Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Npp siting pakistan aa


Published on

This presentation outlines the issues in K@ NPP siting at Karachi ,gives an account of international guidelines and practices in NPP siting and proposes solution.

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Npp siting pakistan aa

  1. 1. Nuclear Threat to Karachi:K2 NPP siting controversy and its solution Syed Akhtar Ali Chairman Research on Economy and Politics of Pakistan(REAP)-0345- 2447714,
  3. 3. Routine and accidental radioactive releases(IAEA Safety guide) • 2.6. A detailed meteorological investigation should be carried out in the region. The calculations of the dispersion and concentrations of radioactive materials should show whether the radiological consequences of routine discharges and potential accidental releases of radioactive materials into the atmosphere are acceptable. The results of these calculations may be used to establish authorized limits for radioactive discharges from the plant into the atmosphere (see Ref. [5]).
  4. 4. Population Distribution • 1. The distribution and characteristics of the regional population should be studied in the site evaluation for a nuclear power plant. The purposes of the studies should be:— to evaluate the potential radiological impacts of normal radioactive discharges and accidental releases; and — to assist in the demonstration of the feasibility of the emergency response plan.
  5. 5. Population Growth and distances from NPP(IAEA) • 5.9. Projections should be made on the basis of population growth rate, migration trends and plans for possible development in the region. The projected figures for the two categories of permanent population and temporary population should be extrapolated separately if data are available. 5.10. Data should be analysed to give both the current and the projected population distribution in terms of direction and distance from the plant.
  6. 6. ALARA Principle or National standard(IAEA Safety Guide) • 5.13. The results of the study on the characteristics and distribution of the population, together with results obtained in respect of the dispersion of radioactive material discharged into air, surface water and groundwater, should be used in demonstrating that, for a proposed site and design and for normal operations, the radiological exposure of the population in the region remains as low as reasonably achievable and, in any case, will be within the limits set in the national requirements and those established in the Basic Safety Standards (Ref. [3]), even for the critical groups mentioned in para. 5.11.
  7. 7. No hindrance to Ingress and Egress(IAEA Safety Guide) • Before final approval of a nuclear power plant site, the feasibility of an emergency plan should be demonstrated. There should be no adverse site conditions which could hinder the sheltering or evacuation of the population in the region or the ingress or egress of external services needed to deal with an emergency.
  8. 8. Proximity to a City-hindrance to Evacuation(IAEA Safety Guide) • 6.4. The presence of large populations in the region or the proximity of a city to the nuclear power plant site may diminish the effectiveness and viability of an emergency plan. 6.6. If, upon evaluating the aforementioned factors and their possible consequences, it is determined that no viable emergency plan can be established, then the proposed site should be considered unacceptable.”
  9. 9. Source: • IAEA SAFETY STANDARDS ERIES, • Dispersion of Radioactive Material in Air and Water and Consideration of Population Distribution in Site Evaluation for Nuclear Power Plants SAFETY GUIDE No. NS-G-3.2
  11. 11. Para 5.2.i of SRO 911(I) PNRA, • concerned with Nuclear Siting, requires impact evaluation under accident condition, although it does not specify the severity on INES scale, a flaw that one would like to be rectified in the light of similar rules in other countries. “For each proposed site, the potential radiological impacts in operational states and in accident conditions on people in the region, including impacts that could lead to emergency measures, shall be evaluated with due consideration of the relevant factors, including population distribution, dietary habits, use of land and water, and the radiological impacts of any other releases of radioactive material in the region.”
  12. 12. PNRA Guidelines • PNRA’s gazette guidelines provide for special considerations for large cities. part of para 6; • A population center distance of at least one and one- third times the distance from the installation to the outer boundary of the low population zone. For this purpose, the boundary of the population center shall be determined upon consideration of population distribution. Political boundaries are not controlling in the application of this requirement. Where very large cities are involved, a greater distance may • be necessary because of total integrated population dose consideration
  14. 14. Table 7-17. Limits set by the authorities for the initiation of main protection measures. (EIA Report Femonovoi Finland)
  15. 15. Table 7-18. A comparison between the assumptions made for the accident modeling carried out for the 2008 EIA and the one carried out for this one(ibid)
  16. 16. Radiation dose to adults and Children(ibid)
  17. 17. Dose Limits(ibid)
  18. 18. Nuclear Accident Fallout Projections(ibid)
  19. 19. Reactor Accident Fallout-spatial intensity(ibid)
  23. 23. Comparative populations and Population Density USA India Fukushim a Sanmen PAEC-K2 Maximum Population Density 300* 20000 Minimum Distance-kms 30kms ** Population density-5kms 174.6 204 66 Population density-10kms 151.3 135 51 Population Density-20 kms 68.8 20000 Population density-30kms 55.5 20000 Population-5kms 13700 16036 5160 Population-10kms 47500 42358 15960 Population-20 kms 86300 800000 Population-30 kms 156800 2000000 County -Town density 400 1357 *US MPD@20 miles **from a population centre of 100,000
  24. 24. Table___: Comparative zoning distances in countries PAEC USA Fukushim a Europe- JRC India Evacuatio n Zone(kms ) 5 17 30 25 16 Ingestion Zone 10 Contamin ation Zone 85 85 300
  25. 25. Japan Population Density • Japan has a population of 127 million, a land area of 37.7 square kilometers and an average population density of 337 people/km2, so Japan is densely populated and most of the population is focused in big cities. We should consider the distribution of residents around the Japanese nuclear power plants. The Fukushima site lies in an area of low population density - lower than Japan's average population density. Refer to table 1 [9].
  26. 26. Population distribution around the first nuclear power plant in Fukushima
  27. 27. Fukushima Evacuation Distances • . All residents within 20 km of Fukushima nuclear power plant, were evacuated, then the evacuation radius was extended to 30 km. Later, vegetables and milk produced in the Fukushima area were found to have been affected by radioactive excess. Finally the Japanese government established a non-mandatory evacuation plan with an evacuation radius of up to 40 km.
  28. 28. Population distribution around some nuclear power plants in China
  30. 30. Comparative Nearby Populations: Sanmen vs K2 Sanmen Kemari Area(Sq kms) 1072 430 Population 400000 583645 Population density 400 1357
  31. 31. Population of nearby communities to KK2 Community Population Road distance-km St.line distance Orangi 1,540,200 25 18.75 Baldia 406,165 22 16.5 Lyari 2,700,000 24 18 Saddar 616,051 28 21 SITE 467,560 22 16.5 Kemari 383,788 22 16.5 Total(1998 census) 6,113,764 Estimated current 8,559,270 1)current population should be atleast 40% more than the 1998 Census 2)Straightline distances have been assumed to be 75% of the road distances.
  32. 32. Union Carbide Tragedy-Encroaching Population • Others estimate 8,000 died within two weeks and another 8,000 or more have since died from gas-related diseases. A government affidavit in 2006 stated the leak caused 558,125 injuries including 38,478 temporary partial injuries and approximately 3,900 severely and permanently disabling injuries.[7]
  33. 33. Recommendation • Affected Population is whole Karachi West including vital socio-economic Centres of I.I.Chundrigar Road , Seaport and Food Grain market, and not a few Goths as claimed by PAEC • Proposed location endangers Karachi generally, and Karachi-West in particular • Go towards Gadani@ 50 miles • Adopt USNRC distance standards of 16-50 Miles • Shun Secrecy:convince us or get convinced