India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10033
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Mort Walker »

RoyG wrote:We need to begin research in Laser ignition, magnetic confinement fusion, etc and stop wasting our time with ITER. Mining helium-3 on the moon and then bring it back to earth is wasteful. PMO needs to appoint competent and visionary people who scout out the next best thing and really come up with a road map. We may not even need the 3 stage.
No. India simply does not have, at this time, the scientific and industrial base for such advanced research. Even the EU, Japan, and the US can't go alone on fusion research at this stage. We are 75 years away from fusion power being a reality. Right now ITER will prime the pump of the industrialized countries to point them where to focus their research. It will do the same for India and some time around the turn of 22nd century fusion will be viable. I seriously doubt ITER will produce any power. It is strictly for research to isolate the critical technologies and physics. Think of it like the world's first fission reactor in the stadium of University of Chicago in the late 1930s. However, ITER is badly needed. If there was a WWIII, perhaps work would progress faster in this area.
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by RoyG »

I hate to break it to you, but they are going at it alone. Japan, Russia, France, and the US all have LiF projects in the pipeline/finished.

Magnetized targeted fusion has been around for a while and is probably the most promising fusion technology out there.

We are 30-40 years away. Not 75. Especially with the pace of technological advancement.

As far as ITER testing new technology...perhaps, but there are other fusion experiments which are cranking out new technology as well.

Why is ITER so badly needed?

What does WWIII have to do with anything?
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9265
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Amber G. »

We are 30-40 years away [from fusion reactors]. Not 75.
If you ask experts .. most have said (very famously).. it is 30 years away. :mrgreen:

It has been "30 years away" for last 60 years...From the first pile of Fermi in Chicago it has been always 30 years.

In fact, there was some discussion whether Lockheed Martin really had a breakthrough Fusion machine among one group (of good physicists) I know, one said:
I think this Lockheed team has made a great achievement. Now fusion reactors aren´t permanently 30 years away. Now they are permanently 5 years away :-)
(For those who may not know, Lockheed Martin said a few months ago that it will have a small fusion reactor prototype in five years but -- but not much data which I can see - this dhaga had a post about it)...

Not dissing fusion... just sharing some :)
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by RoyG »

Sure, these are just estimates. We've come a long way since the 70's-80's. General Fusion's prototype reactor will be up and running shortly.
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10033
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Mort Walker »

RoyG wrote:I hate to break it to you, but they are going at it alone. Japan, Russia, France, and the US all have LiF projects in the pipeline/finished.

Magnetized targeted fusion has been around for a while and is probably the most promising fusion technology out there.

We are 30-40 years away. Not 75. Especially with the pace of technological advancement.

As far as ITER testing new technology...perhaps, but there are other fusion experiments which are cranking out new technology as well.

Why is ITER so badly needed?

What does WWIII have to do with anything?
They will go it alone once they've learned lessons from ITER, some of this work will be done concurrently. I do agree that LiF should be looked at closely, but funds will be an issue with so many other scientific priorities in India.

Tokamak fusion reactors have been around for a while, but none of them have come to a point where output power exceeds input power for any considerably time.

Fusion has always been 30 years away since the 1960s. See what AmberG said. From an engineering point of view it is realistically 75, if not 100 years out. I'm pretty certain my grandkids won't have fusion power, but their grandkids may.

ITER is a good starting point for India and research needs to be done with other fusion experiments as well. This complicated reasearch can't be done in a vacuum.

WWII promoted fission reactors, so my comment was tounge-in-cheek about another world war promoting fusion reactors.
Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10033
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Mort Walker »

RoyG wrote:Sure, these are just estimates. We've come a long way since the 70's-80's. General Fusion's prototype reactor will be up and running shortly.
I really appreciate your optimism and pray you are correct! If we can get electricity for less than Rs. 1/KWHr, it would uplift everyone.
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by RoyG »

Future of Fusion. India must invest in this.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Philip »

Kudankulam power cheaper than U.S. proposals: Russia
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/t ... epage=true
Suhasini Haidar

Russia says power from the Kudankulam plant costs only half that of power from the proposed American designs.

A week after U.S. President Barack Obama’s visit cleared major hurdles in the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal, Russian officials say the power generated under the agreements will be much more expensive than the negotiated deals with Russia for the “Kudankulam series.”

An official statement from the Russian Embassy said the rates for electricity from units 1&2 of the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant, being constructed with Russian technical assistance (in Tamil Nadu), were almost half the price that power from proposed American designs would cost. According to unconfirmed reports, U.S. company Westinghouse has proposed Rs.6 per kWh in initial discussions with India, while French company Areva had spoken of Rs.6.50 per kWh, both of which would be far higher than the estimated price of power at Kudankulam 1&2 at Rs.3.50 per kWh. Added to this is the projected raised costing for insurance after India agreed to set up a $240-million (Rs. 1,500 crore) “insurance pool” to be funded equally by state-owned insurance companies and the government.

Significantly, the statement was issued on a day External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj met Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at the RIC trilateral in Beijing. Indian government officials called the Russian statements premature. The costs in both the cases of U.S. and France “are still to be worked out,” they told The Hindu.

However, the costing of U.S. nuclear companies is becoming the next big issue, even as India and the U.S. overcame the major hurdles of supplier’s liability and administrative arrangements. In a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi this week, CPI leader D. Raja pointed out that the cost of U.S. reactors and the insurance pool could result in the rate exceeding Rs.15 per kWh. “This is much higher than the tariff from competing sources,” wrote Mr. Raja. “I am concerned that the government has not adequately examined the cost of electricity from the proposed American reactors.”

The Russian statement quoting nuclear officials indicates that Moscow is unhappy, and feels competitive about the spotlight on the U.S.-India deal, even as Russian President Vladimir Putin had in December signed a strategic agreement for constructing 12 new nuclear power units.

The Indo-U.S. deal announced by Mr. Obama and Prime Minister Narendra Modi was welcomed last week by Westinghouse CEO Daniel Roderick, who called it a “breakthrough.” The deal hinges on a “memorandum” to be submitted by the Indian government to the U.S. that will outline the Indian understanding of the clauses that the U.S. nuclear suppliers find problematic.

Sources told The Hindu that the memorandum would be shared with U.S. officials “this week.”

Russian nuclear officials, however, made unfavourable comparisons between their negotiations for nuclear reactors that began in 1988 and the proposed American deals.

“The Russian side had offered the Indian government credit for the construction of the new Kudankulam 3&4 plants with similar terms as for the construction of Kudankulam 1&2, regardless of the fact that 30 years had passed since the agreement on the first unit,” they said. They also pointed out that the Kudankulam reactor now operational “meets the latest safety requirements.” It was connected to the national grid in 2013 and the next one was due to be commissioned shortly.
Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Vipul »

^^^ Kudankulam power will be cheaper, if its is generated!!!!

Following a technical snag in the turbine generator of the first unit of Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project on Monday, authorities decided to shut down the unit for six to eight weeks.

The turbine generator has been in operation for just over 190 days for 4,701 hours and generated 282.5 crore units of power. An official statement from the project site director R S Sundar said the unit had been shut down to inspect the turbine and its associated components before resuming commercial operation. Without mentioning much about the snag in the turbine and the critical nature of some of its components, the statement said they had already replaced some components.

“It is likely to take more than eight weeks to resume operations as some of the critical components need replacement,” said a senior project official. Construction of two 1,000 MW units at the plant in collaboration with Russia at Kudankulam in Tamil Nadu’s Tiruneveli district was initiated by the Nuclear Power Corporation of India. After attaining criticality on July 2013, operations of Unit-1 had undergone a series of troubles.[/url]
Classic Russian tactic of offering something at a lower unit cost knowing the buyer will eventually pay more on the overall life time operating costs.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by ShauryaT »

Liability risks in India-US nuke deal transferred to taxpayers
Under the compromise worked out, US concerns are to be addressed through an Indian legal contrivance labelled a “memorandum of law” — essentially an executive action — and a Rs 1,500-crore ($245-million) ‘India Nuclear Insurance Pool’, which is to be set up jointly by State-run insurance companies and the central government. A number of countries have nuclear insurance pools, but they do not have an India-type law upholding supplier liability. India’s law calls for a fund to specifically address government liability but the proposed insurance pool has a broader intent to deflect supplier liability.

It is the “memorandum of law” — designed for, and enforceable in, the Indian system — that is at the heart of the new accord. It is aimed at stemming the right of recourse against suppliers and permitting tort claims to be pursued only in India, thus blocking victims from filing claims in the supplier’s home country. The Indian law’s rules already limit liability in amount and in time.

The India-US arrangement, although claimed to be “squarely within our [Indian] law,” constitutes “a risk-transfer mechanism,” as the external affairs ministry has admitted. Under it, the Indian government is effectively scrubbing the limited right of recourse and transferring the liability risk to Indian taxpayers wholly. US officials say the two governments are in agreement over India’s attorney general-backed “memorandum of law”. But how can a “memorandum of law”, with no legislative imprimatur, supersede and effectively gut a statute?

Despite India’s latest yielding, the nuclear deal is unlikely to be operationalised any time soon. First, the contrivance fashioned threatens to open a can of legal worms. Second, at a time of skyrocketing reactor-construction costs, the crash of oil prices has made nuclear power’s economics more unfavourable. Nuclear power is already the world’s most-subsidy-fattened energy industry. Third, grassroots opposition is growing to new nuclear power plants in India, especially against the Fukushima-type multi-reactor parks earmarked for foreign vendors.
Tuvaluan
BRFite
Posts: 1816
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Tuvaluan »

Third, grassroots opposition is growing to new nuclear power plants in India, especially against the Fukushima-type multi-reactor parks earmarked for foreign vendors.
Fearmongering article low on facts re: safety of nuclear reactors -- the Fukushima type reactors are extremely safe -- the number of causalties was actually 0 or 1 in the entire Fukushima episode. This grassroots opposition needs to be monitored, especially source of funding for the NGOs involved -- the GoI is already doing that.
Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6470
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Supratik »

I am not in support of this "bypass" of nuclear liability law unless the supplier also chips into the insurance pool. It should be joint risk as supplier should not be liable for faulty operation and maintenance. However, it seems the liability is being transferred to the Indian govt. I don't think this is a good idea and if this is the case I hope someone files a PIL in SC to stall it. I don't think reactors from US are a must have for the power sector. I hope I am missing something as this is a quid pro quo for US backing into NSG and other treaties.
pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14746
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by pankajs »

The way the liability law is drafted, no one will build a reactor in India. Not the Americans, Not the Japanese, Not the French, Not the Canadian, Not the Russian AND not even the Indian industry.

The *bypass* is not just for the American but for all including the Indian industry. Even if the GOI/NPCIL decide to build it L&T, etc will NOT participate in its construction and KSB pumps, etc will NOT supply the required pump and valves (These 2 firms are examples. Substitute the relevant suppliers) The liability law expose them to *unlimited* liability and NO insurer will provide cover in such cases. I am guessing even the cement supplier will be exposed to unlimited liability.

We have either to amend or bypass the liability law in its present form or forget any further capacity addition in this field. The country as a whole has to take a call if the industry should be promoted or abandoned.

I don't care one way or the other BUT I expect the GOI to fulfill it promise to provide 24x7 power supply.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9265
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Amber G. »

Tuvaluan wrote:
Third, grassroots opposition is growing to new nuclear power plants in India, especially against the Fukushima-type multi-reactor parks earmarked for foreign vendors.
Fearmongering article low on facts re: safety of nuclear reactors -- the Fukushima type reactors are extremely safe -- the number of causalties was actually 0 or 1 in the entire Fukushima episode. This grassroots opposition needs to be monitored, especially source of funding for the NGOs involved -- the GoI is already doing that.
In last few years, Fukushima has been studied in careful details. From ALL reputable scientific sources..
Total number of deaths due to radiation = ZERO
Total number of sicknesses (or any measurable effect) = ZERO
Total number of additional cancers in WHOLE (including all who were evacuated or remained) = ZERO
Total number of additional cancers estimated in next 20-30 Years due to exposure - termed as - so low that one can not put any number with scientific validity and it can be ZERO.

Most ignorant people forget this.

Bottom line ; In alst 50 years or so, in India or US, number fo deaths/cancer etc due to nuclear power = ZERO.

As said before, living near a nuclear plant, one gets additional radiation which is equivalent to eating one banana (which contains K40) per year.. A coal plant of equal GW power produces something like 100x radiation than a nuclear plant.

---

US generates lot of nuclear power, more than any other nation on earth. Thirty-forty years ago TMI accident produced similar unsound fear and nonsense in US which stopped virtually all new new reactors in US.. yet after all the studies.. the number of deaths due to TMI - ZERO, number of additional cancers determined due to that in all those thirty-forty years - ZERO

__
For perspective coal plants, the deaths etc (judged by the same criteria and from same sources) are orders of magnitude more (Yes thousands of times)...In Japan, around the same time as Fukushima disaster, a dam broke (which generated Hydro electric power) causing hundreds of deaths...
Hurricane , like we have some times, killing thousands of people, will effect even a solar power plant (think of all the solar panels - some of them made with very dangerous materials) much more than an nuclear one...

A good citizen must educate one self and have good perspective rather than taken in by chants of "Fukushima ...nuclear .. disaster" etc,...

Chemical factories, unsafe mines, even locomotives, cars, motorcycles has a lot of potential to do harm, and has actually killed people... nuclear power plants OTOH has not yet taken any life in India except due to violence generated in "nuclear protest by the so called protestors of nuclear power.
Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6470
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Supratik »

It is still not clear to me. Why is the supplier not contributing to the insurance pool? If it is not why have the liability law?
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9265
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Amber G. »

This post of mine may be of interest ..
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 9#p1791179
Tuvaluan
BRFite
Posts: 1816
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Post by Tuvaluan »

supratik wrote:
I am not in support of this "bypass" of nuclear liability law unless the supplier also chips into the insurance pool. It should be joint risk as supplier should not be liable for faulty operation and maintenance. However, it seems the liability is being transferred to the Indian govt.
The Hindustan Times seems to be spreading utter lies with a political motive, given how tight they are with Sonia and Co. Hindustan Times is a worthless propaganda rag if they misinform readers deliberately to push a political agenda.

We should wait for the govt's FAQ on this topic before wasting bandwidth on it.

http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/ ... 651547.ece
The document will lay out the understanding reached over the interpretation of Section 17 (b), which allows an operator to take “right to recourse” from a supplier and Section 46 that says nothing can prevent the operator from being sued by any other law.

It will also cover other clauses like Section 4, which spells out when an operator is liable for damage as well as Section 6, which deals with the cap on liability.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9265
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Amber G. »

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan may have just renewed a secret nuclear weapons pact
The visit by the chairman of Pakistan's Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee will likely prompt concern in Washington and other major capitals that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have reconfirmed an arrangement whereby Pakistan, if asked, will supply Saudi Arabia with nuclear warheads.

The main meeting on Gen. Rashid Mahmoud's itinerary was with King Salman — the topics discussed were reported as "deep relations between the two countries and ... a number of issues of common interest."

General Rashid also saw separately Defense Minister Prince Muhammad bin Salman — who presented him with the King Abdulaziz medal of excellence — as well as Deputy Crown Prince and Interior Minister Muhammad bin Nayef and Minister of the National Guard Prince Mitab bin Abdullah.

The only senior Saudi absent from the meetings appears to have been Crown Prince Muqrin.

For decades, Riyadh has been judged a supporter of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, providing financing in return for a widely assumed understanding that, if needed, Islamabad will transfer technology or even warheads.

It has been noticeable that changes in leadership in either country have quickly been followed by top-level meetings, as if to reconfirm such nuclear arrangements. Although Pakistani nuclear technology also helped Iran's program, the relationship between Islamabad and Riyadh has been much more obvious.

In 1999, a year after Pakistan tested two nuclear weapons, then Saudi defense minister Prince Sultan visited the unsafeguarded uranium enrichment plant at Kahuta outside Islamabad — prompting a US diplomatic protest.

Last year, as Riyadh's concern at the prospect of Iranian nuclear hegemony in the Gulf grew, Pakistan's chief of army staff, Gen. Raheel Sharif, was a guest of honor when Saudi Arabia publicly paraded its Chinese CSS-2 missiles for the first time since they were delivered in the 1980s.

Although now nearly obsolete, the CSS-2 missile once formed the core of China's nuclear force. Pakistan's first nuclear devices were based on a Chinese design.

Pakistan's prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, visited the kingdom January 23 for the funeral of King Abdullah and had also been there a couple of weeks earlier to pay his respects to the ailing monarch.

The civilian leader and his military commanders have an awkward relationship — in an earlier term of office, Nawaz Sharif was overthrown in a military coup and sent into exile in Saudi Arabia — but Pakistan's nuclear program seems above any civil-military partisanship.

The visit by General Rashid comes a day after Pakistan announced the successful flight-testing of its Raad air-launched 220-mile-range cruise missile, which reportedly is able to deliver nuclear and conventional warheads with pinpoint accuracy.

While chairing his first cabinet meeting as prime minister yesterday, King Salman announced there would be no change in Saudi foreign policy.

In its own way, today's top-level meetings with the Pakistani military delegation seem to confirm this statement, adding perhaps an extra awkward complication to the Obama administration's effort to secure a diplomatic agreement with Tehran over Iran's nuclear program.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by ShauryaT »

^The government is no longer claiming that is a "memorandum of law". The statute stays intact. Also the government now claims that they will actually make a profit on this deal due to the premiums collected, since the payout would be - only - in the case of a disaster. :lol:
putnanja
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4665
Joined: 26 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: searching for the next al-qaida #3

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by putnanja »

hanumadu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5168
Joined: 11 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by hanumadu »

Even in the case of chernobyl immediate deaths were less than 100 and the blast radius was not beyond the parking lot. There has been no significant long term fall out either.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by ShauryaT »

Slightly dated. But for the record.


Guests: G Balachandran (Consulting Fellow, Institute of Defence Studies and Analysis) ; Lella Ponappa (Former Deputy, National Security Advisor and a Retired Diplomat) ; Bharat Karnad (Research Professor in National Security Studies, Centre for Policy Research) ; K P Nayar (Consulting Editor, The Telegraph)
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Austin »

Hurdles ahead

An impasse in India expanding its nuclear power programme following the deal with the U.S., which came into force in 2008, has been resolved thanks mainly to the creation of an insurance pool to cover liability, but there still remains a big gap between the cup and the lip. By R. RAMACHANDRAN
The most important outcome of President Barack Obama’s visit to India was the breaking of the logjam in the implementation of the civil nuclear cooperation agreement (or “123 Agreement”) between India and the United States, which came into force on December 6, 2008. The agreement was in limbo following the provisions of supplier liability in the Indian Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act (CLNDA) of 2010.

The CLNDA allows the operator of a nuclear power plant (NPP) to channel the operator’s legal liability in case of a nuclear accident to supplier(s) of nuclear equipment, goods and services—partly or wholly—through its Right of Recourse (ROR) provision (Article 17; see box) under some conditions. However, the international norm —as codified in the three conventions, two operational and one yet to come into force—is of strict and absolute liability of the operator alone, irrespective of the cause of the accident, and thus the suppliers stand totally indemnified. These provisions of the CLNDA apply equally to both domestic and foreign suppliers. In the Indian context, there is only one NPP operator as of now—Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL), a public sector undertaking (PSU) under the Department of Atomic Energy. Domestic suppliers, such as L&T and Walchandnagar Industries, had all along enjoyed indemnity against nuclear liability under the provisions of the General Conditions of Contract of NPCIL before the CLNDA was passed (Frontline, December 16, 2011).

The entry of foreign nuclear suppliers to NPCIL is, however, new. This has happened pursuant to the India-specific waiver given by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) for nuclear supplier countries to engage in nuclear trade with India even though India does not wish to have full scope or comprehensive safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on its soil. At present, the foreign suppliers include Rosatom (Russia), Areva (France) and Westinghouse and General Electric (U.S.). They have been allocated specific sites to build NPPs.

According to Article 6 of the CLNDA, the maximum amount of liability for any nuclear incident is the rupee equivalent of 300 million SDRs (whose current value is about Rs.2,600 crore) and the maximum liability for the operator of an NPP is Rs.1,500 crore. The chief concern of these suppliers was that the provisions of Article 17 were open-ended and they could be vulnerable to unlimited liability over an unlimited period. Another issue of their concern was Article 46 (see box), which allows for initiation of tort and other criminal proceedings against the operator under other Indian laws independent of the operator’s liability under the CLNDA. The suppliers felt that rulings under these could also have a bearing on them. The suppliers had, therefore, wanted clarity on these issues and sought appropriate cover for the risk they entailed before they could ink any commercial contract with NPCIL. Even domestic suppliers were not ready to supply items for the upcoming indigenous Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs) unless the issues were clarified properly.

International conventions have the ROR provision but only under the extraordinary circumstances of demonstrable “act with intent to cause damage” by the supplier. The Indian Act, however, goes beyond the international practice (operationalised either through the conventions or through enacted domestic laws of countries) and provides for ROR in any nuclear accident, provided the operator can prove in a court of law that the accident was caused by the “latent” and “patent” defect(s) (Article 17 (b)) in the suppliers’ equipment.

India is not a party to the two conventions in force—the Paris Convention of 1960 and the Vienna Convention of 1977—but is a signatory to the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) of 1997, which is promoted by the IAEA. Article 10 of the CSC provides for ROR when it is “expressly provided for in the [operator-supplier commercial] contract” or “if the nuclear incident results from an act or omission done with the intent to cause damage”.

The CSC requires that the domestic nuclear liability law of a country that is not a party to the Paris Convention of 1960 or the Vienna Convention of 1977 should be consistent with certain provisions laid down in the Annex of the CSC, which include the operator’s “right of recourse” (Article 10). Given the CLNDA’s Article 17, the Indian Act would seem to be not in conformity with the international nuclear liability regime, either the CSC or the other conventions.

The rules for the implementation of the Act (CLND Rules), which would form the basis for how the law would be interpreted and enforced, were notified on November 11, 2011, with which the Act too became operational (Frontline, December 16, 2011) effective that date. Most significantly, the Rules clarify that question of open-endedness of supplier liability. They limit both the time period for which ROR can be exercised and the extent of the supplier’s liability. The latter is capped below the operator’s liability, which, according to Article 6(2) of the Act, is Rs.1,500 crore, and the value of the contract. That is, if the value of the contract is more than Rs.1,500 crore, the supplier’s liability will be capped at Rs.1,500 crore and if it is less the supplier’s exposure will only be equal to the value of the contract. In the case of the former, ROR can be exercised only until the initial licence period or the product liability period, whichever is longer. The licence period, according to the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004, is, unless otherwise specified, five years from the date of issue of such licence. The product liability period is the period for which the supplier has undertaken liability under a contract for patent or latent defects or substandard services.

However, despite the explanations offered in the Rules, some of the issues have remained somewhat vague, leaving room for continued misgivings among the suppliers. For instance, in Article 17, with appropriate articles of conjunction (and⁄or) missing, it is not clear if the subclauses (a), (b) and (c) are to be taken together, or are applicable separately, or (a) is mandatory and would go with either (b) or (c). If they are applicable separately, then, since the Rule does not refer specifically to the contentious Article 17(b), the caps on the extent of liability and the extinction period mentioned above become somewhat ambiguous.

Similarly, while Rule 24 does define a “supplier”, which the Act did not, the way this rule has been constructed still leaves room for ambiguity. Only recently it has been clarified that domestic companies supplying nuclear equipment for the NPPs are not “suppliers” as per this definition, something which was not obvious even to the domestic companies, let alone commentators or the public. They are “vendors” who are distinct from “suppliers”.

Rule 24 (b) says:

“supplier” shall include a person who—

(i) manufactures and supplies, either directly or through an agent, a system, equipment or component, or builds a structure on the basis of functional specification; or

(ii) provides build to print or detailed design specifications to a vendor for manufacturing a system, equipment or component or building a structure and, is responsible to the operator for design and quality assurance; or

(iii) provides quality assurance or design services (emphasis added).

Since, in the Indian context it is NPCIL which provides “build to print or detailed design specifications” to domestic companies, it is both the operator and the supplier and Indian companies are vendors. Given this explanation, domestic companies will not be subject to the operator’s ROR through Article 17(b&c) and will not have any liability in case of a nuclear incident, unless they too begin to evolve functional specifications and develop their own designs. This could happen in the future, and L&T, according to a company official, is already beginning to do so. This would mean that L&T (or any other company) could graduate from vendor status to supplier status, and would have to take an appropriate insurance cover from the Indian insurance pool.

Interestingly, as pointed out by an official of L&T, a recent tender issued by NPCIL for the proposed 700 MWe PHWR units in Haryana, shows that despite all these clarifications through Rules and other means, the tender uses the term “Contractor”—neither supplier nor vendor —for a “firm/company/ joint venture/ consortium with whom or with which the purchase order for the supply of Stores is placed [by NPCIL]”. The tender also states, “Purchaser shall have a right of recourse against the Contractor in accordance with the provisions contained in The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 (38 of 2010) and The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Rules, 2011, as may be amended from time to time.” This has led to a lot of confusion among Indian companies wanting to bid for the contract. It is not clear whether, despite being termed as vendors via Rule 24, Indian companies are exposed to liability through ROR or not. This matter is yet to be sorted out and there could be other such blunders in other NPCIL tenders, which have prevented Indian companies from bidding for selling goods and services for forthcoming NPPs.

Article 8(1) mandates that the operator, before beginning the operation of a nuclear installation, take appropriate insurance cover or financial security. Article 8(3) says that 8(1) is not applicable to nuclear installations owned by the Central government. Commentators have always understood this to mean that NPCIL, being a PSU, will fall under this category and will not require any insurance cover. But it was recently clarified that NPCIL, according to the Law Ministry, does not fall under this category and will require an insurance cover against the stipulated Rs.1,500 crore liability. The Rules too do not state this explicitly.

As regards the other contentious issue concerning Article 46, while the word supplier is not mentioned anywhere in it, an explicit clarification under the Rules on its applicability or not to suppliers was lacking. Clarification in this regard actually comes from a reading of the dissent note of Saman Pathak (of the Communist Party of India) in the Rajya Sabha Parliamentary Standing Committee Report on the CLND Bill (No. 212 of August 18, 2010). In his note, Pathak stated that he proposed an amendment to Article 46 to specifically include the supplier also in the ambit of possible tort proceedings under other Acts, but the committee did not accept it. Given the fact that the final Act does not mention supplier, the implication of Pathak’s note is that the legislature specifically intended that the supplier be excluded from the applicability of Article 46.

Nuclear Liability Issue


Besides the nuclear liability issue, the other outstanding issue was the administrative arrangement with regard to implementing the “Agreement and Procedures” agreed to by the two countries with regard to reprocessing of spent fuel in March 2010. Fuel in U.S.-built reactors, by U.S. law, becomes obligated to the U.S. irrespective of where it was sourced from. The U.S. had, therefore, demanded that it be allowed to track the movement of reprocessed U.S.-obligated fuel even if the plants were under IAEA safeguards. This was not acceptable to India, which had argued that the IAEA regime of safeguards were adequate and that should be sufficient to assure the U.S. of its non-diversion. This administrative arrangement also seems to have been favourably concluded now.

As regards nuclear liability, one could ask how it was sorted out between India and Russia with regard to Kudankulam (KK) NPP units 3&4 during the visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin in December 2014 when a commercial contract between NPCIL and Rosatom was signed for KK-3&4.

The Indo-Russian inter-governmental agreement (IGA), which covers KK-3&4 as well as other reactors to be supplied by Russia at KK or any other site in the country, was signed on December 5, 2008, two years before the CLNDA was put in place. Thus, the implications of the CLNDA (on supplier liability) are not strictly applicable in the Russian case. Even if India decided to terminate this agreement now in the light of the CLNDA, it had been agreed in the IGA of 2008 that its applicability to KK-Units 3-6 cannot be annulled.

Insurance pool

Key to the resolution of the impasse over nuclear liability in the Indo-U.S. deal has been the coming together of the four big Indian insurance companies to create an insurance pool as a consortium, which will provide the necessary cover to both the operator and the suppliers (domestic and foreign). This is the kind of system that operates in major nuclear power-producing countries such as the U.S., France, Russia and Japan.

As G. Balachandran of the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) points out, given the fact that nuclear accidents have been rare, insuring the nuclear industry is a profitable business for insurance companies. For instance, in the U.S., where civil nuclear liability is governed by the Price-Anderson Act of 1957, the consortium of American Nuclear Insurers (ANI), which operates the nuclear insurance pool, has to date only about $304 million [indemnity claims (chiefly towards the TMI accident) = $64.4 + litigation expenses = $243], while all NPP operators of the 104 reactors in operation pay a total of about $100 m a year towards an insurance cover of $375 m for each NPP site. Similarly in France, where there has been no nuclear accident of level 5 or more, which would call for claims of civil nuclear damage, the nuclear operator EDF has been paying an annual insurance premium of €6.4 m per unit for all 59 operating NPPs while the insurance pool has not had to pay towards any liability claims to date.

Keen on implementing the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal fully, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Obama established a contact group to sort out the vexing issues during the former’s visit to the U.S. in September 2014. In fact, according to sources in the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), about 15 days before the visit, informal negotiations to resolve the liability conundrum began between U.S. and Indian officials. According to Sujatha Singh, who was the Foreign Secretary during Obama’s visit to India, based on three rounds of discussions (in New Delhi, Vienna and finally in London) in the Contact Group during the past three months, the two sides reached an understanding on both the outstanding issues, namely, the civil nuclear liability and the administrative arrangements for implementing the 123 agreement.

“Let me underline,” she said in her post-Obama visit media briefing, “we have reached an understanding. The deal is done. Both these understandings are squarely within our law, our international legal obligations, and our practice.”

As part of the negotiations, the idea of the India Nuclear Insurance Pool (INIP) for providing cover against the liability exposure of U.S. suppliers was also presented, which has apparently convinced the U.S. side. “There is a general bilateral understanding that our law is compatible with the CSC,” Sujatha Singh said. Given the clear non-conformity of our law with the CSC, this statement should actually be read to mean that the U.S. will not raise any objection to the Indian law with the CSC Secretariat now that its suppliers have been provided the necessary cover against potential liability claims in the event of an accident. Also, as one analyst pointed out, the U.S. would be keen to have South Korea, whose liability law also has an ROR provision, join the CSC following the Indian precedent. It is learnt from MEA sources that India will soon be ratifying the CSC as well. According to Sujatha Singh, the administrative arrangements for implementing the agreement on reprocessing of spent fuel have also been finalised and “they,” she said, “conform to our bilateral legal arrangements as well as our practice on IAEA safeguards”. One would, therefore, naturally ask why this idea of an insurance pool for the nuclear industry was not put in place three years ago once the CLND Rules were notified, especially when a similar insurance pool against terrorism has been in place since 2002 with the current exposure limited to Rs.1,500 crore. First, nuclear insurance is an entirely new area of business that Indian insurance companies have no experience or familiarity with. Two, even their combined capacities is not adequate to cater to the minimum insurance cover equal to the maximum operator liability (of Rs.1,500 crore) mandated under the CLNDA due to regulatory issues that prevent a higher risk exposure of these companies.

Since foreign insurance companies, on the other hand, are not allowed majority stake in the Indian insurance industry, companies with experience in the field will not be willing to invest in India. Reinsurance with foreign companies is also not possible because the Indian government prohibits foreign companies from inspecting and rating the Indian NPPs for the purpose of evaluating the premium that the operator would be required to pay. Resolution of these various issues, coupled with events during the last couple of years that had slowed down the working of the government system in general, resulted in this inordinate delay, said a former NPCIL official who is now working with the insurance industry to finalise the insurance product that will be on offer to the nuclear industry. According to MEA sources, the government is currently in the process of dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s so that a formal memorandum, giving details of the working of the nuclear insurance pool, can be given to the U.S. government. It is also learnt that the Russian government has been urged to take advantage of this insurance pool for its nuclear plants construction activities in the future.

According to media reports, given the constraints imposed by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA), at present the combined capacities of the four insurance companies for the purpose of the INIP stands at Rs.750 crore. What remains of the Rs.1,500 crore liability will be made good from a consolidated fund of India. But this government contribution is expected to come down as the capacities of the companies grow over time. Already, there are indications from the insurance companies that their contribution to the INIP could be raised to Rs.900 crore. It is learnt that with its largest contribution to the INIP, the consortium will be led by the General Insurance Company (GIC) of India. Of course, both the INIP and the government will first have to arrive at suitable annual premium rates at which the operator and suppliers will take their insurance cover policies with the INIP. A rough idea of what the premium rates could be, and their impact on the nuclear power tariff, can be judged from the following.

If a supplier, foreign or Indian, takes an insurance policy with the INIP for Rs.1,500 crore liability, an annual insurance premium, say 0.1 per cent or 0.2 per cent, would be Rs.1.5 crore or Rs.3.0 crore respectively. Given the current capital cost of a PHWR at about Rs.8 crore per MWe, NPCIL can easily afford to pay Rs.1.5 crore for a (700 MWe) plant costing about Rs.6,000 crore. Similarly, a foreign supplier building a 1,000 MWe NPP costing about $1.5 b can easily pay an annual premium of less than $0.5 million. The premium that the supplier will pay over the reactor lifetime will naturally get front-loaded into the NPP costs.

The impact of that on power tariff will be insignificant given the current nuclear tariff of around Rs.4/unit. NPCIL can also shore up its own financial resources towards meeting its operator’s liability. For example, a 1,000 MWe NPP, operating for about 300 days, will produce about 720 units of electricity. A Re.0.05-surcharge/unit will generate Rs.36 crore a year. Given the current total installed capacity of about 6,000 MWe, it will be able to generate about Rs.200 crore a year towards a liability fund.

While the vexing issues that had led to an impasse in India expanding its nuclear power programme following the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal, and the other developments that would allow India to engage in global nuclear trade fully, now seem to be resolved, there still remains a good gap between the cup and the lip. First, the mechanism of how the INIP will operate needs to be spelt out in a White Paper or an FAQ document. Also, given the lingering confusions among both the foreign and domestic suppliers/vendors, the government would do well to clarify the various terms and explanations used in the Act and the Rules through a public explanatory document. And then there are also public interest litigation (PIL) petitions pending in Indian courts, one of them questioning the very constitutional validity of the CLND Rules, which need to be disposed of before nuclear commerce that can help to significantly expand the Indian nuclear programme can begin.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by ShauryaT »

MEA:Frequently Asked Questions and Answers on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act 2010 and related issues
Frequently Asked Questions and Answers on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act 2010 and related issues

Q1. What is the understanding reached with the United States on January 25, 2015 during the visit of President Obama to India?

Ans. India and the United States have reached an understanding on the issues related to civil nuclear liability and finalized the text of the Administrative Arrangement to implement the September 2008 bilateral 123 Agreement. This will allow us to move towards commercial negotiations on setting up reactors with international collaboration in India and realize the significant economic and clean energy potential of the civil nuclear understanding of 2005-2008.

Q2. How was this understanding reached?

Ans. It may be recalled that during PM’s visit to the U.S. in September 2014, the two leaders reaffirmed their commitment to implement fully the India-U.S. civil nuclear cooperation agreement and established a Contact Group on advancing the implementation of civil nuclear energy cooperation. The Group, comprising representatives from Ministry of External Affairs, Department of Atomic Energy, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL), Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Law & Justice, in addition to the representatives from U.S. Government, also had an interface with the companies – NPCIL on the Indian side and Westinghouse and General Electric on the U.S. side. It met three times in New Delhi (16-17 December 2014), Vienna (6-7 January 2015) and London (January 21-22, 2015). Based on these discussions, an understanding was reached with the U.S. on the two outstanding issues on civil nuclear cooperation, which was confirmed by the leaders on January 25, 2015.

Q3. Has India agreed to amend its Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act of 2010 (CLND Act 2010) and the CLND Rules of 2011? If not now, would they be amended in the future?

Ans. There is no proposal to amend the Act or the Rules.

Q4. How have U.S. concerns over the CLND Act then been resolved?

Ans. During the course of the discussions in the Contact Group, using case law and legislative history, the Indian side presented its position concerning the compatibility of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (CLND) Act and the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC). The idea of the India Nuclear Insurance Pool as a part of the overall risk-management scheme for liability was also presented to the U.S. side. Based on the presentations by the Indian side, and the discussion thereon, there is a general understanding that India’s CLND law is compatible with the CSC, which India has signed and intends to ratify.

Q5. What is the CSC?

Ans. The objective of the 1997 Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC) is to establish a worldwide liability regime and to increase the amount of compensation available to the victims of nuclear accidents. A State which is a party to either the 1963 Vienna Convention or the 1960 Paris Convention could become a party to the CSC. A State which is not a party to either of these conventions could also become a party to the CSC if its national law on nuclear liability is in compliance with the provision of the CSC and its Annex, which is an integral part of the CSC. India not being party to the Vienna or the Paris Conventions signed the CSC on 29 October 2010 on the basis of its national law namely the CLND Act.

Q6. Is India’s CLND Act compatible with the CSC?

Ans. The provisions of the CLND Act are broadly in conformity with the CSC and its Annex in terms of channeling the strict/absolute legal liability to the operator, the limitations of the liability in amount and time, liability cover by insurance or financial security, definitions of nuclear installation, damage, etc. In fact, the CLND Act provides the basis for India joining an appropriate international liability regime such as the CSC. Article XVIII of CSC requires that the national law of a Contracting Party that is not a Party to either the Vienna Convention or the Paris Convention has to comply with the provisions of the Annex to this Convention. The CLND Act is compliant with the Annex to the Convention.

Q7. Does the Act channel the liability to the Operator of a nuclear plant as envisaged under CSC?

Ans. Section 4(1) provides that the Operator of the nuclear installation shall be liable for nuclear damage caused by nuclear incident. Further, Section 4(4) provides that the liability of the Operator of the nuclear installation shall be strict and shall be based on the principle of no fault liability. Section 8(1) provides that the Operator shall before he begins operation of his nuclear installation, take out insurance policy or such further financial security covering his liability. All these provisions along with the long title of the Act are clear and ensure that the liability is strict, and channeled to the Operator through a no fault liability regime.

Q8. What about Section 17 and the right of recourse against the supplier in Section 17(b)? Are they not going beyond the Annex to the Convention?

Ans. Section 17 of the Act provides that the operator of the nuclear installation, after paying the compensation for nuclear damage in accordance with section 6, shall have the right to recourse where-

a. Such right is expressly provided for in a contract in writing;
b. The nuclear incident has resulted as a consequence of an act of supplier or his employee, which includes supply of equipment or material with patent or latent defects or sub-standard services;
c. The nuclear incident has resulted from the act of commission or omission of an individual done with the intent to cause nuclear damage.

Article 10 of the Annex to the CSC covers situations envisaged in Sections 17(a) and 17(c); Section 17 (b) is ostensibly in addition to situations identified for the right of recourse provided in Article 10 of the Annex to the CSC. However, the situations identified in Section 17(b) relate to actions and matters such as product liability stipulations/conditions or service contracts. These are ordinarily part of a contract between the operator and the supplier. This situation is not novel but is rather a normal element of a contract. Thus this provision is to be read along with/in the context of the relevant clause in the contract between the operator and supplier on product liability. It is open for the operator and the supplier to agree on the terms of their contract relying on the applicable law. The parties to a contract generally elaborate and specify the extent of their obligations pursuant to warranty and indemnity clauses that are normally part of such contracts.

Article 10(a) of the CSC Annex does not restrict in any manner the contents of the contract between the operator and the supplier including the basis for recourse agreed by the operator and supplier. Therefore, in view of the above, in so far as the reference to the supplier in Section 17(b) is concerned, it would be in conformity with and not in contradiction of Article 10(a) of the CSC Annex. Its operationalization will be through contract conditions agreed to by the operator and the supplier.

Q9. Does Section 17 establish a mandatory statutory right of recourse?

Ans. Section 17 states that the operator shall have a right of recourse. While it provides a substantive right to the operator, it is not a mandatory but an enabling provision. In other words it permits but does not require an operator to include in the contract or exercise a right of recourse. However, even though there is no mandatory legal requirement under the CLND Act to provide for a right of recourse in a contract, there may be policy reasons for having a risk sharing mechanism including a right of recourse. As a matter of policy, NPCIL, which is a public sector undertaking, would insist that the nuclear supply contracts contain provisions that provide for a right of recourse consistent with Rule 24 of CLND Rules of 2011. Article 10 of the CSC Annex does not specify what position either the operator or the supplier can take in contract negotiations. In this regard, the India Nuclear Insurance Pool has been instituted to facilitate negotiations between the operator and the supplier concerning a right of recourse by providing a source of funds through a market based mechanism to compensate third parties for nuclear damage. It would enable the suppliers to seek insurance to cover the risk of invocation of recourse against them.

Q10. Who is the ‘supplier’? Is the supplier always a foreign company?

Ans. Rule 24 of the CLND Rules explains that ‘supplier’ shall include a person who:

(i) manufactures and supplies, either directly or through an agent, a system, equipment or component or builds a structure on the basis of functional specification; or
(ii) provides build to print or detailed design specifications to a vendor for manufacturing a system, equipment or component or building a structure and is responsible to the operator for design and quality assurance; or
(iii) provides quality assurance or design services.

The supplier may not always be a foreign company; there may be domestic suppliers who fulfill the above criteria and in some cases the operator (NPCIL) itself may be a supplier as it provides build to print or detailed design specifications to a vendor.

Q11. Does Section 46 permit claims for compensation for nuclear damage to be brought under statutes other than the CLND Act?

Ans. Concerns over the broad scope of Section 46 have been raised by suppliers, both domestic and foreign. Section 46 of the CLND Act provides that "the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force, and nothing contained herein shall exempt the operator from any proceeding which might, apart from this act, be instituted against such operator”. The language in section 46 of CLND Act 2010 is similar to such language in several other legislations such as Telecom Regulatory Authority Act, Electricity Act, Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Act, Insurance Commission Act. Such language is provided routinely to underline that other relevant laws continue to be operable in their respective domains.

Q12. Does Section 46 extend to suppliers in violation of the CSC?

Ans. No. The CLND Act channels all legal liability for nuclear damage exclusively to the operator and Section 46 does not provide a basis for bringing claims for compensation for nuclear damage under other Acts. That this section applies exclusively to the operator and does not extend to the supplier is confirmed by the Parliamentary debates at the time of the adoption of this Act. It may be noted that the CLND Bill was adopted by a vote. During the course of the vote on various clauses of the Bill, in the Rajya Sabha two amendments were moved for clause 46 that finally became Section 46 of the CLND Act that inter-alia sought to include suppliers in this provision. Both those amendments were negatived. A provision that was expressly excluded from the statute cannot be read into the statute by interpretation. It is well-settled principle of law that every statute is to be interpreted in accordance with the intention of the legislature or maker of the Statute (M/s. Turtuf Safety Glass Industries V Commissioner of Sales Tax U.P., 2007 (9) SCALE 610, and State of Kerala & Anr V P.V. Neelakandan Nair & Ors, 2005 (5) SCALE 424).

Q13. Does Section 46 allow victims to go to foreign courts against the operator or the supplier?

Ans. Section 46 exclusively covers the remedies that are available against the operator. It does not exempt the operator from any other proceedings instituted against him, apart from this Act, nor derogates from any other law in force in India. The provision "in addition to and not in derogation of” has to be given its normal plain meaning. Section 46 does not affect the applicability of other laws. Therefore it does not exempt the operator from application of other laws covering matters other than the civil liability for nuclear damage. At the same time it does not create the grounds for victims to move foreign courts. In fact that would be against the basic intent of the law to provide a domestic legal framework for victims of nuclear damage to seek compensation. The fact that a specific amendment to introduce the jurisdiction of foreign courts was negatived during the adoption of the CLND Bill buttresses this interpretation.

Q14. How will the proposed insurance pool operate for operators and suppliers?

Ans. The India Nuclear Insurance Pool is a risk transfer mechanism formed by GIC Re and 4 other PSUs who will together contribute a capacity of Rs 750 crores out of a total of Rs 1500 crores. The balance capacity will be contributed by the Government on a tapering basis. The pool will cover the risks of the liability of the nuclear operator under Section 6(2) of the CLND Act and of the suppliers under Section 17 of the Act. The Pool envisages three types of policies, including a special suppliers’ contingency policy for suppliers other than turn key suppliers. Operators and suppliers instead of seeing each other as litigating adversaries will see each other as partners managing a risk together. This is as important for Indian suppliers as it is for US or other suppliers. An international workshop will be held in India to exchange information on international experience with the 26 insurance pools operating around the world in countries such as France, Russia, South Africa and the U.S.

Q15. What are the kind of insurance policies and premiums envisaged under the Pool?

Ans. The Pool covers risks pertaining to the liability of the nuclear operator under Section 6(2) of the CLND Act as well as the liability of the suppliers under Section 17. Three types of policies are envisaged: a Tier 1 policy for operators; a Tier 2 policy for turn key suppliers and a Tier 3 policy for suppliers other than turn key suppliers. The pricing of premiums will depend on factors such as risk probability, possible severity of damage and exposure to people and property around nuclear installations. GIC Re, the Pool Administrator, is engaged with NPCIL and others to work out the premiums based on risk appraisal. To assist this exercise, a Probabilistic Safety Assessment based study has been carried out by DAE. The scheme is scientific, market based, and benchmarked to international best practices innovated to suit the Indian circumstances.

Q16. Wouldn’t this burden the taxpayer and raise costs of nuclear power?

Ans. It should be understood that there is no extra burden on the taxpayer or the Government. The CLND Act already requires NPCIL (Operator) to maintain a financial security to cover its maximum liability for civil nuclear damage (Rs 1500 crores). Currently, NPCIL takes out a bank guarantee for this amount against which it pays an annual fee. With the India Nuclear Insurance Pool (INIP), a market based international best practice will be followed. The NPCIL will take out insurance under the Pool for the same amount and just as it pays an annual fee now it will pay an annual insurance premium to the Pool. The Government will indeed make available Rs 750 crores to the Insurance Pool for the first few years till the insurance companies are able to maintain it on their own. However, the Government will earn a proportionate share of the premium on this sum, which will be utilized only in case of a nuclear accident. The impact on the cost of power plants of the premium payments by operator and suppliers is expected to be minimal. The international experience of 26 insurance pools is that the operators pay only a very small fraction of the total cost of the plants.

Q17. How much compensation is payable under the CLND Act?

Ans. Section 6(1) of the CLND Act presently prescribes that the maximum amount of liability in respect of each nuclear incident shall be the rupee equivalent of three hundred million Special Drawing Rights (SDRs). As the current value of 1 SDR is about Rs 87, three hundred million SDRs are equivalent to about Rs 2610 crores. Section 6(2) of the Act lays down that the operator’s maximum liability shall be Rs 1500 crore. In case the total liability exceeds Rs 1500 crores, as per Section 7 (1) (a) of the CLND Act, this gap of Rs 1110 crores will be bridged by the Central Government. Beyond Rs 2610 crores, India will be able to access international funds under the CSC once it is a party to that Convention.

Section 7 (2) of the CLND Act provides that the Central Government may establish a "Nuclear Liability Fund” by charging such amount of levy from the operators, in such manner, as may be prescribed. The constitution of a Nuclear Liability Fund has been under consideration for some time. Such a Fund is proposed to be built up over 10 years by levying a small charge on the operators based on the power generated from existing and new nuclear plants. This is not expected to affect the consumer’s interests.

Q18. Could operators and suppliers be asked to pay more compensation in the future on existing contracts than currently provided under the law?

Ans. As regards the question of possible enhancement of the amount of compensation in the Act in future and its effect on recourse against suppliers with respect to existing contracts, there is well established jurisprudence that a change in law cannot alter the terms of an existing contract made under the then extant law. A retrospective law which affects the substantive vested rights of a Party under a contract would not be sustainable in a court of law. In M/s Purbanchal Cables & Conductors Pvt. Ltd. V Assam State Electricity Boards & Another, [2012] 6 S.C.R. 905, the Supreme Court held that though the legislature can make laws with retrospective effect, the test is that it should not take away vested rights or impose new burdens or impair existing obligations.

Q19. What are the next steps?

Ans. It will be now up to the companies to follow up with their own negotiations and come up with viable techno-commercial offers and contracts consistent with our law and our practice so that reactors built with international collaboration can start contributing to strengthening India’s energy security and India’s clean energy options.

February 08, 2015
Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Bade »

The nuclear ‘breakthrough’ is mostly hype
Indian officials say the Obama visit broke a seven-year logjam in nuclear cooperation, opening the way for US firms to set up nuclear power plants in India. However, in Washington there is no jubilation, much caution, and some plain scepticism. Hope springs eternal, but the logjam has not yet been broken.

The Modi-Obama meeting whipped up a lot of fizz and optimism. Problem: the key issue is not political at all but commercial. The entities that must be convinced are not US presidents but heads of nuclear corporations like GE and Toshiba-Westinghouse. And no corporation so far is convinced that India’s nuclear liability law has ceased to be a hurdle.

Media reports seemed to suggest some specific deal for US suppliers. Actually, nuclear liability is relevant for equipment suppliers from not just the US but Japan, France and Russia too. All have voiced strong reservations about India’s liability law, and none has so far been convinced by Indian offers of insurance cover, which are roughly the same as those offered to Obama. Politicians and diplomats like to present every summit as a huge success, but that’s often hype.

In 2010, Parliament passed a nuclear liability law empowering victims of any future nuclear accident to sue foreign suppliers for unlimited sums. This huge potential liability has stalled any firm contracts despite extensive talks for five years.

Suppliers want India to conform to the standard international practice, placing the liability of any accident on the plant operator — the Nuclear Power Corporation of India — and not equipment suppliers. Without liability caps, suppliers say it’s too risky to sell equipment to India. Moscow took the risk in Soviet times, when the state owned all suppliers, but today even Russia seeks a liability cap. China has agreed to place the liability on its own nuclear operator, and so global equipment suppliers are helping it build a string of nuclear power plants. But Indian memories of the Union Carbide disaster at Bhopal remain so vivid that Parliament insisted on unlimited liability for suppliers. This has stalled all deals.

What exactly is the supposed breakthrough in Indo-US nuclear relations? The Washington Post quotes a US official saying the supposed breakthrough “is not a signed piece of paper, but a process that led us to a better understanding of how we might move forward.” Translation: lots of good intentions but no hard legal document that can end US corporate fears.

An Indo-US agreement was indeed reached on a completely separate issue — tracking the movement of US nuclear materials to ensure India did not divert these to military use. This was an additional roadblock in case of the US. But overcoming this does not settle the much bigger roadblock — unlimited liability — that all four supplier nations are complaining about.

What exactly did Modi offer Obama? One was a policy from Indian insurance companies offering up to $250 million of liability cover. In the event of a nuclear accident, the Indian government would provide another $420 million of cover. However, these are piffling sums that cannot persuade suppliers — they would have to pay maybe $100 billion if there was a nuclear accident. The oil company BP has already paid over $42 billion for an oil spill in the Caribbean and still faces additional suits. A nuclear accident would cost far more.

India has hinted that it might sign and ratify the Vienna Convention on Supplementary Compensation, which provides a larger global pool of insurance cover. Whether even this will persuade suppliers is far from certain. Different forms of insurance have been discussed with all suppliers in the past, but failed to carry conviction. The risks will remain huge unless India amends its law, and that looks politically impossible even if Modi were so inclined.

The attorney-general of India has produced a memo saying the Indian liability law is consistent with international conventions limiting liability, so foreign suppliers need have no fear. Can any such memo override India’s nuclear law? Very doubtful. Indian courts have in the past often disagreed with the attorney-general, so his assurances cannot be the last word.

In sum, the supposed “Modi-Obama breakthrough” is true only in regard to tracking Indian use of nuclear materials. There is no breakthrough on liability for nuclear power plants, only some ideas on how to move forward. Finally, it’s worth reiterating that it’s not enough to convince Obama, Hollande, Abe or Putin. Even if these political leaders are satisfied, that will mean nothing unless corporations like General Electric, Toshiba, and Areva are willing to take the financial risk of supplying India. That is not in sight today.
wig
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2162
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by wig »

http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 16482.html

It is instructive to read the condition of the sailors of the USS Ronald Reagan an aircraft carrier that sailed to render humanitarian assistance post the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan. The report makes for sad reading of the condition of the sailors who were exposed to radioactive fallout. The cases are pending in courts. I am not sure what relief the courts can grant and I am sure there will be issues and jurisdiction and locus to file suits but still it is a very sad situation for a sailor to be in.
'Uncertain Radiological Threat': US Navy Sailors Search for Justice after Fukushima Mission
pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14746
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by pankajs »

The past few years is testament to the fact that the Indo-US nuclear deal had become a major sticking point between both the sides especially with the American side.

To me it does not matter if the deal does NOT lead to commercial deals. As long as it removes a major irritant in the relationship the deal should be considered a success. If US moves on other stuff and does not make the relationship hostage to this one issue we are good. Not that they will not claim their slice of the pie.

That has been my position from the time I heard that it was a *done deal*.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9265
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Amber G. »

x-post (since the original is x-posted here)..
wig wrote:http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 16482.html

the sailors of the USS Ronald Reagan were exposed to nuclear fallout from Fukushima when the Aircraft Carrier steamed towards it on a humanitarian mission. The sailors reported a metallic taste which signified that they were sailing through a cloud of radioactive fallout. Many of the sailors have since developed cancers.
<snip>
Wig and others, I have posted this before many times, but it needs to be repeated again.

1. There were MANY stories like this, in the past and in the present, and some of these are in reputable papers.

2. I think it is nothing but shameful (and disgraceful) for news paper to report it without presenting the scientific view point to give a reader some perspective. The quotes of "victims" and pseudo/fake scientists are quoted without any mention of real science hoping that innuendo (or lack of other view point) will make the fake claims more valid. (For example, they will mention that a) that there was radiation, b) Many developed some cancer c) some (non scientists) believe that "that" radiation caused cancer d) some unrelated ( hundreds of times and different kind of radiation) correlation between cancer and radiation -
BUT THEY WILL LEAVE IT OUT that they found NO EVIDENCE that any scientist thought if that radiation caused any of that cancer)

3. For Fukushima, the cases of hundreds of thousands of people who have been exposed, have been followed since 2011 and very carefully studied. There is NO EVIDENCE that a SINGLE cancer (or death) has occurred due to the radiation released.

4. This is consistent with last 60 Years+ study, both in Lab, and followup of the exposed people, that there is NO evidence that low exposure (even 100x times more than what the sailors above received) has caused any (additional) cancer.

The reason these people can scare the general public is because -
1 - Most do not have much knowledge of radiation and cancer etc..
2 - Cancer is quite common.. about 20% people will die (in next 50-60 years) because of it . (Effect due to Smoking, for example, has statistical effect - effect due to low radiation, if there is any, has not been able to be measured)
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by ShauryaT »

N-compromise a liability, will kill local reactor programme
The nuclear compromise approved by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Barack Obama is as much a financial liability for the Indian people as the 2008 civilian nuclear cooperation deal with the United States is a strategic millstone round the country’s neck, and contravenes the Civilian Nuclear Damage Liability Act 2010. First the Congress Party-led coalition regime and now the Bharatiya Janata Party dispensation at the centre, busily explored every possible avenue to circumvent the 2010 Act. The proposed solution, however, seems only to be a means to get a troublesome issue gumming up the bilateral ties off the table, and induce wary American companies, uncertain about their financial obligations but drawn, like moths to a flame, by the prospects of lucrative sales to risk supplying nuclear reactor technology to India.

The compromise was reached by forcing the Indian liability law into the straitjacket of the Convention on Supplementary Compensation, which channels all liability to the operator. Also, an “insurance pool” has been contrived with contributions totaling Rs 1,500 crores from the public sector General Insurance Corporation and other insurance companies and the Indian Exchequer to cover liability obligations. In short, the Modi-Obama solution ensures miniscule compensation in case of nuclear disasters potentially affecting hundreds of thousands of people in densely populated areas and billions of dollars in property damage by dumping all liability into the laps of the Indian taxpayer while zeroing out the financial responsibility of supplier companies selling untested, unproven, and unsafe nuclear reactors. Because no nuclear reactor has been installed in the US since the 1979 Three Mile Island mishap, India will become the testing ground for new American reactor technology and leverage to revive the US nuclear industry.

The 2010 Act, voted with the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy in mind, was meant to prevent precisely such outcomes. But it has been undermined by creatively interpreting some of its provisions. Thus, Section 17(b) which talks of the operator’s “right of recourse” in case of “supply of equipment or material with patent or latent defects or sub-standard services”, which comprehensively shuts down all escape routes to technology suppliers, is viewed by MEA, as only another “normal element of a contract”. It further clarified that Section 17 renders the right of recourse a function of the operator’s whim in writing contracts with supplier firms and, if by some oversight it is included in the contract, leaves it to the operator to “exercise” it or not! Meaning, the sole Indian operator the public sector Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited can, on its own, decide to absolve foreign companies of any responsibility for supplying flawed reactor designs and technology that could lead to accidents while transferring all liability to the Indian state and taxpayer. Likewise, compensation claims on supplier companies by individuals dissatisfied with the pittance given by the government, are disallowed. Next MEA torpedoed Section 46 of the 2010 Act by impugning India’s sovereign right to legislate measures, including in the future to retroactively affect contracts NPCIL signs with supplier firms voiding the latters’ immunity from liability. This is particularly galling considering India was targeted by US Congress’ retroactive legislation post-1974 nuclear test that stopped fuel supply to Tarapur reactors.

Imported enriched nuclear reactors are the worst possible option from every angle. It will create a nuclear spares and fuel dependency, starve the indigenous natural uranium reactor program and the development of the follow-on breeder and thorium reactors per Bhabha’s three-stage 1955 plan to achieve energy self-sufficiency of funds because the exorbitantly-priced foreign reactors (as $6-$9 billion per 1,000MW plant) will corner all the monies, negate the possibility of exporting Indian-designed reactors to developing countries and earning revenue and, with the promised entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group, tighten the nonproliferation noose. Meanwhile, the impossible target of 63,000 MW of nuclear energy by 2032 will, like Manmohan Singh’s “20,000 MW by 2020”, remain a mere slogan.
Scathing and glad that at least one analyst is out there speaking not for any political or ideological interest but the nation's, as he sees it.
Tuvaluan
BRFite
Posts: 1816
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Tuvaluan »

According to the head of DAE it is going to be another 15 years before Indian nuclear plants can be operated commercially in India. BK does not spell out how India is going to deal with the energy deficit in the interim -- that is an important question, regardless of the points made about the nuclear liability bill/law. If nuclear is ruled out, that leaves only coal and hydro. Answer is not "clean energy" (wind, solar etc), especially if the current govt.'s intent is to kickstart manufacturing that cannot run on "clean energy" sources -- and needs coal/hydro/nuclear power generation.
sooraj
BRFite
Posts: 1544
Joined: 06 May 2011 15:45

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by sooraj »

India-US deal long on promises but short on clarity: Russia
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/i ... sliderNews
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Philip »

The deal is now being seen as a damp squib. The US envoy asking pvt. companies to "take the deal forward" and their resolve their doubts,etc. themselves ,is an acknowledgement that there has been no dilution of the Liability Bill ,as our MEA has stated.

( http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... elatedNews
February 10, 2015 22:47 IST
US nuclear suppliers sceptical of MEA assurances)


Here are some more reports ,same link.

A ‘breakthrough’ that is no big deal February 12, 2015
US nuclear suppliers sceptical of MEA assurancesFebruary 10, 2015
MEA clarification on nuclear deal draws flakFebruary 9,
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by ramana »

Philip, Think calmly and go back to KS garu's drishti of things.

The NSG is a formal name of the London Supplier group which came about after POKI PNE.
The whole idea was to sanction India for POKI PNE. And prevent PNEs via power reactors.
Now IUCNA showed US was swilling to deal with India on power reactors.

It had a clause demanding US inspections of even non US origin fuel in US power reactors.

Now Ombaba waived that clause.

So in effect the London Supplier Group sanctions no longer apply to India.

Don't get swayed by Chindu and other anti-NDA papers.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9265
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Amber G. »

Few tidbits/newitems ... FWIW:

>>Indian Kudankulam NPP topped the "Nuclear energy" category as the modern technologies they use produce cleaner and more effective sources of energy.

The editors claim that these projects represent global nuclear trends as the modern technologies they use produce cleaner and more effective sources of energy.

When judging the finalists, the magazine considered "capacity, the technology, and the projects' impact on the industry and on the communities in which they were installed."

Congrats. Link:

(One) US (Agency) Names Kudankulam Power plant (as one of the two) Best Projects of 2014
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by ShauryaT »

From link.
"I'm hopeful that the May time-frame, when I come back from India, that we're going to have a plan on how we might be able to move forward commercially, even if I can't totally move forward in the nuclear liability space yet," Roderick said. "There's a lot to do long before I need the nuclear liability."

In the past, Roderick said, "We have established commercial protocol that says we can move forward to this point under the understanding that if you don't fix your nuclear liability regime that you can't ever operate this unit, or you can't get fuel or whatever the case may be."
Meaning?
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by RoyG »

Meaning, more chai biscuit. He knows there wont be more than 12 imported american reactors sitting on Indian soil. India is putting most of its eggs in the PHWR and breeder reactor basket.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by ShauryaT »

US-India Civil Nuclear Deal - The Day After
Strategic Context It is largely believed by the global community that nuclear energy and the deal itself, was a convenient cover for releasing India from global denial of dual-use technology. The ultimate aim was to make India a full member of the four technology-control regimes ie Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), the Wassenaar Arrangement and the Australia Group. Therefore alongside progressing their nuclear deal, India and the US during the last two summit meetings have committed to continue to work towards India's phased entry into these four technology-control regimes. Even though China, a day after US President Barack Obama backed India's inclusion into the elite 48-member NSG, has extended conditional support for India's membership bid saying that "prudence and caution" needs to be exercised on the issue, the road to the NSG membership will come with costs. Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying at the media briefing added that “We support the group to include new members and we support India to take further measures to meet the requirements for the inclusion in the group." This is probably China’s indication that India’s membership will be along with Pakistan, whose nuclear energy programme is being “grand-fathered” by China. Notwithstanding politics and the distance the Indo-US nuclear deal has yet to cover, It was the US President who has best described it when he said the agreement on the nuclear deal represented a “new and perhaps unprecedented opportunity” for deepening of Indo-US ties. - See more at: http://www.claws.in/1337/us-india-civil ... 8FCue.dpuf
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9265
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by Amber G. »

India seals nuclear energy pact with Sri Lanka,
India sealed a nuclear energy agreement with Sri Lanka on Monday, its first breakthrough with the new government of the tiny Indian Ocean island where China has been building ports and highways in a diplomatic push in recent years.

Under the deal, India will help Sri Lanka build its nuclear energy infrastructure, including training of personnel, the Indian foreign ministry said.

Later, India could also sell light small-scale nuclear reactors to Sri Lanka which wants to establish 600 MW of nuclear capacity by 2030, a Sri Lankan official and an Indian analyst said.

The deal came as Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena began a visit to India, his first trip abroad since he swept to power in January, which has provided New Delhi with an opening to repair ties that had become tense under his predecessor.

"The bilateral agreement on civil nuclear cooperation is yet another demonstration of our mutual trust," Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said in a statement.

<snip>
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: India Nuclear News and Discussion 4 July 2011

Post by RamaY »

Question: if and when India sells a nuclear reactor to Sri Lanka, which liability law it will come under, India or SL or both?

Thanks
Post Reply