News Detail

• Atomic Energy Commission chairperson Srikumar Banerjee said here on Tuesday that post-Fukushima accident, there was a significant growth in nuclear energy generation according to the nuclear power trends of 2011. This despite the promise of many countries to withdraw nuclear energy generation programmes.“In many OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries and BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) countries, the growth in nuclear energy generation is significant,” he said while speaking at a debate organised by Prabodhan publication on ‘Jaitapur Project: Why Yes and Why No?'The residents of Madban and other places to be affected by the Jaitapur nuclear power project tried to stall the debate. Despite repeated appeals by the organisers, including Shiv Sena executive president Uddhav Thackeray, the mob shouted slogans against Dr. Banerjee, renowned scientist Dr. Anil Kakodkar, officials of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited and others who put forth their side in support of the project.
• Concerns raised:Serious concerns were raised about the project such as the safe disposal of nuclear waste, nuclear accidents and their consequences, cost-effectiveness and impact on biodiversity.“This is not just a question of Jaitapur. It is a debate about whether we should have nuclear energy or not,” Justice (retd.) A. P. Shah, who presided over the seminar and who had headed a people's tribunal about the Jaitapur project, said.Vivek Monteiro of the Konkan Bachao Samiti said that the project should be immediately put on hold till vital scientific analysis on critical issues is done properly. He said that the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) had not been done scientifically as it did not even talk about the disposal of the radioactive waste.
• “The reprocessing of spent fuel is not even mentioned in the EIA. What will happen to the high-level nuclear waste? If there will be no reprocessing at Madban, where will the reprocessing be,” Dr. Monteiro asked.Dr. Banerjee pointed out that the EIA does not deal with radiation.“The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board is the authority for [checking] radiation. It does not give any clearance in one shot. At every stage, it checks and then proceeds. It gives clearance only when it is completely satisfied. The government does not allow anyone else to do the job,” he said.
• Impact of radiation:When questions were raised about the harmful impact of radiation, Dr. Banerjee said that regular rigorous studies had proven that the annual dose to the people due to nuclear power plants was negligible as compared to natural sources. He said that constant tests were conducted by collecting samples of water, vegetation, meat and fish to check the level of radiation in a particular area. “All this data is available in the open,” he said.He also said that the safety conditions had increased after the Fukushima accident. “Post-Fukushima, each nuclear plant has gone through the stress test. What we are ensuring in all stress tests is that even when there is complete power loss, how to ensure cooling,” Dr. Banerjee said.Dr. Monteiro demanded that a scientific techno-economic cost-benefit analysis be done about the project.Mahesh Shindikar, environment expert, pointed out that the EIA report was shoddy and had neglected the biodiversity of the area.

Source