SC: Will halt Kudankulam if it’s unsafe

The court’s remark came after advocate Prashant Bhushan,appearing for PIL petitioner G Sundarrajan,said that the government was hell-bent on commissioning the plant at any cost since it thought it had spent huge money on it.

The Bench,however,made it clear that money was not a material consideration for it but the safety of the people and protection of their rights was.

The court also asked the government to respond on compliance of 17 safety measures recommended by Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB),as to what would happen to spent fuels and as to the temperature of water to be discharged in the sea on October 4.

In his plea,Bhushan submitted that no fresh environmental clearance was taken to implement the plant after 1989 and neither any environment impact assessment and public hearing were undertaken as required in the law.

Meanwhile,in an affidavit filed on Thursday,the Nuclear Power Corporation India Ltd claimed Kudankulam plant was “absolutely safe” even without adhering to all safety recommendations made by the AERB out of “abundant caution”.

“Even if Fukushima type of incident were to occur,the plant is fully equipped with all the safety measures to withstand any such unlikely event,” it said.

Calling the apprehension of petitioner as “misconceived,misplaced and without any basis,” it said,in addition to Indian authorities,the Russian Nuclear Safety Authority,also known as Gos Atom Nadzor,had reviewed and cleared the safety of the plant units.

The affidavit also pointed out the opinion of former President A P J Abdul Kalam,saying,“Kudankulam plant is a project of God for fulfilling the electricity production and need of this country which 50,000 MW in 2030,it is a necessary project.”

With regard to vulnerability of the plant to terrorist attack and sabotage,the affidavit said,it had elaborate physical security in place to ensure that the structure would prevent release of any radioactivity into public domain in the event of a physical attack.