1. Sri Lanka seeks MoU with India on nuclear
power
|
Last
updated: 02 April,
2012 - Published 17:02 GMT
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
Koodamkulum nuclear plant to start
production in next two months
|
The
government of Sri Lanka says it proposed India to sign a memorandum of
understanding (MoU) on nuclear disaster management.
The
proposal was made considering dangers posed by India’s nuclear plants close to
Mannar and northern Sri Lanka, Power and Energy Minister Patali Champika
Ranawaka told BBC Sandeshaya.
“If
there is a nuclear accident that causes radiation to escape in Koodankulum
nuclear power plant or any other nuclear plant, that may affect Mannar and
north,” he said.
Koodankulum
nuclear plant is situated in a close proximity to Mannar bay and in the event
of a nuclear disaster there is fear that northern parts of Sri Lanka may
affect.
Disaster
Management
|
|
|
|
Tamil Nadu is suffering from severe
power shortages
|
“We
have pointed out this to India and we are in the process of monitoring the
radiation levels in the areas” Minister Ranawaka added.
Last
week Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jeyaram Jayalalitha gave the
go-ahead to the plant and declared that the plant which was started in 1987 will finally start production within two months.
go-ahead to the plant and declared that the plant which was started in 1987 will finally start production within two months.
She
managed to overcome the massive protest led by SP Udayakumar, a veteran
anti-nuclear activist who campaigned against the Koodankulam nuclear plant.
According
to S.P. Udayakumar, he gave up after government agreed to implement a disaster
management programme and train people within thirty kilometres of the power
plant to protect them in the event of a nuclear disaster.
Tamil
Nadu is suffering from severe power shortages and routine power cuts had been
introduced. Industries in the area badly hit by restricted power supplies.
|
|
We have
asked India to start negotiations on this matter in order to prepare a plan
to face a nuclear emergency
Minister Champika Ranawaka
|
Minister
Ranawaka agrees with Tamil Nadu that the southern Indian state does not have
any option other than nuclear power 'at present'.
India
should discuss
However,
the minister says that it is the duty of the Indian government to 'discuss
issues surrounding nuclear energy with neighbouring Sri Lanka' prior to
commissioning power plants.
|
|
|
|
Sri Lanka proposed a MoU on nuclear
disaster management
|
“We
have proposed that India start negotiations on this matter in order to prepare
a plan to face any nuclear emergency,” the minister told BBC Sandeshaya.
Environmentalists
are not happy with the way Sri Lanka handling the issue. Reminding how
ineffective Sri Lankan response to the Sethusamudram, Centre for Environmental
Justice (CEJ) say that Sri Lanka should have registered its opposition more
rigorously.
Hemantha
Withanage of CEJ propose that Sri Lankans should join hands with the
anti-nuclear campaigners in India.
“If
we consider the nuclear disasters such as Long Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima,
nuclear power is not as rosy as politicians portray,” he told BBC Sandeshaya.
Educate
people
Nevertheless,
nuclear experts say that people had been misinformed about the nuclear energy.
Dr
Prinath Dias of Moratuwa University, who once was the chairman of Sri Lanka
Atomic Energy Agency argues that risks are associated with any kind of energy
production.
|
|
If we
consider the nuclear disasters such as Long Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima,
nuclear power is not as rosy as politicians portray
Hemantha Vithanage
|
“If
world needs energy and if it cannot use fossil fuels because of the greenhouse
gases, we are left with nuclear energy,” he told BBC Sinhala service.
Citing
the probability of a nuclear disaster he pointed out that number of people die
because of traffic accidents are far greater than the number that can be
perished from a nuclear disasters.
Professor
Rohini Hewamanna of Nuclear Science Department – University of Colombo believes
that people are scared of nuclear power because they are not fully educated
about the subject.
“If
we are running out of alternative energy sources we may have to consider
nuclear energy and therefore it is important to educate the people and promote
nuclear science as a discipline” she said.
2. MoU with India on nuclear power
The
government of Sri Lanka says it proposed India to sign a memorandum of
understanding (MoU) on nuclear disaster management.
The proposal was made considering dangers posed by India’s nuclear plants close to Mannar and northern Sri Lanka, Power and Energy Minister Patali Champika Ranawaka told BBC Sandeshaya.
“If
there is a nuclear accident that causes radiation to escape in Koodankulum
nuclear power plant or any other nuclear plant, that may affect Mannar and
north,” he said.
Koodankulum
nuclear plant is situated in a close proximity to Mannar bay and in the event
of a nuclear disaster there is fear that northern parts of Sri Lanka may
affect.
Disaster
Management
“We
have pointed out this to India and we are in the process of monitoring the
radiation levels in the areas” Minister Ranawaka added.
Last
week Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jeyaram Jayalalitha gave the go-ahead to the
plant and declared that the plant which was started in 1987 will finally start
production within two months.
She
managed to overcome the massive protest led by SP Udayakumar, a veteran
anti-nuclear activist who campaigned against the Koodankulam nuclear
plant.
According
to S.P. Udayakumar, he gave up after government agreed to implement a disaster
management programme and train people within thirty kilometres of the power
plant to protect them in the event of a nuclear disaster.
Tamil
Nadu is suffering from severe power shortages and routine power cuts had been
introduced. Industries in the area badly hit by restricted power
supplies.
Minister
Ranawaka agrees with Tamil Nadu that the southern Indian state does not have
any option other than nuclear power 'at present'.
India
should discuss
However,
the minister says that it is the duty of the Indian government to 'discuss
issues surrounding nuclear energy with neighbouring Sri Lanka' prior to
commissioning power plants.
“We have proposed that India start negotiations on this matter in order to prepare a plan to face any nuclear emergency,” the minister told BBC Sandeshaya.
Environmentalists
are not happy with the way Sri Lanka handling the issue. Reminding how
ineffective Sri Lankan response to the Sethusamudram, Centre for Environmental
Justice (CEJ) say that Sri Lanka should have registered its opposition more
rigorously.
Hemantha
Withanage of CEJ propose that Sri Lankans should join hands with the
anti-nuclear campaigners in India.
“If
we consider the nuclear disasters such as Long Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima,
nuclear power is not as rosy as politicians portray,” he told BBC Sandeshaya.
Educate
people
Nevertheless,
nuclear experts say that people had been misinformed about the nuclear energy.
Dr
Prinath Dias of Moratuwa University, who once was the chairman of Sri Lanka
Atomic Energy Agency argues that risks are associated with any kind of energy
production.
“If
world needs energy and if it cannot use fossil fuels because of the greenhouse
gases, we are left with nuclear energy,” he told BBC Sinhala service.
Citing
the probability of a nuclear disaster he pointed out that number of people die
because of traffic accidents are far greater than the number that can be
perished from a nuclear disasters.
Professor
Rohini Hewamanna of Nuclear Science Department – University of Colombo believes
that people are scared of nuclear power because they are not fully educated
about the subject.
“If
we are running out of alternative energy sources we may have to consider
nuclear energy and therefore it is important to educate the people and promote
nuclear science as a discipline” she said. (BBC)
3. Sri Lanka seeks MoU with India on nuclear power
April 3,
2012 07:04 am, Adaderana
The government of Sri Lanka says it
proposed India to sign a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on nuclear disaster
management.
The proposal was made considering
dangers posed by India’s nuclear plants close to Mannar and northern Sri Lanka,
Power and Energy Minister Patali Champika Ranawaka told BBC Sandeshaya.
“If there is a nuclear accident
that causes radiation to escape in Koodankulum nuclear power plant or any other
nuclear plant, that may affect Mannar and north,” he said.
Koodankulum nuclear plant is
situated in a close proximity to Mannar bay and in the event of a nuclear
disaster there is fear that northern parts of Sri Lanka may affect.
Disaster Management
“We have pointed out this to India
and we are in the process of monitoring the radiation levels in the areas” Minister
Ranawaka added.
Last week Tamil Nadu Chief Minister
Jeyaram Jayalalitha gave the go-ahead to the plant and declared that the plant
which was started in 1987 will finally start production within two months.
She managed to overcome the massive
protest led by SP Udayakumar, a veteran anti-nuclear activist who campaigned
against the Koodankulam nuclear plant.
According to S.P. Udayakumar, he
gave up after government agreed to implement a disaster management programme
and train people within thirty kilometres of the power plant to protect them in
the event of a nuclear disaster.
Tamil Nadu is suffering from severe
power shortages and routine power cuts had been introduced. Industries in the
area badly hit by restricted power supplies.
Minister Ranawaka agrees with Tamil
Nadu that the southern Indian state does not have any option other than nuclear
power ‘at present’.
India should discuss
However, the minister says that it
is the duty of the Indian government to ‘discuss issues surrounding nuclear energy
with neighbouring Sri Lanka’ prior to commissioning power plants.
“We have proposed that India start
negotiations on this matter in order to prepare a plan to face any nuclear
emergency,” the minister told BBC Sandeshaya.
Environmentalists are not happy with the
way Sri Lanka handling the issue. Reminding how ineffective Sri Lankan response
to the Sethusamudram, Centre for Environmental Justice (CEJ) say that Sri Lanka
should have registered its opposition more rigorously.
Hemantha Withanage of CEJ propose that
Sri Lankans should join hands with the anti-nuclear campaigners in India.
“If we consider the nuclear
disasters such as Long Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, nuclear power is not as
rosy as politicians portray,” he told BBC Sandeshaya.
Educate people
Nevertheless, nuclear experts say that
people had been misinformed about the nuclear energy.
Dr Prinath Dias of Moratuwa
University, who once was the chairman of Sri Lanka Atomic Energy Agency argues
that risks are associated with any kind of energy production.
“If world needs energy and if it
cannot use fossil fuels because of the greenhouse gases, we are left with
nuclear energy,” he told BBC Sinhala service.
Citing the probability of a nuclear
disaster he pointed out that number of people die because of traffic accidents
are far greater than the number that can be perished from a nuclear disasters.
Professor Rohini Hewamanna of
Nuclear Science Department – University of Colombo believes that people are
scared of nuclear power because they are not fully educated about the subject.
“If we are running out of
alternative energy sources we may have to consider nuclear energy and therefore
it is important to educate the people and promote nuclear science as a
discipline” she said, BBC reports.
PROJECT | Staff Reporter, India
Published: 05
Apr 12 , AsianPower
The
Koodankulum plant under construction
4. Indian nuclear power plant frightens Sri Lanka
An Indian nuclear power plant prompts Sri Lanka to take an unusual move.India is being asked by Sri Lanka to sign a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on nuclear disaster management to avert the dangers posed by India’s nuclear plants close to northern Sri Lanka.
As a result of protests by anti-nuclear activists, India has agreed to implement a disaster management programme and train people within 30 kilometres of the Koodankulum nuclear power plant to protect them in the event of a nuclear disaster. Sri Lanka wants an MoU along roughly the same lines.
Sri Lanka’s Power and Energy Minister Patali Champika Ranawaka said the MoU is necessary in case there is a nuclear accident in Koodankulum, or in any other nuclear plan that may affect northern Sri Lanka.
The controversial Koodankulum nuclear plant in located in Tamil Nadu state is and in the event of a nuclear disaster, there are fears that northern Sri Lanka might be affected.
Koodankulum should begin generating electricity this June.
“We have pointed out this to India and we are in the process of monitoring the radiation levels in the area,” Ranawaka said.
5. Lanka to complain to international watchdog about India's nuclear plants
Press
Trust of India | Updated: April 09, 2012 18:17 IST
The
Kudankulam nuclear power plant.
Colombo:
Sri Lanka has expressed concern over possible impact of radiation from India's
nuclear power plants located in the southern region, as it prepares to raise
the issue with global atomic watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency
or IAEA.
The official raising of concern with the IAEA is to be made in September, Sri Lanka's Power and Energy Minister Champika Ranawaka said.
"We respect the right of India to have nuclear power stations. But our concerns are on the possible radiation affects they could have on Sri Lanka. We have already written a letter", Ranawaka said.
The official raising of concern with the IAEA is to be made in September, Sri Lanka's Power and Energy Minister Champika Ranawaka said.
"We respect the right of India to have nuclear power stations. But our concerns are on the possible radiation affects they could have on Sri Lanka. We have already written a letter", Ranawaka said.
The minister
also said that Sri Lanka's concerns stem from disasters such as Chernobyl and
Fukushima and that the country would work towards achieving guarantees of
safety.
Sri Lankan energy officials say at least three nuclear plants are located on the southern coast of Tamil Nadu which is separated from the island by a narrow strip of sea.
The minister said the IAEA had proposed that a mutual agreement on the matter should be reached between the two countries. "We have sent a proposal to India through the External Affairs Ministry and the Indians have sent back a note on the matter," he was quoted as saying by Colombo Page.
According to Ranawaka, the Indian government has sent a proposal to commence a broad based discussion while Sri Lanka wants only to discuss and reach an agreement on a disaster mitigating programme in the event of a nuclear disaster in the South Indian plants, the paper said. Sri Lanka has no nuclear power plants but is just 20 kilometres away from Indian main land at the closest point.
The Kudankulam nuclear plant in India's Southern coast is just 250 km from Sri Lanka's northwest coastal town of Mannar. Sri Lanka Atomic Energy Authority does not possess adequate facilities to face a threat of nuclear accident.
Sri Lankan energy officials say at least three nuclear plants are located on the southern coast of Tamil Nadu which is separated from the island by a narrow strip of sea.
The minister said the IAEA had proposed that a mutual agreement on the matter should be reached between the two countries. "We have sent a proposal to India through the External Affairs Ministry and the Indians have sent back a note on the matter," he was quoted as saying by Colombo Page.
According to Ranawaka, the Indian government has sent a proposal to commence a broad based discussion while Sri Lanka wants only to discuss and reach an agreement on a disaster mitigating programme in the event of a nuclear disaster in the South Indian plants, the paper said. Sri Lanka has no nuclear power plants but is just 20 kilometres away from Indian main land at the closest point.
The Kudankulam nuclear plant in India's Southern coast is just 250 km from Sri Lanka's northwest coastal town of Mannar. Sri Lanka Atomic Energy Authority does not possess adequate facilities to face a threat of nuclear accident.
6. Sri Lanka concerned over Indian nuclear plants
COLOMBO:
Sri Lanka has raised concerns
over nuclear power plants located in southern India, the country's power and energy
minister Champika Ranawaka has said.
Ranawaka said the issue will be raised at the next International Atomic Energy Agency ( IAEA) meeting in September.
He said Colombo is concerned over the impact of a nuclear disaster in one of the plants in India could have on Sri Lanka. The two nations are divided by a narrow strip of sea.
Ranawaka told reporters Sunday that Sri Lanka is seeking an agreement with India on nuclear disaster management and New Delhi has responded positively, Xinhua reported.
In the event of a nuclear disaster in India, the Sri Lankan authorities feel the northern town of Mannar will be the hardest hit. Ranawaka said his ministry is currently conducting a survey of the coast to identify the areas to conduct radiation tests.
Sri Lanka wants to be prepared for a nuclear disaster after the incidents in Japan last year where a nuclear plant was damaged as a result of an earthquake, the minister said.
Ranawaka said the issue will be raised at the next International Atomic Energy Agency ( IAEA) meeting in September.
He said Colombo is concerned over the impact of a nuclear disaster in one of the plants in India could have on Sri Lanka. The two nations are divided by a narrow strip of sea.
Ranawaka told reporters Sunday that Sri Lanka is seeking an agreement with India on nuclear disaster management and New Delhi has responded positively, Xinhua reported.
In the event of a nuclear disaster in India, the Sri Lankan authorities feel the northern town of Mannar will be the hardest hit. Ranawaka said his ministry is currently conducting a survey of the coast to identify the areas to conduct radiation tests.
Sri Lanka wants to be prepared for a nuclear disaster after the incidents in Japan last year where a nuclear plant was damaged as a result of an earthquake, the minister said.
7. Karunanidhi slams Lanka for complaining about nuclear plants
NDTV Correspondent | Updated: April 10, 2012 12:17 IST
Chennai:
M Karunanidhi has attacked Sri Lanka for suggesting that it is at risk from
India's nuclear plants located in the South. Yesterday, a Sri Lankan minister
said that in September, his country will raise the issue with global atomic
watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency or IAEA.
"The Kudankulam plant did not start yesterday, been there for a long time. If Lanka raises doubts now it is unacceptable," said Mr Karunanidhi, who heads the main opposition party, the DMK, in Tamil Nadu. The nuclear project at Kudankulam in coastal Tamil Nadu, will upon completion, be India's largest atomic power plant. Phase 1 will see two nuclear reactors generating electricity within the next few months. The Kudankulam nuclear plant is 250 km from Sri Lanka's northwest coastal town of Mannar.
"We respect the right of India to have nuclear power stations. But our concerns are on the possible radiation effects they could have on Sri Lanka. We have already written a letter (to IAEA) ", Sri Lanka's Power and Energy Minister Champika Ranawaka said. The minister said the IAEA had proposed that a mutual agreement on the matter should be reached between the two countries. "We have sent a proposal to India through the External Affairs Ministry and the Indians have sent back a note on the matter," he was quoted as saying by Colombo Page. "I don't need to tell the Centre what to do, I am sure it will do the needful," said Mr Karunanidhi.
"The Kudankulam plant did not start yesterday, been there for a long time. If Lanka raises doubts now it is unacceptable," said Mr Karunanidhi, who heads the main opposition party, the DMK, in Tamil Nadu. The nuclear project at Kudankulam in coastal Tamil Nadu, will upon completion, be India's largest atomic power plant. Phase 1 will see two nuclear reactors generating electricity within the next few months. The Kudankulam nuclear plant is 250 km from Sri Lanka's northwest coastal town of Mannar.
"We respect the right of India to have nuclear power stations. But our concerns are on the possible radiation effects they could have on Sri Lanka. We have already written a letter (to IAEA) ", Sri Lanka's Power and Energy Minister Champika Ranawaka said. The minister said the IAEA had proposed that a mutual agreement on the matter should be reached between the two countries. "We have sent a proposal to India through the External Affairs Ministry and the Indians have sent back a note on the matter," he was quoted as saying by Colombo Page. "I don't need to tell the Centre what to do, I am sure it will do the needful," said Mr Karunanidhi.
Sri Lanka has no nuclear power plants but
is just 20 kilometres away from Indian main land at the closest point.
Sri Lanka's complaint to IAEA is being seen as an attempt to get back at India for its recent vote against Sri Lanka on a UN resolution that stressed the need for the island to fix accountability for human rights violations and alleged war crimes. Sri Lanka had urged India not to vote against it, but the DMK, which is a senior partner in the coalition at the Centre, had warned the Prime Minister that it would pull out of the government if India did not take a stand against Sri Lanka. The Tamils, who are in a minority in Sri Lanka, have reported through the years of persecution by the majority Sinhalese. All political parties in Tamil Nadu have for decades urged the Sri Lankan government to protect the Tamils. The UN resolution, which was sponsored by the US among others, wants the Sri Lankan government to implement the findings of an internal enquiry on the final months of the two-decade-long civil war, which saw the rebel Tamil Tigers being defeated. The resolution stressed the need for reconciliation.
Sri Lanka's complaint to IAEA is being seen as an attempt to get back at India for its recent vote against Sri Lanka on a UN resolution that stressed the need for the island to fix accountability for human rights violations and alleged war crimes. Sri Lanka had urged India not to vote against it, but the DMK, which is a senior partner in the coalition at the Centre, had warned the Prime Minister that it would pull out of the government if India did not take a stand against Sri Lanka. The Tamils, who are in a minority in Sri Lanka, have reported through the years of persecution by the majority Sinhalese. All political parties in Tamil Nadu have for decades urged the Sri Lankan government to protect the Tamils. The UN resolution, which was sponsored by the US among others, wants the Sri Lankan government to implement the findings of an internal enquiry on the final months of the two-decade-long civil war, which saw the rebel Tamil Tigers being defeated. The resolution stressed the need for reconciliation.
8. Kudankulam one of safest reactors, Lanka's fears unfounded: India's nuclear chief
NDTV
Correspondent | Updated: April 12, 2012 10:45 IST
New Delhi: The
chief of India's nuclear energy program, Dr Srikumar Banerjee, has said that
Sri Lanka's fears over the nuclear plant in Kudankulam are unfounded. Mr
Banerjee has also asserted that the plant, located in Tamil Nadu, has one of
the world's safest reactors.
"There should be no concerns on safety. The safety analysis of the plant is complete. Kudankulam has one of the world's safest nuclear reactors," Mr Banerjee told NDTV. He added that "India has already inked an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) convention that provides a frame work for addressing trans-boundary concerns if an accident happens. India's nuclear liability law also addresses these concerns." Mr Banerjee is the Chairman of India's Atomic Energy Commission.
Earlier this week, Sri Lanka had raised concerns over possible radiation threat from Kudankulam nuclear reactors. A Sri Lankan minister also stated that his country would raise the issue with global atomic watchdog - the IAEA - in September.
"There should be no concerns on safety. The safety analysis of the plant is complete. Kudankulam has one of the world's safest nuclear reactors," Mr Banerjee told NDTV. He added that "India has already inked an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) convention that provides a frame work for addressing trans-boundary concerns if an accident happens. India's nuclear liability law also addresses these concerns." Mr Banerjee is the Chairman of India's Atomic Energy Commission.
Earlier this week, Sri Lanka had raised concerns over possible radiation threat from Kudankulam nuclear reactors. A Sri Lankan minister also stated that his country would raise the issue with global atomic watchdog - the IAEA - in September.
"We respect the right of India to have nuclear power
stations. But our concerns are on the possible radiation effects they could
have on Sri Lanka," the country's Power and Energy Minister Champika
Ranawaka said.
The Kudankulam nuclear plant is located 250 kilometres from Sri Lanka's northwest coastal town of Mannar. The project in coastal Tamil Nadu will upon completion be India's largest atomic power plant.
Sri Lanka's complaint to IAEA is being seen as an attempt to get back at India for its recent vote against Lanka on a UN resolution that stressed the need for the island to fix accountability for human rights violations and alleged war crimes.
The Rs. 13-000 crore plant, being built with the help of the Russians, will see two reactors being commissioned within months of each other. When it's completed, six reactors will generate unprecedented power supply for the state.
The Kudankulam nuclear plant is located 250 kilometres from Sri Lanka's northwest coastal town of Mannar. The project in coastal Tamil Nadu will upon completion be India's largest atomic power plant.
Sri Lanka's complaint to IAEA is being seen as an attempt to get back at India for its recent vote against Lanka on a UN resolution that stressed the need for the island to fix accountability for human rights violations and alleged war crimes.
The Rs. 13-000 crore plant, being built with the help of the Russians, will see two reactors being commissioned within months of each other. When it's completed, six reactors will generate unprecedented power supply for the state.
9. Sri Lanka-India Resolution Row Goes Nuclear
Sudha
Ramachandran
By
Sudha Ramachandran -BANGALORE/ Asia Times Online – Sri Lanka’s Minister of Power and Energy Patali Champika Ranawaka’s recent announcement that Colombo was considering raising the issue of the safety of India’s nuclear power plants with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been widely interpreted in the Indian media as retaliation for India’s vote supporting an anti-Sri Lanka resolution at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) recently.
“We respect the right of India to have nuclear power stations,” Ranawaka told journalists in Colombo. “But our concerns are on the possible radiation affects they could have on Sri Lanka,” he said.
Ranawaka drew attention to nuclear plants located in southern India and pointed out that in the event of a nuclear disaster in India, Mannar in Sri Lanka’s northwest would be hit hard.
Just a narrow, 20 kilometer-wide strip of shallow sea separates Mannar from the Indian coastline. It is a mere 250 kilometers from the Kudankulam nuclear power plant in Tamil Nadu’s Tirunelveli district.
Coming in the wake of the UNHRC resolution, Ranawaka’s statement was interpreted in the Indian media as aimed at embarrassing India.
India’s support of a UNHRC resolution that urged the Sri Lankan government to “credibly investigate” allegations of violation of international humanitarian law by government forces in the final stages of the civil war has raised hackles in Colombo.
In the run-up to the vote in Geneva and in the wake of the resolution’s passage, Sri Lanka has been engulfed by a tidal wave of nationalist emotions especially among the island’s Sinhalese majority. Demonstrations led by monks and Sinhala nationalists have hurled abuse at the United States, which sponsored the resolution, and India for its “betrayal” of Sri Lanka.
Commentators in the Lankan media have accused India of “backstabbing”. Reports have sought to malign India. The Island, a pro-government English daily, for instance reported that 150 terrorists trained in Tamil Nadu “have returned to Sri Lanka and are hiding in the north and the east to carry out a destabilization campaign” in the island. A statue of Mahatma Gandhi in the eastern city of Batticaloa was damaged recently.
Ranawaka’s comment on the safety of India’s nuclear plants comes at a time when Delhi is struggling to quell a mass protest in Tamil Nadu over the safety of the Kudankulam nuclear plant. The protest, which has captured global media attention, has embarrassed Delhi.
An Indo-Russian collaboration, the Kudankulam nuclear power plant has been beset with delays. Then August last year, just months ahead of the scheduled commissioning of one of its units, a mass protest erupted. Villagers in its environs went on fasts to pressure the government to shut down the nuclear plant.
They blocked roads and laid siege to the project site to prevent employees from entering. In a highly publicized campaign activists claimed the plant was unsafe and called on the government to make safety analysis and site evaluation studies public. Local residents raised fears that radioactivity from the plant and unsafe disposal of nuclear waste would endanger their health.
Fishermen expressed concerns that water used to cool reactors and flushed into the sea would contaminate fish in the Gulf of Mannar. Villagers said that in the event of a Fukushima-type disaster, a rapid evacuation would be impossible as over one million people live within a 30-kilometer radius of the plant.
The government deployed experts to convince locals that the nuclear plant was safe and extended development packages to the region. But locals are unconvinced and the agitation continues.
Ranawaka’s raising of the nuclear safety issue in such circumstances is bound to have irritated Delhi, particularly since talks on nuclear technology-related issues, including that of nuclear safety, are reportedly continuing between India and Sri Lanka at the bilateral level.
Both governments have clarified that contrary to Ranawaka’s claims, Colombo taking the issue to the IAEA is not on the cards.
It seem Ranawaka was engaging in some empty muscle flexing aimed at impressing his Sinhala Buddhist supporters, who are livid with India for its support of the UNHRC resolution.
Ranawaka is general secretary of the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU), a party led by radical Buddhist monks that is part of the ruling coalition and has been at the forefront of the rallies opposing the UNHRC resolution.
The JHU has called for a rethink of economic ties with India. “We should not grant favors to countries merely because they are our neighbors. India was the only Asian country that sided with the US” in voting on the UNHRC resolution, JHU spokesperson, Udaya Gammanpila, has said.
The UNHRC resolution has provided an excuse for hardline Sinhalese politicians, several of them ministers in President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government, to burnish their “patriotic” credentials as “defenders of the motherland”. Each is seeking to outdo the other by announcing punishment to be meted out to those who “betrayed the motherland” by supporting the UNHRC resolution.
If the JHU wants Sri Lanka to downgrade its economic ties with India, the Jathika Nidhahas Peramuna wants the US to be punished. Its leader Wimal Weerawansa, who is minister for housing and common amenities, has called for a boycott of American brands such as Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Pizza Hut and Google’s e-mail service Gmail.
Minister for Public Relations Mervyn Silva, who belongs to Rajapaksa’s party, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) has gone a step further and warned certain Sri Lankan activists and intellectuals at a public rally that he would break their limbs in public.
Contrary to claims that they are true “patriots”, some analysts say the politicians and parties calling for defiance of the UNHRC resolution are harming the interests of their “motherland”, while others have drawn attention to the perils of a confrontationist course.
“Hereafter Sri Lanka will be an agenda item of the UNHCR and if it defies the Council, the Council will refer the matter to other UN bodies with more teeth,” warned Kumar David in The Island. “It is dangerous for Colombo to defy the international community and set itself on collision course; the consequences will be drastic,” he writes. “Make no mistake, going before the Council next time with a fail grade on its report card will reduce its support to zilch; even the Chinese and Russians will duck as they are now doing at the Security Council about Syria. Defying the UN High Commission is the road of self-immolation.”
Economic boycotts and a downgrading of economic ties are options that Sri Lanka can ill afford.
While confrontationist calls for “taking on India” may boost support for help Ranawaka, Weerawansa and others, India remains Sri Lanka’s largest trade partner and source of FDI. Every fifth tourist to Sri Lanka is an Indian. The US accounts for 21% of Sri Lanka’s export market. “Teaching them a lesson” by downgrading ties is bound to boomerang on Sri Lanka.
Sri Lanka is in the midst of an economic crisis. With fuel prices rising by 40% in recent months, prices of food and other essential commodities and transport have soared. The Sri Lankan rupee has fallen by 15% since the beginning of this year and is showing no signs of stabilizing. There have been mass demonstrations protesting the economic crisis.
The UNHRC resolution might be a headache in the long-run for the government but for now it’s likely proving a vote winner.
It “came at a good time for Rajapaksa”, R V Radhakrishnan observes in Frontline, an Indian fortnightly news magazine.
Sri Lanka was roiled in anti-government protests against price rises when the UNHRC resolution came up. The ruling coalition then focused on mobilizing protests against the “external enemies” and “internal traitors.” In the process, it was able to turn public attention away from the government to “enemies of the Sinhala-Buddhist people.”
Thus the UNHRC resolution provided the government with an issue to deflect public attention away from its own shortcomings.
The question is, how long will public attention remain diverted?
“There is only so much of diversion that people can put up with,” points out Radhakrishnan. “Conventionally, a full stomach produces a vocal patriot. As pressure mounts on the common man to make ends meet each day, he is unlikely to bother about what the man in the White House is up to in the cozy comforts of climate-controlled hotels in Geneva. He might just decide to trek to Temple Trees – the Sri Lankan president’s official residence – and demand his meal. And, he is unlikely to be alone.”
Rajapaksa’s popularity in Sri Lanka remains high for now. Sri Lanka’s “victimization” at the UNHRC has helped tone down the heat at home.
The president’s cheerleaders should realize that steps to downgrade ties with Sri Lanka’s main economic partners would deepen the island’s already serious economic crisis, providing momentum to more power protests against the government in the future.
“Bigger economic protests” will surface in another year or two, warns David.
Sri Lankans are hailing support Colombo received from its “true friends”, China and Pakistan at the UNHRC. They are saying that India must be made to pay a price for its treachery. They are calling on the government to “teach Indian a lesson” by deepening relations, especially military ties with China.
Given the geographic proximity between Sri Lanka and India and the close ethnic and other ties between them, working with Delhi rather than baiting or defying it would be Colombo’s best option.
However tempting it might be for a jilted Colombo to court China this would be a perilous path. “If thumbing its nose at the international community is slow asphyxiation, a military game with China, such as a naval base, will be sudden death,” warns David.
Colombo must heed these voices of sanity. It is in danger of cutting its nose to spite its face.
Sudha Ramachandran is an independent journalist/researcher based in Bangalore. She can be reached at sudha98@hotmail.com
10. No objections to Kudankulam nuclear power project: Lanka
Colombo,
Apr 16: Business line
Sri
Lanka on Monday said it had not objected to the Kudankulam nuclear power
project in Tamil Nadu and underlined that India has every right to use nuclear
technology in meeting the requirements of electrical energy.
“Sri
Lanka has not brought up the issue of the safety of Kudankulam Nuclear Power
Plant against India’s voting at the 19th session of the UNHRC,” Lanka’s Atomic
Energy Authority said dismissing media reports that Colombo was against the
project.
The
reports had quoted Lankan Energy Minister Mr Champika Ranawaka as saying that
Sri Lanka was to refer the matter at the IAEA sessions in September since the
country feared that any radiation from the plant will affect it.
However,
Atomic Energy Authority’s chairman Mr R L Wijayawardana denied any such move.
Recalling
that both Sri Lanka and India are members of the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA), the statement said Sri Lanka fully understands the need of
utilising nuclear energy for electricity generation.
India
has every right to use nuclear technology in meeting the requirements of
electrical energy.
“Sri
Lankan Government has neither opposed nor registered their protest for any
nuclear power plant on Indian soil. It is their sovereign right.”
Mr
Wijayawardena said that Mr Ranawaka headed the Sri Lanka delegation to the IAEA
General Conference where he visited the Kudankulam nuclear project with
Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission.
“Therefore,
the statement made to give the impression that Sri Lanka is protesting to
Kudankulam project is baseless and malicious.
“As
there are power plants in India close to our country, the only possible thing
we can do is to make a bilateral agreement with India under the provisions of
these conventions to exchange information on status of their power plants and
emergency plans and to obtain assistance in case of a nuclear accident in
India”, he said.
11.No danger from Nuclear
Power Plant to Sri Lanka: India
April 16,
2012 10:50 am, Adaderana
India has clearly
pointed out to the Sri Lankan government that there will be no danger from
Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant to that country, Union Minister of State V.
Narayanasamy said.
The Koodankulam Plant will start production in 45 days, he said in Karaikal on Sunday speaking to media persons, adding that after the inspection by the nuclear reactor team, the trial for enrichment of uranium fuel will be initiated in 20 days and experts’ opinion will also be sought.
In another 40 to 45 days, 1,000 MW of power will be produced at the first reactor and in the next two months the second reactor will also start functioning.
The minister said, “The Union Government has clearly pointed out to the Sri Lankan government that there will be no danger from the Koodankulam plant to that country.”
On the parliamentary delegation to Sri Lanka, he said the visit would assess the condition of Tamils in the post-war period.
As the selection of team members had been done based on party representation in parliament, the CPI and Tirumavalavan could not be accommodated, the minister was quoted as saying by Express News Service.
On the fishermen’s issue, he added that consultations were under way to identify fishing areas and fishing periods. Once an agreement is reached with Sri Lanka, the issue will be solved, he said.
The Koodankulam Plant will start production in 45 days, he said in Karaikal on Sunday speaking to media persons, adding that after the inspection by the nuclear reactor team, the trial for enrichment of uranium fuel will be initiated in 20 days and experts’ opinion will also be sought.
In another 40 to 45 days, 1,000 MW of power will be produced at the first reactor and in the next two months the second reactor will also start functioning.
The minister said, “The Union Government has clearly pointed out to the Sri Lankan government that there will be no danger from the Koodankulam plant to that country.”
On the parliamentary delegation to Sri Lanka, he said the visit would assess the condition of Tamils in the post-war period.
As the selection of team members had been done based on party representation in parliament, the CPI and Tirumavalavan could not be accommodated, the minister was quoted as saying by Express News Service.
On the fishermen’s issue, he added that consultations were under way to identify fishing areas and fishing periods. Once an agreement is reached with Sri Lanka, the issue will be solved, he said.
12.
Govt. neither opposed nor protested Indian Nuclear Power
Plant - AEA
April 16, 2012 02:51 pm, Adaderana
Sri Lanka has not
brought up the issue of the safety of Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant against
India’s voting at the 19th session of the UNHRC, the Atomic Energy Authority of
Sri Lanka said today refuting recent reports in Indian media.
The Sri Lankan Government has neither opposed nor registered their protest for any Nuclear Power Plant on Indian soil, Chairman of Atomic Energy Authority Dr. R.L. Wijayawardana said in a statement.
Times of India on had reported that Sri Lanka’s energy minister Patali Champika Ranawaka has said they were threatened by the Koodankulam nuclear plant, in case of a Fukushima-like disaster in retaliation for India’s vote against Sri Lanka at the United Nations Human Rights Council.
TOI further said Champika Ranawaka repeatedly told journalists in Colombo that Sri Lanka would refer the matter to the IAEA at a meeting in September.
It is unfortunate that such “faulty information” have been released by TOI in order to bring tension between the two countries, Wijayawardana said.
Pointing out that both Sri Lanka and India are members of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is committed for using nuclear technology for the benefit of the society, he said, Sri Lanka fully understands the need of utilizing nuclear energy for electricity generation.
“India has every right to use nuclear technology in meeting the requirements of electrical energy,” he added.
Sri Lanka Atomic Energy Authority has a mandate to protect people and the environment of Sri Lanka from unwanted effects of ionizing radiation. It is the responsibility of the Government of Sri Lanka through the Sri Lanka Atomic Energy Authority to plan a Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program, Dr. Wijayawardana said.
“Such a program was drafted with the help of the Disaster Management Centre.”
“IAEA was approached by AEA to strengthen the capacity for the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program,” he said.
Reminding that cordial discussions were held with the Indian delegation in 2010 when the Minister headed the Sri Lanka delegation to the IAEA General Conference, Dr. Wijayawardana said Minister Ranawaka had in fact visited the Koodankulam power plant with the Indian Atomic Energy Commission Chairman.
“Therefore, the statement made to give the impression that Sri Lanka is protesting to Koodankulam NPP is baseless and malicious,” he said.
It is unfortunate that remote nuclear accidents are brought up by the media, linking to UNHRC vote and using radiation safety as currency of conversation whipping up fear and insecurity, the chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority further stated.
The Sri Lankan Government has neither opposed nor registered their protest for any Nuclear Power Plant on Indian soil, Chairman of Atomic Energy Authority Dr. R.L. Wijayawardana said in a statement.
Times of India on had reported that Sri Lanka’s energy minister Patali Champika Ranawaka has said they were threatened by the Koodankulam nuclear plant, in case of a Fukushima-like disaster in retaliation for India’s vote against Sri Lanka at the United Nations Human Rights Council.
TOI further said Champika Ranawaka repeatedly told journalists in Colombo that Sri Lanka would refer the matter to the IAEA at a meeting in September.
It is unfortunate that such “faulty information” have been released by TOI in order to bring tension between the two countries, Wijayawardana said.
Pointing out that both Sri Lanka and India are members of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is committed for using nuclear technology for the benefit of the society, he said, Sri Lanka fully understands the need of utilizing nuclear energy for electricity generation.
“India has every right to use nuclear technology in meeting the requirements of electrical energy,” he added.
Sri Lanka Atomic Energy Authority has a mandate to protect people and the environment of Sri Lanka from unwanted effects of ionizing radiation. It is the responsibility of the Government of Sri Lanka through the Sri Lanka Atomic Energy Authority to plan a Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program, Dr. Wijayawardana said.
“Such a program was drafted with the help of the Disaster Management Centre.”
“IAEA was approached by AEA to strengthen the capacity for the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program,” he said.
Reminding that cordial discussions were held with the Indian delegation in 2010 when the Minister headed the Sri Lanka delegation to the IAEA General Conference, Dr. Wijayawardana said Minister Ranawaka had in fact visited the Koodankulam power plant with the Indian Atomic Energy Commission Chairman.
“Therefore, the statement made to give the impression that Sri Lanka is protesting to Koodankulam NPP is baseless and malicious,” he said.
It is unfortunate that remote nuclear accidents are brought up by the media, linking to UNHRC vote and using radiation safety as currency of conversation whipping up fear and insecurity, the chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority further stated.
Tuesday, 17 April
2012: Daily News
Koodankulam Nuclear
Power Plant:
13. Allegation of protests, baseless - Dr Wijayawardana
The statement in the Times of India which said that Power and Energy Minister Patali Champika Ranawaka has said they were threatened by India's Koodankulam nuclear plant, in case of a Fukushima-like disaster in retaliation for India's vote against Sri Lanka at the United Nations Human Rights Council, has given the impression that Sri Lanka is protesting to Koodankulam NPP, which is baseless and malicious, said Atomic Energy Authority Chairman Dr. R.L. Wijayawardana.The statement was issued by Dr Wijayawardana in response to media highlights alleging that Sri Lanka hit back India after the United Nation Human Right Council (UNHRC) vote.
"It is unfortunate that remote nuclear accidents are brought up by the media, linking to UNHRC votes and using radiation safety as currency of conversation whipping up fear and insecurity," the statement added.
Following is the statement:
Times of India on 10th April stated that Sri Lanka's energy minister Honourable Patali Champika Ranawaka has said they were threatened by the Koodankulam nuclear plant, in case of a Fukushima-like disaster in retaliation for India's vote against Sri Lanka at the United Nations Human Rights Council. TOI further said Champika Ranawaka, Lanka energy minister, repeatedly told journalists in Colombo that Sri Lanka would refer the matter to the IAEA at a meeting in September. It is unfortunate that such faulty information have been released by TOI in order to bring tension between the two countries. Sri Lanka has not brought up the issue of the safety of Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant against India's voting at the 19th session of the UNHRC.|
Dr. R.L. Wijayawardana |
Sri Lanka Atomic Energy Authority has a mandate to protect people and the environment of Sri Lanka from unwanted effects of ionizing radiation. It is the responsibility of the Government of Sri Lanka through the Sri Lanka Atomic Energy Authority to plan a Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program. Such a program was drafted with the help of the Disaster Management Centre. IAEA was approached by AEA to strengthen the capacity for the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program. IAEA has offered to establish Early Warning Detector System and the equipment would be delivered according to the IAEA Department of Technical Cooperation.
There had been cordial discussions with the Indian delegation in 2010 when the Minister headed the Sri Lanka delegation to the IAEA General Conference. In fact Minister Ranawaka visited the Koodankulam NPP with Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission, Therefore, the statement made to give the impression that Sri Lanka is protesting to Koodankulam NPP is baseless and malicious.
|
Koodankulam nuclear power plant |
It is well known that there are conventions of the IAEA for international cooperation in dealing with nuclear accidents. There are three conventions applicable. (1) Convention of Nuclear Safety (2) Convention on Assistance in case of Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency (3) Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident.
Article 7 of the Convention of Nuclear Safety required that all countries having nuclear power plants to have comprehensive regulatory system for the safety of the power plants. Article 16 requests that all countries to take all appropriate steps to prepare emergency plans for mitigation of the consequences of an accident. Article 20 of the convention refers that all countries shall hold meetings. These meetings are important to discuss issues pertaining to other countries which are in close proximity to Nuclear Power Countries. As far as we know Sri Lanka is not participating in these meetings.
According to the article 1 of the Convention on Assistance in case of Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency the countries shall cooperate between themselves and with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in accordance with the provisions of this Convention to facilitate prompt assistance in the event of a nuclear accident or radiological emergency to minimize its consequences and to protect life, property and the environment from the effects of radioactive releases. To facilitate such cooperation countries may agree on bilateral or multilateral arrangements or, where appropriate, a combination of these, for preventing or minimizing injury and damage which may result in the event of a nuclear accident or radiological emergency. According to the article 2 of the this convention if a country needs assistance in the event of a nuclear accident or radiological emergency, whether or not such accident or emergency originates within its territory, jurisdiction or control, it may call for such assistance from any other country, directly or through the IAEA, and from the IAEA, or where appropriate, from other international intergovernmental organizations.
All these conventions are aimed at providing safety to their own population of the country in which nuclear power plant is to be built or operated and to protect the people in the nearby countries close to the nuclear power plant.
As there are power plants in India close to our country, the only possible thing we can do is to make a bilateral agreement with India under the provisions of these conventions to exchange of information of status of their power plants and emergency plans and to obtain assistance in case of a nuclear accident in India.
IAEA proposed, nearly three years ago to the officials of Sri Lanka Atomic Energy Authority to explore the possibility of entering into an agreement with India for radiological emergency preparedness planning and management of radiological emergencies. Sri Lanka Atomic Energy Authority followed-up with the Ministry of External Affairs of the Government of Sri Lanka. The Minister of Power and Energy when the subject of Atomic Energy was brought under his Ministry in April 2010 took a special interest in strengthening the capabilities of Sri Lanka Atomic Energy Authority for managing radiological accidents and its consequences. AEA had proposed a draft agreement about two years ago to the External Affairs authorities in Colombo for discussion with Indian authorities. AEA was not informed regarding any response from Indian side and has not lost confidence in working out a bi-lateral agreement with India for assistance in dealing with radiological consequences considering the importance of the issue from a scientific and technical standpoint.
It is customary for delegations of both India and Sri Lanka to meet on the sidelines of the IAEA General Conference every year in a cordial atmosphere respecting the age old relationships of the two countries.
Sri Lanka has not lost confidence in getting bi-lateral cooperation in resolving issues of nuclear accidents. Nuclear accidents are very remote, taking into consideration the safety features of present day nuclear reactors that undergo a thorough, rigorous licensing procedure.
It is unfortunate that remote nuclear accidents are brought up by the media, linking to UNHRC votes and using radiation safety as currency of conversation whipping up fear and insecurity.
14. We are not opposed to Kudankulam nuclear power plant: Sri Lanka
Indrani BagchiTimesofindia
'Kudankulam Unit-I to be operational in 2 months'
NEW
DELHI: Sri Lanka has refuted reports that it was
approaching the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) against the Kudankulam nuclear
plant in Tamil Nadu.
Reacting to a report in TOI, quoting Lankan media, R L Wijayawardana, chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority (AEA) of Sri Lanka said in a statement on Monday: "Sri Lanka has not brought up the issue of the safety of Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant against India's voting at the 19th session of the UNHRC."
The Lankan statement comes as a delegation of parliamentarians from different political parties left for Sri Lanka on Monday to travel across the country and see the pace of development and interact with the people. The delegation, led by leader of opposition, Sushma Swaraj, includes MPs from political parties like BJD, BJP, CPI (M), INC, JD (U) and SP. The MEA spokesperson said: "The primary focus of the delegation will be in the areas recovering from thirty years conflict in the North and East of Sri Lanka where development assistance projects for the resettlement and rehabilitation of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and reconstruction of areas affected by the conflict are being undertaken by the Government of India." The delegation will interact with a cross section of civil society and in Colombo, will meet the president, Mahinda Rajapakse as well as opposition leaders, and the Tamil National Alliance, Sri Lankan Muslim Congress, the Ceylon Workers Congress and other upcountry political parties.
Wijayawardana said IAEA had asked Sri Lanka to "to explore the possibility of entering into an agreement with India for radiological emergency preparedness planning and management of radiological emergencies." To that end, they had approached India for a bilateral agreement - but there has been no response from India, he said.
"AEA had proposed a draft agreement about two years ago to the External Affairs authorities in Colombo for discussion with Indian authorities. AEA was not informed regarding any response from Indian side and has not lost confidence in working out a bilateral agreement with India for assistance in dealing with radiological consequences considering the importance of the issue from a scientific and technical standpoint." Sri Lanka, Wijayawardane added, "... nuclear accidents are very remote, taking into consideration the safety features of present day nuclear reactors that undergo a thorough, rigorous licensing procedure."
Wijayawardene was clear that Sri Lanka did not oppose the Kudankulam plant. "India has every right to use nuclear technology in meeting the requirements of electrical energy. Sri Lankan Government has neither opposed nor registered their protest for any Nuclear Power Plant on Indian soil. It is their sovereign right."
However, he added, they had the right to protect their own country from "from unwanted effects of ionizing radiation." To this end, they had prepared a "Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program" with the help of the IAEA. He said, Lankan energy minister Champika Ranawaka, had even visited Kudankulam, so there was no question of him opposing the plant.
Wijayawardana said there were several conventions under which countries could cooperate on the matter of nuclear accidents. "There are three conventions applicable. (1) Convention of Nuclear Safety (2) Convention on Assistance in case of Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency (3) Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident."
"As there are power plants in India close to our country, the only possible thing we can do is to make a bilateral agreement with India under the provisions of these conventions to exchange of information of status of their power plants and emergency plans and to obtain assistance in case of a nuclear accident in India," the chairman of Sri Lanka's atomic energy authority said.
Reacting to a report in TOI, quoting Lankan media, R L Wijayawardana, chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority (AEA) of Sri Lanka said in a statement on Monday: "Sri Lanka has not brought up the issue of the safety of Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant against India's voting at the 19th session of the UNHRC."
The Lankan statement comes as a delegation of parliamentarians from different political parties left for Sri Lanka on Monday to travel across the country and see the pace of development and interact with the people. The delegation, led by leader of opposition, Sushma Swaraj, includes MPs from political parties like BJD, BJP, CPI (M), INC, JD (U) and SP. The MEA spokesperson said: "The primary focus of the delegation will be in the areas recovering from thirty years conflict in the North and East of Sri Lanka where development assistance projects for the resettlement and rehabilitation of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and reconstruction of areas affected by the conflict are being undertaken by the Government of India." The delegation will interact with a cross section of civil society and in Colombo, will meet the president, Mahinda Rajapakse as well as opposition leaders, and the Tamil National Alliance, Sri Lankan Muslim Congress, the Ceylon Workers Congress and other upcountry political parties.
Wijayawardana said IAEA had asked Sri Lanka to "to explore the possibility of entering into an agreement with India for radiological emergency preparedness planning and management of radiological emergencies." To that end, they had approached India for a bilateral agreement - but there has been no response from India, he said.
"AEA had proposed a draft agreement about two years ago to the External Affairs authorities in Colombo for discussion with Indian authorities. AEA was not informed regarding any response from Indian side and has not lost confidence in working out a bilateral agreement with India for assistance in dealing with radiological consequences considering the importance of the issue from a scientific and technical standpoint." Sri Lanka, Wijayawardane added, "... nuclear accidents are very remote, taking into consideration the safety features of present day nuclear reactors that undergo a thorough, rigorous licensing procedure."
Wijayawardene was clear that Sri Lanka did not oppose the Kudankulam plant. "India has every right to use nuclear technology in meeting the requirements of electrical energy. Sri Lankan Government has neither opposed nor registered their protest for any Nuclear Power Plant on Indian soil. It is their sovereign right."
However, he added, they had the right to protect their own country from "from unwanted effects of ionizing radiation." To this end, they had prepared a "Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program" with the help of the IAEA. He said, Lankan energy minister Champika Ranawaka, had even visited Kudankulam, so there was no question of him opposing the plant.
Wijayawardana said there were several conventions under which countries could cooperate on the matter of nuclear accidents. "There are three conventions applicable. (1) Convention of Nuclear Safety (2) Convention on Assistance in case of Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency (3) Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident."
"As there are power plants in India close to our country, the only possible thing we can do is to make a bilateral agreement with India under the provisions of these conventions to exchange of information of status of their power plants and emergency plans and to obtain assistance in case of a nuclear accident in India," the chairman of Sri Lanka's atomic energy authority said.
15. Lanka denies moving IAEA on N-plant in Kudankulam
Timesofindia
NEW
DELHI: Sri Lanka has refuted reports that it was approaching the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) against the Kudankulam nuclear plant.
Reacting to a report in TOI, R L Wijayawardana, chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority (AEA) of Sri Lanka, said on Monday, "Sri Lanka has not brought up the issue of the safety of Kudankulam nuclear power plant against India's voting at the 19th session of the UNHRC."
The Lankan statement comes as a delegation of parliamentarians from different political parties, led by leader of opposition Sushma Swaraj, left for Sri Lanka on Monday to travel across the country and see the pace of development and interact with the people.
The foreign ministry spokesperson said, "The primary focus of the delegation will be in the areas recovering from 30 years conflict in the north and east of Sri Lanka where development assistance projects are being undertaken by the government of India."
The delegation will interact with a cross section of civil society and in Colombo.
Wijayawardana said IAEA had asked Sri Lanka to "to explore the possibility of entering into an agreement with India for radiological emergency preparedness planning and management of radiological emergencies". To that end, they had approached India for a bilateral agreement but there was no response. Wijayawardene was clear that Sri Lanka did not oppose the Kudankulam plant.
Reacting to a report in TOI, R L Wijayawardana, chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority (AEA) of Sri Lanka, said on Monday, "Sri Lanka has not brought up the issue of the safety of Kudankulam nuclear power plant against India's voting at the 19th session of the UNHRC."
The Lankan statement comes as a delegation of parliamentarians from different political parties, led by leader of opposition Sushma Swaraj, left for Sri Lanka on Monday to travel across the country and see the pace of development and interact with the people.
The foreign ministry spokesperson said, "The primary focus of the delegation will be in the areas recovering from 30 years conflict in the north and east of Sri Lanka where development assistance projects are being undertaken by the government of India."
The delegation will interact with a cross section of civil society and in Colombo.
Wijayawardana said IAEA had asked Sri Lanka to "to explore the possibility of entering into an agreement with India for radiological emergency preparedness planning and management of radiological emergencies". To that end, they had approached India for a bilateral agreement but there was no response. Wijayawardene was clear that Sri Lanka did not oppose the Kudankulam plant.
Sri Lanka has not brought up the issue of the safety of
Koodankulam nuclear power plant in reaction against India’s voting at the 19th
session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva, Atomic
Energy Authority chairman Dr R L Wijayawardana said.
Dr Wijayawardana was referring to a report in the Times
of India on April 10 which stated that Power and Energy Minister Patali
Champika Ranawaka has said Sri Lanka was threatened by the Koodankulam nuclear
plant, in case of a Fukushima - like disaster, in retaliation for India’s vote
against Sri Lanka at the UNHRC sessions.
Times of India also said Ranawaka repeatedly told
journalists in Colombo that Sri Lanka would refer the matter to the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) at a meeting in September.
“It is unfortunate that such faulty information have been
released by the Times of India to create tension between the two countries.
Sri Lanka has not brought up the issue of the safety of
Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant against India’s voting at the 19th session of
the UNHRC,” Dr Wijayawardana said in a release yesterday.
Both Sri Lanka and India are members of the IAEA. IAEA is
committed for using nuclear technology for the benefit of the society.
Sri Lanka fully understands the need of utilising nuclear
energy for electricity generation. India has every right to use nuclear
technology in meeting the requirements of electrical energy.
The Sri Lankan government has neither opposed nor
registered their protest for any Nuclear Power Plant on Indian soil.
It is their sovereign right. Sri Lanka gathered from
media reports that there had been protests by sections of the Indian public in
Koodankulam, the release said.
17.
Over 500 people on indefinite hunger
strike since May 1st in protest against Koodankulam nuclear plant
13 May 2012, 10:45 pm dbsjeyaraj.com
Children protest against Koodankulam Nuclear Plant, Apr 26, 2012
By Sam Rajappa
THE manner in which the authorities have been trying to crush the agitation
of the People’s Movement Against Nuclear Energy, which is no longer a mere
protest against generating electricity by using nuclear energy to boil water,
is shocking. It is a life-and-death struggle for the very survival of
government of the people, by the people and for the people.
About 500 people, an overwhelming majority of them women, have been on an
indefinite peaceful fast since 1 May at Idinthakarai, a fishing hamlet next to
the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Project.
Curfew orders have been promulgated and more than 2,000 policemen have surrounded the area, creating an impression that the hapless protesters are under siege.
Curfew orders have been promulgated and more than 2,000 policemen have surrounded the area, creating an impression that the hapless protesters are under siege.
Thousands of people from neighbouring villages have surrendered their voter
ID cards, claiming, “we are surrendering our freedom and democratic rights at
the altar of a a few hundred megawatt of destructive nuclear power.” Inside the
KKNPP complex, there was a loud explosion on 4 May. The authorities are
tightlipped on the blast.
Though the complex has medical facilities, two injured workers, Sivakumar
and Esakkimuthu, were admitted to a private hospital at Anjugramam in
Kanyakumari district.
‘Insider Alert’
NaturanNews, meanwhile, has put out an “insider alert” that the spent fuel
pool of Fukushima reactor No. 4 was just one earthquake away from a structural
failure that could set off a chain of events leading to the release of up to 85
times the Cesium-137 released in the Chernobyl disaster. Mitsuhei Murata,
former Japanese Ambassador to Switzerland and executive director of the Japan
Society for Global System and Ethics, said: “It is no exaggeration to say that
the fate of Japan and the whole world depends on the No. 4 reactor.”
Agitation against the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Project, filmed during the
last indefinite hunger strike that was called off on 26th of April 2012
A failure of the reactor’s spent fuel pool and the subsequent catastrophic
release of Cesium would decimate human life even across North America,
destroying crops, polluting ground water, causing widespread stillbirths and
unleashing an explosion in cancer cases. The land could become uninhabitable
for centuries.
It may be pointed out that work on the KKNPP was resumed on the expert
advice of scientists and engineers of the Department of Atomic Energy, Bhabha
Atomic Research Centre and the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited, none
of whom is familiar with or experienced in Pressurised Water Reactor technology
which is used in the Russian VVER type reactors at Koodankulam.
These experts, entrusted with the task of designing a PWR nuclear submarine
propulsion plant, gave up after 10 years of sustained effort and spending
considerable sum of money. It was then that India sought Russian help for the
nuclear submarine project. The Russians utilised the opportunity to sell VVER
type nuclear reactors which were dumped on the unwilling people of Koodankulam
in Tamil Nadu after Kerala refused to locate it.
Nuclear power plants are water guzzlers. Tamil Nadu is not endowed with
abundant supply of fresh water. According to Atomic Energy Regulatory Board
instructions of 1998, the Koodankulam project requires two sources of water
from the reservoirs of Pechiparai and Upper Kodyar in Kanyakumari district to
ensure adequate supply in the event of a loss of cooling accident, the biggest
potential hazard of reactors.
No step has been taken so far to convey water from these reservoirs to
Koodankulam in Tirunelveli district. Kanyakumari is the only lush green
district in Tamil Nadu. Diverting water from its two reservoirs would not only
turn it into a desert but also destroy the southern rice bowl of the State.
NPCIL’s post-Fukushima safety task force report says that while the Madras
Atomic Power Station at Kalpakkam has water reserve of 77.3 cubic meters per
MWe, Koodankulam has only 5.1 cubic meters.
Since water from Pechiparai and Kodyar is ruled out, four mega desalination
units, each producing 106,000 litres of water an hour, is provided for the
first unit of the Koodankulam plant. These units will suck in enormous
quantities of sea water along with microscopic to tiny sea flora and fauna,
phytoplankton, zooplankton, fish eggs and larvae of myriad sea creatures, which
will be killed in the desalination plants.
The harm to marine life and pelagic birds will be three-pronged when the
concentrated brine waste and the waste of chemicals used to de-mineralise the
de-salinated water is dumped into the sea. The Arabian Gulf is dotted with
de-salination plants as its hinterland is mostly desert. The people who live
there rely on de-salinated water for all their needs from drinking to
irrigation at a high environmental cost.
Excessive discharge of wastes has given rise to a biological phenomenon
called “red tide,” caused by high concentration of poisonous microscopic algae.
Though scientists call it harmful algal blooms, the red tides cannot be
controlled by human beings. The organisms produce a toxin that paralyses the
central nervous system of fish. Molluscs, clams and oysters too are not immune
to red tide. These tides are harmful for humans even to be around because their
presence in mist from breaking waves can cause burning eyes and respiratory
problems. Toxic seafood causes numbness of mouth, tingling of fingers,
paralysis and even death.
Threat to marine life
The narrow Gulf of Mannar that separates Koodankulam from the north-west
coast of Sri Lanka is the world’s richest marine biological resource and it
must be protected. There are 21 uninhabited islands with estuaries, beaches,
forest of the near-shore environment with marine algal communities, sea grasses,
coral reefs, salt marshes and mangroves. People living on both sides of the
Gulf of Mannar are dependent on the area’s marine resources for subsistence,
livelihood and for employment.
The ocean is the cradle of life with a delicate food chain web that supports
its biodiversity. Even if a nuclear catastrophe never takes place at the
Koodankulam power plant, there looms a serious threat from a chain reaction in
the Gulf of Mannar from the yet to be commissioned de-salination behemoths.
Little wonder that the fishing community in the coastal villages surrounding
Koodankulam is a worried lot.
The government, on its part, has added to the people’s worry by keeping
under wraps information relating to safety, site evaluation and environmental
impact of the nuclear power plant. There are genuine public apprehensions about
the safety of nuclear power.
The non-transparent functioning of the Department of Atomic Energy,
directly under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, has only added to the
apprehensions of the people. The DAE never takes the public into confidence in
incidents of radioactive leakages in nuclear power plants like the ones at
Kalpakkam and Kakarpar. Citizens come to know about these from external sources
like the IAEA.
Any nuclear installation or site must be designed in a way to account for
any unforeseen accidents and natural hazards. This is the basic purpose of a
safety evaluation and citizens have a right to know the safety assessment of
the KKNP project.
Disclosure of the site evaluation and safety assessment reports will enable
citizens to get a holistic understanding of the project, including environment
and safety concerns. All over the world, site evaluation and safety analysis
reports of nuclear power plants and installations are put in public domain to
elicit the people’s views. India cannot be an exception.
AERB approval
The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board is yet to approve the emergency response
plan of the Koodankulam plant which is mandatory for beginning of operation of
a nuclear power plant. The plant management should ensure that the emergency
preparedness and response plan are approved by the AERB and necessary training
given to the personnel implementing the plan.
According to the AERB guidelines, the district collector would be
designated as the off-site emergency director. Without having an approved
emergency preparedness plan in place, Russian engineers at the plant site are
preparing to load enriched uranium fuel to the Koodankulam reactor core which
is a violation of the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, and the Atomic
Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004.
The NPCIL, implementing the Koodankulam project, is liable to be in breach
of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution for not obtaining the mandatory
emergency preparedness plan approved.
The writer is a veteran journalist and former Director, Statesman Print
Journalism School. This article appears in the “statesman”
18. Kudankulam comments taken out of context, says Sri Lankan Minister
COLOMBO,
May
13, 2012 , The Hindu
A view of the
nuclear power plant at Kudankulam. File photo: A. Shaikmohideen
Long after the
controversy created by his remark on the safety of the nuclear power plant at
Kudankulam has died down, Sri Lankan Electricity Minister Champika Ranawaka has
blamed the Indian media for taking his comments out of context.
The Minister had
stated that Sri Lanka would take up in the next session of the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) the safety of the new Indian reactors at
Kudankulam. Sri Lanka was concerned, he had said, about the fallout in the
event of an accident at the plant.
He now claims that
all he said was that Sri Lanka and India would discuss the issue at the next
session of the IAEA. And he blames Indian journalists for the non-issue
developing into a major story.
“I take great care
when answering questions posed by Indian journalists now,” he wrote in his
weekly column in the pro-government newspaper The Nation. “This is
because some comments I made regarding the Koodankulam nuclear power plant were
taken out of context by some of these same journalists, leading to a major
diplomatic incident,” he said.
“What I told a
[local] media institution was that Sri Lanka and India needed a common
mechanism for disaster management in the event of an accident occurring at the
plant, and that there were three conventions in this regard, which have been
approved by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). I told them that Sri
Lanka would attempt to take forward discussions on this proposal with India at
the next IAEA session in Vienna. It was reported by the local media institution
that Sri Lanka was presenting a resolution to the Vienna sessions regarding
signing an agreement with India!
“This was later
picked up by the Times of India, which claimed that Sri Lanka was going
to present a resolution against India's Koodankulam power plant at the Vienna
session, and this was being done as a response to India's vote against Sri
Lanka at the UNHRC sessions in Geneva! This resulted in many Tamil Nadu
politicians such as Karunanidhi making thundering statements that Sri Lanka had
no right to meddle in India's internal affairs,” he said, in his column, where
he tweaks his party the JHU's stand on the Dambulla mosque episode. Monks owing
allegiance to the JHU had attempted to desecrate the mosque last month, and had
said that they would not rest till the mosque was pulled down from the sacred
area.
