Dr Ansar Parvez: For the last four financial years, the cost of electricity from Chashma nuclear power plants has been much lower than any other sector, except hydroelectric power. There are NEPRA reports that prove that. The price of nuclear electricity is also determined by the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA). When the Pakistan Atomic Energy Agency (PAEC) goes to NEPRA for price determination, it makes a case to get as high a price as possible accounting for the cost of debt servicing, O&M, fuel, and return on equity. NEPRA on the other hand wants to ensure that there is no overcharging. The government gives no subsidy to the Chashma power plants. If the cost of all other power sources were the same as that of nuclear power in Pakistan, there would be no circular debts.
MS: How safe are these nuclear power plants?
AP: No base load plant can match nuclear power plants as far as the environmental effects during normal operations are concerned. There are no pollutants and no greenhouse gases. And let us now talk of radiation. If you live just outside the wall of a nuclear power plant, you may get a dose of around 0.01mSv per year. Compare that with the average background value of 3.0 mSv (with a range from 2 to 8 mSv) that all of us receive in our daily life from cosmic rays, from earth and from things around us like painted walls, television, and medical checkups. One can understand the meaning of these numbers from one simple example: if you make a round trip from Karachi to Islamabad by air, you receive some additional dose because you are closer to cosmic radiation. This does will be equivalent to what you will receive in one year if you lived outside a nuclear power plant.
The PAEC prepares emergency plans for each nuclear power plant that are approved by Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authority (PNRA). These plans and procedures are updated periodically and tested in emergency exercises under the supervision of PNRA.
MS: What about nuclear waste?
AP: About 90% of waste generated from the operation of a nuclear power plants is low and intermediate level. Only 10% of the waste, the spent fuel, is high level.
High level waste is initially stored in the reactor bay (water pools) for many years in order to remove heat. Later on, it is stored in specially designed casks for dry storage till the development of geological disposal facility. The spent fuel produced in nuclear power plants is not of very large volume. For example, in case of KANUPP, the spent fuel produced from more than 41 years of electricity generation fits in a bay in the reactor building that is the size of an average squash court. This pool is routinely monitored for radioactivity.
Low and intermediate level waste, generated from the operations of a nuclear plant, is conditioned and cementized in 200l Mild Steel (MS) drums. The MS drums are packed in RCC containers. The RCC containers are being stored in an interim storage facility and will ultimately be disposed in a near surface disposal facility, specially designed for the disposal of low and intermediate level waste.
MS: And what if a terrorist group gains access to nuclear waste to make a dirty bomb?
AP: There is a comprehensive plan in place for protection against such threats. This includes multiple visible and invisible security rings manned by a large well-trained force dedicated to the protection of these plants.
It is complemented by a scientifically developed physical protection system involving extensive surveillance and barriers that meets, or exceeds, contemporary international standards. Also, spent fuel is placed in a protected environment within the plant building. So there is no chance that this waste or spent fuel will get in the hands of a terrorist.
[quote]"It is like the newer model of your favorite car with some enhanced features"[/quote]
MS: According to some experts, the ACP1000 design to be used for the two plants in Karachi is not fully tested anywhere
AP: The design is not untested. The only thing “new” about it is the addition of layers of safety. In the ACP1000 design for the new nuclear power plants to be built at Karachi, the reactor system is based on the PWR concept, which has been the work-horse of the nuclear industry for the past five decades. Chashma plants are examples closer to home of that basic concept. The only difference is that many safety improvements have been made in it to meet the enhanced safety targets of the new generation (Gen III) of reactors and to incorporate the lessons learnt from the Fukushima Accident.
It is like the newer model of your favorite car with some enhanced features.
MS: It is being said that a soft Chinese loan of $6.5 billion has trapped the Pakistani government towards these reactions – something irresistible for cash strapped Pakistan
AP: There is nothing extraordinary about the loan. All vendor countries provide such financing for major projects. China had provided loans for the Chashma 2, 3 and 4 projects, although these were based on fully “tested” systems.
China has a policy of financing up to 85% of the contract cost of the project executed by its companies. Chinese willingness to make an investment of this magnitude is also an expression of their confidence in PAEC’s ability to competently handle a nuclear power project, and then operate and maintain a nuclear power plant.
This confidence is, of course, based on PAEC’s past record of operating the Chashma plants safely and efficiently.
MS: Speaking of Fukushima, what will happen is there’s an unprecedented earthquake? The most severe earthquake in the area so far was 8.5 magnitude, off the Makran coast in 1945. But in 2013, a British-Canadian team assessed the possibility of a 9.2 magnitude event on the Makran coast.
AP: Yes, the 8.3 magnitude earthquake off the Makran coast is the highest that has been recorded here. However, a hypothetical complete rupture of the entire zone can indeed generate an earthquake of the maximum magnitude of 9.2.
The PAEC has analyzed a whole range of hypothetical earthquakes (including the 9.2 earthquake) much before the British-Canadian team’s publication. A 9.2 magnitude Makran earthquake leads to a ground acceleration of 0.15g at the site of the new plant. In fact, a higher ground acceleration of about 0.20g is simulated from an earthquake in another seismic zone in the region. The plant has been designed to withstand a ground acceleration of 0.30g, which represents a huge safety margin against all possibilities of this kind of event.
Allied studies relating to tsunami generation show that such a 9.2 magnitude earthquake could lead to a tsunami of maximum wave height of about 2.8 m above mean sea level at the plant site. The plant’s ground level is about 12 m above mean sea level.