First the facts. There is very little commonality between the Fukushima reactors and the Koodankulam power project. Whereas the Koodankulam nuclear power units belong to the third generation of reactor design evolution, the Fukushima reactors belong to the first generation. This specially applies to the safety parameters.

Koodankulam reactor components are housed in a 1.2 meter thick pre-stressed concrete containment lined inside with thick steel plates. The containment is hermetically sealed and tested so as to remain leak tight even in an environment created during a hypothetical accident. The safety factor in Koodankulam reactor design is many stages superior to the first generation reactors. There are multiple barriers for release of radioactivity to the environment – fuel matrix, fuel cladding, the piping system, besides the hermetically sealed containment building. The aim is to separate reactor from environment and environment from reactor.

Second, it is the dangerous to mix up geographical locations. Japan stands on the tip of the so-called “Pacific Ring of Fire” – some 1500 earthquakes are recorded annually. The March 11 earthquake of magnitude 9 was the biggest ever in Japan, with epicentre some 130 kms. from the coast. The resulting tsunami was more than 7 meters high. India is relatively stable with seismic activity confined to the Himalayan regions. The Southern plateau is relatively even more stable. It would be dangerous to extend geological events from one region to another (for all major projects – not only for nuclear). It has also to be remembered that the first two Fukushima reactors engulfed by the accident had outlived their 40 year life-span – extended without technological upgradation because of greed of the Japanese industrial magnates owning the Fukushima reactors, since even these aged reactors were giving handsome profits.

The only striking commonality between Koodankulam and Fukushima reactors – and those at Kalpakkam and Tarapur in India – is sea coast location. For decades, all these sea coast reactors have been operating without any risk or damage to the coastal marine life. And this serves as conclusive evidence that apprehensions now being roused by vested interests among the Koodankulam fishermen are baseless.

Even so, the Fukushima accident came as a shock in India and the lessons carefully analyzed, followed by prompt counter-veiling measures – first and foremost, for Koodankulam project. Specifically, for the purpose of cooling nuclear fuel, when the reactor is shut down, there are now four independent systems installed, each with its own 8 MW diesel generator, so that if the first or second systems malfunction, there are two more as back up. Added on, for the first time, a passive heat removal system has been installed. The system ensures cooling of the nuclear reactor core in passive manner – that is without any pumps, valves, etc., requiring power supply. There is more. A further feature added in the Koodankulam design is called the ‘core catcher’. In the event of an accident, where the molten nuclear fuel were to breach the reactor pressure vessel, it falls on to a matrix containing a large amount of neutron absorbing substances (such as boron). On mixing with this material, the nuclear fuel is rendered incapable of starting a nuclear chain reaction. Only the latest design provides for this safety back up.

The post-Fukushima jolt to India’s nuclear programme appears to be far more severe than it appeared six months ago after the earthquake and tsunami devastation in Japan. The event had a world-wide impact on the nuclear industry in countries such as France, United States, China and Russia, where nuclear energy plays a significant role in electricity generation. As in India’s case, all these countries have after evaluating the lessons of Fukushima and inducting appropriate safety features in their existing and ongoing nuclear projects, continued with their nuclear expansion and maintenance plans. The United States has after a decade’s gap, launched construction of two fresh Westinghouse 1200 MW power reactors and budgeted for an expanding nuclear programme. China – after a post-Fukushima evaluation pause – further expanded its nuclear power construction, with the vision of making nuclear electricity generation the principal alternative to fossil fuel power generation. The only country to tread a different path – and that for political not scientific reasons – is Germany. It could afford this because of European conditions. For, across the border, Slovakia, Russia, Checks, and even tiny Lithuania have launched construction of nuclear power reactors for exporting electricity to Germany. Good, ready made export business! But costlier power for Germans – drug manufacturer Bayers have protested.

The Indian scenario is just the contrary, for electric energy is in acute shortage and this shortage is growing. Electric power constitutes the major requisite for development and upgrading people’s livelihood, and this nuclear energy alone can provide, given fossil fuels run out.

The current developments might induce a retrospective look at the nuclear programme. In fact, the ambitious Indian nuclear programme has, right from inception, treaded a bumpy path. The scientific and technological challenges that the nuclear programme poses have been supplemented by a three-decades long cordon sanitaire – a total sanctions and technology denial regime imposed by the Western powers led by the United States.

Yet, overcoming the stifling sanctions by the Big Powers led by the United States in the wake of the Pokhran-I test, the Indian nuclear establishment performed the Herculean task of building a magnificent nuclear edifice: infrastructure nuclear industries, heavy water plants, research reactors, and a chain of R & D centres of which any country could be proud of. As many as 18 PHWRs (pressurized heavy water reactors) were built, generating 4580 MWe electricity, with a safety record that is among the best. The Pokhran-II test series – one of the best in the global chain of tests – was the climax, a high water mark in nuclear weapon capability.

Notwithstanding domestic skeptics, American and other international scientists recognized Indian nuclear attainments. Said Siegfried S. Hecker, in his testimony at US Senate Committee on Appropriations: “I found that whereas sanctions slowed (India’s) progress in nuclear energy, they made India self-sufficient and world leaders in fast reactor technology.” Soon after, another American scientist went on record to say: “At the end of 2002, average annual CANDU/PHWR performance continued to show gradual improvement, led by units of NPCIL (India)…The NPCIL PHWRs showed a major improvement in GCF in 2002, exceeding US light water reactor performance by almost 1%.”- Brian MacTavish, President, COG.

The American administration was compelled to abandon sanctions, and instead seek Indian cooperation in civilian nuclear projects and global non-proliferation, accepting submission to India’s weapon status. The demise of the sanctions regime and the Indo-US civilian nuclear accord were a great victory for India and Indian scientists.

A bright vista has opened for India’s nuclear programme, followed by a quick-change scenario – rapid imports of uranium fuel to enable optimum capacity utilization of existing PHWRs, and expanding PHWR projects. Global nuclear scientific interaction began, notable being with Canada, since it shares similar reactor technology as India’s. Nuclear energy targets were pushed upwards; the target for 2020 was pushed upwards from 20,000 MWe to 30,000 MWe, and the target for 2032 fixed by the Planning Commission was 63,000 MWe.

In this setting, Koodankulam poses a severe challenge to the entire nuclear programme – it could magnify power generation shortage for two decades ahead and render a big blow to the entire Indian economy. Hopefully, the impasse will be resolved. The nuclear establishment, on its part, has to learn a few lessons on the need to step up nuclear awareness in a big way. (IPA Service)