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.

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,akhtarali1949@gmail.com

2. IAEA GUIDELINES ON NPP SITING

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

10. PNRA GUIDELINES

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. 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

13. EIA REPORTS FEMONOVOI NPP
FINLAND

15. Table 7-17. Limits set by the authorities for the initiation of
main protection measures. (EIA Report Femonovoi Finland)

16. 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)

17. Radiation dose to adults and
Children(ibid)

18. Dose Limits(ibid)

19. Nuclear Accident Fallout
Projections(ibid)

20. Reactor Accident Fallout-spatial
intensity(ibid)

25. AERB INDIA:DISPERSION
MODELLING GUIDELINES

27. AERB India :TYPICAL MODEL OUTPUT GIVING ATMOSPHERIC CONCENTRATION AND
DEPOSITIONAL FLUX OF
RADIONUCLIDES RELEASED FROMA NUCLEAR FACILITY STACK

28. COMPARATIVE NPP LOCATION
DISTANCES & POPULATIONS

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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].

32. Population distribution around the
first nuclear power plant in Fukushima

33. 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.

34. Population distribution around some
nuclear power plants in China

37. KARACHI POPULATION AT RISK

38. Comparative Nearby
Populations: Sanmen vs
K2
Sanmen Kemari
Area(Sq kms) 1072 430
Population 400000 583645
Population density 400 1357

43. 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.

44. 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]

45. 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