While the debate over whether, to coincide with the prime minister’s visit to the US, India is changing the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act centres around this being done to serve the interests of US suppliers like Westinghouse, what it misses is that, over a pretty short period of time, this will hit Indian firms as well. Firms like L&T, for instance, are in the running to partner with global suppliers to produce such equipment; others like HCC are in the business of doing the civil works for even existing plants. In the case of French firm Areva that is supplying nuclear plants to India, for instance, while the initial 2 plants will have a 40% local component including the construction costs, this will rise to 60-70% by the time the 6th and 7th reactors are commissioned.
While critics argue that just because Indian firms are going to be hit by a law is no reason to change it, the issue here is different. Under the current law, if there is a nuclear accident, the operator will pay for the immediate damages—the operator in this case is the government-owned Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL). This will be what is called a ‘no faults’ compensation; that is, it doesn’t matter whose fault it is, NPCIL will pay up R1,500 crore immediately and if more is needed, the government will pay up. The question is what happens after this. Surely, NPCIL should, the argument goes, be allowed to claim damages from the supplier? Under the Rules of the Act, this recourse is to be limited to the initial period of the license which is 5 years or the life of the product liability offered by the supplier in case that is longer.
While many argue this is allowing nuclear plant suppliers to go scot free in case their defective plants caused the accident, how can a supplier be held responsible for the damage if the plant is being run by NPCIL? If NPCIL doesn’t observe some safety standards, or the atomic energy regulator doesn’t enforce this, how is the supplier