Skip to main content

Thinking About Safety in India and Nigeria

By

lagos_nigeria Like the United States, India wants to take a look at the relative safety of its nuclear plants.

The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) has set up a 10-member committee to examine if our 20 nuclear plants can withstand earthquakes and other external events such as tsunamis, cyclones, floods, etc. That includes checking if the arrangements are adequate to ensure safety in case of such events, both within and beyond the design.

The panel is chaired by AERB’s former chairman, S K Sharma. Its first meeting is on the coming Thursday.

Naturally, the focus will be on earthquakes and tsunamis:

He [an unidentified board member] said during the 2004 tsunami, nuclear plants in south India were able to withstand the effects. “Our plants are almost 2,000 km away from the tectonic boundary of Sumatra. The earthquake following the tsunami in Japan was quite unprecedented and, therefore, the committee will revisit the safety applications installed in our plants.”

This is a worthwhile effort. It sounds as though the board members are well informed and serious about their jobs – it helps that they come from a range of disciplines.

Committee members include representatives of AERB, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Nuclear Power Corporation, IIT-Madras, Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, Pune, and Central Water & Power Research Station, Pune.

It’ll be interesting to see what they turn up – the article doesn’t say, but I assume they will make a report to the AERB.

---

And Nigeria, which is thinking of buidling of nuclear energy plant, is concerned about safety too. The Daily Independent offers an opinion.

We cannot but narrow the scenario to Nigeria, which has for some time now tinkered with the idea of nuclear power to generate electricity. According to the National Space Research and Development Agency (NARSDA), Nigeria should be prepared for the earthquake experience. Having experienced earth tremors in 1933,1939,1984,1990,1994,1997,2000 and 2006 with the surface wave magnitude of between 3.7 and 3.9, the probability cannot be ruled out. 

After noting the haphazard efforts of the National Emergency Management Agency in other recent emergency, the editorial makes a few suggestions:

While urging government to take pro-active measures against natural disasters, NEMA’s facilities and training of personnel should be upgraded. Ecological funds should be judiciously utilized by state governments for the purpose meant.  

The writer also notes all the international help offered to Japan and guesses that Nigeria would receive the same (which seems a safe assumption. I also assume Nigeria will have a regulator.

Not a bad overview of concerns, though I think the paper underestimates how much of an safety infrastructure will be put in place should Nigeria pursue nuclear energy.

A fish-eyed view of Lagos, Nigeria.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...
Post a Comment
Read more

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...
1 comment
Read more

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more