Nuclear Energy

governing the computers and systems that monitor and control the station’s performance, including
temperature, pressure and power output levels. While safety regulators of all these countries have
asked Areva to rectify this design problem, Indian regulators don't even mention that there is any
such problem – even when the problem identified by French, Finnish, UK and US regulators is
public knowledge! The least they could have done is copy their objections, something they are good
at!! dxci
Further, the EIA brushes aside the most important environmental problem of nuclear
reactors – the radiation leakages – by making the facile assertion that “the actual releases will be …
far lower than the stipulated limits”, without giving any scientific explanation or proof for its
postulation. And therefore, since the radiation leakage is going to be negligible, it simply ignores
the impact of this radiation release on the environment and health of the surrounding population!
One is left wondering, whether the EIA is a horoscope or a scientific document!! dxcii
Earthquake Danger Underestimated
The EIA also belittles another potentially serious problem with the Jaitapur plant – its siting
in an earthquake-prone zone. The seismic zone map of India divides the country into five zones,
from Zone I to V, depending upon the levels of intensity of past earthquakes in that region, with
Zone V being the areas liable for the most severe earthquakes. The EIA contends that the plant is in
Seismic Zone III (Moderate Damage Risk Zone), and that there is no earthquake activity around
Jaitapur site in a radius of 39 km. The implication is that the plant is in a safe zone. dxciii
Firstly, what should be remembered is that this classification is not foolproof, and it is possible for a
more intense earthquake to occur at a site which has been classified as being in a less intense zone.
Therefore, seismic zone classifications are not permanent, and they can be revised from time to
time, as more understanding is gained of the geology and seismic activity in the area. For example,
two major earthquakes, at Koyna (1967) and Latur (1993), occurred in areas categorized as Zone I,
supposedly the safest, causing these areas to be revised to Zone IV and III respectively. dxciv
And secondly, in contrast to the assertion of the EIA that there have been no earthquakes in
the Jaitapur region, the truth is that in the past 20 years alone, there have been three earthquakes in
Jaitapur exceeding 5 points on the Richter scale! In 1993, the region experienced one reaching 6.3,
leaving 9,000 people dead. Last year, an earthquake caused the bridge to Jaitapur to collapse. dxcv
Considering both the above points, it is possible that the Jaitapur EPR reactor could be
stuck with an earthquake of magnitude seven on the Richter scale; no nuclear plant has ever been
hit by an earthquake of this magnitude. And if that happens, then it could lead to a major accident,
as an earthquake has the possibility of simultaneously affecting many parts of the reactor.
To consider a real life example, a major earthquake of magnitude 6.4 dxcvi stuck Japan on 16
July 2007, severely damaging Japan's largest nuclear plant, the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power
station (KKNPS). The magnitude of the quake was more than twice as strong as the most extreme
cases considered while designing the reactor. It caused at least 50 cases of “malfunctioning” and
143