window._taboola = window._taboola || [];_taboola.push({mode: 'thumbnails-a', container: 'taboola-below-article-thumbnails', placement: 'Below Article Thumbnails', target_type: 'mix' });Latest News
A division bench of the Madras High Court on Friday described the apprehensions over the safety of the upcoming Koodankulam Nuclear Power Project (KKNPP) as unfounded.
Dismissing a batch of eight public interest writ petitions, the bench comprising justices P Jyothimani and M Duraiswamy said that the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) and the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) had taken note of the widespread damage to the nuclear power plants at Fukushima in Japan and set up a panel of experts to do a thorough study.
Besides, other agencies like the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) and the MS Swaminathan Research Foundation too went into the entire gamut of issues and categorically said that the apprehensions were unfounded.
When so many experts in the field had given concrete opinions multiple times, “it was not for this court to substitute its own view simply because there was a fear after the accident at Fukushima.
” Simply because there was a remote possibility of its replication, it did not mean that the KKNPP was useless, the bench said.
Taking note of the high demand for electricity in India and the major lag in generation because of variables like wind energy and coal availability, and the government’s considered view on harnessing nuclear energy, “this court could not make interference in the policy decision, which cost the exchequer Rs 14,000 crore and which was of basic importance and meant for the benefit of the public.”
Any such interference would go against public interest, the court observed.
In such a situation, public hearing could at best facilitate rectification of possible defects, but not kill the project, the bench said.
There was no question of using potable water from the Pechiparai dam, as alleged by the petitioners.
Potable water was used only for drinking purpose.
For the nuclear power project, only seawater was required, which would enter the plant wherein the coolant temperature was maintained at 7 degree C.
After production of energy, the water would be let out into the sea again where ambient temperature must be maintained.
The temperature at the point of discharge would not be more than 35 degree C.
“If that would not affect the flora and fauna, it was not for this court to say otherwise,” the judges said.
The court also rejected the contention that the people were entitled to know where the spent fuel was going to be stored.
Since it was of matter of national importance, the information was against public interest as it could expose the spent fuel to unscrupulous elements, the court said.
A thorough reading of the entire regulations showed constant surveillance and involvement of the AERB at every stage, not only up to the date of commissioning of the reactor, but also till the time when the reactor continued to function.
Adequate and sufficient safeguards were available and the apprehension of some sections was unfounded, the bench asserted.
The AERB, a statutory body, the MoEF and the TNPCB had applied their mind and statutorily passed various orders.
Hence, there was no scope for this court to presume that the orders were arbitrary, the bench observed.
Comments
0 comment