New Delhi wants post-Fukushima certification, says French Minister
India will postpone its final decision on the purchase of EPR type nuclear reactors from France until after the current post-Fukushima nuclear safety tests have been satisfactorily completed, it is reliably learnt.
Srikumar Banerjee, Chairman of India's Atomic Energy Commission, conveyed this message to French Industry Minister Eric Besson when the two met during the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) consultations which opened in Vienna. Mr. Besson said: “Dr. Banerjee said India imports only reactors which have been certified by their own authorities. The EPR has already been certified. Now they want the post-Fukushima certification.” However, he added that the Indians had conveyed this message “in a very positive manner.”
Several nuclear contracts around the world have been either frozen, delayed or cancelled as a result of the March 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, the worst nuclear accident to hit the planet after the Chernobyl explosion of 1986, putting into doubt the much-vaunted “nuclear renaissance.” Germany has chosen to forgo the nuclear option altogether and in France there is talk of reducing the country's dependence on nuclear energy to 50 per cent from the current 75 per cent, by 2025.
The EPR plant under construction at Flamanville (northern France) has seen interminable delays and a massive cost hike. Two persons have died on the construction site and the plant is not expected to go on stream before 2016 at the very least. EDF, the most experienced constructor in the world, has admitted it has not mastered the engineering techniques demanded by the hugely complex and complicated design of the massive 1,650 MWe pressurised water reactor. There is not a single EPR plant operating to date and the Olkiluoto plant in Finland too has seen massive cost overruns and long delays, with the result that the Finns and Areva are locked in a protracted legal battle.
In December 2010 Areva signed a framework agreement with India to build the first of six EPR reactors at Jaitapur in Maharashtra with an option of four more reactors to follow. But Areva will build only the nuclear island while the turbine island and other installations will have to be built by contractors chosen by the NPCIL. Fears have been expressed that with EDF, the most experienced builder and operator of nuclear reactors in the world unable to get it right in Flamanville, the Indian side may not be able to ensure proper construction and safety. There is also some uncertainty about the central dome of the EPR which is forged by the Japanese. Japan, with its aggressive anti-nuclear stand (especially on proliferation issues) may not agree to the technology transfer to India.
On September 15, France's major nuclear operators including Areva and electricity giant EDF handed in their self-evaluation reports on 80 installations to the nuclear safety agency, the ASN. This body, along with the IRSN (Institute of Radio-protection and Nuclear Safety) will now examine the self-evaluations submitted by the three nuclear players in France and hand in its report by the end of 2011.
Already nuclear watchdog agencies such as Sortir du Nuclear (Quitting Nuclear), the Nuclear Observatory and several ecologist groups have criticised the method of self-evaluation adopted by the ASN and the French government.
“No credibility can be accorded to this type of self-evaluation by commercial enterprises. They have no desire whatsoever to see their operations halted for further verification,” said Stephane Lhomme, of the NGO Nuclear Observatory. “The only way to really verify all the safety factors and mechanisms is by halting the installations. This is not to speak of the totally unresolved questions of nuclear waste or the decommissioning of old reactors.”
“These tests are all fluff,” said nuclear scientist Jean-Marie Brom, who works at the Centre for Scientific Research in Strasbourg and is a member of Sortir du Nucleaire. “We are not in any way better prepared to prevent nuclear accidents. Had Tepco been asked to do a safety report on Fukushima a year ago, the company would have said it was perfectly safe.”
A recent blast at France's oldest nuclear site in Marcule which killed one person and injured four has reignited the debate on nuclear safety in France.
Keywords: India France ties, nuclear power, nuclear safety, Fukushima nuclear accident, EPR reactors
Why India needs nuclear energy? You have sun, wind, hydraulic ressources...and local intelligence...Getting rid of nuclear waste,demolish old energy plants is an issue... We don't have any answer for now in France. The EPR Technology is out-of-date and dangerous according to the finnish, british... and french nuclear authorithies. Don't buy it, don't build it, and find an Indian answer to Indian energy issues.
Why cant we make EPR type Nuclear reactor on our own? We have with us Abdul Kalam and other scientists, engineers and humanitarions? Why do we forget that because of the politicians 3000 engineers go into clerical jobs in State Bank of India last year. It is just because of the politicians and the IAS officers.
I think now is the good time for indigenous EPR nuclear reactors, give the project to IIT Delhi and ask for a preliminary report in a week's time, I bet IITD would be able to give something.
c'est de France que je vous écris : très bon article - l'Inde a raison de suspendre sa commande d'EPR - Mais il serait encore plus raisonnable d'abandonner l'énergie nucléaire dans sa totalité : la chaîne de l'uranium , de l'extraction du minerai au traitement des déchets et au démantèlement des réacteurs, est productrice de méfaits environnementaux , sociaux et sur la santé de l'humain -
Il nous faut résister à cet esclavisme du nucléaire , tous, à travers le monde : qui veut devenir des cobayes d'un laboratoire tel qu'est dvenue la population de Fukushima ?
Cordialement
Some points are not upto the mark in this article.IAEA should take initiative to reduce nuclear usage around the world.
India must tread cautiously, it must not, in the urgency to address its energy issues forgo the importance attached to safety and security of its people. This is certainly a correct decision by the AEC chief.Instead of waiting for the EDF or France to get their design right, India has some of the best nuclear scientists and has one of the finest and safe nuclear installations built almost indigenously. It must make use of this talent to solve the energy crisis plauging India for almost half a century now.
I congratulate Hindu to mention reports of existence of corporate fraud in certification and standardisation of industrial items.Such things are rampant in industrial enterprises as every company tries to upwardly evaluate their products for higher share values.
The Government of India should consider the cost of nuclear reactors as well as the safety of their operation in the light of the episode in Japan before going in for massive investments in this field, particularly when some other countries seek to impose stringent conditions on the sale of nuclear materials. Actually this is a time to seriously consider investing our scarce national resources in wind and solar solar energy research. These methods are capital intensive but do not damage the environment, and do not entail our dependence on the nuclear haves who seek to monopolize nuclear technology and science to their advantage. Our government should consider the long range interest of our nation in our geographical context and take the appropriate decision without yielding to political or any other kind of pressure. Nuclear energy may be good for the western nations, but is not necessarily good for us. We should make our own choices for our national good.
India should also think about other energy options and minimize its dependency on nuclear power. Though we need a tremendous power to fulfill growing demand of our industries and people, we should not forget the hazardous aspects of nuclear power which are evident after Fukishima disaster.Agitation against the proposed Kudunkulam project in coastal Tamilnadu are justified after fukushima accident, this areas is also Tsunami prone and has faced it in 2004. We need to address the worries of the locals.
Yes these are serious isuues and have to be addressed,but only raising question and not providing answer will lead us to no where.To meet the demand of growth we have to generate energy there is no other way,but it surely doesn't mean a mad rush.Instead we must learn from all the accidents and accomodate these learning in new projects.Instead of raising apprehension we must strive to strengthen the nuclear reactors.Protest by locals are genuine but sometime they are also naive.Yes these are serious isuues and have to be addressed,but only raising question and not providing answer will lead us to no where.To meet the demand of growth we have to generate energy there is no other way,but it surely doesn't mean a mad rush.Instead we must learn from all the accidents and accomodate these learning in new projects.Instead of raising apprehension we must strive to strengthen the nuclear reactors.Protest by locals are genuine but sometime they are also naive.
Postponement is great news. India is doomed if it goes ahead with the expansion of nuclear technology. AREVA has a lousy track record with it un-proven EPR reactors. Why did the India Government sign such a big deal in view of Areva's problems in Finland and China. Will India learn anything from Fukushima? There is a dead zone of 30 square km around the nuclear plant. The radiation has permeated the ocean, land and air. It has affected every industry not only in Fukushima Prefecture but many of its neighbouring Prefectures. It has lost hundreds of thousand of jobs in industry, agriculture and tourism. People have to wear masks and carry dosimeters. All because of a man made technology. Nobody is buying any food or agriculture from any of these prefectures, this is affecting the entire economy. Tokyo had the biggest anti-nuke rally yesterday. If either Kalpakkam or the Koodankulam reactors have an accident then India will be in the same boat.
It is not only the safety of the nuclear plants which poses a serious problem, but also the nuclear waste produced by these. In Germany for example the authorities are not finding places safe enough to deposit the nuclear waste created by nuclear plants. There a lot of threats emanating from nuclear waste and this problem will harass India too. The risks of nuclear energy are more threatening and ever lasting as compared to the benefits for a short period.
Please Email the Editor