Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project

Introduction
In recent years, India’s energy consumption has been increasing at one of the fastest rates in the
world due to population growth and economic development. Despite the overall increase in
energy demand, per capita energy consumption in India is still very low compared to other
developing countries.
India is well-endowed with both exhaustible and renewable energy resources. Coal, oil, and
natural gas are the three primary commercial energy sources. India’s energy policy, till the end of
the 1980s, was mainly based on availability of indigenous resources. Coal was by far the largest
source of energy. However, India’s primary energy mix has been changing over a period of time.

To reduce the difference between demand & supply of electricity Indian government planned
some resolutions one of them is Nuclear Power Project.
Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project is a new proposed 9900 MW power project of Nuclear Power
Corporation of India (NPCIL) at Madban village of Ratnagiri district in Maharashtra India.[1] It will
be the largest nuclear power generating station of its kind in the world when completed, will have
six units of 1,650 MWe each. One unit of 1,650 MWe plant operating at full capacity can generate
36-39 million units a day, according to the NPCIL booklet on the project.
The Jaitapur project will come up in collaboration with French giant Areva, which will supply
uranium and reactor units, according to the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited.
French nuclear engineering firm Areva S.A. and Indian state-owned nuclear operator Nuclear
Power Corporation of India signed this multi billion valued agreement of about $9.3 billion. India
signed its first commercial pact to build atomic power plants with French company Areva. Areva
will supply two European Pressurised Reactors of 1650 MW each for nuclear plants the French
company will build at Jaitapur in Maharashtra. This agreement is quite important since life of the
reactors is anticipated at 60 years. Areva is a predominantly state-owned nuclear power company
in France, which has developed the 1650 MWe European Pressurised Reactor (EPR),
Evolutionary Pressurised Reactors based on the French N4 and the German Konvoi reactor
types.

Plant Information
The Jaitapur Power Project is coming up in an eco-sensitive area. It is one of several nuclear
power projects being undertaken in a thin strip of coast of Raigad, Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg
districts. The total power generating capacity proposed on a narrow strip of coastal land 50
kilometres (31 mi) to 90 kilometres (56 mi) km wide and 200 kilometres (120 mi) long is around
33,000 MW.[1][11] The prospect of nuclear power generation in India received a boost after the
Indo US Civilian Nuclear Agreement became operational in October 2008. India has also signed
similar agreements with France and Russia.[12][13][14]
There are other power projects coming up on a thin strip of coast of Raigad, Ratnagiri and
Sindhudurg with power generation adding up to 33,000 MW.
There are port and mining projects also lined up in this area. It is absolutely essential to get an
assurance from the Maharashtra government to study the cumulative carrying capacity of the
region and prepare a report.” ““It was not an easy task... It is a balancing act.

Geography
Jaitapur was one of the important ports in ancient and early medieval times.
This project will spread over 968 hectares of land. Jaitapur is on the Arabian Sea coast in
Ratnagiri district in the southwestern part of Maharashtra, India. The district is a part of Konkan in
Western Ghats.
NPCIL has acquired 938.026 hectares from five villages in Ratnagiri district for the project.
The NPCIL initially submitted an application for 976 hectares, but the final figure is 938.026 ha
(692.311 ha for the site and 245.715 ha for the residential complex) from five villages – Madban,
Karel, Niveli, Varilwada and Mithgavane. While no irrigated land is being acquired, Madban
village alone will lose 690.401 ha, and the residents are not excited about living in the backyard of
a nuclear plant. In addition, they are upset that a large part of land to be acquired for the project is
being used for agriculture, horticulture and grazing purposes, and that the government has
subverted facts by labelling it barren land.
the NPCIL says much of the land is barren.

Funding
A consortium of French financial institutions will finance this project as a loan. Both French and
Indian government will give sovereign guarantee for this loan. The extent of guarantee will
depend on what portion of the cost the French credit will cover. The Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) will govern the interest rates and other terms of
agreement. Interest rates and other terms are under discussion.[21]

Operating costs
In general, coal and nuclear plants have the same types of operating costs (operations and
maintenance plus fuel costs). However, nuclear has lower fuel costs but higher operating and
maintenance costs.[

The cost per unit of electricity produced (kW·h) will vary according to country, depending on costs
in the area, the regulatory regime and consequent financial and other risks, and the availability
and cost of finance. Costs will also depend on geographic factors such as availability of cooling
water, earthquake likelihood, and availability of suitable power grid connections. So it is not
possible to accurately estimate costs on a global basis.
A 2008 study based on historical outcomes in the U.S. said costs for nuclear power can be
expected to run $0.25-.30 per kW·h.[39]
A 2008 study concluded that if carbon capture and storage was required then nuclear power
would be the cheapest source of electricity even at $4,038/kW in overnight capital cost.[17]
In 2009, MIT updated its 2003 study, concluding that inflation and rising construction costs had
increased the overnight cost of nuclear power plants to about $4,000/kWe, and thus increased
the power cost to 8.4¢/kW·h.[6][40]

Events
On December 6, 2010 agreement was signed for the construction of first set of two third-
generation reactors Evolutionary Pressurized Reactors and the supply of nuclear fuel for 25 years
in the presence of French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
Major Events as of January 3, 2011
Date Event
November 28, 2010 India, France N-regulatory bodies meet on EPR safety issues[49]
November 28, 2010 Conditional environmental clearance
December 06, 2010 Agreement signed with Areva for the construction of first set of two reactors

Nuclear power plant symbol

Location of Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project

Country India
Owner(s) Nuclear Power Corporation of India
Coordinates 16°59′0″N 73°35′6″ECoordinates: 16°59′0″N 73°35′6″E
Status Received Conditional environmental clearance
Construction cost 100,000 crore (US$21.7 billion)
Construction cost 100,000 crore (US$22.1 billion)
Reactor information
Reactors planned 6 x 1650 MW
Reactor type(s) Evolutionary Pressurized Reactors
Reactor supplier(s) Areva
Power generation information Maximum capacity 9900 MW
The cost of electricity from this power plant will be below 4 Kilowatt hour

Reactors
Estimated cost of this project is around 100,000 crore (US$21.7 billion). This type of reactors at
not operational anywhere in the world.[18][19] United states Nuclear Regulatory Commission
have expressed concerns about safety of the computer system in this reactor, But Finland has
ordered one such reactor.[18] China has signed the agreement with Areva for three such
reactors.[18] French nuclear regulatory authorities have denied clearance for this reactors despite
Areva being a public sector company in France.[20

Energy policy of India

Today, India has one of the highest potentials for the effective use of renewable energy. India is
the world’s fifth largest producer of wind power after Denmark, Germany, Spain, and the USA.
There is a significant potential in India for generation of power from renewable energy sources-,
small hydro, biomass, and solar energy. The country has an estimated SHP (small-hydro power)
potential of about 15000 MW.[3]
The energy policy of India is characterized by tradeoffs between four major drivers:
Rapidly growing economy, with a need for dependable and reliable supply of electricity, gas, and
petroleum products;
Increasing household incomes, with a need for affordable and adequate supply of electricity, and
clean cooking fuels;
Limited domestic reserves of fossil fuels, and the need to import a vast fraction of the gas, crude
oil, and petroleum product requirements, and recently the need to import coal as well; and
Indoor, urban and regional environmental impacts, necessitating the need for the adoption of
cleaner fuels and cleaner technologies.

Determined efforts should be made to ensure that the task of rural electrification for securing
electricity access to all households and also ensuring that electricity reaches poor and marginal
sections of the society at reasonable rates is completed within the next five years. India is using
Renewable Sources of Energy like Hydel Energy, Wind Energy, and Solar Energy to electrify
villages.

Need of Energy
http://india.gov.in/spotlight/spotlight_archive.php?id=52
"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children."
- Native American Proverb
One of the basic requisites for economic development is energy. Every section of society,
whether agriculture, industry, transport, businesses or households consume energy. Over the
years, as the country progresses, increased amounts of energy are needed by these sectors.
This growing consumption of energy has led to increasing dependence on fossil fuels such as
coal, petroleum and natural gas for the supply of electricity.

The resulting environmental pollution and health problems caused by the use of these fossil fuels
brought about the need to develop and utilize alternative sources of clean energy. Also, the rising
prices of fossil fuels and fears about future shortages in energy supply called for the creation of a
sustainable path of energy development. This is best done through two avenues - the promotion
of energy conservation and the use of environmentally friendly renewable sources of energy.

Renewable sources of energy in India - Essay

http://www.rajputbrotherhood.com/articlelibrary/20100813863/renewable-sources-of-energy-in-
india-essay.html
AATISH PALEKAR
Sources of energy can be broadly classified into two categories-(i) Exhaustible sources and (ii)
Inexhaustible sources or renewable sources. Exhaustible sources are also called conventional
sources and include mineral coal, fire wood, cow dung, mineral oils, natural gas, hydro-electricity
and nuclear energy. Of these only hydro-electricity is renewable because it is based on
inexhaustible source i.e. water. Reserves of all other sources are limited and the quantity once
used cannot be used again. Under non- conventional sources or renewable sources, as they are
called, come the solar energy, wind energy, energy received from tidal waves and the bio-gas
energy. These sources are not in common use and have not been fully exploited hence these are
given the name non-conventional. With the ever-increasing demand for energy in order to run our
developing industries, railways, automobiles etc. it is certain that our conventional sources,
reserves of which are limited, will sooner or later be exhausted and their exhaustion will definitely
lead to chaos. It is, therefore, necessary to exploit the renewable sources of energy. This will not
only save our reserves but will also reduce the cost of transportation of energy to the remote
country places where non-conventional sources such as cow-during solar heart and wind are in
plenty.

Renewable Energy
Renewable energy is energy created from natural sources such as sunlight, wind, water, waste
products and other sources that can be naturally replenished. India is fortunate to be blessed with
an abundance of such sources. These sources of energy are available locally throughout the year
and do not need elaborate arrangements for distribution. This makes them well suited to
decentralized applications for use in remote areas. Other advantages of renewable energy
sources are its environment friendliness and low operation costs.

Energy Conservation
The most cost effective method of reducing the gap between the demand and supply of energy in
the country is the promotion of energy efficiency and its conservation.

(i) Wind energy:

Setting up of wind farms has been taken up in Orissa, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Gujarat.
Bharat Heavy Electrical has also developed machines having 200 MW capacities.
India is currently the fifth largest producer of wind power in the world, after USA, Germany, Spain
and China. Wind energy is used for water pumping, battery charging and large power generation.
(ii) Solar energy:
During most of the year we have plenty of bright sunshine in India. Hence potential of solar
energy is quite popular day-by-day. It is a very cheap and easily available source of energy. A
thermal power plant has already been set up in Rajasthan which is expected to become
functional. This will be an important achievement and will go a long way towards rural
development.

(iii) Bio-gas:
Source of biogas energy is mainly the cow-dung which is very easily available in the rural areas.
Its set up is quite east. It is quite popular in Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and
Maharastra. It is mostly used for family purposes i.e. cooking.
(iv) Solar photovoltaic cells:
These cells are mainly meant for Electrification of rural areas. Wherever this source of non-
conventional energy is easily available, generators up to the capacity of 10 to 100 kw are being
manufactured. Bharat Heavy Electrical and central Electrics ltd. Have come forward to
manufacture these cells on a large scale.

Small Hydro Power

Hydro power is the largest source of renewable energy for generating electricity. It is obtained
from the energy of water flowing from a height, which is converted into electricity by using a
turbine coupled to a generator.
Hydrogen Energy
Hydrogen is a colourless, odourless, tasteless, flammable gas which is high in energy content.
When burnt, hydrogen produces water as a by-product. This makes it an efficient source of
energy as well as an environmentally clean fuel. It can be used for power generation and
transport applications as well as for spacecraft fuel.
http://www.chillibreeze.com/articles_various/Renewable-Energy.asp
Renewable Energy Sources
Hydel
Wind Energy
Biogas / Biomass
Biomass is the oldest means of energy used by humans along with solar energy. As soon as the
fire was discovered, it was used widely among humans mainly for heat and light. Fire was
generated using wood or leaves, which is basically a biomass. Even today there are thousands of
houses using firewood for preparation of food, heating water for bath, etc. The efficiency of such
a process is very low as most of the heat is lost to the surroundings.

Bio-fuels
India has more than 50 million Ha of wasteland, which could be utilized for cultivating plants.
Jatropha is one of the options thought of by many minds for producing bio-fuels. It is a kind of
plant which can come up on arid land, albeit with lower yield

Energy from wastes

Tons of wastes are generated daily in Mumbai alone. Such huge quantity of wastes generated all
over India, are a huge opportunity to be tapped. Sorting is required to be done for organic and
inorganic and there is a good quantity for energy needs. Some of these are converted into fuel
briquettes and sold.

Other sources:
The Government is also working to develop advanced technologies of renewable energy such as
geothermal energy, ocean energy, fuel cells, bio fuels and tidal energy to satisfy future energy
requirements.
There exists great potential for the generation of electricity from the tidal waves of the ocean.
Efforts are being made to use this source for commercial purposes. Our scientists are busy in
search of potential sources of energy of running automobiles.

http://www.merinews.com/article/tap-the-sun-for-energy-independent-india/124457.shtml

FOR POWER-HUNGRY INDIA, solar energy is a source that has not been adequately tapped.
Rapid advances have been made and advanced solar technologies can be leveraged to power at
least the remote and inaccessible parts of the country. Here are some very well known ways in
which the energy from the sun can be harnessed.
Soon most of houses will be powered by solar energy. This will bring down the electricity bill of
the household as well the forex exchange as less fossil fuels will be imported. This is only way
India can become energy independent.
Cost is always important but due consideration is also required to given to national self-
sufficiency environmental impact, energy conservation & future source of non-fuel energy. Cost of
geothermal energy includes exploration cost; land acquisition & drilling costs, fluid gathering &
transmission cost, cost of plant and conversion equipment, man power, efficiency of the plant etc.
Exploration costs are unpredictable and there are late returns on investments, as such
exploration costs are to be supported by government and or international agencies
UNDP/UNITAR.

Nuclear power
India boasts a quickly advancing and active nuclear power program. India has been using
imported enriched uranium and is under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards,
but it has developed various aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle to support its reactors.
Development of select technologies has been strongly affected by limited imports. Use of heavy
water reactors has been particularly attractive for the nation because it allows Uranium to be
burnt with little to no enrichment capabilities. India has also done a great amount of work in the
development of a Thorium centered fuel cycle. While Uranium deposits in the nation are
extremely limited, there are much greater reserves of Thorium and it could provide hundreds of
times the energy with the same mass of fuel.
At present, nuclear energy accounts for nearly three per cent of our electricity generating capacity

Controversy
Debate on nuclear power project at Jaitapur is ongoing on various levels. Environmental effects
of nuclear power and geological issues have been raised by anti nuclear activists of India against
this power project. Even though The Government of Maharashtra state completed land
acquisition in January 2010, only 33 out of the 2,335 villagers have accepted compensation
cheques as of November 2010

Controversy and Hurdle

According to Areva lack of clarity on The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill 2010 passed in
Indian Parliament in August 2010 is a hurdle in finalizing deal.[22] This Civil Liability for Nuclear
Damage Bill 2010 has a clause deals with the legal binding of the culpable groups in case of a
nuclear accident. It allows only the operator (NPCIL) to sue the manufacturers and suppliers.
Victims will not be able to sue anyone. In reality, no one will be considered legally liable because
the recourse taken by the operator will yield only 1,500 crore (US$ 340.5 million).

MAHARASHTRA-KONKAN NUCLEAR POWER PROJECT

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/land-acquisition-for-jaitapur-project-by-jan-state-to-
npcil/547161/
The news conference, meanwhile, was disrupted by the villagers from Ratnagiri who alleged that
the radiation from the project would harm them besides putting them in risk of a Chernobyl-like
disaster. “The effluents released in the air can cause radiation on the people living around the
area. There have been recent instances of such accidents in the US. What is the guarantee it
won’t repeat in our village?”
The NPCIL officials, however, said the design and construction of a plant did not allow radioactive
leakage. They also assured the villagers of their health by stating an external agency,
Environment Survey Laboratory, under the Department of Atomic Energy would be monitoring the
radioactivity in the atmosphere daily.

Citizens are demanding answers to questions regarding approval, rehabilitation and land
acquisition, costs, radioactive byproducts, reprocessing of spent fuel and disposal of radioactive
wastes and civil nuclear liability limits of the Jaitapur nuclear plant that remains unaddressed. It
must be answered by the Indian government

The project got environmental clearance on November 28 hurriedly to please French President
Nicolas Sarkozy, who visted India from December 4-7. The nuclear reactors would be designed
and developed by AREVA, a French company.

The residents of Ratnagiri have been protesting against the project. They fear that the coastal
water along the district will get poisonous once the project becomes functional and it will affect
the farming and fishing business severely.
Pointing out that the US has not set up any nuclear power project since 1973, The dispute is not
over the compensation; the government should clarify its stand on the dangerous situation the
residents will have to face after the project is completed

Pravin Gavhankar, president of the Anu Urja Prakalp Sangharsh Samiti, scoffs at this contention.
“This is an area where we harvest paddy every year, and they say we do not grow anything here.
In 2005, many farmers from here were compensated for crop losses. Would this happen if it was
barren land?” he asks. The gram sabhas in all the villages have passed resolutions opposing the
project.
Located on a beautiful coast fringed with palms, Madban gets its name from its abundant coconut
groves. Sunlight barely creeps through the lush green cover of coconut palms and mango and
cashew trees over the village.
Some of the findings suggest that a large part of land to be acquired for the project is being used
for agriculture, horticulture and grazing purposes, and that the government has subverted facts by
labeling it barren land.

Indian villagers’ civil rights trampled on for Jaitapur nuclear plant

http://nuclear-news.net/2010/12/29/indian-villagers-civil-rights-trampled-on-for-jaitapur-nuclear-
plant/
“People who have faced the effects of a nuclear power project in their vicinity told that this is a
devastating project. They said that their next generation will have nothing to live and survive on…
There is a sense of mistrust against the government. People here say they were not taken into
confidence regarding the project, their lands were forcefully taken away, and their democratic
protests were illegally thwarted.
Why is this lovely coastline chosen for this dangerous project? They cannot give us simple
processing units for our fruit crop. We would have given land free for any other project but not this
one.”
More vocal protests are coming from civil society for locating the plant in a populated area, posing
both a risk to local people as well as displacing many with no viable rehabilitation plan in place.

Experts have already said that building, safeguarding and providing imported fuel to the reactor
will be so costly that power from Jaitapur will be unaffordable.
Now villagers allege the project has neither planned storage and disposal of its nuclear waste,
nor drafted any plan to ecologically protect Ratnagiri – a region of rich agriculture, horticulture,
fisheries and biodiversity.
Without these plans in place, they say, letting the project come up will be suicidal.

Further, the design for the proposed NPP units at Jaitapur also amply takes care of these
concerns and qualifies for seismicity and corresponding frequency spectrum as per AERB
regulations, in line with the current practice for all Nuclear Power plants

The Konkan Vinashkari Prakalpa Virodhi Samiti (KVPVS) and the Janahit Seva Samiti are
spearheading the agitation. The Shiv Sena has jumped in and declared its opposition to the
project; other political parties remain undecided. The BJP has formed a committee under a
scientist from the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre to study the implications of the project, and
social reformer Anna Hazare has pledged his support if people are to be displaced and safety
and environment issues are not addressed. In Mumbai, members of various trade unions and
social organisations came together to protest against the project.

Apart from land acquisition issues, the effects of radiation on the health of people living near
nuclear power plants is a matter of concern. It is unclear where or how the radioactive waste
emanating from the site will be dumped. It is estimated that the plant will generate around 300
tonnes of waste each year.

Cancel Jaitapur Nuclear Project!

http://toxicswatch.blogspot.com/2010/11/cancel-jaitapur-nuclear-project.html
It has come to light that in the matter of the Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project (JNPP) a rigorous and
scientific environment impact assessment and cost benefit analysis has not been performed.
We need the plants and the power but this government is in such a hurry supported by the
business lobby as they can already smell the money

Their slogans are:

Cancel Jaitapur Nuclear Project!
Struggle for a people-oriented development!
Imperialism destroys the environment!
Sarkozy Go Back! We dont need your nuclear plants!
Say NO to Nuclear Power!

Konkan Bachao Samiti (KBS) and Janhit Seva Samiti (JSS) have been spearheading a campaign
against this nuclear power project. There is reliable information, it has been claimed, that the
European regulatory authorities from three countries, Finland (STUK), France (ASN) and UK
(HSE) have jointly written to Areva, raising certain serious objections to the current design of
control and instrumentation for vital safety aspects of EPR plant.

It has also been learnt that only last month the US regulator (NRC) has written to Areva
expressing similar concerns.
The biodiversity report prepared by the Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS) formed the basis
for the 35 environmental conditions set by the environment ministry while giving the green signal
for the Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant in Ratnagiri district on 28th November. The report recorded
the presence of plant and animal life on land and marine both at and around the plant site. BNHS
has also mapped 407 hectares of mangrove vegetation around a 10km radius of the nuclear plant
as well in some of the affected villages.

BNHS report contradicted the official 1200 page environment impact assessment (EIA) report
prepared by the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) and made public
in April, 2010.
One of the major concerns expressed in the report is the lack of transparency in dissemination of
information about the project on the part of the government and the Nuclear Power Corporation of
India Ltd (NPCIL). The report states there is a lack of clarity on the exact amount of land that has
been earmarked for acquisition.

The NEERI report had described the land surrounding the nuclear plant as “rocky and barren land
with no habitation and vegetation” and hence ruled out any adverse ecological impact in the area.
The same area was surveyed during the monsoon by BNHS, which found 134 species of plants
on the plateau.
Parallel studies by the Bombay Natural History Society have shown that the project will cause
substantial environmental damage. According to National Oceanography Goa, Jaitapur comes
under earthquake-prone zone and hence a nuclear power plant is not advisable.
In July, 2010 the BNHS conducted a rapid impact assessment of the biodiversity of the region
and found the Madban plateau to be rich in plant and animal diversity with very good marine
diversity in adjacent sites of Ambolgad and Kasheli.

BNHS found 1,000 plant species, NEERI couldn’t find even 500 species. Indeed if the project
proponents are assigned to conduct EIA, the report cannot be objective. Therefore, once again
NEERI report is flawed.

Environment minister Jairam Ramesh admitted to the deficiencies in this NEERI’s EIA, when a
delegation met him in May 2010 to bring to his notice the facts about Madban and ecological
disastrous impact of a nuclear power plant there.

But political compulsions seem to have driven Ramesh to give green signal to the project just
before Sarkozy’s India visit.

Dangers of Nuclear Power Plants

http://desiproject.com/showthread.php?p=24200925

The French have the most experience in operating nuclear power reactors and the 59 reactors
there account for most of their power generating capacity. Their standard workhorse is the
1,000MW N4 reactor, whose design has been proven over several decades of operation.
The 1,650MW European Pressure Reactor, or EPR, is their new baby. Two plants are being built,
one in Finland and another in France, and another two have been ordered by the Chinese.
The EPR in Finland is having cost over-runs, its cost almost doubling fromEuro3 billion to Euro5.7
billion, is behind schedule and has faced many quality and regulatory problems. The largely state-
owned Areva suffered a setback earlier this year when it lost a $40 billion contract in the UAE to a
South Korean consortium.
There is a risk that safety issues are being bypassed. First, there is no redundancy in the
instrumentation and control systems of the EPR. This raises the chance of failure since there is
no sufficient backup.

The higher burnup may result in a thinning of the fuel cladding, making it prone to early failure. A
study by the French power utility EDF has reported that the toxicity from the radioactive waste of
the EPR is four times that of ordinary reactors, and is especially high in radioactive iodine and
bromine, which stay at dangerous levels of radioactivity for over a million years.

The costs of the EPR are also very high. While a tight wrap has been kept on costs in India,
drawing from the Finnish experience, the cost per mega watt of installed capacity for the EPR is
over Rs 20 crore, compared to Rs4 crore to Rs5 crore for a coal-based plant and Rs7-8 crore for
Indian-designed reactors.
The cost of electricity generated from JNPP would be in excess of Rs 9 per unit. This does not
include the costs of managing radioactive waste and decommissioning. The current cost of
electricity is about Rs 4 per unit.

The cost of power generated is also over Rs7 per unit for the EPR, compared to Rs1.50-2.50 for
a coal-based plant and Rs3.50-4.50 for an Indian reactor. After transmission distribution costs
and losses, the consumer would pay another 50% more.
It has been noted in the Rajya Sabha that as far as the cost difference between hydro, thermal
and all the available options vis-à-vis nuclear electricity is concerned, the cost difference is 1:3.
If the government wants to encourage zero-carbon technologies, it owes it to the citizens to
explain just what the tradeoff is with a working of its cost to us. What has been totally missed out
in the environment impact assessment (EIA) done by the ministry of environment is the risk of
radiation.

If the overall objective of wanting to generate 40,000 MW of nuclear power in the next two
decades is considered, the cost difference between conventional and nuclear electricity would be
more than Rs 300,000 crore. This amount can build 20,000 hundred-bedded modern hospitals all
over the country and 2.5 lakhs of Navodaya Vidyalayas with boarding facilities for 100 students all
over the country.

The total installed generating capacity in India as on June 30 was 162,367 MW, comprising 64
percent from fossil fuel, 23 percent from hydro, 3 percent from nuclear and balance 10 percent
from renewable energy sources. Evidently, share of nuclear power is quite low. It is possible to
generate similar power from alternate sources of energy.

The question is about untested technology been used. It involves an untested and problematic
design is the highest costing power project so far, the risk of nuclear radiation is considerable,
and the possible damage to a fragile ecosystem is immense.
The Western Ghats, is been considered by the environmental community as one of the top 10
biodiversity spots in the world.

For a nuclear power plant, the dangers of radioactive contamination are central. These can arise
from acts of terrorism or from accidents. The environment impact assessment ( EIA) has passed
the project without taking the radioactive risk into consideration, leaving it to be determined later
by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB).

In a memorandum to the ministry of environment, the Konkan Bachao Samiti has said: “Safety
audit is a rigorous, scientific process. A mere formal exercise is not a bonafide safety audit.… The
AERB is the only authorised body to certify safety in regard to radioactivity”, and without its
approval there should be no environmental clearance.

There are further issues regarding the transport and disposal of high-level radioactive wastes
after reprocessing which are missing in the EIA. Nuclear waste remains dangerously radioactive
for tens of thousands of years, and so far no country has succeeded in building a permanent
storage for high-level nuclear waste so that ground water is not contaminated.
Of more immediate concern to local residents is the disruption in their living environment and the
protests near Jaitapur reflect that.

The Madhban plateau on which the giant nuclear plants will be built is the largest coastal plateau
in the Konkan with a unique biodiversity. This will be lost if the government continues with its
hasty plans without a proper safety audit, the residents of the Konkan will pay the price at some
later time.

Critics of nuclear power also worry about the amount of radioactivity released by nuclear power
plants on a day-to-day basis. This concern is probably of less importance than is the possibility of
a major disaster; studies have shown that nuclear power plants are so well shielded that the
amount of radiation to which nearby residents are exposed is no more than that of a person living
many miles away. Nevertheless, some epidemiological evidence hints that the small amounts of
radioactive material released during routine operation may have detectable medical effects on
nearby populations. These claims are, of course, intensely disputed.

“Since the response system to deal with any kind of emergency of such type, the hospitals are
not well-equipped, it is natural that mortality and morbidity due to multiple burn, blasts, radiation
injuries and psycho-social impact could be on very high scale and medical tackling of such a
large emergency could have enough repercussions in the nearby areas of radioactive fallout. in
the entire bill, there is not a single clause which speaks about taking health care during
radiological emergencies. It reflects only about payment of compensation due to health impacts of
such radiation. while setting up nuclear plants consideration may also be given to the fact that
there should be a hospital having trained doctors near such establishments and arrangements
should also be made for free treatment of people who are affected by serious nuclear fallout."

In any case, safety concerns in the United States have been serious enough to essentially bring
the construction of new plants to a halt in the last decade. Licensing procedures are now so
complex and so expensive that few industries are interested in working their way through the
bureaucratic maze to construct new plants. However, it should also be noted that orders for new
nuclear power plants in the U.S. had practically ceased in the late 1970s, years before the
Chernobyl or Three Mile Island accidents or the regulatory response to them. Some analysts
argue that the stagnation of the nuclear-power industry should be attributed primarily to
economics, rather than to political opposition.

Consequently, amendments were made in US law to require nuclear plant design to address this
risk but the Indian legislation on Nuclear Liability does the contrary.
Misplaced expression of satisfaction by NEERI with NPCIL's claim of safe storage for 100 years
for 100 years is shocking. This constitutes less than one per cent of the lethality lifetime of the
spent fuel. There is no explanation as what will happen to the radioactive waste after 100 years. It
is a known fact that India does not have a geological repository for nuclear waste and there are
no sites in India suitable for building one.

The EIA report is flawed because of the absence of a specific plan for decommissioning as well.
After 1978, No new nuclear plant can be built in Europe or the USA without such plan. The EIA
report is untenable.

http://www.ehow.com/about_4759852_dangers-nuclear-power-plants.html
Jaitapur N-plant: Another Chernobyl been build?
Dangers of Nuclear Power Plants
There are many dangers in the use of nuclear power plants. The most prominent of these
dangers include nuclear meltdowns; however, a variety of other problems can arise. There have
been a number of situations in which these dangers have become real disasters, giving birth to
safety and regulatory agencies.

Significance
The greatest fear about nuclear power plants is a severe accident in the nuclear reactor. When
the whole system or an individual component of a nuclear power plant causes the reactor core to
malfunction, it is known as a nuclear meltdown. This occurs most commonly when the sealed
nuclear fuel assemblies that house the radioactive materials begin to overheat and melt. If the
meltdown becomes too severe, the radioactive elements within the core can be released into the
atmosphere and around the area of the power plant. These radioactive materials are highly toxic
to all organic life.
Because of the geometric design of the reactor cores, a nuclear explosion is impossible;
however, smaller explosions such as the release of steam are possible.

History
Nuclear meltdowns or disasters have occurred at various levels since the creation of nuclear
power.
The first known partial core meltdown occurred in Ontario, Canada, in 1952. Various disasters
occurred in the following years, including the release of radioactive elements into the air on at
least four occasions.
The most significant disasters took place at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979 and
Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986. The Three Mile Island accident was a partial core meltdown of a
pressurized water reactor. It resulted in the release of 43,000 curies of krypton and 20 curies of
iodine-131 into the environment. The Chernobyl disaster reached a level 7 (major accident),
according to the International Nuclear Event Scale. Following an initial steam explosion that killed
two people, the reactor was destroyed and nuclear fallout was spread around the area. It was
necessary to evacuate 600,000 people, and an estimated 4,000 died from radiation-induced
cancers.

It may be noted, “The accident at Chernobyl released into the atmosphere an amount of
radioactivity equivalent to 400 bombs of the Hiroshima variety. The Nuclear Power Project of
Jaitapur is about 10 times the size of the Chernobyl Power Plant. The huge radioactive
accumulations at the plant site are the principal causes of concern which must be addressed.”

The same EIA report reveals the following, “All the above scenarios explained, namely Design
Basis Accidents (DBAs) and Beyond Design Basis Accidents (BDBAs) are thoroughly studied and
detailed reports are generated as Preliminary Safety Analysis Reports (PSAR) and these reports
will be submitted to Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) for review and approval for
construction of Nuclear Power project at Jaitapur.” Clearly implying that the safety approval by the
AERB is yet to be obtained and despite this it certified the adequacy of the safety of the plant
against “any unsafe consequences”.

Chernobyl
One of the four power-generating units in the Chernobyl complex exploded, blowing the top off
the containment building. (The explosion was caused by hydrogen gas released by the
overheating core; it was not a nuclear explosion.) Hundreds of thousands of nearby residents
were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation and were evacuated from the area. Radioactive
clouds released by the explosion were detected downwind in Scandinavia and western Europe.
More than a decade later, the remains of the Chernobyl reactor remain far too radioactive for
anyone to spend more than a few minutes near the former reactor core. The Soviet government
had, of course, always insisted that such a disaster was impossible. In the U.S., the most famous
nuclear incident to date is the accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in 1979. The reactor
suffered a partial meltdown that was contained by the giant, pill-shaped steel vessel containing
the core; some radioactive gas was released to the environment, and a hydrogen explosion
raised pressures inside the containment dome to within a few pounds per square inch of the
dome's design pressure. Again, experts had reassured the public that the chances against such
an event were literally astronomical—comparable to those of a giant meteor striking a major city.

Features
The long-term danger of nuclear power plants is the disposal of waste products. This waste
includes materials that were used in the nuclear fission process. Spent uranium rods contain the
highest level of toxins and radiation. They need to be stored in facilities that provide secure and
protective barriers to prevent theft or exposure to the soil or water. Most of these facilities are
located deep underground. Countries that use nuclear power need to manufacture ways to store
these wastes for thousands of years.
Low-level waste is also a concern for many companies. Used protective clothing or tools need to
be securely stored as well to prevent contamination through ingestion or inhalation.

Considerations
Although a full-scale nuclear explosion is not possible, the radioactive elements can be dispersed
around the general vicinity with an act of terror. If a bombing occurred within the power plant,
specifically the reactor, the radioactive output could impact every living thing within a 2- to 8-mile
radius even with a small explosion.

Opponents
http://www.ehow.com/about_4759852_dangers-nuclear-power-plants.html#ixzz19zPw3DP6

Nuclear Power Isn't Clean; It's Dangerous

http://healthandenergy.com/nuclear_dangers.htm
By Dr. Helen Caldicott, 9/3/2001
However, the cleanliness of nuclear power is nonsense. Not only does it contaminate the planet
with long-lived radioactive waste, it significantly contributes to global warming.

While it is claimed that there is little or no fossil fuel used in producing nuclear power, the reality is
that enormous quantities of fossil fuel are used to mine, mill and enrich the uranium needed to
fuel a nuclear power plant, as well as to construct the enormous concrete reactor itself.
Plutonium, the most significant element in nuclear waste, is so carcinogenic that hypothetically
half a kilo evenly distributed could cause cancer in everyone on Earth.

Terrorism
The threat of terrorist attack on nuclear plants in India is also considered credible is clear from the
specific exclusion in clause 5 (ii) in the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill (2010) which has
been passed by the Indian Parliament and awaits President's assent. It reads: “An operator shall
not be liable for any nuclear damage where such damage is caused by a nuclear incident directly
due to – an act of armed conflict, hostility, civil war, insurrection or terrorism”.

After the 9/11 terrorist attack in the USA, the possibility of terrorist attack on nuclear power plants
is considered quite credible and substantial by US authorities. DAE has ignored the complete text
of a 2009 report presented to the US Congress: on “Nuclear Power Plant Security and
Vulnerabilities”.

However it is admitted that absolute and fool proof protection cannot be guaranteed for any
nuclear or other assets in the country during peace or war." Exceptions for acts of terrorism can
easily be used by the supplier and the operator to wash their hands off any nuclear disaster.

The second EPR construction in France was in December 2007. Similar construction and safety
issues have led to a 50 per cent cost increase and a delay of commissioning to 2014.
As the EPR is allegedly in trouble, the French government asked Francois Roussely, a former
chairman of the Electricite de France (EDF), in October 2009 to evaluate the status of the EPR
and the French nuclear industry. The Roussely Report of July 2010 has concluded that the
credibility of the EPR has been seriously damaged by the problems of the two reactors under
construction.
According to the report, the complexity of the EPR comes from (questionable) design choices,
notably of the power level, containment, core-catcher, and redundancy of systems.

Faults with the EPR

The EPR is the most powerful reactor ever built, and its core contains more radioactive elements
than any other type of nuclear reactor core. This leads to increased radioactivity and more
dangerous nuclear isotopes. In the event of a serious accident the impact could be far reaching,
releasing large quantities of radioactive material into the environment. AREVA claims that one of
the advantages of EPR is that it will produce less waste than other reactors. Yet in reality, the
EPR does not solve the nuclear waste problem. While the promise is that the volume of waste will
be reduced by 15 percent, the waste that is produced will be more dangerous because it will have
higher levels of radioactivity.

A second issue is security. Having been designed prior to 2001, the EPR does not reflect the
heightened security situation following the 9/11 attacks in the United States and recent attempts
at breaching security at Indian nuclear installations. One of the reasons for delays and
complications with the ongoing construction of an EPR in Finland has been the need to reinforce
the containment unit, when the original design did not meet the safety criteria required in Finland.
Apart from problems with the EPR design blueprint, there is growing evidence from construction
sites in Finland and France that in reality the reactor has more safety and reliability vulnerabilities,
and AREVA’s construction record on both sites is embarrassingly poor.

AREVA’s flagship reactor at Olkiluoto, Finland, is already three years late and billions over
budget. According to articles published in the industrial periodicals, many problems with the EPR
project in Finland can be attributed to a combination of a tight time schedule and considerable
cost pressure due to commercial considerations. AREVA’s decision to build a second EPR at
Flamanville, France, was intended to demonstrate that the blunders made in Finland would not
recur in subsequent EPR builds. Yet that EPR is now following the same troubled route as its
predecessor. No EPR has yet been successfully completed in the world, and similar
circumstances are likely to apply to other future nuclear projects.

One of the most pressing concerns for the proposed Jaitapur nuclear power plant is its location in
a seismically sensitive area. The Earthquake Hazard Zoning of India rates Jaitapur as a Zone IV
out of a possible five – a ‘high damage risk zone’. Constructing six powerful nuclear reactors
containing high levels of radioactive material is such an earthquake-prone zone as Jaitapur is
seen by activists as madness. Yet even in a seismically safe zone, the high construction and
running costs of these projects, their use of radioactive materials, problems with
decommissioning and storage of radioactive waste as well as the problematic features of the EPR
should ring warning bells. The complexity of the structure and set-up alone enhances risk. The
high population density and low levels of education in India make these plants even more
dangerous to citizens and environment.

Costs* ** The two Jaitapur EPR units are officially estimated to cost 32,000 crore (€ 5.4 billion).
This is less than half of the cost estimates of building the reactors in Europe or Canada.
Combined with weaker regulation, the pressure to keep costs low in India could cause even
larger problems with cutting safety corners and poor quality of construction than we have seen in
France and Finland, which are two and four years behind schedule respectively, with cost over-
runs close to 3 billion euros each. India’s nuclear power programme has a history of similarly
massive cost overruns, with reactors costing on average three times as much to build than
originally estimated. The argument about cheap labour in India cannot explain such a massive
price discrepancy, as most of the price comes from engineering equipment and heavy
components, and AREVA has already done its best to outsource work to low-cost countries and
suppliers. India has huge potential for energy including from wind power, solar collectors,
biomass/biogas and geothermal energy. With pressure to reduce global greenhouse gas
emissions significantly by 2020 and help tackle climate change, these options are more
affordable and safer 13. They are also faster to build, providing energy in just one to two years
from the planning stage, rather than waiting decades, as is the case with nuclear, as costs spiral.
India must consider the total cost of ownership of a nuclear energy infrastructure.
In most industries, depreciation and time actually reduce the cost of a project. However, in case
of nuclear infrastructure, the negative value of the radioactive waste needs to be considered for
decades to come. Thus the cost increases with time as the storage of these wastes involves
heavy expenditure.

Is this really the company we want building them?

Jaitapur nuclear power project is one of the many such projects coming up in India, after the Indo
US Civilian Nuclear Agreement became operational in October 2008. The EPR technology for a
nuclear power plant is promoted as safer, cheaper, more mature and more reliable than any
other. The truth, however, is that the EPR is a costly and hazardous obstacle to climate
protection.

Expert Panel views not considered

As regards the timings of clearance of the project, it could have been only be before, during or
after the visit of President of France. The timing has no sensitivity. Significant in this regard is the
fact that all activities prior to the clearance have been completed according to the timelines. The
application to MoE&F after EIA Report for which TORs were approved in May 2009, public
hearing and inputs from expert organization was made much earlier and reports on bypassing the
Expert Panel on Western Ghats constituted by MoE&F in March 2010 in a section of press are
incorrect. The conditions on the clearance include activities to be completed in next 12 months,
bio diversity conservation plan around the site, a robust monitoring mechanism and a
comprehensive environmental management plan assessment on putting first two units on line
with a view to feed into additional safeguards for remaining four units.
** India has 19 operating reactors in total: seventeen of 220 MWe or smaller, and only two 540
MW reactors. It has long record of safety and technical problems, one of the most extreme
examples is the collapse of a reactor containment, which is designed to protect the reactor, in
Kaiga8. Hardly any nuclear power station has been built on time, and despite AREVA’s promises
in Europe and now India, to date they have failed to deliver on schedule, leaving their projects
years behind schedule and billions of euros over budget.

Despite the EPR being celebrated by the nuclear industry as its answer to the nuclear industry’s
resurrection, the only EPRs under construction reveal serious concerns about its design, safety
and cost. In India, these concerns would be multiplied due to weak regulation and the proposed
location. Nuclear energy is not only the most controversial and dangerous form of energy
generation, it is also one of the most expensive. To raise the many billions of euros needed to
build even a single nuclear reactor, utility companies rely heavily on banks and other financial
market players. If the deal goes ahead, India will be left with spiralling costs and an energy option
that won’t meet its energy needs. It will seriously increase nuclear hazards, including
contaminating the environment and the danger of deadly nuclear waste that has no safe solution.
The nuclear industry has spent the past decade trying to convince the public and decision makers
that, despite its downsides, it will help tackle the climate crisis. But what it offers in reality is an
industry that delivers too little, too late, is too expensive and too dangerous.

Environmental impact assessment glosses over reality

IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT CRITICISES JAITAPUR NUCLEAR PLANT

http://flashnewstoday.com/index.php/impact-assessment-report-criticises-jaitapur-nuclear-plant/
[ Date : Dec 29th, 2010 ]
An impact assessment report by Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) has strongly criticised
come down heavily on the proposed nuclear power plant at Jaitapur in Ratnagiri district of
Maharashtra stating that the project will have a "huge negative impact on social and environment
development" as it is sitting on a high to moderate severity earthquake zone.
An impact assessment report by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) has strongly
criticised the nuclear power plant being proposed at Jaitapur in the Konkan region.

Stiff opposition
On January 22, 2010, 2335 farmers from four villages - Madban, Karel, Niveli and Mithgavane
from Ratnagiri district of Konkan region of Maharashtra, refused to accept cheques of
compensation for their 938 hectares of land forcibly acquired by the government through the
Nuclear Power Corporation of India. This was for the Jaitapur Nuclear Power Park (JNPP). Only
56 landowners, most of who are settled in Mumbai-Pune for decades, accepted this
compensation and got rid of their land.

Last October, the state government established a committee to revise the compensation and
announced a rehabilitation package that includes Rs 2 crore with a recurring amount of Rs 25
lakh for each of the four villages; permanent job for farmer’s kin or Rs 5 lakh; and an amount
equivalent to 375 to 750 days of agricultural wages for lifetime to compensate for the loss of
livelihood.

The Enron fiasco of 1990s has had its impact on stirring opinion against ecologically disastrous
power, mining and other polluting industrial projects that are being thrust on the narrow coastal
strip of Konkan. The Janhit Sewa Samiti got in touch with the Enron protesters of Dabhol to learn
from their experience as they had undergone the same fate in early 90s.
“The role of so called outsiders is limited to these supportive activities. It is basically local people
who are opposing the JNPP tooth and nail from day 1 since they know for sure that this project
means end to their livelihood besides destruction of bountiful nature”

Policy drive to boost nuclear-based generation

Notwithstanding all this and people's stiff opposition, the central government is going ahead with
an agreement for nuclear reactors from the French company Areva during the French President
Sarkozy’s visit to India, even when the design of the plant is not yet ready. Doubts are also being
raised about its techno-economic viability and the former chairperson of the Atomic Energy
Regulatory Board, A Gopalakrishnan, questions the wisdom of India entering into a contract with
Areva “for the EPR which is unproved and is plagued by delays and cost overruns."

The 1986 Chernobyl accident almost put a stop to atomic energy projects in western countries
(except France & Finland) especially in the face of stiff protests by their citizens on the issues of
radiation. Thus American and Western companies turned towards Asian countries to palm off
their technology and many nuclear power plants came up in China, Japan, South Korea and
India.

The USA and France are desperately trying to find a market for their nuclear power plants in India
and elsewhere, since no new nuclear power plants are being set up in their own countries due to
environmental and safety fears, and the Indian government is facilitating their plans with no
consideration for the future welfare of the Indian people. Even the programme of utilizing Indian
expertise in Fast Breeder Reactors, which use the plentifully available thorium instead of the
scarce and expensive uranium as nuclear fuel, has been put on the backburner to facilitate the
plans of USA, France, Russia and other developed countries to find a market for their nuclear
technology in India

The nuclear establishment has often worked on the basis of half-truths and outright falsehoods to
push its projects, as we have seen many times in the past. The ONLY way that anti-people
nuclear projects can be stopped is by people's peaceful and continuous agitations. My prayers
are with the people of Jaitapur for success in saving their lives and livelihoods and at the same
time (considering that nuclear wastes remain dangerous to all life for over 20,000 years) saving
the environment.
Public hearing turns farce
A public hearing on proposed project by the NPCIL on May 16, 2010 at Madban was a mere
farce. Around 1000 people attended. The mandatory requirement of providing EIA report in local
language to affected villagers a month in advance was not met. Only Madban Gram Panchayat
received a copy a month ago in English and just four days before the public hearing in Marathi,
thus violating the Environment Protection Act 1986 and Environment Protection Rules 2006 &
2009.

Dr Vivek Montero of Indian School of Social Sciences took on these officials saying, “You do not
know cost of nuclear energy per megawatt of these reactors; you do not know cost of uranium,
you do not know cost of storage facility. Then on what basis, you claim that the electricity will be
provided at competitive rates? We have given you detailed calculation (which NPCIL officials
agreed to) based on capital power cost of Rs 18 crore per MW i.e. Rs 9 per unit as against
NPCIL’s current Rs 2.24 per unit! So NPCIL should do its homework first before taking any kind
of hurried decisions.”

On question of nuclear waste, Dharane said that it will be encapsulated under the concrete cover
for 100 years and the government is searching for such a site. Dr Monteiro noted that radioactive
waste is highly dangerous for 10000 years. And America, France, Finland and other countries do
not have such depositories now. Without these depositories, the Indian Government is putting
future generation of the whole country to expose from nuclear radiations for thousands of years!
He added that these plants are not designed for protection against terrorism.

“NEERI appears weak in study of fisheries. Sea water will be drawn in these six nuclear reactors
and the same at higher temperature will be released in to the sea at 1.5-2.5 km distance which
will cause sea water temperature to rise up to 5 degree Celsius. This will completely destroy
fisheries. NEERI which wrote reports sitting on the table is completely oblivious of sea level and
depth. The sea gets deeper as you move southward from Mumbai. The Maharashtra government
has restricted fishing activities up to 10 fathoms which is within 2 km where the hot sea water
from reactors will be released. So NEERI has not thought of fisher folk.”

http://www.indiatogether.org/2010/dec/env-madban.htm
'We don't sell our mother'
There has been substantial resistance to the Jaitapur Nuclear Power Park being set up in Konkan
region of Maharashtra, in Ratnagiri district. The political consensus for nuclear power has once
against brushed aside legitimate local concerns, writes Surekha Sule.

25 December 2010 - As expected, French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s India visit early December
2010 has materialized in signing of General Framework Agreement for building the European
Pressure Reactors (EPRs) for Jaitapur Nuclear Power Park (JNPP) which is being set up in
Konkan region of Maharashtra, in Ratnagiri district.. However, many issues remain unresolved as
admitted by India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh who reportedly said “there are issues of
pricing ..these are matters of negotiations” which is linked to insurance cost and which, in turn, is
linked with nuclear liability concerns.

But there are many other issues which the officials don’t seem to be much concerned about.
There are environmental concerns and safety risks besides displacing people and ruining their
livelihood, says Dr Sulabha Brahme, renowned economist and environmentalist from Pune.

*Jaitapur, India: EPR -- a nuclear problem not an energy solution*

The French nuclear industry, supported by a group of European commercial banks1, plans to
build two European Pressurised Reactors (EPRs) in India.
Jaitapur in Maharastra state, one of the only parts of the Indian coast classed as a ‘high risk’
earthquake zone2, has been chosen as the site.
Despite the EPR being celebrated by the nuclear industry as its answer to the nuclear industry’s
resurrection, the only EPRs under construction reveal serious concerns about its design, safety
and cost. In India, these concerns would be multiplied due to weak regulation and the proposed
location.

Nuclear energy is not only the most controversial and dangerous form of energy generation, it is
also one of the most expensive. To raise the many billions of euros needed to build even a single
nuclear reactor, utility companies rely heavily on banks and other financial market players.
If the deal goes ahead, India will be left with spiralling costs and an energy option that won’t meet
its energy needs. It will seriously increase nuclear hazards, including contaminating the
environment and the danger of deadly nuclear waste that has no safe solution.
The nuclear industry has spent the past decade trying to convince the public and decision makers
that, despite its downsides, it will help tackle the climate crisis. But what it offers in reality is an
industry that delivers too little, too late, is too expensive and too dangerous.

Earthquake prone site

Since Jaitapur being seismically sensitive area, the danger of an accident has been foremost on
the minds of people. According to the Earthquake hazard zoning of India, Jaitapur comes under
Zone IV. This zone is called the High Damage Risk Zone and covers areas liable to MSK VIII.[26]
[27] Post Chernobyl disaster and Thee mile island accident people world over the world,
Environmentalists and citizens of the area are questioning about safety as in 2007 largest nuclear
generating station in the world Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant in Japan at the
Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant was closed for five months following an earthquake.[28][29]

Earthquake hazards* The proposed site for the reactors and the realities of nuclear waste pose
serious dangers for the local community. Jaitapur is in one of the only high earthquake risk zones
on India’s coast. The area is classed as being in Zone IV, meaning it is prone to strong
earthquakes with the possibility of one reaching seven on the Richter scale, which can cause
buildings to collapse. No nuclear plant has ever been hit by an earthquake of this magnitude.

Over the past 20 years alone, there have been three earthquakes in Jaitapur exceeding 5 points
on the Richter scale. In 1993, the region experienced one reaching 6.3 leaving 9,000 people
dead.9 And last year, an earthquake caused the bridge to Jaitapur to collapse. None of this was
taken into account when the site was chosen. In 2007, Japan’s Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear
power plant was near the epicentre of the strongest earthquake ever to hit a nuclear plant. The
6.4 earthquake damaged the plant and shut it down for almost two years.

Radiation effects
Effects of nuclear radiation seen in Rawatbhata, India [30] has raised further questions on effects
of radiation on health of people staying near nuclear power plants. The rise in deformities seen in
Rawatbhata is alarming.

Future of fisheries
Since the plant will use the sea water for steam generation and then release hot water in the
arabian sea, fishermen in villages around are predicting destruction of fisheries in the nearby sea.
Media articles also highlight the possible human and fisheries cost of this project [31

It is not publicly known if the AERB in India has made any new licensing or safety rules to
address the problem of terrorist attack on nuclear facilities, Monteiro says. Two serious gaps in
the EIA are the question of spent fuel storage and a decommissioning plan for the reactors.
The EIA says, “The solid waste disposal site is fenced, secured and designed to store waste for a
sufficiently long time of the order of 100 years.” It is silent on storage after this period.

On decommissioning, the EIA says, “At the end of the operating life of the operating units, which
would be around 60 years for EPR-type NPPs, proposed to be established at Jaitapur site, a
detailed decommissioning plan will be worked out.”
Protest
Opposition to the power plant begun in January 2006. A court case was filed by Janahit Seva
Samitee, Madban in the Mumbai High Court. The high court had given a stay on the process for
the project, which was later lifted.

Many protests were carried out by local people against the proposed nuclear power plant. On 29
December 2009, 12 January 2010 and 22 January 2010, when the government authorities visited
Madban for distribution of cheques in lieu of compulsory land acquisition, the villagers refused to
accept the cheques. Government officials were shown black flags, denied any co-operation in
carrying out their activities. 72 people were arrested on 22 January 2010 when people protested
against the compulsory land acquisition

On December 4, 2010 protest become violent when over 1500 people were detained from among
thousands of protesters, who included environmentalists and local villagers. Members and
leaders of the Konkan Bachao Samiti (KBS) and the Janahit Seva Samiti, (organizations that are
spearheading opposition to the project), were also detained. In Mumbai, members of various
trade unions and social organizations came together to protest against the project. The protesters
have raised serious doubts about the neutrality of the Environment Impact Assessment Report,
prepared by National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) which forms the
basis of environmental clearance for the project, since Parallel studies by the Bombay Natural
History Society have shown that the project will cause substantial environmental damage.

The EIA report by the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur,
which has ruled out any adverse impact on the flora, fauna and human inhabitants. The EIA
report says that radioactive releases from the plant are expected to be insignificant and their
impact will be negligible. It says the discharge of liquid effluents from the plant will be within the
limits stipulated by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB). The report also rules out any
discharge of conventional pollutants in the aquatic environment and hence any harm to the
marine fauna and flora.

In its critique of the EIA, the Konkan Bachao Samiti says, “Throughout the voluminous report it is
hard to find a single observation of negative impact of the project on any parameter. Reading the
report and its summary conclusions, one feels ashamed and appalled to see what is going on in
the name of science in India. The report reads as if it were written by the public relations
department of the NPCIL or Areva. This is necessary and sufficient reason to reject the entire
report.”

Attacking the “seriously flawed” EIA, Monteiro and other activists demanded that it was essential
to carry out a cumulative EIA for the Konkan and an assessment of the carrying capacity of the
narrow Konkan strip flanked by the Western Ghats – one of the 34 global hot spots of biodiversity
– where the Maharashtra government has accorded permission to eight coal-based power plants
with a capacity of 21,000 MW, in addition to this nuclear power plant and several mining projects

The summary Probabilistic Safety Assessment of Areva's proposed nuclear reactor in the United
Kingdom to drive home the point that the reactors were not built to resist terror strikes. In the
U.K., Areva has placed on record that the design of its EPR power plant does not address the
risks of radioactivity release arising out of internal or external malicious acts.

Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project Environment Clearance

The environment minister has changed his stand on the Jaitapur power plant like a
chameleon”
The clearance for the Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project, to be jointly developed by state-owned
Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPC) and French giant Areva, came in 80 days from the day
NPC submitted the environment impact assessment report even all above mentioned
unanswered queries.
Economics of new nuclear power plants
The economics of new nuclear power plants is a controversial subject, since there are diverging
views on this topic, and multi-billion dollar investments ride on the choice of an energy source.
Nuclear power plants typically have high capital costs for building the plant, but low fuel costs.

Therefore, comparison with other power generation methods is strongly dependent on

assumptions about construction timescales and capital financing for nuclear plants. Cost
estimates also need to take into account plant decommissioning and nuclear waste storage costs.
On the other hand measures to mitigate global warming, such as a carbon tax or carbon
emissions trading, may favor the economics of nuclear power.

Analysis of the economics of nuclear power must take into account who bears the risks of future
uncertainties. To date all operating nuclear power plants were developed by state-owned or
regulated utility monopolies[2] where many of the risks associated with construction costs,
operating performance, fuel price, and other factors were borne by consumers rather than
suppliers. Many countries have now liberalized the electricity market where these risks, and the
risk of cheaper competitors emerging before capital costs are recovered, are borne by plant
suppliers and operators rather than consumers, which leads to a significantly different evaluation
of the economics of new nuclear power plants.

Currently the smallest nuclear power plant that can be built is usually larger than other power
plants, making it possible for a utility to build the other plants in smaller increments, or in areas of
low power consumption.

Effect of delays
Construction delays can add significantly to the cost of a plant. Because a power plant does not
earn income during construction, longer construction times translate directly into higher finance
charges. Modern nuclear power plants are planned for construction in four years or less (42
months for CANDU ACR-1000, 60 months from order to operation for an AP1000, 48 months
from first concrete to operation for an EPR and 45 months for an ESBWR)[20] as opposed to over
a decade for some previous plants. However, despite Japanese success with ABWRs, the first
EPR (in Finland) is significantly behind schedule.

In some countries (notably the U.S.), in the past unexpected changes in licensing, inspection and
certification of nuclear power plants added delays and increased construction costs. However, the
regulatory processes for siting, licensing, and constructing have been standardized, streamlining
the construction of newer and safer designs.
In the U.S. many new regulations were put in place in the years before and again immediately
after the Three Mile Island accident's partial meltdown, resulting in plant startup delays of many
years.

In Japan and France, construction costs and delays are significantly diminished because of
streamlined government licensing and certification procedures. In France, one model of reactor
was type-certified, using a safety engineering process similar to the process used to certify
aircraft models for safety. That is, rather than licensing individual reactors, the regulatory agency
certified a particular design and its construction process to produce safe reactors.

Security
Unlike other power plants, nuclear plants must be carefully guarded against both attempted
sabotage (generally with the goal considered to be causing a radiological accident, rather than
just preventing the plant from operating) and possible theft of nuclear material. Thus security
costs of both protecting the physical plant and the screening of workers must be considered.
Some other forms of energy also require high security, like natural gas storage facilities and oil
refineries.
But concerns have been raised on the maturity of the EPR technology as no EPR has been
constructed and commissioned for operation anywhere in the world. Four EPRs are in different
stages of construction and two of them are facing serious problems. The construction of the first
EPR to Finland started in 2005 and construction and design problems have delayed the start-up
of this plant to the second half of 2013 which is a delay of 3.5 years and a cost escalation of 50
per cent.

However, after the 9/11 terrorist attack, the issue of Design Basis Threat (DBT) has become
paramount for the safety of nuclear installations in the United States. The Energy Policy Act,
2005, of the U.S. was passed specifically to address this issue. “Nuclear power plant vulnerability
to deliberate aircraft crashes has been a continuing issue. After much consideration, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) voted February 17, 2009, to require all new nuclear power plants
to incorporate design features that would ensure that, in the event of a crash by a large
commercial aircraft, the reactor core would remain cooled or the reactor containment would
remain intact, and radioactive releases would not occur from spent fuel storage pools”

Uranium
Nuclear plants require fissionable fuel. Generally, the fuel used is uranium, although other
materials may be used. In 2005, prices on the world market averaged US$20/lb (US$44.09/kg).
On 2007-04-19, prices reached US$113/lb (US$249.12/kg).[23] On 2008-7-2, the price had
dropped to $59/lb.
While the amounts of uranium used are a fraction of the amounts of coal or oil used in
conventional power plants, fuel costs account for about 28% of a nuclear plant's operating
expenses.[23] Other recent sources cite lower fuel costs, such as 16%.[25] Doubling the price of
uranium would add only 7% to the cost of electricity produced.

Radioactive waste disposal

It is not clear where the nuclear waste emanating from the site will be dumped. The plant is
estimated to generate 300 tonnes of waste each year. EPR waste will have about four times as
much radioactive Bromine, Iodine, Caesium, etc, compared to ordinary Pressurized water reactor.
[18]

Waste disposal
Main Article: Radioactive Waste
All nuclear plants produce radioactive waste. To pay for the cost of storing, transporting and
disposing these wastes in a permanent location, in the United States a surcharge of a tenth of a
cent per kilowatt-hour is added to electricity bills.

Nuclear waste – no solution* ** AREVA claims that one of the EPR’s advantages is that it will
produce less waste than other reactors. But while the promise is that the volume of waste will be
reduced by 15 percent, the waste it produces will be disproportionately more dangerous because
it will contain more readily released radioactive substances. With regard to radioactivity, the EPR
will not be a step forward: improved fuel combustion rates simply lead to more dangerous waste.
In addition, by being able to function with 100 percent MOX fuel (a mixture of uranium and
plutonium oxides) the EPR will be a major link in the nuclear reprocessing scheme that is highly
contaminating. Furthermore, there is still no permanent or safe solution for storing hazardous
nuclear waste, which remains lethal for millennia. For Jaitapur, there is no plan or fund for long-
term waste management. Hazardous, nuclear waste will be an additional burden – both
financially and with regard to safety — for the Indian people

Currently, there is no plan for disposing of the waste and plants will be required to keep the waste
on the plant premises indefinitely.
The disposal of low level waste reportedly costs around £2,000/m³ in the UK. High level waste
costs somewhere between £67,000/m³ and £201,000/m³.[28] General division is 80%/20% of low
level/high level waste,[29] and one reactor produces roughly 12 m³ of high level waste annually.
[30]
Decommissioning
Main Article: Nuclear Decommissioning
At the end of a nuclear plant's lifetime (estimated at between 40 and 60 years), the plant must be
decommissioned. This entails either Dismantling, Safe Storage or Entombment. Operators are
usually required to build up a fund to cover these costs while the plant is operating, to limit the
financial risk from operator bankruptcy.

In the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requires plants to finish the
process within 60 years of closing. Since it may cost $300 million or more to shut down and
decommission a plant, the NRC requires plant owners to set aside money when the plant is still
operating to pay for the future shutdown costs.[31] In June 2009, the NRC published concerns
that owners were not setting aside sufficient funds.[32

Insurance
The deadly radioactive elements created during the fission of uranium in the nuclear reactor
inevitably find their way into the environment. This happens through the routine release of
radioactive gases into the atmosphere and release of radioactive water into the sea. The radiation
emitted by these elements is deathly, it causes cancer, damages vital organs including the
kidney, lungs, heart and brain, affects the reproductive system and causes sterility, and will also
cause mutation in the genes resulting in unknown diseases and deformities in the coming
generations. Since many of these radioactive elements will continue to emit radiation for
hundreds and thousands of years, the implication for life in the region is going to be simply
terrible. It will render not just the entire Konkan, but Western Maharashtra, uninhabitable for the
next twenty thousand years!

Anil Gachke, who had come down from Tarapur near Mumbai, the location of India’s first reactor,
gave facts about the devastating impact of the Tarapur Nuclear Power Plant on life of people
living near Tarapur. He stated that of the 350 mechanised fishing boats which used to operate in
Tarapur previously, not one remains today. The plant releases warm water into the sea, and while
the limit for temperature rise of sea water has been kept at 2-3 °C, the plant often releases hot
water of temperatures from 7-8°C to as much as 20°C above sea temperature, which has
destroyed the marine life in Tarapur

The government of India has put up the country, its resources, its wealth, its people, everything
for sale. At a time when the nuclear power industry is in doldrums all over the world because of
safety, cost and environmental concerns and giant foreign nuclear corporations are in serious
crisis because of lack of orders , yet the government of India has agreed to allow dozens of
nuclear power plants to be set up in the country. As it is, nuclear power is very costly, and so
these corporations will plunder us just like the British did.
The proposal to push for nuclear power plants is one of the most dangerous policies being
implemented in the country.
“This nexus of capitalism, statism and nuclearism does not augur well for the country.

Surendra Gadekar, from Sampoorna Kranti Vidyalaya of Vedhchi, Surat and one of the country’s
most well-known nuclear experts who has edited the renowned anti-nuclear journal Anumukti for
several years, gave a presentation on how the country’s nuclear authorities blatantly lie about
obvious facts in order to promote their dangerous projects. He gave numerous examples of his
surveys in Jadugoda and Rawatbhata. For instance, in Jadugoda, where India’s oldest uranium
mine is located, the Uranium Corporation of India carelessly dumps the waste in the open, the ore
is transported in uncovered dumpers, the tailing ponds are not fenced off properly, and people
freely walk across them, not knowing that they are thus getting exposed to gamma radiation. As if
this was not enough, he also gave the horrifying fact that the company has also supplied waste
rock from the mines to be used for construction of roads and houses! He then gave facts about
the health effects of the radiation released from the uranium mines in Jadugoda and from the
radiation released from the nuclear reactor in Rawatbhata in Rajasthan on the people living in the
nearby villages, along with photographs.
In the name of providing an ‘internationally competitive business environment’ to foreign
investors, investors in the SEZs are being given the most amazing concessions: no import duties;
no controls on imports and profit repatriations; 100% tax holiday for 5-10 years; permission to set
up hotels, residential complexes, malls, golf courses, etc. on as much as 75% of the SEZ area.

According to the Finance Ministry, the revenue loss due to these tax concessions is going to be
more than Rs.1 lakh crores! Further, labour laws and environmental laws will not be applicable to
these zones. Even worse, the Development Commissioner of the SEZ will function like a virtual
dictator of the area – Indian democracy will end at the border of these zones, they will be like the
princely states of the British Raj!

Comparisons with other power sources

Generally, a nuclear power plant is significantly more expensive to build than an equivalent coal-
fueled or gas-fueled plant. However, coal is significantly more expensive than nuclear fuel, and
natural gas significantly more expensive than coal — thus, capital costs aside, natural gas-
generated power is the most expensive. Most forms of electricity generation produce some form
of negative externality — costs imposed on third parties that are not directly paid by the producer
— such as pollution which negatively affects the health of those near and downwind of the power
plant, and generation costs often do not reflect these external costs.

A comparison of the "real" cost of various energy sources is complicated by several uncertainties:
The cost of climate change through emissions of greenhouse gases is hard to estimate. Carbon
taxes may be enacted, or carbon capture and storage may become mandatory.

The cost of environmental damage caused by (fossil or renewable) energy sources, both through
land use (whether for mining fuels or for power generation) and through air and water pollution
and solid waste.

Outside the U.S., the cost or political feasibility of disposal of the waste from reprocessed spent
nuclear fuel is still not fully resolved. Disposal of U.S. spent nuclear fuel, which currently is not
reprocessed, is funded by a fixed surcharge on generation which funds the U.S. government
taking possession of and title to the fuel.

Other economic issues

Nuclear Power plants tend to be very competitive in areas where other fuel resources are not
readily available — France, most notably, has almost no native supplies of fossil fuels.

A Council on Foreign Relations report on nuclear energy argues that a rapid expansion of nuclear
power may create shortages in building materials such as reactor-quality concrete and steel,
skilled workers and engineers, and safety controls by skilled inspectors. This would drive up
current prices.[50] It may be easier to rapidly expand, for example, the number of coal power
plants, without this having a large effect on current prices.

The number of companies that manufacture certain parts for nuclear reactors is limited,
particularly the large forgings used for reactor vessels and steam systems. Only four companies
(Japan Steel Works, China First Heavy Industries, Russia's OMX Izhora and Korea's Doosan
Heavy Industries) currently manufacture pressure vessels for reactors of 1100 MWe or larger

Nuclear plants require 20–83 percent more cooling water than other power stations.[53] During
times of abnormally high seasonal temperatures or drought it may be necessary for reactors
drawing from small bodies of water to reduce power or shut down. Nuclear plants situated on
large lakes, seas or oceans are not affected by seasonal temperature variations due to the
thermal stability of large bodies of water.

Proponents
Proponents are advocating the Jaitapur Project as safe, environmentally benign and economically
viable source of electrical energy to meet the increasing electricity needs of India.[35] They
believe that nuclear power is a sustainable energy source that reduces carbon emissions and
increases energy security by decreasing India's dependence on foreign oil. The promoter of
Jaitapur project is Nuclear Power Corporation of India. It is a public Sector Enterprise Under the
administrative control of the Department of Atomic Energy (India).

As of 2010 India is on the sixth in rank of an elite club of nations, after USA, France, Japan,
Russian Federation and Republic of Korea, to have twenty or more nuclear power reactors in
operation.[36] The company is currently operating 20 nuclear power plants at six locations in
India and is implementing construction of 7 reactors at four locations.[37] In 2009/10 company
has generated 18831 million units of electricity

According to former chairman of Atomic Energy Commission Anil Kakodkar, Jaitapur site is the
best as it fulfilled the technical and scientific norms needed for a nuclear power plant.

All 20 nuclear power projects in the India have been functioning very well and The waste
generated at the this nuclear power plant, will be recycled. Only five per cent of it would be
encapsulated and stored at technologically advanced places. It will not be buried anywhere. The
waste will be stored for the next 30 to 40 years, till scientists develop some technology to treat it.

Meanwhile, NPCIL clarified that the Jaitapur site is in Zone-III and not in Zone-IV. Actually, the
Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project site selection has been done keeping ample safety margins
However, project developer Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) has claimed that the site
selection for the power plant was done keeping in mind the safety aspects and there was not "any
active geological fault within 5-km radius from the proposed site".
Extensive studies carried out by various government institutions/organisations, specialising on
these studies, have found no active geological fault up to 30-km radius from the proposed
Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project site, thus validating that the site is not earthquake-prone ,
Nagaich said.

Since the World Trade Centre attacks in New York in 2001 there has been concern about the
consequences of a large aircraft being used to attack a nuclear facility with the purpose of
releasing radioactive materials. Various studies have looked at similar attacks on nuclear power
plants. They show that nuclear reactors would be more resistant to such attacks than virtually any
other civil installations thorough study was undertaken by the US Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI) using specialist consultants and paid for by the US Dept. of Energy. It concludes
that US reactor structures "are robust and (would) protect the fuel from impacts of large
commercial aircraft".

The study of a 1970s US power plant in a highly-populated area is assessing the possible effects
of a successful terrorist attack which causes both meltdown of the core and a large breach in the
containment structure - both extremely unlikely. It shows that a large fraction of the most
hazardous radioactive isotopes, like those of iodine and tellurium, would never leave the site.
Much of the radioactive material would stick to surfaces inside the containment or becomes
soluble salts that remain in the damaged containment building. Some radioactive material would
nonetheless enter the environment some hours after the attack in this extreme scenario and
affect areas up to several kilometres away. The extent and timing of this means that with walking-
pace evacuation inside this radius it would not be a major health risk. However it could leave
areas contaminated and hence displace people in the same way as a natural disaster, giving rise
to economic rather than health consequences.

Looking at spent fuel storage pools, similar analyses showed no breach. Dry storage and
transport casks retained their integrity. "There would be no release of radionuclides to the
environment".
Similarly, the massive structures mean that any terrorist attack even inside a plant (which are well
defended) and causing loss of cooling, core melting and breach of containment would not result
in any significant radioactive releases.

Safety of Nuclear Power Plants

http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeSafetyOfNuclearPowerPlants
Safety is taken very seriously by those working in nuclear power plants. The main safety concern
is the emission of uncontrolled radiation into the environment which could cause harm to humans
both at the reactor site and off-site. A summary by the nuclear world association on
environmental, health and safety issues can be found at the Nuclear World Association website.
The Union of Concerned Scientists has an extensive website devoted to the detailed safety
issues faced by American Nuclear Power Industry. These provide an interesting perspective on
the importance both of a vigilent safety culture and a pro-active regulatory oversight.

Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html
From the outset, there has been a strong awareness of the potential hazard of both nuclear
criticality and release of radioactive materials.
There have been two major reactor accidents in the history of civil nuclear power - Three Mile
Island and Chernobyl. One was contained without harm to anyone and the other involved an
intense fire without provision for containment.

These are the only major accidents to have occurred in some 14,000 cumulative reactor-years of
commercial operation in 32 countries.
The risks from western nuclear power plants, in terms of the consequences of an accident or
terrorist attack, are minimal compared with other commonly accepted risks. Nuclear power plants
are very robust.

Context
In relation to nuclear power, Safety is closely linked with Security, and in the nuclear field also
with Safeguards. Some distinctions:
Safety focuses on unintended conditions or events leading to radiological releases from
authorised activities. It relates mainly to intrinsic problems or hazards.
Security focuses on the intentional misuse of nuclear or other radioactive materials by non-state
elements to cause harm. It relates mainly to external threats to materials or facilities.
Safeguards focus on restraining activities by states that could lead to acquisition of nuclear
weapons. It concerns mainly materials and equipment in relation to rogue governments.
Nuclear power plants are designed to be safe and are operated without significant effect on public
heath and safety and the environment. No industrial activity, however, is risk-free.

Safety Mechanisms of a Nuclear Power Reactor

By regulation, the design of the nuclear reactor must include provisions for human (operator)
error and equipment failure. Nuclear Plants in the western world use a "Defense in Depth"
concept which is a system with multiple safety components, each with back-up and design to
accommodate human error. The components include:
1. Control of Radioactivity
2. Maintenance of Core Cooling
In any nuclear reactor some sort of cooling is necessary. Generally nuclear reactors use water as
a coolant. However some reactors which cannot use water use sodium or sodium salts.
3. Maintenance of barriers that prevent the release of radiation

Achieving optimum nuclear safety

To achieve optimum safety, nuclear plants in the western world operate using a 'defence-in-
depth' approach, with multiple safety systems supplementing the natural features of the reactor
core.
Key aspects of the "Defense in Depth" approach are: high-quality design & construction,
equipment which prevents operational disturbances or human failures and errors developing into
problems, comprehensive monitoring and regular testing to detect equipment or operator failures,
redundant and diverse systems to control damage to the fuel and prevent significant radioactive
releases, provision to confine the effects of severe fuel damage (or any other problem) to the
plant itself.
These can be summed up as: Prevention, Monitoring, and Action (to mitigate consequences of
failures).

The safety provisions include a series of physical barriers between the radioactive reactor core
and the environment, the provision of multiple safety systems, each with backup and designed to
accommodate human error. Safety systems account for about one quarter of the capital cost of
such reactors.

To prevent the release of radioactive material to the environment, nuclear power plants are
constructed with several barriers between the radioactive material and the environment
surrounding the plant. The barriers in a typical plant are: the fuel is in the form of solid ceramic
(UO2) pellets, and radioactive fission products remain largely bound inside these pellets as the
fuel is burned. The pellets are packed inside sealed zirconium alloy tubes to form fuel rods.
These are confined inside a large steel pressure vessel with walls up to 30 cm thick - the
associated primary water cooling pipework is also substantial. All this, in turn, is enclosed inside a
robust reinforced concrete containment structure with walls at least one metre thick. This
amounts to three significant barriers around the fuel, which itself is stable.

The first barrier is the fuel cladding, sealed metal tubes in which ceramic pellets of uranium fuel
are encased. The second barrier is the heavy steel reactor vessel, in the range of nine inches to a
foot thick, and the primary cooling water system piping. The third barrier is the containment
building, a heavily reinforced structure of concrete and steel up to several feet thick that
surrounds the reactor and is designed to contain radioactivity that might be released from the
reactor system in the unlikely event of a serious accident.

These barriers are monitored continually. The fuel cladding is monitored by measuring the
amount of radioactivity in the cooling water. The high pressure cooling system is monitored by the
leak rate of water, and the containment structure by periodically measuring the leak rate of air at
about five times atmospheric pressure.
Looked at functionally, the three basic safety functions in a nuclear reactor are: to control
reactivity, to cool the fuel and to contain radioactive substances.

Nuclear power plants are designed with sensors to shut them down automatically in an
earthquake, and this is a vital consideration in many parts of the world.

Solution
I find the decision to accord the clearance complete wrong, but I do agree with the above
principle articulated by the Minister, that there is a need to balance several objectives. (I would
add a few more to them including equity, displacement etc.). The issue is whether the MoEF is
the competent authority to do this balancing. It is a serious problem with our project planning,
regulation and governance systems that we do not have appropriate procedures and agencies to
ensure such a balancing. The sector ministries (power, water, atomic energy etc.) look to only
push their own sector’s growth – which they equate with national interests. Since they are the
ministries deciding on the “need” and “desirability” of projects, the conflict of interest in balancing
with regards environment, social impacts, equity etc are clear.

We are often criticized for being against development when we oppose big projects, but these
projects are oriented towards only the development of a few, they fulfill the needs of only the rich,
while displacing people, polluting entire regions, destroying the health and livelihoods of millions
of people. In the more than sixty years of Indian independence, the ruling classes have not been
able to provide electricity to nearly half of India’s villages, and the new plants being put up are not
to meet this shortage, these villages will continue to be without electricity, rather these plants are
being set up to meet the needs of the wasteful consumption of the rich. He gave a call that
instead of using the language of only opposing projects, we must now go on the offensive, people
must organize and demand that we are setting up our own alternate micro projects which will fulfil
our needs, and he gave examples of the micro dams being built in Uttarakhand and micro thermal
power plants being put up by people in Jharkhand while opposing the setting up of giant
displacing projects in those areas.

Need to adopt an alternate lifestyle to challenge the current way of life which is unsustainable for
life on earth. He pointed out that the present pattern of development is now threatening the very
existence of life on planet earth, and the present spate of projects being built in Konkan will only
accelerate this push towards certain extinction of human civilization. We need to reject the
western lifestyle being imposed on us by the corporate media so as to create market for their
products, and evolve alternate lifestyles that are more in harmony with nature.

In reality, there has been little effort to convince villagers that the plant is for the public good,
leave alone explaining the computing of the compensation. Jain has a dismissive attitude to the
local community, saying, “Let them oppose it, they will be in a minority later. Such projects of
national interest do not stop for a few people.” As if realising that this is not politically correct, he
adds: “But I respect the principles and ideas of the villagers.” Too little, too late.

Areva is being sued back home for contaminating French rivers. Moreover, regulatory bodies in
Finland and UK have not approved Areva’s evolutionary European pressurised reactor (EPR), six
of which are to be installed at Jaitapur.

The villagers are worried about their land, Sakhri Nate village — which boasts of an annual fish
catch of 10,000 tonnes, worth Rs.. 16 crore — is concerned about its livelihood. The problem,
according to Borkar, is, “The fishermen cannot anticipate today what losses they will face five-
seven years from now, and the 5,500-strong population of Nate has all of 51 hectares and the
sea at our disposal. The fish is exported to Japan, Europe and other countries. What will happen
when the plant starts?”

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is being criticised for lack of clarity on safety, pollution,
animal grazing, farming and displacement.
The plant would discharge six million cubic metres of warm water into the sea daily. NEERI has
brushed aside the impact on marine life, citing the Kalpakkam plant’s example. This is a specious
comparison since the Jaitapur plant is 25 times bigger.

The report is also mum on the impact of a 2,300 metre-long breakwater (stone barrier) to be built
near the sea shore. It would cause deposition of sand near the Vijaydurg creek, blocking the
natural flow of water.

Radioactive waste is another contentious issue. Jain says the solid waste will be stored in lead
containers buried in trenches dug into the earth. Naturally, people are worried about the impact
on the groundwater table and soil.

Until and unless the process is transparent, the existing EIA should not be approved and in the
meanwhile a fresh EIA should be prepared, addressing every important factor.”
The people of Madban are obviously a gritty, determined lot, who are sustaining this protest
without political help.

The apprehensions at Jaitapur are clearly a fallout of the whispers about health hazards at the
‘crown jewel’ of India’s nuclear power programme, Tarapur Atomic Power Station (TAPS), 600 km
away. When we visited villages near TAPS, a worker from Unit 4, on condition of anonymity,
narrated a telling incident which led to a 14-day shutdown.
This claim, that the layman cannot understand technicalities and must perhaps subordinate his
health to national interest, is hardly likely to be valid in the next decade. When TAPS came up in
1969, there was no public awareness of safety issues. After the Bhopal gas disaster judgements
and the fuss over the Nuclear Liability Bill, however, the public has woken up to the dangers.

It is this lack of transparency that is worrying the local people at a time when the government
pays lip service to involving all stakeholders in decision-making processes. They do not want
another Chernobyl or Three Mile Island on their shores.

Even as ramifications of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act 2010 were being debated at
the national level, TEHELKA’s reporters fanned out to Kalpakkam, Kudankulam, Jaduguda and
Tarapur (issues dated 11, 18 and 25 September) in a unique initiative to study the ground
realities of nuclear power plants (NPPs) and uranium mines in India. What emerged,
unfortunately, was a picture of callous disregard for human safety and, in the case of the
proposed site at Jaitapur, of lack of concern for traditional livelihoods — all in the name of
national interest. The string of lapses and a lackadaisical approach towards safety augurs ill for
the seven plants that will become operational over the next six years.

*Weak regulation* ** India lacks an independent nuclear safety regulator. An independent, well
resourced nuclear safety authority is the main pillar of minimising the risks inherent in the use of
nuclear power. The six board members that comprise India’s nuclear safety agency, the Atomic
Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), include several former employees of the state nuclear power
company NPCIL, the operator-to-be of Jaitapur EPR power plant. AERB reports to the
Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), which is responsible for promotion of nuclear power, and
owns NPCIL as well as directly owns and operates nuclear facilities. AERB largely relies on DAE
staff for its inspection activities. The profound implications are clear, as stated by former AERB
head, Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan: “This dependency is deliberately exploited by the [Department of
Atomic Energy] management to influence, directly and indirectly, the AERB’s safety evaluations
and decisions. The interference has manifested itself in the AERB toning down the seriousness of
safety concerns, agreeing to the postponement of essential repairs to suit the DAE’s time
schedules, and allowing continued operation of installations when public safety considerations
would warrant their immediate shutdown and repair.” “The safety status of nuclear energy
installations in India is far below international standards, and in the absence of an independent
regulatory body this has serious implications for public safety.”10 The low standard of nuclear
safety in India can be seen from frequent cases of safety system malfunctions, leaks of
radioactive materials and environmental contamination11

After the legwork, it’s time to fix accountability. What exactly are India’s existing safety guidelines
relating to functioning of nuclear power plants and mining of radioactive material? If rules have
been breached in the past, what hope is there that any regulations will be followed in the future?
Especially as a number of plants will rapidly come up in the next decade.
The Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) is the apex body to which the Atomic Energy Regulatory
Board (AERB) and research centres like Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR),
Environment Survey Laboratory (ESL) and Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) report. All
these bodies are not independent of each other. Hence, if one is at fault, the reviewing body
could turn a blind eye since both belong to the same brotherhood. There is no independent
reviewing body that can question their functioning. This co-dependency of existing organisations
leads to a conflict of interest.

Next week
Ground report from G Vishnu in Jaduguda in Jharkhand, where he was arrested by the
CISF and charged with attempting to access sensitive information

Policy, Regulations, and Regulatory Framework

NRC regulations contain criteria and requirements for a nuclear power plant license which ensure
an acceptable level of plant safety, i.e., an acceptably low level of risk to public health and safety.
The regulations are based on sound engineering precepts that are judged to be acceptable for
safe plant design and operation. To assist with license application and review, the NRC has
developed a detailed set of regulatory guides and a standard review plan to clarify license
requirements and describe practices that satisfy these requirements. In addition, the NRC issues
various generic communications to all appropriate nuclear power plants, that address potential
safety concerns.

These safety goals and policies are used as the basis for establishing the regulatory framework
for making risk-informed decisions at the NRC.
RULE IGCAR is responsible for developing fast breeder reactor technology. On the ‘Health and
Safety’ page of its website, it instructs that occupational radiation exposure limits has to be at an
average of 20 mSv (millisievert is the unit of radiation absorbed by the human body) per year,
averaged over a period of five years, but not more than 50 mSv in a single year to the whole
body. This, IGCAR says, is the permissible limit.

Conclusion
‘Jaitapur nuclear plant needs thorough regulatory scrutiny'
*Why India should not embark on nuclear expansion* ** Most decision makers and investors talk
about sustainability and corporate social responsibility, yet the entire nuclear cycle blatantly
contradicts this. Radioactive contamination routinely occurs throughout the fuel chain, from
uranium mining to processing, reactor operation to the management of nuclear waste. A severe
accident of a typical pressurised water nuclear reactor, due to technical or human failure, could
affect many millions of people, causing tens of thousands of victims and forcing the evacuation of
areas as large as Belgium. The nuclear industry has spent the past decade trying to convince the
public and decision-makers that, despite its downsides, nuclear power is needed to tackle the
climate crisis. The industry promised to have learned from past disasters, and that it would offer a
clean, safe, cheap and reliable source of energy. None of these claims is true. However, when
one asks the question ‘at what cost?’ it is hard to dispel the fact that the costs far outweigh the
benefits. There are huge risks to human, plant and animal life and to the environment. The
ministry of environment has given a conditional go-ahead to the project. It needs to rethink its
decision. It needs to put people above profits.

Public Opinion
The poor people in the villages has to deal with all the hazards which a nuclear power plant emits
and the rich in cities like Mumbai will enjoy clean and uninterrupted energy. If there is that much
need for power in cities let the nuclear power plant be put in Mumbai or any city which is going to
consume the major part of energy.
Despite the Environment Ministry’s conditional go-ahead to the plant, protests refuse to die
down.”People who have faced the effects of a nuclear power project in their vicinity told us that
this is a devastating project. They said that our next generation will have nothing to live and
survive on. We will lose our paddy fields, our plantations and orchards and we will die of hunger,”
said Umakant Kambli, a resident of Madban village, Ratnagiri.
“We will die but won’t let this project come up,”
There are concerns voiced by environmentalists as well. There is a concern that the N-plant is not
financially viable, doesn't meet immidiate energy needs

France and India Strengthen Diplomatic Ties

http://oilprice.com/Geo-Politics/International/France-and-India-Strengthen-Diplomatic-Ties.html
Written by Rajeev Sharma
Friday, 17 December 2010 15:14
India will have to tread carefully on the Jaitapur plant and will have to ensure that the cost of
power per unit is not too high or else India will be breeding another Enron, this time again in
Maharashtra. For the state of Maharashtra, Jaitapur means happy tidings as it will generate
substantial employment for the locals. But it is the long-term risk that has to be guarded against
because the Government of India will be spending a hefty $9.3 billion on the Jaitapur plant.
Another important area of concern in context of the Jaitapur plant is that it is going to have
European Pressurized Reactors (EPRs), the first of which is yet to be built, and therefore, the
technology remains untested. The twin risks—pricing of power produced which is yet to be
worked out and the very high capital investment—makes Jaitapur a high-stakes gamble for the
government.

Sarkozy’s visit is a demonstration of India’s growing influence, which is projected to be the world’s
third largest economy by 2030 after the U.S. and China. Sarkozy is the third P5 leader to have
visited India this year after British Prime Minister David Cameron in July and U.S. President
Barack Obama in November. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and Russian President Dmitry
Medvedev are scheduled to visit later this month, the former from December 15 to 17, and the
latter a week later. This means that before 2010 rings out India would have received all five
heads of the permanent members of the UNSC.

The NPCIL needs to disclose the cost of the project and the tariff. A similar plant being built in
Finland, the Olkiluoto Plant, has incurred a cost of 5.3 billion euros until date for 1,630 MWe. This
translates into Rs.19.5 crore per MWe. Clearly, a cost benefit analysis for the Jaitapur project is
needed,
In the past in the Konkan there was the terrible experience of Enron selling its power at above
Rs.7 a unit and causing the state utility to stop buying it. Even as the NPCIL is optimistic about
winning over the villagers in Ratnagiri, serious questions remain.

http://safepowerindia.org/issues/is-this-the-company-we-want-making-nuclear-reactors-in-india/
GREENPEACE
GREENPEACE INDIA HOME
The site is both an ecologically important area, and a high damage seismic risk zone.
Internationally, debate is raging on the ability of nuclear energy to provide a solution to the global
energy crisis. India, along with China, has one of the fastest- growing energy demands in the
world as it aims to lessen poverty and join the list of developed nations. Due to years of neglect of
the power sector, coupled with a now spurting demand for energy to sustain economic growth, it
is essential for the country to tap all available resources to meet its energy needs. Rapidly
increasing prices of fossil fuels and increased concern for the environment has caused planners
in India to look at nuclear energy as a viable ‘clean’ energy source: Indian policy makers have
targeted to achieve diversification of their energy portfolio to include 25% of nuclear energy by
2050.

But is nuclear energy really the low-carbon solution to the escalating energy needs of India? It
may be noted that rapidly depleting fossil fuels and sky- rocketing crude prices are said to have
contributed to a renewed interest in nuclear energy all over the world. Promoters of nuclear
energy present it gift wrapped with notions of an environmentally friendly, affordable and
inexhaustible source. Yet the truth about nuclear energy is far from this favourable marketing.
Generation of energy by nuclear fission is extraordinarily expensive, takes far too long to set up to
be a real solution to the pressing issue of climate change, and is both itself dangerous and a
creator of dangerous wastes.

One such aggressive promoter of nuclear energy is ARVEA, a French company largely owned by
the government and a global leader in nuclear power. But its history of operations are little to look
up to. AREVA established its mining efforts in northern Niger 40 years ago, creating what should
have been an economic rescue for a depressed nation. Yet, AREVA’s operations have been
largely destructive.

What will work for India??

Due to the prohibitive price, solar will remain on the back foot in India in the near future. There
are efforts from industries to reduce the cost and make it cheaper than the present situation.
Solar has a great potential and will be utilized by individuals or some institutions for their captive
needs. However, large installations will take at least around 5 to 10 years in India to make its
presence felt.
Other forms of renewable energy like biomass, bio-fuel and wastes will also require time in India.
The technologies to convert jatropha, palm oil or algae into bio-fuels are not yet commercial and
will take time to become economical. Algae, if pursued and successful, will be the answer to the
worries of energy. It will not only engulf the huge amounts of carbon dioxide, but also give higher
yields per unit area. Wind energy will be the biggest beneficiary and will grow from its present
position.

In the short term (up to five years), wind energy will rule the roost. It is poised to grow due to the
mature technology and easy installation. However, after ten to fifteen years, it will be solar and
bio-fuels which will be major front runners for renewable energy usage. These technologies will
be more mature and economically viable by then and the global warming phenomenon will force
us to embrace those technologies.

Can Nuclear Power Be The Best Alternate Energy Source

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/can-nuclear-power-be-the-best-alternate-energy-source.html
Can nuclear energy really be a better energy source than the other energy alternatives.
If we take a look at the human progression on the subject of energy and power, it is easy to be
overwhelmed that man is looking for different ways to get alternative energy and electricity for the
upcoming years. Researchers have come up with different tools and machines to make the best
use of the natural wealth and resources for making life more easier.

It is hard to ignore the great effort which scientists make to gain enough energy through alternate
sources. even though their are not 100% satisfied if it is biodiesel or wind powered, there will
always be some limitations to receive the energy. The energy that is the most powerful of the
whole bunch is nuclear energy which will give you unlimited energy.
If we look at our historical background going all the way back to japan you will have read reports
on the devastating power of the nuclear hiroshima bomb. It released the huge energy and heat
which tuned the two populated states into the necropolis deserts.

So we can safely say that nuclear energy is a powerful alternate energy when compared to the
other energy sources if our scientist are able to use this powerful energy source in a safe way.
There are a couple of advantages to using nuclear energy to power our industries and society.
Obviously the first one is that it by producing the nuclear energy is that you won't be wasting its
power. You will receive no waste material or any other chemical components while you produce
atomic energy.

So you can see nuclear power is a better alternative and is so much more protected and better
for us. The radiation is kept in a safe environment. Now on the question of controlling radiation
the nuclear plant has the full capacity to control the radiation. So it has a very slim chance of
exploding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaitapur_Nuclear_Power_Project

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_India
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants
http://www.npcil.nic.in/
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article602221.ece
http://www.kseboa.org/news/npcil-signs-mou-with-areva-to-set-up-nuclear-plant-at-jaitapur.html
http://lokayatpune.wordpress.com/2010/07/05/jaitapur-nuclear-power-plant-public-hearing-
transcript/
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main47.asp?filename=Ne021010The_rules.asp
http://www.rajputbrotherhood.com/articlelibrary/20100813863/renewable-sources-of-energy-in-
india-essay.html

Pics
Nuclear power plant symbol
Villagers marching to the site of the public hearing at Madban on May 16
The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB)
Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project – JNPP
Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL)
European Pressurised Reactor (EPR), Evolutionary Pressurised Reactors
Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)
Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB)
Anu Urja Prakalp Sangharsh Samiti
Konkan Bachao Samiti (KBS) and Janhit Seva Samiti (JSS)
Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS)
National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI)
Design Basis Accidents (DBAs)
Department of Atomic Energy DAE
Beyond Design Basis Accidents (BDBAs)
Preliminary Safety Analysis Reports (PSAR)
MoE&F
TORs
US Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR)
Konkan Krishi Vidyapith (KKV)
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
Design Basis Threat (DBT)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
National Alliance of Anti-Nuclear Movements (NAAM),
Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR)
Environment Survey Laboratory (ESL)
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC)
The Konkan Vinashkari Prakalpa Virodhi Samiti (KVPVS)
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA