NUCLEAR SAFETY IMPOSSIBLE BASED ON PAST ACCIDENTS

Prof.T.Shivaji Rao,

Director, Center for Environmental Studies,

GITAM University, Visakhapatnam-530045.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26879/[nuclear dafety article on a[DNA repair]
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/fukushima/japan-report2/ 
(Lessons from Fukushima by Japan Government. See Chapter-VI)

https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/RadiationSafety/safe_use/exposure.htm[[ safetydoses as per American standards]

http://tshivajirao.blogspot.in/2012/05/kudankulam-nuclear-safety-studies-of.html 

http://tshivajirao.blogspot.in/2012/05/why-kudankulam-reactors-are-killers-of.html 

http://tshivajirao.blogspot.in/2012/02/kudankulam-nuclear-bomb-over-tamilnadu.html 

http://tshivajirao.blogspot.in/2012/10/wrongly-built-nuclear-plants-are-closed.html 

http://tshivajirao.blogspot.in/2012/10/nuclear-safety-impossible-based-on-past.html 

http://tshivajirao.blogspot.in/2012/10/underestimated-kudankulam-reactor-mock.html 

http://home.ccr.cancer.gov/inthejournals/bonner.asp 
      (This website shows that the repare mechisams for broken DNA due to Radiation affects cannot be repared in case of old people and young children . Hence Nuclear safety impossible.)    

( Note: At present the Union Government and Tamilnadu state Governments are preparing to commission nuclear reactors (1000MW) at Kudankulam in Tamil Nadu by violating all the guidelines of the international atomic energy agency and the national disaster management authority.  There is an agitation since 1988 by the thousands of local people including fishermen against this nuclear plant which is considered by the scientific experts and the general public as a silent killer of mankind and natural life systems including the marine fisheries which is a source of livelihood for hundreds of villages on the East Coast of India.  While the proponents of the nuclear plant are propagating that the nuclear reactors imported from Russia are 100% safe to public health and the environment.  Thousands of local people are agitating seriously for the last one year and they are opposing the plant as it will pose a serious threat to their right to life, right to health, right to environment and the right to livelihood.  Several public interest litigation cases have been filed in the courts against this nuclear plant at Kudankulam .  In order to create awareness among the educated people, scientists, engineers and the general public on certain crucial aspects of the hazards of the nuclear power a number of articles have been published by the author in the websites and also in a special websites "dianuke.org".  This article is a part of a series of such 20 articles published in the websites by the author and this article it is hoped will be helpful to the public.)

The European Union appointed a commission to review the safety standards of nuclear plants in the European countries based uponthe lesons learnt fromthe devastatisng explosionsof the nuclear reactors at Fukushima in March 2011 in Japan.  Consequently an indepth study was made by the technical experts of the nuclear industry who presented a report durisng the first week of October 2012. (See Website for more details)

http://www.ibtimes.com/european-nuclear-reactors-need-immediate-safety-upgrades-eu-814743
Environmentalists strongly criticised this report by emphasizing  that the report is prepared more for the convenience of the nuclear plant owners and not in public interest.

1) The expert committee recommended firstly that based on only the technical reasons relating to the existing reactors plants and machienry and thier satisfactory performance the expert committee said that  it may not be required to shut down the nuclear power plants in Europe.

2) Secondly the commission warned that practically all the European nuclear plants must undergo safety improvements since hundreds of technical upgrade measures have been identified by the expert committee.

3)  Thirdly the expert committee was gravely concerned about the potential risks facing the existing nuclear reactors in the event of natural disasters. That means the expert committee evidently feels that in view of some of the unsafe practices and natural and man made hazards such as human errors, earthquakes, extreme floods, internal sabotage, aeroplane bombing, missile, meteorite and satellite hits and terrorist attacks like those that occurred at the Center in New York the nuclear reactors may be subjected to maximum credible accidents resulting in serious damaging effects to public health, environmental safety, national security and the economic bankruptcy of the concerned states and countries.

4) Fourthly the expert committee felt that although the present state of nuclear plants in Europe is somewhat satisfactory yet they warned that there is need for upgrading the safety standards and that there is no room for complacency.

5) Fifthly Mr.Guenther Oettinger, the European Energy Commissioner who made an in depth study of the expert committtee report insists that the European atomic industry must take out liability insurance in the event of a worst case nuclear plant disaster scenario.  He further analysed that the obligation to have insurace cover for the nuclear plant accidents will lead to increased costs of nuclear power that will be reflected in the cost to the consumer who purchases electricity.  Certainly this will will not lead to nuclear energy becoming more competative.

Nuclear power station accidents and incidents
Year	Incident	INES level	Country	IAEA description
2011	Fukushima	5	Japan	Reactor shutdown after the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami; failure of emergency cooling caused an explosion
2011	Onagawa		Japan	Reactor shutdown after the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami caused a fire
2006	Fleurus	4	Belgium	Severe health effects for a worker at a commercial irradiation facility as a result of high doses of radiation
2006	Forsmark	2	Sweden	Degraded safety functions for common cause failure in the emergency power supply system at nuclear power plant
2006	Erwin		US	Thirty-five litres of a highly enriched uranium solution leaked during transfer
2005	Sellafield	3	UK	Release of large quantity of radioactive material, contained within the installation
2005	Atucha	2	Argentina	Overexposure of a worker at a power reactor exceeding the annual limit
2005	Braidwood		US	Nuclear material leak
2003	Paks	3	Hungary	Partially spent fuel rods undergoing cleaning in a tank of heavy water ruptured and spilled fuel pellets
1999	Tokaimura	4	Japan	Fatal overexposures of workers following a criticality event at a nuclear facility
1999	Yanangio	3	Peru	Incident with radiography source resulting in severe radiation burns
1999	Ikitelli	3	Turkey	Loss of a highly radioactive Co-60 source
1999	Ishikawa	2	Japan	Control rod malfunction
1993	Tomsk	4	Russia	Pressure buildup led to an explosive mechanical failure
1993	Cadarache	2	France	Spread of contamination to an area not expected by design
1989	Vandellos	3	Spain	Near accident caused by fire resulting in loss of safety systems at the nuclear power station
1989	Greifswald		Germany	Excessive heating which damaged ten fuel rods
1986	Chernobyl	7	Ukraine (USSR)	Widespread health and environmental effects. External release of a significant fraction of reactor core inventory
1986	Hamm-Uentrop		Germany	Spherical fuel pebble became lodged in the pipe used to deliver fuel elements to the reactor
1981	Tsuraga	2	Japan	More than 100 workers were exposed to doses of up to 155 millirem per day radiation
1980	Saint Laurent des Eaux	4	France	Melting of one channel of fuel in the reactor with no release outside the site
1979	Three Mile Island	5	US	Severe damage to the reactor core
1977	Jaslovské Bohunice	4	Czechoslovakia	Damaged fuel integrity, extensive corrosion damage of fuel cladding and release of radioactivity
1969	Lucens		Switzerland	Total loss of coolant led to a power excursion and explosion of experimental reactor
1967	Chapelcross		UK	Graphite debris partially blocked a fuel channel causing a fuel element to melt and catch fire
1966	Monroe		US	Sodium cooling system malfunction
1964	Charlestown		US	Error by a worker at a United Nuclear Corporation fuel facility led to an accidental criticality
1959	Susana Lab		US	Partial core meltdown
1958	Chalk River		Canada	Due to inadequate cooling a damaged uranium fuel rod caught fire and was torn in two
1958	Vinča		Yugoslavia	During a subcritical counting experiment a power buildup went undetected - six scientists received high doses
1957	Kyshtym	6	Russia	Significant release of radioactive material to the environment from explosion of a high activity waste tank.
1957	Windscale Pile	5	UK	Release of radioactive material to the environment following a fire in a reactor core
1952	Chalk River	5	Canada	A reactor shutoff rod failure, combined with several operator errors, led to a major power excursion of more than double the reactor's rated output at AECL's NRX reactor

International Nuclear Events Scale (INES)   For details see website:   http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-power-plant-accidents-list-rank#data
Level	Definition	People and environment	Radiological barriers & control and Defence in depth
7	Major accident Chernobyl, 1986	Major release of radio active material with widespread health and environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended countermeasures
6	Serious accident Kyshtym 1957	Significant release of radioactive material likely to require implementation of planned countermeasures.
5	Accident high impacts  Windscale, UK, 1957; Three Mile Island, 79	·  Limited release of radioactive material likely to require implementation of some planned countermeasures ·   Several deaths from radiation	• Severe damage to reactor core. • Release of large quantities of radioactive material within an installation with a high probability of significant public exposure. arise from a major criticality accident or fire
4	Accident with local consequences FUKUSHIMA 1, 2011	• Minor release of radioactive material unlikely to result in implementation of planned countermeasures other than local food controls. • At least one death from radiation.	• Fuel melt or damage to fuel resulting in more than 0.1% release of core inventory. • Release of significant quantities of radioactive  material within an installation with a high probability of significant public exposure.
3	Serious incident  Sellafield, UK, 2005	• Exposure in excess of ten times the statutory annual limit for workers. • Non-lethal deterministic health effect (e.g., burns) from radiation.	• Exposure rates of more than 1 Sv/h in an operating area. • Severe contamination in an area not expected by design, with a low probability of significant public exposure.--------------------------------------- • Near accident at a nuclear power plant  with no safety provisions remaining. • Lost or stolen highly radioactive sealed source. • Misdelivered highly radioactive sealed source without adequate procedures in place to handle it.
2	Incident Atucha, Argentina, 2005	• Exposure of a member of the public in excess of 10 mSv. • Exposure of a worker in excess of the statutory annual limits	• Radiation levels in an operating area of more than 50 mSv/h. • Significant contamination within the facility into an area not expected by design----------- • Significant failures in safety provisions but with no actual consequences. • Found highly radioactive sealed orphan source, device or transport package with safety provisions intact.    • Inadequate packaging of a highly radioactive sealed source
1	Anomaly		• Overexposure of a member of the public in excess of statutory annual limits. • Minor problems with safety components with significant defence-in-depth remaining • Low activity lost or stolen radioactive source, device or transport package

The following table presents the different kinds of unsafe practices still continued by dozens of nuclear reactors operating in many european countries as assessed by the nuclear experts who prepared a technical report on the existing malfunctioning of various components of the reactors and the suggestions to improve their working conditions to conform with the nuclear safety standards. See the following website: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/safety/doc/swd_2012_0287_en.pdf

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/world/eu-nuclear-safety-review-finds-fault-in-145-reactors-302132.html

EXISTING DEFICIENCIES IN THE FUNCTIONING OF NUCLEAR REACTORS TO BE RECTIFIED AS PER THE EXPERT COMMITTEE REPORT SUBMITTED TO EUROPEAN UNION (EU),Oct. 2012

DEFECTS IN RUSSIAN REACTORS OF VVER TYPE