Stop operationalisation, say petitioners as hearing ends

December 06, 2012 07:13 pm | Updated December 04, 2021 10:57 pm IST - New Delhi

The Centre, Tamil Nadu government and the Nuclear Power Corporation of India, which operates the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant, had refuted all the allegations on safety and security aspects. File photo

The Centre, Tamil Nadu government and the Nuclear Power Corporation of India, which operates the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant, had refuted all the allegations on safety and security aspects. File photo

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved verdict on the petitions for a direction to the Centre not to operationalise the Kudunkulam nuclear power plant in Tamil Nadu without putting in place all 17 safety measures.

Earlier, even as arguments concluded after a three-month period, Counsel Prashant Bhushan drew the court’s attention to announcements being made from time to time by the Prime Minister and other Ministers that the plant would become operational by December-end. The court should either injunct the government against operationalising the plant or get an undertaking from Additional Solicitor-General Mohan Parasaran, who represented it on Thursday, that the project would not go on stream.

A Bench of Justices K.S. Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra, however, said: “Unless they give an undertaking, we cannot record; they are not giving, what we can do?”

Mr. Bhushan argued that the plant got a vague environmental clearance in 1989 when the site was not decided. No Environment Impact Assessment was done and no public hearing, mandatory under law, was conducted. Three critical changes were made in the plant. “Earlier, water was proposed to be taken from the local dam, but now it will be taken from the sea; earlier the Ministry of Environment and Forests said the change in the temperature of water discharged into the sea must not be more than 5 degrees but now it will be 7 degrees without any MoEF clearance.” Issuing the consent order to establish and operate the plant was unlawful in the absence of the EIA report and the Environmental Management Plan.

Pointing out that the 17 safety measures were intended to be carried out in a phased manner, Solicitor-General Rohin Nariman and Mr. Parasaran had argued that these were additional features formulated after the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan. The government filed an additional affidavit giving a time frame within which these measures would be complied with.

The Tamil Nadu government, in its affidavit, explained the disaster management programmes put in place near the Kudankulam site, training programmes, mock drill conducted in the area, medicines and other safety precautions adopted, and allayed the apprehensions of the people.

Senior counsel Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for Tamil Nadu, explained the various steps taken and the infrastructure created by the government.

Additional Advocate General Guru Krishna Kumar, appearing for the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, explained the various consent orders passed by it for the plant. The averments of the petitioners on release of water with a temperature of seven degrees into the sea were misplaced, going by what was happening in China, he said.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.