A "sterilsed zone" concept is stipulated by AERB as one of the site selection criteria for all nuclear plants. See Figure 2 in Monograph On Siting Of Nuclear Power Plants, which shows the exclusion zone (EZ) of 1.5 km, sterilsed zone (SZ) of 5 km and an emergency planning zone (EPZ) of 16 km radius around the plant. It may be seen from the figure that the plant boundary, exclusion zone, sterilsed zone are all obrounds in a multi-unit project (such as at Koodangulam) where the reactors are all located (may be for advantageous technical reasons) along a straight line.Commenting on an editorial in The Hindu, Shri G. Sundaram, in his letter to the Editor wrote: It might still be possible to salvage the situation at Kudankulam (editorial, Oct. 13) by adopting a “distance criterion” — an additional safeguard in the event of a possible mishap, which I evolved in 1985 when I was chairman of the Gujarat Pollution Control Board, after the Bhopal tragedy. “Distance criterion” is the creation of a sterile zone for a radius of 15 km for nuclear stations.
In Tamil Nadu, the concept of sterilsed zone is enshrined in the "Tamilnadu Nuclear Installation (Regulation of building and use of land) Act, 1978". I notice that in this Act, "nuclear installation" has been specifically defined to be the Kalpakkam complex. I am not sure whether any amendment to the Act has been subsequently notified to include Koodangulam as well. Also, the "sterilised area" has been defined to be "4.8 km from any portion of the boundary of such nuclear installation . . . ", whereas the AERB document implies it is 5 km radius around the centre of the plant.
While all land within the plant boundary and exclusion zone will be acquired by the Project authorities, that falling in the sterilsed zone will not be so acquired. On the other hand, according to this Notification of 1990 pertaining to the Act,
The nuclear installation local authority shall not grant licence to the organised development of housing within the sterilised area, the development of industries and industrial activity and other operations allied to mining which would necessitate employment of large number of people within the sterilised area.
According to me, it is this policy of neither acquiring nor allowing any (particularly industrial or other profitable) development in the sterilsed zone that riles people and causes opposition to nuclear power projects. The value of the land in the sterilised zone is reduced to zero. It is like forcibly converting lucrative fixed deposits into a non-interest bearing Current Account in a bank. The unfortunate terminology used for describing the zone (although may be accurate in expressing the intent behind it), reminding people of the population control methods adopted, is an added negative point. As far as I know, such a "sterilsed-zone-around-npp" concept does not exist anywhere else in the world.
However as per an AERB document released in August 2010, the exclusion zone (EZ) has been reduced from 1.5 km around the plant to 1 km around the plant.
Since the sterilsed zone has not been correspondingly reduced, in effect it would mean that the sterilsed area would be more, while the cost of acquisition to the project would get reduced.
I feel that, while radius of the emergency planning zone (EPZ) could be increased from 16 km to 30 km based on Fukushima experience (no land acquisition or land use controls in the EPZ), we must do away with the sterilised zone concept.
In my view, when all is said and done, advantages of nuclear power outweighs disadvantages often cited premised on black swan events happening. In nuclear power projects, by all means, let us place continual emphasis on enhancement of design robustness, incorporating safety related backfits where found necessary, and improve and maintain "safety culture" amongst the plant builders, operators, maintainers, regulatory authorities, plant owners, administrators, general public and law makers. Stopping development is not the way forward, in the present day technological world.