ENVIRONMENTAL LAW PROJECT

WINTER SEMESTER (2023-2024)

NAME: PRITHA DUTTA

ID NO.: BSL223034

SUBMITTED TO: MR. ARUP PODDAR

TOPIC: NUCLEAR ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW:

INDIA'S POSITION VS. INTERNATIONAL SAFETY STANDARDS

[B. SC. LL.B. BATCH 2023- 2028]

INTRODUCTION:
Countries have now understood the importance of having many different kinds of energy resources for
meeting the present and future generations needs. Reactors and nuclear power facilities have been in
operation for more than 30 years without significant public opposition or challenges. Due to strong
opposition to nuclear power, some nations have given up on efforts to create nuclear weapons or extend their
nuclear programmes, even though they still play a substantial role in the world's energy production. Pressure
to address global warming, cut greenhouse gas emissions, address concerns about depleting fossil fuel
resources, embrace renewable energy sources, and ensure energy security has led to an expansion of nuclear
power in both developed and developing nations.1
International law, which is derived from treaties, customs, or voluntary agreements, regulates relations
between governments. Governments are required to abide by criteria set forth by public international law.
All areas on Earth that are suitable for human habitation are included in the term "environment," including
natural ecosystems, human-made environments like nuclear reactors, and human communities. Nuclear
reactions, such as fusion and fission processes, produce nuclear energy. It is regarded as one of the most
effective energy sources since it produces a large amount of electricity with little harm to the environment.
Among energy sources, nuclear power is unique in that it emits no pollutants. Nuclear power facilities do
not generate greenhouse gases that damage the ozone layer and environment, nor do they leak dust, sulphur,
or other air pollutants. They also lessen additional environmental impact while taking up comparatively less
space. Using nuclear energy protects against problems like acid rain and climate change by preserving
resources and maintaining good air quality.2

Low-enriched and naturally occurring uranium is the main fuel used in nuclear power reactors. This fuel sets
off a chain reaction that creates heat and radioactive fission byproducts like plutonium and other transuranic
elements. By using this heat to produce steam, turbines are able to generate energy. Fuel needs to be "spent"
and replaced with new fuel when the concentration of chain-reacting isotopes drops. To lower its heat and
radiation levels, the extremely hot and radioactive spent nuclear fuel is moved to a pool of water next to the
reactor. It stays in this pool for a variety of times, from a few years to several decades. After the fuel has
cooled down enough, it can be stored locally or centrally in enormous air-conditioned dry casks.3

At the moment, the main emphasis is on developing plans that thoroughly evaluate energy supply
characteristics to maximize efficiency and optimize consumption patterns. Nuclear energy holds a
significant position in the energy spectrum, with multiple nuclear power stations operating worldwide.
However, compliance with international norms and laws is necessary to guarantee the ongoing functioning
of these facilities and protect natural resources. Thus, it is essential to create and uphold international
legislation about the peaceful use of nuclear energy, especially when it comes to environmental law.

LITERATURE REVIEW:

1) “Nuclear Energy and Environmental Law: India's Position vs. International Safety Standards”
by Seyed Abbas Poorhashami and et. al.
The need for a variety of energy sources, uncertainties about fossil fuels, and environmental concerns
make it crucial to consider contemporary technologies like nuclear energy from the standpoint of
international environmental law. The study, which is being done by questionnaire survey, is aimed at
reputable academics and PhD candidates who focus on nuclear and environmental legislation. The
study involved the random selection of twenty-nine participants. The main goal is to evaluate the
suitability of the existing international laws and rules pertaining to the peaceful use of nuclear energy
and, if needed, to suggest preventive, deterrent, and regulatory actions. The results of factor analysis

1
Gurmanpreet Kaur, Nuclear Energy Law in India: An Analysis of Environmental Perspective, JLJ (2016).
2
Seyed Abbas Poorhashemi et. al., The Role of International Environmental Laws and Regulations in Peaceful Use of Nuclear
Energy, Vol. 4(1), Annuals of Biological Research (2013).
3
Ajay Kumar Singh et. al., Environmental Impact Of Nuclear Power: Law And Policy Measures In India, Vol. 4(2), GIAP
Journals (2016).
 showed that important factors taken into account in international environmental legislation pertaining
to the use of nuclear energy include safety, responsibility, waste management, environmental
protection, and international collaboration. These factors together account for 79.14% of the
variation. Therefore, the study emphasises how important it is to put in place binding legislative
frameworks, encourage global cooperation, and make sure that there is strong oversight of actions
pertaining to environmental and nuclear energy legislation, all of which are backed by sufficient
facilities and resources.
2) “Environmental Impact Of Nuclear Power: Law And Policy Measures In India” by Ajay
Kumar Singh4
Although the right to a clean and healthy environment is considered fundamental in India, the
growing energy needs of contemporary civilization necessitate a decrease in the use of conventional
energy sources, primarily because of environmental concerns. Because nuclear energy is abundant
and environmentally friendly, it presents a viable modern answer. But there are also inherent risks to
the health and welfare of anyone involved. As a result, countries need to discuss the best safety
measures and laws to guarantee the secure use of nuclear energy. The purpose of this article is to
investigate the effects of radiation exposure from nuclear accidents on the environment and human
health. It also assesses the effectiveness of national legal and policy initiatives as well as
international regulatory frameworks for handling nuclear emergencies. In addition, the paper
explores the controversial liability concerns that resulted from the adoption of new legislation in
2010 and offers closing thoughts on the matter.

HISTORY OF THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY:

Modern nuclear research began in 1789 with the discovery of uranium by Martin Klaproth. From 1942 to
1945, this cooperative endeavour comprising the US, the UK, and Canada served as the focal point for the
creation of atomic bombs. In July 1945, the United States of America tested its first nuclear weapon at Los
Alamos, New Mexico. A short while later, on August 6 and August 9, 1945, atomic bombs were detonated
over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, respectively, illuminating the destructive potential of nuclear energy and the
grave effects of radiation exposure on human health and the environment. These incidents took place soon
after the United Nations Charter was ratified in San Francisco, California, on June 26, 1945. They
highlighted the critical need to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons and acknowledged that nations
other than the US and its allies might have access to nuclear technology. 5

Simultaneously, there was an increasing curiosity about the potential peaceful uses of nuclear energy, with a
shift in emphasis towards the recently formed United Nations. From these efforts, modern nuclear energy
law was developed. Nuclear law, according to Werner Boulanger, aims to progress nuclear research and
technology while safeguarding humanity against possible problems related to nuclear energy.

In reality, nuclear energy regulations have had to deal with a number of issues, such as proliferation (making
sure that nuclear energy used for civilian purposes does not become a weapons programme), equal
protection for the public and industry (avoidance of large compensation claims and maintenance of equity),
and the establishment of a strong and effective regulatory structure.6

NUCLEAR POWER AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES REGARDING IT:

4
Supra note, 3.
5
Ranbir Singh, Environmental law, PATHSHALA, available at
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://epgp.inflibnet.ac.in/epgpdata/uploads/epgp_content/S000020LA/
P000843/M010198/ET/1513754586Q1_EText.pdf (Last visited on May 03, 2014).
6
Nuclear Energy and Sustainable Development, WORLD NUCLEAR ASSOCIATION, April 16, 2024, available at https://world-
nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/nuclear-energy-and-sustainable-development (Last visited on May
03, 2024).
India now generates very little electricity and uses very little nuclear power altogether. Looking ahead,
though, nuclear energy is thought to be essential to India's continued energy independence after 2050. India
has a lot of thorium reserves, but it also has low-quality uranium deposits, which present difficulties. India's
nuclear programme is therefore divided into three phases: Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors, Fast Breeder
Reactors, and Reactors that use the Uranium-233-Thorium-232 cycle to utilise the country's vast thorium
deposits. However, due to its history of nuclear testing in 1974 and 1998, as well as its non-signatory status
to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), India is no longer able to obtain nuclear materials and
technology from other countries due to international sanctions. Building civilian nuclear cooperation with
the international world is essential to India's future nuclear power expansion.7
The Chemical Volume Control System, which is regulated by the US EPA and NRC, produces gaseous and
liquid radioactive effluents that are released into the environment by the majority of commercial nuclear
power reactors. People who live 50 miles or less from a nuclear power station usually receive approximately
0.1 μSv annually, but people who live at or above sea level normally receive at least 260 μSv from cosmic
radiation. To stop radiation from leaking into the environment, all US reactors are legally required to have
containment buildings with thick concrete walls. Laws also require nuclear power facilities to store all of
their nuclear waste on-site, therefore avoiding any environmental emission of radioactive material. On the
other hand, because coal-fired power stations leak large amounts of radioactive materials into the
environment through ash, they provide a greater risk to public health. While coal-fired power plants release
their radioactive byproducts into the environment, exposing people to significantly higher doses of radiation
—anywhere from one hundred to four hundred times more than nuclear facilities—nuclear power plants are
mandated to retain their radioactive waste. Because coal-fired plants discharge radioactive elements into the
environment, they pose a far greater risk to public health.8

DISASTERS CAUSED BY NUCLEAR POWER:

The 1986 Chernobyl tragedy is still the world's worst nuclear power plant accident as of 2013. The amount
of deaths it caused, however, is a matter of great dispute; estimates range from 62 to 25,000. Higher
estimates take prospective deaths into consideration. Studies with peer review frequently back up a mortality
toll in the low tens of thousands. For example, in 2006 the International Agency for Research on Cancer
predicted that the Chernobyl accident will cause an additional 16,000 cancer deaths by the year 2065. The
IARC underlined in a news statement that tobacco usage would result in thousands of times more cancer
cases in the same population. Among the 6.9 million most exposed former Soviet population, the World
Health Organization's 2006 health consequences assessment, which was endorsed by the UN, projected
between 4,000 and 9,000 cancer-related deaths. In the long run, Chernobyl might cause over 25,000
additional cancer deaths worldwide, according to an estimate that the Union of Concerned Scientists has
disputed. The total number of fatalities from the Chernobyl accident is still less than that of the deadliest
dam failure in recorded history, notwithstanding these estimations.9

All 54 of Japan's nuclear reactors were shut down as a result of explosions and partial meltdowns at the
Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant in March 2011, which was preceded by a tsunami. The Fukushima site is
still quite hazardous in 2013, and some 160,000 evacuees are still living in makeshift homes. There are some
places on earth that will never be suited for farming. Tens of billions of dollars and at least 40 years are
anticipated to be spent on the cleaning. Orders to evacuate and seek shelter were issued for the towns,
villages, and cities around the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant; other administrative districts were also
impacted. At the Fukushima I power plant, radiation levels have fluctuated, with spikes as high as 1,000
mSv/h, which can result in radiation illness after an exposure of one hour. In an attempt to cool the uranium
fuel rods by pumping in seawater and releasing radioactive gas from the reactors, personnel caused
hydrogen explosions at three reactors, which resulted in notable discharges of radioactive particles. A 20- to
30-kilometer exclusion zone was established around the power plant due to fears of a widespread radioactive
leak. Residents in this zone are encouraged to stay indoors. Fears of radioactive pollution spreading
7
Elena Molodstova, Nuclear Energy and Environmental Protection: Responses of Nuclear Energy and Environmental Protection:
Responses of International Law, Vol. 12(1), Pace Environmental LR 10 (1994).
8
Essam E. El. Hinnawi, Review of the Environmental Impact of Nuclear energy.
9
Supra note, 3.
prompted a number of nations, notably the UK and France, to encourage their citizens living in Tokyo to
think about evacuating. According to reports, radioactive iodine and cesium leaks from the wrecked
Fukushima I nuclear reactor have reportedly reached levels similar to those recorded following the 1986
Chernobyl accident. At water-purification plants in Tokyo and other prefectures, radioactive iodine-131 was
found to be over safety limits for newborns, according to announcements made by Japanese officials.
Additionally impeding efforts to locate victims of the March 11 earthquake and tsunami are fallout from the
Dai-ichi facility. By April 2011, about half of the fuel in reactor unit 1 had melted, as had thirty percent in
unit 2 and fifty percent in reactor unit 3, according to the Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan.
Furthermore, it's possible that the overheated spent fuels in units 3 and 4's storage pools suffered damage. In
order to keep the melting fuel rods cool, water is still being injected into the damaged reactors. The
Fukushima tragedy is equivalent to the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in terms of intensity, surpassing that of the
1979 Three Mile Island incident.10

NUCLEAR LAWS IN INDIA:

India is a signatory to the 1997 Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage, which is
still in force. India has collaborated on the use of nuclear energy for civilian purposes by signing multiple
bilateral agreements with other nations, such as the US, UK, Russia, France, Canada, Bangladesh, and
Vietnam. India is aware of the possibility of creating treaties. India's atomic energy laws are bolstered by a
number of sources, with Parliament serving as the principal legislative body. Three laws have been passed
by Parliament: the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act of 201011; the Atomic Energy Act of 194812 (now
abolished); and the Atomic Energy Act of 196213. Delegated authorities have also been used to develop
several laws and regulations, such as the Atomic Energy (Safe Disposal of Radioactive Wastes) laws,
198714, the Atomic Energy Radiation Protection Rules, 200415, and the Atomic Energy (Arbitration
Procedure) Rules, 198316. The Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) has created voluntary guidelines that
are comparable to statutory norms. These guidelines include export guidelines for nuclear energy from 2006
and implementation guidelines for agreements on peaceful uses of nuclear energy with foreign countries
from 2010.17
1) The Atomic Energy Act, 1948
Shortly after India attained independence, the Atomic Energy Act of 1948 was established,
establishing the country's commitment to generating and using atomic energy exclusively for
peaceful reasons. This law represented Jawaharlal Nehru's goal of making India a technologically
advanced country with a strong focus on science and technology and provided a foundation for the
country's atomic energy programme. When the Atomic Energy Bill was being drafted in the
Dominion Legislature, Nehru emphasised the significance of employing atomic energy for peaceful
purposes. With an eye towards the future, the Act established the Atomic Energy Commission,
which was made up of prominent Indian scientists of the day. But when technology developed
quickly and the world changed dramatically, the Act was no longer adequate to meet the changing
demands and problems. As such, the Indian Parliament established the Atomic Energy Act of 1962
to replace it after it was repealed.18
2) The Atomic Energy Act, 1962
For the population's benefit and for non-military uses, the Atomic Energy Act of 1962 was passed,
governing the management, production, and use of atomic energy. This large piece of legislation,
which consists of thirty-two sections, is applicable throughout the country and has been amended
three times: in 1986, 1987, and 2015. The Act mandates that anyone in India who finds or suspects
the presence of uranium or thorium shall report the federal government or an authorised
10
Supra note, 3.
11
The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010
12
The Atomic Energy Act, 1948
13
The Atomic Energy Act, 1962
14
The Atomic Energy (Safe Disposal of Radioactive Wastes) laws, 1987
15
The Atomic Energy Radiation Protection Rules, 2004
16
The Atomic Energy (Arbitration Procedure) Rules, 1983
17
Naveen Sharma and Prakash Sharma, ATOMIC ENERGY IN INDIA: Legal Framework, I HPNLU L. J. 165 (2020).
18
Supra note, 16.
 representative as soon as possible, and within three months. The federal government has set terms
and conditions for those that harvest resources that include uranium. These conditions may include
obligations for remuneration that follow particular norms and practices. The 1962 Act's Section 21 19
guarantees that the term "arbitration" in its provisions will always be unique and exclusive, and will
never be subject to the definitions found in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996. Moreover,
the central government must give prior approval before uranium or items containing uranium may be
disposed of in their natural state. The Act gives the central government the authority to inquire about
materials or facilities that are to be utilised for the mining or processing of minerals used in the
generation of atomic energy. If there are reasonable grounds to suspect activities linked to substances
prescribed for the generation of atomic energy, authorised personnel may access any mine, premises,
or territory covered by the Act. In addition, they have the right to copy, examine, and remove any
papers, drawings, or plans from the area for additional study.
The Supreme Court of India examined sections 1720 and 21 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1962 in the
matter of M.K. Sharma and others v Bharat Electronics Ltd. and others21. The petitioners expressed
worries about their exposure to X-ray radiation without proper safety precautions while working at
the government-owned company Bharat Electronics Ltd., which produces radar systems and
electrical components for the military. In retaliation, the Supreme Court issued a temporary directive
mandating medical testing for 68 employees who had reported radiation exposure. The Bhabha
Atomic Research Centre was mandated by the Court to conduct the examinations in manageable
batches because the Indian Council of Medical Research did not have the necessary capabilities. The
Court ordered the installation of safety precautions and plans for compensation claims even though
the medical evaluations revealed no proof of harm or unfavourable consequences from X-ray
radiation exposure. In order to offer financial coverage in the event of an accident, it was mandated
that each worker have insurance for Rs. 1 lakh and officers for Rs. 2 lakhs. The date of this decision
was April 29, 1987.
The Central Government's capacity to issue orders is limited by the Atomic Energy Act, 1962's
Section 1822, which lacks specifics about prohibited disclosure regions. Using the precedent set by
the Hamdard-Dwakhana case23, this was emphasised in the People's Union for .Civil Liberties and
Another v. Union of India and Anothers case24. It was determined that the Central Government is not
given unlimited authority by Section 18. 25Parliament decided to establish Sections 1326 and 18 due to
the possible hazards of sensitive material getting into the wrong hands, especially when it comes to
national security and public safety. This reasoning is consistent with the ruling made by the Indian
Supreme Court in the case of Organon (India) Ltd. and Others v. Collector of Excise and Others27.

3) The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010

The extremely controversial and much discussed Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act of 2010
(Act, 2010) was passed by India, bringing nuclear liability laws into compliance with internationally
accepted norms. For the first time in independent India, this act created a contemporary framework
for nuclear harm compensation, making it a historic moment. In the event of a nuclear mishap, the
Act of 2010 guarantees prompt compensation, in contrast to earlier statutes like the 1962 Act and the
1991 Public Insurance Act, which did not cover nuclear damage. By assigning obligation to both the
operator and the state, the no-fault liability system aims to quickly compensate victims and holds
operators of nuclear plants accountable for any damage, regardless of negligence.
The 2010 Act's detractors argue that it does not go far enough in protecting the public, especially as
it places all the blame on operators and protects powerful nuclear suppliers from liability actions.
Despite popular belief, these providers have no real motivation to guarantee the security and
dependability of their products, which eventually has a negative effect on victims, the general public,
19
The Atomic Energy Act, 1962, § 21.
20
The Atomic Energy Act, 1962, § 17.
21
M.K. Sharma and others v Bharat Electronics Ltd. and others, AIR 1987 SC 1792.
22
The Atomic Energy Act, 1962, § 18.
23
Hamdard Dwakhana and another v. Union of India and others, AIR 1960 SC 554.
24
People's Union for Civil Liberties and Another v. Union of India and Anothers, (2004) 2 SCC 476
25
Supra note, 3.
26
The Atomic Energy Act, 1962, § 13.
27
Organon (India) Ltd. and Others v. Collector of Excise and Others, JT 1994 (4) SC 438.
 and the environment. Additionally, litigants face formidable obstacles in their pursuit of just
compensation, a reflection of the worries sparked by the disastrous Bhopal gas accident, which
resulted in a substantial loss of life and complicated legal issues surrounding compensation claims.
The development of tort law liability principles in India has been noteworthy, especially with regard
to liabilities resulting from dangerous industrial operations.28
These ideas have been broadly interpreted and advanced by the courts, notably the Indian Supreme
Court. For example, the Supreme Court underlined in the Oleum Gas Leak case29 that businesses
involved in risky operations have an unwavering obligation to protect public health and safety. The
1991 Act was enacted in response to this ruling to offer legal recourse to individuals impacted by
hazardous material-related occupational incidents. The 1986 Environment Protection Act sought to
protect the environment but lacked a compensation system before the adoption of the 1991 Act. In
contrast to the strict liability concept, the principle of absolute liability applies universally. The
Supreme Court, in the case of the Indian Council of Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India30, upheld
this principle, highlighting that industries possess the resources necessary to identify and mitigate
risks arising from their operations. India's adherence to the 1997 Convention on Supplementary
Compensation for Nuclear Damage underscores its commitment to absolute liability. The recent gas
leak incident in Vishakhapatnam highlighted this gap, suggesting that both the state and
multinational corporations may not have significantly altered their behavior despite the lessons
learned from the Bhopal tragedy. The term "non-serious" aptly describes how affluent nations and
multinational corporations view and treat third-world or developing countries.

INTERNATIONAL LAWS REGULATING NUCLEAR ENERGY:

Four treaties control nuclear disaster liability: the Vienna Convention of 1963 of the IAEA, the Paris
Convention of 1960 of the OECD on third party liability in nuclear energy, the 1963 Brussels
Supplementary Convention, and the 1997 Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC). The initial
obligation amounts set forth in these agreements ranged from SDR 5 million to SDR 175 million. However,
these amounts were increased to SDR 300 million by modifications and treaties like the 1982 Protocol.
Subsequent accords like as the CSC and the Vienna Protocol expanded the concept of nuclear damage and
raised liability restrictions even further. The CSC creates an additional fund and mandates that State Parties
guarantee a minimum liability amount of 300 million DRs, or around €360 million, in accordance with
national legislation. It also permits additional funding through collective contributions from State Parties,
based on installed nuclear capacity. Notwithstanding their involvement in current nuclear liability
conventions or the existence of nuclear sites on their soil, governments retain the option to ratify the CSC's
provisions even though it is not yet operational.31

After differences of opinion over a US proposal for centralised global control of nuclear power facilities, the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was established as a compromise. Its primary duties include
fostering and overseeing the development of nuclear power, guaranteeing non-proliferation, and working
with other organisations to create safety regulations. It can evaluate nuclear site activities and offer safety
guidelines, although having limited jurisdiction.32

CONCLUSION:
The development of nuclear energy has involved both potential risks and technological miracles. Even
though it offers enormous energy production and a host of useful applications in industries like agriculture
and medicine, the possibility of catastrophic mishaps is very real. The legal structures and organisations that
control the development and use of nuclear energy are collectively referred to as nuclear law. While many

28
Supra note, 16.
29
M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086
30
Indian Council of Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1466.
31
Supra note, 3.
32
Supra note, 2.
countries have used nuclear power to drive their economic development, they have also placed a high
priority on strict legal frameworks and regulatory agencies to guarantee public safety. 33 However,
catastrophes like the Fukushima and Chernobyl accidents serve as sobering reminders that even developed
countries confront nuclear risks, highlighting the necessity for continued improvement of current regulatory
frameworks. International nuclear liability systems are characterised by a similar focus on operator
accountability and liability capping, with governments bearing the burden of providing victim
compensation. Exempting suppliers from liability, however, carries a number of concerns that could
undermine the motivation to improve nuclear plant safety.

33
Supra note, 1.