Lesson 1: If Fukushima was first generation reactor design and “Kudamkulam ( KK) “ the Russian supplied nuclear power plant is 3rd generation design then why DAE would be operating Fukushima type 1st generation BWR located in Tarapur near Mumbai any more? Tarapur is already over 40 years old, put in operation in 1969 onwards and should now be quietly shut down. Tarapur does not have double containment, no core catcher as in KK and If it is not up to the safety standards of 3rd generation features and if KK is any benchmark, DAE should stick to reactors equal in technology& safety features and nothing less. Praising KK deferential safety features between old and new reactor designs will hoist DAE on its own petard.

Lesson 2: Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) reports to AEC. AEC should have taken the lead and shown the way by de-linking itself and got the law passed to set up independent statutory commission on the lines of CERC in India, paid for by Consolidated Fund of India, 20 years ago. We understand “Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority (NSRA) 2011 Bill” is to be tabled in Parliament, but only after Fukushima when DAE/ NPC were not receiving support to keep AERB under AEC wrap. I hope new Bill will allow interdisciplinary experts from Finance, Law, Sociology, Environment, and Technology and not necessarily source them from DAE and its constituent wings along with the retired government servants from bureaucracy. A stitch in time could have saved nine. Push for NSRA now for credibility reasons and be eclectic in recruiting its Members.

Lesson 3: Whatever the Pro-Nukes may say against promotion of Solar, Wind etc. in place of Nuclear, there are few incontrovertible facts to be appreciated by DAE mandarins. Renewable Energy in India has come up on its own. Total of 18000 MW by June 2011 was installed in less than 15 years with over 85% capacity commissioned from private investments. Why dumb down Solar, Wind, and Bio Mass, something which is driven by Venture Capitals, Hedge Funds, Bank Loans, and Private Equity money, never experienced by DAE / NPC for their projects, till date. A level of due diligence, transparent and open process by the Financial pundits imposed on the Renewable Energy projects in India is world class. In contrast the whole DAE, NPC and BARC are built brick by brick from Tax Payers money for over 5 decades. In my view Renewable Energy has earned the global respect for innovation, progress and fulfilling its promises to reach commercial viability goal on its own merit. The challenges of  adverse grid impact due to variable and uncertain outputs etc. are purely technology issues that could be fully overcome in coming years. Nuclear power proponents should not grudge if it is over taken in India by Wind, Solar and Bio Mass installed capacities by an order of magnitude in next 5 years or so. This lead will only grow and not reduce over time. Once gird parity is achieved by Solar , the relevance of Nuclear generation could fall by way side. It will be seen as necessary evil required from military & to some extent energy security point of view in USA, Europe, India and China. Renewable Energy which has worldwide acceptance, practices transparent economics and enjoys greater political & public support than Nuclear power can ever attain.

Lesson 4: Here is the economics of renewable energy today in India. Wind power generation cost is about INR 3.0 to 4 per unit, allowing about 12-15 % Internal Rate of Return (IRR). Solar power generation costs about INR 14-16 per Kwhr, will go down in the coming years.  Grid parity will come faster once some emerging disruptive solar technologies will attain commercial scale. There is no substitute for renewable for decentralized and also grid connected supplies for a power hungry nation like India. Renewable is the answer in terms of thousands of MW installed capacity strewn across country. Nuclear power had 50 years lead over Renewable Energy in India. If it could add only 4500 MW by 2012, it is their problem. Renewable may reach over 20,000 MW by the end of this plan period ( 2007 – 2012) , producing more Kwhr on per annum basis than Nuclear power plants put together in the country. Do not bother on commenting on Renewable economics, just do one’s own job well to prove relevance.

Lesson 5: If KK generation cost is claimed as under INR 3 per Kwhr, what is the European Power Reactor (EPR) generation cost that will be set up at Jaitapur in future? In any case the logic of scale should apply here and EPR (1600 MW) compared to KK (1000 MW). Whatever, one cardinal error of judgment that DAE is making is not having public debate on imported reactor economics. DAE should disclose these numbers as public is a key stake holder in all nuclear business of this country. KK protest has proven this point once again where even a fully completed plant can be stalled or shut down. When things go wrong, DAE is rendered helpless and starts counting on PMO. What happens if tomorrow PM is not in love with nuclear power in India? If new PM or political party alliance at Centre would not care to support it to the hilt than it will drive away vendors and suppliers in no time. Intellectuals, think tanks, independent research institutes, writers, influence peddlers were never allowed to flourish who could have been a great source of moral support . Nuclear Liability Bill is an example of what could happen when political support starts dwindling in Parliament.

There are industries that we are dependent on like aviation, mines, roads, automobiles, bridges, rail road’s etc. These industries too kill thousands each year. Nuclear power is facing difficulties in competing to retain its public acceptance even though in absolute terms it did not result in causing deaths of a small fraction of the numbers that other leading industries had been responsible each year.

Nuclear industry has learnt a lot from the back-lash and vicious attacks about its desirability to supply large scale power production through fission route in several countries after each accident. Nuclear accidents will become rarer with experience and learning but are we ready to accept this approach and allow this industry to grow and play a role in Indian commercial power generation mix?

I think we should sustain this technology for many reasons. First of all power will be required for country’s sustained growth and there is no escaping from this fact. Coal based power generation kills thousands each year without you and me making any fuss, Hydro kills environment but we accept it and renewable energy needs time , several decades, to catch up. This is one Industry that has matured for over 60 years developing and using all types of power reactors world over.

In India we mostly used PHWR type but will add PWR and BWR Types as well, once we import them from Russia, USA and France. These are fairly advanced and well evolved technologies and will ensure that in their operating life time they would not fail and cause public danger. We will also master them over the years and add new ones on self-reliant basis.

Each reactor adds more than 1000 MW installed capacity and this is rapid route to add to national kitty of capacity addition from non-CO2 generating power production units.

Here are some ideas to accelerate nuclear capacity addition in India. Like renewable energy power projects government could allow 80% depreciation in year one of operation. No direct Taxes for 10 years from commercial operation. Allow Renewable Energy Certificates (REC) for nuclear power plants and fix minimum forbearance price of INR 1.5 per unit. Make it salable in Energy Exchanges like IEX in India. It will be sold like hot cake to meet the Renewable Energy Portfolio (RPO) obligations of states utilities to (about 10% of total consumption should come from Renewable Energy quota on per annum basis) to buy green power. The market (buyer of nuclear power) will only pay say INR 4 per unit for Nuclear Power and IEX type exchanges will generate extra INR 1.5 per Kwhr to meet the viability gap of investor (NPC in this case).

Whenever a reactor accident happens the plant authorities are prepared as part of their routine drill to respond. The idea is to nip in the bud any potential radiological leakage into environment of the plant and public. I would be surprised if they would have imagined that simultaneous disasters would take place in one facility and they would have to be ready for such eventuality. The penchant to cluster Reprocessing, Spent Fuel Storage and Nuclear reactors all at one place has proved an utter disaster in Fukushima case. A lesson for saefty assesment experts.

Nuclear Industry has to now reckon with a much larger issue  “The Monumental Collateral Damage”. Health and life of people & nuclear power plant workers and auxiliary staff, emotional damage to people by causing Panic and Anxiety, physical and health support for decades to the affected population, damage to environment on long-term basis even after this generation passes away, properties rendered useless due to fission products and radioactive substances / gases coming from non-fission products causing contamination, adverse impact on country’s economy,infrastructure damage,abandoning huge land mass for-ever , where accident happens. In addition the more mundane looking collateral damages would include funding withdrawal by commercial banks for nuclear program world over, inadequacy of insurance coverage, inefficient and corrupt public servants entrusted with disaster management ( Bhopal Gas Tragedy  that killed 20,000 people 25 years ago is one such example)  and lack of money and resources for a third world country to deal with it effectively. Many of these issues had surfaced with Three Mile Island (TMI) and Chernobyl accidents. With passage of time these were ignored / forgotten  by common man over years.

Unfortunately there is no comparable man-made disaster that could leave such long-term and lingering damage to humans, flora and fauna than a massive amounts of gaseous, solid and liquid radiation let off in environment due to combination of unintended human failures married to natural disasters. And Fukushima is one more such proof recently delivered by the nuclear industry to world last week.

This raises some very fundamental questions. If a nuclear power plant is made disaster proof against Tsunami, Air Plane Crash,  Earth Quakes, Missile attacks from boats and ships , terror attacks on the plant site by suicidal fanatics, internal sabotage, reactor core catcher to arrest molten core if it ever happens again then the nuclear power plant well become obscenely costly item.  With no financial / bank funding appetite it will never get off the ground solely based on Utility resources and / or government financing / subsidising the project.  Who will buy this expensive power  when other sources like Wind, Solar and Bio Mass are reducing their generation cost with time and claim CO2 free impact into earths atmosphere. This kind of capital cost for bullet proof nuclear power program cannot be paid for any where in the world. 

The worst nightmare for Nuclear Industry is  drying up of the pool of  political goodwill & public support in democratic countries.   This  phenomena had materialised in USA after the TMI accident at 4 pm on  28th March ,  1979 at Dauphin County in Pennsylvania near Harrisburg. President Jimmy Carter never supported nuclear industry following this event. His disinterest led to US loosing out on Nuclear Business for over 20 years and no new nuclear power plant was built-in that country since than.

Chernobyl happened in Ukraine ( erstwhile USSR) on 26th April 1986. It is only nuclear reactor accident so far classified as a Level 7 accident that ever happened till date. There is reasosn to believe that Fukushima is inexorably reaching to this category of accident description.  In Chernobyl case there was rupture in reactor vessel it self due to power spike. So the fuel rods and fission products were out in open. Since the surrounding material to this vessel was Graphite ( Carbon in purest form) it caught fire when exposed to air at high temperatures sending plumes of smoke out and carrying along with it tons of radioactive material from the core of the reactor into the sky. Many countries in Europe were affected as the Plume travelled  with time. At least 50 deaths were directly attributed to this accident and between 4000 to a million as indirect fatality. The experts keep disputing these numbers all the time. The exact cost of Chernobyl borne by Civil Society will never be known.

Various arguments have been advanced in India about the inevitability of nuclear power, given the endemic power shortages as main driver. All this would have been OK till Fukushima took place last week in Japan, as people had begun to forget Chernobyl disaster. I think DAE has to step back, be humble and modest, stop making tall claims that it can not happen in India, seriously introspect if they really have mastered the safety theory & practice for their power plants.  They need to scrap Officials Secret Act so for as commerical aspect of nuclear power plant design,operation, safety etc are concerned. Rethink is must if it has to survive its nuclear power program on a modest scale following the Fukushima Nuclear Tsunami and retain public support.

It is my view that in India political goodwill and support for  installation of new nuclear power projects will practically disappear in less than 5 years from now. Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) will be predominantly be reduced to being a R&D entity required for this country for  strategic reasons. 

In each of these blasts a large amount of radioactive material will escape into human environment. Iodine can reach Thyroid, Cesium in food plates. That will be awful for the population.

Second explosion at Fukushima proves a great error is design of the safety systems , back up DG failure and assessment of multiple failures of hardware , all in tandem.

The Big Lesson is that when there is Nuclear disaster, the common human errors, which otherwise would have no consequence can be devastating.

By the way the other three units at this location are safe. You know why? They were shut down for maintenance for some weeks. So they were already cooled off. Did not need DG back up.

Indian media repots that DAE and NPC have staked claims of safe record of operation of the 14 odd reacotrs so far. There have incidents in India, though not of the type that Fukushima is currently experiencing. Interestingly Tarapur 2×210 MW is the same type, Boiling Water Reactor (BWR)  as in Fukushima, with some minor changes. All of these are 60′s design and incorporated safety practices as understood at that point in time. Measures would have been implemented in most of these plants to upgrade the safety and operational practices over the years. However there is no way the establsihment can guarantee absolute safety of these nuclear power plants and we do understand it. Operational and safety features need review involving public discourse to receive accredition to the claims of Department of Atomic Energy (DAE).

What are the Big Lesson from Fukushima. The Atomic Energy Establishments in India are not the only repository of knowledge and expertise in nuclear matters. If that is the case, it is very unfortunate situation in this country of intellectuals and scientists. As a nation ( particularly for reasons best known to DAE )  we have either failed to spread the knowledge of this Industry or deliberately suppressed the initiatives of Universities and private instituions that could nurture outside expertise of credible nature.There is no independent think tank in India that is respected within and outside this country for its indepth critique of program, technology , safety and operational practices.

It is only when catastrohphy stirkes, DAE would run to seek shelter under secrecy , defense implications, technical jargons, balme nature, apologise for unforeseen combination of circumstances and worst run like headless chicken. With practically Zero skills of public discourse , aversion to disseminating knowledge in public domain and not willing to accept critical evaluation by committees and groups that have outsiders , independent thinkers; Nuclear business in this country is akin to practicing esoteric Nuclear witchcraft.

Let us not forget that Nuclear Power is economcially viable only till it meets nuclear accident. On the oether hand cost of health, life, limbs and radiation clean up is paid by Tax payers of of the victim nation.

Along with it came the news that 5 nuclear reactors in Fukushima were shut down. This is keeping in view the automatic triggers that discontinue the nuclear fission process by inserting poison rods inside the reactor core. It is mandatory for nuclear reactors, however the degree of earth quake intensity varies from location to location in order to set this Trigger Quake level. In India we have Five categories of earth quake  Zones. Some of  Indian reactors are located in Zone IV where the plants can perhaps withstand quake with intensity of 7 on Richter scale. The highest is quake prone is categorized as Zone V , mainly covering the Himalayan region. Himalaya is fragile and Young Mountain compared to many old geological formations in North America and Europe.
Let us come back to Fukushima events that do not portend well for Nuclear Industry, worldwide. The Daiichi site here is located in Onahama city, about 170 miles (270 kilometres) northeast of Tokyo. The 460-megawatt Unit 1 began operating in 1971 and is the oldest at the site. There are five units here and three of them are above 1100 MW installed capacity each (BWR Type) . It is in a boiling water reactor that turbine are driven by radioactive water – steam cycle, unlike pressurized water reactors  (PWR) usually found in many other sites in Japan.  Any breach in steam circuit in BWR type will allow radioactive material straight into the containment building. Japanese regulators decided in February to allow this plant to run another 10 years. We have in India 2×210 MW capacity reactors supplied of this type by GE, Bechtel and Combustion Engineering, in operation since October 1969. It is still operating with the permission of Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), a semi – independent nuclear regulatory body in India.

I am guessing in the context of limited information in public domain, the accident in Fukushima, 470 MW, Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) is indeed serious one. It is derived from single fact publicly admitted so far that the radioactivity inside the reactor building has risen by 1000 times the normal level. Vicinity is experiencing over 8 times  radiation levels than what is permitted.
In the Loss of Cooling Accident (LOCA) in BWR we know that fuel cladding will give way ( practically rupture) allowing most of the gaseous elements released into the surroundings. Since there is suppression water pool outside of the Dry Well but inside of Reactor containment building it could at best reduce the Iodine by dissolving it water. However still some amount will escape into the containment building air environment. The bigger challenge is that Krypton 87 with 76 Minutes Half life and Xenon 137 with 4 minutes half life cannot be absorbed by water. These are inert gases that do not react with any other element and will eventually escape into the environment. Only anti dote is to stop it from running away from nuclear power plant buildings for many hours and only allow very controlled release. This is almost impossible if the Back Up power is disabled. Only  gravity operated ones will do some natural work as barrier. They have their limitations and they are more like natural defence and not serious engineered defence against surging volume of Iodine and highly radioactive inert gases build up.

It is clear that plant authorities are rushing power supplies from external, perhaps mobile DG sets to the site. Batteries, the final recourse when all power fail, will be dead by few hours but can be replaced. There will be chemical emergency team as well at site and evacuation must have planned or put in place.
If the levels are 1000 times high than normal, it is clear case of Fuel rupture, the worst nightmare for power plant manager. They can face Hydrogen build up. Should this exceeds 4% by volume, and we have explosive mixture like a Bomb ticking in the Dry Well containment. The Hydrogen comes from fuel cladding of Zirconium reacting above 1204 Degrees C with water inside the core of BWR and generating this un-cappable gas.

This old reactor BWR type was built in late 60′s based on GE Design. The safety features are still the same that were prevalent in those times. Nothing can be done to change them irrespective of state of art technology prevalent in USA, Japan or Europe today. Even the Control & Instrumentation systems will be old, except the panels in Control Room due to modernization, sensors will be same old ones.

Fukushima 470 MW capacity reactor uses direct Steam cycle which means steam is highly radioactive. This steam goes through reactor core and also Steam Turbine that produces power. Even the PWR type where the secondary steam circuit generates power can face fuel rupture as possible accident scenario.

Release of radioactivity though extremely un-likely in most of the circumstances, such as the one obtained where EQ 8.9 + DG set failure led to core of the reactor overheating, is still puzzling. It must have coincided with other system failures as well.  All these elements would have been taken into account ( I do hope) when the 10 year extension was given to the  Fukushima plant authorities to operate this unit in its 40th year.

Well we have terrible nuclear power plants in Eastern Europe, poorly maintained that gives nightmares to Western European countries. Finally for nuclear industry it is said “Accident any where is an Accident everywhere”.

Whatever it is, it is going to put Global nuclear industry under severe strain and public conviction will be hard to come by. I would like the Fukushima to come out with faster information dissemination, through its own mechanism or by voluminous information supply to IAEA. Delays will make people around the world very suspicious that industry has habit of suppressing the bad news, worst even delaying and distorting when under public scrutiny.

People will be very averse now to live next to Nuclear Power Plants and face the radioactive release burden and its brunt when there is accident, while others living 100s of kilometers away were enjoying power supply from such facilities. And if this reactor accident happens coincidence with a natrual disaster like Earth Quake, there is wider question. How many countries can deal with it?

As I have been writing about this event based on inputs from TV and websites, the Fukushima suffers a blast at about 2.15 hrs India time. We see that on screen as live coverage . It is time for Camera crew to run away from this place before the radioactive cloud  spreads and starts settling down. Fukushima nuclear accident is indeed a bad news for already Quake battered Japan and particularly for people around the plant. With this set back Nuclear industry is in for terrible times.

Stepping Out

The completed costs and new build project reference costs for nuclear power plants for Chinese Utilities are as under:

1. 1000 Mwe units 1300 USD / Kw installed cost in China
2. AP 1000 is 2000 USD/Kw, estimated project cost
3. EPR is 2300 USD / Kw, estimated project cost

One can compare these costs with the Indian costs for PHWRs and Russian supplied VVER 1000 MW capacity each. These numbers are available on my blog written earlier. Need less to emphasize that the domestically built nuclear power plant costs are half of what NPC would be doling out to French EPR suppliers.

Chinese Electric companies wanted to continue with proven 1000 MW French model. Utilities do not buy new model without proven operating experience. Chinese utilities were made to accept to buy Westinghouse AP 1000 due to politico-commercial reasons that existed at that point in time. Later Chinese government went on to buy EPR to avoid conflict with French suppliers and government. Russian power plants were also ordered for political reasons. Let us not forget that Chinese Government do not have problems to invest funds on such large scale. These monies are indeed completely way beyond Indian government or NPC capacity to put on the table. India may not be able to mimic Chinese route for developing nuclear power not only for lack of public financing but in addition there is a clear absence of unified political will and processes. The political parties are fractious when it comes to Nuclear power initiatives in the country.

As Nuclear deals are politically driven but what is important is to get the costs right. Any open ended costs contracts for turnkey nuclear supply will become controversial. Point in the case is Olkilouto in Finland where it went up to over 4.2 billion Euros from initial offer price of 3 billion Euros. While the Finnish case is making Areva squirm , in their own backyard in France in Flamanville there is significant slippage in construction schedule. There are amazing stories about reasons for delays including the famous concrete pouring for the foundation for the nuclear island that went wrong. The cost of raw material, preparation time and manpower put together made for colossal loss for the EDF. Such learning curves costs will put intolerable funding strain on NPC.

In this context it is important that buyer carefully constructs the price offer and obtains key commitments in absolutely balck and white terms. Especially for nuclear reactor EPR that has never delivered a single Kilowatt Hour (Kwhr) yet, no completion costs are available and unit generation cost is not proven.

I have some doubts about “series effect” claimed by AREVA for EPR, unlike what French utility EDF could do for 900 MW and later 1400 MW size units built on mass scale in mid eighties and early nineties. The difficulties in obtaining Series benifits include involvment of different manufacturers of equipments and components for different countries for supplying EPR hardware. French themselves do not need more that couple of EPRs and that wont standardize manufacturing these units in cost effective way based on local manufacturing industry support. Since EPR depends on export market, French national strategy advantage cited from previous examples are more or less of academic interest for now.

NPC will have many challenges but the one that needs to be taken care from beginning is to have a team that can techno-commercially specify , evaluate and negotiate EPR, review and approve technical documentation, drawings, get AERB approvals etc on time and other technical aspects on day to day basis. Since there is no existing experience is available for this type of reactor , this could lead to delays and eventually AREVA will try to wriggle out of fixed price contract by blaming delays occurring from NPC side. Case in point is TVO, I had mentioned above.

Finnish decision to buy EPR was indeed a big surprise and the unfortunate track record and confounded the misery for TVO. New export EPR Models , including to UNiStar Nuclear Energy of USA will be Finnish type. Government of France forced EDF to buy EPR from AREVA after the Finland export order. Today the best operating reactor in France is called N4. it is 1450 MW unit, lowest operating cost and proven design. The additional safety features that are attributed to EPR are debatable and that would require separate space to go into details.

AVREVA and EDF are owned by French Government. However it is open secret that these two companies and their respective senior management do not see eye to eye on many issues. However it is the French Government that will eventually call the shots. Under the given circumstances and clearly declared French Government policy to support EPR export and installation within the country , EDF experts cannot openly take a very strong position that could go against AREVA promoted EPR nuclear power plants.

 The suppliers are of course AREVA, Westinghouse, GE and Russians. While the companies from these countries must have tired all the ricks in the trade to convince the establishment (DAE and NPCIL ) to go along the international formulations that indemnify , once and for all, from third party seeking damages from India, it failed when the debates reached at the level of informed political discourse on the floor of Parliament. 18 amendments were accepted and the Minister for State Mr. Prithvi Raj Chauhan was almost pleading to the opposition parties led by BJP to give alternative formulations to get the Bill passed in time. Political overtones made it look like as if Government were in haste trying to please US President Barrack Obama, who will arrive by the November 2010 in Delhi, with a law passed by Parliament and ready with signatures of President of India.

So far as the end user is concerned, it would be Nuclear Power Corporation (NPC). It is now obligated on NPC to take out insurance, to promptly pay out to injured or persons killed from reactor accident, worth INR 1500 crores (about 300 Million USD). However NPC is at liberty to establish the reasons behind such an accident, should one ever happen, during its contemplated life time. If the reasons point out inherent, wilful or any other reasons for accident attributable to supplier, it would reach out for seeking damages as per the Nuclear Liability Bill passed by Indian law makers.

Though, the experts claim that power plants can operate safely for 40 years or even 60 years. How many years would NPC contract for life of the reactor supplied by GE/ Westinghouse/AREVA or Russians, one has no idea as of now.  Will suppliers even agree to sign a contract where liabilities could be in force for 50 – 60 years or more after the commissioning of the nuclear power plant in India? What happens if the accident takes place in 25^th year of its operation?  Many companies that would have supplied the hardware might not exist for this long. Several companies are formed just as partnerships like with Bharat Forge, Larson & Toubro (L&T), BHEL etc to supply nuclear and conventional systems to NPC. These will have no history and will be required to exist till the liability is likely to remain in force from 6 – 8 decades after supplies took place? This is not going to happen and is not enforceable from commercial point of view. Evolution of business may require companies to merge or demerge or dissolve their operations. Suppliers with Nuclear Liability will also do so. GE -Hitachi, Westinghouse – Toshiba and AREVA are new joint ventures with history of less than one decade of existence. Will they or their ancillaries continue for another 80 years to satisfy nuclear obligations, I doubt it? The cost of maintaining such commercial liability is not understood by insurers or may be just too expensive to provide for.

How would one safeguard against nuclear accidents. The basis for safeguards include  R&D, quality control and progressive knowledge and understanding of designing, constructing and operating nuclear power plants and hundreds of years of reactor operating experience accumulated all over the world. The track record of Nuclear Power plants the world over is good and possibility of accident in new types of plant designs is reduced to an irrelevant level. Since risk cannot be reduced to Zero, the Nuclear Liability Bill will involve insurance policies to be taken out by NPC and suppliers. The cost could deter most of the leading suppliers from signing contracts that would be legally binding in the way construed in India for many decades to come.

Let us talk about the complete absence of any Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) or Nuclear Power Corporation (NPC) expert explaining the nuances, intricacies and implications of the Nuclear Liability Bill to the common man by participating in Media led debates. There were only politicians on both sides and it was heavily tainted with political or ideological overtones. Left wanted no Nuclear Liability Bill at all and BJP was worried that without their strident criticism publicly voiced and amendments to the law made and credits claimed loudly, Congress will walk away with victory of the sorts. Under the circumstances it was obvious to business leaders that they would get a Bill that could defy commercial principles of transacting nuclear business in this country.    

An independent and strong presence of respected Think Tank could have rescued the Bill from being hijacked by Political craftsmanship winning brownie points on the floor of the Parliament and in Media. Politicians would have free run and we have to now deal with the after effects of an untested, stand alone type Liability Bill.  Once again in the international nuclear business we have pushed ourselves in a minority of one; twenty eight other countries do not have such clauses in their Bill.

US House of Representatives passed the bill on 28th September 2008 that paved the way for US companies to sell nuclear power plants, nuclear related hardware, services etc to Indian Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) . In the meanwhile 45 member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) also gave its approval to let India import nuclear hardware without signing Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). DAE has also secured following milestones with several countries procuring nuclear fuel and signing technology cooperation MOUs.

• Indo – French nuclear cooperation agreement , 30th September 2008.
• Opposition parties in the Parliament had nearly ousted the Congress Government on this issue, finally ruling coalition just managed a wafer thin majority and passed the Indo US agreement on 10th October 2008.
• IAEA and DAE signed India specific agreement on 2nd Feb 2009. It came into force by February 2010.
• DAE and Kazakhstan signed fuel supply agreement for purchase of Uranium on January 24th , 2009.
• DAE and Namibia signed Uranium purchase and sale agreement on 31st August 2009. As part of the deal DAE will help Namibia in exploring establishment of nuclear power plant in their country.
• With Mongolia an agreement for purchase of Uranium was signed by DAE on 14th September 2009.
• India signed a “Generic Nuclear Cooperation Agreement” with Argentina government on October 14th, 2009.
•  India signed a comprehensive agreement with Russia on 7th December 2009 for supply of 4×1000 MW reactors and transfer of technology for reprocessing and enrichment.
• South Korea signed a cooperation agreement with India for development of framework for civil nuclear cooperation on January 25, 2010.
• UK and India signed on 11th February 2010 an umbrella agreement civil nuclear cooperation.
• Indo – Russian inter-government agreement on nuclear supply of 6×1000 MW at Haripur in West Bengal state on 12th March 2010.

In the meanwhile Union Government has informally allocated sites for US supplied reactors in Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh. French supplied EPRs in Maharashtra state and Russians PWR of 1000 MW unit size each in Tamil Nadu ( 6000 MW ) and West Bengal (6000 MW). It is clear that NPC moved quickly to secure Uranium supplies from many countries and fuel grade Uranium supplies from France in 2009. The issue of importing nuclear reactors is still hanging fire. The main challenges are EPR high cost, US-based companies reluctance to move forward till the Nuclear Liability bill is in place. Only Russians are the big beneficiary in the interim as they are immune to most of the issues that bug European and US-based companies before taking steps for negotiating reactor supplies.

View within NPC is that get the fuel security in place as it is least controversial to buy Uranium for its Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWR) from leading supplier countries  for Indian nuclear power plants already placed under IAEA safeguards. There has been acute shortage of Natural Uranium required to run the indigenous nuclear power program of even a modest 4200 MW of operating capacity.  This way NPC can relieve the shortage by employing domestic Uranium for non-safeguarded reactors only.

Real progress on negotiating  with AREVA for France, GE and Westinghouse from USA and Japan respectively seems tardy. Open war between EDF and AREVA in France , the high cost of EPR in Olkiluoto in Finland , now estimated at 5.3 billion Euros, has not gone unnoticed in NPC.  The budgetary offer price of EPR made to NPC is also cause of concern as the per unit generation cost has to be in league with other sources of power generation such as Coal and Hydro in the country.

 In the meanwhile appointment of new Charmian of NPC  hand in hand with exit of large number of senior NPC experts already working on extension granted to work beyond official retirement age are likely to take place in the coming months or so. The change of guards at highest levels will also slow down the discussions with these lead suppliers for the import of PWRs .