Fukushima Daiichi:
coping after a major nuclear
accident
Daiwa Anglo-Japanese Foundation
London, 30 October 2014
NREFS more broadly
• Philip has introduced the NREFS project and the
J-Value approach
• Ian has gone further in highlighting the wider utility of
such approaches.
• From the start of the NREFS project it has been
intended to make such approaches and insights
available to the policy making community.
• We recognise, however, that real policy-making must
make trade-offs between diverse quantitative and
qualitative considerations. As such our work represents
science advice, not science decision.
• In order better to appreciate the policy context, NREFS
has also researched on a broader front.
The wider context I
UK History
Led by Malcolm Grimston, the NREFS
project has sought to understand better
how concerns for possible severe nuclear
accidents has shaped UK policy for the
siting of new nuclear power stations since
the 1950s.
Proximity to centres of population is just
one consideration among many to be
considered when making siting decisions.
Severe accident risk is an issue that has
been given careful consideration at each
evolutionary stage of the UK nuclear
power programme, and the policy
prescription has changed with time.
[Ref: Grimston et al, J. Rad. Prot. 34, R1R24 (2014)]
The wider context II
Energy Security
Also led by Malcolm Grimston, the NREFS project has built upon
earlier work by NREFS researchers to understand how a modern
society copes with the major loss of electricity generating capacity,
such as can follow, directly and indirectly, from a severe disaster.
Japan has managed to maintain electricity security despite having lost
all of its nuclear electricity generating capacity. How energy security
was maintained is the subject of the recent NREFS work.
[REF: Grimston et al, Int’l J. Energy Research (submitted)
See also earlier work by Haarscher et al. EPRG WP 1417 University of Cambridge]
The wider context III
Financial and economic consequences
• Led by Dr John Moriarty at Manchester University, post-doc Dmitri Yumarshav
has researched: Flexible Decision Making in Large Scale Nuclear
Emergencies: Long-Term Response
He has developed a simple model for a single economic location (say, a
town, a village or an area of agricultural land). Optimization is performed
on the long timescale of several long contaminant half-lives (e.g. Cs137). Hence the initial contamination/radiation levels in the given area
are assumed to be known (once the ‘dust has settled’). As a result, the
problem may be regarded as largely deterministic. Yumnashev et al.
introduce a pair of controls, relocation/repopulation and remediation,
and seek joint optimal solutions (according to Bellman’s principle of
optimality).
Yumanshev et al. continued
Three main economic
parameters appear to affect
the rank of the optimal regime,
hence these can be
represented by a cube, with
the optimal strategy rank
plotted as a colour (heat map)
as a fourth dimension in the
3D space of the parameters.
Such visualisation quickly
reveals preferred responses in
diverse scenarios.
An example heat map
– different policy
strategies are denoted
by different colours.
The Wider Context IV
Integrative Accident Response Decision Making
Led by Prof Simon French at Warwick University
Post doc Nikolaos Argyris has been rethinking criteria for
early phase response (e.g. sheltering and evacuation).
This NREFS work builds upon a whole series of previous
large research projects focussing on severe nuclear
accidents and related issues.
Chernobyl
project
1990
NKS
Workshops
Ethos
Farming
RODOS
EVATECH
NERIS
EURANOS
2000
French et al. Research Project Sequence
NREFS
now
The OU and NREFS
During the planning phase of the NREFS project, our thinking turned
to assessing where the greatest potential might lie for stakeholder
communities to learn from the Fukushima-Daiichi experience.
With limited capacity within NREFS we clearly had to be selective
and could not take a holistic approach to stakeholder lessons.
We briefly considered investigating possible lessons for firstresponders, but after some brief reflection we concluded that the
nuclear insurance sector could be a more interesting perspective to
investigate.
Our question became: how does that important stakeholder
community address severe nuclear accident issues and how has the
sector’s thinking evolved since the FukushimDaiichi accident?
The OU and NREFS: Insurance
The industry divides nuclear insurance according to two main types
of loss. The first is prominent in day-to-day significance for nuclear
power plant operators and is known as material damage insurance
with the second being third party liability insurance. Here we focus
on the latter.
Nuclear liability insurance is a somewhat complex business, but at
its heart there are a few guiding principles, as implemented in the
UK:
• A liability regime of “strict liability”
• Operator Subject to a Limit of Liability
• Subject to the 1960 Paris Convention and 1963 Brussels
Supplementary Convention which is legislated in the Nuclear
Installations Act 1965
Nuclear Liability Insurance
At the heart of third-party liability regimes is the notion of strict
liability (i.e. the victim does not need to prove fault or
negligence against the operator) and exclusive liability (i.e. all
claims are legally channelled to the operator). This means that
the operator is responsible for all third-party losses arising
from nuclear activities on their licensed site, even if fault can
be traced to an external supplier.
Nuclear Insurance
Interestingly third party liability insurance is a major issue
facing the Indian nuclear power programme. India does not
operate to international principles of strict and exclusive
liability.
Western industrial suppliers are therefore concerned that they
might have enormous damage costs falling to them following a
nuclear accident. Reassurances from the Indian government
that no such risks exist are not entirely trusted by potential
suppliers noting the robust independence of the Indian
judiciary.
I suggest that if India were to adopt international conventions
then international civil nuclear trade would be facilitated.
Some closing thoughts triggered
by NREFS …
Insurance thought: four zones
prevailing wind
Prevailing
winds
• Site: plant & electricity sales
• Mandatory relocation
• Precautionary evacuation
• Zone of blight
One thought ….
Let’s posit the existence of four zones of concern following a severe nuclear
accident.
Let’s call them:
• The nuclear licensed site
• The zone of mandatory relocation
• The zone of precautionary relocation
• The zone of blight
Arguably the insurance issues are respectively:
• Material damage insurance coverage applies
• Long-standing issues for liability cover usually with a limit of liability
• Recently added as a matter of insured liability (Revised Paris Convention)
• Arguably no loss requiring compensation, but … ?
Some closing thoughts …
• How do the legally determined realities relate to the
political realities?
• How does this all compare to the scientific realities
stressed earlier by Philip and Ian?
• Finally I am drawn to the suggestion that the nuclear
industry should include the deaths arising from
radiologically-motivated precautionary
evacuation/relocation in the mortality statistics of severe
nuclear accidents. To do so could be expected to give
rise to better policy-making.
Open University NREFS Publications
M Grimston, WJ Nuttall, and G Vaughan (2014). The siting of UK nuclear reactors. Journal
of Radiological Protection, 34(2) R1-R24. http://iopscience.iop.org/09524746/34/2/R1/article?fromSearchPage=true
S French, N Argyris, WJ Nuttall, J Moriarty, and P Thomas (2013). The early phase of a
radiation accident: revisiting thinking on evacuation and exclusion zones. In: 10th
ISCRAM Conference , 12-15 May 2013, Baden-Baden, Germany, pp. 296–300.
M Grimston, SF Ashley, and WJ Nuttall. Japan’s Electricity Challenges After Fukushima.
Submitted to International Journal of Energy Research (submitted)
In final stages of preparation
RJ Heffron, SF Ashley, and WJ Nuttall. Reform and Issues in the Global Nuclear Liability
Regime Post Fukushima (planned submission to Harvard International Law Journal)
Other papers are planned concerning issues surrounding nuclear insurance, nuclear
law, and regulation post-Fukushima and insights into issues surrounding nuclear
insurance, nuclear law, and regulation from a UK, US, and Indian perspective. Papers
are also anticipated concerning the economic cost of a hypothetical nuclear accident in
the UK and issues of uncertainty and flexibility in nuclear power technology choices
Acknowledgements
I am most grateful to colleagues involved in the OU
NREFS work, especially: Steve Ashley, Michel-Alexandre
Cardin, Malcolm Grimston, Raphael Heffron, Geoff
Vaughan and Yan Sixu.
It has been a great pleasure working with NREFS
colleagues from City University, Manchester University and
Warwick University. It has also been most enjoyable being
part of the Indo-UK Civil Nuclear Research Partnership.
Any errors or omissions in my remarks are my
responsibility alone.
Thank You