Factoring the Costs of Severe Nuclear Accidents into Backfit Decisions (2024)

The f*ckushima nuclear accident demonstrates that the economic costsof a severe nuclear accident can be considerable. The current cost estimates forthe f*ckushima accident include

• Support for accident evacuees.TEPCO (2014) estimatedthat, as of January 15, 2014, its compensation payments to the evacueesand businesses affected by radiological releases from the f*ckushimaDaiichi plant would be more than ¥5 trillion ($50billion).¹

• Offsite decontamination. Japan's NationalInstitute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology estimates thatdecontamination in f*ckushima Prefecture will cost ¥2.5-5.1trillion (~$25-51 billion) (Mainichi, 2013).

• Onsite decommissioning.TEPCO (2014) estimates itssite cleanup costs at f*ckushima Daiichi at ¥2 trillion(~$20 billion).

• Replacing power from idled nuclear plants. The undamagedunits at the f*ckushima Daiichi plant (Units 5 and 6) will never operateagain (TEPCO, 2014). Inaddition, all of Japan's other nuclear power plants have beenidled for about 3 years as a result of the accident. Japan'sutilities have paid an estimated ¥7.3 trillion ($73 billion) forfuel in fiscal year 2012, double the amount in FY 2010, in large partbecause of the need to buy liquefied natural gas to replace the powerfrom the shutdown nuclear power plants (Matsuo and Yamaguchi, 2013).² At that rate, over 3years, the increased cost of generating electric energy would be about¥10 trillion (~ $100 billion)

• Other costs. The Institut de Radioprotection et deSûreté Nucléaire (IRSN) estimated the cost of af*ckushima-scale accident in France (Pascucci-Cahen and Momal, 2012³). The estimateincluded about €166 (~$215 billion) in costs for image orreputation losses, including loss of food exports, reductions in otherexports, and loss of tourism. The estimated total loss of tourism inJapan is about ¥1 trillion ($10 billion) (World Travel and Tourism Council, 2011);this loss is attributable to the earthquake and tsunami as well as thenuclear accident.

  See Also

  Earthquake, Tsunami, Meltdown - The Triple Disaster's Impact on Japan, Impact on the World | BrookingsEconomic Recovery after Natural Disasters | United NationsPrefaceAfter the Quake, an Outsized Hit to the Japanese Economy

The total cost of the f*ckushima Daiichi accident could therefore exceed¥20 trillion (~$200 billion).

It is instructive to compare these costs to the estimates developed by the USNRCstaff for a hypothetical accident at the Peach Bottom nuclear plant inPennsylvania. These cost estimates were used in the staff's backfitanalysis for filtered vents (Borchardt,2012a, Enclosure 5C, Table 7, Case 2):

• A collective population dose to workers and the public out to 50 miles(accounting for reductions due to evacuation) of 0.53 million rem,which, valued at $2,000/rem, translated into damage of about $1billion;

• A loss of the use of offsite land and property due to radioactivecontamination of $1.9 billion;

• A loss of onsite value of $3.2 billion (Borchardt, 2012a, Enclosure 5C, Table 8).This includes the loss of use of an average of 1.75 nuclear powerreactors at a BWR plant site (Borchardt, 2012a, Enclosure 1, p. 15, Table 1).

The total estimated costs for the hypothetical accident at the Peach Bottom plantare therefore about $6 billion.

The USNRC staff estimated that most of the offsite damage ($2.5 billion) and $1.2billion of the onsite damage could be prevented by the installation of filteredvents. After multiplying the savings of $3.7 billion by a probability of 2× 10⁻⁵ accidents per reactor year (i.e., one accidentevery 50,000 years on average) and by 17.6 years (the assumed remaining 25 yearsof reactor life discounted by 3 percent per year), the savings per reactor wouldamount to only $1.3 million—much less than the estimated $15 million costfor installing filtered vents. Installation of filtered vents therefore failedthe backfit cost-benefit test.

The cost estimates for the accident at the f*ckushima Daiichi plant (~$200billion) are about 33 times higher than the USNRC cost estimate for ahypothetical accident at the Peach Bottom plant (~$6 billion). Theprimary reasons for these differences are the following:

1.

The relatively low USNRC estimate of costs associated with the calculatedcontamination of 354 km² (140 square miles) above 15curies/km², which is approximately equal to the thresholdthat has been used for long-term evacuation in Japan (which affectedabout 625 km² of land).⁴

2.

The USNRC assumed that the operation of other nuclear power plants wouldnot be affected, unlike the situation in Japan where virtually allnuclear power plants have been shut down.

Differences between accident costs in Japan and the United States can beexpected—as can differences in accident costs for different sites in theUnited States. Nevertheless, the large differences noted above serve toillustrate that cost estimates—and associated backfit ruledecisions—are sensitive to the assumptions made in developing thoseestimates.

The point of this appendix is not to critique the USNRC'sanalysis—the committee did not perform an in-depth review of thisanalysis because it is outside the statement of task for the study. Thecommittee offers this example to demonstrate that severe accidents such asoccurred at the f*ckushima Daiichi plant can have large costs and otherconsequences that are not considered in USNRC backfit analyses. These includenational economic disruption, anxiety and depression within affectedpopulations, and deterioration of social institutions arising from a loss oftrust in governmental organizations.

The USNRC is launching a multiyear process for updating its regulatory guidancefor backfit analyses. One focus of the update is to improve calculations of theeconomic consequences of a reactor accident, taking into account lessons learnedfrom the accident at f*ckushima Daiichi. The USNRC is also reevaluating howqualitative factors are used in the backfit analysis process.