India must put nuclear power on hold

What do social scientists Romila Thapar and Ramachandra Guha, dancers Leela Samson and Malavika Sarukkai, former bureaucrats-diplomats S.P. Shukla and Nirupam Sen, retired Navy chief L. Ramdas, writers Arundhati Roy and Nayantara Sahgal, scientists M.V. Ramana and P.M. Bhargava, artists Krishen Khanna and Vivan Sundaram, and former vice-chancellors Mushirul Hasan and Deepak Nayyar, have in common?
The answer is, concern about the safety of nuclear power, highlighted by the still-unfolding disaster at Fukushima in Japan. This impelled these eminent individuals to sign a statement demanding a thorough, independent review of India's nuclear power programme, and pending it, a moratorium on further nuclear projects.
The statement (available at cndpindia.org, sacw.net) saw people of different ideological persuasion coming together, including former Atomic Energy Regulatory Board Chairman A. Gopalakrishnan and Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace activists (including myself). Even Indian Institute of Science (Bangalore) director Prof. P. Balaram signed up, a rare thing for a top scientist to do.
This appeal comes just as two workers at Fukushima have died. Nuclear power zealots had predicted that the accidents wouldn't harm plant employees, leave alone the public.
Fukushima's operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), admits that three other employees have suffered severe radiation burns and many others have been exposed to radiation. The public is at risk. Radionuclides have contaminated milk, vegetables and fish in Fukushima and nearby.
Radiation levels at the plant are 1,000 millisieverts an hour, whereas the highest annual permissible dose for employees is 30 millisieverts. Water and steam have been released, containing iodine-131, caesium-137 and strontium-90. These have been detected thousands of kilometres away.
Iodine-31 concentrates in the thyroid, caesium-137 in many other tissues, and strontium-90 in bones.
Fukushima's health damage will be revealed not through early deaths, but through slow, virtually endless low-radiation exposure, which produces cancers. Thanks to early evacuation, the Fukushima death-toll won't be as high as Chernobyl's (estimated at 34,000 to 70,000 deaths).
However, the reactors contain 40 times the caesium inventory of Chernobyl. If only a tenth of this is released, its impact would be four times greater than Chernobyl's.
According to estimates based on data from a UN agency, Fukushima has already released iodine-131 equal to 20% of that released from Chernobyl and half as much caesium-137.
Fukushima happened not because of the earthquake and tsunami, but because these triggered mishaps in reactors already vulnerable to catastrophic accidents. All reactor designs can undergo core meltdowns. Natural calamities only make these more likely.
Fukushima's reactors weren't designed for high-magnitude earthquakes and tsunamis. Their primary containment, the vessel holding the reactor, was weak.
Besides, spent fuel was stored in the reactor building. Unlike reactors, spent-fuel pools don't have reinforced structures. The roof of Reactor 4 spent-fuel pool was blown off. The spent-fuel got heated and the water boiled off, releasing radioactivity. India's Tarapur reactors have the same spent-fuel storage design.
The Fukushima crisis still remains uncontrolled. Three reactors suffered a partial core meltdown, one to the extent of 70%. Four of the six reactors, poisoned by seawater, must be scrapped.
The immediate challenge is to keep the reactors cool and seal the cracks that water is leaking through. TEPCO claims its sealing efforts have finally succeeded. How reliable the seals are remains to be seen.
Seawater radiation levels near Fukushima were millions of times higher than permissible. If the Fukushima staff is evacuated, the reactors could undergo a full meltdown.
If industrially advanced Japan couldn't handle a nuclear crisis, it defies credulity that India's shoddy Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) can do so. Its denials are unconvincing.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has ordered a thorough review of India's nuclear installations, especially on their capacity to withstand earthquakes and tsunamis. But Nuclear Power Corporation Chairman S.K. Jain boasts: "We have got total knowledge and design of the seismic activities" and DAE reactors are planned for "[the] worst seismic activities and tsunamis."
However, Dr. Singh said on March 29: "The people of India have to be convinced about the safety and security of our own nuclear power plants. We should bring greater openness and transparency … and improve our capacity to respond to the public desire to be kept informed about … issues … of concern to them. I would like to see accountability and transparency in the functioning of our nuclear … plants."
This was a slap in the face of the DAE, now the laughing-stock of the global scientific community. But we need more than a slapa radical review of India's nuclear power policy and safety audit by a high-level committee which includes non-DAE experts and civil society representatives.
India must abandon plans for multiple-reactor "nuclear power parks." A crisis in one reactor can produce "common mode failure" and affect other reactors. India must certainly not import untested designs, such as Areva's European Pressurised Reactors, planned for Jaitapur in Maharashtra.
Finally, India must build capacity to evaluate reactor designs for safety by evolving stringent norms for materials, structures and emergency-control systems.
This cannot be done by India's Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), which former chairman Gopalakrishnan calls a "toothless poodle." The AERB must be separated from the DAE and strengthened with non-DAE personnel, an independent budget and equipment.
Dr. Singh must hold broad-based consultations with independent experts with experience of safety design, disaster management and evacuation.
Most important, pending a review and safety audit, India must impose a moratorium on future nuclear construction and revoke recent clearances to projects like Jaitapur. These were based on sloppy environmental impact assessments, in violation of public-hearing norms, and with numerous vacuous conditions.
The Jaitapur project was cleared for political reasons six days before French President Nicolas Sarkozy's visit last December.
A "pause-and-review" approach to nuclear power isn't extreme. If Germany, China and Switzerland can adopt it and suspend nuclear expansion plans, so can India. Safety is too precious to be sacrificed to appease nuclear lobbies.

Praful Bidwai is an eminent Indian columnist.
Email: [email protected].