India’s plan to amend nuclear liability laws

Source: The post India’s plan to amend nuclear liability laws has been created, based on the article “Nuclear energy — dangerous concessions on liability” published in “The Hindu” on 13th February 2025

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper3-Infrastructure: Energy

Context: The article criticizes India’s plan to amend nuclear liability laws. It argues that changes will benefit U.S. companies but weaken safety and accountability. It highlights past nuclear disasters, high reactor costs, and U.S. pressure to remove supplier liability.

For detailed information on India’s nuclear liability law and associated issues read this article here

What Changes Are Proposed in India’s Nuclear Liability Laws?

1. The government plans to amend the Atomic Energy Act and Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act to reduce supplier responsibility.
2. Current Law: The operator (NPCIL) is liable for damages, capped at ₹1,500 crore, but can recover costs from the supplier if faulty equipment causes an accident.

For detailed information on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act (CLNDA) read this article here

How have past accidents shown supplier faults?

1. At Fukushima (2011), U.S. company General Electric ignored safety warnings from 1972.
2. After the Three Mile Island accident (1979), Babcock & Wilcox failed to act on safety risks.
3. In Bhopal (1984), the Supreme Court ruled that hazardous enterprises have “absolute liability.”

Why is the U.S. pressuring India?

1. To protect U.S. nuclear companies: The U.S. wants India to amend liability laws to indemnify suppliers. Currently, Indian law allows the operator (NPCIL) to recover damages from suppliers for defective equipment.
2. Fear of legal risks: U.S. firms worry that India might increase the liability cap, exposing them to financial losses.
3. Lobbying efforts: Former U.S. Ambassador Eric Garcetti confirmed lobbying Indian leaders to amend the law.
4. Failure to sell reactors: Despite the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement, no U.S. reactors have been sold to India.
5. Global corporate interests: U.S. firms fear accepting liability in India might set a precedent in other countries where they demand complete indemnity.
6. To push costly U.S. reactors: The AP1000 project in South Carolina failed after spending $9 billion. Two AP1000 reactors in Georgia cost $36.8 billion, over 250% of the initial estimate. The U.S. wants India to buy these reactors despite their high costs and delays.

Why is supplier indemnity dangerous?

1. Without liability, suppliers have no economic incentive to ensure reactor safety.
2. Westinghouse claims AP1000 accidents happen only once in 50 million years but still seeks indemnity.
3. If suppliers fear losses, Indian citizens near reactors face greater risks.

What does this mean for India?

1. The government appears to prioritize U.S. corporate interests over citizen safety.
2. The proposed amendments could lead to higher costs and lower accountability.
3. India must decide whether to protect its people or bow to foreign pressure.

Question for practice:

Examine how the proposed amendments to India’s nuclear liability laws could impact safety, accountability, and foreign influence.