கூடங்குளம் அணு உலை பாதுகாப்பு தொடர்பான வழக்கில் உச்ச நீதிமன்றம் இன்று (08.05.2014) தீர்ப்பு அளித்துள்ளது.
கூடங்குளம் அணு உலைக்கு எதிராக தொடரப்பட்ட வழக்கை விசாரித்த உச்ச நீதிமன்றம், “கூடங்குளத்தில் பாதுகாப்பு தொடர்பாக ஆய்வு செய்ய குழு தேவையில்லை. நீதிமன்றத்தின் பெரும்பாலான பரிந்துரைகள் நிறைவேற்றப்பட்டுள்ளன” எனக் கூறி, சில பரிந்துரைகளை நிறைவேற்ற மத்திய அரசு கால அவகாசம் கேட்டுள்ளதால், அந்த கோரிக்கையை ஏற்று மனுவை தள்ளுபடி செய்வதாக உச்ச நீதிமன்றம் அறிவித்துள்ளது.
உச்சநீதி மன்ற தீர்ப்பின் உண்மை நகல், நமது வாசகர்களின் மேலானப் பார்வைக்கு இத்துடன் இணைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.
-டாக்டர்.துரைபெஞ்சமின்.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S.Ratha krishnan
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen
உச்சநீதி மன்ற தீர்ப்பின் உண்மை நகல்:
Page1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.36179 OF 2013
G. Sundarrajan …. Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. …. Respondents
WITH
I.A. NO.3
IN
C.A. NO.4440 OF 2013
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. This Court, while disposing of the case titled G. Sundarrajan
vs. Union of India reported in (2013) 6 SCC 620, gave 15
directions for due compliance by AERB, NPCIL, DAE, MoEF,
TNPCB, State of Tamil Nadu, etc. Complaining that those
directions had not been complied with, the Petitioner herein filed
Writ Petition No.19286 of 2013 before the Madras High Court
praying for a declaration that the clearance granted by AERB for
‘First Approach to Criticality’ (FAC) of Unit 1 of Kudankulam
Nuclear Power Project (KK NPP) on July 11, 2013 be declared as
2
null and void. Writ Petition was heard along with few other writ
petitions like WP No.15829 of 2013 and Writ Petition No.20161 of
2013 and the same were disposed of by a common judgment dated
29.7.2013, against which the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.19285
of 2013 has come up with this Special Leave Petition. The
Petitioner has also moved I.A. No.3 of 2013 in Civil Appeal
No.4440 of 2013 for a direction to the respondents not to
commission the Kudankulam Nuclear Plant till each of the 15
directions given by this Court in the aforementioned judgment has
been complied with and till they are properly verified by an
independent expert committee appointed by this Court.
2. When SLP (C) No.36179 of 2013 came up for hearing, we
passed an order on 17.2.2014 directing the respondents to file their
response with regard to steps they have taken to give effect to the
fifteen directions given by this Court. In compliance, the
Respondents have filed their affidavits and status report.
3. We heard Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned senior counsel for
the Petitioner, Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned Solicitor General of
India, Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing for
3
the State of Tamil Nadu, Shri Subramonium Prasad, AAG and
other learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.
4. AERB in its affidavit dated 24.3.2014 explained the various
steps they have taken so as to comply with the various directions
issued by this Court. With regard to the concern expressed about
the possibility of quality issues with equipment from specific source,
it was also pointed out that additional re-verification was carried out
before FAC. While doing so, it was stated that the quality aspects
of the safety related equipment in KK NPP from that source had not
been compromised. AERB Observers Team re-verified the
implementation of QA requirements from initial stage of
manufacturing up to final receipt of the component/ equipment at
Kudankulam. It was pointed out, no non-conformance of
significance to safety was observed. With regard to direction no.5,
it was pointed out that SNF can be stored for a minimum period of
7 years within plant in Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) located in Reactor
Building. Design of the same, it was pointed out, has been
reviewed from the point of adequacy of design, surveillance
requirements, monitoring provisions to ensure safe storage
considering plant and public safety. For storage beyond 7 years,
Away From Reactor (AFR) facility is planned by NPCIL. NPCIL has
4
submitted the roadmap for design, construction and completion of
AFR facility specifying that the AFR facility would be operational by
May, 2018 after obtaining clearance from AERB. With regard to
direction no.7, it was pointed out that DGR is to be set up based on
national policy and regulatory review would be carried out as and
when design for the same is evolved. In the meantime, as per the
current regulatory practices, AERB would ensure safe storage of
SNF in the spent fuel pool or AFR at Site and ensure that the
transportation is in accordance with the AERB requirements.
Detailed response has been made to rest of the directions in the
affidavit filed by AERB.
5. NPCIL has also filed an affidavit along with Annexure A
furnishing the status report with regard to the directions issued by
this Court in the above-mentioned judgment. NPCIL with regard to
direction no.1, pointed out that the quality of equipment supplied by
M/s Zio-Pololsk such as steam generator, cation and anion filters,
mechanical filters, moisture separators and re-heaters etc. are fully
accessible for any inspection, and none of Zio-Pololsk supplied
equipment to KKNPP are subject to neutron irradiation. Further, it
was submitted that to fulfil the directions in para no.230 of the
judgment, report has been filed. With regard to direction no.7, it
5
was stated that as the present storage capacity of each Spent
Nuclear Fuel Bay (SNF Bay) is adequate to accommodate
discharged fuel for a period of seven years starting from its first
refuelling operation, and hence as such the AFR facilities would
only be required eight years after the First Criticality of the KKNPP
Unit-1. Further, it is also stated that a Task Force for finalisation of
design, design basis report to construct Away From Reactor (AFR)
facility for KKNPP Unit 1 & 2 has been constituted by NPCIL vide
office Order dated May 15, 2013 and that the Task Force has
prepared a roadmap for the design and construction of AFR. It was
further pointed out that NPCIL is committed to complete the AFR
facility within five years. Reply has also been given to the rest of
the directions as well.
6. Detailed affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Tamil Nadu
Pollution Control Board stating the steps they have taken to comply
with the directions. Following the directions of this Court, it was
pointed out, the officials of the Board inspected the plant on
18.5.2013 along with the members of the Department of the Atomic
Energy, NPCIL, MoEF, etc. to verify the status of compliance of
conditions stipulated by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board in
the consent order granted under the Water (Prevention and Control
6
of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1981. It was noticed that the Unit has complied with
the conditions and the consent order issued to the Unit. Further, it
was pointed out that the Unit has installed temperature measuring
device both at the sea water intake and marine out fall facility, and
the difference between ambient temperature of the sea and the
water disposed into sea by the Unit is not exceeding 7ºC as per
the conditions stipulated by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control
Board.
7. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, submitted a status
report with specific reference to direction nos.11 to 15. With regard
to direction no.11, it was pointed out that the first off-site
emergency exercise was conducted on 9.6.2012 at Unit at
Nakkanery village with the support of the concerned Ministries of
the Government of India, Officials of the State Government and the
local authorities, etc., and that the next exercise will be conducted
as per the guidelines shortly after the Parliamentary Elections are
over. With regard to direction no.12, it was pointed out that under
the Neighbourhood Development Programme (NDP) being
implemented by the Unit, a sum of Rs.200 crores has been
earmarked for various projects. It was pointed out that the projects
7
have been identified and that an Apex Committee has been
constituted to oversee implementation of the NDP. Further, under
NDP, a sum of Rs.45 crores has been sanctioned towards first
instalment of the total amount of Rs.200 crores and from the
released funds, work for the installation of Solar Street Light (200
Nos.) and Solar Motor Pumps (32 Nos.) has been completed.
Further, it was also stated that the upgradation of Koodankulam
Primary Health Centre to Government Hospital and improvements
to Chettikulam Sub Centre, construction of new PHC are nearing
completion. The construction of new PHC at Ovari is completed
and the improvement and widening of roads (29 roads) around the
Unit has been completed. Further, it was also pointed out that
around the Kudankulam surrounding area, the Government issued
an order to construct 5000 houses at the estimate of Rs.150 crores
during the year 2013-2014. With regard to direction no.13, it was
pointed out that training had been conducted in August, 2011, for
the State Government officials of various departments including
revenue, police, medical, fire, etc. and that a refresher course was
organised in June, 2012. Further, it was stated, schedule for
refresher course is being planned in consultation with District
Administration. With regard to direction no.14 relating to the
8
consent of withdrawal of criminal cases filed against the agitators, it
was pointed out that out of 349 cases, 248 cases had already been
withdrawn since in those cases no violence was noticed. However,
with regard to other cases i.e. cases of lay siege through sea (6
cases), cases of violence against private individuals (40 cases) and
cases of violence against Government officials (55 cases), it was
stated, it is not possible to withdraw the cases as the violations and
crimes committed are very serious in nature. The question
whether the rest of the cases be proceeded with or not is for the
trial court to decide on which we express no opinion.
8. After perusing the various affidavits filed by the Respondents,
we notice that the directions given by this Court are being properly
addressed by the Respondents and there is no laxity on the part of
the Respondents in not carrying out various directions of this Court.
For full implementation of directions, evidently, it may take some
more time and we are sure that the Respondents would make
earnest efforts to give effect to all the directions of this Court in
letter and spirit.
9. Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for
the Petitioner, submitted that a team headed by a former Chairman
9
of the AERB be constituted to examine as to whether these
directions are being properly implemented or not. We find it
unnecessary to appoint any Committee at this stage since the
status report and the affidavits indicate that the Respondents are
taking necessary steps so as to give effect to various directions,
even though some of the directions are yet to be fulfilled, which
naturally would take some more time. At the moment, we find no
reason to give any further directions.
10. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of as above, so also
the I.A.
………………………….J.
(K.S. Radhakrishnan)
…………………………J.
(Vikramajit Sen)
New Delhi,
May 08, 2014.