(since
official expert committees dealt with only reactor safety and not public safety
aspects, activists must demand for non-technical public safety reports and not
for technical reactor safety reports)
Prof.T.Shivaji
Rao,
Director,
Center for Environmental Studies,
GITAM
University, Visakhapatnam-530045
ABSTRACT:
Presently there is a controversy about
the supply of Kudankulam nuclear safety reports to the anti-nuclear activists
under the Right to Information Act the Nuclear Power Corporation refuses to
obey the orders of Chief Information Commissioner to supply to the public the
site evaluation report and nuclear plant safety report to the public under the
pretext that it belongs to a third party namely, the Russian nuclear plant suppliers. The
activists are worried because there are several repsorts on the working of many
Soviet reactors in a very unsafe
manner. Consequently the doubts about
the safety of Kudankulam are genuine. Hence
the activists must provided with the public safety aspects of the Kudankulam
reactors by providing the people with the reactor explosion scenario source
terms, atmospheric dispersion of radioactivity and demarcation of the exclusion
zone, sterilized zone, emergency zone and the off-site disaster management zone
along with concentrations of radioactivity expected at the ground level in
these zones. First of all the people are
evacuated due to a reactor accident upto
a radius of 30km in Japan and some European countries and Americans are
evacuated in Japan due to Fukushima explosion upto 80km from the accident site
but Indian Standards are very vague as they may evacuate people due to an
accident upto maximum of 5kms from the reactor as per the AERB guidelines while International
guidelines by IAEA stipulate evacuation of people upto 25km and treat emergency
zone upto 300kms. It means that the
Tamilnadu Chief Minister and the Prime Minister of India are treating the
people living in the off-site disaster management zone as people who can be
sacrificed by poisoning and slowly killing them as practiced by Hitler during
the second world war by using the gas chambers which represent the present day
Kudankulam nuclear reactors. Hence people
must study these problems of life and death and take necessary timely action by
remembering that even God canot help those who refuse to help themselves Even though Article 51A(g) of the
constitution demands people to discharge their duties under the constitution.
1) WHO ARE THE PEOPLE TO DECIDE ON THE SAFETY OF
NUCLEAR PLANTS:
The British Atomic Energy Agency
experts on safety J.G.Tyror and A.R.Garlic safety goals for nuclear plants have
to ensure that they are safe enough to the operation of the plant and the
public in its neighbourhood in practice one must get a comprehensive idea of
the whole question of what constitutes adequate safety for a hazardous nuclear reactor
in modern society. It is not a purely
technical matter and much less simple calculations of risk and comparing the
results with a numerical target as compared with road accidents, aircraft
crashes, industrial accidents and fires.
The purpose of safety goals for a nuclear industry are to consider them
as a decision making aid. If so one must
know who makes such decisions on the safety of a rector. Infact many people are involved in decision
making on the safety goal of a reactor including the designer the control
operator, plant manager, the operating organization, the regulator, the public
enquiry inspectorate, the responsible minister, members of Parliament and state
legislature and the concerned public.
The legal responsibility for safety rests mainly with the reactor
operator organization while all the other are part of a chain of accountability
who can make decisions effecting in someway or the other the safety of the
reactor. Under these circumstances the
nature of the safety goals and the information required to assess whether these
safety goals have been met do vary depending on who is making the decision and
whose interests are represented in the decision making. Safety goals are considered both primarily at the technical
level and also at the non-technical level involving public safety goals. The decisions on safety goals might vary
depending on whether a decision maker is prone to protect his personal interests,
those of his his local community people, those of his contracting company,
those of the nation or indeed the international interests. It is always not clear in decision making
what or who is being protected and if the interests of the society are
safeguarded. Since most decisions on
nuclear plants are made nationally.
International interest are not of much concerned but this is not true
because the foreign reactors suppliers exert pressure through their heads of
states to strike business deals with heads of poor countries by paying them
huge kickbacks as had been reported in the case of defence deals such as Bofor
deals in India.
2)
SAFETY GOALS OF A NUCLEAR PLANT:
In dealing with safety goals we are
concerned with the damaging impacts of the routine radioactive emissions and
emissions from reactor explosions. The International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) provides guidelines on how safety goals should be
formulated to deal with measures to safeguard public safety goals. In the case of nuclear accidents like
Chernobyl it was not only the public concern about the incidence of cancers and
deaths but it was also about the forced evacuation of tens and thousands of
people from the radioactive contaminated zones, the necessity to forbid the use of habitations and agriculture lands
and the consumption food stuffs, enormous financial costs entiled by the
counter measures, costs of decontamination and replacement of lost electrical output
etc., The Atomic Energy Agency in United
Kingdom for their Sizewell nuclear power plant conducted a public enquiry and
found that the opinion of the public should underlie the evacuation of the risk
due to nuclear reactor. A public symposium
was conducted where it is said that pubic is not interested in the technical
details of safety nor by the seemingly
irrelevant risk comparisons. Instead the
public are concerned about the competence and motives of the institutions
including the reactor suppliers, operators, technical experts, legislators and
regulators whose job it is to ensure safety.
3) Goals
of Emergency Preparedness (Based on
report of Nuclear Reactor disaster, NDMA, New Delhi)
The probability of a major
accident at nuclear reactor leading to release of enormous radioactivity into
the air, water and soil environment is generally small due to control measures. Even during an explosion radioactivity release
into the environment
is minimized by taking counter measures which reduce radiological dose and
health effects to the public.
The practical objectives
of emergency preparedness are:
i) To reduce radiation-induced
health effects by minimizing the radiation dose to the workers and the public.
ii) To limit the radiation
exposure to the public in the emergency planning zone by sheltering them and
evacuating them helps in reducing public health damage.
4)Preparedness
for Nuclear/ Radiological Emergencies
The handling of nuclear emergency
preparedness and management must be
coordinated between different service groups of the nuclear plant. In the event of large scale releases of
radioactivity due to an explosion into the public domain all the authorities at
the district, state and central, levels must play an effective and coordinated role.
5)Emergency
Preparedness for Nuclear Power Plants
There must be a comprehensive
emergency preparedness plan prepared and debated by the public before the
nuclear reactor goes into operation. The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board must ensure that the nuclear plant is provided with
the Emergency Response Manuals for the
three main types of emergencies, namely, the plant, on-site and off-site, and
that the plans are in place to handle these types of emergencies. The assessment
of the type and quantum of release of radioactivity under various accident
conditions and the extent to which it can spread into the environment must be prepared in
advance.
The response actions for the
nuclear facility are the responsibility of the plant operator. But the
implementation of the emergency response plan in the public domain (beyond the
site boundary)as off-site emergency response is the responsibility of the concerned district Collectors
and the state Government. In the event an off-site emergency having the
potential for trans-boundary effects, necessary action is taken by DAE in
accordance with the international obligations. Indian nuclear plant authorities have the emergency response plan
in place and they are tested during periodic exercises as per international
practice.
6)Handling
Off-Site Emergencies
If a major nuclear explosion is
expected to occur and the radioactivity is going to be released into the environment
effecting the people the concerned district authorities are directed to take up
necessary measures to implement emergency response systems.
The following additional measures must
be taken for handling a reactor
emergency that impacts the public
i) Pre-identification of plant
conditions which can lead to an emergency in the public domain.
ii) An assessment of the
radiological status at the site boundary and in the public domain.
An Off-site Emergency Response
Plan is expected to be prepared by the local state government and the District
Collectors in consultation with the reactor operators. This plan identifies the role of each
response agency in a clear and unambiguous manner. After obtaining concurrence
from the AERB, detailed emergency response plans and procedures for handling
offsite emergencies are approved by the Chairman, State Executive Committee (SEC)
of the concerned state where the nuclear plant is located. Finally, procedures are also in place to
carry out drills/exercises to rehearse these disaster response and management plans
which are periodically reviewed and revised based on the lessons learnt from
past exercises.
For handling an off-site
emergency response system in a nuclear plant , there is an off-site emergency
committee headed by the district Collector and magistrate of the concerned
district and supported by the district subcommittee, which include chiefs of
all public service departments relevant to emergency management in the district
and also the Head of the Site Emergency Committee of the nuclear facility for
technical advice. This committee takes decisions pertaining to the handling of
a nuclear emergency outside the site boundary and ensures implementation of
countermeasures such as sheltering, prophylaxis and evacuation and
resettlement, including maintenance of law and order and civil amenities. All
the activities pertaining to the handling of an off-site emergency are guided
and coordinated from a pre-designated emergency response centre located outside
the boundary of the nuclear plant. The information and broadcasting department
of the district, in association with an authorised information officer, ensures
the smooth flow of information to the media to avoid panic and spreading of
rumours.
7)Training
of Stakeholders, Periodic Exercises and Mock Drills
Training plays an important role
in the proper implementation of various emergency response activities. It
focuses on roles and responsibilities, resource identification, use of
equipment, understanding the effects of radiation on human beings, animals and
the environment. The required emergency preparedness is maintained by organizing
various training courses for onsite and off-site personnel at regular
intervals.
Appropriate training is imparted
to employees of the facility at all levels at regular intervals to familiarize
them with the required actions during an emergency. Similar training courses
are organized round the year for various public authorities and state
government officials in view of the routine turnovers.
The adequacy of emergency
response arrangements at a nuclear facility is evaluated through the audit and
review of plans, procedures and infrastructure. The ability to carry out the
required emergency actions is assessed, in general, through audit and reviews
of past performance. However, a primary evaluation of the same is based on the
feedback of designated observers for the periodic mock exercises. The
preparation, conduct and evaluation of these exercises shall involve the coordination
of all functionaries within the facility, the district authorities and the CMG
of DAE. These drills for plant, on-site,
and off-site emergencies will preferably be conducted quarterly, annually and
once in two years, respectively; however, the frequency of the actual exercise
will depend on the type of nuclear facility.
If the disaster preparedness and management exercises
in the off-site area are not found feasible the nuclear plant is not allowed to
function to that detriment of public safety and environmental resources
conservation and alternative methods of producing power as anticipated from
this nuclear plant must be made available by the state and central governments
by taking the consultation from experts
all over the world by inviting international tenders and thereby the
electricity requirements of region can
be easily met on the same lines as Germany and other European countries are
following in the wake of the closure of all the existing nuclear plants
consequent to the Fukushima nuclear plant explosions. These procedures must be followed even for
Kudankulam nuclear power plant and the environmental activists and social
workers must demand for these public safety evaluation reports consequent to
the upcoming Kudankulam nuclear plants.
The relevant risk analysis reports, emergency response systems and
disaster management plans are furnished in the following websites for the use
of the concerned social activists.
