ECONOMIC COSTS OF A NUCLEAR REACTOR ACCIDENT (1100MW)

Based on a Technical lecture on Nuclear plant explosions and disaster management by Prof.T.Shivaji Rao, Director, Environmental Studies, GITAM University, Visakhapatnam)
 http://books.google.co.in/books?id=WTxcCV4w0VEC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=ICRP+limits+for+intakes+of+radionuclides+by+workers&source=bl&ots=f1GaTebC4q&sig=CnzmQ0_lbpPYoxhoPm-2F2S877o&hl=en&ei=DaA_TtGAJMHprQf1wsD7Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDIQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=ICRP%20limits%20for%20intakes%20of%20radionuclides%20by%20workers&f=false

( Radiation exposureand dosage calculations)
http://bhujangam.blogspot.com/2011/08/probable-nuclear-reactor-1100-mw.html
Inflationary costs from  rates of 1980 to those of 2011 will be about four times higher as per index 

The maximum credible  accident of a core melt in a Nuclear Plant causes catastrophic impacts on the public health and socio-economic conditions of the nearby and distant people downwind of the reactor.  People upto 16km downwind of the reactor may be killed due to acute radiation exposure as had happened at Fukushima and Chernobyl and thousands may die due to long term health impacts including cancers.  The radioactive pollution may have profound disruptive effects on all human activities including industrial and agricultural output.  The data for the material presented in this paper is based upon the detailed information on reactor accident scenario already presented for the Sizewell-B Reactor of UK under the website :
http://bhujangam.blogspot.com/2011/08/probable-nuclear-reactor-1100-mw.html 

For estimating the economic costs of a nuclear accident one has to calculate the supplementary costs to the economy of repairing the damage in terms of health care for the sick and the injured people, decontamination costs for the reactor and its surrounding lands, evacuation and resettlement and decommissioning costs etc., as shown in the following table.

CATEGORIES OF COST (SEE ALSO other relevant tables)

Category	Item	Components
Emergency response costs	1. Emergency administration	a)transport b)sheltering c)billeting d)emergency aid e)personnel and equipment for implementing, monitoring, controlling counter-measures
	2.Early health core	a)screening evacuated persons b)treatment of radiation sickness
Longer term response costs	3. Relocation benefits	a)new accommodation b)weekly benefits
	4.Decontamination costs
	5.Supplementary costs of electricity production(1)
Loss of added value	6. Non-agricultural losses	a) GDP per individual out of work (2)
	7. Agricultural losses

1.       Not included in the loss of added value of areas evacuated, since the gross product figures are those of 1980/81, before the existence of Sizewell-B

2.       GDP per (non agricultural) worker put out of work because of the accident.  This is weighted to account for different industrial sectors.

3.       Accident assumed to take place in June.  Costs may be higher or lower depending on the time of year.
4.   Dosages of Radiation Exposure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation

In considering a wide range of accidents in Probabilistic  to identify the risk or likelyhood of any particular type of consequence it is necessary to make a crude characterization of the expected consequences.  For the Sizewell reactor accident 4 different magnitudes of radioactive releases under 3 different meteorological conditions were used, amounting to 36 combinations in all.  The impacts and the costs varied under different representative scenarios as presented in the following table.

A PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF THE COSTS OF AN ACCIDENTAL RELEASE OF RADIOACTIVITY OCCURING DURING THE YEAR FOLLOWING THE RELEASE TWO SCENARIOS (£ million, 1980/81 prices)[2011 costs are 4 times higherthan those of 1980]

    

Accidental release scenario	UK1/D5/270o	UK9/FD/240o
Emergency response costs: 1.Emergency administration costs 2.Early health care	5.1 3.2	1.1 0.2
Longer term response costs 3. Relocation benefits 4.Decibtanubatuib costs (1) 5.Supplementary costs of electricity production	21.1 8.2 64.0	-- -- 64.0
Loss of added value 6.Non agricultural loss 7.Agricultural loss	29.2 538.5	0.4 11.0
Total         year costs	669.3	76.7

1. Not including costs of decontaminating the power station site, nor of decommissioning the reactor. These are accounted for in future costs.

The long term economic costs of the accident are presented in the following table.

LONG TERM ECONOMIC COSTS OF A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT: TWO SELECTED SCENARIOS –DISCOUNTED COSTS (£ million)⁽¹⁾

Accidental release scenario	UK1/D5/270o	UK9/FD/240o
1. Long-term health costs	99	1
2.Housing costs:	91	-
3.Other non agricultural product losses:	120	--
4.Clean-up and decommissioning costs:	483	423
5.Supplementary costs of electricity productions:	633	633
6.Agricultural losses:	215	-
7.Total long term discounted direct costs:	1641	1057
8. Total direct economic cost 92)	2310	1134

1.Detailed explanations of methods used in estimating costs are given under later paragraphs

2. First year costs plus total long term discounted direct costs.[2011 costs are 4 times higher]

 Notes:

1. For example, most estimates of the value of human life are based upon the discounted (present)value of the life-time earnings of the category of person considered.  This implies, for example that smaller efforts should be made to regulate the export of dangerous drugs, pesticides, chemicals or industrial processes to Third World Countries than are made to ensure domestic environmental protection, since earnings are so much lower. This conclusion obviously corresponds to the practice of many firms and governments in the developed world.  In our view, however, since we consider that a child’s life has the same value in the UK as in (for example), Uganda, such economics are only a disguise of vested interests.

More close to home such a calculation would imply that environmental safety should be far lower in the UK than in USA or Germany, since wealth and income per head is far lower here.

2. An argument advanced in favour of the cost benefit approach is that deaths do represent a loss of added value for society, since human activity is lost.  This would be true only in a closed community in which everybody was economically indispensable and everybody worked.  It is far from being the case in most societies nowadays.
3. The principle is as follows.  If we know that we will have to pay the present day equivalent of £100 in ten years time, we would have to save £69 now, if the interest rate is 5% above the rate of inflation; this is because the accrued interest that time comes to £31. Therefore the present value of £100 in ten years is £69, if a 5% discount rte is used.
4. The gross product accounted for here is not the value of the foodstuffs which are either lost or not produced.  This value is nearly twice the value quoted –slightly more than £16m.  But the latter figure includes the cost of inputs (Such as seed, fertilizers, feedstock,etc.) which would have been already sold to the farmers, or which could be diverted elsewhere.  The real loss to farmers, in terms of cash flows, would be intermediate between these two sums.
5. It is estimated that 150,000 people within 15 miles of the Three Mile Island reactor evacuated themselves in a period of 5 days after the beginning of the accident, independently of the official emergency procedures.  See Psychological and social effects on the population surrounding Three Mile Island after the accident on March 28^th, 1979, in Energy, Environment and the Economy by S.Majumdar (Ed) Pennsylvania Academy of Sciences, 1981.
6. The costs of decommissioning the Three Mile Island Unit Two (TMI-2) reactor after the 1979 accident are indicative of the lower bound for clean-up and decommissioning.  On that occasion the core of the reactor remained inside the pressure vessel, and retained some of its original structure, thus limiting the radioactivity release and facilitating its removal.  Current estimates for the TMI-2 operation are approximately $1 billion.  Our own estimates here for Sizewell are therefore particularly cautious. 
7. See, for example ‘The Social and Economic Effects of the Accident at Three Mile Island: Findings to Date Mountain West Research Inc., NRC  NUREG/CR-1215, January 1980; and also ‘Three Mile Island: A report to the commissioners and to the public (Rogovin report, NRC Vol. II Part 2 chapter F (Environmental and Socio economic Impacts)
8. Although the political and institutional framework is not precisely comparable, such difficulties and confrontations were a feature of the aftermath of the Seveso disaster in Italy.
9. The Energy Act, 1983, stipulates a limit on the liability of the operator of a nuclear facility of £20m.  The Act also stipulates that, in order to conform to European Law, 300 Special Drawing Rights (approximately £200m) can be made available by the Government to identify the operator against additional claims.  The sums earmarked for insurance against nuclear accidents would in any case be insufficient to cover total losses in the case of a large accident.
10. This approach to safety standards is described in CEGB proof of Evidence to the Sizewell B.  Public Inquiry CEGB/P/2 ‘CEGB Approach to Nuclear Safety’ by RR Mathews (1982), especially paras 98-104.  For a critique of the concept of acceptable risk, see also FoE Proof of Evidence to the Sizewell B Public Inquiry FOE/P/4.  The justification for the CEGB’s Fundamental Reliability Criteria by Colin Green (1983)
11. Thermal Reactor Assessment: Final Report of the Thermal Reactor Stragtegy Working Party, CEGB, September 1977(Revised October,1977)
12. These costs are entirely indicative, and obviously depend on parameters such as the type, generating capacity, commissioning time table, generating costs and efficiency of the nuclear plants existing at the time of accident.  It is assumed for the purpose of the present calculation that some 5GW of AGRs would be still in activity at the time of accident, and that a 3  PWRs  other than Sizewell-B would be under construction and near full completion.  It is assumed also that alternative sources of electricity would be coal fired plants.  The supplementary cost of replacing electricity generated by Sizewell-B is not included.
13. Report of the Present’s Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island John G Kemeny (Chairman0, October 1979.
14. See especially: RJKayes and PJ Taylor, Emergency Planning in the UK for Accidents to Nuclear Reactors and during Trnasportation of Spent-Fuel, PERG, RR-12, 198, Oxford.  This document also describes the emergency plans established in other countries such as USA, Germany, Denmark and Switzerland and  shows how limited UK emergency plans are compared with these countries.

The costs and losses occurring during the first year are estimated separately and the other costs are estimated and discounted for the next 19 years that is from 2^nd year to year-20 at a rate of 5%.

EMERGENCY RESPONSE COSTS: The costs incurred during the first year comprise cost of evacuation and catering for people living areas of excess contamination and they also include costs of Planning and Managing emergency situation.  The cost of evacuation for the first 3 weeks including relocation is £120 for evacuated persons at 1980 prices.  The policies implemented for one year.  Cost of emergency administration from 250 to 750 persons is estimate at £1100 per month. Health screening costs £50 per persons.  Medical treatment costs £62 per person and hospitalization is for 6 weeks.  The costs for treating prodomal vomiting cases is £2600 per case. Temporary emergency accommodation is provided in schools, public buildings etc.  Long term accommodation upto one year in portable cabins is costs £10 per person per week.  For accommodation for one year cost is £525 per person or £1350 for  dwelling and the costs are discounted at 5% per annum for a period of 20 years. 28% of the relocated households have unemployed or retired people.  23% of the active people correspond to 16.5% of the total householders.  41% of the active persons in employment are deprived of jobs due to relocation and they would have to be paid £23 per person per week.  £650 will be paid for house holding equipment for one year equivalent to £250 per relocated persons.  For cancer treatment £4500 per person amounting to total discounted costs of £61 million.  Health care for the birth of a handicapped child is £20,000 discounted to the year of birth, the total cost of hereditary defects will be £34 million.  Long term screening of people exposed to radiation would costs £5million for about 20 years.

DECONTAMINATION COSTS:  Decontamination of land outside the reactor is to speed up the return of the relocated persons and the nuclear plant itself should be decontaminated to permit decommissioning work of the reactor.  The air pollution and the radioactivity in the environment affects grazing lands, crop lands, roads, houses, factories, urban streets and parks, forest lands, mashes and waste lands.  For decontamination of grazing lands ploughing is done upto 2ft depth and soil is homogenized by spending £155 per ha .  For grass lands additional £115 per ha. is needed for seeds, fertilizers etc.,  roads are decontaminated by using high pressure water, vaccume cleaning, decontamination cost is £545 per km of 2 lane roads.  For decontamination of Urban areas the cost will be much higher at the rate of £5295 per ha. of site area.  For about 10 years the cost after discounting comes to £5.5 million.  The cost of decommissioning a nuclear plant ranges from £150 million to £270 million £800 million would be needed for decontamination for 20 years.  Even for small releases the costs of decontamination are estimated at £700 million. The discounted supplementary electricity generation costs is estimated at £633 million.

MAXIMUM DISTANCE FROM SIZEWELL FOR BANNING  OF MAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS ⁽¹⁾ FOR THE DIFFERENT ACCIDENT SCENARIOS (Kms)

Product Duration of ban	Milk		Meat		Crops
	7 days	1 year	7 days	1 year	1 year
UK1   D5            FD            DR	1,400 1,375 375	150 68 260	1,150 1,100 380	360 350 300	1,375 1,250 380
UK1c  D5            FD            DR	1,4200 1,200 375	38 38 140	550 375 380	100 65 250	750 700 375
UK9   D5            FD            DR	39 38 165	1.2 1.6 4.8	77 20 55	1.8 4.7 16	11.3 34 68
UK11  D5            FD            DR	5.8 11.8 20	-- -- --	1.6 2.7 4.7	-- -- 1.5	1.8 2.8 7.5

1.       In Kms along the centre-line of the plume path; estimated from tables in NRPB-M84 and subsequent more detailed tables provided by NRPB

AREAS OF BANNING AND LOSS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS IN TWO SELECTED SCENARIOS AFTER 7 DAYS AND AFTER 1 YEAR FOLLOWISNG THE RELEASE ⁽¹⁾

Scenario	UK1/D5/270o		UK9/FD/240o
Time of Period	7 days	1 year	7 days	1 year
Milk - total milk lost during the period (million litres)(2) -area of ban at the indicated time (sq.km) (3)	66 35,500	900 2,300	0.86 1,100	5.3 0.95
Crops -total quantity of cereals lost (thousand tonnes ) (4) -area cultivated for cereals placed in ban areas (thousands ha)	-- --	3,450 760	-- --	86 18
Meat -Number of livestock under      at indicated time (thousand head) (5) (in which: cattle) -area of ban at the indicated time (sq.km) (3)	10,850 (2,150) 35,000	2,390 (765) 13,500	34 (4.9) 170	1.5 (0.2) 7.5

1.This Table lists only the most important categories of products. Other products (vegetables, fruit, potatoes, eggs and poultry0 would also be banned. Production figures based on 1978/79 figures for cereals and livestock (June census) and on 1980/81 figures for milk production (only Milk Marketing Board milk).

2.Figures for the 1 year period are cumulative figures, unlike the other data in the Table.

3.Land area of ban (not all of which is agricultural) in the UK’ a larger area would be under ban if sea area land and a large proportion of Ireland (for 7 days ) were included.

4. Wheat, barley, oats.

5. Includes cattle, sheep and pigs; includes all animals, even those reared for milk production, wool production, and breeding.