Asia Times: Indian activists want plug pulled on nuke plant


	April 20, 2002	atimes.com

India/Pakistan

Indian activists want plug pulled on nuke plant
By S P Udayakumar

CHENNAI - Ceremonies that marked the start of construction on a 2,000-megawatt nuclear plant last month in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu were preceded by an inauspicious event: The project's Russian partners protested the sudden change in the site where their reactors were going to be installed.

When the leading Tamil-language dailies Dinamalar and Daily Thanthi reported the Russian protests, India's panicky nuclear establishment dismissed the episode as nothing more than rumors. It also ensured that the delegation from Moscow never got to meet the press.

Whatever the truth, the whole Koodankulam project in Tamil Nadu has been shrouded in opacity ever since former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and the late Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi signed the deal to build it in 1988. That was barely two years after the Chernobyl accident put a question mark over the reliability of Russia's nuclear technology. Hit by an international boycott for exploding a "peaceful" nuclear device in 1974, India had little choice but to rely on its Cold War ally Moscow to achieve its ambition of producing 20,000 megawatts of power from nuclear energy by 2020.

Koodankulam, a major component of achieving the stated aim of self-sufficiency in nuclear power generation, was briefly shelved when the Soviet Union collapsed. But by 1997, then Indian prime minister H D Deve Gowda and Russian president Boris Yeltsin signed an agreement, a supplement to the 1988 accord, to commission a detailed project report on Koodankulam because India was still interested in the reactors and Moscow in the dollars. Under the new plan, Russia would deliver two Russian-designed, standard high-pressure VVER-1000 water-cooled and water-moderated reactors that would produce 1,000MW of power per unit.

By that time, protests against the project, including from activists in Sri Lanka across the Palk Straits from Tamil Nadu, had petered out and Chernobyl had receded from public memory. But questions regarding economic viability, scientific and technological feasibility, environmental sustainability and geological vulnerability persist.

The Koodankulam project's cost estimate in 1988 was US$1.5 billion. The start-estimate (as opposed to the end-cost) in April 1997 was an alarming $4.5 billion. In November 1998, Russian and Indian nuclear engineers started working on a $57 million detailed project report (DPR). The reactors alone, expected to be ready by 2006, would cost roughly $3.1 billion.

Says Dr R S Lal Mohan, director of the Nagercoil-based Conservation of Nature Trust: "Nobody knows for sure how much this Koodankulam project would finally cost. All the 47 hydro and thermal power projects that received techno-economic clearance from the Central Electricity Authority [CEA] as of December 1998 cost much less than nuclear-energy projects that cost a whopping sum of money."

Rev Y David, coordinator of the People's Movement Against Nuclear Energy, challenges the scientific and technical feasibility and appropriateness of the project. This veteran activist, who mobilized the public in the late 1980s when the plant was first proposed, questions how a developing country such as India could embark on nuclear-power production, when technologically advanced countries such as Sweden and Germany are phasing out the nuclear-power option. "A country like India, that is respected around the world for its leadership in appropriate technology and sustainable development, should build on such a reputation and not fall for harmful nuclear energy," David said.

Dr B K Subbarao, a retired naval captain and Supreme Court lawyer who has confronted the Department of Atomic Energy on its policies, asserts: "The Koodankulam nuclear project makes no sense when the country's six nuclear power plants with 14 units are operating at low capacities."

Most of the 14 units (two at Tarapur in western Maharashtra state, four at Rawatbhatta in western Rajasthan state, two at Kalpakkam in Tamil Nadu, two at Narora in northern Uttar Pradesh, two at Kakrapar in western Gujarat and two at Kaiga in southern Karnataka) are also beset with technical problems. While the country was to have achieved production of 10,000MW of nuclear power by 2000, it now barely produces 2,500MW - and the target of 20,000MW by 2020 seems unrealistic.

And then there are other issues. Opponents of the Koodankulam project contend that the "development" efforts of the Indian nuclear establishment sideline the very democratic norms and precepts on which the country was established. These critics claim that the specifics of nuclear weapons and energy programs, which have such an enormous bearing on the lives and futures of ordinary people, should not be kept away from the public view. Besides, costly nuclear-power generation deprives the country of funds badly needed for pressing needs such as health, education, housing, and transportation, they argue.

Critics are also unhappy with the "use and discard" strategy adopted in nuclear power projects for obvious reasons of limited land availability and the impact of nuclear waste on the future generation's health and safety. India's population characteristics demand that energy generation be sustainable and environment-friendly, because even a small mishap can harm or kill a huge number of people. None of these factors seem to trouble the Indian nuclear establishment, critics say.

The Koodankulam nuclear power project is said to have obtained a clearance of sorts from the Ministry of Environment and Forests just before the October 7, 2001, foundation-stone-laying ceremony for the project. No details of this clearance have been revealed to the public.

The permission that the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Project is said to have obtained in 1989 is not acceptable now, because a 1994 Act of Tamil Nadu mandates an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and a public hearing before the construction of the project. The law requires obtaining permission from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) as per the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981. But Sheela Rani Chunkath, director of TNPCB, has clarified that it has not granted permission for the Koodankulam project.

"If the nuclear establishment wants to set up the Koodankulam nuclear power project, let them follow the established procedure," says Dr R Ramesh of Doctors for Safe Environment (DOSE).

S K Agarwal, Koodankulam project director, claimed in a recent seminar on health hazards of radiation that an EIA was actually done in 1988. He added that the site evaluation study, said to have delineated the strengths and weaknesses of the Koodankulam site, and the safety analysis report were all there. Asked why these reports were never released to the public, Agarwal said he saw no point in doing so because they were "very technical and voluminous".

(Inter Press Service)