Expert allays fears on nuclear plants

March 14th, 2011 - 9:03 pm ICT by IANS  

Mumbai, March 14 (IANS) Leading nuclear expert Anil Kakodkar Monday asserted that Indian nuclear installations were safe and that seismic activity in the country was very different from that of Japan.

Addressing legislators in the Maharashtra assembly, the former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) sought to allay fears over the safety of nuclear plants after the nuclear fallout in disaster-hit Japan.

Kakodkar said that the nuclear installation at Fukushima - rocked by blasts - was essentially “safe”. The explosions took place as cooling did not take place following the quake-triggered tsunami.

However, he pointed out that the situation in Japan was fluid and the final assessment would be available in due course, after which the matter would become more clear.

Kakodkar said that in view of the Japan crisis, the designs of future nuclear reactors around the world would improve.

The World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) constantly monitors and modifies the changes in designs after reviewing the experiences of nuclear reactors in the world, he said.

Stating that seismic activity in India was different from Japan, Kakodkar said that after the Gujarat earthquake of 2001, the Kakrapar plant in Bhuj remained operational.

Agian, after the 2004 tsunami which hit south India, the Kalpakam plant in Tamil Nadu was shut down but restarted after a few days, he added.

“Indian nuclear reactors are safe,” Kakodkar assured the legislators.

“Although the Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant (JNPP) (in Maharashtra) is situated close to the coast, it is on a plateau high above the sea level which is important for protection from a tsunami,” Kakodkar said.

Moreover, compared to Japan, seismic activity was much less in India, he said.

In Japan, there are 54 nuclear reactors located in seismic zone IV and V, and in the US there are 10 nuclear reactors in seismic zone V — which are considered most earthquake-prone zones.

He said JNPP was in zone III, where seismic activity is less severe.

Replying to queries on considering solar energy as an alternative, Kakodkar was it was not available round the clock besides being economically unviable. It also required more land than nuclear projects.

Related Stories

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted in Politics |

Subscribe