The Malaysian Bar

Seminar on Nuclear Energy: Lessons from Fukushima (14 Nov 2011)

Tuesday, 20 March 2012 03:32PM

Contributed by Kiu Jia Yaw, Member, Environment and Climate Change Committee
Forum: Seminar on Nuclear Energy: Lessons from FukushimaDate: 14 Nov 2011 (Monday)Time: 9:00 am to 4:30 pm
Venue: Hotel Pan Pacific KLIA
Organised by: (1) Majlis Profesor Negara (National Council of Professors)(2) Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia(3) Atomic
Energy Licensing Board(4) Malaysian Nuclear Agency (Nuclear Malaysia)
Report prepared by: Kiu Jia Yaw
Session 1: Perception of the Japanese Community on the Fukushima Incident
Ms Michiko, Economic Advisor, Japanese Embassy in Malaysia, talked about the devastation of the tsunami (water
above 15m) to the Fukushima power plants. She explained that diesel generators and power grid lines had been
destroyed. She mentioned that the Japanese Ministry has a website with data regarding radiation in Japans major cities,
and pointed out that in comparison to many cities in Japan, Singapores level of radiation is actually higher.

Ms Michiko reminded participants that we are exposed to radiation in our daily lives in the form of air travel, x-rays, etc,
and highlighted that it is very important not to panic unnecessarily. She explained Tokyo Electric Power Company
(TEPCO)s measures, decontamination counter measures and progress achieved. She emphasised that things are going
quite well and that all relevant information is available on TEPCOs website.
As for economic damage, Ms Michiko reported that the adverse impact is quite limited and the affected area is small in
economic size. She cited the resilience of a particular railway line, in which not a single train was derailed. The airport
that was swept away by the tsunami was reopened within a month. She was also proud to report that the manufacturing,
and oil and gas industries were able to bounce back. Factories that were seriously damaged had recovered and resumed
production much earlier than expected. The Japanese Prime Minister had also pledged that Japan would share all
information and lessons learnt from this disaster, in addition to assisting countries that sought to use nuclear energy.
Ms Michiko concluded by saying, For sure, Fukushima was a disaster. It is a lesson to be shared. But I can safely say
that the worst is over. We now have the expertise to handle such situations.
In the short Q&A session that followed, Ms Mageswari from the Consumers Association of Penang (CAP) enquired about
the social impact of the Fukushima disaster. Ms Michiko admitted that it is a very serious incident socially and stated that
at this moment, it is unclear how Japan would be with nuclear energy generation. However, she added that people were
leaving the affected areas not because of health concerns for their children, but because they had to move to new
locations where they could work and live.
Session 2: Fukushima Incident Implication on Nuclear Technology as a Source of Green Energy
Professor Emeritus Datuk Dr Noramly Muslim (Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia) defined green energy as an energy
source that does not severely impact the health of humans and the environment in the short and long term. He observed
that we are in a nuclear renaissance, in which there is an enhanced interest in nuclear energy. He emphasised that in the
Fukushima incident, the four reactors involved were the older ones. They could withstand the earthquake, but not the
tsunami. When the diesel reactors were shut down, there was still three to five percent of heat for fission. There was no
complete shut down and that had to be cooled down.
Dr Noramly Muslim attributed the causes of the failure to be the fact that the reactors were sea-facing, and the presence
of multiple reactors together in one site. He compared them with Fukushima Dainis reactors (the more recent reactors)
that had a better design as they were built behind other physical structures. The second crisis was the hydrogen buildup. The third crisis was the fear of release of fission products.
There were several consequences of the disaster. Firstly, a lot of restoration work had to be done. Secondly, there were
increased calls for nuclear energy to be phased out from countries such as Germany, Switzerland and Italy. 74% of the
Japanese people want to gradually give up nuclear energy too. The economic impact includes the increase of insurance
premiums for nuclear power plants and higher operating costs due to increased safety features. Therefore, the tariff will
rise, but it would still be cheaper than fossil fuel. However, the demand for fossil fuels will continue to increase.
The social impact was also manifold. There was a political toll on politicians who support nuclear energy (eg Japan and
Germany). There was also the public overreaction towards Japanese imports, followed by the public overreaction to
hydrogen explosions that were misunderstood to be nuclear explosions. There was a public hunger for information, but a
lot of misinformation on the internet as people who did not know much were writing articles. People had to be relocated
(those within a 30 km radius of the site), but this was because the jobs were not there (at the site) anymore. The nuclear
power plants were not working and the factories were closed. The nuclear power plants are safe if run properly.
Safety-wise, safety measures will be improved with more emphasis on safeguarding the fuel building and the backup
safety system. The lessons that we can learn are, firstly, that the Fukushima incident has shaken public trust. Secondly,
there should be a separation of the regulatory body and the nuclear promoters for more independence. Thirdly, there is a
need to enhance the response to emergencies and safety culture. This was an augmentation of truth and reality that
nuclear disasters do happen, that humans do make mistakes. The aim should be to ensure that even worst case events
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my

Powered by Joomla!

Generated: 17 September, 2014, 13:43

The Malaysian Bar

are low. Media frenzy is a norm. There will be weak support where nuclear energy is an ideological issue. Even Lynas is
an issue. It is the continuing power of the Chernobyl myth. The challenge we face is in regaining the confidence.
Session 3: The Indonesian Experience in Increasing Public Acceptance Following the Fukushima Incident
Ibu Sri Setiawati from the Ministry of Research and Technology, Indonesia, informed participants that Indonesias nuclear
energy programme had been planned since Sukarnos time. Indonesia has been running a public acceptance
programme. She shared that nuclear power plants are about communication and explained that any miscommunication
would be a danger to the programme. She believes that we should be open, frank and honest about the programme and
the issues. We must talk about the risks and benefits. There is of course the usual attitude of not in my backyard. She
also advised that the target audience for this communication exercise should be defined. Therefore, it is better not to
focus on people with knowledge and who are against nuclear energy.
Ibu Sri Setiawati shared the Indonesian methods for risk communication: using simple language and a friendly approach.
Indonesia has three nuclear power plants and people are brought to visit the power plants as there is the saying that
seeing is believing. They are pushing for Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to embrace nuclear energy.
Indonesia believes that it is better for the nuclear agenda to be pushed by the academia rather than by the government.
So they approach their academia on this.
Commenting on the Fukushima incident, Ibu Sri Setiawati observed that it was an opportunity to educate the public.
Indonesia got updates from TEPCO. They provided books for students. They also trained trainers. They explained about
nuclear incidents and why they happened. For example, in Fukushima, there were three deaths, which were caused by
falling, not radiation. They would compare these with deaths due to road accidents or deaths in coal mine accidents.
Session 4: Legal and Regulatory Framework of Nuclear Power in Malaysia Issues and Challenges (Persediaan Negara
dari Sudut Undang-Undang untuk Mengendali Era Tenaga Nuklear)
Prof Dr Aishah Bidin, Dean of the Faculty of Law, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, introduced herself as a former
corporate lawyer and a lecturer in contract and tort. She was encouraged by Dr Noramly Muslim to take up nuclear law.
Dr Aishah Bidin described the infrastructure for nuclear industry to be made up of legal, regulatory and institutional
aspects. All these aspects require specialised manpower in law or documentation for the nuclear industry. Presently, we
have the Atomic Energy Licensing Act 1984 (Act 304); however, it is as yet untested. It is not a question of if we will go
nuclear, but when. For nuclear deals between the United States and other countries, US law requires a 123 Agreement
to be entered into between the US and the other countries. Vietnam, as an ASEAN member, is already preparing to
adopt the 123 Agreement. There is a need to update our laws to comply with International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA)s framework. Our Act 304 does not have provisions for emergency response preparedness; hence, there is
nothing to ensure that we can respond to something like the Fukushima incident. Act 304 is being reviewed and
discussed with various agencies for strengthening the legal infrastructure for nuclear activities in Malaysia.
On the international dimension, nuclear safety is covered under the Convention on Nuclear Safety 1994, which is not
ratified yet. As for nuclear security, we have not adopted any convention for civil liability for civil damages. Dr Aishah
Bidin proposes for the Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage 1993 to be ratified. She also touched on
the Joint Protocol Relating to the Application of the Vienna and Paris Convention 1988, Protocol to Amend the 1963
Vienna Convention 1997 and Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage 1997. There are various
different ways to adopt these. There are issues such as how to treat economic losses. We need to consider international
standards, norms and practices. Regional cooperation is important. For instance, if Malaysia were to sign a nuclear
agreement with a foreign operator who is not from a country that has ratified such conventions, we may not be able to
enforce against such foreign operators. There is a lot to learn from the Korean and Japanese way of treating the issue of
compensation. Everything should be catered for and they should be within the system. The Fukushima disaster is now
forcing the Japanese government to deal with these issues.
Dr Aishah Bidin then introduced IAEA, its role as a normative body, a forum and as a standard setting organisation. She
discussed the offences related to nuclear terrorism and noted that our Act 304 does not have explicit provisions on
nuclear terrorism, an area that should be looked into.
Dr Aishah Bidin then made a comparison between the present Act 304 and the revised Act 304, explaining that the
provisions had been increased. There are seven new headings, and they cover safety, nuclear security, safeguards,
decommissioning, emergency preparedness and response, enforcement, and offences. The revised provisions also
establish a radioactive waste fund. She also raised the legal question of whether the government should indemnify
victims if a nuclear power plant could not pay.
There are various issues on security, liability and offences, spanning across 19 legislations such as the Official Secrets
Act, Data Protection Act, Sedition Act, etc. The powers and jurisdictions of various statutory bodies and authorities will
also be affected.
What lessons on legal liability can we observe from the Fukushima disaster? Who will be responsible? What should be
the quantum of compensation? Do we have any system to cater to such problems? In Japan, TEPCO has requested for
the Japanese governments assistance for the nuclear damage. According to section 59 (of Act 304), the maximum
amount for compensation has been set to RM50 million. Section 61(1) states that the Malaysian government may
indemnify the installation operator and pay claims for compensation against nuclear damage that has been established
against the operator. Who will have locus standi? And what are the heads of damage that one can claim for?
Dr Aishah Bidin concluded by observing that our challenges lie in improving political awareness and expert competence,
and increasing knowledge on nuclear security. We need to translate international instruments into our local legal system
and improve the industry, as well as raise public awareness and confidence.
During the Q&A session, Dr Noramly Muslim commented that our students are locked out from visiting US nuclear
facilities, perhaps due to the fact that Malaysia has not signed some of these conventions and protocols. He also
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my

Powered by Joomla!

Generated: 17 September, 2014, 13:43

The Malaysian Bar

emphasised the importance of export controls.

Session 5: Malaysias Preparedness for the Era of Nuclear Energy
Dr Zamzam Jaafar, Chief Executive Officer of Malaysia Nuclear Power Corporation (MNPC), began by introducing
MNPC. MNPC was incorporated in January 2011. It was tasked with making Malaysia nuclear-ready by 2013 and
assisting the government to decide on whether or not to go nuclear. In the Economic Transformation Program (ETP)
report, the timeline is to start generating nuclear energy by 2021. After the Fukushima incident, the target is still 2021,
albeit the end of 2021.
Why nuclear? Dr Zamzam Jaafar discussed power production, the supply chain and regional demand in Malaysia (more
on Peninsular Malaysia). Nuclear energy is used in electricity generation, research and development, navy submarines
and space. He cited the examples of the SSN 668i L.A.-class submarine and Nimitz class aircraft carriers, in which
people live and sleep beside the nuclear reactors powering these vessels.
There are four groups of countries with nuclear power plants: (1) Those with more than 15 plants (eg Germany); (2) Those
with six to 14 plants (eg Switzerland); (3) Those with less than four plants (eg the Netherlands); and (4) Those that are
interested in nuclear power plants (eg Malaysia).
We have invited 10 countries to participate in Malaysias nuclear programme. Six have responded.
In ASEAN, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia and Singapore are carrying out/have carried out feasibility studies. Singapore is
carrying out pre-feasibility studies, and is considering underground nuclear power plants. Vietnam had signed an
agreement with Russia in September 2011, in addition to one with the Japanese government. Public relations already set
up near the nuclear site. Thailand had carried out its nuclear energy feasibility study, but had decided to defer its nuclear
energy programme after the Fukushima incident. Turkey gave us a reference for cost of nuclear energy, with a stable
projected cost of 12.35 US Cents per kWh for more than 15 years. The power plant will be owned 100% by Russia and
sold to the grid. If Malaysia could own the nuclear power plant, then maybe it could be cheaper. In the UAE, the nuclear
project is estimated to cost USD20 billion. The Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation (ENEC) will be the project owner,
with technology sold by South Koreans to UAE.
Dr Zamzam Jaafar noted that since 1951, nuclear energy has contributed towards reducing reliance on fossil fuels and
provided a good mix of energy sources. Compared with coal, nuclear waste is put in a cask-storage, whereas coal waste
is dispersed. There is far less land area required for a nuclear power plant compared to a solar farm. He noted that
Tenaga Nasional Bhd is doing a 5 MW solar farm and is waiting to see how that will perform.
Dr Zamzam Jaafar emphasised that electricity was required to develop a nation and fulfill our aspiration to become a high
income country. He believes that if you want a good life, you need more electricity. He also predicted the increase of
future prices of fossil fuels. Malaysia does not do long term forecasting, so we took the figures of other countries. He
argued for the cost competitiveness of nuclear power, referring to the South Korean (where he noted nuclear power has
been steady) and Taiwanese experience.
Dr Zamzam Jaafar believes nuclear energy to be a long-term solution. It is a base-load option for electricity generation.
Whether we go into it is up to the people, but the government has to inform the people of this option. He observed that
our dependency on fossil fuels in 2010 was in this proportion: 54.2% on gas (which is expensive) and 40.2% on coal.
TNB is already complaining about the high costs, and our demand will grow. Therefore, in 2009, the government decided
to put nuclear energy as an option on the table. It set up the Nuclear Power Development Steering Committee (JPPKN).
They have some idea where to build the nuclear power plants, but they do not want to announce it yet, otherwise it would
be like Lynas protests everyday. He also commented on the role of solar energy, pointing out that the peak period for
solar energy would be during day time only. However, nuclear energy could provide base-load energy 24 hours a day,
seven days a week.
Under the nuclear power infrastructural plan (available at the PEMANDU website), it is stated that to move forward with
nuclear: (i) the public must accept; (ii) international treaties must be ratified; (iii) regulatory framework must be in place;
and (iv) the site placement to be decided. He noted that public awareness campaigns are presently on hold because they
had been accused of trying to brainwash the public. The above four items are to be completed within the pre-project
phase, which is from 2010 to 2013 (44 months). We are in this phase now.
He then elaborated more on MNPC, a company limited by guarantee. It is administered by the Prime Ministers
Department, under the Economic Planning Unit. Its roles include planning, spearheading and implementing the nuclear
agenda, ensuring that we comply with the international guidelines and identifying the owner operator of the nuclear
power plants. On its governance, the MNPC has the Cabinet committee at the top, followed by a board of directors and
then, Dr Zamzam Jaafar as the CEO. Dr Zamzam Jaafar described the MNPC as a lean and mean organisation with 18
people.
Discussing the site selection for our nuclear power plants, Dr Zamzam Jaafar said that they already know where the sites
are, but just do not admit that they exist. There are three candidate sites in Peninsular Malaysia. The siting activities had
been carried out since 2008 and will be completed by 2013. These include feasibility studies, evaluation and licensing.
The site selection weighting factors are public safety (50%), environment (20%), socio-economic (15%) and engineering
costs (15%).
Dr Zamzam Jaafar laid out the timeline as follows: 2011 to 2013 will be for site selection and public acceptance issues
(Ministry of Energy, Green Tech & Water to decide when to start). January 2012 will see the start of feasibility studies
and bid documents. By the end of 2011, the consultant will be chosen. By the second quarter of 2012, the Letter of
Award to special purpose vehicle will be issued and licence application will be submitted. Then, it will be six to seven
years to build the plant.
By the end 2013, Malaysia expects to be ready to make a knowledgeable commitment to nuclear energy. Together with
relevant stakeholders, MNPC strives to ensure that Peninsular Malaysia will be nuclear ready in 2013/2014. Nuclear
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my

Powered by Joomla!

Generated: 17 September, 2014, 13:43

The Malaysian Bar

Think Green.
Q&A Session:
Q1: What are the steps taken towards public awareness?Dr Zamzam Jaafar: We have stopped public awareness
campaigns for now. But we have already started in schools, educating students about nuclear power.
Q2: Why are we building only one unit? Other countries build four plants from the start.Dr Zamzam Jaafar: We are
building two plants actually. South Korea has recommended two units.
Q3: If were building nuclear power plants, who will approve the specifications of the buildings?Dr Zamzam Jaafar: The
Atomic Energy Licensing Board. But we have to rope in the Department of Environment and other authorities too.
Q4: We have a wet climate here is overseas experience applicable?Dr Zamzam Jaafar: Not a problem. Our first nuclear
power plant will be 1 MW. For example in the US, in Arizona, its in the desert. And in Jordan, the nuclear power plant is
only five km from the coast. All can be done it is only a question of cost.
Q5: How will we deal with the spent fuel?Dr Zamzam Jaafar: That is a global issue. Even Korea is unsure about what to
do. A community development programme to host the waste, where a local community can vote to host (keep) the
nuclear waste in their area, is still being considered. It can generate a lot of income for the community. Some people call
it bribery, but I call it an incentive.

http://www.malaysianbar.org.my

Powered by Joomla!

Generated: 17 September, 2014, 13:43