Weakness of Indian Nuclear Regulation Manifest in Reactor Accident

[cprise]

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/weakness-of-indian-nuclear-regulation-manifest-in-reactor-accident

A telling but little-known and little-discussed example of what can happen under weak regulatory circumstances was a serious accident that took place at India's Narora reactor in March 1993, an incident that "came close to joining Chernobyl and Fukushima in the annals of industrial civilization," as writer Madhusree Mukerjee put it in a recent review of M.V. Ramana's The Power of Promise: Examining Nuclear Power in India (Penguin/Viking, 2012).

...

All that is disconcerting enough, but what is really disconcerting about the story as Ramana tells it, is that the plant's owner-operator and Indian regulatory authorities were well-aware of issues having to do with the fragile turbine blades and possible oil fires well before the accident and yet did nothing to address those concerns. What is more, there is little or no evidence they did anything after the accident, either. Further incidents, less serious, took place.

...

What Ramana does do additionally, however, is deliver some telling stories about how the two questionable Narora reactors got built in the first place. When it became clear that the regional grid system was not really big enough to justify and support construction of a nuclear power plant, Indian planners took inspiration from the story about Mohammed and the mountain, as Ramana nicely puts it: That is, instead of deciding not to build a reactor too big for the grid, they instead cooked up hair-brained schemes to make the grid much bigger—with considerable technical support from Oak Ridge National Laboratory, let it be said.

From its earliest inception, as Mukerjee spells out in her review, India's Atomic Energy Commission and Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) have reported directly to the prime minister, enabling them to function largely in secrecy. Thus, when it comes to nuclear safety, "DAE never shares its emergency plans with locals," "does not reveal the health records of its workers," "does not even monitor the health of temporary workers," and "never reveals the quantities of radioactive substances released into the environment by accidents or routine operations."

I wonder how many other nuclear projects attempt to drive consumption in so direct a manner?

[kristopher]

1. That is an interesting read.

It exemplifies virtually every failing that the inevitable integration of nuclear power with government brings about.

I've bookmarked the references contained in the article for later reading:

A Rotten Core
http://www.himalmag.com/component/content/article/5188-a-rotten-core.html

And a book to order:
The Power of Promise
http://www.us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780670081707,00.html


Thanks for sharing it.

[bananas]

2. In the interest of full disclosure

from the quoted website:

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest professional association for the advancement of technology.

[wtmusic]

3. You know the antinuke argument is bankrupt

when they start drumming up "almost tragedies" for excitement.

And ones that are 20 years old, to boot.

[kristopher]

4. OK, so the use of an exemplar always indicates a bankrupt argument.

That would mean ...Hey, wait; that's just like all the other stuff you post - it isn't true.