Abstract
Accidents happen. Aircraft crash, ships sink, trains derail, chemical factories explode, dams break, and nuclear power plants fail. We also face natural disasters such as floods, droughts, hurricanes and typhoons, earthquakes, heat waves, volcanic eruptions, tornados, meteor strikes, forest fires, ice storms, mud slides, and tsunami. Each of these can shake a city, region, or nation. A few have shaken the world. The consequences can be political, societal, environmental, economic, and, most of all, human.
At the heart of accidents and disasters are personal consequences. The most obvious of these are physical injury and death, sometimes on a massive scale. On 3 December 1984, a leak from a pesticide factory in Bhopal, India killed at least 3000 people and more than 100,000 suffered permanent disability. Compensation for injury was awarded to more than half a million people (Broughton, 2005).
These figures are staggering, but looking more deeply reveals that the consequences of accidents and disasters go far beyond the obvious. A flood can destroy a village, washing away homes that have stood for generations and destroying culturally significant places, breaking a community’s connection with its own history. Releases from facilities can taint entire regions whether there are immediate health consequences or not. Even if people can continue to live there, property values drop, populations dwindle, and job opportunities disappear as new people and businesses are reluctant to move in. Looking even more closely, consider the despair of grandparents whose grandchildren will no longer visit them in their homes, or families that break apart because of conflicting priorities.
Learning to deal with accidents and natural disasters is essential to reduce human suffering and environmental impacts.
Everyone hopes that there will never be another nuclear accident on the scale of what occurred in 2011 at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan, or, even worse, in 1986 at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the USSR (now Ukraine). Today, there are approximately 440 nuclear power reactors supplying electricity globally, and approximately 15 more are under construction (WNA, 2020).
ICRP has no position on nuclear power beyond the ethical principles and fundamental recommendations that apply universally. Ethically, this means that good must be preferred over harm, actions must be well informed and carefully considered, and people must be treated fairly and with dignity. We call these the four core ethical values of beneficence/non-maleficence, prudence, justice, and dignity (ICRP, 2018). To enact these, we use the three principles of radiological protection: justification, optimisation of protection, and individual dose limitation. Respectively, these ensure that good outweighs harm, that protection is the best for the circumstances, and that an unfair dose is not imposed on any individual. In short, ICRP’s aim in all circumstances is to ensure that, where ionising radiation is involved, people and the environment are protected.
Given this, ICRP applauds all efforts to improve nuclear safety (e.g. NEA, 2016). Our mission is to promote radiological protection. Avoiding and mitigating nuclear accidents, especially those that release radioactive material, are part of protecting people and the environment from detrimental exposures to radiation.
Nonetheless, we must be prepared for another accident. This is an important part of our work, related not only to nuclear power but also, for example, the use of radiation in medicine [see, for example, Publication 112 ‘Preventing Accidental Exposures from New External Beam Radiation Therapy Technologies’ (ICRP, 2009a)].
The present publication updates and replaces two previous publications, coincidentally released in the same year as Publication 112, and less than 2 years before the Fukushima Daiichi accident:
Publication 109 ‘Application of the Commission's Recommendations for the Protection of People in Emergency Exposure Situations’ (ICRP, 2009b); and Publication 111 ‘Application of the Commission's Recommendations to the Protection of People Living in Long-term Contaminated Areas’ (ICRP, 2009c).
In theory, the scope of the present publication is narrower than that of Publications 109 and 111, as it applies specifically to large nuclear accidents. In practice, these previous publications focused largely on these types of accidents, although the general principles are the same for accidents of almost any scale. Even so, additional recommendations on radiological protection for other types of accidents are being considered.
One of the advantages of combining the two previous publications into one is that the response can be considered more holistically, and more attention can be paid to the transition from the early and intermediate phases to the long-term phase of the accident. The current publication makes it easier to follow the thread through the emergency response to the recovery process, and importantly includes advice on preparation for the long-term phase.
As one might expect, the present publication draws heavily on nearly 10 years of experience following the Fukushima Daiichi accident. However, even after nearly 35 years, there are new insights from the Chernobyl accident too. For example, it is now clearer to see the social impacts of the Chernobyl accident in light of the Fukushima Daiichi accident, and the Fukushima Daiichi accident has taught us that there can be enormous impacts even without immediate and widespread catastrophic health impacts. Reporting on the Fukushima Daiichi accident, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation noted that ‘no radiation-related deaths or acute diseases have been observed among the workers and general public exposed to radiation from the accident’ and ‘no discernible increased incidence of radiation-related health effects are expected among exposed members of the public or their descendants’; however ‘the most important health effect is on mental and social well-being’ (UNSCEAR, 2013).
This publication could not have been developed in a vacuum. Over nearly a decade, ICRP embarked on what was perhaps its most extensive work stream since the development of our last fundamental recommendations (ICRP, 2007). The ICRP Main Commission met with delegates from Japan in April 2011, just weeks after the Fukushima Daiichi accident. Soon thereafter, ICRP established Task Group 84 on Initial Lessons Learned from the NPP Accident in Japan vis-à-vis the ICRP System of Radiological Protection. The next year, a summary of the task group findings (ICRP, 2012) was accepted by the Main Commission at their meeting in Fukushima City, and not long after, members of Task Group 84 published a paper with considerably more detail (González et al., 2013).
This initial assessment would influence ICRP’s programme of work for many years. Notably, this included establishing Task Group 93 on Update of ICRP Publications 109 and 111: the group that developed the present publication.
In parallel, ICRP had begun a series of dialogue meetings in Fukushima, the first of which was held in November 2011. The purposes were: to create a forum for free and open discussion of challenges in the recovery process; to share experiences among experts and citizens of Japan and countries directly impacted by the Chernobyl accident, such as Belarus and Norway; to learn about the situation directly from those involved to ensure that any new ICRP recommendations would be as relevant and useful as possible; and, of course, to help people who were facing a very difficult situation (Kotoba, 2015). What became known as the ‘Dialogue Initiative’ proved to be highly successful on all counts. As of 2020, a total of 22 dialogue meetings have been held, initially led by ICRP but now fully in the hands of local people (Lochard et al., 2019).
The Dialogue Initiative was invaluable in developing the current publication. Not only did the close interactions with people on the front lines provide a deeper level of understanding, but several local participants also participated in drafting and review of the present publication.
Throughout the process, ICRP was also in frequent contact with many experts, health professionals, affected residents, and authorities including Japanese government and expert organisations and nuclear power plant operators, to ensure that all aspects of radiological protection after a large nuclear accident were addressed.
A number of international organisations were involved in the development of the publication. This was through many relatively informal interactions during drafting, and through a more formal peer review later in the process.
All ICRP publications now undergo public consultation before they are completed. This crucial step gives anyone the opportunity to comment on our work via a web-based portal, and is important to make sure we have heard and considered all viewpoints. Given the nature of this publication, and the significant interest expressed by many people, for the first time ever, comments were accepted in English and Japanese, and the comment period was extended. Another first was a public meeting held in Japan during the consultation, so people could hear how we were responding to early comments, and have an opportunity to express their views in person. In all, more than 300 sets of comments were received, approximately 10 times more than for most ICRP publications, and second only to the number of comments received on the current set of fundamental recommendations (ICRP, 2007). I am convinced that this level of interest has increased the quality of this publication, and am thankful that so many people took the time to share their views.
Finally, on a more personal note, I would like to acknowledge the kindness of the many people from and in Japan who I have had the pleasure of meeting since 2011, and the European friends and colleagues who have shared their experiences related to the Chernobyl accident. On many occasions, I have been humbled by their perseverance, ingenuity, and generosity of spirit. I am saddened that the accidents happened, and know that people are still suffering, but one silver lining is the friendships that have grown between people that would not otherwise have met. I hope another silver lining is a more robust understanding of the consequences of nuclear accidents and improved preparedness for the future.