It is reported that after years of deadlock on the liability issue, India and Russia finally inked an agreement for two more reactors (units 3 and 4) at Kudankulam nuclear plant in Tamil Nadu. The Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) signed a General Framework Agreement (GFA) with its Russian counterpart in April.
Both countries have sorted their differences resulting from India’s Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act, 2010, with Moscow finally agreeing to bring the reactors under the purview of the law which makes suppliers of equipment liable for nuclear damages.
Even though the details of the agreement specifying the liability of the supplier are not known, the agreement itself is a giant step forward in enhancing nuclear safety as it will bring the two major stakeholders, the owner and the supplier, on the same boat to share the liability throughout the life of the two reactors.
At present, there are two international conventions on civil liability for nuclear damage: The OECD’s Paris Convention of 1960, and the IAEA’s Vienna Convention of 1963. These conventions, linked by the Joint Protocol of 1988, make the operators of nuclear power plants liable for damages, regardless of the cause of the accident.
The maximum liability of the operator is limited to $300m in most countries. The state takes responsibility for damages exceeding this limit. The bilateral agreement between Russia and India obviously goes beyond the scope of the two international instruments.
The safety of a nuclear reactor depends on several factors, including its engineered safety features, the mode of its operation, and the application of safety regulations besides natural calamities like earthquakes and tsunamis. So, like the operator’s error, any design fault or manufacturing defect can cause nuclear accidents.
With the present day technology, it is possible to identify any faulty equipment by analysing the sequence of events during an accident. The extension of the civil liability for nuclear damages to include the reactor supplier is, therefore, fully justified, and time has come to amend the Vienna Convention accordingly. It is hoped that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would take the necessary steps in this direction.
It may be mentioned here that the construction of units 1 and 2 at Kudankulam nuclear plant, consisting of two VVER-1000 reactors supplied by the Russians, started on March 31, 2002, and Unit 1 was synchronised with the southern power grid on October 22, 2013. The unit 2 of the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant in Tamil Nadu is likely to become operational by early next year according to the director of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (Barc) in Mumbai.
Part of the delay was due to the 500-day long protests by the locals concerning the safety of the plant. During its construction, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) of India recommended 17 safety-related modifications for the reactors. There were also allegations that the supplier installed some faulty valves in the nuclear plant, four of which were later replaced. It is expected that the incorporation of the supplier’s liability for damages will make the supplier more stringent with quality control during design, manufacture, and the erection of the nuclear plant components of units 3 and 4 at Kudankulam. This is likely to make units 3 and 4 safer than units 1 and 2.
In an earlier article published on October 27, 2013, I recommended that Bangladesh could have a similar legislation on the supplier’s liability like that of India. No action has been taken on this matter so far. Since Russia has already created precedence by abiding by the Indian legislation, they are most likely to abide by our legislation too.
There is, therefore, no reason for not enacting a similar legislation in Bangladesh if the safety of the nuclear plant is our top priority. As a matter of fact, it is imperative that we do it as early as possible so that we can incorporate its provisions in our contract with the Russians for the construction of the Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant.
The inclusion of the clause is, however, likely to escalate the cost of the plant as the supplier would be required to take an insurance to cover the risk. It may be noted that whereas the revised cost of units 1 and 2 at the Kudankulam nuclear plant was $2.86bn (Rs17,270cr) only, units 3 and 4 at the same site are likely to cost about $5.46bn (Rs33,000cr) according to available information.
Even then, it will be worthwhile to enact a legislation including the supplier’s liability for damages in the case of any nuclear accident in Bangladesh.