Issue of livelihood dominates public hearing on Kalpakkam PFBR

Joseph Vackayil

The mandatory public hearing for the prototype fast breeder reactor (PFBR), held in Kancheepuram on July 27, was like a classical play—it, too, had five distinct acts.

Act 1: The Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR) officials explained the salient features of the project and its inevitability to meet India’s power needs.

Act 2: The representative of Mecon, which had prepared the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) report, came on stage to narrate the environmental survey conducted in the neighbourhood of Kalpakkam. People later said no one had been to their villages nor was anyone questioned.

Act 3: The longest of all, even longer than the required one hour. The public, right from the local MLA to ordinary citizens, acted out their roles in varied bhavas. There was lot of sound and fury which later turned out to be of little significance.

Act 4: IGCAR officials came back on the stage and were seen pacifying the crowd listing out all the good deeds that they have been doing for them and would do in future. When the demand was raised that assurance on jobs should be given in writing, the officials backed out as they knew the asking was beyond anybody’s reach.

Act 5: The venue shifted to a conference room in the collectorate where IGCAR officials addressed the press. For mediapersons it appeared an impromptu press meet, but IGCAR was well prepared. Its director, S B Bhoje, gave details about the future plans for the PFBR project and said work would begin in December.

Thus Act 5 turned out to be an anti-climax as it undid all that happened in Act 3, the core of the play, and converted the public hearing into a futile exercise.

The public hearing was important for more than one reason. This was for the first time that an atomic power agency was coming out to face the public giving them a chance to air their views. The twice postponed public hearing had attracted national attention and the participants included environmental activists from Tamil Nadu and Delhi. The non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and action groups were well-prepared for the hearing and had documented their findings, apprehensions and expectations.

The public mood was highly charged. Some were very angry, others agitated. A few appeared helpless. But all agreed on one thing: “We don’t find any good in this project. The existing project has already damaged our water resources and agriculture, sea ecology and fishes.”

There was also a positive voice—that of the need to save the PFBR project—from the district panchayat, the constitutional authority which can veto it. A district panchayat councillor read out the panchayat council decision (No. 131) passed on July 10, 2001, a few days before the public hearing on July 27.

The speakers that followed included the local MLA (Pattali Makkal Katchi-PMK), village panchayat presidents, spokespersons of some of the leading NGOs in Tamil Nadu, R Ramesh, a doctor who heads an association called Doctors for Safe Environment and a representative of Environment and Human Rights Law Initiative, Delhi, Ritwick Dutta. Mr Dutta attacked the EIA for its inadequacies. He said it was only a rapid EIA based on samples collected in the course of three months. To be of use, data should be collected over 12 months, he said. There was no emergency preparedness nor a well-detailed environment management plan.

Dr Ramesh said no proper health impact study had been done among the staff of the Madras Atomic Power Station and villagers in the vicinity of the plant.

However, all the studied apprehensions and demands for more detailed studies and analyses before venturing into setting up the PFBR project were drowned in the vociferous demand from a section of the public for more jobs in the existing Kalpakkam plant and the proposed one. Gradually, the demand for jobs took the lead and everything else was relegated to the background, making IGCAR’s job easy.

The focus then shifted from health, environment, community welfare and sustainability to individual livelihood and personal gains. IGCAR had promises and plans for the latter. For the former, they relied more on the authority and capability of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) which is to ensure the safety of nuclear plants in the country. The AERB parameters equal the best in the world.

Another aspect of the public hearing was the standing panel which was to assess the voice of the people and make recommendations to the Pollution Control Board. For a government project none can expect a negative report from a panel in which the majority are government servants and from political parties supporting the government. Hence, the IGCAR team appeared to be sure of the no-objection certificate from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and the subsequent environmental clearance from the Union ministry of environment and forests.

The outcome of the public hearing was that the main concern of the local people was employment, and not environment. This is precisely why views and concerns of NGOs and experts should be given due weightage while planning a project of this nature. For such projects, a public hearing panel should be set up with representatives from all segments concerned, including non-governmental agencies. This will save public hearings from becoming, at least to an extent, farcical as witnessed in Kancheepuram on July 27, 2001.