In the second of a two part exploration(1) of the use and potential for nuclear propulsion, James Clayton looks at the regulatory and legal positions required to make nuclear powered merchant vessels a legitimate option for the shipping industry.
Introduction
My previous article on nuclear propulsion in shipping (Zero emissions: The Nuclear Option) looked at the history of the technology, the various externalities involved with this power source as well as economic arguments for nuclear and the practical issues which arise from its use. However, further attention must be given to the regulatory and legal positions required to make nuclear powered merchant vessels a legitimate option for the shipping industry. Liquid fluoride thorium reactors have been identified as the most appropriate form of nuclear power and initial consideration has been given to several practical issues that such vessels would face.
Legal and regulatory position
In order to have a sufficient legal and regulatory system in place, coordination is required between the respective major regulatory bodies. These bodies, such as the IMO, would need to adapt and update existing legislation. Classification societies would need to work alongside technical experts to develop appropriate safety standards and flag states would be responsible for implementing local legislation governing workers health and safety rights.
The IMO has already developed the Code of Safety for Nuclear Merchant Ships and while elements of it are outdated, these could be amended with reference to the INF Code. The INF Code would provide a useful guide as to the safety considerations applicable to the transport of radioactive material and would be readily applicable to the use of nuclear as a power source. When taken in conjunction with other international conventions, e.g. the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), the international Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) and the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG Code), a sufficient international framework could efficiently be developed to allow nuclear powered ships to operate safely.
Additionally, to protect against the risk of a nuclear incident off the coast of a state, legislation similar to the United States Oil Pollution Act 1990 could be implemented. Such a regime would allow the coastal state to define: who the responsible party would be; the limits of liability (providing adjustment where there is gross negligence) and place requirements on ships operating within its territorial waters. For ships, these requirements would most likely include: to have a certificate of financial responsibility (outlining adequate insurance to cover an incident); to have met specific design requirements; to be manned to standards at least as good as local equivalents and to possess contingency plans applicable in the event of a nuclear incident.
Insurance
Currently, while there is not a specific insurance regime designed to cater for nuclear powered vessels, nuclear accident insurance could be annexed to a conventional policy to provide a solution. While underwriters would initially be at a disadvantage when it came to price such a policy, given there is currently no substantial data that could be used to establish limits for this insurance, the market, and in particular Lloyd’s of London, has a record of underwriting the unknown. Once policies are offered, and nuclear-powered ships trade, data can be collected. Policies would then be more accurately priced and available as the norm.
Refuelling and handling thorium
As discussed in my previous article, the traditional difficulties surrounding the handling of nuclear fuel would not be present where LFTR’s are used. Thorium lacks many of the dangerous properties common in traditional fuel. It cannot be easily weaponised and so the risk of theft/terrorism is reduced. Additionally, it requires no enrichment and so can be delivered directly to the vessels. On the supply side, there is an abundance of Thorium in the earth’s crust and the mining and extraction process is far safer that mining uranium. What is most important about thorium, is that one ton can produce as much energy as 200 tons of uranium, or 3.5m tons of coal. The quantities of thorium needed, and the frequency of refuelling would therefore be vastly reduced.
Salvage and decommissioning
With this new technology entering the market, the salvage and recycling industries would need to undergo review in order to best handle such advances. Salvage companies would need to develop new expertise and equipment, to allow them to effectively respond to a nuclear disaster. Modelling of recent/common shipping incidents would need to take place, with the effect of a nuclear power source inputted. Similarly, consideration would need to be given to the ability to maintain and repair these vessels anywhere in the world.
The recycling industry would need to adapt to handle radioactive components. Commonly, there are three main ways of doing this, either: removing the nuclear elements before normal recycling; storing the ship until the nuclear elements have sufficiently decayed, with conventional recycling following; or permeant entombment of radioactive elements until their radioactive levels have reduced sufficiently to permit re-use.
Currently, with regards to nuclear submarines, the USA removes nuclear reactor compartments. Compartment materials are then buried and monitored until radioactivity levels have sufficiently reduced. The reactor fuel is removed separately. Remaining sections of the vessels are recycled with reusable materials returned to the production process. In Russia, the submarines are dismantled with spent nuclear fuel transported to a reprocessing facility for storage. The emptied reactor section is removed, sealed and transported to a storage site. France also stores reactor sections, after removing them from the vessels.
These methods could be adapted, with specific existing industry knowledge extended to apply to the merchant shipping market.
Conclusion
Estimates suggest that with a USD$5bn investment, a viable reactor solution could be generated within five years. Therefore, for nuclear powered merchant vessels to become a reality, coordinated participation is required from all aspects of the maritime industry. Industry leaders need to take the initiative and act. Like Tesla sparking the industry for electric cars, it will take a forward thinking and ambitious industry leader to take the first step. Doing so could act as a catalyst for a new era of green shipping, especially when united with other progressing areas such as autonomous shipping.
James Clayton
Senior Associate, Campbell Johnston Clark
11 March, 2020
Sources:
19 November 1981 IMO Resolution A.491 (XII) Code of Safety for Nuclear Merchant Ships
http://www.imo.org/en/KnowledgeCentre/IndexofIMOResolutions/Assembly/Documents/A.491(12).pdf
International Code for the Safe Carriage of Packaged Irradiated Nuclear Fuel, Plutonium and High-Level Radioactive Wastes on Board Ships http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Safety/Cargoes/DangerousGoods/Pages/INF-Code.aspx; http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/3216/made
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium
Carlo Rubbia, CERN
Carlton, J., Smart, R. & Jenkins, V. (2010). The Nuclear Propulsion of Merchant Ships: Aspects of Risk and Regulation. Paper presented at the Lloyd’s Register Technology Days 2010, Feb 2010, London, UK.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-28157707; US Environmental Protection Agency
https://www.power-eng.com/2019/08/13/is-thorium-the-fuel-of-the-future-to-revitalize-nuclear/#gref