Lamenting the lack of public debate in India, the former Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, A.P. Shah, said during the public hearing on the safety, viability and cost efficiency of nuclear energy here on Saturday that the Jaitapur nuclear power project would be a catastrophe if all the safety concerns were not addressed.
Justice Shah, who is heading a people's tribunal along with the Justice S.D. Pandit on the project, said: “Enron was only a financial disaster, but this [Jaitapur project] would be a catastrophe. Unfortunately, there is no public debate in the country. Everything is hush-hush,” he said.
Appalled after being pointed out that there was no safety study conducted by the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC), he said, “There is a clear failure of undertaking a safety study.” He suggested that the EAC should send ask for another Environment Impact Assessment (EIA).
Deposing before the tribunal, Vivek Monteiro of the Konkan Bachao Samiti pointed out the procedural lapses during the granting of permission for the project. “There has been no official critical interrogation of the project done anywhere till now. Major safety factors are absent in the report,” he said.
“There is absence of the word ‘reprocessing' in the 1,200-page report of the EIA. Since radioactive waste management can span human generations, this must be taken into consideration,” he said.
Storage problem
Activists said that the amount of spent fuel produced by the project would be so much that it would have to be stored safely for 2.5-lakh years. “Long-term safe storage of radioactive substances has to be provided for. The EIA does not talk about it,” Dr. Monteiro said.
“The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is an important Ministry. If the sanction has been given by them, then the process is incomplete. Safety consideration should have come first,” Justice Shah said after hearing the deposition.
A researcher deposed before the tribunal citing case studies about the impact of nuclear projects on marine life in the coastal areas. Even Debi Goenka, Executive Trustee of Conservation Action Trust, said that the only condition put by the MoEF was that the temperature of the discharged water should not exceed more than five degrees Celsius with respect to the temperature of the sea water.
“Whereas the MoEF should also have stipulated that the absolute temperature of the mixed water should not exceed 33 degrees Celsius at any point of time, because at this temperature, marine life would be deprived of dissolved oxygen and would be unable to survive,” he said.
“Nobody has undertaken this study [on the impact on marine animals]. We are going to have six reactors with substantial energy production,” Justice Shah said.
Dr. Monteiro and Mr. Goenka said that the environmental clearance granted by the MoEF was only on political and strategic considerations and not on environmental basis.
Mr. Goenka said that there were many inconsistencies in the EIA report. There was no independent appraisal of the project from important perspectives such as plant design and its safety. Dr. Monteiro said that the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) had not approved the design and safety of the plant.
Justice Shah observed that the State government used “brutal force to suppress the people.” “We will visit Madban in July and submit our report by August,” he said.
“Though the authorities have opted not to appear before us, we will take into consideration their views,” he said, adding that after studying the depositions of various government bodies and organisations, the tribunal would send a questionnaire to the AERB and the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited.
Report by August
“Our report will be based on various aspects such as environmental issues, displacement, fishermen's problems, repression by the government. By August, we will release the report after following the due process,” he said.
The Tata Institute of Social Sciences deposed before the tribunal and handed over a copy of its fact-finding report titled ‘Refugees of development,' registering their opposition to the project.
