The Supreme Court has said the problem of storing spent nuclear fuel from the Kudankulam nuclear power plant has to be “worked out”, possibly with the help of experts from the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) and officials at the highest level in the Tamil Nadu government, while prima facie disagreeing with the petitioners’ idea of shutting down the nuclear plant through a judicial order as an “extraordinary measure”.
A Bench, led by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, asked Tamil Nadu, represented by senior advocate V. Giri and advocate Joseph Aristotle, to come clear on the time schedule for the completion of public hearings by the State regarding the construction of an Away From Reactor (AFR) facility at the Kudankulam plant.
The court also gave the AERB, represented by Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee, two weeks' time to file an affidavit on issues including the storage of spent nuclear fuel from the plant without posing a hazard to the public.
“The concern of the public about the existence of spent nuclear fuel has to be understood,” the Bench said, addressing the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (NPCIL).
The NPCIL had sought an extension till July 2026 for the construction of the AFR facility. In 2018, the court had given the Corporation time till April 30, 2022.
“The AFR repository was supposed to be built in five years' time, but this has not been done. In 2013, the Supreme Court had granted five years’ time to the NPCIL, till July 2018. In 2018, the court gave an extension till 2022 and said this was the final extension of time to create the AFR storage. Now, they are again asking for an extension. If they continue to store spent nuclear fuel, they risk a catastrophe greater than Fukushima, and one which may affect the whole of south India,” advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, said.
Mr. Bhushan claimed that the reactor had been shut down several times due to “minor hazards”.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said spent nuclear fuel is stored under water. They can be recharged and reused.
“The issue is not so simplistic as the petitioners make it out to be. If it was hazardous, the government would not have taken the chance,” Mr. Mehta said.
