Madras High Court
M.Vetri Selvan vs Union Of India on 25 November, 2013
Author: M.Sathyanarayanan
Bench: R.K.Agrawal, M.Sathyanarayanan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25-11-2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.R.K.AGRAWAL, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN WRIT PETITION No.25604 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 M.Vetri Selvan .. Petitioner vs 1.Union of India represented by the Secretary to Government of India Department of Atomic Energy Anushakti Bhavan Chatrapathi Shivaji Maharaj Marg Mumbai 400 001. 2.Union of India represented by the Secretary to Government Ministry of Environment and Forests Paryavaran Bhawan CGO Complex, Lodhi Road New Delhi 110 003. 3.The Chairman Atomic Energy Regulatory Board Niyamak Bhavan Anushaktinagar Mumbai 400 094. 4.The Chairman and Managing Director Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited Nambhkiya Urja Bhavan Anushakti Nagar Mumbai 400 094. 5.The Member Secretary Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Guindy, Chennai 600 032. .. Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from running the Madras Atomic Power Station (Units I & II) at Kalpakkam, Kanchipuram District without first obtaining Environmental Clearance with regard to MAPS in accordance with law. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Radhakrishnan For Respondents : Mr.P.Wilson Additional Solicitor General Assisted by Mr.C.Kanagaraj for RR1, 2 & 4 and Mrs.G.Hema for R3 ORDER
The petitioner is an Advocate and he is actively associated with "Poovulagin Nanbargal" (Friends of Globe), a registered Public Trust, advancing the cause such as protection of environment and forests and has filed this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from running Madras Atomic Power Station (MAPS) (Units I and II), Kalpakkam, Kanchipuram District, without first obtaining Environmental Clearance.
2.The petitioner, subsequently, filed M.P.No.2/2013 praying for amendment of the prayer as "writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from running MAPS (Units I and II), Kalpakkam, Kanchipuram District without first implementing NPCIL Task Force report of March, 2011, and AERB Committee report of August, 2011, and obtaining Environment Clearance with regard to MAPS in accordance with law".
3.The petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, averred that MAPS is located at Kalpakkam, which is about 70 kms away from Chennai City, and it consists of two Units i.e., MAPS-I, which went critical during the year 1983 and MAPS-II, which went critical in the year 1985, and at Kalpakkam, there are seven nuclear organisations including MAPS, viz. Bharatiya Nambhikiya Vidyut Nigam Ltd. (HQ), Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, PFBR Project (IGCAR), Nuclear Desalination Demonstration Plant (BARC), Kalpakkam Fuel Reprocessing Plant (BARC) and General Services Organisation, and MAPS generates 440 MWe of electricity from the above said two reactors and the petitioner has learnt that the Union of India has plans for an additional 500 MWe in MAPS.
4.The petitioner would further state that on 26.3.1999, there was a heavy water leakage in MAPS and seven people received a high degree of radiation dose and in this regard, an article was also published in "Frontline" a fortnight edition in English, and two more incidents also took place in the year 2001 and 2002 respectively, wherein, a worker suffered internal contamination after a neoprene glove was punctured, and the left hand of one Selvakumar, worker, was also burnt while he picked up a radioactive substance, and during January, 2003, also, five workers had exposed to high levels of radiation.
5.It is further stated by the petitioner that there are about 30,000 workers in five villages, which are situated within 5 km radius from MAPS, and there is also a Township having thousands of permanent workers of MAPS and their families, and within 16 kms to 20 kms radius from MAPS, there are about 60 villages, wherein, more than 1 lakh people are residing.
6.The petitioner would further aver that on 11.3.2011, there was an earthquake followed by a Tsunami, at Fukushima Dai-ichi Plant in Japan, which resulted in evacuation of nearly 11,000 people, and the Government of Japan tried its level best to control the spreading of radioactive leakage, and in spite of their best efforts, still, there is low level of radiation, and the said incident made the other countries to wake up to the realities and the Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) has constituted four Task Forces to review the consequences in the event of such a kind of incident if takes place in India and the Task Force has submitted its interim report during March, 2011, and as per the report, it has made 12 short-term recommendations and 8 long-term recommendations, and similarly, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) has also constituted a Committee on 19.3.2011, to review the safety aspects of Nuclear Power Plants operated in India, and it has submitted its report dated 31.8.2011, and paragraphs 4.17 and 4.18 thereof deal with "spent fuel storage facilities" and as per the said report, the practice of storing spent radioactive ion exchange resins in the underground tanks, should be discontinued as in case of earthquake and severe flooding, it can cause spread of radioactive contamination.
7.The petitioner would further state that as per the communication of AERB dated 31.5.2013, the recommendations made by the NPCIL Task Force/Committee, have been implemented with regard to MAPS, and moreover, the mandatory provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, have not been followed at all and any environmental clearance will be valid only for a period of five years and no environmental clearance has been obtained for storing the spent fuel in MAPS.
8.It is also stated by the petitioner that there is a presence of undersea volcano about 100 110 kms near MAPS and the damage that could be caused in the event of eruption of volcano, has not at all been taken into consideration by the concerned authorities and therefore, he came forward to file this writ petition.
9.Mr.M.Radhakrishnan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, made a forceful submission by drawing the attention of this Court to the provisions of Atomic Energy Act, 1962; Atomic Energy (Working of the Mines, Minerals and Handling of Prescribed Substances) Rules, 1984; Atomic Energy (Safe Disposal of Radioactive Wastes) Rules, 1987 and the Environment Impact Assessment Notification dated 27.1.1994, and also the brochure with regard to the Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Map of India, prepared by the Working Committee of Experts constituted by the National Disaster Management Authority, Government of India, New Delhi, and would submit that in the event of Tsunami or Earthquake, the spent fuel, which is being stored at MAPS, would get exposed, which would definitely lead to emission of radioactive substance, and in that event, the workers and employees of the MAPS, who are living in and around the plant, will be affected and it may also affect the residents of nearby villages.
10.It is further submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the mandatory requirements of the Notification issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, have been given a complete go-by insofar as MAPS, and the environmental clearance has expired long back and thereafter, no clearance whatsoever, has been obtained for storing the spent fuel in MAPS and everything has been shrouded in secrecy.
11.It is further submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that MAPS is situated in seismic region and in fact, there is a submarine volcano, which lies about 100 kms - 110 kms away from MAPS, and a submarine eruption was reported near Pondicherry on the eastern coast of India, in the year 1757, which resulted in formation of Ephemeral Island, and since the said submarine volcano lies within 110 kms to 110 kms from MAPS and in the event of any new eruption, it would definitely result in earthquake and Tsunami and in that event, no adequate and safety measures are available in MAPS and in the event of any disaster in the form of earthquake or Tsunami, the workers of MAPS, who are also residing in and around MAPS, and the residents of nearby villages will definitely be exposed to high degree/level of radiation and though it has been pointed out to the concerned authorities, no action whatsoever, has been taken and citing the confidentiality/secrecy, everything is shrouded.
12.The sum and substance of the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that for running a nuclear fuel complex/storage plant in MAPS, no environmental clearance has been obtained and because of the existence of submarine volcano, which is about 100 kms to 110 kms away from MAPS, and in the event of eruption, the other natural consequences would follow and MAPS has not made any preparation to meet that eventuality and therefore, the petitioner came forward to file the present writ petition.
13.Mr.P.Wilson, the learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the respondents 1 to 4, has drawn the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent, and would submit that the petitioner lacks bona fide for the reason that he earlier filed a writ petition against the establishment of Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project (KKNPP) and other members of Poovulagin Nanbargal viz. Dr.V.Pugalendhi and Thiru G.Sundarrajan, had also filed number of writ petitions against the functioning of KKNPP and their only intention is to halt or stop the functioning of the MAPS also.
14.It is further submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General that both the Units of MAPS are running its operation ever since July, 1983, and September, 1985, respectively and it had generated and supplied 57,000 million units of electricity to the State grid till September, 2013, and out of the said generated electricity, 75% has been supplied to Tamil Nadu, which is a power starving State.
15.Insofar as the storing of spent fuel is concerned, it is submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the said facility is operated strictly in accordance with the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board guidelines and requirements and the water in the spent fuel storage bay is kept under continuous circulation with on-line purification done through ion-exchange column and spent fuel from reactors are kept in spent fuel storage bay for number of years for the purpose of decay of short lived radioactive isotopes and reducing their heat generation and radioactivity associated with spent fuel prior to undertaking transportation to other Units of Department of Atomic Energy.
16.It is further submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General that even during Tsunami incident, which took place in the year December, 2004, all safety measures were in place and consequently, nothing untoward had happened and after Fukushima incident, that took place in Japan, the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India ordered a fresh review of safety evolution of all Nuclear Power Plants and therefore, the Government of India has called for safety audits of all Nuclear Power Plants and in this regard, the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited constituted a separate Task Force to review the safety of MAPS and the said Task Force went into the question and reviewed the following major areas:
(a) External events in relation to safety of Nuclear Power Plants;
(b) Safety of electrical, control and instrumentation system against external events;
(c) Safety of Nuclear Power Plants under prolonged Station Black Out and loss of Ultimate Heat Sink and
(d) Safety of spent fuel storage facilities at Nuclear Power Plants against the external events.
17.The learned Additional Solicitor General would further submit that MAPS has also proposed an action plan for implementation of the recommendations made by the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Task Force and Atomic Energy Regulatory Board Committee, in a phased manner and the recommendations will be implemented in a time bound manner and compliance reports on actions taken, are being regularly submitted to Atomic Energy Regulatory Board and therefore, it cannot be said that no action whatsoever, has been taken in the event of unforeseen disaster due to natural and other consequences.
18.As regards the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that no environmental clearance has been obtained, it is the submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General that as per the notification dated 27.1.1994, issued under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, both the Units of MAPS are in operation since early eighties and there has been no modernisatioin or expansion with addition of capacity and both the Units have remained within the rated capacity of 220 MWe and no reprocessing of spent fuel is also done at MAPS. He would further submit that since the notification is prospective with effect from 1994, it had no application to the case on hand, for the reason that both the Units of MAPS are functioning much earlier to the said notification.
19.It is the further submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General that the existence of volcano, which is about 100 kms to 110 kms away from MAPS, has nothing to do with the safety and other operations of MAPS for the reason that the petitioner placed reliance upon a topic written by Dr.V.Pugalendhi and Dr.Ramesh, claiming to be the Doctors for Safer Environment, Friends of Globe, People Movement for Anti-atomic Energy and People Movement for Nuclear Radiation Safety and they have placed reliance upon a web-site viz. Global Volcanism Program, and even as per the information available in that program, the submarine eruption was reported in the year 1757, and the Geological Survey of India reported no knowledge of any volcanic activity in the region and even assuming that there is a possibility of volcanic eruption and consequent earthquake and Tsunami, MAPS is having/possessing all safety measures and it was also decided at the time of Tsunami, which hit the coast of Chennai during December, 2004, and since all the safety measures are in place, nothing will happen to MAPS.
20.Lastly, it is submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the petitioner is totally against the nuclear energy and his only intention is not to allow any Nuclear Power Plants to run its operations and earlier, he has filed the writ petition against the running of Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project and his only intention is to gain publicity and hence, he prays for dismissal of this writ petition with exemplary costs.
21.This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it.
22.W.P.No.22253/2012 came to be filed against the establishment and running of Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant and it was dismissed on 31.8.2012, and challenging the vires of the same, Thiru G.Sundarrajan filed Civil Appeal No.4440/2013 and number of other civil appeals were also filed and all the appeals were taken up together and were disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by a common judgment dated 6.5.2013, reported in (2013) 6 SCC 620 (G. SUNDARRAJAN V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS).
23.The appellants in the above said civil appeals, took a similar stand as that of the petitioner herein and it is relevant to extract the following paragraphs of the said judgment:
"Nuclear spent fuel (NSF)
56. Radioactive waste is generated during operation, maintenance and decommissioning of nuclear and radiation facilities. The waste generated needs to be managed in a safe manner to ensure protection of human health and the environment from the undue effects of ionising radiation now and in future without imposing undue burden on future generations. Radioactive waste is to be managed in a manner that ensures compliance with the fundamental principles of radiation protection and environmental safety. Monitoring and surveillance programme helps to ensure radiation protection of the occupational workers, public and the environment.
57. The Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) read with clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 30 and clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act framed the Atomic Energy (Safe Disposal of Radioactive Wastes) Rules, 1987, which provide requirements for the safe disposal of radioactive wastes in the country. The disposal has to be done in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the authorisation which include the process materials and equipments generating radioactive wastes in the installations, environment around the installation, safety devices and other equipments in the installation for conditioning, treatment and disposal of radioactive wastes, estimates of annual releases, discharges and leakages in normal conditions and its anticipated environment impact, potential accidents, design features and monitoring equipment to control the release of radioactivity and procedure to be followed in the safe collection of radioactive wastes. The Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 provide that these Rules will not apply to radioactive wastes [Rule 2(c)]. The radioactive wastes are covered under the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and the Rules framed thereunder. Further, Rules 2(b) and 3 of the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules, 1989 under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 have notified AERB as the authority to enforce directions and procedures as per the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 with respect to radioactive materials.
...
64. Management of radioactive waste includes all types of radioactive waste generated from the entire fuel cycle right from mining uranium fuel fabrication through reactor operations, and whole reprocessing of spent fuel. A coherent, comprehensive and consistent set of principles by way of IAEA document titled Storage and Disposal of Spent Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste and AERB Safety Guide to AERB Management of Radioactive Waste Code, 2007 are already in place. Further, the fifteen-member team in its report, in December 2011, has to say this on spent fuel management:
"6.3. Spent fuel management.First and foremost it should be remembered that spent fuel is not a waste in the Indian nuclear programme. A closed fuel cycle is followed, where the valuable fissile materials like uranium and plutonium which are present in the spent fuel are recovered to reuse.
(1) Spent fuel is, therefore, an asset that needs to be preserved. At Kudankulam, spent fuel from the reactors will be carefully stored in storage pools, which are always filled with pure, demineralised borated water, which is constantly recirculated. These pools are high integrity concrete pools which are additionally lined with stainless steel sheets, to ensure effective containment for extended periods of time. The Department of Atomic Energy has long experience and expertise of a high order in the safe management of spent fuel.
(2) There is no plan to do the reprocessing of the spent fuel at Kudankulam site. As such the storage of spent fuel at Kudankulam is to be considered only as an interim measure till they are transported to a reprocessing facility.
(3) Adequate technology and years of experience are available with the Department of Atomic Energy for transporting spent fuel from one site to another through both Railways and by roadways, in a safe manner without any public hazard. This is done as per stipulations of AERB, regarding transport regulations that govern safety."
...
66. Further, it has also been pointed out that KKNPP had adequate provisions for safe storage of spent fuel. In KKNPP, spent fuel pool (SFP) is located inside the primary containment, adjacent to reactor cavity which has the capacity to store fuel equivalent to 7 years of full power operation of the plant plus one full core load. AERB Safety Guide Design of Fuel Handling and Storage Systems for Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors AERB/SG/D-24 deals with the safety in design of storage of spent fuel. NPCIL submitted that they are scrupulously following the safety guidelines issued by AERB. However, the Nuclear Recycle Group of BARC has got an overall view of radioactive waste management in India and has developed certain guidelines for management of nuclear fuel."
24.It has been further held in the above cited judgment, that ACPSR in its 126th meeting held on 15.9.2011 and 16.9.2011, has considered the situation and recommended that AFR should be finalised well before 5 years of operation. Thus, it is clear that the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board also issued a code viz. Management of Radioactive Waste on 22.6.2007, and it is applicable to the management of radioactive waste containing chemically and biologically hazardous substances, and paragraph No.2.2 of the Management of Radioactive Waste Code deals with protection of human health and environment. Paragraph 2.5 of the said Code deals with safety assessment. It is relevant to extract the following paragraphs of the above cited judgment:
"60.Para 2.2 of the Management of Radioactive Waste Code specifically refers to protection of human health and the environment. The said paragraph is of considerable importance, hence is given below in detail:
......
2.5. Safety assessment 2.5.1. Safety assessment report shall be prepared for waste management facilities including waste disposal facilities/repositories to demonstrate compliance with the regulatory requirements.
2.5.2. Assessments shall be made to identify various possible sequences of internal or external events that may lead to incidents or accidents and to evaluate their impact on workers, the public and the environment.
2.5.3. Assessments shall be made to identify, describe and analyse the potential non-radiological impact of releases from radioactive waste management facilities on human beings, the environment (soil, water, air and non-human biota) and natural resources.
2.5.4. The safety assessments of the long-term performance of a waste disposal facility/repository shall take account of the radionuclide content, physic-chemical characteristics of the waste/waste form and the effectiveness of engineered/natural barriers.
....
62. Para 4 of the Code specifically deals with predisposal measures to be taken by predisposal management of radioactive waste. Para 5 of the Code deals with near surface disposal of solid waste which says that solid waste disposal deals with emplacement of waste in approved facilities. Further, it also stated that disposal may be in a near surface disposal facility (NSDF) or a deep geological repository (DGR). The design, construction, operation and post-operation of NSDF has to meet necessary safety requirements. Appendix II of the Code deals with the principles and philosophy of radioactive waste management."
25.In paragraph No.6 of the counter affidavit of the fourth respondent, it has been stated that the spent fuel from reactors is kept in the spent fuel water pool named as "Spent Fuel Storage Bay" and the said facility is an integral part of the nuclear power plant and has been provided at all nuclear power reactor sites including MAPS, and it is operated as per the AERB guidelines and requirements and even during Tsunami in 2004, which hit the coast of Chennai District, nothing untoward had happened and no material whatsoever, has been produced before this Court to show that the interim report with regard to the safety evaluation of Indian Nuclear Power Plants (post Fukushima incident), has not been considered and put into place. A perusal of the said report would disclose that recommendations/ suggestions made, cannot be implemented immediately and are to be done in a time bound manner and the concluding paragraph of the interim report of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited with regard to the MAPS, states as follows:
"8.0 CONCLUSION MAPS is designed for external events like flood. Many upgradation jobs have been carried out during the EMCCR of both units of MAPS. DG-5 and two diesel driven fire fighting pumps have been kept at a higher elevation and core cooling can be provided for a scale of Tsunami which occurred in 2004. The spent fuel bay is at the ground floor, and the inventory is sufficient for a period more than 10 days provided there is no structural damage. The recommendations given in this report have been evolved for handling the scenarios for more severe Tsunamis which can inundate up to a height of 5 meters from the ground floor of main plant buildings. With the recommendations of the report taken into account the core cooling and spent fuel integrity can be maintained even in the postulated flooding scenario."
26.Therefore, this Court is of the view that the apprehension expressed by the petitioner, has been taken care of.
27.It is the vehement submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that on the earlier occasions, some mishaps took place and happening of future mishaps cannot be ruled out and moreover, the necessary clearance under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, has not been obtained for operating MAPS.
28.It is the stand of the respondents 1 to 4 that as per the notification dated 27.1.1994, issued under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, with prospective effect, prior environmental clearance is required for all the new projects or activities listed in the Schedule to the Notification, expansion and modernisation of existing projects or activities listed in the Schedule to the said Notification, and nuclear power and related projects such as Heavy Water Plants, nuclear fuel complex, Rare Earths, come under Schedule-I to the said notification and it requires environmental clearance from the Central Government. The second respondent viz. Ministry of Environment and Forests, has issued instructions in their letter dated 9.10.2013, and as per the said letter, MAPS - Units I and II are in operation from 1983 and 1985 respectively, whereas the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, came into being in that year and consequently, no environmental clearance is required under the said Act. The sum and substance of the stand taken by the second respondent, is that if the notification is prospective in operation and since two Units of MAPS came into being during 1983 and 1985 respectively, no such clearance is required. It is also the stand of the fourth respondent in its counter, that there has been no expansion or modernisation with addition of capacity and MAPS - Units I and II have remained within the rated capacity of 220 MWe and no reprocessing of spent fuel is also done. In the decision in (2013) 6 SCC 620 (cited supra), the said issue was also considered and in paragraph Nos.159 of the said judgment, it has been held that the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification of the year 1994 would not apply to KKNPP Units 1 and 2, for which, environmental clearance was granted in the year 1989, and 1994 Notification will operate prospectively. In view of the said finding coupled with the stand taken by the fourth respondent in the counter affidavit, and also the clarification issued by the second respondent in its letter dated 9.10.2013, this Court is of the view that for operating MAPS Units I and II in the present form, no environmental clearance is required.
29.It is also the vehement submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the area, in which, MAPS Units I and II are situated, is an earthquake bound region and there is a submarine volcano, which is about 100 kms to 110 kms away from MAPS, and as per the Annual Register on World History, Politics and Literature compiled by Mr.Edmond Burke, a letter dated 20.1.1957, was written by a French sailor about the eruption of submarine volcano and the eruption of undersea volcano in future, cannot be ruled out and no preparation or safety measures have been put on place by the concerned authority to meet that eventuality and in spite of the said fact being brought to the knowledge of the concerned authority, no preventive measures whatsoever, have been taken.
30.A statute in the form of Disaster Management Act, 2005, is in place and as per the provisions of the said Act, National Disaster Management Authority has been constituted at the central level and the State Governments had also constituted such a kind of mechanism. The said fact was also considered in (2013) 6 SCC 620 (cited supra).
31.The petitioner has also obtained information under the Right to Information Act from the Central Public Information Officer of Atomic Energy Regulatory Board and in response to Question No.6, the following answer is given:
"Ans. AERB is aware of the information in the Smithsonian's Global Volcanism Program official website about the reported volcano (in 1757) located at about 100-110 km from Kalpakkam with status uncertain. However, the said volcanic event was reported in the 18th century without enough scientific evidences. To gather further details in this regard, AERB contacted national agencies that might possess or have access to related data and expertise in the domain. The agencies contacted include Geological Survey of India (GSI), National Institute of Oceanography (NIO) and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) of India Ltd.
No significant bathymetric anomaly was noticed in the vicinity of the said location in regional sale geophysical surveys conducted by NIO that can suggest existence of such a volcano. GSI had earlier negated existence of volcanic activity at the said location as per land based geological information. GSI's offshore surveys so far neither indicate any signature of volcanic eruption in the sediments nor existence of any ephemeral island said to have formed due to the said event. The seismic data and wells drilled by ONGC in the vicinity did not indicate any volcanic intrusion. However, GSI and others have recommended for further data/analysis in view of an inferred high density material intrusion of remnant magnetisation based on magnetic and gravity anomalies around the said location.
Based on the above feedback, AERB has asked the utilities at Kalpakkam to undertake detailed study through expert agencies. The work in this regard is in progress."
32.As per the information, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board has asked the utilities at Kalpakkam, where, MAPS Units I and II are functioning, to undertake a detailed study through expert agencies and the work in this regard, is in progress and as and when the report is submitted to AERB, this Court is of the view that necessary instructions should be issued to meet out any eventuality on account of eruption of submarine volcano, which, according to the petitioner, happened in the year 1757. Even as per the answer to Question No.6, the said volcano event was without any scientific evidence and the Geological Survey of India earlier negated the existence of volcano activities at the said location and their surveys so far, neither indicate any signature of volcano eruption in the sediments, nor existence of any ephemeral island said to have formed due to the said event and the seismic data and wells drilled by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation of India Ltd., in the vicinity did not indicate any volcanic intrusion. In spite of that, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board has asked for further details and it is in progress and therefore, it cannot be said that the eventuality that may occur on account of eruption of submarine volcano, has not been taken into consideration by the concerned authority. In view of the same, the apprehension expressed by the petitioner, is unfounded.
33.The petitioner proceeds on the footing as if everything is not in order with regard to the functioning of MAPS Units I and II at Kalpakkam, whereas the counter statement filed by the fourth respondent coupled with the information obtained by the petitioner himself by invoking Right to Information Act, would disclose that the safety measures are in place and are being taken to ensure the proper functioning of MAPS Units I and II. This Court hope and trust that in the event of any unforeseen mishap or disaster, all rescue measures would be in place and the respondents 1 to 4 are also directed to ensure that all safety mechanisms are in place in the event of such eventualities.
34.In view of the stand taken by the fourth respondent coupled with the materials placed before this Court, this Court is of the opinion that the apprehension expressed by the petitioner, is unfounded and therefore, no positive direction in the form of writ of mandamus, can be issued.
35.Hence for the reasons assigned above, this writ petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected MPs are also dismissed.
(R.K.A.,C.J.) (M.S.N.,J.) 25-11-2013 Index: no Internet: yes nsv To:
1.The Secretary to Government of India Department of Atomic Energy Anushakti Bhavan Chatrapathi Shivaji Maharaj Marg Mumbai 400 001.
2.The Secretary to Government Ministry of Environment and Forests Paryavaran Bhawan CGO Complex, Lodhi Road New Delhi 110 003.
3.The Chairman Atomic Energy Regulatory Board Niyamak Bhavan Anushaktinagar Mumbai 400 094.
4.The Chairman and Managing Director Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited Nambhkiya Urja Bhavan Anushakti Nagar Mumbai 400 094.
5.The Member Secretary Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Guindy, Chennai 600 032.
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.
nsv W.P.No.25604 of 2013 DT: 25-11-2013