More provisions needed to protect people

IN the 1960s, when the nuclear power era started, it used to be stated that nuclear technology will generate electricity so cheap that it would be more expensive to meter it. A large number of power plants were constructed all around the world in 1970s and early 1980s. However, nuclear power turned out to be extremely expensive and nuclear waste disposal became a nightmare. Most of the nuclear waste is stored at nuclear plants which has created serious safety and health concerns. India is appropriately interested in developing nuclear power and has the civil nuclear liability limitation Bill before Parliament. Based on my extensive experience with the nuclear power industry since 1969, I am presenting my thoughts on nuclear power development.

First, I continue to favour nuclear power development as it can offer cheap and environmentally friendly power. However, I had been very upset with the way it was done in the USA and testified on numerous occasions on the imprudent and careless actions by the utilities, owners, operators, planners, designers, construction contractors, equipment suppliers, states and federal regulators and the US government as they ignored and/or improperly handled major issues. These issues are lack of cost control, standard design, proper decommissioning process, and an appropriate nuclear waste disposal mechanism. Because of these concerns, no new nuclear plant was installed after the early Eighties. The Energy Policy Act of 1985 in the USA attempted to encourage the new nuclear plants, however not much activity happened on this front. In his second term, President Bush started placing new emphasis on developing new nuclear plants and President Obama is more vigorous on this front. New applications have been filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but only very little construction activities have started.

Concerns about technology, cost (new estimated costs are up to $10,000/KW) and waste disposal are being raised. In the past India relied on Canada’s CANDU (CANada Deuterium (oxide) Uranium) design which uses heavy water for cooling reactor. Some serious concerns have been raised about the CANDU technology. There are also concerns about the sufficiency of heavy water in India. Corruption in India makes things worse for taxpayers as well as consumers.

Before committing large amounts to new nuclear plants, India must resolve all the above issues. It should ensure supply of nuclear fuel and spare parts and all the contracts, especially with foreign countries and business entities, must be well-written and reviewed by competent and honest persons. India should make extensive efforts in finding uranium deposits and conducting research on using thorium as a fuel. Research may be conducted jointly with some other countries. There should be national discussions on this matter among the leaders of all major political parties, bureaucrats, technocrats, business and labour leaders, social activists and legal experts.

In implementing a reasonable nuclear liability Bill, politics should be avoided as it is a very serious matter. In the USA, there is a similar Act known as the Price Anderson Act (PAA) and I have testified to the problems and implications related to the PAA in the USA. Based on this experience, here are some suggestions related to the nuclear liability Bill. These are based on my experience with a similar Act in the USA and the Bhopal gas tragedy. First a number of cases were filed in the USA against Union Carbide, now owned by Dow Chemical. Union Carbide had agreed to pay about $.5 billion. The government of India tried to move the case to India. I advised against it and told the GOI that I may be able to get $1billion more. However, Union Carbide prevailed over GOI to move the case to India allegedly by bribing bureaucrats and politicians. The case was moved to India and no victim got a penny.

The PAA was enacted in 1954 and originally the PAA limited the liability of the owner/operator of a nuclear plant to $560 million which was increased to $700 million in 1977 and has been now increased to $7 billion. A study by the Sandia National Laboratory in the USA conducted in 1975 concluded that a ‘core melt’ accident could result in 3,300 early fatalities, 45,000 early illnesses and $17 billion in property damage. In some cases, early fatalities could reach 50,000 and property damage could be as high as $314 billion.

Although a limitation to liability is a necessary evil to encourage nuclear power production, the limitation must protect the public. In order to protect the public, the following provisions must be included in the Act:

Owner/operator (OO) including suppliers, designers, contractors of a plant should be liable up to $7 billion for each accident.

A national pool (Pool) should be created to cover the liabilities above $7 billion.

Each OO is required to obtain a liability insurance as well as contribute towards the Pool on a monthly or annual basis.

Victims of a nuclear accident should be allowed to pursue damage cases in any jurisdiction in India and/or in the country where the OO, designer, builder or equipment supplier has the head office.

A case filed in India must be decided within two years. However, in case of early fatalities, injuries and property damages, the OO may be allowed to contest the claims and the cases must be decided within one year in Indian courts. However, the defendants must pay at least the actual expenses related to deaths, injuries and damages and reasonable monthly expenses for the injured and immediate non-earning family members of the dead and seriously injured within three months of the accident.

In case of a fraud or gross negligence by the OO, designer, builder or equipment supplier, the $7 billion limit could exceed by up to $3 billion and civil and criminal charges should be allowed against the person(s) responsible.

No settlement should be approved without an agreement by at least 60 per cent of the persons affected by a nuclear accident.

jki73@hotmail.com