‘It was a policy decision taken at a time when no other country came forward to sustain India’s nuclear capabilities’
The Centre on Thursday justified in the Supreme Court waiver of the nuclear liability agreement with Russia for the Kudankulam plant in Tamil Nadu and said it was a policy decision taken at a time when no other country came forward to sustain India’s nuclear capabilities.
Making this submission before a Bench of Justices K.S. Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra, Solicitor General Rohinton Nariman denied the allegation of Prashant Bhushan, counsel for petitioners, that the Government had signed the agreement to appease Russia.
Mr. Nariman said: “It was a major policy decision by the Government of India considering the prevailing circumstances at the time. It is stated that after the 1974 peaceful nuclear experiment at Pokhran, India was placed under international sanctions for all nuclear-related supplies. We continued our indigenous efforts in developing nuclear energy, however, we were subjected to an international technology denial regime. Under these circumstances, it was the erstwhile USSR, which had come forward and had offered to supply large capacity VVER 1000 MWe to India. This was a huge step in sustaining our civilian nuclear capabilities.”
Denying the allegation that in view of the nuclear liability waiver safety considerations had been compromised, counsel said the Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL), in the case of the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project (KKNPP), “has taken all mandatory licences and clearance from all the requisite statutory authorities.”
“Apart from these clearances, the KKNPP has been reviewed by an expert group constituted by the Government of India for the ‘safety of Kudankulam nuclear power plant and impact of its operation on the surroundings’, which was headed by Dr. A.E. Muthunayagam.”
Mr. Nariman said, “This expert group, in its report of December 2011, has observed: ‘From the exhaustive analysis given above it is concluded that there need to be absolutely no concern among the public living around KKNPP and the operation of the nuclear power station would not certainly give rise to any deleterious effects among people’.”
He said three villages were within the Sterile Zone of the KKNPP — Kudankulam, Vijayapathi (Idinthakarai) and Irrukkandurai. “As per 2001 census, the population residing within the SZ consisting of these three villages is approximately 23,960 and not 40,000 as alleged by the petitioner. The population residing within SZ has been taken care of while preparation of the Emergency Preparedness Plan of the KKNPP site.” He denied that the KKNPP suffered from any issue that need to be resolved before the plant could be commissioned and sought dismissal of the petitions which raised safety concern of the plant.
Additional Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran, appearing for the Ministry of Environment and Forests, said that on April 19, 1989 the then Prime Minister had approved an exemption of the 500-metre norm from the high tide line for the Kudankulam project subject to the MoEF prescribing and ensuring sufficient safeguards for preserving the ecology of the beach and these safeguards had been put in place.
He argued that insofar as establishment of a desalination plant [for desalination of seawater being used in the plant) no fresh environment clearance was required as the said activity would not come within any one of the 29 specified activities in the 1994 environmental notification. At this juncture, Justice Radhakrishnan observed that this stand of the Centre might create a problem. “In future somebody may take a stand that no permission is required for establishment of a desalination plant.” He told Mr. Parasaran to get a clarification from the MoEF whether such permission was required or not.
When Mr. Prashant Bhushan alleged that there were people living within the two km radius of the plant, Mr. Parasaran said, “No one lives within two km as a boundary wall has been constructed at two km away from the plant.”
Justice Radhakrishnan, however, asked the ASG and Additional Advocate General Guru Krishna Kumar, who appeared for Tamil Nadu, to verify this aspect and if it was found that people were residing within two km radius, there should be a proper rehabilitation plan for accommodating them in alternative sites and they should be paid adequate compensation. Mr. Parasaran said this would be verified and suitable steps taken for their rehabilitation, if any. Arguments will continue on November 6.
Keywords: nuclear civil liability pact, Kudankulam Nuclear Power project, Central Government, Nuclear Power Corporation of India, Indo-Russia talks, Additional Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran
As per 2001 census, the population residing within the Sterile Zone consisting of these three villages is approximately 23,960 and not 40,000 as alleged by the petitioner. The population residing within SZ has been taken care of while preparation of the Emergency Preparedness Plan of the KKNPP site.”
This was the contention of the corrupt Congress Govt.
Now we are at the end of the year - 2012. After 2001 census was conducted on 2011. The Cong. govt. has to provide the particulars of people as on date.
Common people are watching how the congress govt is looting the public money. For the corrupt Cong. govt. LIVES OF PEOPLE and THE WELFARE OF PEOPLE are NOT at all a matter. Their only concern is how to exploit the poor people and loot money.
It's pity that some of the aristocratic common people are joining the corrupt congress govt. in promoting the threat-ridden nuclear power plants.
These corrupt congress govt and their coterie will repent one day for the colossal destruction.
If Russia can re-evaluate Gorshkov deal (from $947 million to $2.3
billion), why not Indian govt do the same in this case. In both the case
priorities has changed with time and the Nuclear plant deal needs to be
re-evaluated (in terms of disaster liability). Today, there are more
than one country is ready to sign the deal(given current economic
recession). If we've waited 38 years (since 1974), there is no harm
waiting another 9-10 years, if you can get a better deal which will run
for 50-60 or 70 years.
An important difference between India-designed-and-built npps and those imported nut, bolt, washer & vessel: it is NPCIL [GOI] who is responsible for design & tech specifications, selecting supplier, and extensive QA regime at all stages. This is particularly true of the nuclear as well as safety related systems. Thus "indemnity model" offered to the (particularly indigenous) supplier would be a reasonable way. But, foreign npp vendors preclude any of the above activities to be undertaken by GOI, due to IPR issues. So, Liability waiver may not be appropriate, although I agree that the KNOW-WHY conract with Canada in RAPP is an exception as explained by Dr M.R. S in a recent article in The Hindu. Also Liability law has loop hole. GOI's recourse to compensation from foreign npp vendor for defective supply may never fructify. It would be tortuous and probably impossible to prove that it was the sole reason for the accident. Usually npp accidents happen due to multiplicity of causes.]]
Is the Russian govt., to be likened to the Govt. of Madhya Pradesh,
where the mentioned govt. of the state, has waivered any liability in
the future, as of now, if any citizen in Bhopal will be ill, or unwell
because of pollution? I ask, because I too live in a state, belonging
to the Indian Union. The politician is a representative of the people,
and he represents himself/herself too, being a person in India. The
elected representative, tells the administration, the wishes of the
people, and the administration does the needful, that is why the
elected representative is voted to power, in an interval which is
regular, and where he can be replaced by vote. I envy the position of
the elected representative, and I feel empathy for the person,
represented by the post.
What a "fantastic" justification.
India has 100 crore people. Why not offer them in blocks say 100,000 each as lab rats to all these so called " Development" projects.
It is like saying " the baby had to survive... That's why we killed the mother"
N.G Krishnan, In what way it is ethical to push an unwarranted nuclear
plant to people, just because no other country supply the technology?
This is not an unwarranted toy, to dispose it just like that if it doesn't work. It has impacts. It has impacts for generations. Don't
just comment without thinking about the impacts.
In today's world, we don't even buy an electronic item with no
warranty. How can we buy a nuclear plant with no warranty from the
manufacturer?
I fully agree with the Government stand on the waiver. Indians will have
to take stand, whether they want country to go with modernity or go back
to age of hunter gatherers. You can't eat your cake and have it too.
Reciprocity is the very norm of bilateral ties while taking care of
national interests.
This is the most naive argument ... "..Under these
circumstances, it was the erstwhile USSR, which had come forward and
had offered to supply large capacity VVER 1000 MWe to India. This was
a huge step in sustaining our civilian nuclear capabilities.” This
happened in 1974 and the plant has been built ONLY 38 years later.
They let our PM (and President Bush) take all the heat and opposition
from respective parliamentarians, NSG and opposing nations like China
to finally clear the way. If it "benefited" India, the plant should
have been commissioned in 1974 NOT in 2012.
Please Email the Editor