Download - Nuclear Liability Insurance Performance Indicators for Nuclear Power Plant Effluent Releases William Wendland, P.E. American Nuclear Insurers Glastonbury,

Nuclear Liability Insurance Performance Indicators Nuclear Liability Insurance Performance Indicators for for

Nuclear Power Plant Effluent ReleasesNuclear Power Plant Effluent Releases

William Wendland, P.E.

American Nuclear Insurers Glastonbury, Connecticut USA

AMERICANNUCLEARINSURERS

Syracuse

June 2004

“ RETS – REMP WORKSHOP 2004”

OverviewOverview

Background on Nuclear Liability Insurance RiskBackground on Nuclear Liability Insurance Risk

Introduce ANI Performance Indicator AreasIntroduce ANI Performance Indicator Areas

Performance TrendsPerformance Trends

“RETS / REMP 2004”AMERICANNUCLEARINSURERS

Nuclear Liability Insurance Nuclear Liability Insurance RiskRisk

$300 US Million Provided to Each US NPP Site$300 US Million Provided to Each US NPP Site

Protection Covers Operators & Suppliers Against Protection Covers Operators & Suppliers Against

Bodily Injury or Property Damage Caused by Nuclear Bodily Injury or Property Damage Caused by Nuclear

HazardHazard

Losses Can Be Losses Can Be CatastrophicCatastrophic or or Non-CatastrophicNon-Catastrophic

Claims Defense Costs Can Be Major Portion of Claim Claims Defense Costs Can Be Major Portion of Claim


Nuclear Liability Insurance Nuclear Liability Insurance RiskRisk

Increased Public Awareness of NPP Effluent Increased Public Awareness of NPP Effluent

Releases & Perception of Personal RiskReleases & Perception of Personal Risk

Do not differentiate between Isotope of Cobalt-60 Do not differentiate between Isotope of Cobalt-60

and Tritium and Tritium

1 atom Co-60 ~ 1 atom of Tritium (perception)1 atom Co-60 ~ 1 atom of Tritium (perception)

NPP Releases Cause Harm !NPP Releases Cause Harm !

Majority of Claims from Offsite BI & PDMajority of Claims from Offsite BI & PD


Nuclear Liability Nuclear Liability Insurance RiskInsurance Risk Can Mitigate Excessive Claims Defense Costs Can Mitigate Excessive Claims Defense Costs

Through Evidence of Due Care and Proper Through Evidence of Due Care and Proper OperationOperation

ANI's Performance Indicator Areas Can Be ANI's Performance Indicator Areas Can Be

Used To Demonstrate Such CareUsed To Demonstrate Such Care

ANI Engineering Rating Factor ProgramANI Engineering Rating Factor Program


Power Reactor Liability Rating - 5 ComponentsPower Reactor Liability Rating - 5 Components

Reactor TypeReactor Type

Reactor UseReactor Use

Reactor SizeReactor Size

Reactor LocationReactor Location

Type of ContainmentType of Containment


Nuclear Liability Insurance Nuclear Liability Insurance PremiumPremium

Ave Nuclear Liability PremiumAve Nuclear Liability Premium

~ $725,000 (Single Operating Unit)~ $725,000 (Single Operating Unit)


ANI Engineering Rating Factor (ERF)ANI Engineering Rating Factor (ERF)

Implemented 1981Implemented 1981 Collaborative EffortCollaborative Effort Comparative Rating Basis Comparative Rating Basis Reflect Varying Performance of Individual Insureds and Thus Reflect Varying Performance of Individual Insureds and Thus

the Insurance Risk to ANI Arising out of that Performancethe Insurance Risk to ANI Arising out of that Performance Redistribute Total Nuclear Liability Insurance Premium Redistribute Total Nuclear Liability Insurance Premium

Based on Individual Plant Performance (Premium Neutral)Based on Individual Plant Performance (Premium Neutral)

20% Credit20% Credit Best Performers Best Performers

30% Surcharge 30% Surcharge Higher Risk PerformersHigher Risk Performers


Power Reactor Liability Rating - 6 ComponentsPower Reactor Liability Rating - 6 Components

Reactor TypeReactor Type

Reactor UseReactor Use

Reactor SizeReactor Size

Reactor LocationReactor Location

Type of ContainmentType of Containment

ERF (Introduced 1981)ERF (Introduced 1981)


12 Performance Areas (Subfactors)12 Performance Areas (Subfactors)

ERFERF

Waterborne Tritium

Airborne Tritium

Airborne Iodine

& Particulate

Noble Gases

Waterborne Mixed Activity

Regulatory Performance

ANI Liability Recommendations

Significant Events

RadWaste Shipments

Safety System Failures

Unplanned Automatic Scrams

Safety System Actuations


ERF Computation ProcessERF Computation Process

Compute Subfactor Value (0 - 10)Compute Subfactor Value (0 - 10)

Most Recent Publicly Available DataMost Recent Publicly Available Data

Moving 3 Year Weighted AverageMoving 3 Year Weighted AverageYear 1 - 50%Year 1 - 50%Year 2 - 33%Year 2 - 33%Year 3 - 17%Year 3 - 17%

Computed Annually (Late Fall)Computed Annually (Late Fall)


ERF Computation ProcessERF Computation Process

Develop Approximate Normal DistributionDevelop Approximate Normal Distribution

Sum Weighted ValuesSum Weighted Values

Statistically Scale Weighted ValuesStatistically Scale Weighted Values

Subfactor WeightingSubfactor Weighting

ERF Values Range 0.8 to 1.3ERF Values Range 0.8 to 1.3


Typical ERF DistributionTypical ERF Distribution

ERF

ERF Distribution

0.8 1.0 1.3Total Liability Premium

Traditional Rating Component

Performance Rating

ComponentType

x Use

x Size

x Location

x Containment


Noble Gases10%

Airborne Iodine & Particulate10%

Airborne Tritium10%

Waterborne Mixed Activity10%

Waterborne Tritium10%

Regulatory Performance2%

ANI Liability Recommendations5%

Significant Events8%

Radwaste Shipments9%

Safety System Failures11%

Unplanned Automatic Scrams12%

Safety System Actuations3%

Subfactor Percent ContributionSubfactor Percent Contribution

The incremental change in nuclear liability premium resulting from each subfactor


Performance ComparisonPerformance Comparison

Inherent Differences Between Plant Inherent Differences Between Plant Designs and Types Factored InDesigns and Types Factored In

Independent of ERF Effect on Liability Independent of ERF Effect on Liability PremiumPremium

11 Comparative Categories11 Comparative Categories

Performance Profiles DevelopedPerformance Profiles Developed

12 Performance Areas12 Performance Areas


Performance Comparative CategoriesPerformance Comparative Categories

BWR's PWR's

Class MWth No. Units Class MWth No. Units

BWR's All 34 PWR's All 69

BWR-B 1500-2500 7 PWR-B 1500-2500 10

BWR-C 2500-3000 9 PWR-C 2500-3000 23

BWR-D >3000 18 PWR-D >3000 35

All Plants 103


Noble GasesNoble Gases260

109

150

98

65

(3-Year W

eighted

Average)

Nob

le Gas (C

uries R

eleased)

(00,01,02)(95,96,97) (96,97,98) (97,98,99) (98,99,00)

20041998 1999 2000 2001

Insurance Syndicate Year - Data Years in ()

Perform

ance Percentile

( % of plants w

ith lower releases)

7884

78

60

69

7986

79

62

7176

8580

5963

0

25

50

75

100

1

2

3

4

Industry Plant Type Plant Type & Size

Quartiles

0498 0099 01 0498 0099 01 0498 0099 01

5 Year Performance Trend5 Year Performance Trend


1st Quartile 2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile 4th Quartile

5

45

3904

153

Cu

ries (3 Y

r Wg

td A

ve)

BWR-B

BWR-C

BWR-D

PWR-B

PWR-DPWR-C

Noble Gases Noble Gases (2004)(2004)


Airborne Iodine & Particulate Airborne Iodine & Particulate (2004)(2004)


0.000076

0.000568

0.004285

Curies (3 Y

r Wgtd A

ve)

PWR-B

PWR-D

PWR-C

BWR-B

BWR-C

BWR-D

0.095364


Airborne Tritium Airborne Tritium (2004)(2004)


16

37

978

67

Cu

ries (3 Y

r Wgtd A

ve)

BWR-B

BWR-CBWR-D

PWR-B

PWR-D

PWR-C


Waterborne Mixed Activity Waterborne Mixed Activity (2004)(2004)


0.01456

0.0542

1.891

0.1234

Cu

ries (3 Y

r Wg

td A

ve)

BWR-B BWR-CBWR-D

PWR-BPWR-D

PWR-C


Waterborne Tritium Waterborne Tritium (2004)(2004)

Cu

ries (3 Yr W

gtd

Ave)


18.9

317

1263

599

BWR-BBWR-C

BWR-D

PWR-B

PWR-D

PWR-C


Aggregate Releases Aggregate Releases (2004)(2004)


262

473

3979

802

Cu

ries (3 Yr W

gtd A

ve)

BWR-BBWR-C

BWR-D

PWR-B

PWR-D

PWR-CPWR

BWR


SF Weighting ChangesSF Weighting Changes

'02 Separated Out Effluent Release Points '02 Separated Out Effluent Release Points

Increased insurance exposure due to Increased insurance exposure due to efluent releasesefluent releases

Each Effluent Component Contributed ~3.06% Each Effluent Component Contributed ~3.06% to the total 12 Subfactor Complimentto the total 12 Subfactor Compliment

For '02 & '03 No Change in WeightingFor '02 & '03 No Change in Weighting

Public Drinking Water / Other Off-Site AreasPublic Drinking Water / Other Off-Site Areas

For '04 Increased Weighting by 22.5%For '04 Increased Weighting by 22.5%

Will Increase Weighting by ~22.5% / yr Until All 12 Will Increase Weighting by ~22.5% / yr Until All 12 Subfactors Weighted Equally (~8.3% each)Subfactors Weighted Equally (~8.3% each)


Proposed Weighting – Effluent ReleasesProposed Weighting – Effluent Releases

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

SF W

eight

ing

Increase Weighting by ~22.5%/yr


ERF Value Comparison ERF Value Comparison (2004)(2004)

BWR'sBWR's PWR'sPWR's

Class M Wth No. Units Ave ERF Class MWth No. Units Ave ERF

BWR's All 34 1.08 PWR's All 69 0.96

BWR-B 1500-2500 7 1.02 PWR-B 1500-2500 10 0.94

BWR-C 2500-3000 9 1.06 PWR-C 2500-3000 23 0.95

BWR-D >3000 18 1.1 PWR-D >3000 36 0.98

All Plants 103 1.00


Concluding RemarksConcluding Remarks ANI ERF Reflects Composite Effect of Individual ANI ERF Reflects Composite Effect of Individual

Plant PerformancePlant Performance

Assists Underwriting Judgment of Nuclear Assists Underwriting Judgment of Nuclear

Liability Insurance RiskLiability Insurance Risk

Redistribute Premium Based on Plant Redistribute Premium Based on Plant

PerformancePerformance

Performance Trends Identify Potential Performance Trends Identify Potential

Liability RiskLiability Risk

Provides Communication PlatformProvides Communication Platform


Download - Nuclear Liability Insurance Performance Indicators for Nuclear Power Plant Effluent Releases William Wendland, P.E. American Nuclear Insurers Glastonbury,

Top Related