The nuclear liability bill, which is before Parliament, has had its share of controversy, although it is likely to be passed with relative ease since the BJP has come round to supporting the government, leaving primarily the Left parties to raise concerns. It is important nevertheless that the government take the trouble to ensure that electricity generated through nuclear reactors is safe from the standpoint of exposure of ordinary people and communities to radiation hazards. Two, it is also necessary that in the event of a nuclear accident involving exposure to radiation, adequate funds will be available to safeguard the health needs of the affected populace, and also to protect the environment from damage. Alas, these matters have not been discussed in Parliament, and there is little to suggest that any such discussion is planned. Instead, attention is focused on a single aspect — whether the government alone, as the operator of nuclear power plants in the country, should undertake the financial liability of providing funds to meet the hospitalisation needs of people if there is an accident, or whether overseas suppliers of nuclear materials and products must also be made liable under Indian law. The Left parties insist on the latter. The government and the BJP have not attached the same importance to the issue of liability for foreign equipment suppliers. The BJP came to support the law proposed by the government once the latter agreed to raise the liability amount to Rs 1,500 crores from the measly Rs 500 crores initially envisaged. The issue has gained salience as potential reactor-suppliers from the United States or Russia are hesitant to come forward if they are made liable in the event of an accident.
Looking around the world for precedents is not particularly helpful. In the US, lawsuits can be admitted against any party in the courts. In Russia, equipment suppliers and operators of nuclear power plants are in the government sector. In any case, in both countries reactors are indigenously made, not imported. The same is true of France, which has eagerly come forward to supply India reactors for nuclear power plants, and itself generates 75 per cent of its electricity, using home-made nuclear reactors. The Indian case is quite different. It was bruising national debate that led to the conclusion of the India-US civil nuclear agreement aimed at securing for this country permission to engage in international trade in nuclear products and materials to allow establishing of the infrastructure for electricity generation through nuclear energy. With the country’s power needs expanding rapidly, nuclear power is badly needed. The point really is safety and security of nuclear power plants, and adequate provision for safeguarding people in the event of an accident. The good news is that given the physics, chemistry and engineering, it appears there is low probability of an accident in the nuclear power sector. This is supported by international data. The Three Mile Island accident in the US in 1979 and Chernobyl in Ukraine (then USSR) in 1986 are the only accidents of significance in the nuclear power sector across 32 countries spread over 14,000 cumulative reactor years. In the first case, the reactor was badly damaged but there was no loss of life, while at Chernobyl 56 people died. Nevertheless, it is plain to see that in the event of an accident the consequence of risk will remain high. People do need to be indemnified, and thus the need for a liability law. Also, equipment suppliers from different countries should be made to compete against one another, with those accepting liability in some form being encouraged more.