Is Nuclear still safe

As at the date of writing this article, workers at the Fukushimanuclear power plant in Japan are working to contain the nuclearcontamination risks from the incident in the wake of the earthquake andtsunami. This has put the safety of nuclear power in the spotlight onceagain. Governments around the world are reviewing their health andsafety programmes and in Europe a safety assessment of Europe's 143nuclear power reactors is being undertaken with the Member Statesadopting a precautionary principle.

In recent years, nuclear has been seen as a key contributor toEurope’s climate change commitments. The events at Fukushima have givencause for reflection and review. The implications for the nuclear sectorare unclear but it is possible that higher design and risk assessmentstandards may be imposed on an industry that already identifies safetyas its highest priority.

Events in Japan

Nuclear incidents are measured against the International AtomicEnergy Authority’s (IAEA’s) International Nuclear Events Scale (INES)and are classified on a scale of one to seven. Levels 1–3 are called"incidents" and Levels 4–7 are "accidents". In rating an incident or anaccident three areas of impact are considered: (i) people and theenvironment; (ii) radiological barriers and control; and (iii) defencein depth. The incident at Chernobyl is the only event to ever beclassified as a 7.

The initial event at Fukushima was originally classified at 4 butthis was subject to review. As at 18 March each of units 1 to 4 atFukushima has been given their own INES rating ranging from 3 to 5.Units 5 and 6 are undamaged and remain in cold shutdown.

International Nuclear Safety

The IAEA, and, in Europe, Euratom keep a watchful eye on the safetyof all nuclear plant. Countries who are party to the Euratom Treatyand/or are members of the IAEA agree to disclose/submit information onthe use of nuclear materials. This is one of the ways in which theorganisations help to make sure the international market can bescrutinised to ensure it is meeting its safety requirements.

The IAEA has published 10 fundamental safety principles which bringtogether an international consensus on the high level of safety requiredfor the sustainable use of nuclear power. These principles are:

  • the prime responsibility for safety must rest with the person or organization responsible for facilities and activities that give rise to radiation risks;
  • an effective legal and governmental framework for safety, including an independent regulatory body, must be established and sustained;
  • effective leadership and management for safety must be established and sustained in organizations concerned with, and facilities and activities that give rise to, radiation risks;
  • facilities and activities that give rise to radiation risks must yield an overall benefit;
  • protection must be optimised to provide the highest level of safety that can reasonably be achieved;
  • measures for controlling radiation risks must ensure that no individual bears an unacceptable risk of harm
  • people and the environment, present and future, must be protected against radiation risks;
  • all practical efforts must be made to prevent and mitigate nuclear or radiation accidents;
  • arrangements must be made for emergency preparedness and response for nuclear or radiation incidents; and
  • protective actions to reduce existing or unregulated radiation risks must be justified and optimized.

It is incumbent on the leadership and management of each Member Stateand the operator to develop an awareness of safety and theencouragement and enforcement of a safety culture throughout an entirenuclear programme. However it cannot be overemphasised that everyoneinvolved in a nuclear project carries some degree of responsibility forsafety.

The IAEA’s safety principles also reflect the provisions established in a number of the International Conventions1.

National Safety

In addition to the international organisations, each country hasregulatory authorities whose job it is to audit all nuclearinstallations and to ensure compliance with the highest safetystandards.

These regulators assess the competence of potential operators ofnuclear sites; issue licenses to carry out nuclear activities; audit theoperators of sites; and have powers to impose sanctions on operators.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the primary regulator in theUSA. The Federal Authority for Nuclear Regulation is the primary nuclearregulator in the UAE and Rosatom and Rosenergoatom are the primary nuclear regulators in Russia.

In the UK the situation is slightly difference in that a wider numberof different organisations are responsible for ensuring the nuclearoperators comply with the highest standards. These include:

  • The Nuclear Directorate (ND) (part of the Health and Safety Executive) seeks to maintain and improve safety standards for work with ionising radiations at licensed nuclear installations. It does so through its licensing powers by assessing safety cases and inspecting sites for licence compliance. It sets national regulatory standards and helps to develop international nuclear safety standards.
  • The Department for Transport (DfT)’s Radioactive Materials Transport Team and Transport Security and Contingencies Directorate in conjunction with the ND ensure the safe and secure transport of radioactive materials by road and rail and civil nuclear security.
  • The Nuclear Directorate's Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS) is the security regulator for the UK's civil nuclear industry. It is responsible for approving security arrangements within the industry and enforcing compliance. OCNS conducts its regulatory activities under the authority of the Nuclear Industries Security Regulations 2003 (NISR 03).
  • The Environment Agency (EA) is responsible for assessing radiation doses to the public from nuclear sites and to ensure it conforms to legal limits. The EA regulates the use, storage and disposal of radioactive materials to protect the public and the environment. The EA also gathers long term information on radioactive concentrations and trends so that any changes (e.g. in radiation levels in sea waters or the ground) can be identified.

Generic Design Assessment

One of the key issues for Japan’s regulators is to assess whether theFukushima plant was designed to the correct standards. It should beremembered that the plant was designed in the 1950s and enteredoperation in the early 1970s. The plant was designed to the safetystandards of its era and to be capable of withstanding seismic events(as all nuclear plant are).

Design safety has evolved since the 1970s and the controls on newnuclear designs are much higher. Modern nuclear technologies havemulti-layered safety systems which offer huge improvements over olderdesigns.

The assessment of any new build nuclear power stations will includeissues surrounding natural disasters. Regulators will not licence thebuilding of any new stations unless they are satisfied that safety isassured.

In the UK a generic design assessment process (GDA)has been introduced which is applied to all designs which may be builtin the UK before a potential operator can apply for the design to bereviewed again as part of a nuclear licensing application. The GDA iscarried out by the ND and the EA.

Similar processes are used around the world to assess new reactordesigns. Regulators share the results of those assessments to ensurecompliance with the highest safety standards through committees andorganisations such as the Western European Nuclear RegulatorsAssociation (WENRA).

Japan’s experience in Fukushima will need to be taken into consideration in any design assessments in the future.

The need for nuclear in the Energy Mix The Future

Recent events in Japan have raised public concerns about thepossibility of similar events taking place in Europe and have forced areassessment of nuclear safety in the EU. Regulators across Europe areto conduct “stress tests” on nuclear risks including the assessment ofpossible damage by earthquakes and flooding. The European Commission isin the process of preparing EU wide assessment criteria which areexpected to be ready by June 2011. The tests themselves are expected tobe concluded by the end of the year. These tests will take account ofthe age and location of each nuclear power station and would assess theintegrity of the safety systems and structures around which the stationshave been constructed.

The results of the stress tests and lessons learned from Fukushimawill clearly need to be taken into consideration in designs and riskassessments in the nuclear industry moving forwards. This may increasethe costs for the industry in the short term, but to give the generalpublic the confidence in a much needed resource, it is a cost theindustry will need to bear.

Japanese food exports in the wake of the nuclear crisis 2

Just over a month ago, the largest quake in Japanese history struckthe north-east coast of Japan and triggered a tsunami that devastatedthe coastal areas of Tohoku and southern Hokkaido3. Fukushima DaiichiNuclear Power Plant (Fukushima Plant) was subsequently damaged and highlevels of radiation have been reported in surrounding regions. This muchhas been widely reported; however, one thing that is not so apparent,is the effect that the nuclear crisis has been having (and will continueto have) on Japanese food exports, particularly fresh produce. Thisarticle considers the international guidelines on radionuclide levels infood and some recent regulatory responses to the nuclear crisis.

Following the explosions at the Fukushima Plant, the local Japanesefood safety inspection authorities were directed to investigate andmonitor radionuclide levels to identify potential food safety risks inthe affected areas. Significantly, the World Health Organisation (WHO)has reported the presence of radioactivity in some vegetables and milkabove Japanese regulatory limits4.

International guidelines

Radionuclide levels in internationally traded food following anuclear emergency are governed by internationally agreed guidelines,specifically, the Codex General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins inFood and Feed (Codex Guidelines5. These guidelines are published by theCodex Alimentarius Commission (Commission), which was established by theFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and WHO.According to the Commission, the Codex standards have become an integralpart of the legal framework within which international trade is beingfacilitated through harmonisation.6

The Codex Guidelines stipulate that when radionuclide levels in fooddo not exceed the corresponding guideline level, the food should beconsidered as safe for human consumption.7 However, the Codex Guidelinesgo on to state that when guideline levels are exceeded, nationalgovernments shall decide whether and under what circumstances the foodshould be distributed within their territory or jurisdiction.8

Regulatory responses

One such national response has been Australia’s Food StandardsAustralia and New Zealand (FSANZ)9;recent request to the AustralianQuarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) to institute testing of somefoods originating from the following Japanese prefectures: Fukushima,Gunma, Ibaraki and Tochigi. Significantly, these foods include fresh orfrozen seafood, seaweed, milk and fresh fruit and vegetables. 10

Importantly, the Australian regulatory approach appears broadlyconsistent with the international approach to Japanese food importsfollowing the nuclear crisis. However, the approach in the EuropeanUnion (EU) appears somewhat broader, with feed and food originating inor consigned from 12 Japanese prefectures (including, amongst others,the 5 prefectures the subject of the Notice) required to be testedbefore leaving Japan and subject to random testing in the EU.11Inaddition, the EU requires all feed and food products from the remaining35 prefectures to be accompanied by a declaration stating the prefectureof origin and also requires random testing on arrival in the EU. 12Like Australia, the EU has indicated that these are only precautionarymeasures and that they consider the food safety risks for EU citizensdue to the Japan nuclear crisis to be low.13

This broader approach by the EU might in some ways reflect the closerproximity to, and greater awareness of, the Chernobyl nuclear powerplant accident of 1986. In the instance of Chernobyl, various regulatorymeasures were introduced (some immediately following and some in the 20years since) to protect consumers from contaminated foodstuffs. Despitethese measures, a report released by the Chernobyl Forum in 2005(Report) found that radioactive iodine fallout was one of the mainhealth impacts of the accident.14The Report found that drinking milkfrom cows eating contaminated grass immediately after the accident leadto high doses to the thyroid of children, and to many childrensubsequently developing thyroid cancer.15

Notably, despite finding an increase in the occurrence of thyroidcancer in children, the Report found that, by and large, there had notbeen a profound negative health impact on the rest of the population insurrounding areas, nor was there widespread contamination that wouldcontinue to pose a substantial threat to human health.16Perhaps this is atestament to the regulatory measures that were put in place at the timeby the affected areas and by the wider international community.