The
Supreme Court said there is no basis to the fear that the radioactive effects
of the Kudankulam nuclear power plant, when commissioned, will be far reaching.
A Bench of Justices K.S. Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra said: SC is convinced
that the KKNPP design incorporates advanced safety features complying with the
current standards of redundancy, reliability, independence and prevention of
common cause failures in its safety systems. Design also takes care of
Anticipated Operational Occurrences (AOO), Design Basis Accidents (DBA) and
Beyond Design Basis Accidents (BDBA) like Station Black Out (SBO), Anticipated
Transients Without Scram (ATWS), Metal Water reaction in the water core and
provision of core catcher to take care of core degradation. The design also
includes the provisions for withstanding external events like earthquake,
tsunami/storm, tidal waves, cyclones, shock waves, aircraft impact on main
buildings and fire. The 17 recommendations were made after the Fukushima Fukushima
The Bench disposing of
petitions challenging the commissioning of Kudankulam NPP said: few of them
raised the apprehension that it might repeat accidents like the one that had
happened at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl , Union
Carbide and Fukushima
The Bench noted that for
establishing the NPP at Kudankulam , India had entered into an inter-governmental
agreement with the erstwhile USSR
in November 1988 followed by a supplementary agreement in 1998 signed by India and Russia
which was in tune with India
The Bench said: serious
apprehension has been voiced by the appellants that huge amounts of radioactive
waste are generated with the use of nuclear energy which, unless handled,
treated, transported, stored and disposed of safely without any leaks, can
cause serious contamination of land, water, food, air and the ecosystems.
Further, it was also the case of the appellants that during the nuclear fission
process, nuclear plants convert almost all of their fuel into radioactive waste
with little reduction in mass and even re-processing creates its own high level
waste.
The Bench said: economic
growth and energy support have to go hand in hand, for the country’s
development for which India
has entered into various collaboration agreements with U.S.A. , Canada
Quoting a report of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Bench said: the report
highlights that to sustain rapid global economic growth, it is necessary to
double the supply of energy and tripling supply of electricity by 2050.
Further, it is stated billions of poor people need energy and other life-saving
and job-creating technologies.
Here's 10-point on this case:
(01)
The
top court observed that development of nuclear energy is important for India
(02)
It
said all expert bodies were of unanimous opinion that adequate safety measures
had been taken.
(03)
A
clutch of petitions had challenged a Madras High Court order in August last
year that, while asking India's nuclear watchdog to ensure that necessary
safeguards were complied with, gave the go-ahead for the loading of fuel in the
plant.
(04)
The
petitioners had opposed the plant's operationalisation arguing many of the 17
additional safety measures prescribed by a government task force had not been
put in place. The Centre has said 15 of those mostly enhanced safety features
have been implemented and the rest will be in due course.
(05)
The
judgement comes close on the heels of the detection of four faulty valves in
the first reactor unit of the plant which were later replaced. Some Russian
officials were also arrested recently over alleged corruption in sourcing
sub-standard materials from some Russian nuclear plants.
(06)
Locals
and activists have been agitating for the last two years against the plant,
demanding closure of the plant. Idinthakarai, which is just three kilometres
away from the plant complex, has served as the Ground Zero of the protests.
Fishermen, who form the majority of the population staying in the plant's
vicinity, are worried that the nuclear plant will adversely affect marine life
and hence, their livelihood.
(07)
The
People's Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE), which has been spearheading
the anti-Kudankulam campaign, has cited the Fukushima
disaster in Japan
(08)
D
Udayakumar, the coordinator for PMANE, told that "people cannot be
murdered in the name of sustainable development" and that the "Supreme
Court is silent on liability and waste management issues."
(09)
The
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL), which operates the plant, too
insists that the plant is safe and is "fully equipped to withstand"
Fukushima-type incidents.
(10)
Tamil
Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa, who initially supported the cause of the
anti-Kudankulam movement, later did a U-turn - after two committees gave their
nod - citing that the project could bring relief to the state which is reeling
under a severe power shortage. {The power project is being set up in
Kudankulam, around 650 kilometres south of Chennai, with two Russian-made,
1,000-MW nuclear reactors.}
No comments:
Post a Comment