radiation, normally a light photon.

The Scintillation Counter

Rutherford used a spinthariscope (Fig. 4) for the detection and counting of α-particles. The radioactive
substance mounted on the tip of the wire emitted α-particles. Each particle on striking the zinc sulphide
screen produced a flash of light. These flashes of light (scintillations) could be seen through the eye-piece.
With this device it was possible to count α-particles from 50 to 200 per second.

Fig. 4. : The scintillation counter

A modern scintillation counter also works on the above principle and is widely used for the
measurement of α- or β-particles. Instead of the zinc sulphide screen, a crystal of sodium iodide with
a little thallium iodide is employed. The sample of the radioactive substance contained in a small vial,
is placed in a ‘well’ cut into the crystal. The radiation from the sample hit the crystal wall and produce
scintillations. These fall on a photoelectric cell which produces a pulse of electric current for each
flash of light. This is recorded in a mechanical counter. Such a scintillation counter can measure
radiation upto a million per second.

23 | P a g e
 PERSONAL MONITORING DEVICES

Thermoluminescent detectors
These detectors utilise the electron trapping process. One of the most common materials is lithium fluoride
which is selected because after irradiation electrons in the crystal matrix are raised to a metastable excited state.
Under normal temperatures these electrons remain in thisstate, but heating the material to over 200 0C releases
them from the traps and they rapidly returnto the valence band with the emission of a light photon. If the device
is heated in the dark in the presence of a photomultiplier tube the light photons can be measured and this is

proportional to the radiation dose that the TLD badge received. Once these devices have been“zeroed” they
are rewrapped and reissued for further wear. Some of these devices can reach aconsiderable age and are
expensive to replace if they are lost. Sometimes full zeroing does nottake place and badges have been known to
arrive at the customer already carrying a small apparent radiation dose. This can lead to problems when the
wearer has been credited with a radiation dose which may be classed as penetrating and the only work carried out
has been withbeta emitters which would give a skin dose only.

Film badge dosimeters

Ionising radiation reacts with photographic film in the same way as visible light ie, exposure to radiation
blackens the film. Photographic film contains molecules of silver bromide that forms metallic silver
when irradiated. When the film is developed the optical density is usedto assess the dose that the
dosimeter has received over a set wearing period. Film badge holderscontain several filters to ascertain
whether the dose received is whole body or skin.
Film badges can only be used once and therefore are much cheaper than TLD badges. They also arrive
at the customer with a guaranteed zero dose which avoids the problems associated with TLD badges.

Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dosimeters

Optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters measure radiation exposure due to X-ray,gamma and
beta radiation through a thin layer of aluminium oxide. After use, the aluminium oxide is stimulated
with laser light causing it to fluoresce in proportion to the amount of radiation exposure. These devices
are extremely sensitive and more accurate than TLD or filmdosimeters.

24 | P a g e
 The Luxel optically stimulated luminescence dosimeter

Applications of Nuclear Chemistry

I. Dating with Radioisotopes

Biblical scrolls are found in a cave near the Dead Sea. Are they authentic? Mummy is
discovered in an Egyptian tomb. How old is it? The burned bones of a man are dug up near
Lubbock, Texas. How long have humans lived in the area? These and many other questions
can be answered by archaeologists using a technique called radiocarbon dating. (The Dead Sea
Scrolls are 1900 years old and authentic, the mummy is 3100 years old, and the human remains
found in Texas are 9900 years old.) Radiocarbon dating of archaeological artifacts depends on
the slow and constant production of radioactive carbon-14 in the upper atmosphereby neutron
bombardment of nitrogen atoms. (The neutrons come from the bombardment of other atoms
by cosmic rays.)

Carbon-14 atoms produced in the upper atmosphere combine with oxygen to yield 14CO2 which
slowly diffuses into the lower atmosphere, where it mixes with ordinary 12CO2 and is taken up
by plants during photosynthesis. When these plants are eaten, carbon-14 enters the food chain
and is ultimately distributed evenly throughout all living organisms. As long as a plant or
animal is living, a dynamic equilibrium exists in which an organism excretes or exhales the
same amount of 14C that it takes in. As a result, the ratio of 14C to 12C in the living organism is
the same as that in the atmosphere— about 1 part in 1012 When the plant or animal dies,
however, it no longer takes in more 14C and the ratio 14C/12C in the organism slowly decreases
as 14C undergoes radioactive decay by β emission, with t1/2 = 5730 years.

At 5730 years (one14C half-life) after the death of the organism, the ratio 14C/12C has decreased
14
by a factor of 2; at 11,460 years after death, the ratio C/12C has decreased by a factor of 4;
14
and so on. By measuring the present C/12C ratio in the traces of any once-living organism,
archaeologists can determine how long ago the organism died. Human or animal hair from
well-preserved remains, charcoal or wood fragments from once-living trees, and cotton or linen
from once living plants are all useful sources for radiocarbon dating. The technique becomes

25 | P a g e
 less accurate as samples get older and the amount of 14C they contain diminishes, but artifacts
with an age of 1000–20,000 years can be dated with reasonable accuracy. The outer limit of
the technique is about 60,000 years.

Just as radiocarbon measurements allow dating of once-living organisms, similar

measurements on other radioisotopes make possible the dating of rocks. potassium-40 for
example,has a half-life of 1.28 x109 years and decays through electron capture and positron
emission to yield argon-40. (Both processes yield the same product.)

The age of a rock can be found by crushing a sample, measuring the amount of 40Ar gas that
escapes, and comparing the amount of 40Ar with the amount of 40K remaining in the sample. It
is through techniques such as these that the age of the earth has been estimated at approximately
4.5 billion years.

II. Medical Uses of Radioactivity

The origins of nuclear medicine date to 1901, when the French physician Henri Danlos first
used radium in the treatment of a tuberculous skin lesion. Since that time, uses of radioactivity
have become a crucial part of modern medical care, both diagnostic and therapeutic. Current
nuclear techniques can be grouped into three classes:
(1) in vivo procedures, (2) therapeutic procedures, and (3) imaging procedures.
In Vivo Procedures In vivo studies—those that take place inside the body—are carried out to
assess the functioning of a particular organ or body system. A radio-pharmaceutical agent is
administered, and its path in the body—whether it is absorbed, excreted, diluted, or
concentrated—is determined by analysis of blood or urine samples.
An example of the many in vivo procedures using radioactive agents is the determination of
whole-blood volume by injecting a known quantity of red blood cells labeled with radioactive
chromium-51. After a suitable interval to allow the labelled cells to be distributed evenly

26 | P a g e
 throughout the body, a blood sample is taken, the amount of dilution of the 51Cr is measured,
and the blood volume is calculated.

27 | P a g e
 Therapeutic Procedures Therapeutic procedures—those in which radiation is used to kill
diseased tissue—can involve either external or internal sources of radiation. External radiation
therapy for the treatment of cancer is often carried out with γ rays from a cobalt-60 source. The
highly radioactive source is shielded by a thick lead container and has a small opening directed
toward the site of the tumor. By focusing the radiation beam on the tumor and rotating the
patient’s body, the tumor receives the full exposure while the exposure of surrounding parts of
the body is minimized. Nevertheless, sufficient exposure occurs so that most patients suffer
some effects of radiation sickness.
Internal radiation therapy is a much more selective technique than external therapy. In the
treatment of thyroid disease, for example, iodine-131, a powerful β emitter known to localize
in the target tissue, is administered internally. Because β particles penetrate no farther than
131
several millimeters, the localized I produces a high radiation dose that destroys only the
surrounding diseased tissue.
Imaging Procedures Imaging procedures give diagnostic information about the health of body
organs by analyzing the distribution pattern of radioisotopes introduced into the body. A radio-
pharmaceutical agent that is known to concentrate in a specific tissue or organ is injected into
the body, and its distribution pattern is monitored by external radiation detectors. Depending
on the disease and the organ, a diseased organ might concentrate more of the
radiopharmaceutical than a normal organ and thus show up as a radioactive “hot” spot against
a “cold” background. Alternatively, the diseased organ might concentrate less of the
radiopharmaceutical than a normal organ and thus show up as a cold spot on a hot background.
The radioisotope most widely used today is technetium-99m, whose short half-life of 6.01
hours minimizes a patient’s exposure to harmful effects. Bone scans using Tc-99m, are an
important tool in the diagnosis of cancer and other pathological conditions.

III. Research/Industrial Uses of Radionuclides

a. Reaction mechanisms are studied using radioactive reagents. For example, the complex
mechanism of photosynthesis was unraveled by Melvin Calvin over 7 years (Noble prize
in 1961). 6CO2 + 6H2O → C6H12O6 + 6O2

b. Chemists and engineers use radioactive tracers to study material movement in paint, metal
plating, detergent action, etc. Hydrologic and meteorological engineers have used tracers
to map deep ocean currents and atmospheric circulation during hurricanes.

28 | P a g e
 c. Engineers use radionuclides to measure the level of corrosive fluids in tanks where other
level gages will not survive.

d. Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) is a chemical analytical tool. Neutrons bombard a non-
radioactive substance, converting a small fraction of its atoms to radioisotopes, which
exhibit characteristic decay patterns, such as  ray spectra, that reveal the elements present.
Unlike chemical analysis, the NAA is non-destructive, leaving the sample unharmed.
Priceless art works are authenticated by evaluating paint/pigment in old paintings. NAA is
also used in forensics to identify trace amounts of ammunition in a suspect’s hand or trace
amounts of arsenic in the hair of a poison victim. Automotive engineers use NAA to
monitor friction and wear (metal transfers during friction) and hence evaluate various
lubricants.

IV. Agricultural Uses of Radionuclides

a. As an alternative to chemical pesticides, various insects (screw-worm fly, Mediterranean

fruit fly in California and malaria carrying tsetse fly in the tropics) have been controlled
using radioactivity. By irradiating (sterilizing) with  rays and releasing large numbers of
male flies, the populations of these insects has been greatly reduced. The sterilized males
compete with unsterilized males in mating with females but produce no offspring.

b.  irradiation increases the shelf life of foods by killing microorganisms that cause food to
spoil. The practice is controversial. Opponents suggest that irradiation might lower food
value and produce harmful byproducts. The United Nations has approved irradiation for
potatoes, wheat, chicken, and strawberries.

RADIOANALYTICAL METHODS

Nuclear analytical techniques deal with nuclear excitations, electron inner shell excitations,
nuclear reactions, and/or radioactive decays. Nuclear Analytical Methods can be used for
research activities on environmental studies like water quality assessment, pesticide residues,
global climatic change (transboundary), pollution and remediation.
Radiochemical methods are of three types based on the origin of the radioactivity. In activation
analysis, radioactivity is induced in one or more elements of the sample by irradiation with
suitable radiation or particles (most commonly, neutrons from a nuclear reactor). The resulting
radioactive emissions are then measured.
29 | P a g e
 In the second category are methods in which the radioactivity is physically introduced into the
sample by adding a measured amount of a radioactive species called a tracer. The most
important quantitative methods based on introducing radiotracers arc isotope dilution methods,
in which a weighed quantity of radioactively tagged analyte having a known activity is added
to a measured amount of the sample. After thorough mixing to assure homogeneity, a fraction
of the component of interest is isolated and purified. The activity of the isolated fraction is then
measured and used to calculate the mass of the component of interest in the original sample.
Tracers are also used by organic and inorganic chemists to elucidate reaction mechanisms. The
third class of methods involves measurement of naturally occurring radioactivity in a sample.
Examples of this type of method are the measurement of radon in household air and uranium
in pottery and ceramic materials.

A. RADIOTRACER TECHNIQUES

A radiotracer is defined as a chemical specie having one or more radionuclides as cation, anion
or one of its components so that it may be used as a marker to follow the course of a chemical
reaction or physical process or to show the location of a substance in an area. The activity of
radionuclide is monitored to follow the process under investigation. Basic principle, on the
basis of which a radiotracer works, is that it mixes well with its own element or compound and
behaves chemically in a similar manner except for its radiation emitting property. Radiotracers
can be used qualitatively for identification only, as simple markers or to quantitatively
determine the amount of a component in a mixture.

Isotope Dilution Analysis (IDA)

It is a widely used quantitative analytical technique of considerable value in complex mixtures
of compounds in organic syntheses, biochemical systems and for the determination of inorganic
elements in geological and biological samples. It has the advantage of not requiring the
separation of a component to be determined quantitatively from an analyte mixture. The
method of IDA has two alternatives, direct isotope dilution analysis (DIDA) and
inverse/reverse isotope dilution analysis (I/RIDA).

Principle and Equation

It is primarily based on the principle that the specific activity of a mixture of stable and
radioisotope remains unchanged during chemical processing. Accurately known amount of

30 | P a g e
 specific activity of a radiotracer is added to an aliquot of analyte mixture containing the sought

31 | P a g e
 component. After addition, the resultant specific activity decreases. Chemical separation
procedure is carried out where the component need not be recovered quantitatively but it must
be in chemically pure form with well-defined composition and in sufficient amount so that it
can be weighed. Separation may be carried out by any of the following separation procedures:
i. Solvent extraction of chelate complexes formed with specific reagent
ii. Precipitation using specific reagent
iii. Ion-exchange separation
iv. Electrodeposition or sorption process
After equilibration the desired constituent is separated, weighed and its activity is measured.

Advantages and Limitations of IDA

As already mentioned radiotracers have special advantages compared to routine chemical or

instrumental methods of analysis. Some special advantages of IDA are;
i. Isotope dilution analysis is more sensitive than many other analytical methods
depending on the availability of radiotracer of desired specific activity. For certain
elements such as Zn, Ag, Hg, IDA has better detection limits than even neutron
activation analysis. Of course sensitivity of IDA technique depends on the availability
of carrier free or high specific activity radiotracer.
ii. Where other instrumental methods fail to achieve these limits for complex matrices,
IDA using appropriate radiation detectors can measure much smaller amounts.
iii. Radiotracers also have potential specificity due to their unique decay properties and
hence chemical interferences are of little consequence.
iv. Quantitative separation is not necessary. In many wet chemical analyses involving trace
amounts, it is almost impossible to achieve quantitative yield. However, yield should
be more than 50% without too many losses.
v. Nuclear detection equipments used for IDA are less expensive than many modern
instruments. Instrumentation is quite simple because only gross activity measurement
is required.
vi. IDA can be used for speciation studies in environmental and biological samples.
vii. Decay process of radiotracers is not affected by ambient conditions of temperature,
concentration of reagents, pH, etc and these could be used for determining dyes in
natural water systems.
Besides advantages, IDA has following limitations;
32 | P a g e
 i. IDA is essentially a destructive method. Since the sample is not preserved, it has a
limited applicability.
ii. The method can be used for the determination of a single element at a time whereas for
several samples multielemental methods are preferred.
iii. IDA has limited applicability for the elements for which suitable radiotracers are
available.

B. ACTIVATION ANALYSIS (AA)

Techniques of activation analysis include the use of nuclear reactions induced by neutrons,
photons or charged particles such as protons, deuterons, alpha particles and other heavy ions in
a nuclear reactor or accelerator facility to produce radionuclides. When a target element is
bombarded with a neutron beam, a compound nucleus with higher mass number in excited state
is formed. It may undergo instantaneous decay to form a product nucleus finally emitting
delayed β or γ rays. This technique is called neutron activation analysis (NAA). However, if
the bombarding particle is photon, it is called photon activation analysis (PAA) or if the sample
is bombarded with charged particles such as protons, deuterons or alpha particles then it is
called charged particle activation analysis (CPAA). If bombarding particle induces x-ray
emission via interaction with the electron shells of the target element, the analytical method is
known as particle induced x-ray emission (PIXE). Of all the activation analysis methods, NAA
using reactor neutrons remains the most widely used analytical method.

Principle of NAA
The technique of NAA involves two steps; irradiation of a sample with neutrons and
subsequent measurement of the induced radioactivity. The radionuclides are characterized by
their characteristic -ray energy and half-life as illustrated in the figure below

In neutron activation analysis the sample is kept in a neutron flux for a length of time that is
33 | P a g e
 sufficient to produce radionuclide product(s) in amounts that can be measured with the desired
statistical precision.
At the termination of the irradiation, the activity A0 of a particular nuclide will be equal to the
difference between the rate of formation and the rate of decay.

One of the important advantages of NAA is its applicability to almost all elements in the
periodic table. Other advantages of neutron activation are that it is non-destructive, has high
sensitivity, minimal sample preparation procedures and ease of calibration. Consequently,
NAA is an important technique for analyzing archaeological and forensic samples, as well as
works of art.
In comparison with most other analytical techniques, radiochemical methods are usually more
expensive and require more time to complete an analysis. Radiochemical methods also are
subject to significant safety concerns due to the analyst’s potential exposure to high-energy
radiation and the need to safely dispose of radioactive waste.

Nuclear Fission and Electric Power Plants

In a typical nuclear fission process, a neutron collides with a large atom, such as uranium-235,
and forms a much less stable nuclide that spontaneously decomposes into two medium sized
atoms and 2 or 3 neutrons. For example, when uranium-235 atoms are bombarded with
neutrons, they form uranium-236 atoms, which decompose to form atoms such as krypton-95
and barium-138 as well as neutrons.
Some smaller fissions are spontaneous, but some nuclides (especially larger ones) require that
the activation energy be supplied (by neutron bombardment). Experiments with particle
accelerators have shown that every element with Z > 80 has one or more isotopes capable of
undergoing fission, provided they are bombarded at the right energy.

a. Nuclei with atomic numbers between 89 (actinium) and 97 (berkelium) fission

34 | P a g e
 spontaneously with long half-lives of 104 to 107 years.

b. Nuclei with atomic numbers of 98 (californium) or more fission spontaneously with shorter
half-lives of a few milliseconds to 61 days.

c. All known nuclides with mass numbers greater than 250 fission spontaneously because
they are too big to be stable.

The 235
92 U nucleus can split in many different ways giving rise to various product nuclei. Neutron

bombardment results in a highly excited U-236 nucleus , which splits apart in 10-14 seconds.
The products are two nuclei of unequal mass and several neutrons (average of 2.4) and a large
amount of energy.

Zn + 4 0n + energy
1
160
62 Sm + 72
30
+ 3 1n + energy
57 La + 35 Br
146 87
0

U + n Kr n
235 1
→ [ U]
236 140
Ba + 93 +3 1
+ energy
92 56 36
0 92 0
144
Cs +
90
Rb + 2 1n + energy
55 37 0

Sr + 2 0n + energy
1
144
54 Xe + 90
38

35 | P a g e
 A single U-235 nucleus releases 3.5  10-11 J when it splits; a mole of U-235 (about 1/4 kg) releases 2.1
 1013 J - a billion times as much energy as burning 1/4 kg of coal (about 2  104 J).

The two or three neutrons released per U-235 atom fissioned can collide with other nuclei causing them
to split, releasing more neutrons and more energy. If the piece of uranium is large enough, product
neutrons strike another fissionable nucleus before flying out of the sample. In this case, the reaction is
self-sustaining (a chain reaction). The mass needed to achieve a chain reaction is the critical mass.

If the sample has less than this mass (subcritical), most of the product neutrons leave the sample before
colliding with another U-235 nucleus and a chain reaction does not occur.

Uncontrolled Fission: The Atomic (Nuclear) Bomb

An uncontrolled chain reaction may become explosive, as the world first learned in World War II. In
August 1945, the United States detonated two atomic bombs over Japan. The horrible destructive power
of these bombs was a major factor in the surrender of Japan a few days later.

In an atomic bomb, a small explosion of trinitrotoluene (TNT) brings subcritical masses of fissionable
material together, the critical mass is exceeded and the ensuing chain reaction brings about the nuclear
explosion. The proliferation of nuclear power plants, which use fissionable materials to generate energy
for electricity, has increased concern that more countries will have access to material for bombs. Only
1 kg of fissionable uranium was used in the first of the bombs dropped on Japan.

36 | P a g e
 Controlled Fission-Nuclear Energy Reactors:

Controlled fission can produce clean, plentiful electric power. Like a coal-fired power plant, a
nuclear power plant generates heat to produce steam, which turns a turbine attached to an
electric generator. In a coal plant, the heat is produced by burning coal; in a nuclear power plant
by splitting uranium.

37 | P a g e
 Most commercial nuclear power plants in the United States are ‘light water’ reactors,
moderated and cooled by ordinary water. As shown in the diagram, a fission reactor consists
of five main components: (1) fuel, (2) moderator, (3) control rods, (4) cooling system, and (5)
shielding.

Fuel:

Rods of U3O8 enriched in U-235 and enclosed in tubes of a corrosion-resistant zirconium alloy
serve as a fuel. Uranium ores naturally contains 0.7% U-235, the balance is nonfissionable U-
238. This is enriched up to 3% to 4% U-235 needed to sustain a chain reaction. Enrichment is
235 238
achieved after separating gaseous UF6 from UF6 prepared from the ore. The separationis
by diffusion, the heavier molecules being slower moving. Another process uses an
ultracentrifuge to separate particles of differing density.

Control Rods:

38 | P a g e
 Sandwiched between the fuel rods are moveable control rods made of cadmium or boron steel,
substances that absorb neutrons efficiently.
10
+ 1 → 7Li + 4

5B 0n
3 2

When the control rods are lowered, the chain reaction slows as fewer neutrons bombard the
uranium fuel rods. When the control rods are raised, the chain reaction speeds up.

Moderator:

Flowing around the fuel and control rods in the reactor core is the moderator, a substance that
slows the neutrons, making them better at causing fission than the fast ones emerging from the
uranium fuel. The best moderators are comparable in mass to the neutrons. Helium is most
efficient, slowing neutrons without absorbing them. The next most efficient is heavy water,
deuterium oxide (2H2O or D2O). Heavy water is expensive and so is used mostly in research
reactors and in the Canadian built ‘CANDU Reactors’. Light water (1H2O) is the most common
moderator in American reactors. It is less efficient in that it absorbs some neutrons but light
water is inexpensive.

Cooling Systems:

Two cooling systems are needed. First, the moderator itself serves as a coolant for the reactor.
It transfers fission-generated heat to a steam generator. This converts water to steam. The steam
then goes to turbines that drive generators to produce electricity. Another coolant (riverwater,
seawater, or recirculated water) condenses the steam from the turbine, and the condensate is
then recycled into the steam generator.

Shielding (Containment Shell):

The entire reactor is enclosed in a steel containment vessel. This is housed in a thick-walled
concrete building. The operating personnel are further protected by a thick organic shield that
is made of compressed wood fibers. This absorbs neutrons and beta and gamma rays that would
otherwise be absorbed by the human body.

Dangers of Nuclear Reactors:

The fuel of nuclear reactors has neither the composition nor the extreme compactness of the
critical mass of a bomb. Thus, no possibility of nuclear explosion exits.

The greatest danger is the possibility of a ‘meltdown’ of the reactor core. If, for example, the

39 | P a g e
 coolant circulation fails or is shut down too quickly after lowering the control rods, the fuel

40 | P a g e
 elements may overheat and melt. Such operational errors and mechanical failures have
resultedin reactor core meltdowns and release of radioactive gases and debris into the
atmosphere at the Three-Mile Island facility in Pennsylvania in 1979 and at the
Chernobyl plant in Ukraine of the former Soviet Union in 1986. Thousands of people
living near Chernobyl may yet develop cancer from radiation exposure.

The moderator and its coolant are completely separate. The water from the steam
generator iscompletely recycled so barring leaks, no radioactivity should find its way
into the external water system (lake, river or sea). The cooling water being discharged to
the environment is several degrees warmer than the intake and this thermal pollution is
cited as upsetting the natural ecosystem, however, coal and gas fired generating facilities
also cause thermal pollution.

A more serious problem is one of nuclear waste disposal. Operating a nuclear reactor
for a few weeks produces lethal amounts of 90Sr and 137Cs equivalent to those produced
by the explosion of an atomic bomb. Many of the fission products formed in nuclear
reactors have long half-lives, and no satisfactory plan for their permanent disposal has
been devised. Long-lived radionuclides from spent fuel must be stored underground in
heavy, shock-resistant containers until they have decayed to the point that they are no
longer biologically harmful. Asexamples, Sr-90 (t½ = 28 yr) and plutonium-239 (t½ =
24,000 yr) must be stored for 280 and 240,000 years, respectively, before they lose 99.9%
of their activities. Critics of nuclear energycontend that the containers could corrode over
such long periods, or burst as a result of earth tremors, and that transportation and
reprocessing accidents could cause environmental contamination with radionuclides.

The potential for theft also exists. Plutonium-239, a fissionable product could be stolen
from reprocessing plants and used to construct atomic weapons. Neutrons are the worst
problem ofradiation. The human body contains a high percentage of H2O, which absorbs
neutrons very efficiently. A new weapon, the neutron bomb, produces massive amounts
of neutrons and so is effective against people, but it does not produce long-lasting
radiation of the fission atomic bomb.

Advantages of Nuclear Reactors

Proponents of development of nuclear energy argue that advantages far outweigh the
risks. Nuclear energy plants do not pollute the air with oxides of sulfur, nitrogen, and
carbon or particulate matter as fossil fuel electric power plants do.

An advantage of nuclear fuels is the enormous amount of energy liberated per unit mass

41 | P a g e
 of fuel. At present, nuclear reactors provide about 17% of the electrical energy consumed
in theUnited States. In some parts of Europe, where natural resources of fossil fuels are
scarcer, upto 65% of electrical energy is produced from nuclear reactors, e.g., France
and Belgium. Withrapidly declining fossil fuel reserves and increasing energy demand,
nuclear energy may become increasingly important.

Radioactive Waste

Radioactive wastes are the leftovers from the use of nuclear materials for the production
of electricity, diagnosis and treatment of disease, and other purposes.
High-level radioactive waste consists of “irradiated” or used nuclear reactor fuel (i.e.,
fuel thathas been used in a reactor to produce electricity). The used reactor fuel is in a
solid form consisting of small fuel pellets in long metal tubes.
Mill tailings wastes are the residues remaining after the processing of natural ore to
extract uranium and thorium. Commercial radioactive wastes that are not high-level
wastes or uraniumand thorium milling wastes are classified as low level radioactive
waste. The low-level wastescan include radioactively contaminated protective clothing,
tools, filters, rags, medical tubes, and many other items.
Nuclear power is characterized by a very large amount of energy available from a very
smallamount of fuel. Although the amount of nuclear waste (often referred to as
radwaste) is relatively small, much of it is highly radioactive and must therefore be
carefully managed ashazardous waste. The problems and solutions of nuclear waste
disposal are becoming a majorconcern in the 21st Century. Many nuclear power plants,
particularly in the developed countries around the world, are nearing the end of their
operating lives. The end of the cold war has left us with radioactive waste from
decommissioned nuclear missiles. Nuclear poweris the only energy industry which
takes full responsibility for all its wastes. The cost of wastedisposal is included in the
cost of the power produced.

Nuclear waste comprises a variety of materials requiring different types of management

to protect people and the environment. One of the factors in managing nuclear wastes is
the time that they are likely to remain hazardous. This depends on the kinds of
radioactive isotopes inthem, and particularly the half lives characteristic of each of
those isotopes. The half-life is the time it takes for a given radioactive isotope to lose
half of its radioactivity. After four halflives the level of radioactivity is 1/16th of the
original and after eight half-lives 1/256th.
The various radioactive isotopes have half-lives ranging from fractions of a second to
42 | P a g e
 minutes, hours or days, through to billions of years. Radioactivity decreases with time
as these isotopes decay into stable, non-radioactive ones.

The rate of decay of an isotope is inversely proportional to its half-life; a short half-life
meansthat it decays rapidly. Hence, for each kind of radiation, the higher the intensity
of radioactivity in a given amount of material, the shorter the half-lives involved.

Three general principles are employed in the management of radioactive wastes:

a. concentrate-and-contain
b. dilute-and-disperse
c. delay-and-decay

The first two are also used in the management of non-radioactive wastes. The waste is
eitherconcentrated and then isolated, or it is diluted to acceptable levels and then
discharged to theenvironment. Delay-and-decay however is unique to radioactive waste
management; it meansthat the waste is stored and its radioactivity is allowed to decrease
naturally through decay ofthe radioisotopes in it.

The problem of nuclear-waste disposal is not as much technical as one that requires
efficientmanagement. Each country is ethically and legally responsible for its own
nuclear wastes, therefore the default position is that all nuclear wastes will be disposed
of in each of the 40 or so countries concerned. This means that countries like Sweden
or Switzerland, which have only a few plants, still have to do the research and
development and find a local site for disposal. This makes no economic or
environmental sense at all. A better solution would be to have competitive, commercial
geologic repositories -- in stable underground sites like theone in Yucca Mountain,
Nevada -- that take waste from other countries for a fee. Plutonium,one of the most
radioactive materials, does not move significantly in ground water, and if some did
ultimately escape it would be readily detected, and measures could then be taken to
avoid contamination. A geologic repository would work effectively for at least 100,000
years,after which the waste would be little more radioactive than the natural uranium
from which it was derived.

According to the amount and type of radioactivity in them, nuclear waste materials can
generally be classified under two categories – a) low level nuclear waste and b) high
level nuclear waste.

a) Low level nuclear waste usually includes material used to handle the highly
radioactiveparts of nuclear reactors (i.e. cooling water pipes and radiation suits)
and waste from
medical procedures involving radioactive treatments or x-rays. Low-level waste is
43 | P a g e
 comparatively easy to dispose of. The level of radioactivity and the half-life of the
radioactive isotopes in low-level waste are relatively small. Storing the waste for a
periodof 10 to 50 years will allow most of the radioactive isotopes in low-level
waste to decay,at which point the waste can be disposed of as normal refuse.

Low-level nuclear waste is generated from hospitals, laboratories and industry, as

well as the nuclear fuel cycle. It comprises paper, rags, tools, clothing, filters etc.,
which contain small amounts of mostly short-lived radioactivity. It is not
dangerous to handle,but must be disposed of more carefully than normal garbage.
Some low-level waste viz.,resins, chemical sludges and reactor components, as
well as contaminated materials fromreactor decommissioning may require special
shielding before disposal. Low-levelnuclear waste is usually buried in shallow
landfill sites. To reduce its volume, it is oftencompacted or incinerated (in a closed
container) before disposal. Worldwide it comprises97% of the volume but only 5%
of the radioactivity of all nuclear waste.

b) High level nuclear waste may be the spent fuel itself, or the principal waste from
reprocessing this. It is generally material from the core of a nuclear reactor or
nuclear weapon. This waste includes uranium, plutonium, and other highly
radioactive elementsformed during fission. Most of the radioisotopes in high level
waste emit large amounts of radiation and have extremely long half-lives (some
longer than 100,000 years)requiring long time periods before the waste will settle
to safe levels of radioactivity. While only 3% of the volume of all radwaste, it holds
95% of the radioactivity. It containsthe highly radioactive fission products and
some heavy elements with long-lived radioactivity. It generates a considerable
amount of heat and requires cooling, as well asspecial shielding during handling
and transport. If the spent fuel is reprocessed, the separated waste is vitrified by
incorporating it into borosilicate (Pyrex) glass, which is sealed inside stainless steel
canisters for eventual disposal deep underground.

As can be readily appreciated from the foregoing, disposal of the high level nuclear
waste ismore problematic than the low level one. This article describes some of the
methods that can/are being undertaken for dealing with this problem. The methods of
nuclear waste disposal include:

1. Short Term Storage

2. Long Term Storage
3. Transmutationreas currently being evaluated for long-term storage of nuclear waste.

1. Short Term Storage of Nuclear Waste

Radioactive material decays in an exponential fashion. Short-term storage will reduce

44 | P a g e
 the radioactivity of spent nuclear fuel significantly. A ten-year storage can bring a 100
times decrease in radioactivity. A further reduction of radioactive emissions, similar to
that of the first 10 years, would take another 100 years of storage. Storing the waste for
at least 10 years is recommended. The reduction in radioactivity during short-term
storage makes handling andshipment of the waste much easier. After short term storage
the waste will be sent for transmutation or long-term storage.
2. Long Term Storage for High Level Radioactive Waste
While there are methods of significantly reducing the amount of high-level radioactive
waste, some (or all) high level radioactive waste must end its journey in long-term
storage. Because "long term" refers to a period of thousands of years, security of the
radioactive waste must be assured over geologic time periods. The waste must not be
allowed to escape to the outside environment by any foreseeable accident, malicious
action, or geological activity. This includes accidental uncovering, removal by groups
intending to use the radioactive material ina harmful manner, leeching of the waste into
the water supply, and exposure from earthquake or other geological activity. In addition,
this security must be maintained over a period of timeduring which, not only will the
designers of the storage area die, but also the host country will,in all likelihood, see
different political regimes.
Civilization has undergone tremendous changes in the last 3000 years since the Egyptian
Empire, yet some high level radioactive waste will take over 20,000 years to decay to
safe levels.
Posing further difficulty is the fact that some of this waste is plutonium, and other
actinide elements, produced as by products of uranium fission. These elements are not
only highly radioactive, but highly poisonous as well. The toxicity of plutonium is
among the highest of any element known.
Areas currently being evaluated for long-term storage of nuclear waste are:
a. Space
b. Under the sea bed, and
c. Large stable geologic formations on land
Long-term storage on land seems to be the favorite of most countries.
A. Disposal of Nuclear Waste in Space
Outer space is the most appropriate long-term storage option for high-level nuclear waste.
Thiswould ensure it’s safe removal from humans regardless of the activities of nature or
man on earth.
Anybody accidentally stumbling upon this waste would be at a lesser risk as they would

45 | P a g e
 be using radioactive shielding for space travel. Delivery of the waste into space has a
crippling drawback --mthe rocket used to deliver the waste into space would need to
provide enough power to escape the earth’s gravity. This is necessary for two reasons:
a) to leave the waste inorbit creates space garbage that is likely to reenter the earth’s
environment at some time due tocollision with satellites and other orbiting waste or
spacecraft; and b) the large delivery rocketwould be expensive and an accident during
launch could have catastrophic results. Space disposal therefore, will not be a viable
option until space travel is considerably safer and less expensive.
b) Storage of Radioactive Waste in the Sea Bed
A possibility for long-term storage on the earth is burial in the seabed. The rock
formations inthe seabed are generally more stable than those on land reducing the risk
of exposure due to seismic activity. Apart from this, there is little groundwater
circulation under the seabed, reducing the possibility of radioactive material
contaminating ground water available for human consumption.
The greatest appeal of under sea burial is also its greatest drawback. The enormous cost
and difficulty of excavating the waste would likely prevent accidental or malicious
disturbing of the waste. This cost is also keeping us from burying the waste at sea.
c) Long Term Storage of Radioactive Waste on Land
Long term storage in tectonically stable rock formations on land is the most likely
solution forhigh-level radioactive waste. The radioactive material may be vitrified1 and
buried in caverns,created in a large rock formation. When use of the storage area is
complete, it would be sealedagain with stone. While still extremely expensive, and
considerably unsafe, this is the most viable storage option currently available. Using
methods that reduce the amount of radioactivewaste could further enhance safety levels.

While most countries should not only be able to find suitably safe sites in stable
geologicalformations, they should also demonstrate this safety so as to create public
confidence. This is best achieved where there is simple geology.

The Pangea proposal

A major research program in the 1990s (by Pangea Resources) has identified
Australia, southern Africa, Argentina and western China as having the appropriate
geological credentials for a deep geologic repository, with Australia being favoured
on economic andpolitical grounds. It would be located where the geology has been
stable for several hundred million years, so that there need not be total reliance on
a robust engineered barrier system to keep the waste securely isolated for thousands
46 | P a g e
 of years.

It would be a commercial undertaking and would have a dedicated port and rail
infrastructure. It would take spent fuel and other wastes from commercial reactors,
and possibly also material from weapons disposal programs.

Objectives

The following were Pangea's objectives, but they are relevant to future proposals:

· To site a deep geologic disposal facility in a region where the geology and biosphere
conditions meet the test of simplicity coupled with robustness.
This is required to demonstrate that the performance of the facility from a safety
standpointwill meet the highest international standards and international safeguard
requirements. In addition to its ideal geological characteristics, the host country
should preferably be a first-world, stable democracy, familiar with high-technology
enterprises.

· to create a facility for deep geological disposal capable of accepting spent fuel,
vitrified high-level waste, long-lived intermediate-level waste, and appropriately
conditioned long-lived nuclear materials, such as immobilized plutonium.

To the degree necessary, the disposal facility would also have short-term storage
capabilityto allow imported nuclear materials to reach a cool and safe condition for
disposal.

· to provide an economic and environmentally responsible disposal option.

· to provide a safe and secure transportation service to the repository location.

· to provide the host country with the opportunity to gain substantial economic
benefits andto play an important role in enhancing security and non-proliferation
efforts for the benefitof all nations.

3. Transmutation

Transmutation is the transformation of one element into another. The goal of

transmutation,in radioactive waste disposal, is to transmute long half-life, highly
radioactive elements, into

shorter half-life, less-radioactive elements. There are two methods currently proposed for the
transmutation of high-level radioactive waste are:

a) Fast consumer reactors, and

47 | P a g e
 b) Hybrid reactors

a) Fast Consumer Reactors

Fast consumer reactors are merely variations of fast breeder reactors. These reactors
take theplutonium created by nuclear reactors as byproduct, or as fuel for nuclear
weapons and "consume" it. This process leaves uranium and other less dangerous
radioactive waste. As an added benefit, the isotopes of the elements created as
byproducts generally have shorter half-lives than the initial plutonium used as fuel.

b) Transmutation with a Hybrid Nuclear Reactor

Hybrid nuclear reactors promise near complete transmutation of almost any high level
radioactive waste. The general process is to produce a sub-critical nuclear reactor (i.e.
the nuclear reactions would stop under normal conditions) and bombard the reactor
fuel with neutrons. The neutrons break apart the large radioactive elements, releasing
energy. This energy is used to power the neutron source needed to start the fission
reaction. There will besome high level radioactive waste produced (generally parts of
the neutron source) but in comparison to the amount of radioactive waste consumed,
this will be minimal. This high level waste will need to be placed in long-term storage.

A nuclear accident, incident, or act of terrorism is an unpredictable, unusual and

unwanted event involving radiation and/or radioactive materials which results in
occupational or public exposures and /or contamination of structures, property, or
persons.

NUCLEAR / RADIATION ACCIDENTS, INCIDENTS AND EVENTS

Nuclear Accidents: Causes are not deliberate, malicious, or malevolent. True accidents
can beviewed as acts of nature or acts of god, but likely include failures of equipment
48 | P a g e
 and systems. Nuclear Incidents: Causes can include deliberate actions but these are
generally non-maliciousand non-violent; may be due to poor judgment, wrong
information coupled with malfunctionsor other accident conditions, etc.

Nuclear Terrorism: A form of political violence that is designed to induce terror and
psychic fear through the violent victimization and damage of noncombatant targets.
These events usually exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity
as an amplifying force. Massive economic damage is possible and is usually an intended
outcome while substantial (or any) radiation injury to persons may or may not be
involved.

The Major Recognized Categories of Accidents and Incidents:

Industrial radiography
192
High activity Ir sources are typically used to radiograph welds in pipes. Portable
radiography devices are often used with little training and little enforcement about good
radiation protection practices. Extremely high, localized doses can result from improper
handling and use of sources.

Industrial irradiation facilities

Facilities use intense radiation sources for sterilization of foods, surgical instruments, and
otheritems. Unintended exposures result from radiation sources not properly returning
into shields or failures of staff to know sources are deployed.

Medical procedures (primarily associated with therapy)

Accidents and incidents are generally over-exposures due to equipment malfunctions,

lack of proper training, poor judgment or combinations.
Serious overexposures leading to acute radiation effects occur more often in therapeutic
procedures while modest overexposures leading to increases in cancer risk probably
occur more often in diagnostic procedures.
Overexposures range from a few times larger than appropriate in diagnostic imagine to
levels causing severe acute effects.

Loss of control of radiation sources

“Orphaned sources” is a problem worldwide due to lack of record keeping on source

owners and locations of use, little regulation on stewardship, and lack of institutional
49 | P a g e
 memory and controls.

Since 1983, there have been about 60 known incidents of radiation sources being lost,
melted down, and usually reformed into steel bar construction materials.

Nuclear testing-related activities

A case example is testing of about 100 nuclear devices from 1951 to 1962 in the
atmosphere at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) exposed military and public.
Only a few accidents at the NTS are known of but, in retrospect, testing resulted in
unintendedexposure of 160 million persons to 20 mGy on average.

Nuclear energy (fuel production, fuel storage, nuclear power plant operation)

Nuclear energy-related accidents involve more than operating reactors, though those are
probably the most well known.
Other nuclear energy-related exposures have occurred among workers at facilities and
amongthe public exposed to emissions from those facilities. These circumstances include
facilities inthe U.S., Russia (Mayak, Techa River), Japan (Tokaimura) and elsewhere

Terrorism

A form of political violence using radiation and/or radioactive materials that is designed
to induce terror and psychic fear through the violent victimization and damage of
noncombatant targets. Fortunately, the number of events to-date have been few, but the
likelihood of future events is depressingly likely.
IJEEE ISSN: 1054-853X
Volume 21, Number 2 © 2013 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

50 | P a g e
 WORLD MAJOR NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS AND THEIR
NEGATIVE IMPACT IN THE ENVIRONMENT,
HUMAN HEALTH AND PUBLIC OPINION

Jorge Morales Pedraza1

The paper describes ten major nuclear accidents that have been reported since 1979 in five
countries. Three of them had serious negative consequences for the environment, human
health, and public opinion. The first nuclear accident occurred in the USA in 1979during
the normal operation of a nuclear power plant; the second nuclear accident

a particular set of circumstances; and the third nuclear accident occurred in Japan in 2011
as the result of an earthquake of magnitude 9 and a tsunami.

1
Jorge Morales Pedraza currently works as a Consultant on International Affairs and possess university degrees on
Mathematic and on Economic Sciences. Formerly he was a Cuban Ambassador for more than 25 years. In the
1980s, Morales Pedraza was appointed as Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Cuba to the IAEA
(International Atomic Energy Agency and in the 1990s gained the same title with the OPCW (Organization for
the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons). In addition, he was invited university professor in Mathematics Science
and an Invited Professor for International Relations in the Diplomatic Academy of Cuba. Throughout the 1990s
and into the 2000s M office.
Over the past years he was involved in the preparation, as author and coauthor, of more than 53 articles published
by international publishers houses, as well as several chapters for various books focusing on the peaceful uses
of nuclear energy, renewable and conventional energy, the use of the radiation for the sterilization of tissues,
tissue banking, financial investment, among other topics. During this period he also authored five books and
was invited editor for international journals. Morales Pedraza is a member of five editorial teams of the same
number of specialized international journals.

51 | P a g e
52 | P a g e
2 Jorge Morales Pedraza

ABSTRACT
Since 1959, ten major nuclear accidents have been reported by five countries. Three
of them had serious negative consequences for the environment, human health, and public
opinion. Each of these three major nuclear accidents is different. The first nuclear accident
occurred in the USA in 1979 during the normal operation of a nuclear power plant; the
second nuclear accident occurred in Ukraine in 1986 during a test designed to assess the
reac and the third
nuclear accident occurred in Japan in 2011 as the result of an earthquake of magnitude 9
and a tsunami.

Keywords: nuclear accidents; IAEA; Three Miles Island nuclear accident; Chernobyl nuclear
accident; Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident

INTRODUCTION
Nuclear power plants must operate in the most secure manner respecting all safetymeasures
and principles adopted at national, regional, and international levels. When safety measures and
principles are ignored or are not properly observed by nuclear plant operators, anuclear accident
can occurred with serious consequences for the environment, human health and public opinion.
For this reason, nuclear assessment of the operation of nuclear power plants should be carried
out periodically by governments and nuclear power plant owners.The aim of this assessment
is to determine whether an adequate level of safety has been achieved and whether the safety
objectives and criteria as specified by the plant designer, the operating organization, and the
regulatory body have been met. Safety assessment should be asystematic process that has to be
carried out throughout the lifetime of the nuclear power plant, with the aim of identifying
radiation risks that arise for workers, the impact on the public and on the environment during
the normal operation of a nuclear power plant.
The aim of safety assessment is to determine whether adequate measures have been taken
by governments and nuclear power plant operators to control radiation risks to an acceptable
level, with account taken of both the prevention of abnormal events and the mitigation of their
consequences.
Since 1959, ten major nuclear accidents have been reported by five countries. These nuclear
accidents are the following:

Fukushima, Japan - March 2011;

Kashiwazaki, Japan - July 2007;
Mihama, Japan - August 2004;
Blayais, France - December 1999;
Tokaimura, Japan - September 1999;
Tokaimura, Japan - March 1997;
Chernobyl, Ukraine - April 1986;
Three Mile Island, USA - March 1979;
The Urals, USSR - October 1958;
Windscale, UK October 1957.
 World Major Nuclear Accidents and Their Negative Impact in the Environment 3

It is important to stress that out of these ten major nuclear accidents registered during the
period 1957-2011, five were reported by one country: Japan. Among these ten major nuclear
accidents, three had serious negative consequences for the environment, human health, and
public opinion. These accidents are the following:

Three Miles Island;

Chernobyl;
Fukushima.

The first accident occurred during the normal operation of the nuclear power plant and was
caused by serious malfunctioning of equipment and serious human errors; the second accident
occurred during a test ar
set of circumstances and it occurred due to serious errors in the reactor design and a lack of
appropriate training of the staff; and the third accident occurred as result of a natural disaster
(an earthquake of magnitude 9 and a tsunami) in addition to an inappropriate selection of the
plant site.
In the following paragraphs the main events associated to these three nuclear accidents are
described and the consequences and lesson learned identified.

THE THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR ACCIDENT

A combination of equipment failure, human error, and bad luck, the nuclear accident at
Three Mile Island (TMI) stunned the nation and permanently changed the nuclear industry in
the USA and Europe. The TMI nuclear accident had a devastating impact on the US nuclear
power industry - the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has not reviewed an application
to build a new nuclear power plant in the USA until recently. It also brought about sweeping
changes involving emergency response planning, increase safety measures, reactor operator
training, human factors engineering, radiation protection, and many other areas of nuclear
power plant operations (Powell).
The TMI nuclear accident was the most significant nuclear accident in the history of the
US commercial nuclear power generating industry. It resulted in the release of limited amount
of radioactive noble gases and iodine to the environment. However, there have been no deaths
or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community, which can be attributed to
the accident.
The Three Mile Island (TMI) power plant is located near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in the
USA. It had two pressurized water reactors (PWRs). One PWR was of 800 MWe (775 MWe
net) and entered service in 1974 2. It remains one of the best-performing units in USA. Unit 2
was of 906 MWe (880 MWe net) and almost brand new3 and was the unit in which the accident
occurred.

2
TMI-1 was shut down for refueling at the time of the accident.
3
TMI-2 was operating online only three months before the accident.
4 Jorge Morales Pedraza

Source: NEI (Nuclear Energy Overview 8/5/2000).

Figure 1. Unit 2 Three Mile Island power plant.

According to Morales Pedraza (2012), the accident at the Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-
2) occurred on March 28, 1979 when the unit was operating at 97 % power (see Figure 2). It
led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community and the
negative impact of the accident in the environment was very small. However, the impact of the
TMI-2 nuclear accident in the public opinion was very high forcing the government to cancel
all plans already adopted for the construction of new nuclear power reactors in the country.

Source: Photograph courtesy of Ohio Citizen Action.

Figure 2. Three Mile Island nuclear power plant after the accident.

What caused this serious nuclear accident? It was caused by a sequence of events during
which equipment malfunctions, design-related problems, and worker errors occurred, which
led to a partial meltdown of the TMI-2 unit core but with very small off-site releases of
radioactivity. In summary, it was a series of apparent errors and equipment malfunctions,
coupled with some questionable instrument readings, resulted in loss of reactor coolant,
 World Major Nuclear Accidents and Their Negative Impact in the Environment 5

overheating of the reactor core damaging the fuel with a partial melting, and limited releases
outside the plant of radioactive noble gases and iodine4 (Corey, 1979).
What really happens? The accident began about 04:00 hourswith a failure in the secondary
non-nuclear section of the nuclear power plant. The main feed water pumps stopped running,
caused by either a mechanical or electrical failure, which prevented the steam generators from
removing heat. First the turbine and then the reactor automatically shutdown (the process to
shut down the nuclear power reactor took about one second). Immediately, the pressure in the
primary system, which is the nuclear portion of the nuclear power plant, began to increase. In
order to prevent that pressure from becoming excessive, thepilot-operated open a valve located
at the top of the pressurizer. The valve should have closedwhen the pressure decreased by a
certain amount but for unknown reason it did not. As a result, cooling water poured out of the
stuck-open valve and caused the core of the reactor to overheat.
As coolant flowed from the core of the reactor through the pressurizer, the instruments
available to reactor operators provided confusing information. There was no instrument that
showed the level of coolant in the core of the reactor. Instead, the operators judged the level
of water in the core of the reactor by the level in the pressurizer, and since it was high, they
assumed that the core of the reactor was properly covered with coolant. In addition, there was
no clear signal that the pilot-operated relief valve was open. As a result, as alarms rang and
warning lights flashed, the operators did not realize that the plant was experiencing a loss-of-
coolant accident, and took a series of actions that made conditions worse by simply reducing
the flow of coolant through the core of the reactor.
The problems were complicated by the failure of the backup system. Following the loss of
the main feed pumps, three emergency feed water pumps had started automatically, but two
valves on the emergency feed water lines were closed, preventing the feed water from reaching
the steam generators. It is important to stress that the emergency feed water system had been
tested 42 hours prior to the accident; as part of the test, these valves were closed. They should
have been reopened at the end of the test, but they were not, through anadministrative or human
error5. The valves were discovered closed about eight minutes into the accident. Once they were
reopened, emergency feed water was restored to the steam generators.
At 06:00 hours, there was a shift change in the control room. A new arrival noticed that the
temperature in the holding tanks was excessive and used a backup valve called a block valve to
shut off the coolant venting, but around 950 m³ (250 000 US gallons) of coolant had already
leaked from the primary loop. It was not until 165 minutes after the start of the problem that
radiation alarms activated as contaminated water reached detectors by that time, the radiation
levels in the primary coolant water were around 300 times expected levels, and the plant was
seriously contaminated. At 09:00 hours, the hydrogen within the reactor building ignited and
burned, but this was largely unnoticed. After 16:00 hours, the primary

4
According to the NRC, the maximum total increase in radiation measured at ground level, just outside the plant
boundaries, was lower than 100 millirem. While hardly anyone was stationed just outside the plant, 24 hours a
day for that entire week, anyone so stationed would have received a radiation dose roughly equivalent to the
amount by which annual background radiation in Denver or Manhattan exceeds that in Boston or Chicago
(Corey, 1979).
5
It is important to stress that this lack of emergency feed water for eight minutes did not have a significant effect on
the outcome of the accident, but did add to the confusion faced by the operators.
6 Jorge Morales Pedraza
loop pumps were turned on once again, and the core temperature began to fall. Because
adequate cooling was not available, the nuclear fuel overheated to the point at which the long
metal tubes which hold the nuclear fuel pellets ruptured and the fuel pellets began to melt.
Although the TMI-2 unit suffered a severe core meltdown, the most dangerous kind of
nuclear power accident that can occur in a nuclear power reactor, it did not produce the worst-
case consequences that nuclear experts had long feared. In a worst-case accident, the melting
of nuclear fuel would lead to a breach of the walls of the containment building and release
massive quantities of radiation to the environment. Hopefully, this did not happen in the Three
Mile Island accident.
Finally, it is important to stress the following: Various studies on health effects, including
a 2002 study conducted by the University of Pittsburgh6, have determined the average radiation
dose to individuals near Three Mile Island power plant site at the time of the meltdown was
about 1 milligram, much less than the average annual natural background dose for residents of
the central Pennsylvania region. Twenty-five years later, there has been no significant rise in
cancer deaths among residents living near the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant site7. A
new analysis of health statistics in the region conducted by the Radiation and Public Health
Project has, however, found that death rates for infants, children, and the elderly soared in the
first two years after the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accidentin Dauphin and
surrounding counties (Powell). It is important to stress also that research conducted on the
health effects of the Three Mile Island accident has been rather minimal, even though more
than 25 years have passed since the accident. Meanwhile, official bodies like the
igible effects on the
physical health of local residents . It is likely that a full accounting of health effects will
never be made (Mangano, 2004).
Today, the TMI-2 reactor is permanently shut down and defueled, with the reactor coolant
system drained, the radioactive water decontaminated and evaporated, radioactive waste
shipped off-site to an appropriate disposal site, reactor fuel and core debris shipped off-site to
a Department of Energy facility, and the remainder of the site being monitored 8. The owner of
the nuclear power plant will keep the facility in long-term, monitored storage until the operating
license for the TMI-1 unit expires on April 1, 2014, at which time both plants will be
decommissioned. The cleanup of the damaged nuclear power reactor system at TMI-2 took
nearly twelve years was carried by around 1 000 skilled workers and cost approximately US$
973 million.

6
See Talbott et al. (2003).
7
The Kemeny Commission, which was established by President Jimmy Carter after the TMI nuclear accident, stated
that the only health threat posed to the local population was mental distress (Mangano, 2004).
8
The cleanup of the TMI 2 began in August 1979, with the first shipments of accident-generated low-level
radiological waste to Richl s closing phases, in 1991, final measurements
were taken of the fuel remaining in inaccessible parts of the reactor vessel. Approximately 1 % of the fuel and
debris remains in the vessel. Also in 1991, the last remaining water was pumped from the TMI 2 reactor. The
cleanup ended in December 1993, when Unit 2 received a license from the NRC to enter Post Defueling
Monitored Storage.
 World Major Nuclear Accidents and Their Negative Impact in the Environment 7

THE CHERNOBYL NUCLEAR ACCIDENT

The Chernobyl nuclear power plant is located in Ukraine, near the town of Pripyat, which
had been built to house power plant employees and their families. The nuclear power plant was
constructed in a wooded, marshy area near the Ukraine-Belarus border, approximately 18km
northwest of the city of Chernobyl and 100 km north of Kiev, the capital of Ukraine. The
Chernobyl nuclear power plant included four nuclear power reactors (RMBK type), each
capable of producing one gigawatt of electric power. At the time of the accident, the four
reactors produced about 10 % of the electricity used in Ukraine.
Construction of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant began in the 1970s. The first of the four
reactors was commissioned in 1977, and Unit 4 began producing power in 1983. When the
accident occurred in 1986, two other nuclear reactors were under construction.
According to Morales Pedraza (2012), the Chernobyl nuclear accident is the worst nuclear
accident ever occurred in a nuclear power plant, considering the area contaminated, the number
of countries involved, and the amount of people affected by the accident. What caused this
terrible accident from the environment and human health point of view? Initially, the accident
at Unit 4 of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant was considered as resulted from acombination
of design and technical deficiencies with a grave operator error. However, in a later report the
IAEA put the main cause of the accident to . What really
on 25 April prior to a routine shut down, the reactor
crew at Unit 4 of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant began preparing for a test to determine
how long turbines would spin and supply power to the main circulating pumps following a loss
of main electrical power supply.

Source: WANO.

Figure 3. RMBK reactor type.

This test had been carried out at Chernobyl nuclear power plant the previous year, but the
power from the turbine ran down too rapidly, so new voltage regulator designs were to be tested.
8 Jorge Morales Pedraza
Which was the purpose of the test to be performed in Unit 4 of the Chernobyl nuclear power
plant in April 1986? It is well known that nuclear power plants not only produce electricity,
they also consume electricity, for example to power the pumps that circulate the coolant. This
electricity is usually supplied from the grid. If the source of electricity failed, most nuclear
power reactors are able to derive the required electricity from their own production. However,
if the reactor is operating but not producing power, for example when the reactor is in the
process of shutting down, some other sources of supply are required. Generators are generally
used to supply the required power, but there is a time delay while they are started. The test
carried out at Unit 4 of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant was designed to demonstrate that a
coasting turbine would provide sufficient power to pump coolant through the reactor core while
waiting for electricity from the diesel generators. The circulation of coolant was expected to be
sufficient to give the nuclear power reactor an adequate safety margin.
A summary of the main events associated to the nuclear accident in Unit 4 of the
Chernobyl nuclear power plant is described in the following paragraphs.
On April 25 at 01:06 hours, the scheduled shut down of Unit 4 and the preparation of the
test started. Gradual lowering of the power level of the unit began. At 03:47 hours, lowering
of Unit 4 halted at 1 600 MWt. At 14:00 hours, the emergency core cooling system was isolated
as part of the test procedure to prevent it from interrupting the test later 9. The power was due
to be lowered further, however, the controller of the electricity grid in Kiev requestedthe reactor
operator to keep supplying electricity to enable demand to be met. Consequently, the reactor
power level was maintained at 1 600 MWt and the experiment was delayed. At 23:10 hours,
power reduction recommenced and 50 minutes later a shift change was took effect.
On April 26 at 00:05 hours, power level of Unit 4 had been decreased to 720 MWt and
continued to be reduced10. At 00:28 hours, power level of Unit 4 was 500 MWt. The control
was transferred from the local to the automatic regulating system. Either the operator failed to
give the hold power at required level signal or the regulating system failed to respond to this
signal, something that has not yet totally clarified. This led to an unexpected fall in power,
which rapidly dropped to 30 MWt. At approximate 00:32 hours and in respond to the loss of
power the operator retracted a number of control rods in an attempt to restore the power
level11. At 01:00 hours, the reactor power had risen to 200 MWt and three minutes later an
additional pump was switched into the left hand cooling circuit in order to increase the water
flow to the core of the reactor12. At 01:07 hours, as part of the test procedure an additional
pump was switched into the right hand cooling circuit. Operation of additional pumps
removed heat from the core more quickly. This reduced the water level in the steam separator.
At 01:15 hours, automatic trip systems to the steam separator were deactivated by the
operator to permit continued operation of the reactor and three minutes later the operator
increased feed water flow in an attempt to address the problems in the cooling system. One
9
It is important to stress that the fact that the emergency core cooling system was isolated did not contribute to the
accident; however, had it been available it might have reduced the impact slightly.
10
It is now recognized that the safe operating level for a pre-accident configuration RBMK was about 700 MWt
because of the positive void coefficient of this type of reactors.
11
According to the nuclear power plant safety procedures it required that approval of the chief engineer be obtained
to operate the reactor with fewer than the effective equivalent of twenty six control rods. It is estimated that there
were less than this number remaining in the reactor at 00.32 hours of April 26, 1986.
12
This action was part of the test procedure.
 World Major Nuclear Accidents and Their Negative Impact in the Environment 9

minute later some manual control rods withdrawn to increase power and raise the temperature
and pressure in the steam separator. It is important to stress that operating policy required that
a minimum effective equivalent of fifteen manual control rods be inserted in the reactor at all
times. At this point, it is likely that the number of manual rods was reduced to less than this13.
However, automatic control rods were in place, thereby increasing the total number. At 01:21
hours, feed water flow rate reduced to below normal by the operator to stabilize steam separator
water level, decreasing heat removal from the core of the reactor and thirty seconds later
spontaneous generation of steam in the core of the reactor began. At 01:22 hours, indications
received by the operator, although abnormal, gave the appearance that the reactor was stable.
The preparation of the test started at 01:23 hours. Turbine feed valves closed to start turbine
coasting and ten minutes later automatic control rods withdrawn from the reactor core.An
approximately ten second withdrawal was the normal response to compensate for a decrease in
the reactivity following the closing of the turbine feed valves. Usually, this decrease is caused
by an increase in pressure in the cooling system and a consequent decreasein the quantity of
steam in the core of the reactor. The expected decrease in steam quantity didnot occurred due
to reduced feed water to the core of the reactor. At 01:23 hours, steam
t, a
further increase of steam generation would lead to a rapid increase in power. Fourteen minutes
later, steam in the core of the reactor begins to increase uncontrollably. At 01:23 hours, the
emergency button was pressed by the operator. Control rods started to enter the core of the
reactor. The insertion of the rods from the top concentrated all of the reactivity in the bottom
of the reactor core. Four minutes later the reactor power rose to a peak of about 100 times the
design values and one minute later fuel pellets started to shatter, reacting with the cooling water
to produce a pulse of high pressure in the fuel channels. At 01:23 hours, fuel channels ruptured
and one minute later two explosions occurred. One was a steam explosion that killed two
workers; the other resulted from the expansion of fuel vapor. The explosions lifted the pile cap,
allowing the entry of air. The air reacted with the graphite moderator blocks to form carbon
monoxide. This flammable gas ignited and a reactor fire started lifting tons of radioactive
materials into the atmosphere (there were over 100 radioactive elements released into the
atmosphere when Unit 4 exploded without any type of control, including plutonium, iodine,
strontium, and cesium)14.
There is some dispute among nuclear experts about the character of the second explosion,
but it is likely to have been caused by the production of hydrogen from zirconium-steam
reactions. What were the immediate consequences of the nuclear accident? Two workers died
as a result of these explosions. The graphite and fuel became incandescent and started a number
of fires, causing the main release of radioactivity into the environment.

13
According to some public information, the number of manual rods at 01.15 hours of April 26, 2013 was probably
eight.
14
Iodine, strontium and cesium were the most dangerous of the elements released, and have half-lives of 8 days, 29
years, and 30 years, respectively. The isotopes strontium-90 and cesium-137 are therefore still present in the area
to this day. While iodine is linked to thyroid cancer, strontium can lead to leukemia. Cesium is the element that
travelled the farthest and lasts the longest. This element affects the entire body and especially can harm the liver
and spleen.
10 Jorge Morales Pedraza

Source: Photograph courtesy of Wikimedia Commons (Elena Filatova).

Figure 4. Chernobyl nuclear power plant with the sarcophagus.

As consequence of the nuclear accident some 150 000 km2 in Belarus, Russia andUkraine
were contaminated and stretch northward of the nuclear power plant site as far as 500km. An
area of 30 km around the nuclear power plant site was

hemisphere via wind and storm patterns, but the amounts dispersed were in many instances
insignificant. Cesium and other radioactive isotopes were blown by wind northward into
Sweden and Finland and over other parts of Europe and the northern hemisphere. During the
first three weeks after the accident, the level of radiation in the atmosphere in several places
around the globe was above normal; but these levels quickly receded reducing the consequences
of the Chernobyl nuclear accident for many countries.
In January 1993, the IAEA issued a revised analysis of the Chernobyl nuclear accident,
15
attributing the main root cause to the . In 2005, the

directly from the incident, mainly accident workers16. They estimated another 4 000 deaths

15
16
According to WNAO report (2012) and other sources, the accident destroyed Unit 4 of the Chernobyl nuclear power
plant, killing thirty one operators and firemen within three months and several further deaths later (the initial
explosion resulted in the death of two workers, one of them was killed immediately and a second died inhospital
soon after as a result of injuries received. Twenty-eight of the firemen and emergency clean-up workers died in
the first three months after the explosion from Acute Radiation Sickness and one of cardiac arrest). Acute
radiation syndrome (ARS) was originally diagnosed in 237 people on-site and involved with the clean-up and it
was later confirmed in 134 cases. Of these, 28 people died as a result of ARS. Nineteen more
 World Major Nuclear Accidents and Their Negative Impact in the Environment 11

among workers and local Some 8 of the 140 tons of fuel, which contained
plutonium and other highly radioactive materials (fission products), were ejected from the
reactor along with a portion of the graphite moderator, which was also radioactive. These
materials were scattered around the nuclear power plant site. In addition, cesium and iodine
vapors were released both by the explosion and during the subsequent fire.
After the Chernobyl nuclear accident the pressure of the international community to close
nuclear power plants in operation in many countries increased significantly, independently of
the type of nuclear power reactors used for the generation of electricity. In 1995, a
memorandum of understanding was signed between the governments of the G-7 countries, the
EC, and the Ukraine government, agreeing with the closure of all Chernobyl nuclear power
reactors. Based on this memorandum, Unit 2 was shut down in October 1991 after a huge fire
in the unit, Unit 1 in November 1996, and Unit 3 in December 2000.
Following the Chernobyl nuclear accident, Unit 4 was encased in a giant concrete
sarcophagus (See Figure 4), constructed above the destroyed reactor by hundreds of thousands
of soldiers and civilian, including nuclear experts, to prevent further leakage of radioactive
material17. However, the sarcophagus built in 1986 is unstable and could collapse in the future.
For this reason, a stabilizing steel structure was extended in December 2006 to spread some of
the load on the walls damaged by the explosion. Undoubtedly, the current situation of Unit 4
still represents a serious potential threat to the Ukraine population, if actions are not taken as
soon as possible by the government to repair the whole structure ofthe sarcophagus.

THE FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI NUCLEAR ACCIDENT

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, considered the second world major nuclear
accident after Chernobyl, is the third major accident that has been affected the world nuclear
industry in the last thirty five years. The accident is the result of a severe climate disaster (that
kills around 20 000 persons) that was not foreseen that could happen by the constructor of the
nuclear power plant, putting out of service important components of the safety system of the
plant. The type of nuclear power reactors in operation in the Fukushima nuclear power plant
was of the boiling water reactor type (BWR) constructed in the 1970s (Generation II).
According to the IAEA Briefing on Fukushima Nuclear Accident
and Industrial Safety Agency, the most relevant events associated to the Fukushima Daiichi
nuclear accident are described in the following paragraphs.
At 05:46 UTC (coordinated universal time) on 11 March 2011 an earthquake of magnitude
9 occurred off the east coast of Honshu, Japan. At 06:42 UTC, the IAEA Incident

International Seismic Safety Centre (ISSC) of the earthquake and of the potential for damage
at four nuclear power plants located on the north-east coast of Japan as well as the potential for
a tsunami. At 8:15 CET on the same day, the IEC received information from the ISSC
confirming information about the earthquake of magnitude 9 that hit the east coast of Honshu,

subsequently died between 1987 and 2004 but their deaths cannot necessarily be attributed to radiation
exposure.
17
he resulting steam explosion and fires released at least 5 % of the
radioactive reactor core into the atmosphere and downwind.
12 Jorge Morales Pedraza

Agency that a heightened state of alert has been declared at 11:45 hours at Fukushima Daiichi
nuclear power plant, as result of the earthquake and the tsunami that hit the east coast.

Source: International Nuclear Safety Center, Argonne National Laboratory, USA

Figure 5. Boiling water reactor components.

Source: Tokyo Electric Power Co.

Figure 6. Fukushima nuclear power plant after the accident.

A second earthquake of magnitude 6.5 has struck Japan near the coast of Honshu and the
Tokai nuclear power plant. As result of these meteorological disasters, four nuclear power
plants located on the north-east coast of Japan, Fukushima Daiichi and Fukushima Daini
 World Major Nuclear Accidents and Their Negative Impact in the Environment 13

nuclear power plants of the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), Onagawa nuclear power
plant of the Tohoku Power Company, and Tokai nuclear power plant of the Japan Atomic
Power Company, could be damaged (IAEA GOV/INF/2011/8, 2011). Based on the information
received, the IAEA confirmed the following information about the status of the Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear power plant: Unit 4 was shut down for a routine planned maintenance outage
on 30 November 2010; after the outage, all fuel from the nuclear power reactor was transferred
to the spent fuel pool; Units 5 and 6 were shut down at the time of the earthquake. Unit 5 was
shut down as of 3 January 2011. Unit 6 was shut down as of 14 August 2010. Both units are
currently loaded with fuel.
Japanese authorities have informed the IEC that the earthquake and tsunami have cut the
supply of off-site power to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. In addition, diesel
generators intended to provide back- m were disabled
by tsunami flooding18. At Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, officials have declared a
nuclear emergency situation, and at the nearby Fukushima Daini nuclear power plant a
heightened alert condition.
On Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency has
informed the IEC, that there has been an explosion at Unit 1 at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
power plant and that they are assessing the condition of the reactor core. In addition, there has
been an explosion at Unit 3. The explosion occurred at 11:01 hours (local time). Unit 1 is being
powered by mobile power generators on site, and work continues to restore power to the entire
nuclear power plant. There is currently no power via off-site power supply or backup diesel
generators being provided to the nuclear power plant. Seawater and boron are being injected
into the reactor vessel to cool the reactor.
Due to the explosion on 12 March, the outer shell of the containment building has been
lost. Unit 2 is being powered by mobile power generators on site, and work continues to restore
power to the entire nuclear power plant. The reactor core is being cooled through isolation
cooling, a procedure used to remove heat from the reactor core. The current reactor water level
is lower than normal but remains steady. The outer shell of the containment building was intact
at Unit 2 at that time.
According to the information released by the Japanese government, Unit 3 does not have
off-site power supply or backup diesel generators providing power to the nuclear power plant
at that time. As the high pressure injection system and other attempts to cool the nuclear power
reactor core failed, injection of water and boron into the reactor vessel commenced. Water
levels inside the reactor vessel increased steadily for a certain amount of time but readings
indicating the water level inside the pressure vessel were no longer showing an increase. To
relieve pressure, venting of the containment started on 13 March at 09:20 hours (local time).
Planning to reduce the concentration of hydrogen inside the containment building was carried
out. The containment building was intact at Unit 3 at that time.
On March 14
provided further information about the hydrogen explosion that occurred at Unit 3 at the
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Another hydrogen explosion occurred at Unit 3 at
11:01 hours (local time). Six people have been injured as resulted of the explosion. The
reactor building exploded but the primary containment vessel was not damaged. The control
18
The tsunami hazard for nuclear power plant sites was underestimated by the constructor of the nuclear power
plant and that the selection of the site was not the appropriate one to face properly this type of natural disaster,
14 Jorge Morales Pedraza
room of Unit 3 remains operational at that time. At 22:03 hours (local time), Japanese
authorities have reported that Unit 2 experienced decreasing coolant levels in the reactor core.
Officials have begun to inject sea water into the reactor to maintain cooling of the reactor core.
Sea water injections into Units 1 and 3 were interrupted the day before due to a lowlevel
in a sea water supply reservoir, but sea water injections were restored at both units. A fire at
Unit 4 occurred at 23:54 UTC and lasted two hours.
On March 15 at 00:16 UTC, plant operators considered the removal of panels from Units
5 and 6 reactor buildings to prevent a possible build-up of hydrogen in the future. It was a build-
up of hydrogen at Units 1, 2 and 3 that led to explosions at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
power plant. After explosions at both Units 1 and 3, the primary containment vessels of both
units are reported to be intact. However, the explosion that occurred at 21:14 UTC on 14 March
at Unit 2 affected the integrity of its primary containment vessel. All three explosions were due
to an accumulation of hydrogen gas.
Japanese authorities also informed at 04:50 CET that the spent fuel storage pond at Unit 4
was on fire and radioactivity was released directly into the atmosphere. Dose rates of up to 400
mSv per hour have been reported at the site. According to the Japanese authorities thereis a
possibility that the fire was caused by a hydrogen explosion and informed that there has been
an explosion at the Unit 2. The explosion occurred at around 06:20 hours on 15 March (local
time). At 14:10 UTC, sea water injections to cool Units 1, 2 and 3 were continued. Attempts to
return power to the entire Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant were also carried out.
Japanese authorities reported some casualties to nuclear plant workers. At Fukushima
Daichi nuclear power plant, four workers were injured by the explosion at Unit 1, and there are
three other reported injuries in other incidents. In addition, one worker was exposed to higher-
than-normal radiation levels that fall below the IAEA guidance for emergency situations. At
Fukushima Daini nuclear power plant, one worker died in a crane operation accident and four
others have been injured.
On March 19,
out at Units 1, 2 and 3 at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Preparations were made
to spray water into the used fuel pool at Unit 4, and an unmanned vehicle sprayed more than
1 500 gallons of water over seven hours into the used fuel pool at Unit 3. The situation at the
Unit 3 fuel pool was stabilized. Some reactor cooling capacity has been restored at Units 5
and 6 after the installation of generators at those units. Progress had been made on a
fundamental solution to restore power at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, with
electricity restored at Units 1 and 2 on March 19 and Unit 3 as early as Sunday.
On March 20 at 14:05 GMT, workers on site succeeded in increasing the stability of the
Fukushima Daiichi reactor units with Units 5 and 6 now in cold shut down. Pressure built up
within Unit 3 but a more significant venting was not seemed necessary at that time. External
power has now been connected to Units 5 and 6, allowing them to use their residual heat
removal systems and transfer heat to the sea. This has been used to cool the fuel ponds and
bring the units to cold shut down status, meaning that water in the reactor system was at less
than 100º C. An extended operation to refill the fuel pond took place at Unit 3. A similar
operation is planned for Unit 4. At Units 1 and 2, external power was restored. Tokyo Electric
Power Company (TEPCO) said it would restore functions in the central control room shared by
the units so that accurate readings could again be taken from the reactor system. Next,
 World Major Nuclear Accidents and Their Negative Impact in the Environment 15

workers checked the condition of the water supply systems to the nuclear power reactors and
the used fuel pond. External power for Units 3 and 4 was in place a few days later.
The Japanese authorities have initially classified the accident at Fukushima Daiichi
ent with Local Consequences on the International
Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES) of the IAEA. Later on the nuclear accident was
classified by the IAEA as level 7 (the same level of the nuclear accident in the Chernobyl
nuclear power plant) due to the characteristics of the accident. However, it is important to stress
that the radioactive materials liberated as result of the nuclear accident in the Fukushima
nuclear power plant was estimated to be only 10 % of the radioactive materials released by the
nuclear accident in the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.
After the Fukushima nuclear accident, the use of nuclear energy for the generation of
electricity and its future in Japan have polarized the public opinion, with thousands of
protesters19 demanding its abandonment while some government officials insisting that it
remains necessary in order to satisfy, in the most effective ad economic manner, the country
energy demand.

54 nuclear power reactors were offline either damaged, halted by the quake and resulting
tsunami or down for routine repairs. The approved programme for the construction of 14 new
nuclear power reactors was suspended. Since March 11, 2011, Japan has been unable to restart
any of its nuclear power reactors that were temporally shut down, scuttled by local opposition
and its own meandering policies. That alone has led to nationwide energy shortages, tightening
margins for businesses and other activities. But the energy shortages could become more severe
in coming months, as the nuclear power reactors that are still operating (two units) now come
off-line for scheduled tests. The Ministry of Environment hasannounced that to clean the areas
surrounded the Fukushima nuclear power plant that hasbeen contaminated, around 29 million
m3 of contaminated soil has to be removed. Billions of dollars have been approved by the
Japanese government for this work as well as for recovering the contaminant area. It is expected
that the process of cleaning the contaminated area needs around forty years to be completed.
The damage provoked by the nuclear accident in the Fukushima Daiichi
According to Leonid Bolshov, director of the Institute for the Secure Development of Atomic
Energy of the Russian Academy of Science, there are two possibilities that can be considered
for the clean-up of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant site and surrounded areas: a)
dismantling and burial of all elements and components of the plant; and b) the construction of
sarcophagus for each of the nuclear power reactors damage by the nuclear accident.

MAIN PRELIMINARY FINDINGS, CONSEQUENCES,

AND LESSONS LEARNED
The main preliminary findings, consequences, and lessons learned from the three major
nuclear accidents described above were the following:
19
Almost 70 % of Japanese say their country should reduce its reliance on nuclear energy, in a poll conducted in
this position than
in the weeks n at the quake and tsunami-damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
power plant. Just 4 % of Japanese say the country should expand the use of nuclear power in the coming years.
16 Jorge Morales Pedraza

Nuclear Accident at Three Miles Island Nuclear Power Plant

According to
opinions, the following are a summary of the main lesson learned from the TMI nuclear
accident:

The adoption of additional safety measures with the aim of strengthening further the
level of nuclear safety in all nuclear power plants operating in the country and in other
countries as well at that time. In the USA, in
scope and more robust, and management of the nuclear power plants in operationin
the country was scrutinized more carefully. Similar measures were adopted by the
nuclear regulatory offices in other countries as well, following a group of safety
recommendations adopted by the IAEA after the accident.
Problems identified from careful analysis of the accident have led to permanent and
sweeping changes in how NRC regulates its licensees which, in turn, has reduced the
risk to public health and safety. Similar actions were implemented in other countries
as well.
In addition to the improved operating training, improvements in quality assurance,
engineering, operational surveillance and emergency planning have been instituted.
The continued development of new and improved operating procedures requires
increased imagination and flexibility on the part of both operators and regulators, a
readiness to accept changes for the better, and less emphasis upon procedural
requirements (like logging the locking or unlocking of an access door) which are
largely unrelated to plant operation but which by their unrelenting inflexibility may
occasionally detract from the safety they are intended to enhance (Corey, 1979).
Improvements in control room habitability, sight lines to instruments, ambiguous
indications, and even the placement of trouble tags were made. Improved surveillance
of critical systems, structures and components required for cooling the plant and
mitigating the escape of radionuclides during an emergency were also implemented.
Each nuclear power plant must now have an approved emergency plan to direct the
evacuation of the public within a ten mile Emergency Planning Zone and to facilitate
rapid notification and evacuation. This plan is periodically rehearsed with federal and
local authorities to ensure that all groups work together quickly and efficiently;
Revision of the PWR design in order to improve it with the aim of avoiding that the
same type of problems occur in the future;
Strengthening training programs for the preparation of nuclear power plant operators.
According to GPU Nuclear Corporation (1999) and NEI (2000), training reforms are
among the most significant outcomes of the TMI nuclear accident. Training became

might be. TMI nuclear accident has been of interest to human factors engineers as an
example of how groups of people react and make decisions under stress. There is
consensus that the accident was exacerbated by wrong decisions made because the
operators were overwhelmed with information, much of it irrelevant, misleading or
incorrect. As a result of the TMI nuclear accident, operator training has been
 World Major Nuclear Accidents and Their Negative Impact in the Environment 17

improved. Before the accident it focused on diagnosing the underlying problem;

afterwards, it focused on reacting to the emergency by going through a standardized
checklist to ensure that the core of the reactor is receiving enough coolant under
sufficient pressure. At TMI nuclear accident, the operators turned to a book of
procedures to pick those that seemed to fit the event. Now operators are taken
- first, that s fuel core
remains covered. Then they determine the specific malfunction. The TMI nuclear
accident led also to the establishment in 1979 of the Atlanta-based Institute ofNuclear
Power Operations (INPO) and its National Academy for Nuclear Training
-scale electronic simulator
of the TMI control room. The US$ 18 million simulator permits operators to learn and
be tested on all kinds of accident scenarios;
The accident fostered better understanding of fuel melting, including improbability
meltdown breaching the reactor vessel and the containment
structure.
One of the main consequences of the nuclear accident in the TMI nuclear powerplant
was the increase of public fear to the use of nuclear energy for the generation of
electricity in the USA and in other counties as well and, as consequence of this fear,
the increase rejection of the public opinion to the construction of new nuclear plants
and to the use of this type of energy for this specific purpose in the future 20. The TMI
accident also had a psychological effect on the US population. To reduce this rejection,
nuclear authorities and nuclear industry should provide all necessary information to
the public about the operation of a nuclear power plant, the safety measures adopted
to avoid the repetition of nuclear accidents, the benefit in the useof this type of energy
in order to reduce the emission of CO2, among other information.
Taking into account the strong rejection of the public opinion in the USA and in several
other countries to the use of nuclear energy for the generation of electricity, approved
plans for the construction of new nuclear power reactors in the USA were stopped until
February 201321; in other countries these plans were cancelled, reduced significantly
or postponed indefinitely.
The financial risks, coupled with continuing need for careful management control,
suggest that nuclear power plants be operated by substantial organizations having
responsible management in depth, which is committed to the development of well-
trained personnel and the use of expert control techniques (Corey, 1979).

20
Before the accident, 70 % of the general public approved the use of nuclear energy for the generation of electricity.
After it, support for the use of this type of energy source for the generation of electricity across the country fell
to about 50 %, where it remained for decades.
21
At the time of the TMI nuclear accident, 129 nuclear power plants had been approved in the USA but only 53
(which were not already operating) were completed.
18 Jorge Morales Pedraza

Nuclear Accident at Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant

According to
WANO sources and reports,
opinions, the following are a summary of the main lesson learned from
the Chernobyl nuclear accident:

The adoption of the so-

plants in operation. This safety culture was promoted by the IAEA after the accident
in order to increase the safety of all nuclear power reactors operating in all countries.
In addition, the IAEA promoted the adoption of specific measures to further strengthen
nuclear safety regulatory authorities in almost all countries, including the
independence of these authorities from other government offices. The IAEA also
elaborated new safety documents with the purpose of increasing the safety operation
of all nuclear power reactors.
Upgrading was performed on all RBMK units operating in the former Soviet Union
and in other former Eastern European socialist countries with the purpose of
eliminating all identified design deficiencies that contributed to the Chernobyl nuclear
accident, to improve shutdown mechanisms, redesigned control rods, faster control rod
mechanisms, changes of fuel enrichment to reduce the effect of positive void
coefficient, and heighten general safety awareness among staff. It is important to stress
those changes in the design of RMBK reactor type that were introduced withthe
purpose of avoiding that the same kind of accident occurs in the future22;
Improve current training programs for the preparation of nuclear power plant operators
in the former Soviet Union (now Russia) and in other countries with important nuclear
power programmes as well;
In the specific case of the Chernobyl nuclear accident, when the operators noticed the
sharp increase in power they attempted to insert the control rods into the reactor core.
This did not help because the rods could not move fast enough. When the operators
started to push the control rods back in, the boron carbide parts were completely clear
of the reactor core. Below the graphite part was a column of water. Inserting therods
initially had the effect of pushing the water away, which meant decreasing the amount
of poison which meant increasing k . The intense heat deformed the reactor core and
the control rods stuck before they could be completely inserted. The control rods were
badly designed. Several measures were adopted to redesign the control rods in these
types of reactors.
Strong concrete buildings surround most Western reactors was not in place around
Unit 4 or around any other of the three units in the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. If
it did, radiation might not have leaked into the environment.
One of the consequences of the Chernobyl nuclear accident was the decision adopted
by Russia and other former European socialist countries of abandonment the use of

22
It is important to stress that in almost all types of nuclear power reactors, the multiplication factor decrease when
temperature increases. This also holds for the RBMK reactors, with one exception: When running the reactor
at a low power level, increasing boiling of water in the reactor core, which means less water around the reactor
core, (steam i
power. It is important to be aware that although light water (as opposed to heavy water) is often used as
moderator, it also works as a poison, absorbing neutrons.
 World Major Nuclear Accidents and Their Negative Impact in the Environment 19

RMBK reactor type for the generation of electricity and the decision not to construct
new nuclear power reactors of this type inside or outside Russia.
Finally, it is important to stress the following: the accident would not have happened
unless the operators had made several serious errors. First of all the test should have
been aborted when things were not going as planned. The power level was lower than
planned, increasing the importance of the positive void coefficient. The core of the
reactor was suffering from severe xenon poisoning, so the control rods had to be almost
fully retracted, leaving too small margin of safety. The operators seemed completely
unaware of the fact that the effect of xenon poisoning would decrease rapidly, should
the power level rise.

Summing up the following can be stated: The nuclear accident at Chernobyl nuclear power
plant is the resulted from a combination of external circumstances, engineering design flaws
and errors made by badly trained operators. The biggest challenge facing communities affected
by the Chernobyl nuclear accident is the psychological damage to five million people in
Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. The psychological impact is now considered to be

accident and are therefore more apt to take a passive approach toward their future rather than
developing a system of self-sufficiency.
Finally, it is important to stress the following: The Belarus National Academy of
Sciences estimates 270 000 people in the region around the accident site will develop cancer
as a result of Chernobyl radiation and that 93 000 of those cases are likely to be fatal. In
another report the Russian Academy of Sciences found a dramatic increase in mortality since
1990 60 000 deaths in Russia and an estimated 140 000 deaths in Ukraine and Belarus
probably due to Chernobyl radiation23.

Nuclear Accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant

According to the IAEA International Fact Finding Expert Mission report (2011) and other
main lesson learned from the nuclear accident in the
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant:

The tsunami hazard for nuclear power plant sites was underestimated by the
constructor of the plant
site was not the appropriate one to face properly this type of natural disaster. To avoid
the repetition of this type of nuclear accident in a nuclear power plant causedby a
severe natural disaster, nuclear designers and operators should appropriately evaluate
and provide protection against the risks of all natural hazards, and should periodically
update these assessments and the methodologies used in light of new information,
experience, and understanding. In the future one of the main criteria to be considered
for the selection of new sites for the construction of nuclear power plants should be
that the site provide sufficient protection from any foreseeable
23
According to different public sources, the accident at Chernobyl nuclear power plant was approximately 400 times
more potent than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima during World War II. However, the atomic bomb testing
conducted by several countries around the world during the 1960s and 1970s sent between 100 and 1 000 times more
radioactive material to the environment than the Chernobyl nuclear accident.
20 Jorge Morales Pedraza
extreme natural disaster similar to the one affected the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
power plant;
Defense in depth, physical separation, diversity, and redundancy requirements should
be applied for extreme external natural events, particularly those with common mode
implications such as extreme floods;
Nuclear regulatory systems should address extreme external natural events adequately,
including their periodic review, and should ensure that regulatory independence and
clarity of roles and responsibilities are preserved in allcircumstances in line with IAEA
Safety Standards;
The nuclear regulatory office should be an independent body within the government
structure with the necessary authority and resources to carry out its mandate free of
interference from other government offices and the private nuclear industry;
Severe long-term combinations of external events should be adequately covered in
design, operations, resourcing, and emergency arrangements;
The Japanese accident demonstrates the value of hardened on-site Emergency
Response Centers with adequate provisions for communications, essential plant
parameters, control and resources. They should be provided for all major nuclear
facilities with severe accident potential. Additionally, simple effective robust
equipment should be available to restore essential safety functions in a timely way for
severe accident conditions;
Hydrogen risks should be subject to detailed evaluation and necessary mitigation
systems provided;
Emergency arrangements, especially for the early phases, should be designed to be
robust in responding to severe accidents;
The permanent communication with the public affected or not by a nuclear accident
and the supply of accurate information regarding the consequences and the impact of
a nuclear accident in the environment and the public health should has a high priority
for governments and the private nuclear industry in order to avoid confusion and
misunderstanding.

In addition, it is important to stress the following: The types of reactors used in the
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant was constructed following an old nuclear technology
developed in the 1960s and 1970s with a number of design deficiencies (the so-called
Generation II reactors). These deficiencies were detected first by the USA many years ago
and changes were made to redesign this type of reactor in a short period of time. Regrettably,
Japan did not introduce these changes in the same type of nuclear power reactors used in the
country24.

CONCLUSION
One of the available energy sources that can be used for the generation of electricity that
has proved that can supply the power that a country need at any time, in the amount desired,

24
Japan was one of the two countries in the world with the highest number of BWRs in operation before the
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident (26 units in operation in 2011).
 World Major Nuclear Accidents and Their Negative Impact in the Environment 21

in a clean manner, in almost all conditions, and when is required, is nuclear energy. However,
the use of nuclear energy for the generation of electricity is not an easy and cheap option and
in some countries faces a strong rejection of the public opinion. From the technological point
of view, many countries consider the use of nuclear energy for the generation of electricity as
a very costly alternative, particularly for those countries with a weak technological
development, limited financial resources, lack of qualified personnel or relative small electrical
grid.
The majority of the nuclear power reactors today in operation in the world are from the
second generation of nuclear power reactors built mostly in the 1970s (the so-called Generation
II ), which were the type of reactors involved in the three major nuclear accidents that occurred
since 1979. However, most of the countries that are expanding their nuclear power programmes
are constructing nuclear power reactors of the third generation (the so- Generation III
), which are more reliable and with a number of built-in safetyfeatures. Advances to third
generation of nuclear power reactors are underway, resulting in several near-term deployable
reactors that is actively under development and are being considered for deployment in several
countries such as France, China and Finland, just to mention a few ones. It is expected that all
new nuclear power reactors to be built between now and 2030 will likely be chosen using an
improved version of this type of reactor design (the so- Generation III + ).
The main questions that need to be asked now are the following: nuclear accidents can be
totally eliminated in the future? What types of nuclear technologies are under development now
that can increase the safety operation of new nuclear power reactors to be constructed in the
future? These new nuclear technologies can eliminate the possibility of a severe nuclear
accident in the future?
Six nuclear technologies are now under research in several countries but these technologies
will not be in the market before 205025. However, there is and will not be a nuclear technology
or any other energy technology that can be 100 % secure and, for this reason, all rational
measures should be adopted to reduce to the minimum the possibility thata severe nuclear
accident could occur in the future and, if it happens, the consequences shouldbe negligible
because if a new nuclear accident occur in the future in any nuclear power plant,then the use of
nuclear energy for the generation of electricity will be excluded from the energy mix of all
countries.
Finally, it is important to stress the following: after the Three Miles Island nuclear accident
the majority of the plans for the expansion of nuclear power programs adopted by some
countries were stopped, particularly in the USA and in some other countries in the European
region. After the Chernobyl nuclear accident, the fear of the public opinion to the use of nuclear
energy for electricity generation increased significantly forcing some governments to stop their
plans for the expansion of their nuclear power programs. However, in the Asia region, the
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident has little negative impact in the expansion of the use of
nuclear energy for electricity generation at least in the majority of states within the region. The
region interest in the use of nuclear energy for the generation of electricity has reflected in the
consideration of around 100 nuclear power projects of various scales approved in several
countries of the region. Many of these projects are either under consideration, have already
been negotiated and signed off on, or close to implementation.

25
For additional information on these new nuclear technologies see Morales Pedraza (2012).
22 Jorge Morales Pedraza
For example, China accounts for the bulk of these projects; it has the largest number of ongoing
projects worldwide (24 units), followed by South Korea (6 units), India (4 units), Taiwan (2
units), and Pakistan (1 unit). Other countries such as Iran, which finally completed its Bushehr
nuclear power plant (1 000 MW) in 2010 with Russian assistance is continuing with the
construction of the 360 MW Darkhovin nuclear power plant in its Khuzestan Province, and it
has also announced plans to build enough nuclear capacity to generate 20 000MW of power
over the next twenty years (around 19 new units). In Southeast Asia, Vietnam has embarked on
constructing a nuclear power plant consisting of four nuclear reactors (1 000MW light water
reactors) with the assistance of Russia (for two reactors) and Japan (for the other two).
Preliminary work has started on one Russian reactor scheduled for completion in 2020.
Undoubtedly, the future belongs to the fourth generation of nuclear power reactors (the so-
Generation IV ). This new generation of nuclear power reactors is a revolutionary
type of reactors with innovative fuel cycle technologies and with innovations designed to
achieve improved fuel efficiency, including high temperature applications, and designs to be
used safely in isolated or remote locations. The use of this type system designs for the
generation of electricity will increase nuclear safety and will reduce significantly the possibility
of a severe nuclear accident as the ones mentioned in this paper. However, Generation IV
nuclear power reactors would be available in the market not before 2050.

REFERENCES
Arnerup, Fredrik (2001); The Chernobyl Accident: The Course of Events; March 2001.
Chernobyl Accident 1986 (2012); WANO report; 2012.
Corey, G.R. (1979); A Brief Review of the Accident at Three Mile Island; IAEA Bulletin, Vol.
21, No.5; IAEA; Vienna, Austria; 1979.
GPU Nuclear Corp., 10 briefing papers, 1999.
IAEA International Fact Finding Expert Mission of the Nuclear Accident Following the Great
East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami (2011); Preliminary Summary; Tokyo, Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear power plant; Fukushima Daini nuclear power plant and Tokai nuclear
power plant, Japan; 24 May - 1 June 2011.
IAEA Activities in Response to the Fukushima Accident (2011); Report by the Director
General; Board of Governors document GOV/INF/2011/8; 03 June 2011.
IAEA Briefing on Fukushima Nuclear Accident (2011); IAEA; Vienna; Austria; 2011.
Mangano, Joseph (2004); Three Mile Island: Health Study Meltdown; Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists; October/November; 2004.
Morales Pedraza, Jorge (2012); Nuclear Power: Current and Future Role in the World
Electricity Generation; Nova Science Publishers, Inc. ISBN 978-1-61728-504-2; USA;
2012.
NEI, Nuclear Energy Overview; 2000.
Powell, Albrecht; Three Mile Island-25 Years Later; pittsburgh.about.com/cs/history/
a/tmi.htm.
Talbott, Evelyn O.; Youk, Ada O.; McHugh-Pemu, Kathleen P.; and Zborowski, Jeanne V.
(2003); Long-Term Follow-Up of the Residents of the Three Mile Island Accident;
Department of Epidemiology, and Department of Biostatistics, Graduate School of Public
 World Major Nuclear Accidents and Their Negative Impact in the Environment 23

Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA; Environmental Health

Perspectives, Volume 111 | Number 3, March 2003; 2003.
Three Mile Island Accident (2012), WANO report; 2012.