Assignment - Module 1 MACE60170 01_12_2014

The School of Mechanical, Aerospace and

Civil Engineering

Nuclear Technology Management

Professional Development Programme

Module Number: MACE60170

Module Title: Essentials of Delivering

Nuclear Technology

Module Tutor: Professor Gregg Butler

Presented by Dijesh Kumar Das

An Analysis of

Stakeholders Viewpoint

on Nuclear Energy

Stakeholders Viewpoint Analysis on Nuclear Energy Essentials of Delivering Nuclear Technology

Nuclear Technology Management PDP MACE60170


1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

P1 There are growing concerns in the current energy mix, where the effects of climate change and high oil prices have stimulated further interest and investment in energy sources which can be potentially cheaper to generate, and cleaner for achieving the global CO2 reduction targets.

P2 Nuclear energy can be seen as a prime contender to form part of a balanced energy mix

as to mitigate against these growing concerns [Ref. 1]. However, the nuclear industry is continuously facing challenges, such as, the contentious perception by stakeholders of the potential risks associated with nuclear fuel and how it is managed throughout its lifecycle (for e.g. during fuel handling, power generation, waste disposal, containment).

P3 The contentious viewpoint by stakeholders can mislead the outcome of a decision for a

project or policy. It is important that any decision made, is a ‘balanced decision’, and that it is conducted based on the stakeholders viewpoint for a range of attributes against the facts and substantiation made available and presented at the time. A technique used to achieve this is Stakeholder Preference Mapping (SPM) [Ref. 2].

P4 SPM is a way of applying Multi-Attribute Decision Analysis (MADA) also known as Multi-

Criteria Analysis (MCA) [Ref. 3]. It is a technique devised by Integrated Decision Management (IDM) Solutions. SPM is used to record the views of stakeholder groups and to examine its acceptability against a range of attributes in order to determine the notion at the time of the consultation with the stakeholder groups, and to help determine optimal decisions for a project or policy.

P5 A set of documentaries have been analysed to understand its presentation and the

message it portrays to stakeholders within a Virtual Stakeholder Group (VSG). Although the analysis is mainly focused on the viewpoint of the VSGs, further consideration has been given to the documentary makers, as their personal values and viewpoints in some cases is apparent in the presentation of their work, which can influence a stakeholders decision. Therefore, their success rate in presenting the right message at the time is questionable against certain stakeholders for a given criterion.

P6 Furthermore, although the gathered information and analysis has been performed using

an open mind approach, it can be perceived as being bias from the presentation and context in this document.

P7 Therefore, it is imperative that during review of this document, it is taken into account that

the case presented on nuclear energy is based only on the information, facts and substantiation from the documentaries at the time, and that there may be no right or wrong answers as to lead a balanced decisions. 436 words




2

CONTENTS

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 1

Contents ............................................................................................................................................................. 2

Figures ............................................................................................................................................................... 2

Tables ................................................................................................................................................................ 2

References ......................................................................................................................................................... 3

Acronyms & Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................. 4

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 5

Strategy for Data Capture & Analysis .......................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Scorecards and Data Analysis................................................................................................................. 6

Discussion on Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 8

3.1 Analysis of Pandora’s Promise ................................................................................................................ 8

3.2 Analysis of Fukushima & Chernobyl Myth vs Reality ................................................................................ 9

3.3 Analysis of ELN - Inside Hinkley Point B Nuclear Power Station .............................................................. 9

3.4 Analysis of Chernobyl Heart .................................................................................................................. 10

Presenting the Case for Nuclear Energy to VSG1 ..................................................................................... 11

4.1 The Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 11

4.2 The Presentation for Nuclear Energy ..................................................................................................... 12

APPENDIX A – Virtual Stakeholder Groups ...................................................................................................... 15

APPENDIX B – MindMap .................................................................................................................................. 23

APPENDIX C – Consolidation of Scorecard Results & Data Analysis ................................................. 24

FIGURES

Figure 1 – Diagram for the Comparison and Trend in the Scores for each VSG in Scorecard A............................... 6

Figure 2 – Diagram for the Comparison and Trend in the Correlation of Valued Criteria between VSGs against

Documentaries on Nuclear Energy ......................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 3 – Priority of Criteria for the Case for Nuclear Energy ............................................................................... 11

Figure 4 – An Example of Defence-In Depth for Public and Worker Security ......................................................... 12

Figure 5 – Criteria’s C7: Transport and C8 Re-processing Costs with Zero Scores ............................................... 13

Figure 6 – An Example of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle for Re-processing Spent Fuel ................................................... 14

TABLES

Table 1 – Scorecard A: Scores for VSGs against Documentaries on Nuclear Energy .............................................. 6

Table 2 – Scorecard B: Scores for VSG Valued Criterions against Documentaries on Nuclear Energy .................... 7




3

REFERENCES

1. The UK’s Nuclear Future – HM Government, Industrial strategy: Government and Industry

in Partnership, released 2013.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nuclear-industrial-strategy-the-uks-nuclear-

future

2. Stakeholder Holder Preference Mapping presented by Gregg Butler for IDM Solutions,

November 2014.

http://tinyurl.com/stakeholder-preference-mapping

3. Multi-Criteria Analysis: a manual - Department for Communities and Local Government:

London; released January 2009.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/7612/1132618.

pdf

4. BBC NEWS - The Chernobyl Disaster: 20 Years On, released 2006.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456957/html/nn1page1.stm

5. BBC NEWS ASIA – Fukushima: Is the fear of radiation the real killer?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26483945

6. The Mail Online - Fukushima Sightseeing trips: Japan's latest tourist attraction?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2860422/Japan-s-latest-tourist-

attraction-Locals-offer-sightseeing-trips-Fukushima-amid-claims-contamination-levels-

low-whistle-stop-visit.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

7. The Chernobyl Heart Foundation Website

http://chernobylheart.org.uk/

8. The World Nuclear Association - The Nuclear Fuel Cycle http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Introduction/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle-Overview/

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nuclear-industrial-strategy-the-uks-nuclear-future

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nuclear-industrial-strategy-the-uks-nuclear-future

http://tinyurl.com/stakeholder-preference-mapping

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/7612/1132618.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/7612/1132618.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456957/html/nn1page1.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26483945

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2860422/Japan-s-latest-tourist-attraction-Locals-offer-sightseeing-trips-Fukushima-amid-claims-contamination-levels-low-whistle-stop-visit.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490



http://chernobylheart.org.uk/

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Introduction/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle-Overview/

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Introduction/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle-Overview/




4

ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS

Acronyms Abbreviations

ALARP As Low As Reasonably Practicable

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CSF Critical Safety Functions

ELN Energy Live News

DID Defence-In Depth

IDM Integrated Decision Management

IFR Integral Fast Reactor

HPB Hinkley Point B

MADA Multi-Attribute Decision Analysis

MCA Multi-Criteria Analysis

ONR Office for Nuclear Regulation

PIE Postulated Initiated Event

PPE Personal Protective Equipment

PSR Periodic Safety Review

SMR Small Modular Reactors

SPM Stakeholder Preference Mapping

UNSCEAR United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation

VSG Virtual Stakeholder Group

WNA World Nuclear Association




5

INTRODUCTION

P8 The purpose of this assignment is to consider and analyse the viewpoint of VSGs in Appendix A against a set of documentaries on nuclear energy as shown below:

Pandora’s Promise (released in 2013) – by Robert Stone ‘An Academy Award Nominated Director’.

Fukushima and Chernobyl: Myth versus Reality (released in 2012) – by the World Nuclear Association (WNA) ‘Representing People and Organisations through the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR)’.

ELN - Inside Hinkley Point B Nuclear Power Station (released in 2011) – by Energy Live News (ELN) ‘An independent leading dedicated energy news site in the UK to bring to life the important issues around all kinds of energy’.

Chernobyl Heart (released in 2003) – by Maryann De Leo ‘Winner of the Best Documentary Short Subject Award at the 2004 Academy Awards’.

P9 The analysis has been conducted using an ‘open mind’ approach with the aid of a mind map (see Appendix B), and scorecards (see Table 1 and Table 2). The scorecards take into account the VSGs codes, valued concepts, beliefs (see Appendix A) and the specific VSGs the documentaries are aimed at, in order to evaluate how nuclear power is presented and how it can be perceived against certain criteria’s.

P10 Furthermore, this document discusses how each stakeholder group is represented in the

documentaries and whether the presentation is realistic, factual and bias towards their viewpoints. Each of the documentaries have been compared to understand and discuss the contrast in its presentation.

P11 Finally, a case is presented for nuclear energy to VSG1 – Stop Nuclear Power, on the

focus to alleviate their concerns and doubts by presenting facts, figures and information that are considered to be realistic arguments from the documentaries. The mind map, scorecards and conclusive information is used in order to gain their trust in nuclear energy by demonstrating how nuclear lifecycle management is currently conducted today, and how it is perceived to be conducted in the future. 327 words

STRATEGY FOR DATA CAPTURE & ANALYSIS

P12 Data applicable to the analysis for the VSGs viewpoint on nuclear energy (favourable and contentious data) has been collated from the documentaries and presented to maintain the facts and information. A mind map (in Appendix B) has been created to visually organise the information for Anti-Nuclear and Pro-Nuclear. Each of the VSGs (in Appendix A) and the valued concepts has been reviewed and scored against the information in the documentaries. The scores have been populated in the scorecards and presented graphically (as shown in section 2.1) and is used for the analysis and arguments in section 3 of this document. 108 words




6

2.1 Scorecards and Data Analysis

SCORECARD A

VSG ID

Virtual Stakeholder

Group

Documentaries

Pandora's Promise

Fukushima and Chernobyl

Myth vs Reality

ELN - Inside Hinkley Point B

Nuclear Power Station

Chernobyl Heart

VSG1 Stop Nuclear Power 2.5 0 0 100

VSG2 Prevent Waste and Disposal

(especially spent fuel) 2.5 0 0 0

VSG3 Security and Terrorist Threat Averse 2.5 0 5 0

VSG4 Local Socio-economically Motivated

Stakeholder 20 20 30 0

VSG5 Need Nuclear in the Energy Mix 30 40 30 0

VSG6 Fiscally Driven 10 0 10 0

VSG7 Transport Averse 2.5 0 0 0

VSG8 Nuclear Power Enthusiasts 30 40 25 0

Table 1– Scorecard A: Scores for VSGs against Documentaries on Nuclear Energy

N.B. A total of ‘100 points’ have been allocated to each documentary in proportion to the VSG viewpoints they seem to be representing. Where a VSG viewpoint is not represented in the documentary, a ‘0 score’ has been allocated.

Figure 1 – Diagram for the Comparison and Trend in the Scores for each VSG in Scorecard A

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Stop nuclear power

Prevent Waste and Disposal (especially spent fuel)

Security and Terrorist Threat Averse

Local Socio-economically Motivated Stakeholder

Need Nuclear in the Energy Mix

Fiscally Driven

Transport Averse

Nuclear Power Enthusiasts

VS

G1

VS

G2

VS

G3

VS

G4

VS

G5

VS

G6

VS

G7

VS

G8

Pandora's Promise Fukushima and Chernobyl Myth vs Reality

ELN - Inside Hinkley Point B Nuclear Power Station Chernobyl Heart

Total score per VSG

Vir

tual

Sta

keh

old

erG

rou

p (

VS

G)

Documentaries

Analysis of Virtual Stakeholder Groups Viewpoint on Nuclear Energy

Scorecard A - Results




7

SCORECARD B

Criteria ID

Criterion

Documentaries

Pandora's Promise


Myth vs Reality



Chernobyl Heart

C1 Public safety 7 9 8 2

C2 Worker safety 6 8 8 2

C3 Security 2 0 6 0

C4 Life cycle impacts 7 0 5 0

C5 Socio-economic 5 0 7 0

C6 Amenity 6 0 7 0

C7 Transport 5 0 0 0

C8 Re-processing costs 6 0 0 0

Table 2 – Scorecard B: Scores for VSG Valued Criterions against Documentaries on Nuclear Energy

N.B. Each of the documentaries have been evaluated on how nuclear power is presented against the given Criterion, where ‘1 is most negative’ and ‘10 is most positive’. Where a particular Criterion is not presented, a ‘0 score’ has been allocated.

Figure 2 – Diagram for the Comparison and Trend in the Correlation of Valued Criteria between VSGs

against Documentaries on Nuclear Energy

7

9

8

2

6

8 8

22

0

6

0

7

0

5

0

5

0

7

0

6

0

7

0

5

0 0 0

6

0 0 0

1 2 3 4

A N A L Y SI S OF V SG V A L U E D C R I T E R I A S ON N U C L E A R E N E R GY

SC OR E C A R D B - R E SU L T S

C1 Public Safety C2 Worker Safety C3 Security C4 Life cycle Impacts

C5 Socio-economic C6 Amenity C7 Transport C8 Re-processing Costs

Pandora's Promise Fukushima and Chernobyl

Myth vs RealityELN - Inside Hinkley Point B

Power Station

Children of Chernobyl

Chernobyl Heart

Criterion

Documentaries

Sco

re p

er C

rite

rion

Most Positive

Least Negative




8

DISCUSSION ON ANALYSIS

P13 The following sections provides the analysis and discusses the presentation of the documentaries; and how the VSGs have been perceived to be represented by the documentary makers from the results in section 2.1. Also, there is the discussion on how the documentary makers try to portray their message to the targeted stakeholders within the VSG (i.e. realistic/non-realistic, sway through emotional and disturbing context, shown in a favourable or unfavourable light). This is detailed further in the Consolidation of Scorecard Results & Data Analysis (see Appendix C), where it provides a detailed description for the analysis against the documentaries VSGs and Criterions to further support the discussions in the following sections. 115 words

3.1 Analysis of Pandora’s Promise

P14 Based on the findings and the results in section 2.1, it has been concluded that Pandora’s Promise focuses on the future of nuclear energy. It is somewhat ‘bias towards nuclear energy’, and is compared against other fuel businesses. It emphasises on how the nuclear scare to the public is a godsend to the coal power and renewables industry and how nuclear is seen to be least favourable. It touches on points where other energy sources, can also be seen as harmful in other ways, such as coal, which contributes to greenhouse gases. Due to the historical events, propaganda and the initial purpose to develop the atomic bomb, nuclear is seen as a dangerous and dirty source of fuel and has deterred the public’s perception for considering it as a solution to the fuel mix.

P15 The documentary mainly represents VSG4, VSG5 and VSG8 with some facts and

attractive information to support nuclear energy, however it is targeted to a wider audience. It provides a wide viewpoint touching on all VSGs and Criterions in some form or another (as shown in detail in section 2.1 and Appendix C), and was interestingly presented with a mixture of many Stakeholders from Activists, Environmentalists (converted to accept nuclear and scrutinising their own beliefs), Scientists and Experts (who have criticised nuclear projects and the intentions of government). This would potentially appeal to all stakeholders adding a new dimension to their thoughts and views during their decision making process.

P16 Pandora’s Promise has been considered to be ‘factual’ with the involvement of experts and

scientists in their presentation from legacy to next generation nuclear reactors. However, although there was a lot of scientific information provided, there was a shortage in providing statistics. The documentary was released in 2013 where the nuclear industry has come a long way from very bad nuclear disasters such as Chernobyl to manageable nuclear disasters to educate the public such as Fukushima [Ref. 6]. This documentary demonstrates this very well and is aimed at presenting general factual information against emotional appeal where it seems to be aimed at forming or reinforcing public opinion for nuclear energy (see Appendix C for further information). 366 words




9

3.2 Analysis of Fukushima & Chernobyl Myth vs Reality

P17 The documentary indirectly represents VSG5 and VSG8 in favour of nuclear energy in the viewpoint that it is focussed on nuclear safety and that it is trying to alleviate the fear in the public by using facts from research and studies from Chernobyl to Fukushima using a UN radiation protection organisation UNSCEAR. Therefore, it is not entirely bias towards the support for nuclear energy.

P18 It used facts in a positive manner in support of VSG5 and VSG8 and Criterion C1 and C2

(see results in section 2.1), however it could attract a wider audience. It demonstrated the magnitude of communication, education and management that is required during and after a Postulated Initiated Event (PIE) like Chernobyl and Fukushima. There was good use of data and facts presented by scientists and experts on behalf of UNSCEAR. There were other concerns that were raised in the presentation regarding an event like Chernobyl and Fukushima that can have a detrimental impact on people’s lives such as: Stress, Trauma, Anxiety, Poverty, Social, Economic and Political Change that is not entirely due to radiological exposure. These drawbacks were highlighted very well (see Appendix C for further information). 203 words

3.3 Analysis of ELN - Inside Hinkley Point B Nuclear Power Station

P19 This documentary is aimed at VSG4, VSG5 and VSG8 for nuclear energy whilst touching on VSG3 and VSG6 in a favourable manner. However, it is bias in a pragmatic sense by presenting a solution for a future-proof sustainable energy mix and local-social economic benefits for Criterions C1 through to C6 (see results in section 2.1). It provided some facts and confidence through demonstration that the Critical Safety Functions (CSF) such as control of reactivity, containment, and the removal of heat was heavily focussed on and managed in a way that it met the requirements for the regulator i.e. the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR).

P20 The discussion of safeguards for Defence-In Depth (DID) against unforeseen events such

as a security breach or a terrorist attack is shown to be considered. This can be seen as being very attractive for a wider audience. However, no real evidence was presented to convince any Stakeholder that nuclear is safe. It could be seen that the Station Director was being bias to reflect a good image of Hinkley Point B (HPB) from the way the documentary was presented. However, it was perceived as realistic within the time of the documentary that the evidence that was shown was important to support the valued criterions i.e. 0Sv on the dosimeter, around 500MW of power being generated, wearing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), discussing Periodic Safety Review (PSR). Therefore, the presentation was taken seriously over the course of the documentary.

255 words




10

3.4 Analysis of Chernobyl Heart

P21 This documentary was perceived as being in favour of VSG1 in stopping nuclear energy, where it did not appear to touch on the other VSGs or Criterions (see results in section 2.1). Based on the presentation it was concluded that there was an emphasis on bringing fear to the public, through substantiated (i.e. thyroid cancer) and non-substantiated (i.e. cardiac conditions) medical cases using the children exposed to radiation (or through consumption of local nutrition) within the proximity of Chernobyl.

P22 The documentary was released in the year 2003, and today there is sufficient evidence to

prove that the harmful effects due to the exposure to nuclear radiation during Chernobyl can be considered to be low for fatalities (due to acute radiation) against its population, also the long term effects of thyroid cancer for children, where it is proven that it can be cured.

P23 The presentation of the documentary digressed from children suffering from thyroid cancer

to children with cardiac degradation conditions being treated by great doctors from America, which added new a dimension to the presentation at the end of the documentary, where it was questionable whether the intentions of the documentary was aimed at VSG 1. Again, no real evidence was presented to show that the children with cardiac conditions were attributed due to the Chernobyl disaster. Also, nuclear safety was not demonstrated in any aspect to prove that the practices and policies after the Chernobyl disaster were/are poor and that nuclear is unsafe. It is fair to state that illnesses have increased after Chernobyl in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, however, there was no real facts/statistics to prove this was due to the Chernobyl accident [Ref. 7].

P24 The increase in the type of illnesses for the children of Chernobyl may be similar in cases

for children throughout the world where similar illnesses may have increased at the same rate at a global scale in other countries and may be due to another contributing factors. However, it can be concluded from the documentary in section 3.2 as supportive information/substantiation that after the Chernobyl incident the children were mainly affected due to the consumption of contaminated milk and food, where their bodies absorbed large quantities of radioactive material.

P25 The documentary was enhanced using children through the horrific presentation and it would easily bait public attention and digress a pro-nuclear stakeholder through emotional appeal (especially a parent of a child) and affect an important decision. It was seen as being heavily staged where it badly demonstrated public safety in general and was questioned on many occasions. For example, the presenter had stressed that they were entering an exclusion zone and that removing their dust masks in the vehicle could lead to deadly consequences by breathing in contaminated particulates. However, the presenter decided to take the mask off in the open ambience of the exclusion zone whilst presenting the reactor building at the same time. The presenter made it very clear that she was very scared, however she continued with the presentation. The presenter’s behaviour and true concerns about being exposed to radiation was questionable. 521 words




11

PRESENTING THE CASE FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY TO VSG1

P26 In accordance with the Consolidation of Scorecard Results & Data Analysis (see Appendix C), and the results in section 2.1, it is evident that Chernobyl Heart is fully represented through VSG1, where it has gained the highest score between all the VSGs (100 points) in Scorecard A. The results have been used to analyse the challenges when presenting the case for nuclear energy. As part of the outcome from the analysis, the stakeholder (i.e. VSG1 and the documentary maker) in favor of anti-nuclear, can be perceived as follows:

Unrealistic in their understanding of nuclear energy.

High attraction towards anti-nuclear.

Highly biased towards anti-nuclear.

Not factual about nuclear energy.

Demonstrated nil concern and the least negative towards the valued criterions.

No overlap with other VSGs (isolated). 135 words

4.1 The Methodology

P27 Taking on board the findings above and from the results in section 2.1 and Appendix C, it would prove very difficult and challenging in presenting the case for nuclear energy as VSG1 is seen as an isolated group due to bad qualitative contributing factors by the nuclear industry i.e. from disasters like Chernobyl. Therefore, a methodology has been derived for prioritising and targeting the criterions associated with the sensitive subject matters to form a positive case for nuclear energy. This is shown in figure 3.

P28 In accordance with figure 3, ‘Target Case’, covers criteria’s that were not presented and

received a zero score in some of the documentaries. Emphasis has been given on factual information and proven engineering techniques in order to gain trust from VSG1.

P29 As for ‘Supporting Case’, it covers criterias that have received a score for all the

documentaries, where the emphasis is on combining with factual information from Target Case in a suitable way to gain trust from VSG 1. 176 words

Figure 3 – Priority of Criteria for the Case for Nuclear Energy

Target Case C3 Security

C4 Life cycle impacts

C5 Socio-economic

C6 Amenity

C7 Transport

C8 Re-processing costs

Supporting Case

C1 Public Safety

C2 Worker Safety




12

4.2 The Presentation for Nuclear Energy

P30 C3: Security, (Supporting C1: Public Security, Worker Security) – Nuclear Power

stations and Waste Reprocessing sites have a lot of security and is usually enhanced in

the design of their Structures, Systems and Components (SSC) against threats such as

Cyber-attack, Seismic, SSC fault conditions etc, to prevent harm to the public and for

worker safety. An example for enhancing security is through Defence-In Depth (DID). This

case was presented in ELN – Inside HPB and Pandora’s Promise.

P31 DID is a co-ordinated design technique which uses multiple security and counter-measures

to protect the integrity of the nuclear site and any assets or information associated with it.

The strategy is based on military principles, where it is more difficult for an enemy to defeat

a complex and multi-layered defence system than to penetrate a single barrier.

P32 A good way of interpreting DID is by using the ‘Onion and Swiss Cheese Analogy’, where

the realisation of an accident due to PIEs can only occur when each layer (such as

containment, barriers, safeguards, control measures etc) has breached and the voids have

aligned. The likelihood of this occurring is highly remote and can be seen as almost

impossible for the event to occur (even due to operator intervention). An example is shown

below: 212 words

Figure 4 – An Example of Defence-In Depth for Public and Worker Security

http://ri.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=Az_6xdlIaYNUWnUAbt1WBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTBtaTBhcHJnBHNlYwNmcC1pbWcEc2xrA2ltZwRpdAM-/RV=2/RE=1417927113/RO=11/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.dandelion-films.com%2fdefense-in-depth-diagram/RK=0/RS=MK.fmR2kyZnNo_m5_t7hITDrMv4-




13

P33 C4: Lifecycle Impacts, C7: Transport, C8: Re-processing Costs (Supporting C1:

Public Security, Worker Security) – There are many stages in the lifecycle for nuclear

power, where Lifecycle Assessments (LCAs) are continuously being conducted by

government bodies, authorities and associations such as HM Government [Ref. 1], World

Nuclear Association (WNA) [Ref. 8], Nuclear Decommissioning Authorities (NDA) as to

understand the impacts it can have (i.e. cost, public safety, sustainable energy etc) and in

this case, based on all the criteria’s covered in this document (Criterions C1 to C8). Re-

processing costs and transport for spent fuel and new fuel is a contentious subject matter

which was not fully represented in the documentaries with the exception of Pandora’s

Promise, as shown in figure 5 below.

SCORECARD B

Criteria ID

Criterion

Documentaries

Pandora's Promise


Myth vs Reality



Chernobyl Heart

C1 Public safety 7 9 8 2

C2 Worker safety 6 8 8 2

C3 Security 2 0 6 0

C4 Life cycle impacts 7 0 5 0

C5 Socio-economic 5 0 7 0

C6 Amenity 6 0 7 0

C7 Transport 5 0 0 0

C8 Re-processing costs 6 0 0 0

Figure 5 – Criteria’s C7: Transport and C8 Re-processing Costs with Zero Scores

P34 Based on the findings from all of the documentaries, in support of Public Safety (Criteria C1), the main contributor to cancer is radiation release and exposure through contamination. The case for nuclear energy can be supported through the implementation of DID, throughout the entire lifecycle in order to bring safety risks and impacts to a low acceptable level. However DID comes at a cost, only where it is considered to be seen ‘As Low As Reasonably Practicable’ (ALARP).

P35 A viable trade-off can be made from cost saving activities in transport and re-processing

of spent fuel. There are methods for re-processing nuclear fuels such as Plutonium and Uranium, i.e. where uranium recovered from re-processing, which typically contains a slightly higher concentration of U-235 than occurs in nature, can be re-used as fuel after conversion and enrichment [Ref. 8]. 264 words




14

P36 Also for future build, it may be possible to re-process spent fuel local to the Nuclear Power

Station within the facility using Generation III, IV and Small Modular Reactors (SMR). This was demonstrated in Pandora’s Promise for the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR). An example of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle is shown in figure 6 [Ref. 8]. This allows having a domestic nuclear market that maximises commercial opportunities and delivering growth by providing a platform to build sustainable exports as well as a secure supply of energy in the long-term. This can only bring large growth and prosperity.

Figure 6 – An Example of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle for Re-processing Spent Fuel

P37 C5: Socio-economic; C6: Amenity – The nuclear industry can support socio-economic growth and amenity through employment and academia through mainstreaming skills and talent, in many disciplines for the capability and capacity required to successfully deliver current and future nuclear programmes with the highest standards of nuclear professionalism, safety and competitiveness. It can also help with the growth of business within the supply chain with the skills and expertise to compete on a global basis for contracts providing the long term infrastructure required to support both the public and private sector parts of industry in a safe, responsible and cost-effective manner. It can continue to be used for tackling the environmental concerns with regards to CO2 emissions and climate change [Ref. 1]. 215 words




15

APPENDIX A – VIRTUAL STAKEHOLDER GROUPS

VSG1 - Stop nuclear power This activist group takes a predominantly environmental view of socio-economic development, viewing the risks of nuclear power as the primary detriment to be avoided, and remains sceptical of claims of scientific or technical fact. Any reduction in fuel cycle costs and any re-use of materials would be viewed as increasing the credibility of nuclear power as a sustainable power source and hence the unacceptable prospect of the construction of new nuclear power stations. Radioactive Waste, and particularly spent fuel are viewed as the industry’s Achilles Heel, and so radioactive waste disposal is held to be hazardous and incapable of being enacted. The security and proliferation aspects of continued nuclear power operations are of concern, as are issues around the inability of inspection to provide adequate assurances and protection, together with a more general fear about the erosion of civil liberties. Therefore, arguments are set out to arrive at an outcome where nuclear power is hindered as much as possible and progress in, for example, waste management would be resisted unless accompanied by an undertaking of no further nuclear build. Indicative arguments used by the VSG are:

Nuclear power is dangerous, the waste problem is insoluble and detriments associated with it are unacceptable.

Nuclear power is expensive to build, to operate and to decommission.

Re-use of nuclear materials and recycling of spent fuels is unjustified, being uneconomic, increasing environmental burdens, the risk of accidents and security concerns.

The energy input into nuclear power and its fuel cycle is much larger than official estimates.

The detriment of radiation dose from discharges is greatly underestimated.

Transport of nuclear materials is very dangerous and should be rigorously minimised.

Global warming and climate change can be overcome without the use of nuclear power.

Official or nuclear industry data and information are not reliable or transparent.

Proliferation and materials control regimes cannot be relied upon to adequately prevent diversion or terrorist activity.

Valued concepts will be: Security, public safety, life cycle impacts, amenity, transport, socio-economic, costs




16

VSG2 - Prevent Waste (especially spent fuel) disposal This group is primarily concerned to stop any progress on nuclear waste disposal. This can be viewed as a sub-Group of VSG1, but can be of wider geographical extent, as, while only a few areas can, in practice, be ‘threatened’ with a nuclear power station, in principle any area could host a Geological Disposal Facility. This Group is currently talking enormous interest in Government plans for Geological Screening, usually with the transparent belief that ‘their’ area does not exhibit ‘ideal geology’ and should therefore be ruled out. Geological disposal is held to be extremely hazardous, with ‘no way of preventing the radioactivity from spreading into the environment’. Scientific safety studies are ruled with extreme scepticism, and spent fuel from new build reactors is held to be immeasurably more dangerous that any fuel from current reactors. There is probably a small subset of VSG2 that does not subscribe to the totally anti-nuclear views of VSG1, provided that the waste is not stored or disposed in their area. Indicative arguments used by the VSG are:

The disposal of radioactive waste, and especially spent nuclear fuel, is not, and cannot be made, safe: the radioactivity will return to the surface and cause severe health problems for future generations

Reputable geologists agree with this and especially that the geology in our area is incapable of supporting safe disposal.

Transport of nuclear materials and especially spent fuel is dangerous and imposes an unacceptable risk from accidents and terrorist attack, so the only safe spent fuel is that which is not produced.

Valued concepts will be: Public safety, security, transport




17

VSG3 - Security and Terrorist Threat Averse This VSG believes that the greatest threat is from misappropriation of, or terrorist attack on, nuclear materials and spent fuel. The main drivers are to minimise the transit or storage of materials which are in a form which could be made viable for weapons use or dirty bombs. The VSG would value options and scenarios which would convert materials into passive forms and place them beyond use, either by disposal or in secure storage. The Group has concerns about technology transfer increasing the opportunities for proliferation. The VSG does not believe that international and national security and safeguards inspectorates and regulatory regimes are sufficiently resourced or robust enough to prevent misappropriation or terrorist attack. In addition, moves taken by regulators and Governments to decrease the perceived threat are also considered to be unacceptable if these seek to impinge civil liberties. Typical arguments used by the VSG are:

The use of nuclear materials for power generation presents significant security and non-proliferation risks.

Transport of nuclear materials offers an unacceptable risk of theft or sabotage.

The existing regulatory regime is insufficient to guard against the risks of misappropriation and sabotage.

Spent fuel should immediately be classed as waste and any further handling and treatment should be driven by the need to minimise the risks of misappropriation and sabotage.

Having distributed storage of nuclear materials and spent fuel is not acceptable.

Disposal of nuclear materials and spent fuel would be preferred over extended surface storage.

Valued concepts would be: Security, transport




18

VSG4 - Local Socio-economically Motivated Stakeholder The VSG is motivated by the perceived socio-economic value of a nuclear licensed site and the desire to maintain or attract processes which will underpin or enhance employment opportunities and associated local community well-being. It considers that local oversight (through planning and engagement processes) and the workforce will ensure that activities are safe, secure and do not impinge upon worker safety or public amenities. Continued support will depend on whether socio-economic prosperity and community well-being are perceived to be linked to the activities on site, and therefore the relative socio-economic profiles of storage, re-use and waste management options will be important. The amount of disruption caused by operations in terms of local amenities and transport will be of concern. The Group would not be constrained to support cheaper options on behalf of “UK plc” and some would not want to see more nuclear materials being moved into their areas, so opposing centralised storage. The VSG believes that some subsidy is justified by the delivery of local benefits. Typical arguments used by the VSG are:

The operations at the site and its environmental effects are assured by the scrutiny afforded by the regulators, the local workforce and community.

Scenarios will be favoured which offer sustainable employment – the numbers of jobs and the timescales involved.

The employment provided by operations contributes to the social prosperity of the locality.

Amenity impacts of operations and mitigating the effects of transporting nuclear materials are part of the partnership and socio-economic packages agreed between site operators, the NDA and the local community.

Valued concepts would be: Socio-economic impacts, amenity, worker safety, transport




19

VSG5 - Need Nuclear in the Energy Mix This Group believes that climate change does exist; that there is an energy gap and security of supply issues are important. Having undertaken a review of the UK energy portfolio, the Group considers that alternative energy sources and conservation measures will not address the gap and has therefore concluded that nuclear power should be included in the short to medium term “energy mix”. The VSG views are mainly driven by the perceived need to secure power supplies for the UK. Typical arguments used by the VSG are:

Nuclear power should be used to address the energy gap that the UK faces.

Security of supply cannot be guaranteed by using overseas oil and gas supplies.

There are safety and security risks associated with the use of nuclear power and the transport of nuclear materials, but these can be properly managed.

Valued concepts would be: Cost, Life cycle impacts, Climate Change Detriments.




20

VSG6 - Fiscally Driven This VSG, which will include both policy makers and investors, takes a view dominated by the socio-economic perspective, and will argue for nuclear power provided that it is achieved in a competitive energy market. From the policy side, the group will support the removal of barriers to the achievement of the necessary investment but will be quick to object if this appears to strays into subsidy. The concept of discounting is accepted to justify maximising income now, while minimising the significance of longer term risks. The Group will highly value economic parameters and will be confident that public, worker safety and security will be assured by the existing regulatory regimes. This will mean that storage will be viewed as acceptable, and the Group may be averse to early spend to accelerate waste management and disposal. Typical arguments used by the VSG are:

Provided that environmental, safety and security regulatory constraints are met, nuclear is acceptable as long as it can function in a competitive energy market

Barriers to new investment can be removed, but subsidies should be avoided, energy policy should not stray beyond ensuring a competitive market.

Discounting is a valid method of reducing current expenditure, and continued storage of new build spent fuel and current legacy wastes can be justified on financial grounds.

Valued concepts would be: Cost.




21

VSG7 - Transport Averse This VSG is motivated by the perception of risk delivered to people near to transport routes. They perceive that accidents could give very large detriments and that transport movements should be rigorously minimised. The Group will be especially sensitive to the movements of large tonnages of “dangerous materials”. Official transport statistics or technical views on the integrity of existing transport containers or the methods of transport employed would not be believed. Other attributes would be valued only in as far as they would contribute to minimising transport movements. Typical arguments used by the VSG are:

Movements of nuclear materials and spent fuel offer an unacceptable risk to those near the transport route, especially when these take place in populated areas.

Leaving materials and spent fuel where they are currently stored is more acceptable than moving such materials around the UK.

This Group will value: Public safety, transport, and amenity




22

VSG8 - Nuclear Power Enthusiasts This VSG believes in the application and development of nuclear technology and nuclear power. Such technology is economically viable. Risks associated with nuclear power and the associated fuel cycle operations are perceived to be capable of being managed safely and securely within regulatory regimes which cover public and worker safety, security and proliferation threats, transport and environmental impacts. Likely to be involved in the industry, the Group has confidence in the existing UK nuclear sector and sees opportunities for enhancing local and national economic prosperity. The Group would believe that it was technically capable of dealing with all materials and spent fuels whatever the decision taken regarding future options. The Group would wish to see the use of nuclear materials in preference to declaring these materials as wastes in the interests of underpinning national self-sufficiency in power production, security of energy supply and the perceived value inherent in the current inventory. The Group would, however, be concerned about the cost of re-use options if this was seen to be a disadvantage to the prospects of nuclear power. Typical arguments used by the VSG are:

Nuclear power is a sustainable and safe form of low carbon energy production.

Risks associated with nuclear operations can be safely managed with minimal environmental impacts and are independently regulated.

Security and safeguards regimes are adequate and independently regulated.

Transport operations are safe and well-regulated.

There are substantial local and national socio-economic benefits associated with nuclear power production and nuclear fuel cycle operations.

This Group will value: Life cycle impacts, socio-economic impacts, cost.



Presented by Dijesh Kumar Das 23

APPENDIX B – MINDMAP




APPENDIX C – CONSOLIDATION OF SCORECARD RESULTS & DATA ANALYSIS

Documentaries on

Nuclear Energy

VSG Representation Key Valued Criterion Level of Presentation to Represented VSGs

Conclusively aimed at VSG and Valued Criteria Comments Remarks

Stakeholders Represented

Stakeholders Not Represented

Criteria Criteria

Not Represented Style Attraction Factual Bias

Pandora’s Promise

VSG1 - Very Low VSG2 - Very Low VSG3 - Very Low VSG4 - Low/Med VSG5 - Med/High VSG6 - Low VSG7 - Very Low VSG8 - Med/High

C1 - Positive C2 - Quite Positive C3 - Negative C4 - Positive C5 - Average C6 - Quite Positive C7 - Average C8 - Quite Positive

Realistic/

Favourable Medium

Medium/High

Medium/High

Mainly represents: VSG4 Local Socio-economically Motivated Stakeholder; VSG5 Need Nuclear in the Energy in the Mix and VSG8 Nuclear Power Enthusiasts. Criteria’s mainly valued are: Public Safety Lifecycle Impacts with some moderate consideration (direct/indirect) to: Worker Safety Socio-economic Amenity Transport Re-processing Costs

The documentary mainly represents VSG4, VSG5 and VSG8 with some facts and attractive information to support Nuclear Energy. However it provided a wider view and was interestingly presented with a mixture of many Stakeholders from Activists, Environmentalists (converted to accept nuclear), Scientists and Experts (who have criticised nuclear projects and the intentions of businesses). It used great examples of why nuclear energy has been perceived as deadly and the causes of the contentious viewpoints in the public. It showed the intention of nuclear from defence to energy, and how experts had got it wrong in the past and from years of research, lessons learnt, design and testing there is greater confidence in nuclear generation today and how it is perceived to be managed in the future. It focuses on the public and their concerns by looking at ways of tackling climate change by introducing next generation of nuclear reactors to meet the CO2

reduction targets and energy demands including developing countries. It compares the safety of nuclear energy in its lifecycle (from design and manufacture to disposal) and how it is considered safer in comparison to other energy sources in other ways.

Fukushima and Chernobyl Myth

vs Reality

VSG4 - Low VSG5 - High VSG8 - High

VSG1 - 0 VSG2 - 0 VSG3 - 0 VSG6 - 0 VSG7 - 0

C1 - Positive C2 -Positive

C3 - 0 C4 - 0 C5 - 0 C6 - 0 C7 - 0 C8 - 0

Realistic/ Favourable

Medium High Medium/

Low

Mainly represents: VSG5 Need Nuclear in the Energy in the Mix and VSG8 Nuclear Power Enthusiasts. with some moderate consideration (direct/indirect) to: VSG4 Local Socio-economically Motivated Stakeholder; Criteria’s mainly valued are: Public Safety Worker Safety

The documentary inadvertently mainly represents VSG5 and VSG8 in the viewpoint that it is representing nuclear safety in the aspect that it is trying to alleviate the fear in the public by using facts from research and studies from Chernobyl to Fukushima using a UN radiation protection organisation UNSCEAR. It uses facts in a positive manner and shows the magnitude of communication and management that is required during and after a Postulated Initiated Event (PIE). Good use of data and facts presented by scientists and experts on behalf of UNSCEAR. There are concerns that were raised during an event like Chernobyl and Fukushima that is not due to radiological exposure that can have a detrimental impact on people’s lives such as: Stress, Trauma, Anxiety, Poverty and Social, Economic and Political Change. These drawbacks were highlighted very well.




Documentaries on

Nuclear Energy

VSG Representation Key Valued Criterion Level of Presentation to Represented VSGs

Conclusively aimed at VSG and Valued Criteria Comments Remarks

Stakeholders Represented

Stakeholders Not Represented

Criteria Criteria

Not Represented Style Attraction Factual Bias

ELN Inside Hinkley Point B Nuclear Power

Station

VSG3 - Very Low VSG4 - Med/High VSG5 - Med/High VSG6 - Low VSG7 - Very Low VSG8 - Low/Med

VSG1 - 0 VSG2 - 0 VSG7 - 0

C1 - Positive C2 - Positive C3 - Quite Positive C4 - Average C5 - Quite Positive C6 - Quite Positive

C7 - 0 C8 - 0

Realistic/ Favourable

Medium Medium/

Low Medium/

High

Mainly represents: VSG4 Local Socio-economically Motivated Stakeholder; VSG5 Need Nuclear in the Energy in the Mix and VSG8 Nuclear Power Enthusiasts. with some moderate consideration (direct/indirect) to: VSG3: Security and Threat; VSG6 Fiscally Driven Criteria’s mainly valued are: Public Safety Worker Safety Security Lifecycle Impacts Amenity Socio-economic

This documentary is aimed at nuclear energy as a requirement but in a pragmatic sense for achieving future sustainable energy mix, local-social economic benefits. It provides confidence that the critical safety functions such as control of reactivity, containment, and the removal of heat is heavily focussed on and managed in a way that it meets the regulatory requirements. The discussion of safeguards and Defence in Depth against unforeseen events such as security breach or a terrorist attack is shown to be considered. However, no real evidence was presented to convince any Stakeholder that Nuclear is safe. It could be seen that the Station Director is being bias to reflect a good image of Hinkley Point B. However, it was realistic that in the time of the documentary the evidence that was shown was important to support the valued criteria’s i.e.0Sv on the dosimeter, around 500MW of power being generated, wearing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), discussing Periodic Safety Review (PSR). So was taken seriously over the course of the documentary.

Chernobyl Heart VSG1 - Very High

VSG2 - 0 VSG3 - 0 VSG4 - 0 VSG5 - 0 VSG6 - 0 VSG7 - 0 VSG8 - 0

C1 - Negative C2 - Negative

C3 - 0 C4 - 0 C5 - 0 C6 - 0 C7 - 0 C8 - 0

Unrealistic/ Partially

favourable High

Medium/Low

High

Mainly represents: VSG1 Stop Nuclear Power; Criteria touches on are: Public Safety Worker Safety

Emphasis on bringing fear to the public rather than focussing on public safety through the children in areas around Chernobyl. This was emotionally enhanced by showing children that had been affected by illness due to the Chernobyl accident. Illnesses have increased after Chernobyl in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, however, there was no real evidence presented to prove this was due to the Chernobyl accident. The increase in illnesses of the children in Chernobyl may be the same throughout the world where illnesses may have increased at a global scale in other countries and may be due to another contributing factors. No real evidence was provided. Heavily staged, where the use of a Geiger Counter was questionable. The presenter had stressed that they were entering an exclusion zone and that removing their dust masks in the vehicle could lead to deadly consequences by breathing in contaminated particulates. However, the presenter decided to take the mask off in the open ambience of the exclusion zone whilst presenting the reactor building at the same time. The presenter made it very clear that she was very scared, however she continued with the presentation. This documentary is more questionable than the others that have viewed.




--- End of Report ---

Documents

Assignment - Module 1 MACE60170 01_12_2014