Pratyush wrote:The operator at no point of time should loose the right to recourse when it comes to Nuke accident responsibility. Cause it sets the supplier free in the case of an accident. Which being the case we will be end up looking at another Bhopal. 200000 + dead. No compensation no Environmental cleanup. Just poisoned land and destroyed lives.
Boss,
Sorry to say this but the discussion is fast becoming a bit pointless. I guess we'll have to wait and see how the cookie crumbles.
But do note the point is not whether the operator - in this case NPCIL - will lose the right to recourse. That was/is not even on the table. The point of contention which the Indian nuclear industry is bring up is that standard existing international nuclear liability laws run for 40 years. This bill takes that up to 80 years.
This sums up the issue nicely (again all this has been discussed on this very thread):
Twenty-eight national laws and three international nuclear liability
conventions all channel such third-party liability to the operator of a
nuclear installation, but limit the amount of operator liability, under a
no-fault principle that is designed to facilitate and accelerate compensation.
Under the existing international system, suppliers do bear commercial
liability for their products, but that is usually limited in time and scope,
whereas nuclear liability is long-term--up to 80 years--and covers a broad
scope of potential damage.
Source is
here
It also says this:
Nuclear law specialists say the clause will prevent India from joining the Convention on Supplementary Compensation--one of the three international treaties in the field--and will make nuclear power more expensive because suppliers will have to take out liability insurance, assuming the insurance market will even provide it.
It still remains to be seen if global insurance market would provide a 80 year cover.
And we are not even talking about the big ticket equipment like the reactor containment vessel of some such. We are also taking about small gaskets and widgets that go into the making of a plant. Some 300 suppliers, typically work on the plant (see below)
And your earlier point about NPCIL having no objection is not really correct. As Somnath pointed out NPCIL is a govt body and so there are limits to what its officials can say in public. Despite that, in a first reaction to the law Sudhinder Thakur, executive director, corporate planning and corporate communications, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd said:
“Undoubtedly, the government has powers to make laws, but in the process of making such laws we should not defeat the purpose for which the laws are made since with the current formulation of 17b, no manufacturer, Indian or foreign, would be able to serve the nuclear power industry.”
Unfortunately I can't seem to find the original link where he made this remark. However
this link has the above direct quote which I remember is exactly what Thakur said.
The link also adds:
Thakur added that in the process of setting up nuclear power plants a large number of suppliers contribute in varying degrees and they, in turn, have many sub-suppliers. All these suppliers provide material according to the specifications of the operator and their obligations in terms of latent or patent defects are incorporated in the respective contracts. “No supplier, Indian or foreign, would be willing to take the liability on account of recourse of the operator for the period of some 80-odd years after the contract is executed. Under the circumstances, the provisions of 17b are neither practical nor implementable,” he concluded.
I think you would agree with me that a govt official can't be more explicit about the "ill effects" of a Govt law.
The link also quotes the L&T boss, A M Naik, as saying:
He pointed out that typically, 300 to 400 suppliers and service providers (including small and medium enterprises) are engaged for each nuclear plant. The Bill has introduced clause 17, under which after settling the civil nuclear liability claims, the operator shall have a right to recourse against the suppliers. Naik pointed out that this clause on suppliers’ liability beyond their terms of supply — that is for 60 years of plant life plus 20 years of the claim liability period — is neither practical nor justifiable. “Any clauses requiring a unreasonably high liability would deter participation from major suppliers,” he said.
Naik also pointed out that since all suppliers are commercial organisations, they would not be in a position to accept contracts with unlimited liability. In the case of unreasonably high liability, most suppliers would not be in a position to obtain insurance coverage to back these orders and, therefore, will not be able to contribute to the programme. Alternatively, suppliers would have to pay extremely high premiums for insurance coverage during the life of the plant. The costs of this insurance coverage would be transferred to the plant operator and ultimately to the consumers. All this, put together, would deter large-scale participation in the programme by the Indian nuclear industry
So you see there was instant opposition to the bill from end-users as well as suppliers - and all of them Indian not foreign suppliers with "vested interests". The opposition stemmed from the practicality of imposing the law.
Any law has to cut a fine balance of what is achievable and what is desirable. If the desire is to prevent any chance of nuclear accidents the best law is to ban nuclear power generation. However, doing that means giving a crippling blow to India's electricity generation capacity (let me clarify I mean the clean technology side, before the trolls jump in). So a balance has to be reached in which the equipment suppliers can be held liable in the event of an accident and yet at the same time open up the market. It could be the the current bill may not have got the balance right.
We gotta to see how this pans out.
One final point: Regarding you Bhopal related comment:
I am concerned by the conduct of the GOI and how disgusting it was. When It sold the Interests of its citizens to the alter of foreign investment.
Boss, if you have such concern event the most cast iron laws are not going to cut the ice. Remember the GoI owns NPCIL. If it chooses not to pursue the compensation what is everyone else going to do about it?
)
