Admissions Open for the 2026 Self-Study Plan. Enroll Now!
+91 - 7893910103 support@upscguide.in

Nuclear Energy and Liability Issues in India: A Comprehensive Analysis

img

 

The Union Budget 2025 has proposed amendments to the Atomic Energy Act and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (CLND) Act. These changes aim to align India’s nuclear liability framework with international standards but have sparked concerns over the dilution of supplier liability. Critics argue that such amendments prioritize corporate interests over public safety, raising questions about accountability, safety standards, and victim compensation in the event of a nuclear accident.

 

Also Read about Coal vs Renewable Energy Transition - https://upscguide.in/india-energy-transition-coal-vs-renewables

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction to Nuclear Energy and Liability

  2. Global Nuclear Liability Laws

  3. Nuclear Liability Framework in India

  4. Proposed Amendments: Key Changes and Rationale

  5. Challenges Associated with Diluting Liability Norms

  6. Implications for India’s Nuclear Program

  7. Solutions and Way Forward

  8. Conclusion

 

UPSC PRELIMS TEST SERIES - 2025

 
1. Introduction to Nuclear Energy and Liability:

 

Importance of Nuclear Energy-

Nuclear energy is a critical component of India’s energy strategy. With increasing energy demands and the need for sustainable development, nuclear power provides a low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels. India has ambitious plans to expand its nuclear capacity under the framework of its climate commitments.

  • India’s current nuclear capacity: ~6,800 MW (2025).

  • Target by 2032: 22,480 MW.

  • Contribution to global emissions: Nuclear energy generates only ~2% of India’s electricity but holds significant potential for expansion.

 

Evolution of Nuclear Liability Frameworks-

The concept of nuclear liability evolved globally in response to catastrophic nuclear disasters, including:

  • Chernobyl (1986): A design flaw led to one of the worst nuclear accidents in history.

  • Fukushima (2011): Design and operational failures resulted in widespread damage.

These disasters underscored the need for robust liability frameworks to ensure public safety, corporate accountability, and victim compensation.

 

2. Global Nuclear Liability Laws:

 

Key International Conventions-

  1. Paris Convention (1960):

    • Focuses on operator liability.

    • Establishes a minimum liability amount for operators.

  2. Vienna Convention (1963):

    • Similar to the Paris Convention but applies globally.

    • Limits liability to a specific amount, with compensation pools funded by operators and governments.

  3. Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC, 1997):

    • Encourages harmonization of liability laws.

    • Provides additional compensation through international contributions.

  4. Price-Anderson Act (U.S., 1957):

    • Limits liability for nuclear operators and suppliers.

    • Compensation provided through pooled insurance mechanisms.

 

Comparative Analysis of Global Practices-

 

Country/Region Key Features Liability Cap
United States Supplier indemnification under Price-Anderson Act $13.6 billion
European Union Operator liability under Paris Convention €700 million (minimum)
Japan Operator liability; supplier indemnified No cap; government guarantees
Russia State assumes operator liability No cap
India Supplier liability under CLND Act ₹1,500 crore

 

3. Nuclear Liability Framework in India

 

Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (CLND) Act, 2010- 

 

Key Features:

  • Supplier Liability: Suppliers are held liable for defective designs or substandard equipment.

  • Compensation Cap: Liability capped at ₹1,500 crore.

  • Operator Accountability: Operators are primarily responsible for damages but can claim compensation from suppliers.

 

Atomic Energy Act, 1962:

  • Governs nuclear energy development in India.

  • Provides a legal framework for reactor operations, safety, and international collaboration.

 

4. Proposed Amendments: Key Changes and Rationale:

 

Supplier Indemnification-

  • Removes the clause holding suppliers accountable for defective designs.

  • Shifts liability entirely to operators.

 

International Alignment-

  • Aligns India’s framework with conventions like the Vienna Convention and CSC.

  • Intended to attract foreign investment and advanced technologies.

 

5. Challenges Associated with Diluting Liability Norms
 
1. Public Safety Concerns-

  • Weakening supplier liability reduces the incentive to maintain high safety standards.

  • Examples: Defective designs by General Electric contributed to the Fukushima disaster.

 

2. Inadequate Victim Compensation-

  • Compensation cap of ₹1,500 crore is insufficient for large-scale disasters.

  • Example: The Bhopal Gas Tragedy showed the inadequacy of capped liabilities.

 

3. Corporate Accountability Issues-

  • Indemnification protects suppliers from accountability.

  • Lessons from Chernobyl and Bhopal emphasize the importance of stringent accountability.

 

4. High Costs of Imported Reactors-

  • Example: AP1000 reactors are significantly more expensive than indigenous alternatives like PHWRs.

 

5. Economic Viability and Indigenous Alternatives-

  • Indigenous reactors offer cost-effective and reliable solutions.

  • Example: India’s PHWR program has achieved significant success.

 

6. Environmental Risks-

  • Potential accidents can cause irreversible environmental damage.

  • Example: Radioactive contamination in Fukushima.

 

7. Historical Precedents and Lessons-

  • Incidents like the Delhi Oleum Gas Leak highlight the importance of liability frameworks.

 

8. Public Trust and Perception

  • Weak liability norms undermine public confidence in the nuclear program.

 

6. Implications for India’s Nuclear Program
 
Credibility of Nuclear Expansion

  • Dilution of liability norms may hinder public acceptance.

  • Global investors may view weak safety standards as a risk.

 

Role of Indigenous Technologies

  • Indigenous designs like PHWRs offer a reliable, cost-effective alternative.

  • India’s three-stage nuclear program is a testament to self-reliance.

 

7. Solutions and Way Forward:

 

1. Strengthening Domestic Regulations-

  • Ensure stringent safety and liability standards.

  • Example: Introduce mechanisms for periodic safety audits.

 

2. Encouraging Indigenous Development-

  • Invest in indigenous technologies and designs.

  • Example: Expand the PHWR program.

 

3. Enhancing Public Awareness and Trust-

  • -Conduct awareness campaigns to educate the public about nuclear safety measures.

  • Example: Use social media and community outreach.

 

4. Leveraging International Cooperation-

  • Collaborate with countries like France and Japan for advanced technologies.

  • Example: Joint ventures for reactor construction.

 

5. Institutional Framework for Monitoring and Accountability-

  • Establish an independent body to oversee nuclear safety.

  • Example: Model after the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

 

6. Compensation Mechanisms-

  • Create a national insurance pool for nuclear damages.

  • Example: Similar to the Price-Anderson Act in the U.S.

 

8. Conclusion:

India’s nuclear liability framework must strike a balance between international cooperation, public safety, and economic viability. Robust safety standards and accountability mechanisms are essential to build public trust and ensure the sustainable growth of India’s nuclear energy program. Only a comprehensive and transparent approach can ensure that India’s nuclear ambitions align with the goals of safety, sustainability, and self-reliance.

For Daily Current Affairs Click Here