taken up by presentations from the PAEC and its consultants, leaving hardly any time for comments from the public participants.”
Secondly, he said, the EIA for K2 and K3 submitted by the PAEC was of nearly 2,400 pages and full of technical details, yet Sepa had allowed only 16 days for the public to give comments on it. The time was too short even for experts, let alone a common citizen, he added.
Many of the claims made in the EIA need validation through technical studies, including computer simulations that cannot be done even by the best of experts in this short time. This fact has turned the public review of the EIA into an even bigger farce, he added.
“Pakistan’s nuclear establishment claims to closely follow the practices recommended by the International Atomic Energy Commission and the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The latter organisation takes six months to a year in reviewing an EIA of a new power plant. This is the least that should be followed in Pakistan too,” Nayyar pointed out.
He said that due to its proximity to the city, the project exposed the city population to grave risks from a possible Chernobyl or Fukushima-like reactor accident, and hence its impacts needed to be studied most carefully. “In our first study, we have noticed serious flaws in the EIA, and if the EIA is approved in haste using unfair means, we see the project having potential to cause grave harm to the city population,” he said.
“We urge Sepa to give the citizens a time of at least three months for studying and making comments on the EIA of theK2-K3 reactors; and hold the public hearing of the EIA in an easily accessible public place.”
Psychiatrist Prof Haroon Ahmed said the nuclear reactors would pose health hazards too to the people as happened in other parts of the world.
Responding to a question, Nayyar said Kanupp had been working at 28 percent of its capacity, whereas usually such plants ran at 60 percent of their capacity.
“We are not anti-development, we are for development,” he told another questioner.
He said the alternative to nuclear energy was Thar coal. Then there was huge potential of wind and solar energy. He said wind energy was the most expanding form of energy across the globe and in China alone 23,000MW of electricity was being generated through wind energy.
Nayyar said the worst case scenario was a severe accident and since most of the time of the year wind blows from the designated site of K2-K3 towards Karachi it would have a catastrophic impact on the populace and the city’s environment.
He said the nuclear reactors would throw its warm water into the sea and since the area hosts endangered species such as green turtles, they would be hurt.
“It’s an irresponsible EIA,” he remarked. He said Karachi’s population in the EIA was stated as 15 million and reactors’ age was 60 years and one could image the population of the city after 60 years.
Karamat Ali said the Sindh government had not been consulted and the issue should have been discussed in the Sindh Assembly.