Should India dilute nuclear plant site selection norms?

By Shankar Sharma* 

Recent media reports suggest that the Union government is considering simplifying the process of selecting sites for new nuclear power plants as part of its ambitious plan to expand India's nuclear generation capacity to 100,000 MW. According to the reports, discussions are underway to replace the existing site evaluation framework with a simplified checklist-based approach in order to reduce the time required for site selection and related approvals.

If these reports are accurate, they raise important questions that deserve wider public debate.

Site selection is not merely an administrative exercise. It is one of the most critical safeguards in the planning of a nuclear power project. The existing framework takes into account numerous parameters relating to geology, hydrology, ecology, seismic safety, population density, disaster preparedness, water availability and environmental sensitivity. Any move to dilute or simplify this process in the interest of speed could have far-reaching consequences.

India's experience itself offers reasons for caution. During the controversy over the Kaiga Nuclear Power Plant in Karnataka in the 1990s and early 2000s, widespread public opposition questioned the suitability of the chosen location. Although I was not directly associated with that movement, I learnt from one of its leaders that many of the prescribed site-selection parameters were reportedly not met. Whether or not every claim can now be independently verified, the controversy highlighted the need for greater transparency in the site approval process.

Kaiga is situated in one of India's most ecologically sensitive regions, close to the buffer zone of a tiger reserve and within the Western Ghats, a UNESCO World Heritage landscape. The decision to locate a nuclear power plant in such an environmentally fragile area continues to invite scrutiny, particularly when nuclear power's contribution to India's electricity generation at the time was relatively modest. Questions were also raised about whether the ecological and social costs of the project justified its benefits.

Today, the challenge is even greater. Over the past three decades, India's natural resources have come under increasing stress. Forests, water resources, biodiversity and land availability are all under pressure. In such circumstances, it would appear more prudent to strengthen site-selection criteria rather than weaken them. It is difficult to identify locations that are entirely free from ecological, environmental or social concerns, whether for conventional reactors or for the proposed Small Modular Reactors (SMRs).

This issue also deserves greater public scrutiny. Civil society should seek access to the official site-selection criteria used by the Department of Atomic Energy and independently assess whether proposed locations meet these standards. Greater transparency would enhance public confidence and improve the quality of decision-making.

Another aspect that often receives insufficient attention is the enormous investment required in supporting infrastructure. Reports indicate that India may need around ₹9 lakh crore for transmission grid expansion in the coming years. A significant expansion of nuclear capacity would add to these infrastructure costs, which should be evaluated alongside the already high capital costs, long construction periods and waste management challenges associated with nuclear power.

The debate on nuclear energy should therefore not be confined to generation capacity alone. It should encompass the full economic, environmental and social implications, while also comparing nuclear power with alternative energy pathways that may offer lower costs, shorter implementation periods and reduced risks.

There is also a strong case for India's premier academic and research institutions—including the Indian Institute of Science, the Indian Institutes of Technology and the National Institute of Advanced Studies—to undertake comprehensive, independent assessments of these issues. Such evidence-based analyses would contribute significantly to informed public policy.

As India charts its long-term energy future, decisions involving technologies with far-reaching consequences must be guided by scientific rigour, transparency and public accountability rather than by the desire to accelerate approvals. When it comes to nuclear power, caution is not an obstacle to development; it is an essential prerequisite for responsible governance.

---

*Power & Climate Policy Analyst, Karnataka