Mithi Virdi Nuclear Plant: Experts pick holes in enviornment report

DNA, Ahmedabad, 8 March 2013

Ahmedabad: Experts are already questioning the environment impact assessment (EIA) of the proposed 6000-MW nuclear power plant at Mithi Virdi in Bhavnagar prepared by Engineers India Limited. Why has the report not mentioned the water bodies present in the area where the plant is coming up? Or elaborated on the hazardous industries in its vicinity?

Speaking at a press conference in the city, Dr V Pugazhendi, who has extensively studied the impact of radiation on health, made his dissent quite clear. “It is mentioned that the plant shouldn’t be close to any water body, yet the area where the plant is coming up has two water bodies,” he said.

He said the report also fails to mention the presence of hazardous industries near the nuclear project site. “The EIA report states that the Sosiya ship breaking yard is 4 km from the site while in reality it is only 700 metres from the site,” he said. He added that nuclear plants need 100% pure water and the project plans to use a desalination plant to make use of water from the sea. “But the presence of Sosiya ship breaking yard has already polluted the water and there is evidence to show the presence of heavy metal in the water. How will the plant clean such heavily polluted water?” he asked.

Pugazhendi also said that the report failed to mention the presence of lignite mining taking place in the area. “It is sitting on the Cambay basin fault line and mining only adds to the danger,” he explained.

Also voicing their points of protests were villagers who had staged a walk-out at the environmental public hearing held earlier this week at Navagaam in connection with the project.

“Government officials are allowed to seek the advice of experts, but we are not,” said Baluben of Neshwad village, 25 km away from the proposed nuclear plant. According to Baluben, she and other villagers chose to walk out after the collector refused to allow outsiders (experts) to speak at the meeting. Close to 5,000 people had walked out of the hearing after the collector allegedly refused to let the villagers speak first.

Rohit Prajapati of Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti said that the hearing did not follow the proper rules. “There were songs being played exalting the benefits of nuclear power. This is against the rules. You cannot do such things, yet the collector was a mute spectator to this,” said Prajapati.


#Gujarat Protest against proposed Nuclear Plant at Mithi Virdi

Hiral Dave , IE : Gandhinagar, Tue Feb 19 2013, 06:03 hrs

The proposed nuclear plant to be built by Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) with US technology at Mithi Virdi in Bhavnagar district has run into stiff resistance from locals who are opposing the first public hearing scheduled for March 5. The project is part of the Indo-US nuclear deal signed in 2007.

Around six years ago, NPCIL had zeroed in on a cluster of five villages — Mithi-Virdi, Jasapara, Khadarpar, Mandva and Paniyad — to build the 6,900 megawatt (MW) nuclear power plant that would be India’s largest such facility.

However, soil and water testing was delayed following intense protest by villagers. Now, locals including those living in nearby urban centre of Bhavnagar city have closed ranks and vowed not to let the public hearing on environmental concerns take place.

“We have submitted a memorandum to Bhavnagar district collector. We do not want public hearing in the first place,” said Krishnakant, a coordinator for various groups opposing the plant.

“Bhavnagar is one of the biggest beneficiaries of the agricultural activities in the area. It gets its supply of fruits and vegetables round the year from the farmers of the 24 villages that have got notices for environmental public hearing for the proposed plant,” said Damyanti Modi of Bhavnagar Anu Urja Abhyas Juth, a group of senior citizens from Bhavnagar who have been studying the possible impact of a nuclear power plant at Mithi Virdi.

A year ago, Pittsburgh-based Westinghouse Electric Company had signed an MoU with NPCIL for site development work supporting future construction of AP 1000 nuclear power plants. The project requires 777 hectares, including private and government wasteland.

Mithi Virdi is a small coastal town known for its lush green orchards producing a variety of rare-quality fruits. Villagers say adequate monsoon in the last decade has ensured them three bumper crops in a year.

Earlier, gram panchayats of every affected village had passed resolutions vowing not to give private land or wasteland for the project.

Last year, villagers twice stalled the plans for soil and water testing by Gujarat Power Corporation (GPC), which has been hired by NPCIL for the testing work. In fact, the protests have been so intense that the GPC began digging bore around 5 am when villagers were asleep. However, in no time, the team had to fold up when more than 5,000 villagers reached the site and stalled the process.

Even a trip to Kakrapar nuclear plant near Surat for 96 farmers arranged by NPCIL could not convince them for the project.

Fear of losing fertile ancestral land coupled with apprehensions about a nuclear power plant in the neighbourhood has put the villagers on the edge.

Several NGOs have also been working closely with villagers.

While Bhavnagar Collector V P Patel was not available for comment, NPCIL authorities said they had received a copy of the memorandum opposing public hearing on environmental impact.

Of four sites short-listed in Gujarat, Mithi-Virdi was finalised for various reasons, including its proximity to sea, type of soil, water, seismic zone positioning and population.


Ten Urgent Reasons to Reject Nuclear Power Now #mustread #mustshare

Sunday, 17 February 2013 07:54 By Jim McCluskeyTruthout | Op-Ed

Bags of radiation-contaminated materials, to be stored in a mountain, in Kawauchi, Japan, Nov. 16, 2012. With the slow pace of cleanup efforts, residents of Okuma, a town evacuated in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster, have become pessimistic about ever living there again. (Photo: Ko Sasaki / The New York Times) Bags of radiation-contaminated materials, to be stored in a mountain, in Kawauchi, Japan, Nov. 16, 2012. With the slow pace of cleanup efforts, residents of Okuma, a town evacuated in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster, have become pessimistic about ever living there again. (Photo: Ko Sasaki / The New York Times)Many citizens do not want nuclear power. They know it is both far too dangerous and far too expensive. UK governments have largely supported nuclear power as well as nuclear weapons. Many citizens do not want nuclear weapons because they know they are insanely dangerous, and they want to live without the constant threat of sudden and complete annihilation hanging over them and their children. The close relationship between the weapons and power in every sense of the word may explain differences in politicians’ and citizens’ agendas on these issues.

The remedy is for us to wise up, get organized and then instruct the politicians to either do what we want – or join the job market. Here are 10 reasons we should reject nuclear power now.

1. Nuclear Power Stations are Prohibitively Dangerous.

There have now been four grave nuclear reactor accidents: Windscale in Britain in 1957 (the one that is never mentioned), Three Mile Island in the United States in 1979, Chernobyl in the Soviet Union in 1986 and now Fukushima. Each accident was unique, and each was supposed to have been impossible.

A recent book, Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, concludes that, based on records now available, some 985,000 people died between 1986 and 2004, mainly of cancer, as a result of the Chernobyl accident.

Alice Slater, New York representative of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, comments: “The tragic news uncovered by comprehensive new research that almost one million people died in the toxic aftermath of Chernobyl should be a wake-up call to people all over the world to petition their governments to put a halt to the current industry-driven ‘nuclear renaissance.’ Aided by a corrupt IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), the world has been subjected to a massive coverup and deception about the true damages caused by Chernobyl.”

At Fukushima we have the worst industrial disaster ever. Three simultaneous ongoing complete meltdowns have proven impossible to stop or contain since they started almost two years ago. These meltdowns are still pouring radiation pollution across the Japanese landscape.

International experts (e.g. Charles Perrow in Normal Accidents) agree that there will continue to be disastrous failures at nuclear power stations, and that this cannot be avoided.

As Edward Teller, the great nuclear physicist, said, “If you [try to] construct something foolproof, there will always be a fool greater than the proof.”

2. Nuclear Power Stations are Prohibitively Expensive.

Nuclear power stations are so expensive that they are never built without substantial contribution to their costs from citizens in the form of subsidies.

The UK government has said it will not subsidize new nuclear power stations. However this seems to refer to the most overt form of subsidies and not to “hidden” subsidies.

Nuclear power stations are so dangerous that no insurance company will undertake to pay the total costs of a disaster or a terrorist attack. So to get them built, the government has to limit liability. This is a subsidy.

The cost of decommissioning also is an enormous sum. Any limitation to liability for decommissioning costs will be a subsidy. If the industry does not pay the total costs of disposing of nuclear waste and ensuring it is safe for thousand of years, then this is a subsidy. The industry does not pay the total costs of all research into nuclear energy. This is a subsidy.

3. The Same Technology is Used for Power and Weapons.

Any country that purifies uranium for use in nuclear power stations can also use its purification plant to manufacture weapons-grade fissile material. Nuclear power stations use the same technology as that required to manufacture nuclear weapons.

Already, nuclear power development has been used repeatedly as a cover for creating nuclear weapons. Of the 10 nations that have developed nuclear weapons, Jim Green, of Friends of the Earth, Australia, tells us, “six did so with political cover and/or technical support from their supposedly peaceful nuclear program – India, Pakistan, Israel, South Africa, North Korea and France.”

4. Nuclear Waste is Dangerous for Thousands of Years.

Since nuclear waste will be dangerous for thousands of years, we are dumping our energy problems on future generations instead of using the benign methods of creating energy that are available to us.

The currently favored “solution” of burying the waste in bedrock and sealing off access forever is desperate and irresponsible.

5. Plants and Waste Storage are Vulnerable to Terrorist Attack.

Because of their potential of mass destruction, nuclear power stations are a major target for terrorists. The 9/11 atrocity would be tiny by comparison. If a large plane were flown into a nuclear power station, the disaster would be immeasurably worse than Chernobyl.

John Large, an international independent expert on nuclear power, has said that if a plane was flown into the nuclear waste storage tanks at Sellafield, the whole of the English Midlands could be catastrophically contaminated.

Safety studies of Sellafield carried out for local authorities tell us that a direct hit by a passenger jet on the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant would contaminate Britain with two and a half times more radioactivity than the amount that escaped during the Chernobyl disaster.

The studies also inform us that up to 2,646 pounds of the highly radioactive and long-lasting isotope caesium-137 would be released into the atmosphere, contaminating Britain, Ireland, continental Europe and beyond, making huge swathes of the country uninhabitable and causing more than two million cancers.

In the light of the twin towers atrocity, this is a completely unacceptable risk.

6. They Epitomize the Centralization of Power.

There is a burgeoning awareness among citizens that they are more free and more in control of their lives if facilities and decision-making occur at the local level, that national government should only control those matters that cannot be dealt with locally. Nuclear power is the ultimate way of centralizing power, putting it in the hands of experts, multinational corporations and national – often distant – government. In complete contrast to this, benign methods of supplying power, such as wind and water turbines, solar energy and heat pumps can be in the control of local communities and even, for some provisions, households.

7. Poor countries are made dependent on rich ones.

Poor countries do not have the knowledge and facilities to design, build, maintain and run their own nuclear power stations. This puts them at the mercy of the rich and more technically advanced states if they go down the nuclear power route.

Technically less advanced countries with nuclear power stations increase the safety risks. As Professor Peter Bradford of Vermont Law School, a former member of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, writes, “A world more reliant on nuclear power would involve many plants in countries that have little experience with nuclear energy, no regulatory background in the field and some questionable records on quality control, safety and corruption.” By adopting benign forms of power supply, the UK could help to promote the people-friendly way forward.

8. These plants draw funds away from the development of sustainable energy.

The spending of funds on research and other nuclear power development is highly detrimental to the development of sustainable energy supplies.

Each nuclear power plant costs around 5 billion pounds (7.9 billion in US dollars) to build. With such sums available, we could quickly realize our sustainable energy potential. As Friends of the Earth tell us, “With some of the windiest weather in Europe and almost 8,000 miles of coastline, the UK is a powerhouse waiting to be switched on.”

9. Uranium will become increasingly scarce.

The quantity of available uranium is limited and will decline. The price will go up. If the world adopts nuclear power as a major source of energy, there will be uranium wars just as there are now oil wars. There are unlikely to be wars fought over sustainable locally generated solar, wind or wave power.

Thomas Neff, a research affiliate at MIT’s Center for International Studies writes, “. . . shortage of uranium and of processing facilities worldwide leaves a gap between the potential increase in demand for nuclear energy and the ability to supply fuel for it.”

10. Government supports nuclear power against the will of the people.

The adoption of nuclear power is favored by the government, but in a referendum, it would be rejected by citizens as being too dangerous and too expensive. A major reason that government favors this form seems to be due to vast amounts of money and effort being put into lobbying by the power companies. Their profits are huge, so they have the funds for lobbying, whereas the NGOs and citizens-at-large, who are against nuclear power and have overwhelming arguments, do not make the same impact because they lack the funds for effective lobbying.

This is one tendency we are trying to help counter by this article.T


Selling Nulcear Power to Women: Why the Industry has got it Wrong

Donella H. Meadows,
Donella H. Meadows is an adjunct professor of environmental studies at Dartmouth College.

The U.S. Council for Energy Awareness has finally figured out how to sell nuclear power to women.

Women have always been a problem to the nuclear industry. Polls consistently show them to be more opposed to nuclear power than men. (“Because of their deeply held distrust of science and technology,” the Council for Energy Awareness assumes.) The Council, which, if it were honest would call itself the Council for Nuclear Propaganda, has never bothered to spend much of its $21 million annual budget advertising to women. It has sensed a better investment airing spots during football games and the World Series, telling men how nuclear power is going to free us from the domination of oil-rich Arabs.

That’s a lie, of course. Nuclear power generates electricity, which runs our lights and electric motors. It is not a substitute for oil, which runs our cars and planes. A flat-out program to build nuclear power plants could reduce our oil imports by a few percent at most. But then the CEA’s job is not to tell the truth, but to make us look kindly on nuclear power.

Which, when it came to women, was assumed impossible, until now. Through tireless polling, the CEA has finally found the key to female hearts and minds. Women, it has discovered, care about their children and about the environment and especially about the environment surrounding their children. And so the pages of Good Housekeeping, the Ladies’ Home Journal, and Better Homes and Gardens are soon to be graced with CEA ads showing kids playing happily in sylvan scenes with nuclear cooling towers rising in the background, and sweet pictures of a baby turtle crawling to the sea.

“The baby sea turtles hatching on nearby beaches are more evidence of the truth about nuclear energy; it peacefully coexists with the environment. Because nuclear plants don’t burn anything to make electricity, nuclear plants don’t pollute the air,” say the ads. “Nuclear plants produce no greenhouse gases.”

Nuclear plants produce radioactive wastes that no government on earth has figured out how to store safely, but those wastes are indeed not greenhouse gases. Under normal operating conditions nuclear wastes don’t pollute the air, though if anyone goofs and lets them loose, there is no more insidious pollutant of air, water, or soil. Nuclear wastes have to be sealed off in concrete tombs, kept under pools of water, and guarded closely for the several centuries; they have to be kept out of the hands of terrorists; the buildings that contain the reactors become hazardous waste when they are pulled down. But these matters would bother you only if you had some sort of irrational feminine distrust of science and technology.

young-women-in-nuclear-power-plantNuclear plants could, at best, reduce the world’s emissions of greenhouse gases by 12 percent, which is the amount generated by coal-burning power plants — the only greenhouse-gas-emitting activity for which nuclear power can substitute. To replace all existing coal plants with nuclear ones, would cost $5.3 trillion (and a multiplication of nuclear power reactors worldwide from the present 400 to 5,000). We could get the same amount of greenhouse gas reduction from energy efficiency at one-seventh the cost.

But let’s not bother the ladies’ heads with economics. Let’s help them, as the CEA kindly puts it, “sort out the facts from the conflicting messages they hear.”

“I want my kids to grow up in a healthy environment,” says the attractive young woman in the TV ad, as her kids play by a pristine lake. “I want them to breath clean air. I”m for nuclear energy because … it’s one of the cleanest sources of electricity we have. When I was in college, I was against nuclear energy. But I’ve reached a different conclusion. [Nuclear energy] means cleaner air for this planet.”

Her name is Karen Strauss, she is an environmental engineer, she travels around the country as a spokeswoman for CEA, and that college she was in when she was “against nuclear energy” was Dartmouth. She is the granddaughter-in-law of Dr. Lewis Strauss, once the chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. He is the one who promised that nuclear power would be “too cheap to meter.” Now it is the most expensive way of generating electricity, even with major government subsidies.

Karen Strauss doesn’t mention the high cost of nuclear electricity, nor does she point out that the utilities funding the CEA run not only nuclear plants, but also coal-fired plants, sources of just about every air pollutant you can mention. They spend some of their tax-deductible public relations money telling us about nuclear power and clean air, and some fighting the Clean Air Act.

Nuclear power has dragged some utilities down to bankruptcy. Many others long ago reached the conclusion that they can meet their customer’s needs far more cheaply and with less environmental threat using technologies ranging from hydropower, wind, and solar thermal to smart conservation. The utilities that haven’t caught on yet are still trying to promote their dangerous, dinosaur technologies by lying to the public.

Maybe they would wise up if they hired more women.


New Centralized Nuclear Plants: Still an Investment Worth Making?


(Image credit: Getty Images Europe via @daylife)

Just a few years ago, the US nuclear renaissance seemed at hand.  It probably shouldn’t have been.  Cost overruns from Finland to France to the US were already becoming manifest, government guarantees were in doubt, and shale gas drillers were beginning to punch holes into the ground with abandon.

Then came Fukushima.  The latter proved a somewhat astonishing reminder of forgotten lessons about nuclear power risks, unique to that technology:  A failure of one power plant in an isolated location can create a contagion in countries far away, and even where somewhat different variants of that technology are in use. Just as Three Mile Island put the kaibosh on nuclear power in the US for decades, Fukushima appears to have done the same for Japan and Germany, at a minimum.  It certainly did not help public opinion, and at a minimum, the effect of Fukushima will likely be to increase permitting and associated regulatory costs.

By contrast, when a gas-fired plant in Connecticut exploded during construction a few years ago, it didn’t affect the public perception of other gas plants.  But Fukushima and nuclear power is another story.  The stakes are so much bigge

Even without Fukushima, the verdict on large centralized US nukes is probably in, for the following reasons:

1)     They take too long: In the ten years it can take to build a nuclear plant, the world can change considerably (look at what has happened with natural gas prices and the costs of solar since some of these investments were first proposed).  The energy world is changing very quickly, which poses a significant risk for thirty to forty year investments.

2)     They are among the most expensive and capital-intensive investments in the world; they cost many billions of dollars, and they are too frequently prone to crippling multi-billion dollar cost overruns and delays.  In May 2008, the US Congressional Budget Office found that the actual cost of building 75 of America’s earlier nuclear plants involved an average 207% overrun, soaring from $938 to $2,959 per kilowatt.

3)     And once the investments commence, they are all-or-nothing.  You can’t pull out without losing your entire investment.  For those with longer memories, WPPS and Shoreham represent  $2.25 bn (1983)  and $6 bn (1989) wasted investments in which nothing was gained and ratepayers and bondholders lost a good deal.

Some recent investments in centralized nuclear plants in other countries highlight and echo these lessons.

Electricite de France’s Flamanville plant has seen its budget explode from 3.3 to 6 bn (July 2011) to 8 bn Euros ($10.5 bn) as of last December, with a delay of four years over original targets.  EDF in part blames stricter post-Fukushima regulations for part of the overrun).  To the north, Finland’s Olkiluoto – being constructed by Areva – has seen delays of nearly five years, and enormous cost overruns.  The original turnkey cost of 3.0 bn Euros has skyrocketed beyond all fears, increasing at least 250%.  Just last month, Areva’s CEO conceded “We estimate that the costs of Olkiluoto are near those of Flamanville.”

In the US, recent experience doesn’t look much better:  Progress Energy (now Duke) first announced the 2,200 MW Levy nuclear project in 2006, with an estimated price tag of $4 to $6 bn and an online date of 2016.  The cost estimated increased to $17 bn in 2008.  This year, Progress announced the project would cost $24 billion and come online in 2024.  The Levy plant currently has a debt in excess of $1.1 bn for which customers had already paid $545 million through 2011.  As of now, the utility plans to proceed, with the Executive VP for Power Generation stating ”We’ve made a decision to build Levy…I’m confident in the schedule and numbers.”

In Georgia, Vogtle Units 3 and 4 (owned jointly by a number of utilities, including Georgia Power) appear in somewhat better shape, but issues have cropped up there as well.  Customers currently pay $10 per month in advance to cover financing associated with the two 1,117 MW units.  Georgia Power is allowed by legislation to recover $1.7 bn in financing costs of its estimated $6.1 bn portion of the $14 bn plant during the construction period.  However, there have already been some cost problems, and Georgia Power is disputing its responsibility to pay $425 million of overruns resulting from delays in licensing approvals.  Total cost excesses to all partners total $875 mn.  The two units were expected to come online in 2016 and 2017, but in a Georgia PSC meeting in December, an independent monitor noted that expected delays of fifteen months are largely as a result of poor paperwork related to stringent design rules and quality assurance.  Those delays will likely continue to cost more money.

Unfortunately, these experiences are not outliers.  From 2007 to 2010, the NRC received 18 nuclear applications ( of which only twelve are still active).  Of these, the consulting outfit Analysis Group reported that for eight plants where they were able to obtain two or more comparable cost estimate, 7 are over budget (including Levy and Vogtle), with updated numbers “often double or triple initial estimates.”  This is consistent with an MIT study estimating ‘overnight’ costs nearly doubling from 2002 to 2007.   As utilities management consultant Stephen Maloney was quoted in the Analysis Group study “No one has ever built a contemporary reactor to contemporary standards, so no one has the experience to state with confidence what it will cost.  We see cost escalations as companies coming up the learning curve.”

Last August, Exelon abandoned plans to construct two facilities in Texas, blaming low natural gas prices.  Two months later, Dominion Resources announced that it would shut down its existing Kewaunee station in Wisconsin as a consequence of low gas prices and a lack of buyers.  The latter move was particularly eye-opening: building a nuclear plant is supposed to be the expensive part, while operation is expected to be relatively cheap.

So it appears that the nuclear renaissance may be largely over before it started.  And yet, many projects have not yet been canceled, with utilities and ratepayers accepting ever more risk in order to rescue sunk costs. In many cases, these costs have soared or will soar into the billions. As risk management expert Russell Walker of the Kellogg School of Management is quoted as saying in the  Tampa Bay Times “When the stakes get higher, it gets harder for organizations to walk away…this happens a lot.  It’s the same problem a gambler has: If I play a little longer, it’ll come around.

With low natural gas prices, efficient combined cycled turbines, more efficient renewables and a host of more efficient end-use technologies, that’s a bet fewer and fewer seem wiling to take.   Unfortunately for ratepayers at some utilities, they are at the table whether they like it or not…


Whistleblower: Nuclear Disaster in America is waiting to happen

Key federal official warns that the public has been kept in the dark about safety risks.

November 28, 2012  |

Photo Credit: Aleksey Klints/

 This article was published in partnership with

The likelihood was very low that an earthquake followed by a tsunami would destroy all four nuclear reactors at the Fukushima nuclear power plant, but in March 2011, that’s what happened, and the accident has yet to be contained.

Similarly, the likelihood may be low that an upstream dam will fail, unleashing a flood that will turn any of 34 vulnerable nuclear plants into an American Fukushima.  But knowing that unlikely events sometimes happen nevertheless, the nuclear industry continues to answer the question of how much safety is enough by seeking to suppress or minimize what the public knows about the danger.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has known at least since 1996 that flooding danger from upstream dam failure was a more serious threat than the agency would publicly admit. The NRC failed from 1996 until 2011 to assess the threat even internally.  In July 2011, the NRC staff completed a report finding “that external flooding due to upstream dam failure poses a larger than expected risk to plants and public safety” [emphasis added] but the NRC did not make the 41-page report public.

Instead, the agency made much of another report, issued July 12, 2011 – “Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st Century,” sub-titled “The Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Accident.”  Hardly four months since the continuing accident began in Japan, the premature report had little to say about reactor flooding as a result of upstream dam failure, although an NRC news release in March 2012 would try to suggest otherwise.

Censored Report May Be Crime by NRC  

That 2012 news release accompanied a highly redacted version of the July 2011 report that had recommended a more formal investigation of the unexpectedly higher risks of upstream dam failure to nuclear plants and the public.  In its release, the NRC said it had “started a formal evaluation of potential generic safety implications for dam failures upstream” including “the effects of upstream dam failure on independent spent fuel storage installations.”

Six months later, in September 2012, The NRC’s effort at bland public relations went controversial, when the report’s lead author made a criminal complaint to the NRC’s Inspector General, alleging “Concealment of Significant Nuclear Safety Information by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.”  In a letter dated September 14 and made public the same day, Richard Perkins, an engineer in the NRC’s Division of Risk Analysis, wrote Inspector General Hubert Bell, describing it as “a violation of law” that the Commission:

has intentionally mischaracterized relevant and noteworthy safety information as sensitive, security information in an effort to conceal the information from the public. This action occurred in anticipation of, in preparation for, and as part of the NRC’s response to a Freedom of Information Act request for information concerning the generic issue investigation on Flooding of U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Following Upstream Dam Failure….   

Portions of the publically released version of this report are redacted citing security sensitivities, however, the redacted information is of a general descriptive nature or is strictly relevant to the safety of U.S. nuclear power plants, plant personnel, and members of the public. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has engaged in an effort to mischaracterize the information as security sensitive in order to justify withholding it from public release using certain exemptions specified in the Freedom of Information Act. …

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff may be motivated to prevent the disclosure of this safety information to the public because it will embarrass the agency. The redacted information includes discussion of, and excerpts from, NRC official agency records that show the NRC has been in possession of relevant, notable, and derogatory safety information for an extended period but failed to properly act on it.

 Concurrently, the NRC concealed the information from the public.

The Inspector General has not yet acted on the complaint.

Most Media Ignore Nuclear Safety Risks

Huffington Post picked up the story immediately as did the Union of Concerned Scientists and a number of online news sites.  The mainstream media showed little or no interest in a story about yet another example of the NRC lying to the public about the safety of nuclear power plants.

An NRC spokesman suggested to HuffPo that the report’s redactions were at least partly at the behest of Homeland Security. A second NRC risk engineer, who requested anonymity, said that Homeland Security had signed off on the report with no redactions.  As HuffPo noted:

If this were truly such a security concern, however, it would be incumbent on the agency to act swiftly to eliminate that threat, the engineer stated. As it is, the engineer suggested, no increased security actions have been undertaken.

This same engineer expressed serious misgivings, shared by others in and out of the NRC, that a nuclear power plant in Greenville, South Carolina, has been at risk from upstream dam failure for years, that the NRC has been aware of the risk, and that the NRC has done nothing to mitigate the risk.   In the redacted report, the NRC blacked out passages about this plant.

Event Unlikely, Would Be Sure Disaster 

South Carolina’s Oconee plant on Lake Keowee has three reactors, located 11 miles downstream from the Jocassee Reservoir, an 8,000 acre lake.  As HuffPo put it:

…the Oconee facility, which is operated by Duke Energy, would suffer almost certain core damage if the Jocassee dam were to fail. And the odds of it failing sometime over the next 20 years, the engineer said, are far greater than the odds of a freak tsunami taking out the defenses of a nuclear plant in Japan….

“Although it is not a given that Jocassee Dam will fail in the next 20 years,” the engineer added, “it is a given that if it does fail, the three reactor plants will melt down and release their radionuclides into the environment.”

When the NRC granted an operating license to the Oconee plant in 1973, danger from upstream dam failure was not even considered, never mind considered a threat against which some protection was needed.   The NRC and the plant’s owner both say the Jocassee Dam is not an immediate safety issue.   Oconee’s initial license was for 40 years.  It is now the second plant in the U.S. that the NRC has granted an extended license for another 20 years.

Union of Concerned Scientists Are Concerned 

The Union of Concerned Scientists, which says it is neither pro-nuke nor anti-nuke, but committed to making nuclear power as safe as possible, has considered the risk factors for Oconee. The NRC wrote in 2009 that “a Jocassee Dam failure is a credible event and in 2011 wrote that “dam failures are common” – and that since 1975 there have been more than 700 dam failures, 148 of them large dams 40 feet or more high.  The Jocassee Dam is 385 feet high.

For a dam like Jocassee, the NRC calculates the chance of failure at 1 in 3,600 per year – or 1 in 180 each year for the extended license.  NRC policy, when enforced, requires nuclear plant owners to mitigate any risk that has a 1 in 250 per years chance of occurring.

Oconee has three nuclear reactors, each of which is larger than the reactors at Fukushima, and so has more lethal radioactive potential.   Duke Energy reported its own upstream dam failure calculations to the NRC no later than 1996 and the NRC has responded by requiring no safety enhancements to address the threat.

Noting that the upstream dam failure risk does not take into account possible earthquakes or terrorist attacks, the Union of Concerned Scientists wrote:

The 34 reactors of concern are downstream from a total of more than 50 dams, more than half of which are roughly the size of the Jocassee dam. Assuming the NRC’s failure rate applies to all of those dams, the probability that one will fail in the next 40 years is roughly 25 percent—a 1 in 4 chance.

List of Reactors Potentially at High Risk of Flooding due to Dam Failure


Alabama: Browns Ferry, Units 1, 2, 3

Arkansas: Arkansas Nuclear, Units 1, 2

Louisiana: Waterford, Unit 3

Minnesota: Prairie Island, Units 1, 2

Nebraska: Cooper;  Fort Calhoun

New Jersey: Hope Creek, Unit 1;  Salem, Units 1, 2

New York: Indian Point, Units 2, 3

North Carolina: McGuire, Units 1, 2

Pennsylvania: Beaver Valley, Units 1, 2; Peach Bottom, Units 2, 3; Three Mile Island, Unit 1

Tennessee: Sequoyah, Unit 1;  Watts Bar, Unit 1

Texas: South Texas, Units 1, 2

South Carolina: H.B. Robinson, Unit 2;  Oconee, Units 1, 2, 3

Vermont: Vermont Yankee

Virginia: Surrey, Units 1, 2

Washington: Columbia

(Source: Perkins, et al., “Screening Analysis,” July 2011) 

Kovvada nuclear power plant will displace about 8,000 people

Issue Date:
2012-11-2, DowntoErath

Andhra government declares five villages in Srikakulam district as project affected

Proposed nuclear  
power plant site



Proposed nuclear power plant site

The Andhra Pradesh government has issued an order, notifying villages that are likely to be affected fully or partially by the proposed nuclear power plant at Kovvada in Ranasthalam block of the coastal district of Srikakulam. The order issued on November 1 by Mrutunjay Sahoo, principal secretary, states that 1,916.27 acres (1 acre equals 0.4 hectare) of land, including 604.12 acres of private land, will have to be acquired for the 6,000 MW project. As per the government’s estimation, 1,983 families (7,960 persons) in five villages will be displaced by the nuclear plant.

The government issued the notification as per the state’s policy—Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R&R) for Project Affected Families, 2005. Villages which figure in the notification of “Project Affected Zone” are Ramachandrapuram, Gudem, Kotapalem, Tekkali and Jeeru Kovvada. The main source of income of people who would be displaced are agriculture, fishing and wage labour, notes the order.

The Department of Atomic Energy of the Central government had given in-principle approval for the 6X 1,000 MW nuclear power plant comprising light water reactors in 2009. The ambitious Rs 60,000 crore plant is being set up by the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL).

The government order says the district collector of Srikakulam, in a letter dated June 20, 2012, has stated that the chief engineer of the NPCIL has submitted a proposal for acquiring 2,436.77 acres of land in these villages for installing the reactors, establishing a township and rehabilitating the displaced families. The state government had sanctioned a Land Acquisition Unit in last December for starting the land acquisition process by identifying the land. The acquisition of land and houses will be under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894, says the order.

Land to be acquired (in acres)
Poramboke (government) land 763.51
Village sites 52.89
Assigned land (government land
distributed to the landless):
Private land 604.12
Total 1,916.27

#India- has lost it-New #nuclear plants may be located in heart of city #joke

New nuclear plants may be located in heart of city
Amid a raging debate on atomic energy, scientists are busy designing nuclear reactors that can be located in the heart of the city.

24 Oct, 2012, 04.09PM IST, PTI

New nuclear plants may be located in heart of city

NEW DELHI: Amid a raging debate on atomic energy, scientists are busy designingnuclear reactors that can be located in the heart of the city and construction on which may begin within the next five years.

The much-delayed 300 MW Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR), which has been on the design table for nearly a decade, has several in-built safety features that would allow the power plant to be located even in densely populated areas.

“The AHWR has a number of in-built safety features that would require very little exclusion zone and can be built right in the heart of the city,” Shiv Abhilash Bhardwaj, Director (Technical), Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) said here.

He said the construction of the AHWR was expected to start during the 12th Plan period.

The safety features in its design would enable meeting next generation safety requirements such as three days grace period for operator response, elimination of the need for exclusion zone beyond the plant boundary, hundred year design life and high level of fault tolerance, officials said.

The AHWR also has high level of fault tolerance and provides for a much greater immunity even from insider threat.

A site for building the AHWR, designed by a team of nuclear scientists led by former Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar and incumbent Ratan Kumar Sinha, is yet to be finalised. The AHWR uses thorium as fuel.

The AHWR is also expected to ease the land acquisition worries of the nuclear establishment as the reactor may not require any exclusion zone beyond the plant boundary.

In conventional nuclear plants, the exclusion zone extends to 1.6 km radius from the reactor, which is followed by a sterilised zone which extends upto five km from the reactor and an emergency planning zone which is the area in a radius of 16 km from the reactor.

The exclusion zone is directly under control of the nuclear power plant administration, the sterilised zone is a low population zone, where the growth of population is limited by administrative control.

The outer-most zone defines the minimum distance to a high population centre.

Land acquisition for nuclear reactors has run into protests in Haryana, Maharashtra and West Bengal and the AHWR may allow the nuclear establishment some flexibility in handling the vexed issue.

A typical nuclear power plant requires acquisition of 600 acres of land, most of which forms the exclusion zone.



Koondakulam Officia lsite evaluation is faulty- Report #antinuke

English: Construction site of the Koodankulam ...

English: Construction site of the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant Deutsch: Baustelle des Kernkraftwerks Kudankulam (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Note:This report obtained by Kudankulam anti- nuclear  activists from NPCIL under pressure of the RTI Act is presented as rough draft as certain pages were omitted during supply of the copy.
Based on Dianuke website report under the following website.
1.Introduction:  The acceptability of a site for locating a nuclear power plant is dependent not only on site characteristics, related primarily and directly to safety, but also on a large number of other aspects  which are only indirectly related to safety.  These include the reliability and stability of the electrical grid, the adequacy of communications etc.
The siting of nuclear power plant (NPP) generally involves studies in three stages, namely:
1)Site survey stage: The purpose of a site survey is to identify lone or more preferred candidate sites after both safety and non-safety considerations have been taken into account.  This involves the study and investigation of a large region.  It results in the rejection of unacceptable sites, and is followed by systematic screening, and comparison of remaining sites.
2) Site evaluation stage:  This stage involves the study and investigation of one or more of the preferred candidate sites to evaluate their acceptability from various consideration, and in particular from the safety considerations.  The site-related design bases are established at this stage.  Subsequent to this a preliminary safety analysis report is submitted for clearance before site construction is started.
3) Pre-operational stageThis stage includes studies and investigations of the selected site after the start of construction and before the start of operation in order to complete and refine the assessment of site characteristics and to confirm assumptions made in the safety analysis of the reactor as a part of the final safety analysis report.  The base line data on environment are also established at this stage.
The stage one is within the scope of the work of the site selection committee.  The present committee aims to have a preliminary evaluation of the feasibility of a site mainly from safety considerations and ensure that the plant site combination does not constitute an unacceptable risk.  However, in ivew of the fact that some non-safety considerations may affect safety related aspects, such items also have to be studied.  It is to be understood that the present committee has evaluated the site from screening considerations.  The site related design parameters/bases are to be established at appropriate stages.  The review is based on the available information on population and industrial growth and other proposed facilities at and around the site in addition to safety related aspects like seismo-tectonic environment, geology, hydrology, extreme meteorological Phenomenon etc.  The site is evaluated from the following considerations.
1.       Effect of the region of the site on the plant   2. Effect of the plant on the region
3.       Population considerations.
While the first of the above factors decide the safety of the plant due to site related natural and man-induced events, the second factor influences the potential radiological impact from the plant on the environment.  Population consideration is important for emergency planning.
The acceptability of a site for a particular NPP depends on the existence of engineering solution to site related problems which gives assurance that the proposed plant can be built and operated within acceptably low risk to the population of the region.
IAEA guidelines (1,2) have been kept in mind for the site evaluation.
Potential site-specific natural hazards and man-induced events have been evaluated for initial appraisal of their impact on the plant design and the enigneerability under the given circumstances.  Subsequently, these studies form the design bases.
Among the natural hazards, the following aspects as relevant to site have been studied.
i)                    Surface faulting     ii)Seismicity     iii)Suitability of subsurface material
iv)                 Flood and     v)Extreme meteorological phenomena (e.g cyclone)
Because of rocky substrata slope instability, soil liquefaction, surface collapse, subsidence or uplift are not applicable for the present site.
Man-induced events include accidents due to
i)                    Air traffic        ii)Vehicular road traffic
ii)                   Industrial and Military activities in the immediate vicinity of the site.
Capability of dispersion in air and water are studied for possible radiological impact on environment. The availability of adequate cooling water supply for the ultimate Heat Sink is the central safety issue.  Feasibility of implementing effective emergency actions has also been considered.
        (Economic, Technical, Environmental and Social Aspects)
These are primarily related to engineering feasibility.  However, some of the factors may indirectly be related to the safety of the NPP.
The factors considered are:   i)Electricity network  ii)Availability of cooling water iii) Transport routes
iv) Topography   v)Industrial support at site  vi) Non-radiological impact on the environment (e.g.. chemical and thermal pollution, industrial growth and its impact etc.)
The committee has studied all site related data submitted by NPC (3,4,5) and has, in accordance with the criteria mentioned above, made a review of the suitability of the Kudankulam site for locating nuclear power station having two units of 1000 MWe VVER reactor.
The review findings are presented in Tables I and II
 The committee recommends that the following actions should be taken at appropriate stages.
1)      ODC committee of NPC to evaluate suitability of transportation of ODC at design stage
2)      Maximum Flood Level should be estimated accurately considering IAEA safety Guide 50-SG-S10B.  Revised report of CWPRS should be submitted to Design Safety Committee.
3)      Analysis for the quality of construction water is to be carried out.
4)      In order to enhance additional reliability for water Supply, which is essential for functioning of various safety systems of the reactor, intake well at Pechiparai Dam should be provided at lower elevation than the minimum draw-down level of the reservoir.  However, it should be ensured by proper management of water distribution that the water level is maintained above this minimum level.
5)      Adequate storage of fresh water for prolonged safe shutdown of the reactors is to be provided within plant boundary for safety related systems.  Ground water source should be explored.
6)      Environmental Survey laboratory should be set up at site and instruments are to be installed at site to collect meteorological data and background radiation.
7)      Site related design considerations such as seismic aspects, etc are to be established before submission of PSAR.
8)      The committee has been informed that detail subsoil investigations have been carried out (12).  Bore-hole investigations are to be carried out at the proposed location of various buildings and structures.  The report should be forwarded to design group for taking into account at the time of actual design.
9)      Power evacuation studies particularly that influence the plant grid interaction should be persued.  Feasibility of operation on islanding mode may be studied in collaboration with CEA.  In addition availability of a reliable (dedicated) startup power source of adequate capacity should be examined.
10)   Stipulations made by various state and central authorities in giving clearance, should be met.  In addition, plantation in the area under control of the project should be taken up along with site development.
11)    Tamilnadu legislation to control population growth beyond natural growth within the sterilized zone is to be implemented.
12)   Termination of the lease in 1994 for lime stone quarry.
1.       Radiological impact should be assessed with proper source terms and relevant dispersion characteristics of the site.  Dose limits prescribed should be met at a distance of 1.6km in event of greater exclusion radius adopted by NPC.
2.       Stack height to be checked by Health Physics Division,BARC, considering topography and dispersion characteristics.
3.        Model studies should be taken up for intake and outfall structure for thermal pollution and recirculation.
4.       Studies on Biofouling and jelly-fish etc. that may affect the water supply should be taken up.
5.       Studies on accretion/erosion rate around the plant site should be carried out.  If required, proper protection should be provided.
6.       Design should be engineered to meet site related design basis events.
7.        Atleast two evacuation routes from plant site during an emergency should be provided.
The committee is of the opinion that Kudankulam site meets the major criteria for siting 2 x 1000 MWe VVER units.  The Committee at the same time recommends that the observations made in the preface and the actions recommended in Section 3 above need to be implemented at appropriate stages.
1.       IAEA – Code of Practice on Safety in Nuclear Power Plant Siting.  IAEA Safety Series No.50-C-S International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 1979
2.       Site Survey for Nuclear Power Plants.  IAEA Safety series No. 50-SG-S9.  IAEA(1984)
3.       Environmental data on proposed Kudankulam site for submission to Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board for 2 x 1000 MWe VVER nuclear power station.
4.       Write up on Kudankulam site – DAE
5.       Siting data in AERB standard format.  (Received from NPC vide letter NPC/KK/24/1032, dt.7-3-89
6.       Layout of main plant building for 2 x 1000 MWe VVER project at Kudankulam
7.       CWPRS Pune Report: “Safe Grade Elevation for the proposed nuclear power station at Kudankulam,  Tamilnadu
8.       Draft report on Earthquake design basis for Kudankulam site, DAE, 1988 – A.K Ghosh and DC Banerjee.
9.       Appendix to Part-I of Site Selection Committee report
10.   Power Transmission system for Kudankulam Atomic Power Project -CEA report
11.   Letter NPC/KK/24 dated 16-3-89 received from NPC
12.   Brief note from NPC on “Geological setup of Kudankulam site”.
T A B L E -1
Site characteristics Influencing the NPP
Specification/Desirable Characteristics
Observations for Kudankulam site
Plain topography
Plain topography-elevation+3m to 45m above MSL.  Area measuring 1Km to 2Km available (3), (6)
Terrain suitable sufficient land available for future expansion
i) Nearest Broadgauge rail head
Kanyakumari(27Km), Valliyur (27Km)
Recommendation for ODC transport
1)All consignments/equipments with weight (30Ton: USSR-tutitorin by ship Tuticorin-site: by road or on barges by sea route
2) All consignments (30 ton USSR-site: by ship and barges. To be unloaded at jetty within the plant
ii)Nearest National Highway
NH7 at Kanyakumari 27Km, Valliyur 27Km,
iii) Nearest Seaport
 Tuticorin (100Km)
iv) Nearest district road
Coastal road 4Km
Construction Facilities
i)Construction materials
Coarse aggregates available at Anjugrarer (4km).  Sand available at Ratucenathjewari   road (7km) Bricks available at Panagudi (27km)
More sources will be established at construction stage.
ii)Construction power
26KVA +2 KVA for township
Panagudi sub-station (27Km)  – 110KV line exists. 110KV line from Kodyar power station is also being considered.
iii)Construction water
3.5 cu.sec (350 cu.m per hour
Initially limited supply to be tapped from ground water sources.  Subsequently the demand will be met from Pechiparai dam
Quality of construction water is likely to be acceptable.  Analysis of water will be carried out.
iv)Infrastructure facilities (e.g minor workshop etc)
Nagercoil (30km) and Tuticorin (100km)
Availability of Power Supply and Transmission Lines
i)Start-up Power
50KVA per unit
Available from main state grid and Tuticorin Thermal Power Station Plant (630MW) 220KV line to be drawn from Tuticorin.
ii)Power evacuation scheme
Feasible as per preliminary study conducted by CEA.  Detail study is in progress
Present grid capacity 12832 MWe.  Nuclear 470MWe. Projected capacity in 1995 will be 27541MWe.  Nuclear  1910 MWe
Availability of Water
i)Condenser cooling
6000 Cu sec
(on once-through basis)
Sea water cooling on once-through basis silt content:60-100 ppm Particle size75 microns.Temperature:26-29 oC
No constraint. Titanium tubes will be used.  Study on biofouling and jelly fish that may affect the water supply will be taken at design stage.  Model study will be taken up for intake and outfall structure(5)
ii)Fresh water for make-up and domestic use
10 cu sec
Assured by State Government.  One pipeline from Pechiparai dam (at 65km) to be laid. pH:7.  Dissolved solids:25mg/litre,  Suspended solids:negligible, Turbidity:5mg/l (5)
Dam storage 4.45 TMC ft. Dead storage can account for 3 years drought (5)
400 acres
400 acres of land identified near Chettikulam village about 7km from the site (3)
Site Characteristics Influencing the NPP
Specification/Desirable Characteristics
Observations for Kudankulam site
i)Foundation conditions depths of bed rock and type
Bed rock at 5-16m below ground. Biotite granite genesis with lenticular bodies of charnockites or quartzites
ii) Strength
Maximum intensity of loading 6kg/ at RB
Dry strength : 650kg/
Wet strength: 450 kg/
iii)Ground water
Below 1m
5-8 m below ground – gradient towards sea (5)
Natural events:
i)Coastal erosion
Erosion insignificant with respect to life of station. Nearest main plant structure from shore about 120m away from the sea base line
Layout for the main plant still under consideration figure of 120 tons estimate on the basis on 7 ton as the ground elevation at main plant building.
Maximum flood level considering tidal range wave run-up and maximum stage surge 5.9m above chart datam of 0.0 Exposed structures placed well above this level. (7)
Grade level around Reactor Building will be above 7m from MSL.
Revised report on MFL from CWPRS awaited.  Grade elevation will be changed if necessary.
Not significant as per preliminary report of CWPRS
1m height of wave considered due to tsunami effect.
iv)Wind, storm, Cyclone
Maximum speed of storm:112km/hr. Storm surge accounted for in flooding. Exceedance probability 5% as per preliminary repsort from CWPRS.
Engineering capability to design for wind load exists.
v)Slope instability
Not applicable for rocky substrata
Vi)Soil liquefaction
Not applicable for rocky substrata
vii)Seismotectonic environment
No active fault within 5km of NPP. Engineering capability for stipulated earthquake acceleration should be possible
No active fault within 5km. Site is in seismic zoneII as per IS 1893; 1984. Nearest epicenter at Trivandrum (90km) earthquake in the region.
Magnitude 6 at Coimbatore (8 Feb, 1900) (300 km) Estimated peak horizontal acceleration for SSE is 0.15g and for OBE is 0.06g.
Engineering capability to design for such earthquake loads exists. Seismic evaluation report finalized after discussion with GSI and Soviet Specialists.  Further ground checks have confirmed the assumptions regarding the nearest
Use of Land
Within in the exclusion zone: 34% of area lies in sea.  Remaining 650-750 ha of land (no forest), mostly private owned, is barren and unirrigated/poorly cultivable.  Extremely limited agriculture.  Annual yield: 20 tons of  millet and 2 tons of cotton
Within 10km radius area: 60% of area lies in Sea. Remaining land is barren or used for agriculture.  Annual yield:Paddy 14400 tons, millet 4300 tons, chillir 3000 tonnes, tobacco 380 tons, pulses 830 tons, cotton 250 tons, oil seeds 70 tons (4)
A lime stone quarry of about 70 acres falls within the sterilized zone.  The lease for this area expires in 1994.  Termination of the lease beyond the period has been requested.
Use of Water
Ground water, limited in supply is used for drinking andhas a gradient towards the sea.  No salt pans within 5km. The degree of development of fisheries is as common as in a coastal belt.   In the near by area, indinthakarai, Koothapuzh, Koothankuzhi and Perurranal are the fishing villages within 20km and annual fish produce of about 4000 tons in the area is reported.  About 3900 fisherman in these villages are engaged infishing as per information furnished in 1982.  At Chinneruttar near Kanyakumari, a fishing harbor is being developed. (4)
Disposal of Radioactive waste from the NPP
i)Solid waste
Low level solid waste to be buried within exclusion zone in leak-proof RCC vaults/trenches/tile holes.  160-180 m cu per year of  cemented waste including spent absorption materials, 40m cu/yr of compacted waste and 5 m cu/yr of cemented ash will be generated from one reactor (5)
Borewells surrounding the solid waste burial area will be provided for monitoring migration of activities.
ii)Liquid waste
To be diluted to 2 x 10E-7 micro Ci/ml when discharged into the sea.
Most of the radioactivity in the liquid is removed in the Ion exchange resin and as evaporator concentrate.  After above processing the liquid effluent from two units is estimated as 6000 m Cu/year with activity levels lesser or equal to 10E-9 Ci/l.  This will be further diluted by condenser cooling water to meet the limits allowed by AERB
6000 cusecs of sea water available for dilution while sea water less than 1 cusec required to achieve the specified limits.
iii)Gas release
Stack height is 100m. Use of high efficiency (0.3 micron) particulate absolute filter will help to comply with authorized limits for particulate activity. The estimated gaseous discharges from two units as following.
Nuclides          Avg daily
Noble gases–       2220
I-131             30 x 10E-4
Long life             0.012
Short life            0.26
It is understood that specific detailed information regarding waste and radioactive releases will be available along with PSAR for review
i)during normal operation
AERB prescribed limits
Based on releases vide para7, preliminary estimates indicate very low dose rates 11.24 mrem/yr to the individual at 1.6km exclusion radius.  Both the water and air routes have been considered in the above estimates.
ii)During design basis accident conditions
10 rem for whole body, 50 rem for child thyroid at exclusion radius
For all design basis accidents adequate engineering safety features shall be  provided to meet the specified requirements.
DBA calculations will be carried out at the design stage
Thermal Pollution
Not significant.  Intake and outfall will be well separated.  Depth of sea water and large dilution due to sea will avoid thermal pollution
Model studies will be carried out at CWPRS Pune.  The requirements of Tamilnadu pollution Control Board should be met
Storage and Transportation of Fresh and spent fuel
Space for storage of fresh fuel for 5 years plus one core charge will be provided.  Each unit layout can store spent fuel of 5 reactor years in the spent fuel pool located inside the containment.  Besides this space will be available to unload one core inventory.
50 ton of spent fuel will be discharged annually from the 2 reactors.  After adequate cooling inside the pool, it will be shipped to Soviet Union by sea route in hermatically sealed casks.  Special jetty provided within the plant area will be used for transfer of cask to the Soviet ships so that spent fuel remains within plant boundary at all stages during the process of shipment of irradiated.
Fuel Reprocessing facility
Reprocessing not planned at this site
Population considerations
i) Population within 2km radius exclusion zone
No habitation
No resident population
ii)Population within 5km radius sterilized zone
Less than 26,000 population density (2/3  state average.
Total population:15,000, 3 villages in this area Kudankulam, Idinthakarai and Erukkanatharam
Tamilnadu legislation to control population growth beyond natural growth within the sterilized zone to be implemented.
iii)Population within 10km radius zone
No center >10,000
No population centre with more than 10,000 people.  total population 40,842 (1961 census). Population density:130 persons/
iv)Population within 30km radius zone
No center >1,00,000
No population center with more than 1 lakh people.  11 centers have population more than 10,000  Nagercoil (at 30 km has a population of 1,71,641.
v) Population within 50km radius zone
33 population centers with population more than 10,000 (4)
Emergency Preparedness Considerations
3 routes exist for possible evacuation.  Schools and other public buildings exist for adequate temporary shelter, nagercoil (30km), Tirunelveli (100km) and Tuticorin (100km) can providerehabilitation medical facilities and administrative support
Draft proposal on off-site emergency preparedness plans already submitted to AERB.
 Additional Statutory requirements of the Central and State Government
Clearance for the following has been obtained:
Tamilnadu pollution control Board, Shore protection committee of Tamilnadu Government, State Committee on Environment, Minister of Environment and Forests (Government of India)
Stipulations made in the clearance documents should be adhered to.

At Kudankulam, police intent not to uphold rule of law, but to crush dissenting voices’

By TWL Bureau
A fact finding team that visited Idinthakarai village, the epicentre of the people’s movement against Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant (KKNPP), has found the State cracking down on the peaceful agitation with its full might to “teach people a lesson for voicing their concern and challenging the Government.”
The team comprising senior journalist Sam Rajappa, Prof. Gladston Xavier, Advocate Porkodi, and PUCL activists, Mahadevan and Rajan, found that between 10.9.2011 and 23.12.2011, police had filed 107 FIRs against 55795 people and “others,” among whom 6800 have been charged with “sedition” and/ or “waging war against the State.”

The agitation against the nuclear plant continues in Kudankulam (Photos: Antony Kebiston Fernando)

The team also found that “since all main roads have been blocked, food supplies, milk and water had dwindled as has the reserve of fuel, oil and diesel.”

Shocked by the findings, the team which visited Idinthakarai and other areas in the vicinity of Kudankulam on the 30th and 31st of March 2012, observes that “the frequency and manner in which the Police have filed cases against peaceful protestors clearly exposes that the police’s intent never was to uphold the rule of law, but to crush any dissenting voices.”

Following is an Extract from the Report that captures the situation in Idinthakarai village:

On 19 March, 2012, the Tamilnadu Chief Minister (J Jayalalithaa) announced her decision to allow the commencement of work at the Koodankulam Nuclear plant. In anticipation of this decision, the police forces deployed for maintaining law and order during the SankaranKoil bye-election were re-deployed to the areas in and around Koodankulam.

Idinthakarai is a medium-sized fishing village, with a mixed Hindu-Roman Catholic fisher population, and a smaller proportion of other communities. Since August 2011, Idinthakarai has been the epicentre of the protest against the KKNPP.

In the seven months of agitation, members of KKNPP have been subject to numerous provocations, including being pelted with stones, harassed, and having their vehicles damaged.

By and large, the response of the protestors has been non-violent and democratic. Using established satyagraha tactics such as hunger strikes, dharnas and road blockades, they have managed to keep a struggle alive in the face of propagandist campaign by the Central Government and their paid scientists.

The protest site, which was encircled by more than 7000 armed men, including those from Central forces and the Coast Guard, until March 23, was occupied (at the time of writing) by more than 10,000 people of whom 946 were elderly people, and 1500 children, including 715 below the age of five.

Kuthenkuly is another village neighbouring Idinthakarai, which was also under a state of siege by the forces. This village has 553 primary school children, 198 children below age 5, and 462 elderly people.

Idinthakarai is totally dependent on outside sources for drinking water, medical facilities and fuel. Each day, nearly 50 tanker lorry loads of water are purchased at the rate of Rs. 2.50 per pot.

Since the time of the announcement by the Chief Minister, no tanker lorries were permitted to enter Idinthakarai. Since all main roads have been blocked, food supplies, milk and water had dwindled as has the reserve of fuel, oil and diesel.

Short supply of food, water and milk has put children to hardship

On 20th and 21st March, even the media (NDTV, Headlines Today and Puthiya Thalaimurai) was prevented access to the site, and this access was restored only after concerted public pressure was mounted.

Shopkeepers in nearby villages had been instructed to boycott Idinthakarai and Kuthenkuli villagers, and out of fear of reprisal, many of the shopkeepers were refusing to sell goods to Idinthakarai villagers.

It is learnt that road access to all coastal villages from Tiruchendur to Kuthenkuly had been blocked by the police, and that only coastal access was possible, and even that only to a limited extent.

Women form the bulk of the resistance at Idinthakarai. If the Government of Tamilnadu’s intent was to facilitate entry of technical personnel into the plant site, that has been accomplished, and there is no possibility of that being blocked given the overwhelming presence of armed people in the region.

Under these circumstances, the intimidating show of force by the police forces, and the embargo on essential commodities seems to be a means to teach people a lesson for voicing their concern and challenging the Governments.

Even as a Fact Finding Team was being constituted to look into the matter, public pressure resulted in the easing of the situation.

Movement of essential supplies was restored, although movement of people, particularly from the village to the outside world remains problematic as many villagers fear that they will be jailed under false pretexts if they ventured out.

Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries


Kractivism-Gonaimate Videos

Protest to Arrest

Faking Democracy- Free Irom Sharmila Now

Faking Democracy- Repression Anti- Nuke activists


Kamayaninumerouno – Youtube Channel


Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 6,232 other followers

Top Rated

Blog Stats

  • 1,794,908 hits


July 2020
%d bloggers like this: