Koodankulam

Koodankulam Anti-nuclear Movement

KOODAKULAM NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Koodankulam is a rather big village with a population of 11,029 by 2001 census with 2,386 households of which 944 belong to Dalit s. It is situated in the southern part of Tamil Nadu in Tirunelveli district and  is part of the state’s coastal line. Although, Koodankulam falls under the Tirunelveli Kattabomman  district, it is very close to the famous tourist spot of Kanyakumari. Edinthakarai is another village located   close to the nuclear plant and falls under the Vijayapati panchayat. The main occupation of the people  of this village is fishing on shores and the deep sea. In Koodankulam around 80 per cent of the  employable workforce is jobless while in Edinthakarai 60 per cent are involved in fishing (Moorty, 2000).  The womenfolk in Koodankulam make a living by rolling beedi (Ibid). Similarly, in villages like Uvari and  Kooththankuzhi the residents are actively involved in the movement. There are also Christian priests from Tuticorin and Kottar dioceses who are actively involved in the movement against the nuclear power plant. Around 40,000 people are living close to the plant site, including the people of Koodankulam (Ibid). This region also has a large number of alternative energy schemes in the form of converters of wind in to electricity. Even the Koodankulam nuclear power plant has half-a-dozen of them on its premises. The Koodankulam nuclear power plant has its roots in the 1974-Pokhran tests conducted by India. Soon after the tests India was isolated by the West and came under the influence of the Soviet nuclear establishment. The US stopped fuel shipments to the Tarapore nuclear power plant after the 1974 test. In 1979 during Morarji Desai regime the nuclear deal with the Soviet Union was discussed. The deal was finally concluded when the then Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and the then Indian Prime Minister, the late Rajiv Gandhi, signed the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Project deal in 1988. Initially, there was a strong opposition to the Koodankulam power plant from farmers, intellectuals, fisher folk, scientists and activists. Farmers participated in the movement because it was declared that the nuclear plant would meet its water needs from the nearby Pechiparai reservoir. Water meant for agricultural purposes would be diverted to the nuclear plant. One of the strong motivations for the resentment was the water scarcity in this regioniii (Moorty, 2000). Later an umbrella organisation called the Samathuva Samudaya Iyakkam (Social Equality Movement) was formed. People from three districts – Tirunelveli, Kanyakumari and Tuticorin – organised a massive rally at Tirunelveli in 1988. However, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Gorbachev losing power and the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi stalled the Koodankulam deal and by the end of 1991 the Nuclear Power Corporation (NPC) declared that Koodankulam nuclear power project had been called off and the government’s permission was sought to set up two 500 MW indigenous reactors at the same site (Indian Express, 20-01-1992). Very soon the movement against the plant alsodied down. In March 1997 the then Indian Prime Minister, H D Deve Gowda, and the Russian President, Boris Yeltsin, signed a supplement to the 1988 agreement and commissioned a detailed project report on Koodankulam.iv Accordingly, Russia agreed to supply two standard high pressure VVER-1000 watercooled and water-moderated reactors. In spite of concerns over the safety of the VVERs and the cost, some argue, India went ahead with the deal as the cash-strapped Russian nuclear industry linked it with other defence deals like that of T-90 tanks, SU-30 planes and the Admiral Gorshkov submarine (The New Indian Express, 02-10-2000; Udayakumar, 2004: 138). Many in Koodankulam, especially those involved in the movement, immediately cited the instance of Chernobyl Unit 4 accident in April 1986 where steam explosion, fire and nuclear fuel melting occurred due to the flawed design of the reactor, adding that it was also made in Russia, like the VVER- 1000 being installed at Koodankulam (Fieldtrip in Koodankulam, 29-03-07 to 13-04-07). The activists also pointed out to the fact that nearly 3,50,000 people had been displaced after the Chernobyl accident (Also see IAEA Report, 2005). They also know about other nuclear accidents like the one on the Three- Mile Island in the US (The Indian Express, 16-02-2000). The initial phase of the movement was centered on the issue of using water from Pecheiparai dam for the nuclear plant (Anumukti, 1990: 7-8). Later on when the Koodankulam plant authorities planned for a water re-cycling and desalination plant on its premises, the issue of water took the back seat and other issues like displacement, radiation hazards and, in particular, concerns about radiation contaminating the food chain through fish, dominated the movement. The issue of radiation entering the food chain was a livelihood concern for the fishing community, while others expre ssed health concerns. The Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) has collected 929 hectares of land for the project and another 150 hectares for the township (Moorty, 2000). According to the GO, M.s.No. 789 of the Tamil Nadu Public Works Department (TNPWD) dated 11-05-1988, population should not be more than 10,000 within the 16 kms radius and free insurance cover should be provided for the people within 20 kms radius of the nuclear power plant. However, no action was taken to fulfil the requirements as per the G.O. by the NPCL (Interview with Sandal Muthu Raj). On the contrary, a school building was demolished as per the G.O. and was not reconstructed or compensated (Ibid). The Koodankulam village is situated within the 10 kms radius. The current protest in Koodankulam picked up momentum when the proposal for four more VVER-1000 reactors, besides the earlier two, was announcedv (Radyuhin, 2001). This nuclear plant is supposed to supply power to all the south Indian states - Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu (Radyuhin, 2002). The agreement with Russia over the VVER-1000 reactors effectively broke the 30-year Western blockade of nuclear technology to India (Ibid). The promise of jobs and sub-contracts to construct footpaths and platforms within the plant site made the people of Koodankulam feel that the nuclear power plant would help develop their small town. The Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) had even taken the targeted villagers to Kalpakkamvi to interact with the fisher folk there (Moorty, 2000; Interview with Sandal Muthu Raj). The Russian delegates gave seminars on the safety of the VVERs to the villagers were assured of a better livelihood as a spill-over effect of the nuclear power plant (Moorty, 2000). The DAE-NPCIL also engaged the M S Swaminathan Foundation, at a cost of Rs. 50 lakh per year, to make the area around the reactor green (Ibid).nuclear power plant (Moorty, 2000). The DAE-NPCIL also engaged the M S Swaminathan Foundation, at a cost of Rs. 50 lakh per year, to make the area around the reactor green (Ibid). In the initial phases many people from Koodankulam supported the plant as many got jobs and sub-contracts in the plant (Interview with Sandal Muthu Raj). Sandal Muthu Raj is one of the active participants in the movement and has done some sub-contracting work at the plant.vii Regarding the quality of the plant construction, he confessed that he has used sand from the beach, which is not of good quality (Ibid). He further argued, This is the same nuclear plant [referring to VVER model] that caused the accident in Chernobyl. We know that even if the model is changed there will be problems. Meanwhile, our fish will catch radiation and we have to eat it. When more energy can be produced through wind, why do we need this bad Russian technology? Even during the period when there was no opposition to the plant, there were instances where some of the villagers did not yield to pressure to give away their land for the project. Thangathurai Swami is one such person, who manages his ancestral Narayanswami temple on his family estate that falls within the premises of the nuclear power plant project. To quote him, “I cannot sell my God and the temple” (Udayakumar, 1998: 7). Similarly Muthukumaraswamy, a retired school teacher also resisted the alienation of land by filing a suit in the Tirunelveli district court. Typically many of the people argue that such nuclear power plants need to be built near state or national capitals as it is people there that need more electricity (Ibid: 8). However, when it was decided to install the additional four reactors in the same plant, certain amount of displacement was required. This made the people of Koodankulam join protest movement. Earlier only the neighbouring fishing community was part of the movement . T he threat of displacement and subsequent loss of livelihood forced the people of Koodankulam into the movement. In the light of new developments the People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy (PMANE), an umbrella organisation, was formed. The PMANE argues that the region is rich in Thorium and Monaziteviii due to which there is natural radiation that is 40 times higher than the normal level (Interviews with Dr Lal Mohan and Dr Sumitra Raghuvaran). Koodankulam is very close to the district of Kanyakumari where natural radiation is high. The activists of the movement argue that in the backdrop of existing natural radiation the nuclear power plant would further worsen the situation by contaminating the food chain also (Interview with S. P. Udayakumar). The natural radiation is particularly high on the beaches of Kanyakumari (Mathew, 1990). The water used for cooling the reactors would be let into the sea, due to which the fisher folk have to go fishing in the deep sea. Only fisher folk with motorised boats can venture into the deep sea. Moreover, the chance of this radiation entering the food chain is very high. It is also argued that nuclear power plants by their sheer size and nature need large consumers for the power produced. The Koodankulam nuclear power plant has no big power consumers in its vicinity. The power generated needs to be transmitted to distant destinations for distribution to various consumers and will only increase existing transmission and distribution losses (Gadekar, 1996: 2). Asuran, a journalist from this region, opined that the Koodankulam anti-nuclear movement stands for an alternative vision of development. To quote him: Chernobyl awakened us and hence we protested against Koodankulam nuclear power plant in the 1980s. This plant is a symbol of the Nehruvian model of development where mega projects like big dams and industries are built in the name of development, while our movement stands more for a Gandhian model of development with stress on self-reliance and village development… This entire region has a very significant place in the Tamil culture and history. This kind of project, in the long run, will ruin our history, culture, traditions, knowledge and future generations (Interview with Asuran, 07-04-07). Many people who had sold their land to the nuclear plant complained that in the 1980s a paltry sum of Rs 2,000 was given per acre and Rs 100 per cashew tree. For most of the people it was the only property they possessed and for the tamarind trees on their property the NPC (Nuclear Power Corporation) did not pay any compensation (Udayakumar, 1998: 7). Moreover, the people of Koodankulam acknowledge that they did not know anything about the hazards of radiation from the nuclear power plant (Ibid). Any project of such a high cost (Rs. 17,000 crore) is supposed to get environmental clearance and also the authorities have to conduct a public hearing in order to solve, if any, problems of the local people. However, during the first phase of the plant (two reactors in the first phase) nobody was aware of the environmental impact assessment nor was any public hearing conducted. This first phase started in 1997. In 1994 the Pollution Control Act was amended that makes it mandatory for all projects to get environmental clearance. The Koodankulam plant in its first phase did not get any environment clearance by citing the fact that the plant was originally envisaged in 1988 and hence the new law was not binding on the construction of power plant and that the letter of clearance issued to the plant in 1989 was still valid (The Hindu, 23-12-2001). The Project Director of Koodankulam Atomic Power Project, S K Agrawal, declared that the project was given clearance by both the Union Ministry of Forests and Environment and the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (Ibid). On August 28, 1988, a meeting was held in Edinthakarai, where 1,000 people gathered to oppose the nuclear power plant (Economic and Political Weekly, 1989: 20). In May 1989 a huge demonstration was organised under the aegis of National Fish Workers Union (NFU). It was a nationwide demonstration in order to bring the plight of water becoming scarcer and polluted. It also opposed the Ko odankulam nuclear power plant. The police fired at the protestors, disconnected the public address system and prevented the organisers from addressing the rally (Anumukti, 1989: 11). Murpokkur Manavar Sangam and Murpokku Ilaignar Ani, two associations of progressive students and youth, undertook a cycle rally against the Koodankulam project from Chennai (then Madras) to Tirunelveli. Starting on January 30, 1991, from Chennai, the youth travelled through Vellore, Dharampuri, Coimbatore, Ramanathapuram and Madurai concluding the rally in Tirunelveli on February 10 (Anumukti, 1991: 16). There was a brief lull in the movement following the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi and the disintegration of the Soviet Union. In 1999 the Tamil Nadu Fish Workers Union (TFU) called a nationwide strike in protest against the plant. The State President of TFU, Peter Dhas, blamed the scientific community for ignoring the livelihood concerns of the fishing community (The Hindu, 16-11-99). In March 2007 nearly 2,000 people including, 1,000 women and children, participated in a fast at Edinthakarai against the nuclear power plant. Street plays were enacted at the venue in strengthen awareness among the public (The Hindu, 25-03-2007). The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly’s Assurance Committee, after surveying around 130 projects in the district of Tirunelveli, appealed to the NPCIL to conduct a public hearing to record the people’s opinion, which is mandatory for getting the approval of the TNPCB for the nuclear plant (The Hindu, 30-08-2002). The public hearing, slated for October 2006, had to be cancelled due to protests from the people. The public voiced their anger against the local MLA when he tried to speak about the nuclear project . The project staff and district collector remained mute spectators of the whole incident (The Hindu, 07-10-2006). This public hearing was finally held on June 2, 2007, after two postponements. However, this public hearing was a mere formality rather than a substantial effort to record the people’s opinion (Observations from field trip). The nuclear power plant in Koodankulam has garnered the support of all the mainstream political parties in Tamil Nadu like the DMK, AIDMK, etc. For instance, the present Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and chief of the DMK party, M Karunanidhi, had stated in the state legislative assembly in 1997 that the only alternative to the existing power crisis was nuclear energy. He also blamed some people for making a false propaganda against the nuclear power plant in Koodankulam (The Indian Express, 27-04-1997). Similarly the former chief minister, J Jayalalithaa, had also extended support to the NPC with regard to Koodankulam project (The Hindu, 18-12-2003). On its part the NPCIL has initiated propaganda in the print media over the Koodankulam nuclear power plant. In one such advertisement in The Hindu, the NPCIL claims that the nuclear power plant in Koodankulam is safe from hurricanes, waterspouts, tsunami, air strikes or crashes, shock waves, seismic impacts, etc. Similarly the same advertisement proclaims that as per the integrated energy plan of the planning commission India’s power generating capacity would increase to 8,00,000 Mwe by 2031-32 of which 63,000 Mwe would be from nuclear energy (The Hindu, 29-03-2007). This advertisement was issued just two days before the public hearing, which however, was cancelled due to the DMK’s call for a state-wide bandh. The movement has also networked with many like-minded organisations both nationally and internationally (Udayakumar, 2004: 300-15). Some Sri Lanka based environmental groups protested over the plant being within a distance of 50 kms from Sri Lanka. (Udayakumar, 2004: 329-31). However, this networking did not have much impact on the movement. During this time the movement approached Supreme Court for redressal. However, the Supreme Court of India slapped a fine of Rs 1,000 on the movement and cancelled the petition on the grounds that it was an inter-state agreement. The movement has organised and conducted a series of seminars, skits, conferences, etc, in order to create awareness among the public. A massive rally was organised in 2003 with more than 7,000 participants from the three districts of Tuticorin, Tirunelveli and Kanyakumari. Similarly one public meeting was organised under the auspices of the National Alliance for People’s Movements (NAPM) under the leadership of Medha Patker. The movement also allayed fears over the safety of the plant, particularly in the post-tsunami period. The main protest came from the fishing community and farming community, as the proposed expansion of the nuclear power plant was perceived as a direct threat to their livelihood (The New Indian Express, 7-10-06; The Hindu, 07-10-2006). Most of the farmers are from the neighbouring Kanyakumari district from where the water was proposed to be drawn for the nuclear power plant

Reasons

Now the people of Koodankulam know and understand that this is not just a fisherfolk’s problem, they may be displaced, and they have to deal with radioactive poison. Their joining the movement in 2007 has invigorated the campaign now. And (almost) all of us here in the southernmost tip of India oppose the Koodankulam NPP for a few specific reasons: [1] The KKNPP reactors are being set up without sharing the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Site Evaluation Study and Safety Analysis Report with the people, or the people’s representatives or the press. No public hearing has been conducted for the first two reactors either. There is absolutely no democratic decision-making in or public approval for this project. [2] The Tamil Nadu Government G.O. 828 (29.4.1991 – Public Works Department) establishes clearly that “area between 2 to 5 km radius around the plant site, [would be] called the sterilization zone.” This means that people in this area could be displaced. But the KKNPP authorities promise orally and on a purely adhoc basis that nobody from the neighboring villages would be displaced. This kind of adhocism and doublespeak causes suspicion and fears of displacement. [3] More than 1 million people live within the 30 km radius of the KKNPP which far exceeds the AERB (Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) stipulations. It is quite impossible to evacuate this many people quickly and efficiently in case of a nuclear disaster at Koodankulam. [4] The coolant water and low-grade waste from the KKNPP are going to be dumped in to the sea which will have a severe impact on fish production and catch. This will undermine the fishing industry, push the fisherfolks into deeper poverty and misery and affect the food security of the entire southern Tamil Nadu and southern Kerala. [5] Even when the KKNPP projects function normally without any incidents and accidents, they would be emitting Iodine 131, 132, 133, Cesium 134, 136, 137 isotopes, strontium, tritium, tellurium and other such radioactive particles into our air, land, crops, cattle, sea, seafood and ground water. Already the southern coastal belt is sinking with very high incidence of cancer, mental retardation, down syndrome, defective births due to private and government sea-sand mining for rare minerals including thorium. The KKNPP will add many more woes to our already suffering people. [6] The quality of construction and the pipe work and the overall integrity of the KKNPP structures have been called into question by the very workers and contractors who work there in Koodankulam. There have been international concerns about the design, structure and workings of the untested Russian-made VVER-1000 reactors. [7] The then Minister of State in the Ministry of Environment and Forest Mr.Jairam Ramesh announced a few months ago that the central government had decided not to give permission to KKNPP 3-6 as they were violating the Coastal Regulation Zone stipulations. It is pertinent to ask if KKNPP 1 and 2 are not violating the CRZ terms. [8] Many political leaders and bureaucrats try to reassure us that there would be no natural disasters in the Koodankulam area. How can they know? How can anyone ever know? The 2004 December tsunami did flood the KKNPP installations. There was a mild tremor in the surrounding villages of Koodankulam on March 19, 2006. On August 12, 2011, there were tremors in 7 districts of Tamil Nadu. [9] Indian Prime Minster himself has spoken about terrorist threats to India’s nuclear power plants. Most recently, on August 17, 2001, Minister of State for Home, Mr. Mullappally Ramachandran said: “the atomic establishments continue to remain prime targets of the terrorist groups and outfits.” [10] The important issue of liability for the Russian plants has not been settled yet. Defying the Indian nuclear liability law, Russia insists that the Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA), secretly signed in 2008 by the Indian and Russian governments, precedes the liability law and that Article 13 of the IGA clearly establishes that NPCIL is solely responsible for all claims of damages. [11] In 1988 the authorities said that the cost estimate of the Koodakulam 1 and 2 projects was Rs. 6,000 crores. In November 1998, they said the project cost would be Rs. 15,500. In 2001, the ministerial group for economic affairs announced that the project cost would be Rs. 13,171 crores and the Indian government would invest Rs. 6,775 crores with the remainder amount coming in as Russian loan with 4 percent interest. The fuel cost was estimated to be Rs. 2,129 crores which would be entirely Russian loan. No one knows the 2011 figures of any of these expenses. No one cares to tell the Indian public either. [12] The March 11, 2011 disaster in Fukushima has made it all too clear to the whole world that nuclear power plants are prone to natural disasters and no one can really predict their occurrence. When we cannot effectively deal with a nuclear disaster, it is only prudent to prevent it from occurring. Even the most industrialized and highly advanced country such as Germany has decided to phase out their nuclear power plants by the year 2022.Switzerland has decided to shun nuclear power technology. In a recent referendum, some 90 percent of Italians have voted against nuclear power in their country. Many Japanese prefectures and their governors are closing nuclear power plants in their regions. Both the United States and Russia have not built a new reactor in their countries for 2-3 decades ever since major accidents occurred at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. In our own country, Mamta Banerjee government in West Bengal has stopped the Russian nuclear power park project at Haripur in Purba Medhinipur district and taken a position that they do want any nuclear power project in their state. Similarly, the people of Kerala have decided not to host any nuclear power project in their state. [13] And finally, the Indian government’s mindless insistence on nuclear power, utmost secrecy in all of its nuclear agreements and activities, and its sheer unwillingness to listen to the people’s concerns and fears make us very doubtful about the real benefactors of all this nuclear hoopla. Is it all for us, the people of India? Or for the corporate profits of the Russian, American and French companies? Or for the Indian military? Are the lives and futures of the Indian citizens inferior to all these?

CONCUSION!

The Koodankulam anti-nuclear movement is a combination of various groups from different backgrounds. There are people who have been against the nuclear plant ever since the 1980s, when the proposal was first made. They are educated and aware of the radiation hazards in general. They come from different strata of the society like doctors, professors, teachers, lawyers, NGOs, journalists and religious preachers from the church. Then there are farmers and the fishing communities who perceive a real threat to their livelihood from the power plant. There is a third group which initially supported the plant for jobs and contracts, but has turned anti-plant sensing that it cannot reap much benefits from the plant. The third group belongs to the younger generation and many of them also belong to mainstream political parties. The threat of displacement, radiation and the safety question brought these otherwise different groups together. Industrial development, according to the movement, is associated with a centralised power generating system like that of a nuclear power plant. This centralised energy system would not only alienate local communities from their surroundings but also threaten their livelihood. Furt her, such technical and centralised systems would not allow any space for people’s participation. Hence, the movement argues for decentralised energy systems like bio-gas, mini-hydel plants, wind and solar energies. Such systems would ensure greater people’s participation, make the local communities selfreliant and enhances their livelihood. The movement, in other words, argues in favour of the Gandhian notion of development with less technological inputs and greater decentralisation. In the context of the nuclear power plant two major issues appeared to have caused concern among the people, apart from issues like radiation and risks. One was the issue of drawing water from Pecheiparai reservoir for the nuclear plant. Farmers concerned over the issue of wat er supply for agricultural purposes supported movement because it threatened their livelihood, particularly in the context of water scarcity. T he second one was the issue of discharge of high temperature waste water into the sea. The waste water would kill the fish near the shore leading and fishing communities feared the loss of their livelihood. Thus, for people in and around Koodankulam the mainstream development process of the Indian state was destructive in nature. It is in this argument that the movement’s notion of alternative development is anchored. As long as the movement is non-violent in character, the state responds with semi-coercion and intimidation to push forward its agenda. Also the state changes the issue by placing the discourse at the level of development and security, there by conveniently ignoring the issues of displacement and livelihood concerns of a small population. However, if the movement adopts a violent character, than the state would use physical force and shift the discourse to the law and order problem. As the movement attempts to oppose any such changes in the discourse, it could be seen as an alternative to mainstream institutional politics. Sheth (2005) argues that such grass root movements are a reality due to the failure of the institutional politics. Development is one such aspect of the institutional politics and the movement is opposed to such a development process – one that displaces and threatens livelihood by excluding and alienating the people. By asserting their right to live in Koodankulam and other livelihood issues like agricultural land and fishing the movement initiated by the people seems to argue for an alternative development.