Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4440 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.27335  of 2012)

G. Sundarrajan ….  Appellant

Versus

Union of India and others … Respondents WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4441 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.27813 of 2012)

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4442 OF 2013

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.29121 of 2012) WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4443 OF 2003 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.32013 of 2012)

J U D G M E N T

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. We  are  in  these  appeals  concerned  with  an  issue  of  

considerable national and international importance, pertaining  

to the setting up of a nuclear power plant in the South-Eastern  

tip of India, at Kudankulam in the State of Tamil Nadu.  The  

incidents  occurred  in  Three  Miles  Island  Power  Plant  USA,

Page 2

2

Chernobyl,  Ukraine,  USSR,  Fukoshima,  Japan,  Union  Carbide,  

Bhopal might be haunting the memory of the people living in  

and around Kudankulam, leading to large-scale agitation and  

emotional reaction to the setting up of the Nuclear Power Plant  

(NPP) and its commissioning.   The  nature  of  potential  

adverse effect of ionizing radiation, adds to fears and unrest  

which might not have even thought of by Enrico Fermi a noble  

laureate in physics in 1938, who was responsible for the setting  

up  of  the  first  Nuclear  reactor  in  a  Doubles  quash  Court  at  

Slagg Field, at the Chicago University, USA.  Since then, it is  

history, India has now 20 Nuclear Reactors, in place, and the  

world  over  about  439,  but  people  still  react  emotionally,  for  

more reasons than one, when a new one is being established.

3. People’s  concern  was  mooted,  even  in  the  Constituent  

Assembly  when  it  deliberated  the  issue  before  constituting  

India into a Sovereign Democratic Republic and adopting and  

enacting the Constitution of India.

GENERAL

Page 3

3

4. The  Constituent  Assembly  discussed  the  formal  legal  

framework to regulate atomic energy in the year 1948 and the  

legislation by the name Atomic Energy Act, 1948 (29 of 1948)  

was enacted.  That Act envisaged the constitution of an Atomic  

Energy Commission (AEC) and a Department of Atomic Energy  

(DAE) and both were established in the year 1954.  The AEC is  

the apex body of the Central  Government for  atomic energy  

that provides direction on policies related to atomic energy.  It  

consists of eminent scientists and technocrats,  secretaries to  

different ministries, senior officials from the office of the Prime  

Minister.  The AEC has to report to the Prime Minister of India  

on various policies related to atomic energy.  DAE deals with  

the  development  and  implementation  of  nuclear  power  and  

related  nuclear  fuel  cycle  activities  and  research  and  

development  activities  carried  out  in  various  units  under  it.  

Baba Atomic Research Centre (BARC), formerly AEE, was also  

established  in  the  year  1954  and  research  reactors  namely  

Apsara, Cirus and Dhruva were set up in the year 1956, 1960  

and 1985 respectively.  The control and development of atomic  

energy in the country and matters connected therewith were  

then regulated by Act 29 of 1948.

Page 4

4

5. Parliament having taken note of the developments in the  

field of atomic energy and with a view to implement the future  

programme of expansion in the field, thought it necessary to  

have a comprehensive legislation dealing with Atomic Energy,  

consequently,  Act  29  of  1948  was  repealed  and the  Atomic  

Energy Act, 1962 (33 of 1962) (in short the Act) was enacted  

which  came  into  force  on  29.01.1962.   The  Act  has  been  

enacted to  provide  for  the  development,  control  and use  of  

atomic energy for the welfare of the people of India and for  

other peaceful purposes.  The Central Government, in exercise  

of  the  powers  conferred  under  Section  27  of  the  Act,  

constituted the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) vide  

notification dated 15.11.1983 to  carry  out  certain  regulatory  

and safety functions envisaged under Sections 16, 17 and 23 of  

the Act.  The AERB have powers to lay down safety standards  

and frame rules and regulations in regard to the regulatory and  

safety  requirements  envisaged  under  the  Act  and  have  to  

report to AEC.  The Act underwent amendment vide amending  

Acts  59  and  29  in  the  years  1986  and  1987  respectively.  

However,  the major  amendment was of  the year  1987,  vide  

Amending Act 29 of 1987, by which the Central Government

Page 5

5

was empowered to produce and supply electricity from atomic  

energy.  For achieving the envisaged target of nuclear power  

generation,  a  nuclear  power  corporation  or  a  Government  

company was also decided to be set up which would design,  

construct  and  operate  nuclear  power  stations  in  India.  

Following that, a separate public sector company, namely, the  

Nuclear  Power  Corporation  of  India  (NPCIL)  with  a  view  to  

design, build and operate nuclear reactors in the country was  

created in September 1987.  NPCIL is a wholly owned by the  

Government  of  India  undertaking  which  functions  under  the  

administrative control of DAE.

NATIONAL POLICY:

6. The Parliament in unequivocal terms has pronounced its  

national policy through the Act, that is to develop, control and  

use of atomic energy for the welfare of the people of India.  The  

Central Government has also been entrusted with the power to  

provide for the control over radioactive substances or radiation  

generating plant and to provide for the production and supply  

of  electricity  from atomic  energy etc.    Central  Government  

have  also  got  the  power  to  require  any  substance  which

Page 6

6

contains  uranium,  plutonium  or  any  of  their  isotopes  and  

extract  from  that  any  substance  which  is  essential  to  the  

atomic energy programme.  The Act, though, provides the basic  

regulatory  framework  for  the  regulation  of  nuclear  related  

activity, we have other related laws which have to be applied  

and read  in  tandem like  the Factories  Act,  1948,  the Indian  

Electricity Act,  2003, the Environment (Protection) Act,  1986,  

the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the  

Air (Prevention and Control  Regulation) Act,  1981, the Water  

(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977, the Indian  

Explosives Act, 1884, the Disaster Management Act, 2005, the  

Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004, the Industrial  

Radiography  (Radiation  Surveillance)  Procedure,  1980,  the  

Atomic  Energy  (Factories)  Rules,  1996,  the  Atomic  Energy  

(Working  of  Mines,  Minerals  and  Handling  of  Prescribed  

Substances) Rules 1984, the Atomic Energy (Safe Disposal of  

Radioactive  Waste)  Rules,  1987,  the  Radiation  Surveillance  

Procedure for Medical Application of Radiation, 1989 and the  

Atomic Energy (Control and Irradiation of Food) Rules, 1996 and  

so on.   

Page 7

7

7. The Central Government, as per the Act, is legally obliged  

to develop a sound and adequate national policy in regard to  

atomic power and to coordinate such policy with the Central  

Electricity  Authority  (CEA)  and  the  State  Electricity  Boards  

(SEBs)  constituted  under  the  Act  for  the  generation  of  

electricity in pursuance of such policy and to operate atomic  

power stations in the manner determined by it in consultation  

with the Boards or Corporations concerned.  Section 22, which  

deals with the provisions for the generation of electricity, reads  

as follows:  

“22. Special provision as to electricity.-

(1) Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  the  Electricity (Supply) Act,  1948 (54 of 1948 ),  the  Central Government shall have authority—

(a)    to develop a sound and adequate national  policy  in  regard  to  atomic  power,  to  co-  ordinate  such  policy  with  the  Central  Electricity  Authority  and  the  State  Electricity  Boards  constituted  under  sections 3 and 5 respectively of  that  Act  and  other  similar  statutory  corporations  concerned with the control and utilisation  of  other  power  resources,  to  implement  schemes for the generation of 1[ either by  itself  or  through  any  authority  or  corporation  established  by  it  or  a  Government  company,]  electricity  in  pursuance  of  such  policy  and  to  operate  atomic  power  stations  in  the  manner  determined by it  in  consultation with the

Page 8

8

Boards  or  Corporations  concerned,  with  whom  it  shall  enter  into  agreement  regarding  the  supply  of  electricity  so  produced;

(b)  to fix rates for and regulate the supply of  electricity from atomic power stations 2[ ,  either by itself or through any authority or  corporation  established  by  it  or  a  Government  company,  in  consultation  with] the Central Electricity Authority;

(c)    to  enter  into  arrangements  with  the  Electricity Board of the State in which an  atomic power station is situated, 1[ either  by  itself  or  through  any  authority  or  corporation  established  by  it  or  a  Government company] for the transmission  of electricity to any other State: Provided  that in case there is difference of opinion  between  the  Central  Government  1[  or  such  authority  or  corporation  or  Government  company,  as  the  case  may  be]  and  any  State  Electricity  Board  in  regard  to  the  construction  of  necessary  transmission  lines,  the  matter  shall  be  referred to the Central Electricity Authority  whose  decision  shall  be  binding  on  the  parties concerned.  

(2) No provision of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (9  of 1910 ), or any rule made thereunder or of any  instrument having effect by virtue of such law or  rule  shall  have  any  effect  so  far  as  it  is  inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Act.

(3)    Save  as  otherwise  provided  in  this  Act,  the  provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and  not  in  derogation of  the Indian Electricity  Act,  1910 (9 of 1910 ), and the Electricity (Supply)  Act, 1948 (45 of 1948 ).”

Page 9

9

8. As  a  sequel  to  that  national  policy,  the  Central  

Government, with the active cooperation of AEC, BARC, NPCIL,  

AERB etc., have already set up about twenty operating power  

reactors in the country with installed nuclear capacity of 4780  

MWe,  which  have  been  commissioned  over  the  last  four  

decades from the year 1969 to 2011.  Seven more units with a  

capacity of 5300 MWe are under construction (commissioning).  

The latest  one to be commissioned is  at  Kudankulam in the  

State of Tamil Nadu.  The first nuclear power plant (NPP) in the  

country Tarapur  Atomic  Power  Station (TAPS) units  1  and 2,  

based  on  boiling  water  reactors  (BWR),  was  supplied  by  

General Electric USA and became operational in the year 1969.  

The Rajasthan Atomic Power Stations (RAPS) 1 and 2 with two  

200  MWe  were  established  in  1970s  at  Rawatbhata  in  

Rajasthan  with  the  technical  cooperation  of  AECL  (Canada).  

Later,  in  1980s  two  220  MWe  Pressurized  Heavy  Water  

Reactors (PHWRs) Madras Atomic Power Station – 1 and 2 were  

constructed  at  Kalpakkam  in  Tamil  Nadu.   Later,  India  

developed a  standardized design of  220 MWe PHWRs.   Four  

reactors of  that  standardized design were built,  two each at  

Narora in Uttar Pradesh (Narora Atomic Power Station – 1 and

Page 10

10

2) and Kakrapar in Gujarat (Kakrapar Atomic Power Project – 1  

and 2).  Those plants became operational in 1990s.  Later eight  

more units of standardized 220 MWe PHWRs were built,  four  

each at Kaiga in Karnataka (Kaiga Generating Stations units 1-

4)  and  Rawatbhata  in  Rajasthan  (RAPS  Units  3-6).   India  in  

1990s  undertook  the  design  and  development  of  540  MWe  

PHWR.  Two reactors based on that design became operational  

in  2005-06  at  Tarapur.   India  has  also  developed  700  MWe  

design  with  limited  boiling  in  the  coolant  channels.   The  

construction  of  four  such  units  was  almost  completed  at  

Kakrapar and Rawatbhata sites.  Currently, 500 MWe Prototype  

Fast  Breeder  Reactor  (PFBR)  is  under  construction  at  

Kalpakkam.   PFBR  is  built  with  the  design  and  technology  

developed  at  Indira  Gandhi  Centre  for  Atomic  Research  

(IGCAR).  Over and above, India has now set up two PHWRs of  

VVER based  NPPs  (2  X  1000  MWe)  at  Kudankulam in  Tamil  

Nadu with the co-operation of Russian Federation which is the  

subject matter of this litigation.

9. India  draws  bulk  of  its  electricity,  above  64%,  from  

thermal sources, especially coal.  Hydro power comes second of

Page 11

11

18% and then renewable sources provide small share at about  

15%.  We are informed that, at present, the share of nuclear  

energy  is  hardly  three  per  cent  of  India’s  total  electricity  

production, while France accounts for 74.6% as on 2008.  NPPs  

provide  about  6% of  the  world’s  energy  and 13-14% of  the  

world’s  electricity  with  U.S.,  France  and  Japan  together  

accounting  for  about  50%  of  nuclear  generated  electricity.  

U.S.A. has 104 nuclear reactors and more than 100,000 MWe of  

electricity  is  produced  by  nuclear  generation.   International  

Atomic  Energy  Agency  (IAEA)  has  reported  that  in  the  year  

2007, there were 439 Nuclear Power Reactors in operation in  

the  world  operating  in  thirty  one  countries.   The  DAE,  it  is  

reported,  plans  to  increase  its  nuclear  energy  production  to  

20000 MWe by 2020 and 63,000 by 2030.  The Policy makers  

consider  that  the  nuclear  energy  remains  as  an  important  

element in India’s energy mix for sustaining economic growth  

of natural and domestic use.  One of the reasons for preferring  

nuclear energy as an alternative source of energy is that it is a  

clean, safe, reliable and competitive energy source which can  

replace a significant part of the fossil fuels like coal, oil, gas etc.  

Oil and natural gas resources might exhaust themselves.  Coal

Page 12

12

is  also not an effective substitution since forests are also no  

longer able to satisfy the energy requirements.  Major source of  

electricity generation, about 66%, is still  contributed by fossil  

thermal  powers,  like  coal.   To put  into practice the national  

policy,  India  has  already  entered  into  various  collaborations  

with  most  of  the  developed  countries  which  have  proved  

expertise  and  experience  in  the  field  of  establishment  and  

production of nuclear energy.    

10. Economic growth and energy support have to go hand in  

hand,  for  the  country’s  development  for  which  India  has  

entered  into  various  collaboration  agreements  with  U.S.A.,  

Canada, Russia etc. and several NPPs have already been set up  

in the country.   Government of India, in implementation of its  

national policy, had made a joint statement with U.S.A., called  

Indo-U.S.  Joint  Statement  2005,  for  a  renewed  global  civil  

nuclear energy co-operation.  A co-operation agreement called  

2007 Co-operation Agreement was also entered into between  

India and U.S.A. for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.  This  

was  later  followed  by  the  Indo-France  Joint  Statement  in  

September,  2008.   A  Joint  Statement  was made in  February

Page 13

13

2010 with United Kingdom.  Above facts would indicate that in  

order  to  give  effect  to  the  National  Policy  for  development,  

control  and  use  of  atomic  energy,  India  has  entered  into  

various  bilateral  treaties  and  arrangements  with  countries  

which  have  considerable  expertise  and  experience.   For  

establishing the NPP at Kudankulam, India had entered into an  

inter-governmental  agreement  with  the  erstwhile  USSR  in  

November  1988 followed by  a  supplementary  agreement  on  

21.06.1998 signed by India and Russia which is in tune with  

India’s National Policy.   

11. India’s National Policy has been clearly and unequivocally  

expressed by the legislature in the Atomic Energy Act.  National  

and International policy of the country is to develop control and  

use of atomic energy for the welfare of the people and for other  

peaceful purposes.  NPP has been set up at Kudankulam as part  

of the national policy which is discernible from the Preamble of  

the  Act  and  the  provisions  contained  therein.   It  is  not  for  

Courts to determine whether a particular policy or a particular  

decision  taken  in  fulfillment  of  a  policy,  is  fair.   Reason  is  

obvious, it is not the province of a court to scan the wisdom or

Page 14

14

reasonableness  of  the  policy  behind  the  Statute.   Lord  

Macnaughten  in  Vacher  &  Sons  v.  London  Society  of  

Compositors, (1913)AC107(118)HL has stated:

“Some people think the policy of the Act unwise and  even dangerous to the community……But a Judicial  tribunal has nothing to do with the policy of any Act  which it may be called upon to interpret.  That may  be a matter for private judgment.  The duty of the  Court, and its only duty is to expand the language of  the  Act  in  accordance  with  the  settled  rules  of  construction.”

12. In CCSU v. Min. (1984) 3 All ER 935 (954) HL, it was held  

that  it is not for the Courts to determine whether a particular   

policy or particular decision taken in fulfillment of that policy   

are fair.  They are concerned only with the manner in which   

those decisions have been taken, if that manner is unfair, the   

decision  will  be  tainted  with  that  Lord  Diplock  labels  as   

‘procedural impropriety’.  

13. This Court in M.P. Oil Extraction and Anr. v. State of   

M.P. and Ors., (1997 )7SCC 592 held that unless the policy

Page 15

15

framed is absolutely capricious, unreasonable and arbitrary and  

based on mere ipse dixit of the executive authority or is invalid  

in constitutional or statutory mandate, court’s interference is  

not called for.  Reference may also be made in the judgment of  

this  Court  in  M/s.  Ugar  Sugar  Works  Ltd.  v.  Delhi  

Administration & Ors., (2001) 3 SCC 635; Dhampur Sugar  

(Kashipur) Ltd. v. State of Uttranchal and Ors.  (2007) 8  

SCC 418 and Delhi Bar Association v. Union of India and  

Ors.,  (2008)  13  SCC  628.   We  are  therefore  firmly  of  the  

opinion that we cannot sit in judgment over the decision taken  

by the Government of India, NPCIL etc. for setting up of KKNPP  

at Kudankulam in view of the Indo-Russia agreement.  Courts  

also cannot stand in the way of the Union of India honouring its  

Inter-Governmental Agreement entered into between India and  

Russia.

14. We may,  however,  focus our  attention on various other  

issues raised in these appeals in the light of the provisions of  

the  Atomic  Energy  Act,  Rules  and  Regulations  framed  

thereunder, International conventions, covenants entered into  

by  India  with  other  countries,  AERB  Code  of  Practices  and

Page 16

16

Safety  Guides,  Expert’s  opinion,  Environmental  and  other  

related laws.  Part I of this judgment, we propose to deal with  

the safety and security of NPP, International Conventions and  

Treaties,  KKNPP  Project,  NSF  and  its  management  and  

transportation,  DGR,  Civil  Liabilities,  DMA,  CSR  and  other  

related  issues  and  in  Part  II,  we  mainly  focus  on  the  

environmental  issues,  CRZ,  Desalination  Plant,  Impact  of  

Radiation on Eco-system, Experts opinions etc.    

PART I

15. KKNPP has been set up by NPCIL based on the Indo-Russia  

Joint Agreement under the guidance and supervision of AEC,  

BARC, AERB, MoEF, TNPCB, Central and State Governments etc.

ARGUMENTS – FOR AND AGAINST  

16. Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the  

appellant  in  SLP Nos.  27335 of  2012,  submitted that  having  

seen the experience at Three Mile Island (USA), Chernobyl in  

Russia and Fukushina in Japan etc.,  safety of the people and

Page 17

17

the environment are of paramount importance and if the units  

are  allowed  to  be  commissioned  before  making  sufficient  

safeguards on the basis of the recommendations made by the  

Task Force of NPCIL, it may lead to serious consequences which  

could not be remedied.  Learned counsel submitted unless the  

seventeen  recommendations  made  by  the  Task  Force  

appointed by NPCIL are implemented before commissioning the  

plant,  serious  consequences  may  follow.   Learned  counsel  

submitted  that  AERB  and  NPCIL  are  legally  obliged  to  

implement the recommendations and this Court sitting in this  

jurisdiction is bound to safeguard the life and property of the  

people residing in and near Kudakulam which is a fundamental  

right guaranteed to them under Article 21 of the Constitution of  

India.   

17. Mrs.  Nagasaila,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  8th  

respondent in SLP (C) No. 27813 of 2012, also pointed out that  

sufficient safeguards have not been taken for the safe disposal  

of the radioactive waste and no site has so far been identified  

for the safe handling of radioactive waste, failing which it may  

cause serious health hazard.  Learned counsel also pointed out  

that  even,  at  the  plant  site,  there  is  no  proper  facility  for

Page 18

18

storage  of  spent  fuel  and  high  level  radioactive  waste.  

Learned counsel also pointed out that no adequate measures  

have  been  taken  to  safeguard  the  life  and  property  of  the  

people in case of any potential disaster, in accordance with the  

Disaster Management Plan.   

18. Learned Attorney General appearing for AERB submitted  

that  the plant  has been set  up after  following all  the safety  

standards  laid  down  by  AERB.   The  design  of  KKNPP  

incorporates  advance safety  features  complying  with  current  

standards  of  redundancy,  reliability,  independence  and  

prevention  of  common  cause  failures  in  its  safety  system.  

Further, it was also pointed out that the design takes care of  

Anticipated  Operational  Occurrences  (AOO),  Design  Basis  

Accidents  (DBA)  and  Beyond  Design  Basis  Accidents  (BDBA)  

like  Station  Black  Out  (SBO),  Anticipated  Transients  Without  

Scram  (ATWS),  Metal  Water  reaction  etc.    Further,  it  was  

pointed out that the Board of AERB met on 23.3.2011 and took  

stock of safety and NPPs in the light of Fukushima accident.  

AERB also constituted a High Level Committee of Specialists to  

review and recommend safety upgrades as required to handle  

extreme external events of natural origin.   Learned Attorney

Page 19

19

General also pointed out that KKNPP design also has several  

Advanced Safety Features, including those for ensuring safety  

against external events of natural origin and for management  

of  design  basis  as  well  as  beyond  design  basis  accidents.  

Further,  it  was  pointed  out  that,  over  and  above,  steps  are  

being taken to implement the 17 recommendations made by  

the  Task  Force  of  NPCIL  and  that,  amongst  them,  few  

recommendations have already been implemented.

19. Shri Rohington Nariman, learned Solicitor General of India  

appearing for NPCIL, submitted that KKNPP is a 3+Generation  

NPP  and  its  design  incorporates  advanced  safety  features  

complying  with  current  standards  of  redundancy,  reliability,  

independence and prevention of common cause failures in its  

safety  systems.    The  design  includes  provisions  for  

withstanding external  events like earthquake,  tsunami/storm,  

tidal  waves,  cyclones,  shock  waves,  aircraft  impact  on  main  

buildings and fire.  KKNPP also incorporates various additional  

safety features like Quick Boron Injection System, Passive Heat  

Removal  System, Second Stage Hydro Accumulators,  Passive  

Hydrogen  Re-combiners,  Annulus  Passive  Filtering  System  

(Passive System), Core Catcher etc.  Details of further safety

Page 20

20

measure adopted have already been elaborately stated in the  

counter-affidavit filed by NPCIL on 26.9.2012.  Learned Solicitor  

General submitted that KKNPP is absolutely safe even without  

the  17  recommendations  made  out  of  abundant  caution  by  

AERB.   Learned  Solicitor  General  submitted  that  the  17  

recommendations of  AERB would also be complied with in  a  

phased  manner,  out  of  which  7  have  already  been  

implemented.

20. Shri Mohan Parasaran, learned Additional Solicitor General  

of  India,  appearing  on  behalf  of  respondent  no.  1,  while  

referring to the affidavit filed by the Union of India, submitted  

with  regard to the process –  “Re-processing and Disposal  of  

Spent Fuel” - that most of the spent fuel i.e. 97% is capable of  

being reused, the remaining 3% of the spent fuel consists of  

various Fission Products (FPs) and Minor Actinides (MAs).   All  

MAs  have  varying  half-lives/decay  periods,  the  dominant  

amongst  them  have  half-lives  of  the  order  of  1  lakh  70  

thousand  years.    Each  NPP  has  a  water  storage  pool  for  

storage of spent fuel, namely “Spent Fuel Storage Bay” (SFSB).  

Those pools are temporary storage facilities for recyclable fuel  

and are essentially water filled concrete vaults with SS lining,

Page 21

21

having the arrangement for storing spent fuel in racks.  They  

are  designed,  constructed  and  operated  as  per  the  AERB  

Guidelines  and  requirements.   It  was  also  stated  that  AERB  

Safety Guide ‘Design of fuel handling and storage systems for  

pressurized heavy water reactors – AERB/SG/D-24” deals with  

the safety in design of storage of spent fuel.  Further, it was  

also  pointed  out  that  the  transportation  of  spent  fuel  is  

governed by the Regulations specified by AERB in “Safety Code  

for the transport of radioactive materials – AERB/SC/TR-1’ and  

international  requirements  given  in  IAEA  Regulation  for  safe  

transport  of  radioactive material,  2005.    Learned Additional  

Solicitor General also submitted that the Department of Atomic  

Energy is also aware of the importance of safety and security  

and takes  utmost  care to  ensure that  the management  and  

transport  is  carried  out  safely,  following  the  internationally  

recognized norms and regulations and that the same is done  

under the supervision of AERB and Government of India.

21. Government  of  India’s  decision  to  establish  the  NPP  at  

Kudankulam, as already stated,  cannot be questioned before  

this  Court  being  part  of  a  National  Policy.  Lot  of  scientific  

literatures, experts opinions etc. have been produced before us

Page 22

22

to  show  its  dangers,  harm  it  may  cause  to  human  health,  

environment,  marine life  and so  on not  only  on the present  

generation but on future generation as well.   Further,  it  was  

also pointed out that due to growing nuclear accidents and the  

resultant  ecological  and other dangers,  many countries have  

started retreating from their forward nuclear programmes.     

22. We have  already  indicated  that  these issues  are  to  be  

addressed to policy makers, not to courts because the destiny  

of a nation is shaped by the people’s representatives and not  

by a handful of judges, unless there is an attempt to tamper  

with  the  fundamental  Constitutional  principles  or  basic  

structure of the Constitution.   

23. We are  however  deeply  concerned with  the  safety  and  

security of the people of this country, its environment, its flora  

and  fauna,  its  marine  life,  ecology,  bio-diversity  and  so  on  

which the  policy  makers  cannot  be on the guise of  national  

policy, mutilate or rob of, in such an event the courts can unveil  

the mask and find out the truth for  the safety,  security  and  

welfare of the people and the mother earth.

Page 23

23

Safeguards and Security

24. Safety and security of the people and the nation are of  

paramount importance when a nuclear plant is  being set up  

and it  is  vital  to have in place all  safety standards in which  

public can have full confidence to safeguard them against risks  

which they fear and to avoid serious long term or irreversible  

environmental  consequences.   It  is,  therefore,  necessary  to  

examine at some length the safety standards already in place  

to allay the fears expressed at some quarters.

25. Let  us first  examine whether the project  proponent has  

taken adequate safety requirements in site and off site of the  

KKNPP and followed the Code of Practices laid down by AERB  

and nationally and internationally recognized safety methods.  

Before examining those issues, we have to first examine the  

role of the AERB in the matter of setting up of nuclear plant and  

what are the codes and safety guides laid down by the AERB for  

maintaining high safety standards for  setting up and for  the  

functioning of nuclear plants in the country.

Page 24

24

AERB Safety Codes

26. AERB, as already indicated, was constituted by the Central  

Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 27  

of the Act to carry out certain regulatory and safety functions  

envisaged  under  Sections  16,  17  and  23  of  the  Act  vide  

notification dated 15.11.1983.  The functions to be discharged  

by  the  Board  have  also  been  enumerated  in  the  said  

notification which reads as follows:

(i) Develop  Safety  Codes,  Guides  and  Standards  for  siting,  design,  construction,  commissioning,  operation,  and  decommissioning  of  the  different  types  of  plants,  keeping  in  view  the  international  recommendations  and  local  requirements  and  develop  safety  policies  in  both  radiation  and  industrial safety areas.

(ii) Ensure compliance by DAE and non-DAE installations  of  safety  codes  and  standards  during  construction  commissioning stages

(iii) Advise  AEC/DAE  on  technical  matters  that  may  specifically be referred to it  in connection with the  siting,  design,  construction,  commissioning,  operation, and decommissioning of the plants under  DAE.

(iv) Review  from  the  safety  angle  requests  for  authorizing/commissioning/operation  of  DAE  Projects/plants.   Before  authorization  of

Page 25

25

commissioning  /  operation of  the  plant  /  project  is  granted,  the  AERB  will  be  satisfied  by  appropriate  review of:

(a) Final  design  Analysis  Report  prepared  by  the  project plant;

(b) Commissioning reports and results thereof; and

(c) Proposed operating procedures and operational  limits and conditions; that the plant/project can be  operated  without  undue  risk  to  the  operating  personnel  and the population.   For  this  purpose,  AERB may ask for  relevant additional  supporting  information.

(v)  Review health and safety aspects of modifications in  design/operation involving changes in  the technical  specification adopted in any of the DAE units.

(vi) Review  operational  experience  in  the  light  of  the  radiological  and other  safety  criteria  recommended  by  the  International  Commission  on  Radiological  Protection, International Atomic Energy Agency and  such other international bodies and adapted to suit  Indian conditions, and I thereby evolve major safety  policies.

(vii) Prescribe acceptable limits of radiation exposure to  occupational workers and members of the public and  approve acceptable  limits  of  environmental  release  of  radioactive  substances.   (In  the  DAE  units,  the  AERB  shall  also  prescribe  limits  for  environmental  release of conventional pollutants).

Page 26

26

(viii) Review the emergency preparedness plans prepared  by the different DAE units, similar plans for non-DAE  installations and during transport of large radioactive  sources (eg. Irradiated fuel kilo/mega curie sources,  fissile materials).

(ix) Promote  research  and  development  efforts  for  fulfilling the above functions and responsibilities.

(x) Review  the  training  programme,  qualifications  and  licensing policies for personnel by the project/plants.

(xi) Prescribe  the  syllabi  for  training  of  personnel  in  safety aspects at all levels.

(xii) Enforce rules and regulations promulgated under the  Atomic Energy Act, 1962 for radiation safety in the  country  and  under  the  Factories  Act,  1948  for  industrial safety in the units under the control of DAE.

(xiii) Maintain liaison with statutory bodies in the country  as well as abroad regarding safety matters.

(xiv) Take  such  steps  as  necessary  to  keep  the  public  informed  on  major  issues  of  radiological  safety  significance.

(xv) Perform such other functions as may be assigned to  it by the Atomic Energy Commission.

Page 27

27

(xvi) Send reports periodically to Chairman, AEC on safety  status including observance of safety regulations and  standards  and  implementation  of  the  recommendations in all DAE and non DAE units.  It  will also submit an Annual Report of its activities to  Chairman, AEC.

27. The  notification  clearly  states  that  the  Board  shall  be  

assisted by the DAE SRC and DRP BARC in the performance of  

its  functions at (ii),  (iv),  (v) and (xii)  mentioned above.   The  

AERB  has  also  been  entrusted  with  the  powers  of  the  

competent authority  to enforce rules and regulations framed  

under the Act for radiation safety in the country.  The powers  

have  also  been  entrusted  with  the  AERB  to  administer  the  

provisions of the Factories Act 1948, the industrial safety for  

the units of DAE as per Section 23 of the Act.  The AERB under  

its programme of developing Codes and Safety Guides issued  

four Codes of practice covering the following topics namely (i)  

Safety  in  Nuclear  Power  Plant  Siting;  (ii)  Safety  in  Nuclear  

Power  Plant  Design;  (iii)  Safety  in  Nuclear  Power  Plant  

Operation; (iv) Quality Assurance for Safety in Nuclear Power  

Plants.  Those Codes are intended to establish the objectives  

and to set the minimum requirements that have been fulfilled  

to provide assurance that nuclear power plants will  be sited,

Page 28

28

designed,  constructed  and  operated  without  undue  risk  to  

personnel, public and environment.  The Code of Practice for  

Nuclear  Power  Plant  Siting  provides  appropriate  criteria  and  

outlines the procedures to be applied to assess the suitability of  

a  site  for  the  location  of  nuclear  power  plant  taking  into  

account,  the  operational  requirements  and  accidental  

conditions.  The same has to be prepared following the criteria  

laid down by DAE for selection of site and the relevant IAEA  

documents  under  the  Nuclear  Safety  Standards  (NUSS)  

programme specially  the Code of  Practice for  Nuclear  Power  

Plant  Siting  and  similar  documents  from  various  leading  

countries.   The Code of  Practice on Safety in  Nuclear  Power  

Plant Siting was issued by the AERB on March 9, 1990.  The  

Code encompasses site-related characteristics, natural events  

and man-induced events specific to the site which will have a  

bearing on the safety of the plant and the radiological impact  

on the environment and population due to the location of NPP  

at the site.  The Code also lays down appropriate criteria and  

outlines the procedures for assessing the suitability of a site  

taking into account the operational requirements and accident  

conditions.  The Code also indicates the extent of site-related

Page 29

29

information  required  to  be  obtained  and  also  defines  site-

related design bases.   Certain  man-induced events  like war,  

acts of sabotage which can cause large scale damage to the  

plant safety systems, however, are beyond the scope of 1990  

Code,  in  other  words,  the  Code  prescribes  minimum  

requirements  in  siting  considerations  for  limiting  the  

radiological impact.  The main aim is protection of man and his  

environment.  The Code outlined the requirements for limiting  

doses to man.

28. The  AERB  in  October  1999  issued  guidance  for  the  

Preparation  of  Off-Site  Emergency  Preparedness  Plans  for  

Nuclear Installations.  This document has been issued as a lead  

document to facilitate preparation of specific site manuals by  

the responsible organization for emergency response plans at  

each site to ensure their preparedness to meet any eventuality  

due to site emergency in order to mitigate its consequences on  

the health and safety of site personnel.   The document also  

takes cognizance of an earlier AERB publication on the subject:  

“Safety  Manual  on  Off-Site  Emergency  Plan  for  Nuclear  

Installations”  issued  in  the  year  1988.   While  drafting  this

Page 30

30

document, reference has been also made to the documents of  

the IAEA and also the statutory requirements laid down in the  

Manufacture,  Storage and Transport  of  Hazardous  Chemicals  

Rules, 1989 as well as the amendments incorporated therein  

subsequently.

29. The purpose of these Safety Guidelines is to lay down the  

requirements  of  the  Regulatory  Body  for  the  operating  

organization  and  state  public  authorities  in  preparing  an  

emergency response plan for off-site emergency for the nuclear  

installation.   Radiological  emergencies  at  the  nuclear  

installations are mainly categorized as Plant emergency alert;  

Plant emergency; Site emergency and Off-site emergency.  The  

operating organization is responsible for handling the first three  

categories  of  emergencies,  while  the  off-site  emergencies  

involving radiation fallout in the public domain is handled by  

the  state  public  authorities  with  the  technical  input  and  

guidance from the operating organization and the Regulatory  

Body.  The main objectives of this Safety Guidelines are stated  

hereunder:

Page 31

31

(i) To  provide  detailed  guidelines  for  nuclear  installations  in  the  country  on  the  essential  components of off-site emergency preparedness and  response  plans  at  each  installation  taking  into  consideration any ongoing construction activities at  the off-site.

(ii) To  elaborate  various  aspects  of  the  response  plan  such  as:  Emergency  Organisation,  Emergency  Equipment and Facilities needed outside the nuclear  installation in order to protect the site personnel from  risks of undue radiation exposure.

(iii) To advise on other aspects such as: enforcement of  off-site emergency plans, conduct of periodic off-site  emergency drills to ensure readiness of the nuclear  installation for handling off-site emergencies.

(iv) To  indicate  guidelines  on  off-site  related  factors,  which  may  influence  management  of  off-site  emergencies.

(v) To  highlight  the  need  for  the  operating  organization/plant  management  to  establish  and  maintain communication lines between the site, the  headquarters  of  the  operating  organization,  Regulatory Body and the state public authorities for  prompt  and  effective  use  in  times  of  off-site  emergency.  

30. The AERB has also issued the document “Preparedness of  

the  Operating  Organization  for  handling  Emergencies”  at

Page 32

32

Nuclear  Power  Plants  in  March  2000.   This  document  

supplemented the Code of Practice on Safety in NPP Operation  

(AERB/SC/O).   The purpose of  this  document  is  to  prescribe  

guidelines for the development of a state of preparedness for  

response to emergencies at nuclear power plants.  The main  

objectives of this safety guide are given as follows:

(a) To  highlight  to  plant  management  the  various  categories of emergencies that could rise at NPP;

(b) To focus on the contents of the emergency manuals  in respect of resources and procedures to help respond  adequately to emergency situations;

(c) To  emphasize  the  responsibilities  of  plant  management  regarding  personnel,  plant  and  site  emergency  and  responsibilities  of  the  State  Government in respect of off-site emergency and need  for close liaison between Plant Management and Public  Authorities;

(d) To bring out the importance of maintaining efficient  and  effective  communication  links  among  Plant  Management,  Operating  Organisation,  Responsible  Organisation,  Regulatory  Body,  State  Authorities  and  the Department  of  Atomic  Energy Crisis  Management  Group (DAE-CMG); and

(e) To  develop  the  infrastructure  including  manpower  and their training.

Page 33

33

31. The AERB issued another safety code in August 2000 on  

“Regulation of Nuclear and Radiation Facilities”.  This document  

has  been  issued  to  spell  out  the  minimum  safety  related  

requirements/obligations  to  meet  by  a  nuclear  or  radiation  

facility to qualify for the issue of regulatory consent at every  

stage leading to eventual operation.  The Code also elaborates  

on the regulatory inspection and enforcement to be carried out  

by the Regulatory Body on such facilities.  This document has  

also  been  prepared  by  the  AERB  from  the  information  

contained in the relevant documents issued by IAEA under the  

NUSS  programme  especially  the  Code  on  “Governmental  

Organization for Regulation of Nuclear Power Plants” (50-C-G).   

The main objectives of the Code are to ensure that:-

(a) Only such practices are permitted which are justified  in terms of their societal and/or individual benefits,

(b) Radiation  protection  is  duly  optimized  in  all  nuclear/radiation facilities,

(c) Radiation doses to the personnel in these facilities,  and to the members of the public in their vicinity, do  not exceed the prescribed limits and

Page 34

34

(d) The  potential  for  accidental  exposures  from  the  facilities remains acceptably low.

32. The scope of the Code also covers the various facilities  

and activities  like  mining  and processing  of  radioactive  ores  

and minerals; uranium/thorium processing and fuel fabrication  

plants  ,  heavy  water  plants,  research reactors,  experimental  

reactors  and  critical  assemblies,  nuclear  power  plants,  fuel  

reprocessing plants,  radioactive waste management facilities,  

industrial  facilities  related  to  nuclear  fuel  cycle  activities,  

transport  of  radioactive  materials,  medical  applications  of  

radiation,  industrial  and agricultural  applications of  radiation,  

research  applications  of  radiation,  and  all  other  practices  

involving the handling of radioactive sources.

33. The  AERB  also  issued  another  safety  guide  on  October  

2002  on  “Design  of  Fuel  Handling  and  Storage  Systems  for  

Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors”.  The Code of Practice on  

Design for  Safety in Pressurized Heavy Water Based Nuclear  

Power  Plants  (AERB/SC/D,1989)  lays  down  the  minimum  

requirements for ensuring adequate safety in plant design.  The  

safety code issued in October 2002 is one of a series of guides.

Page 35

35

The objective of this safety guide is to specify the minimum  

requirements  to  be  met  in  the  design  of  fuel  handling  and  

storage system in  PHWR.   It  is  intended to  be  used by  the  

designer to ensure safety of plant and personnel by providing  

adequate measures for prevention of accidents and mitigation  

of adverse consequences,  should an accident occur,  in other  

words, the scope of this guide includes the safety in design of  

equipment for handling and storage of new fuel, spent fuel and  

other irradiated core components, which are related to handling  

of fuel including handling and storage of failed or damaged fuel  

bundles.  The guide also addresses the safety aspects in fuel  

handling control and instrumentation and auxiliary equipment  

related  to  the  fuel  handling  system.   Design  provisions  to  

facilitate inspection and testing of  fuel  handling and storage  

systems are also covered in that guide.  The same has been  

prepared following the safety standards laid down by IAEA.  The  

Code has been prepared by specialists in the field drawn from  

the AERB, BARC, IGCAR and NPCIL.

34. Various codes and safety standards issued by the AERB,  

referred to above, mainly deal with siting, design, construction,

Page 36

36

operation,  quality  assurance,  decommissioning  etc.   Safety  

codes  and  safety  standards  are  formulated  on  the  basis  of  

nationally  and  internationally  accepted  safety  criteria  for  

design,  construction  and  operation  of  specific  equipment,  

systems, structures and components of nuclear and radiation  

facilities.  Further, India has also entered into various bilateral  

treaties and is also a party to various international conventions  

on  nuclear  safety,  physical  protection  of  nuclear  material,  

nuclear accident, radiological emergency and so on.  India, as  

already  stated,  is  also  governed  by  the  safety  and  security  

standards  laid  down  by  IAEA.   A  brief  reference  to  those  

conventions, treaties and IAEA may be apposite.

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS, BILETERAL TREATIES  

ETC.:

35. India is  not  a signatory to the Nuclear  Non-Proliferation  

Treaty (NPT).  India is, however, party to various international  

conventions, such as:

The Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material,  

which was adopted on 26.10.1979 and was signed at Vienna

Page 37

37

and at New York on 3.3.1980.  The Convention makes it legally  

binding  for  States  parties  to  protect  nuclear  facilities  and  

material for peaceful domestic use, storage as well transport.  It  

also  provides  expanded  cooperation  between  and  among  

States regarding rapid measures to locate and recover stolen or  

smuggled  nuclear  material,  mitigate  any  radiological  

consequences  of  sabotage  and  prevent  and  combat  related  

offences.

36. The Convention on Assistance in  the Case of  a  Nuclear  

Accident  or  Radiological  Emergency  was  adopted  by  the  

General Conference at its special session 24-26.9.1986 and was  

opened for signature at Vienna on 26.9.1986 and at New York  

on 6.10.1986.

37. The  Convention  on  Nuclear  Safety  was  adopted  on  

17.6.1994 by a Diplomatic Conference convened by IAEA at its  

Headquarters from 14-17.6.1994.  The Convention was opened  

for signature on 20.9.1994.    

38. The  Joint  Convention  on  the  Safety  of  Spent  Fuel  

Management  and  on  the  Safety  of  Radioactive  Waste  

Management,  the  first  legal  instrument  to  directly  address

Page 38

38

these issues on a global  scale,  was opened for  signature on  

29.9.1997 and entered into force on 18.6.2001.

39. The Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident  

establishes a notification system for  nuclear  accidents which  

have the potential for international trans-boundary release that  

could be of radiological safety significance for another State.  

Date of adoption is 26.9.1986.

40. India has also entered into various Bilateral Civil Nuclear  

Co-operations.  India has entered into a cooperation agreement  

with France for the construction of ERR Power Plants (10,000  

MWe) at Jethapur site in Maharashtra, which also comprises of  

cooperation in the areas of research, safety and security, waste  

management,  education  etc.,  followed  by  various  other  

commercial contracts as well.  India and Canada have finalized  

the terms for their nuclear deal paving the way for Canadian  

firms to export Uranium to India in the year 2010.  Discussions  

are on for safe nuclear cooperation as well with Canada.

41. India has also signed civil nuclear deal with Mongolia for  

supply of uranium to India.  MOUs on the Development of Co-

operation on Peaceful Uses of Radioactive Minerals and Nuclear

Page 39

39

Energy by senior officials of the Department of Atomic Energy  

of both the countries.  India  has  also  entered  into  

agreements with Namibia including one on civil nuclear energy  

which  allows  for  supply  of  uranium  from  Namibia.   India-

Namibian  Agreement  for  Peaceful  Uses  of  Nuclear  Energy  

allows for supply of uranium for setting up of nuclear reactors.   

India-Kazakhstan have also signed a pact on nuclear co-

operation  in  April  2011  and  agreed  to  have  collaboration  in  

nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.  Discussions are on to  

execute a civil nuclear agreement with Argentina.   

42. India-U.S.  issued  an  Inter  U.S.  Joint  Statement  at  

Washington  on  18.7.2005  which  has  located  the  final  broad  

policy  so  as  to  actually  facilitate  and also  outline the broad  

contours of a legally binding agreement.  Some of the policy  

frameworks  relate  to  preventing  WMD Proliferation,  goals  of  

prompting  nuclear  power  and  achieving  nuclear  energy,  

expeditious consideration of fuel steps for safeguarded nuclear  

reactors etc.   Nuclear 2007 – an agreement for co-operation  

between India  and U.S.  concerning  peaceful  uses  of  nuclear  

energy  (2007  Co-operation  Agreement)  laid  down  certain  

binding obligations between the two countries.  Though, India is

Page 40

40

not a party to any of the Liability Conventions, specifically, IAEA  

Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage, India  

has enacted the Civil  Liability for Nuclear Damage Act,  2010  

(Nuclear Liability Act) which aims to provide a civil liability for  

nuclear damage and prompt compensation to the victims of a  

nuclear accident through No-Fault Liability to the operators.  

 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

43. IAEA is an independent international organization situated  

in Vienna, Austria is related to the United Nations system, its  

relationship  with  the  United  Nations  is  regulated  by  special  

agreement.  The IAEA reports annually to the United Nations  

General  Assembly  and  when  appropriate,  to  the  Security  

Council  regarding  non-compliance  by  States  with  their  

safeguards  obligations  as  well  as  on  matters  relating  to  

international  peace  and  security.   The  IAEA  works  with  its  

member  States  and  multiple  partners  worldwide  to  promote  

safe, secure and peaceful nuclear technologies.  The IAEA has  

the responsibility to help member States to put in place the  

necessary  infrastructure  needed  to  develop  nuclear  energy  

safely,  securely  and  peacefully  and  it  works  with  member

Page 41

41

States  to  coordinate  research  to  design  reactors  that  are  

economical, safe and proliferation-resistant.

44. The IAEA’s object is to maximize the contributions from  

nuclear  technologies  to  human  well  being  while  minimizing  

their  risks.   Few  facts  and  trends  highlighted  in  the  report  

prepared by an independent commission at the request of the  

IAEA in May 2008 highlights the ten key facts and trends which  

frame the nuclear opportunities and challenges the world now  

faces.   The  report  highlights  that  to  sustain  rapid  global  

economic growth, it is necessary to double the supply of energy  

and tripling supply of electricity by 2050.  Further, it is stated  

billions of poor people need energy and other life saving and  

job creating technologies.  The report also noticed that energy  

prices  are  increasing,  a  broader  reliance  on  nuclear  energy  

whose  prices  are  much  less  dependent  on  its  fuel  costs  

conceivably could help to ameliorate those tensions and risks.  

The report highlights that the world still dependent on burning  

coal, oil and natural gas for 80% of its energy supply surging  

energy  use  causes  surging  emissions  of  greenhouse  gases  

disrupting  the  climate  with  potentially  catastrophic  results.

Page 42

42

Nuclear energy, it is stated, is a readily expandable source of  

low-carbon  baseload  electricity  and  in  the  future  might  also  

help to meet other energy needs such as hydrogen production  

and water desalination.   

45. The  IAEA’s  International  Project  on  Innovative  Nuclear  

Reactor and Fuel Cycles (INPRO) brings many States together  

to  consider  approaches  to  safer,  cheaper,  more  secure  and  

more  proliferation-resistant  nuclear  systems  with  effective  

management of nuclear waste. India is in partnership with the  

IAEA and has incorporated many of its directives in the code of  

practice  framed  by  the  AERB,  hence  there  could  be  no  

compromise on safety and security of the NPPs in the country.  

We have elaborately discussed the Safety and Security Code of  

Practices laid down by AERB, IAEA and its supports so as to  

allay  the  apprehension  or  fears  expressed  from  various  

quarters on the safety and security of KKNPP and its effect on  

human  life,  property  and  environment  and  we  notice  that  

adequate and effective protection measures are in place.

Page 43

43

46. Parliament,  as we have already indicated,  is  very much  

concerned with the safety and security  of  its  people and its  

environment.    The  Preamble  of  the  Act  pronounces  in  an  

eloquent terms that it has been enacted for the development,  

control and use of atomic energy for the “welfare of the people  

of  India”.   People’s  comfort,  happiness,  prosperity  and  the  

economic growth of the nation is always the concern of their  

representatives  in  the  Parliament.   Safety  and  security  of  

people in that process have to be in the uppermost mind of the  

legislature.  Keeping in mind that concern, special provisions  

have been incorporated for the safety and security.  Reference  

has already been made to Section 17 of the Act which casts an  

obligation on the Central Government to ensure proper rules  

with regard to the safety, which we have already examined at  

length.   We  have  also  examined  both  nationally  as  well  as  

internationally  accepted guidelines for  safety and security  of  

the  people  of  the  Nation  and  notice  that  those  are  being  

followed.   In  People’s  Union  for  Civil  Liberties  and  

Another v. Union of India and Others, (2004) 2 SCC 476,  

the Court held that the Atomic Energy Act deals with a sensitive  

subject.  Statutory scheme contained in the provisions of the

Page 44

44

Act, the Rules framed thereunder, composition of the AEC and  

AERB leave no manner of doubt that the effective functions of  

the nuclear power plants are sensitive in nature.  Various Codes  

of Practice, safety guidelines, extensively discussed above and  

the decision taken in various international conventions and the  

guidelines laid down by various international agencies followed  

by India are meant to protect the life and property of people  

including the environment, guaranteed under Article 21 of the  

Constitution of India.     

KKNPP Project  

47. The  Government  of  India,  following  its  national  nuclear  

policy,  decided to  set  up a  NPP in  the southern part  of  the  

country.   DAE,  for  that  purpose  constituted  a  Site  Selection  

Committee (SSC) for selecting a suitable site in the coramandel  

coast of Tamil Nadu.  The Committee, after surveying various  

sites, selected Kudankulam in the Tirunelveli District of Tamil  

Nadu as the most suitable place for locating NPP.  NPCIL also  

made a detailed study of the selected site in the light of the  

Code of Practice framed by AERB regarding safety in NPP Siting.  

Kudankulam, the site located, is situated on the Shore of Gulf of

Page 45

45

Mannar near the South-Eastern tip of India in the coastal track  

at an elevation of +3 to +45m above MSL forming the southern  

fringe of soil covered plains.  Most of the rivers in the area are  

seasonal and there are no major lakes, dams or ponds existing  

within 20 km radius around project  site.   The climate in the  

area is arid and is similar to other coastal regions.   As per IMD  

Station at Kanyakumari, the wind speed is in the range of 6 to  

30 km/hr.    The ambient temperature varies in the range of  

21°C - 34°C, while the relative humidity ranges from 68% to  

80%.  Geologically, the site is made up of the Archean super  

group of  crystalline rocks,  sedimentary rocks of  Precambrian  

origin and recent quaternary deposits.   The geological profiles  

studied up to 80m depth indicates that the site comprises of  

highly metamorphosed rocks with granulated and amphibolites  

faces  of  charnokites  belonging  to  the  archean  super  group.  

NPP site is situated in the South of Pandian movable belt, the  

metamorphic  rocks  of  which  are  the  foundations  of  ancient  

platform.   

48. The  NPP  site  is  situated  in  an  area  with  expected  

earthquake intensity of up to V on the modified intensity scale.

Page 46

46

The  site  area  falls  within  the  seismic  zone  II  which  is  a  

moderately  stable  area as  per  Seismic  Zoning Map (SZP)  of  

India.   The strongest earthquake near this area and within the  

Indian peninsula was Coimbatore earthquake of February 1900.  

The  epicentre  of  this  earthquake  was  situated  at  a  radial  

distance of 300 km from the proposed NPP site.   The site of the  

plant  lies  in  zone  II  of  the  SZP  of  India,  where  shocks  of  

intensity VI or magnitude 5 can occur.  In the region, no shock  

of magnitude 5 is known to have occurred at less than 100 km  

distance from the plant site.  Within the distance of 300 kms.,  

some 27  earthquakes  of  intensity  IV  to  VIII  or  a  magnitude  

ranging between 4 to  5.7 are known to  have occurred from  

1341 to 1972.    A detailed study was also conducted as to  

whether a site-plant interaction would reduce any radiological  

risk or others of an unacceptable magnitude.  Radiological risk  

to nuclear plant due to external events should not exceed the  

range of radiological risk associated with accidents of internal  

origin  and  the  possible  radiological  impact  of  a  NPP  on  the  

environment  should  be  acceptably  low  for  normal  operation  

and accident conditions and within the stipulated criteria  for  

radiological safety.   In evaluating the suitability of a site for

Page 47

47

locating a NPP, the effect of external events (natural and man-

induced)  on  the  plant;  effect  of  plant  on  environment  and  

population;  and  implementation  of  emergency  procedures  

particularly protective counter-measures in the public domain,  

had to be addressed.  SSC study also included the assessment  

of seismicity, location of faults, geology, foundation conditions,  

meteorology, potential of flooding (from tsunami, storm surge  

etc. at coastal sites and from rain, upstream dam break, etc. at  

inland  sites),  proximity  to  airports,  military  installations,  

facilities  storing  explosive  and  toxic  substances  etc.   The  

environmental setting comprising of bio-diversity including flora  

and  fauna,  marine  ecology  etc.  in  the  region  was  also  

evaluated.   SSC  had  taken  care  of  all  those  aspects  before  

making  its  recommendations  to  the  Government.     NPCIL,  

Union of India and other statutory authorities had taken care to  

follow the practice laid down by AERB on safety in NPP site.

49. KKNPP consists of two VVER-1000 types of units having  

1000 MWe rating each.   VVER reactors  being established at  

KKNPP  belong  to  the  family  of  Advance  Pressurized  Water  

Reactors (PWRs) and presently 439 nuclear reactors are under  

operation in the world and about 209 of them belong to PWR

Page 48

48

family,  including  55  VVERs.   The  construction  activities  had  

started  at  the  site  on  31.3.2002  and  two  units  are  being  

implemented  with  the  technical  assistance  of  Russian  

Federation  as  per  the  Inter  Government  Agreement  (IGA)  

between India and Russia.  As per the agreement, design and  

supply of major equipments are done by Russian Federation,  

while  construction,  erection,  commission  and  operation  are  

being carried out by NPCIL.   KKNPP is of a most modern design.  

PWR  cooled  and  moderated  by  light,  water  and  its  core  

containing the nuclear fuel is located inside a pressure vessel.  

There are no pressurizing tubes, no graphite moderator and no  

boiling of water in the core.  The reactor is located inside an air  

tight  primary  containment  building  which  is  surrounded  by  

secondary containment.  There are other design features in NPP  

which assure adequate core cooling under deconceivable off-

normal conditions including total loss of electric power.  Even  

for the hypothetical case of a core melt down, a core catcher is  

provided where the molten core is retained and cooled and the  

double containment  ensures that  there will  be no significant  

radiological  impact  in  the  public  domain.   NPP,  has  been  

divided  into  three  stages,  first  stage  comprises  of  building

Page 49

49

PHWR’s and using natural uranium.  The second stage includes  

setting  up  ‘Fast  Breeder  Reactor’s  backed  by  reprocessing  

plants and plutonium based fuel fabrication plants.  The third  

stage is based on the thorium-uranium-233 cycle.      

Nuclear Spent Fuel (NSF)

50. Radioactive  wastes  is  generated  during  operation,  

maintenance  and  decommissioning  of  nuclear  and  radiation  

facilities.  The waste generated needs to be managed in a safe  

manner  to  ensure  protection  of  human  health  and  the  

environment from the undue effects of ionizing radiation now  

and  in  future  without  imposing  undue  burden  on  future  

generations.  Radioactive waste is to be managed in a manner  

that  ensures  compliance  with  the  fundamental  principles  of  

radiation protection and environmental safety.  Monitoring and  

surveillance programme helps to ensure radiation protection of  

the  occupational  workers,  public  and the  environment.   The  

Central  Government in exercise of  powers conferred by sub-

section (1) read with clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 30  

and  clause  (b)  of  sub-section  (1)  of  Section  17  of  the  Act  

framed  the  Atomic  Energy  (Safe  Disposal  of  Radioactive

Page 50

50

Wastes) Rules 1987, which provide requirements for the safe  

disposal of radioactive wastes in the country.  The disposal has  

to be done in accordance with terms and conditions specified in  

the  authorization  which  include  the  process  materials  and  

equipments generating radioactive wastes in the installations,  

environment around the installation, safety devices and other  

equipments in the installation for conditioning, treatment and  

disposal  of  radioactive wastes,  estimates  of  annual  releases,  

discharges  and  leakages  in  normal  conditions  and  its  

anticipated  environment  impact,  potential  accidents,  design  

features and monitoring equipment to  control  the release of  

radio  activity  and  procedure  to  be  followed  in  the  safe  

collection  of  radioactive  wastes.   The  Hazardous  Waste  

Management and Handling Rules 1989 provide that these rules  

will not apply to radioactive wastes (Rule 2e).  The radioactive  

wastes are covered under the provisions of Atomic Energy Act,  

1962 and rules framed thereunder.  Further, Rules 2(b) and 3 of  

Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules  

1989  under  the  Environmental  (Protection)  Act,  1986  has  

notified  AERB  as  the  authority  to  enforce  directions  and

Page 51

51

procedures as per the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 with respect to  

radioactive materials.

51. The  AERB  issued  a  code  “Management  of  Radioactive  

Waste” on June 22, 2007, the objective of that is to establish  

the  requirements,  which  shall  be  fulfilled  for  the  safe  

management  of  solid,  liquid  and  gaseous  radioactive  waste  

from generation  through  disposal.   The  code  specifies  basic  

requirements  for  the  safe  management  of  radioactive  waste  

from nuclear and radiation facilities such as mining and milling  

and processing of uranium and thorium ores; fuel fabrication;  

nuclear  power  plants;  research/experimental  reactors;  fuel  

reprocessing;  medical,  industrial,  agriculture  and  research  

facilities  using  radionuclides;  and  other  facilities  handling  

radioactive  materials.   The  safety  code  also  deals  with  the  

requirements  for  radiation  protection  aspects  in  design,  

construction and operation of waste management facilities and  

the responsibilities of different agencies involved.  The code is  

also  applicable  to  the  management  of  radioactive  waste  

containing  chemically  and  biologically  hazardous  substances  

even though other specific  requirements may additionally be

Page 52

52

applicable  as  per  relevant  standards.   The  specific  

requirements pertaining to management of radioactive waste  

from application of sealed/unsealed sources, mining and milling  

of uranium/thorium ores and site remediation are covered in  

Appendices A, B and C respectively of that code.   Appendix D  

provides requirements of transportation/transfer for radioactive  

solid and liquid waste.  Annexures I and II  of the Code deals  

with the principles, philosophy and basic steps of management  

of  radioactive waste.   The code specifically  states that  deep  

geological disposal methodology of high level radioactive solid  

waste requiring long time isolation of thousands of years from  

biosphere  is  presently  under  development.   Para  2.2  of  the  

code specifically refers to Protection of Human Health and the  

Environment.   The  said  para  is  of  considerable  importance,  

hence given below in detail:

“2.2  Protection  of  Human  Health  and  the  Environment 2.2.1  Radioactive waste shall be managed within the  dose  constraints  and  other  safety  requirements  prescribed by the regulatory body. 2.2.2  Radiation exposure to workers and the public  from  radioactive  waste  shall  be  kept  as  low  as  reasonably achievable,  social  and economic  factors  being taken into account.   A well-defined radiation  protection  programme  shall  be  established  for

Page 53

53

radioactive  waste  management.   Approved  procedures and control  measures shall  be used for  radiation protection. 2.2.3  Radiation  exposures  to  workers  and  the  members  of  public  shall  not  exceed  the  limits  prescribed by the regulatory body. 2.3 Effluent Release Criteria, Control and Monitoring 2.3.1  Radioactive  waste  shall  be  characterized,  monitored  segregated,  treated  and  conditioned,  as  necessary, prior to disposal. 2.3.2  Radioactive  discharges  to  the  environment  (aquatic, atmospheric and terrestrial route) shall not  exceed the limits prescribed by the regulatory body. 2.3.3  At  a  given  site,  facility  specific  disposal  schemes  for  radioactive  solid,  liquid  and  gaseous  wastes to the environment shall be established and  got  approved  by  the  regulatory  body  prior  to  the  commencement of operation. 2.3.4  The  facility  shall  assess  the  adequacy  of  controls on release of activity into the environment  and  demonstrate  compliance  with  the  regulatory  requirements.  The facility shall obtain approval from  the  regulatory  body,  if  the  discharges  exceed  the  authorized limits. 2.3.5  For  all  non-radiological  releases/discharges,  the  relevant  clearances  shall  be  obtained  from  respective statutory agencies and stipulations therein  shall be complied with. 2.4 Environment Monitoring and Surveillance 2.4.1 The  facility  shall  implement  approved  environmental  monitoring  and  surveillance  programme for the identified exposure pathways to  meet the requirements set by the regulatory body.  The  programme  shall  include  pre-operational,  operational, closure, and post-closure monitoring and  surveillance.

Page 54

54

2.4.2 The facility  shall  implement  approved quality  assurance programme on sampling, monitoring and  analysis to ensure a reliable data. 2.5 Safety Assessment 2.5.1A  Safety assessment report shall be prepared  for  waste  management  facilities  including  waste  disposal  facilities/repositories  to  demonstrate  compliance with the regulatory requirements. 2.5.2  Assessments shall be made to identify various  possible sequences of internal or external events that  may lead to incidents or accidents and to evaluate  their  impact  on  workers,  the  public  and  the  environment. 2.5.3  Assessments  shall  be  made  to  identify,  describe  and analyse  the  potential  non-radiological  impact  of  releases  from  radioactive  waste  management  facilities  on  human  beings,  the  environment (soil, water, air, and non-human biota)  and natural resources. 2.5.4  The  safety  assessments  of  the  long-term  performance  of  a  waste  disposal  facility/repository  shall  take  account  of  the  radionuclide  content,  physic-chemical  characteristics  of  the  waste/waste  form and the effectiveness  of  engineered /  natural  barriers.”

52. Responsibilities  associated  with  the  Radioactive  Waste  

Management  are  also  dealt  with  in  the  Code.   Safe  

management of radioactive waste requires clear allocation of  

responsibilities  of  the  agencies  involved  which  may  involve  

transfer of the responsibility of the management of radioactive  

waste from one facility to another or to a different agency other

Page 55

55

than the one responsible for the operation of the facility.  The  

continuity  of  responsibility  required  to  be  ensured  through  

regulatory  control  by  a  licence  or  a  sequence  of  licences  

according to the procedures laid down by the regulatory body.  

The code provides that the waste generator / manager or both  

shall  be  responsible  for  identifying  on  an  appropriate  time-

scale,  a  destination  for  the  waste  in  accordance  with  the  

regulatory  requirements  and  for  seeking  any  necessary  

authorization.  The waste generator/manager shall  dispose of  

the radioactive waste in an approved manner or transfer it in  

an  authorized  manner  to  another  waste  manager  for  

processing,  storage  or  disposal.   Para  3.2.6  of  the  code  

specifically  refers  to  the  publication  of  the  waste  

generator/manager.

53. Para  4  of  the  code  specifically  deals  with  predisposal  

measures  to  be  taken  by  Predisposal  Management  of  

Radioactive Waste.  Para 5 of the code deals with near surface  

disposal  of  solid  waste  which  says  that  solid  waste  disposal  

deals  with  emplacement  of  waste  in  approved  facilities.  

Further, it also stated that disposal may be in a Near Surface

Page 56

56

Disposal facility (NSDF) or a Deep Geological Repository (DGR).  

The design, construction, operation and post-operation of the  

NSDF has to meet necessary safety requirements.  Appendix II  

of  the  code  deals  with  the  principles  and  philosophy  of  

radioactive waste management.

NSF AND MANAGEMENT OF WASTE:

54. Serious apprehension has been voiced by the appellants  

that huge amounts of radioactive waste are generated with the  

use  of  nuclear  energy  which,  unless  handled,  treated,  

transported, stored and disposed off safely without any leaks,  

can cause serious contamination of land, water, food, air and  

the ecosystems.  Further, it was also the case of the appellants  

that during the nuclear fission process, nuclear plants convert  

almost  all  of  their  fuel  into  radioactive  waste  with  little  

reduction in mass and even re-processing creates its own high-

level waste.   Further, it was also pointed out that many of the  

repositories  designed  to  be  temporary  ones  are  turning  into  

permanent ones and the interim storage is by its very nature  

storage for a small period, which can never be a substitute for  

permanent geologic repository.   Appellants further pointed out

Page 57

57

that,  as on today,  no sustainable solution has been found or  

implemented worldwide so as to do away with nuclear waste.  

Appellants also submitted that, under the earlier Agreement of  

1988  with  Russia,  nuclear  waste  had  to  be  shifted  back  to  

Russia and the site clearance and environment clearance are  

based on this factor.  However, a new agreement was signed in  

the year 1998 under which nuclear waste had to be retained  

and stored in India.

55. Management  of  radioactive  waste  includes  all  types  of  

radioactive  waste  generated  from the  entire  fuel  cycle  right  

from  mining  uranium  fuel  fabrication  through  reactor  

operations,  and whole  re-processing spent  fuel.   A  coherent,  

comprehensive and consistent set of principles by way of IAEA  

document titled “Storage and Disposal of Spent Fuel and High  

Level  Radioactive  Waste”,   AERB  Safety  Guide  to  AERB  

Management of  Radioactive Waste Code 2007 are already in  

place.  Further, the 15 member team in its report, in December  

2011, has to say this on spent fuel management.  

“6.3 Spent Fuel Management:

First  and foremost  it  should  be  remembered that  Spent  Fuel  is  not  a  waste  in  the  Indian  Nuclear  Programme.  A closed fuel cycle is followed, where

Page 58

58

the  valuable  fissile  materials  like  Uranium  and  Plutonium which are present in the Spent Fuel are  recovered to reuse.    

1) Spent fuel  is  therefore an asset that needs to be  preserved.   At  Kudankulam,  Spent  Fuel  from  the  Reactors will  be carefully stored in Storage Pools,  which  are  always  filled  with  pure,  demineralised  borated  water  which  is  constantly  recirculated.  These pools are high integrity concrete pools which  are additionally lined with stainless steel sheets, to  ensure effective containment for extended periods  of time.  The Department of Atomic Energy has long  experience and expertise of a high order in the safe  management of Spent Fuel.

2) There is no plan to do the reprocessing of the Spent  Fuel  at  Kudankulam site.   As such the storage of  Spent Fuel at Kudankulam is to be considered only  as an interim measure till they are transported to a  Reprocessing Facility.

3) Adequate Technology and years of experience are  available  with  Department  of  Atomic  Energy  for  transporting  Spent  Fuel  from one  site  to  another  through both Railways and by roadways, in a safe  manner without any public hazard.  This is done as  per  stipulations  of  AERB,  regarding  Transport  Regulations that govern safety.”

56. NPCIL, MoEF and the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE)  

have  filed  a  detailed  counter  affidavit  on  the  various  issues  

posed  by  the  appellants.  NPCIL,  DAE  submitted  that  even  

though, as per the earlier agreement of 1988 between India and  

USSR,  spent  fuel  had  to  be  transported  to  Russia,  in  a  

subsequent agreement in 1998 signed between two countries,

Page 59

59

Government of India had insisted that it should be allowed to  

retain the spend fuel in India, so that it could be recycled and  

used.   Spent  fuel,  it  is  stated,  discharged  from  the  reactor  

contains  materials  suitable  for  recycling  and hence could  be  

reused to produce electricity.  The spent fuel contains minerals,  

both uranium and plutonium, which constitutes about 96% and  

1% of the spent fuel respectively.  The remaining 3% contains  

other components that are normally not recyclable.  Further, it  

has also been pointed out that KKNPP had adequate provisions  

for safe storage of spent fuel. In KKNPP, Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) is  

located  inside  the  primary  containment,  adjacent  to  reactor  

cavity which has the capacity to store fuel equivalent to 7 years  

of  full  power  operation  of  the  plant  plus  one  full  core  load.  

AERB  Safety  Guide  “Design  of  fuel  handling  and  storage  

systems for pressurized heavy water reactors – AERB/SG/D-24”  

deals with the safety in design of storage of spent fuel.  NPCIL  

submitted  that  they  are  scrupulously  following  the  safety  

guidelines  issued  by  AERB.   However,  the  Nuclear  Recycle  

Group of the BARC has got an overall view of radioactive waste  

management in India and has developed certain guidelines for  

management of nuclear fuel.

Page 60

60

NSF WASTE - TRANSPORTATION:

57. The SNF from NPPs, after an adequate storage period, is  

transported to reprocessing facilities located within the country,  

following the International and AERB guidelines and standards.  

NPCIL, DAE and MoEF have maintained the stand that they are  

aware of the importance of safety and security and have taken  

care  to  ensure  that  the  management  and  transportation  of  

spent  fuel  is  carried  out  safely  following  the  international  

recognized norms and regulations and the same is being done  

under the observation of AERB and the Government of India.   

58. SNF  poses  a  dangerous,  long-term  health  and  

environmental risk and it is often said that it remains dangerous  

“for  time  spans  seemingly  beyond  human  comprehension.”  

Issue, needless to say, is  of great concern.  It  may be noted,  

twenty years of work on establishing a ‘geologic repository’ at  

Yucca  Mountain,  USA,  had  to  be  abandoned  when  the  

Department  of  Energy  decided  to  withdraw  its  licence  

application for the facility.   NPCIL has maintained SNF is being  

kept at the site for re-processing or transported to a permanent

Page 61

61

repository and how save it is, if not properly kept, as we have  

already indicated, can cause serious health hazard not only to  

the present generation but to the future generation as well, to  

whom we owe a responsibility.   

59. India has got the capability for re-processing SNF, experts  

say.   Currently,  India  has  three  operating  processing  plants  

based on solvent extraction process – one each at  Trombay,  

Tarapur and Kalpakkam.  Trombay plant reprocesses the spent  

fuel  from research reactors with the capacity of  60 tons per  

year.   The  plants  at  Tarapur  and  Kalpakkan  process  off-site  

fuels from PHWRs with operating capacity of 100 tons per year  

each.  Additional re-processing facilities are being set up with  

the active participation of the Indian industry to accelerate the  

programme.   

 60. We  notice  that  with  the  limited  resources  of  uranium  

available in India, the indigenous achievable NP is estimated to  

be 10,000 MWe by PHWR, without re-processing.  With the help  

of re-processing, the achievable capacity could go up to 63000  

MWe imported LWR and recycling LWR fuel to 275,000 MWe, by  

2052.   NPCIL  has,  therefore,  taken  up  the  stand  that  re-

Page 62

62

processing of spent fuel is the key to the country’s three stage  

nuclear  power  programme.     97% of  the SNF is  capable of  

being  re-used,  but  what  has  to  be  done  with  regard  to  the  

remaining 3% SNF, is a moot question, since it is not re-useable,  

which consists of various fission products and minor actinides.  

This 3% waste comprises of minor actinides which have a long  

half-life of lakhs of years.   Experts, however, say that if the  

minor actinides are “partitioned” or removed, the rest of the  

waste is dominated by FP’s having a half-life of about 30 years  

and so in 10 half-lives (300 years) will have negligible activity  

and the partitioned minor actinides can then be “transmuted”  

or  burnt  by  inducing  fission  in  Fast  Breeder  Reactors  or  in  

Accelerator Driven Systems (ADS).   

Facts  mentioned  above  would  indicate  that  certain  

percentage of SNF will have long life of lakhs of years and will  

have some impact on the environment, but how to contain that?  

The  Supreme  Court  of  Pakistan  in  Human  Rights  

(Environmental Pollution in Baluchistan) PLD 1994 SC 102,  

took  suo  moto notice  of  a  paper  report  of  dumping  nuclear  

waste along the Coast of the province of Baluchistan.  The Court  

directed that provisional Government to investigate the claim

Page 63

63

and ruled that such dumping of Nuclear Waste is in violation of  

the  fundamental  rights  to  life  enshrined  in  Article  9  of  the  

Constitution.  

61. We may, in this connection, refer to the judgment of the  

US Court of Appeals in State of New York, ETAL v. NRC and  

USA dated 8.6.2012.  In that case, the Court was dealing with  

the issue regarding temporary storage and permanent disposal  

of nuclear waste.  The Court held that the Nuclear Regulatory  

Commission’s  evaluation of  the risks of  spent  nuclear  fuel  is  

deficient  in  two  ways:  First,  in  concluding  that  permanent  

storage will be available “when necessary,” the Commission did  

not  calculate  the  environmental  effects  of  failing  to  secure  

permanent  storage  –  a  possibility  that  cannot  be  ignored.  

Second, in determining that spent fuel can safely be stored on  

site at nuclear plants for sixty years after the expiration of a  

plant’s  license,  the  Commission  failed  to  property  examine  

future dangers and key consequences.   

62. We notice that the above decision would not directly apply  

to  the  facts  of  the  present  case.   United  States  is  following  

“open fuel cycle” process where spent fuel is not reprocessed,

Page 64

64

but disposed of treating the same as waste but, in India, we  

follow “close fuel cycle” process, where reprocessing of SNF to  

obtain uranium and plutonium is an essential step.

63. AERB, way back in 1989, had recommended to have an  

Away from Rector Storage (AFR) facility at KKNPP for prolonged  

storage of SNF while granting siting clearance.  Design-Safety  

aspects of AFR, it is stated, would be reviewed by AERB, one  

such facility is already available at Tarapur, where it is reported  

that  there  has  been  no  adverse  impact  on  the  environment  

issue  of  such  storage.   AERB,  in  subsequent  reviews,  made  

recommendations with respect to AFR facilities.  In ACPSR 126th  

Meeting held  on 15/16.9.2011,  the  issue related  to  AFR was  

reviewed and it was recommended that AFR should be finalized  

well before 5 years of operation.

DEEP GEOLOGICAL REPOSITORY (DGR):

64. Permanent DGR, India may require, after a few decades,  

states  NPCIL.   Research  and  development  work,  we  are  

informed, are in progress over three decades in the field of in-

situ  experiments,  natural  barrier  characterisation,  numerical

Page 65

65

modelling,  conceptual  design  and  natural  analogue  of  waste  

forms  and  repository  processes.   Keeping  in  line  with  the  

international developments, initial focus of work in 80’s centred  

mainly  on  setting  up  of  generic  Underground  Research  

Laboratory (URL), in one of the abandoned mines in India and  

resulted  in  the  development  of  an  underground  chamber  in  

Kolar goldmine located in South India.   Current efforts within  

the  Indian  geological  repository  programme  are  directed  

towards granite based URL.   The experts feel that setting up of  

a DGR is not much of a technological challenge, but as is the  

case internationally everywhere, the issue is more of a socio-

political issue.

65. We are of the view that these issues have to be dealt with  

by the Experts in the field, evidently, without much delay.  The  

AERB Safety Code on “Management of Redioactive Waste” of  

2007  does  not  deal  with  the  requirements  for  DGR.   The  

problem of this nature is being faced by all the nuclear plant  

operating countries, including India.  Research is on to handle  

SNF in DGR which, in the near future, let us hope, would be a  

reality,  but  that  shall  not  deter  us  in  holding  up  of  such  a

Page 66

66

project which has been established at KKNPP in implementation  

of the India’s Nuclear Policy.

66. We may, however, caution that it is of utmost importance  

that the Union of India, NPCIL etc. should find out a place for a  

permanent DGR.  Storing of SNF at NPP site will, in the long run,  

poses a dangerous, long term health and environmental risk.  

NPCIL  and  the  Union  of  India  is  bound  to  look  at  the  

probabilities  of  potentially  harmful  events  and  the  

consequences in future.  Noticeably, NPCIL does not seem to  

have a long term plan, other than, stating and hoping that in  

the near future, it would establishes a DGR.   The Atomic Energy  

Act, especially Section 17, envisages present and future safety  

of our NPPs and the lives and environment around.   NPCIL and  

the Union of India must have a hard look at the environmental  

consequences  of  its  action  of  setting  up  of  NPPs,  hence  a  

permanent  DGR is  of  utmost  importance,  which  they  should  

plan now.   

Radioactive material

Page 67

67

67. We are all exposed to the naturally occurring radiation in  

our daily lives.  Cosmic radiation from outside the solar system  

is also common phenomenon.  Earth’s crust is radioactive, so  

also above the earth’s surface where we fly by aeroplane, we  

also get doses of radiation.  Medical diagnostic treatment such  

as  X-Ray,  CT-Scan,  angiography,  angioplasty  also  radiates  

radioactive  dose.   However,  the  development  of  nuclear  

reactors which, for the first time, made possible the production  

of radioisotopes of many different elements, expanded the field  

of radioactive materials.  Production and use of it, therefore, is  

bound to create a little bit of marginal radiation which seldom  

can be prevented.  The Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection)  

Rules, (Radio Protection Rules now) were initially framed and  

revised in 2004.  According to the Rules no person could handle  

radioactive  material  or  operate  any  radiation  generating  

equipment except in accordance with the terms and conditions  

of a  licence.  The Atomic Energy (Control of Irradiation of Food)  

Rules, 1990 (revised in 1996) seeks to regulate the irradiation  

of foods in the country.  Provisions of the Act, statutory rules  

and regulations, various codes, safety standards etc. issued by  

the AERB buttressed by the technical assistance provided by

Page 68

68

IAEA,  NEA,  The  World  Association  of  Nuclear  Operations  

(WANO)  etc.  are  being  followed  in  India  in  respect  of  20  

operating  power  reactors  which  are  existing  in  this  country.  

Safeguarding  the  nuclear  plants,  radioactive  materials  and  

ensuring its physical security have therefore become a central  

part  of  nuclear  law.    Risks  arising  from NPP,  do  affect  not  

merely the country which choose to use that technology but  

can  have  catastrophic  consequences  to  the  neighboring  

countries as well.  Non-proliferation, disarmament and peaceful  

use are stated to be the three pillars of all  the international  

conventions.   Nuclear  technologies and techniques,  it  is  well  

accepted,  can  offer  vital  benefits  for  improving  human-well  

being, like health care, radio-therapy, food security, agricultural  

advantages to the present  and generation.     

68. The Prime Minister of India, as already indicated, ordered  

a fresh review of all safety of NPPs, on 11.3.2011, immediately  

after  the  accident  at  Fukushima  NPP,  Japan  with  respect  to  

external events.  The Prime Minister of India had emphasized  

that the safety of nuclear power plants was a matter of highest  

priority for the Government and called for safety audits of all

Page 69

69

the NPPs.  NPCIL, the operating agency, constituted separate  

task  forces  to  review safety  of  NPPs  depending  on  types  of  

reactor designs and their vintages in India.  NPCIL constituted  

broad categories of Indian NPPs to make an assessment of :

- Boiling Water Reactors (BWR) (TAPS 1&2).   

- Pressurized  Heavy  Water  Reactors  (PHWRs)  at  RAPS  

1&2

- PHWRs at MAPS 1&2

- Standard PHWRs from NAPS onwards

69. The  Task  Forces  reviewed  safety  of  the  NPPs  with  a  

postulated  scenario  of  non-availability  of  off-site  and  on-site  

electric power and water supply sources.  The reports of the  

task  forces  are  summarized  in  a  document  titled  “Safety  

Evaluation of Indian NPPs Post Fukushima Incident” to provide  

an  integrated  assessment  of  strength  of  Indian  NPPs  to  

withstand extreme external events.  Report was submitted by  

the end of March 2011.  Over and above, two more task forces  

were constituted for  VVERs  one of  which was for  the VVER,  

Presssurised  Water  Reactors  (PWR),  under  construction  at

Page 70

70

KKNPP,  and  another  for  700  MWe  PHWRs.   NPCIL  also  

constituted task forces on safety evaluation of the systems of  

KKNPP  Post  Fukushima  which  gave  its  interim  report  on  

11.05.2011.   The  task  force  found  that  KKNPP  had  already  

incorporated all safety standards, including passive systems to  

ensure reactor shutdown.    

70. The AERB, in pursuance of the direction of Prime Minister,  

constituted  a  high  level  committee  (AERBSC-EE)  to  review  

safety of NPPs against external events of natural origin (post  

Fukushima accident) with national level experts in the areas of  

(i) design, safety analysis and NPP operation and (ii) external  

events  in  the  field  of  seismology,  hydrology and earthquake  

engineering to carry out a comprehensive review of capability  

of NPPs to deal with external events within and beyond design  

basis.   The  committee  constituted  specialist  working  groups  

and they reviewed the following major areas:

- External events in relation to the safety of NPPs

- Safety  of  electrical,  control  and  instrumentation  

systems against external events

Page 71

71

- Safety of NPPs under prolonged Station Black Out (SBO)  

and loss of Ultimate Heat Sink

- Safety of spent fuel  storage facilities at NPPs against  

external events

- Severe Accident Management provisions and guidelines  

(SAMG)

AERBSC-EE submitted its report on 31.08.2011.  The AERB has  

also  taken cognizance of  self-assessment  carried  out  by  the  

NPCIL and the site specific focused regulatory inspections. The  

NPCIL and AERB report indicate that the overall assessment of  

safety of Indian NPPs following Fukushima Nuclear accident and  

the  actions  taken/planned  based  on  the  lessons  learnt  are  

enumerated  in  the  report.   The  following  aspects  were  

addressed :

(i) External Events (ii) Design (iii) Severe Accident Management and Recovery (Onsite) (iv) National Organisations (v) Emergency  Preparedness  and  Response  and  Post-

Accident Management (Offiste) (vi) International Cooperation

Page 72

72

71. The Government of India also submitted a National report  

in May 2012 on the actions taken for Indian NPPs, subsequent  

to Fukushima Nuclear Accident to the Convention on Nuclear  

Safety  in  the  Second  Extraordinary  Meeting  of  contracting  

parties, held in August 2012 at Vienna.

72. The  expert  committee  of  AERB,  LWR  in  its  final  report  

dated 31.8.2011 gave 17 safety measures by way of abundant  

caution.  We have directed NPCIL to file a status report with  

respect to the completion date of implementation of all the 17  

recommendations  made  by  AERB  in  Annexure-A  of  the  Post  

Fukushima  AERB  Recommendations.   A  comparative  chart  

giving the status and implementation of Post Fukushima AERB  

Recommendations has been filed as Annexure-A by NPCIL in its  

affidavit  dated  3.12.2012,  which  will  indicate  that  twelve  

recommendations have already been complied with, except the  

following:

Sr.  No .

Recommendations Status Completion  Schedule

3. Mobile  self-powered  pumping  equipment  for emergency use.

Two  fire  tenders  with  diesel  operated  pump is  available at site.

April 2013

Page 73

73

To augment the capacity,  two  additional  fire  tenders  are  being  procured  and  made  available.    Chassis  has  been  procured  and  fabrication  of  the  fire  tender is in progress.

4. Facility  for  monitoring  safety  parameters  using  portable  power  packs.

Present design of  KKNPP  envisages  24  hour  battery  bank  for  monitoring  parameters  and 2 hour battery bank  for  valve  operation  during  an  event  of  station blackout. In  order  to  extent  the  duration  of  the  monitoring  for  not  less  than 7 days, portable DG  sets will be connected to  the  instruments  for  monitoring  safety  parameters.   One  portable DG set is readily  available for use at site. Portable  measuring  devices are also available  at  site  for  local  monitoring.

April 2013

6. Primary  Containment  to  be  assessed  for  Ultimate  Load  Bearing  Capacity (ULBC).

Based on design margins  available,  it  has  been  assessed that for primary  containment,  Ultimate  Load  Baring  Capacity  (ULBC)  is  at  least  1.5  times  Design  Basis  Accident (DBA) value. Detailed  analysis  for  Ultimate  Load  Bearing  Capacity  (ULBC)  will  be  carried out progressively.

Long  Term.  Under progress.

8. Ensuring  that  highly  active  water  used  for  cooling  the  core  catcher  vessel  under  Beyond  Design  basis  Accident  (BDBA)  is  contained  inside  the  

The  required  analysis  covering  dose  estimation,  equipment  qualification  assessment  of containing pressure is  being carried out.

Long  term.  Under progress.

Page 74

74

primary containment. 12. Adequacy  of  

instrumentation  for  monitoring plant status  during  Design  basis  Accident (BDBA)

All  the  important  parameters  of  the  reactor  such  as  neutron  flux,  pressure above the  core,  containment  pressure,  Hydrogen  concentration,  reactor  coolant  level,  radiation  levels  in  containment,  coolant  temperatures  in  hot and cold legs, level of  fuel  pool,  and  accumulators etc. will be  monitored during Design  basis Accident (BDBA). Please  refer  item  –  4  also.

April  2013  (Adequacy  of  instrumentation  ensured.  Provision  to  extend  power  supply to these  instruments will  be  implemented  under  item  4  above.)

17. Provision  of  additional  backup  power  supply  sources for performing  essential  safety  functions,  like  air  cooled  Diesel  Generator (DG) located  at  a  high  elevation,  should be considered.

One  portable  DG  set  is  readily  available  for  use  at site.   Another  mobile  Diesel  Generator  (DG)  set  is  being made available for  redundancy.  

April 2013.

73. We  are  convinced  that  KKNPP  design  incorporates  

advanced safety features complying with the current standards  

of  redundancy,  reliability,  independence  and  prevention  of  

common  cause  failures  in  its  safety  systems.    Design  also  

takes  care  of  Anticipated  Operational  Occurrences  (AOO),  

Design  Basis  Accidents  (DBA)  and  Beyond  Design  Basis  

Accidents  (BDBA)  like  Station  Black  Out  (SBO),  Anticipated  

Transients Without Scram (ATWS), Metal Water reaction in the

Page 75

75

water core and provision of core catcher to take care of core  

degradation.    The  design  also  includes  the  provisions  for  

withstanding external  events like earthquake,  tsunami/storm,  

tidal  waves,  cyclones,  shock  waves,  aircraft  impact  on  main  

buildings and fire.  The 17 recommendations were made after  

Fukushima accident the cause of which is natural phenomenon.  

The facts would indicate that Tsunami-genic zone along East  

Coast of India is more than 1300 km away from the nearest NPP  

site  (Madras/Kalpakkam)  and  about  1000  km.  away  from  

Kudakulam.  The possibility of hitting tsunami at Kudakulam, as  

the one that hit Fukushima, seems to be very remote.   

Response to People’s Resistance:

74. The  Government  of  India,  in  order  to  allay  various  

apprehensions raised by the people’s  movement against  the  

production of nuclear energy as well as against commissioning  

of KKNPP, constituted a 15 Member Expert Group to provide  

clarifications on the issue raised by the agitators by interacting  

with the forum provided by State Government comprising of 2  

State  Government  nominees  and  4  representatives  of  the  

people.   Public  hearing was held and views and suggestions

Page 76

76

made for and against the project were heard.  The Committee  

specifically examined the safety features of KKNPP in the wake  

of the accidents occurred at TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima etc.

75. The radiation around the NPP and impact on the public  

health were also effectively addressed.  The reactor design and  

safety of the plant was also examined.  Principles and Practices  

taken for radioactive waste and spent fuel management were  

also examined.  Ecological effects of the project in question on  

marine ecology and fish protection, impact on land, agriculture,  

livestock,  and  food,  impact  on  flora  and  fauna  were  also  

examined.  The effect of a possible, though remote, impact of  

earthquake and Tsunami was also examined.  The committee  

concluded as follows:

“Conclusions: EG  observes  that  KKNPP  is  designed  and  

engineered to the state of art of nuclear reactors in line  with the current international safety requirements and  principles.   KK  site  related  aspects  such  as  seismic,  tsunami, tropical storms are taken into consideration at  design stage.  More than 20 VVER-1000 are operating in  Russian  Federation  and  in  other  countries.   While  finalizing  the  contract  for  KKNPP,  additional  safety  features were specified which have been incorporated  and  their  functionality  is  being  established  during  commissioning.   The  radiological  releases  during  the  plant  operation  are  expected  to  be  well  below

Page 77

77

prescribed  limits.   This  fact  is  borne  out  by  the  experience from operating NPPs in  India  and abroad.  Based  on  the  national  and  international  studies  and  experience, such radiological releases have no adverse  effects  on  public  health,  environment  and  plant  personnel.  Safety of KKNPP was examined in relation to  the TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents.  It is seen  that based on the advanced design safety features, safe  grade  level  and  high  elevation  of  safety  related  equipment and the fact that all key operating personnel  are  graduate  engineers  who  also  receive  intensive  training, it is not conceivable that any accident of these  types can take place at KKNPP.

EG also notes that clearances for various stages of  the project are given by the Atomic Energy Regulatory  Board after an elaborate and exhaustive safety review  at each stage.  Similarly,  other statutory bodies have  also  conducted  detailed  and  in  depth  reviews  before  according  clearances  pertaining  to  areas  relevant  to  their purview.  This clearly indicates that all applicable  safety aspects of  the project  have been subjected to  careful  scrutiny by the concerned statutory  bodies  in  the country.

In particular, safety of KKNPP has been thoroughly  evaluated against external events of natural origin viz.,  earthquakes  and  possible  flooding  of  the  site  from  cyclonic  storms  and  tsunamis.   It  is  seen  that  the  seismic design of its SSCs and location of safety related  components provide high level of safety against such  events.  Possibility of volcanic eruptions in the vicinity  of  the  site  has  also  been  examined  and  no  active  volcanism has been identified.  The magnitude of any  possible tsunami that can be generated from submarine  landslides in the Gulf of Mannar has been found to be  much smaller  than tsunamis  that  may get  generated  from  the  submarine  active  seismic  faults,  which  has  already been taken into consideration.

Page 78

78

In view of the above, the EG would like to conclude  that the fears of the local population are unfounded and  design of KKNPP meets the current safety standards.”

76. The Committee prepared a detailed report in December  

2011.   The  report  was  later  presented  to  Tamil  Nadu  

Government nominees and people representatives.  The Expert  

Group  submitted  another  supplementary  report  dated  

31.02.2012.

77. The Government of Tamil Nadu also appointed an Expert  

Committee headed by Former President of the AEC along with  

three other experts.  The Committee submitted its report after  

assessing that the project has a unique passive safety feature  

which provides cooling to the nuclear fuel without the need for  

operator  action  or  power  supply,  namely  a  Passive  Heat  

Removal System, which is a novel safety feature.  In addition to  

the  various  reports  mentioned  herein  before,  the  Russian  

Nuclear Safety Authority also known as GosAtomNadzor (GAN)  

reviewed and cleared the Safety Analysis Report of KKNPP Units  

1 and 2, which forms the basis of the licensing safety review.

Page 79

79

CIVIL LIABILITY FOR NUCLEAR DAMAGE:

78. Developing modern sources for energy through NPPs carry  

the  problem  of  potential  damage,  which  might  flow  from  a  

nuclear  catastrophe.   Several  Nuclear  Energy  Generating  

countries have adopted their own Legislation on the issue of  

Civil and Criminal Liability.   The U.S. Price-Anderson Act, 1957,  

the German Atomic Energy Act (1959), the Swiss Federal Law  

on the Exploitation of Nuclear Energy for Peaceful Purposes and  

Protection from Radiation (1959) and the Japanese Law on the  

Compensation of Nuclear Damage (1961) are some of them.  

Few of such legislations followed the basic principle of imposing  

legal  liability  on  a  strict  liability  basis  on  the  operator  of  a  

nuclear installation coupled with the limitation on liability.    

79. Currently, there are two main conventions on third-party  

liability  in the field of nuclear energy.   The first  is  the Paris  

Convention of 1960, which was supplemented by the Brussels  

Supplementary  Convention  Act,  1963.   IAEA’s  Vienna  

Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage, 1963 is yet  

another convention.   India’s Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage  

Act, 2010 or the Nuclear Liability Act mainly rests on the above

Page 80

80

Conventions,  though  India  is  not  a  signatory  to  those  

conventions.    India’s Nuclear Liability Act aims to provide a  

civil liability for nuclear damage and prompt compensation to  

victims of a nuclear incident through a No Fault Liability to the  

operator, appointment of Claims Commissioner, establishment  

of Nuclear Damage Claims Commission, Nuclear Liability Fund  

and other  matters  connected therewith.    The constitutional  

validity of the said Act is under challenge before this Court in  

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 464 of 2011.  Various prayers have been  

made  in  the  above  mentioned  writ  petition,  but  this  Court  

issued the notice only with regard to the prayer clause no. (e),  

i.e. to declare the act as unconstitutional and void ab initio.    

80. NPCIL  had undertaken the  task  of  constructing  the  two  

IGW  reactors  of  VVER-1000  Model  in  collaboration  with  

Atomstroyexport,  a  wholly  owned  Russian  Government  

Company.   Safety  features  of  the  NPP  as  well  the  quality  

requirements for the plant equipment are part of the detailed  

specifications agreed between the vendor and the purchaser,  

and  as  per  the  Quality  Assurance  Plan.   NPCIL,  AERB  also

Page 81

81

should ensure that there can be no compromise on the quality  

of plant equipment, components and other systems.  

81. The India’s Nuclear Liability Act states that the liability of  

the operator to the tune of Rs.1500 crores and the maximum  

liability to rupee equivalent of 300 millions SDR’s, though the  

Act, speaks of no fault liability.   It is unnecessary to examine  

the scope of various provisions contained in the Act,  for  our  

purpose, especially when the constitutional validity of the Act is  

under challenge.    

82. We  may,  in  this  connection,  point  out  that  the  

constitutional validity of the Price-Anderson Act, 1957 of U.S.  

which  was  challenged  in  the  year  1978  before  the  U.S.  

Supreme  Court  in  Duke  Power  Company  v.  Carolina  

Environmental Study Group 438 US 59(1978).  It was urged  

before  the  U.S.  Supreme Court  that  the  Act  did  not  ensure  

adequate compensation for victims of accidents and it violated  

Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by treating the  

nuclear  accidents differently  from other  accidents etc.    The  

U.S. Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Act holding that it

Page 82

82

was lawful, in that there was adequate justification for treating  

nuclear accidents different to other claims; that Act provides a  

reasonably just substitute for the common law or state tort law  

remedies it  replaces and that it  cannot be said that the Act  

encouraged  irresponsibility  in  the  matter  of  safety  and  

environmental protection.

83. Strict Liability Principle has been examined by this Court in  

the environmental point of view in several judgments.  In M. C.  

Mehta  v.  Union  of  India AIR  1987  SC  1086  (Oleum  Gas  

Leakage case),  this  Court  held  that  the industries  which are  

engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activity, possess  

serious  threat  to  health  and safety  of  persons  and have an  

absolute  and  non-delegable  duty  to  ensure  that  no  harm is  

caused to the life and safety of the people. In Indian Council  

for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 3 SCC 212,  

this Court held that once the activity carried on in hazardous or  

inherently dangerous, the person carrying on such activity is  

liable to make good losses caused to any other person by his  

activity, irrespective of the fact that he took reasonable care  

while carrying on his activity.   In  Vellore Citizens Welfare

Page 83

83

Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647, this Court held  

that  once  the  activity  carried  on  is  hazardous  or  potential  

hazardous,  the  person  carrying  on  such  activity  is  liable  to  

make good the loss caused to any other person by his activity,  

irrespective  of  the  fact  that  he took reasonable care.    The  

absolute liability extends not only to compensate the victims of  

pollution,  but  also  the  cost  of  restoring  environmental  

degradation.  In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum (supra), this  

Court  reiterated  the  “polluter  pays  principles”.   It  is  

unnecessary to multiply the authorities on the principle of strict  

liability, precautionary principle, polluter pays etc., which find  

their  expression  in  Articles  21,  47,  48-A,  51-A(g)  of  the  

Constitution of India.

84. We have examined the above principles only to highlight  

the importance of the Act and the steps taken for its effective  

implementation.   People in this country have not forgotten the  

incidents which had happened in the Union Carbide Pesticides  

Plant in Bhopal in the night of 24.12.1984.  This Court in Union  

Carbide Corporation v.  Union of India (1989)  2  SCC 40,  

based on an earlier settlement, directed the Union Carbide to

Page 84

84

pay US $  470 million  to  the  Union  of  India  in  full  and final  

settlement  of  all  claims,  rights  and  liabilities  related  to  and  

arising  out  of  Bhopal  Gas  Tragedy.   Following  that,  it  was  

ordered  that  all  civil  proceedings  arising  out  of  Bhopal  Gas  

Disaster, shall stand concluded in terms of the settlement and  

all  criminal  proceedings  related  to  and  arising  out  of  the  

disaster  shall  stand  quashed,  wherever  they  were  pending.  

Later, this Court modified that order upholding the settlement  

except  the  condition  of  quashing  criminal  charges  in  Union  

Carbide Corporation v. Union of India AIR 1992 SC 248.

85. Considering  India’s  population  density  and  our  National  

Policy for  setting up various NPPs in the country,  safety and  

security of the plants are of extreme importance, lest a nuclear  

accident can cause immense damage both in terms of human  

life as well as environmental destruction.  Provisions have also  

to  be  made  for  remedying  or  compensating  environmental  

damage caused by the accidents, without merely limiting it to  

personal injury and damage to property.   

Page 85

85

DISASTER MANAGEMENT PLAN:

86. Disaster  Management  Plan  (DMP)  is  of  paramount  

importance, since we are dealing with a substance which has  

huge potential of causing immense damage to human beings  

and  to  the  environment,  which  may  cross  over  generations  

after generations.  

87. After  the  accidents  in  Three Mile  Island,  Chernobyl  and  

Fukoshima,  there  has  been  an  uproar  all  over  the  world  

including  India  for  adopting  sufficient  safety  measures  for  

handling nuclear/radiological emergencies which may likely to  

occur in various NPPs situated in the country.   Any radiation  

incident resulting in or having a potential to result in exposure  

and/or contamination in excess of the respective permissible  

limits can lead to a nuclear/radiological emergency.   Situations  

are, of course, not bound to occur quite often, but one must be  

prepared to face nuclear/radiological emergencies because of  

high  population  density  in  a  country  like  India.  

Nuclear/radiological  emergencies  can  occur  due  to  factors  

beyond  the  control  of  the  operating  agencies,  for  example,

Page 86

86

human error,  system failure,  sabotage,  earthquake,  cyclone,  

flood etc.  Noticing the above factors, the Central Government  

decided to enact a law on Disaster Management to provide for  

requisite  institutional  mechanisms  for  drawing  up  and  

monitoring  the  implementation  of  the  disaster  management  

plans, ensuring measure by various wings of Government for  

prevention  and  mitigating  affects  of  disasters  and  for  

undertaking a holistic, coordinated and prompt response to any  

disaster situation.  

88. The  Parliament  enacted  the  Disaster  Management  Act,  

2005  (DM  Act),  following  that,  the  National  Disaster  

Management Authority (NDMA) was constituted with the Prime  

Minister  as  the  Chairperson.   Similar  authorities  have  been  

created  in  various  States  with  their  Chief  Ministers  as  the  

Chairpersons.   NDMA  has  assumed  the  responsibility  of  

strengthening  the  existing  nuclear/radiological  emergency  

management  framework  by  involving  all  stake  holders  in  a  

holistic  approach  through  a  series  of  mutually  interactive,  

reciprocal and supplementary actions to be taken on the basis  

of a common thread – the National Guidelines.   Following that,  

NDMA, after conducting a detailed discussion with all the stake

Page 87

87

holders, issued the National Disaster Management Guidelines,  

2009,  which  has  the  concurrence  of  the  DAE,  AREB.   The  

guidelines  recommended  a  series  of  actions  on  the  part  of  

various stake holders at different levels of administration that  

would  (i)  mitigate  the  accident  at  source;  (ii)  prevent  

deterministic  health  effects  in  individuals  and  limit  the  

probability of stochastic effects in the population; (iii) provide  

first aid and treatment of injuries; (iv) reduce the psychological  

impact on the population; and (v) protect the environment and  

property.   The  guidelines  have  been  prepared  to  provide  

direction  to  the  central  Ministries/departments,  State  

Governments and local authorities for preparing detailed action  

plans  to  ensure  inbuilt  capabilities  to  handle  nuclear  and  

radiological  emergencies  as  part  of  an  all-hazard  Disaster  

Management plan in the public domain.   

89. The National Guidelines consist of 10 chapters.  Chapter 1  

deals with the introduction which provides a brief of all possible  

scenarios  of  nuclear  and  radiological  emergencies.   These  

emergencies  have  been  broadly  classified  into  the  following  

five categories:

Page 88

88

i)   An accident taking place in any nuclear facility of the  nuclear fuel cycle including the nuclear reactor, or in a  facility  using  radioactive  sources,  leading  to  a  large- scale release of radioactivity in the environment.

ii)    A ‘criticality’  accident in a nuclear fuel  cycle facility  where  an  uncontrolled  nuclear  chain  reaction  takes  place inadvertently,  leading to bursts  of neutrons and  gamma radiations.

iii)  An  accident  during  the  transportation  of  radioactive  material.  

iv)  The  malevolent  use  of  radioactive  material  as  a  Radiological Dispersal Device by terrorists for dispersing  radioactive material in the environment.

v) A large-scale nuclear disaster, resulting from a nuclear  weapon  attack  (as  had  happened  at  Hiroshima  and  Nagasaki)  which  would  lead  to  mass  casualties  and  destruction of large areas and property.   

90. Chapter  2  deals  with  the  Approach  to  Nuclear  and  

Radiological Emergency Management, which spells out a four-

pronged strategy to be adopted for a holistic management of  

nuclear/radiological  emergencies.    Chapter  3 deals  with the  

Present Status and Situation Analysis, which highlights some of  

the technical and administrative issues yet to be addressed in a

Page 89

89

holistic  approach,  besides  analysing  the  present  status.  

Chapter  4  deals  with  the  Prevention  of  Nuclear/Radiological  

Emergencies, which enumerates how nuclear and radiological  

emergencies are prevented in nuclear facilities by adopting the  

defence-in-depth  approach,  where  the  safety  systems  are  

inbuilt  with  adequate  redundancy  and  diverse  working  

principles.    Chapter  5  of  the  Guidelines  deals  with  the  

Mitigation of Nuclear/Radiological Emergencies, which explains  

the  various  engineered  safety  features  and  accident  

management procedures that are in place in a nuclear plant as  

accident mitigation measures for  minimising the impact of  a  

nuclear emergency by keeping the radioactivity release in the  

environment to levels as low as possible.   Chapter 6 deals with  

the  Preparedness  for  Nuclear/Radiological  Emergencies  and  

covers various aspects of preparedness.  Chapter 7 deals with  

the  Capacity  Development  for  Nuclear/Radiological  

Emergencies  and  deals  with  the  capacity  development  for  

coping with nuclear/radiological emergency situations.  Chapter  

8 deals with the Response to Nuclear/Radiological Emergencies  

and  describes  the  action  to  be  taken  in  nuclear/radiological  

emergencies.   Chapter 9 deals with the Implementation of the

Page 90

90

Guidelines which spells out the preparation of action plans by  

various levels of stakeholders.  Such plans should indicate the  

detailed  work  plan  and  milestones  with  recommended  time-

frame and suitable indicators to enable monitoring and review  

of  the  actual  progress  made.   Chapter  10  deals  with  the  

Summary  of  Action  Points  and  sums  up  the  major  

recommendations  that  have  been  made  in  the  text  of  the  

National Guidelines.   

91. NDMA, established under Section 3 of the DM Act, is  

responsible  for  each  of  the  three  phases  of  disaster  

management continuum with six major responsibilities, namely,  

pre-disaster (prevention, mitigation and preparedness), during  

disaster (rescue and relief) and post-disaster (rehabilitation and  

reconstruction)  scenarios.  NDMA  will  be  assisted  by  the  

National Executive Committee, which is the executive arm of  

NDMA.  The  National  Crisis  Management  Committee/National  

Executive Committee has to take on relief operations on a war  

footing.    The  District  Management  Authorities  of  the  

States/Union  Territories  will  be  responsible  for  implementing  

the nuclear/radiological disaster risk management programmes  

in  their  respective  areas  and  each  State  has  to  develop  a

Page 91

91

detailed micro-level action plan in a mutually interactive and  

supplementary mode with its district level plans.   

92. DAE,  as  a  nodal  agency,  has  to  provide  the  necessary  

technical  inputs  to  the  national  or  local  authorities  for  

responding  to  any  nuclear  or  radiological  emergency  in  the  

public  domain.    In  the  event  of  a  nuclear/radiological  

emergency  in  the  public  domain,  the  basic  regulatory  

framework  for  safety  of  all  activities  related  to  the  atomic  

energy programme and the use of ionising radiation in India is  

derived from the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 (AE Act).   Para 3.6  

of  the  Guidelines  dealing  with  Public  Awareness  is  of  some  

importance and the same is extracted hereunder for our easy  

reference:

“3.6 Public Awareness:   Public  awareness  plays  a  key  role  in  the  emergency  preparedness  and  response  plans  for  any  type  of  emergency/disaster where the participation/role of the  public is of prime importance. The fact that one cannot  see,  feel  or  smell  the  presence  of  radiation,  coupled  with  a  general  lack  of  credible  and  authentic  information to the public at large about radiation and  radiation emergencies and the wide publicity given to  any  nuclear/radiation-related incident,  has  resulted  in

Page 92

92

several  erroneous  perceptions  about  nuclear  technology. Not surprisingly, most people perceive that  any small nuclear/radiation-related incident will lead to  a situation like Hiroshima or Nagasaki, or the Chernobyl  accident.  

To  educate  the  people  about  the  beneficial  aspects  of  nuclear  radiation  and  to  remove  their  misgivings  about  it,  the  authorities  of  nuclear  fuel  cycle facilities in general,  and that of nuclear power  stations in particular, are actively involved in carrying  out regular public awareness programmes for people  living  in  the  vicinity  of  these  facilities.  People  are  invited and taken on guided tours of the nuclear power  stations, made conversant with the basics of radiation  protection, safety limits, safety practices, and the dos  and don’ts  during a  nuclear  emergency.  The station  authorities also make visits to the surrounding villages  and  population  centres  to  create  awareness  of  the  same. Good coordination is also maintained with the  district  officials.  Prior  to  any  off-site  emergency  exercise,  awareness  programmes  are  specially  conducted  for  the  public  officials,  making  them  conversant  with  their  responsibilities  during  any  off- site emergency.”

93. NPCIL and the State of Tamil Nadu should take adequate  

steps to educate the public of the need for generation of power  

through NPP, since it is part of India’s National Policy and also

Page 93

93

how to deal with nuclear/radiological emergencies.  Para 3.9.1  

of the Guidelines specifically refers to Education and Knowledge  

Management, which reads as follows:

“3.9 Institutions  for  Education,  Knowledge  Management, Public Awareness and Training:

3.9.1 Education and Knowledge Management: At present, practically no education is imparted at  

any level  on nuclear/radiological  emergencies  in  the  national educational system. It goes against one of the  basic  concepts  of  good  emergency  response,  which  envisages that the culture of preparedness has to be  imbibed  right  from  childhood  in  all  sections  of  the  society. The basics of radiation, radioactivity and the  use  of  nuclear  radiation  in  day-to-day  life  (with  its  beneficial  aspects)  should  be  taught  in  schools  and  colleges.  Once  people  are  sensitised  about  this  subject,  it  will  help  in  removing  prejudices/misconceptions of the general public about  nuclear  radiation/programmes  and  they  will  treat  a  nuclear/radiological emergency like any other type of  natural or man-made emergency.”

94. The  necessity  for  Enhancing  Public  Awareness  about  

Nuclear/Radiation  Hazards  has  also  been  dealt  with  in  para  

3.9.2, which reads as follows:

Page 94

94

“3.9.2 Enhancing  Public  Awareness  about  Nuclear/Radiation Hazards:

In general, there is very limited public awareness  about  radiation  emergencies.  Even  the  intelligentsia  have misconceptions about nuclear energy in general.  Ever since the reactor accidents at Three Mile Island  and  Chernobyl,  any  news  of  a  clear/radiological  emergency  has  always  been  of  great  interest  that  generates misconceptions in the minds of the public.  The sensationalisation of such news by the media has  also  erroneously  caused  a  perception  that  any  radiation or nuclear emergency will result in cancer or  death.

Such  lack  of  public  awareness  is  a  major  constraint  in  handling  and objectively  responding  to  these  emergencies.  To  overcome  this,  sincere  and  concerted  efforts  are  needed  to  create  awareness  amongst the general public with the target audience of  school and college students, teachers, technocrats and  government officials.  

The fear in the minds of the public that even a  small  accident  in  nuclear  facilities  will  lead  to  a  situation  like  Hiroshima/Nagasaki,  can  be  removed  only  through  proper  awareness  generation  and  training programmes (Appendix 1).”

95. The necessity to accord proper training to the personnel  

involved in the management of radiation emergencies,  which

Page 95

95

includes education of senior public functionaries like the district  

or  state-level  officials  who  would  manage  a  radiation  

emergency  as  well  as  the  first  responders,  needs  special  

emphasis.   This  would  also  include  RSOs,  civil  defence  

personnel  and  home guards,  police  and  fire  and  emergency  

services personnel and medical professionals.  The guidelines  

also highlight the necessity of a proper network of roads and  

transport  system.    An  off-site  emergency  situation,  the  

emergency response plans envisage evacuation of the public  

from the affected zone which requires well-defined routes and  

evacuation  strategies.   The  availability  of  both  adequate  

transport and good roads, which would provide the evacuation  

routes, is of paramount importance. Further, certain radiation  

emergency scenarios envisage a sheltering requirement for a  

large number of people.  Normally, community centres, schools,  

colleges,  religious places,  marriage halls,  etc.  are chosen for  

this  purpose.   SDMAs/DDMAs  should  identify  those  places  

during  a  non-emergency  period,  with  assistance  from  

DAE/DRDO.   

96. It is also highly necessary to identify alternate sources of  

food, water and hygiene facilities.  Because of the assembly of a

Page 96

96

large  number  of  persons  at  the  emergency  shelters,  poor  

hygiene facilities may lead to the spread of diseases, including  

epidemics.    In  addition to  providing  good hygiene facilities,  

good medical care with adequate stock of medicines, should be  

made  available  in  all  areas  of  possible  nuclear  

emergencies/disasters.   

97. Major highlights indicated in para 3.20 of the Guidelines  

are of prime importance.  Para 3.20 is extracted hereunder for  

easy reference:

“3.20 Highlights: Some of the highlights of this chapter are given  

below: i)  In  the  event  of  any  nuclear/radiological  emergency  in  the  public  domain,  CMG  is  immediately activated and it coordinates with the  local  authority  in  the  affected  area  and all  the  concerned  authorities  at  the  centre  (NCMC/NEC/NDMA) to ensure that the necessary  technical/administrative  inputs  are  available  to  respond to the nuclear/radiological emergency.

ii)  The  AERB,  which  oversees  nuclear  and  radiological  safety  in  the  country,  has  been  playing  a  very  crucial  role  in  the  prevention  of  nuclear/radiological  accidents  by  ensuring  that

Page 97

97

proper  safety  design  features  and  operating  procedures in  all  nuclear  and radiation facilities  are in place. The AERB has the power to not only  licence the operation of a facility but also to order  the  partial  or  full  shutdown of  any  facility  that  violates its guidelines.

iii)  As  per  statutory  requirements,  the  local  district administration is responsible for drawing  up and rehearsing the off-site emergency plan in  coordination with the facility operator.  

iv)  It  is  also  mandatory  for  the  power  plant  operators  to  periodically  rehearse  various  emergency  preparedness  plans  by  way  of  exercises,  and  based  on  the  feedback  and  experience, take corrective measures. As the first  stage of the trigger mechanism, CMG, DAE and  the resource agencies are alerted even when a  plant or site emergency exercise is conducted.

v)  The  basic  training  for  NDRF  teams,  ‘first  responders’ and TOT is being imparted by BARC  in addition to training of QRTs of the paramilitary  forces and defence CBRN officers.

vi) Emergency preparedness exists at all nuclear  and radiation facilities to respond to any on-site  or off-site emergency in their areas. A network of

Page 98

98

18 units of ERCs has been established by BARC to  handle  radiological  emergencies  arising  from  a  transport accident or the movement/handling of  ‘orphan sources’  or  any malevolent act like the  explosion of an RDD, RED or IND at any time or  anywhere in the country.  

vii) The fact that one cannot see, feel or smell the  presence of radiation, coupled with a general lack  of credible and authentic information to the public  at  large  about  radiation  and  radiation  emergencies and the wide publicity given to any  nuclear/radiation related incident, has resulted in  several  erroneous  perceptions  about  nuclear  radiation/technology.  Not  surprisingly,  most  people perceive that any small nuclear/radiation  related  incident  will  lead  to  a  situation  like  Hiroshima/Nagasaki or the Chernobyl accident.

To remove such misgivings, the authorities  of nuclear fuel cycle facilities in general, and that  of  nuclear  power  stations  in  particular,  are  actively  involved  in  carrying  out  regular  public  awareness  programmes  for  people  living  in  the  vicinity of these facilities.

viii) The AERB, the national regulatory authority,  has  been  regulating  the  nuclear  and  radiation

Page 99

99

facilities in the country very effectively and has,  over the years, issued a large number of codes,  standards and guides.

ix)  In  the  event  of  the  private  sector  getting  involved  in  the  nuclear  power  programme,  it  might be required for the regulatory authority to  ensure that the necessary knowledge base does  exist  in  the  concerned  private  industry  for  building and operating the nuclear facility as per  the stipulated safety standards of the AERB. x)  In  case  of  a  nuclear/radiological  emergency,  the  rescue  and  relief  measures  will  be  highly  demanding  in  terms  of  availability  of  adequate  trained  manpower  as  well  as  advanced  instruments/equipment. In this case, the nature of  relief measures would be different in many ways  from those  carried  out  in  natural  disasters  like  fire, floods, earthquakes, etc. (where there is very  little  detrimental  effect  to  the  health  of  the  personnel involved in the relief work). In a nuclear  emergency/disaster,  however,  the  persons  carrying out the relief work are also likely to be  exposed to  both high doses of  radiation and/or  high  levels  of  contamination  which,  if  not  controlled, may affect their health including their  potential to carry out the relief work effectively.

Page 100

100

xi)  Several  major  metros  and  other  vulnerable  locations will  need to have ERCs established in  their  areas.  Local  civil  defence,  police,  fire  brigade, hospitals and other agencies also need  to develop liaison with these ERCs.

xii)  Facilities  using  radioactive  sources  need  to  strengthen  their  physical  protection  systems  along  with  proper  inventory  and  control  procedures of the radiation sources.

xiii) In the current security threat scenario, there  is  a  need  for  enhancing  the  security  of  the  sources  at  radiation  facilities  and  during  their  transportation, to ensure that they do not go ‘out  of control’ by any deliberate acts of theft and/or  sabotage  and  become  a  potential  radiation  hazard to the public.

xiv)  In  the  context  of  large-scale  radiation  disasters,  the  involvement  of  civil  defence  personnel and home guards is usually considered  highly desirable.

xv) Because of their preoccupation in defending  the  country  from the enemy,  the  armed forces  are normally not always available to respond to a  nuclear disaster scenario. However, for any major  nuclear  accident  where  the  situation  is  beyond  the coping capability of the civil  administration,

Page 101

101

the services of the armed forces may be called for  to take over several critical operations related to  response  (i.e.,  rescue  and  relief),  rehabilitation  (i.e.,  evacuation  and  sheltering)  and  reconstruction activities, including the immediate  restoration  of  essential  infrastructures  like  communication,  electrical  power,  transportation,  etc.  Civil-military coordination will  be developed  for  such purposes so  that  specially  trained and  rehearsed teams of the Army can be inducted to  assist the civil administration, as and when called  for and are available.

xvi) To start with, the SDMAs, SECs and DDMAs  concerned  will  aim  to  cover  all  cities  with  a  population  of  20  lakh  or  more,  that  may  be  affected  by  a  major  nuclear/radiological  emergency  in  respect  of  the  preparedness  for  response  to  a  nuclear/radiological  emergency.  This cover will be progressively extended to other  cities.

xvii) Presently, there is no network of hospitals in  the country which can handle radiation induced  injuries  on  a  large  scale.  The  establishment  of  such a network is essential for handling nuclear  emergencies/disasters.  This will  also include the  establishment  of  a  nationwide  capability  for  utilisation of  the  services  of  a  large number  of

Page 102

102

RSOs  for  managing  both  RDD-related  scenarios  and largescale nuclear disasters on priority. There  will  also  be  a  dedicated  and  reliable  communication facility  among hospitals  so that,  whenever required, they can pool their resources.

xviii)  There can always be a possibility of some  radioactive sources going ‘out of control’ in some  country and from there, entering into our country  inadvertently  or  deliberately.  Such  unnoticed  entry  has  the  potential  of  the  end  products  of  steel  mills  being  contaminated  or,  in  the  worst  scenario, the source being used in an RDD. Hence  the strengthening of border controls will need to  be addressed on priority by MHA.

xix) In an off-site emergency situation in a nuclear  facility,  emergency response plans envisage the  evacuation of the public from the affected zone.  This requires well-defined routes and evacuation  strategies, taking into account the topology of the  site. Problems related to the availability of well- defined routes, transport facilities, food, drinking  water, shelters, etc. also need to be addressed by  the  concerned  DDMAs/SDMAs  as  part  of  the  preparedness/response  programme  in  an  all- hazards approach.

Page 103

103

xx)  In  the  emerging  security  threat  scenario,  there is a possibility of ‘orphan’ sources (stolen or  misplaced sources that may go out of regulatory  control of the AERB) falling into the wrong hands  and being used for malevolent purposes through  an RDD (also called a ‘dirty bomb’).

At  present,  there  is  no  mobile  monitoring  system available  with law and order  authorities  which can warn them of any significant/abnormal  rise in background radiation levels in the public  domain.  The  establishment/strengthening  of  monitoring and detection systems of such sources  on  priority  is  considered  highly  desirable,  to  detect any unauthorised presence or movement  of radioactive material in the public domain.

xxi)  With  the  increasing incidences  of  terrorists  activities  and  impending  threat  of  RDD,  it  is  imperative that the police, which in all probability  will be the first to reach the site of an explosion,  should  have  some  simple  portable  monitoring  instruments  (at  each  police  station  within  the  areas with  radiological  threat  perception)  which  will  warn  them as  they  approach  the  radiation  source (from, say, a blast of RDD).

xxii)  The values  of  the  radiation  dose levels  at  which intervention is required for various actions  (like  sheltering,  iodine  prophylaxis,  evacuation,

Page 104

104

etc.) and the action levels that will be needed to  control  the  consumption  of  contaminated  food  items  in  the  affected  areas  are  presently  not  available  either  for  any  RDD  or  nuclear  emergency/disaster  and  are  needed  to  be  generated because these are essential in respect  of both (i) the members of the relief and rescue  teams and (ii) the public.

xxiii)  The  lack  of  public  awareness  is  a  major  constraint in handling and objectively responding  to nuclear and radiological emergencies. Further,  presently there is no mechanism for maintaining  a knowledge base or case studies in the public  domain  on  the  events  of  previous  emergencies  and their consequences. As a result, the lessons  that should have been learnt from the handling of  those  emergencies  have  been  lost  sight  of.  To  overcome this, sincere and concerted efforts are  needed to create awareness amongst the general  public  with  the  target  audience  of  school  and  college  students,  teachers,  technocrats  and  government officials.”

98. 2009 Guidelines issued by AERB are very exhaustive which  

have to be implemented and attended to forthwith.  AERB, in  

the Code of Practice on Safety in NPP Siting, also has dealt with

Page 105

105

the term “Exclusion Zone”.  Para 5.5.3 and 5.5.4 are relevant  

and extracted below:

“5.5.3    An exclusion area of appropriate size (at least 1.5  km  radius  from  the  reactor  centre)  shall  be  established  around the reactor and entry to this is to be restricted to  authorised personnel only.

5.5.4 A sterilised area up to 5 km around the plant shall be  established by administrative measures where the growth  of population will be restricted for effective implementation  of  emergency  measures.   National  growth,  however,  is  allowed in this zone.”   

99. Facts presented indicate that there is no population in the  

“Exclusion  Zone”  of  KKNPP.   “Exclusion  Zone”  is  under  the  

exclusive control of the plant operator NPCIL, guarded by CISF,  

where no public habitation is permitted.  The property wall at a  

distance of 2 km from the reactor buildings existing at KKNPP,  

which  encloses  the  exclusion  zone,  and  no  people  reside  

permanently inside the property wall.   A sterilised area around  

the exclusion area covering an area of up to 5 km radius from  

the plant has also been established.  As per AERB Citing Code,  

the  desirable  population  within  the  sterilised  zone  is  about  

20000.  As per the documents available, 3 villages are within SZ

Page 106

106

of KKNPP,  namely,  Kudankulam, Vijayapathi  (Idinthikarai)  and  

Irrukkandurai. As per 2001 census, the population residing with  

SZ consisting of these three villages is approximately 23960,  

which  has  been  taken  care  of  while  preparation  of  the  

Emergency Preparedness Plan (EPP) of KKNPP.

100. NPCIL,  after  due  concurrence  with  AERB,  as  already  

indicated, has prepared the Emergency Preparedness Plan Vol.  

V for  off-site emergency at  KKNPP.    The EPP has listed the  

composition  of  Off-Site  Emergency  Response  Co-ordination  

Committee  (OERCC)  comprising  of  14  disrict  administration  

officials for implementing counter measures in public domain in  

case of an emergency.  The District Collector, Tirunelveli is the  

Off-Site  Emergency  Director  and  the  members  are  District  

Revenue Office, Site Director, KKNPP, Superintendent of Police,  

District  Forest  Officer,  Joint  Director  (Fisheries),  Deputy  

Controller  (Civil  Defence),  Divisional  Fire  Officer,  Executive  

Engineer  (Irrigation),  Joint  Director  (Agriculture),  Deputy  

Director (Animal  Husbandry),  District  Supply Officer,  Regional  

Transport  Officer,  Deputy  Director  (Health  Services).   The  

overall responsibility of OERCC and individual responsibilities of  

the  members  o  the  Committee  have  been  chartered  in  the

Page 107

107

Emergency Preparedness Plan for effective implementation of  

counter measures.   Eleven Emergency response teams such as  

warning and advise Team, Emergency Response Teams, Traffic  

Control  Team,  Prophylactics  Distribution  Team,  Evacuation  

Advice Team, Convoy Team, Decontamination Team, Rallying  

Post  Team,  Patrolling  Team,  Information  Team  and  Services  

Support Team have also been formed and are in place as well.   

EMERGENCY EXERCISE – ON AND OFF-SITE

101. KKNPP site  comprises  of  two units  along with  their  

auxiliary facilities.  In the Plant or the Site, an unplanned event  

at a particular unit may result in an emergency situation which  

may affect either the offending unit alone (Plant Emergency) or  

the other facilities as well within the site Exclusion Zone of the  

KKNPP (Site Emergency).  Site emergency may result in off-site  

emergency which may affect the public personnel living beyond  

1.6  km  radius  of  the  plant  boundary.    NPCIL,  therefore,  

prepared an Emergency Preparedness Plan for KKNPP.  Vol. 1  

contains the on-site emergency plan and Vol. 2 contains the off-

site  emergency  plan.  The  off-site  emergency  preparedness  

procedures  was  issued  in  July  2010  after  incorporating  the

Page 108

108

comments  and instructions  made by NPSD and AERB.   Final  

revised plain was incorporated on recommendations made by  

OPSD  and  SARCOP.  We  have  gone  through  the  Emergency  

Preparedness Plan Vol. II (off-site Emergency Plan) which is very  

comprehensive and deals with almost all eventualities.   

102. The Off-Site Emergency Exercise was carried out  as per  

the requirements of AERB Safety Guide on Consenting Process  

for NPPs.   Off-Site Emergency Exercise is required to be carried  

out  once  in  two  years  and  that  NPCIL  and  State  Authorities  

would  conduct  such  exercises  in  other  nearby  villages  

frequently.   Such  mock-drills  are  conducted  to  educate  the  

public not to scare them away, but make them understand that  

the Project is part of the National Policy, participatory in nature,  

and hence we cannot remain as a nuclear isolated Nation.  We  

have to find out a substitute for other sources of energy.  Such  

exercise  was  carried  out  annually  to  assess  whether  plant  

management  and  the  local  authorities,  including  the  

communication and infrastructure facilities, are geared up for  

tackling with a real emergency situation, in case it arises.  

Page 109

109

103. We  heard  Shri  Rakesh  Diwedi,  learned  senior  counsel  

appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, who gave an overall view  

of the steps taken by the State Government and the District  

Collector,  Tiruvelveli  for  implementing  the  Neighbourhood  

Development Scheme relating to housing, steps taken for off-

site emergencies, awareness programme, other infrastructural  

facilities.  We have also gone through the detailed affidavit filed  

by the District Collector, Tirunelveli District on December 2012  

and noticed the steps taken by the District Administration and  

the  State  to  meet  the  Off-Site  emergencies,  awreness  

programmes  and  the  other  steps  taken  to  provide  

infrastructural  facilities  like  up-gradation  of  Primary  Health  

Centres, opening of New Primary Health Centres, setting up of  

Desalinate place at Uvari, solar energy lighting system etc.  

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (CSR):

104. Sustainable Development and  CSR  are  inseparable  

twins,  integrated  into  the  principles  of  Inter  and  Intra-

Generational Equity, not merely human-centric, but eco-centric.  

CSR is much more when the Project proponent sets up NPPs,  

thermal power plants, since every step taken for generation of

Page 110

110

energy from such hazardous substances, is bound to have some  

impact on human beings and environment,  even though it  is  

marginal.  The Department of Public Enterprises (DPE), recently,  

issued a Comprehensive Guidelines on CSR for Central Public  

Sector Enterprises, which includes NPCIL, to create, through the  

Board Resolution, a CSR budget as a specific percentage of net  

profit of the previous year.  CSR is envisaged as a commitment  

to  meet  its  social  obligations  by  playing  an  active  role  to  

improve the quality of life to the communities and stake-holders  

on a sustainable basis, preferably, in the project area where it is  

operating.  CSR strategy has to be put in practice in line with  

the millennium development goals as lodged by United Nations  

and adopted by the Government of India in the 11th Five Year  

Plan i.e. 2007-2012, which could cover the areas of education,  

health,  drinking  water/sanitation,  environment,  solar  lighting  

system,  infrastructure  for  backward  areas,  community  

development and social empowerment, promotion of sports and  

traditional forms of arts and culture, generation of employment  

opportunities and livelihood to be a part of the National/Local  

initiatives  to  provide  reliefs/rehabilitation  in  terms  of  natural  

disaster, calamities etc.

Page 111

111

105. NPCIL  has  allocated  funds  for  providing  health,  

education,  infrastructural  development  under  CSR  at  

Kudankulam.  The allocation and utilization of funds by NPCIL  

during  the  last  three  years  and  the  current  year  are  

enumerated below:

Financial Year Funds Allocated (rupees  in  lakhs)

Funds Utilized (rupees  in  lakhs)

2009-10 14.50 14.47 2010-11 120.00 45.20 2011-12 160.00 18.67 2012-13 800.00 13.91  (up  to  

July 2012)

We notice that, apart from the above, Rs.500 crores has been  

allocated  for  Neighbourhood  Development  Programme (NDP)  

around  the  nuclear  plant  at  Kudankulam,  which  would  be  

utilized for taking up various development works like setting up  

of cold storage and fishing marketing area, Public board motor  

works,  housing  facilities,  levelling  of  roads,  upgradation  of  

health services, grownes and drinking water etc.   The Chief  

Secretary  of  Tamil  Nadu  convened  a  meeting  on  15.5.2012  

following  CSR,  in  which  it  was  decided  to  set  up  a  fund  of  

Rs.300 crores for the housing scheme for a projected period

Page 112

112

from 2012 to 2015.  The proposal is to construct 10000 houses  

in  the  housing  project  with  a  unit  cost  of  Rs.3,00,000/-  per  

house with a plinth area of 300 sq. Feet under NDS.  Various  

other development activities are also being undertaken as part  

of CSR, like upgradation of public health centres, establishment  

of new public health centres etc.   

106. This Court in  Banwasi Seva Ashram v. State of  

U.P. AIR 1987 SC 374 allowed the construction of  NPP in  a  

displaced forest area, but ordered inter alia that every family of  

forest  dwellers  be  provided  with  a  housing  plot  of  specified  

dimensions  elsewhere,  that  health,  education,  sanitation  

services and the like, be provided there, as part of CSR.

107. NPCIL  in  association  with  the  District  Collector,  

Tirunelveli should take effective steps to discharge their CSR in  

accordance with the DPE Guidelines.   Needless to say, there  

must be an effective and proper monitoring and supervision of  

the  various  projects  undertaken  under  CSR,  to  the  fullest  

benefit of the people who are residing in and around the NPP.

PART II

Page 113

113

108. Environmental  impact  on  setting  up  of  a  nuclear  plant  

anywhere  in  the  world  is  bound  to  generate  some  

apprehension, at least in the minds of the ordinary people, of  

its possible impact on environment,  life and property,  flora  

and fauna, marine life, radiation, nuclear waste and its disposal  

and other related issues.

“Royal  Commission  on  Environmental  Pollution,  Sixth  

Report, ‘Nuclear Power and the Environment.’

There  are  few  subjects  in  the  field  of  environmental  

pollution to which people react so emotionally as they do to  

radioactivity.”

(Cmnd 6618 1976 para 5)

109. Public  opinion,  national  policy,  economic  growth,  

sustainable  development,  energy  security  are  all  intrinsically  

interlinked.  One cannot be divorced from other, all the same, a  

balance has to be struck.  National policy of this country, as  

already stated, is that atomic energy has a unique position in  

the emerging economics in India.  Nuclear energy is, therefore,  

considered to be a viable source of energy and it is necessary  

to increase country’s economic growth.  Nuclear energy is now

Page 114

114

considered in India as a sustainable source of energy and India  

cannot afford to be a nuclear isolated nation, when most of the  

developed countries consider it as a major source of energy for  

their  economic  growth.     Renewed momentum against  the  

setting up of NPPs picked up fast after accidents at the Three  

Miles  Island  Power  Plant  in  USA,  Chernobyl  in  Ukraine  and  

Fukoshima in Japan.  Primary reason for such opposition seems  

to be on the issues of the impact of nuclear installations on life  

and property, environment, flora and fauna, marine life, nuclear  

waste disposal, health, displacement of people etc. which has a  

direct link with Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the  

environmental laws of the country.

110. Learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellants  mainly  

contended so far as this project is concerned, the Regulatory  

Authorities  have  consistently  legalized  the  fait  accompali  

violations presented by the project proponent.  Further, it was  

alleged that the plant standards had been relaxed,  statutory  

violations  such  as  construction  without  permission,  

unauthorized  setting  up  and  commissioning  of  discharge  

outlets had not only merely been condoned but justified by the

Page 115

115

TNPCB, MoEF etc.    Learned counsel also submitted that the  

environment clearance granted by the MoEF on 9.5.1989 was  

not  only  vague  but  with  imprecise  conditions  and  that  no  

environmental impact study or public hearing was conducted.  

Further  it  was  stated  that  no  construction  was  started  after  

getting the above clearance, but only in the year 2002, by the  

time 1994 EIA Notification came into force, consequently, fresh  

environmental  clearance had to  be  obtained.  Reference was  

made to a circular dated 27.3.1998 issued by the MoEF, which  

stated that the environmental clearance issued prior to 1994  

would  not  be  valid  in  the  case  of  projects  which  did  not  

commence work before 1.8.1998.  Referring to explanation 8 to  

the EIA Notification of 1994, it was submitted that the project  

did  not  obtain  all  clearances  including  NOC  from  the  State  

Pollution Control Board, which was required under the Water  

Act of 1974 and Air Act of 1981.  Project,  therefore, did not  

have  NOC,  from  the  Pollution  Control  Board,  when  1994  

Notification  came  into  effect.    No  fresh  environmental  

clearance was obtained from MoEF as per the 1994 Notification  

and even if  obtained,  the same would be valid  only for  five  

years of the construction or operation of the project.  Further, it

Page 116

116

is also pointed out that the environmental clearance granted on  

9.5.1989 was revalidated by a letter dated 6.9.2001, when EIA  

Notification of 1994 was in force.  

111. Appellants  pointed  out  that  the   refusal  of  Russia  in  

accepting the spent-Fuel also brought about complete change  

in the project, since it expanded the activities of transportation  

of  spent  fuel  for  reprocessing,  reprocessing  of  spent  fuel,  

generation,  storage  and  disposal  of  nuclear  waste.   These  

changes,  according  to  the  appellants  would  amount  to  

expansion  and  modernization  of  the  project,  which  required  

fresh  environmental  clearance  and  revalidation  of  1989  

clearance,  according to  the appellants,  was impermissible  in  

law.   Learned  counsel,  therefore,  pointed  out  that  all  those  

factors would indicate that KKNPP Units 1 and 2 required fresh  

environmental clearance which the project proponent did not  

obtain.  KKNPP, it was submitted, is located within 500 metres  

of  HTL  and  therefore  was  a  prohibited  activity  under  CRZ  

notification 1991.  It was pointed out that the project of NPCIL is  

not a project of DAE and that only those construction activities  

are  allowed  for  which  foreshore  facilities  are  essential.

Page 117

117

Construction  of  KKNPP  is  therefore  not  allowed  under  CRZ  

notification.  Further, it was pointed out that no environmental  

clearance  was  obtained  from  MoEF  before  setting  up  the  

desalination plant  and the same is  also  situated in  the CRZ  

zone.    NPCIL,  it  was  submitted,  had  not  followed  the  CRZ  

Notifications dated 21.5.2002, 19.10.2002 etc. which have got  

serious impact on marine life and also on the coastal area.  The  

discharge  of  water  from the  plant  into  the  sea  also  causes  

serious  environment  impact,  especially  on  the  marine  life.  

Appellants submitted that all those factors were not taken into  

consideration when the environmental clearance was granted  

by the TNPCB as well as the MoEF.  The appellants submitted  

that the discharge of radioactive liquid from the two units if not  

adequately treated and will affect the quality of marine life and  

bio-diversity of flora and fauna and marine resources found in  

the  Marine  National  Park  and  the  wedge  bank  of  Gulf  of  

Mannar.  Further, it was contended that as per the stipulation of  

MoEF of the year 1980 temperature of the coolant water should  

not exceed 5°C.  However, NEERI has unilaterally increased it  

to 7°C which will have serious effect on marine life apart from  

changes in salinity levels.  

Page 118

118

112. NPCIL, AERB, MoEF as well as TNPCB have filed detailed  

counter affidavits and explained the steps they have taken for  

getting  environmental  clearance  for  the  project  at  various  

levels.   Counter  affidavits  state  that  comprehensive  studies  

have been conducted on all  issues by environmental experts  

and scientists and permissions have been granted taking into  

consideration of all safety measures under the Environmental  

Protection  Act,  Notifications  issued  thereunder  and  also  

following/taking into consideration guidelines laid down by well-

known International organizations.

113.  NPCIL submits that it  had submitted its  application  

for  grant  of  environmental  clearance  for  the  project  on  

12.12.1988. Clearance for installation of NPP was granted by  

the  Department  of  Environment  and Forests,  Government  of  

Department of Tamil Nadu on 26.12.1988.  The Department of  

Environment  and  Forest,  Government  of  Tamil  Nadu  also  

accorded amended clearance to the project vide letter dated  

13.2.1989 with certain stipulations.  The MoEF also accorded its  

approval to Unit 1 and 2 subject to certain conditions stated

Page 119

119

therein  on  9.5.1989.   After  the  receipt  of  Government  

clearance,  process of  land acquisition was initiated and land  

acquisition  was  completed  during  the  period  1991  to  1993.  

Pre-project activities like construction of boundary wall, roads  

and some buildings were also initiated and completed during  

the said  period.   AERB on 10.11.1989 granted clearance for  

locating the plant at Kudankulam after the evaluation of the  

site  by  the  Site  Selection  Committee.   Environment  Impact  

Assessment  (EIA)  Notification  came  into  force  on  27.1.1994  

which  provided  an  exception  for  the  project  which  had  

commenced  the  pre-project  stage  activities  vide  exception  

clause 8.  Notification of 1994, therefore, it was pointed, would  

not apply to Units 1 and 2 for which environmental clearance  

was already granted on 9.5.1989.  Further, it was pointed out  

that  the  environmental  clearance  dated  9.5.1989  stipulated  

that temperature of the Coolant Water should not exceed 5°C,  

however,  in  the light  of  paragraph 5 of  the clearance dated  

9.5.1989 and the amendment of Rule 84 of the Environmental  

(Protection)  Rules,  1986  and  Notification  dated  22.12.1988  

stipulation of  5°C contained in  the  clearance can  be varied.  

Further, it was stated that since the discharge from Units 3 to 6

Page 120

120

is essentially in the same area, the temperature of discharge  

from Units 1 and 2 can also be limited to 7°C, which according  

to NPCIL, will have no impact on marine life.

114. NPCIL, further pointed out that the report of the studies  

conducted by the Institute of Ocean Management (IOM), Anna  

University,  would indicate that there would be no impact on  

marine ecosystem due to such discharge and opined that the  

temperature differential of the discharged water with respect to  

the receiving water should not exceed 7°C.  The environmental  

clearance was accorded to Units 3 to 6 on the same design as  

Units 1 and 2 which stipulated the Condenser Cooling Water  

Discharge limit  as 7°C.  Further it  was also pointed out that  

during the appraisal of CRZ clearance for Units 3 to 6 before  

the grant of CRZ clearance on 25.7.2012 the Expert Appraisal  

Committee  (EAC)  considered  the  marine  impact  assessment  

and opined that there would be no impact on water qualities  

due to the proposed discharge.  Further, the TNPCB has also  

accorded consent to operate on 28.8.2012 for Units 1 and 2  

stipulating the condenser cooling water discharge limit as 7°C.  

NPCIL, also submitted that the EIA of units 3 to 6 includes the

Page 121

121

impact  of  units  1  and  2  as  a  baseline  for  computing  the  

additional impact of units 3 to 6.  The concern of the public, it  

was submitted, regarding safety, livelihood, radiation etc. have  

been adequately addressed during the public hearings on units  

3-4 and 5-6 which was granted on 23.09.2008 and 31.12.2009  

respectively.  Procedure required to be followed under the EIA  

notification, 2006 had also been strictly followed.  Further,  it  

was  also  pointed  out  that  no  environmental  clearance  is  

required for establishing the desalination plant since the same  

has  not  been  included  in  the  schedule  to  either  1994  

notification or 2006 notification and there is no prohibition in  

establishing the plant in the CRZ area.  

 115. MoEF  has  filed  detailed  counter  affidavits  and  also  

submitted their written submissions on various aspects.  MoEF  

submitted that at the relevant point of time, when KKNPP Units  

1 & 2 were sought to be established, there was no regulatory  

requirement  of  Coastal  Zone Regulations  (except  500 meter  

norm).  Everything was based on the letter written by the then  

Prime  Minister  in  November,  1981  to  the  Chief  Ministers  of  

coastal States regarding necessity to keep clear of all activities

Page 122

122

at least up to 500 metres from the water at the Maximum High  

Tide  (MHT).   Further,  it  was  also  urged  that  pollution  from  

industrial  and  town  wastes  should  also  be  avoided  totally.  

Following the letter of the then Prime Minister, a working group  

was  constituted  which  formulated  some  environmental  

guidelines for the development of beaches in the year 1983.  

The permission for location of NPP at Kudankulam was granted  

on 25.02.1988 by the Committee on Conservation of Seashore,  

State  of  Tamil  Nadu.    Later,  the  Tamil  Nadu  State  

Environmental Committee (TNSEC) also met on 15.12.1988 and  

cleared the KKNPP project subject to further monitoring by a  

Special  Committee.   The  decision  was  communicated  vide  

letter  dated  26.12.1988  which  was  later  modified  by  the  

Committee  on  13.02.1989  subject  to  certain  conditions  

mentioned  therein.   MoEF  had  also  stated  that  the  DAE,  

Government of India had sought for relaxation in respect of the  

project from 500 metres.  On 19.04.1989, the Prime Minister  

approved an exemption of 500 metres norm especially for the  

Kudankulam  project  subject  to  the  MoEF  prescribing  and  

ensuring sufficient safeguards for preserving the ecology, for

Page 123

123

which MoEF accorded approval to KKNPP Units 1 & 2 subject to  

the conditions stipulated therein.   

116. MoEF issued the CRZ Notification on 19.02.1991 imposing  

restrictions  on  the  setting  up  and  expansion  of  industries,  

operation  or  processes  etc.  in  the  coastal  zone.   This  

notification,  it  was  pointed  out,  did  not  prohibit  the  project  

already in operation, granted clearance prior to the date of the  

issue  of  Notification.   Later,  by  an  amendment  dated  

12.04.2001, S.O.329(C) amended paragraph 2 on “prohibited  

activities” of the Notification dated 19.02.1991 by substituting  

a new clause which exempted the projects of DAE.  EIA came  

into  force  on  27.10.1994  but  MoEF  issued  a  Circular  dated  

23.07.1998  conveying  its  decision  that  the  environmental  

clearances granted prior to 1994 would be valid in the case of  

projects where work had commenced before 01.08.1998.  On  

31.08.2001, the Director of MoEF visited the Kudankulam plant  

site  and found that  the  land acquisition was  completed  and  

construction  of  Township,  Environment  and  Health  Research  

Centre and RO plant was in progress.

Page 124

124

117. MoEF took up the stand that 1994 notification would not  

apply qua Units 1 & 2 in view of the fact that the environmental  

clearance was already granted in the year 1989.  Further,  it  

was  also  submitted  that  subsequently  while  granting  the  

environmental clearance for Units 3 to 6, public hearing was  

conducted as per EIA Notification, 2006.  Consequently, it was  

submitted  that  the  EIA  for  the  expansion  of  KKNPP  i.e.  for  

setting up of Units 3 to 6 included the environmental impact on  

account  of  Units  1  &  2.   Environmental  clearance,  it  was  

pointed  out,  for  the  Units  3-4  and  5-6  was  granted  on  

23.09.2008  and  31.12.2012  respectively  after  following  due  

procedures required under EIA Notification, 2006.

118. MoEF also maintained the stand that prior environmental  

clearance is required only for those activities which are listed in  

Schedule  to  the  EIA  Notification  dated  27.01.1994  or  the  

subsequent  Notification  dated 14.09.2006,  which  superseded  

the notification dated 27.01.1994.  Desalination plant,  it  was  

submitted,  did  not  find  a  place  in  the  above  mentioned  

notifications,  hence  prior  environmental  clearance  for  

establishment  of  a  desalination  plant  was  not  required.

Page 125

125

Further, it was pointed out that the same would not preclude  

MoEF from considering the issue of desalination plant from the  

CRZ  point  of  view.   Referring  to  CRZ  amended  notification  

dated 19.02.1991, it was submitted that the desalination plant  

could be established within CRZ area except CRZ-I(i)-i.e. eco-

sensitive areas viz. mangroves, sand dunes reserve forests etc.  

Reference was also made to CRZ notification dated 06.01.2011,  

which  superseded  the  CRZ  Notification  dated  19.02.1991.  

MoEF therefore, maintained the stand that in view of the legal  

position desalination plant could be established within the CRZ  

area.   However,  it  was  pointed  out  that  even  though  the  

desalination plant is a permissible activity within the CRZ area,  

MoEF would again take into account the establishment of the  

desalination plant from the CRZ point of view and ensure that it  

would continue to function to the full satisfaction of MoEF.   

119. MoEF  has  also  in  the  affidavit  dealt  with  the  issue  of  

change  in  the  temperature  limit  of  condenser  cooling  water  

discharge  and  its  impact  on  marine  environment.   It  was  

pointed  out  that  at  the  time  of  grant  of  environmental  

clearance on 09.05.1989, the standard temperature difference

Page 126

126

between the inlet  and outlet  of condensed cooling water for  

discharge  for  temperature  was  fixed  at  5oC.   However,  vide  

notification dated 22.12.1998, Environment (Protection) Rules,  

1986 were amended.  Rule 84 dealing with the thermal power  

plant, the limit prescribed therein would equally apply to NPPs  

as the technology for condenser cooling in both thermal as well  

as  NPPs  are  the  same.   The  environmental  impact  on  the  

marine ecosystem due to +7oC Condenser Cooling Water (CCW)  

has been considered by MoEF through the EAC before giving  

the  environmental  clearances  for  the  units  3-4  and  5-6  by  

stipulating that the temperature differential of the discharged  

water  with  respect  to  the receiving water  would  not  exceed  

7oC.   MoEF therefore concluded that during the appraisal of the  

CRZ  clearance  for  units  3-6  of  KKNPP  before  grant  of  CRZ  

clearance  on  25.07.2012,  the  EAC  considered  the  marine  

impact  assessment,  thermal  dispersion  modeling  studies  

conducted for  condenser cooling water discharge considering  

the CCW discharge from all the 6 units i.e. KKNPP 1-6.  Further,  

it was also pointed out that TNPCB has also accorded consent  

to operate on 28.08.2012 for KKNPP units 1 & 2 by stipulating  

the  CCW  discharge  limit  as  7oC  as  per  the  amended

Page 127

127

Environmental  Protection  Rules.   MoEF  also  maintained  the  

stand  that  it  will  continue  to  monitor  the  environmental  

standards  of  KKNPP  and  periodically  inspect  as  to  examine  

whether KKNPP units conform to the safety of environment set  

by MoEF.

120.  Shri  Guru  Krishna  Kumar,  learned  senior  counsel  

appearing for TNPCB submitted that it had vide its letter dated  

21.06.2001  requested  the  DAE  to  apply  and  obtain  a  fresh  

environmental clearance from the MoEF.  MoEF, at that time,  

maintained the stand that  NPCIL had already taken steps to  

implement the project and hence there was no necessity of a  

fresh  environmental  clearance.   TNPCB’s  officials  then  

inspected the site of KKNPP on 19.09.2001 and found that it  

had started construction of the NPP without valid consent for  

establishment  as  required  under  the  Water  (Prevention  and  

Control  of  Pollution)  Act,  1974  and  the  Air  (Prevention  and  

Control  of  Pollution)  Act,  1981,  consequently,  show  cause  

notices  vide  proceedings  No.  DEE/TNPCB/TNV/F.NPP-

RDF/W/2001  dated  11.10.2001  and  DEE/TNPCB/TNV/F.NPP-

RDF/A/2001  dated  11.10.2001  were  issued  calling  for

Page 128

128

explanation.  NPCIL later filed applications dated 20.12.2001 for  

consent of the TNPCB for the NPP of capacity 2X1000 MW.  The  

TNPCB issued consent for Establishment vide proceeding dated  

25.02.2004.  NPCIL had a proposal to use sea water for cooling,  

Pechiparai  reservoir  for  fresh  water  and  ground  water  for  

construction.   Later,  they  applied  for  revised  consent  which  

included  additional  facilities  for  desalination  plant  using  sea  

water  as  an input,  in  place  of  water  supply  from Pechiparai  

dam.   The  TNPCB  later  issued  Consent  to  Operate  vide  

proceedings dated 23.07.2012 with tolerance limits prescribed  

for  trade  effluent  discharge,  as  per  Board  Proceeding  dated  

21.02.1984, which included the tolerance limit for temperature  

as  45oC  at  the  point  of  discharge.   Later,  TNPCB  vide  

proceedings dated 22.08.2012 altered the condition to be read  

as “not to exceed 7oC over and above the ambient temperature  

of sea for trade effluents”.  

121. Appellants  filed  detailed  common  rejoinder  affidavit  

traversing the various statements made by AERB,  NPCIL, MoEF.

Page 129

129

122. Appellants urged that all facilities related to nuclear fuel  

and nuclear  waste required an environment clearance under  

the EIA notifications of 1994 and 2006.  Further, it is pointed  

out  that  when the supplemental  agreement  with  Russia  was  

entered  into  in  the  year  1998  that  envisaged  this  critical  

change  and  hence  NPCIL  ought  to  have  applied  for  a  fresh  

clearance from the MoEF.  But MoEF had consistently condoned  

such violations of law.  Desalination plant,  it  was pointed, is  

bound  to  cause  serious  environmental  implications  and  

significant impact on marine life.  It was pointed out that plant  

has been constructed without mandatory previous “Consent to  

Establish” from the TNPCB under the Water Act.  The TNPCB  

consent  to  establish  was  given  in  the  year  2004  while  the  

desalination plant was envisaged only in the year 2006 and the  

construction of the plant has also violated in provisions of the  

Water Act since any activity that discharges anything in water  

required PCB clearance.   Fresh environmental  clearance was  

therefore not just required for the desalination plant, but for the  

nuclear  plant  as  a  whole  because  the  desalination  plant  

introduced  a  significantly  different  dimension  to  pollution,  

especially given the fact that highly concentrated salty water is

Page 130

130

being released into the eco-sensitive Gulf of Mannar Biosphere  

Reserve.   Further,  without  any  legal  sanction,  NPCIL  has  

unilaterally increased the temperature from 5oC to 7oC.  The  

appellant, therefore maintained the stand that unless and until  

the plant conforms to the environmental protection laws, the  

same shall  not  be  allowed  to  be  commissioned  which  gives  

threat to the life and property of the people who are staying in  

and around the plant  and it  will  have adverse effect  on the  

environment as well as marine life.

Judicial evaluation

123. We  will  first  examine  the  question  whether  NPCIL,  the  

project proponent while establishing the KKNPP, had obtained  

all  necessary  environmental  clearance  and  other  requisite  

permission from the authorities.  No plant specifically the one  

dealing with radioactive materials can be allowed to function or  

commission even if it has been cleared by AEC, AERB, NPCIL  

etc.  unless  it  strictly  conforms  to  the  standards  set  by  the  

statutory  authorities  like  MoEF,  TNPCB  etc.  and  follow  the  

environmental  laws.   Most  of  the  issues  referred  to  

hereinbefore, as already indicated, are inter-related and inter-

Page 131

131

connected, therefore, there are bound to be some overlapping  

while  examining  the  same.   Before  examining  various  legal  

issues  raised  before  us,  let  us  first  examine  the  factual  

foundation on which they rest.  

124. The Government of India after due deliberation with AEC,  

AERB, NPCIL and other organizations decided, in principle, to  

set up a NPP, for which Site Selection Committee of DAE was  

constituted and the Committee examined various sites in the  

Coramandel  Coast  of  Tamil  Nadu  and  selected  the  site  at  

Kudankulam  as  the  most  ideal  for  selling  up  of  NPP  on  

scientific, technical, safety, security and environmental point of  

view.  No regulatory requirement of CZR (except 500 metres  

norm) at the sea coast was in force at that time.  The Prime  

Minister of India had written a letter in November 1981 to all  

the Chief Ministers of Coastal States in which it was stated as  

under:  

“The degradation and misutilization of beaches  in the coastal states is worrying as the beaches  have aesthetic and environmental value as well  as other values.  They have to be kept clear of  all activities at least up to 500 metres from the  water at the maximum high tide.  If the area is  vulnerable to erosion, suitable trees and plants

Page 132

132

have  to  be  planted  on  the  beaches  without  marring  their  beauty.   Beaches  must  be  kept  free  from  all  kinds  of  artificial  development.  Pollution from industrial and town wastes must  also be avoided totally.”

125. Following the letter of the Prime Minister, a nine Member  

Working  Group  comprising  experts  in  the  fields  of  marine  

biology,  nature  conservation,  tourism,  pollution  control  and  

human settlements was constituted to formulate guidelines for  

the development of beaches.  The Committee formulated the  

environment  guidelines  for  development  of  beaches  in  July  

1983.   Before  selecting  the  site  at  Kudankulam,  a  detailed  

study was conducted as to the suitability of the site,  safety,  

radiological impact and its assessment, external natural events,  

foundation  conditions,  water  availability  and  various  other  

factors.   Following that,  an application was submitted in  the  

year  1988 by the  NPCIL  before the  State  of  Tamil  Nadu for  

location of NPP at Kudankulam.  The application was considered  

by the Committee on conservation of seashore of Government  

of Tamil Nadu since the plant had to be set up at the sea shore.  

The  committee  after  considering  the  proposal  accorded  

clearance for the location of the plant at Kudankulam which is

Page 133

133

reflected in the letter dated 25.02.1988 sent by the Secretary  

to the Government, State of Tamil Nadu.    

126. NPCIL later submitted its application to the Government of  

Tamil  Nadu  for  grant  of  environmental  clearance  vide  its  

application  dated  12.12.1988.   As  per  the  then  existing  

practice, applications for environmental clearance of a project  

like NPP had to be placed before TNSEC which consisted of high  

ranking  officials  including  the  Chairman  and  Secretary  of  

TNPCB  etc.   Application  was  placed  before  the  Committee  

which met on 15.12.1988 and discussed various issues.  The  

Executive Director of the project NPCIL explained the project in  

detail  to  the  Committee  with  particular  reference  to  safety  

measures.  It was also pointed out that a disaster management  

plan had already been prepared and submitted by them to the  

Government of India and that no rehabilitation of the people  

around the site would be necessary.   Some of the Members  

expressed the apprehension that cyclone condition might affect  

nuclear  plant,  which  was  allayed  by  the  Executive  Director,  

NPCIL stating that the proximity of Srilanka would deactivate  

the  cyclone.   The  Additional  Director  (Public  Health  and

Page 134

134

Preventive  Medicines)  expressed  the  apprehension  that  the  

project might pollute the sea water thereby affecting the fish  

and the consumers.  The Executive Director, NPCIL had assured  

that an Environmental Survey Laboratory (ESL) would be set up  

30 km away from Kudankulam and samples of water and fish  

would be analysed to find out the amount of radioactivity on  

the flora and fauna.  Safety issues were also discussed in that  

meeting.   After  detailed  discussions  on  various  aspects,  the  

Committee  decided  to  clear  the  project  subject  to  the  

monitoring by a Special Committee, which Committee, it was  

stated,  would go into the details  of  safety and rehabilitation  

measures proposed in the areas communicated in the project  

report.

127. The  decision  of  the  TNSEC  dated  15.12.1988  was  

communicated to NPCIL vide letter dated 26.12.1988 followed  

by another  letter  dated 30.12.1988.   On 13.02.1989,  TNSEC  

modified  the  environmental  clearance  contained  in  its  letter  

dated 26.12.1988  and decided  that  environmental  clearance  

accorded for the installation of KKNPP would be subject to the

Page 135

135

thirty  one conditions  specified  in  the  annexure  to  the  letter  

dated 13.02.1989.  

128. The DAE, Government of India sought relaxation in respect  

of proposed KKNPP of the guidelines that the coastal beaches  

should be kept clear from all building activities upto 500 metres  

from the  HTL.   At  that  point  of  time  only  the  Environment  

Protection Act, 1986 was in force and the letter of the Prime  

Minister  of  1981  and  1983  Environmental  Guidelines  for  

Development  of  Beaches.   On  19.04.1989,  the  then  Prime  

Minister approved an exemption of 500 metre norm specifically  

for KKNPP project subject to the MoEF prescribing and ensuring  

sufficient safeguards for preserving the ecology of the beach.  

The  MoEF  vide  its  Office  Memorandum  dated  09.05.1989  

accorded approval to KKNPP –Units 1 & 2 (2x1000 MW) subject  

to following conditions which are given below:

“2. Approval of this Ministry from environmental angle is  accorded subject to the following conditions:-

(i) Special  exemption  from  the  present  ban  on  undertaking any construction within 500 metres from  high tide line (HTL) is accorded to this project subject  to the condition that:

Page 136

136

(a) In  such  area  only  the  plant  and  essential  associated structures may be put up and nothing  else should come up in this area;  

(b) Attempts  should  be  made  to  keep  such  construction within 500 metres of high tide line as  far way from high tide line as possible;

(c) Adequate  measures  and  environmental  safeguards will be taken for ensuring preservation  of the ecology of the beach;

(d) Since  this  area  has  been  declared  as  a  bio- sphere reserve, the project authorities should take  special  precautions  to  avoid  any  damage to  the  coral reefs or changes in the water quality near the  shore; and

(e) At Environmental  Management Plant  (EMP) for  the  area  upto  500  metres  from  HTL  should  be  submitted to the Ministry for review.

(ii) The temperature of the condenser water should not  exceed 5oC over and above the ambient temperature  of the water at the point of discharge in the sea.

(iii) The  liquid  effluents  emanating  from  the  different  plants  of  the  power  station  should  be  treated  to  conform to the standards stipulated by Central/State  Pollution Control Board and International Commission  for Radiological Protection (ICRP)/AERB.  Steps should  be  taken  to  prevent  ground  water  pollution.  Adequate number of coastal water quality monitoring  stations should be setup.

(iv) Radio-active  wastes  (solids  and  semi-solids)  generated during various operations, both low level  and  high  level,  should  be  properly  treated  and  disposed of after proper containment to fix the radio-

Page 137

137

activity as per the standards/guidelines prescribed by  ICRP/AERB.

(v) No radio-active emissions, fugitive or otherwise, will  be permitted beyond the safety standards prescribed  by AERB.

(vi) The  location/alignment  of  the  off-shore  berth/jetty  should be selected in such a way that no damage is  caused to the coral reefs.  Such construction should  be kept at the minimum.

(vii) The route of the pipeline from Pechiprai reservoir to  the power station should preferably be so selected  that it does not affect forest areas.

(viii) Efforts should be made to avoid forest areas to be  affected due to the proposed transmission corridors  and power evacuation system.

(ix) Adequate precautionary measures should be taken in  transportation  of  radioactive  fuel/  spent  fuel/radioactive wastes, in/out of the country.

(x) Periodical environmental surveillance and monitoring  for  radioactive emissions should  be undertaken for  measuring radioactivity and record maintained.

(xi) Necessary  steps  may  be  taken  for  educating  local  people about the project to allay their apprehension  due to the proposed power station.

Page 138

138

(xii) All the vacant lands within the project zone should be  afforested with a tree density of 1000 per acre.  The  type of tree species should be so selected that they  will be able to give maximum density of canopy.

(xiii) From  the  initial  stages  of  the  project  the  environmental  surveillance  and  monitoring  of  this  particular  area  including  the  health  status  of  the  population around the power station location should  be carried out and records maintained.  This activity  should continue in future also.

(xiv) On-site and Off-site Disaster Management Plan (DMP)  should be prepared as per the guidelines stipulated  by  ICRP/AERB  and  approved  by  the  National  Emergency  Response  Committee  (NERC)  of  Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India.

(xv) Necessary approval under the Forest (Conservation)  Act, 1980 and the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 will  be obtained, when applicable.

(xvi) A  committee  will  be  set  up  by  the  Department  of  Atomic  Energy  consisting  of  Additional  Secretary,  Department of Atomic Energy, Additional Secretary,  Ministry of Environment and Forests, Project Director,  Kudankulam Atomic Power Project, representative of  AERB, Director NEERI, representative of Government  of Tamil Nadu and two prominent public persons for  review  of  the  rehabilitation  programmes,  environmental  protection  measures  and  public  awareness concerning the project.

(xvii)A  detailed  rehabilitation  plan  should  be  prepared  covering  the  affected  persons  within  a  radius  of  2

Page 139

139

kms  exclusion  zone.   It  will  also  be  necessary  to  provide for some package of benefits for the people  residing in the sterilized zone as there will be some  restriction on the activities of this area.  These should  be  submitted  to  this  Ministry  for  review  after  examination by the Committee.

3. There  should  be  an  environmental  cell  with  suitable  personnel and a laboratory in the project. 4. Adequate  financial  provisions  should  be  made  for  implementation of the above conditions. 5. Conditions may be varied or new conditions imposed in  the interest of environmental protection. 6. The stipulations will be implemented among others, under  the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the  Air  (Prevention  and  Control  of  Pollution)  Act,  1981  and  the  Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.”

129. MoEF  has  a  duty  to  see  that  the  above-mentioned  

conditions  are  fully  complied;  which  has  also  dealt  with  the  

exemption from the ban which was at that point of time only a  

norm prohibiting  any  construction  within  500  metres  of  the  

HTL.  Permission granted also dealt with the temperature of the  

condenser and also with radioactive rays, solid and semisolid  

generated  during  various  operations  including  proper  

containment  to  fix  the  radio  activity  as  per  the  standards  /  

guidelines prescribed by ICRB / AERB.  Condition for periodical  

environmental  surveillance  was  also  stipulated  so  also  the  

necessity of educating the people, monitoring the health and

Page 140

140

also the provisions for onsite and offsite disaster management  

plan and the need for  framing a detailed rehabilitation plan.  

After the receipt of the nuclear clearance, the process of land  

acquisition  was  initiated  and  the  land  acquisition  was  

completed during the period 1991-1993.  Project activities like  

construction of boundary was initiated and completed during  

the said  period.   AERB on 10.11.1989 granted clearance for  

locating nuclear power plant at Kudankulam after evaluation of  

the  site  by  the  Site  Selection  Committee  of  DAE  with  

stipulations  given  in  the  Annexure  alongwith  that  letter.  

Following are the stipulations laid down by AERB:

1. Stipulations  made  by  various  State  and  Central  authorities  in  giving  clearance,  should  be  met.   In  addition,  plantation  in  the  area  under  control  of  the  project should be taken up along with site development.  Studies  to  assess  thermal  pollution  by  making  appropriate models should be carried out.

2. An exclusion zone of 1.6 km radius from the NPP stack  should be established with access control.   The Dose  limits specified by AERB will  be complied with at this  boundary.

3. The Board noted that Vairavikinaru quarry, Idinthikarai  and Kudankulam settlements are beyond 2 km distance  but  within  sterilized  zone.   Suitable  legislative  and  administrative  control  measures  should  be  taken  through  state  authorities  to  prevent  increase  in

Page 141

141

population  within  the  sterilized  zone  beyond  natural  growth.  Also arrangements must be made to terminate  the lease of the lime stone quarry in 1994.

4. Facility  to  store  at  site  adequate  quantities  of  water  should be provided to meet the make up requirements  of uninterrupted cooling of core and other safety related  systems on a long term basis.  Facilities engineered at  site should meet the requirements even in the event of  possible  disruption  of  piped  water  supply  from  Pechiparai Dam.  Ground water sources in the site area  should  be  surveyed  and  developed  to  serve  as  an  additional back up source to meet the safety needs of  the plant,  if  water supply from the Pechiparai dam is  interrupted due to any contingency.

5.  The Board requires that the safety of the long pipeline  from Pechiparai dam should be ensured by appropriate  security arrangement.

6. NPCIL should take up the water management schemes  with the state government so that water supply to NPP  is  ensured all  the time.   The intake well  at  the dam  should  be  provided  at  lower  elevation  than  the  minimum draw down level of the reservoir.

The  Board  desires  that  the  structure  stability  of  the  Pechiparai dam should be assessed taking into account  the recent work of strengthening the dam.

7. In  the  unlikely  event  of  the  breach  of  the  dam  alternative sources of water supply should be available  for  the  site  within  a  reasonable  time.   NPCIL  should  conceptualize schemes at the Detailed Project Report

Page 142

142

(DPR)  stage  for  utilization  of  the  water  from  upper  Kodiyar storage reservoir for such eventuality.

8. Site  related  design  considerations  such  as  seismic  aspects etc. are to be established before submission of  PSAR.   Design  should  be  engineered  to  meet  site  related design basis events.

9. The  Board  noted  that  as  per  the  estimate  of  Health  Physics Division, Maximum Flood Level (MFL) should be  +7.5 m after considering a return period of 1000 years  for the maximum storm.  This was reviewed against the  estimated figure of 5.9 m given by the CWPRS.  The  Board  suggested  that  MFL  must  be  re-evaluated  by  CWPRS  conforming  with  the  requirements  of  IAEA  Safety  Guide  50-SG-S10B  on  “Flooding  on  Coastal  Sites”.  Revised Report of CWPRS should be submitted  to Design Safety Committee.

10. Bore-hole investigations are to be carried out at the  proposed location of various buildings and structures.  The  report  should  be  forwarded  to  design  group  for  taking into account at the time of actual design.

11. Radiological impact should be assessed with proper  source terms, consideration of topography and relevant  dispersion  characteristics  of  the  site.   Dose  limits  prescribed should be met at a distance of 1.6 km by  incorporating  design  features  in  the  plant.   The  radioactivity releases should be maintained in line with  ALARA principle.

12. The  typical  radioactivity  emission  rates  used  in  evaluation  of  the  site  should  be  compared  with  the  releases from similar  reactors and should be suitably

Page 143

143

adjusted taking into consideration acceptable failed fuel  rates during evaluation by the design safety committee.

13. The Board desires that the adequacy of stack height  of  100 m should be confirmed by NPC at  the design  stage, specifically in view of the change in the ground  level of about 40 m on the north side of the plant.

14. Environmental Survey Laboratory should be set up at  site and instruments are to be installed at site to collect  meteorological data and background radiation.

15. Two independent reliable sources of start up power  connected  to  two  points  in  the  electrical  network  located in different regions of the grid should be made  available.  Availability of a dedicated source of reliable  start up power should be examined.

16. Power evacuation studies particularly that influence  the plant-grid interaction should be pursued.  Feasibility  of  operation  on  islanding  mode  may  be  studied  in  collaboration with CEA.

17. Studies  on  Biofouling  and  Jelly-fish  etc.  that  may  affect the water supply should be taken up.

18. Studies  on  accretion/erosion  rate  around  the  plant  site should be carried out.  If required, proper protection  should be provided.

19. At least two evacuation routes from plant site during  an emergency should be provided.

Page 144

144

20. The Board recommends that NPCIL shall consider the  possibility  of  providing an additional  facility  for  spent  fuel storage in future (Away from Reactor Storage AFR).  The site for  this should be reserved after considering  the transportation and handling requirement of  spent  fuel.

21. Over  Dimension  Consignment  (ODC)  committee  of  NPCIL  should  evaluate  suitability  of  transportation  of  ODC at design stage.

22. Analysis for the quality of construction water is to be  carried out.

23. This  approval  is  given only  for  the  location of  two  units  of  VVER  of  1000  MWe  capacity  each  at  the  proposed  site.   Other  detailed  investigations  are  necessary  and  NPCIL  will  have  to  apply  and  obtain  permission  of  AERB  before  construction  at  the  site  begins.

Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ)

130. India  is  a  gifted  country  which  has  coastal  seas,  bays,  

estuaries, creeks, rivers, backwaters.  Critical importance of sea  

coast in a country like India need not be over emphasized, the  

protection of the same calls for scientific care and diligence and  

following Tsunami, Cyclone, earthquake etc., the protection of  

the sea coast has assumed added importance.

Page 145

145

131. MoEF in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(i)  

and 3(2)(v)  of  the  Environmental  (Protection)  Act,  1986 and  

Rule  5(3)(d)  of  the  Environmental  (Protection  )  Rules,  1986  

issued  a  Notification  dated  19.2.1991  declaring  coastal  

stretches  as  Coastal  stretches  of  seas,  backwaters,  creeks,  

rivers and backwaters which are influenced by tidal action (in  

the landward side) upto 500 Mtrs. from the HTL and the land  

between the low tide line (LTL) and the HTL are called coastal  

regulation  zone  and  regulating  activities  in  the  CRZ,  both  

prohibited and permitted activities.  However, it did not prohibit  

the project already in operation and granted clearance prior to  

the date of the issue of notification.  Later by an amendment  

dated  12.4.2001  S.O.329(C)  amended  paragraph  2  on  

“prohibited activities” and the notification dated 19.2.1991 by  

substituting clause (1) to the following effect “setting up of new  

industries and expansion of existing industries except (a) those  

directly  related  to  water  front  or  directly  needing  foreshore  

facilities (b) projects of Department of Atomic Energy”.

Page 146

146

132. We find with regard to the location of KKNPP within the  

prescribed 500 mtr. within the CRZ an exemption had already  

granted as per the then existing norms even prior to 1991 by  

the then Prime Minister of India by the communication dated  

19.4.1989.   Over  and  above,  paragraph  2(1)  of  1991  CRZ  

Notification  as  amended  by  Notification  dated  12.4.2011,  

exempted  projects  of  Department  of  Atomic  Energy.   A  

cumulative  reading  of  the  permission  dated  19.04.1989  

accorded by the then existing norms read with paragraph 2(1)  

of  1991  Notification,  as  amended  by  Notification  dated  

12.4.2011, we are of the view the KKNPP Units 1 and 2 have not  

violated the 1991 CRZ Notification.

EIA Notification 1994 and Environmental clearance:   

133. MoEF in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section  

(1)  and  clause  (v)  of  sub-section  (2)  of  Section  3  of  the  

Environment (Protection) Rules,  1986 read with clause (d) of  

sub-rule(3)  of  Rule  5  of  the  Environment  (Protection)  Rules,  

1986, issued a Notification dated 27.1.1994 directing that on  

and  from  the  date  of  publication  of  that  notification  in  the  

Official  Gazette  expansion  or  modernization  of  any  activity

Page 147

147

(without pollution load is to exceed the existing one) or a new  

project  listed  in  Schedule  1  of  that  Notification  shall  not  be  

undertaken in any part  of India unless it  has been accorded  

environmental  clearance  by  the  Central  Government  in  

accordance  with  the  procedure  specified  in  the  Notification.  

The  Notification  contains  an  explanatory  note  regarding  the  

impact  of  the  assessment  Notification  dated  27.1.1994.  

Relevant portions of the notification are given below for easy  

reference:

Expansion and modernization of existing projects:

“A  project  proponent  is  required  to  seek  environmental  clearance  for  a  proposed  expansion/modernization  activity  if  the  resultant  pollution load is to exceed the existing levels.  The  words  ‘pollution  load”  will  in  this  context  cover  emission,  liquid  effluents  and  solid  or  semi-solid  wastes  generated.   A  project  proponent  may  approach the concerned State Pollution Control Board  (SPCB)  for  certifying  whether  the  proposed  modernization/expansion  activity  as  listed  in  Schedule-I to the notification is likely to exceed the  existing pollution load or not.  If it is certified that no  increase  is  likely  to  occur  in  the  existing  pollution  load  due  to  the  proposed  expansion  or

Page 148

148

modernization,  the  project  proponent  will  not  be  required to seek environmental clearance, but a copy  of such certificate issued by the SPCB will have to be  submitted to the Impact Assessment Agency (IAA) for  information.  The IAA will, however, reserve the right  to review such cases in the public interest if material  facts  justifying  the  need  for  such  review  come  to  light.”

134. The Note also  deals  with  exemption  for  project  already  initiated under the explanatory Note 8 which reads as follows:

8. Exemption for projects already initiated:

“For projects listed in Schedule-I to the notification in  respect of which the required land has been acquired  and all relevant clearances of the State Government  including  NOC  from  the  respective  State  Pollution  Control  Boards  have  been  obtained  before  27th  

January,  1994,  a  project  proponent  will  not  be  required to seek environmental  clearance from the  IAA.   However,  those  units  who  have  not  as  yet  commenced production will inform the IAA.”

135. Schedule  1  of  the  Notification  refers  to  Nuclear  power  

project  and  related  projects  such  as  heavy  water  plants,

Page 149

149

nuclear fuel complex, rare earths etc. and the same also deals  

with Thermal Power Plant as well.

136. The Central Government, later in exercise of the powers  

conferred  under  Section  23  of  Environment  Protection  Act,  

1986  issued  a  Notification  S.O.318(E)  dated  10.4.1997,  

whereby  inter  alia  introduced  Schedule  IV  into  the  1994  

Notification prescribing the procedure for public hearing.  MoEF  

later  issued  Circular  dated  23.7.1998  after  reviewing  the  

progress  of  cases  which  were  accorded  environmental  

clearance  prior  to  27.1.1994  Notification  and  it  had  been  

observed that a large number of projects had not commenced  

constructions or other operations due to various reasons like  

non-availability  of  financial  resources,  non-availability  of  

forestry  clearance,  inter-State  water  disputes  and  non-

availability of essential infrastructure like land, electricity, road  

etc.   Further  it  was  also  noticed that  certain  projects  which  

were environmentally appraised even as early as 1980 had not  

commenced construction activities.  MoEF felt there might have  

been significant changes during those years which would have  

implications to the environment and ecology of the area.  MoEF

Page 150

150

issued the  above Circular  pointing out  that  the environment  

clearance issued prior to 1994 would not be valid in the cases,  

where work did not commence before 1.8.1998.  Further it was  

also clarified in all  such cases fresh environmental clearance  

would be required, if those come in the 29 categories listed in  

the EIA Notification.  Further it was also clarified that projects  

which were not listed in Schedule 1 in EIA Notification would  

not require environmental clearance.

137. MoEF later inspected the site of the plant on 31.8.2001  

and found that land acquisition had been completed and the  

construction  work  on  various  components  such  as  township,  

Environmental and Health Research Centre and RO plant was in  

progress.  Further, it was noticed that afforestation programme  

was  undertaken  by  M.S.  Swaminathan  Research  Foundation  

and that till August 2001, Rs.377.30 crore was spent for KKNPP  

on various activities.   

138. MoEF,  noticing  the  above  facts,  vide  its  letter  dated  

6.9.2001  clarified  that  environmental  clearance  granted  on  

9.5.1989  stands  valid  and that  there  is  no  need to  conduct

Page 151

151

public hearing and seek fresh environmental clearance.  A chart  

giving the details of land acquisition and compensation amount  

paid reads as follows:

LAND ACQUISITION DETAILS OF KKNPP S.No. Name of  

Village Private  land (in  hectares)

Puramboke  land (in  hectares)

Total (in  hectares)

For Plant site 1 Kudankulam 862.775 112.945 975.720 2 Irukkundarai -- 2.675 2.675 3 Vijayapathi 66.750 1.815 68.565

Sub Total 929.525 117.435 1046.960

For Township 1 Chettikulam 153.905 24.300 178.205

Total Land acquired 1225.165 Hectares

Land and Acquisition completed and  awards pronounced

1991-1993

Number of displaced persons Nil Type of acquired land Dry

Compensation details

S.No. Village Amount paid (Rs.) Kudankulam 62,02,332.00 Irukkundarai 31,09,727.00 Vijayapathi 6,09,834.00 Total 99,21,893.00

139. We are of the view that the EIA Notification of 1994 would  

not  apply  to  KKNPP  Units  1  and  2  for  which  environmental

Page 152

152

clearance was granted on 19.5.1989.   1994 notification, in our  

view, would be operative only prospectively except in the case  

of expansion and modernization of any activity (if the pollution  

load is to exceed the existing one) as on the date of publication  

of  that  notification or  a  new project  listed in  Schedule 1 for  

which  environmental  clearance  is  necessary  as  per  the  

notification dated 27.01.1994. So far as KKNPP units 1 and 2  

are concerned, they had the relevant clearance from the State  

Government including the NOC from the State Pollution Control  

Board.   Facts  stated  above  would  indicate  that  the  land  

acquisition  process  for  the  plant  site  and  township  had  

commenced  during  the  year  1990-1991  and  awards  were  

pronounced  during  the  period  1991-1993  by  the  Land  

Acquisition  Officer  and  Special  Tehsildars  (Land  Acquisition)  

Government  of  Tamil  Nadu.   Annexure  R-15 produced along  

with the affidavit filed by the MoEF dated 18.10.2012 indicates  

the details of total land acquired, the awards pronounced and  

the details of the compensation paid.   Further sites surveys,  

infrastructure design, construction of boundary wall, roads and  

some buildings etc. had been completed between1989 to 1994.  

The Committee on Conservation of Seashore of Government of

Page 153

153

Tamil Nadu had also granted clearance on 25.2.1988 and the  

TNSEC had also granted clearance on 15.12.1988, modified on  

13.2.1989.  Above facts clearly indicate that the EIA Notification  

dated 27.1.1994 would not apply to KKNPP Unites 1 and 2 since  

these  units  stood  exempted  from  the  Notification  and  the  

Explanatory  Note  8  to  the  Notification  and also  the  Circular  

issued by the MoEF on 23.7.1998 make it more explicit.   

140. We  may  now  examine  whether  there  has  been  any  

expansion  or  modernization  of  units  1  and  2  resulting  in  

increase in pollution loads.  Plant capacity, we have noticed,  

always  remained 1000 MWs X2,  and the  plant  model  V-412  

remained  to  be  as  envisaged  in  1988  Agreement  and  1998  

supplementary agreement of 1988.  Further, for the purpose of  

cooling the steam generated in the steam generator sea water  

is required which goes through the steam turbine which runs  

the  electrical  generator  to  produce  electricity.   Sea  water  

consumption is 2,40,000 m3/Hr and the water is to be drawn  

from the sea and pass through the condenser for both Units 1  

and 2 and once the cooling process is over, it is to be released  

to the sea, a process, which has undergone no change from

Page 154

154

what was envisaged before obtaining clearance from MoEF in  

9th May, 1989 till  date and hence we find no necessity for a  

fresh clearance.   

Desalination Plant

141. We  may  now  examine  whether  prior  environmental  

clearance  is  a  pre-requisite  for  the  establishment  of  a  

desalination plant in terms of EIA Notification dated 27.1.1994  

or  in  terms  of  the  subsequent  Notification  dated  14.9.2006  

which superseded the Notification dated 27.1.1994.  Further we  

may also examine whether establishment of desalination plant  

is  permissible in  CRZ.   We have already indicated that  prior  

environmental  clearance  is  required  only  for  those  activities  

which  are  listed  in  Schedule  1  to  the  EIA  Notification  dated  

27.1.1994  or  the  subsequent  Notification  dated  14.9.2006  

which  superseded  earlier  Notification  dated  27.1.1994.  

Desalination  plant  is  not  seen  listed  under  the  above-

mentioned notifications.  The decision to establish desalination  

plant for the purpose of domestic water requirement was taken  

by the NPCIL in the year 2004.   Earlier  when environmental  

clearance was granted on 9.5.1989 the proposal was to take

Page 155

155

fresh water from the Pachipari  Dam, situated at about 65KM  

away from the plant site.  The same had to be given up in view  

of the involvement of forest land as well as the apprehensions  

expressed by the local villagers that the withdrawal of water  

from  the  Dam  would  deplete  the  scarce  natural  resource,  

especially at the time of drought.  Desalination plant functions  

on distillation (Mechanical Vapour Compression) principle. Sea  

water  would be drawn and would be fed to the plant  which  

consists of four streams each having capacity of 106.66 cubic  

mtr. p.h.  Cumulative feed flow of all three operating streams is  

670 cubic.mtr p.h. and cumulative reject flow is 350 cubic mtr  

ph., balance 320 cubic mtr. p.h. is purified water.  Facts would  

indicate that there is no generation of air emission, solid waste  

and effluent are flowing from the desalination process except  

rejects  (which  also  called  brine)  which  is  nothing  but  

concentrated  sea  water  which  remains  after  desalination  

process and does not contains external elements.  The rejects  

will have concentration of 69000 parts per million which would  

be  mixed  with  the  sea  water  1,20,000  cubic  mtr.  p.h.  and  

discharged through the outlet channel into the sea which would  

give dilution 343 times and reduce the reject to the ambient

Page 156

156

sea water concentration of 35000 parts per million.   Experts  

say the process would not cause any increase in pollution load  

due to desalination.

142. CRZ Notification of 1991, though prohibited, the setting up  

of  new  industries  as  well  as  expansion  within  CRZ,  it  had  

permitted the laying of pipeline and conveying system.  1991  

Notification was amended on 21.05.2002 and it was provided  

that the desalination plants could be established in the notified  

special economic zone, for non-polluting industries within CRZ.  

On 19.10.2002, it was again amended and it was provided that  

the desalination plants could be established within CRZ except  

CRZ – 1(i) – i.e. eco-sensitive areas viz. mangroves, sand dunes,  

reserve  forests  etc.   MoEF  later  issued  another  notification  

dated 06.01.2011  superseding  1991  notification,  as  per  that  

para 3(i)(c) and as per para 4(ii)(h) (of 06.01.2011 notification)  

makes provisions for the establishment of desalination plants  

within CRZ area except CRZ – 1(i).

143. NPCIL  informed  TNPCB  for  the  inclusion  of  desalination  

facility which was not earlier included in the original application

Page 157

157

for ‘Consent to Operate’.  TNPCB considered the request and  

accorded “Consent to Operate’ on 20.08.2012 which included  

desalination  plant.   The  establishment  of  desalination  plant,  

therefore,  would  not  require  any  fresh  environmental  

clearance, especially when the same has not been included in  

the Schedule 1 to the EIA Notification dated 27.1.1994 or in the  

subsequent  Notifications  dated  14.9.2006,  06.01.2011  etc.  

except within CRZ – 1(i).

Change in Temperature Limit  

144. We may now examine whether, in the light of paragraph 5  

of the clearance dated 9.5.1989 and the amendment to Rule 84  

of  the  Environment  (Protection)  Rules  1986  by  Notification  

dated  22.12.1988,  the  stipulation  of  5°C  contained  in  the  

clearance can be varied.  Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986  

was  amended  vide  notification  dated  22.12.1988  as  

Environment  (Protection)  Second  Amendment  Rules,  1988.  

Rule  84  deals  with  the  temperature  limit  for  discharge  of  

condensed cooling water which reads as follows:

Page 158

158

“84.  Temperature  limit  for  Discharge  of  Condenser Cooling Water from Thermal Power  Plant:

A.  New thermal power plants, which will be using water  from  rivers/lakes/reservoirs,  shall  install  cooling  towers irrespective of location and capacity.  Thermal  power  plants  which  will  use  sea  water  for  cooling  purposes, the condition below will apply.

B. New projects in coastal areas using sea water:

The  thermal  power  plants  using  sea  water  should  adopt suitable system to reduce water temperature  at the final discharge point so that the resultant rise  in  the  temperature  of  receiving  water  does  not  exceed 7°C over and above the ambient temperature  of the receiving water bodies.    

C. Existing thermal power plants:

Rise in temperature of condenser cooling water from  inlet  to  the  outlet  of  condenser  shall  not  be  more  than 10°C.

D. Guidelines for discharge point:

The discharge point shall preferably be located at the  bottom  of  the  water  body  at  mid-term  for  proper  dispersion of thermal discharge.

Page 159

159

In case of discharge of cooling water into sea, proper  marine  outfall  shall  be  designed  to  achieve  the  prescribed standards.  The point of discharge may be  selected  in  consultation  with  concerned  State  Authorities/NIO.

No  cooling  water  discharge  shall  be  permitted  in  estuaries or near ecologically sensitive areas such as  mangroves,  coral  reefs/spawning  and  breeding  grounds of aquatic flora and fauna.”

145. Rule 84, of course, deals with the Thermal Power Plant,  

which states that the resultant rise in temperature of receiving  

water  shall  not  exceed  7°C  over  and  above  the  ambient  

temperature of the receiving water body.  Facts indicate that  

the limit prescribed under Rule 84 will equally be applicable to  

Nuclear Power Plant as well since the technology for condenser  

cooling in both, thermal as well as Nuclear Power Plant is the  

same.  In both systems condenser is  cooled by using water,  

therefore,  the  limit  on  temperature  of  discharged  water  will  

have to be the same.

146. Let us also examine whether there will be any impact on  

the  marine  eco-system  due  to  +7oC  CCW  water,  for  which

Page 160

160

detailed  study  was  conducted  by  the  Institute  of  Ocean  

Management, Anna University, which has submitted its report  

in  July  2008  and  the  Engineers  India  Ltd.  along  with  CHFRI  

submitted its report in August 2011.  Environmental Impact was  

analysed in desalination and the experts are unanimous in their  

views, that there would be no impact on the marine ecosystem.  

Reports  were also  considered by the MoEF through the EAC  

before giving environmental clearance for the units 3 to 6 on  

23.09.2008  and  31.12.2009  and  the  CRZ  clearance  on  

25.07.2012.  TNPCB has also accorded consent to operate on  

28.08.2012  for  KKNPP  Units  1  and  2  by  stipulating  that  

condenser  cooling  water  discharge  limit  as  7oC  as  per  the  

amended  Environmental  Protection  Rules.   Therefore,  the  

contention raised by the appellants that the rise in temperature  

of  receiving  water  due  to  rise  in  temperature  of  condenser  

cooling water would affect marine eco-system and cannot be  

sustained.

147. Appellants  have also  raised  a  contention under  the  EIA  

Notification of 1994 that those projects where “all clearances”  

including  “NOC”  from  State  “PCBs”  had  not  been  obtained

Page 161

161

required  fresh  environmental  clearance  from  MoEF  in  

accordance with the said notification.  Reference was made to  

Explanation 8 of the EIA Notification of 1994.  Further it was  

pointed out that all projects having environmental implications  

“required  previous  consent”  to  establish  and  “to  operate”  

under the Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981 from the State  

Pollution Control Board and unless those consents are existing,  

plant cannot said to have “all clearances from the State PCBs  

as  required  by  the  Explanation  8  of  the  EIA  Notification  of  

1994”.

148. We are of the view that the “environmental clearance” or  

“No Objection Certificate”  cannot be equated to  “consent to  

establish”  under  Section  25  of  the  Air  Act  and  “consent  to  

operate”  under  Section  21  of  the  Water  Act,  which  were  

granted on 25.2.2004 and 28.8.2012 respectively.  NPCIL had  

undertaken various activities with respect to KKNPP subsequent  

to the environment clearance granted by TNSEC on 26.12.1988,  

subsequently modified on 13.2.1989.  

Page 162

162

149. TNSEC had on 15.12.1988 had already cleared the project,  

which tantamount to No Object Certificate (NOC).  Only after  

clearance or NOC, the question of ‘establishing’ or ‘operating’ a  

plant arises.  Environmental clearance or NOC was granted to  

KKNPP units 1 and 2 as early as 26.12.1988 though the TNPCB  

had granted ‘consent to establish’ under Section 25 of the Air  

Act on 25.02.2004 and ‘consent to operate’ under the Water  

Act  on 28.08.2012.   Explanatory  Note 8  to  the Environment  

Notification dated 27.01.1994 speaks of exemption for projects  

already initiated that is land has been acquired and clearance  

of the State Government including NOC, from Pollution Control  

Board had been obtained before 27th January 1994, for which no  

fresh environmental clearance would be required from Impact  

Assessment Agency (IAA).  KKNPP units 1 and 2 is, therefore,  

entitled to  get  the benefit  of  the Explanatory  Note 8 to  EIA  

notification dated 27.01.1994.

150. We  also  notice  that  there  has  been  no  expansion  or  

modernization of units 1 and 2, which has resulted in increase  

of pollution load.  Plant capacity remained the same i.e. 1000  

MWs X2, till date and there is no substantial difference in plant

Page 163

163

model and the specifications envisaged in the 1988 agreement  

and 1998 supplement agreement.  Plant model remains as V-

412, consequently the 1994 EIA notification will not apply qua  

KKNPP units 1 and 2.   

151. NPCIL, as part of the continuous process to ensure safety  

of  environment  made  a  Rapid  Environmental  Impact  

Assessment (REIA) of KKNPP Units 1 and 2 in the year 2001.  

The  National  Environmental  Engineering  Research  Institute  

(NEERI)  retained  by  NPCIL  for  conducting  their  assessment.  

REIA  report  of  NEERI  examined  the  baseline  data  collected  

during  summer  season 2001 within  the  impact  zone for  air,  

noise, water, land, biological and socio economic environment  

including data on radiological parameters which has formed the  

basis  for  predicting,  evaluating  the  potential  impact  due  to  

proposed two units of KKNPP at Kudankulam.  NEERI submitted  

its report in May 2002.  In the year 2003 there was yet another  

comprehensive EIA by NEERI of KKNPP units 1 and 2 which took  

into account the entire season i.e.  12 months.  Assessments  

were made as part of the continuous process to monitor the  

safety of the environment as well as to establish an existing

Page 164

164

base-line status with respect to various environmental points  

like air,  noise,  water,  land,  biological  and socio-economic for  

identifying,  predicting  and  evaluating  the  environmental  

potential  impact  as  also  to  formulate  an  effective  

Environmental Management Plan (EMP).  Report was submitted  

in January 2003 which was later implemented under the expert  

guidance of MS Swaminathan Research Foundation.

Environmental Clearance for KKNPP Units 3 to 6

152. NPCIL  consent  letter  dated  18.2.2007,  for  grant  of  

environmental  clearance  for  expansion  of  the  then  existing  

Nuclear Project (2 x 1000 MW, by adding 2x1000 MW Units 3 &  

4), pointed out that the land acquired for locating the proposed  

units  was  already  available  within  the  NPP  Complex  and  no  

additional land would be required for expansion of the project.  

Further it was stated that water for condenser cooling system  

would be  drawn from the sea and sweet  water  requirement  

would  be  met  from  the  desalination  plant.   Further  it  was  

pointed out that no forest land was involved in the project.  The  

Gulf of Mannar Marine National Park is about 87 KM from the  

site, though the Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve Boundary is

Page 165

165

at a distance of about 20-50 mtr.   Further it was pointed out  

that no displacement of population was envisaged.  Project, it  

was stated, was to be located in the CRZ-III and that exemption  

from 500 mtr. norm in respect of CRZ for Units 1 and 2 was  

obtained from the Government of India as far as back in 1989.  

Further it was also stated that public consultation was held on  

2.6.2007  and  that  the  total  cost  of  the  project  would  be  

Rs.14,000  crores  which  included  307.50  crore  for  

environmental protection measures.

153. MoEF  considered  the  above-mentioned  proposal  in  

accordance with paragraph 12 of the EIA Notification 2006 read  

with  paragraph  2.2  sub-clause  2.2.1  (i)(a)  of  Circular  dated  

13.10.2006 and MoEF accorded clearance vide communication  

dated 23.09.2008 under the provisions of EIA Notification  of  

2006  subject  to  the  implementation  of  several  conditions,  

which read as follow:

(i) On-line continuous monitoring of the temperature of  the discharged cooling water shall be carried out at  the discharged point.   It  shall  be ensured that  the  temperature  differential  of  the  discharged  water

Page 166

166

w.r.t. the receiving water does not exceed 7°C at any  given point of time.

(ii) Necessary  prior  clearance  under  the  provisions  of  CRZ Notification, 1991 for the activities to be located  in  CRZ  shall  be  obtained  from  the  Competent  Authority.

(iii) No  additional  land  shall  be  acquired  for  any  activity/facility of project.

(iv) AERB clearance for the site shall be obtained before  starting  any  construction  work  and  a  copy  of  the  same  shall  be  provided  to  the  Ministry  of  Environment & Forests.

(v) A scheme for rain water harvesting shall be prepared  in consultation with an expert agency/State Ground  Water Board and details furnished within 3 months of  the issue of the environment clearance letter.

(vi) Greenbelt shall be developed all around the project  boundary covering an area of 180 ha preferably with  local species.

(vii) Noise levels shall  be limited to 75dBA.  For people  working  in  the  high  noise  area,  requisite  personal  protective  equipment  like  earplugs/ear  muffs  etc.  shall be provided.

(viii) Regular  monitoring  of  conventional  gaseous  pollutants, radioactive pollutants in the air as well in

Page 167

167

the discharged water shall be monitored regularly as  per AERB standards.

(ix) Regular  monitoring  of  ambient  air  quality  shall  be  carried  out  in  and  around  the  power  plant  and  records maintained.  The location of the monitoring  stations and frequency of monitoring shall be decided  in consultation with SPCB.  Periodic reports shall be  submitted  to  the  Regional  Office  of  this  Ministry.  Besides air quality, water, food samples and soil shall  also be monitored regularly for radioactive levels in  the surrounding areas and records maintained.

(x) A  Disaster  Management  Plan  and  Emergency  Preparedness Plan shall be prepared and put in place  as per the norms of AERB.  Regular mock drills shall  be  undertaken  and  based  on  the  same,  any  modification  required,  if  any,  shall  also  be  incorporated.

(xi) The radioactive waste shall be managed as per the  norms prescribed by AERB.

(xii) The non-radioactive waste water generated from the  plant premises will be suitably treated in STP and the  treated effluents shall be recycled and reused within  the plant premises for greenbelt etc.

(xiii) The  radioactive  liquid  waste  emanating  from  the  plant  will  be  treated  and  managed  as  per  the  guidelines of AERB/ICRD in this regard.

Page 168

168

(xiv) Provision  shall  be  made  for  the  housing  of  construction labour within the site with all necessary  infrastructure and facilities such as fuel for cooking,  mobile  toilets,  mobile  STP,  safe  drinking  water,  medical health care, crèche etc.  The housing may be  in the form of temporary structures to be removed  after the completion of the project.

(xv) The project proponent shall advertise in at least two  local  newspapers  widely  circulated  in  the  region  around  the  project,  one  of  which  shall  be  in  the  vernacular language of the locality concerned within  seven  days  from the  date  of  this  clearance letter,  informing  that  the  project  has  been  accorded  environmental  clearance  and  copies  of  clearance  letter are available with the State Pollution Control  Board/Committee and may also be seen at Website  of  the  Ministry  of  Environment  and  Forest  at  http://envfor.nic.in

(xvi) A  separate  environment  management  cell  with  qualified staff shall be set up for implementation of  the stipulated environment safeguards.

(xvii) Half yearly report on the status of implementation of  the  stipulated  conditions  and  environmental  safeguards  shall  be  submitted  to  this  Ministry/Regional Office/CPCB/SPCB.

(xviii) Regional  Office  of  the  Ministry  of  Environment  &  Forests  located  at  Bangalore  will  monitor  the

Page 169

169

implementation  of  the  stipulated  conditions.   A  complete set of documents including Environmental  Impact  Assessment  Report  and  Environment  Management  Plan  along  with  the  additional  information  submitted  from  time  to  time  shall  be  forwarded to the Regional Office for their use during  monitoring.

(xix) Separate funds shall be allocated for implementation  of  environmental  protection  measures  along  with  item-wise break-up.  These cost shall be included as  part of the project cost.

(xx) Full  cooperation  shall  be  extended  to  the  Scientists/Officers from the Ministry /Regional Office  of  the Ministry at  Chandigarh/the  CPCB/ the SPCB  who  would  be  monitoring  the  compliance  of  environmental status.”

 154. Notification also stated that the environmental clearance  

would be valid for a period of five years to start the operation of  

the power plant and that in case of any deviation or alteration  

in the project proposed and already submitted to the MoEF for  

clearance, a fresh reference should be made to the MoEF to  

assess  the  adequacy  of  the  conditions  imposed  and  to  add  

additional protection measures required, if any.  Further it was  

also pointed out that the above stipulations would be in force

Page 170

170

amongst others under the Water Act, 1974, The Air Act, 1981  

and  the  Environment  (Protection)  Act,  1986  and  the  Rules  

thereunder,  Hazardous  Wastes  (Management  and  Handling)  

Rules,  1989 and its  Rules,  the Public  Liability  Insurance Act,  

1991 and its amendment.

155. NPCIL submitted yet another application dated 19.11.2009  

for environmental clearance for KKNPP expansion Units 5 & 6 (2  

x 1000MW).  Environmental clearance was granted by the MoEF  

vide its communication dated 31.12.2009 incorporating all the  

conditions which were stipulated in respect of Units 3 and 4 in  

the  Notification  dated  23.9.2008  and  also  with  additional  

conditions which reads as under:

I. “Environmental clearance is subject to obtaining prior  clearance  from  wildlife  angle  as  applicable  due  to  proximity of Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve.

II. The  grant  of  environmental  clearance  does  not  necessarily  implies  that  wildlife  clearance  shall  be  granted  to  the  project  and  that  their  proposal  for  wildlife clearance will be considered by the respective  authorities  on  their  merits  and  decision  taken.   The  investment  made  in  the  project,  if  any,  based  on  environmental clearance so granted, in anticipation of

Page 171

171

the clearance from wildlife angle shall be entirely at the  cost and risk of the project proponent and Ministry of  Environment and Forests shall not be responsible in this  regard in any manner.

III. Environmental clearance is subject to final order of the  Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Goa  Foundation  v.  Union  of  India  in  Writ  Petition  (Civil)  No.460 of 2004, as may be applicable to this project.

IV. First aid and sanitation arrangements shall be made for  the  drivers  and  the  contract  workers  during  construction phase.

V. A  sewage treatment  plant  shall  be  provided  and  the  treated sewage conforming to the prescribed standards  shall be used for raising green belt/plantation.

VI. The proponent shall upload the status of compliance of  the  stipulated  EC  conditions,  including  results  of  monitored data on their website and shall  update the  same periodically.  It shall simultaneously be sent to the  Regional Office of MoEF, the respective Zonal Office of  CPCB and the SPCB.  The criteria pollutant levels (stack  and ambient levels)  indicated for the project shall  be  monitored and displayed at a convenient location near  the main gate of the company in the public domain.

VII. The  project  proponent  shall  also  submit  six  monthly  reports on the status of compliance of the stipulated EC  conditions including results of monitored data (both in

Page 172

172

hard  copies  as  well  by  e-mail)  to  the  respective  Regional Office of MoEF, the respective Zonal Office of  CPCB and the SPCB.

VIII. A  copy  of  the  clearance  letter  shall  be  sent  by  the  proponent  to  concerned  Panchayat,  Zila  Parishad/Municipal  Corporation,  urban  local  Body  and  the  Local  NGO,  if  any,  from  whom  suggestions/representations, if any, were received while  processing the proposal.  The clearance letter shall also  be  put  on  the  website  of  the  Company  by  the  proponent.

IX. The  Environment  statement  for  each  financial  year  ending  31st March  in  Form-V  as  is  mandated  to  be  submitted by the project  proponent to the concerned  State Pollution Control  Board as prescribed under the  Environment  (Protection)  Rules,  1986,  as  amended  subsequently, shall  also be put on the website of the  company  along  with  the  status  of  compliance  of  EC  conditions  and  shall  also  be  sent  to  the  respective  Regional Offices of MoEF by e-mail.

This  issues  with  the  approval  of  the  Competent  

Authority.”

156. As provided under EIA 2006 Notification before applying  

for environmental clearance for Units 3 to 6 a comprehensive

Page 173

173

EIA study was conducted for Units 3 to 6 which included the  

impact of Units 1 and 2 aspect as a base-line for computing  

additional  impacts  of  Units  3  to  6.   Concern  of  the  public  

regarding safety, livelihood, radiation etc. had been addressed  

during the public  hearing on units  3  to  6  held  on 2.6.2007.  

Issues raised in the public hearing were:

1. Use of water from Pachi Pari Dam

2. Effect of temperature of discharge water on marine life

3. Radiation emission

4. Solid waste and fuel management

5. Welfare activities of the nearby villagers

6. Compliance with MoEF, IEA and AERB guidelines

7. Environmental impact and monitoring and  

8. Site location criteria.

157.  It was discussed in the meeting that sea water intake  

structure would be located at a depth of 10 mtr. from the Main  

Sea Level (MSL ) and at a distance of 1.2 Kms. off shore from

Page 174

174

the shore line.  The temperature differential of cooling water at  

the discharge point would be limited to 7°C with respect to the  

ambient  temperature.   Discharge  of  all  units,  including  the  

existing  two  units  will  be  let  off  into  a  common  discharge  

channel  parallel  to  the  shore  bound and release at  the  two  

extreme ends of the channel.  Gates will be provided on East  

and West side of the channel, which will be operated depending  

upon  the  ocean  current  direction  in  different  season.   The  

modeling was done for all the units of 1000MW each taking into  

consideration the futuristic plan of expansion at the proposed  

site.  The impact zone was shown to be 5 KM.

158. The  Environmental  Appraisal  Committee  (EAC)  after  

holding  the  public  meeting  on  02.06.2007  again  met  on  

22.8.2008 and made its  recommendations  for  environmental  

clearance  for  Units  3  and  4  subject  to  their  obtaining  CRZ  

clearance.  We have already indicated that the proposal of EAC  

was approved by the MoEF on 23.9.2008 with respect to Units 3  

and 4.  Later after getting the administrative approval from the  

Competent  Authority  for  Units  5  and  6,  the  same  was  also

Page 175

175

reported  by  NPCIL  to  the  MoEF  and  MoEF  vide  its  letter  

accorded clearance on 31.12.2009 for Units 5 and 6 as well.

159. Appellants, therefore, cannot contend that the procedure  

laid down under the 1994 and 2006 Notifications had not been  

followed.  In our view, the EIA for the expansion of KKNPP i.e.  

for setting up Units 3 to 6 included the environment impact on  

Units  1  and 2 and the cumulative  effect  of  all  the six  units  

definitely formed the base line for the clearance granted by the  

MoEF on 23.9.2008 and 31.12.2009.  The concern of the public  

regarding safety,  livelihood,  radiation,  impact on marine life,  

rehabilitation,  impact  on  the  sea  shore  etc.  were  also  

considered  and  following  that  necessary  clearance  was  

granted.

160. KKNPP 3 to 6, after having got environmental clearance  

from MoEF in September 2008 and December 2009 entrusted  

the task of updation of EIA study to M/s Engineers India Ltd.  

(EIL), Gurgaon (a Govt. of India Undertaking).  EIL, accordingly  

carried out the study along with the Central Marine Fisheries  

Research Institute (CHFRI) for the expansion of projects on air,

Page 176

176

water, land, noise, biological and socio-economic aspects within  

a radius of 10 km from the proposed location.  Detailed study  

was conducted on the Reactor system of KKNPP 3 to 6, impact  

on  environment  existing  environmental  status,  its  prediction  

and on environmental management plan report was submitted  

in  August  2011.   The  report  has  also  analysed  the  

environmental impact on the marine ecosystem due to +7oC  

CCW water and concluded that it will have no impact on the  

marine  ecosystem.   EIA  was  considered EAC,  while  granting  

CRZ clearance for the additional reactors 3 to 6 at KKNPP along  

with sea water intake and outfall facilities for cooling purpose.  

CRZ  clearance  was  granted  by  MoEF  on  25.07.2012  after  

following the  procedure  laid  down in  the CRZ notification  of  

2011.  TNPCB, as already indicated, has also accorded consent  

to  operate  vide  proceeding  dated  28.08.2012  incorporating  

stringent  standard  of  7oC  over  and  above  the  ambient  

temperature of sea for the discharge of effluents, through the  

cooling water and trade effluent and included permission for  

discharge of effluents from desalination plant.

Sustainable Development and impact on eco-system

Page 177

177

161. The Government of India, as already stated, constituted a  

fifteen  member  experts  group  covering  all  fields  technical,  

scientific,  environment  etc.  to  provide  clarifications  on  the  

various issues raised by group of general public.  Efforts were  

made by the group to have interaction with the agitators but  

met with little success.  Group elaborately discussed apart from  

safety  features  of  the  plant,  its  ecological  effects  on  

environment and marine life and a Report was submitted to the  

Government of India on December 2011.  The Government of  

Tamil Nadu also appointed an Expert Committee headed by the  

former President of  AEC Prof.  R.  Srinivasan along with three  

other experts to review the safety features.  There has been  

consensus  among  all  the  expert  committee  on  safety  and  

security of the plant as well as on the effect on marine ecology,  

high  protection,  impact  on  land,  agriculture,  livestock,  food,  

impact on flora and fauna, biosphere, environmental clearance,  

CRZ  clearance,  fresh  water  supply,  desalination  plants,  

emergency  preparedness  etc.   Detailed  studies  have  been  

conducted on various occasions of the effect of the NPP on air,  

water, noise, land, environment and also on biological, marine

Page 178

178

and  socio-economic  environment;  to  allay  the  apprehension  

voiced by a section of the people and its worth.

162. Royal Commission on Environmental pollution (UK) in its  

very first report, 4(1971) stated as follows:

“The problem we face is how to strike a balance  between  the  benefits  of  rising  standard  of  living  and  its  costs  in  terms  of  deteriorations  of  the  physical environment and the quality of life.  In the  past, the danger of polluting the air, water and land  was not fully recognized, but now there is no doubt  that it is a matter of great concern”.

 163. Royal  Commission had said  so in  the year  1971.   Next  

year 1972, the international community convened the United  

Nations  Conference  on  Human  Environment  at  Stockholm  

(Stockholm Conference) of which India is a signatory.   

164. Stockholm  Conference  not  only  brought  into  focus  the  

human  rights  approach  to  the  problem  of  environmental  

protection  but  also  recognized  the  linkage  between  the  

development  and  environment  from  which  the  concept  of  

“sustainable  development”  has  emerged.   The  Conference

Page 179

179

noticed that while man is  both creature and moulder of this  

environment,  rapid  advances  in  science  and  technology  had  

invested  man  with  the  potent  power  to  transform  his  

environment in countless ways and on an unprecedented scale.  

The  benefits  of  development  and  opportunity  to  enhance  

quality  of  life,  if  wrongly  or  carelessly  used,  man  could  do  

incalculable  harm to  human beings and to  the  environment.  

The  responsibility  of  the  people  to  protect  and  improve  the  

environment for  the present and the future generations was  

also recognized.  Later the Nairobi Conference and Declaration  

1982  re-stated  the  principles  of  Stockholm  Conference  and  

high-lighted the importance of  intensifying the efforts  at  the  

global,  regional  and  national  levels  to  protect  and  improve  

environment.  The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in  

October 1982 adopted “The World Charter For Nature” and laid  

down  general  principles  of  environmental  protection,  action  

plan  and  implementation  of  scheme  which  high-lighted  the  

conservation  principles.   New  Delhi  hosted  the  Delhi  

International  Conference  on  Environmental  Education  1982  

where  the  International  Community  called  for  massive  

programme of  environmental  research  and monitoring.   The

Page 180

180

Conference  suggested  that  environmental  education  should  

start from childhood and it should be both formal and informal.  

165. The  United  Nations  General  Assembly  vide  Resolution  

38/161, in the year 1983 suggested the creation of “The World  

Commission on Environment and Development” for suggesting  

and  recommending  legal  principles  based  on  Stockholm  

Conference  and  Nairobi  Conference  and  many  other,  then  

existing  International  Conventions  and  General  Assembly  

Resolutions.   The  World  Commission  submitted  its  report  in  

year  1987  which  indicated  that  politicians,  industrial  leaders  

and  environmental  groups  around  the  world  had  endorsed  

“sustainable  development”  i.e.  meeting  the  needs  of  the  

present without compromising the ability of future generations  

to  meet  their  own  needs.   United  Nations  convened  a  

conference in the year 1983 at Vienna for protection of Ozone  

layer  which  provided  foundation  for  global  multilateral  

undertakings to protect the environment and public health from  

the  potential  adverse  effects  of  depletion  of  Stratospheric  

Ozone.  

Page 181

181

166. United  Nations  Environmental  Programme  (UNEP)  

convened a Conference at Plenipotentiaries in Montreal in the  

year  1987,  called  the  Montreal  Protocol  1987,  which  high-

lighted  the  necessity  of  limiting  and  reducing  the  use  of  

chlorofluro  carbons  and  other  chemicals  that  deplete  ozone.  

India has acceded to both the Vienna Convention 1985 and the  

related Montreal Protocol, 1987, in the year 1992.

167. Following the Stockholm Conference the second landmark  

on  environmental  protection  and  development  was  “United  

Nations  Conference  on  Environment  and  Development  

(UNCED), 1992 (Rio Summit).  The Conference was held at Rio  

(Brazil) in the year 1992 which addressed the twin problems of  

environment  and  development.   Rio  declaration  sets  out  

general non-binding commands for “sustainable development”  

i.e.  “human  beings  who  are  at  the  centre  of  sustainable  

development concerns have to exercise their right to healthy  

and  productive  life  in  harmony  with  nature”.   The  Rio  

Conference also high-lighted the principle of inter generational  

equity.   Principles  like  “precautionary  principle”  so  as  to  

prevent  the  environmental  degradation  and  the  principle  of

Page 182

182

“polluter pays” i.e. to bear the cost of pollution with due regard  

to public interest” were high-lighted.  The Conference resulted  

in  conclusion  of  a  treaty  on  climate  change  with  a  general  

recognition  of  the  importance  of  curbing  emission  of  green  

house  gases,  another  treaty  on  bio-diversity  aiming  at  the  

preservation of flora and fauna was also concluded.  The Rio  

Conference also adopted Agenda 21.  Section II of that Agenda  

deals  with  topics  like  protection  of  the  atmosphere,  land  

resources,  deforestation,  sustainable  agriculture  and  rural  

development,  conservation  of  biodiversity,  protection  of  

oceans, fresh water, toxic chemicals management, hazardous  

waste management, solid waste management and radioactive  

waste management.

168. An  international  instrument  expressing  international  

concern  for  the  protection  of  global  environment  was  the  

convention  on  the  Climate  Change  (UNFCCC)  1992.   The  

Convention high-lighted the necessity to reduce emissions of  

green-house  gases  believed  to  be  contributing  to  global  

warming.    Yet  another,  convention  was  The  Biodiversity  

Convention, 1992 which sought to ensure that animals, plants

Page 183

183

and micro-organisms as well as genetic variety and ecosystem,  

water, land and air, in which they live are property protected.  

It  obligates  the  countries  to  promote  the  protection  of  eco-

systems,  natural  habitat  and  the  maintenance  of  viable  

populations of species in natural surroundings.  Following the  

Rio Summit a Special Session of UNFA held in June 1997 in New  

York to review the progress of Rio Earth Summit called “Earth  

Summit+5” which adopted a comprehensive document titled  

“Programme For Further Implementation of Agenda 21”.  The  

Conference  noticed  that  since  the  Rio  Conference,  global  

environment had continued to deteriorate with rising level of  

polluting  emissions,  notably  of  green  house  gases,  toxic  

substances  and  waste  volumes  and  at  operational  levels,  

including the lowest administrative levels.

169. UN Millennium Declaration, 2000 articulated that prudence  

must be shown in the management of  all  living species and  

natural  resources,  based  on  the  principle  of  “sustainable  

development” and that only then, can the immeasurable riches  

provided  to  us  by  the  nature  be  preserved  for  posterity.  

Further it  was declared that current unsustainable pattern of

Page 184

184

production and consumption must be changed in the interest of  

our future welfare and that of our descendants.

170. United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) following the Rio  

Declaration  and  Agenda  21  created  a  Commission  on  

Sustainable Development under the United Nations Economic  

and Social  Council  to ensure the effective implementation at  

the local, national, regional and international levels of what had  

been agreed at the Rio Conference, to ensure follow up of Rio  

Summit,  to  enhance  adequate  international,  scientific  and  

technological  cooperation  to  catalyse  inter-governmental  

decision  making  capacity  to  ensure  regular  and  effective  

reporting on the Agenda 21 and at the national, regional and  

global levels.

171. The Delhi Sustainable Development Summit (DSDS) held  

in February 2002 at New Delhi, examined and elaborated the  

dynamics of concept of sustainable development, with a view  

to  make  recommendations  for  consideration  at  the  World  

Summit  at  sustainable  development  to  be  held  in  

Johannesburg.   Delhi  Summit  sought  to  focus  on  poverty

Page 185

185

alleviation  as  the  overriding  concern  to  achieve  sustainable  

development.

172. The  World  Summit  on  Sustainable  Development  

(Johannesburg Summit) 2002 convened under the auspices of  

commission of sustainable development recommended various  

steps for further implementation of Rio Principles and Agenda  

21.  The Summit recognized that the reduction of poverty is the  

greatest global challenge facing the world, for which the World  

Solidarity  Fund  was  required  to  be  established  to  eradicate  

poverty  and  to  promote  social  and  human  development  in  

various developing countries.  Further, Conference also noticed  

that  since  oceans,  seas,  islands  and  coastal  areas  form  an  

integrated and essential component of earth’s ecosystem and  

are crucial for global food security and for sustaining economic  

prosperity  and  the  well-being  of  many  national  economies,  

particularly,  developing  countries,  it  is  necessary  to  ensure  

sustainable development of the oceans.

173. United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development,  

Rio +20 took place in Rio de Janeiro in June 2012, which also

Page 186

186

took forward looking decisions on a number of thematic areas  

including energy, food security, oceans, cities etc.  Conference  

also focused its attention on green economy in the context of  

sustainable  development,  poverty  eradication  and  an  

institutional framework for sustainable development.

174. We have already found on facts that the KKNPP has been  

set up and is made functional on the touchstone of sustainable  

development and its impact on ecology has been taken care of  

following  all  national  and  international  environmental  

principles.

Public Interest and Human Rights

175.We have to resolve the issue whether the establishment of  

NPP  would  have  the  effect  of  violating  the  right  to  life  

guaranteed under Article 21 to the persons who are residing in  

and  around  Kudankulam  or  by  establishing  the  NPP,  it  will  

uphold the right to life in a larger sense.  While balancing the  

benefit of establishing KKNPP Units 1 to 6, with right to life and  

property and the protection of environment including marine  

life, we have to strike a balance, since the production of nuclear

Page 187

187

energy is of extreme importance for the economic growth of  

our  country,  alleviate  poverty,  generate  employment  etc.  

While setting up a project of this nature, we have to have an  

overall  view  of  larger  public  interest  rather  than  smaller  

violation  of  right  to  life  guaranteed  under  Article  21  of  the  

Constitution.   

176. Problems highlighted, while setting up a nuclear plant, are  

not  unique  to  this  nation,  because  other  countries  are  also  

grappling  with  those  situations.   In  R.  v.  Inspectorate  of  

Pollution, ex p Greenpeace Ltd (1994) ALLER 321, the Court  

of Appeal in England had occasion to examine the correctness  

of the decision taken by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Pollution  

(HMIP) and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF)  

for allowing testing of new Thermal Oxide reprocessing plant  

THORP at  Sellafield,  HMIP and MAFF had concluded that  the  

radiological  impact  of  emissions  from THORP  would  be  very  

small, a plea which was accepted by the court.  In  R. v.  The  

Secretary  of  State  for  the  Environment,  ex  p  

Greenpeace  Ltd. (1994)  4  All  England  Reports  352,  the  

Greenpeace and Lancashire Country Council  sought to quash

Page 188

188

the  decision  to  grant  authorization  for  the  disposal  of  

radioactive waste from THORP.  Overall, Potts J.  concluded that  

Minister  had  acted  correctly  in  considering  first  the  human  

issues related to acceptability of risk and then examining the  

wider issue of justification as if they were relevant even though  

Minister (incorrectly) believed that they were not relevant, they  

had, in fact,  weighed the benefits and detriments  and were  

entitled to reach the conclusion that balance came down on the  

side  of  justification.   In  R.  v.   Secretary  of  State  for  

Environment,  Food and Rural  Affairs,  ex p Friends on  

the Earth Ltd (2002) Environmental Law Review 24, the Court  

of  Appeal  in  England had to  consider  the  application  of  the  

principle of justification to the substantive decision in October  

2001 with the proposed practice by the British Nuclear Fuels  

Limited  (BNFL)  of  manufacturing  mixed  oxide  fuel  (MOX)  at  

Sellafield.   Government’s  stand  was  that  the  “economic  

benefits” were sufficient to justify “the very minor radiological  

detriments” which would result from the manufacture of MOX.  

The Court of Appeal accepted the stand of the Government.   In  

Marchiorii v.  Environment Agency (2002) EWCA Civ 3, the  

Court  of  Appeal  examined  the  validity  of  the  authorization

Page 189

189

granted by the environment agency for the discharge of liquid  

wastes from the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) on the  

basis of that they could not be justified having regard to the  

humanitarian  and  international  law  objections  to  the  use  of  

nuclear weapons.  The environment agency took the stand that  

the  practice  of  designing,  constructing,  maintaining  and  

dismantling nuclear weapons at the AWE justified in the light of  

the government’s defence policy.  The Court of Appeal rejected  

the suggestion that the government decisions on matters such  

as the national nuclear deterrent should be subjected to review  

by the Courts on merits.  However, in  R. (Greepeace Ltd) v.  

Secretary  of  State  for  Trade  and  Industry (2007)  

Environmental  Law  Reports  29,  Sullivan  J.  high-lighted  the  

importance  of  ‘public  participation  in  decision  making  and  

access to justice’ in environmental matters and held that the  

government  was  obliged  to  honour  the  promise  that  it  had  

made of the fullest public consultation, even if it had made no  

such promise which was difficult to see how anything less could  

have  been  consistent  with  the  obligations  to  provide  

opportunities  for  public  participation  accepted  by  the  

Government under the United Nations Economic Commission of

Page 190

190

Europe (UNECE).  In S.V. France 3RUOH (1991), the European  

Commission  of  Human  Rights  found  that  noise,  night  time  

illumination of the power plant, nuclear risk and changes in the  

micro climate while interfering with the applicant’s private life  

had to be weighed with the general interests of the community.  

177. The  United  States  Supreme  Court  in  Metropolitan  

Edison Co. v.  People Against Nuclear Energy  [460 US 766  

(1983)]  was called upon to determine whether  psychological  

health  damage flowing directly  from the perceived risk  of  a  

nuclear accident, in the context of restarting the second reactor  

at Three Mile Island, following the accident affecting the other  

reactor  fell  within  the  scope  of  environmental  impact  

assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act.  The  

Court regarded the perceived risk of a nuclear accident as “a  

pervasive element of modern life” and held that such risk was  

not  an  effect  on  the  physical  environment.   In  Alberta  

Wilderness Association v. Express Pipelines Ltd. 137 DLR  

(4th)  177,  in  Canadian  Court  held  that  no  information  about  

probable future effects of a project can ever be complete or  

exclude all possible future outcomes.  This principle has been

Page 191

191

endorsed  by  the  Federal  Court  of  Appeal,  Canada  in  

Inverhuron District Ratepayers’ Assn v. Canada (Minister  

of the Environment) 2001 FCA 203 in a case involving a dry  

storage facility for used nuclear fuel.   

178. Much hue and cry has been raised by some sections of the  

people about the possible impact of radiation from KKNPP Units  

1 and 2, a point which has been addressed by the AERB, NPCIL,  

MoEF and all the Expert Committees constituted to go into the  

impact  and  effect  of  radiation  from  the  units  not  only  on  

humans but also on ecology.  Experts Committees are of the  

unanimous opinion that there will not be any deleterious effects  

due  to  radiation  from  the  operation  of  KKNPP,  and  that  

adequate  safety  measures  have  already  been  taken.   We  

cannot forget that there are many potential areas of radiation  

reflected in many uses of radioactive materials.   Radioactive  

materials are used in hospitals, surgeries and so on.  Mobile  

phone use, though minor, also causes radiation. In a report of  

the Department of Telecommunication “Mobile Communication  

– Radio Wave and Safety released in October 2012, it has been  

stated that a human body is exposed to more electromagnetic

Page 192

192

field  radiation  in  case  of  a  call  from  mobile  phone  in  

comparison to the radiation from a mobile tower.    

179. We  have,  therefore,  to  balance  “economic  scientific  

benefits” with that  of  “minor radiological  detriments” on the  

touchstone of our national nuclear policy.   Economic benefit,  

we have already indicated has to be viewed on a larger canvas  

which  not  only  augment  our  economic  growth  but  alleviate  

poverty and generate more employment.   NPCIL, while setting  

up the NPP at Kudankulam, have satisfied the environmental  

principle  like  sustainable  development,  corporate  social  

responsibility, precautionary principle, inter - intra generational  

equity and so on to implement our National Policy to develop,  

control and use of atomic energy for the welfare of the people  

and for economic growth of the country.  Larger public interest  

of the community should give way to individual apprehension of  

violation of  human rights and right  to  life  guaranteed under  

Article 21.  

180. Public money running into crores and crores rupees have  

already been spent for  the development,  control  and use of

Page 193

193

atomic  energy  for  the  welfare  of  the  people  and hence,  we  

have  to  put  up  with  such  “minor  inconveniences”,  “minor  

radiological detriments” and minor environmental detriments”  

in  our  lives  because  the  benefits  we  reap  from  KKNPP  are  

enormous  since  Nuclear  energy  remains  as  an  important  

element in India’s energy mix which can replace a significant  

part of fossil fuels like coal, gas oil etc.

181. The necessity of establishing KKNPP at Kudankulam has  

elaborately been discussed in the earlier part of the judgment,  

hence  not  repeated.   Justification  for  establishing  KKNPP  at  

Kudankulam, therefore has been vindicated and all safety and  

security  measures  have  already  been  taken,  necessary  

permissions  and  clearances  have  been  obtained  from  all  

statutory  authorities.   Apprehension  expressed  by  some  

sections of the public that if the units are commissioned or put  

into operation, it will have far reaching consequences, not only  

on the present generation, but also on the future generation, of  

the possible radioactive effects of the units, in our view has no  

basis.   Few  of  them  raised  the  apprehension  that  it  might  

repeat accidents like the one that had happened at Three Miles

Page 194

194

Island,  Chernobyl,  Union  Carbide  and  Fukushima  etc.  

Apprehension, however, legitimate it may be, cannot override  

the  justification  of  the  project.   Nobody  on  this  earth  can  

predict what would happen in future and to a larger extent we  

have to leave it to the destiny.   But once the justification test is  

satisfied, the apprehension test is bound to fail.  Apprehension  

is  something  we  anticipate  with  anxiety  or  fear,  a  fearful  

anticipation, which may vary from person to person.

182.  Power  generation through a  nuclear  plant  set  up after  

following all safety standards, rules and regulations, is for the  

welfare  of  the  people  and  for  the  economic  growth  of  the  

country, which is the object and purpose of the Atomic Energy  

Act.   Nuclear  energy  assumes  as  an  important  element  in  

India’s energy mix for sustaining economic growth of natural  

and domestic use which in future has to replace a significant  

part of fossil fuel like coal, oil, gas etc.  Electricity is the heart  

and soul of modern life, a life meant not for the rich and famous  

alone but also for the poor and down trodden.  They should also  

have an  adequate  means  of  livelihood,  job  opportunities  for  

which  we  have  to  set  up  Industries  and  commercial

Page 195

195

undertakings in the public as well as private sector and also  

have to invite foreign investment.  Generation of electricity is of  

extreme  importance  for  their  establishment  and  functioning  

and also for domestic consumption.  Power generation with the  

traditional means, through hydro, thermal electric project, coal  

etc  are  not  effective  substitution  to  the  power  generation  

through Nuclear Plant.  India has a mammoth population unlike  

developed  countries,  and  the  consumption  of  electricity  in  

domestic, industries, agricultural sector etc. is going up day-by-

day.  Most of the States are in the grip of power cut; day and  

night, for a number of hours, which has adverse effect on their  

economic  and  industrial  growth.   To  sustain  rapid  economic  

growth, it is necessary to double the supply of energy.  Energy  

tariff is also increasing, nuclear power in the long run will be  

much cheaper than other forms of energy.   

183. This  Court  in  Chameli  Singh and others v.  State of  

U.P. and another (1996) 2 SCC 549 held that an organized  

society  right  to  live  as  a  human  being  is  not  ensured  by  

meeting only the animal needs of man, but secured only when  

he is  assured of all  facilities to develop himself  and is freed

Page 196

196

from  restrictions  which  inhibit  his  growth.   Right  to  shelter  

includes  adequate  living  space,  safe  and  decent  structure,  

clean  and decent  surroundings,  sufficient  light,  pure  air  and  

water, electricity, sanitation and civil amenities like road etc. so  

as to have easy access to his daily avocation.

184. Nuclear  power  plant  is  being established not  to  negate  

right to life but to protect the right to life guaranteed under  

Article 21 of the Constitution.  The petitioner’s contention that  

the establishment of nuclear power plant at Kudankulam will  

make an inroad into the right to live guaranteed under Article  

21 of the Constitution, is therefore has no basis.  On the other  

hand  it  will  only  protect  the  right  to  life  guaranteed  under  

Article  21  of  the  Constitution  for  achieving  a  larger  public  

interest and will also achieve the object and purpose of Atomic  

Energy Act.  

EXPERTS’ VIEWS –TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC

185. AEC, DAE, BARC, AERB, NPCIL, TNPCB the expert bodies,  

are all  unanimous in their opinions that adequate safety and  

security measures have already taken at KKNPP which are to be

Page 197

197

given  due  weight  that  they  deserve.   Further,  as  already  

indicated  NPCIL  Task  Force  Report  on  Security  of  all  NPPs  

including KKNPP dated March 2011, 11.5.2011, AERB-EE Expert  

Opinion   on  Design  Committee  Safety  dated  31.8.2011,  15  

Member  Expert  Team  Committee  Report  (post  Fukishama)  

dated December 2011, Supplementary Report dated 31.2.2012  

on  the  Grievances  raised  by  some  of  the  agitators,  report  

submitted  by  Sri  R.  Srinivasan,  Former  President,  Atomic  

Energy Commission appointed by the State of Tamil Nadu are  

all unanimous in their view on the safety and security of KKNPP.

186. MoEF, EAC, TNPCB, Report of IOM, Anna University dated  

July 2008 on Impact of NPP on Marine Eco-system, Committee  

on  Conservation  of  Sea-Shore  of  the  State  of  Tamil  Nadu,  

Report  of  Engineers  India  Limited  with  CHFRI  dated  August  

2011, NEERI dated May 2002 and January 2003 on the Impact  

on Air, Water, Land, Eco-system etc. are all unanimous that the  

radiation as well as the discharge of water from NPP to the sea  

shore will not have serious impact on the marine ecology or on  

marine life.

Page 198

198

187. A  Constitution  Bench  of  this  Court  in  University  of  

Mysore v. C. D. Govinda Rao AIR 1965 SC 491, held that,  

normally,  Court  should  be slow to  interfere with  the opinion  

expressed by the Experts and it would normally be wise and  

safe for the courts to leave the decisions to experts who are  

more  familiar  with  the  problems  which  they  face  than  the  

courts  generally  can be which has been the consistent  view  

taken by this Court.  Reference may be made to the judgments  

of this Court in  State of Bihar v. Asis Kumar Mukherjee  

(Dr.) (1975) 3 SCC 602, Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B. S.  

Mahajan  (1990)  1  SCC 305,  Central  Areca Nut & Cocoa  

Marketing & Processing Coop. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka   

(1997) 8 SCC 31, Dental Council of India v. Subharti K. K.   

B.  Charitable  Trust  &  Another  (2001)  5  SCC  486,  

Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H. L. Ramesh (2010) 8 SCC 372 and  

Avishek Goenka v. Union of India (2012) 5 SCC 275.    In  

Woon Tankan and Seven Others v. Asian Rare Earth Sdn.   

Ehd. CLJ (1992) 2 207, the Supreme Court of Malaysia vide its  

judgment dated 23.12.1993 examined the effect  of  low-level  

radioactive  waste  on  the  health  of  the  population.   The  

Supreme  Court  upheld  the  plea  of  the  company,  placing

Page 199

199

reliance on the expert opinion expressed by the Atomic Energy  

Licensing  Board  (AELB)  and  took  the  view  that  since  the  

company has been operating under license granted by AELB,  

an expert body, it will be taken that the expert body had the  

expertise  to  speak  on  the  radiation  level  of  the  radioactive  

waste, on the health of the population.       

188. We have noticed that,  so far  as this case is  concerned,  

from the safety and security point of view of life and property,  

on  environment  and  all  that  related  aspects,  all  the  Expert  

Bodies  are  unanimous  in  their  opinion  that  KKNPP  has  fully  

satisfied all safety norms to safeguard the human life, property  

and environment which, we are sure, will allay the fears and  

apprehensions expressed by the people living in and around  

Kudankulam.  The Court, in our view, cannot sit in judgment on  

the views expressed by the Technical and Scientific Bodies in  

setting up of KKNPP plant at Kudankulam and on its safety and  

security.    

CONCLUSION

Page 200

200

189.KKNPP  has,  therefore  been  set  up  as  part  of  India’s  

National  Policy so as to develop,  control   and use of atomic  

energy for the welfare of the people of India.  Policy makers  

consider  nuclear  energy  as  an  important  element  in  India’s  

energy  mix  for  sustaining  economic  growth  of  natural  and  

domestic use.  For setting up the project, the project proponent  

has taken all safety requirements in site and off site and has  

followed the code of practices laid down by AERB, based on  

nationally  and  internationally  recognized  safety  methods.  

Safeguarding  the  nuclear  plants,  radioactive  materials  and  

ensuring its  physical  security have become a central  part  of  

Nuclear Law.  Adequate measures have, therefore, to be taken  

for storage of NSF at site, and also for the physical safety of  

stored NSF.   Of the seventeen suggested safety measures, by  

AERB,  LWR,  twelve have already been implemented and the  

rest, in a phased manner have to be implemented which the  

experts say, are meant for extra security.  DMP is already in  

place, so also the emergency preparedness plan, off site and on  

site and all programmes under CSR are progressing in the right  

direction with the co-operation and assistance of the District  

Administration.

Page 201

201

190. NPCIL,  has  also  received  necessary  environmental  

clearance from MoEF, TNPCB, etc for Units 1 to 6.  No violation  

of CRZ is also noticed.  Desalination Plant is also established  

after following rules and regulations and there is no violation of  

CRZ.  Experts say that there will be no impact on the marine  

eco-system due to discharge of +7ºCC, CCW over and above  

the ambient temperature of the sea.  Radiation impact on the  

eco-system is also within the standard set by AERB, MoEF, EAC,  

Pollution Control Board etc., so opined by the Experts.  In other  

words, all the expert teams are unanimous in their opinion of  

the safety and security of the KKNPP both to life and property of  

the  people  and  the  environment  which  includes  marine  life.  

Court  has  to  respect  national  nuclear  policy  of  the  country  

reflected in  the Atomic  Energy Act  and the same has to  be  

given effect to for the welfare of the people and the country’s  

economic growth and it is with these objectives in mind KKNPP  

has been set up.

Dipak Misra, J.

191. I  have  my  respectful  concurrence  with  the  views  and  

conclusions  expressed  by  my  respected  learned  Brother

Page 202

202

Radhakrishnan on all aspects.  However, I propose to add a few  

words  in  addition  to  what  has  been  eruditely  stated  by  my  

learned Brother.

Prologue

192.At the very inception, I may state that in the cases at hand,  

we are faced with a situation whether to interfere in the  

establishment,  operation  and  functionalism  of  a  nuclear  

plant coming up at Kudankulam and interdict its operation  

because  of  numerous  grounds  assiduously  urged  in  

voluminous  pleadings  encompassing  the  broad  canvas,  

namely,  statutory  violations  of  the  entire  gamut  of  

environmental  law,  exhibition  of  non-chalant  attitude  

towards public  opinion,  show of  total  disrespect  towards  

nature’s  inconsistencies,  keeping  at  bay  the  constant  

apprehension and threat of the known and the unknown,  

absolute  contempt  for  predictable  danger  that  has  

surfaced  on  certain  parts  of  the  Globe  and  the  

unpredictable disaster that may be faced by the populace  

of the locality and, most importantly, the public safety in  

praesenti and in futuro, or take cognizance of the needs  

and necessities of the public at large, the concept of public

Page 203

203

policy  and  the  scope  of  judicial  review,  the  precautions  

already undertaken and further assured to be taken within  

a  specific  time  span,  the  opinion  of  the  experts,  the  

impossible  avoidance  of  certain  facets  of  existence  in  

today’s  world,  the  global  phenomena  of  requirement  of  

electricity  as  a  source  of  energy and various  innovative  

methods to meet the same, the safety measures carried  

out and the steps undertaken to manage the disaster in  

case it occurs and finally to march ahead with life allaying  

all  apprehensions with a scientific mindset accepting the  

nature’s unpredictability to survive on the planet earth on  

the bedrock of the doctrine – survival of the fittest.

The  concern  for  safety  under  the  Atomic  Energy  Act,  1948:

193.Bearing  in  mind  the  broad  scenario,  few  aspects  are  

required to be harped upon.  Independent India perceived  

the need and use of nuclear energy in this country.  The  

Atomic Energy Act, 1948 conceived the constitution of the  

Atomic Energy Commission which came into being in 1954.  

After the repeal of the 1948 Act and coming into force of

Page 204

204

the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 (for brevity “the 1962 Act”), a  

larger field was covered.   The 1962 Act was enacted to  

provide  for  the  development,  control  and use  of  atomic  

energy for the welfare of the people of India and for other  

peaceful  purposes  and  for  matters  connected  therewith.  

The dictionary clause as contained in Section 2 takes into  

consideration  many  an  aspect  pertaining  to  equipment,  

substance, radiation and radioactive substance, etc.   

194.Certain provisions of the 1962 Act may be usefully referred  

to.  Section 3 of the 1962 Act deals with general powers of  

the  Central  Government.   Sub-section  (e)  of  Section  3  

reads as follows:-  

“3. General  powers  of  the  Central  Government

Subject  to  the  provisions  of  this  Act,  Central  Government shall have power –  

(e) to  provide  for  control  over  radioactive  substances or  radiation generating plant  in  order  to-

(i)    prevent radiation hazards;

(ii)  secure public safety and safety of persons  handling  radioactive  substances  or  radiation  generating plant; and

Page 205

205

(iii)  ensure  safe  disposal  of  radioactive  wastes;”

[Emphasis supplied]

195.Section 17 deals with special provisions for safety which  

reads as follows :-

Special provisions as to safety  

(1) The Central Government may, as regards any  class or description of premises or places, being  premises  or  places,  in  which  radioactive  substances  are  manufactured,  produced,  mined,  treated, stored or used or any radiation generating  plant, equipment or appliance is used, make such  provision  by  rules  as  appear  to  the  Central  Government to

be necessary —

(a) to prevent injury being caused to the health of  persons employed at such premises or places  or other persons either by radiations, or by the  ingestion of any radioactive substance;

(b) to secure that any radioactive waste products  resulting from such manufacture,  production,  mining, treatment, storage, or use as aforesaid  are disposed of safely;

(c)  to  prescribe  qualifications  of  the  persons  for  employment at  such premises or  places and  the regulation of their hours of employment,  minimum  leave  and  periodical  medical  examination. and the rules may, in particular  and without prejudice to the generality of this

Page 206

206

subsection  provide for imposing requirements  as to the erection or structural alterations of  buildings or the carrying out of works.

(2) The Central Government may, as respects the  transport  of  any  radioactive  substance  or  any  prescribed substance specified by an order issued  under this Act as being dangerous to health, make  such rules as appear to be necessary to prevent  injury  being  caused  by  such  transport  to  the  health of  persons  engaged  therein  and  other  persons.

(3) Rules made under this section may provide for  imposing  requirements,  prohibitions  and  restrictions on employers, employed persons and  other persons.

(4)  Any  person  authorised  by  the  Central  Government  under  this  section,  may,  on  producing,  if  so  required,  a  duly  authenticated  document  showing  his  authority,  enter  at  all  reasonable  hours  any  premises,  or  any  vehicle,  vessel or aircraft for the purpose of ascertaining  whether  there  has  been  committed,  or  is  being  committed, in or in connection with the premises,  vehicle, vessel or aircraft, any contravention of the  rules made under this section.

(5) In the event of any contravention of the rules  made under this section, the Central  Government  shall  have the right to take such measures as it  may deem necessary to prevent further injury to  persons  or  damage  to  property  arising  from  radiation  or  contamination  by  radioactive  substances including,  without  prejudice  to  the  generality of the foregoing provisions, and to the  right to take further action for the enforcement of

Page 207

207

penalties  under  section  24,  the  sealing  of  premises,  vehicle,  vessel,  or  aircraft,  and  the  seizure  of  radioactive  substances  and  contaminated equipment.”

[Emphasis added]

196.I have referred to the aforesaid provisions to highlight the  

emphasis laid on the public safety and safety of persons  

handling  radioactive  substances  and  to  control  the  

repercussions by the legislature.  Before I  dwell  upon in  

detail with regard to the necessity of safety, the measures  

taken and the constant vigil for future, it is apt to scan the  

anatomy of the Preamble, which has already been referred  

to.   The  preamble  can  be  segregated  into  three  parts  

namely,  (i)  development,  control  and  use  of  atomic  

energy, (ii) for the welfare of the people of India and (iii)  

for other peaceful purposes.  Thus, on one hand, the need  

was felt to get into the global arena for producing nuclear  

energy and, on the other, which is as important as the first  

one,  for  the  welfare  of  the  people.    The  necessity  to  

generate energy from various sources in India was and still  

is a felt necessity.  It has been submitted by the learned  

counsel  for  the  appellant  with  immense  emphasis  that

Page 208

208

apart from violation of the Environment (Protection) Act,  

1986 and the notifications framed thereunder,  the study  

would  reflect  that  there  would  be  multiple  ecological  

problems and further the safety of the local people would  

be  absolutely  in  peril.   My  learned  brother  has  already  

dealt in detail with regard to the submissions pertaining to  

the violations of the statutory provisions, the Rules and the  

Notifications relating to various environmental issues.  I do  

not intend to add anything in that regard.  My deliberation  

shall be on the concept of welfare and safety relating to  

the use of nuclear energy for the purpose of development.  

Needless  to  say,  it  has  to  be  totally  guided  by  the  

conception  of  public  safety  and  welfare  of  the  citizens.  

The  term  ‘welfare’  is  always  related  to  the  living  

generation  and  generations  to  come.   It  has  been  

contended  before  us  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellant that the basic care has not been taken to make  

the nuclear plant at Kudankulam a safe one and further  

when the entire globe has been shaken by the Fukushima  

tragedy, the Government of India, without taking recourse  

to the participative process of public hearing and showing

Page 209

209

scant respect for public safety, has plunged into such an  

activity.  That apart, it is highlighted that the radioactive  

substances have the real potentiality to gravely affect the  

present generation and that, in turn, will usher in immense  

disaster  and  suffering  for  the  future  generations.   Per  

contra,  learned  counsel  for  the  respondents  would  urge  

that  the  plant  is  based  and  founded  on  sophisticated  

technology  and  there  are  more  than  three  layers  of  

protection for safety which is not available in other nuclear  

plants  in  other  parts  of  the  world.   In  essence,  it  is  

submitted that all possible measures have been taken to  

avoid any kind of calamity.   

197.It is borne out from the material on record that two aspects  

have  weighed  with  many  a  nation  while  thinking  of  a  

nuclear  energy  plant,  namely,  the  caution  and  

circumspection at the time of operation and how to deal  

with radioactive waste.  We have been apprised how the  

re-use  of  radioactive  waste  is  done  by  a  sophisticated  

method and the danger is kept at bay.  On one hand, there  

is  requirement  of  energy and the need of  progress  and  

development  and,  in  a  way,  to  compete  with  the

Page 210

210

progressive phenomenon of the other countries in many a  

sphere and, on the other, the likelihood of danger to be  

caused  to  the  people  of  the  locality  and  the  effect-

potentiality to affect the larger section of public because of  

disposal of radioactive waste and transportation.   

Certain Conventions pertaining to safety:

198.At this juncture, I may profitably refer to the Convention on  

Nuclear  Safety  adopted  on  17th June,  1994  in  the  

Conference convened by the International Atomic Energy  

Agency at its Headquarters.  India is a signatory to the said  

Convention.  The Preamble of the Treaty reads as follows: -

i.“Aware  of  the  importance  to  the  international  community  of  ensuring  that  the  use  of  nuclear  energy is safe, well regulated and environmentally  sound;

ii.Reaffirming the necessity of continuing to promote  a high level of nuclear safety worldwide;

iii.Reaffirming that  responsibility  for  nuclear  safety  rests  with  the  State  having  jurisdiction  over  a  nuclear installation;

iv.Desiring  to  promote  an  effective  nuclear  safety  culture;

v.Aware that accidents at nuclear installations have  the potential for transboundary impacts;

vi.Keeping in  mind the Convention on the Physical  Protection  of  Nuclear  Material  (1979),  the  Convention  on  Early  Notification  of  a  Nuclear  Accident (1986), and the Convention on Assistance

Page 211

211

in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological  Emergency (1986);

vii.Affirming  the  importance  of  international  co- operation for the enhancement of nuclear safety  through  existing  bilateral  and  multilateral  mechanisms  and  the  establishment  of  this  incentive Convention;

viii.Recognizing  that  this  Convention  entails  a  commitment  to  the  application  of  fundamental  safety  principles  for  nuclear  installations  rather  than of detailed safety standards and that  there  are  internationally  formulated  safety  guidelines  which are updated from time to time and so can  provide  guidance  on  contemporary  means  of  achieving a high level of safety;

ix.Affirming  the  need  to  begin  promptly  the  development of an international convention on the  safety of radioactive waste management as soon  as  the  ongoing  process  to  develop  waste  management safety fundamentals has resulted in  broad international agreement;

x.Recognizing  the  usefulness  of  further  technical    work in connection with the safety of other parts  of the nuclear fuel cycle, and that this work may,  in  time,  facilitate  the development  of  current  or  future international instruments;”

[Emphasis supplied]

199.Article 10 deals with priority to nuclear safety.  It reads as  

follows: -

“Each Contracting  Party  shall  take  the  appropriate  steps  to  ensure  that  all  organizations  engaged  in  activities directly related to nuclear installations shall  establish  policies  that  give  due  priority  to  nuclear  safety.”

[Emphasis added]

Page 212

212

200.Article  14  provides  for  assessment  and  verification  of  

safety.  It is as under: -

“(i) comprehensive  and  systematic  safety  assessments are carried out before the construction  and  commissioning  of  a  nuclear  installation  and  throughout its  life.  Such assessments shall  be well  documented,  subsequently  updated  in  the  light  of  operating  experience and  significant  new  safety  information, and reviewed under the authority of the  regulatory body;

(ii) verification  by  analysis,  surveillance,  testing  and inspection is carried out to ensure that the  physical  state  and the  operation  of  a  nuclear  installation continue to be in accordance with its  design, applicable national safety requirements,  and operational limits and conditions.”

[Emphasis supplied]

201.Article 16 stipulates emergency preparedness.  It reads as  

follows: -

“1. Each  Contracting  Party  shall  take  the  appropriate  steps  to  ensure  that  there  are  on-site  and  off-site  emergency  plans  that  are  routinely  tested  for  nuclear  installations  and  cover  the  activities  to  be  carried  out  in  the  event  of  an  emergency.

For  any  new  nuclear  installation,  such  plans  shall  be prepared and tested before it  commences  operation  above  a  low  power  level  agreed  by  the  regulatory body.

Page 213

213

2. Each Contracting Party shall take the appropriate  steps to ensure that, insofar as they are likely to  be affected by a radiological emergency, its own  population and the  competent  authorities  of  the  States in the vicinity of the nuclear installation are  provided  with  appropriate  information  for  emergency planning and response.

3. Contracting Parties which do not have a nuclear  installation on their territory,  insofar as they are  likely to be affected in the event of a radiological  emergency at a nuclear installation in the vicinity,  shall  take  the  appropriate  steps  for  the  preparation  and  testing  of  emergency  plans  for  their  territory  that  cover  the  activities  to  be  carried out in the event of such an emergency.”

202.Article 19 deals with operations.  It is as follows: -

“Each Contracting  Party  shall  take  the  appropriate  steps to ensure that:

(i) the  initial  authorization  to  operate  a  nuclear  installation is based upon an appropriate safety  analysis  and  a  commissioning  programme  demonstrating  that  the  installation,  as  constructed,  is  consistent  with  design  and  safety requirements;

(ii) operational  limits  and conditions derived from  the  safety  analysis,  tests  and  operational  experience  are  defined  and  revised  as  necessary  for  identifying  safe  boundaries  for  operation;

(iii) operation, maintenance, inspection and testing  of  a  nuclear  installation  are  conducted  in  accordance with approved procedures;

(iv) procedures  are  established  for  responding  to  anticipated  operational  occurrences  and  to  accidents;

(v) necessary engineering and technical support in  all  safety-related fields is available throughout  the lifetime of a nuclear installation;

Page 214

214

(vi) incidents significant to safety are reported in a    timely  manner  by  the  holder  of  the  relevant  licence to the regulatory body;

(vii) programmes  to  collect  and  analyse  operating  experience are established, the results obtained  and the conclusions drawn are acted upon and  that  existing  mechanisms  are  used  to  share  important experience with international bodies  and  with  other  operating  organizations  and  regulatory bodies;

(viii) the  generation  of  radioactive  waste  resulting    from the operation of  a  nuclear  installation is  kept to the minimum practicable for the process  concerned, both in activity and in volume, and  any necessary treatment and storage of spent  fuel and waste directly related to the operation  and  on  the  same site  as  that  of  the  nuclear  installation take into consideration conditioning  and disposal.”

[Underlining is mine]

203.The  aforesaid  Convention,  as  is  demonstrable  from  the  

various Articles, lays down the priority to nuclear safety,  

comprehensive and systematic safety assessments at all  

stages including the life span of the plants, verification by  

analysis, surveillance, testing and inspection, regard being  

had to the safety requirements, emergency planning and  

preparedness to take care of the people in the vicinity of  

the  nuclear  installation,  necessary  engineering  and  

technical  support  in  all  safety  related  fields  available  

throughout  the  life  time  of  the  nuclear  installation,

Page 215

215

constant reporting by the operator to the regulatory body  

pertaining to safety and the handling of radioactive waste  

resulting from the operation and the measures of safety  

carried thereon.

204.In  this  regard,  I  may  refer  with  profit  to  another  

Convention, namely, the Joint Convention on the Safety of  

Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive  

Waste  Management  dated  5th September,  1997.   I  may  

hasten to add that India is not a signatory to the same but  

the  said  Convention  is  worth  referring  to  in  order  to  

understand  and  appreciate  the  world-wide  concern  for  

public safety.   Chapter 2 deals with safety of spent fuel  

management, Chapter 3 deals with safety of Radioactive  

Waste  Management  and  Chapter  4  deals  with  General  

safety provisions.  Article 4 occurring in Chapter 2 deals  

with  general  safety  requirements.   Clauses  (v)  and (vii)  

read as follows: -

“Article 4. General Safety Requirements

Each  Contracting  Party  shall  take  the  appropriate  steps  to  ensure  that  at  all  stages  of  spent fuel management, individuals, society and the

Page 216

216

environment  are  adequately  protected  against  radiological hazards.

In so doing,  each Contracting Party shall  take  the appropriate steps to:

(v) take into account the biological,  chemical and  other hazards that may be associated with spent fuel  management; (vii) aim to avoid imposing undue burdens on future  generations.”

205.Article  11  in  Chapter  3  pertains  to  General  Safety  

Requirements.  It is reproduced below: -

“Each  contracting  Party  shall  take  the  appropriate  steps  to  ensure  that  at  all  stages  of  radioactive  waste  management  individuals,  society  and  the  environment  are  adequately  protected  against  radiological and other hazards.

In so doing,  each Contracting party shall  take  the appropriate steps to:

(i) ensure that  criticality  and removal  of  residual  heat  generated  during  radioactive  waste  management are adequately addressed;

(ii) ensure that the generation of radioactive waste  is kept to the minimum practicable;

(iii) take into account interdependencies among the  different  steps  in  radioactive  waste  management;

(iv) provide  for  effective  protection  of  individuals,    society and the environment, by applying at the  national  level  suitable  protective  methods  as

Page 217

217

approved  by  the  regulatory  body,  in  the  framework of its national legislation which has  due regard to internationally endorsed criteria  and standards;

(v) take into account the biological,  chemical and  other  hazards  that  may  be  associated  with  radioactive waste management;

(vi) strive to avoid actions that impose reasonable    predictable  impacts  on  future  generations  greater  than  those  permitted  for  the  current  generation;

(vii) aim to avoid imposing undue burdens on future    generations.”

[Emphasis added]

206.Article  15  deals  with  Assessment  of  Safety  of  facilities.  

The relevant clauses are as under: -

“Each Contracting  Party  shall  take  the  appropriate  steps to ensure that:

(i) before  construction  of  a  radioactive  waste  management  facility,  a  systematic  safety  assessment and an environmental assessment  appropriate  to  the  hazard  presented  by  the  facility and covering its operating lifetime shall  be carried out;

(ii) in  addition,  before  construction  of  a  disposal  facility,  a  systematic  safety  assessment  and  environmental  assessment  for  the  period  following closure shall  be carried out  and the  results  evaluated  against  the  criteria  established by the regulatory body;

(iii) before  the  operation  of  a  radioactive  waste  management  facility,  updated  and  detailed

Page 218

218

versions  of  the  safety  assessment  and of  the  environmental  assessment  shall  be  prepared  when  deemed  necessary  to  complement  the  assessments referred to in paragraph (i).”

207.Article 22 that occurs in Chapter 4 deals with Human and  

Financial Resources.  It is apt to reproduce the same: -

“Each Contracting  Party  shall  take  the  appropriate  steps to ensure that:

(i) qualified  staff  are  available  as  needed  for  safety-related  activities  during  the  operating  lifetime of a spent fuel and a radioactive waste  management facility;

(ii) adequate  financial  resources  are  available  to  support the safety of facilities for spent fuel and  radioactive  waste  management  during  their  lifetime and for decommissioning;

(iii) financial provision is made which will enable the  appropriate institutional control and monitoring  arrangements  to  be  continued  for  the  period  deemed  necessary  following  the  closure  of  a  disposal facility.”

208.Article  23  deals  with  quality  assurance.   It  reads  as  

follows:-

“Each  Contracting  Party  shall  take  the  necessary  steps to ensure that all appropriate quality assurance  programmes concerning the safety of spent fuel and  radioactive waste management are established and  implemented.”

Page 219

219

209.The aforesaid  Convention,  as  is  seen,  lays  emphasis  on  

ecological  hazards, avoidance of undue burden on future  

generations, management of radioactive waste, adequate  

protection  against  radiological  and  other  hazards,  

application of suitable protective methods approved by the  

regulatory  body  keeping  in  view  the  interest  of  the  

individual  and the society,  to  avoid  actions  that  impose  

reasonable predictable impact on future generations, the  

systematic  safety  assessment  and  environmental  

assessment appropriate to the hazards presented by the  

facility and covering its operating lifetime, the institutional  

control  and  mandatory  arrangements  and  ensuring  of  

appropriate quality assurance programmes concerning the  

safety  from  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste.   I  am  

absolutely  conscious that  India  has not  ratified the said  

Convention  but  the  safety  concern  at  any  level  is  a  

fundamental human concern.  I have referred to the same,  

to repeat at the cost of repetition, to show the concern of  

many  countries,  especially,  relating  to  safety  measures  

taken at all times.  The 1962 Act and the Convention which  

has  been  ratified  by  India  speak  eloquently  about  that.

Page 220

220

The  conception  of  public  safety,  at  no  stage,  can  be  

brushed  aside  or  ignored.   It  has  to  be  treated  with  

paramount primacy and highest priority for the simon pure  

reason life  delights  every  person  and creates  an innate  

desire to live.

Necessity of Electrical Energy by the State and Concept  of Public Safety:

210.In  Anderson  v.  Dunn1, the  U.S.  Supreme  Court,  in  a  

different context, long back had stated about the role of  

the State and the safety of the citizens: -

“No one is so visionary as to dispute the assertion,  that the sole end and aim of all our institutions is the  safety and happiness of the citizen.  But the relation  between the  action and the end,  is  not  always so  direct  and  palpable  as  to  strike  the  eye  of  every  observer.   The science of  government  is  the most  abstruse of all sciences; if, indeed, that can be called  a  science  which  has  but  few  fixed  principles,  and  practically consists in little more than the exercise of  a sound discretion, applied to the exigencies of the  state as they arise.  It is the science of experiment.”

After  so  stating,  the  U.S.  Supreme  Court  proceeded  to  

observe as follows: -

1 19 U.S. [6 Wheat.] 204 (1821)]

Page 221

221

“That ‘the safety of the people is the supreme law’,  not only comforts with, but is indispensable to, the  exercise of those powers in their public functionaries,  without which that safety cannot be guarded.”

211.In Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India2, this Court, while  

dealing with the constitutional validity of the Bhopal Gas  

Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985, observed  

that the said enactment was passed as a sequel to a grim  

tragedy that occurred on the night of December 2, 1984.  

This  Court  treated  it  to  be  the  most  tragic  industrial  

disaster in recorded human history.  While discussing the  

concept  of  parens  patriae,  the  learned  Chief  Justice  

observed that the conception of the parens patriae theory  

is the obligation of the State to protect and it takes into  

custody  the  rights  and  the  privileges  of  its  citizens  for  

discharging  its  obligation.   While  dealing  with  the  said  

concept, it has been opined that the maxim  salus populi   

suprema lex – regard for public welfare - is the highest law.  

212.I  have  referred  to  the  said  pronouncement  solely  to  

emphasize on the role of the State to act in the greater  

welfare of the collective and how the public welfare has  

been treated to be at the zenith of law. 2 (1990) 1 SCC 613

Page 222

222

213.In  Union Carbide Corporation  v.  Union of India and  

others3, a  Constitution Bench regarded the Bhopal  Gas  

Leak  Tragedy  as  a  horrendous  industrial  mass  disaster,  

unparalleled  in  its  magnitude,  and  the  devastation  and  

remains  a  ghastly  monument  to  the  dehumanizing  

influence  of  inherently  dangerous  technologies.   While  

dealing  with  the  justness  and  reasonableness  of  the  

quantum of settlement, the Constitution Bench adverted to  

the problems emerging from the pursuit of such dangerous  

technologies  for  economic  gains  by  multinationals,  

availability of cheap labour, captive markets and the facets  

of economic exploitation in developing countries where the  

matters of concern were propounded before the court and  

in that context, it has been observed as follows: -

“32. These issues and certain cognate areas of even  wider significance and the limits of the adjudicative  disposition  of  some  of  their  aspects  are  indeed  questions  of  seminal  importance.  The  culture  of  modern industrial technologies, which is sustained on  processes  of  such  pernicious  potentialities,  in  the  ultimate  analysis,  has  thrown  open  vital  and  fundamental  issues  of  technology  options.  Associated  problems  of  the  adequacy  of  legal  protection against  such exploitative and hazardous  

3 (1989) 3 SCC 38

Page 223

223

industrial  adventurism, and whether the citizens of  the  country  are  assured  the  protection  of  a  legal  system  which  could  be  said  to  be  adequate  in  a  comprehensive sense in such contexts arise. These,  indeed,  are  issues  of  vital  importance  and  this  tragedy, and the conditions that enabled it happen,  are of particular concern.”

214.Thereafter,  the  Court  referred  to  the  technology  in  

agriculture that has given a big impetus to enterprises of  

chemical fertilizers and its serious problems.  Thereafter, it  

has been stated thus: -

“34. Indeed, there is also need to evolve a national  policy to protect national interests from such ultra- hazardous  pursuits  of  economic  gains.  Jurists,  technologists  and  other  experts  in  economics,  environmentology,  futurology,  sociology  and  public  health etc. should identify areas of common concern  and  help  in  evolving  proper  criteria  which  may  receive judicial recognition and legal sanction.”

215.In  Pritam  Pal  v.  High  Court  of  Madhya  Pradesh,  

Jabalpur  through  Registrar4, the  maxim  salus  populi  

suprema lex, i.e., welfare of the people is the supreme law,  

was again emphasised upon, though in a different context.

4 1993 Supp (1) SCC 529

Page 224

224

216.At this juncture, I must also refer to the other maxim salys  

republicae  supreme  lex,  i.e.,  safety  of  the  State  is  the  

supreme law and in case of any conflict, an individual must  

yield to the collective interest.  But, it should not be done  

at  the  cost  of  safety.   At  all  times  and  at  all  quarters,  

sincere efforts are to be made to maintain and sustain the  

safety  of  the  people.   That  has  been  spoken  by  the  

ancients  when  the  Kings  ruled  and  the  same  reigns  

supreme  in  a  democratic  set-up.   True  it  is,  there  are  

exceptions, but the exceptions are to remain in the realm  

of  exceptions  only  and  should  not  be  brought  into  play  

either at the whim or fancy of the executive.  The purpose  

of  saying  is  that  the  law  has  many  a  mansion  and  the  

mosaic  of  law covers  many spectrums so  that  both  the  

maxims,  namely,  solus  populi  supreme  lex  and  salus  

republicae  supreme lex, can  harmoniously  coexist.   The  

present case is one where there is need for nuclear energy  

for the welfare of the public and for other welfare of the  

people of India and for peaceful purpose.  Definitely, the  

interest of the economy and the interest of safety are to be  

the real concerns of a Welfare State.  In this regard, I may

Page 225

225

usefully refer to the following observations made by this  

Court,  though  in  a  different  context,  in  State  of  

Karnataka and others v. Dr. Praveen Bhai Thogadia5:  

-

“Welfare  of  the  people  is  the  ultimate  goal  of  all  laws, and State action and above all the Constitution.  They have one common object,  that is  to promote  the well-being and larger interest of the society as a  whole and not of any individual or particular groups  carrying any brand names.  It  is  inconceivable  that  there  can  be  social  well-being  without  communal  harmony, love for each other and hatred for none.  The  core  of  religion  based  upon  spiritual  values,  which the Vedas, Upanishads and Puranas were said  to reveal to mankind seem to be: “Love others, serve  others,  help  ever,  hurt  never”  and  “sarvae  jana  sukhino bhavantoo”.”

217.The concept of welfare State is a facet of Article 38 of the  

Constitution of India.  It is the obligation of the State to see  

that the welfare of the people is appositely promoted.  It is  

the obligation passed by the Constitution of the State to  

establish a welfare State.  The words used in the Preamble  

of the 1962 Act are “welfare for the people” and “peace”.  

There is a necessity for generation of electrical energy and  

regard being had to the hazards, there has to be guidance  

5 (2004) 4 SCC 684

Page 226

226

which  the  Acts,  Rules  and  Notifications  provide.   The  

collective interests should not totally be thrown overboard  

for  the  development  of  the  power  sector.   If  the safety  

measures are adequately not taken and the apprehensions  

are not removed and the fear is not totally ostracized from  

the minds of the people of the locality, posterity may not  

recognize  the  same  as  a  development  or  a  progressive  

step.  The conscientious and conscious policy decisions by  

the  Government  are  to  be  taken  with  due  care  and  

consideration, keeping in mind the welfare of the people at  

large.  True it is, when such policies are framed, especially  

for  establishment  of  nuclear  plants or  such big projects,  

the safety measures become the primary concern and the  

same have to be adequately addressed to and taken care  

of.  However, the Courts, in exercise of power of judicial  

review, cannot assume the role of approving authority for  

laying safety  measures,  but,  a  significant  one,  what  the  

regulatory authorities have stated are to be regarded as  

the primary and principal concern.   

AERB Report:

Page 227

227

218.In this context, I  may refer to the report of the AERB to  

review the safety of Indian Nuclear Power Plants against  

External Events of Natural Origin.  For the sake of necessity  

and completeness, it is reproduced below: -

“SAFETY  ASSESSMENT  OF  KUDANKULAM  NUCLEAR  POWER PLANT UNITS-1&2 (KK NPP1&2) IN THE WAKE  OF FUKUSHIMA ACCIDENT

Two  Units  of  VVER  Pressurized  Water  Reactors  (Model V-412) each of 1000 MW rating are being built  at  the  Kudankulam  Site  in  Tamil  Nadu.   Initial  commissioning activities  for  Unit  # 1 have started  with AERB issuing clearance for  “Hot-Run” on June  30, 2011.  Construction of Unit # 2 is in an advanced  stage of completion.

The  design  of  KK  NPP  incorporates  a  number  of  engineered  safety  features  (ESFs)  for  catering  to  design  basis  accident  (DBAs)  and  beyond  design  basis  accidents  (BDBAs),  and  several  other  design  safety features.

ESFs for catering to DBA.

a. Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS)

b. Secondary  circuit  protection  against  over- pressurisation

c. Emergency Gas Removal System

d. Fission Products Removal and Control Systems

e. Emergency Safety Boron Injection System

f. Quick Boron Injection System (QBIS)

Page 228

228

ESFs for catering to

BDBA

• Passive Heat Removal System (PHRS)

• Additional System for core passive flooding

• Annuls passive filtering system (APFS)

• System for retaining and cooling of molten core

Other salient design safety

Features

• 4 x 100% active safety system trains and 4 x  33% passive safety system trains

• Large  water  inventory  in  I  and  II  stage  ECCS  hydro-accumulators

• Automatic Reactor Scram on seismic signal

• Battery banks with 24 hrs capacity

• Sea water  pumps located at  more  than 2.2m  above design basis flood level (DBFL)

• Safety related buildings and structures located  at least 3.0m above DBFL

• A shore protection rubble wall

Post-Fakushima safety Assessment

A Task Force (TF) constituted by NPCIL carried out  safety  assessment  of  KKNPP-1&2  in  the  light  of  Fakushipa accident and its findings were reviewed by  the  AERB’s  Advisory  committee  on  Project  safety  review of light water reactors (ACPSR-LWR) and the  AERB Committee on safety review of Indian NPPs in  the  light  of  Fukushima  accident.   Salient  points

Page 229

229

emerging from the assessment and its reviews are  given below: -

• Back up provisions from alternate sources should  be made for

- Charging water to secondary side of SGs

- Make-up of borated water to spent fuel pools

- Injection  of  borated  water  in  the  reactor  coolant system.

• Sciesmic qualification of emergency water storage  facility and augmentation of its  storage capacity  for core decay heat removal for a period of at least  one week.

• Mobile  self  powered  pumping  equipment  for  emergency use

• Facility  for  monitoring  safety  parameters  using  portable power packs

• Finalization  of  emergency  operating  procedures  for BDBA conditions

• Primary Containment to be assessed for ultimate  load bearing capacity.

• Doors  and barrels  of  airlocks  to  be qualified  for  proof test pressure.

• Ensuring that highly active water used for cooling  the core catcher vessel under BDBA is contained  inside the primary containment.

• Reconfirmation  of  design  adequacy  of  hydrogen  management system.

• Environmental  qualification  of  core  catcher  temperature monitoring system

Page 230

230

• Adequacy  of  design  provision  for  remote  water  addition to core catcher

• Adequacy of instrumentation for monitoring plant  status during BDBA.

• Details of margin available on location of various  safety  related  SSCs  above  DBFL  should  be  reviewed again,

• Need for design provision for containment venting,  that has been deleted, should be re-examined.

• The  backup  sources  for  water  injection  to  SG  secondary side should be seismically qualified.

• Provisions  for  addition  of  water  to  core  catcher  require a detailed study, to ensure that there is no  possibility of any steam explosion.

• Provision  of  additional  backup  power  supply  sources for performing essential safety functions,  like  air  cooled  DGs  located  at  a  high  elevation,  should be considered.

The  recommendations  are  being  examined  and  NPCIL’s  response  would  be  reviewed  in  ACPSR- LWR before initial fuel loading in unit-1.

219.A status report has been filed by NPCIL.  An affidavit has  

been filed on 3.12.2012 and it is asserted therein that most  

of the recommendations have already been complied with.  

It  has been dealt  with by my respected learned Brother  

that there is substantial compliance of the same and dates  

or  fixed  time  frame  has  been  given  for  compliance  of  

certain  recommendations  which  have  not  yet  been

Page 231

231

complied.  This Court has been apprised of the fact that the  

AERB and, in turn, the MoEF are in total control of things  

and scrutiny is  made and the same shall  be looked into  

from time to time and all possible measures shall be taken  

to avoid any kind of accident.   As advised, at present,  I  

have  noted  the  categorical  assurance  of  the  Statutory  

Authority.

Nuclear  Energy  development  and  doctrine  of  balance  and proportionality vis-à-vis safety:

220.It must be stated that the safety of the people residing in  

Kudankulam  and  the  areas  in  its  vicinity  and  also  the  

people who are likely to be affected because of radioactive  

generation has to be respected, for their human dignity is  

their divinity.  This Court has not directed for closure of the  

plant on the basis of the asseverations made before this  

Court.  But, it is the highest concern of this Court that a  

devastating disaster should be avoided at all costs by the  

people  who  are  in-charge  of  looking  after  the  safety  

measures.   The  statutory  regulatory  authority  should  

responsibly  keep  the  vigil  and  no  one,  who  has  the

Page 232

232

responsibility, should be complacent.  The tragedy that has  

occurred at Fukushima shall remain as one of the darkest  

elements of history.   The catastrophe of the Bhopal Gas  

Leak  Disaster  has  not  been  erased  or  effaced  from the  

minds of the public.  The moan and mourns of the affected  

people of Bhopal who have been injured or lost their kith  

and kin are still  heard and humane sensitivity would not  

permit  one  to  ignore  it.   The  nuclear  scientists,  the  

administrators  and  other  authorities  cannot  remain  

oblivious or totally insensitive to the possible hazards when  

the nuclear plant operates.   

221.When one thinks of safety in the context of establishment  

of a nuclear plant, the inevitable thought that gets into the  

depth  of  mind  is  security.   Safety  and  security,  in  this  

context,  are  insegregably  inter-twined  commencing  the  

planning,  quality  of  construction,  committed  efforts  to  

avoid  operational  jeopardy  and  monitoring  and  all  are  

bound to remain in a singular chain.  All endeavours are to  

be made to prevent, monitor and control.  The concept of  

disaster  management  cannot  be  allowed  to  remain  on

Page 233

233

paper.  Its procrastination itself rings the bell of peril.  The  

administration has to be alive to the said situation and the  

awakening  to  manage  the  disaster  in  case  of  an  

unfortunate incident has to be founded on scientific and  

sophisticated methods.  Taking care of the situation of the  

present alone is not the solution.  All concerned with the  

same  are  required  to  look  to  the  future  because  that  

elevates the real concern.  The danger of the future should  

be seriously taken note of and should not be veiled in the  

guise of thought for the present.  Not for nothing, it has  

been said that he who prepares for the future and remains  

prepared  for  the  future  has  a  good  control  over  the  

present, and if one remains in a state of blindness thinking  

the  future  to  be  uncertain,  he  suffers  the  agony of  the  

present and the anguish of the future.  This is not only the  

truth in respect of an individual life but also the paramount  

truth for the collective of the present generation and the  

future generations.  The present generation has no right to  

enjoy by eating away the time of the future generation.  

The protection of the environment and the safety for the

Page 234

234

present  generation  in  its  connotative  sense  covers  the  

posterity.

222.I  have  already  discussed  about  the  signification  of  the  

safety needed in respect of nuclear plants.  Generation of  

nuclear  energy  is  a  necessity  in  a  progressive  modern  

State.  As has been stated earlier, there is an enactment  

and notifications governing the field in various aspects.  A  

policy  decision  has  been  taken  to  establish  the  nuclear  

plant  at  Kudankulam.   Promotion  of  development  and  

protection  of  environment  are  to  be  harmonized  at  the  

same time.  In Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State  

of  A.P.  and  others6, it  has  been  held  that  merely  

asserting an intention for development will not be enough  

to sanction the destruction of local  ecological  resources.  

What  is  required  to  be  prescribed  is  the  principle  of  

sustainable development and find a balance between the  

developmental needs and the environmental degradation.

223.In  Bombay  Dying  &  Mfg.  Co.  Ltd.  (3)  v.  Bombay  

Environmental  Action  Group  and  others7,  while  

6 (2006) 3 SCC 549 7 (2006) 3 SCC 434

Page 235

235

dealing with the concept of sustainable development and  

planned  development  vis-à-vis  Article  21  of  the  

Constitution, a two-Judge Bench has opined thus: -

“It  is  often felt  that in the process of encouraging  development  the  environment  gets  sidelined.  However,  with  major  threats  to  the  euvironment,  such  as  climate  change,  depletion  of  natural  resources, the eutrophication of water systems and  biodiversity and global warming, the need to protect  the environment has become a priority. At the same  time, it is also necessary to promote development.  The harmonisation of the two needs has led to the  concept of sustainable development, so much so that  it has become the most significant and focal point of  environmental  legislation  and  judicial  decisions  relating  to  the  same.  Sustainable  development,  simply put, is a process in which development can be  sustained  over  generations.  Brundtland  Report  defines “sustainable development” as development  that  meets  the  needs  of  the  present  generations  without  compromising  the  ability  of  the  future  generations  to  meet  their  own  needs.  Making  the  concept of sustainable development operational for  public  policies  raises  important  challenges  that  involve complex synergies and trade offs.”

224.In  M.C.  Mehta  v.  Union of  India  and others8,  while  

stating about sustainable development and the needs of  

the present without compromising the ability of the future  

8 (2004) 12 SCC 118

Page 236

236

generation  to  meet  their  own  needs,  this  Court  has  

expressed thus: -

“The definition of “sustainable development” which  Brundtland  gave  more  than  3  decades  back  still  holds good. The phrase covers the development that  meets  the  needs  of  the  present  without  compromising the ability of the future generation to  meet their own needs. In  Narmada Bachao Andolan  v.  Union  of  India9 this  Court  observed  that  sustainable development means the type or extent  of development that can take place and which can be  sustained  by  nature/ecology  with  or  without  mitigation.  In these matters,  the required standard  now is that the risk of harm to the environment or to  human  health  is  to  be  decided  in  public  interest,  according  to  a  “reasonable  person's”  test.  [See  Chairman  Barton:  The  Status  of  the  Precautionary   Principle in Australia (Vol. 22, 1998, Harv. Envtt. Law  Review, p. 509 at p. 549-A) as referred to in para 28  in  A.P.  Pollution  Control  Board v.  Prof.  M.V.  Nayudu10.]”

225.In  Tirupur  Dyeing  Factory  Owners  Association  v.  

Noyyal River Ayacutdars Protection Association and  

others11,  while  dealing  with  the  concept  of  sustainable  

development, the Court has observed as under: -

“The  concept  of  “sustainable  development”  has  been explained that it covers the development that  

9 (2000) 10 SCC 664 10 (1999) 2 SCC 718 11 (2009) 9 SCC 737

Page 237

237

meets the needs of the person without compromising  the ability of the future generation to meet their own  needs.  It  means  the  development,  that  can  take  place and which can be sustained by nature/ecology  with  or  without  mitigation.  Therefore,  in  such  matters,  the  required  standard  is  that  the  risk  of  harm to the environment or to human health is to be  decided in public interest, according to a “reasonable  person's”  test.  The  development  of  the  industries,  irrigation  resources  and  power  projects  are  necessary to improve employment opportunities and  generation of revenue, therefore, cannot be ignored.  In such eventuality,  a balance has to be struck for  the reason that if  the activity is  allowed to go on,  there may be irreparable damage to the environment  and  there  may  be  irreparable  damage  to  the  economic interest. A similar view has been reiterated  by this Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (104)  v.  Union  of  India12 and  M.C.  Mehta v.  Union  of  India13.”

226.In  T.N.  Godavarman  Thirumalpad  (through  K.M.  

Chinnappa)  v.  Union of India and others14, this Court  

observed that it cannot be disputed that no development is  

possible without some adverse effect on the ecology and  

environment, and the projects of public utility cannot be  

abandoned and it is necessary to adjust the interest of the  

people  as  well  as  the  necessity  to  maintain  the  

environment. A balance has to be struck between the two  12 (2008) 2 SCC 222 13 (2009) 6 SCC 142 14 (2002) 10 SCC 606

Page 238

238

interests.  Where  the  commercial  venture  or  enterprise  

would bring in results  which are far  more useful  for  the  

people,  difficulty of a small  number of people has to be  

bypassed. The comparative hardships have to be balanced  

and the convenience and benefit to a larger section of the  

people  has  to  get  primacy  over  comparatively  lesser  

hardship.

227.In  Narmada Bachao Andolan  v.  Union of India and  

others15, a  three-Judge  Bench,  while  dealing  with  the  

public projects and policies, has opined that the court does  

not  become  the  approving  authority  of  such  policies.  

Thereafter, the Bench observed thus: -

“Normally  such  decisions  are  taken  by  the  Government after due care and consideration. In a  democracy welfare of the people at large, and not  merely of a small section of the society, has to be the  concern of a responsible Government.”

228.I  have referred to the aforesaid pronouncements only to  

highlight  that  this  Court  has  emphasized  on  striking  a  

balance  between  the  ecology  and  environment  on  one  

15 (2000) 10 SCC 664

Page 239

239

hand and the projects of public utility on the other.  The  

trend of  authorities is  that  a delicate balance has to be  

struck  between  the  ecological  impact  and  development.  

The  other  principle  that  has  been  ingrained  is  that  if  a  

project is beneficial for the larger public, inconvenience to  

smaller number of people is to be accepted.  It has to be  

respectfully accepted as a proposition of law that individual  

interest  or,  for  that  matter,  smaller  public  interest  must  

yield to the larger public interest.  Inconvenience of some  

should be bypassed for a larger interest or cause of the  

society.  But, a pregnant one, the present case really does  

not fall within the four corners of that principle.  It is not a  

case  of  the  land  oustees.   It  is  not  a  case  of  “some  

inconvenience”.  It is not comparable to the loss caused to  

property.  I have already emphasized upon the concept of  

living  with  the  borrowed  time  of  the  future  generation  

which  essentially  means  not  to  ignore  the  inter-

generational  interests.   Needless  to  emphasize,  the  dire  

need of the present society has to be treated with urgency,  

but,  the said urgency cannot be conferred with absolute  

supremacy over life.   Ouster from land or deprivation of

Page 240

240

some  benefit  of  different  nature  relatively  would  come  

within  the  compartment  of  smaller  public  interest  or  

certain inconveniences.  But when it touches the very atom  

of life, which is the dearest and noblest possession of every  

person,  it  becomes  the  obligation  of  the  constitutional  

courts to see how the delicate balance has been struck and  

can  remain  in  a  continuum in  a  sustained position.   To  

elaborate, unless adequate care, caution and monitoring at  

every  stage  is  taken  and  there  is  constant  vigil,  life  of  

“some” can be in danger.  That will be totally shattering of  

the constitutional guarantee enshrined under Article 21 of  

the Constitution.  It would be guillotining the human right,  

for when the candle of life gets extinguished, all rights of  

that person perish with it.  Safety, security and life would  

constitute a pyramid within the sanctity of Article 21 and  

no jettisoning is permissible.   Therefore, I  am obliged to  

think that the delicate balance in other spheres may have  

some  allowance  but  in  the  case  of  establishment  of  a  

nuclear plant, the safety measures would not tolerate any  

lapse.   The grammar has to be totally  different.   I  may  

hasten to clarify that I have not discussed anything about

Page 241

241

the ecology and environment which has been propounded  

before  us,  but  I  may  particularly  put  that  the  

proportionality of risk may not be “zero” regard being had  

to the nature’s unpredictability.  All efforts are to be made  

to avoid any man-made disaster.  Though the concept of  

delicate balance and the doctrine of proportionality of risk  

factor gets attracted, yet the same commands the highest  

degree of constant alertness, for it is disaster affecting the  

living.   The  life  of  some  cannot  be  sacrificed  for  the  

purpose of the eventual larger good.

229.Before proceeding to issue certain directions, it is required  

to  be  stated  that  the  appellant,  by  this  Public  Interest  

Litigation,  has,  in  a  way,  invoked  and  aroused  the  

conscience/concern of the court to such an issue.  True it  

is, the prayer is for the total closure of the plant and the  

Court  has  not  acceded to  the said  prayer  but  his  noble  

effort is appreciated to put forth the grievance of the local  

people and the necessity of adequate safety measures as  

is  perceived.   When  such  cause  comes  up  before  this  

Court, it is the bounden duty to remind the authorities “Be

Page 242

242

alert,  remain always alert  and duty calls  you to  nurture  

constant and sustained vigilance and nation warns you not  

to be complacent and get into a mild slumber”.  The AERB  

as the regulatory authority and the MoEF are obliged to  

perform their  duty  that  safety  measures  are  adequately  

taken before the plant commences its operation.  That is  

the trust of the people in the authorities which they can ill  

afford to  betray,  and it  shall  not  be an exaggeration to  

state that safety in a case of this nature in any one’s hand  

has to be placed on the pedestal of “Constitutional Trust”.

230. We, therefore, fully endorse the view taken by the Division  

Bench  of  the  High  Court,  however,  in  the  facts  and  

circumstances  of  the  case,  we  are  inclined  to  give  the  

following directions:

DIRECTIONS:

1. The plant should not be made operational unless AERB,  

NPCIL,  DAE accord final  clearance for  commissioning  of  

the plant ensuring the quality of various components and  

systems because their reliability is of vital importance.

Page 243

243

2. MoEF should oversee and monitor  whether the NPCIL is  

complying with the conditions laid down, while granting  

clearance vide its communication dated 23.9.2008 under  

the  provisions  of  EIA  Notification  of  2006,  so  also  the  

conditions  laid  down  in  the  environmental  clearance  

granted  by  the  MoEF  vide  its  communication  dated  

31.12.2009.   AERB  and  MoEF  will  see  that  all  the  

conditions  stipulated  by  them  are  duly  complied  with  

before the plant is made operational.

3. Maintaining safety is an ongoing process not only at the  

design level, but also during the operation for the nuclear  

plant.  Safeguarding NPP, radioactive materials, ensuring  

physical security of the NSF are of paramount importance.  

NPCIL,  AERB,  the  regulatory  authority,  should  maintain  

constant vigil and make periodical inspection of the plant  

at least once in three months and if any defect is noticed,  

the same has to be rectified forthwith.

Page 244

244

4. NPCIL shall send periodical reports to AERB and the AERB  

shall take prompt action on those reports, if any fallacy is  

noticed in the reports.

5. SNF generated needs to be managed in a safe manner to  

ensure protection of human health and environment from  

the undue effect of ionizing radiation now and future, for  

which sufficient  surveillance and monitoring programme  

have to be evolved and implemented.

6. AERB should periodically review the design-safety aspects  

of AFR feasibly at KKNPP so that there will be no adverse  

impact  on  the  environment  due  to  such  storage  which  

may also allay the fears and apprehensions expressed by  

the people.  

7. DGR has to be set up at the earliest so that SNF could be  

transported from the nuclear plant to DGR.  NPCIL says  

the  same would  be  done within  a  period  of  five  years.  

Effective  steps  should  be  taken  by  the  Union  of  India,  

NPCIL, AERB, AEC, DAE etc. to have a permanent DGR at  

the earliest so that apprehension voiced by the people of

Page 245

245

keeping the NSF at the site of Kudankulam NPP could be  

dispelled.   

8. NPCIL should ensure that the radioactive discharges to the  

environmental  aquatic  atmosphere  and  terrestrial  route  

shall  not  cross  the  limits  prescribed  by  the  Regulatory  

Body.    

9. The Union of India, AERB and NPCIL should take steps at  

the  earliest  to  comply  with  rest  of  the  seventeen  

recommendations,  within  the  time  stipulated  in  the  

affidavit filed by the NPCIL on 3.12.2012.

10. SNF is not being re-processed at the site, which has  

to be transported to a Re-Processing facility.  Therefore,  

the management and transportation of SNF be carried out  

strictly by the Code of Practices laid down by the AERB,  

following the norms and regulations laid down by IAEA.  

11. NPCIL,  AERB and State  of  Tamil  Nadu  should  take  

adequate  steps  to  implement  the  National  Disaster  

Management  Guidelines,  2009  and  also  carry  out  the  

periodical emergency exercises on and off site, with the

Page 246

246

support of the concerned Ministries of the Government of  

India,  Officials  of  the  State  Government  and  local  

authorities.

12. NPCIL,  in  association  with  the  District  Collector,  

Tiruneveli should take steps to discharge NPCIL Corporate  

Social Responsibilities in accordance with DPE Guidelines  

and there must be effective and proper  monitoring and  

supervision of the various projects undertaken under CSR  

to the fullest benefit of the people who are residing in and  

around KKNPP.

13. NPCIL  and  the  State  of  Tamil  Nadu,  based  on  the  

comprehensive  emergency  preparedness  plan  should  

conduct  training courses on site and off  site  administer  

personnel,  including  the  State  Government  officials  and  

other stake holders, including police, fire service, medicos,  

emergency services etc.

14. Endeavour  should  be  made  to  withdraw  all  the  

criminal  cases  filed  against  the  agitators  so  that  peace  

and  normalcy  be  restored  at  Kudankulam  and  nearby  

places and steps should be taken to educate the people of

Page 247

247

the necessity of the plant which is in the largest interest of  

the nation particularly the State of Tamil Nadu.  

15. The AERB,  NPCIL,  MoEF  and TNPCB would  oversee  

each and every aspect of the matter, including the safety  

of  the  plant,  impact  on  environment,  quality  of  various  

components  and  systems  in  the  plant  before  

commissioning of the plant.  A report to that effect be filed  

before this Court before commissioning of the plant.

  The  appeals  are  accordingly  disposed  of  without  any  

order as to costs.

…………………………………J. (K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN)

…………………………………J. (DIPAK MISRA)

New Delhi, May 6, 2013