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. 

http://desastres.unanleon.edu.ni/pdf/2002/noviembre/pdf/ENG/DOC13731/doc13731-contenido.pdf

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:6N4wYcOutpoJ:desastres.unanleon.edu.ni/pdf/2002/noviembre/pdf/eng/doc13731/doc13731-contenido.pdf+&hl=en&gl=in&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESg0SsJZCXq8Y5ylJW5Nqjo_U6uxLGNpsYCNk2-XYNP338sgtPTffo69RKfOffXSQGlt14Vfh5mLw2Ph8O9lsZmk1_WF-bKf1RWmGJyS3KpqKqJmx_kg-hdbP2ngE8qDw1XJl4qB&sig=AHIEtbQhhprpj-kqhkS1vYCdVrbTRvBDHg

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

http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/2756/1/reqno_jrc43311_final%20version%5B2%5D.pdf

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.