The Jaitapur nuclear project is courting too many risks

An article on Jaitapur nuclear project, published in one of the leading news papers in India today seems to be misleading the common man who is not aware of the radiation risks and nuclear power reactor safety. The project is not courting too many risks. The article shows the lack of in-depth knowledge of the writer on the subject.

It is very difficult to comprehend the real reasons for someone to delay the project causing avoidable delays in starting and completion of India’s infrastructure projects. India needs power for its development. Nuclear is undoubtedly the cleaner power as compared to coal and gas.

There are insignificant numbers of fatalities reported from incidents/accidents in nuclear reactors! There is absolutely no justification for over-protection. Today, any major power project or other infrastructure projects commonly consider and provide for seismicity, floods and terrorist activities while designing the plants/projects. Safe management, including transport of radioactive waste is well established and regulated rigorously in Indian nuclear facilities. France is one of the countries which believed strongly in the use of nuclear as the major contributor for their power requirements. They are the masters in the technology. There is some risk of using any technology for the development. Only ensure that the benefits outweigh the risks.

In a rough estimate, about 20 to 30% of the total projects cost goes for safety related systems to ensure safe operations of nuclear reactors. Just imagine how much money is spent to save a single life? Is it justified?

See this in comparison with the figure of 1,96,000 people in India were killed in road accidents alone in 2007 (WHO figures)! Let us not oppose infra projects just for opposing or for political gains.

Environmental clearance for Jaitapur Site

For the proposed ambitious power projects which are being planed at Jaitapur, Maharashtra to generate around 33,000 MW of power mix (nuclear share is 9,900 MW), green nod has come from the Ministry of Environment, Indian government. The ministry has stipulated conditions to ensure preservation of the ecologically sensitive Western Ghats. All other new power plants coming up in the coastal area coal-based and burning of the fusil fuel is going to generate Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. Locally, the temperatures in the water body is also going to rise unless a good heat/hot water recycling system is thought about, and discharges from the plants are well-controlled by the authorities.

It is stated that the nuclear power plants are environmental friendly and with enforcement of strict regulation can be the ideal choice for production of “clean” electricity. In view of this, why not the Jaitapur site is kept reserved for only nuclear power rather than mixing the coal-based plants with nuclear plants at the same site?

IAEA Board of Governors Elects New Chairman

The IAEA Board of Governors has elected Mr. Ansar Parvez, as its Chairman for 2010-2011 (one year mandate) at Vienna. Mr. Parvez is also serving as the Chairman of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission.

The Ambassadors and Resident Representatives of Denmark and Ukraine were also elected as Vice-Chairmen. They are Mr. John Hartmann Bernhard, Governor for Denmark, and Ms. Olena Mykolaichuk, Governor for Ukraine.

Eleven countries were elected last week to serve on the 35-member IAEA Board of Governors for the two-year period 2010-2012. The action was taken by Member States meeting at the IAEA General Conference in Vienna. The newly elected Board members are Belgium, the Czech Republic, Chile, Ecuador, Italy, Jordan, Niger, Portugal, Singapore, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates.

Other Member States represented on the IAEA Board during 2010-2011 are Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Cameroon, Canada, China, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Japan, Kenya, the Republic of Korea, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Peru, Russian Federation, South Africa, Ukraine, the UK, the USA and Venezuela (IAEA News).

Naturally occurring radioactive element - Polonium-210

Polonium was discovered by Marie Sklodowska-Curie and Pierre Curie in 1898 and was named after Marie´s native land of Poland (Latin: Polonia). This element was the first one discovered by them while they were investigating the cause of radioactivity in pitchblende. Polonium-210 (Po-210) is a radioactive element that occurs naturally and is present in the environment at extremely low concentrations. Po-210 has a half-life of 138 days. It decays to stable lead-206 by emitting alpha particle.

Po-210 is produced during the decay of naturally occurring uranium-238 and hence is widely distributed in small amounts in the earth´s crust. Uranium ores contain less than 0.1 mg Po-210 per ton. In the environment, Po-210 is produced from the decay of Radon-222 gas. Although direct root uptake by plants is generally small, Po-210 can be deposited on broad-leaved vegetables. Deposition from the atmosphere on tobacco leaves results in elevated concentrations of Po-210 in tobacco smoke. There are tiny amounts of Po-210 in our bodies. Po-210 can be produced artificially in nuclear reactors by irradiating stable bismuth-209.

Po-210 is used in neutron sources (where it is mixed or alloyed with beryllium). It is also used in devices that eliminate static electricity in machinery where it can be caused by processes such as paper rolling, manufacturing sheet plastics, and spinning synthetic fibres. Static eliminators typically contain from one to tens of GBq of radioactivity. One should ensure physical security of these sources to prevent its misuse.

Due to the alpha decay, the energy released from one gram is 140 watts, and a capsule containing about half a gram will spontaneously reach a temperature of 500°C. As a result it has been used as a lightweight heat source to power thermoelectric cells in satellites and short-term space missions. It is a fairly volatile (50% is vaporized in air in 45 hours at 55°C) silvery-grey soft metal.
Po-210 is highly radioactive and chemically toxic element. As an alpha-emitter Po-210 represents a radiation hazard only if taken into the body. Direct damage occurs from energy absorption into tissues from alpha particles. It is not an external hazard.

Po-210 can enter the body through eating and drinking of contaminated food, breathing contaminated air or through a wound. The biological half-time is approximately 50 days. If taken into the body, Po-210 is subsequently excreted, mostly through faeces but some is excreted through urine and other pathways.

Ethical aspects of radiation protection

Radiation protection is the professional field that deals with the protection of humans and the environment from the harmful effects of radiation. Ethical aspects of radiation protection are not much talked or discussed about openly. In fact, implementation of the principles of radiological protection i.e., justification, optimization and dose limitation should be subjected to and based on ethical considerations.

The very principles of radiation protection are based on the assumption that probability of stochastic effect like cancer induction is linearly proportional to dose without any threshold. This theory for low level exposure scenario is not based on sound human data but based on animal experiments. Now, whether it is ethically correct to apply this to humans?

In general, justification is a decision taken at government level (ex. Nuclear power) or by the doctors who recommend procedures involving radiation exposures, such as X-ray/CT scans. In the first case, risks and benefits are distributed unevenly over population groups. In the second case, can the un-necessary or possible over-exposures of patients in medical applications be ethically justified? How one can ethically justify exposures of temporary workers who are not under medical insurance or surveillance? Can some extra money compensate the risk of radiation exposures (risk to money trade-off)?

For optimization one needs the level of acceptable dose? Does this vary with the economic and social consideration of countries? Whether exposures exceeding dose limits, under any exposure scenarios, are ethically justified?

These ethical considerations are much more glaring in chemical, petrochemical and other industries where toxic chemicals, are routinely handled without much safety considerations. Comparatively, nuclear industry is better organized, regulated and safety record is quite satisfactory.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS)

It is reported that the technology, CCS is of absorbing the greenhouse gas (CHG) CO2 in some matrix at the emission points and store the gas under or on the sea bed instead of discharging in to the atmosphere is an excellent idea from the global warming and climate change considerations. The emission points are the environmental discharge points of the power plants based on fossil fuel. Alternatively, it is reported that the gas can also be stored underground in vacant or disused natural gas fields.

Parallel can be seen in the underground disposal of radioactive wastes. Risk of leakages is similar in both the situations. In an event of any leakage of CO2 in the sea water, there will be a change the sea water acidity (increase) destroying the marine life. Hence, as in the case of radioactive waste, the disposal in the sea bed of the CO2 canisters should be banned internationally. The only alternative will be as in the case of high-level radioactive waste, the well-sealed CO2 canisters can be disposed off in stable and deep geological formations without much risk of any leakages reaching the environment.

Indian nuclear liability bill

The nuclear liability bill, which seeks to cap the liability of foreign nuclear suppliers to a meager amount of Rupees 500 Crore in case of nuclear accidents, is in trouble in the Indian Parliament. Keeping in mind the comprehensive clean-up requirements in case of an accident, the actual liabilities may be over 1000 times more than the amount specified in the bill.

It means if things work out safely, the companies will sell nuclear materials and equipments and make money, and if some thing goes wrong, the Indian tax payers will have to bear the huge cost of cleaning up and take responsibility for the expensive medical management of the exposed population for long period of time.

Now that in the wake of the Bhopal gas tragedy verdict, it is very relevant that appropriate legislation with proper clauses should be in place to allow fastening of unlimited liability on the suppliers and operators of the plants who were responsible for disasters causing large scale area contamination and casualties to large number of persons. The laws should clearly address issues such as proper monetary compensation for the victims, pay for the clean-up of the contaminated areas and ensure installation of fail-safe safety systems to avoid major nuclear accidents.

One affected in “minor” contamination at BARC

Feedback on the news item in the Times of India – Page 2 with a photograph on May 13, 2010

It only shows the ignorance of the media and the public about the radioactivity and radiation. Such a trivial occurrence of contamination inside a lab designed to handle such contaminated materials using appropriate protective measures is not a NEWS item at all to be published in an esteemed news paper like Times of India, unless you have other agenda. Such a precious space should not be wasted on such an insignificant item.

The personnel are well-trained to handle such contaminated materials. Every worker is supposed to monitor himself using the radiation or contamination monitors to ensure that his hands/clothing are not contaminated before he comes out of the laboratory. If he finds some contamination on his person, he has to wash and decontaminate himself.

This is the normal work procedure in any radioactive laboratory. The concerned department should go for a massive education and awareness programmes to sensitize the public with respect to radiation and its benefits.

Protecting Nuclear Facilities against Nature’s Fury

In general, all the nuclear facilities are designed to withstand certain amount (?) of natural events such as earthquake, floods, rains, etc. Therefore, there has been a misconception since the early days that human error and mechanical failure are the major variables with higher risk of radiological releases to the environment. Nuclear power plants all over the world are exposed to natural hazards, such as hurricanes, floods, fires, tsunamis, volcanoes and earthquakes. The event in one country may cause damages in other neighboring country.

With safety always a key concern, engineers, safety specialists and architects also have to take the extreme natural forces into consideration while designing the plants. Mitigative measures are expected to be in place. When the earthquake hit the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant in Japan, four reactors shut down automatically. Water containing radioactive material was released into the sea. There was no adverse effect on human health or the environment. It was observed that the structure, systems and components that are important to safety were actually built robust enough to withstand the earthquake. However, it was noted that the plant´s design seismic hazard inputs were underestimated.

Subsequently, the IAEA has revised the existing set of safety standards on site selection and evaluation to analyze the impact of external hazards such as earthquake using the best available and updated knowledge.

There are further questions to be answered by the designers and regulators. The very first question is up to what level of the stated hazard one should accept as adequately safe design? What about the after-effects: such as of earthquake generated tsunami? One such disaster occurred in the Indian Ocean on the morning of Sunday, 26 December 2004. Over 200,000 people were killed. Can nuclear facilities built generally on the sea shores withstand such type of natural fury? How much safety in design? Is there any limit? Can we build economically viable SAFE nuclear facilities?

Nuclear disarmament – aftermath

USA is going full bang on the nuclear disarmament initiative. There was Nuclear Posture Review and Nuclear Security Summit, which concluded recently. President Obama’s stated end goal is nuclear disarmament. As on today, in general, the countries possessing nuclear weapons are responsible countries and there seems to be not much threat from use of nuclear weapons. Threat is from the terror organizations, like Al-Qaeda which must be trying hard to get their hands on the fissile materials for possible nuclear terrorism.

Any disarmament efforts will generate millions of tons of plutonium - 90% above pure fissile material - generated from dismantling of the weapons. Security and safe storage of this material in such a large quantity is a herculean task and calls for financial implications in terms of billions of dollars. The material, even in kilogram quantities, can result in criticality incidents which will release bursts of fission energy and fission products with potential for environmental contamination.

Unless the nuclear weapons States find a way out to safe management of the fissile material and find use in the form of nuclear fuel for power generation, the actual disarmament should not be attempted. In view of the very long half life, thousands of years of Pu-239, just disposal in any form of the fissile material is unsafe and it is economically unsound. Countries have spent billions of dollars to produce such fissile materials.

Any fissile material stored in unsafe way has potential for theft by terror groups. It is wise to design reactors to use/recycle such weapon-grade fissile material for its peaceful applications.

Security of nuclear materials

Security of fissile and radioactive materials is a requirement for global safety and it should be tackled on global basis. India seems to be doing its part in maintaining good record in nuclear security in the diversified use of radioactive substances in the country.

The country is planning to establish a state-of-the-art nuclear energy partnership centre to conduct proliferation resistant research and development in nuclear studies. The national facility will have four different schools to conduct research and development in: advanced nuclear energy system studies, nuclear security, radiation safety and application of radiation and radioisotopes in industry, medicine and agriculture. The R & D products are expected to be intrinsically safe, secure, proliferation resistant and sustainable. It is reported that the centre will be linked to IAEA research facilities.

It is good move provided you have right man power to head such an ambitious program and it should be established in a time-bound manner.

Indian nuclear liability bill

The nuclear liability bill, which seeks to cap the liability of foreign companies to a meager Rs.500 Crore in case of nuclear accidents, is in trouble in the Indian Parliament. The actual liabilities may be over 100 times more than the amount specified in the bill. It means if things works out safely, the companies will sell power and make money, and if some thing goes wrong, the Indian tax payers will have to bear the huge cost of cleaning up and take care of the exposed population for long period of time.

However, It important that the bill is passed with some changes to start nuclear energy business in India by foreign companies.

Obama clears construction of nuclear plant in US

After 30 years of moratorium on nuclear power plants in USA, President Obama cleared construction of two 1,100 MW nuclear reactors in America. The President said that the plants would reduce carbon pollution by 16 million tones per year. This is a good move by the Nobel Prize winner and would give a big boost to the nuclear industry world-over. His intension seems to reduce GHG emissions in the years to come. India and China also should ensure that use of fossil fuels for energy should be reduced to bare minimum.

There is some apprehension that the developed countries are not supporting whole-heartedly the development of renewable energy resources such as solar, wind and geo-thermal which will drastically reduce the emissions of Greenhouse gases. These hi-tech resources should be made available to the developing countries, at a discount so that future emission cut requirements do not come in the way of development in these countries.

Isotopes of Hydrogen – Tritium is radioactive substance

Hydrogen (H) is the simplest atom (atomic number 1), is abundant, and has 1 protons and no neutrons. Two normal hydrogen atoms when combined with an oxygen atom create an ordinary (light) water molecule, or H2O. Every one knows about the uses of water.

Deuterium is another isotope of hydrogen with atomic mass of 2 (1 proton + 1 neutron). Unlike tritium, Deuterium is not radioactive. Two deuterium atoms combine with an oxygen atom to create Deuterium Oxide (D2O) or heavy water. Deuterium occurs naturally, for every 7,000 molecules of ordinary “light” water, there is one molecule of “heavy” water; approximately 100000 liters of ordinary water are needed to produce a single liter of pure heavy water. It is a very expensive procedure. India has mastered the heavy water production technology. Indian PHWR reactors use the heavy water (D2O) as the moderator and coolant.

Tritium is a radioactive form or isotope of hydrogen with atomic mass of 3 units (1 proton + 2 neutrons), with a radioactive half-life of 12.3 years and a biological half-life (the amount of time the body requires to excrete one half of the tritium absorbed) of about 10 days. Tritium decays to emit beta radiation of very low energy of 18.6 keV (kilo electron volt, maximum). The energy of tritium is not enough to penetrate human skin. Tritium is one of the least harmful radioactive substances. Comparatively, highly soluble Tritiated water is more harmful than tritium gas. The Annual Limit of Intake for tritiated water is 1 Giga Bq (Bq is the unit of activity; 1 Bq is the amount of radioactive material which decays at the rate of 1 disintegration per second). The decay product of tritium is 3He, an isotope of Helium, a non-radioactive noble gas.

Less than 1% of tritium occurs naturally (e.g. through the interaction of cosmic rays with molecules of certain elements in the upper atmosphere. Most of tritium is man made; fallout from thermonuclear weapons testing, begun in the 1940s, is a source of tritium in the global environment; nuclear power reactors, particularly of Indian type (PHWRs), are also a large source of tritium. Deuterium atom absorbs one more neutron in the nuclear reactor to form Tritium.

Tritium is used commercially as a light source in flares, emergency lights, exit signs and luminous dials (watches and clocks); tritium is also an essential fuel for experimental nuclear “fusion” and has been used for nuclear weapons production.

Indian Nuclear Liability Bill

The Indian Cabinet has cleared the above Bill and it is on the way through Rajya Sabha. The Bill is of considerable interest for American business in Indian nuclear power sector. The clearance of the Bill is also essential for any nuclear commerce with the countries of Nuclear Supplier’s Group. As of now, it looks as if US business in Indian nuclear sector is far behind Russia and France.

The importance content of the Bill is that it provides a cap of 2,500 Crore by way of damages in the event of any nuclear related accident occurring in India, and the government will facilitate the compensation through Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL). The responsibility for paying the damages will be on the operator of the reactor rather than on the supplier and builder of the reactor. This clause will enable the Nuclear Suppliers Group nations to get away without any responsibility for the accident and without paying anything! The probability of such incidents/accidents occurring is now considerably increased in view of the enhanced terrorist activities around the globe.

In should known that Rs.2500 Cr liability is just nothing to compensate for the property loss, for the management of the exposed personnel (both occupational and public) and implementation of very expensive decontamination procedures of large contaminated areas around the site. The liability needs to be enhanced by 10 times.

“Nuclear” dirty-linen washing is over

It is silence now in the controversy about the test yield of thermonuclear device in 1998 by India. K Santhanam, a long-retired DRDO scientist has finally achieved what he wanted by ensuring Anil Kakodkar is retired from the post of Chairman, AEC, with a distinguished record of achieving so many “firsts” in Indian nuclear scenario.

However, it is time that highest authority of the land must ensure that the issues (if any) between DRDO and DAE be sorted so that the national security should never be compromised due to the competition and public outbursts by the two very important national defence laboratories.