In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
W.P. No. of 2013
M.Vetri
Selvan
Advocate
1-P, Pandu
klix Plaza,
330/168,
Thambu Street,
Chennai -
600001 ..
Petitioner
vs
1.
Union of India
represented by the Secretary to Govt. of
India
Department of Atomic Energy
Anushakti Bhavan
Chatrapathi Shivaji Maharaj Marg
Mumbai 400 001
2. Union of India
represented by the Secretary to Govt.
Ministry of Environment and Forests
Paryavaran Bhawan
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road
New Delhi 110 003
3.The Chairman
Atomic Energy Regulatory Board
Niyamak Bhavan
Anushaktinagar
Mumbai
400 094
4. The Chairman and Managing Director
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited
Nambhkiya Urja Bhavan
Anushakti Nagar
Mumbai
400 094
5.
The Member Secretary
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
Guindy, Chennai 600 032 ...Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I, M.Vetri Selvan, S/o
S.Muthuraj, aged about 31 years, having
office at 1-P, Pandu klix Plaza,
330/168, Thambu Street, Chennai - 600 001 do hereby on solemn affirmation state
as under:
1.
I am the petitioner herein. I am conversant with the facts of the
case. I am competent to file this
affidavit.
2. I
state that I am an advocate having a standing of more than five years. I am
also actively associated with “Poovulagin Nanbargal”, a registered public trust
working for the protection of environment and forests. I am initiating this
Public Interest Litigation in discharge of my fundamental duties under Article
51-A (g), (h) and (j) of the
Constitution. Earlier I have filed a
public interest litigation viz. WP No. 26097 of 2011 questioning the failure
of the respondents to implement the Guidelines on Management of Nuclear and
Radiological Emergencies with regard to Madras Atomic Power Station, Kalpakkam,
Kancheepuram District.
3. I state that the Madras Atomic Power Station (MAPS) is
located at Kalpakkam, about 70 kms from Chennai City. The power station consists of two units
viz. MAPS-1 and MAPS-2. MAPS-1 and
MAPS-2 went critical in 1983 and 1985 respectively. At Kalpakkam, there are seven nuclear
organizations including MAPS viz. Bharatiya Nabhikiya Vidyut Nigam Ltd. (HQ),
Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, PFBR Project (IGCAR), Nuclear
Desalination Demonstration Plant (BARC), Kalpakkam Fuel Reprocessing Plant
(BARC) and General Services Organisation.
Presently, the MAPS produces 440 MW of electricity from the two
reactors. It is learnt that the Union of
India has plans for an additional 500 MW capacity in MAPS.
4. I state that on 26 March 1999 there
was Heavy water leaks in MAPS and seven people received a full radiation dose.
According to Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan, former Chairman of the Atomic Energy
Regulatory Board, in the early 1980s, the discovery of some pieces of zircalloy
in a moderator pump in MAPS Unit 1 was traced to the problem of substantial
crackingof the reactor inlet manifold and an identical problem surfaced in MAPS-2
also almost during the same period and that the synergy of different kinds of
serious safety issues in MAPS 1 and 2 put the station at a higher risk than
acceptable anywhere else in the world.
Frontline, a fortnightly in English, (March 16-23, 1999) reported about Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan’s view about the
said heavy water leak in MAPS:
“Gopalakrishnan said that going by the initial
estimates given by MAPS, several tones, possibly 14 tonnes, of heavy water
leaked out. “For this number the
declaration of a plant emergency makes sense,” he said. “You will not declare a plant emergency if
just one bucketful of heavy water leaks or about 10 workers are concerned. A very large amount must have gone into the
drain and spread out. The (tritium)
release must have also been sucked into the ventilation system.” It reports further: “Tritium is highly radioactive, with a
half-life of over 12 years. Tritium
content in heavy water increases with the number of years the reactor operates. Almost all the tritium continues to be in the
heavy water even if the reactor is shut down for a couple of months. When there is a spillage of heavy water, the
tritium affects the plant personnel.”
Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan, on account of the fact that micro-cracks in the
coolant tubes would ultimately lead to a fire in the reactor, expressed great
concern about the workers also. The
report says: “He demanded that personnel in MAPS be given the data on the
release of radiation and be told how much radiation they had ingested. He said that he was deeply concerned about
the use of contract labour for cleaning jobs because they were often
overexposed to radiation.”
5. I state that even after such caution by the
former Chairman of Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, there were two more
incidents in 2001 and 2002. On 30 May
2001, one Mr.S. Sivakumar, a worker, suffered internal contamination after a
neoprene glove was punctured. On 7 July
2002, one Selvakumar, a worker, burnt his left hand after he picked up a
radioactive substance. Moreover, as
reported in Tehelka (2010), the General Secretary of the BARC Facilities
Employees Association in his letter dated 24 January 2003 addressed to the
Director of Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) recounted in detail a
significant nuclear accident that took place on 21 January 2003 at MAPS where
one worker named Raju and 5 others including a woman were exposed to high
levels of radiation. After about eight
months of the accident, Mr.B. Bhattacharjee, then Director of BARC, termed it
“the worst accident in India’s nuclear history.”
6. I state that an estimated 30,000 workers live
in the five villages that fall within the 5 km radius from MAPS. There is a DAE township which accommodates thousands of permanent workers and
their families. Within the 16 km to 20
km radius from MAPS, there are about 60 villages where more than 1 lakh people
live. Since plant operations begain in
the early 1980s, incidents of cancer and auto-immune thyroid diseases in the
surrounding villages have increased. A
contract labour’s three year old child has been diagnosed with retinoblastoma
or cancer of eyes. Radiation from the
nuclear plant is responsible for the child’s condition, doctors say. Life of thousands of innocent people living
in the villages which are within the radius of about 16 km to 20 km from MAPS
is at stake.
7. I
state that the world was shocked to view the unprecedented nuclear disaster occurred
on March 11, 2011 at Fukushima Dai-ichi Plant, Japan. An estimated 11,000
people were evacuated in a 20-km radius around the nuclear plant immediately
after the accident. United Kingdom,
France and some other countries told their nationals to consider leaving Tokyo
with a view to escaping from radioactive contamination. Large amounts of radioactive isotopes were
also released into the Pacific Ocean. As of July 2011, the Japanese government
found it impossible to control the
spread of radioactive material into the nation’s food and radioactive material was being detected in a range of produce, including
spinach, tea leaves, milk, fish and beef, up to 200 miles from the nuclear
plant. Inside the 12-mile evacuation zone around the plant, all farming was
abandoned. As of August 2011, the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant was found
still leaking low levels of radiation and areas surrounding it was found uninhabitable for decades due to high
radiation. According to experts, it would be at least 20 years before the
residents could safely return to this area where high level radiation still
prevails. This nuclear disaster made the respondent-Nuclear Power Corporation
of India (NPCIL) on 15th March, 2011 constitutes four Task forces to
review consequences of Fukushima similar situations in Indian Nuclear Power
Plants under operation. One among the Task Force comprising an Executive
Director, Technical Services Superintend, MAPS, and three Additional Chief
Engineers has been constituted for “Safety Evaluation of Indian Nuclear Power
plants PHWRs at Madras Atomic Power Station (MAPS)”. This Task Force has
submitted an Interim Report by the end of March 2011. The Task force has made 12 Short term recommendations
and 8 long term recommendations to be carried out in the MAPS. The NPCIL-Task force report concludes stating:
“The recommendation of
the task forces have been reviewed and discussed. Action plans for the near
term and long term are being worked out. As brought out earlier, this report is
an interim one. As the event at Fukushima further unfolds and additional
information is available, the recommendations will be revisited and changes, if
any, will be incorporated.” The report also
fixes timeline for completion of the recommendations. The maximum period given
for fulfilling the recommendations is 14 months. It appears that no final report has so far been submitted by
the Task Force to the respondent-Union of India with regard to the completion
of recommendations made by the respondent NPCIL-Task force report.
8. I
state that respondent-Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) constituted a
committee on March 19, 2011 to review the safety of Indian Nuclear Power Plants
against external events of natural origin, in the light of the Fukushima
accident. The committee has submitted its report on 31st August,
2011. At paras 4.17 and 4.18, under the heading “Spent fuel storage
facilities”, the report reads:
“4.17. For
the spent fuel storage pools at our NPPs it is seen that the stored fuel
remains submerged in water for a period ranging from 9 to 16 days in the older
plants viz. TAPS-1&2, RAPS-1&2 and MAPS-1&2, and for over one month
in other plants, without any cooling or addition of water. Nevertheless an
external water hookup provision for changing water in the pools for all the
operating plants should be implemented. This make up capability should remain
unaffected by the external events and SBO. Provision for monitoring the level
and temperature of pool water and radiation fields inside the spent fuel
storage buildings under SBO should also be made. 4.18. Detailed site specific
safety assessment of spent fuel storage bays should be carried out with respect
to structural integrity and leak-tightness of pools, loss of pool water from
sloshing and, stability of fuel racks and mechanical handling equipment in case
of extreme earthquake event”.
Further the committee has also recommended as
follows:
“4.24.
The practice of storing spent radioactive ion exchange resins in underground
tanks should be discontinued as in case of earthquake or severe flooding this
can cause spread of radioactive contamination. The resins presently stored in
such tanks at TAPS and MAPS should be appropriately treated and disposed off.
4.25. Functional integrity of radioactive liquid effluent storage tanks and
surrounding dykes at NPPs should be assessed under beyond design basis external
events and corrective measures implemented as necessary”.
Annexure 5 to the AERB committee’s report under
the caption “8. Working group to review safety of near surface radioactive
waste disposal facilities and liquid waste storage tanks at NPP sites against
external events” reads:
“At TAPS
(1&2) and MAPS (1&2), spent resins generated from the reactors are
stored in underground tanks. The ingress of water into the storage tanks or
failure of storage tanks has the potential of spreading contamination in the
surrounding environment. At present the radionuclide monitoring data in bore
wells around the spent resin storage facility shows safety of storage as
activity levels are below the detection limit (BDL). This establishes the
integrity of storage tanks. The practice of storing spent resin in water at
underground tank needs further investigation. However, early immobilization of
these resins and discontinuation of practice of storage of spent resins in
underground tank is recommended.”
9. I state that the respondent-AERB has vide its communication
dated 31 May 2013 addressed to me under the Right to Information Act made it
clear that all the recommendations of NPCIL Committee/Task Force and the high
level AERB Committee constituted post-Fukushima disaster have not so far been implemented
with regard to MAPS. The AERB has also
admitted in the said communication : "AERB is aware of the information in
the Smithsonian's Global Volcanism Program official website about the reported
volcano (in 1757) located at about 100-110 km from Kalpakkam with status
uncertain. ... ... However, GSI and others have
recommended for further data/analysis in view of an inferred high density
material intrusion of remnant magnetisation based on magnetic and gravity
anomalies around the said location.
Based on the above feedback, AERB has asked the utilities at Kalpakkam
to undertake detailed study through expert agencies. The work in this regard is in
progress."
10. I state that the schedule to
2006 notification viz. Notification dated 14th September 2006 issued under the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 contains an entry "Nuclear power
projects and processing of nuclear fuel".
"Spent fuel", stored in MAPS, satisfies the expression
"Processing of nuclear fuel". Rule 2 (t) of the Atomic Energy
(Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004 defines nuclear fuel cycle to mean among
other things "radioactive waste management". "Unstoppable and Unstorable"
nuclear waste would always have environmental impact demanding fresh
Environment Impact Assessment and further demanding fresh Environmental
Clearance. Moreover, any environmental
clearance granted under the said notification for nuclear power project would
be valid only for a period of five years.
No environmental clearance has so far been obtained for storing spent
fuel in MAPS. The AERB Committee has
vide its recommendations with regard to storage of spent fuel in MAPS
emphasises that the practice of storing spent radioactive ion exchange resins
in underground tanks should be discontinued as in case of earthquake or severe
flooding this can cause spread of radiocative contamination. Fresh environment
impact assessment would be the need of the hour viewed in the light of the
stand of AERB that a detailed study with regard to the presence of volcano
about 100 - 110 kilometers near MAPS is in progress. Hence this Writ Petition
in public interest on the following ground :
GROUND
It is submitted that the
recommendations of the NPCIL Committee / Task Force and the AERB Committee
constituted post - Fukushima disaster have not so far been fully implemented by
the AERB and other respondents. It is
admitted by AERB vide its communication dated 31.05.2013 addressed to the
petitioner under the Right to Information Act that detailed study into the
presence of volcano near Madras Atomic Power Station, Kalpakkam is in progress. It is also admitted by the AERB that no
Environmental Clearance with regard to storage of spent fuel in MAPS has ever
been obtained by the respondent - authorities.
Obviously, unstoppable and unstorable nuclear waste would always have
environmental impact. It is saddening
to note that without any Environmental Clearance, Madras Atomic Power Station
(Units.I & II) is functioning for more than three decades. The Supreme Court has in G.Sundarrajan Vs
Union of India and others : (2013) 4 MLJ 46 (SC) held : "No plant
specifically the one dealing with radioactive materials can be allowed to
function or commission even if it has been cleared by AEC, AERB, NPCIL etc.
unless it strictly conforms to the standards set by the statutory authorities
like MoEF, TNPCB etc. and follow the environmental laws". The failure of the respondents to make a
fresh Environment Impact Assessment and obtain a fresh Environmental Clearance
with regard to Madras Atomic Power Station, Kalpakkam Units I & II would be
violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
11. I state that I have no personal interest in
the case. I have earlier filed a couple
of public interest litigations viz. WP No. 14866/2009 (M.Vetri Selvan Vs. Union
of India and others: 2010 (4) CTC 465) and W.P. No. 19192 of 2010 decided on
16.11.2010. I have also filed WP No.
8034/ 2011 decided on 01.04.2011 (Manivannan Vs. Union of India and others:
2011 (3) CTC 785). I undertake to pay
the costs, if any, if this PIL is found to be intended for personal gain or
oblique motive. I have filed this
petition from my own funds. To my
knowledge, no PIL arising on the issue raised in this petition has been filed
anywhere. This public interest
litigation is maintainable in law. The contents of this paragraph are in
compliance with the Rules to regulate the Public Interest Litigations filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Solemnly affirmed at Chennai Before me
this the 10th day of September 2013
and signed his name in my
presence.
: Advocate,
Chennai
MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION
UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION
In the High Court of
Judicature at Madras
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
W.P. No. of 2013
M.Vetri
Selvan
Advocate
1-P, Pandu
klix Plaza,
330/168,
Thambu Street,
Chennai -
600001 ..
Petitioner
vs
1.
Union of India
represented by the Secretary to Govt. of
India
Department of Atomic Energy
Anushakti Bhavan
Chatrapathi Shivaji Maharaj Marg
Mumbai 400 001
2. Union of India
represented by the Secretary to Govt.
Ministry of Environment and Forests
Paryavaran Bhawan
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road
New Delhi 110 003
3.The Chairman
Atomic Energy Regulatory Board
Niyamak Bhavan
Anushaktinagar
Mumbai
400 094
4. The Chairman and Managing Director
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited
Nambhkiya Urja Bhavan
Anushakti Nagar
Mumbai
400 094
5.
The Member Secretary
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
Guindy, Chennai 600 032 ...Respondents
WRIT PETITION UNDER
ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION
1.. The address for service of the petitioner
is that of his counsel M.Radhakrishnan, Advocate, 134, Thambu Chetty Street,
Chennai. 600 001.
2.. The address for service on the respondent
is as stated above.
3.. For the reasons stated in the accompanying
affidavit, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a WRIT OF
MANDAMUS forbearing the respondents from running the Madras Atomic Power Station
(Units I & II), Kalpakkam, Kanchipuram District without first obtaining
Environmental Clearance with regard to MAPS in accordance with law, and thus render justice.
Dated
at Chennai, this the 10th day of September 2013
Counsel
for the petitioner.
MEMORANDUM OF MISCELLANEOUS PETITION
UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION
In the High Court of
Judicature at Madras
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
M.P. No. of 2013
in
W.P. No. of 2013
M.Vetri
Selvan
Advocate
1-P, Pandu
klix Plaza,
330/168,
Thambu Street,
Chennai -
600001 ..
Petitioner
vs
1.
Union of India
represented by the Secretary to Govt. of
India
Department of Atomic Energy
Anushakti Bhavan
Chatrapathi Shivaji Maharaj Marg
Mumbai 400 001
2. Union of India
represented by the Secretary to Govt.
Ministry of Environment and Forests
Paryavaran Bhawan
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road
New Delhi 110 003
3.The Chairman
Atomic Energy Regulatory Board
Niyamak Bhavan
Anushaktinagar
Mumbai
400 094
4. The Chairman and Managing Director
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited
Nambhkiya Urja Bhavan
Anushakti Nagar
Mumbai
400 094
5.
The Member Secretary
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
Guindy, Chennai 600 032 ...Respondents
PETITION FOR INTERIM
DIRECTION
UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION
For the reasons stated in the
affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition it is prayed that the Hon'ble
Court be pleased to grant an interim direction directing the respondents to take
immediate steps for disposal of radioactive waste stored in and around Madras
Atomic Power Station (Units I & II), Kalpakkam, Kanchipuram District as
mandated by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board vide its report dated 31 August
2011 pending disposal of the Writ Petition and thus render justice.
Dated
at Chennai, this the 10th day of September 2013
Counsel
for the petitioner.
No comments:
Post a Comment