Nuclear safety questioned as India's auditor-general has found that the nation's nuclear watchdog is ineffective, mired in bureaucracy and negligent in monitoring safety!
Troubled Galaxy Destroyed Dreams, Chapter:811
Palash Biswas
Mobile: 919903717833
Skype ID: palash.biswas44
Email: palashbiswaskl@gmail.com
India's auditor general recently highlighted serious safety concerns with the country's use of nuclear materials.The auditor general's report was critical of the lack of a radiation safety policy and that many facilities were unlicensed.It said the country's nuclear regulator did not have the authority for framing or revising the rules relating to nuclear safety. It also says there's no tool to stop radioactive material getting out of regulatory control.In one case a scrap worker died from exposure after pulling apart a discarded x-ray machine. India's nuclear industry, Australia's newest prospective uranium customer, has been slammed by its own auditor as dangerously unsafe, disorganised and, in many cases, completely unregulated.On the other hand,despite protests, the two units of the 1,000 MW Kudankulam nuclear project, built with Russian collaboration in Tamil Nadu, will be completed this financial year, Minister of State in the Prime Minister's Office V Narayanasamy said on Friday.He said efforts are being made to commission the first unit at the earliest.The commissioning of the first unit of the project was originally scheduled for December last year. The government Thursday denied that it sought to "appease" Russia by exempting it from any liability under the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010, in the event of any accident at Kudankulam power plant in Tamil Nadu.According to an affidavit filed by the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL), granting waiver to Russia from any liability arising on account of any accident at the plant's Unit I and II was in reciprocation of the latter coming to India's aid when the international technology was denied in the wake of the 1974 Pokhran nuclear test.Russia said the cost of the next phase of the Kudankulam atomic project would escalate if it has to bear additional liabilities arising from a possible nuclear accident. With differences in perception over India's civil nuclear liability law, the negotiations on the units III and IV of the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant (KNPP) in Tamil Nadu have become a point of contention between Moscow and New Delhi.While Russia argues that the civil nuclear liability law should not apply to these units as the agreement on them predates the 2010 civil liability law, and could be seen as "grandfathered" by the original 1988 agreement, India has clearly stated that making an exception for Russia will amount to diluting its civil nuclear law which will encourage the US and France to seek similar exemptions, which it cannot afford.
"It is also denied that government of India signed the agreement with Russia (exempting it of any liability) in order to appease the later," Solicitor General Rohinton Nariman told an apex court bench of Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan and Justice Dipak Misra.
Mind you,Japan's new nuclear regulator will impose tighter safety standards for atomic plants, taking account of geological data in the earthquake-prone country, its head said on Thursday.Shuichi Tanaka, in an interview, also said his new body would have the authority to restart reactors idled since last year's Fukushima disaster once new safety standards were in place and met. Restarting such units is a key point in reducing the import bill for fossil fuels to produce electricity.Tanaka, head of the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA), said previous standards would prove irrelevant if a plant was struck by an earthquake or tsunami stronger than anticipated. The March 2011 calamity that wrecked the Fukushima station had highlighted the need to take full account of the latest geological data.
Atomic Energy Commission chairman R K Sinha has, while addressing a conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency at Vienna, declared that safety would be paramount and all the stakeholders would be taken into confidence in this regard. He expressed the commission's resolve to adhere to all the post-Fukushima safety standards in all nuclear power stations in the country. His declarations assume significance in the light of the ongoing agitation in Koodankulam. Unfortunately, the credibility of the nuclear establishment is not all that great that Sinha's statement alone is sufficient to allay fears. The agitation, not just in Koodankulam but elsewhere, too, is a pointer to the credibility crisis it suffers from.
The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has detected some serious organisational and operational flaws in India's nuclear safety regulation. One of the basic tenets of any regulatory mechanism is that it should be independent of the agency, whose functioning it is supposed to regulate. The government should also not be able to exercise any control over its functioning. The Independent Investigation Commission that went into the factors responsible for the Fukushima tragedy found the constraints under which the Japanese nuclear regulatory authority functioned as a major factor responsible for the calamity, though induced by a tsunami.
In India, the nuclear regulatory authority does not enjoy either autonomy or powers to exercise its functions. The independent regulator envisaged in the Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority Bill, 2011, is not capable of addressing the needs identified by the CAG. In its present form, the NSRA does not ensure an effective separation between the regulatory authority and the nuclear establishment. The government should convince the people and Parliament by making the Department of Atomic Energy more accountable and transparent. This is necessary not only in the interest of the Koodankulam project but also in the interest of the use of nuclear energy for power generation and for strengthening the nation's security.
The Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority Bill 2011
Highlights of the Bill
- The Bill seeks to dissolve the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board and replace it with the Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority (NSRA).
** Image Credit: www.airnews.nic.in
- The NSRA shall regulate nuclear safety and activities related to nuclear material and facilities. The government can exempt facilities from NSRA's jurisdiction if they relate to national defence and security.
- The Bill also establishes the Council of Nuclear Safety to review policies on nuclear safety. The Council shall include the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission.
- The Chairperson of the NSRA will be on the search committee for the remaining members. A member of the NSRA may be removed by the central government after providing him an opportunity to be heard.
- An order of the NSRA can be appealed before the Appellate Authority, which would be set up by the Council 'as and when required'.
- The Bill penalises all violations with imprisonment for up to five years.
Key Issues and Analysis
- The Council includes the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, who also heads the department that controls nuclear plants. This may lead to a conflict of interest.
- The Chairperson of the NSRA will be on the search committee for other members. This may affect the independence of other members.
- The Bill allows the central government to regulate certain nuclear facilities on its own. Such facilities would not be under any other independent regulatory authority.
- The Bill permits the central government to establish other regulatory bodies for regulating exempted facilities or activities. The extent of Parliamentary oversight over these bodies is not clear.
- Members of the NSRA may be removed without a judicial inquiry. The process differs from the procedure under other legislations.
- The NSRA's orders can be appealed before an Appellate Authority, which is not a standing body. It is not clear how an appeal may be filed if the Appellate Authority is not constituted.
- The penalty for all offences under the Bill is the same. It is unclear whether the gravity of these offences is the same in all cases.
Meanwhile,The US wants India to persuade Iran to return to the negotiating table on its nuclear programme, the first time it has openly asked New Delhi to intercede with Tehran.Times of India reports.
Speaking to TOI ahead of his meetings with National Security Advisor (NSA) Shivshankar Menon and foreign secretary Ranjan Mathai in the US-India strategic security dialogue here, deputy secretary in the US State Department, William Burns, said, "We feel a great sense of urgency, an urgency widely shared in the international community. There is a great deal at stake here, given Iran's failure thus far to comply with its international obligations — the danger of increased tension, nuclear arms race in a region that already has more than its share of instability and which plays a very important role in the health of the global economy." He said the US hopes India would reinforce this message to the Iranian leadership.
Despite almost crippling sanctions against Iran's energy and finance sectors, all indications are that Iran's nuclear programme continues apace. Burns said the tough sanctions were necessary to bring Iran back to talks, insisting that diplomacy remained the US' preferred option. Unspoken is the fact that sanctions also serve to keep Israel's military option from taking off, which could trigger something far bigger than a regional conflict.
India's last nuclear weapons test was in 1998, but its civilian nuclear industry is growing rapidly, with the number of operating nuclear plants expected to rise from 20 to more than 60 during the next decade.
But India's comptroller and auditor-general, Vinod Rai, has found the body that oversees nuclear safety in India, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), is ineffective, mired in bureaucracy and negligent in monitoring safety.
Sixty per cent of regulatory inspection reports for operating nuclear power plants in India were either delayed - up to 153 days late - or not undertaken at all.
For power plants under construction, the number of regulatory inspections delayed or not done was 66 per cent. Smaller radiation facilities operate across the country with no licences and no oversight at all.
In many cases there are no rules for nuclear operators to follow. Despite an order from the government in 1983, the AERB has still not developed an overarching nuclear and radiation safety policy for India.
And even when laws do exist and are broken, the existing legislation gives the AERB almost no punitive power at all. In some cases, the fines for nuclear safety transgressions are as low as 500 rupees - less than $10.
India has had nuclear scares already. In 2010, a gamma irradiation machine containing Cobalt-60 was sold by Delhi University for scrap. Pulled apart, it unleashed a massive dose of radiation, killing one person and putting another six in hospital.
The Indian government has legislation before parliament to replace the AERB with a new body, the proposed Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority. But Prabir Purkayastha from the Delhi Science Forum said it was a ''very weak piece of legislation, that makes the regulator subservient to a group of ministers''.
Speaking at the fourth Nuclear Conclave organised by India Energy Forum in New Delhi, Narayanasamy said "vested interests" are spreading canards about the project, but the government and the Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) have reached out to the protesting people.
"The issues raised by them have been addressed comprehensively. The Tamil Nadu State expert committee concluded that the plant is safe. Work is now in full swing and all efforts are being made to commission the first unit at earliest," he said.
Allaying safety concerns, he said the nuclear plant has a seven-layer safety system. "I have visited the plant several times and am fully satisfied about all safety aspects."
He said that after completion of seven new projects under construction, the country will have 10,080 MW of nuclear capacity by 2017.
The minister also said that the winter session of parliament is expected to take up the Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority Bill.
On the Kudankulam reactors 3 and 4, Narayanasamy said the government was talking to the Russians about certain issues on which Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had sought legal opinion.
India's first 1000 MW atomic power plant built with Russian collaboration at Kudankulam is just two steps away from going critical, a top official said today.
"We are on a very smooth path now. We have completed fuel loading and the nuclear regulator is carrying out a review," Shiv Abhilash Bhardwaj, Director (Technical), Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL), said.
He was talking to reporters here on the sidelines of the India Energy Forum meet.
Bhardwaj said after the review by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), the NPCIL will be granted permission to close the reactor pressure vessel.
Loading of 163 bundles of enriched uranium fuel into the reactor began on September 19 and was completed on October 2.
"We have two more steps to attain first criticality. First the reactor will be closed after clearance from the AERB which will be followed by pressure tests," Bhardwaj said.
He said pressure and temperature inside the reactor would be increased artificially in a gradual manner to rule out any discrepancies.
"Once it is okay, we are ready to go critical," Bhardwaj said adding that utmost care is taken at every step as it is for the first time a 1000 MW reactor built with foreign collaboration is being commissioned in the country.
Asked whether the first unit of the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project would be commissioned around the visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin likely on November 1, he said, "We are not working on timelines. We are working on steps."
"Very shortly," he said when asked when the remaining steps in commissioning the plan would be completed.
Commissioning of the first unit of the Indo-Russian project was originally scheduled for December last year, but has been delayed due to protests.
As expected, nuclear negotiations took centre stage during Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard's visit to Delhi. Much talk of cultural links owing to the English language, cricket, a Westminster style parliament was bandied about. While Australia insists on a multifaceted engagement to build deep interdependencies, India sees only its one point agenda in all of this and has held ties hostage to the supply of Uranium. While opinions in Delhi seem optimistic many factors point to need for a hard reality check.Abhijit Iyer-Mitra writes in Eurasia Review.
To start off, Australia as of now has no capacity to supply India. Given its current commitments are backlogged, new mines in Olympic Dam (South Australia) were meant to generate the additional uranium that would feed India. Given that India's much trumpeted nuclear reactor construction binge has fizzled out, the market pressures that would have spurred on Olympic dam's expansion added to Australia's own internal anti-nuclear sentiments means that this will probably not happen. What this means is that in the next five years we should not expect any shipments from Australia.
Logistical problems aside there are legal issues at work here which may ossify the relationship into its current lukewarm state. Australia in all its other nuclear supply agreements insists on a total separation of personnel – i.e. people working in civilian facilities fuelled by Australian uranium cannot be transferred to weapons facilities at any point of time – past present or future. Gillard it is reliably learnt insisted on this clause. Given that her minority government is dependent on the greens, who are already angered by the nuclear deal with India, there is only so much that they can be pushed around before things snap.
The India-US nuclear deal had one aspect of tacit proliferation built into its structure – the horizontal proliferation of knowledge from the civilian to the military. As a result while all kinds of water-tight restrictions were placed on the transfer of materials and power, none was placed on the movement of scientists. This of course was well known, since the point was to acquire French reprocessing technology – ostensibly for civilian purposes but then to duplicate the same to improve India's reportedly dismal weapons material reprocessing.
Australia however will have none of this – and all indications are that their diplomats have smartened up to India's negotiating tactics on this score. India's sob story rests on the basis of acutely limited domain knowledge. That is to say since the pool of trained nuclear scientists is so small they have to do everything from running reactors, ensuring power output, reprocessing spent fuel, refining raw fuel, auditing their colleagues, and making bombs when they get some free time. Indian diplomats presumably will argue this exact story – and ask that Australia make concessions on this score. If it gets nasty the negotiating position will swing to the fact that Australia is providing us with raw material not technology and they should confine their overly long noses only to the safety and security of their produce.
India's nuclear power failures warn against uranium exports, reports MV Ramana for the Satellite.Just read:
SELLING Australian uranium is reportedly at the top of Prime Minister Julia Gillard's priorities as she travels to India this week. Before she decides to do that, there are three facts she may want to consider.
First, despite all the hoopla about India's nuclear ambitions, nuclear energy is unlikely to contribute more than a few percent of the country's electricity capacity in the next several decades, if ever.
India's Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) has always promised much and delivered little. In the early 1970s, for example, DAE projected that by 2000 there would be 43,000 MW of installed nuclear capacity. In 2000, that capacity was actually 2720 MW. Today, nuclear power constitutes barely 2% of the total electricity generation capacity.
There is at least one good technical reason why future targets are unlikely to be met: India is pursuing an unreliable technology. The DAE's plans involve constructing hundreds of fast breeder reactors. Fast breeder reactors are so-called because they are based on energetic (fast) neutrons and because they produce (breed) more fissile material than they consume.
In the early decades of nuclear power, many countries pursued breeder programs. But practically all of them have given up on breeder reactors as unsafe and uneconomical. Relying on a technology shown to be unreliable makes it likely that nuclear power will never become a major source of electricity in India.
The failure to meet targets is not a result of lack of money. DAE has always been lavishly funded. Its proposed budget for 2011-12 was roughly $A1.7 billion; in comparison, the proposed 2011-12 budget of the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy was $A0.22 billion. It's testimony to the government's priorities.
To put that in perspective, the total generating capacity of renewable energy projects was 22,233 MW, whereas the installed capacity of nuclear power was 4780 MW. Though almost all of the growth in modern renewable energy capacity has been over the last two decades, they already generate more electricity (in GWh) than all reactors put together.
Second, there are reasons to be worried about the risk of severe accidents at Indian nuclear facilities. Among all electricity generating technologies, nuclear power alone comes with the possibility of catastrophic accidents, with consequences spreading out across space and time. Despite improvements in reactor technology, the probability of such catastrophic accidents remains stubbornly greater than zero. This poses extreme organisational demands, and these demands have unfortunately not been met.
Most nuclear facilities in the country have experienced small or large accidents. Fortunately, none of these has been catastrophic. Many of these were caused by inattention to recurring problems or other warnings; to the extent that those responsible for safety have tried to fix them, they have not always been successful.
Compounding this state of affairs is the absurd confidence DAE leaders have publicly expressed - and have likely internalised - in the safety of nuclear facilities in the country. This has often taken the form of asserting that the probability of a nuclear accident in India is zero, something that was frequently heard in the aftermath of Fukushima.
Worse, on March 15, 2011, the Chairman of NPCIL reassured the public saying, "there is no nuclear accident or incident in Japan's Fukushima plants. It is a well planned emergency preparedness programme which the nuclear operators of the Tokyo Electric Power Company are carrying out to contain the residual heat after the plants had an automatic shutdown following a major earthquake."
Such denial would be laughable, but when the person opining is in charge of India's power reactor fleet, it ceases to be amusing. It is well worth noting by anyone planning to supply uranium, especially Australia, given that Australian uranium was used as fuel at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactors.
Third, a large majority of the Indian public, particularly those living near proposed nuclear facilities, learned the obvious lesson from Fukushima: nuclear reactors are hazardous, and communities living near nuclear facilities would be the worst affected in the event of an accident. This is why there are ongoing protests at all new sites selected for nuclear plants. The protracted and intense protests over commissioning of the Koodankulam reactors in Tamil Nadu is just the most spectacular of these.
The risk of catastrophic accidents means that the pursuit of nuclear power is justified only if it is done democratically with the informed consent of the potentially affected populations. What the ongoing protests over Koodankulam and other reactor sites tells us is that these populations are not consenting to be subject to this risk.
They deserve to be listened to, including by Prime Minister Gillard.
MV Ramana
Program on Science and Global Security, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University
Disclosure Statement
MV Ramana does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.
http://www.thesatellite.com.au/news/indias-nuclear-power-failures-warn-against-uranium/1584030/
The Centre on Thursday justified in the Supreme Court waiver of the nuclear liability agreement with Russia for the Kudankulam plant in Tamil Nadu and said it was a policy decision taken at a time when no other country came forward to sustain India's nuclear capabilities.The Hindu reports.
Making this submission before a Bench of Justices K.S. Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra, Solicitor General Rohinton Nariman denied the allegation of Prashant Bhushan, counsel for petitioners, that the Government had signed the agreement to appease Russia.
Mr. Nariman said: "It was a major policy decision by the Government of India considering the prevailing circumstances at the time. It is stated that after the 1974 peaceful nuclear experiment at Pokhran, India was placed under international sanctions for all nuclear-related supplies. We continued our indigenous efforts in developing nuclear energy, however, we were subjected to an international technology denial regime. Under these circumstances, it was the erstwhile USSR, which had come forward and had offered to supply large capacity VVER 1000 MWe to India. This was a huge step in sustaining our civilian nuclear capabilities."
Denying the allegation that in view of the nuclear liability waiver safety considerations had been compromised, counsel said the Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL), in the case of the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project (KKNPP), "has taken all mandatory licences and clearance from all the requisite statutory authorities."
"Apart from these clearances, the KKNPP has been reviewed by an expert group constituted by the Government of India for the 'safety of Kudankulam nuclear power plant and impact of its operation on the surroundings', which was headed by Dr. A.E. Muthunayagam."
Mr. Nariman said, "This expert group, in its report of December 2011, has observed: 'From the exhaustive analysis given above it is concluded that there need to be absolutely no concern among the public living around KKNPP and the operation of the nuclear power station would not certainly give rise to any deleterious effects among people'."
He said three villages were within the Sterile Zone of the KKNPP — Kudankulam, Vijayapathi (Idinthakarai) and Irrukkandurai. "As per 2001 census, the population residing within the SZ consisting of these three villages is approximately 23,960 and not 40,000 as alleged by the petitioner. The population residing within SZ has been taken care of while preparation of the Emergency Preparedness Plan of the KKNPP site." He denied that the KKNPP suffered from any issue that need to be resolved before the plant could be commissioned and sought dismissal of the petitions which raised safety concern of the plant.
Transparency in nuclear safety regulation
A Gopalakrishnan | Agency: DNA | Thursday, February 2, 2012Background: The Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority (NSRA) Bill, 2011, is being discussed by the parliamentary committee on science, technology, environment and forests. The government intends to replace the current nuclear safety regulator, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), with the proposed NSRA, ostensibly being created to strengthenimplementationof nuclear safety. Meanwhile, hearing a public interest petition on nuclear issues in the Supreme Court on December 5, 2011, Chief Justice SH Kapadia is reported to have said, "Have a public debate. Come out with a concrete solution till Parliament considers the [NSRA] Bill and suggest a regulatory model or framework and then we can consider" (The Hindu, December 5). Adjourning the case for a month, the court told the petitioners that they could suggest some regulatory models, independent of the government, adopted in countries like the US, France, the UK and Canada, which it would then 'recommend' to the government. (The Indian Express, December 6).
To create wider public understanding of nuclear safety regulation in some developed countries, and to initiate informed debate along the lines suggested by the Supreme Court, I had published the following three articles in DNA: 'Nuclear Safety Regulator: The US Model' (December 13); 'The Success of French Nuclear Safety Regulation' (December 19); and 'Lessons from Canada on Nuclear Safety' (December 19). One could gather a glimpse of the salient best practices of the developed world's nuclear regulators from these three articles. A common emphasis noticeable in these practices is the matter of openness and transparency in safety regulation. In this article, I propose to bring out the stark contrast between the world's best practices of nuclear transparency and what the government of India is proposing to implement through the current bill.
NSRA should oversee only civilian facilities: When it comes to transparency and openness of safety regulation and the applicability, if any, of the Official Secrets Act, civilian and military nuclear facilities and programmes will necessarily have to be dealt with differently. Combining these two types of facilities and programmes under the same regulatory act will sharply cut down the transparency of regulation of the civilian sector.
Primarily for this reason, all countries which have civilian and military nuclear facilities handle their nuclear safety regulation process for each of these two types strictly under separate legislations, through the creation of separate regulatory authorities.
The NSRA Bill is silent on the specific nuclear facilities and programmes over which the new authority would exercise control. Currently, the AERB has jurisdiction over only civilian facilities and programmes. These shall be formally brought under the NSRA. To accomplish this, a new section, 18(1)(e), shall be included in the bill to read: "All facilities and programmes currently under the purview of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board shall be transferred to the jurisdiction of the authority and deemed to be governed by this act." Also, section 25 of the bill provides for creating new regulatory bodies, under which a new regulatory body shallbe created without delay to oversee solely the safety of military nuclear installations and programmes and existing military facilities shall be placed under that future regulatory agency.
Contrast in regulatory transparency
In the NSRA Bill, the only mention of transparency is in section 20(2)(c) which states: "The authority shall ensure transparency by systematic public outreach on matters relating to nuclear safety without disclosing sensitive information and compromising confidentiality of commercially sensitive information of technology holders." At least, as a minimum, the principal means by which the authority is to "ensure transparency and public outreach" could have been briefly spelt out as guidance, upon which operational rules can then be framed later.
In contrast, the French TSN Act on Transparency, under which the French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) is created, has its entire Title III consisting of 10 articles, arranged in three chapters, devoted to information exchange with the public on nuclear safety. The US and Canadian practices on transparency in nuclear safety regulation are similarly enacted so that these practices of transparency are mandatoryunder law.
http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/comment_transparency-in-nuclear-safety-regulation_1644896
Nuclear power in India
Nuclear power is the fourth-largest source of electricity in India after thermal, hydroelectric and renewable sources of electricity.[1] As of 2010, India has 20 nuclear reactors in operation in six nuclear power plants, generating 4,780 MW[2] while seven other reactors are under construction and are expected to generate an additional 5,300 MW.[3]
In October 2010, India drew up "an ambitious plan to reach a nuclear power capacity of 63,000 MW in 2032",[4] but "populations around proposed Indian NPP sites have launched protests, raising questions about atomic energy as a clean and safe alternative to fossil fuels".[5] There have been mass protests against the French-backed 9900 MW Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project in Maharashtra and the 2000 MW Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant in Tamil Nadu. The state government of West Bengal state has also refused permission to a proposed 6000 MW facility near the town of Haripur that intended to host six Russian reactors.[5] A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has also been filed against the government's civil nuclear program at the Supreme Court.[5][6] Despite these impediments the capacity factor of Indian reactors was at 79% in the year 2011-12 as against 71% in 2010-11. Nine out of Twenty Indian reactors recorded an unprecedented 97% Capacity factor during 2011-12. With the imported Uranium from France, the 220 MW Kakrapar 2 PHWR reactors recorded 99% capacity factor during 2011-12. The Availability factor for the year 2011-12 was at 89%.
India has been making advances in the field of thorium-based fuels, working to design and develop a prototype for an atomic reactor using thorium and low-enriched uranium, a key part of India's three stage nuclear power programme.[7] The country has also recently re-initiated its involvement in the LENR research activities,[8] in addition to supporting work done in the fusion power area through the ITER initiative.
Contents |
Nuclear fuel reserves
India's domestic uranium reserves are small and the country is dependent on uranium imports to fuel its nuclear power industry. Since early 1990s, Russia has been a major supplier of nuclear fuel to India.[9] Due to dwindling domestic uranium reserves,[10] electricity generation from nuclear power in India declined by 12.83% from 2006 to 2008.[11] Following a waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group in September 2008 which allowed it to commence international nuclear trade,[12] India has signed bilateral deals on civilian nuclear energy technology cooperation with several other countries, including France,[13] the United States,[14] the United Kingdom,[15] Canada.[16] and South Korea.[17] India has also uranium supply agreements with Russia,[18][19] Mongolia,[20] Kazakhstan,[21] Argentina[22] and Namibia.[23] An Indian private company won a uranium exploration contract in Niger.[24]
Large deposits of natural uranium, which promises to be one of the top 20 of the world's reserves, have been found in the Tummalapalle belt in the southern part of the Kadapa basin in Andhra Pradesh in March 2011. The Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research (AMD) of India, which explores uranium in the country, has so far discovered 44,000 tonnes of natural uranium (U3O8) in just 15 kilometres (9.3 mi) of the 160 kilometres (99 mi) long belt.[25]
Nuclear agreements with other nations
The nuclear agreement with USA led to India issuing a Letter of Intent for purchasing 10,000 MW from the USA. However, liability concerns and a few other issues are preventing further progress on the issue. Experts say that India's nuclear liability law discourages foreign nuclear companies. This law gives accident victims the right to seek damages from plant suppliers in the event of a mishap. It has "deterred foreign players like General Electric and Westinghouse Electric, a US-based unit of Toshiba, with companies asking for further clarification on compensation liability for private operators".[26]
Russia has an ongoing agreement of 1988 vintage with India regarding establishing of two VVER 1000 MW reactors (water-cooled water-moderated light water power reactors) at Koodankulam in Tamil Nadu.[27] A 2008 agreement caters for provision of an additional four third generation VVER-1200 reactors of capacity 1170 MW each.[28] Russia has assisted in India's efforts to design a nuclear plant for its nuclear submarine.[29] In 2009, the Russians stated that Russia would not agree to curbs on export of sensitive technology to India. A new accord signed in Dec 2009 with Russia gives India freedom to proceed with the closed fuel cycle, which includes mining, preparation of the fuel for use in reactors, and reprocessing of spent fuel.[30][31]
France was the first country to sign a civilian nuclear agreement with India on 30 September 2008 after the complete waiver provided by the NSG.[32] During the December 2010 visit of the French President Nicholas Sarkozy to India, framework agreements were signed for the setting up two third-generation EPR reactors of 1650 MW each at Jaitapur, Maharashtra by the French company Areva. The deal caters for the first set of two of six planned reactors and the supply of nuclear fuel for 25 years.[33] The contract and pricing is yet to be finalised. Construction is unlikely to start before 2014 because of regulatory issues and difficulty in sourcing major components from Japan due to India not being a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.[34]
India and Mongolia signed a crucial civil nuclear agreement on 15 June 2009 for supply of Uranium to India, during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Mongolia making it the fifth nation in the world to seal a civil nuclear pact with India. The MoU on "development of cooperation in the field of peaceful uses of radioactive minerals and nuclear energy" was signed by senior officials in the department of atomic energy of the two countries.[35]
On 2 September 2009, India and Namibia signed five agreements, including one on civil nuclear energy which allows for supply of Uranium from the African country. This was signed during President Hifikepunye Pohamba's five-day visit to India in May 2009. Namibia is the fifth largest producer of uranium in the world. The Indo-Namibian agreement in peaceful uses of nuclear energy allows for supply of Uranium and setting up of nuclear reactors.[36]
On 14 October 2009, India and Argentina signed an agreement in New Delhi on civil nuclear cooperation and nine other pacts to establish strategic partnership. According to official sources, the agreement was signed by Vivek Katju, Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs and Argentine foreign minister Jorge Talana. Taking into consideration their respective capabilities and experience in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, both India and Argentina have agreed to encourage and support scientific, technical and commercial cooperation for mutual benefit in this field.[37][38]
The Prime Ministers of India and Canada signed a civil nuclear cooperation agreement in Toronto on 28 June 2010 which when all steps are taken, will provide access for Canada's nuclear industry to India's expanding nuclear market and also fuel for India's reactors. Canada is the world's largest exporter of Uranium and the two countries are the only users of heavy water nuclear technology.[39]
On 16 April 2011, India and Kazakhstan signed an inter-governmental agreement for Cooperation in Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, that envisages a legal framework for supply of fuel, construction and operation of atomic power plants, exploration and joint mining of uranium, exchange of scientific and research information, reactor safety mechanisms and use of radiation technologies for healthcare. PM Manmohan Singh visited Astana where a deal was signed. After the talks, the Kazakh President Nazarbaev announced that his country would supply India with 2100 tonnes of uranium and was ready to do more. India and Kazakhstan already have civil nuclear cooperation since January 2009 when Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) and Kazakh nuclear company KazAtomProm signed an MoU during the visit of Nazarbaev to Delhi. Under the contract, KazAtomProm supplies uranium which is used by Indian reactors.[40][41]
South Korea became the latest country to sign a nuclear agreement with India after it got the waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG) in 2008. On 25 July 2011 India and South Korea signed a nuclear agreement, which will allow South Korea with a legal foundation to participate in India's nuclear expansion program, and to bid for constructing nuclear power plants in India.[42]
Nuclear power growth in India
India now envisages to increase the contribution of nuclear power to overall electricity generation capacity from 2.8% to 9% within 25 years.[43] By 2020, India's installed nuclear power generation capacity will increase to 20,000 MW ( 2.0×1010 Watts, which is 20 GW).[44] As of 2009, India stands 9th in the world in terms of number of operational nuclear power reactors. Indigenous atomic reactors include TAPS-3, and -4, both of which are 540 MW reactors.[45] India's US$717 million fast breeder reactor project is expected to be operational by 2012-13.[46]
The Indian nuclear power industry is expected to undergo a significant expansion in the coming years thanks in part to the passing of the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement. This agreement will allow India to carry out trade of nuclear fuel and technologies with other countries and significantly enhance its power generation capacity.[47] When the agreement goes through, India is expected to generate an additional 25,000 MW of nuclear power by 2020, bringing total estimated nuclear power generation to 45,000 MW.[48]
India has already been using imported enriched uranium for light-water reactors that are currently under IAEA safeguards, but it has developed other aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle to support its reactors. Development of select technologies has been strongly affected by limited imports. Use of heavy water reactors has been particularly attractive for the nation because it allows Uranium to be burnt with little to no enrichment capabilities. India has also done a great amount of work in the development of a thorium centered fuel cycle. While Uranium deposits in the nation are limited (see next paragraph) there are much greater reserves of thorium and it could provide hundreds of times the energy with the same mass of fuel. The fact that thorium can theoretically be utilized in heavy water reactors has tied the development of the two. A prototype reactor that would burn Uranium-Plutonium fuel while irradiating a thorium blanket is under construction at the Madras/Kalpakkam Atomic Power Station.
Uranium used for the weapons program has been separated from the power program, using uranium from indigenous reserves. This domestic reserve of 80,000 to 112,000 tons of uranium (approx 1% of global uranium reserves) is large enough to supply all of India's commercial and military reactors as well as supply all the needs of India's nuclear weapons arsenal. Currently, India's nuclear power reactors consume, at most, 478 tonnes of uranium per year.[49] Even if India were quadruple its nuclear power output (and reactor base) to 20 GW by 2020, nuclear power generation would only consume 2000 tonnes of uranium per annum. Based on India's known commercially viable reserves of 80,000 to 112,000 tons of uranium, this represents a 40–50 years uranium supply for India's nuclear power reactors (note with reprocessing and breeder reactor technology, this supply could be stretched out many times over). Furthermore, the uranium requirements of India's Nuclear Arsenal are only a fifteenth (1/15) of that required for power generation (approx. 32 tonnes), meaning that India's domestic fissile material supply is more than enough to meet all needs for it strategic nuclear arsenal. Therefore, India has sufficient uranium resources to meet its strategic and power requirements for the foreseeable future.[49]
Indian President A.P.J.Abdul Kalam, stated while he was in office, that "energy independence is India's first and highest priority. India has to go for nuclear power generation in a big way using thorium-based reactors. Thorium, a non fissile material is available in abundance in our country."[50] India has vast thorium reserves and quite limited uranium reserves.[51][52]
Nuclear power plants
Currently, twenty nuclear power reactors produce 4,780.00 MW (2.9% of total installed base).[53][54]
| Power station | Operator | State | Type | Units | Total capacity (MW) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kaiga | NPCIL | Karnataka | PHWR | 220 x 4 | 880 |
| Kakrapar | NPCIL | Gujarat | PHWR | 220 x 2 | 440 |
| Kalpakkam | NPCIL | Tamil Nadu | PHWR | 220 x 2 | 440 |
| Narora | NPCIL | Uttar Pradesh | PHWR | 220 x 2 | 440 |
| Rawatbhata | NPCIL | Rajasthan | PHWR | 100 x 1 200 x 1 220 x 4 | 1180 |
| Tarapur | NPCIL | Maharashtra | BWR (PHWR) | 160 x 2 540 x 2 | 1400 |
| Total | 20 | 4780 |
The projects under construction are:[55]
| Power station | Operator | State | Type | Units | Total capacity (MW) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kudankulam | NPCIL | Tamil Nadu | VVER-1000 | 1000 x 2 | 2000 |
| Kalpakkam | BHAVINI | Tamil Nadu | PFBR | 500 x 1 | 500 |
| Kakrapar | NPCIL | Gujarat | PHWR | 700 x 2 | 1400 |
| Rawatbhata | NPCIL | Rajasthan | PHWR | 700 x 2 | 1400 |
| Total | 7 | 5300 |
Anti-nuclear protests
Especially since the March 2011 Japanese Fukushima nuclear disaster, "populations around proposed Indian NPP sites have launched protests that are now finding resonance around the country, raising questions about atomic energy as a clean and safe alternative to fossil fuels".[5] There have thus been mass protests against the French-backed 9900 MW Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project in Maharashtra and the 2000 MW Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant in Tamil Nadu. The state government of West Bengal state has also refused permission to a proposed 6000 MW facility near the town of Haripur that intended to host six Russian reactors.[5][56]
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has also been filed against the government's civil nuclear program at the apex Supreme Court. The PIL specifically asks for the "staying of all proposed nuclear power plants till satisfactory safety measures and cost-benefit analyses are completed by independent agencies".[5][6]
The People's Movement Against Nuclear Energy is an anti-nuclear power group in Tamil Nadu, India. The aim of the group is to close the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant site and to preserve the largely untouched coastal landscape, as well as educate locals about nuclear power.[57]
References
- ^ "~6429693.xls" (PDF). Retrieved 22 August 2010.
- ^ "India's 20th nuclear power plant goes critical". Hindustan Times. 27 November 2010. Retrieved 13 March 2011.
- ^ Verma, Nidhi (18 August 2008). "Westinghouse, Areva eye India nuclear plants-paper". Reuters. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
- ^ "India eyeing 64,000 MW nuclear power capacity by 2032: NPCIL". The Economic Times. 11 October 2010.
- ^ a b c d e f Siddharth Srivastava (27 October 2011). "India's Rising Nuclear Safety Concerns". Asia Sentinel.
- ^ a b Ranjit Devraj (25 October 2011). "Prospects Dim for India's Nuclear Power Expansion as Grassroots Uprising Spreads". Inside Climate News.
- ^ Pham, Lisa (20 October 2009). "Considering an Alternative Fuel for Nuclear Energy". The New York Times.
- ^ "Cold fusion turns hot, city to host meet". The Times Of India. 25 January 2011.
- ^ "Russia fulfills promise, supplies uranium to India". Expressindia.com. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
- ^ "Uranium shortage holding back India's nuclear power drive - Corporate News". livemint.com. 30 June 2008. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
- ^ "Ministry of Power". Powermin.gov.in. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
- ^ "news.outlookindia.com". Outlookindia.com. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
- ^ "India, France agree on civil nuclear cooperation". Rediff.com. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
- ^ "Bush signs India-US nuclear deal into law - Home". livemint.com. 9 October 2008. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
- ^ "UK, India sign civil nuclear accord". Reuters. 13 February 2010. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
- ^ "Canada, India reach nuclear deal". Montreal Gazette. 29 November 2009. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
- ^ "India, South Korea ink civil nuclear deal". The Times Of India. 25 July 2011.
- ^ "India to get 510 tonnes of uranium from Kazakhstan, Russia". Hindu Business Line.
- ^ "South Asia | Russia agrees India nuclear deal". BBC News. 11 February 2009. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
- ^ "India, Kazakhstan sign nuclear pact". Financial Express.
- ^ Sanjay Dutta, TNN, 23 January 2009, 01.35am IST (23 January 2009). "Kazakh nuclear, oil deals hang in balance". The Times of India. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
- ^ India, Argentina ink agreement on peaceful uses of N-energy, The Hindu
- ^ "India, Namibia sign uranium supply deal".
- ^ "Indian firm acquires uranium mining rights in Niger | Uranium, Niger, Company, Bajla, Government". taurianresources.co.in. Retrieved 22 December 2010.
- ^ Subramanian, T. S. (20 March 2011). "Massive uranium deposits found in Andhra Pradesh". The Hindu (Chennai, India).
- ^ "India's nuclear plans losing steam; Anti-nuclear protests hinder plans to ramp up power generation". Power Engineering. 27 February 2012.
- ^ George, Nirmala (21 June 1998). "Moscow Ends Atomic Power Blockade to India". Indian Express. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
- ^ Sasi, Anil (12 October 2008). "NPCIL to go into details with 4 reactor suppliers". The Hindu (Business Online). Retrieved 21 August 2011.
- ^ "Russia: Nuclear Exports to India". NTI. 2010. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
- ^ PTI (7 December 2009). "India, Russia sign nuclear deal". Times of India. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
- ^ Bagchi, Indrani (20 August 2011). "Keep your word, we will keep ours, India tells NSG (pg 1)". [1], Times of India. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
- ^ Samanta, Pranab Dhal (1 October 2008). "India, France ink nuclear deal, first after NSG waiver". Indian Express. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
- ^ Yep, Eric & Jagota, Mukesh (6 December 2010). "Areva and NPCIL Sign Nuclear Agreement". The Wall Street Journal - Business (online). Retrieved 21 August 2011.
- ^ Makarand Gadgil (29 November 2011). "Jaitapur nuclear plant work may not start before 2014". livemint.com (Wall Street Journal). Retrieved 29 November 2011.
- ^ Bureau reporters (15 September 2009). "India signs civil nuclear deal with Mongolia". Financial Express. Retrieved 13 August 2011.
- ^ "taragana.com" (2 September 2009). "India, Namibia sign uranium supply deal". Republikein Online. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
- ^ Chatterjee, Amit Kumar (30 October 2009). "Argentina -India's seventh nuclear destination". India - Articles (#2996). Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
- ^ Staff reporters (14 October 2009). "India signs N-pact with Argentina". OneIndia (online). Retrieved 21 August 2011.
- ^ Sinha, Mohnish (6 April 2010). "Indo-Canada Nuclear Accord". IndiaStand. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
- ^ "India, Kazakhstan ink civil nuclear cooperation deal". The Times of India. 17 April 2011. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
- ^ "India, Kazakh ink nuke and oil pacts". Indian EXpress. 16 April 2009. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
- ^ Sriniwas, Laxman. "India & South Korea Sign Civil Nuclear Agreement". Retrieved 21 August 2011.
- ^ "Slowdown not to affect India's nuclear plans". Business Standard. 21 January 2009. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
- ^ "Nuclear power generation to touch 6,000 Mw by next year". Business Standard. Retrieved 26 August 2010.
- ^ "Plants Under Operation". NPCIL. Retrieved 21 August 2011.
- ^ "India's fast breeder reactor nears second milestone". Chennai, India: Hindu.com. 16 June 2009. Retrieved 26 August 2010.
- ^ [2][dead link]
- ^ "At G-8, Singh, Bush reaffirm commitment to nuclear deal". livemint.com. 10 July 2008. Retrieved 22 August 2010.
- ^ a b http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/atomsforwarfinal4.pdf
- ^ "Thorium Reactors Integral To Indian Energy Independence". The Energy Daily. 8 May 2007.
- ^ Rahman, Maseeh (1 November 2011). "How Homi Bhabha's vision turned India into a nuclear R&D leader". Mumbai: Guardian. Retrieved 20 March 2012.
- ^ "A future energy giant? India's thorium-based nuclear plans". Physorg.com. 1 October 2010. Retrieved 20 March 2012.
- ^ "Nuclear Power Plants In India". Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL). Retrieved 21 January 2011.
- ^ "India's 20th nuclear reactor connected to power grid". The Times of India. 19 January 2011. Retrieved 22 January 2011.
- ^ "Projects Under Construction". NPCIL. Retrieved 20 July 2012.
- ^ Fiona Harvey (8 March 2012). "Dramatic fall in new nuclear power stations after Fukushima". The Guardian (London).
- ^ Nidhi Dutt (22 November 2011). "India faces people power against nuclear power". BBC News.
| ||
| ||
| |||
No comments:
Post a Comment