To
Shri Narendra D Modi
Prime Minister
Dear Shri Modiji,
The Finance Minister (FM), in her recent Budget Speech, stated that “Development of at least 100 GW of nuclear energy by 2047 is essential for our energy transition efforts. For an active partnership with the private sector towards this goal, amendments to the Atomic Energy Act and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act will be taken up“More recently, it is reported that the subject is likely to be broached by both the USA and France during PM’s visit to those countries shortly.
With the changed stance of the present US administration in the matter of furthering that country’s commercial interests, one can expect a great deal of pressure mounted on India to amend the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act (CLNDA) to accommodate US reactor suppliers’ interests to the detriment of the overall safety of operation of imported nuclear reactors.
In this connection, I wish to point out that the the CLNDA, as enacted by the Parliament when the UPA was in power, is a diluted version of the kind of CLNDA proposed by the Parliamentary Standing Committee at that time, keeping in view the need to ensure the safety of operation of imported nuclear reactors.
For example,
The Committee at that time felt that the operator’s (Nuclear Power Corporation of India’s) right of recourse against suppliers was vague. It recommended that recourse against the supplier should be strengthened. The supplier should be held liable if an incident has occurred due to (i) defects, or (ii) sub-standard material, or (iii) gross negligence of the supplier of the material, equipment or services. The committee therefore recommended strengthening Clause 17 of the Bill. (https://prsindia.org/theprsblog/parliament%E2%80%99s-recommendations-on-the-nuclear-liability-bill-%E2%80%93-why-the-%E2%80%9Cand%E2%80%9D?page=8&per-page=1).
However, the UPA government came under intense pressure from overseas reactor suppliers and their respective parent governments to dilute the relevant clause so as to limit the suppliers’ liability severely, amounting to insuring them more or less fully, against any liability attributable to defects in the equipment, the use of sub-standard material and
gross negligence of the supplier of the material, equipment or services, which were quite commonplace in the business revolving around the supply of reactors. The members of the Parliamentary Committee were anxious that the proposed law should reflect Indian interests and well-being, and that “there should be a clear cut liability on the supplier of nuclear equipment/material in case they are found to be defective” The Committee felt that Clause 17(b) of the Bill in its proposed version gave an escape route to the suppliers of nuclear materials, equipments, services of his employees as their willful act or gross negligence would be difficult to establish in a civil nuclear compensation case. The intention was to ensure that compensation would not be inadequate for victims of a nuclear accident, nor would it be inadequate to cover the cost of clean-up of the accident site.
At that time, itt was the BJP that rightly acted firm in the Parliament to push through the amendment recommended by the Parliamentary Standing Committee as evident from the news report (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/6421684.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst), which is extracted below:
“Minister of State in the PMO Prithviraj Chavan met Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley to discuss the issue over which the BJP and Left parties are angry and are threatening to oppose the bill when it is taken up for consideration in Parliament later this week. After the meeting, Jaitley said he had told Chavan that BJP wanted restoration of language in Clause 17(B) suggested by the Parliamentary Standing Committee that examined the bill and then his party would think about its support.The opposition parties are crying foul after the Union Cabinet on Friday last cleared 18 amendments, including the one which deals with a clause on liability of a supplier in the event of a nuclear accident”
The fears expressed by BJP and other opposition parties at that time were genuine as explained below:
- The use of substandard material and flaws in monitoring the manufacture of nuclear reactors are not uncommon in the global nuclear industry as evident from reports available from the portals of the UK and French nuclear regulatory authorities and other reports (https://www.french-nuclear-safety.fr/information/news-archives/flamanville-epr-reactor-asn-inspection-on-10th-april-2018 & https://www.onr.org.uk/publications/corporate-publications/foi-releases/2022/01/potential-generic-fault-in-the-design-of-the-reactor-pressure-vessel-rpv-epr-nuclear-reactor/)
- The subsequent Fukushima nuclear disaster has shown the mind-boggling cost of cleaning up a disaster-affected reactor site (https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Fukushima-Anniversary/Fukushima-cleanup-costs-swell-with-no-end-in-sight). Japan has spent roughly 1 trillion yen ($7.3 billion) annually on the damage caused by the meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant that occurred 12 years ago, and the final price tag is still uncertain. Considering that the capacity of each imported reactor complex that India is planning to set up will be higher that that of Fukushima complex, the cost of a Fukushima-like a ccident, if it were to occur in India, would be so huge that it would be difficult for the Budget to absorb it.
As if that was not enough, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) in India functions under the administrative control of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) whose facilities it is expected to regulate. Post-Fukushima, yielding to public pressure, the DAE introduced a Bill in 2012 to institute an independent regulatory authority, which the concerned Parliamentary Standing Committee examined and made several far reaching recommendations to strengthen it. The DAE is yet to follow up on those recommendations till date.
In other words, the imported nuclear reactor complexes in India would continue to function in an inadequate regulatory environment, raising serious concerns of public safety.
It is against that background that the government should tread cautiously in agreeing to any further dilution of the provisions of CLNDA. In fact, from tbe national interest point of view, there is case for strengthening it to safeguard public safety, rather than weakening it further.
I would earnestly appeal to you to accord the highest priority in this matter to the concerns expressed around2010 by the concerned Parliamentary Committee, the strong feelings articulated at that time by your own party, BJP and the need to place public safety considerations above all other things.
If the USA and France will no doubt try to further the cause of their own commercial interests, India has the obligation to safeguard the well-being of the communities that live in the vicinity of nuclear power plants and to protect its own national interest.
Regards,
Yours sincerely,
E A S Sarma
Former Secretary to the Government of India
Visakhapatnam
