The Hindu Editorial Analysis- 13th February 2025 | Current Affairs & Hindu Analysis: Daily, Weekly & Monthly - UPSC PDF Download

Nuclear energy – dangerous concessions on liability

Why in News?

• The government has announced its plan to amend the Atomic Energy Act and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act in the recent Union Budget speech.

Proposed Amendments in Nuclear Laws

• This move is expected to please the U.S. government, which has long opposed India’s liability law that places some financial responsibility on nuclear manufacturers in case of an accident.
• In India, any move to remove supplier liability is a major concern as it could weaken nuclear safety standards.

Concerns Over Costly U.S. Reactors

• The U.S. government is pushing India to purchase nuclear reactors that are extremely expensive.
• Importing these reactors does not make economic sense due to their high construction and operational costs.

Risk of Nuclear Accidents

• Nuclear power plants carry serious risks, with accidents like the Fukushima disaster in Japan (2011) demonstrating the catastrophic consequences.
• Such disasters impact victims, the plant operator, and the supplier of the reactor.
• In India, public sector company NPCIL is likely to operate the nuclear plants.

Comparison with Bhopal Gas Disaster Liability

• The Bhopal gas tragedy (1984) led to a Supreme Court ruling in 1986 that made hazardous enterprises absolutely liable for damage to victims.
• However, in 2010, the government diluted this principle for nuclear accidents, capping operator liability at ₹1,500 crore.
• This cap is unfair as actual damages from a nuclear disaster can be much higher.
• The Fukushima disaster cleanup cost is estimated at ₹20 lakh crore to ₹46 lakh crore, which is thousands of times more than India’s liability cap.

Supplier Responsibility Under the Existing Law

• The 2010 liability law allows the plant operator to demand compensation from the supplier if a reactor accident occurs due to defective equipment or substandard services.
• In contrast, many other countries completely indemnify suppliers, shielding them from any responsibility.
• However, history shows that design defects have contributed to every major nuclear accident, including Fukushima (2011) and Three Mile Island (1979).

Pressure to Remove Supplier Liability

• Foreign nuclear suppliers oppose liability as it could expose them to financial risks in India.
• They fear that future Indian governments might increase the liability cap, leading to higher compensation costs.
• U.S. officials are actively lobbying Indian leaders to amend the law to fully indemnify nuclear suppliers.

Challenges with U.S. Reactor Design

• The AP1000 nuclear reactor, which the U.S. is offering, has faced major failures in its home country.
• Four such reactors were built in the U.S.:Two projects in South Carolina were abandoned after costs exceeded $9 billion.
• Two reactors in Georgia were completed at an astronomical cost of $36.8 billion, over 250% more than the initial estimate.
• These cost overruns mean that electricity from these reactors would be far more expensive than other energy sources.

Exaggerated Safety Claims

• U.S. companies claim their reactors have a 1 in 50 million years chance of a major radiation leak.
• However, if the reactors are truly this safe, suppliers should not demand full protection from liability.
• By pushing for indemnity, suppliers acknowledge the real risk of an accident but shift all financial and safety burdens to Indian citizens.

Conclusion

• India’s government is failing to protect public safety by considering amendments that favor foreign corporations.
• The pressure from the U.S. shows that economic and political interests are being prioritized over Indian citizens’ safety and financial security.