What is the Speciality of Tarapur?

Posted on : 06 Dec 2019

• The Project Affected Persons (PAPs) at Tarapur have been rehabilitated in line with the rehabilitation package formulated by the Maharashtra Government as per the then prevalent laws/acts.
• In addition, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) undertakes several programmes for the welfare of neighbourhood including PAPs, as a part of its Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). These include providing civic amenities, Healthcare, Education & Skill Development, Infrastructure, Sanitation and Sustainable Development.
• The Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) and NPCIL have made efforts to employ as many eligible people from among PAPs as possible, considering the requirements of the qualifications and skills required for various jobs in the nuclear power plants.

• The Tarapur Atomic Power Station (TAPS) is located near Boiser in the Thane District of Maharashtra. Begun as India's first atomic power project, the Indian Government decided to utilize Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs) for the plant.
• On 8 May 1964, a contract between the governments of India and the United States was signed for the construction of TAPS.
• Although the United States agreed to supply enriched uranium to TAPS for 30 years, this supply was cut off after the peaceful nuclear explosion at Pokhran in 1974. Since this time France, China, and Russia have all supplied uranium fuel to TAPS.

1. Tarapur Atomic Power Station (TAPS) which was seen recently in news is located in which state of India?

1.Maharashtra

2.Gujarat

3.Rajasthan

4.Uttar Pradesh

Right Ans : Maharashtra

The nuclear power plant at Tarapur, some 100 km from Bombay has in the 15 years of its existence generated more than its share of headlines.

Press coverage originally concentrated on the grand strides being made in nuclear science; as breakdowns in the plant became more frequent nagging doubts began to surface about the plant's safety.

Last fortnight, a lead story in The Times of India charging that radiation at the plant was dangerously near the maximum permissible limits and was a grave hazard to plant workers sparked off such a furore that the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) lifted its traditional shroud of secrecy to reveal facts and figures in support of its contention that all was well at Tarapur.

The DAE's most controversial disclosure was that while in 329 cases, workers had received more radiation than their yearly dose of 5,000 millirems, the limit suggested by the International Committee on Radiological Protection (ICRP), this did not amount to a safety hazard as the workers' exposure was lowered in subsequent years so that the yearly average of 5,000 millirems was maintained.

S.D. Soman, head of DAE's Health Physics division quoted ICRP publication No 26 stating that in exceptional cases a single exposure of over 10,000 millirems or even 25,000 millirems was permissible.To opponents of the nuclear plant this seemed like adding insult to injury. "Irresponsibility and callousness in DAE go hand in hand," huffed a newsman. Newspaper editorials demanded to know what was the use of fixing limits if they could be blithely broken. A writ in the Supreme Court, later withdrawn, demanded adequate protection for workers.

Medical Views: The DAE, however, is supported by experts in nuclear medicine who agree that the radiation levels to which Tarapur workers have been exposed to are not matter for a scare. Said Dr B.N. Sharma, director, Nuclear Medicine, Bombay Hospital: "If there was any real danger to the workers from the radiation doses mentioned I would be the first to say so, but the figures quoted do not seem to me to be a matter for alarm."

Added Dr R. D. Lele, head of the Department of Nuclear Medicine, Jaslok Hospital: "Five thousand millirems is an idealised frame of reference. If the cumulative dose of the worker averages 5,000 millirems a year it is not overly harmful. People have an exaggerated fear of radiation because it is the unknown enemy. The real killers such as gastro-enteritis, tetanus and malnutrition are accepted because of their familiarity."

To demonstrate the health of the Tarapur plant, Homi Sethna, DAE chairman, released to India Today the normally secret radioactive discharges chart. This shows that radioactivity discharges have been falling since 1976, belying charges that radioactivity in the plant is on the increase.

But, insist some scientists of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) the discharges chart is not necessarily an accurate reflection of the plant's health since it is an aggregate picture and does not indicate individual exposure.

"It is a balancing act and merely shows the average for the year. It does not reveal how individual limits may have been crossed during this period. The extent to which design parameters for radiation discharge have been exceeded are a better indication of the ill-health of the plant," said a scientist.

The Times's charge, in fact, is that power generation has to be kept low because of the high emission of radioactive matter. This is hotly refuted by Sethna who, while admitting that power generation has been steadily decreasing for the last six years - it is now less than 60 per cent of the total capacity of 420 mw - says that this is because of fuel shortages and operational difficulties.

In fact, the two most serious radiation accidents at the plant have been caused basically by ignorance. In 1976, a worker was in a radioactive area when he dropped his film badge, which registers the radiation dose.

He did not report the loss. Later, after reconstructing his movements and giving him the benefit of the doubt it was decided he had received a dose of around 18,240 millirems. In 1977, a civil maintenance painter received some 16,190 millirems when he slept through his entire eight-hour shift on top of radioactive laundry bags, as the laundry room happened to be unlocked.

The matter-of-fact attitude of the doctors towards the doses perhaps stems from the high levels of radiation in medical treatment, particularly in India where old equipment is commonplace.

A single X-ray can mean a radiation dose ranging from 100 millirems to 7,000 millirems, fluoroscopy from 3,000 to 5,000 millirems. A CAT-scan dose on an old machine works out to 7,000 to 15,000 millirems; on a new machine around 3,000 to 7,000 millirems.

In radiotherapy treatment for cancer, the doses are phenomenal, as much as 20,000 to 50,000 millirems and even higher than this over periods. Dr Lele, however, is quick to emphasise that there is no comparison between radiation workers and patients. In the case of patients it is necessary to take a small risk for the benefits involved.

Varied Doses: Nuclear science proponents charge that the opposition point of view is more ideological than rational, that atmospheric radiation at sea-level averages 77 millirems and can be much higher in a few freak areas.

In the monozite sands in Kerala, where there is a thorium belt, generations of fishermen and their families in 10 villages have been receiving a yearly average dose of 1,270 millirems.

The problem with estimating what exactly is a safe dose of radiation is that work done in the field is minimal and still basically unknown territory. Effects of radiation such as cancer, leukaemia and cataracts can take as long as 40 years to appear and it is possible that the effects will be found only in the next generation.

Low-dose radiation over a long period may well be more dangerous than single-shot radiation. The ICRP, while prescribing limits, agrees that there is no wholly safe radiation dose.The vintage design of the Tarapur plant in the rapidly developing nuclear industry is undeniable. No plant of this design is still in commission elsewhere in the world. Today's nuclear plants are designed to generate more power and have a much lower radioactive discharge. Tarapur's discharge was always high even in comparison with plants of its size. The plan, however, is for decommissioning Tarapur only in 1993. Until that time, officials and scientists are keeping their fingers crossed.

Published On:

Jul 20, 2013