Government of India has been attempting to open the Domisiat Mines in the Khasi Hills of Meghalaya for last 15 years and more (http://www.amd.gov.in/regions/ner.htm ; http://megspcb.gov.in/Documents/UCIL%20Project%20Report.pdf).But the recent decision by Government of Meghalaya to remove all the bottlenecks for this Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL) Project (http://www.telegraphindia.com/1091005/jsp/northeast/story_11573997.jsp) has brought both the groups - those in favour of the project (http://www.ptinews.com/news/334305_Pro-uranium-mining-groups-hold-rally-in-Shillong) and those opposed (http://www.telegraphindia.com/1091003/jsp/northeast/story_11567822.jsp) at loggerheads.This event has also brought the uranium mining debate in India to the fore.The public hearing for the project was completed in June 2007 (http://megspcb.gov.in/PublicHearing.html). The project has already secured environmental clearances from Ministry of Forest and Environment.The debate:The bureaucratic process of project approvals in India is hugely debatable.Is there enough transparency in the decision making process?Are the public hearings generally fair or manipulated?Has there been thorough and auditable base-line studies before the preparation of the project plan?Have the locals been thoroughly informed?The political muddling of the decision making process!!What are the facts on which the protests based? Do those protesting against the mine have their own vested interests? How many of those protesting are local stakeholders?Then the debate goes beyond the project in Meghalaya.Do we need Uranium mines in India?Can the risks associated with Uranium mining (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Health_risks_of_uranium_mining), its processing and nuclear power generation, and the disposal of waste (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste) be mitigated effectively?Eventually - is nuclear power the alternative to fossil fuel powered plants during these times when we are nearing the establishment of GHG emission protocols at Copenhagen!Uranium mining in Meghalaya and all the related issues perhaps need a thoroughly informed debate in this forum!It would be good to get all the views on this issue.
You need to be a member of Paryavaran.com- Indian Environment Network to add comments!
The cynicism and paranoia against mining is justifiable, if we have to look at the coal mines in Jharkhand and West Bengal and iron ore mines in Orissa and Bellary Hospet as illustrations of our mining practices. To me, mining standards in India, wrt environmental impact has a long way to improve to the global best work practices. The rathole mining for coal in Jaintia Hills in the same state of Meghalaya is probably one of the worst mining practices you would expect in a country like India, which is supposed to have systems and laws to prevent such polluting and unsafe mining.
Uranium mining in particular should not specifically be devastating unless badly managed. Some of the large modern uranium mines eg Olympic Dam in Australia, uranium mines in Athabasca in Canada or Rossing in Namibia have set the bench marks for uranium mining to the world. Containing radiation from a uranium mine is technologically easier and proven than disposing nuclear waste. However, can we trust UCIL to adopt these mining standards for Domisiat! And importantly, can we trust our regulatory and mines safety authorities for the role they are supposed to play to manage the systems!
To put it in simple words it is going to be a environmental disaster! I don't know what mining technique they are going to use-open cut, underground or in-situ leaching, in all of these three techniques a huge amount of risk is associated-for eclogy,groundwater,workers etc. and the way most of the mines in India are operating today, it will be a perefect recipe of a disater. In India we simply don't have that technology and above all that awareness and strict regulations to operate such a radioactive mine. Even in developed countries like-USA, Austrailia there are number of incidents of health hazard reported from the Uranium mining, even though those countries have a very strict environmental and safety regulation and they tend to follow it. In India with the given corruption level, I can't imagine that regulations will be followed properly and as it happens with coal if the illegal mining of Uranium starts to taking place, I don't know what will happen, I don't know whether the policy maker considers all those points or not! but India doesn't need and cann't handle a mine of highly radioactive element.
The said projects have been cleared by MoEF as is mentioned above. However, the ecological devastation the activities may cause, the effects on local biodiversity and the socio-economics of communities in those regions as well, if is considered by the concerned authorities remains doubtful.
The age old question still stands tall. Who should pay the cost? The polluter (mining companies), the beneficiaries (the users of the power generated, urban regions and industries), or the local (ecological refugees) and the nature?
Can we as consumers and the Government think about reducing the power demands instead?
Using nuclear fuel or coal, none of the options may provide perfect sustainable solutions. However, the reduction in demand may hold the seed of real sustainability.
Clean coal would be technology driven, and so would be clean nuke. In absence of a perfect solution, should the decision be based on probabilistic risks of each of these alternatives!! Agree, waste disposal is a major issue for which don't yet have a permanent solution, should we be considering today future technologies as part of sustainable solution !!
On the immediate issue of Uranium mining though, what's better resource sourcing option for our nuclear power plants.... getting enriched uranium from Namibia or Canada or getting them from indigenous mines!
Immediate energy is what our country needs but it can be sustainable. I really don't think that nuke is solution to our problems. I would certainly prefer clean coal then nuclear.
Replies
Uranium mining in particular should not specifically be devastating unless badly managed. Some of the large modern uranium mines eg Olympic Dam in Australia, uranium mines in Athabasca in Canada or Rossing in Namibia have set the bench marks for uranium mining to the world. Containing radiation from a uranium mine is technologically easier and proven than disposing nuclear waste. However, can we trust UCIL to adopt these mining standards for Domisiat! And importantly, can we trust our regulatory and mines safety authorities for the role they are supposed to play to manage the systems!
The age old question still stands tall. Who should pay the cost? The polluter (mining companies), the beneficiaries (the users of the power generated, urban regions and industries), or the local (ecological refugees) and the nature?
Can we as consumers and the Government think about reducing the power demands instead?
Using nuclear fuel or coal, none of the options may provide perfect sustainable solutions. However, the reduction in demand may hold the seed of real sustainability.
Clean coal would be technology driven, and so would be clean nuke. In absence of a perfect solution, should the decision be based on probabilistic risks of each of these alternatives!! Agree, waste disposal is a major issue for which don't yet have a permanent solution, should we be considering today future technologies as part of sustainable solution !!
On the immediate issue of Uranium mining though, what's better resource sourcing option for our nuclear power plants.... getting enriched uranium from Namibia or Canada or getting them from indigenous mines!