Brief Context
Context Discussions are ongoing in India to amend the nuclear liability framework, regulated by the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act (CLNDA), 2010, and the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), 1962. About India’s clean energy transition goals and net-zero commitments necessitate ramping up non-fossil energy, including nuclear. The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 (CLNDA) assigns liability to suppliers, deterring foreign investment.
Source Content
Syllabus: GS3/Energy
Context
- Discussions are ongoing in India to amend the nuclear liability framework, regulated by the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act (CLNDA), 2010, and the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), 1962.
- It aims to allow private companies to build and operate nuclear energy-generation facilities.
About
- India’s clean energy transition goals and net-zero commitments necessitate ramping up non-fossil energy, including nuclear.
- The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 (CLNDA) assigns liability to suppliers, deterring foreign investment.
- The debate hinges on whether amending this law is necessary or whether the obstacles are deeper and more structural.
Legal Reforms Underway
- Easing Nuclear Liability Law (Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010): Its objective is to limit the liability of equipment vendors in case of a nuclear accident. Key Proposed Changes:
- Monetary Cap: Liability may be capped to the original contract value.
- Time Limit: Introduce a statute of limitations for how long liability applies.
- Amendment to the Atomic Energy Act, 1962: Its objective is to allow private and foreign players to enter nuclear power generation.
- Current Restriction: Only state-owned entities like NPCIL and NTPC Ltd can operate nuclear plants.
- Proposed Change: Permit minority equity participation by foreign/private entities in upcoming projects.
Arguments for Amending India’s Nuclear Laws
- Legal Impediment to Foreign Investment: CLNDA creates supplier liability, which is a global anomaly.
- Companies from the U.S., France, Japan, and even Russia (post-2010) avoid entering the Indian market.
- Supply Chain & Technology Access: Without foreign suppliers, India can’t reach 100 GW due to domestic industrial capacity limits.
- Amending the law is necessary for technology access, especially with SMRs (Small Modular Reactors), a promising frontier.
- International Precedents – CSC Framework: India is part of the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC), which emphasizes operator liability, not supplier liability.
- SMRs and other new technologies should be encouraged via an investor-friendly legal framework.
Arguments Against Amending the Law:
- Misdiagnosing the Real Problem: The issue isn’t primarily legal or investment-related; it’s technological, economic, and political.
- Expansion assumptions (to 100 GW) are unrealistic; even advanced economies like the U.S. and France have not grown at that pace.
- No Guarantees of Technology Transfer: Experience in defence shows no meaningful tech transfer despite 100% FDI.
- SMRs are untested at scale; investment and transfer are unlikely without guaranteed returns, which India cannot ensure.
- Over-reliance on Hypotheticals: Policy cannot be made on the assumption that private companies will change behaviour once the law is amended.
- India’s plan to build five small reactors domestically shows it may be more realistic to scale indigenous designs.
- Sovereignty and Public Safety: Diluting supplier liability may reduce accountability and compromise public interest.
- India’s unique liability regime was created in the wake of Bhopal and Chernobyl experiences; it’s rooted in justice and deterrence.
Way Ahead
- India’s push to expand nuclear energy to meet its clean energy targets by 2047 faces a key legal obstacle in its liability law.
- While some argue that amending the law is essential to attract foreign investment and technology, others caution that the real issues lie in economic viability, safety, and over-reliance on foreign participation.
- A balanced path may involve nurturing indigenous capabilities, selectively opening up to foreign participation under tight regulatory frameworks, and ensuring public safety is not compromised.
Source: TH