Nuclear power plants and precautionary principle

By Panduka Karunanayake

While thanking Professor Kirthi Tennakone for his article on nuclear power as an energy option for our country (The Island, May 12), I wish to raise some concerns that were not addressed therein. I don’t have the knowledge of science and a background in the energy sector to be able to answer them myself. But as an ordinary citizen, I think it is a duty to raise these concerns on a matter of such importance.

KT has argued that nuclear energy is reliable, cost-effective and safe (as long as things are running smoothly). While I do not doubt his statements, I have several concerns and they fall into two main categories.

The first category relates to concerns when things are running smoothly. Even if a nuclear power plant has the advantages that he had listed, I worry about two disadvantages. First, where in our country should we site this plant, and what kind of relocation of the population should this require? It may be true that the plant itself would take up only a few square-kilometres, but can ordinary people live right next door to it? Second, how do we dispose of the nuclear waste, where, at what cost and with what consequences? For instance, could radioactive waste leech into underground water tables? How do we monitor that, and what further precautions are necessary to detect and respond to such an event?

I recall an incident more than a decade ago when US environmental scientists detected that radioactive waste from the Cold War era buried deep in the Nevada desert had leached into the water table – but that contaminated water was still 6,000 years from reaching human consumption because the desert is so vast and human beings do not live nearby. (The Nevada desert is 30 million acres, compared to Sri Lanka’s total land area of 16 million acres.)

But the second category of concerns is more important to me. This relates to what might follow if there was a nuclear plant ‘incident’. It probably engenders more speculation and less iron-clad answers, and that might make forming judgements and opinions more fluid and contestable.

KT states that nuclear power plant accidents are very rare and tells us that the Chernobyl and Fukushima incidents are the “only two major mishaps” that have occurred so far. I think that such incidents, whether due to technical failure, mismanagement, human error, sabotage or natural disaster, can and will happen – it’s only a matter of where and when. An important part of planning for something is the planning for such incidents. Although they may be rare, the gravity and consequences of an incident are crucial. The graver the consequences, the more important it is to not dismiss even the rare possibility, and the more important it is to adopt the precautionary principle when forming judgements or making decisions. With this perspective, let me list out some questions.

If such a disaster did happen on Sri Lankan soil at the site that he had identified above, what would be the cost and duration of decontamination? What would be the extent of land, water, air, soil and animal and agricultural produce (including rice, vegetables, meat, fish, eggs and milk) that will have to be given up by us? Can we rely on our regulatory apparatuses to ensure that the food in the market is safe, following such a disaster?

What will happen to tourism? Would the remaining land, air, water, soil, agriculture and animals be enough to sustain the population, or will we have to import our food and even water? Will that be economically feasible, while spending also on decontamination and running without tourism? Who will have access to imported food and water and who will not? What will those without access resort to?

What would be the human health implications to those who survive in terms of disease, birth defects, loss of productivity and cost of treatment? As well as the very likely event of another economic downturn, poverty and malnutrition?

If the radioactive contamination drifts by air to other countries in the region, will we have to pay compensation, and if so, how much?

I think that to face such a “mishap”, a country needs a huge land area, adequate natural resources, enough financial reserves, and good regulatory, administrative and technical apparatuses. I don’t think that the Russian or Japanese examples are contextually appropriate to our setting.

In fact, for several years now, I have been worried about the effects that we ourselves would suffer if the nuclear power plant in South India (which they have sited right at the southernmost part of their huge country, for reasons that are quite understandable). I believe that the wind patterns would probably expose three of our provinces (north-western, north-central and eastern) to radioactive fallout. We should therefore be ready for a nuclear power plant accident even without having one – and we aren’t. That is the sort of ‘planning’ that we are capable of!