Dr Malaur Ramaswamy Srinivasan, former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), who remains a member of AEC, is quite clear that India needed nuclear liability legislation of the kind recently passed in the Lok Sabha. In an interview with B.R. Srikanth, the octogenarian nuclear scientist maintains that the proposed legislation is not a sell-out.

Q. Was it necessary for India to enact a nuclear liability legislation if we are running nuclear power plants on imported equipment?
A. If we go back to the time when we imported two reactors from the United States for Tarapur Atomic Power Station, there was no indemnity provided through legislation. It was through a contract with GE that we gave protection to that company. GE had spoken of the need for legislation but we persuaded them to accept a contract. It was the same with Canada (Rajasthan Atomic Power Station) and Russia (Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant). So, there’s nothing new in suppliers seeking protection, and this is not a new feature of nuclear commerce.
The liability law also ensures that people in the neighbourhood are protected, and that they get compensation within three months from the claims commissioner in case an accident occurs. Victims won’t have to run from one court to another as we saw in the Bhopal case. This factor has been lost sight of in the discussion so far, which has focused on suppliers, especially US suppliers. Even for the National Democratic Alliance government, the Department of Atomic Energy had suggested civilian nuclear liability legislation. So, this is not a new development brought about as a consequence of the India-US civil nuclear cooperation agreement. If we did not enact the nuclear liability law, Russia and France agreed to working under contracts, though they preferred nuclear liability legislation. The US firms said they cannot do with contracts and sought legislation.

Q. Our nuclear engineers and scientists have proved that they are capable of manufacturing excellent reactors. Where was the need for India to turn to foreign companies for nuclear reactors?
A. Yes, we are designing and building reactors, but the rate is very slow and cannot meet the demand for power. We are building heavy water reactors but are not in a position to build very large reactors that use enriched uranium. Almost 80 per cent of the world’s reactors producing electricity are light water reactors using enriched uranium. Therefore, for rapid increase in nuclear power generation, we must import light water reactors.

Q. Dr Gopalakrishnan, a former chairman of Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, has held that the legislation passed by Parliament is an abject surrender to the US and private commercial interests.
A. Well, that’s his view and a completely baseless interpretation. I don’t agree about surrender to either the United States or any private interests. We have made sure that our interests are protected. During the entire Indo-US negotiations, I stood for India’s interests. My views have been published by Nuclear Power Corporation Limited (NPCL) in 2008, in a series titled From the desk of a nuclear scientist.

Q. Had you been AEC chairman now, would you have recommended that suppliers not be liable in case of an accident? This was the source of the ruckus in Parliament. What do you make of the last-minute attempt to introduce “intent to cause damage” into the clause?
A. To me, Clause 17(b) of the liability legislation as passed by Lok Sabha provides good protection for operators as it gives the right of recourse against suppliers under clearly defined conditions, and after paying the compensation. It was there in the draft legislation and has been elaborated after discussions in Parliament. I welcome the fact that the entire phrase about “intent” has been dropped.

Q. What do you think are the main advantages of the Nuclear Liability Bill 2010 as passed by Parliament? What are its shortcomings?
A. It is important to have a civilian liability regime when we are going to have a large number of nuclear reactors. We need such regimes for large chemical plants too as means of protection for citizens and to prevent another Bhopal-like tragedy. I don’t think nuclear commerce would have been possible with suppliers from the United States without such legislation. I don’t see any shortcomings as we need nuclear liability protection in our own interests. Bhopal has shown us the plight of those living without such protection near an installation.

Q. Why was the original bill dubbed a sell-out?
A. It was not a sell-out as it had Clause 17(b) with provisions for the operator to invoke his rights against suppliers and had even defined negligence and willful misconduct. Now 17(b) has been made more elaborate, and that is a good development. So, comments and criticism about a sell-out are unwarranted. We required such a liability protection even without international cooperation.

Q. Do the operator of a reactor and victims now have the right to seek remedy/take recourse?
A. Yes, the operator has the right of recourse against suppliers, and the victims have a single point of reference with regard to compensation. Besides, NPCL can sue a supplier if the equipment does not meet specifications mentioned in the contract.
There’s no need for all to be covered by civilian liability. It covers the supplier of the plant and not of equipment. Let me tell you that 17(b) defines the conditions under which the operator has right of recourse to the supplier.

Q. If the supplier’s liability were to go up manifold, will the cost per unit of power become unviable since suppliers would cover themselves through heavy insurance premium?
A. I don’t think it will have a serious impact on cost of power generation. That may be only marginal.

Q. What is the safety record of nuclear power reactors internationally?
A. We know about two bad accidents and both were caused by a combination of factors like design shortcoming, equipment malfunction and improper operator action. From then, all operators are cooperating through the World Association of Nuclear Operators, exchanging information on performance of plants and equipment for the benefit of all, and to enhance nuclear safety and reliability. So much so that in the last 24 years, there were no accidents. I am sure that we will operate these plants in a safe manner in future.