Won’t stop fuel loading at nuclear plant, says court
The Madras high court has refused to interfere with an Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) order permitting loading of fuel in the first unit of the Kudankulam nuclear power plant. A division bench of Justices P Jyothimani and P Devadass , dismissing a PIL filed by G Sundarrajan against the plant being granted permission , said the AERB had laid down a 17-point charter of safety norms for the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) to comply with, keeping in mind the Fukushima disaster.
Noting that it is the duty of the AERB to ensure that these safety conditions honoured by the NPCIL, the judges said some of them were short-term recommendations and some require longer time to comply with. In a separate order on August 31, a bench of Justice Jyothimani and Justice M Duraiswamy had dismissed a batch of PILs seeking fresh clearance and public hearings before the plant is commissioned.
Recalling that the August 31 judgment too discussed the ample difference between Fukushima or Chernobyl and the Kudankulam project, the judges said Fukushima tragedy happened because the plant was close to the epicentre of earthquake - only 177km away.
Pointing out that Kudankulam was lying at least 1,500km from the nearest offshore fault line (Andaman Nicobar-Sumatra fault) capable of triggering a quake and a tsunami, the judges said the AERB had recommended certain safety enhancements though the plant obtained all necessary clearances much before the March 11, 2011 Fukushima incident.
"As AERB is an expert body, and once such a regulatory body requires compliance of 17 recommendations, we are of the view that it is not for the court to look into that with suspicion," the judges said. The judges admitted that the court did not have any expertise to come to a conclusion as to whether these requirements were necessary either for the purpose of fuel loading or the plant's operation.
They, however, said: "When the statutory body does something in accordance with law, the presumption is always in favour of the body unless it is established that there is a malafide intention or illegality."