INDIAS QUEST FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY & NUCLEAR DISASTER: ARE WE PREPARED?

Professor(Dr.) M.K. Bhandari1 Dr. Kuldeep Singh Panwar2

(A) INTRODUCTION
Increasing industrial and commercial activities, coupled with increasing population and rise in consumerism has collectively resulted into many fold demand for energy. Traditional methods of generating powers seems to be inadequate to meet the ever growing demand of energy, thus, India has entered into Nuclear Supply Agreement with USA3 which enables India to procure nuclear fuel from Nuclear Supplier Group Countries. India has an ambitious goal to increase 5-fold the amount of electricity produced from nuclear power plants to 20,000 MWe by 2020. This will be further increased to 63,000 MWe by 2032.4 In this way, India will produce 25 percent of its electricity from nuclear power plants by 2050. Indias present production of electricity through nuclear power is 4780 MWe. To increase the share of nuclear power, foreign companies would need to be involved in the manufacture and supply of nuclear reactors At the dawn of the new millennium, the Indias quest for efficient and pollution free energy resources also began. Nuclear power is one such source which when harnessed safely, can augment the energy needs of the nation to a fairly sustainable level. But the risks involved in managing nuclear reactors are very high. Industrial disasters have a way of impacting the human life and environment even years after the incident. This aspect of nuclear power has caused India to tread carefully in the realm of rising development of nuclear power. The Chernobyl disaster which occurred on 26 th April 1986 is one such nuclear disaster which has burdened the environment of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus with continuing and substantial decontamination and health care costs ever since. It has
1 2

3 4

Senior Professor,Ex. Dean and head, Faculty of Law ,J.N.V. University, Jodhpur Ph. D., NET (Law), Member of Institute of Human Rights, Environment and Development Studies, Visiting Faculty, Jodhpur. Indo-U.S. civilian nuclear agreement popularly known as 123 Agreement. en.wikipedia.org/ANALYSIS - Land, liability bill keep India nuclear power in dark.

[1]

been estimated that about four thousands deaths can be roughly attributed to the accident. With such high stakes, there is greater need for developing stringent laws regarding nuclear liability to enforce strict compliance with safeguards with no room for complacency. A single mistake here even a human error in this regard could lead to a disaster of catastrophic proportions. Just as conventional thermal power stations generate electricity by harnessing the thermal energy released from burning fossil fuels, nuclear power plants convert the energy released from nucleus of an atom, typically via nuclear fission.1 In this research paper we propose to study, analyse and evaluate the pros & consequences of Indias quest for Nuclear Energy vis--vis future Disasters, which may be inflicted either by natural disasters and/or human error. (B) The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010

This was one of the last steps needed to activate the 2008 Indo-U.S. civilian nuclear agreement as the united state nuclear reactor manufacturing companies will require the liability Act to get insurance in their home state. After this bill having becomes an Act, India has become a member of the international convention on liability in the civil nuclear arena The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act 2010 or Nuclear Liability Act is a highly debated and controversial Act which was passed by both houses of Indian parliament. The Act aims to provide a civil liability for nuclear damage and prompt compensation to the victims of a nuclear incident through a no fault liability to the operator, appointment of Claims Commissioner, establishment of Nuclear Damage Claims Commission and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto2.The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 seeks to create a
mechanism for compensating victims of nuclear damage arising from a nuclear incident. (C) International Agreement & Framework Recognizing the risk of a nuclear accident several international frameworks were developed to ensure that access to justice was readily available for victims outside the host-accident country, as long as the countries are party to the relevant conventions. The number of different international instruments and their arrangements often give rise to

http://jurisonline.in/2011/06/nuclear-liability/Nuclear Liability by RASHMIPERUMAL on JUNE 11, 2011 Rajya Sabha clears nuclear liability Bill. New Delhi: The Hindu Business Line. August 31, 2010.

uncertainty of law. Frequent amendments lead to a patchwork quilt of countries and conventions. Before 1997, the international liability regime was embodied primarily in two instruments: The first was the IAEAs Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage of 1963 (entered into force in 1977) and the OECDs Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy of 1960(entered into force in 1968). These were further supplemented by the Brussels Supplementary Convention of 1963. The parties to the Vienna Convention are mainly outside of Western Europe while Paris Convention includes all Western European countries. These Conventions were linked by the Joint Protocol adopted in 1988 due to the joint efforts of the IAEA and the OECD/NEA to bring together the geographical scope of the two. Specifically they include that absolute liability is channeled exclusively to the operators though it is limited in amount and time. Generally compensation rights are extinguished under both the Conventions if action is not brought within ten years. Further, a total non-discrimination of victims on grounds of nationality, domicile or residence was laid down. Parties to the Joint protocol are treated as if they are Parties to both conventions. The Vienna convention has been amended once in 1997, while the Paris convention and associated Brussels convention have been amended three times; in 1964, 1982 and 2004, though the latest amendment has not yet been ratified by enough countries to pass into force. In 2004, contracting parties to the OECD Paris (and Brussels) Conventions signed Amending Protocols which brought the Paris Convention more into line with the IAEA Conventions amended or adopted in 1997. The principal objective of the amendments was to provide more compensation to more people for a wider scope of nuclear damage. They also shifted more of the onus for insurance on to industry. Moreover the 2004 amendment removed the requirement for a state to restrict the maximum liability of a nuclear operator, allowing for the first time states with a policy preference for unlimited liability to join the convention. Beyond the provision of the above-mentioned instruments there is at least a tacit acceptance that the installation state will make available funds to cover anything in excess of these provisions, just as is the case with any major disaster - natural or other. This has long been accepted in all developed countries. In the event of government payout to meet immediate claims however, the operators liability is in no way extinguished, and taxpayers would expect to recover much or all of the sums involved. Beyond the international conventions, most countries with commercial nuclear programs also have their own legislative regimes for nuclear liability. These national

regimes implement the conventions principles, and impose financial security requirements which vary from country to country. There are three categories of countries in this regard: those that are party to one or both of the international conventions and have their own legislation, those that are not parties to an international convention but have their own legislation (notably USA, Canada, Japan, S.Korea), and those that are not party to a convention and are without their own legislation (notably China). In 2010 both Frances CEA and the IAEA called for an overhaul and rationalization of the several international conventions. In particular, the Paris Convention open only to OECD countries was unsatisfactory when reactor vendors and utilities from those countries were building plants in non-OECD countries. (D) The Debatable Issues In the backdrop of Civil Nuclear Agreement, The Nuclear Liability Act and the International regime, following critical debatable issues need serious consideration. Entry of private operators in the nuclear power generation sector. Adequacy of the liability limit and the financial security covering the operators liability. Assessment of compensation due for nuclear damage. Compliance with international agreements (if such compliance is a necessity). The time-period over which compensation can be claimed by victims. Determining the nature and extent of fault liability for those actually responsible for causing damage.

The safety threat posed by nuclear reactors is very high. A nuclear accident in a populous nation like India can cause massive damage to human life. The government must ensure that proper safeguards are implemented at the new nuclear sites and there is transparency in the process of selection and management of the sites. What is the governments specific response plan to such a disaster and to what degree has it been verified and tested?

The government of India will have to give American nuclear plant makers and operators Liability waivers since entities to insure such plants do not exist. This would mean in the event of a nuclear disaster the government of India would have to bear the cost of compensating the hundreds of thousands that could die and the millions that would be injured. Not to mention the severe impact on the environment. The government should lay out its liability plans. Lets prevent another Bhopal. India will possibly spend up to $100 billion to purchase new nuclear power plants and related technology, according to the US Chamber of Commerce. Is this a worthy investment given the energy returns? The government should be questioned to justify this planned expenditure. And why such a big investment is not being made into renewable energy ($2.5 billion in the XI Plan), which potentially holds the key to Indias energy security and independence? Investing similar resources in promoting clean, renewable, and decentralized AND diversified sources of energy is more advisable given Indias severely lossy transmission and distribution system. How is nuclear power generation overcoming the existing problems with the system that it shall use for transmission and distribution? The Electricity Act of 2003 is progressive in its administrative and regulatory outlook but deficient on the technical challenges, which underscore the larger problem of reliable electrification? While the United States has assured a steady supply of nuclear fuel in the 123 agreement, it is hard to conceive that it is in the position to do

that, without the express consent of other entities in the Nuclear Supplies Group. Would it not be extremely unfortunate to be in a situation in a few years, where India has invested billions of dollars in nuclear plants, but is dependent on foreign sources of nuclear fuel? Does this not go against Indias need for energy security through energy independence? This deal jeopardizes the nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation efforts globally. What is India doing to compensate for this rupture in the nonproliferation regime? Even if the governments contention is that the NPT is discriminatory we as a nation must make our commitment to non-proliferation clear through specific steps and proposing alternative mechanisms to achieve it. Such ideas should be presented to the nation and the world. If the deal is successful and translates into construction and operation of new nuclear plants, it is imperative that the government has a carefully planned strategy for proper handling of radioactive waste from the power plant. In a nation with such high population density where exactly is the government the nation.
(F) The Fukushima tribulations 2011 has been privy to one of the biggest disasters ever to occur in a millennium. On March 11th 2011, an unexpected earthquake with a magnitude of 9 occurred off the coast of Japan. The earthquake released enough energy to light up every light bulb in Los Angeles for one year and it lasted approximately 6 minutes. According to the data released by US Geological Survey, the overall destructive force of the earthquake was

planning to dispose off the nuclear

waste?

comprehensive nuclear waste management plan must be shared with

quite large and a similar earthquake in Japan hadnt happed for last 1000 years. In fact, the destructive force was so large; that it moved the main island of Japan closer to mainland USA by 18 feet. More interestingly, the whole Earth axis shifted by 25 feet and due to change in the mass distribution of Earth, the days became shorter by 1.8 microseconds.1 (F) Indias Preparedness

India ranks second in the world for natural disasters after China; a top UN official has said underlining that unplanned urbanisation and failure to address the issue of climate change pose a grave threat worldwide.2 The two rapidly growing countries in the world - China and India - rank first and second in the number of reported natural disasters. While China witnessed 22 natural disasters, India came second with 16. About 373 natural disasters killed over 296,800 people last year. The estimated costs of natural disasters in 2010 - in which an earthquake in Haiti killed over 222,500 people and the Russian heat wave caused around 56,000 fatalities - is around USD 110 billion. The loss of lives and destruction to property was several times higher in China which witnessed landslides, earthquakes, and floods on an increasing scale. New Delhi : Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Wednesday reviewed Indias atomic disaster preparedness in the wake of Japan nuke crisis at a high level meeting here. Chairing a special meeting of the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), Singh tasked it to put in place the worlds best possible safety precautions and procedures at nuclear plants, sources said. The meeting discussed various steps to meet nuclear disasters. These include fasttracking of creation of disaster response forces in places in addition to existing four and procurement of special radiation-detection vehicles. At the meeting, the Prime Minister reviewed the nuclear safety issues being looked after by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) and Department of Atomic Energy, sources said. Singh also took stock of guidelines of management of nuclear and radiological emergencies issued by the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA).
1 2

ENERGY NEWS, May 2011, UPES, Vol. II (Prof. Dr. Ugur GUVEN, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering College of Engineering Studies, UPES.) http://post.jagran.com/india-worlds-second-most-natural-disaster-prone-country-un-1295876703 India worlds second most natural disaster prone country: UN Posted on: 24 Jan 2011.

Among the various steps to be considered as part of the chemical, biological, radiological nuclear response and rescue preparedness is a project for installation of dosi-meters in 1000 police stations in 35 cities having more than one million population.1
If Japan like catastrophe hits Delhi, there will be a hellish situation here as the national capital lacks proper policy of disaster management, which has been recently indicated by National Disaster Management, Government of India, website. The inefficiency of the disaster management was witnessed in a case when a building had collapsed at Lalita Park in Laxmi Nagar and it took around 96 hours to clear the rubble. There is no disaster management team for immediate action in Delhi. In case of any untoward incident, the National Disaster Management teams will come from Noida and Bhatinda. Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) in 1962 had drafted a seismic resistant design code. This is the standard code for building houses and apartments. But, due to political apathy, there was no further consideration on it. According to the managements website, updated on May 21, 2010, around 6.5 per cent of houses in Delhi fall under high damage risk and 85.5 per cent come under moderate damage risk. National Disaster Management Authority expert Brigadier Dr BK Khanna said that Delhi falls under seismic zone- 4 as it is adjoined with the northern part of the country. Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand, Nepal and Bhutan are the epicenters and tremors are felt in Delhi when an earthquake strikes these regions. Apart from following the norms for constructing houses, residents should use iron and cement in large amounts. They should also consult engineer. 2 The National Disaster Management Authority today said there was a need to take more preparatory steps to deal with any nuclear disaster in the country and emphasised that possibility of radiological accidents was a matter of greater concern than any Fukushima-type emergency. NDMA vice-chairman M. Shashidhar Reddy said that the organisation was focusing on preparedness to deal with nuclear and radiological emergencies.
1 2

http://post.jagran.com/manmohan-singh-reviews-indias-atomic-disaster-preparedness-01 Jun 2011. http://post.jagran.com/no-disaster-management-team-23 Mar 2011.

Our nuclear plants are safe. There are many in-built mechanism in the nuclear sites to avoid any disaster. The prime minister is fully satisfied about the safety facilities. However, we have to take more steps to strengthen our preparedness to deal with any emergency, he said at a press conference here. Reddy was speaking to journalists hours after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh reviewed the nuclear safety issues being looked after by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board and Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). Singh also took stock of guidelines of management of nuclear and radiological emergencies issued by the NDMA. Member of the NDMA B Bhattacharjee said that no one can give a guarantee that the safety measures are foolproof. Hence, we are making our preparation, he said. Asked about the possibility of nuclear arsenal of Pakistan falling in the hands of terrorists and in that event what is Indias readiness, Reddy said that terror issues receive the largest amount of attention from the government. There are different platforms to deal with the terror issues. It gets highest attention of the leadership of the country, he said. 1 (G) Conclusion Having made a critical evaluation of Indias Nuclear Energy programmes and the recently enacted Nuclear Liability Act, we need to adopt a holistic approach. It is

true that to meet the ever increasing demand of Energy, India will have to rely on Nuclear Energy, but a strict and ever vigilant mechanism for safety standards at par with International level will have to be adopted. Energy security is a holistic concept which varies from country to country as per their needs. For the exporting country it implies continuous access of market for the selling of energy sources whereas, for the importing country, it is essentially implies ensuring uninterrupted supplies of energy to support the economic and commercial activities necessary for the sustained growth of the economy 2. The Disaster Management strategies will also be required up gradation.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_india-not-prepared-to-deal-with-nuke-disaster-ndmachief_Published : Wednesday, Jun 1, 2011 Willrich,Mason Energy and World Politics,(New York Free Press,1975) quoted from Energy Security And India-China Cooperation by Dr. Bhupendra K.singh in GNLU Journals of Law,Devlopment & Politics volume 1 December 2009.

10

Simultaneously, in the interest of our future generations, the need is to actively

move away from fossil fuel based power generation to nuclear.. In the next fifty years, global population would use more energy than the total consumed in all previous history. Fossil resources - coal, oil and gas is being consumed so rapidly that much of it would be exhausted during the 21st century. Of todays six-and-a-half billion people, many enjoy an unprecedented standard of living, but one-third of humanity has no access to electricity and still another third has only limited access. In the next 50 years as world population expands vast unmet demanding human needs could multiply exponentially. Economic development is imperative not only to alleviate human misery but also to create conditions necessary to stabilize global population. In order to deal with all of these issues, nuclear power seems to be a logical and natural choice. It is a sustainable development technology because, it will be available for multiple centuries, its safety record is superior among major energy sources; consumption causes virtually no pollution; its use preserves valuable fossil resources for future generations and lastly its costs are competitive and still declining and its waste can be securely managed over the long-term 1. Let us as a NATION pause, and look at the Nuclear Liability Act from this prism. In the end the quote from Terry Prachett effectively summarizes the need for maintaining stringent nuclear liability laws: Eight years involved with the nuclear industry have taught me that when nothing can possibly go wrong and every avenue has been covered, then it is the time to buy a house on the next continent. on such critical issues much remain to be said

*****

Kragh, Helge (1999) Quantum Generations: A History of Physics in the Twentieth Century . Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. p. 286