Nuclear plant at Jaitapur: The mystery of the missing creeks

The government's decision to review the safety of nuclear plants across the country, including the one proposed at Jaitapur may prove to be more than precautionary. For, the Union ministry of environment and forests gave an eco-clearance for the 9,900MW nuclear plant at Jaitapur in Ratnagiri district on the findings of a report that not only ignored the presence of two major creeks at the proposed site, but also based some of its findings from 22 years ago.

The Environment Impact Assessment ( EIA) report simply assumed that two water bodies — 35km-long Vijaydurg creek and 40km-long Rajapur creek, which flank the proposed plant — were filled up.

The report, submitted by the National Environment Engineering and Research Institute (Neeri) in 2008, did not take into account either inter-tidal activity or the effect of an increase in the temperature of seawater on the rivers. The creeks are rich in marine life and biodiversity and a source of livelihood for 15,000 fishing families.

In an anomaly that officials are unable to explain, maps depicting 'functional' open creeks were published in the report. But for some reason, the key computer-generated two-dimensional simulation study based on which the green clearance was given, did not take the creeks into account. TOI has images of maps depicting land mass where the rivers were meant to be. By way of explanation, the EIA report said: "As no data on the discharges coming through Rajapur (Jaitapur) and Vijaydurg creeks was available, the model boundary at the creeks is assumed to be closed."

The final report that Neeri submitted to the MoEF included findings of many environmental and national organizations, among them the Central Water Power Research Station (CWPRS). The simulated study was prepared by CWPRS after Neeri asked the research institute to conduct two- and three-dimensional models of the proposed plant and its environmental impact. CWPRS did not even submit the 3-D model.

A hydrodynamic study was done to analyze water currents and inter-tidal activity of the sea on the proposed site. Researchers also did a thermodynamics study to analyze the dispersal of hot water discharged from the nuclear reactor into the sea. But it remains silent on the effect the discharges will have on the creeks. "Any modelling that does not take into account the creeks' currents, especially during low tide is inadequate. The report's assumptions that the increase in sea water temperature would be minimal are false," said environmental activist Pradeep Indulkar.

A senior Neeri official on condition of anonymity, said: "We can only comment on this after we look into the details of the simulation model. But it is likely that CWPRS must have based the model on a domain that does not impact the creek. The thermal discharge may not be flowing in this direction."

There are other flaws, too. The readings of sea water currents used for this model is based on information provided by the National Institute of Oceanography in November 1989. "The tidal and current observation of a month in November 1989 was available. About 15 days tidal variation of November 1989 was used. Wind data of December 1989 was available, which was used of simulation of flow,'' the EIA report said.

The Neeri official said: "The old readings will suffice because there will not be much change in current patterns."


Environmentalists and activists insist that using old data is a "major error" in the analysis of the ocean's inter-tidal activities and thermal dispersions at the nuclear site. Indulkar said the readings for the simulated model should have been updated as per the current scenario and taken into account future conditions. "It should have predicted the tidal movements and seawater temperature for 2024, when the plant is scheduled to be operational. A three-dimensional study was not even done," he said.