Convinced that the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) installation is safe, the French government recently granted the fusion project the necessary permission to start construction in Cadarache. There are many firsts to the project. Maintaining transparency has been one of ITER’s most significant features and organising an enquiry to give the public an opportunity to formulate its opinion has set a new benchmark for openness. Independent experts assessed the safety of the fusion project and the public was not just taken into confidence but made an integral part of the project construction approval process. In effect, the two-and-a-half-year effort fully met the requirements set forth by France’s own 2006 Nuclear Transparency and Security legislation. If the French government took a bold decision to bring about more transparency and public engagement before nuclear projects are cleared, the clearance given to ITER tells us that it is indeed possible to meet the stringent requirements laid down by the law.
The ITER approval highlights the fact that the public is not unreasonable or obstinate. All people want is to be provided with facts, made fully aware of the benefits and risks, convinced that complete transparency is being maintained, and that their opinion is being taken into account on an important decision. Internationally, the nuclear industry is well known for maintaining opacity and for refusing to take the public into confidence. In India, the situation is compounded by the excessive secrecy surrounding all things nuclear, and by the lackadaisical and hurried manner in which environmental impact assessments are often carried out. As for the mandatory public hearings for large projects, both nuclear and non-nuclear, these frequently descend into chaos if not farce. The sustained local opposition to the Kudankulam nuclear power plant continues unabated even days before the first two units are to become operational. While many valid questions concerning the safety aspects of the plant have not been clearly answered, public apprehension to a great extent has come from imagined fear, misconceptions and an improper understanding of the technology-intensive project. It is time the Indian nuclear establishment realised that it can no longer bulldoze its way. Winning public approval is not only important but necessary for two reasons — the Chernobyl catastrophe and the 2011 Fukushima disaster are fresh in people’s mind, and the government has major plans to construct many power nuclear plants across the country.
Keywords: International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, ITER, Cadarache, France, nuclear fusion reactors, nuclear safety
Government must by now have learnt from the Kudangulam project that without the local population's express consent they cannot go ahead with any project, particularly nuclear. The entire nation is now fully aware, as a result of the Bhopal Gas tragedy and the Fukishama disaster, of the dangers involved in case of an accident either due to natural cause or human error. However much the scientists may try to explain the safety aspects of the project, it will have no impact on those living in the area due to fear psychosis which it is difficult to erase from their mind.
In energy deficient country like India Non polluting renewable and nuclear energy are future
energy sources.Considering the rising energy demand India must expand its civil nuclear
energy programme.But this should be done only after public is taken into confidence ,public
fear due to recent Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster about safety are removed through
national and local level debate consisting of eminent scientists,local public,politicians
etc.Today public opposition at Kudankulam,Jaitapur nuclear plant shows lack of trust
between public and government on nuclear energy issue.Also other forces are taking
benefits of situation and adding oil to this fire.
France has shown,how much it is important that in a democracy public is well informed.
Transparency,public involvement are features of vibrant democracy.Similar kind of standards
India needs to follow if we want to continue our three stage nuclear energy programme .
Firstly it is naive to believe that the French public have all read the 6000 pages of Technical document presented to the ASN by ITER and they have all understood and voted accordingly in public hearing !
Secondly, in any public hearings held, it is only the Project affected people - whose land has been acquired at throw away prices, who are likely to be displaced, who are likely to be exposed to the pollution, who are likely to be financially affected in some way by the project, or some political opponents, etc only attend the meeting.
No common man who is going to be benefited by the project is attending. This is a fact.
Given this reality, how is it going to be a sober one, with any one listening to the technicalities of the project and seeing reason to support the project ?
Kudankulam / POSCO are typical examples of how innocent project affected people can be mislead and how it is impossible to convince them once they are prejudiced. Any number of Abdul Kalams will not work !
It is very important for people to awareness of what is the advantage and disadvantage of nuclear reactor.And the people should have right to give his advice about it. So this is very important to implement a reactor like ITER.
Transparency is the most important aspect of nuclear industry. As risk
analysts we ask questions about various accident scenarios that are
possible. It's very important that people ask questions too. As many
as they can and pertaining to as diverse fields as are possible. This
approach has a dual advantage: 1) it helps in building a large
database of possible scenarios which is used in advancement of
technology; 2) as people are much more tolerable to voluntary risk
than involuntary risk, there is less chance of future oppositions to
projects, if people are involved.
Unfortunately, while in France people are mostly educated, we have
large portion of illiterates and literates only. Even the educated
ones lack the quality and prudence. While we can't expect everyone to
be a nuclear scientist but people should be prudent and inquisitive
enough to launch their own research on the important safety aspects.
We still have a tendency to be driven into crowds.
Please Email the Editor