India needs to revisit its liability regime: Henri Chapotot

Interview with President, French Nuclear Industry Association

The country’s efforts to raise nuclear capacity addition are laudable. However, it must review its nuclear liability regime, as it would be difficult for suppliers, including Indian companies, to bear the stipulated risk, Henri Chapotot, president, French Nuclear Industry Association, tells Sanjay Jog. Edited excerpts:

India's nuclear capacity addition programme is passing through a rough phase. What is the way forward?
It is a matter of communication. It’s all about acceptance and acceptibility by the people. Apprehensions about nuclear energy should be cleared through proper communication, interaction with people residing within a 30-km radius of the nuclear plant and through organised plant visits. Nuclear energy is clean and safe energy. I am confident India would be able to address these concerns and carry out its capacity addition plans. Nuclear energy is the need of the hour.

I recently visited nuclear plant at Pecs in Hungary, where you will find bouquets of flowers and people all around. There has been 90 per cent acceptance of the people.

After (the) Fukushima (accident in Japan), several countries have cut nuclear energy plans, especially in view of the safety concerns.
Following the Fukushima accident, nuclear countries have undertaken a series of initiatives to address those concerns. Additional safety applications have been incorporated. That accident occured due to a tsunami and it might not be possible in some other country. The French industry has undertaken a strong safety programme, under the control of the French Nuclear Safety Agency. It will, in particular, cover the risk of simultaneous loss of electric power and coolant water. A robust and complete system of protection against nuclear radiation has been achieved by the French nuclear industry.

However, the French government has decided to bring down the nuclear energy share to 50 per cent from 75 per cent (of all power generation).
This won't happen in a short duration. The present government wants a 50 per cent balance to be achieved through renewable energy sources. In Germany, too, the government has taken a decision to go for gas-based addition. However, I still feel nuclear energy is an important solution, though not the only one, to address the issue of climate change and reduce carbondioxide. No country can solely rely on renewable energy sources and, therefore, there is no alternative to nuclear energy.

The Jaitapur (amharashtra) project, where French major Areva would initially supply two reactors of 1,650 Mw, is facing strong opposition from locals. Has Areva addressed safety-related issues?
I reiterate the issue can be addressed through proper communication with the people. Areva will certainly incorporate additional safety measures and I hope the company will be able to successfully meet its commitments.

Global companies have raised concerns over India's (nuclear) liability regime.
There are bigger risks involved for global as well as Indian companies in the present nuclear liability regime. If a supplier invests a few millions, in the wake of any accident it will have to provide billions. No insurance company will be ready to provide that much insurance cover. If any incident occurs, there will not be a limit on liabilities. India needs to revisit the present liability regime, which has come into existence following the enactment of a law and the subsequent rules. As far as liabilities in France and other nuclear countries are concerned, there are no similar issues involved.

In the liability rules, ordinary citizens have the right to sue suppliers for any amount and any time after an accident, which could be even after several years. It is very difficult to bear such big risks by any supplier, including an Indian company.