risk assessment

Another Republic Day, another compromise on nuclear safety?

A year after giving in on nuclear liability during Barack Obama's visit, India's enthusiasm to seal a deal with France on the expensive and dangerous Jaitapur nuclear project is disturbing.

On Tuesday, chief guest Francois Hollande looked on as India showcased its military might at the Republic Day parade in New Delhi. Nearly 2,000-km away in Maharashtra, farmers and fisherfolk in the port town of Jaitapur are gearing up to protest the French president’s visit. They believe that the nuclear reactors India wants to import from France pose a threat to their lives, livelihoods and the local ecology.

Untested and unsafe technology

In the joint declaration issued on Monday in New Delhi, the two governments reaffirmed their commitment to go ahead with the nuclear deal. The project has been in the pipeline for almost a decade now, and last several bilateral annoucements have ceremoniously menioned the nuclear agreement. The intense negotiations to finalise the commercial agreement are yet to be completed as the staggering cost of the project remains a major sticking point.

The Modi government has added "make in India" in the declaration, a reference to the prime minister's ambitious plan to turn India into a hub of manufacturing. Now, this is more than a ceremonial insertion and has potentially dangerous implications. The joint declaration mentions "large-scale localisation" of components for the nuclear power project at Jaitapur, a Memorandum of Understanding for which was signed between the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited and French government-owned nuclear corporation Areva last year. "Transfer of technology" is also being considered, claims the declaration.

The French company Areva, which is verging on bankruptcy after the Fukushima disaster, desperately needs this project to survive. Its terminal financial crisis has also led to a major re-structuring in France. To save Areva from bankruptcy, the Électricité de France, a govt owned electricity utility company has bought majority stake in Areva. Areva has resorted to massive job cuts – it did 6,000 lay offs worldwide in 2015 - and is frantically seeking investors to rescue itself from the crisis.

It is actually this financial crisis that has forced Areva to consider partial closure and outsourcing of its reactor manufacturing business. There too, it is giving away only the parts which it cannot absolutely manage on its own for financial and safety reasons. And the European Pressurised Reactor design fits in this scheme. France is building reactors in Jaitapur of the same design, of 1650MWe capacity each. Totalling 9,900 Mwe, Jaitapur would be the world’s largest nuclear power park.

The safety of this design, especially the vulnerabilities of the Reactor Pressure Vessel – the huge iron core where radioactive fission takes place – came under serious questions, raised by France’s own nuclear safety regulator Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire in April last year. Later in 2015, Areva had to ask the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend certification review for EPR design. The US has been postponing certification for the European Pressurised Reactor( since 2007. In Finland’s Olkiluoto, the only other place where Areva is building these reactors, the project was supposed to be completed in 2009 but has run into massive cost and time over-run and cannot be completed before 2018. The Finnish regulator has taken Areva to the court on this issue and Finland has cancelled the order for the 4th reactor. Even in China’s Taishan, the only other place where such a reactor is under construction, the project has been delayed. Ironically, just after two days of publication of Autorité de Sûreté Nucléaire’s report, Modi re-affirmed the commitment to buy the reactors from France during his visit to Paris last year in April.

In another extremely dangerous irony, the Modi govt is lauding Jaitapur as a "Make in India" project. The localisation in this case is nothing more than Areva passing off its burden and risks to Indian companies. Without much experience in nuclear sector, Larsen and Toubro has been given the task of collaborating in manufacturing of pressure vessel, the same crucial equipment in which the French regulator has found vulnerabilities. There is also pressure on L&T to keep the cost to the minimum, which would have its own safety implications. Technology transfer in this case actually means experimenting an untested and unsafe technology on the Indian people.

The joint declaration yesterday, for the first time, mentions an MoU with Électricité de France, rather than Areva. The modalities and responsibilities involved are not clear, and they have potential safety implications too. The secrecy with which the Indian government is pursuing its nuclear agreements goes against the basic tenets of democracy and accountability towards its citizens.

Not just the project cost

The current phase of negotiations on Jaitapur are about the price of reactors, which remains a major sticking point. Although the former chief of India’s Atomic Energy Commission promised a tariff of maximum Rs 6.50 per unit for the electricity produced in Jaitapur, independent experts have claimed it will be much higher – between Rs 15 to Rs 20 a unit, far more expensive than even domestic nuclear power plants.

If we go by the cost of such reactors in Britain, each Indian reactor may cost as much as Rs. 60,000 crore, meaning the two reactors in Jaitapur’s first phase would cost equal to the total expenditure on science and technology including the departments of Space, Science and Technology, Biotechnology, and research laboratories throughout the country. At a time when renewable sources have become increasingly more efficient and competitive, this appears an obvious absurdity. A diplomatic cable revealed by the Wikileaks quoted the General Manager of the Nuclear Power Corporation as saying that India is paying a "high" price for Jaitapur.

However, the concerns of the local community in Jaitapur go much beyond the cost of the project.

Jaitapur is located in the stunningly beautiful Konkan, replete with verdant plateaus, magical mountains and undulating hills, lagoons, creeks, the open sea and infinite greenery. The NPCIL has labelled nearly 65% of the region’s land as barren, which the local people find outrageous. Konkan is one of the world’s 10 “Hottest Biodiversity Hotspots”, sheltering over 5,000 species of flowering plants, 139 of mammals, 508 of birds and 179 of amphibians, including 325 globally threatened ones.

The region offers prosperous life to its inhabitants. Altogether, the nuclear park would jeopardise the livelihoods of 40,000 people. The annual turnover of Jaitapur’s fishing villages is about Rs 15 crore. In Nate alone, there are 200 big trawlers and 250 small boats. Nearly 6,000 people depend directly on fishing and over 10,000 are dependent on ancillary activities.

The community is apprehensive that once the project gets operational, the elaborate security arrangements around it would block the fisherfolks’ use of the two creeks of Jaitapur and Vijaydurg. The fish population will also be affected since the plant would release a huge 52,000 million litres of hot water into the Arabian Sea daily.

Environmental dangers

Jaitapur has highly fertile land, which produces rice and other cereals, and arguably the world’s most famous mango, the Alphonso. Cashew, coconut, kokum, betel nut, pineapple and other fruits are also found in abundance. The land is also quite productive in terms of its use for cattle-grazing and rain-fed agriculture.

The Environmental Impact Assessment for Jaitapur, conducted by the government-run National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, did not even look into the crucial aspects radiological releases, decommissioning and nuclear waste, besides summarily neglecting the vital issues of ecosystems and livelihoods, terrestrial ecosystems and farming, mangrove forests and the fragile marine ecology and fisheries in the region. The Institute, while admitting that it does not have an expertise on radiation-related issues, platitudinously says in its report that all the stipulations of the government's nuclear regulator would be followed. The then Minister for Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh, had himself termed these assessments a joke. Even that environmental clearance, granted on 35 absurdly weak conditions, was given only for a period of five years which lapsed two months back. Citizens groups and independent experts have demanded a fresh Assessment in place of an extension.

India’s nuclear regulator, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board is itself a toothless body which ironically depends on the Atomic Energy Commission for its finances and human resources, which it is supposed to supervise. India’s newly proposed nuclear regulator – the Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority – would be even a weaker body than the Regulatory Board, according to Board's former head Dr AK Gopalakrishnan. In fact, India is the only country to further dilute its already lax safety regulation to accommodate foreign-imported reactors as Areva’s reactors might not pass the licensing procedures of even the existing regulations.

Independent experts and the government's own institutions have also cautioned about active seismic faultlines in the region passing exactly beneath the proposed reactor site. There have been 92 earthquakes in Jaitapur over past 20 years, and the Department of Atomic Energy remains in denial about it.

To placate international vendors, India has bent environmental clearance procedures, undermined land acquisition and liability laws for the nuclear projects, overlooked safety concerns and violently bulldozed local community’s protests. In Jaitapur, one person called Tabrez Soyekar was killed in indiscriminate police firing in April 2011 during a peaceful protest march demanding scrapping of the project after Fukushima. Hundreds of activists and eminent citizens including the former naval chief and retired Chief Justice were detained during a people’s march to Jaitapur from Tarapur, India’s first nuclear plant.

Thirteen village councils in the Jaitapur region passed unanimous resolutions against the nuclear power project as recently as November last year. It is utterly hypocritical to laud India’s democratic credentials for international diplomacy if the voices of elected democratic bodies at the grassroots are neglected violently in such manner.

U-turns and misadventures

For its entire 10-year entire stint in the opposition the Bharatiya Janata Party kept opposing Manmohan Singh government's nuclear policy, but now nuclear deals have become matters of pride for Modi’s foreign sojourns. In 2010, the BJP had sought a review of the environmental clearance given to the Jaitapur project on the eve of the visit of the then French president Nicholas Sarkozy. But now the government has sought an extension of the same.

Last year on the Republic Day, to please the United States President Obama who was the chief guest, Modi government effectively surrendered the govt’s option to sue the nuclear vendors in case of a nuclear accident by creating an insurance pool from public funds to channel suppliers’ liability back to the taxpayers, taking an about turn from earlier strong reservations of the BJP on nuclear liability.

This year, Modi’s government seems bent on finalising an insanely dangerous and destructive nuclear project.

Kumar Sundaram is Senior Researcher with the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace, India.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content  BY 

Some of the worst decisions made in history

From the boardroom to the battlefield, bad decisions have been a recipe for disaster

On New Year’s Day, 1962, Dick Rowe, the official talent scout for Decca Records, went to office, little realising that this was to become one of the most notorious days in music history. He and producer Mike Smith had to audition bands and decide if any were good enough to be signed on to the record label. At 11:00 am, either Rowe or Smith, history is not sure who, listened a group of 4 boys who had driven for over 10 hours through a snowstorm from Liverpool, play 15 songs. After a long day spent listening to other bands, the Rowe-Smith duo signed on a local group that would be more cost effective. The band they rejected went on to become one of the greatest acts in musical history – The Beatles. However, in 1962, they were allegedly dismissed with the statement “Guitar groups are on the way out”.

Source: Wikimedia Commons
Source: Wikimedia Commons

Decca’s decision is a classic example of deciding based on biases and poor information. History is full of examples of poor decisions that have had far reaching and often disastrous consequences.

In the world of business, where decisions are usually made after much analysis, bad decisions have wiped out successful giants. Take the example of Kodak – a company that made a devastating wrong decision despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Everyone knows that Kodak couldn’t survive as digital photography replaced film. What is so ironic that Alanis Morissette could have sung about it, is that the digital camera was first invented by an engineer at Kodak as early as 1975. In 1981, an extensive study commissioned by Kodak showed that digital was likely to replace Kodak’s film camera business in about 10 years. Astonishingly, Kodak did not use this time to capitalise on their invention of digital cameras – rather they focused on making their film cameras even better. In 1996, they released a combined camera – the Advantix, which let users preview their shots digitally to decide which ones to print. Quite understandably, no one wanted to spend on printing when they could view, store and share photos digitally. The Advantix failed, but the company’s unwillingness to shift focus to digital technology continued. Kodak went from a 90% market share in US camera sales in 1976 to less than 10% in 2012, when it filed for bankruptcy. It sold off many of its biggest businesses and patents and is now a shell of its former self.

Source: Wikimedia Commons
Source: Wikimedia Commons

Few military blunders are as monumental as Napoleon’s decision to invade Russia. The military genius had conquered most of modern day Europe. However, Britain remained out of his grasp and so, he imposed a trade blockade against the island nation. But the Russia’s Czar Alexander I refused to comply due to its effect on Russian trade. To teach the Russians a lesson, Napolean assembled his Grand Armée – one of the largest forces to ever march on war. Estimates put it between 450,000 to 680,000 soldiers. Napoleon had been so successful because his army could live off the land i.e. forage and scavenge extensively to survive. This was successful in agriculture-rich and densely populated central Europe. The vast, barren lands of Russia were a different story altogether. The Russian army kept retreating further and further inland burning crops, cities and other resources in their wake to keep these from falling into French hands. A game of cat and mouse ensued with the French losing soldiers to disease, starvation and exhaustion. The first standoff between armies was the bloody Battle of Borodino which resulted in almost 70,000 casualties. Seven days later Napoleon marched into a Moscow that was a mere shell, burned and stripped of any supplies. No Russian delegation came to formally surrender. Faced with no provisions, diminished troops and a Russian force that refused to play by the rules, Napolean began the long retreat, back to France. His miseries hadn’t ended - his troops were attacked by fresh Russian forces and had to deal with the onset of an early winter. According to some, only 22,000 French troops made it back to France after the disastrous campaign.

Source: Wikimedia Commons
Source: Wikimedia Commons

When it comes to sports, few long time Indian cricket fans can remember the AustralAsia Cup final of 1986 without wincing. The stakes were extremely high – Pakistan had never won a major cricket tournament, the atmosphere at the Sharjah stadium was electric, the India-Pakistan rivalry at its height. Pakistan had one wicket in hand, with four runs required off one ball. And then the unthinkable happened – Chetan Sharma decided to bowl a Yorker. This is an extremely difficult ball to bowl, many of the best bowlers shy away from it especially in high pressure situations. A badly timed Yorker can morph into a full toss ball that can be easily played by the batsman. For Sharma who was then just 18 years old, this was an ambitious plan that went wrong. The ball emerged as a low full toss which Miandad smashed for a six, taking Pakistan to victory. Almost 30 years later, this ball is still the first thing Chetan Sharma is asked about when anyone meets him.

So, what leads to bad decisions? While these examples show the role of personal biases, inertia, imperfect information and overconfidence, bad advice can also lead to bad decisions. One of the worst things you can do when making an important decision is to make it on instinct or merely on someone’s suggestion, without arming yourself with the right information. That’s why Aegon Life puts the power in your hands, so you have all you need when choosing something as important as life insurance. The Aegon Life portal has enough information to help someone unfamiliar with insurance become an expert. So empower yourself with information today and avoid decisions based on bad advice. For more information on the iDecide campaign, see here.

Play

This article was produced on behalf of Aegon Life by the Scroll.in marketing team and not by the Scroll.in editorial staff.