Mentor’s Comment: UPSC mains have always focused on nuclear science and technology (2017), and atomic energy (2013).

In the Union Budget speech on February 1, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced plans to amend the Atomic Energy Act and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (CLND) Act. This move is likely to be welcomed by the U.S., where past governments have opposed India’s law because it holds nuclear manufacturers partly responsible for accidents. However, in India, removing supplier liability could be a major concern, as it might weaken nuclear safety measures.

Today’s editorial talks about the Atomic Energy Act and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (CLND) Act. This content will help in GS papers 2 and 3 in mains answer writing.

_

Let’s learn!

Why in the News?

The mention of plans to amend the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act in the Union Budget is a serious issue that needs attention.

What are the safety and liability concerns related to nuclear energy?

• Risk of Catastrophic Accidents: Nuclear plant failures can lead to massive radiation leaks, environmental destruction, and long-term health impacts.Example: The Fukushima Daiichi disaster (2011, Japan) resulted from a tsunami, causing multiple reactor meltdowns and widespread radioactive contamination.
• Design Flaws and Negligence: Suppliers may overlook or downplay safety risks in reactor designs, leading to vulnerabilities. Example: The Three Mile Island accident (1979, USA) occurred due to a known reactor design flaw that the supplier failed to address.
• Limited Liability for Suppliers: In many countries, nuclear suppliers are indemnified, placing financial liability entirely on plant operators and governments.Example: General Electric (GE), which designed the Fukushima reactors, faced no financial consequences due to Japan’s liability laws.
• Insufficient Compensation for Victims: Liability caps limit compensation for victims, despite the high costs of nuclear disasters. Example: India’s Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (CLND) Act caps liability at ₹1,500 crore, whereas Fukushima’s cleanup costs are estimated at ₹20-46 lakh crore.
• Radioactive Waste and Long-Term Risks: Safe disposal of nuclear waste remains a major challenge, with risks of leaks and contamination lasting thousands of years.Example: The Chernobyl disaster (1986, USSR) left a radioactive exclusion zone that remains uninhabitable nearly 40 years later.

How does India’s approach to nuclear liability differ from global standards?

• Operator Liability with Limited Supplier Responsibility: India’s Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (CLND) Act, 2010, places primary liability on the operator (NPCIL), but allows it to seek compensation from suppliers in case of defective equipment or services (Right of Recourse, Section 17).
  • Global Standard: Most countries fully indemnify suppliers, meaning they bear no financial responsibility after supplying reactors.
  • Example: In Japan, General Electric (GE) faced no liability for the Fukushima disaster (2011), while in India, foreign suppliers fear financial risks if an accident occurs.
• Liability Cap vs. Unlimited Liability in Some Countries: India caps operator liability at ₹1,500 crore (~$180 million), with additional compensation coming from the government if needed.
  • Global Standard: Some countries, like Germany, impose unlimited liability on operators to ensure full compensation. The U.S. Price-Anderson Act establishes a large industry-backed fund for damages beyond a certain limit.
  • Example: After the Chernobyl disaster (1986, USSR), the Soviet government bore the entire cost (~$235 billion), whereas an Indian accident beyond ₹1,500 crore would shift the financial burden to taxpayers.
• India is Not Part of Global Nuclear Liability Regimes: India has not signed the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC), which standardizes liability norms and creates an international compensation pool.
  • Global Standard: Most nuclear-powered nations, including the U.S. and Japan, are CSC members, ensuring global financial support for nuclear accidents.
  • Example: If a nuclear accident occurs in France, CSC members contribute to compensation, but in India, all financial burdens remain domestic.

What are the reasons behind the government’s plan to amend the Atomic Energy Act and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (CLND) Act?

• Attracting Foreign Investment and Suppliers – The existing CLND Act allows India’s nuclear operator (NPCIL) to seek compensation from foreign suppliers in case of faulty equipment, discouraging companies from supplying reactors. Amendments could limit supplier liability, making India a more attractive market for nuclear investments from countries like the U.S., France, and Russia.
• Expanding Nuclear Energy Capacity – India aims to increase its nuclear power generation to meet rising energy demands and climate goals. Simplifying liability laws could accelerate agreements with international partners and facilitate the construction of new nuclear plants under deals such as the India-U.S. Civil Nuclear Agreement.

What are the other implications of increasing nuclear energy reliance?

• High Economic Costs and Project Delays: Nuclear power plants require massive upfront investments, long construction periods, and frequent cost overruns.
  • Example: The AP1000 reactors in Georgia, USA, were initially estimated at $14 billion but were completed at $36.8 billion—a 250% cost overrun. Similarly, India’s Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant faced significant delays and cost escalations.
• Nuclear Waste Management and Environmental Risks: Nuclear energy produces radioactive waste that remains hazardous for thousands of years, requiring secure disposal and long-term monitoring.
  • Example: The Fukushima disaster (2011) led to the release of radioactive material, contaminating land and water, with cleanup costs estimated between ¥35-80 trillion (~₹20-46 lakh crore). India lacks permanent storage facilities for high-level nuclear waste.
• Geopolitical and Security Concerns: Expanding nuclear energy means higher dependence on foreign suppliers, leading to strategic vulnerabilities and potential external influence.
  • Example: India’s civil nuclear deal with the U.S. (2008) opened doors for technology transfer, but suppliers now demand liability protection before delivering reactors, creating diplomatic pressure.

Way forward:

• Strengthen Liability and Safety Frameworks: The government should Amend the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (CLND) Act to ensure fair risk-sharing between operators and suppliers.
  • Need to invest in advanced reactor safety technologies (e.g., Small Modular Reactors – SMRs) and strengthen independent regulatory oversight.
• Develop Robust Waste Management and Indigenous Capabilities: The government should establish permanent disposal sites for high-level nuclear waste with stringent monitoring.
  • Need to enhance domestic nuclear technology (e.g., Thorium-based reactors) to reduce reliance on foreign suppliers and improve energy security.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now