From the India Today archives (2011) | Is India a nuclear time bomb?

(NOTE: This article was originally published in the India Today issue dated March 28, 2011) Picture this. It is August 2022 and the 9,900 MW Jaitapur nuclear power station in Maharashtra's Ratnagiri district is fully functional. An earthquake measuring 8 on the Richter scale hits the coast, rupturing reactor pipes. Radiation starts seeping into the atmosphere. There is widespread panic. The radiation rides on the south-western monsoon winds and travels 250 km north towards Mumbai. It is a national catastrophe. Read Full Story In 2001, such a scenario would have been equally incredible in Japan. In February 2011, with the threat of a nuclear meltdown hovering over Japan's shattered Fukushima nuclear plant, proposed nuclear plants like Jaitapur are now at the epicentre of the nuclear debate. The debate is around two basic questions: are nuclear plants accident -proof and whether this form of energy is worth the enormous risk. Fukushima, is now the world's third major nuclear accident after Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986 and Three Mile Island in 1979. It has prompted a global rethink on nuclear energy. Germany plans to close down seven of its pre-1980 nuclear energy plants and China has suspended approval for new nuclear projects pending the introduction of new safety rules. Russia is silent while France and America keep the nuclear lobby alive. India today boasts the world's oldest operating Boiling Water Reactors (BWRS) at Tarapur. General Electric which built Tarapur also supplied the BWRs that are at the heart of the Fukushima crisis. Experts forecast imminent pressure on India for shutting down the 1969-vintage Tarapur. The government has closed ranks to protect the nuclear industry. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced a safety review of all nuclear projects even as members of the atomic energy establishment emphasised the safety of Indian reactors. "Indian nuclear reactors are capable of handling the worst natural disasters, such as the one in Japan," says Srikumar Banerjee, chairman of the Atomic energy Commission (AEC). "We have a system where all the safety measures are reviewed every five years. All the recommendations from the safety audit are followed strictly." The facts do not encourage such optimism. On the contrary, there have been scores of minor accidents over the past two decades which could easily build up into catastrophes. Heavy water leaks at the Kota nuclear plant, and at Tarapur in 1992. A heavy water leak in Kalpakkam in 1999. Radiation contamination at the Kaiga atomic power plant in 2009. The impact of tsunamis on nuclear plants may not have been on considered. "I don't recall if tsunamis were factored into the environment clearance process (of Jaitapur nuclear plant). But the safety issue has been left to the AERB (Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) and Nuclear Energy Council," environment minister Jairam Ramesh said on Wednesday. There is no clear understanding of the impact of seismic activity on nuclear power plants. Two recent natural disasters, the 2001 Bhuj earthquake measuring 6.9 on the Richter scale and the 2004 Tsunami which hit Tamil Nadu, occurred in the vicinity of nuclear plants. In both cases, Gujarat's Kakrapar atomic plant and the Kalpakkam nuclear reactor in Tamil Nadu shut down safely. Indian nuclear experts say these safe shutdowns are proof that the nuclear plants are safe. "At Kalpakkam, our generators that supply the water for cooling were located 25 feet high and hence were untouched by the seawater that came into the plant," says P.K. Iyengar, former chairman of the AEC. However, nobody will guarantee that an Indian nuclear plant can survive a catastrophic one-two punch of an earthquake measuring 9 on the Richter scale and a tsunami with 23-foot high waves which inundated Fukushima's coolant pumps. "Engineers and scientists cannot predict all possibilities," Iyengar admits. Nuclear energy constitutes just 3 per cent of India's power generation. The government would like this share to go up to nearly 25 per cent by 2050. That was an ostensible reason for pushing the Indo-US nuclear deal. Over the next few decades, India proposes to spend an estimated $175 billion importing new generation nuclear power plants from the United States, France and Russia. "Today's needs can be met by fossil fuels, wind and solar energy but for the future, nuclear and solar energy are the only two options," says Anil Kakodkar, former AEC chairman. Here's the problem. Experts warn of the headlong plunge into buying new nuclear reactors without site studies or using unproven reactor designs. AERB Chairman Dr A. Gopalakrishnan says he is worried by India's plans to buy 21 foreign nuclear power reactors many of them untested designs like Areva's EPR (Europe Pressurised Reactor) in Jaitapur. India is importing four different types of light water reactor technologies which will make its nuclear programme the most diverse in the world. "Our engineers will take time to grasp unfamiliar tec