'What do the 400 million poor Indians get out of nuclear power projects? They are the first to die and last to gain'
S P Udayakumar

Rediff: Do you think India's nuclear power programme is money-guzzling?

Udayakumar: Yes. Take a look at the statistics which Dr Y S R Prasad, the former managing director of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited, gave in his foreword to the book, Profile of Power Utilities and Non-Utilities in India 2000.

According to him, India was producing a meagre 1,800 MW power in 1950 but in 1998-99 we generated about 90,000 MW. Almost all of this was thermal and hydropower. The share of nuclear power was an insignificant 1,840 MW -- a ridiculously low 2 per cent of the total energy production. As of June 2000, the Indian nukedom claims, their energy output has increased to 2,240 MW. It is hardly 2.5 per cent even if we keep the total energy output at the stagnant level of 90,000 MW.

On December 1, 1999 NPCIL presented a maiden dividend cheque of Rs 504.4 million to the prime minister. Now mind you, NPCIL itself was incorporated in 1987. The Indian Atomic Energy Commission was set up in August 1948 to use atomic energy for peaceful purposes. We can imagine the amount of money, time, energy, human and other resources that have gone into these institutions and their activities. Put all these facts and figures together and you get the classic picture of inefficiency and incompetence.

Take any of the 47 hydro or thermal power projects that had techno-economic clearance from the Central Electricity Authority as of December 1998 and compare their capacity and cost. Almost all the 47 projects cost much less than nuclear energy. This should be enough proof that the nuclear power projects are way too expensive and inefficient.

Rediff: Do you think the threat of a serious nuclear accident at our nuclear plants is real? Can a Chernobyl-type accident take place?

Udayakumar: Yes, I do think that the threat of a serious nuclear accident is real. Serious accidents are happening now. For instance, in March 1999, there was a leak of heavy water in the second unit of MAPS reactor at Kalpakkam, near Madras. The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, another wing of Indian nukedom, dismissed the incident by saying that "the release to the environment is maintained well within the limits specified by the AERB."

But M V Ramana, an Indian scientist from Princeton University, estimated that the radioactivity released to the environment was "several times the permitted 300 curies per day per reactor and perhaps even exceeding the discharge limit of 10 times the daily quota." He further asserted that the dose to workers was likely to have been much greater than the AERB claims.

Indian government admitted in December 1999 for the first time that heavy water with radioactive tritium above limits set by the AERB got released into the Rana Pratap Sagar lake from the Rajasthan Atomic Power Station in May 1998. In December 1999 New Delhi also acknowledged that 21 issues relating to nuclear safety raised by the AERB as far back as 1996 have not yet been addressed.

In December 1991 Bhabha Atomic Research Centre reactor workers discovered a big radioactive leak from poorly maintained pipelines in the vicinity of the Cirus and Dhruva reactors causing severe soil contamination.

If an independent body were to look into these accidents and incidents and their after-effects, we would know the truth. And that truth would be ugly. Exempted from transparency and accountability and encouraged by secrecy and opacity, the Indian nukedom has been hiding things rather efficiently.

I also think that Chernobyl-type accidents can take place in Indian nuclear power plants. Let us consider our national track record on safety awareness and emergency preparedness. A cursory look at the Bhopal tragedy, numerous train accidents, airplane accidents, the assassinations of so many top-level leaders, and other such fiascos show that we, as a nation, are not good at averting disasters or at being prepared for unexpected emergency situations.

Let me give you a concrete nuclear-power-related example for this human negligence factor. In October 1999, one of the two reactors at the Narora Atomic Power Plant was shut down following the collapse of an 'airlock door' leading to the coolant section housing the reactor. In a characteristic manner, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission R Chidambaram dismissed the incident saying it was a mechanical problem and not a mishap. Dr Y S R Prasad, the then chairman and managing director of NPCIL, who was responsible for running the plant, was not even available for comment. Doesn't this attitude say something?

Rediff: Experts and anti-nuclear activists have said our nuclear plants are dangerous, outmoded and disasters-in-the-make.

Udayakumar: I am not an expert on nuclear physics and hence I have to go by what the experts say on this. I understand that Yorkshire Television in Britain did a secret documentary on our nuclear plants some two years ago that recorded the sorry state of our plants and their administration. John Hallam and others have expressed serious reservations about the VVER 1,000 design that is going to be used in the Kudankulam nuclear power project.

According to them, the specific safety problems include the integrity of the reactor pressure vessel, the reliability of the safety shutdown system, the reliability of the plants steam generators, and the possibility of broken steam-lines within the plant whipping around and destroying everything in their path including vital safety, electrical supply, and control systems. Ramana points out that there are no reactors in the world of the type that is used in Tarapur. All others using that particular design have been shut down.

Rediff: In 1995, the DAE prepared a safety issues report. But it is alleged that neither the government nor the DAE has taken any initiatives to implement the recommendations. Do you think our nuclear energy programme should be under stricter scrutiny and vigilance?

Udayakumar: Dr A Gopalakrishnan, who was the AERB chairman from 1993 to 1996, submitted the report in 1995. It is very strange that in a democratic country like ours, certain departments, projects and "scientific advisors" are treated as "sacred cows" with no need for any transparency and accountability.

They function like extra-constitutional authorities. I wonder even if our members of Parliament know the exact budget of these entities and their activities. The specifics of nuclear weapons and energy programmes that have such an enormous bearing on the lives and futures of the ordinary citizens of India are kept away from us. In fact, the Atomic Energy Act of 1962 (clause 18) states that we cannot ask, or gather or disclose any information about present, past or future or planned atomic plants.

Instead of facilitating closer scrutiny and vigilance, the Indian nukedom and officialdom are going in the opposite direction. In June 2000, the Indian government took away the authority of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, the sole safety-monitoring agency, to oversee the safety of a large number of critical nuclear installations meant for the weapons programme in the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre.

An internal safety committee to be set up by the BARC's director, Dr Anil Kakodkar, became responsible for ensuring the safety of the public and the workers from dangers that could emanate from these facilities. This move seriously undermined the AERB's responsibility for unbiased and independent safety regulations.

Take the Kudankulam nuclear power project. The nuclear authorities hide things and mislead people intentionally. In July 1998, there were reports that as many as six reactors could be built at Kudankulam. In November 1998, Dr Y S R Prasad said that "it was too early to think about" setting up a reprocessing plant at Kudankulam. Now in October 2000, Russian President Putin has announced that the spent fuel from Kudankulam project would stay in India contrary to the previous arrangement of taking it back to Russia.

Atomic Energy Regulatory Board Chairman P Rama Rao said in November 1998, "The site evaluation for Kudankulam had been done." Who did the site evaluation? What was done exactly? Was it verified by an independent authority? What were some of the strengths and weaknesses of the site? Nobody knows. We all know that hydro and thermal power projects ought to get clearance from the ministry of environment and forests. Does it apply to the nuclear power projects? If so, was an environmental impact study done for the Kudankulam project. Why are these reports not made public?

Rediff: Who do you think should be held responsible for the slow progress of the nuclear power projects in the country? Has it been hit by a funds crunch?

Udayakumar: I have no complaints about the slow progress of the nuclear power projects. But it is rather amusing to see that they have taken 52 years to produce 2,240 MW power. After all, their nuclear energy has been for "peaceful purposes" until 1998 and maybe they all had too much peace up there.

So much money has already been spent on nuclear power projects and the funds crunch is mainly because nuclear power is much more expensive and capital intensive than most other energy sources. Top officials of Indian nukedom have expressed interest in inviting private investments. To reach their target of 20,000 MW power by 2020, they say they need Rs 800 billion.

In April 1999, the chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission welcomed private sector participation in nuclear power generation in India. Now, won't that be interesting? State-sanctioned secrecy, career-minded nuke scientists, and money-minded profiteers... what a combination can that be for ordinary Indians!

Rediff: Unlike other countries, we have nuclear weapons work and plutonium-producing reactors operating right next to crowded areas like Bombay.

Udayakumar: This is a serious issue. People of Kerala opposed the idea of establishing a nuclear power project in their state precisely for this reason. Of course, a highly populated country like ours does have an increasing need for energy. But that energy has to be economical, sustainable and environment-friendly for the very same reason of over - and dense -- population.

We need to spend less on energy because we have other pressing needs such as health, education, housing, transportation and so forth. We cannot afford the use and discord strategy as in nuclear power projects for obvious reasons of limited land availability, future generation's needs and so forth. Our energy projects have to be environmental-friendly because even a small inciident can harm, hurt or kill huge number of people.

Rediff: Do you think India should really embark on power production through nuclear plants? Is it environmentally sound? Does it really help social and economic development in the country?

Udayakumar: No, India should not embark on power production through nuclear plants when technologically advanced countries such as Sweden and Germany have decided to phase out the nuclear power option and the nuclear energy companies in the United States are closing down old units and not starting new ones. That nuclear power projects are not environmentally sound should be clear since we all know about the aftermath of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents.

And finally, these projects do not help the social and economic development of the country. Perhaps I should qualify this statement. If you are an upper class financier or power baron, the nuclear power projects add to your power, prestige and prominence. If you are a middle class scientist or engineer who cares only for your stable job, steady income, and your family's comfortable living with Godless consumerism, these nuke projects are "temples of science and technology" (to borrow the words of Putin) for you and you worship in them. Without these temples, you have no livelihood and you are good for nothing.

But what do 400 million poor people of India get out of these nuclear power projects here and now? As usual, they are the first to die and last to gain.