Old Plans, Ongoing Handouts, New Spin - Deciphering the Nuclear Construction Announcement

M V Ramana (m.v.ramana@ubc.ca ) and Suvrat Raju (suvrat.raju@gmail.com ) are physicists associated with the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace, and currently based in Princeton and Bengaluru, respectively. Ramana is the author of The Power of Promise: Examining Nuclear Energy in India (Penguin India, 2012).

In May 2017, the union cabinet approved the construction of 10 more 700 megawatt pressurised heavy water reactors. A careful reading of this largely public relations spin on existing plans suggests that it chiefly hopes to persuade the Nuclear Suppliers Group to accept India as a member and attract capital that aims to profit from supplying components for nuclear power plants. Given our track record, the prospects of it adding to the role of nuclear power in India appear bleak.

On 17 May 2017, the union cabinet gave its approval for the construction of 10 more 700 megawatt (MW) pressurised heavy water reactors (PHWRs) (IANS 2017). These PHWRs will be in addition to four such reactors already under construction. The cabinet secretariat's official press release read like a sales pitch, and claimed that the construction of these 10 reactors would "help transform Indian nuclear industry" and that it would "be a major step towards strengthening India's credentials as a major nuclear manufacturing powerhouse" (Press Information Bureau 2017). The Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) and the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) put out their own press releases, profusely hailing the decision (NPCIL 2017c; DAE 2017).

The reality underlying these announcements is far less spectacular. Plans for building many PHWRs have been enunciated in the past, and have not materialised. A more careful reading of the announcement suggests that it is targeted at persuading the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to accept India as a member and winning over sections of capital that hope to profit from supplying components for nuclear power plants. This publicity blitz notwithstanding, nuclear power will continue to be an expensive and relatively minor source of electricity for the foreseeable future.

Planning History

The chosen designs for the 10 reactors, the 700 MW PHWR, is one that the Indian nuclear establishment has evolved over the decades, starting with the original 220 MW design imported from Canada (Bhardwaj 2006). Of the 22 nuclear reactors operating in India today, 14 are 220 MW PHWRS and they account for about 3,080 MW of the total installed nuclear capacity of 6,780 MW, which in turn constitutes 2.1% of the total electricity generation capacity in the country. Apart from a few other smaller and older plants, the rest of this total capacity is largely provided by the two 540 MW PHWRs operating in Tarapur, and the two imported 1,000 MW light water reactors (LWRs) at Kudankulam.

The DAE has been planning to build a fleet of 700 MW PHWRs for a long time, and so the government's decision is neither "bold" nor new, and simply constitutes one more step in this direction. In 2007, the DAE announced that as part of the Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007–12), "work on 8 × 700 MWe of indigenous reactors totalling 5,600 MWe capacity" would commence (NI 2007). Of these, fourreactors are already under construction—two each at Kakrapar (Gujarat) and Rawatbhata (Rajasthan). Construction of Kakrapar—3 and Kakrapar—4 began in November 2010 and March 2011 respectively (NPCIL 2017a), whereas Rajasthan—7 and Rajasthan—8 began in July and September 2011 respectively (NPCIL 2017b). In December 2012, the government stated in the Rajya Sabha that work on eight more 700 MW reactors would commence during the Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012–17) at Kaiga, Chutka, Gorakhpur, and Mahi Banswara (Narayanasamy 2012). However, none of these projects began during the Twelfth Plan.

Although not mentioned in the official press releases, media reports suggest that these are the very sites targeted for the current approval. This history suggests that the recent announcement is largely a public relations spin on existing plans that had already been set in motion by the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government.

The Export Story

The government's announcement also recycles other old tropes. For example, it plays up the role of this effort in "strengthening India's credentials as a major nuclear manufacturing powerhouse." This is the latest in a long sequence of efforts by the nuclear establishment to position itself as an exporter of nuclear reactors.

The DAE's rhetorical desire to export nuclear technology dates back to the early 1990s (see, for example, ToI 1990). But claims about the potential for nuclear reactor exports multiplied during the debate over the US–India nuclear deal between 2005 and 2008, and have continued since then.

The rationale for these claims—apart from burnishing the institutional credentials of the DAE—was to persuade members of the NSGto see India as good enough to be admitted to the club. This diplomatic effort, initiated by the UPA government, has been adopted by the Narendra Modi government. Despite its embarrassing failure to do so last year, the government appears to be launching arenewed effort to join the NSG by making claims about exports of Indian PHWRs.

However, the nuclear establishment's efforts at obtaining export orders for its reactors have not been particularly successful.

In 2007, for example, the chairman of NPCIL announced that the company was "considering exporting small and medium reactors (220 MW to 700 MW) to countries in the Asian region" and that "Thailand and Cambodia have held preliminary talks with NPCIL for reactors as they are satisfied with NPCIL's safety and operational capabilities" (Wadke and Subramanian 2007). In 2009, it was the turn of a different country and NPCIL announced that a "proposal for reactor sales to Kazakhstan is already on the anvil, with discussions between NPCIL and the Central Asian nation's nuclear utility Kazatomprom at an advanced stage" (Bureau 2009). The same year, DAE Secretary Anil Kakodkar announced that India had made an export version of its advanced heavy water reactor design, called the AHWR–LEU, which would use low enriched uranium (LEU) instead of the plutonium used in the original AHWR design. The target for this reactor design was to be developing countries "with modest industrial infrastructure" (WNN 2009).1

None of these countries have so far purchased any reactors from India. Nor is it likely that there will be any sales in the near future. Around the world, nuclear power, as a share of electricity generated, is on the decline, from the historical maximum of 17.6% in 1996 to under 11% in 2015 (BP 2015; Ramana 2016). Although there is much talk of new countries adopting nuclear power, as of 2016, only two new countries were actually building reactors—Belarus and the United Arab Emirates (Schneider and Froggatt 2016: 13). Just about every reactor sold in the last decade or more has been a LWR and prospects for the export of Indian PHWRs are bleak.

Corporate Handouts

A second target for the announcement is evidently the various corporations that profit from supplying equipment to nuclear power plants. All of the official announcements specifically mentioned these companies. NPCIL commented on the approval generating "confidence in the Indian nuclear industry about the continuity of business as it would provide orders over a period of time" and how it "would also help the Indian industry evolve, augment its capacities and capabilities" (NPCIL 2017c). The DAE's press release, a statement from a group of retired nuclear bureaucrats, talked about "new enthusiasm and optimism among equipment manufacturing industry", predicting that it "is poised to grow in tandem with our programme, bringing India to the frontline of global nuclear manufacturing and supply chain" (DAE 2017). Most importantly, the government press release talked about "likely manufacturing orders of close to 70,000 crores" being given to domestic industry (Press Information Bureau 2017).

Although there are a number of such corporations, a few of them capture most of the contracts. Historically, some of the prominent companies involved in such supplies are Larsen & Toubro (L&T), Walchandnagar, and Tata Consulting Engineers. Most of these corporate entities naturally welcomed the government's announcement. The director of L&T called the move "bold and historic" (Reuters 2017). Likewise, the chief operating officer of Godrej & Boyce termed it a "visionary" step (Bureau 2017).

Many of these companies had been hoping for major contracts from imported reactors. Take the case of L&T. In 2008, its top official had publicly expressed the expectation that it would get offers of around ₹24,000 crore per year for 10 years (MC 2008). In April 2015, L&T signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with French company Areva to carry out some of the manufacture for the EPR reactor planned for construction in Jaitapur (PTI 2015). Kalyani Group company Bharat Forge had earlier signed an MoU with Areva for the manufacture of forgings related to nuclear plants (Staff 2009). Tata Consulting Engineers had signed a preliminary contract with General Electric Hitachi "to collaborate in areas such as workforce skills identification and development, as well as early feasibility design studies, product and project engineering work" (GEH 2010).

In late 2015, in anticipation of reactor imports from the US, the chairman of the Godrej Group, Adi Godrej, excitedly said, "There will be a huge opportunity". And the chief executive officer (CEO) of the Walchandnagar Group was "very hopeful that before the end of the financial year … enquiries [would] start to come in" (Reuters 2015).

Although this bonanza from imported reactors has not materialised, contracts for nuclear plants can still be very large and profitable. For example, in March 2009, L&T received a ₹345 crore order for four steam turbines for Kakrapar—3 and Kakrapar—4, and in September 2009, two orders worth ₹405 crore (Larsen & Toubro 2009a, b). In December 2012, it received an order valued at "over ₹732 crores" (Larsen & Toubro 2012). It is likely that the number of large private—sector companies involved in the nuclear reactor business will expand in the coming years, and the recent announcement should be seen as a strategy to win over those sections of capital.

Cost

Ultimately, the cost of these handouts and efforts to woo NSG members will be paid by the public. Each of these 10 reactors will be hugely expensive propositions, as suggested by the ₹70,000 crore figure for manufacturing orders mentioned in the official announcement. Although the government has not so far provided a cost projection, we can come up with a rough estimate on the basis of earlier experience.

We can start with the last two PHWRs under construction, Rajasthan—7 and Rajasthan—8. Construction of these began six years ago and they were estimated to cost ₹12,320 crore or about ₹6,160 crore per reactor (Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation 2012). These projects have been delayed by at least two years due to what the government terms "major equipments supply constraints," referring to the inability of commercial manufacturers to manufacture components for these reactors on schedule. This itself suggests that the government's plan to manufacture 10 reactors in "fleet mode" may be overly ambitious.

Delays inevitably lead to an escalation in cost. Although the government has not announced the precise cost escalation at the Kakrapar and Rajasthan projects, even a very conservative estimate using just the additional cost of debt servicing in building the project over seven rather than five years suggests an escalation of about 15% in costs. In addition, the construction cost index for power sector projects has gone up by more than 20% (CIDC 2017). Putting these factors together suggests that even if construction were to be started immediately, each new 700 MW PHWR would cost about ₹8,500 crore, and 10 PHWRs would cost ₹85,000 crore. The true cost is likely to be even higher.

This high—cost implies that the electricity from these reactors is likely to be more expensive than electricity from competing sources of energy—even if the comparison is restricted to so—called base load sources, such as coal, natural gas, and hydroelectric power. Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power have also declined in cost. As we have discussed earlier (Raju and Ramana 2013; Ramana 2007), the government's tariff model for nuclear power hides several indirect costs. These include an inconsistent accounting of the time—value of the equity invested in nuclear plants, and significant subsidies for the heavy water that is used in PHWRs. We will explore this issue in a forthcoming article.

Evaluation

Announcements are, of course, easier than delivery. There has been a history of the nuclear establishment setting ambitious targets and making tall claims. A particularly relevant example dates back to 1984, when the DAE announced that it would be constructing a number of PHWRs (CAG 1999). That plan involved building 12 235 MW PHWR units and 10 500 MW units by 2000, which were to bring the country's nuclear power generation capacity to 10,000 MW by the turn of the century (Ramanna 1985). That did not happen. Instead, as the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) found in 1999, the "actual additional generation of power" from this plan "was nil in spite of having incurred an expenditure of ₹5,291.48 crore." Installed nuclear capacity at the end of 2000 was 2,720 MW, less than a third of the target.

Plans to import LWRs from France and the US have also failed. Plans for imported LWRs were announced at the beginning of the decade as part of a new target of 20,000 MW by 2020 (Chidambaram 2001). But these import plans did not, for the most part, become serious till the 2008 decision by the NSG to lift the ban on nuclear trade with India. At that time, NPCIL assumed that construction of the first imported LWR would start in 2008 and the reactor would start operating in 2014 (Thakur 2008: 62). But,as of May 2017, there has been no reactor imported as a result of the NSG waiver.

Nuclear power targets have also fallen. Following the 2008 NSG waiver, nuclear power targets swelled and, in 2010, the DAEsecretary announced a target of 35,000 MW by 2020 (PTI 2010). By 2015, the target was a mere 14,600 MW by 2020–21 (Sasi 2015). Considering that the current official capacity is 6,780 MW, and that only the Rajasthan and Kakrapar projects and the prototype fast breeder reactor are likely to be completed by then, total nuclear capacity will probably touch 10,080 MW by 2020.

The fruitless pursuit of imported LWRs suggests that it would be fallacious to assume that all the 10 PHWRs will be constructed. It is almost certain, going by history, that they will not be constructed on time. The four 700 MW PHWRs under construction have all been delayed. The initial commissioning dates were December 2015 for the two Kakrapar units and December 2016 for the Rajasthan units (Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation 2012: 32). As of December 2016, Unit 3 at Kakrapar was expected to become critical by November 2017, and Unit 4 is expected to start six to seven months later (IANS 2016). The Rajasthan units are expected to start about a year later (Chaffee 2016). Practically all reactors constructed by the DAE and NPCIL have suffered delays and cost overruns (Ramana 2012).

Changes in the Power Sector

While nuclear power has been suffering delays and overruns, an important change has occurred on the supply side of India's power sector—a rapid increase in renewable energy. For many years now, wind and solar power have delivered more electricity to the grid than nuclear energy. The Central Electric Authority (CEA) reports that between April 2016 and March 2017 renewable energy sources together generated 81.9 TWh, more than twice the 37.9 TWh generated by nuclear power.

According to the CEA, renewable energy is expected to contribute about 20% and 24% of the total energy requirement in 2021–22 and 2026–27 respectively (Central Electric Authority 2016: 6.13). Even if these figures do not come true, the direction in which renewable energy is heading is clear. In contrast, the CEA projects that the share of nuclear energy will stay roughly constant, around 2% of all electricity generated in the country. Nuclear power, then, will continue to be a minor source of electricity for India.

Conclusion

In its press release, NPCIL declared that its mission was to "produce nuclear power as a safe, environmentally benign and economically viable source of electrical energy to meet the increasing electricity needs of the country" (2017c). The reality, however, is that nuclear power is neither safe nor environmentally benign, given the risk of catastrophic accidents and the production of radioactive waste. The high costs involved in generating nuclear energy imply that it cannot be an economically viable means of meeting the electricity needs of the millions in India without access to power.

The announcement about building 10 PHWRs fits a pattern, often seen with the current government, where it trumpets a routine decision to bolster its "bold" credentials. Most of the plants that were recently approved have been in the pipeline for years. Nevertheless, there is good reason to be sceptical of these plans given that similar plans to build large numbers of reactors have failed to meet their targets, often falling far short. Neither is there a high likelihood of reactor exports. The media hype surrounding this announcement, and the effort and the expense invested in it, is a revealing indicator of the style of functioning of the Modi government.

Note

1 The purpose of the plutonium or the LEU is to provide the initial fission reactions to produce neutrons that would go on to converting the thorium into uranium—233, which would then undergo fission reactions and produce energy.

References

Bhardwaj, S A (2006): "The Future 700 MWe Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor," Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol 236, pp 861–71.

BP (2015): Statistical Review of World Energy 2015, London: BP:
http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about—bp/energy—economics/statistical—review—of—world—energy.html.

Bureau (2009): "NPCIL Embarks on Marketing Drive for Reactors," Business Line, 21 June.

—(2017): "₹70,000—crore Investment Proposal to Set Off Chain Reaction in N—Energy," Economic Times, 18 May.

Central Electric Authority (2016): "Draft National Electricity Plan," New Delhi;
http://www.cea.nic.in/reports/committee/nep/nep_dec.pdf.

Chaffee, P (2016): "Potential and Existing Global Nuclear Newbuild Projects (non—Generation IV)," Nuclear Intelligence Weekly,Vol 10, No 25, pp 8–16.

Chidambaram, R (2001): "Nuclear Energy Needs and Proliferation Misconceptions", Current Science, Vol 81, No 1, pp 17–21.

CIDC (2017): "Construction Cost Indices", Construction Industry Development Council,
http://www.cidc.in/new/cci—new.html.

Comptroller and Auditor General of India (1999): "Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India," New Delhi.

DAE (2017): "Top Nuclear Scientists Hail the Cabinet's Decision Regarding Mega—project on 10 New Indigenous Reactors", Department of Atomic Energy, Mumbai, 19 May,
http://dae.nic.in/writereaddata/pr190517.pdf.

ET Bureau (2016): "India Won't Need Extra Power Plants For Next Three Years, Says Government Report," Economic Times, 2 June.

GEH (2010): "GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy and Tata Consulting Engineers Exploring Potential Design and Workforce Development Opportunities for New Reactor Projects", GE Newsroom, 17 Aug;
http://www.genewsroom.com/Press—Releases/GE—Hitachi—Nuclear—Energy—and—Tata—Consulting—Engineers—Exploring—Potential—Design—and—Workforce—Development—Opportunities—for—New—Reactor—Projects—224707.

IANS (2016): "Trial Run of India's First 700 MW Reactor in 2017", Economic Times, 31 Dec.

—(2017): "India to Build 10 Heavy Water Reactors to Boost Nuclear Power," Hindustan Times, 17 May.

Larsen & Toubro (2009a): "L&T Receives ₹ 345 Cr Order for Critical Equipment for Nuclear Project", press release, http://www.larsentoubro.com/media/28064/npcil345crorder300309.pdf.

—(2009b): "L&T Wins Repeat Order for Steam Generators for Nuclear Power Projects," press release,  http://www.larsentoubro.com/media/30321/lt—wins—repeat—order—for—steam—generators—for—nuclear—power—projects.pdf.

—(2012): "L&T Secures ₹732 Cr Order from Nuclear Power Corporation of India," press release,  http://www.larsentoubro.com/media /28331/ltsecuresrs732croreorderfromnuclearpowercorporationofidia_—8588469091606587 310.pdf.

MC (2008): "NSG Waiver May Generate Orders Worth Rs 2K Cr: L&T", Money Control,  https://moneycontrol.com/video/business/nsg—waiver—may—generate—orders—worth—rs—2k—cr—lt_355257.html.

Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (2012): "37th Report on Mega Projects (₹1000 Crores and above) June, 2012", New Delhi.

N.I. (2007): "Attainment of Self—sufficiency in Nuclear Power Production," Nuclear India, Vol 40, Nos 11–12, p 20,dae.nic.in/sites/default/files/nimay07.pdf.

Narayanasamy, V (2012): "Unstarred Question No. 2949: Nuclear Power Plants in the Twelfth Plan," Rajya Sabha, New Delhi

NPCIL (2017a): "Plants under Construction — Kakrapar Atomic Power Project", Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd,  http://www.npcil.nic.in/main/ConstructionDetail.aspx? ReactorID=91./

—(2017b): "Plants under Construction — Rajasthan Atomic Power Project", Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd,  http://www.npcil.nic.in/main/ConstructionDetail.aspx?ReactorID=87.

—(2017c): "Mega Impetus for Nuclear Power—Cabinet Approves 10 New Indigenous Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors," Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited, 18 May,   http://www.npcil.nic.in/pdf/news_18may2017_01.pdf .

Press Information Bureau (2017): Press Release on Cabinet's decision to transform domestic nuclear industry, 17 May, Department of Atomic Energy,   http://dae.nic.in/?q=node/973.

PTI (2010): "N—Power Generation to Touch 35,000mw by 2020: AEC Chief," India Today,   http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/N—power—generation—to—touch—35,000mw—by—2020:—AEC—chief/1/89269.html.

—(2015): "L&T, Areva Sign MoU for Cooperation on Jaitapur Nuclear Plant," Livemint, 11 April.

Raju, S and Ramana, M V (2013): "Cost of Electricity from the Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant," Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 48, pp 51–60.

Ramana, M V (2007): "Heavy Subsidies in Heavy Water", Economic & Political Weekly, Vol 42, pp 3483–90.

—(2012): The Power of Promise: Examining Nuclear Energy in India, New Delhi: Penguin India.

—(2016): "Second Life or Half—life? The Contested Future of Nuclear Power and its Potential Role in a Sustainable Energy Transition," in F Kern (ed.), Energy Transitions. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp 363–96.

Ramanna, R (1985): "Can Nuclear Energy Claim to be the Only Source of Power in the Future? C. C. Desai Memorial Lecture, Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad, Bombay: Department of Atomic Energy.

Reuters (2015): "Indian Manufacturers Like Larsen & Toubro and Walchandnagar Industries Target Orders from Revived Nuclear Power Push," Economic Times, 24 Dec.

—(2017): "Indian Cabinet Approves Plans to build 10 Nuclear Reactors", Reuters India, 18 May.

Sasi, A (2015): "PMO Sets Target: Hike N—Power Capacity Three—Fold in 10 Years," Indian Express, 2 Feb,http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india—others/pmo—sets—target—hike—n—power—capacity—three—fold—in—10—years/.

Schneider, M and Froggatt, A (2016): The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2016, Paris: Mycle Schneider Consulting,   http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/The—World—Nuclear—Industry—Status—Report—2016—HTML.html.

Singh, J (2016): "Unstarred Question No 146: Investment in Atomic Energy Sector," New Delhi: Lok Sabha;   http://www.dae.nic.in/writereaddata/parl/winter2016/lsus146.pdf.

Staff (2009): "Bharat Forge and AREVA Sign MoU for manufacture of heavy forgings in India," Forging, 6 Feb,   http://forgingmagazine.com/materialsmro/bharat—forge—and—areva—sign—mou—manufacture—heavy—forgings—india.

Thakur, S (2008): "Economics of Nuclear Power in the Indian Context," Atoms for Peace, Vol 2, No 1, pp 59–67.

ToI (1990): "Export Nuclear Tech: Iyengar," Times of India, 14 May.

Wadke, R and Subramanian, T S (2007): "30,000 MW to be Added Using Imported N—Fuel," Business Line, 16 Aug.

WNN (2009): "Thorium—fuelled Exports Coming From India", World Nuclear News, 17 Sep;   http://www.world—nuclear—news.org/NP_Thorium_exports_coming_from_India_1709091.html.

Courtesy: Economic and Political Weekly, 17 June 2017

Complaint against Republic TV - S.P. Udayakumar

Dr. S P Udayakumaran files a complaint with the press council of India against the harassment meted out to him and his family by Republic TV and it's reporters.

June 21, 2017

S. P. Udayakumar, Ph.D.
Coordinator:
People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE)
Pachai Tamizhagam Katchi (Green Tamil Nadu Party)

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kumar Prasad
The Chairman
Press Council of India
Soochna Bhavan
8-C.G.O. Complex
Lodhi Road
New Delhi 110 003
Email: vibha.b@nic.in, secy-pci@nic.in, pcibpp@gmail.com, pcibppcomplaint@gmail.com

Dear Sir:

Greetings! I write to bring your kind attention to the ongoing deceit and harassment of me and my family by Mr. Arnab Ranjan Goswami and a few of his colleagues such as Shweta and Sanjeev from the Republic TV.

On April 8, 2017, one “Shweta Sharma” (I later found out that her real name was Shweta Kothari) came to my home at Nagercoil and introduced herself as a “research scholar” from the Cardiff University in the UK. She asked for my help with her dissertation research. She had been accompanied by her “local friend” Sanjeev. I gave her several books and answered her questions.

On April 9, 2017 she requested me to stop by her hotel room as she had a few more questions. There she told me that “one of her British professors” was very keen on supporting our struggle against the Koodankulam nuclear power plant. I told her that we did not accept money from foreigners and our movement had no bank account also. She then asked me if there was any other way of donating money to us. I told her that my personal account was frozen and that even our party account could not receive foreign funds. So I said she could not donate money from abroad but her parents could do it here in India if she sent the money to them. I also mentioned clearly that I would give proper receipt and the money will be accounted for. I also informed her that we were not interested in getting foreign funds.

Mr. Arnab Goswami and his team telecasted this as a so-called “sting operation” on me at 2 pm on June 20, 2017 in their Republic TV and alleged that our struggle against the Koodankulm nuclear power project was funded by the Church with foreign donations. I took part in the very same panel discussion on Republic TV and clarified what had transpired. But Mr. Goswami was so abhorrent, abrasive and even abusive.

As I was taking part in their discussion from Kumbakonam town where I was attending an agitation, Republic TV reporter Sanjeev was standing in front of my home at Nagercoil from 2 pm till 11 pm that night harassing my parents aged 85 and 82 respectively, my wife and school-going son. He was insisting on their responding to their so-called sting operation. Even after they told him that I was out of town, he and three of his colleagues were hounding my family with their high-handed behavior.

Sanjeev showed up at my home again in the morning of June 21, 2017 and started harassing my family all over again. When my aged father objected to his ruthless behavior, he fraudulently reported on his TV that I personally had scolded him. I came to know about the whole incident when I came home in the evening.

In a desperate attempt to raise the TRP rate, the discredited Republic TV has been telecasting slanderous reports about me and spreading canards through social media. This kind of indecent and abusive behavior of an anchor and reporters is unacceptable in a democracy. The Republic TV and their reporters are crossing all limits and causing so much mental agony to me and my entire family.

In the light of the above situation, may I request you to do the needful to stop this anti-people TV from hurting me and more people in future, please. Looking forward to your immediate and favorable intervention, I send you my best personal regards and all peaceful wishes.

Cordially,
S. P. Udayakumar

Will the real scientific community please stand up? – Vijay Asokan & G Sundarrajan

This is apropos of Prof Jayaraman’s "Tunnel vision block neutrino lab progress" piece that had appeared in the Times of India edition dated February 23, 2015.(An edited version of this article has been published in the Times of India dated February 26, 2015)

Let us begin by addressing the age-old question of scientific versus non-scientific temper. By putting the scientific temper on a pedestal, the author seeks to belittle the concerns of the poor and the vulnerable sections of the society that his organization claims to be standing for.  Unscientific as it may be, the concerns of the people living in the vicinities of projects such as Neutrino and who are expected to bear the brunt of its consequences, needs a sensitive and a humane approach that the author sadly seems to be lacking. The tone of arrogance that pervades throughout the article is too scientific and un-Marxist, to say the least.

Which scientific community, the author says, stand insulted by our claims? The same community that takes miniature models of satellites and orbiters to Tirupathi to invoke the blessings of the almighty for the projects to be successful? Can any other gesture be more insulting to science? The scientific community, atleast in India, has been anything but rational. In fact, rationalism in India, more particularly in Tamil Nadu, has thrived among the ordinary citizens who ‘woefully lack the scientific temper.’ Only in India, science has also become a superstition. We really wish the Science forum had taken up issues such as this and work for the prevalence of real scientific temper instead of mocking at the fears and concerns of ordinary people.

The author says there is no basis for groundwater resources being endangered. The entire Western Ghats are aquifiers and birth place for the peninsular rivers. All we say and still maintain is that the groundwater resources will be depleted if the project is implemented. Also, the Western Ghats where Pottipuram lies has been declared by UNESCO as an ecologically sensitive area. Has the ‘scientific community’ taken cognizance of this fact before embarking on the project? Or the fact that Pottipuram is an aquifier zone? The ‘scientific community’ claims that there will be no negative effect to the aquifers and nearby dams due to the vibrations caused by blasting the rocks. But the water that is stored in nearby streams or other surface-water bodies commonly connected hydraulically with the bedrock fracture system. Leaching and dissolution of chemicals from blasting material will possibly interact with rock-water interfaces which will impact the ground water chemical composition. The change in composition will easily spread to nearby water streams and surface-water bodies.

We would like to know if there is any report that has studied the effect of remaining nitrates or other chemicals to the ground water or wells nearby. We understand that the environmental impact studies related to the effect on ground water relating mineral composition deposits and chemicals from rock blast has not been done. We demand that modeling studies related to the possible man-made seismic events and possibility of tectonic fracturing during blasting be done and the local people be given access to the documents.  

Also is there any environmental monitoring group appointed to do simulation studies considering the possible and future environmental effects?

Japan’s seisimic department has announced that the earthquake that hit the north east part of Japan Feb 17, 2015 was an aftershock of 2011 earthquake that caused the Fukushima disaster. However protected the environs of the project in whatever way, it has been proved that blasting seriously disturbs the geological set up of any area. The result of the blastings need not be necessarily available immediately. As illustrated by the Fukushima disaster, it might take years to see the effects. Will the scientific community accept that shockwaves produced as result of a quake or a blast in minimal form is not preventable? The waves whatever may be their strength, will certainly impact the adjoining areas.  At sub surface any disturbed geological structure is highly unstable and no one can predict the time of the destruction.  

Is the author aware that the EIA developed by the project proponent (available at its website) says: “The experts are hopeful that during its normal operation phase, the laboratory is not expected to cause any damage to the environment. However, there is no detailed study regarding the impact of blasting of a large quantity of rock on the aquifer, the rivers and the reservoirs in the Environment Impact Assessment”.

In a response written by INO team in 2012 to the article “India Based Neutrino Observatory: Potential Geological, Radiological And Biological Impacts” dated 26, September, 2012 placed on ‘Countercurrents.org’ by Mr. V.T.Padmanabhan, MA, it is clearly mentioned that no neutrinos from Neutrino factories will be beamed towards INO site being constructed at Theni, Tamil Nadu. But in a response dated 15, November, 2012, the INO team said there is nothing wrong in such collaborations and further admits that in the second phase of works, neutrinos will be beams from the Neutrino Factory.  A mail by Mr. N.K. Mondal to Mr. Sundarajan (one of the authors of this response) dated 30, January, 2015, again confirms that the neutrino detectors  to be placed at Theni will be detecting only atmospheric neutrinos and argued that the plan for construction of neutrino factories is only at theoretical stage and not relevant to INO. Don’t we see a flip-flop?

The first proposal for INO project for funding was first dated in the year 2005. This year in particular is worth noted in scientific community because of the first proposal of International design study – Neutrino factory (IDS-NF), showing the target (detector) for neutrino beam generated in neutrino factory is kept at around 7500 KM from the neutrino factory (planned at Chicago).

In November 2009, Pier Oddone appointed Sanjib Mishra, University of South Carolina and Brajesh Choudhary, University of Delhi as Technical Project Coordinator for the development and execution of the Indian Institutions and Fermilab Collaboration on Neutrino Physics. Later that month Indian Institutions and Fermilab collaboration signed the addendum MOU IV for neutrino collaboration that included MINOS, NOVA, LBNE and MIPP experiments”

This confirms the connection of INO to Fermilab and IDS-NF, since the experiments of MINOS, NOVA, LBNE and MIPP are the part of IDS-NF project. Further, could anyone answer what is the relation of INO to magic baseline terms? It is not only massive iron calorimeter detector that INO is going to setup. It is the first detector in the world at present to detect neutrinos from the neutrino factories far away from 7500 KMs.

The documentation released by IDS-NF in February 2010, stating the meeting held between IDS-NF and Tata Institute for fundamental research (TIFR) in November 2009, shows that the discussion particularly focused on the 50k tonne magnetized iron calorimeter, emphasized the current status of prototype construction, and confirming the possibilities of such detectors to receive neutrinos far from 7500KMs.

Mr Jayaraman speaks of delay in the project conveniently side-stepping the fact that the delay was more due to his own scientific fraternity and hardly had anything to do with the opposition to the project. The author claims China has marched ahead in the research due to this delay. Will the scientific community say the same thing about China’s AT&C (aggregate technical & commercial loss) in electricity distribution which varies from 4% to 8% while in India it is 30%- 40%?  China has started producing 10w ceiling fans when India is still discussing about 35w Fans. Was this also because of the lack of scientific temper?

In a country which still has about 8 lakh manual scavengers, it is not a shame that a whopping Rs 10000 crore is spent on two projects of DAE including the neutrino observatory?

The author has also cleverly sidestepped the issue of Pottipuram being turned into India’s Deep Geological Repository that will house the Nuclear waste generated in India including Koodankulam. We were aware of this only through the proposal from a website of the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority which said that the application was submitted under Nuclear waste management category for the INO project. After the issue was raised by us, it was brushed aside as a clerical mistake. But we still feel it was ‘testing the water of sorts’ and was given up after a hue and cry. 

The author does not only have more than enough of scientific temper but seems to have acquired legal temper too in advising the courts on deciding the fate of petitions. We do hope the courts will be concerned about the people unlike the scientific communities of India. It is the same ‘scientific community’ that is pathetically indifferent to the plight of the people who suffer because of pollution of all kinds and have turned a blind eye to the concerns of common people. How are we expected to trust the same scientific community to be concerned about people of pottipuram alone?

While the scientific community thinks it fit to invoke the Lord in Tirupathi for their missions to be successful, let me take the liberty to invoke George Bernard Shaw to instill some ‘people’s sense into the scientific community. “Science is always wrong,” Shaw famously proclaimed in a toast to Albert Einstein. “It never solves a problem without creating 10 more.”

Of course, as long as it is right to the cause of ordinary people, we will never say that science is wrong. 

(Vijay Asokan is a research student in Nano physics group at The University of Bergen, Norway and G Sundarrajan is an engineer and a volunteer with Poovulagin Nanbargal, TN based environmental movement.)

Quarrying within 5 Kms. radius of Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant - Madras High Court Order

Madras High Court

V.Ganesan vs The District Collector on 19 October, 2010

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 19/10/2010

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU

W.P.(MD)No.10571 of 2007

and

M.P.(MD)No.1 OF 2007

V.Ganesan

 ... Petitioner

Vs

1.The District Collector,

Tirunelveli.

2.The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology,

Collectorate, Tirunelveli District.

3.The Project Director,

Nuclear Power Corporation of

India Limited (A Govt. of India Undertaking),

Koodankulam, Tirunelveli District.

4.A.K.A.Rajan

 .. Respondents

This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in M1/39272/06 dated 26.09.2007 quash the same from permitting the fourth respondent from quarrying within 5 Kms. radius of Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant in violation of G.O.Ms.No.829, dated 29.4.1991.

!For Petitioner ... Mr.T.S.R.Venkatramana

^For Respondents ... Mr.R.Janakiramulu, Spl.G.P. for R1 and 2 Mr.S.Ramasubramaniam for R-3

Mr.S.P.Maharajan for R-4

:ORDER

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking to set aside the order dated 26.09.2007 wherein and by which the fourth respondent was permitted to quarry. This challenge is on the ground that the quarrying area granted to the petitioner is situated within 5 kms radius of the Koodankulam Nuclear Power plant and such a grant of license is in violation of G.O.Ms.No.829 Public Works Department dated 29.04.1991.

2. Notice of motion was ordered on this writ petition on 14.12.2007. Pending the writ petition, this Court by an order dated 25.11.2008 appointed an Advocate Commissioner to visit the suit property and measure the property with the help of the Surveyor and to submit a report. Subsequently, by a further order dated 28.07.2009, the Taluk Surveyor of Irukkandurai and Koodankulam were directed to be present on 19.08.2009 at Irukkandurai Village in S.Nos.181/1, 183, 184/3, 184/7 and 185 along with respective Field Map Books.

3. The Advocate Commissioner so appointed submitted an interim report dated 10.12.2008 and a final report dated 26.08.2009. In the final report, he had stated that the disputed quarries in S.Nos. 181/1, 183, 184/3, 184/7 and 185 are all situated within the radius of 5 km from the Nuclear Reactor. He also submitted 3 Annexures along with the report.

4. On behalf of the first respondent, a counter affidavit dated 05.11.2008 was filed. The third respondent, Project Director of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited had also filed a counter affidavit dated 15.11.2008 together with a typed set of documents containing the copy of minutes of Koodankulam Project Local Committee meeting held on 14.07.2006, 14.02.2007 and 15.02.2008. The fourth respondent quarrying operator had filed a counter affidavit dated 14.09.2008 as well as an additional counter affidavit dated 17.11.2008. He had also filed a typed set of documents dated 23.09.2008

5. The petitioner was a neighbouring land owner. According to the petitioner, by G.O.Ms.No.829 Public Works Department dated 29.04.1991, had prohibited any quarrying operation within 5 kms radius of the Nuclear Power Plant as it comes with the 'Sterilization zone' and any permission for any activity cannot be done without the concurrence of the Koodankulam Project Local Committee. The 4th respondent quarrying operation is not only within the prohibited zone, it will also destroy the Coconut Thoppu owned by him in the Irukkanthurai village. It is also brought to the notice that the Collector did not carry out the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.No.3293 of 2005 for granting permission.

6. The first respondent in his counter affidavit denied these allegations. In paragraphs 4 and 5, it was averred as folows:-

4.It is respectfully submitted that the area applied for quarry lease was inspected by Tahsildar, Radhapuram, Revenue Divisional Officer, Cheranmahadevi and the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, Tirunelveli and reported that the above lease applied areas are situated at a distance of 4.8 kilometres from the Atomic Reactor of Koodankulam Atomic Power Plant. Quarry lease for rough stone was granted earlier in favour of Tmt.Sakthi and the quarry lease had expired on 29.10.2003 and after the expiry of the lease Thiru AK.A.Rajan has purchased the above lands and applied for lease. Based on the reports of the field officers, who had recommended the quarry lease, after getting the clearance from Koodankulam Atomic Reactor Project Local Committee's concurrence. The Chairman, Koodankulam Project Local Committee and Project Engineer (Civil) Koodankulam Project, Nagercoil has been addressed as per this office letter No.M.1/39272/06 dated 02.06.2006 with a request to place the subject before "Koodankulam Project Local Committee" for clearance as per G.O.Ms.No.829 PWD Dated 29.04.1991. The Commissioner, Radhapuram Panchayat Union, Radhapuram, in his letter No.A4/3213/04, dated 14.08.2006 has stated that in the meeting of Koodankulam Project Local committee was conducted on 14.07.2006 and in the meeting the proposal of stone quarrying lease in S.F.NO.181/1, 183, 184/3 and 7 of Irukkanthurai Village, Radhapuram Taluk, placed and the committee has approved the grant of this proposal for the period upto 31.12.2007.

5.It is respectfully submitted that considering all the factors framed in the Rules and Acts in force, recommendations of the field officers, concurrence of the Koodankulam Project Local committee as per G.O.Ms.No.829 PWD dated 29.04.1991, the stone quarry lease to quarry rough stone/jelly over an extent of 5.24.0 hectares of patta lands in S.F.No.181/1, 183 and 185 of Irukkanthurai Part II Village, Radhapuram taluk, has been granted to the applicant and 4th respondent of this writ - Thiru AK.A.Rajan, son of A.Kirubanathi, 58, Veeramani Nagar, Kovilambakkam, Chennai -117 as per the Collector, Tirunelveli's order No.M.1/39272/06 dated 26.09.2006 for a period of five years from the date of execution of lease subject to the further approval of the Koodankulam Project Local committee, Koodankulam beyond 31.12.2007. Subsequently, the clearance of the local committee is being granted by the committee every year. Now the committee has given its clearance upto 28.02.2009. This is intimated by the Block Development Officer, Radhapuram vide his letter No.A4/3213/02 dated 18.09.2008.

7. The third respondent Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited, in their counter affidavit in paragraphs 9 and 10 averred as follows:- "9. ...The Kudankulam Local Committee met at Block Development Office on 14.07.2006. In that meeting, out of 07 members only 05 numbers of Committee members were present as per G.O. The Committee members recommended for Quarry Licence to Mr.A.K.A.Rajan under Survey No.181/1, 183, 184/3 and 184/7 at Irukkandurai Village up to a period of 31.12.2007. On 14.02.2007, Mr.A.K.A.Rajan (4th respondent) again applied for Quarry Mining under Survey No.181/2B. The Kudankulam Local Committee Members gave permission up to 28.02.2008 with a condition that if need arises within a short notice of one month the Quarry operation need to be suspended. On 15.02.2008, the Kudankulam Local Committee had given only an extension for a further period up to 28.02.2009.

10. Since Natural Growth cannot be prevented, Housing and Shops Construction requests are being normally recommended by the Kudankulam Local Committee. However, for some of the Quarry operation, it is also recommended by the Kudankulam Local Committee with an observation that the safety care has to be adhered without disturbing the nearby areas of the villagers. Based on the Dy.Director of Mines and Geology review and clearance in all these issues, an ultimate decision is being taken by the Collector after giving an opportunity of being heard by the affected persons as per G.O."

8. The Resolution of the Koodankulam Project Local committee dated 15.02.2008 produced in the typed set found at Pages 23 to 33 in Resolution No.5 has granted 'No Objection'. The Quarry operator in his additional counter affidavit had also raised the plea of alternative remedy for the petitioner to move in terms of Section 36-C(2) of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules ,1959. He also denied that there was any violation in the quarrying operation to be carried out by him.

9. With reference to the violation of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.3293 of 2005, in Paragraph 11 of the counter, the District Collector, Tirunelveli had stated as follows:-

11. It is submitted that the order of the High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench, Madurai, in W.P.No.3293/2005 and Director of Geology and Mining, Chennai dated 01.06.2005 does not relate to this issue. In this case after obtaining the approval of the Koodankulam Project Local committee as per G.O.Ms.No.829 dated 29.04.1991, the stone quarry lease had been granted subject to further approval o the committee beyond 31.12.2007 and every year committee reviews its permission. No objection petitions was received on publication of 'A1" Notice in the village and the writ petitioner is the one and only person raising objection that to after a lapse of nearly two years from the date of grant of quarry lease in this area. Further it is state that no quarry lease has been granted in S.F.No.184/3 and 7 of Irukkanthurai II Village, Radhapuram Taluk."

10. G.O.Ms.No.829 Public Works Department ,dated 29.04.1991 in P.2(iii) gives discretion to the Collector for using the agricultural land for non- agricultural purpose or for executing any mining operations after consulting the Koodankulam Project Local committee and the same has been done in the present case as set out above.

11. Therefore, even if the Advocate Commissioner's finding was that the survey lands are situated within 5 kms radius from the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant, since necessary approval from the committee has been obtained, the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this Court.

12. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

svki

To

1.The District Collector,

Tirunelveli.

2.The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology,

Collectorate, Tirunelveli District.

3.The Project Director,

Nuclear Power Corporation of

India Limited (A Govt. of India Undertaking),

Koodankulam, Tirunelveli District.

Volcano near Kalpakkam Nuke Plant? - Public Interest Litigation

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 15^th 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 31^st 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.