DEFECTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORTS FOR INDIAN REACTORS
http://mvramana.yolasite.com/resources/EIAReview-PublishedVersion.pdf [see this web for Details]
http://www.damsafetyaction.org/TX/docs/Texas-LargeDAM-EAPExample.pdf
http://tshivajirao.blogspot.com/2011/08/diaster-consequences-of-kovvada-nuclear.html
The above web asites and their links must be studied to estimate the deficiencies in this article on EIA.
This article is not a comprehensive compilation of the basic components of an EIA Report made for any Chemical industry or a Hazardous Big Dam as specified by the Union ministry of Environment& Forests.see web sites :http://cwc.gov.in/main/downloads/EAPChapters.pdf
The environmental impact assessment process for nuclear facilities: An examination
of the Indian experience
M.V. Ramana , Divya Badami Rao
Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development, ISEC Campus, Nagarbhavi, Bangalore
India plans to construct numerous nuclear plants and uranium mines across the country, which could have
significant environmental, health, and social impacts. The national Environmental Impact Assessment
process is supposed to regulate these impacts. This paper examines how effective this process has been, and
the extent to which public inputs have been taken into account. In addition to generic problems associated
with the EIA process for all kinds of projects in India, there are concerns that are specific to nuclear facilities.
One is that some nuclear facilities are exempt from the environmental clearance process. The second is that
data regarding radiation baseline levels and future releases, which is the principle environmental concern
with respect to nuclear facilities, is controlled entirely by the nuclear establishment. The third is that
members of the nuclear establishment take part in almost every level of the environmental clearance
procedure. For these reasons and others, the EIA process with regard to nuclear projects in India is of dubious
quality. We make a number of recommendations that could address these lacunae, and more generally the
imbalance of power between the nuclear establishment on the one hand, and civil society and the regulatory
agencies on the other.
1. Introduction
India plans a large expansion of nuclear power. The Indian
Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) projects that hundreds of nuclear
reactors will be constructed over the next few decades (Grover and
Chandra, 2006). There is widespread concern about the potential
environmental impact of these projects. At those sites that have been
selected for new reactors, there has been significant grassroots level
opposition. The formal manner in which this has been expressed most
often is through the public consultation part of the environmental
impact assessment (EIA) process.
The Environment Impact Assessment Notification of 2006
(EIAN2006) lists “nuclear power projects and processing of nuclear
fuel” as requiring environmental clearances. However, not all facilities
that are involved in the processing of nuclear fuel are subject to this
procedure, for example, the reprocessing plants that chemically
process radioactive spent fuel discharged from nuclear reactors,
including civilian reactors.1 Barring such exceptions, nuclear facilities
do have to be granted environmental clearances by the Ministry of
Environment and Forests (MoEF).
This paper examines the effectiveness of the environmental
impact assessment process for nuclear facilities in India. We focus
on the three key components: the EIA study itself, the public
consultation, and the expert committee that oversees the clearance.
By analyzing a number of nuclear projects that have received
environmental clearances so far, we investigate if the process has
actually identified the project's potential adverse impacts, the quality
of the impact assessment, and the extent to which public concerns
have been incorporated into decision making.
We end with a number of recommendations that could help
improve this process. Broadly speaking, the thrust of these recommendations
is to improve the balances of power between the nuclear
establishment on the one hand, and the regulatory agencies and civil
society on the other hand. As our discussion below shows, currently
the DAE and associated organizations possess overwhelming political
power and can ensure favorable decisions in almost all cases.
2. Environment impact assessment studies
The EIA for nuclear projects is commissioned by the project
authorities themselves. As Wathern (1988) has identified, the
problem is that in the absence of “adequate safeguards, proponents
may be tempted to regard EIA simply as a means of obtaining project
authorization and present only those results which show proposals in
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 30 (2010) 268–271
⁎ Corresponding author. Program on Science and Global Security, 221 Nassau Street,
Floor 2, Princeton, NJ 08542, USA. Tel.: +1 609 258 1458.
E-mail addresses: mvramana@gmail.com (M.V. Ramana), di.badamirao@gmail.com(D.B. Rao).
1 According to an official in the Ministry of Environment and Forests who preferred
not to be identified, reprocessing activities avoid the clearance process because they
“take shelter under the strategic program”, i.e., they claim that there may be nuclear
weapons related activities which cannot be disclosed.
http://mvramana.yolasite.com/resources/EIAReview-PublishedVersion.pdf [see this web for Details]
http://www.damsafetyaction.org/TX/docs/Texas-LargeDAM-EAPExample.pdf
http://tshivajirao.blogspot.com/2011/08/diaster-consequences-of-kovvada-nuclear.html
The above web asites and their links must be studied to estimate the deficiencies in this article on EIA.
This article is not a comprehensive compilation of the basic components of an EIA Report made for any Chemical industry or a Hazardous Big Dam as specified by the Union ministry of Environment& Forests.see web sites :http://cwc.gov.in/main/downloads/EAPChapters.pdf
The environmental impact assessment process for nuclear facilities: An examination
of the Indian experience
M.V. Ramana , Divya Badami Rao
Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development, ISEC Campus, Nagarbhavi, Bangalore
India plans to construct numerous nuclear plants and uranium mines across the country, which could have
significant environmental, health, and social impacts. The national Environmental Impact Assessment
process is supposed to regulate these impacts. This paper examines how effective this process has been, and
the extent to which public inputs have been taken into account. In addition to generic problems associated
with the EIA process for all kinds of projects in India, there are concerns that are specific to nuclear facilities.
One is that some nuclear facilities are exempt from the environmental clearance process. The second is that
data regarding radiation baseline levels and future releases, which is the principle environmental concern
with respect to nuclear facilities, is controlled entirely by the nuclear establishment. The third is that
members of the nuclear establishment take part in almost every level of the environmental clearance
procedure. For these reasons and others, the EIA process with regard to nuclear projects in India is of dubious
quality. We make a number of recommendations that could address these lacunae, and more generally the
imbalance of power between the nuclear establishment on the one hand, and civil society and the regulatory
agencies on the other.
1. Introduction
India plans a large expansion of nuclear power. The Indian
Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) projects that hundreds of nuclear
reactors will be constructed over the next few decades (Grover and
Chandra, 2006). There is widespread concern about the potential
environmental impact of these projects. At those sites that have been
selected for new reactors, there has been significant grassroots level
opposition. The formal manner in which this has been expressed most
often is through the public consultation part of the environmental
impact assessment (EIA) process.
The Environment Impact Assessment Notification of 2006
(EIAN2006) lists “nuclear power projects and processing of nuclear
fuel” as requiring environmental clearances. However, not all facilities
that are involved in the processing of nuclear fuel are subject to this
procedure, for example, the reprocessing plants that chemically
process radioactive spent fuel discharged from nuclear reactors,
including civilian reactors.1 Barring such exceptions, nuclear facilities
do have to be granted environmental clearances by the Ministry of
Environment and Forests (MoEF).
This paper examines the effectiveness of the environmental
impact assessment process for nuclear facilities in India. We focus
on the three key components: the EIA study itself, the public
consultation, and the expert committee that oversees the clearance.
By analyzing a number of nuclear projects that have received
environmental clearances so far, we investigate if the process has
actually identified the project's potential adverse impacts, the quality
of the impact assessment, and the extent to which public concerns
have been incorporated into decision making.
We end with a number of recommendations that could help
improve this process. Broadly speaking, the thrust of these recommendations
is to improve the balances of power between the nuclear
establishment on the one hand, and the regulatory agencies and civil
society on the other hand. As our discussion below shows, currently
the DAE and associated organizations possess overwhelming political
power and can ensure favorable decisions in almost all cases.
2. Environment impact assessment studies
The EIA for nuclear projects is commissioned by the project
authorities themselves. As Wathern (1988) has identified, the
problem is that in the absence of “adequate safeguards, proponents
may be tempted to regard EIA simply as a means of obtaining project
authorization and present only those results which show proposals in
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 30 (2010) 268–271
⁎ Corresponding author. Program on Science and Global Security, 221 Nassau Street,
Floor 2, Princeton, NJ 08542, USA. Tel.: +1 609 258 1458.
E-mail addresses: mvramana@gmail.com (M.V. Ramana), di.badamirao@gmail.com(D.B. Rao).
1 According to an official in the Ministry of Environment and Forests who preferred
not to be identified, reprocessing activities avoid the clearance process because they
“take shelter under the strategic program”, i.e., they claim that there may be nuclear
weapons related activities which cannot be disclosed.
No comments:
Post a Comment