Kudankulam NPP in Tamilnadu
At Present there is a strong public agitation against commissioning of first two Nuclear Reactors (Units 1&2) of 1000 MW capacity each at Kudankulam in Tirunelveli District of Tamilnadu. The agitation against this Nuclear Plant started way back 1989 The Govt of India chose to continue to give life to the first Environmental Clearance given in 1988-89, so that its lease of life prolonged, although under usual circumstances the validity of environmental clearance is valid only for 5 years for all industrial projects.
The public were not involved in the emergency preparedness plans and in chalking out evacuation schemes to protect public health and the environment in the case of a maximum credible accident like the one which occurred at Fukushima in Japan in March 2011. Even without making a scientific based mock drill for emergency preparedness and disaster management consequent to a potential nuclear reactor explosion, the authorities are misleading the public,
As a result, NPCIL has not been able to commission even the 1 st Unit KKNPP, after a lapse of two decades and spending about Rs 14, 000 Crores on the project. Yet the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) headed by the Prime Minister of India, has approved the proposal to grant administrative and financial sanction for constructing units 3 & 4 at the Kudankulam site. This sounds like a practical joke being played on the people of India even as the KKNPP units 1 & 2 are born still with the people of southern Tamil Nadu and Kerala have been waging a massive struggle against KKNPP for almost 600 days. This clearly shows the utter apathy and indifference the Central Govt. has for the precepts and practices of democracy in India.
There are several cases pending against the KKNPP as a whole and the KKNPP units 3-6 in particular at the Delhi High Court, the Supreme Court and the National Green Tribunal (NGT) about the various clearances, waste management, liability and so on. This announcement may amount to a serious contempt of all these courts.
Jaitapur NPP in Maharashtra
Based on the authorization from DAE letter dated 20 th October, 2005, the NPCIL submitted application to District Administration, Ratnagiri for acquiring land admeasuring around 970 ha for Project Site and Residential Complex of proposed Jaitapur Nuclear Power Park (JNPP). The Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division issued Notification dated 23-12-2005 published in Maharashtra State Gazette 12-01-2006, under Section -11 of subsection (1) of Maharashtra Project Affected Rehabilitation Act, 1999, notifying the land use from villages Madban, Karel, Niveli and Mithgavane of Rajapur Taluka, District Ratnagiri for establishing JNPP
The expeditious Environmental Clearance (EC) for JNPP dated 28 th November 2010 was justified, saying that it was essential to facilitate NPCIL and AREVA to sign General Framework Agreement as well as Works Agreement very soon and the Final Contracts in the first half of 2011. In other words, to meet the target date for the scheduled visit of the French President in the first week of December 2010. Mr. Jairam Ramesh, the then MOEF, by his Note dated 28-11-2010, made public the detailed reasoning for granting Environmental Clearance (E.C) to Jaitapur Nuclear Power Complex of NPCIL, because of Weighty Strategic and Economic reasons in its favour, in spite of issues/concerns regarding preservation of marine biodiversity, an area in which India has been very week..
The Environmental Clearance (EC) was granted to JNPP in a unholy hurry stipulating 35 conditions, without waiting for the "Carrying Capacity" and "Cumulative Impact Assessment" Studies, which are considered essential for ecologically sensitive region of Ratnagiri, and even without finalizing the project design and approval by AERB. It is evident, the entire EIA Process for Jaitapur NPP of NPCIL is nothing but going through a formality/ritual about a predetermined project, marginalizing the environmental & safety considerations and the public opinion. The failure on the part of NPCIL, to identify the specific issue pertinent to the project site –namely adverse impact on marine biodiversity pointed out by BNHS–and for its inclusion in EIA / EMP Reports, cannot be justified by MOEF by any stretch of imagination.
The same pattern of short-circuiting of Environmental Law, practiced at Jaitapur is now being repeated at Kovvada in AP State. Perhaps, the same pattern was followed in the KKNPP in Tamilnadu.
Kovvada Nuclear Power Park (KNPP) in Andhra
The Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) Govt. of India constituted a "Site Selection Committee"( SSC) chaired by the Managing Director, NPCIL, for identifying possible sites for Nuclear Power Plants. The DAE based on the recommendation of SSC, accorded "In Principle" approval in October 2009 for setting up 6X1000 MW Nuclear Power Park (NPP) at the Kovvada site in Srikakulam district of AP State. The NPCIL did not prepare and submit the Site Evaluation Report (SER) highlighting the site related aspects regarding environmental and safety considerations, as required by Safety Guide of Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB).
Based on this "In Principal" approval of DAE, which has no sanctity/finality in the absence of the Site Clearance/Approval by AERB and the request from NPCIL, the Govt' of AP issued G.O.Ms.No 42 dated 01-11-2012, approving the proposal of District Collector, Srikakulam district, to issue Notification, under the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy of 2007 and to be published in the extraordinary issue of the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 02-11-2012.
Accordingly, Ranmachandrapuram, Gudem, Kotapalem, Tekkali and Jeeru Kovvada villages of Ranasthalam Mandal in Srikakulam District are notified as the villages likely to be affected under the proposed 6x1000MWe Nuclear Power Park of Light Water Reactors of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL). As per the Notification, 1983 families with population of 7,960, in an area of 1916 Acers are covered by the "Project Affected Zone". The livelihood of the entire population to be displaced by the proposed land acquisition is based on Fishing/Agriculture/ Agriculture Labour.
The Site Evaluation for nuclear installation in terms of nuclear safety is to protect the environment and the public from the radiological consequence of radioactive releases due to accidents, etc. The mandatory Site Evaluation Report not only provides the technical basis of the Site Safety analysis report, it contains technical information useful for fulfilling the Environment impact Assessment for radiological hazards. Therefore, it follows that the Site Evaluation Report forms an important basis of Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Report as well. In order to appreciate the conclusion reached in the Environment Impact Assessment, the citizens must have access to the Site Evaluation Report as well. This will enable the public to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the likely environmental impact of the project.
As per AERB Safety Guide for NPP, the Assessment and Consenting Process starts with Siting of the Plant, to determine whether the chosen site is suitable for the proposed type and capacity of the plant from environmental and safety considerations. Unless and until the site is approved by the AERB form the environment and safety point of view, the question of acquisition of land for the site of the Nuclear Power Park doesn't arise. It's an exercise in futility. As per the information available, AERB has not received any proposal from NPCIL regarding the proposed NPP at Kovvada Site.
As per the latest info received from MOEF, NPCIL now proposes to increase the capacity of KNPP from earlier proposed 6 X 1000 MW= 6000 MW to 6 X 1596 MW = 9 564 MW, stating that there will be no change in the requirement of Land, Water, Waste Disposal etc., which may not be correct. The Nuclear Waste generated by the revised capacity is bound to be 50% more than that of the earlier capacity, just in the form of Spent Nuclear Fuel Rods.
The approval of AERB for the NPP Site at Kovvada, which is a mandatory requirement form the environment and safety point of view has not so far been obtained by NPCIL even for 6 X 1000 MW capacity, leave alone the revised capacity of 9564 MW capacity which will be much more hazardous and disastrous in the event of an accident.
Any hasty action by the State Govt for acquisition of the required land and the Environmental Clearance by MOEF GOI, without the prior AERB Mandatory Clearance for the Site Selection form the environment and safety point of view, and its suitability for the proposed type and capacity of the plant, involving elaborate process of Site Evaluation Report which forms an important basis of E I A Report, will only go against the Public Safety and Environment Protection. It makes the entire process of EIA and Environmental Public Hearing a mockery, as in the case of Kudankulam and Jaitapur.
__________________________________________________________
.jpg)
I have been following this Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant issue and I am very disappointed with the people who are protesting against it. Some one needs to step up and educate them with the advantages. I've seen many highlighting Fukushima disaster whenever someone speaks about Nuke power. My question is... Does any one died in that disaster? Does any one infected with the radiation? Never had such reports on it. As recently Supreme Court of India gives a " GO " to the plant if that commissioned. Kudankulam Nuke plant really helps India. I read here that the first two units generates almost 2kMW power ... as Unit 1 is ready to go which generates 1000MW power and that will be divided and pooled to southern states ... this will help to over come their power issues.... I hope KNPP will soon be commissioned ....
ReplyDeleteThank you Mr Stephen for your comment.I do not think that there is any need to educate regarding the advantages/disadvantages of Nuclear Power, which are well known.
DeleteThe Nuclear Industry way back, proclaimed that nuclear power would provide an endless supply of electricity that would be good for environment and “too cheap to meter” which is no where near the present day reality. Taking into account the economic costs of Nuclear Power -all costs incurred by the Society during the entire Nuclear Fuel life-cycle- the Solar Power may prove to be cheaper even today.
Your question about Fukushima disaster is very pertinent-Does any one died in that disaster? Does any one infected with the radiation ? As Fukushima happens to be in JAPAN, a well disciplined and known for its perfection and discipline, causalities may be minimum. Regarding radiation the adverse impacts will only be known much latter.
Please take the melt down of the Nuclear Reactor at Chernobyl in former Soviet Union, apart from deaths of thousands of people, adverse impacts on water, soil, food chain etc spread over vast area even today are well known.More than seven million of our fellow human beings do not have the luxury of forgetting. They are still suffering, every day, as a result of what happened about 25 years ago. Indeed, the legacy of Chernobyl will be with us, and with our descendents, for generations to come.”
The fact that the process of fissioning uranium in Nuclear Reactors creates more than 200 new man-made radioactive elements, some of which remain radioactive for millions of years, is a well established scientific finding. It is also a well established fact that these diabolical elements, once created, will inevitably find their way into the environment and will eventually enter the reproductive organs of plants, animals and humans, where they will mutate the genes in reproductive cells to cause disease and death in the immediate generation or pass a hidden genetic disease to distant offspring down the time track
“Nuclear Power is a very Expensive, Sophisticated and Dangerous Way to Boil Water”. "Electricity is but the fleeting byproduct from Nuclear Power. The actual product is forever deadly radioactive waste.” Agreeing,though not accepting, Nuclear Reactors are safe and there will be no melt downs, the main problem of Nuclear Power is lack of safe handling and storage of this deadly Radio Active wastes for thousands of years,.
Regarding Power Supply, just by reducing T&D Losses to 10%, which is still higher than 5% achieved in some countries, and improving energy saving in consumption, having the potential of around 25 %, we can do away with the need for the projected Nuclear Power capacity of 64,000 MW projected by 2031-32, which works out to be hardly 8% of total capacity proposed, at exorbitant cost and impending hazard to Human-Environment.
Please feel free for any other clarifications