The International Atomic Energy Agency and the Japanese government plan to set up a long-term research base in Fukushima to study ways to decontaminate radiation-tainted areas and dispose of radioa

Health and environment are as important as is plant safety, says judge

The Supreme Court has asked the Centre to spell out how nuclear waste/spent fuel will be handled or transported after the Kudankulam plant in Tamil Nadu becomes operational. A Bench of Justices K.S. Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra on Wednesday wanted to know from the Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL), how it intended transporting the nuclear waste out of the plant and store it in a safe place without affecting environment.

Russia on Monday expressed its displeasure over the civil nuclear liability law that seeks to cover Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant (KKNPP) 3 and 4 and problems faced by its telecom company Sistema saying that the rules of the game should not be changed mid-way.

Unit 1 of KKNPP is due to be commissioned soon, while Unit 2 is at an advanced stage and will be commissioned next year. Addressing a joint press conference after co-chairing the Indo-Russian Inter-Governmental Commission meeting on Trade, Economic, Scientific, Technological and Cultural Cooperation (IRIGC-TEC), external affairs minister S.M. Krishna and Russian deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin resolved to meet the desired bilateral trade target of `20 billion by 2015.

Ahead of a bilateral meeting here Monday, Russia said Sunday the cost of the next phase of the Kood-ankulam atomic project will rise if it has to bear extra liabilities in case of a possible nuclear accident.

Russian deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin, who has come for the Inter-Governmental Commission meeting, told reporters: “If there are several points that require additional assurances, of course it will require additional money to be paid by India.”

Kudankulam plant must be governed by constitutional principles of absolute liability and ‘polluter pays’

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice to the Centre on a writ petition seeking a direction that the Kudankulam nuclear plant in Tamil Nadu not commissioned without resolving Russia’s liability in case of a nuclear accident. A Bench of Justices K.S. Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra granted the Centre three weeks to respond to the petition by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation, Common Cause, the former Union Power Secretary E.A.S. Sarma and social activist from Tamil Nadu G. Sundarrajan.

Contrary to apprehensions in official circles here, talks between India and Japan on a civil nuclear cooperation agreement are on the track with both sides appearing keen to expedite the negotiatio

The European Union’s energy chief may have declared that the bloc’s 143 nuclear power stations are “satisfactory” but a report on the state of each of those nuclear reactors has pointed to hundreds of problems was presented to EU three days ago in Brussels. The report suggests that the problems to be sorted out at the reactors could cost up to $40 billion or about `2 lakh crores.

The report, commissioned after the Fukushima disaster in 2011, stated, “On the basis of the stress test results, practically all nuclear plants need to undergo safety improvements. Hundreds of technical upgrade measures have already been identified.”

The safety of the Kudankulam nuclear power plant and storage of nuclear waste is of prime concern that should be addressed by the Union Government, the Supreme Court told the Centre on Thursday.

Hearing petitions relating to the plant, a Bench of Justices K. S. Radhakrishnan and Deepak Misra told Attorney-General G. E. Vahanvati, Solicitor-General Rohinton Nariman and Additional Solicitor-General Mohan Parasaran, “From the first day, we are saying that safety is the most important issue, people’s lives should be protected.”

Kudankulam plant is absolutely safe even without the 17 recommendations of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, says NPCIL

During a hearing in the Supreme Court on Thursday on petitions related to the Kudankulam plant, Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the plant got a vague environmental clearance in 1989 when the site was not decided, no Environment Impact Assessment was done and no public hearing was conducted which was mandatory under law. He said three critical changes were made in the plant.