India feels meltdown tremors after Fukushima nuclear blast

The Japanese nuclear meltdown has begun having a ripple effect in India. On Monday, the government ordered an ‘immediate technical review’ of safety aspects in nuclear power plants even as critics called for a moratorium on new nuclear power projects in the pipeline.

The objective of the review is to “ensure that nuclear reactors would be able to withstand the impact of large natural disasters such as tsunamis and earthquakes,” Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told both the Houses of Parliament. The review would be carried out by the Department of Atomic Energy and the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL), which operates nuclear power plants.

The explosions in the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant on Japan’s northeast coast in the aftermath of the massive earthquake and tsunami have come at a time when India is in the process of rolling out an ambitious expansion of its nuclear power generation with imported technology. Despite assurances by the atomic energy establishment, the Japanese disaster has set the alarm bells ringing.

In particular, critics were quick to point out that two of the oldest reactors in India — Tarapur unit 1 and 2 — are of the same type (Boiling Water Reactors) and have been supplied by the same manufacturers (GE) as the ageing reactors of Fukushima. But officials of NPCIL rule out any laxity saying the safety of these two BWR reactors was reviewed by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) a few years back, following which, “the two reactors have been renovated, upgraded and fitted with additional safety features”.

All other 18 operational reactors are Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs), which too have ‘multiple, redundant and diverse’ shutdown systems as well as cooling water systems, officials said.

Will Indian reactors be able to withstand an earthquake and tsunami of the intensity that hit the Japanese coast?

The opinion is divided. The reactors are designed to withstand natural disasters like earthquakes, floods and even external attacks. “Earthquakes of the intensity which have occurred in Japan can occur in India only in the Himalayan region where we don’t have any nuclear plants. As regards tsunami, it is already factored in the design of Indian reactors. For example, the Madras station is located at a higher elevation,” pointed out Dr K.S. Parthasarathy, former secretary of AERB.

During the 2004 tsunami, the Madras Atomic Power Station (MAPS) had to be shut down and was restarted only after a regulatory review. Higher elevation has been chosen for the units under construction at Kudankulam. Jaitapur, too, though in a coastal area, is located much above the sea level. The severe earthquake which hit Bhuj in January 2001 did not affect the Kakrapar Atomic Power Station, which continued to operate during and after the quake.

“It is an unforgiving technology. We have to constantly keep learning and we should relook at design features of all our reactors after the Fukushima experience,” Parthasarathy added.

NPCIL also said the Japanese event will be reviewed once all details become available, and based on this if any reinforcement is needed in Indian reactors, it will be implemented.

Critics however point out that though natural disasters like a tsunami or an earthquake might not have caused serious nuclear accidents, the safety record of Indian reactors has been far from clean. “There have been serious mishaps in nuclear power plants such as fires and leakages. Scores of workers have got radiation exposures many times higher than permissible limits and the safety system is not foolproof,” said Praful Bidwai of the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace.

“In nuclear technology, the Murphy’s Law operates — if something can go wrong, it will go wrong,” commented Suvrat Raju, a member of the coalition.