India Nuclear News And Discussion

[ankit-s]

For perspective about Liability etc two thoughts/analogies:

1. Consider, say, Indian Railways -their safety records/ liabilities etc. If I am not mistaken more than 3K people needlessly die in Mumbai only. By any comparison (even accidents per user) shouldn't this be order of magnitude more serious?

2. Consider a scenario where we (India) are setting up a reactor (or any other technology - say a hospital) in other country - what will be reasonable liability we would like to take before we say it is unreasonable.

Just some thoughts only - Also don't forget, like abuse of medical malpractice in US the cost of all that kind of Insurance will ultimately be passed to consumer (read - Indian Janata)

I am shocked if not surprised by your comparison. A nuclear incident effects is just not about how many people got killed because of radioactive fallout. The effects are far reaching and far worse. Imagine the extent of damage it would do to the surrounding environment and the psychological implications that would have on the entire country. One such disaster and we can kiss goodbye to atomic research in India for ever. Politicians of the opposition will never let go such situation. The groups to benefit the most would be Leftists and Naxals. Why Naxals, because most of these nuclear parks are being setup in remote locations that has forest cover, with a few exceptions. The area already has impoverished peasants living.

If one such incident starts a wave of public protests against these nuclear plants, the government may be forced to cap the projects if not kill them completely. If that happens, how we will fulfill the energy requirements of our country?

A nuclear incident will have a huge domino effect on the entire economy, politics and mass psychology of the country.

The structure of insurance of nuclear installations is different from ordinary industrial risks (as train or bus accidents). This covers the potential cross border radiation fallout risk.

The potential cross boundary consequences of a nuclear accident require an international nuclear liability regime, so national laws are supplemented by a number of international conventions.

[Amber G.]

Thanks for replies - Like all analogies and thought experiments, point here was to challenge the things one consider "swaym siddhi" (A priory assumptions not based on data)and see what are the basic points which should be take into accounts. (I don't disagree, or agree with all what is posted, just adding more thoughts)

I know, and agree that railways and nuclear reactors are not exactly same. Based on data: We do know that people do get killed by lack of safety in Indian Railways. And Nuclear reactors are known (at least from empirical data) not (well virtually nil as compared to Railways) to kill people.
Similarly wrt to other horrors eg cancer etc, some chemicals and some other industires (asbestos, leather tanning etc) are much much more (again based on solid data) relevant as far as environment is concerned. "Potential cross border radiation fallout risk" type arguments as far as seriousness and deadliness is concerned.. there is nothing unique about nuclear reactors, scientifically speaking, from available data, points otherwise.

Sure, there is a lot of unknown and one must be vigilant, and in that respect, we must pay attention to everything. For safe nuclear power (or for any other technology, for that matter) our concern should go along with our national interest and scientific data, and not based upon partisan politics. (that's why posts here as quoting blogs which does nothing else than use silly innuendos about "honest PM", are, in my opinion, beyond pale. Unfortunately there is at least one post like that here)

Besides building nuclear reactors etc is not a one-way street, we (India) may like to sell them too so our logic should be based on solid science and national interest.


Just some thoughts...(plan to be more on listening mode, to hear other opinions)

[Gerard]

Similarly wrt to other horrors eg cancer etc, some chemicals and some other industires (asbestos, leather tanning etc) are much much more (again based on solid data) relevant as far as environment is concerned

For example coal fired thermal power plants. They emit far more radionuclides into the air than any nuclear power plant in normal operation. The fly ash carries 100 times more radioactivity into the environment than a nuclear reactor producing the same energy.

[Gerard]

Govt open to raising nuclear liability cap
Q&A: Prithviraj Chavan, Atomic Energy Minister

[Amber G.]

For example coal fired thermal power plants. They emit far more radionuclides into the air than any nuclear power plant in normal operation. The fly ash carries 100 times more radioactivity into the environment than a nuclear reactor producing the same energy.

To add: Those who want to know more about radioactivity related to coal fire plants (and yes, Uranium/Thorium contents etc) could check this Scientific American Article (and references given there).
Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation

Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.

At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels.

Please keep in mind, that for perspective, even near coal plants the amount of radioactivity (which is many times more than, say a typical nuclear plant) is still quite small compared to background radiation from cosmic rays etc,..

[Gerard]

Russia to build two more reactors at Kudankulam

[Gerard]

Plan for nuclear fuel plant in India

“A project to build a factory in India for the production of nuclear fuel is under consideration,” Russia's state nuclear corporation Rosatom chief Sergei Kiriyenko said in the wake of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's visit to India.

India may also take up the Russia offer to participate in an international nuclear fuel enrichment centre at Angarsk, Siberia, RIA Novosti reported quoting Indian Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Srikumar Banerjee.

[Rony]

Brahma Chellaney in Hindu.Lot of details !

A radioactive Bill fraught with big risks

What stands out in the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill is the extent to which it goes to aid the business interests of the foreign reactor builders. In the process, the Bill seeks to financially burden the Indian taxpayer and encumber the rights of victims of any potential radioactive release from a foreign-built plant.

A special Indian law limiting liability in amount and in time has been sought by Washington for its nuclear-exporting firms, with the largest two, Westinghouse and General Electric (GE), set to win multibillion-dollar contracts to build several commercial nuclear power reactors. To forestall lawsuits filed against American suppliers in U.S. courts by victims of a nuclear catastrophe, Washington has also pressed for exclusive jurisdiction for Indian courts so that there will be no repeat of what happened after the Bhopal gas disaster. The Bill seeks to help out the U.S. firms on these counts, going at times even beyond what American law provides.

Under the Bill, the foreign reactor builder — however culpable it is for a nuclear accident — will be completely immune from any victim-initiated civil suit or criminal proceedings in an Indian court or in a court in its home country. The Bill actually turns the legal liability of a foreign reactor supplier for an accident into mere financial compensation — that too, pegged at a pittance and routed through the Indian state operator of the plant. Foreign suppliers will have no direct accident-related liability.

The foreign builders will bask under legal immunity because the Bill channels all legal liability to the Central Government. Clause 7 states the “Central Government shall be liable for nuclear damage in respect of a nuclear incident” when such liability exceeds the Rs.500-crore liability limit of the operator or where the accident occurs “in a nuclear installation owned by it [the Indian government].” The Union government will own all foreign-built reactors.

Indeed, the Bill creates a specious distinction between the operator and the government when both are fused in the Indian context. After all, it is the Indian state which will run all foreign-built plants through its operator, the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL). Yet, throughout the Bill, the pretence of a U.S.-style separation between the operator and the government is maintained.

Under Clause 6, the maximum liability of the operator and the government combined has been set at “the rupee equivalent of 300 million special drawing rights (SDRs),” or Rs.2,087 crore ($458 million) — 23 times lower than what is provided under the equivalent U.S. law, the controversial Price-Anderson Act (labelled “Half-Price Anderson” by critics). Of this, the total liability of the operator has been limited to Rs.500 crore ($109 million). The Central government will be liable for damages in excess of Rs.500 crore but only up to Rs.2,087 crore.

In actual fact, all liability falls on the Indian taxpayer, whether it is the operator's slice or the Central government's portion. The state operator, the NPCIL, through a construction contract, can make the foreign builder legally responsible to pay compensation for an accident. But the amount payable by a foreign builder can only be up to the state operator's own liability ceiling, which is a trifling Rs.500 crore ($109 million).

So, even if the accident were triggered by wilful negligence on the part of the foreign supplier and the consequences were catastrophic, all claims would have to be filed against the Indian state — with the NPCIL required to disburse the first Rs. 500 crore and the Central government the second portion up to Rs. 2,087 crore. The NPCIL could, in turn, try to recover its Rs. 500 crore from the foreign supplier. But for the Indian taxpayer, this is a lose-lose proposition.

That raises a fundamental question: What will it do to nuclear safety to grant foreign suppliers legal immunity upfront and to shift the liability to the Indian taxpayer?

Another key issue relates to the rights of victims. The Bill ensures that victims of a disaster involving a foreign-built reactor will not be able to sue the builder in its home country. Worse still, the Bill blocks the victims from suing the foreign supplier even in Indian courts.

Only the “operator shall have a right of recourse,” according to Clause 17. The state operator can sue the foreign supplier where “such right is expressly provided for in a contract in writing” and “the nuclear incident has resulted from the wilful act or gross negligence on the part of the supplier of the material, equipment or services, or of his employee.” But such a right of recourse can only be to meet the operator's own small liability of Rs. 500 crore.

In fact, the Bill seriously shackles Indian courts. All nuclear-damage claims will be dealt with by a Claims Commissioner or a Nuclear Damage Claims Commission, and any award made “shall be final” and cannot be appealed in any court. “No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter which the Claims Commissioner or the Commission, as the case may be, is empowered to adjudicate under this Act and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act,” according to Clause 35.

By contrast, the Price-Anderson Act permits economic (but not legal) channelling of liability, thereby allowing lawsuits and criminal proceedings against the reactor builder or any other party in U.S. courts. That is a key reason why the U.S. has not joined the Vienna or Paris convention — the two main international liability instruments. But the U.S. has become party to another convention it helped draft under the auspices of the IAEA — the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC), which is still not in force. The CSC, as the name suggests, is about compensation through an international fund, to be paid “supplementary” to the liability limit.

The Bill also limits liability in time, with Clause 18 stating: “The right to claim compensation for any nuclear damage caused by a nuclear incident shall extinguish if such claim is not made within a period of 10 years from the date of incident…” That provision was retained despite the Environment Ministry's note of caution — revealed by this newspaper — that the 10-year time limit was untenable because damage to human health from a serious radioactive release “involves changes in DNAs, resulting in mutagenic and teratogenic changes, which take a long time to manifest.”

And although the Finance Ministry, in its comments on the Bill, had warned the proposed law would “expose the government to substantial liabilities for the failings of the private sector,” the Bill essentially seeks to give foreign reactor builders a free ride at the Indian taxpayer's expense.

The Indian Bill, in effect, amounts to a huge hidden subsidy by protecting foreign reactor builders from the weight of the financial consequences of accidents. If the Bill is passed, the costs of doing business in India for foreign suppliers will be low but the assured profits will be high. To cover the maximum potential compensation payable for an accident, a foreign builder will need to take insurance for a mere Rs. 500 crore. What is more, the foreign builders are being freed from the task of producing electricity at marketable rates. The NPCIL will run the foreign-built reactors, with the state subsidising the high-priced electricity generated.

India is under no international obligation to pass such a law. In fact, efforts to create common international standards on liability and compensation since the Chernobyl disaster have made exceedingly slow progress. Yet the Bill's accompanying “Statement of Objects and Reasons” creates the deceptive impression that the proposed law aims to bring India in line internationally. If anything, the Bill seeks to set a wrong international precedent by its mollycoddling of foreign suppliers.

To be sure, technological improvements in reactor-safety systems have significantly lowered the risks of a major nuclear accident. Yet nuclear technology remains intrinsically dangerous, and a single catastrophe anywhere in the world will impose colossal, long-term costs and have a chilling effect on the global appeal of nuclear power. Given the nuclear safety and security issues that have been highlighted by recent incidents in India, accident liability is a matter demanding serious consideration.

The government must answer the central question: In seeking to invite U.S. reactor builders, should a poor country rush to pass a special law that skews the business terms in their favour, gratuitously burdens the Indian taxpayer and ignores the lessons of the Bhopal gas disaster?

[tejas]

With better financial, technical (reprocessing) and liability terms from Russia and France why buy any reactors from Umrikah? We need to let Pres. Osama know how we feel about his latest arms transfers to the Pukes. Giving him a one finger salute on a nuclear liability bill would be a good place to start. The debate on said bill should take 20 years or so.

[Sanatanan]

Govt defers nuclear liability bill, says no urgency

. . .
Indicating that it would not be introduced in the first half of the Budget Session that ends tomorrow, he {Minister Prithviraj Chavan} said, "There is no urgency to introduce the bill".
. . .

According to what I understood from media reports, as of yesterday, the Govt. was in a hurry to introduce this bill in the Parliament (presumably so that it could be put in place, in time for Obama's proposed visit to India). To day it is not.

Is there a provision for Govt to bring in this legislation by promulgating an ordinance, say just after the present session of the Parliament is over, thus bypassing, at least temporarily, the Parliament? Is it likely to the strategy being adopted?

Above, of course, is hypothesising on my part.

[Sanatanan]

A deeply flawed bill: Editorial, The Hindu, Tuesday, Mar 16, 2010

[Muppalla]

^^^
Without going to left or right side of political spectrum, does nuclear liability bill has any tangible benefits for GOI to consider seriously?

[sivab]

^^^

No, because according to the US atomic energy law, no US nuclear equipment manufacturer is allowed to sell equipment to any country unless it has a liability law in place. The French demand either a law or a bilateral law fixing liability. So do the Russians. So, unless we pass this law, no one will give us equipment.

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... 5C/388512/

Without liability limits we will not get equipment from French and Russians either. I am guessing liability limits for first two units of Koodankulam are built into bilateral agreement.

This bill also fixes the limit on national liability. This is required to join international convention on nuclear liability. Think of compensation to Srilanka in case of an accident in Koodankulam.

[Sanku]

Do we KNOW for a fact what prior liability clauses have existed for equipments sourced?

[Muppalla]

Benefits are pretty promising. The whole goal behind the nuclear deal was to get Uranium from international markets so that we can boost our nuclear power production. After the deal, GOI, BARC and DAE alone cannot standup to the huge requirement of nuclear reactors in India, to match the power generation projections. So GOI invited Ruskies, Frenchies and the last but not the least Ameerkhan. They build reactors for us and the state owned NPCIL to operate. The onlee hickup being Ameerkhan involvement in the reactors. The effort is not state sponsored, but led by private companies. Nuclear liability is too much to ask from profit making enterprises. So to provide them immunity, MMS and SG wanna pass the bill, that provides Ameerkhan from nuclear liability, in case of any disaster.

French and Russians are already here. The only problem being, they alone cannot fulfill the requirements. Hence we need Ameerkhan. Looking at our desh's GDP and economic growth and Nuclear power is vvvv imp to meet the electricity requirements. If you ask me, its a game of numbers, reaching double-digit GDP growth, so babus can buy more VVIP helicopters.

There has already been a lot of discussion in this thread, on why Russians and French do not have any liability issues with setting up nuclear reactors and why America is the only one which needs this bill to be passed. You can check the previous posts. Russia has already signed to provide 16 nuclear reactors, irrespective of the bill.

What is the basis for saying that we need American reactors? why not we buy zillion reactors from French and Russians? I understand that to get American reactors they insist on this liability bill.

Is this liability bill has any other advantages other than just getting American reactors. TIA

[Gerard]

No bill.. no French Reactors either

The Parties agree that, for the purpose of compensating for damage caused by a nuclear incident involving nuclear material, equipment, facilities and technology, each Party shall create a civil nuclear liability regime based on established international principles.

Article VIII (2) of the India-France Nuclear Agreement

[Hari Seldon]

I personally think that we got the nuclear deal inked with Ameerkhan because we agreed to buy American reactors. Apart from that I don't see any reason why we cannot ignore American reactors and just buy French or Russian.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't reprocessing also an issue particular to US reactors and fuel? Or is it an NSG wide conditionality? How come the Russians and French are going ahead with reactor plans when the reporc thing is not yet 'settled'?

Would appreciate the gyan. Thanks.

[Gerard]

Note the maximum liability under the convention

The maximum liability of a nuclear installation operator is SDR 15 million* and the minimum liability is SDR 5 million. However, the NEA has recommended that Paris Convention states set the maximum liability amount to not less than SDR 150 million; most have done so.

[Gerard]

How come the Russians and French are going ahead with reactor plans when the reporc thing is not yet 'settled'?

The French and Russians have given reprocessing rights. India is able to reprocess the fuel in its own safeguarded plants.
Neither has agreed to provide reprocessing technology to India.

[arnab]

Is this liability bill has any other advantages other than just getting American reactors. TIA

IMO the 'liability bill' is a two-way street. It also limits Indian liabilities for her future nuke product exports. I believe the so called 'unlimited liability' enjoyed by Russian nuke suppliers (because they are guaranteed by the Russian government) are a pure red herring. I would really like to see India recover costs from Russia should a chernobyl type disaster occur in India due to the Russian reactors.

[Gerard]

but state backed nuclear reactors are more secured compared to private enterprise backed American reactors.

An assumption based on what?

[arnab]

IMO the 'liability bill' is a two-way street. It also limits Indian liabilities for her future nuke product exports. I believe the so called 'unlimited liability' enjoyed by Russian nuke suppliers (because they are guaranteed by the Russian government) are a pure red herring. I would really like to see India recover costs from Russia should a chernobyl type disaster occur in India due to the Russian reactors.

We already argued here on that aspect couple of posts back. And widely accepted that though Russia and France cannot be concurred that easily in case of nuclear disaster, but state backed nuclear reactors are more secured compared to private enterprise backed American reactors. You can find the points listed if you go a couple of posts back.

I saw them. I don't agree with those 'points'. How are state enterprises more secure? As an example - have the Russian government given us compensation for the Migs that have crashed over the years? They are state backed. And have we stopped buying russian equipment to make them more 'amenable' to our requests?

[Amber G.]

Some relevant part from link posted by Sivab may answer some of the questions raised above.

Why not a higher cap?
I have an open mind on this. Parliament can pass a law raising the cap. But remember, the higher the cap, the higher the cost of getting insurance. We looked at all the caps worldwide and came up with the Rs 500 crore figure because it was somewhere in the middle. China has a cap of Rs 200 crore. The US cap has been raised recently and is now higher than us.

Only Japan, Korea, Germany and Switzerland place unlimited liability on the operator. If we don’t keep the caps reasonable, nobody will invest in India.

Right now, we have nothing, no law to punish operators — which is currently only the government — who allow hazardous substances to leak, except the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, which does not spell out nuclear accidents. This is one reason why people of Bhopal had to run from pillar to post for compensation and finally took recourse to the Law of Torts. Now, we will have a legal framework within which to proceed.

BTW: From above, setting up of legal mechanism started by NDA Govt back in 1991.

[arnab]

[

Agree or not agree its upto you. Migs crashing and nuclear disaster are same? The reactor technology, liability, safeguards etyadi are part of the individual nuclear deal that we signed with both Russia and France. The Nuclear deal with America does not has a clause where American state can be held responsible for Nuclear reactors being supplied by American Companies.

For the mom of the pilot who died - it is the same (besides the question was - did we get compensation for the event?). Why should the American state be held responsible? When the Airbus crashed in Bangalore - was the EU held responsible?

[Amber G.]

I personally think that we got the nuclear deal inked with Ameerkhan because we agreed to buy American reactors. Apart from that I don't see any reason why we cannot ignore American reactors and just buy French or Russian.

Want to know why (on what basis) you say that? Can you point to source(s) where detailed cost/benefit analysis of American reactors vs French or Russian Reactors with reference to Indian background is carried out. I'll assume there can be different kinds (varying is size/cost etc) so which kind of reactors you are talking about? (or all American reactors are haram? )

(For perspective even simpler things like cars, people like to have a choice and buy what they think will be best for them. Any generalization based solely on its country of origin may not be the only valid criteria)

[arnab]

For the mom of the pilot who died - it is the same (besides the question was - did we get compensation for the event?). Why should the American state be held responsible? When the Airbus crashed in Bangalore - was the EU held responsible?

I have held the armed forces in the highest regard. Just trying to tell that Nuclear Disaster has far more bigger impact than anything out there. Well, don't wish to argue on that. An Aircraft crashing and a nuclear disaster like Chernobyl can never be put in the same league. We never got compensation for MIGs or Airbus because there was no liability agreement when we bought them. In case of Nuclear deal, there is a civil nuclear liability involved. Thats an international norm as per the Geneva, Paris and Brussels convention. Will the Indian government just ignore it and pass a bill that provides immunity? How can that be justified? According to you there is no difference between a country like Russia and France whose government is directly involved in the reactor technology no better than American private companies who do not have no diplomatic relation on state level? If Indian Government along with PSU sells a nuclear reactor abroad, and if it meets a disaster, we will just walk away, washing our hands? Is that easy, when government of two countries are involved?

What do you mean there was no 'liability agreement' involved with Russia at the time of the Migs? Does no 'liability agreement' translate into no liability? In other words if you buy a car and do not buy insurance - are you exempt from liability if you run somebody over?

Gerard has already pointed out the 'liability limit' as per international-norms. So how is it any different from the liability Act with the US? (In fact the liability here is significantly higher). Do you know for instance how USSR's 'unlimited liability' impacted on chernobyl?

The operator’s liability is limited both in time and amount. Under both conventions, claims for
compensation of damage must be instituted within ten years from the date of the accident. Contracting
Parties may establish a “discovery rule” under which claims must be made within at least two years
from the time the victim discovered the damage and the identity of the operator, and most if not all
have done so. Under the Paris Convention, the maximum liability of the operator is set at
15 million SDRs,13 and the minimum is fixed at 5 million SDRs14 while under the Vienna Convention,
only a minimum amount of 5 million US dollars (USD)15 is established

in 1986 there was no special legislation in place in
the former Soviet Union which would have entitled victims in the most severely affected successor
countries of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia to claim compensation for nuclear damage suffered. Nor was
there any international liability and compensation regime to which the former Soviet Union was Party
and under which victims in neighbouring countries would have had a right to claim compensation in
respect of nuclear damage incurred as a result of the accident. The absence of both made it very
difficult for victims, both within and outside of the Soviet Union, to be compensated for the damage
they suffered. Victims within the Soviet Union were obliged to trust in the political will of their
government to provide compensation, in one form or another, for the damages they suffered, whilst
victims outside the Soviet Union fell back on either common or civil law principles if applicable, or
the political will of their own governments to compensate their losses.

http://www.nea.fr/law/chernobyl/SCHWARTZ.pdf

[arnab]

The Bill, atomised

http://www.hindustantimes.com/The-Bill- ... 19918.aspx

Suppose you ate at a restaurant and contracted food poisoning. Would you complain to the restaurant and its chefs? Or would you directly find fault with the butcher who supplied rotten meat to the restaurant, and the grocer who supplied it rotten vegetables?

The principal objection of the BJP and the Left to the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010, is as inane as this. They want the vendors who supply equipment, components, raw materials, etc. to the operator of the nuclear power plant to be held directly liable to compensate the victims of nuclear accidents.

India is the only major country — already operating as many as 18 nuclear power plants — which is not a member of either the 1963 Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), or the 1960 Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy of the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)

Indeed, the liability cap of an Indian operator at Rs 500 crore per incident is well above those of several other countries. China has a liability cap of Rs 205 crore, Canada of Rs 335 crore, and France is about the same at Rs 575 crore.

The arguments of the Left parties are based on a faulty understanding of the US’s Price Anderson Act. In the US, all nuclear power plants are operated by the private sector, unlike in India, France and Russia where they are all operated by government companies. In the US, all the operators and equipment suppliers have pooled together to form a fund with a corpus of $10 billion. Compensation to the victims of a nuclear accident will be paid out of this fund according to a complex formula. The US government has no obligation whatsoever to compensate the victims of a nuclear accident. The Left parties are falsely claiming that the US has a liability cap of $10 billion.

It is not that suppliers of faulty equipment can get away scot-free. Clause 17 of the Bill permits the operator of the nuclear power plant to sue the equipment vendor for damages. This goes well beyond the provisions of IAEA’s model law. In particular, clause 17(b) of the Bill grants the Indian operator a ‘Right of Recourse’ against “wilful acts or gross negligence on the part of the supplier of the material, equipment or services, or of his employee”.

Indeed, the present Bill, which was pulled out last minute from being presented in the Lok Sabha on Monday, adheres to international best practices and is far better than the national laws of many advanced nuclear countries.

[arnab]

[
Hopefully the actual Bill is same as what the article claims. All articles until now, including from the likes of Brahma Chellany has a different story to tell. So who is speaking the truth here?

BC says this:

Under Clause 6, the maximum liability of the operator and the government combined has been set at “the rupee equivalent of 300 million special drawing rights (SDRs),” or Rs.2,087 crore ($458 million) — 23 times lower than what is provided under the equivalent U.S. law, the controversial Price-Anderson Act (labelled “Half-Price Anderson” by critics). Of this, the total liability of the operator has been limited to Rs.500 crore ($109 million). The Central government will be liable for damages in excess of Rs.500 crore but only up to Rs.2,087 crore.

The response by RVP is:

The arguments of the Left parties are based on a faulty understanding of the US’s Price Anderson Act. In the US, all nuclear power plants are operated by the private sector, unlike in India, France and Russia where they are all operated by government companies. In the US, all the operators and equipment suppliers have pooled together to form a fund with a corpus of $10 billion. Compensation to the victims of a nuclear accident will be paid out of this fund according to a complex formula. The US government has no obligation whatsoever to compensate the victims of a nuclear accident. The Left parties are falsely claiming that the US has a liability cap of $10 billion. Payments out of this corpus for any one particular accident would be far far less than $10 billion.

BC says:

Under the Bill, the foreign reactor builder — however culpable it is for a nuclear accident — will be completely immune from any victim-initiated civil suit or criminal proceedings in an Indian court or in a court in its home country. The Bill actually turns the legal liability of a foreign reactor supplier for an accident into mere financial compensation — that too, pegged at a pittance and routed through the Indian state operator of the plant. Foreign suppliers will have no direct accident-related liability.

The foreign builders will bask under legal immunity because the Bill channels all legal liability to the Central Government. Clause 7 states the “Central Government shall be liable for nuclear damage in respect of a nuclear incident” when such liability exceeds the Rs.500-crore liability limit of the operator or where the accident occurs “in a nuclear installation owned by it [the Indian government].” The Union government will own all foreign-built reactors.

RVPs response:

... all these objections are contrary to both the Vienna and Paris Conventions, signed by over 80 countries. According to the IAEA, both the Vienna and Paris Conventions are based on the civil law concept and share the following main principles:

* Liability is channeled exclusively to the operators of the nuclear installations;

* Liability of the operator is absolute, i.e. the operator is held liable irrespective of fault;

* Liability is limited in amount. Under the Vienna Convention, it may be limited to not less than US $5 million, but an upper ceiling is not fixed. The Paris Convention sets a maximum liability of 15 million SDR;

* Liability is limited in time. Compensation rights are extinguished under both Conventions if an action is not brought within ten years from the date of the nuclear incident;

* The operator must maintain insurance of other financial security for an amount corresponding to his liability; if such security is insufficient, the Installation State is obliged to make up the difference up to the limit of the operator’s liability;

* Jurisdiction over actions lies exclusively with the courts of the contracting party in whose territory the nuclear incident occurred;

* Non-discrimination of victims on the grounds of nationality, domicile or residence;

BC says:

Only the “operator shall have a right of recourse,” according to Clause 17. The state operator can sue the foreign supplier where “such right is expressly provided for in a contract in writing” and “the nuclear incident has resulted from the wilful act or gross negligence on the part of the supplier of the material, equipment or services, or of his employee.” But such a right of recourse can only be to meet the operator's own small liability of Rs. 500 crore.

RVP argues:

Suppose you ate at a restaurant and contracted food poisoning. Would you complain to the restaurant and its chefs? Or would you directly find fault with the butcher who supplied rotten meat to the restaurant, and the grocer who supplied it rotten vegetables?

Clause 17 of the Bill permits the operator of the nuclear power plant to sue the equipment vendor for damages. This goes well beyond the provisions of IAEA’s model law. In particular, clause 17(b) of the Bill grants the Indian operator a ‘Right of Recourse’ against “wilful acts or gross negligence on the part of the supplier of the material, equipment or services, or of his employee”.

BC says:

The Bill also limits liability in time, with Clause 18 stating: “The right to claim compensation for any nuclear damage caused by a nuclear incident shall extinguish if such claim is not made within a period of 10 years from the date of incident…”

My response (RVP does not answer this): Paris convention has a 2 year time limit I believe.

[arnab]

I think Brhama Chellany (BC) should preface all his articles with a 'disclosure statement': that he was charged with sedition by the then congress government for espousing the cause of khalistani terrorists in the 1980s. So his writings may be a wee bit influenced by those events

[Rudradev]

Nkuvarupu,

You are right.

The "restaurant" analogy is a strawman, and a complete load of crap in what is essentially a lifafa article.

If the restaurant where you are eating falls on your head, because the building in which it is located was badly constructed out of substandard materials by a corrupt construction company... is that the restaurant's fault?

Or is it the fault of the construction company which erected an unsafe building (and the corrupt municipality who passed it)?

[arnab]

Nkuvarupu,

You are right.

The "restaurant" analogy is a strawman, and a complete load of crap in what is essentially a lifafa article.

If the restaurant where you are eating falls on your head, because the building in which it is located was badly constructed out of substandard materials by a corrupt construction company... is that the restaurant's fault?

Or is it the fault of the construction company which erected an unsafe building (and the corrupt municipality who passed it)?

umm RVP was giving the analogy 'food poisoning' - something which is more associated with operational capability and Quality Assurance. 'roof falling' type of issues are covered under Clause 17 of the Nuke bill.

[Raja Ram]

Vice Admiral Arun Kumar Singh (Retd.) on the Nuclear Liability Bill in Deccan Chronicle

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/op-ed/li ... a-kiri-610

Nice summation and analysis.

[Rudradev]

Only the “operator shall have a right of recourse,” according to Clause 17.

With the restaurant analogy, this means:

If the roof of the restaurant fell on my head, or killed/injured one of my relatives... I as a private citizen cannot take any action against the construction company or the municipality. Neither can any of the other patrons of the restaurant who suffered grievous bodily harm or the death of loved ones. No private/class-action lawsuits allowed against those who were actually at fault.

ONLY the restaurant owner is allowed to take any action! I (as the victim) have to be happy with whatever the restaurant owner is directed to pay me (and it won't be more than a limited, fixed sum thanks to this agreement). After that I can ask the central government to pay me more, and hope that they will... in their own sweet time.

But I have no recourse at all against the corrupt construction company who erected the faulty building, nor against the corrupt municipality that enabled this to happen.

Note that such a bill would suit the corrupt municipality very well. They would get their share of kickbacks from passing faulty buildings (reactors) put up by substandard construction companies (constructors of reactors).

Neither the municipality nor its patrons would ever have to worry about restitution to people harmed by these faulty buildings (reactors). Only the restaurant owner (plant operator) would have to worry. And he only to an extent limited by law.

[arnab]

With the restaurant analogy, this means:

If the roof of the restaurant fell on my head, or killed/injured one of my relatives... I cannot take any action against the construction company or the municipality. Neither can any of the other patrons of the restaurant who suffered grievous bodily harm or the death of loved ones.

ONLY the restaurant owner can do that! I have to be happy with whatever the restaurant owner is directed to pay me (and it won't be more than a limited, fixed sum thanks to this agreement). After that I can ask the central government to pay me more, and hope that they will... in their own sweet time.

I'm afraid so - Even the Vienna and Paris Convention fixes the sole responsibility on the operator (so can't pass the buck around). If the restaurant roof falls on my head - it would be logical for me to sue the restaurant owner rather than try and find out and sue the person who supplied the poor quality cement for the construction of the building. The restaurant owner can do that to recoup his losses (via clause 17)

Added later: About 'fixing the upper limit' of the amount payable by the restaurant owner (In this case solely NPCIL and by extension GOI) - I can understand why GOI would not want an unlimited liability on its account books.

[Rudradev]

But nothing (in real life) prevents me as the victim of a restaurant collapse from suing the zoning board, construction company, municipality, or the owner of the faulty building in which the restaurant is located. Nothing restricts me to seeking damages only from the restaurant owner and nobody else. That is my legal right.

Class-action lawsuits of this kind have often been fought, and won, against parties other than the immediate proprietorship... so there is nothing "logical" about being restricted to seeking damage against only one party.

For example...people have sued (and won damages from) companies that manufacture long-distance pre-paid phone cards which did not function properly. They have sued tobacco companies for culpability of their products in causing lung cancer. In such cases the victims were not restricted only to suing the corner shop which actually sold them the phone cards or cigarettes. Nor was the corner shop protected by law to have to pay out only a certain amount and no more in liabilities.

This canard of a bill will prevent victims from seeking rightful compensation from anyone but the plant operator. And the extent to which the plant operator is liable is similarly fixed to a limited amount, beyond which victims have no realistic hope of restitution.

It can very well be seen as an infringement of the right to seek legal recourse... a fundamental right granted to all citizens by the constitution of India.

[arnab]

Class-action lawsuits of this kind have often been fought, and won, against parties other than the immediate proprietorship... so there is nothing "logical" about being restricted to seeking damage against only one party.

For example...people have sued (and won damages from) companies that manufacture long-distance pre-paid phone cards which did not function properly. They have sued tobacco companies for culpability of their products in causing lung cancer. In such cases the victims were not restricted only to suing the corner shop which actually sold them the phone cards or cigarettes. Nor was the corner shop protected by law to have to pay out only a certain amount and no more in liabilities.

This canard of a bill will prevent victims from seeking rightful compensation from anyone but the plant operator. And the extent to which the plant operator is liable is similarly fixed to a limited amount, beyond which victims have no realistic hope of restitution.

It can very well be seen as an infringement of the right to seek legal recourse... a fundamental right granted to all citizens by the constitution of India.

I'm not sure the example of tobbacco companies vs retailers is relevant in this case. The recent possible class action against Toyota Prius will also fall on the company rather than the retailers. again here is the Vienna Convention summary for Nuke civil liabilities:

1.Liability is channelled exclusively to the operators of the nuclear installations
2.Liability of the operator is absolute, i.e. the operator is held liable irrespective of fault
3.Liability is limited in amount. Under the Vienna Convention, it may be limited to not less than US$ 5 million (value in gold on 29 April 1963), but an upper ceiling is not fixed. The Paris Convention sets a maximum liability of 15 million SDR provided that the installation State may provide for a greater or lesser amount but not below 5 million SDR staking into account the availability of insurance coverage. The Brussels Supplementary Convention established additional funding beyond the amount available under the Paris Convention up to a total of 300 million SDRs, consisting of contributions by the installation State and contracting parties
4.Liability is limited in time. Compensation rights are extinguished under both Conventions if an action is not brought within ten years from the date of the nuclear incident. Longer periods are permissible if, under the law of the installation State, the liability of the operator is covered by financial security. National law may establish a shorter time limit, but not less than two years (the Paris Convention) or three years (the Vienna Convention) from the date the claimant knew or ought to have known of the damage and the operator liable
5.The operator must maintain insurance of other financial security for an amount corresponding to his liability; if such security is insufficient, the installation State is obliged to make up the difference up to the limit of the operator's liability
6.Jurisdiction over actions lies exclusively with the courts of the Contracting Party in whose territory the nuclear incident occurred
7.Non-discrimination of victims on the grounds of nationality, domicile or residence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Con ... ear_Damage

[amit]

Since a number of commentators, who are presumably not writers of Lifafa articles and are (again presumably) not shills, have commented on the US Price-Anderson Act and cited it as a sort of benchmark, I think it would be right if we had a look at the Act itself.

The Price-Anderson Act

Some random quotes:

The main purpose of the Price-Anderson Act is to ensure the availability of a large pool of funds
(currently about $10 billion) to provide prompt and orderly compensation of members of the
public who incur damages from a nuclear or radiological incident no matter who might be liable.
The Act provides "omnibus" coverage, that is, the same protection available for a covered
licensee or contractor extends through indemnification to any persons who may be legally liable,
regardless of their identity or relationship to the licensed activity. Because the Act channels the
obligation to pay compensation for damages, a claimant need not sue several parties but can
bring its claim to the licensee or contractor.

Power reactor licensees are required to have the maximum level of primary insurance available
from private sources ( currently $300 million) and to contribute up to $95.8 million per unit to a
secondary insurance pool, payable in annual installments of $15 million or less, and subject to
adjustments for inflation at five-year intervals. The combined primary and secondary insurance
coverage now totals over $10 billion.

The Price-Anderson Act motivated the private insurance industry to develop a means by which
nuclear power plant operators could meet their financial protection responsibilities. Pooling
provides a way to secure large amounts of insurance capacity by spreading the risks over a large
number of insurance companies. The American Nuclear Insurers (ANI), which currently writes
all nuclear liability policies, retains about one third of the liability exposure under each policy
and cedes the remaining two thirds to insurers around the world.

In the 43 years of Price-Anderson protection, the nuclear insurance pools have paid a total of
$151 million for claims. The Department of Energy has paid about $65 million during this
same period.

The Three Mile Island accident on March 28, 1979 provides a good example of how the Price-
Anderson Act provisions work. Representatives of the insurance pools arrived in Harrisburg,
Pa, the day after the accident and a local office was established on March 31. Advertisements
were placed in local newspapers. The insurance paid for the living expenses of families who
decided to evacuate, although evacuation was not ordered. On the first day of operations, the
office made payments of almost $12,000. By April 2, the pools had advanced funds to 2400
persons. The payments increased daily and reached a per day peak of $167,286 on April 9. A
total of about $1.2 million in evacuation claims were paid to 3170 claimants. The pools also
paid over $92,000 in lost wage claims to 636 individuals.

Following the TMI-2 accident, numerous lawsuits were filed in State and Federal courts in
Pennsylvania, alleging various injuries and property damages. These suits were consolidated
into one suit before the Federal District Court in Harrisburg. In September 1981, a settlement
agreement was signed, under which the insurance pools paid into a court-managed fund $20
million for economic harm to businesses and individuals within 25 miles of the plant and $5
million for the establishment of a public health fund in the area.
Although no health damages from the accident were substantiated, payments to more people took
place in the following years amounting to a total of more than $70 million through 1997 ($42
million in indemnity settlements and $28 million in expenses). Payments were all from the
primary insurance coverage and funds from the secondary insurance were not needed.

As Arnab pointed out earlier this is what BC says:

Under Clause 6, the maximum liability of the operator and the government combined has been set at “the rupee equivalent of 300 million special drawing rights (SDRs),” or Rs.2,087 crore ($458 million) — 23 times lower than what is provided under the equivalent U.S. law, the controversial Price-Anderson Act (labelled “Half-Price Anderson” by critics). Of this, the total liability of the operator has been limited to Rs.500 crore ($109 million). The Central government will be liable for damages in excess of Rs.500 crore but only up to Rs.2,087 crore.

Is BC's reading of the US Act right?

[negi]

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-0 ... entry.html

“Nuclear liability regimes are very important for the development of nuclear power,” said Kishore Jayaraman, chief operating officer of GE Energy in India said in an e-mailed statement before the government deferred the bill’s introduction. “They are also important to suppliers because insurance against such liability is not available to private companies.”

This liability stuff is tricky for even the reactor suppliers are essentially conglomerates comprising of two or more companies , French and Unkil's reactor designs source a lot of machinery (particularly boilers) from likes of Mitsubishi ,Babcock-Hitachi KK and Toshiba (iirc now owns Westinghouse) .

[arnab]

Finally, one more thing. Having witnessed the complete apathy of GOI to provide even a semblence of justice to the victims of the Bhopal tragedy, I am convinced that like then, they will once again fail to bring US criminals to justice. But at least the heat and dust generated by the liability argument (if the bill passes), would hopefully ensure two things - First, atleast some amount of the liability would be covered and second,that GOI does not fail her citizens once again should such a disaster occur once again. (Slightly OT, Mods may remove if required).

25 years and still waiting

http://www.thehindu.com/2009/12/02/stor ... 101100.htm

The UCC chief, or “Accused no 1” in a December 1, 1987 chargesheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation against him and 11 others, including UCC, USA; Union Carbide (Eastern), Hong Kong; and Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL), had been placed under house arrest soon after the disaster but won his release on a promise to return to India to stand trial.

Neither Mr. Anderson nor Carbide would turn up in the Indian court and for obvious reason. The toxic gas leak had caused a human tragedy of unprecedented proportions: Around 4,000 (unofficially 8,000) immediate deaths and over a lakh people permanently disabled. In the years to come, the death toll from long-term exposure would mount to 20,000, tens of thousands of children would have birth defects, and many millions would fall gravely ill from drinking water contaminated by the massive amounts of chemical waste dumped in and around the Carbide factory grounds. UCC and its CEO would have had hell to pay had they chosen to face charges.

Following an unjust settlement reached between Carbide and the Indian government in 1989 (the Indian government sued the corporation for $3 billion but settled for 15 per cent of the amount), survivors were awarded a lifetime average compensation of Rs.25,000, far below international compensation standards. But even this meagre amount would reach the awardees after long delays, protracted red tape and bribes paid to lawyers, middlemen and touts. Compensation would not reach some survivors until 2005, and till date no compensation has been awarded to those born with disabilities and those drinking contaminated water.

On August 6, 2001, then Attorney-General Soli Sorabjee advisedWorse, he also pointed to “humanitarian considerations” likely to be cited by the U.S. government against Mr. Anderson’s extradition. “The reasons are humanitarian concerns, such as Mr. Anderson’s age, said to be 81 years old, and [his] health and length of time that has elapsed, almost 17 years, between the event and the Indian government’s decision to make a formal request for extradition.” In other words, it was the fault of the victims that Mr. Anderson had grown old while the Indian government took its own time — despite countless petitions to successive governments and prayers before the Bhopal District Court — to take up the extradition question with the U.S. government the Vajpayee government in writing against pursuing Mr. Anderson’s extradition. He argued that it would be difficult for the Indian government to satisfy the “probable cause” requirement necessary for securing Mr. Anderson’s extradition. As the phrase itself suggests, “probable cause” means something more than a mere suspicion but less than the quantum of evidence required for conviction.

The CBI’s 2002 attempt at dilution of charges was of a piece with Mr. Sorabjee’s 2001 advice to the government against seeking Mr. Anderson’s extradition. However, with the Bhopal magistrate standing firm, the CBI was left with no option but to request the Ministry of External Affairs to seek Mr. Anderson’s extradition, which the MEA did, obviously reluctantly, in May 2003.

In July 2004, the U.S. government expectedly rejected the Indian request. It stated that the request did not meet the requirements of Article 2(1) and 9 (3) of the extradition treaty between the U.S. and India.

[Sanatanan]

. . .
Gerard has already pointed out the 'liability limit' as per international-norms. . . .
. . .

In my view, the compensation could be as per International norms, but shall be on a "per capita" basis. When everyone talks of electricity consumption per capita electricity consumption number is compared between India and other advanced countries. Likewise, when it comes to compensation it should be on "per capita compensation" basis.