Monday, 24 June 2013

THE AYATOLLAH’S NUCLEAR GAMBLE

Although the chances of a military strike against Bushehr are low, the potential human, environmental and economic tragedy unleashed by such an assault make Bushehr the most dangerous of Iran’s nuclear facilities. While in the case of Isfahan, the primary risk comes from the exposure of hundreds of thousands of civilians to toxic chemical plumes, in the case of Bushehr, the nuclear gamble threatens to expose millions to radioactive fallout.
Strikes against Bushehr would have profound international ramifications, as, in addition to Iranian casualties at and around the site, virtually all the countries in the
Persian Gulf region, particularly the smaller Persian Gulf states, would face a major threat to their national security, economic viability and longevity as states. Given the presence of Russian personnel at the site, an attack on the plant would also mean risking a confrontation with Russia.
The reason most experts consider a strike on Bushehr as highly unlikely is that the plant’s primary function is to generate electricity.
Iran claims it has an agreement with Russia to collect and reprocess spent fuel from the facility, which some experts have said makes Bushehr less of a proliferation threat.
What makes it a potential target is the possibility that Iran would renege and fuel from the plant could be diverted for the separation of plutonium from irradiated fuel. This process is slow and requires several years or much more frequent refuelling cycles which can be easily detected by the Russians and the IAEA. The timeline for Iran producing a plutonium weapon has been placed at no earlier than 2015 and perhaps beyond. This May, the plant was reported to be operating at 75% capacity and was expected to reach full capacity soon thereafter.
133 Ariel Zurulnick, “Iran nuclear program: 5 key sites,” Christian Science Monitor,
“Iran’s Bushehr nuke power plant nears full capacity,” Xinhua, 4 May 2012,
History of the Site
Bushehr is not an ordinary nuclear power plant. It is a nuclear experiment. Originally, Iran and Germany planned a joint venture to build two pressurized water reactors subcontracted to ThyssenKruppAG based on the design of the German Biblis Nuclear Power Plant. The construction of the first reactor at Bushehr that began in 1971 was scheduled for completion in 1980 and the second, in 1981. It was abandoned after the revolution of 1979 and damaged during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. For much of those years, the plant was frozen in time, subjected to an embargo that left Iran with no access to German expertise and documentation concerning over 80,000 random pieces of equipment and spare parts, many of which were exposed to a hot and humid climate.
The challenge of salvaging Iran’s white elephant on the Persian Gulf fell upon the Russians, at a cost to the Iranian citizens of 10 billion dollars. In 1995, Iran signed a contract with Russia’s Ministry for
Atomic Energy to revive the plant by installing the V-320 915 MW(e)
VVER 1000 pressurized water reactor. The project was scheduled for completion in 2001, and then in September 2007. Finally, on August 21, 2010, at a ceremony with his Iranian counterparts, the chief of
Russia’s Rosatom state agency, former Soviet Prime Minister Sergei
Kirienko, marked the official opening of the Bushehr nuclear plant with the transfer of enriched uranium from a fuel rod to the plant.
In February 2011, Russia was forced to shut down the plant to “thoroughly clean the reactor core and the primary cooling system to remove metal shards left by the cooling pump failure.” The failure was blamed on German cooling pumps dating back to the 1970s.
Russia’s Ambassador to Iran stated that the delay was necessary since it is better “to prevent unwanted consequences rather than to regret it later,” which Iranian state radio confirmed.
In a joint press conference held on February 26, 2009, Reza Aghazadeh, then head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, blamed Nuclear Gamble The Last Straw.
V. CASE STUDIES
The delays on the design anomalies at Bushehr: “24% of the parts and equipment used at the Bushehr power plant are German, 36% Iranian, and 40% Russian.”135 Kirienko agreed. As he put it, “Until now, no one has succeeded in operationalizing such a plant, and, actually completing the Bushehr nuclear plant is not the same as constructing a new plant but rather it is completing a plant that has been constructed by a company from another company and consequently, we have had to make extremely important technical decisions about it.”136 When pressed to explain a decade of delays, Kirienko could not resist a dig at his Iranian counterparts: “Of course, it is 35 years past the deadline. “In a report released by the IAEA in November 2011, the agency reported that the reactor at Bushehr is operational; however, information regarding its electrical production was unavailable. Finally, in
May 2012, Rosatom announced that it had conducted a test on May
1, and that the power plant had successfully generated electricity at
90% of its capacity.137 The head of the Atomic Energy Organization
of Iran (AEOI) Fereidoun Abbasi, anounced that the plant had
produced 730 MW of electricity since February and the Mohammad
Hossein Jahanbakhsh, Governor-General of the province declared
that “the Russian contractor will definitely deliver the power plant
to the Iranian side by the end of autumn [2012].”138
Human Casualty Estimates
Most immediate casualties would occur among the Bushehr plant
workers and people close by. We estimate the total number of workers
at the site at between 2,000-3,000 people, plus their families. The
number of Russian advisors at the site was estimated at 1,500139 with
another 500 Iranian personnel.140 Additional casualties will occur
in the two villages of Bandargah and Helileh, which are next to the
site and have a combined population of 4,500 inhabitants in 1,100
households.141 In recent years, the government has tried to relocate the
people of Bandargah and Helileh, but faced considerable resistance.142
135 “ASR-Iran News Analysis,” <http://www.asriran.com/fa/pages/?cid=66101>
(Persian).
136 Ibid.
137 “Russian Contractor: Bushehr N. Power Plant to Reach Full Capacity in
May,” Fars News Agency, 4 May 2012, <http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.
php?nn=9102110533>.
138 Ibid.
139 “Moscow: The number of workers at Bushehr facilities will double,”
Islamic Republic News Agency, <http://www2.irna.com/ar/news/view/line-
8/8611269045074856.htm> (Persian).
140 John C.K. Daly, “Iranian Bushehre Nuclear Plant Comes Online,” Stock Market
Review, <http://www.stockmarketsreview.com/extras/iranian_bushehr_nuclear_
plant_comes_online_world_survives_20110916_162652/>.
141 Bushehr geographical and census information available at <http:www.nasirboushehr.com/Journal-0l-issue140-3964.html>(Persian). This newspaper and its
website were created by the Iranian government in late 2011.
142 Note: Ahmadinejad announced in his last visit to Bushehr Province that the
people of these two places should be relocated as part of the Bushehr Nuclear
Power Plant development plan. Subsequently, the Bushehr governor banned the
movement of certain construction material to Bandargah and Helileh. This subject
was approved in a visit of the Iran government headed by Ahmadinejad to Bushehr
province in 2006 and mentioned on president.ir website (<http:www.president.ir/
fa/?ArtlD=8151>). The head of Iran Atomic Energy Organization announced in an
interview that this is part of Bushehr power plant development plan and was also
approved in National Security Council.
To complicate matters, the location of the plant next to the sea limits
site access to one road.
Beyond the immediate casualties, several factors make Bushehr
particularly dangerous. The site is 10 km (6.2 miles) south-east
of Bushehr, a city with a population of more than 240,000 people
(Figure 37). The prevailing winds in the area blow predominantly to
the North-West in the direction of the city of Bushehr (Table 7). An
attack on the facility would result in the release of large quantities of
fission products including iodine-131, strontium-90, and cesium-137
which, due to their heavy concentration, could easily engulf the city.
Recognizing that radioactive material outside the plant operating area
is less likely to have acute health consequences, even if only 1-5% of the
population is exposed to significant radiation levels, 2,400 to 12,000
people could suffer from chronic effects such as those witnessed in
the aftermath of Chernobyl. Given the proximity of Bandarghah and
Helileh, the casualty rates from the effect of bombing and exposure
to radiation can exceed 50%. Further, as with Pripyat, the Russian
city evacuated after Chernobyl, Bushehr would become uninhabitable
for many decades into the future.
Figure 37: Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant distant. Distance to Bushehr
City 10 miles (Map source: Wikimapia, TerraMetrics)
Station Name
Yearly
Average
Wind
Direction
Max.
Wind
Speed
(mi/h)
Bushehr Synoptic Station N 34
Jam Synoptic Station SW 31
Borazjan Synoptic Station W 29
Khark Island Synoptic Station N 38
Chahkootah Synoptic Station NW 27
Asalooyeh Synoptic Station NW-SW 34
Nuclear Gamble The Last Straw.indd 38 8/10/12 11:23 AM
Table 7: Wind speed and direction in the vicinity of the Bushehr Nuclear
Power Plant (Source: I.R. of Iran Meteorological Organization)39
THE AYATOLLAH’S NUCLEAR GAMBLE
Although they did not focus on Bushehr as a likely target, in “A
Study on a Possible Israeli Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Development
Facilities” published by the Center for Strategic and International
Studies (CSIS) in March 2009, Anthony H. Cordesman and Abdullah
Toukan predicted the highest level of environmental damage would
come from an attack on the Bushehr Nuclear Plant.143They estimate
the damage from an attack on an operational nuclear facility can
cause casualties in the hundreds of thousands. Drawing on Bennett
Ramberg’s “Destruction of Nuclear Facilities in War,” they point out
that the release of highly radioactive actinide and uranium fuel fission
products resulting from the fission process would lead to the release
of iodine-131, strontium-90, cesium-137, and activation production
material, plutonium-239, all of which are “most damaging to human
health” since they attack critical organs such as the lungs, thyroid,
bones, tissues, organs, and cells.144 In fact, according to this study,
more than 300 radioisotopes can be released into the environment,
over 40 of which are produced in abundance and have a significant
half-life. These radioactive particles can contaminate the body through
clothing and skin, or through wounds. They can be inhaled as dust,
or ingested through food and water. Once released, it is very hard to
contain their damage as they can have a “physical half-life ranging
from eight days to 24,400 years, and a biological half-life ranging
from 138 to 500 days.”145
As the CSIS study warns, “Any strike on the Bushehr Nuclear
Reactor will cause the immediate death of thousands of people living
in or adjacent to the site, and thousands of subsequent cancer deaths
or even up to hundreds of thousands depending on the population
density along the contamination plume.”146
The major Iranian city closest to the site after Bushehr is Shiraz
(pop. 1,500,000) to the northeast of the power plant. However, the
prevailing winds could carry this radioactive material in the opposite direction across the Persian Gulf to contaminate Iraq, Kuwait,
Bahrain and other countries along the southern coast (Figure 36).
Virtually all population centers in the Persian Gulf, including Kuwait,
Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates would be at risk. As
noted earlier, a 2007 study published by the U.S. Army War College
warned that attacks on Bushehr would likely result in catastrophic
regional environmental consequences, including the contamination of
the majority of the water desalination plants in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait
and the United Arab Emirates, which account for more than half of
the world’s water desalination capacity.147
143 Anthony Cordesman and Abdullah Toukan, “Study on a Possible Israeli Strike
on Iran’s Nuclear Development Facilities,” Center for Strategic and International
Studies Report, 14 March 2009, <http://csis.org/publication/study-possible-israeli-strike-irans-nuclear-development-facilities>.
144 Bennett Ramberg, “Destruction of Nuclear Facilities in War,” Lexington Books:
3, as quoted in Toukan,et al., “Study on a Possible Israeli Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Development Facilities,” Center for Strategic and International Studies, 14 March 2009.
146 Anthony Cordesman and Abdullah Toukan, “Study on a Possible Israeli Strike
on Iran’s Nuclear Development Facilities,” Center for Strategic and International
Studies Report, 14 March 2009, <http://csis.org/publication/study-possible-israeli-strike-irans-nuclear-development-facilities>.
Figure 38: Direction of prevailing wind in the vicinity of the Bushehr
Nuclear Power Plant (Map source: Wikimapia, TerraMetrics)
Civil Defense Capabilities
A military strike on the Bushehr nuclear facility would trigger a
catastrophe on a scale that would overwhelm the civil defense capabilities of the most advanced industrial countries, let alone the Islamic
Republic of Iran. Iran simply lacks the civil defense capabilities and
emergency response plans to respond to a tragedy similar to Chernobyl
or Fukushima. The Bushehr Province Crisis Management Council
(BPCNC) is responsible for all emergency responses at the provincial
level. In the event of major disasters, Fars Province would be called on
for support.148 Still, the total emergency response budget of Bushehr province is less than $10 million, excluding the drought response budget.149As formedical facilities, there are four hospitals in Bushehr with 520 total beds:150 Fatemeh Zahra, Amir al Momenin Hospital,
Hospital of Airforce, and Salman e Farsi, the general hospital of the Welfare Organization. None can cope with radiation-related injuries.
Environmental and Economic Consequences
The destruction of the nuclear facility can lead to the contamination of the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman water basin, which covers onefourth of the country but accounts for nearly half of its renewable water resources. Approximately 97,000 wells, 4,000 channels, and 13,500 springs discharge 26.39 km3 (16.38 miles) per year of groundwater in this major sub-basin.151 Though not a major industrial hub, this
148 Note: Mohammad Hussein Jahanbakhsh, Bushehr province governor is head of
BPCNC. He is an experienced manager, but never had experience before his appointment last January with Busheshr Province. He was governor of North Khorasan Province in the past. The same problem exists in other main administrative and response organizations. High turnover of managers, poor performance and lack of budget and resources have made its response system inefficient and incapable.
V. CASE STUDIES
province is one of the main producers of dates and oranges in Iran, as well as limited beef and lamb production.152 Fisheries also have an important role in the economy, with production of 50,000 tons (56,000
U.S. tons) of fish and shrimp in Bushehr province annually.153 Given the province’s heavy reliance on agriculture, husbandry, and fisheries, the contamination of water and soil can have a profound impact on the food supply, local economy, and health of the local population.
Bushehr is also one of Iran’s main ports, its capacity about 5 million tons (5.6 million U.S. tons) with offloading/loading non-oil products of 200,000 tons (224,000 U.S. tons) per month and offloading/loading oil products about 130,000 tons (145,600 US tons) each month.154
Ship, vessel, and marine industrial factories, weaving, pottery, gas, petrochemical, and oil are also other main industrial activities of the province. The destruction of the Bushehr facility and contamination of the port facility would be a serious setback to domestic industries and foreign exports.
The Bushehr facility also strengthens local markets. Destroying the plant would result in the loss of a multibillion-dollar facility and expensive cleanup and reclamation of radioactive-contaminated soils and water.


No comments:

Post a Comment