ODUMUNC 2018 Issue Brief Fourth Committee: Special Political. Compensation for the Effects of Nuclear Radiation From Accidents and Tests

Transcription

1 Fourth Committee: Special Political Compensation for the Effects of Nuclear Radiation From by: Shannon Schubert Old Dominion University Model United Nations Society Introduction On 11 March 2011, three nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station in Okuma, Japan, experienced nuclear core meltdowns after their emergency generators were disabled. The incident was a result of a catastrophic tsunami and earthquake. This disaster has was the most significant nuclear incident since the Soviet Union s nuclear reactor at Chernobyl (now in Ukraine) went out of control in Unlike the accident in Ukraine, there have not been any deaths or cases of radiation poisoning from Fukushima. That has not stopped scientists and the general public from fearing long-term effects, should contaminated materials find their way out of the containment area. Because of the potential overarching damage, nuclear accidents and their impact are a major issue within the Fourth Committee in the General Assembly of the United Nations (UN), also known as Special Political and Decolonization (SPECPOL) Committee. Background Nuclear radiation affects the Earth from natural sources, but those tend to be harmless, low level and uncontroversial. Artificial sources, of the other hand, are can be prevented, and when they are not, can be catastrophic. One of the Fukushima nuclear reactors explodes on 11 March 2011 The world got its first understanding of the risks following the dropping of atomic bombs by the U.S. Army Air Force on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 and 9 August Approximately 70,000 people died in each attack from prompt blast, heat and fire effects. An equal number died from later radiation poisoning. The nuclear attacks of 1945 marking the end of World War II gave rise to the notion that nuclear warfare would be catastrophic and must be prohibited completely. Negotiations among the countries with and without nuclear capabilities yielded the creation in 1955 of the United Nations Scientific Committee of the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). A further sense of the risks came on 1954, when a nuclear test by the United States in the Pacific Ocean, Castle Bravo, yielded three times the destructive energy expected. Fishermen 200 miles away were hit with lethal radiation.

2 and Fukushima incidents were equally disastrous; the Chernobyl reactor achieved criticality, while none of the Fukushima reactors went critical. On the other hand the high rating indicates the potential for similar effects if Fukushima had gone critical. The famous American nuclear disaster at Three Mile Island in 1979 destroyed a nuclear plant, showing the risks, but resulted in only a small released of nuclear radiation. UNSCEAR was conceived to "assess and report levels and effects of exposure to ionized radiation," one year following the Lucky Dragon incident. 1 Working hand-in-hand with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the committee has published 25 major works, some of which is examined later in this issue brief, and meets annually. In addition to criticality and radiological incidents surrounding nuclear weapons development and testing, scores of nuclear accidents have occurred within nuclear reactors. Nuclear accidents are measured using the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES). The ratings are sometimes subjective to the international authorities, but in general, they range from zero to seven. A zero rating means that there is nothing more than a deviation from normal radiation levels in the atmosphere, while seven indicates a major accident and a serious hazard. Unlike the scales used to measure natural events, such as tornadoes and hurricanes, "man-made" disasters are more subjective to interpretation. The social and psychological disruption caused by the Chernobyl incident effected economic systems throughout the effected regions in Ukraine, the Russian Federation, and Belarus. Radioactive materials contaminated all three countries and radionuclides, which are elements that exude radiation, were "measurable in all countries of the northern hemisphere." 2 Since nuclear power rose to the forefront of the scientific world, the importance of containing this new power source and handling potential "fall outs" has balanced the nuclear community. However, the subjective character of the measuring scale is a point of contention. Observed effects of irradiation are less subjective than the INES. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, the Castle Bravo/Lucky Dragon incident, Chernobyl and Fukushima provide objective measurements of the effects of radiation. So far, only two events have been labeled as category seven events: the Chernobyl incident and the Fukushima meltdown. This does not suggest the Chernobyl 1 About Us, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, accessed Sep 8, The Chernobyl Accident, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. 2

3 Chernobyl: In 1986 in Ukraine, then a Republic of the Soviet Union, an explosion at a nuclear reactor released radiation into the atmosphere. Radiation doses ranged from approximately twoand-a-half years to over twenty-five years worth of normal radiation at once. 5 There were thirtyone direct deaths, and a sharp increase in leukemia, thyroid cancer, other cancers, heart disease, reproductive illness, and cataracts, not to mention over 300,000 evacuees in the coming years. 6 Efforts to stabilize the destroyed Chernobyl nuclear plant in Russia on 5 August Source: The Atlantic. Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Because the 1945 atomic attacks on Japan happened more than seventy years ago, they present an opportunity to study the long-term effects of radiation on a large population. The attacks showed immediate, acute effects, such as severe burns, but also long-term effects, such as genetic mutations, stillbirths, a sharp increase in reported leukemia cases within four years, and a sharp increase in other reported cancers within ten years. 3 Lucky Dragon incident: When the US conducted the Castle Bravo nuclear tests in 1954, unforeseen weather patterns and unexpected explosive yields caused Japanese fishermen 85 miles away to experience extreme illness with skin irritations, burns, nausea, loss of hair, and other radiation-linked afflictions. 4 In addition to these acute effects, one crewmember died. 3 Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Long Term Health Effects. Columbia K-1 Project: Center for Nuclear Studies. 4 Lawrence Wittner. How Japan Learned About Nuclear Safety. The Huffington Post.. Fukushima: In 2011 an earthquake off the coast of Japan triggered a tsunami that severely damaged the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. The cores remained stable, and radioactive iodine escaped the containment structures. While no one died from the radiation, and while there was no detectable increase in cancers or other illnesses, the World Health Organization noted other indirect effects that were largely based on psychological stresses, such as mass evacuation, which led to a few deaths (mainly among elderly who were relocated to less-than-sanitary housing). 7 These evacuations are also significant because entire families were uprooted from their communities and their jobs. 8 5 Alan Taylor, The Chernobyl Disaster: 25 Years Ago, The Atlantic, 23 March Health effects of the Chernobyl accident: an overview. World Health Organization. kgrounder/en/ 7 FAQs: Fukushima Five Years On. World Health Organization. a/faqs-fukushima/en/ 8 For a discussion on the differences between Chernobyl and Fukushima, see this NPR article. 3

4 on the significance of the issue. But they differ on how to deal with responsibility for its consequences. Rather than demanding action by specific states, so far the UN stresses standards that all can follow, as best interpreted themselves. This approach, criticized by some as lowest common denominator, or log-rolling politics, is illustrated in three landmark UN reports: An aerial view of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, the site of the world's worst nuclear accident, is shown in this May 1986 photo made a few days after the April 26 explosion in Chernobyl, Ukraine. Source: The Atlantic. The UN and Nuclear Radiation For the 193 Member States of the UN< radiation issues raise problems of scope and responsibility. Which kinds of nuclear radiation releases are the responsibility of the interional community, and which are the business of home governments themselves? How active should the UN as a whole be on these issues? How to distinguish between different kinds of nuclear events? Should the international community respond differently to an intentional test versus an accidental release of radiation from a reactor disaster? What of mishaps with nuclear weapons, such crashes or accidental release of nuclear weapons during a training flight, or the loss of a nuclear powered submarine at sea? Nuclear radiation is a serious and controversial issue for the Member States of the UN. All agree Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (1961) 9 approved studying of the radiological effects of nuclear weapons tests. Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space (1992) 10 expresses concern that future development of nuclear power in outer space will have negative impacts on human health. Effects of atomic radiation (2016) 11 emphasized the importance of future research into the effects of radiation on human health and the environment. This resolution explicitly cites Fukushima as a cause of continued concern. Current Situation In January of 2017, UNSCEAR released their annual report, which included developments in the levels and effects of the Fukushima incident. The committee delved into the results and developed new ways to measure radiation effects not only from nuclear accidents, but simple tests and day-to-day operations as well. With the advancements of technology, there have been gaps in the "estimation of human (XVI) (1961) 10 A/RES/47/68 (1992) 11 A/RES/71/89 (2016): Press briefing 4

5 exposures to ionizing radiation from electricity generation." 12 Responsibility for the accidents remains a controversial issue. Should the nations who claim ownership of nuclear reactors be held responsible for nuclear events and accidents? Taking into consideration the unbalanced scale of measuring these accidents and factoring in natural elements, such as earthquakes and tsunamis, it is becoming very difficult to justify individual countries accountability. There is currently no procedure that officially factors in natural elements in order to attribute fault, leaving it to pure interpretation and assuming the event is 100% man-made. In cases such as Chernobyl, where it was obvious that incorrect operation of the reactor was the cause of the accident, the argument can be made that the state of ownership, Ukraine, could be made to adhere to some type of reparation. Yet, the argument is not so clear in the case of Fukushima, in which natural factors were the main cause of the reactor meltdowns. Another point of contention has been voiced as to whether or not nuclear weapons their tests and their uses should be considered in the same category as events that occur with nuclear reactors. Based on a nation's position in the nuclear community, this argument could go either way, especially if legislation were to be passed holding states responsible for nuclear accidents, regardless of cause. Country and Bloc Positions While UN Member States have particular positions on radiation related issues, they also 12 Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. United Nations. will view this agenda item as an opportunity to settle score and create trouble for the interional adversaries. For countries like Ukraine and other Eastern European s any issue related to radiation a chance to swipe at Russia over its efforts to limit its responsibility for the Chernobyl disaster. For Pacific Island states, it s a chance to attack the United States and France for what they see as excess of nuclear testing and failure to compensate them appropriately. For any Member States opposed to nucleari energy, inclduign Pacfici Island states and much of Latin America, it s a chance to raise burdens for nuclear advocates. Everyone, in other words, tends to see the issue in terms of their broader foeign policy priortities. Recent, radiation issues also have become heavily involved with questions of nuclear weapons testing, including the possibility that the United States which has not ratified the 1995 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) might resume nuclear tests, and continued underground and possible above ground nuclear testing by North Korea, which is not a signatory to the CTBT. Currently, only five nations are considered nuclear-weapon states (NWS) based on the terms set by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT): these states include China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States. However, three other states have successfully tested and detonated nuclear weapons. These states are India, North Korea, and Pakistan. Israel is also believed to have nuclear weapons. Except for North Korea, no country has tested nuclear weapon since 1998, when India and Pakistan tested. China leads a bloc of states that support action to reduce the risk of radiation exposure. China believes any action should be the responsibility of UN Member States themselves, working through domestic governments. The UN can set 5

6 standards. China rigorously applies interional law and will contribute to its tightening. But China insists only home governments can be responsible for its implementation. China will not support resolutions that name particular countries for specific attention. It expects the UN to set standards for all countries to follow, as sovereign equals. The European Union s 28 Member States were affected by the Chernobyl disaster. Many of their publics strongly prefer alternatives to nuclear power, such in Germany. Others, such as France and many Eastern Europeans rely on nuclear power and want to see its safety strengthened, but not reliance diminished. The European Union strongly support improved safety measures everywhere. It believes innocent victims should be compensated, but recognized funding limits may inhibit that. Non-Aligned Movement: the 120 Member States of the UN s largest voting bloc strong support greater radiation safety and compensation of innocent victims. They also demand easier access to all civilian benefits of nuclear energy for all Member States, including financial assistance for less developed and poorer countries. They strongly believe compensation of victims is the responsible to Northern countries, which supply the technology and reap the profits, and are best able to sustain those burdens. Nuclear power states: There are sixteen countries around the world that depend on nuclear power for almost a quarter of their electricity. France, Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland, Slovenia, and Ukraine all receive at least one third of their power from nuclear sources. Japan, while still suffering loss at the events of Fukushima, depends on a quarter of their electricity from nuclear power and that is expected to rise. For all countries heavily reliance on civilian nuclear energy, this is a difficult issue. Some, like Japan, would prefer it was not resolved in the UN at all. Russia: The opposite case is true for the Russian Federation. As of June 2017, plans have been progressed to expand the role of nuclear energy within the country. There are currently ten operating nuclear power plants in the nation, nine in planning, and five currently under construction. After the Chernobyl accident, only one nuclear power plant was commissioned until the mid-1990s. The CEO of Rosatom, the only Russian utility that operates the nuclear plants, has stated that the nation is pursuing a breakthrough in nuclear leadership and technology. Russian diplomats seek measures that aid their country s nuclear reactor exports, such as leaving safety regulations up to the purchasing countries themselves. Compensation for accident victims, they say, is exclusively up to the affected governments. It is not a reasonable duty for the international community. The United States has been a leading power in nuclear weapons, as well as nuclear energy since the 1940's when they began development of the nuclear bomb. Throughout World War II and the Cold War, the US continued to develop and modernize their arsenal, competing (often neckand-neck) with the Soviet Union. Around the year 1980, its use of nuclear energy skyrocketed. Currently, over 19 per cent of electrical energy generation in the United States is fueled by nuclear power. However, slight trend has begun in the diminution of nuclear power in the United States. The United States is not a leading civilian power generating reactor exporter. Partially for this reason, it expects reactor supplies like China and Russia to be responsible for reactor safety and accidents. Proposals for Action 6

7 Radiation issues that the UN can consider include the full spectrum. But not all member States may agree to consider all of them. Possibilities for consideration include Dealing with a possible return to atmospheric nuclear testing. Any return to nuclear weapons testing, atmospheric or underground. Civilian nuclear power risks Storage of spent nuclear reactor fuel. Control over radioactive materials in medical devices such as MRI and cancer treatment equipment. Financing security or compensation measures. While North Korea continues nuclear testing only underground so far other countries like the United States are debating a return to nuclear testing themselves. Many nations have begun to search for new and alternative ways to develop low-cost and reliable sources of energy. Renewable resources are picking up traction quickly. Nuclear power has multiple characteristics that set it apart as a valuable and financially friendly source of generation. Developments in safety and construction stability are constantly updated, helping to ensure that the best possible cost-togain ratio is found. manmade disasters. Adopting A/RES/61/194, Oil slick on Lebanese shores, 13 the body called upon Israel to compensate Lebanon for its destruction of Lebanon s coastal and marine environment. While this does not explicitly answer the question about natural causes of nuclear accidents, it raises some critical questions that must be addressed. 1. How can Fourth Committee encourage universal agreement among states with nuclear weapon or energy capabilities accept the costs associated with continued pursuit or maintenance of weapons and energy systems? 2. How to agreements to compensate future victims or countries whose people or environments are affected? 3. How can we verify that states have effectively secured radiological materials in the event of a natural disaster? 4. How can we verify states have effective human error-prevention protocols? 5. How can we encourage universal ratification of the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty, which will solve the problem of nuclear weapons testing and accidental irradiation of people and environments? The UN can make recommendations on alternative sources of energy, but probably lacks the financial resources to help directly. Nor does it have the authority to demand substitution The UN General Assembly has previously set precedent for holding nations responsible for 13 A/RES/61/194 (2004): Press Briefing 7

8 Bibliography Eliza Barclay. Fukushima Vs. Chernobyl: Still Not Equal. NPR. Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Long Term Health Effects. Center for Nuclear Studies. and- nagasaki Oil slick on Lebanese shores. United Nations. (Press Briefing) Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space. United Nations. Radionuclides United States Environmental Protection Agency. (September 14, 2016) Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. United Nations. Speakers Underline Atomic Energy Agency s Key Role in Ensuring Nuclear Safety, Security, as General Assembly Considers Its Annual Report. United Nations press release. Alan Taylor, The Chernobyl Disaster: 25 Years Ago, The Atlantic, 23 March chernobyl- disaster- 25- years- ago/100033/ United Nations. Effects of atomic radiation. (Press Briefing). UN General Assembly Resolution 913(X). Founding Resolution. (3 December, 1955) UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, About Us. UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, The Chernobyl Accident, UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, UNSCEAR 2016 Report to the General Assembly, with scientific annexes ( Lawrence Wittner. How Japan Learned About Nuclear Safety. The Huffington Post. 8

9 World Heath Organization, FAQs: Fukushima Five Years On. fukushima/en/ World Health Organization, Health effects of the Chernobyl accident: an overview.. World Nuclear Association, Fukushima Accident, (April 2017) World Nuclear Association, Nuclear Power in Russia, (June 2017) World Nuclear Association, Nuclear Power in the United States, (June 2017) World Nuclear Association, Nuclear Power in the World Today, (January 2017) For more information, visit the UNSCEAR website at unscear.org (2002) 9