Kudankulam: A Brief Summary of the Issues Involved by DiaNuke.org

Suvrat Raju, Physicist

1)      The local residents of the region have never been consulted or taken into confidence about the project. A common misconception is that the protests started recently. In fact, the protests started soon after the plant was mooted in 1988 and even then, the police responded repressively and fired upon people.

2)      At the public hearing on the Environmental Impact Assessment, there was overwhelming local opposition to the plant, but the Government simply ignored this.

3)      After Fukushima, the AERB itself set up a review committee to examine the safety of nuclear installations in India. The committee suggested that “in the light of Fukushima experience it is considered prudent to postulate the magnitude of beyond design basis natural events” and “enhance ... conservatism” regarding the possibility of various events. In its submission to the Madras High Court, the AERB has effectively trashed the recommendations of its own safety committee. It has simply stated that the existing safety measures are adequate, and that nothing further needs to be done.

4)      More specifically, the NPCIL does not have adequate water backup, in the event that emergency cooling of the reactor or spent fuel pool is required. It has simply “promised” to construct one, but there is no clear time frame or accountability on this promise.