NUCLEAR POWER IN INDIA

India has a flourishing and largely indigenous nuclear power programme and expects to have
14.6 GWe nuclear capacity on line by 2024 and 63 GWe by 2032. It aims to supply 25% of
electricity from nuclear power by 2050.

Because India is outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty due to its weapons programme,
it was for 34 years largely excluded from trade in nuclear plant or materials, which has
hampered its development of civil nuclear energy until 2009.

Due to earlier trade bans and lack of indigenous uranium, India has uniquely been developing
a nuclear fuel cycle to exploit its reserves of thorium.

Since 2010, a fundamental incompatibility between Indias civil liability law and international
conventions limits foreign technology provision.

India has a vision of becoming a world leader in nuclear technology due to its expertise in fast
reactors and thorium fuel cycle.

Indias primary energy consumption more than doubled between 1990 and 2011 to nearly 25,000 PJ. India's
dependence on imported energy resources and the inconsistent reform of the energy sector are challenges to
satisfying rising demand.

The 2015 edition of BPs Energy Outlook projected Indias energy production rising by 117% to 2035, while
consumption grows by 128%. The countrys energy mix evolves very slowly over the next 22 years with
fossil fuels accounting for 87% of demand in 2035, compared with a global average of 81% (down from
92% today). Oil remains the dominant fuel (36%) followed by gas (30%) and coal (21%). CO2 emissions
from energy consumption increase by 115%.

Electricity demand in India is increasing rapidly, and the 1128 billion kilowatt hours (TWh) gross produced
in 2012 was more than triple the 1990 output, though still represented only some 750 kWh per capita for the
year. With large transmission losses 193 TWh (17%) in 2012, this resulted in only about 869 billion kWh
consumption. Gross generation comprised 801 TWh from coal, 94 TWh from gas, 23 TWh from oil, 33 TWh
from nuclear, 126 TWh from hydro and 50 TWh from other renewables. Coal provides more than two-thirds
of the electricity at present, but reserves are effectively limited* in 2013, 159 million tonnes was imported,
and 533 million tonnes produced domestically. The per capita electricity consumption figure is expected to
double by 2020, with 6.3% annual growth, and reach 5000-6000 kWh by 2050, requiring about 8000
TWh/yr then. There is an acute demand for more and more reliable power supplies. One-third of the
population is not connected to any grid.

At mid-2012, 203 GWe was on line with 20.5 GWe having been added in 12 months. In September 2012 it
had 211 GWe. The government's 12th five-year plan for 2012-17 is targeting the addition of 94 GWe over
the period, costing $247 billion. Three quarters of this would be coal- or lignite-fired, and only 3.4 GWe
nuclear, including two imported 1000 MWe units planned at one site and two indigenous 700 MWe units at
another. By 2032 total installed capacity of 700 GWe is planned to meet 7-9% GDP growth, and this was to
include 63 GWe nuclear. The OECDs International Energy Agency predicts that India will need some $1600
billion investment in power generation, transmission and distribution to 2035.

India has five electricity grids Northern, Eastern, North-Eastern, Southern and Western. All of them are
interconnected to some extent, except the Southern grid. All are run by the state-owned Power Grid
Corporation of India Ltd (PGCI), which operates more than 95,000 circuit km of transmission lines. In July
2012 the Northern grid failed with 35,669 MWe load in the early morning, and the following day it plus
parts of two other grids failed again so that over 600 million people in 22 states were without power for up to
a day.

A KPMG report in 2007 said that transmission and distribution (T&D) losses were worth more than $6
billion per year. A 2012 report costed the losses as $12.6 billion per year. A 2010 estimate shows big
differences among states, with some very high, and a national average of 27% T&D loss, well above the
target 15% set in 2001 when the average figure was 34%. Installed transmission capacity was only about
13% of generation capacity.

Indias priority is economic growth and to alleviate poverty. The importance of coal means that CO2
emission reduction is not a high priority, and the government has declined to set targets ahead of the 21st
Conference of the Parties on Climate Change to be held in Paris in 2015. The environment minister in
September 2014 said it would be 30 years before India would be likely to see a decrease in CO2 emissions.

NUCLEAR POWER

NPCIL supplied 35 TWh of India's electricity in 2013-14 from 5.3 GWe nuclear capacity, with overall
capacity factor of 83% and availability of 88%. Some 410 reactor-years of operation had been achieved to
December 2014. India's fuel situation, with shortage of fossil fuels, is driving the nuclear investment for
electricity, and 25% nuclear contribution is the ambition for 2050, when 1094 GWe of base-load capacity is
expected to be required. Almost as much investment in the grid system as in power plants is necessary.

The target since about 2004 was for nuclear power to provide 20 GWe by 2020, but in 2007 the Prime
Minister referred to this as "modest" and capable of being "doubled with the opening up of international
cooperation." However, it is evident that even the 20 GWe target would require substantial uranium imports.
In June 2009 NPCIL said it aimed for 60 GWe nuclear by 2032, including 40 GWe of PWR capacity and 7
GWe of new PHWR capacity, all fuelled by imported uranium. This 2032 target was reiterated late in 2010
and increased to 63 GWe in 2011. But in December 2011 parliament was told that more realistic targets were
14,600 MWe by 2020-21 and 27,500 MWe by 2032, relative to present 4780 MWe and 10,080 MWe when
reactors under construction were on line in 2017.*

The 16 PHWRS and LWRs are expected to cost $40 billion. The eight 700 MWe PHWRs would be built at
Kaiga in Karnataka, Gorakhpur in Haryanas Fatehabad District, Banswada in Rajasthan, and Chutka in
Madhya Pradesh.

In July 2014 the new Prime Minister urged DAE to triple the nuclear capacity to 17 GWe by 2024. He
praised India's self-reliance in the nuclear fuel cycle and the commercial success of the indigenous
reactors. He also emphasized the importance of maintaining the commercial viability and competitiveness
of nuclear energy compared with other clean energy sources.

After liability legislation started to deter foreign reactor vendors, early in 2102 the government said it
wanted to see coal production increase by 150 Mt/yr (from 440 Mt/yr) to support 60 GWe new coal-fired
capacity to be built by 2015. This would involve Rs 56 billion new investment in rail infrastructure.

Longer term, the Atomic Energy Commission however envisages some 500 GWe nuclear on line by 2060,
and has since speculated that the amount might be higher still: 600-700 GWe by 2050, providing half of all
electricity. Another projection is for nuclear share to rise to 9% by 2037. In November 2015 NPCIL was
talking of 14.5 GWe by 2024 as a target.

INDIAN NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT

Nuclear power for civil use is well established in India. Since building the two small boiling water reactors
at Tarapur in the 1960s, its civil nuclear strategy has been directed towards complete independence in the
nuclear fuel cycle, necessary because it is excluded from the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
due to it acquiring nuclear weapons capability after 1970. (Those five countries doing so before 1970 were
accorded the status of Nuclear Weapons States under the NPT.)

As a result, India's nuclear power program has proceeded largely without fuel or technological assistance
from other countries (but see later section). The pressurised heavy-water reactor (PHWR) design was
adopted in 1964, since it required less natural uranium than the BWRs, needed no enrichment, and could be
built with the countrys engineering capacity at that time pressure tubes rather than a heavy pressure vessel
being involved. Its power reactors to the mid-1990s had some of the world's lowest capacity factors,
reflecting the technical difficulties of the country's isolation, but rose impressively from 60% in 1995 to 85%
in 2001-02. Then in 2008-10 the load factors dropped due to shortage of uranium fuel.
India's nuclear energy self-sufficiency extended from uranium exploration and mining through fuel
fabrication, heavy water production, reactor design and construction, to reprocessing and waste
management. It has a small fast breeder reactor and is building a much larger one. It is also developing
technology to utilise its abundant resources of thorium as a nuclear fuel.

The Atomic Energy Establishment was set up at Trombay, near Mumbai, in 1957 and renamed as Bhabha
Atomic Research Centre (BARC) ten years later. Plans for building the first Pressurised Heavy Water
Reactor (PHWR) were finalised in 1964, and this prototype Rajasthan 1, which had Canada's Douglas
Point reactor as a reference unit, was built as a collaborative venture between Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd
(AECL) and NPCIL. It started up in 1972 and was duplicated Subsequent indigenous PHWR development
has been based on these units, though several stages of evolution can be identified: PHWRs with dousing
and single containment at Rajasthan 1-2, PHWRs with suppression pool and partial double containment at
Madras, and later standardized PHWRs from Narora onwards having double containment, suppression pool,
and calandria filled with heavy water, housed in a water-filled calandria vault.

The Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) is responsible for design, construction,
commissioning and operation of thermal nuclear power plants. At the start of 2010 it said it had enough cash
on hand for 10,000 MWe of new plant. Its funding model is 70% equity and 30% debt financing. However, it
is aiming to involve other public sector and private corporations in future nuclear power expansion, notably
National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) see subsection below. NTPC is very much larger than
NPCIL and sees itself as the main power producer. NTPC is largely government-owned. The 1962 Atomic
Energy Act prohibits private control of nuclear power generation, and 2016 amendments allowing public
sector joint ventures do not extend to private sector companies, nor allow direct foreign investment in
nuclear power, apart from the supply chain.
INDIA'S OPERATING NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS:

MWE NET COMMERCIAL SAFEGUARDS

REACTOR STATE TYPE
(EACH) OPERATION STATUS*
TARAPUR 1&2 Maharashtra GE BWR 150 1969 Item-specific, Oct 2009
KAIGA 1&2 Karnataka PHWR 202 1999, 2000 nil
KAIGA 3&4 Karnataka PHWR 202 2007, 2012 nil
December 2010 under
KAKRAPAR 1&2 Gujarat PHWR 202 1993, 1995
new agreement
MADRAS 1&2
Tamil Nadu PHWR 202 1984, 1986 nil
(MAPS)
Uttar From Jan 2015 under
NARORA 1&2 PHWR 202 1991, 1992
Pradesh new agreement
Candu
RAJASTHAN 1&2 Rajasthan 90, 187 1973, 1981 Item-specific, Oct 2009
PHWR
March 2010 under new
RAJASTHAN 3&4 Rajasthan PHWR 202 1999, 2000
agreement
Oct 2009 under new
RAJASTHAN 5&6 Rajasthan PHWR 202 Feb & April 2010
agreement
TARAPUR 3&4 Maharashtra PHWR 490 2006, 2005 nil
PWR
KUDANKULAM 1 Tamil Nadu 917 December 2014 Item-specific, Oct 2009
(VVER)
Total (21) 5302 MWe

NUCLEAR REACTORS DEPLOYED IN INDIA

In December 2014 the 40% of nuclear capacity under safeguards was operating on imported uranium at rated
capacity. The remainder, which relies on indigenous uranium, was operating below capacity, though the
supply situation was said to be improving.

The two Tarapur 150 MWe boiling water reactors (BWRs) built by GE on a turnkey contract before the
advent of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty were originally 200 MWe. They were downrated due to
recurrent problems but have run reasonably well since. They have been using imported enriched uranium
(from France and China in 1980-90s and Russia since 2001) and are under International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) safeguards. However, late in 2004 Russia deferred to the Nuclear Suppliers' Group and
declined to supply further uranium for them. They underwent six months' refurbishment over 2005-06, and
in March 2006 Russia agreed to resume fuel supply. In December 2008 a $700 million contract with
Rosatom was announced for continued uranium supply to them. In 2015 a further contract was signed with
TVEL for pellets which will be incorporated into fuel assemblies at the Nuclear Fuel Complex in
Hyderabad. However, frequent maintenance shutdowns have made them unprofitable, so DAE may shut
them down.

The two small Canadian (Candu) PHWRs at Rajasthan nuclear power plant started up in 1972 & 1980, and
are also under safeguards. Rajasthan 1 was down-rated early in its life and has operated very little since 2002
due to ongoing problems and has been shut down since 2004 as the government considers its future.
Rajasthan 2 was downrated in 1990. It had major refurbishment 2007-09 and has been running on imported
uranium at full capacity.

The 220 MWe PHWRs (202 MWe net) were indigenously designed and constructed by NPCIL, based on a
Canadian design. The only accident to an Indian nuclear plant was due to a turbine hall fire in 1993 at
Narora, which resulted in a 17-hour total station blackout. There was no core damage or radiological impact
and it was rated 3 on the INES scale a 'serious incident'.

The Madras (MAPS) reactors were refurbished in 2002-03 and 2004-05 and their capacity restored to 220
MWe gross (from 170). Much of the core of each reactor was replaced, and the lifespans extended to
2033/36.

Kakrapar unit 1 was fully refurbished and upgraded in 2009-10, after 16 years operation, as was Narora 2,
with cooling channel (calandria tube) replacement.

Following the Fukushima accident in March 2011, four NPCIL taskforces evaluated the situation in India
and in an interim report in July made recommendations for safety improvements of the Tarapur BWRs and
each PHWR type. The report of a high-level committee appointed by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board
(AERB) was submitted at the end of August 2011, saying that the Tarapur and Madras plants needed some
supplementary provisions to cope with major disasters. The two Tarapur BWRs have already been upgraded
to ensure continuous cooling of the reactor during prolonged station blackouts and to provide nitrogen
injection to containment structures, but further work is recommended. Madras needs enhanced flood
defences in case of tsunamis higher than that in 2004. The prototype fast breeder reactor (PFR) under
construction next door at Kalpakkam has defences which are already sufficiently high, following some
flooding of the site in 2004.

The Tarapur 3&4 reactors of 540 MWe gross (490 MWe net) were developed indigenously from the 220
MWe (gross) model PHWR and were built by NPCIL. The first Tarapur 4 was connected to the grid in
June 2005 and started commercial operation in September. Tarapur 4's criticality came five years after
pouring first concrete and seven months ahead of schedule. Its twin unit 3 was about a year behind it and
was connected to the grid in June 2006 with commercial operation in August, five months ahead of schedule.
Tarapur 3 & 4 cost about $1200/kW, and are competitive with imported coal.
Future indigenous PHWR reactors will be 700 MWe gross (640 MWe net). The first four are being built at
Kakrapar and Rajasthan. They are due on line by 2017 after 60 months construction from first concrete to
criticality. Cost is quoted at about Rs 12,000 crore (120 billion rupees) each, or $1700/kW. Up to 40% of the
fuel they use will be slightly enriched uranium (SEU) about 1.1% U-235, to achieve higher fuel burn-up
about 21,000 MWd/t instead of one third of this. Initially this fuel will be imported as SEU.

Kudankulam 1&2: Russia's Atomstroyexport is supplying the country's first large nuclear power plant,
comprising two VVER-1000 (V-412) reactors, under a Russian-financed US$ 3 billion contract (reported as
Rs 17,270 crore - $2.71 billion - cost in mid 2015). A long-term credit facility covers about half the cost of
the plant. The AES-92 units at Kudankulam in Tamil Nadu state have been built by NPCIL and also
commissioned and operated by NPCIL under IAEA safeguards. The turbines were made by Silmash in St
Petersburg and have evidently given some trouble during commissioning. Unlike other Atomstroyexport
projects such as in Iran, there have been only about 80 Russian supervisory staff on the job. Construction
started in March 2002.

Russia is supplying all the enriched fuel through the life of the plant, though India will reprocess it and keep
the plutonium*. The first unit was due to start supplying power in March 2008 and go into commercial
operation late in 2008, but this schedule slipped by six years. In the latter part of 2011 and into 2012
completion and fuel loading was delayed by public protests, but in March 2012 the state government
approved the plant's commissioning and said it would deal with any obstruction. Unit 1 started up in mid-
July 2013, was connected to the grid in October 2013 and entered commercial operation at the end of
December 2014. It had reached full power in mid-year but then required turbine repairs for nearly six
months. It generated only 2.8 TWh in its first year, at a cost of under Rs 4.0 per kWh (6 c/kWh). Unit 2
construction was declared complete in July 2015 and it is expected to start up in 2016. Each is 917 MWe net.

* The original agreement in 1988 specified return of used fuel to Russia, but a 1998 supplemental agreement
allowed India to retain and reprocess it.

While the first core load of fuel was delivered early in 2008 there have been delays in supply of some
equipment and documentation. Control system documentation was delivered late, and when reviewed by
NPCIL it showed up the need for significant refining and even reworking some aspects. The design basis
flood level is 5.44m, and the turbine hall floor is 8.1m above mean sea level. The 2004 tsunami was under
3m.

A small desalination plant is associated with the Kudankulam plant to produce 426 m 3/hr for it using four-
stage multi-vacuum compression (MVC) technology. Another reverse osmosis (RO) plant is in operation to
supply local township needs.

KAIGA 3 started up in February, was connected to the grid in April and went into commercial operation in
May 2007. Unit 4 started up in November 2010 and was grid-connected in January 2011, but is about 30
months behind original schedule due to shortage of uranium. The Kaiga units are not under UN safeguards,
so cannot use imported uranium.

RAJASTHAN 5 started up in November 2009, using imported Russian fuel, and in December it was
connected to the northern grid. RAPP 6 started up in January 2010 and was grid connected at the end of
March. Both are now in commercial operation.

RAJASTHAN units 7&8 are under construction, the approved cost is Rs 12,320 crore ($1.70 billion),
according to the Minister for Atomic Energy in December 2015. Units 3&4 of Kakrapar are also under
construction with approved cost Rs 11,459 crore ($1.72 billion).

Under plans for the India-specific safeguards to be administered by the IAEA in relation to the civil-military
separation plan, eight further reactors were to be safeguarded (beyond Tarapur 1&2, Rajasthan 1&2, and
Kudankulam 1&2): Rajasthan 3&4 from 2010, Rajasthan 5&6 from 2008, Kakrapar 1&2 by 2012 and
Narora 1&2 by 2014.

India's nuclear power reactors under construction:

 MWE
COMMERCIAL
GROSS, PROJECT CONSTRUCTION SAFEGUARDS
REACTOR TYPE OPERATION
NET CONTROL START STATUS
DUE
(EACH)
KUDANKULAM PWR 1000, item-specific,
NPCIL July 2002 2016
2 (VVER) 917 Oct 2009
KALPAKKAM criticality April
FBR 500, 470 Bhavini Oct 2004 nil
PFBR 2016?
KAKRAPAR 3 PHWR 700, 630 NPCIL Nov 2010 2015?
KAKRAPAR 4 PHWR 700, 630 NPCIL March 2011 Dec 2015?
RAJASTHAN 7 PHWR 700, 630 NPCIL July 2011 June 2016?
RAJASTHAN 8 PHWR 700, 630 NPCIL Sept 2011 Dec 2016?
4300
Total (6) MWe
gross

Rajasthan/RAPS also known as Rawatbhata

In mid-2008 Indian nuclear power plants were running at about half of capacity due to a chronic shortage of
fuel. Average load factor for Indias power reactors dipped below 60% over 2006-2010, reaching only 40%
in 2008. Some easing after 2008 was due to the new Turamdih mill in Jharkhand state coming on line (the
mine there was already operating). Political opposition has delayed new mines in Jharkhand, Meghalaya and
Telengana.

A 500 MWe prototype fast breeder reactor (PFBR) started construction in 2004 at Kalpakkam near Madras.
It was expected to start up about the end of 2010 and produce power in 2011, but this schedule is delayed
significantly. In 2014, 1750 tonnes of sodium coolant was delivered. With construction completed, in June
2015 Bhavini was awaiting clearance from the AERB for sodium charging, fuel loading, reactor criticality
and then stepping up power generation." Criticality is now expected in April 2016. The approved cost is Rs
5677 crore ($850 million). It is not under IAEA safeguards.

In contrast to the situation in the 1990s, most reactors under construction to 2012 were on schedule (apart
from fuel shortages 2007-09), and the first two Tarapur 3&4 were slightly increased in capacity. These
and future planned ones were 450 (now 490) MWe versions of the 202 MWe domestic products. Beyond
them and the last of the 202 MWe units, future PHWR units will be nominal 700 MWe.

In 2005 four sites were approved for eight new reactors. Two of the sites Kakrapar and Rajasthan would
have 700 MWe indigenous PHWR units, Kudankulam would have imported 1000 MWe VVER light water
reactors alongside the two being built there by Russia, and the fourth site was greenfield for two 1000 MWe
LWR units Jaitapur (Jaithalpur) in the Ratnagiri district of Maharashtra state, on the west coast. The plan
has since expanded to six 1600 MWe EPR units here.

In April 2007 the government gave approval for the first four of eight planned 700 MWe PHWR units:
Kakrapar 3&4 and Rajasthan 7&8, using indigenous technology. In mid-2009 construction approval was
confirmed, and late in 2009 the finance for them was approved. Site works at Kakrapar were completed by
August 2010. First concrete for Kakrapar 3&4 was in November 2010 and March 2011 respectively, after
Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) approval. The AERB approved Rajasthan 7&8 in August 2010,
and site works then began. First concrete was in July 2011. Construction is then expected to take 66 months
to commercial operation. Their estimated cost is Rs 123.2 billion ($2.6 billion). In September 2009 L&T
secured an order for four steam generators for Rajasthan 7&8, having already supplied similar ones for
Kakrapar 3&4. In December 2012 L&T was awarded the $135 million contract for balance of turbine island
for Rajasthan 7&8.

Construction costs of reactors as reported by AEC are about $1200 per kilowatt for Tarapur 3&4 (540 MWe),
$1300/kW for Kaiga 3&4 (220 MWe) and expected $1700/kW for the 700 MWe PHWRs with 60-year life
expectancy.

In April 2015 the government gave in principle approval for new nuclear plants at ten sites in nine states.
Those for indigenous PHWRs are: Gorakhpur in Haryana's Fatehabad; Chutka and Bhimpur in Madhya
Pradesh; Kaiga in Karnataka; and Mahi Banswara in Rajasthan. Those for plants with foreign cooperation
are: Kudankulam in Tamil Nadu (VVER); Jaitapur in Maharashtra (EPR); Chhaya Mithi Virdhi in Gujarat
(AP1000); Kovvada in Andhra Pradesh (ESBWR) and Haripur in West Bengal (VVER), though this location
had been in doubt. In addition, two 600 MWe fast breeder reactors are proposed at Kalpakkam.

NEW PHASE OF NUCLEAR INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENTS

Following the Nuclear Suppliers Group agreement which was achieved in September 2008, the scope for
supply of both reactors and fuel from suppliers in other countries opened up. Civil nuclear cooperation
agreements have been signed with the USA, Russia, France, UK, South Korea, Czech Republic and Canada,
as well as Australia, Argentina, Kazakhstan, Mongolia and Namibia. A further nuclear cooperation
agreement was signed with the UK in November 2015, with a comprehensive package of collaboration on
energy and climate change matters involving 3.2 billion ($4.9 billion) in programmes and initiatives related
to energy security and energy access. However, there is no civil nuclear cooperation agreement with Japan,
which may be a limiting factor for some technology provision involving GE Hitachi and Westinghouse.
Negotiations with Japan continue, and a preliminary agreement was signed in December 2015, with a lot of
detail still to be negotiated. A joint statement said that the final document sealing the agreement would take
some time.

On the basis of the 2010 cooperation agreement with Canada, in April 2013 a bilateral safeguards agreement
was signed between the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
(CNSC), allowing trade in nuclear materials and technology for facilities which are under IAEA safeguards.
A similar bilateral safeguards agreement with Australia was signed in 2014 and finalised in November 2015.
Both apply essentially to uranium supply.

The initial two Russian PWR types at the Kudankulam site were apart from India's three-stage plan for
nuclear power and were simply to increase generating capacity more rapidly. Now there are plans for eight
1000 MWe units at that site, and in January 2007 a memorandum of understanding was signed for Russia to
build the next four there, as well as others elsewhere in India. A further such agreement was signed in
December 2010, and Rosatom announced that it expected to build no less than 18 reactors in India. Then in
December 2014 another high-level nuclear cooperation agreement was signed with a view to Russia building
20 more reactors plus cooperation in building Russian-designed nuclear power plants in third countries, in
uranium mining, production of nuclear fuel, and waste management. India was also to confirm a second
location for a Russian plant Haripur in West Bengal being in some doubt. Most of the new units are
expected to be the larger 1200 MWe AES-2006 designs. Russia was earlier reported to have offered a 30%
discount on the $2 billion price tag for each of the phase 2 Kudankulam reactors. This was based on plans to
start serial production of reactors for the Indian nuclear industry, with much of the equipment and
components proposed to be manufactured in India, thereby bringing down costs. However, at the end of
2015 the approved cost of Kudankulam units 3&4 was Rs 39,747 crore ($5.96 billion), according to the
Minister for Atomic Energy, more than twice the costs of units 1&2, due to liability issues.
Between 2010 and 2020, further nuclear plant construction is expected to take total gross capacity to 21,180
MWe. The nuclear capacity target is part of national energy policy. This planned increment includes those set
out in the Table below including the initial 300 MWe Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR).

Looking beyond the Russian light water reactors, NPCIL had meetings and technical discussions with three
major reactor suppliers Areva of France, GE-Hitachi and Westinghouse Electric Corporation of the USA
for supply of reactors for these projects and for new units at Kaiga. These resulted in more formal
agreements with each reactor supplier early in 2009, as described in the Nuclear Energy Parks subsection
below. The benchmark capital cost sanctioned by DAE for imported units was quoted at $1600 per kilowatt.
An important aspect of all these agreements is that, as with Kudankulam, India will reprocess the used fuel
to recover plutonium for its indigenous three-stage program, using a purpose-built and safeguarded
Integrated Nuclear Recycle Plant. However, all three agreements beyond that with Russia are stalled due to
liability concerns.

In late 2008 NPCIL announced that as part of the Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007-12), it would start site work
for 12 reactors including the rest of the eight 700 MWe PHWRs, three or four fast breeder reactors and one
300 MWe advanced heavy water reactor (AHWR) in 2009. NPCIL said that "India is now focusing on
capacity addition through indigenisation" with progressively higher local content for imported designs, up to
80%. Looking further ahead its augmentation plan included construction of 25-30 light water reactors of at
least 1000 MWe by 2030. In the event only four 700 MWe PHWR units started construction over 2007-12.

Early in 2012 NPCIL projections had the following additions to the 10.08 GWe anticipated in 2017 as
"possible": 4.2 GWe PHWR, 7.0 GWe PHWR (based on recycled U), 40 GWe LWR, 2.0 GWe FBR.

In June 2012 NPCIL announced four new sites for twin PHWR units: at Gorakhpur/ Kumbariya near
Fatehabad district in Haryana, at Banswada in Rajasthan, at Chutka in Mandla district and at Bheempur also
in Madhya Pradesh. Initially these would add 2800 MWe, followed by a further 2800. Site work has started
at Gorakhpur with Haryana state government support.

In mid-2015 NPCIL confirmed plans for Kaiga 5&6 as 700 MWe PHWR units, costing about Rs 6,000
crore.

The EIA report for Chutka Madhya Pradesh power plant was released in March 2013, the expected cost for
two units is Rs 16550 crores ($2.78 billion). Construction start is planned for June and December 2015, with
completion in December 2020 and June 2021.

NPCIL is also planning to build an indigenous 900 MWe PWR, the Indian Pressurised Water Reactor
(IPWR), designed by BARC in connection with its work on submarine power plants. A site for the first plant
is being sought, a uranium enrichment plant is planned, the reactor pressure vessel forging will be carried out
by Larsen & Toubro (L&T) and NPCIL's new joint venture plant at Hazira, and the turbine will come from
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL).

Meanwhile, NPCIL is offering both 220 and 540 MWe PHWRs for export, in markets requiring small- to
medium-sized reactors.

POWER REACTORS PLANNED (APRIL 2015 APPROVAL IN

PRINCIPLE) OR PROPOSED

MWE
PROJECT START START
REACTOR STATE TYPE GROSS
CONTROL CONSTRUCTION OPERATION
(EACH)
KUDANKULAM 3 Tamil Nadu AES-92 1050 NPCIL May 2017 2022
KUDANKULAM 4 AES-92 1050 NPCIL 2017? 2023
Haryana
GORAKHPUR 1 (Fatehabad PHWR 700 NPCIL 2016? 2022
district)
GORAKHPUR 2 PHWR 700 NPCIL 2016? 2023
Madhya
CHUTKA 1 Pradesh PHWR 700 NPCIL 2016? 2024
(Mandla)
CHUTKA 2 PHWR 700 NPCIL 2016? 2025
Madhya PHWR x
BHIMPUR 1&2 700 NPCIL 2016?
Pradesh 2
MAHI PHWR x
Rajasthan 700 NPCIL by 2017
BANSWARA 1&2 2
PHWR x
KAIGA 5&6 Karnataka 700 NPCIL by 2017
2
KUDANKULAM AES 92
Tamil Nadu 1050 NPCIL ?
5&6 x2
KALPAKKAM
Tamil Nadu FBR x 2 600 Bhavini 2017?
2&3
Ratnagiri, delayed due to
JAITAPUR 1&2 EPR x 2 1700 NPCIL 2018?
Maharashtra liability
Srikakulam, delayed due to
ESBWR
KOVVADA 1&2 Andhra 1600 NPCIL 2018? liability
x2
Pradesh
Bhavnagar, AP1000 delayed due to
MITHI VIRDI 1&2 1250 NPCIL 2018?
Gujarat x2 liability
"HARIPUR 1&2" West Bengal AES- 1200 NPCIL
ANOTHER SITE (but likely 2006?
 MWE
PROJECT START START
REACTOR STATE TYPE GROSS
CONTROL CONSTRUCTION OPERATION
(EACH)
relocated,
maybe to
Orissa)
(April 2006
SUBTOTAL 23,900
in principle 24 units
PLANNED MWe
approval)

AES 92
KUDANKULAM 1050-
Tamil Nadu or AES- NPCIL
7&8 1200
2006
AES-92
"KUDANKULAM Andhra 1050-
or AES- NPCIL
9-12" Pradesh 1200
2006
Haryana
GORAKHPUR PHWR x
(Fatehabad 700 NPCIL 2019
3&4 2
district)
RAJOULI, PHWR x
Bihar 700 NPCIL
NAWADA 1-2 2
? PWR x 2 1000 NPCIL/NTPC
Ratnagiri, PWR
JAITAPUR 3&4 1700 NPCIL
Maharashtra EPR
? ? FBR x 4 500 Bhavini
? AHWR 300 NPCIL 2016-17 2022
Ratnagiri, PWR
JAITAPUR 5&6 1700 NPCIL
Maharashtra EPR
PWR
MARKANDI
Orissa 6000 NPCIL
(PATI SONAPUR)
MWe
Bhavnagar, 2 x
MITHI VIRDI 3&4 1250 NPCIL
Gujarat AP1000
Srikakulam,
2 x
KOVVADA 3&4 Andhra 1600 NPCIL
ESBWR
Pradesh
Guntur,
NIZAMPATNAM
Andhra 6x? 1400 NPCIL
1-6
Pradesh
"HARIPUR 3&4" West Bengal AES-
1200 NPCIL 2022-23
ANOTHER SITE or Orissa 2006?
PULIVENDULA Kadapa, PWR? 1000? NPCIL 51%,
 MWE
PROJECT START START
REACTOR STATE TYPE GROSS
CONTROL CONSTRUCTION OPERATION
(EACH)
Andhra AP Genco
PHWR? 700?
Pradesh 49%
Madhya PHWR x BHEL-
CHUTKA 3&4 700
Pradesh 2 NPCIL-GE?
Bhavnagar, AP1000
MITHI VIRDI 5&6 1250 NPCIL 2023-24
Gujarat x2
Srikakulam,
ESBWR
KOVVADA 5&6 Andhra 1600 NPCIL
x2
Pradesh
38,000
approx
Subtotal proposed MWe
35
approx

For WNA reactor table: first 24 units 'planned', next (estimated) 45 units and 52 GWe 'proposed' - list 80% of
both figures: 36 and 41,600 MWe. There is likely some duplication among reported plans for West Bengal,
Orissa and with Russian units beyond Kudankulam 8.

URANIUM RESOURCES AND MINING IN INDIA

India's uranium resources are modest, with 102,600 tonnes U as reasonably assured resources (RAR) and
37,200 tonnes as inferred resources in situ (to $260/kgU) at January 2011*. In July 2015, 191,594 tU
'reserves' was claimed by DAE. Accordingly, India expects to import an increasing proportion of its uranium
fuel needs. In 2013 it was importing about 40% of uranium requirements. In July 2015 record annual
domestic production of 1252 t U3O8 was reported.
Exploration is carried out by the Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research (AMD).

Mining and processing of uranium is carried out by Uranium Corporation of India Ltd (UCIL), also a
subsidiary of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), in Jharkhand near Calcutta. Common mills are near
Jaduguda (2500 t/day) and Turamdih (3000 t/day, expanding to 4500 t/day). Jaduguda ore is reported to
grade 0.05-0.06%U. All Jharkhand mines are in the Singhbhum shear zone, and all are underground except
Banduhurang. Another mill is at Tummalapalle in AP, expanding from 3000 to 4500 t/day.
In 2005 and 2006 plans were announced to invest almost US$ 700 million to open further mines: in Jharkand
at Banduhurang, Bagjata and Mohuldih; in Meghalaya at Domiasiat-Mawthabah (with a mill); and in
Telengana at Lambapur-Peddagattu (with mill 50km away at Seripally), both in Nalgonda district.

The Jaduguda/Jadugora mine was closed in September 2014 due to expiry of its mining licence, but this
was renewed a few weeks later by the state government, and in December the East Singhbhum government
gave approval to resume mining, subject to clearance from the forestry department, which was still awaited
at the end of 2015. AMD quotes resources as 6816 tU (March 2014). Serious questions have been raised
about health issues and environmental management.*

* To 2015, three separate health surveys were carried out by independent specialists. They concluded that alleged health effects
were not caused by radiation. One medical team noted that the problems noted can be seen in any Indian village with similar
socio-economic parameters. The radiation due to UCIL operations is negligible compared with natural background radiation.

In Jharkand, Banduhurang is India's first open cut mine and was commissioned in 2007. Bagjata is
underground and was opened in December 2008, though there had been earlier small operations 1986-91.
The Mohuldih underground mine was commissioned in April 2012. The new mill at Turamdih serving these
mines was commissioned in 2008. It is 7 km from Mohuldih. Narwapahar and Bhatin are other underground
mines in this area.

In Andhra Pradesh and Telengana there are three kinds of uranium mineralisation in the Cuddapah Basin,
including unconformity-related deposits in the north of it.

In the north of the Basin, in Telengana, the new northern inland state subdivided from Andhra Pradesh in
2013, the Lambapur-Peddagattu project in Nalgonda district 110 km southeast of Hyderabad has
environmental clearance for one open cut and three small underground mines (based on some 6000 tU
resources at about 0.1%U) but faces local opposition. The central government had approved Rs 637 crore for
the project, with processing to be at Seripally, 54 km away in Nalgonda district. In 2014 UCIL was preparing
to approach the state government and renew its federal approvals for the project. A further deposit near
Lambapur-Peddagattu is Koppunuru, in Guntur district of AP, now under evaluation, and Chitrial.

In the south of the Basin, the Tummalapalle belt with low-grade strata-bound carbonate uranium
mineralisation is 160 km long, and appears increasingly prospective AMD reports 37,000 tU in 15 km of
it. Some secondary mineralisation is reported in the Srisailam sub-basin.

In August 2007 the government approved a new US$ 270 million underground mine and mill at
Tummalapalle near Pulivendula in Kadapa district of Andhra Pradesh, 300 km south of Hyderabad. Its
resources have been revised upwards by AMD to 71,690 tU (March 2014) and its cost to Rs 19 billion ($430
million), and to the end of 2012 expenditure was Rs 11 billion ($202 million). The project was opened in
April and first commercial production was in June 2012, using an innovative pressurised alkaline leaching
process (this being the first time alkaline leaching is used in India). Production is expected to reach 220
tU/yr as sodium diuranate, and in 2013 mill capacity was being doubled at a cost of Rs 8 billion ($147
million). An expansion of or from the Tummalapalle project is the Kanampalle U project, with 38,000 tU
reserves. Further southern mineralisation near Tummalapalle are Motuntulapalle, Muthanapalle, and
Rachakuntapalle.

In Karnataka, to the west of north Cuddapah Basin, UCIL is planning a small underground uranium mine in
the Bhima basin at Gogi in Gulbarga area from 2014, after undertaking a feasibility study, and getting
central government approval in mid-2011, state approval in November 2011 and explicit state support in
June 2012.Resources are 4250 tU at 0.1% (seen as relatively high-grade) including 2600 tU reserves,
sufficient for 15 years mine life, at 127 tU/yr, from fracture/fault-controlled uranium mineralisation. UCIL
plans also to utilise the uranium deposits in the Bhima belt from Sedam in Gulbarga to Muddebihal in
Bijapur.

In Meghalaya, close to the Bangladesh border in the West Khasi Hills, the Kylleng-Pyndengsohiong-
Mawthabah KPM (known formerly as Domiasiat) mine project (near Nongbah-Jynrin) is in a high
rainfall area and has also faced longstanding local opposition partly related to land acquisition issues but also
fanned by a campaign of fearmongering. For this reason, and despite clear state government support in
principle, UCIL does not yet have approval from the state government for the KPM open cut mine, though
pre-project development has been authorised on 422 ha. There is sometimes violent opposition by NGOs to
uranium mine development in the West Khasi Hills, including at KPM/ Domiasiat and Wakhyn, which have
estimated resources of 9500 tU and 8000 tU respectively. Tyrnai is a smaller deposit in the area. The status
and geography of all these is not known, beyond AMD being reported as saying that UCIL is "unable to
mine them because of socio-economic problems". Mining is not expected before 2017.

Fracture/fault-controlled uranium mineralisation similar to that in Karnataka in the North Delhi Fold Belt is
in the 130 km long Rohil belt in Sikar district in Rajasthan, with 6133 tU identified (March 2014).

AMD reports further uranium resources in Chattisgarh state (3380 tU), Himachal Pradesh (665 tU),
Maharashtra (300 tU), and Uttar Pradesh (750 tU).

INDIA'S URANIUM MINES AND MILLS EXISTING AND PLANNED

OPERATING TU PER
STATE, DISTRICT MINE MILL
FROM YEAR
1967 (mine) 200 total
Jaduguda Jaduguda
1968 (mill) from mill
JHARKHAND Bhatin Jaduguda 1967
Narwapahar Jaduguda 1995
Bagjata Jaduguda 2008
JHARKHAND, EAST Turamdih Turamdih 2003 (u/g mine) 190 total
SINGHBUM DIST. 2008 (mill) from mill
 OPERATING TU PER
STATE, DISTRICT MINE MILL
FROM YEAR
Banduhurang Turamdih 2007 (open pit)
Mohuldih Turamdih 2012
ANDHRA PRADESH, 220
KADAPA/YSR Tummalapalle Tummalapalle 2012 increasing to
DISTRICT 330
ANDHRA PRADESH,
KADAPA/YSR Kanampalle Kanampalle? 2017?
DISTRICT
TELENGANA, 2016? (open pit
Lambapur-Peddagattu Seripally/Mallapuram 130
NALGONDA DIST. + 3 u/g)
KARNATAKA, 2016?
Gogi Diggi/Saidpur 130
GULBARGA DIST. (underground)
Kylleng-Pyndeng-Sohiong-
MEGHALAYA Mawthabah (KPM), Mawthabah 2017 (open pit) 340
(Domiasiat), Wakhyn

However, India has reasonably assured resouirces of 319,000 tonnes of thorium about 13% of the world
total, and these are intended to fuel its nuclear power program longer-term (see below). AMD claims almost
12 million tonnes of monazite which might contain 700,000 tonnes of thorium.

In September 2009 largely state-owned Oil & Natural Gas Corporation ONCC proposed to form a joint
venture with UCIL to explore for uranium in Assam, and was later reported to be mining uranium in
partnership with UCIL in the Cauvery area of Tamil Nadu.

URANIUM IMPORTS

Following an IAEA safeguards agreement, an NSG resolution and finally US Congress approval of a
bilateral trade agreement in October 2008, two months later Russia's Rosatom and Areva from France had
contracted to supply uranium for power generation, while Kazakhstan, Brazil and South Africa were
preparing to do so. The Russian agreement was to provide fuel for PHWRs as well as the two small Tarapur
reactors.

In February 2009 the actual Russian contract was signed with TVEL to supply 2000 tonnes of natural
uranium fuel pellets for PHWRs over ten years, costing $780 million, and 58 tonnes of low-enriched fuel
pellets for the Tarapur reactors. The 300 tU Areva shipment arrived in June 2009. RAPS 2 became the first
PHWR to be fuelled with imported uranium, followed by units 5&6 there.

In January 2009 NPCIL signed a memorandum of understanding with Kazatomprom for supply of 2100
tonnes of uranium concentrate over six years and a feasibility study on building Indian PHWR reactors in
Kazakhstan. NPCIL said that it represented "a mutual commitment to begin thorough discussions on long-
term strategic relationship." The actual agreement in April 2011 covered 2100 tonnes by 2014. In March
2013 both countries agreed to extend the civil nuclear cooperation agreement past 2014. In 2015 the DAE
renewed its contract for supply of 5000 tU from Kazatomprom over four years.

In September 2009 India signed uranium supply and nuclear cooperation agreements with Namibia and
Mongolia. The latter was reaffirmed in May 2015, noting that Mongolian uranium could help power Indias
low-carbon growth.

In March 2010 Russia offered India a stake in the Elkon uranium mining development in its Sakha Republic,
and agreed on a joint venture with ARMZ Uranium Holding Co.

In August 2014 Navoi Mining and Metallurgical Combine (NMMC) in Uzbekistan signed a contract for
supply of 2000 tonnes of U3O8 to India during the four years to 2018, its first export to India.

In September 2014 a bilateral safeguards agreement with Australia was signed, then came into force in
November, enabling supply from there.

In April 2013 a bilateral safeguards agreement was signed between the DAE and the Canadian Nuclear
Safety Commission (CNSC), and in April 2015 Cameco signed an agreement to supply 3200 tonnes of U 3O8
to India up to 2020. The first Cameco shipment arrived in December 2015.

In July 2015 the DAE reported to parliament that eight reactors (Kaiga 1-4, Madraa 1&2 and Tarapur 3&4)
were using indigenous sources of uranium and 14 reactors were using imported uranium.

In 2014 the DAE reported that India had imported 4458 tonnes of uranium since 2008, 2058 t from TVEL,
2100 t from Kazatomprom, and 300 t from Areva.

HOW NUCLEAR ENERGY IS PRODUCED:

When the heaviest element, uranium was bombarded with neutrons, it was discovered that instead of
inducing radioactivity as did other elements, something different happened. This process was named fission.
When fission occurred, not only were two lighter elements and a lot of radiation produced, but also more
neutrons. It was clear that these neutrons could in turn also cause fission, producing more neutrons and
developing a chain reaction which might spread throughout all the uranium present.
In the fission of uranium 235 nucleus, the amount of energy released is about 60,000,000 times as much as
when a carbon atom burns. Most of the energy from fission appears as kinetic energy as the fission products
shoot apart and quickly share their energy with their surroundings, thus producing heat. The first reactors to
produce a usable amount of power were built at Calder hall in England.

With pure fissionable material, atomic bombs can be made. Of the two bombs dropped on Japan to end the
World War 2, one contained plutonium and the other very highly enriched uranium 235.

ADVANTAGES OF NUCLEAR ENERGY

1. LOWER GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: As per the reports in 1998, it has been calculated
the emission of the greenhouse gas has reduced for nearly half due to the popularity in the use of nuclear
power. Nuclear energy by far has the lowest impact on the environment since it does not releases any gases
like carbon dioxide, methane which are largely responsible for greenhouse effect. There is no adverse effect
on water, land or any habitats due to the use of it. Though some greenhouse gases are released while
transporting fuel or extracting energy from uranium.

2. POWERFUL AND EFFICIENT: The other main advantage of using nuclear energy is that it is
very powerful and efficient than other alternative energy sources. Advancement in technologies has made it
more viable option than others. This is one the reason that many countries are putting huge investments in
nuclear power. At present, a small portion of worlds electricity comes through it.

3. RELIABLE: Unlike traditional sources of energy like solar and wind which require sun or wind to
produce electricity, nuclear energy can be produced from nuclear power plants even in the cases of rough
weather conditions. They can produce power 24/7 and need to be shut down for maintenance purposes only.

4. CHEAP ELECTRICITY: The cost of uranium which is used as a fuel in generating electricity is
quite low. Also, set up costs of nuclear power plants is relatively high while running cost is low. The average
life of nuclear reactor range from 4.-60 years depending upon its usage. These factors when combined make
the cost of producing electricity very low. Even if the cost of uranium rises, the increase in cost of electricity
will be much lower.

5. LOW FUEL COST: The main reason behind the low fuel cost is that it requires little amount of
uranium to produce energy. When a nuclear reaction happens, it releases million times more energy as
compared to traditional sources of energy.

6. SUPPLY: There are certain economic advantages in setting up nuclear power plants and using nuclear
energy in place of conventional energy. It is one of the major sources of electricity throughout the nation.
The best part is that this energy has a continuous supply. It is widely available, has huge reserves and
expected to last for another 100 years while coal, oil and natural gas are limited and are expected to vanish
soon.

7. EASY TRANSPORTATION: Production of nuclear energy needs very less amount of raw material.
This means that only about 28 gram of uranium releases as much energy as produced from 100 metric tons
of coal. Since its required in small quantities, transportation of fuel is much easier than fossil fuels. Optimal
utilization of natural resources in production of energy is a very thoughtful approach for any nation. It not
only enhances the socio-economic condition but also sets example for the other countries.

No doubt, nuclear energy has made its way towards the future but like other sources of energy, it also suffers
from some serious drawbacks. Lets take a look at some of its disadvantages.

DISADVANTAGES OF NUCLEAR POWER

Though large amount of energy can be produced from a nuclear power plant, it requires large capital cost.
Around 15-20 years are required to develop a single plant. Hence, it is not very feasible to build a nuclear
power plant. The nuclear reactors will work only as long as uranium is available. Its extinction can again
result in a grave problem.

The waste produced after fission reactions contains unstable elements and is highly radioactive. It is very
dangerous to the environment as well as human health, and remains so, for thousands of years. It needs
professional handling and should be kept isolated from the living environments. The radioactivity of these
elements reduces over a period of time, after decaying. Hence, they have to be carefully stored. It is very
difficult to store radioactive elements for a long period.

NUCLEAR WASTE:
Nuclear waste is the material that nuclear fuel becomes after it is used in a reactor. It looks exactly like the
fuel that was loaded into the reactor -- assemblies of metal rods enclosing stacked-up ceramic pellets. But
since nuclear reactions have occurred, the contents arent quite the same. Before producing power, the fuel
was mostly Uranium (or Thorium), oxygen, and steel. Afterwards, many Uranium atoms have split into
various isotopes of almost all of the transition metals on your periodic table of the elements. The waste,
sometimes called spent fuel, is dangerously radioactive, and remains so for thousands of years. When it first
comes out of the reactor, it is so toxic that if you stood within a few meters of it while it was unshielded, you
would receive a lethal radioactive dose within a few seconds and would die of acute radiation sickness
within a few days. Hence all the worry about it.

In practice, the spent fuel is never unshielded. It is kept underwater (water is an excellent shield) for a few
years until the radiation decays to levels that can be shielded by concrete in large storage casks. The final
disposal of this spent fuel is a hot topic, and is often an argument against the use of nuclear reactors. Options
include deep geologic storage and recycling. The sun would consume it nicely if we could get into space, but
since rockets are so unreliable, we cant afford to risk atmospheric dispersal on lift-off.

TYPES OF WASTE:
1. Wet solid wastes In some countries, this is also simply called wet wastes. This refers

to evaporator concentrates, spent resins, spent filter cartridges, or any other solid waste

arising from liquid treatment processes.

2. Dry solid wastes All waste which was not generated as a result of liquid treatment

processes, including combustible solids, compactable solids, metal, plastics, concrete,

and similar dry wastes.

3. Liquid organic wastes Oil and solvents.

In many countries nuclear power plants are an important part of the national energy system. Nuclear power
is economically competitive and environmentally clean compared to most other forms of energy used in
electricity production. Used in conjunction with them, it contributes

to the security of national electricity supplies. It seems certain that in the medium term and beyond, a
growing contribution to national energy supplies from nuclear energy will continue to be necessary if the
standard of living in industrialized countries of the world is to be maintained and the energy needs of the
developing countries are to be met.As a result of the operation of nuclear reactors, some radioactive wastes
are produced. Yet compared to the amount of waste produced by coal-fired electrical generating plants, these
are of considerably smaller volume.

The wastes generated at nuclear power plants are rather low in activity and the radionuclides contained
therein have a low radiotoxicity and usually a short half-life. However, nuclear power plants are the largest
in number among all nuclear facilities and produce the greatest volume of radioactive wastes.

The nature and amounts of wastes produced in a nuclear power plant depend on the type of reactor, its
specific design features, its operating conditions and on the fuel integrity. These radioactive wastes contain
activated radionuclides from structural, moderator, and coolant materials; corrosion products; and fission
product contamination arising from the fuel. The

methods applied for the treatment and conditioning of waste generated at nuclear power plants now have
reached a high degree of effectivity and reliability and are being further developed to improve safety and
economy of the whole waste management system.

WASTES GENERATED AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

Low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste (LILW) at nuclear power plants is produced by contamination
of various materials with the radionuclides generated by fission and activation in the reactor or released from
the fuel or cladding surfaces. The radionuclides are primarily released and collected in the reactor coolant
system and, to a lesser extent, in the spent fuel storage pool. The main wastes arising during the operation of
a nuclear power plant are components which are removed during refuelling or maintenance (mainly
activated solids, e.g. stainless steel containing cobalt-60 and nickel-63) or operational wastes such as
radioactive liquids, filters, and ion-exchange resins which are contaminated with fission products from
circuits containing liquid coolant. In order to reduce the quantities of waste for interim storage and to
minimize disposal cost, all countries are pursuing or intend to implement measures to reduce the volume of
waste arisings where practicable. Volume reduction is particularly attractive for low-level waste which is
generally of high volume but low radiation activity. Significant improvements can be made through
administrative measures,e.g.replacement of paper towels by hot air driers, introduction of reusable
longlasting protective clothing, etc., and through general improvements of operational implementation or
"housekeeping".

LIQUID WASTES AND WET SOLID WASTES

According to the different types of reactors now operating commercially all over the world, different waste
streams arise. These streams are different both in activity content and in the amount of liquid waste
generated. Reactors cooled and moderated by water generate more liquid waste than those cooled by gas.
The volumes of liquid waste generated at boiling-water reactors (BWRs) are significantly higher than at
pressurized water reactors (PWRs). Because the cleanup system of heavy-water reactors (HWRs) works
mainly with once through ion-exchange techniques to recycle heavy water, virtually no liquid concentrates
are generated at them.

Active liquid wastes are generated by the cleanup of primary coolants (PWR, BWR), cleanup of the spent
fuel storage pond, drains, wash water, and leakage waters. Decontamination operations at reactors also
generate liquid wastes resulting from maintenance activities on plant piping and equipment.
Decontamination wastes can include crud (corrosion products) and a wide variety of organics, such as oxalic
and citric acids. Wet solids are another category of waste generated at

nuclear power plants. They include different kinds of spent ion-exchange resins, filter media, and sludges.
Spent resins constitute the most significant fraction of the wet solid waste produced at power reactors. Bead
resins are used in deep demineralizers and are common in nuclear power plants. Powdered resins are seldom
used in PWRs, but are commonly used in BWRs with

pre-coated filter demineralizers. In many BWRs, a large source of powdered resin wastes are the
"condensate polishers" used for additional cleaning of condensed water after evaporation of liquid wastes.
Pre-coated filters used at nuclear power plants to process liquid waste produce another type of wet solid
waste-filter sludges. The filter aids usually diatomaccous
earth or cellulose fibres and the crud that is removed from the liquid waste together form the filter
sludges. Some filtration systems do not require filter aid materials. The sludges arising from such units
therefore do not contain other materials.

GASEOUS WASTE AND RADIOACTIVE AEROSOLS

In normal operation of nuclear power plants, some airborne radioactive wastes are generated in either
particulate or aerosol of gaseous form. Paniculate radioactive aerosols can be generated in a wide range of
particle sizes in either liquid or solid form, possibly in combination with non-radioactive aerosols. Three
main sources of aerosols are generated by emission of activated corrosion corrosion products and fission
products; radioactive decay of gases to involatile elements; and adsorption of volatile radionuclides formed
in the fission process on existing

suspended material. The most important volatile radionuclides, which form gaseous radioactive waste
generated during normal operation of nuclear power plants, are halogens, noble gases, tritium, and carbon-
14. The composition and the amount of radioactivity present in the various airborne waste streams largely
depend on the reactor type and the release pathway. All gaseous effluents at nuclear power plants are treated
before discharge to the atmosphere to remove most of the radioactive components from the effluence.

DANGERS OF NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL

Usually, when nuclear waste is disposed of, it is put into storage containers made of steel that is then placed
inside a further cylinder made of concrete. These protective layers prevent the radiation from getting outside
and harming the atmosphere or generally surroundings of the nuclear waste. It is a relatively easy and
inexpensive method of containing very hazardous materials and actually does not need special transportation
or to be stored in a particularly special place, for instance. However, there are a number of dangers that
surround nuclear waste disposal.

1. Long Half Life: The products of nuclear fission have long half lives, which means that they will continue
to be radioactive and therefore hazardous- for many thousands of years. This means that, if anything were
to happen to the waste cylinders in which nuclear waste is stored, this material can be extremely volatile and
dangerous for many years to come. Since hazardous nuclear waste is often not sent off to special locations to
be stored, this means that it is relatively easy to find, and if anyone with ill intent were to look for nuclear
waste to serve unpleasant purposes, they may well be able to find some and use it.

2. Storage: Another problem with nuclear waste disposal that is still being discussed today is the issue of
storage. Many different storage methods have been discussed throughout history, with very few being
implemented because of the problematic nature of storing such hazardous material that will remain
radioactive for thousands of years. Amongst the suggestions that were considered as above ground storage,
ejection into space, ocean disposal and disposal into ice sheets.

Of these, only one was implemented ocean disposal was actually used by thirteen different countries and
was the method of dumping radioactive waste into the oceans in order to get rid of it. Understandably, this
practice is no longer implemented.

3. Affects on Nature: One of the biggest concerns that the world has with the disposal of nuclear waste is
the affect the hazardous materials could have on animals and plant life. Although most of the time the waste
is well sealed inside huge drums of steel and concrete, sometimes accidents can happen and leaks can occur.
Nuclear waste can have drastically bad effects on life, causing cancerous growths, for instance, or causing
genetic problems for many generations of animal and plants. Not disposing of nuclear waste properly can
therefore have huge environmental impacts that can harm many millions of animals and hundreds of animal
species.

Effects of Nuclear Waste Disposal

If disposed of properly, nuclear waste disposal need not have any negative effects. Instead, nuclear waste can
lie in its storage place for many thousands of years until it is no longer radioactive and dangerous without
being disturbed. However, if the nuclear waste is improperly disposed of or if the disposal methods are
compromised, there can be serious consequences and effects of nuclear waste disposal.

1. ACCIDENTS: Although most of the time a lot of emphasis is placed on the safe disposal of nuclear
waste, accidents do occur. Throughout history there have unfortunately been a number of examples of times
where radioactive material was not disposed of in the proper ways. This has resulted in a number of
disastrous situations, including nuclear waste being spread by dust storms into areas that were populated by
humans and animals and contaminated of water, whether ponds, rivers or even the sea. These accidents can
have disastrous knock on effects for the animals that reside in or around these areas or that rely on the water
of lakes or ponds to survive. Drinking water can become contaminated, too, which is absolutely disastrous
for locals and residents close to the epicenter of the disaster. Even if nuclear waste just seeps into the ground,
it can eventually get into reservoirs and other water sources and, from there, can reach the homes of people
who unwittingly drink high radioactive material. There are examples of these sorts of accidents from all over
the world and from all time periods, with severe accidents happening very rarely but having a huge effect on
very many people.

2. SCAVENGING: A particularly bad problem in developing nations, people often go scavenging for
abandoned nuclear waste that is still radioactive. In some countries there is a market for these sorts of
scavenged goods, which means that people will willingly expose themselves to dangerous levels of radiation
in order to make money. Unfortunately, however, radioactive materials can be highly volatile and cause a
number of problems.

Usually, people who scavenge these sorts of materials will end up in hospital and may even die of problems
related to or caused by the radioactive materials. Unfortunately, once someone has been exposed to nuclear
waste, they can then expose other people who have not opted to go scavenging for nuclear waste to
radioactive materials.

3. TRANSPORTATION: Transporting nuclear waste from power plants can occasionally result in
problems. If poor shipping casks are used for the containment of radioactive material, for instance, then a
slight knock or bump or even crash could cause the contents to spill and affect a wide radius. Despite all the
cautions that are put into place when transporting nuclear waste, accidents still occur and can have a
devastating effect on all those in the vicinity of the crash.

4. HEALTH EFFECTS: The biggest concern is the negative effects that can have on the human body
when exposed to radiation. Long term effects to radiation can even cause cancer. It is interesting to know
that we are exposed to radiations naturally by living our lives that comes from the ground below us.
Radiation can cause changes in DNA that ensures cell repair.

5. EXPENSE: If one of these accidents does occur, the cost of cleaning everything up and making
everything safe once again for people, animals and plants is very high. There is no simple or easy route when
trying to clean up spilled radioactive material: instead, it can take years to ensure that an area is safe to live
in or even to visit once again. In the case of very serious accidents, it may take many tens of years until
things start growing or living normally once again.

RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT:

Managing used fuel

Used nuclear fuel is very hot and radioactive. Handling and storing it safely can be done as long as it is
cooled and plant workers are shielded from the radiation it produces by a dense material like concrete or
steel, or by a few metres of water.

Water can conveniently provide both cooling and shielding, so a typical reactor will have its fuel removed
underwater and transferred to a storage pool. After about five years it can be transferred into dry ventilated
concrete containers, but otherwise it can safely remain in the pool indefinitely - usually for up to 50 years.

Currently, the majority of used fuel is not recycled, But reprocessing used fuel to recover uranium and
plutonium avoids the wastage of a valuable resource. Most of the used fuel - about 96% - is uranium, and up
to 1% is plutonium, with the remaining 3% being high-level waste. Both reprocessed uranium and plutonium
have been recycled into new fuel. Plutonium mixed with uranium in their oxide forms is known as mixed
oxide fuel (MOX).
The high-level wastes (whether as used fuel after 50 years cooling, or the separated 3% of reprocessed fuel)
will be disposed of deep underground in geological repositories.

Intermediate and low-level wastes

Intermediate- and low-level wastes are disposed of closer to the surface, in many established repositories.
Low-level waste disposal sites are purpose built, but are not much different from normal municipal waste
sites.

Nuclear power is not the only industry that creates radioactive wastes. Other industries include medicine,
particle and space research, oil and gas, and mining - to name just a few. Some of these materials are not
produced inside a reactor, but rather are concentrated forms of naturally occurring radioactive material.

Civil nuclear wastes from nuclear power plants have never caused any harm, nor posed an environmental
hazard, in over 50 years of the nuclear power industry. Their management and eventual disposal is
straightforward.

One characteristic of all radioactive wastes which distinguishes them from the very much larger amount of
other toxic industrial wastes is that their radioactivity progressively decays and diminishes. For instance,
after 40 years, the used fuel removed from a reactor has only one thousandth of its initial radioactivity
remaining, making it very much easier to handle and dispose of.

Disposal
The categorization - high, intermediate, low - helps determine how wastes are treated and where they end
up. High-level wastes require shielding and cooling, low-level wastes can be handled easily without
shielding.

All radioactive waste facilities are designed with numerous layers of protection to make sure that people
remain protected for as long as it takes for radioactivity to reduce to background levels. Low-level and
intermediate wastes are buried close to the surface. For low-level wastes disposal is not much different from
a normal municipal landfill. High-level wastes can remain highly radioactive for thousands of years. They
need to be disposed of deep underground in engineered facilities built in stable geological formations. While
no such facilities for high-level wastes currently operate, their feasibility has been demonstrated and there
are several countries now in the process of designing and constructing them.