JOURNAL OF RADIATION PROTECTION, VOL.33 NO.2 JUNE 2008 67
68 JOURNAL OF RADIATION PROTECTION, VOL.33 NO.2 JUNE 2008
Fig. 1. Atmospheric exposure pathway in the NukPacts model (Source : European Commission DGXII (1995)). Table 1. Dose conversion factors for exposure pathways in the NukPacts model. Dose conversion factors (Sv/Bq) Radionuclide Half life Inhalation Plume Deposited activity Ingestion (Sv/Bq) (Sv/year per Bq/m 3 ) (Sv per Bq per m 2 sec) (Sv/Bq) H-3 12.3 years 1.73E-11 1.10E-11-1.80E-11 C-14 5,710 years 5.60E-10 - - 5.60E-10 Co-58 71 days 2.90E-09 1.40E-06 1.70E-01 1.00E-09 Co-60 5.3 years 5.60E-08 4.40E-06 6.84E+00 7.20E-09 Kr-85 - - 4.40E-09 - - Xe-133 - - 5.50E-08 - - I-131 8.1 days 1.30E-08 4.90E-07 8.60E-03 2.20E-08 I-133 21 hours 2.30E-09 1.00E-06 1.50E-03 4.20E-09 Cs-134 2.1 years 1.20E-08 2.80E-06 2.28E+00 1.90E-08 Cs-137 30 years 1.30E-08 9.20E-07 4.10E+00 1.30E-08 * Source : Markandya A, Boyd R(1999) JOURNAL OF RADIATION PROTECTION, VOL.33 NO.2 JUNE 2008 69
Table 2. Risk factors and economic unit values for main stochastic health effects in the NukPacts model. Health effects Fatal cancer Non-fatal cancer Inhalation (Sv/Bq) Risk factors (cases/man Sv) Economic unit values (US$ of year 2000/case) 5.00E-02 1.20E-01 1.00E-02 1.10E+06 3.67E+05 1.10E+06 * Source : 1) ICRP(1991), 2) Markandya A, Boyd R(1999) Table 3. Input parameters in the NukPacts model. Category Contents Units Population and disperation parameters persons/km 2 Urban-rural distribution % Disperation and receptor Average annual wind speed Effective release height Average wet and dry deposition speed Deposition velocity Mean adult annual breathing rate m/sec m m/sec m/sec m 3 /year Emissions and meteorology Release rate of radionuclides Bq/sec Occurrence of stability for Pasquill stability classes(a,b,c,d,e,f) % Food consumptions Average consumption rate for each of eight major food groups kg per person year Edible fraction for each of eight major food groups % Health effects and valuation Risk factors for health effects Economic unit values for fatal and non-fatal cancer Per capita GDP at PPP(purchasing power parity) cases/man Sv US$/case US$ 70 JOURNAL OF RADIATION PROTECTION, VOL.33 NO.2 JUNE 2008
Fig. 2. Total collective dose via an atmospheric exposure pathway with input data for a six years annual atmospheric release from nuclear power plants. Fig. 3. Influence of the atmospheric exposure pathway by nuclear power plant site. JOURNAL OF RADIATION PROTECTION, VOL.33 NO.2 JUNE 2008 71
Fig. 4. Damage cost per year on the health effects with input data for a six years annual atmospheric release from nuclear power plants. Fig. 5. Six year damage costs trends for a normal operation of nuclear power plants by site. 72 JOURNAL OF RADIATION PROTECTION, VOL.33 NO.2 JUNE 2008
± ± ± Fig. 6. Damage costs of each radionuclide under the condition of the same amount of atmospheric release rate. Fig. 7. Relative influence of each radionuclide under the condition of the same amount of atmospheric release rate. JOURNAL OF RADIATION PROTECTION, VOL.33 NO.2 JUNE 2008 73
Fig. 8. Damage costs variation with a ±20% change of the reference population density. Fig. 9. Damage costs variation with a 1~30 meters change of the effective release height. 74 JOURNAL OF RADIATION PROTECTION, VOL.33 NO.2 JUNE 2008
Fig. 10. Damage costs of a nuclear fuel cycle in European countries. Fig. 11. Damage costs for a normal operation of nuclear power plants. JOURNAL OF RADIATION PROTECTION, VOL.33 NO.2 JUNE 2008 75
1997 Dec:1-2. 4. SimPacts. http://www.dis.anl.gov/ceeesa/programs/ environmental_analysis_tools.html#simpacts 5. Markandya A, Boyd R. Valuing the human health effects of routine atmospheric releases from nuclear facility. International Atomic Energy Agency. 1999 May:1-26. 6. SENES Consultants Ltd. Review of NukPacts: an environmental assessment package. International atomic Energy Agency. 2003 Aug:2-1~13,3-1~12,A-1~5. 7. European Commission DGXII. Extern E: Externalities of Energy. 1995;Vol.1.Summary: 115. 8. ICRP. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Report No.60. Annuals of the ICRP. UK; Pergamon Press. 1991:53. 9. 10. European Commission. External costs: research results on 1. ElBaradei M. Nuclear power's changing picture. IAEA Bulletin. 2007 Sep;49(1):18-19. socio-environmental damages due to electricity and transport. 2. Quarterly Magazine. EUR 20198. 2003:12-13. 2005.1.28. 3. Mayerhofer P, Krewitt W, Friedrich R. Extension of the accounting framework. ExternE Core Project Final Report. 11. AEA Technology. Power generation and the environment: UK perspective. European Commission DGXII. 1998 Jun: 117-118,133. An External Costs Assessment of the Impacts on Human Health from Nuclear Power Plants in Korea Kyoung-Pyo KIM, Hee Jung KANG * Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, Konkuk University * Abstract - As the first comprehensive attempt at a national implementation, this study aims at assessing the external costs of major electricity generation technologies in Korea, particularly an evaluation of the impacts on human health resulting from exposures to atmospheric radiological emissions from nuclear power plants, and a monetary quantification of their damages. The methodology used for the assessment of the externalities of the selected fuel cycles has been developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), namely the SimPacts Model Package. The model is internationally recognized as a tool which can be applied to a wide range of fuels, different technologies and locations, for an externalities study. In this study, the relevant emissions are quantified first and then their impacts on human health are evaluated and compared. The study focused on all the nuclear power plants for the last 6 years (2001~2006) in Korea. With respect to nuclear power, the impact analysis only focuses on a power generation, however the front- and back-end nuclear fuel cycles are not included, namely uranium mining, conversion, enrichment, reprocessing, conditioning, etc., because these facilities are not present in Korea. The analysis results show that nuclear power in general, generates low external costs. The highest damage costs from the nuclear power plants among the 4 sites in Korea were estimated to be 3.9 mills/mwh, which is about 1/20th of the result for a similar case study conducted in the U.K., implemented through the ExternE project. This difference is largely due to the number of radionuclides included in the study and the amount of released radioactive emissions based on up-to-date information in Korea. In this study, the sensitivities of the major factors for nuclear power plants were also calculated. The analysis indicates that there was around a ±3% damage costs variation to a ±15% change of the reference population density and a ±1% damage cost variation to a 1~30 meters change of the effective release height, respectively. These sensitive calculations show that there is only a minor difference when the reference costs are compared. Keywords : Nuclear power plants, Impacts on human health, externalities, NukPacts model, Impact pathway, Damage costs 76 JOURNAL OF RADIATION PROTECTION, VOL.33 NO.2 JUNE 2008