NUCLEAR INCIDENT (MALFUNCTION, BOMBARDMENT OR TERROR) AROUND THE WORLD, LEVEL OF PREPAREDNESS AND CHALLENGING ACCEPTED REFERENCE SCENARIOS

Ori Nissim LEVI

doi:10.24193/subbeuropaea.2019.1.01

Authors

Ori Nissim LEVI Expert in nuclear defense; member of AFNA - Academic Forum for Nuclear Awareness; active Colonel in the IDF reserves, responsible for the construction of large-scale exercises in emergency scenarios, Haifa, Israel. Email: Cluj Napoca, Romania, ori.levi@ONDM.co. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4007-9019

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24193/subbeuropaea.2019.1.01

Keywords:

Disaster Preparedness, ONDM, Nuclear Event, Risk analysis assessment, Civil defense

Abstract

The rate of construction of nuclear reactors in the world that supply energy, the geopolitical situation such as with North Korea, Iran, and the rising tensions between the world powers raise the question of whether and when a large nuclear incident will occur. However, after examining several references scenarios for dealing with civil nuclear events and compering them to data obtained from interviews, a careful analysis of previous events, and investigating accidents, it is clear that the current models cannot deal properly with those events. The current plans for coping with nuclear accidents address only partial aspects of disaster management, do not offer accurate description of unfolding events, ignore newly obtain scientific data, and ignore the human factor in decision making level. The current paper will review why Reference Scenario to nuclear incidents accepted currently in various countries around the world are not up to date and shed light on the most critical aspect in proper nuclear disaster management - rational thinking pattern. The suggested model presented at this article, ONDM, is an innovative new mechanism and a more effective preparedness mechanism for nuclear disaster, as it takes under consideration past mistakes and provides tools for leaders to make informed decisions under conditions of uncertainty

References

Albright, David; Hinderstein, Corey (2005), «Unraveling the AQ Khan and future proliferation networks» in Washington Quarterly vol. 28, no. 2, 109-128.

Calin, Costel; Prins, Brandon (2015), «The sources of presidential foreign policy decision making: Executive experience and militarized interstate conflicts» in International Journal of Peace Studies vol. 20, no. 1, 17-34. ‏

CBS News (21 june 2016), «Fukushima meltdown apology: "It was a cover-up"» [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fukushima-tepco-power-japan-nuclear-meltdown-apologizes-cover-up/] [Accessed 12 June 2018].

CNSC (2015), Study of consequences of a hypothetical severe nuclear accident and effectiveness of mitigation measures, Ontario: Canada Nuclear Regulator.

Farazmand, Ali (2007), «Learning from the Katrina crisis: A global and international perspective with implications for future crisis management» in Public Administration Review vol. 67, no. s1, 149-151.

Figueroa, Pablo (2016), « Nuclear Risk Governance in Japan and the Fukushima Triple Disaster: Lessons Unlearned» in Michelle Ann, Miller Mike Douglass, Disaster Governance in Urbanising Asia, Singapore: Springer, 263-282.‏

Froggatt, Antony (2013), «Fukushima two years later: Lives still in limbo» in Brian Blomme, Steve Erwood, Nina Schulz, Rianne Teule, Fukushima fallout, Amsterdam: Greenpeace international, 10-21.

Harding, Robin (11 March 2018) «Fukushima nuclear disaster: did the evacuation raise the death toll?» in Financial Times, [https://www.ft.com/content/000f864e-22ba-11e8-add1-0e8958b189ea] [Accessed 12 October 2018]

Jargin, Sergei V. (2016), «Nuclear facilities and nuclear weapons as a guarantee of peace» in Journal of Defense Management vol. 6, no. 2, 146-150.

Levi-Nissim, Ori (2018), «Failure of the superpowers (U.S.A, Russia, Japan) to handle large nuclear events» in Modelling the New Europe no.25, 122-141.

Nusbaumer, Olivier (2012), Introduction to Probabilistic Safety Assessments (PSA). Leibstadt: Nuclear Power Plant Leibstadt AG.

Redd, Steven B.; Mintz, Alex (2013), «Policy perspectives on national security and foreign policy decision making» in Policy Studies Journal vol. 41, s11-s37.‏

SGDSN (2014), National response plan: major nuclear or radiological accidents, Paris: Prime minister office republic of France.

Solomon, Kenneth Alvin (1988), «Sources of radioactivity in the ocean environment: From low level waste to nuclear powered submarines» in Journal of hazardous Materials vol. 18, no. 3, 255-262.‏

SSK (2014), Planning areas for emergency response near nuclear power plants, Berlin: German Commission on Radiological Protection.

STUK (2017), Finnish report on nuclear safety: Finnish 7th national report as referred to in Article 5 of the Convention on Nuclear Safety, STUK-B 205, Helsinki: Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority.

USNRC (2012), State-of-the-Art reactor consequence analyses project, Vol. 1-2. Washington: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-7110.

van Tuyll, Maaike (2013), «Dealing with future risks in the Netherlands» in Biosecurity and bioterrorism: biodefense strategy, practice, and science vol. 11, no. S1, s55-s63.

Weston, Stacey M. (2018), Nuclear Reactor Physics, 3rd Edition, Weinheim: Wiley-VCH.

WHO (2013), Health risk assessment from the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami based on a preliminary dose estimation, Geneva: World Health Organization, WN-665.

Williams, Dillwyn (2001), «Lessons from Chernobyl: The world needs to improve its handling of international disasters» in BJM vol.323, no.7314, 2001, 643-644.‏

WNA (2018a), Plans for new reactors worldwide, [http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx] [Accessed 18/05/2018]

WNA (2018b), Reactor database, [http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/facts-and-figures/reactor-database.aspx] [Accessed 21 May 2018].

Ahmed, S. (1999) Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program: turning points and nuclear choices. International Security, 23(4), pp. 178-204.

Albright, D. and Hinderstein, C. (2005) Unraveling the AQ Khan and future proliferation networks. Washington Quarterly, 28(2), pp. 109-128.

Baverstock, K., & Williams, D. (2007) The Chernobyl accident 20 years on: an assessment of the health consequences and the international response. Ciência & saúde coletiva, 12(3), pp. 689-698.‏

Calin, C. and Prins, B. (2015) The sources of presidential foreign policy decision making: executive experience and militarized interstate conflicts. International Journal of Peace Studies, 20(1), pp. 17-34

CNSC (2015) Study of consequences of a hypothetical severe nuclear accident and effectiveness of mitigation measures. Ontario: Canada Nuclear Regulator.

Deutch, J., et al. (2003) The future of nuclear power: an interdisciplinary MIT study. MIT Energy Institute.

Farazmand, A. (2007). Learning from the Katrina crisis: A global and international perspective with implications for future crisis management. Public Administration Review 67(s1), pp. 149-159.

Froggatt, A., et al. (2013). Fukushima fallout. Greenpeace International.

Levi-Nissim, O. (2018) Failure of the superpowers (U.S.A, Russia, Japan) to handle large nuclear events. Modelling the New Europe, 25, pp. 122-141.

Mennen, M. G. and van Tuyll, M. C. (2015) Dealing with future risks in the Netherlands: the national security strategy and the national risk assessment. Journal of Risk Research, 18(7), pp. 860-876.

Nusbaumer, O. (2012) Introduction to Probabilistic Safety Assessments (PSA). Leibstadt NPP.

Redd, S. B. and Mintz, A. (2013) Policy perspectives on national security and foreign policy decision making. Policy Studies Journal, 41(S1), pp. S11-S37.‏

SGDSN (2014) National response plan: major nuclear or radiological accidents. Paris: Prime minister office republic of France.

Solomon, K. (1988) Sources of radioactivity in the ocean environment: From low level waste to nuclear powered submarines. Journal of hazardous Materials, 18(3), pp. 255-262.‏

SSK (2014) Planning areas for emergency response near nuclear power plants. Berlin: Recommendation by the German Commission on Radiological Protection.

Stacey, W. M. (2018) Nuclear reactor physics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.‏

STUK (2017) Finnish report on nuclear safety: Finnish 7th national report as referred to in Article 5 of the Convention on Nuclear Safety. Helsinki: Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, STUK-B 205.

USNRC (2012) State-of-the-Art reactor consequence analyses project, Vol. 1-2. Washington: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-7110.

Wheatley, S., Sovacool, B. and Sornette, D. (2017) Of disasters and dragon kings: a statistical analysis of nuclear power incidents and accidents. Risk analysis, 37(1), pp. 99-115.

WHO (2013). Health risk assessment from the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami based on a preliminary dose estimation. Geneva: World Health Organization, WN-665.

Williams, D. (2001). Lessons from Chernobyl: The world needs to improve its handling of international disasters. British Medical Journal, 323(7314), pp. 643-644.‏

WNA (2018a) Plans for new reactors worldwide. [Online]. Available from: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx. [Accessed 18/05/2018]

WNA (2018b) Reactor database. [Online]. Available from: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/facts-and-figures/reactor-database.aspx. [Accessed 21/05/2018].