|
Bangladesh Environment Network Home | Background | TOC | Arsenic | Air Pollution | Coal & Gas | Water Management | Climate Change | Forests | Rivers | Contacts |
|
Nuclear Power Plant in Bangladesh: A Prescription for Disaster by Ahmad Fazlul Kabir In a recent article dated October 17, 1997, the Daily Star reported that the Government of Bangladesh had decided to implement the Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant Project. The decision was reportedly taken at a meeting of the Rooppur Nuclear Power Project Implementation Committee with the Prime Minister in the chair and the Finance Minister, Energy Minister, Education Minister, Planning Minister and the Atomic Energy Commission Chairman in attendance. It was observed in the meeting that the "environment-friendly" nuclear power project would meet the country=92s electricity demands, particularly those of the northern region at lower costs. The Prime Minister directed the committee to speedily implement the project. In a report in the same daily last year, the Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission (BAEC) engineers and scientist had pointed out that nuclear technology is considered one of the "safest" power generation systems. BAEC engineers had also indicated that the annual fuel cost of a nuclear power plant was much lower than that of a conventional gas-burned plant. Therefore, according to them, the proposed nuclear plant would be part of an optimum mix of electricity generating plants for Bangladesh. The concept of the Rooppur project was developed in 1961 and was approved for 70 Megawatt (MW) of electricity generation. The plant site is in the Pabna district, about 180 kilometers from Dhaka. The current plan is to have a much larger plant of 400 to 600 MW capacity, which is estimated to cost about $1 billion. To the unsuspecting general public, only the attractive cost-efficiency, safety and environment-friendly aspects of the nuclear power plant are presented, whereas, underneath lies a complex web of issues which are fraught with potential danger for every citizen of Bangladesh. Let us first examine the cost-effectiveness and safety issues. Cost-Effectiveness A BAEC scientist was quoted in last year=92s Daily Star report as saying that "although the initial cost of a nuclear plant is double that of a conventional gas-burned plant, the fuel cost is much lower than that of a coal or oil-burned plant". He further asserted that a typical 300 MW plant would cost about $600 million. However, data from constructed nuclear plants show that tremendous cost overruns may occur in a nuclear plant owing to unforeseen problems involving safety concerns, faulty construction, etc. The Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in the USA comes to mind as an example of such cost overruns. This two-reactor plant, designed to generate 1100 MW per reactor, was planned in the early seventies and was estimated to cost around $500 million. About 90% of the construction was completed in 1976 within budget when a new earthquake fault was discovered near the plant. Seismologists estimated that this fault was capable of producing a much larger earthquake than the one the plant was designed to withstand. The plant completion was delayed for five years and the cost tripled to $1.5 billion. In 1981, the plant was ready to start operations, when the final inspection uncovered numerous errors in design and construction process, improper quality control, inadequate documentation, etc. Another five years were required to identify and correct all these errors. The final cost ballooned to about $8 billion before the plant started producing electricity ten years behind schedule. The level of anxiety, this induced in the people, unfortunate enough to be living close to the plant, could well be imagined. Another nuclear plant in Texas, originally estimated to cost about $1 billion to construct, ended up costing about $9 billion because of flaws in construction, in welding, improper documentation and inadequate quality control. Shoreham plant in New York, built at a cost of over $6 billion, was not given permission to begin operation by the New York State governor because of the safety concerns of New York residents. The tax payers of New York decided to absorb the cost of this large investment rather than have a nuclear plant in their backyard. As a matter of fact, the USA having the largest number of operating commercial nuclear reactors (110) in the world, has no new reactor ordered since the early eighties because of large cost overruns and public safety concerns. Several electric companies, which invested in construction of nuclear power plants, went bankrupt or are on the verge of bankruptcy. A nuclear power plant project was abandoned in the Philippines after about $1.5 billion had been spent owing to safety concerns. Safety Issues Having looked at the issue of costs briefly, we may turn our attention to the most important issue facing us - that of safety. The first fact to note is that operating a nuclear power plant is quite different from the operation of any other kind of power generating plant, and for that matter, any other kind of industrial facility. This is because of the devastating consequences the population may face if an accident occurs during the operation of a plant. Before elaborating this point, it is necessary to describe, in brief, some special aspects of a nuclear power plant. A nuclear power plant uses turbines to generate electricity. These turbines are driven by steam or heated gas. In this respect , nuclear power plants are very similar to most of the other power plants. Where it differs from them is how the steam or heated gas is produced to turn the turbines. Typically, in a nuclear power plant, water or gas is heated by the heat energy produced by the fission reaction of radioactive uranium inside a container known as a reactor. A fission reaction is similar in kind to that taking place in an atomic bomb except that the rate of reaction is carefully controlled to avoid any explosive reaction. Since the material inside the reactor vessel is highly radioactive, it is absolutely necessary to contain it within a sealed system so that minimum radioactivity escapes outside. This is done by using very thick steel plates ( 10 to 12 inches) to construct the reactor vessel. This vessel acts as the primary containment for the radioactive material. Then, a thick concrete outer building (typically with 2 ft. to 4 ft . thick walls) is built to house the reactor. This building is also sealed from the outside and provides a secondary containment in case radioactive material escapes from the primary containment. There are miles and miles of pipes, many of which are used in back-up safety systems of the plant. Many of these may also carry radioactive fluids. There are hundreds of valves, pumps, compressors, electric motors etc. in the plant. Once a nuclear power plant is activated, several areas are sealed off, and human access to these areas are limited because of high levels of radioactivity. Remote controlled devices and cranes are used to transport radioactive material to these areas. Any malfunctioning of electro-mechanical systems, operating these remote controlled devices, can lead to very complex problems. Furthermore, the extensive network of pipes may spring leaks, valves and pumps may malfunction, electric cables in non-accessible highly radioactive areas may cause short circuits, battery packs, electric motors, and diesel generators may break down. Technically simple devices, such as pressure gauges and other indicator dials may not show proper reading due to hydraulic malfunctioning as has been known to happen. Mis-reading of data by plant operators may lead to wrong remedial measures causing possible disasters. In fact, nuclear power plants have so many complex sub-systems that many combinations of malfunctioning are possible, leading to serious accidents. Even though one may point out that BAEC scientists and engineers have been responsible for the planning, design, construction, installation, maintenance and operation of the 3MW research reactor at Savar, it should be emphasized that a 400 to 600 MW commercial power plant has technical and safety aspects which are not generally encountered in a small research reactor. It may be accurate to surmise that the experience of the BAEC personnel, though valuable, would not be adequate enough to supervise the construction and installation of the Rooppur plant. In fact the Daily Star article quoted the BAEC chairman as saying that the International Atomic Energy Commission was willing to provide consultants to ensure safety in the installation and operation of the plant. It seems that BAEC will largely depend on foreign consultants to ensure safety of the plant as well as design and supply of plant parts and equipment. Such dependence on foreign experts has not always proven beneficial to third world countries. A major problem, in operating a nuclear plant, is the disposal and storage of the radioactive waste material produced by the plant. The uranium fuel rods inside an operating reactor vessel become extremely radioactive due to fission reaction. These fuel rods need to be replaced by new fuel rods after specified periods of time. The replaced fuel rods, known as spent fuel rods, are still extremely radioactive and need to be stored in large enclosed pools of water to prevent hazardous radiation from spreading around. The spent fuel rods remain radioactive for a long period of time and storing them safely, without causing leakage of the radiation to the environment is a continuing challenge to engineers and scientists of developed nations. The USA has still to find a permanent storage space for all the radioactive material produced by its nuclear power plants. The establishment of a permanent underground storage vault has been a difficult political issue as no community is willing to house such a facility nearby because of long-term safety concerns. These concerns include deterioration of radioactive waste containers due to radioactive and thermal effects and the consequential leakage and contamination of groundwater. We do not have to rely on imagination to visualize the consequences of nuclear power plant accidents since such accidents have occurred in the recent past. Two of the most serious ones were: 1. Chernobyl, Ukraine, 1986 Errors committed by human operators resulted in a devastating reactor explosion. Hundreds died due to immediate exposure to massive doses of radiation when the explosion occurred. The Ukrainian Ministry of Health estimated that fallout from the explosion has killed 125,000 of its citizens. An expert panel in a World Health Organization conference in 1995 agreed that "the explosive increase in childhood thyroid cancer in Belarus, the Ukraine and the Russian Federation- the countries most contaminated by the 1986 Chernobyl accident - can be directly linked to nuclear radiation, and most likely to contamination by radioactive iodine isotopes". A recent report from Israel surmises that as many as 22,000 cancer patients in Israel are immigrants coming from areas near Chernobyl. Statistics suggest that radioactivity causes increase in people’s susceptibility to common illnesses. Medical researchers are of the opinion that immune systems are weakened by doses of radiation far lower than previously thought to be harmful. One collateral seems to be tuberculosis whose incidence has risen sharply in the contaminated areas. A conference in Vienna in 1996 to assess Chernobyl’s consequences, stated that the social and economic aspects are possibly far more significant than radiation exposure itself. Abnormally high rates of stress-induced illnesses such as heart disease, alcoholism and suicide were observed among the 135,000 citizens evacuated from the contamination zone; 600,000 people who worked to contain the accident and the 3.7 million people still living in the zones of significant radiation. The rate of spontaneous abortion increased by 25% in some of the contaminated areas. The level of induced abortion by mothers fearing malformations in unborn children were so high that the birth rate was 33% lower in central Europe in 1986-87. Besides the human casualties, wide-spread areas in Europe had high radioactive fallout damaging crops and dairy products. The economic cost of cleanup, evacuation and medical treatment from the accident is estimated to be more than $100 billion so far. The cost of merely closing down the plant itself is estimated to be $4 billion. 2. Three Mile Island, USA, 1979 Faulty indicator dials led human operators to remove coolant from the reactor resulting in the reactor being overheated. The uranium fuel rods inside the reactor melted, and the reactor was damaged beyond repair. Radioactive steam leaked to the surrounding environment. The plant had to be closed for good, and sealed off to prevent thousands of gallons of radioactive water from being released in the environment. The cost of clean up and other financial losses are estimated to be in the billions of dollars. A significant fact that is emerging recently from studies in the USA is that areas in proximity to a nuclear reactor (within 50 to 100 miles) show significantly higher rates of breast cancer mortality in women. It was observed that the breast cancer mortality rate in the localities where the seven oldest US Department of Energy nuclear reactors were situated rose by 37% during the period 1950-54 to 1985-89 period, whereas a corresponding rate for the entire USA population rose by only 1%. In addition to this, transparency and accountability is always a problem in projects involving nuclear materials. It is always easy to hide behind "national security" and "sensitive information" to withhold information from the public. This has been amply demonstrated in the case of nuclear facilities producing weapons in the USA. Under pressure from 27,000 plaintiffs who lived downwind from the Hanford nuclear facility, the Bush administration admitted that in 1945 alone, enough radioactive iodine was released in the atmosphere from the plant to equal that released from the Chernobyl accident. People living in the surrounding areas were not informed for 45 years. There are numerous examples of evasive actions and cover-ups by commercial nuclear plant authorities regarding the extent of malfunctions, accidents and consequent release of radioactive material. A news item published in the Daily Star on October 27, 1997 illustrates the point. The news item states: "Immediately after the explosion in Magurchara, BAEC scientist were deployed at the site to detect any leakage of radioactivity but found none. The matter was never officially made public and all concerned remained tight lipped". We are told that all the 16 missing radioactive isotopes "miraculously" escaped leakage. We cannot, however, depend on such "miracles" to happen too often. Conclussion In conclusion, it may be pointed out that most citizens of Bangladesh - children, women and men - live within a 200-mile radius of the proposed Rooppur nuclear power plant. The disastrous effects of such proximal living to a nuclear plant are amply demonstrated in the case of those people living near Chernobyl. Any accident in the Rooppur power plant has the potential to adversely impact the lives of every citizen of Bangladesh and of future generations. All this for producing 400-600 MW of electricity when there exists a high potential of discovering large gas fields in the near future. Thus the setting up of this power plant should not be at all considered without putting these issues in perspective and without serious public debate. It is imperative that, as a minimum, the following steps should be taken by BAEC and the government of Bangladesh before any further pursuit of this project:
In this respect it is appropriate to quote Dr. Yuri Shcherbak, Ukrainian ambassador to the United States. In the April 1996 issue of the Scientific American journal, he describes the significance of the Chernobyl accident: "It is a global environmental event of a new kind. It is characterized by the presence of environmental refugees; long-term irreparable damage to the ecosystems .(It) illustrates the great responsibility that falls on the shoulders of scientific and other experts who give advice to politicians on technical matters " It is, therefore, incumbent upon the scientific community of Bangladesh to come forward and initiate discussions to inform the public about the issues involved. Otherwise, we may step into a possible nuclear nightmare, reminiscent of Chernobyl, with far worse consequences for the population. Dr. Ahmad Fazlul Kabir is an engineering consultant. He was involved in evaluating structural safety of several nuclear power plants.
|