Monday, December 26, 2011

SCIENTIFIC SOLUTIONS FOR RESOLVING MULLAPERIYAR DAM PROBLEMS

Prof.T.Shivaji Rao,Director, Center for Environmental Studies, GITAM University, Visakhapanam.
http://aam-aadmi-senses.blogspot.com/2011/12/why-no-solution-is-better-for.html?showComment=1325915239042#c7784946802355145765 
 
Note: This article is prepared with the fond hope that the Governors of Tamilnadu and Kerala may kindly advise their Chief Ministers to discuss the following alternate proposals on solving Mullaperiyar dam so that they can prevent misunderstandings between Tamilians and Keralites and maintain peaceful conditions without any social unrest for promotion of the development of the states.
Mullaperiyar dam was constructed in 1887 with limestone and a mixture of burnt brick powder known as Surkhi including Sugar and calcium oxide as per construction practices of the olden days.  The cost of the dam was Rs.1.04 crores with a height of 176ft. including the foundation depth and a length of 1200ft.  The length of the dam at the foundation level is 200ft. The watershed is 4678 acres at a reservoir level of 136ft. and 8591 acres at the reservoir level of 155ft.   The dam has low level saddle portion on the left and right sides.  The left side saddle was filled up with embankment of 221ft length and 53ft height and join to the main dam.  The right side low level saddle was used to discharge o the flood waters during peak rains as an escape route with open sluices with 11ft lower level than the top of the dam.  But in 1908 that spillway sections were further deepened to discharge more floods by construction of a spillway dam with 10 spans each of 36ft width and with 16ft. high spillway gates.  Since the dam is located in a triangular river section.  Most of the reservoir upto 125ft. depth had to be used as a dead storage of about 6 TMC with a gross storage of 16TMC and live storage of about 10 TMC.  Peak flood in Mullaperiyar in 1943 was 8453 cumecs.  But the PMF must be taken 1.5times the historically recorded flood and hence the PMF must be estimated at 12680 cumecs based on the revised calculations made for the new Machchu dam in Gujarat.  According to experts sudden floods of 10,000 cusecs to 1,20,000 cusecs are constantly occurring in Periyar river which means that inflows will be 1 to 11 TMC perday.  Hence peak floods of 1 to 10 days will meet the water requirements of Tamilnadu.   If FRL is over and above 104ft Tamilnadu gets water through the tunnel at the ground level of 104ft.  disasterresearch.net/drvc2011/paper/fullpaper_44.pdf 
[Disaster management was unknown in olden times and hence Mullaperiyar is defective in Design]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mullaperiyar_Dam   [Ddetails of Mullaperiyar agreements and present position]
LIFE SPAN OF THE DAM:    The original British engineers anticipated 50 years as the lifespan of the dam and today the dam withstood for more than 116 years and because of its unconventional construction it has to be replaced by a new cement concrete dam built for the same height a few meters below the existing dam.  According to International experts the maximum life span of a dam is 100 years and hence a new dam must be built in place of the existing dam (See web:  http://www.waterpowermagazine.com/story.asp?sc=2055594  .
In 1974 Tamilnadu obtained lease to use Periyar water for power generation and Kerala permitted withdrawal of 70 TMC of water every year by payment of Rs.40,000 per year whereas Tamilnadu is paying Rs.3 crores for AP for 1 TMC of water from Telugu Ganga project. After the dam burst at Morvi in Gujarat in 1979 when thousands of people were killed in the floods, Kerala began to worry about the safety of the Mullaperiyar dam and consequently about 35 lakhs of kerala people may be washed away into the Arabian sea. Recently due to heavy rains the FRL in the dam rose to 139ft as against the stipulated level of 136ft. 
CONTROVERSY ON WATER STORAGE:  Kerala is afraid of Periyar dam break due to aging, water leakage and peeling of construction material in the dam and emerging earthquakes of higher magnitude.  Since the Supreme court has advised the FRL of the dam to be raised to 142ft to the advantage of Tamilnadu, Keralites are objecting and demanding for reduction of FRL from +136ft to +120ft and naturally this drastic reduction is bound to ruin the agriculture in several districts of Tamilnadu in whose interest this dam was originally constructed.  Thus the present controversy is based upon the demand of the Keralites to construct a new dam to protect the lives and properties of Kerala due to a sudden burst of the dam while Tamilnadu is afraid of the loss of agriculture and power generation due to the reduction or denial of their normal water supply as per agreement of 1974 and thereby are demanding for increasing the height of water storage from FRL +136ft. to + 142ft in the first instance.  Supreme Court accepted this on        27-2-2006.   On 29-4-1980 Central Water Commission recommended to raise the water to 145ft even after strengthening the dam.  But Kerala insisted that the level should be maintained only at 136ft. 
INCREASING WATER AVAILABILITY FOR BOTH STATES:   Now Environmentalists find that the fears of both Kerala and Tamilnadu people are highly justified and an amicable solution must be found by inviting eminent irrigation engineers and distinguished environmentalists with profound knowledge in water resources management and dam break analysis , risk analysis and disaster management so that they can make a cost benefit analysis of different alternate project proposals that can be implemented to make Tamilnadu and Kerala to get higher quota water than before from a newly constructed cement concrete dam by replacing the existing Mullaperiyar dam by convincing  both the state Governments.  This requires the involvement of central Government which has to create a corporation for this dam on the lines of the interstate multipurpose projects on Narmada river and Bhagirathi river by creating corporations like the Tehri Hydro Development project in Uttara Pradesh and Sardar Sarovar Corporation in Gujarat for harnessing the waters of those rivers.  The Central Government cannot remain a silent spectator but play a pro-active in support of the Federal structure under the Indian constitution. 
SOLVING THE PROBLEM:  Some of the suggestions for resolving this Mullaperiyar project issue are in the following lines.
1)      As requested by Kerala people the water level in the lake can be maintained at FRL +120ft.  The amount of water supply demanded by Tamilnadu from Periyar lake from FRL +136ft can be supplied even by keeping FRL at +120ft by lifting the water or by filling the lake whenever the water levels get depleted and this shortage can be made up by cloud seeding operations.  Cloud seeding operations are conducted by 50 countries in the world for more than 40 years and as confirmed by China which uses 37,000 people every year for cloud seeding operations to get about 1800 TMC of water at a cost benefit ratio of 1:28 for  both irrigation and hydro-power generation.  If Chief Ministers of Kerala and Tamilnadu make immediate visits to China, Tasmania, New South whales, Texas, Honduras and California along with their experts they can prepare cloud seeding operation reports and implement them to augment annual rainfall by 40% in Periyar lake which has an annual rainfall of about 1000mm and the rains occur almost in the 4 out of 5 days in a year with annual flodds of 1 to 11 TMC per day.  Kerala can fill up Idduki reservoir by this  method as followed by Tasmania for the last three decades with a cost benefit ratio of 1:20
2)      Since the levels of water proposed to be maintained at FRL+120ft as demanded by the Keralites in the interests of the safety of the dam , Tamil nadu receives diminished  flows from Periyar lake.  Since the present level of the tunnel is about 104ft in Tamilnadu, now investigations may be carried out to find out if adequate water can be supplied to Tamilnadu either by pumping or by using siphon spillways or other suitable works from FRL +120ft. also.
3)      In order to avoid any earthquake risk to the dam the Kerala state must conduct air borne magneto meter surveys and try to identify any emerging hidden faults that can trigger large earthquakes that produce high peak ground accelerations of more than 6 magnitude as conducted by the US geological survey for protecting the townships of Portland Vancouver in USA.
4)      Since Kerala people do not know when a large earthquake may occur to make the Periyar dam burst they have to always live in tension even during sleep in the nights similarly they do not know when a cloud burst can occur to provide 1m depth of rainfall in a day as had happened recently in Mumbai.   They have to be constantly vigilant to monitor when such clouds cluster during cyclones and other cloud burst seasons and to prevent such massive clouds raining over Periyar lake catchment.    They should adopt cloud seeding technology to stop unwanted rainfall in Periyar catchment as implemented by China  during the opening and closing functions organized for the Olympic games of 2008.  For this purpose they must take the advice of cloud seeding experts from foreign countries or those who worked for 5 years for the AP State Government cloud seeding programmes during 2004 to 2010.












Monday, November 14, 2011

WHY ALTERNATIVE BARRAGES TO POLAVARAM DAM PROJECT?



POLAVARAM – ALTERNATIVE DESIGN FOR HEAD WORKS
polavaram dam safetyrocedures violated as per C.W.C.norms
http://www.cwc.gov.in/main/downloads/Report%20on%20DS%20ProceduPres.pdf[see report]
==============================================
orissa was compelled to sign on Bachwat tribunal report
during president Rule in Orissa ,by a jr.officer [     Exe.  Engr]
=============================================
d flood history predict a peak flood of 80 to 90 lakh cusecs and that could wash the dam away, says T Hanumantha Rao, former chief engineer of A.P.state
d flood history predict a peak flood of 80 to 90 lakh cusecs and that could wash the dam away, says T Hanumantha Rao, former chief engineer 
[Statesman News Service
Balasore, 2 June
A delegation of the Balasore wing of the Utkal Samaj led by its state general secretary, Mr Bhaskar Jena, submitted a memorandum to the district collector stating their opposition to the Polavaram project.
The delegation maintained that the dam project would be perilous for the state as the height of the dam would be increased under the modified plan. Not only 28 villages of Odisha on the borders with Andhra Pradesh but the villages in the neighbouring state too would be inundated. Forest cover in the area too would remain submerged round the year, they pointed out.The delegation said the then Central government under the UPA II regime gave environment clearance  to the project despite the matter being sub-judice and the state government protesting the move
While there has been a change of guard at the Centre, the stand   of the state government  has been softened, they alleged.“Under the prevailing circumstances if the project is allowed to be completed it would jeopardize the interest of the state at large. The state government is diluting its focus ever since the BJP government has come to power. We oppose the plan and will continue to do so. If the government fails to act on our demand that the height of the dam should be reduced and change in design be brought about, we would take the issue to the street,” said Mr Jena.
http://www.thestatesman.net/news/57741-utkal-samaj-oppose-polavaram.htm
l
DAMS and Barrages
Both the dam and barrage are barriers constructed across a river or natural water course for diverting water into a canal mainly for purposes of irrigation, water supply etc. or into a channel or a tunnel for generation of power.
In case of a barrage, its entire length across the river i.e. between the banks is provided with gates having their bottom sill near the river bed level. Thus, the storage behind the barrage is solely created by the height of the gates.
The dam on the other hand has spillway gates almost near its top level and the storage behind the dam is mainly due to the height of concrete structure and partially due to the gate height.
In both the cases, however, the number and size of gates [is]must be adequate to pass the design flood during monsoons

=======================================clearences are not unconditional
State Govt. had submitted the proposal of the project for inclusion as National Project in April, 2009 as per guidelines for National Projects issued by the Ministry of Water Resources, Govt. of India.  The project was recommended by the High Powered Steering Committee for inclusion as National Project in August, 2009.  The EFC memorandum was discussed in the EFC meeting held on 5.3.2010 and it was decided that state govt. may work out realistic cost & implementation programme of the project. The cost of the project has been updated as Rs.16010.45 crore at 2010-11 price level. The revised cost of the project for Rs 16010.45 crore (Price Level 2010-11) has been accepted by the Advisory committee of MOWR in its 108th Meeting held on 4.1.2011. Investment clearance from the Planning Commission for the revised cost is awaited.
Stop work order by MoEF
Ministry of Environment & Forest (MoEF) while responding to the special mention by Dr. K.V.P. Ramchandra, M.P. in Rajya Sabha on 12th August, 2011 regarding demand to conduct public hearing for Indira Sagar Polavaram Multipurpose Project in Andhra Pradesh commented as under:
“Government of Andhra Pradesh has so far not conducted the requisite public hearings in Orissa and Chhattisgarh. Due to non compliance of this environment clearance condition, the MoEF has issued stop work order for the project on 8th February, 2011….Since public hearings in both the states are still pending, the stop work order for the project continues. A final decision in this regard shall be taken after the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court”.
Government of Andhra Pradesh vide its letter no. 14/ISPP/2013 dated 8.4.2013 has intimated that MoEF on the representation of Andhra Pradesh, has decided to keep the stop work order in abeyance for a period of six months during which efforts be made to get the Public Hearings done in the States of Odisha and Chhattisgarh for the protective embankments.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTICLE  BY
T.Hanumantha Rao
Retired Enineer-in-Chief,Government of Andhra Pradesh.
 It was reported in the media on 26-10-2011 that when a Press Reporter asked about the alternative design for the Polavaram Head Works suggested by Mr.T.Hanumantha Rao, Retired Engineer-in-Chief , the AP Congress Party President Mr.Botsa Satyanarayana questioned the reporter “Is he the only Engineer? Are there no other Engineers”
To put the record straight, it has to be brought to the attention of all that this alternative design was innovated by me in 2007 ( and also appeared as an article in the media) so  as to see that the project work which was about to be stopped is continued smoothly without any hindrance.  This is especially due to the objections raised by Orissa and Chattisgarh governments regarding submersion of several villages in their states and the quashing orders of National Environmental Appellate Authority on the environmental clearance given by the Government of India on the grounds that environmental studies and acceptance of Grama Sabhas (for submersion area or construction of dykes), in the upper two states were not conducted.  
The alternative design gives all the benefits envisaged under the “Polavaram Dam” design (without any reduction whatsoever), including providing the required live storage of 75 TMC (at three places instead of one place) and all this without submersion of any village in Orissa and Chattisgarh states.  In the light of the past experience with the Orissa government, stalling Vamsadhara stage-II and JhanjavathiDam projects for more than 25 years (on the same grounds of submersion within their state) any design without submersion in their states is welcome.  In this context it would be relevant to observe that regional, political differences, submersions in tribal areas and debates thereon, would all create only heat in the media and would never really be able to stop Polavaram dam since such objections in the past in the case of Pulichintala Dam could not stop it from completion.
Upstream states objections on submersions (within their states) only would stop Polavaram dam as practically seen in the cases of Vamsadhara Sage-II and Jhanjhavati projects for the past 3 decades (inspite of having agreements). Again there is a stalemate here.  Unless Grama Sabhas are conducted in the upper states and their consents obtained for construction of dykes (costing Rs.700 crore) environmental clearance cannot be given and these states are not agreeable to conduct the same.  Hence, there is an urgent need to formulate a technical design to avoid submersion in upper states and at the same time get the full benefits of the dam.
Such a technical solution (of silt free barrages) without submersions in the upper states given in 2007, instead of being treated as a God given boon, it went un-noticed by the people’s representatives and the state Government.  It is a tragedy that a solution intended to benefit the whole state is now being  opposed by some people’s leaders, wrongly thinking it as anti-project

Friday, October 28, 2011

Violation of nuclear accident emergency preparedness for Kudankulam

Violation of nuclear accident emergency preparedness for Kudankulam Nuclear Plant
Prof.T.Shivaji Rao, Director, Environmental Studies, GITAM University, Visakhapatnam
http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/aging/nrdcaccidentip1011.pdf  : Accident Scenario for a U.S.Reactor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Point_Energy_Center  : Data for the above U.S. Reactor
http://tshivajirao.blogspot.com/2011/10/kudankulam-nuclear-plant-explosion.html
http://tshivajirao.blogspot.com/2011/09/why-indian-nuclear-plants-are-bound-to.html
http://tshivajirao.blogspot.com/2011/10/people-question-experts-on-safety-of.html
http://tshivajirao.blogspot.com/2011/08/diaster-consequences-of-kovvada-nuclear.html 
http://tshivajirao.blogspot.in/2012/02/kudankulam-nuclear-bomb-over-tamilnadu.html


AS  AN IRRITATED SNAKE  KILLS A MAN, NUCLEAR PLANTS SILENTLY  KILL  MANKIND AND NATURE FOR  FINANCIAL GAINS BY CONTRACTORS,OFFICIALS& POLITICIANS ?
Nuclear Plants are just silent killers of man and Nature created by the GOD. In nature the Uranium ore contains 99.3% of Uranium-238 and the remaining 0.7% is Uranium-235.  Uranium-238 and Uranium-235  in nature are least harmful.  But business people and other vested interests dig the iron ore and  convert  the least harmful Uranium-235  into the fuel form of Uranium-235  by purifying it to make a fuel by enriching it to about 4% of Uranium-235 that is packed in pellets and inserted into the core of the nuclear reactor for producing both electricity and material for making the bombs.   The reactor  when the nuclear atom is given a blow  by a neutron, enormous heat and other poisonous Radio-active atoms like Xenon, Barium, Cesium, Strontium, Plutonium and other dangerous radioactive substances are produced.  These radioactive substances are discharged into the air and water by several ways and  when they enter into the environment consisting of air, water and soil and foods like vegetables, fishes, prawns they ultimately get into human beings and produce cancers and birth defects in generations of people for many decades to come.  These poisonous radioactive substances  destroy natural and human life and culture and convert lands upto hundreds of kilometers into permanent nuclear burial grounds for ever.
How harmless Uranium ore materials in nature are converted into destructive and killer materials by man can be understood by the following simple example. For instance king cobras live in nature in anthills in forests and lead their normal life peacefully by catching their prey for food during nights But greedy people go and poke their iron rods into their abodes and disturb the Cobras when they become angry and bite the trespassers to inflict death over them by their poisons.   Similarly, the selfish people are mining the harmless Uranium and converting it into harmful  Enriched Uranium and then using it to produce electricity by means of the Nuclear plants and in the process they are producing Radioactive pollutants that poison man and nature slowly due to routine releases of radioactivity into the environment.  In course of time if an accident occurs in the Nuclear plant due to several reasons like in Fukushima or Chernobyl, the poisonous pollutants are thrown into the atmosphere and they kill thousands of people slowly and inflict cancer to millions of people living downstream upto hundreds of Kilometers as in case of Fukushima and Chernobyl accidents. The Nuclear plant operators are misleading the public by stating that Nuclear power is safe and cheap just like the medical representatives of various pharmaceutical companies praise before the doctors about the virtues of their medical tablets and tonics as part of their sale promotion activity the nuclear authorities are praising the nuclear plants as safe and cheap energy producers which is wrong.  This misinformation is dangerous to public health and welfare because in European states almost all people agree that safety of Nuclear (power is a Myth as accepted by Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany. She had consulted the genuine experts on nuclear plants and realized that nuclear safety is a myth and ordered for gradual closure of all the nuclear plants in Germany.  If Indian Prime Minister and Union Cabinet Ministers including the Chief Ministers of the state want to know the truth about the safety of the nuclear power plants they must go and visit advanced countries like Germany and Japan  and discuss the issue with foreign experts  so that they can refrain from promoting nuclear plants as is done by the peoples leader like Mamata Banerjee, Chief Minister of West Bengal.   For more scientific details see the above web sites on this topic prepared by independent experts.

Environmental Impact Analysis report are fabricated by consultants according to the national Green Tribunal and also according to the Chief Justice of India, S.H.Kapadia  who said “If you leave report preparation to the project proponent, I am sorry to say the person who pays will get the answers he asks for” and hence he called for a change in the system of preparation of EIA reports for the development projects.  See website:  http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2886141.ece
Indian Authorities violate International Environmental Safety standards in planning for emergency preparedness in case of nuclear reactor accidents:
a)     Emergency Planning  by  Government for Nuclear accidents in Finland (100km zone):
The concept  of off-site emergency response for nuclear reactor accidents in Finland has virtually remain constant since 1976  when the first emergency plans were prepared bythe authorities for the vicinity of Loviisa  nuclear plant site.  Although the results of WASH-1400 study for nuclear accidents in USA were known at that time, the planning requirements were not based on postulated release categories nor on probabilistic risk analysis (PRA).  Instead , the principles to be followed were agreed upon as a consensus opinion of the Ministry of Interior and experts on nuclear safety and radiation protection, and above all the nuclear regulatory authority, then called the Institute of Radiation Protection, nowadays the Finnish centre for Radiation Nuclear Safety (STUK)  The first principle is that of remote siting, meaning restrictions on land use within 5km from the plant site.  In the off-site emergency planning 2 zones are applied
1)      for an area of 20km radius (Zone-I), a detailed off-site plan is required, including rapid alerting of the population and evacuations, if necessary. 
2)      For the surrounding area, within a radius of about 100km (Zone-II), the special requirements imposed by a potential nuclear accidents have to be taken into account in the general emergency preparedness plan. 
On the one hand the above criteria take into account the possibility of a severe nuclear reactor accident in which the consequences of the design basis accidents could be exceeded even far from the plant.  On the other hand the requirements have to be seen from the point of view of society’s preparedness as a whole and the financial investments adjusted to finite resources. 
b)Emergency Planning Zones for nuclear accidents as per United States Standards (80kms Zone):
To facilitate a preplanned strategy for protective actions during an emergency, there are two emergency planning zones (EPZs) around each nuclear power plant. The exact size and shape of each EPZ is a result of detailed planning which includes consideration of the specific conditions at each site, unique geographical features of the area, and demographic information. This preplanned strategy for an EPZ provides a substantial basis to support activity beyond the planning zone in the extremely unlikely event it would be needed.
The two EPZs are described as follows:
Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ
The plume exposure pathway EPZ has a radius of about 10 miles from the reactor site. Predetermined protective action plans are in place for this EPZ and are designed to avoid or reduce dose from potential exposure of radioactive materials. These actions include sheltering, evacuation, and the use of potassium iodide where appropriate. For more information, see Typical 10-Mile Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ Map.
Ingestion Exposure Pathway EPZ
The ingestion exposure pathway EPZ has a radius of about 50 miles from the reactor site. Predetermined protective action plans are in place for this EPZ and are designed to avoid or reduce dose from potential ingestion of radioactive materials. These actions include a ban of contaminated food and water.
http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/emerg-preparedness/about-emerg-preparedness/planning-zones.html

C]  International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) Guide lines on EPZ violated by INDIA see pages 19 to 32]
 http://www.oecd-nea.org/rp/reports/2003/nea3600-short-term.pdf
 Even tghe Guide lines   recommended by IAEA are violated by India to the detriment of tghe health and welfare of millions of poor people who get  for the sake of the contractors in case of a credible accident

All the political party leaders in India should not accept such serious violations by the state and Union Governments and the nuclear plant authorities as thesenuclear plants are just silent killers of mankind and the Indian states should not be transformed into nuclear burial grounds due to inevitable nuclear accidents in the long run for one reason or theother since nuclear safety is a myth as confirmed in the wake of the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters by the Chancellor of Germany, Ms.Angela Merkel and Naoto, Ex-PM of Japan.
 
D) Violation by the Indian Nuclear Authorities on the Suggested Emergency Planning Zones and Radius Sizes
Risk Informed Support of Decision Makingin Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Zoning
European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Energy, Netherlands(2008)

For threat category I, i. e. for NPPs, IAEA document [3] in its Appendix 5 provides suggestions for the approximate radius of the EP zones and food restriction planning radius as given in the following Table 4.1. The radii were selected based on calculations performed using RASCAL 3.0 computer code [12]. The calculations assumed average meteorological conditions, no rain, ground level release; 48 hours of exposure to ground shine, and  calculates the centralized dose to a person outside for 48 hours. The suggested sizes for the PAZ were based on expert judgment considering the following:
Facilities
PAZ radius
UPZ radius
FRPZ radius

Reactors > 1000MW(th)
3 – 5 km
25 km
300 km
Reactors > 100 - 1000MW (th)
0.5 -3 km
5 – 25 km
50 - 300 km
Table 4.1. Suggested Emergency Zones and Radius Sizes for NPPs.
(1) Urgent protective actions taken before or shortly after a release within this radius will prevent doses above the early death thresholds for the vast majority of severe emergencies postulated for these facilities.
(2) Urgent protective actions taken before or shortly after a release within this radius will avert doses above the urgent protective action generic intervention level10 (GIL) for the majority of emergencies postulated for the facility.
(3) Dose rates that could have been fatal within a few hours were observed at these distances during the Chernobyl accident.
(4) The maximum reasonable radius for the PAZ is assumed to be 5 km because:
a) except for the most severe emergencies, it is the limit to which early deaths are postulated [13];
b) it provides about a factor of ten reduction in dose compared to the dose on the site;
c) it is very unlikely that urgent protective actions will be warranted at a significant distance beyond this radial distance;
d) it is considered the practical limit of the distance to which substantial sheltering or evacuation can be promptly implemented before or shortly after a release; and
e) implementing precautionary urgent protective actions to a larger radius may reduce the effectiveness of the action for the people near the site, who are at the greatest risk.
The suggested sizes for the UPZ are also based on expert judgment considering the following:
(1) These are the radial distances to which the reference NUREG-1150 [13] suggests that monitoring to locate and evacuate hot spots (deposition) within hours/days may be warranted in order to significantly reduce the risk of early deaths for the worst emergencies postulated for power reactors.
(2) At these radial distances there is a factor of approximately 10 reduction in concentration (and thus risk) from a release compared to the concentration at the PAZ boundary.
(3) This distance provides a substantial base for expansion of response efforts.
(4) 25 km is assumed to be the practical limit for the radial distance within which to conduct monitoring and implement appropriate urgent protective actions within a few hours or days. Attempting to conduct initial monitoring to a larger radius may reduce the effectiveness of the protective actions for the people near the site, who are at the greatest risk.
(5) For average meteorological (dilution) conditions, beyond this radius, for most postulated severe emergencies, the total effective dose for an individual would not exceed the urgent protective action GILs for evacuation.
As far as long term protective zone FRPZ is concerned, in general, protective actions such as relocation, food restriction and agricultural countermeasures are based on expert judgement considering the following:
(1) Detectable excess stochastic effects (cancers) are very unlikely beyond this distance.
(2) Detailed planning within this distance provides a substantial basis for expansion of response efforts.
(3) Food restrictions were warranted to about 300 km following the Chernobyl accident in order to prevent detectable excess thyroid cancers among children [3].
It should be mentioned here so called Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), that is an assessment of the likely influence a project may have on the environment. EIA is a procedure that ensures that the environmental implications of decisions are taken into account before the decisions are made and can be very briefly mentioned as the process of identifying, predicting, evaluating and mitigating the biophysical, social, and other relevant effects of development proposals prior to major decisions being taken and commitments made. The purpose of the assessment is to ensure that decision-makers consider environmental impacts before deciding whether to proceed with new projects. The EIA directive11 (Directive 2001/42/EC) was first introduced in 1985 and was amended in 1997 and 2003. However, it has little practical relevance to the issue, as there is no background technical guideline or similar on how to evaluate zones in an EU-wide manner. Nevertheless, the issue of zoning is more and more mentioned in some current EIA studies for NPPs under operation, e.g. Temelin in Czech Republic, Mochovce in Slovakia, or under construction (Belene in Bulgaria).
USA: To facilitate a preplanned strategy for protective actions during an emergency, there are two EPZs around each NPP. First, the plume exposure pathway EPZ has a radius of about 10 miles (16 km) from the reactor. Predetermined protection actions include sheltering, evacuation, and the use of potassium iodide where appropriate. Second, the ingestion exposure pathway EPZ. It has a radius of about 50 miles (80 km) from the reactor. Predetermined protection actions include a ban of contaminated food and water.


Saturday, October 22, 2011

PEOPLE QUESTION EXPERTS ON SAFETY OF NUCLEAR PLANTS

QUESTIONS TO THE EXPERT COMMITTEE ON KUDANKULAM NUCLEAR PLANT BY THE PEOPLE

AS  AN IRRITATED SNAKE  KILLS A MAN, NUCLEAR PLANTS SILENTLY  KILL  MANKIND AND NATURE FOR  FINANCIAL GAINS BY CONTRACTORS,OFFICIALS& POLITICIANS ?
Nuclear Plants are just silent killers of man and Nature created by the GOD. In nature the Uranium ore contains 99.3% of Uranium-238 and the remaining 0.7% is Uranium-235.  Uranium-238 and Uranium-235  in nature are least harmful.  But business people and other vested interests dig the iron ore and  convert  the least harmful Uranium-235  into the fuel form of Uranium-235  by purifying it to make a fuel by enriching it to about 4% of Uranium-235 that is packed in pellets and inserted into the core of the nuclear reactor for producing both electricity and material for making the bombs.   The reactor  when the nuclear atom is given a blow  by a neutron, enormous heat and other poisonous Radio-active atoms like Xenon, Barium, Cesium, Strontium, Plutonium and other dangerous radioactive substances are produced.  These radioactive substances are discharged into the air and water by several ways and  when they enter into the environment consisting of air, water and soil and foods like vegetables, fishes, prawns they ultimately get into human beings and produce cancers and birth defects in generations of people for many decades to come.  These poisonous radioactive substances  destroy natural and human life and culture and convert lands upto hundreds of kilometers into permanent nuclear burial grounds for ever.
How harmless Uranium ore materials in nature are converted into destructive and killer materials by man can be understood by the following simple example. For instance king cobras live in nature in anthills in forests and lead their normal life peacefully by catching their prey for food during nights But greedy people go and poke their iron rods into their abodes and disturb the Cobras when they become angry and bite the trespassers to inflict death over them by their poisons.   Similarly, the selfish people are mining the harmless Uranium and converting it into harmful  Enriched Uranium and then using it to produce electricity by means of the Nuclear plants and in the process they are producing Radioactive pollutants that poison man and nature slowly due to routine releases of radioactivity into the environment.  In course of time if an accident occurs in the Nuclear plant due to several reasons like in Fukushima or Chernobyl, the poisonous pollutants are thrown into the atmosphere and they kill thousands of people slowly and inflict cancer to millions of people living downstream upto hundreds of Kilometers as in case of Fukushima and Chernobyl accidents. The Nuclear plant operators are misleading the public by stating that Nuclear power is safe and cheap just like the medical representatives of various pharmaceutical companies praise before the doctors about the virtues of their medical tablets and tonics as part of their sale promotion activity the nuclear authorities are praising the nuclear plants as safe and cheap energy producers which is wrong.  This misinformation is dangerous to public health and welfare because in European states almost all people agree that safety of Nuclear (power is a Myth as accepted by Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany. She had consulted the genuine experts on nuclear plants and realized that nuclear safety is a myth and ordered for gradual closure of all the nuclear plants in Germany.  If Indian Prime Minister and Union Cabinet Ministers including the Chief Ministers of the state want to know the truth about the safety of the nuclear power plants they must go and visit advanced countries like Germany and Japan  and discuss the issue with foreign experts  so that they can refrain from promoting nuclear plants as is done by the peoples leader like Mamata Banerjee, Chief Minister of West Bengal.   For more scientific details see the above web sites on this topic prepared by independent experts.

Environmental Impact Analysis report are fabricated by consultants according to the national Green Tribunal and also according to the Chief Justice of India, S.H.Kapadia  who said “If you leave report preparation to the project proponent, I am sorry to say the person who pays will get the answers he asks for” and hence he called for a change in the system of preparation of EIA reports for the development projects.  See website:  http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2886141.ece
 1 (a)  According to US Nuclear Regulatory Commission the standards of safety for Nuclear Power Plants require preparation of Environmental Assessment Report including Risk Analysis, Nuclear accident scenario, Emergency preparedness plans and Disaster management reports for nuclear accidents caused due to several reasons including terrorist attacks and security threats.           
                  http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33558.pdf 
 (b) Have similar reports been prepared for the Kudankulam Nuclear plant by the Nuclear Power Corporation of India and the Union Government. If, yes, place the reports before the people for obtaining their consent?

(2) (a)   Environmental Impact Analysis and Emergency preparedness plans have to be prepared and  circulated for a public hearing as per Environmental Protection Act regulations and guidelines issued by the National Disaster Management organization under the Chairmanship of the Prime Minister of India?      
http://envfor.nic.in/legis/eia/so-60%28e%29.html                                                                   
   http://saarc-sdmc.nic.in/pdf/india/file6.pdf 
The nuclear plant at Kudankulam is operated by the authorities who violated the Environmental Safety Standards by avoiding the preparation of Environmental Impact Assessment reports, Emergency preparedness and disaster managment reports for nuclear accidens which have to cover planning zones upto 80kms as per US standards and upto 100kms as per standards followed in Finland for implementation of the Emergency Action operations to safeguard the interests of public health and the environment for places upto Tirunelveli and Polayamkot in case of Tami Nadu and upto Trivandrum in case of Kerala state depending upon the wind flows during the time of the nuclear reactor accident as indicated in the main website
http://tshivajirao.blogspot.com/2011/10/kudankulam-nuclear-plant-explosion.html 
 http://tshivajirao.blogspot.com/2011/10/violation-of-nuclear-accident-emergency.html
       (b)(1) Did the Kudankulam nuclear plant authorities prepare such environmental Impact Assessment reports as per the rules of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986 and submitted the detailed reports, the damaging impacts  of the proposed nuclear plant on the environment including the risk analysis ,nuclear plant accident scenario, Emergency preparedness plans and presentthem for a public hearing as per rules and taken the consent of the people likely to be effected by the emissions of pollutants from the plant during its routine operations and also due to a maximum credible accident caused by several reasons including internal sabotage, earthquakes, cyclones, terrorist attacks, aeroplane crashes or other hazards like Tsunamis and flooding? 
(2)  What remedial actions can be taken even at this stage to prepare the disaster management, risk analysis and emergency preparedness plans for nuclear accidents with their zone of influence extending upto 100kms from the plant?  What actions can be taken to create awareness among the people for enlisting their cooperation in organising mockdrills for sheltering and emergency evacuation within 2 days of the accident? What other measures can be taken to protect the cattle, the agriculture products from getting contaminated by the radioactive fall out?  What are the costs of economic damage consequent to implementation of the emergency preparedness measures/

3 (a) Is it not a fact that for the maximum credible anticipated nuclear accidents the US Regulatory commission prepares the emergency planning zones for 2 regions namely Plume Exposure Pathways (EPZ-I) zones covering a distance upto 16km downwind of the nuclear power plant.  Predetermined protective action plans are in place for this EPZ and are designed to avoid or reduce dose from potential exposure of radioactive materials. These actions include sheltering, evacuation, and the use of potassium iodide where appropriate .
The second zone, known as the ingestion exposure pathway (EPZ-II) zone covering a distance upto 50miles or 80km from the Nuclear plant.  Predetermined protective action plans are in place for this EPZ and are designed to avoid or reduce dose from potential ingestion of radioactive materials. These actions include a ban of contaminated food and water. See website
    (b) Have such emergency planning zones prepared for nuclear accidents in USA are being implemented for the nuclear plant at Kudankulam?  Such plans are essential for the public health and Environmental Protection standards in India and  have to be more stringent for Indian people than even for the Americans who have with better nutritional and health standards.
( c) Have the lakhs of people of Tiruneveli city and district  (in case of accident during southerly winds)  /Trivandrum city and districts (in case of accident during southeasterly winds) been told that in case of an accident, they have to be evacuated and relocated in safer places for twenty years?
(d) Have lakhs of people downstream of the reactor in Tamil Nadu ( in case of accident during southerly winds) and Kerala (in case of accident during southeasterly winds) to be evacuated and relocated in safer places  for 5 to 10 years for some villages and towns upto 110km from the plant and  other villages and towns upto 170km for 1 to 4 years downstream of the plant. 

4 (a) According to the National Disaster Management Report, Union Ministry of Home Affairs, (August, 2004) Development cannot be sustainable unless Disaster Management is built into the Development process.  The approach for disaster management is translated into a natural disaster management road map covering institutional mechanisms including prevention, early warning, disaster mitigation, preparedness and emergency response through inputs from National, state and District levels as identified and listed in the road map contained in the official website.
http://saarc-sdmc.nic.in/pdf/india/file2.pdf The procedures to be followed  for disaster management as stipulated by the Government of India are naturally applicable for the development project pertaining to Kudankulam nuclear plant.
     (b) In the case  of handling the emergency due to a maximum credible accident at Kudankulam nuclear plant, what are the actions taken by the Union Government and the nuclear plant management authorities to enlist  the active participation of the Tamil Nadu state Government, the regional District collectors and the local Panchayat officials including the police, defence and other concerned agencies in chalking out a road map of disaster management for the nuclear plant at Kudankulam?  If the detailed reports on the involvement of the state and central Government organizations for this disaster management are prepared, these reports may be made available to the people for creating the required awareness of the problem among them and for enlisting their whole hearted cooperation in disaster management and for protecting their health and their lives and properties in the regions.

5 (a) The economic damaging costs of the 1100 MW nuclear plant accident postulated for the Sizewell reactor [about 150km , North East of London] were estimated in 1983 at £800 million
    (b) Have such economic costs of damage been made for a maximum credible accident for the 1000 MW nuclear power plant proposed at Kudankulam for Tamil Nadu (in case the accident occurs during southerly winds) and Kerala state (in case the accident occurs during southeasterly winds)?

6 (a) The costs of decommissioning of a nuclear plant in USA have been estimated at $500 millions.   http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33558.pdf 
   (b) Has a similar estimated cost of decommissioning of the Kudankulam reactors at the end of their life have been made and presented to the people in India for their consent?

 7.(a) The amount of compensation for victims of nuclear accidents to be paid in some countries is estimated to range from $300 million to $375 million by the nuclear plant operators while the total damaging costs is estimated at $ 12000 million under the Prince Anderson Act of USA. In India it is estimated that the accident liability is proposed to be limited to a small amount of Rs.1500 crores by the nuclear plant operator/supplier in India while a major amount of compensation to the victims is proposed to be paid by the Union Government by diverting the poor tax payers money and thereby provide huge subsidies for the foreign contractors and the Indian operators to the detriment of public interest as already experienced in the case of Bhopal disaster.
    (b) Did the Union Government take the consent of the people of India for making such efforts to over burden the poor tax payer to subsidize the enormous costs of the hazardous nuclear power.?

8 (a) MIT experts in their report on nuclear energy warned the industry that in order to ensure safety there must be continuous training of nuclear plant workers to continually observe and evaluate the emerging safety problems in the operation,and maintenance of the reactors.  Since India is importing different kinds of modern reactors from different countries and India does not have the required scientific and technical man power to operate the reactors safely
    (b) Does the Government of India and the nuclear establishment authority realize that some of these advanced reactors are not fully tested even in their countries of origin and those countries also do not have properly trained and experienced persons there is very little chance either to import the man power from the concerned foreign countries or to send Indians for training to those countries for proper training.  Under these circumstances how can the Indian Government and nuclear establishment import such modern reactors without proper working knowledge about them and at the same time assure the people of India that these reactors can be operated and maintained properly without compromising on safety standards.  Since an automobile Engineering Professor may not be a good car driver and an experienced car driver may not be a good teacher of Automobile Engineer. It is very difficult to ensure harmonious operation and maintenance of a new machine by a new mechanic without proper reconciliation between the principles of the design of the plant and the mechanics of its operation.  What can be done to ensure safety at Kudankulam reactors?

9(a) In order to determine the frequency of nuclear accidents we depend upon either the historical experience or probabilistic risk assessment.  In USA since 1957 Light Water Reactors are working with a total experience of 3700 reactor years till today and there was one reactor core damage accident at Three Mile Island and hence the core damage frequency of American reactors is one in 3700 reactor years on average[.for 104 Reactors]
For probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) the method identifies possible failures in the reactor like pipe breaks or loss of reactor coolant flow and then traces the sequence of events that follow and finally estimates the likelihood of such failures resulting in core damage. 
 PRA includes both internal events and external events like natural disaster, experts, estimate PRA for core damage frequency at 1 in 10000 reactor years for reactors in USA, with regard to global reactor growth in 50 years from 2005 to 2055 both historical and PRA data show unacceptable accident frequency estimated at 4 and one major accident may occur before 2055 as per estimates by experts.
(b) Under the above circumstances how can Indian Government take a calculated risk to opt for nuclear power plants knowing that they are risk prone and highly costly as compared with natural gas or thermal coal?

10(a) In the case of the new reactors the designs use passive and active features to enhance reactor safety.  Passive systems use stored energy for pumping either by means of pressurized tanks or by gravity acting on water in elevated times (See website:
They substitute for motor driven pumps ultimately driven by emergency diesel generators and can thereby remove the risk of failure of diesel generators  to start when needed,, i.e. during a station blackout.
(b) But when these advanced reactors are subjected to internal sabotage, terrorist attacks or aeroplane crashes or bombing as had happened in Washington in September,2001, see web
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_for_the_day_of_the_September_11_attacks  how can the Government and the nuclear plant authorities prevent a nuclear plant explosion even at this new generation of advanced nuclear reactors at Kudankulam.

11(a) There is a public demand for the conversion of the Kudankulam Nuclear power plant into either a gas based, lignite or coal based thermal plant because the people believe that in order to protect the quality of the marine  fishery resources which form their bread and butter that ensures their right to livelihood and right to life, this transformation of the nuclear plant into a thermal plant is in order. The people are confident to get the environmental damages minimized by employing state of art technology for the thermal power plants and hence their demand is justified.  Moreover the latest expert committee report from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA (2009) shows that nuclear power is not only highly hazardous but also more costly because it is estimated that one KWh costs about $0.08 for nuclear power and only $0.05 for either coal or natural gas based power. 
   (b) In the light of the public demand for more safer and economical sources of energy why should the Government of India or the state Government accept this just demand of the people to abandon riskiest nuclear power plant in preference to a gas based or coal based thermal plant by utilizing the infrastructure created for the nuclear plant at Kudankulam, as the best alternative that should have been suggested as per the guidelines specified in the proforma under the Environmental Impact Assessment report.
http://moef.nic.in/legis/eia/so1533.pdf (page 33 Appendix-III alternatives to be suggested)


12(a) India is working with different kinds of nuclear power plants like Boiling Water Reactors based on American models at Tarapur supplied by United States,  Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors (PHWR) at Kalpakkam and other stations based on Canadian models, VVER reactors at Kudankulam based upon Russian models.  Consequently there are bound to be major variations in the procedures followed for construction, operation, maintenance, storage of wastes and decommissioning including safety and disaster management and waste disposal including reprocessing of wastes and recycling and reuse.
b) What are the various methods adopted by the Department of Atomic Energy for ensuring uniform standards of safety management, reactor monitoring, waste management, waste storage facilities, monitoring and management and emergency preparedness and implementation at these different plants?

13(a) It is reported that in some countries with imported reactors from foreign countries the fuel is often imported from the concerned foreign countries and the spent fuel is sent back again to the same countries for reprocessing, reuse and disposal.
(b) What methodologies are followed in India in case of the different reactors imported from different countries for the required fuel supplies and for reprocessing spent fuels from different reactors?  Are there any problems like nuclear incidents and accidents during the handling, transportation and  reprocessing of these nuclear materials that cause public health hazards?

14 (a) As per the newspaper report, the Hindu dt. 15, July, 2011 the disaster management even in the National capital of Delhi is in shambles and the terrorists  attacks are repeated because of the mileage the terrorists are able derive since the Disaster management work is mired in red tape with bureaucratic ego multiplicity of authority and lackadaisical approach towards carrying out even basic task (for promoting environmental safety) and public safety, like mock-drills making a mockery of entire rules and regulations under the Disaster Management Act 2005.
(b) Under such poor work culture in the Indian Environment, what kind of guarantee can the expert committee members, nuclear plant authorities, Tamil Nadu State Government and the Union Government can provide for ensuring public safety and environmental safety and preventive management and control methods for the safety of the terrestrial and aquatic ecological systems in and around the nuclear plant for distances upto hundreds of kilometers in case of a nuclear accidents .

15(a) For compensating the victims of Fukushima reactor accident, Japan Government and the nuclear plant operators are taking adequate legislation to pay very heavy amounts towards compensation ranging from an amount of Rs.3 lakh crores to Rs.5 lakh crores over a period of 2 to 3 years or more.
b) Has the Tamil Nadu state Government the Union Government and the nuclear plant authorities have taken steps to take insurance policies and pass laws to cover costs of compensation for the Kudankulam nuclear plant to an extent of Rs.5 lakh crores with the approval of the people of the state and the nation as per democratic norms governing a social welfare state?
16.a)   Union Government has got civil liabilities for nuclear damage Act passed in September 2011 and that compensation will be paid to the victims of nuclear accidents under different stages with the funds being paid by the industry (Rs.1500 crores /US$334.5million) the Union Government and also from International funding.  The nuclear reactors may cause accidents either due to faults of the designs and equipments provided by the suppliers or due to mistakes or errors committed by the plant operators or by a combination of mistakes committed by both the suppliers and the operators.
b) (1) In the event of incidents and accidents in operating such nuclear power plants how are the costs of damages shared between the suppliers, the operators, the concerned state Government, the Union Government and the other International organizations like International Atomic energy Agency? 
(2) To what extent such damage costs influence the increase in the cost of living of the common people of the concerned state and the country?
(3) How does the Nuclear Liability Act 2011 protect public interest if its implementation will let free the manufacturer, supplier and also the operator i.e. Nuclear Power Corporation of India(NPCIL) legally and to a large extent financially as well?
(4) If the Nuclear Liability Act does not allow the victims to sue the manufacturers and suppliers of nuclear plants which may cause any accident how does it protect the rights of the people of India guaranteed under the constitution?
(5) If under the nuclear liability Act 2011 according to clause 7 the operator pays compensation upto Rs.500 crores to the victims and the Union Government will pay additional amount.  But the foreign companies liability is limited to Rs.1500 crores if there is a written contract.  Is it justified in public interest?
(6) The Japanese Government proposes to pay Rs.3 lakh crores for victims of Fukushima accident and the Price Anderson Act in USA compensates victims for about 60,000 crores  how can justice be done to Indians likely to be victims of a nuclear plant accident.


About Me

My photo
Born in 1932 at Mudinepalli, near Gudivada, Krishna Dist. Andhra Pradesh, received Bachelors degree in Civil Engg., from Viswesaraiah Engineering College, Banglore (1956) and Masters Degree in Environmental Engineering from Rice university, Houston, Texas, (USA) (1962), Ph.D (Hony). Former Head of the Department of Civil Engineering and principal of College of Engineering, Andhra university.Formerly Hony.Professor in Andhra University,Manonmanian Sundarnar University,JNT University. Fellow of the Institution of Engineers,India Recipient of the University Grants Commissions National Award "Swami Pranavananda Award on Ecology and Environmental Sciences" for the year 1991. Recipient of Sivananda Eminent Citizen Award for 2002 by Sanathana Dharma Charitable Trust, Andhra Pradesh state. Presently Working as Director, centre for Environmental Studies, GITAM University, http://www.geocities.com/prof_shivajirao/resume.html http://www.eoearth.org/contributor/Shivaji.rao