India Nuclear News And Discussion

[amit]

N-liability Bill not just for US, must for us too: France

French government officials have said here that the passage of this legislation was crucial for French company Areva’s plans for India as well. The state-controlled energy giant Areva had signed a protocol accord with Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) in February last year for setting up two third-generation European Pressurised Reactors (EPRs) at Jaitapur in Maharashtra. There are plans to engage Aeva for four more plants. “It is absolutely necessary that India has the liability legislation in place for compensation in case of accidents. How can Areva or any other company go ahead without clear guidelines about compensation?” said a French government official.

I guess this piece of news finally nails the urban legend that the liability bill was solely intended to give the US companies a level playing field in the Indian nuclear market. I don't have the details of the nuclear deal with Russia but I suspect they'd also want this bill in place.

Once we can agree that the bill is needed for our nuclear power generation plans, then I suppose we could take the discussion forward and see if the provisions of the bill are the best we can achieve or is it possible to have higher compensation built into the bill?

To do that I think we should compare the provisions with what are the international norms for this kind of liabilities bill. We know how the US does it - with companies pooling in money to a common insurance fund - and unlike what some commentators have been saying, the US$10billion compensation is not an absolute figure and an automatic given in case of an accident.

I think Arnab posted some information a few pages back which gives a fair idea of what the international norms are.

[amit]

Some excerpts from the link Amber posted.

“The liability of Rs 500 crore on the operator is an optimum amount. It was important that this amount was not kept too low. I think this is the appropriate and reasonable level,” said Kakodkar. He said the legislation was extremely important for the country as it would enable it to join the “international support system” in case of a nuclear accident.

Sources have told The Indian Express that the government was also likely to argue that in framing this legislation, the DAE had followed not just the Vienna Convention of 1997 but also the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) for Nuclear Damage of 1997, which was developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

“Unless you fix a cap on financial liability, no insurance company will be ready to insure your installations. Also, as of now, there is no move to allow private firms, foreign or local, to set up nuclear plants. The liability for compensation in case of any incident, which the Bill is proposing, will basically be that of the state-owned NPCIL since it would run nuclear projects in the country,” said the officer.

The government also intends to tell Parliament that such a legislation is needed as the prevailing Atomic Energy Act is silent on the issue of compensation in case of any mishap. At the same time, the draft makes it clear that in case of any mishap, the operator would have to pay out the compensation without recourse to any lengthy legal battle.

The last quote is IMO important. So if, god forbid, there's a major accident at a Indian Nuclear installation tomorrow (for arguments sake let's say in one of the Russian built plants) there is no mechanism in place to ensure a fixed quantum of compensation for the victims within the fastest possible time?

Tell me is not having any compensation mechanism preferable to the bill which allegedly allows the Americans to supply substandard materials during the construction of a plant that they may get to build in India? (I personally think this is the biggest leap of faith in the arguments against the bill!)

[Muppalla]

Qeustions to gurus: Is BJP right in saying that we don't need this N-bill becasue the only operator of the Nuclear reactors is GOI's PSUs and not directly from US or France. If the onus is against PSUs why India should sign this? Is the Government hiding tactically the future intentions of allowing FDI in future?

Govt fails to cut ice with BJP on N-Bill - Party tells NSA to redraft legislation

Menon’s meeting with the BJP leaders could not remove the impasse over insertion of a clause in the Bill that only PSUs should be allowed to operate in India in the nuclear sector. During his telephonic discussion with the PM, Jaitley had insisted that this clause was needed to avoid entry of private (US) players coming into play.

The Government’s claim that it had no intentions to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1962 and allow American companies setting up nuclear reactors in India has not convinced the BJP.

“There is no policy to allow FDI in the nuclear sector,” MoS for Atomic Energy Prithviraj Chavan said here on Wednesday.

“If you do not wish to allow private companies at any point of time, why not insert a clause in the Bill that only PSUs would be allowed to operate in the nuclear sector,” Jaitley had asked the PM.

Present norms in India allow only PSUs to operate N-plants and there are apprehensions that the Government was trying to limit the level of compensation that an operator will have to pay in case of accident to pave the way for entry of the US companies as operators in India.

The Prime Minister, who had spoken to Jaitley and Sushma, was also confronted about the need for such a legislation at all as whatever compensation has to be paid to the victims of a nuclear accident will have to be borne by the Government (operator of nuclear reactors in India).

[Rudradev]

Muppalla, the problem is that the entire offer of a nuclear deal by the US was predicated on the assumption that private corporations in the US would find a market for building reactors in India.

Some may wish to perpetuate the canard that the GOTUS ran the gauntlet of non-proliferationists and NPT-vadis to offer us the nuclear deal simply because we're a "rising superpower and natural ally of the United States", plus the off-chance that just possibly US private corporations *may* get some chance to build reactors in India if the deal went through.

Now to swallow that crock requires a leap of faith if I ever saw one, but never mind.

The GOTUS went against the non-proliferation lobby to extend the nuclear deal to India only because an even more powerful lobby... US businesses who sought to profit from such a deal... felt certain of benefiting from it.

But in order to get the deal, our enlightened GOI had to promise GOTUS things they could not be sure to deliver. A liability bill, for instance, that protected private US corporations from Indian citizens seeking damages against them. The GOTUS, I'm sure, has clear memories of the hoops they had to jump through to keep Warren Anderson from having to pay for his company's negligence at Bhopal.

So now we have all this used-car salesmanship coming from the GOI to somehow sneak the back door open for US corporations. Hurry hurry hurry! There is no time, don't ask questions! 1 billion people are sitting in the dark! 10% economic growth will go down the drain! The Atomic Energy Act itself does not spell out a compensation structure, so let's pass a bill with a substandard compensation structure that shafts the Indian public! etc.

The need to restrict operation of nuclear plants in India to PSUs goes beyond this donkey-farce of "compensation structure" (as if no legal guidelines exist for compensation by NPCIL, should the current American-built TAPS reactors or Russian-built Koodankulam plant create a disaster... just because the "Atomic Energy Act" doesn't spell them out).

It goes to the very heart of our strategic security. We cannot have foreign governments or foreign private entities involved in the management and operation of assets that are absolutely vital to our strategic interests. Right now the US has leverage over Indian interests, only insofar as issuing "travel advisories" on India, or getting our IT honchos to protest GOI policy. Imagine if they controlled power generation plants on that scale.

It is simply unacceptable.

If the GOI agrees that it is unacceptable, it shouldn't be so hard for them to insert a clause in this "liability bill" that makes it permanently unacceptable... should it?

[Sanatanan]

In some of the previous posts I see that BARC has been mentioned as the designer of PHWRs. Strictly speaking, perhaps this is not true.

I think it is NPCIL that designs, builds and operates electricity generating power reactors of the PHWR type. Personnel from BARC are perhaps involved in safety analyses, procedural reviews, testing of systems and components under development etc, but the basic responsibility and technology for PHWR reactor design, construction and operation is with NPCIL.

BARC has developed a design for AHWR (said to be of the 300 MWe class) which I think, does not use pressurised heavy water. It uses heavy water as a moderator which is at a lower pressure. BARC has not yet completed construction of a reactor of this type.

Indian FBRs, (including the 500 MWe PFBR) have been designed at IGCAR. PFBR is being constructed by Bhavni an NPCIL offshoot. I guess, when the time comes, its operation will also be NPCIL's responsibility.

I believe that NPCIL's 220 MWe, 540 MWe, and now, the 700 MWe designs are as good, advanced, economical and safe as foreign designs of the same genre. I do not see why a 1000 MWe imported LWR using enriched U is considered (a view I some times come across in these threads) to be superior to indigenous PHWR using Nat U. I believe, (even after taking into account the use of heavy water) that gram for gram of U mined, a PHWR + Reprocess + FBR combination as envisaged by Bhabha results in better utilisation of earth's natural resources in U and Th (and hence more economical) than one using enrichment + LWR + reprocess + FBR. This is because of the superior neutron economy of the PHWR. Much less number of neutrons are absorbed or lost in non-fissile processes in a PHWR when compared to an LWR (Sorry, I cannot readily give links to references on this particular aspect! It is some thing I recollect having read).

In my view projections portraying a huge demand for electricity in our country are unrealistic. Importing npps, particularly under various unfavorable conditions imposed, is not in the interest of our country.

[amit]

It goes to the very heart of our strategic security. We cannot have foreign governments or foreign private entities involved in the management and operation of assets that are absolutely vital to our strategic interests. Right now the US has leverage over Indian interests, only insofar as issuing "travel advisories" on India, or getting our IT honchos to protest GOI policy. Imagine if they controlled power generation plants on that scale.

It is simply unacceptable.

So in the pretext of not allowing foreign entities to run nuclear power plants in India (before you use your wonderful stock of adjectives, please note I support this POV with a caveat that you'll understand if you read on) we insert a clause that ensures even private Indian entities cannot operate nuclear power plants in the future? Remember many players like Reliance have shown an interest in going into nuclear power generation. We seem to revisiting 1956's Commanding Heights of the Economy dogma in 2010?

There may be a gap in my knowledge - and I would readily stand corrected - but can anyone point out a single instance of a foreign electricity generator (as opposed to equipment supplier) who operates a nuclear power plant in another country? Are we all confusing the supply of equipment with "management and operation of assets"?

Added later: I fail to understand how it can even be considered that India, after all the drama over civilian and military, international safeguards etc that we witnessed in the run up to the deal could even consider giving management control of a nuclear power plant to a foreign power generator?

[amit]

Hurry hurry hurry! There is no time, don't ask questions! 1 billion people are sitting in the dark! 10% economic growth will go down the drain! The Atomic Energy Act itself does not spell out a compensation structure, so let's pass a bill with a substandard compensation structure that shafts the Indian public! etc.

The point in bold, if true, is certainly a cause for concern. But to reach the conclusion "substandard compensation structure" we would first have to compare the provisions of the bill with comparable pieces of legislation from other parts of the world and/or prevailing international norms.

Otherwise how do we decide if it's substandard? Some Gyaan on this would be much appreciated.

[Rudradev]

It goes to the very heart of our strategic security. We cannot have foreign governments or foreign private entities involved in the management and operation of assets that are absolutely vital to our strategic interests. Right now the US has leverage over Indian interests, only insofar as issuing "travel advisories" on India, or getting our IT honchos to protest GOI policy. Imagine if they controlled power generation plants on that scale.

It is simply unacceptable.

So in the pretext of not allowing foreign entities to run nuclear power plants in India (before you use your wonderful stock of adjectives, please note I support this POV with a caveat that you'll understand if you read on) we insert a clause that ensures even private Indian entities cannot operate nuclear power plants in the future? Remember many players like Reliance have shown an interest in going into nuclear power generation. We seem to revisiting 1956's Commanding Heights of the Economy dogma in 2010?

Absolutely, yes. And it has nothing to do with your strawman of a "1956 command economy". Liberalization and disinvestment are well and good, in fact in most sectors of the economy they are way past due.

However there are some key strategic sectors in India where, given the position India occupies in the world, we can't afford to have anybody but the government in control. Defence is one. Primary power generation by nuclear power plants, with its enormous security ramifications, is another.

We simply do not have the luxury of a privileged geopolitical position, which gives the US or European nations the confidence to entrust these sort of sectors to private enterprises. If at some point we come to have that luxury, the bill can be amended to allow private Indian entities, but I can't see that happening for the foreseeable future. For now, the absence of an explicit clause represents a clear and present danger of a back-door to FDI and foreign private corporations.

Reliance Industries can be involved with nuclear power generation in many ways short of actually operating plants. They can manufacture and supply components of new, indigenously built plants once the technology is absorbed. They could receive construction contracts for new plants if they prove competitive and capable. They already run power distribution networks, and can run new ones fed by nuclear plants in the future.

But no one other than the GOI should hold the keys to the kingdom... management and operation of nuclear plants that generate power for the nation's industries and infrastructure.

There may be a gap in my knowledge - and I would readily stand corrected - but can anyone point out a single instance of a foreign electricity generator (as opposed to equipment supplier) who operates a nuclear power plant in another country? Are we all confusing the supply of equipment with "management and operation of assets"?

One strawman per post was not enough for you?

Supply of equipment by foreign entities has been happening since 1968. Nobody is confused about that. What would be the point of a nuclear deal at all, if supply of equipment from foreign sources were going to be precluded?

My reply (which you quoted) was in response to Muppalla's post, which specifically referred to the clause Arun Jaitley wants included in the liability bill. That clause has to do with management and operation of assets, making it plain that only the Indian public sector will be responsible for such.

So if not a single such case exists in the world where foreign entities operate nuclear plants in other countries... what is the problem? Why would the GOI not want to make it explicitly clear... in a bill enacted by the Indian parliament... that no such case would be allowed to materialize in India either?

[Rudradev]

Hurry hurry hurry! There is no time, don't ask questions! 1 billion people are sitting in the dark! 10% economic growth will go down the drain! The Atomic Energy Act itself does not spell out a compensation structure, so let's pass a bill with a substandard compensation structure that shafts the Indian public! etc.

The point in bold, if true, is certainly a cause for concern. But to reach the conclusion "substandard compensation structure" we would first have to compare the provisions of the bill with comparable pieces of legislation from other parts of the world and/or prevailing international norms.

Otherwise how do we decide if it's substandard? Some Gyaan on this would be much appreciated.

You argue that determination of whether it is "substandard" must be based on a comparison with "prevailing international norms".

This presumes that the "prevailing international norms" (such as the much touted Vienna convention) are in fact an acceptable "standard" for civil liability.

Guess what. Out of 155 IAEA member states, only 36 are signatories to the Vienna convention... and only 14 of those have ratified it!

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Docume ... status.pdf

So apparently it's not a lot of nations that consider the Vienna convention an acceptable "standard". Very few in fact.

And you know what else? The United States, on whose behalf the GOI is selling us this snake-oil of a "liability bill", is not even among those 36 signatories of the Vienna convention!

Any "Gyaan" on why that might be? Maybe because they have internal legal instruments for compensation (including Price Anderson) that are good enough for their own people but too good for the SDRE?

[amit]

So if not a single such case exists in the world where foreign entities operate nuclear plants in other countries... what is the problem? Why would the GOI not want to make it explicitly clear... in a bill enacted by the Indian parliament... that no such case would be allowed to materialize in India either?

There are enough straws floating in this thread for Thor Heyerdahl to undertake another Kon-Tiki expedition, so I'll ignore your allegation about strawmans.

I still fail to understand why the exclusion of foreign entities has to be spelled out by saying only PSUs will be allowed to generate nuclear power? Why not ask for something like: No company with a foreign shareholding of more than 20 per cent (one can fix the percentage, mine is an arbitrary figure) and without an equivalent of greater Indian govt/PSU participation can get into nuclear power generation? Why this urge to close the door forever on Indian private sector nuclear generation. One can understand the Leftists doing this but why BJP, which is usually pretty pro Pvt sector?

No entity operates a nuclear power plant in a foreign country (edit: fixed the word which initially came out as company) because no country allows that to happen. Yet you think India's present leadership is willing to do that? Your choice but then don't expect others to shallow hook, line and stinker.

[Sanku]

And why the private players be allowed in Nuclear power generation?

There is absolutely no sense in bringing in Indian private players in this discussion, they are not going to be ready for anything of this sort for next 20-30 years.

This bill specifically is meant to address the concerns of private players from US and that is that.

This sort of irrelevant stuff is deliberately bought in to defocus from the critical aspects

1) Need to make the vendors accountable
2) Suitable amount of compensation
3) Debate on right technology for Nuclear power generation considering cost and gestational time as well.

Frankly for 5% extra electricity in 20-30 years time frame, this complete surrender of keys of control makes no sense at all -- by far. This is expensive junk, we should stay out of it.

[Stan_Savljevic]

India's Nuclear Doctrine and Tenuous Chain of Command ---- Dr Mohammed Badrul Alam
http://www.claws.in/index.php?action=ma ... 7&u_id=111

[Sanatanan]

Congress asks PMO to go slow on Nuclear Bill
Business Standard, March 18, 2010, 1:04 IST

[amit]

This bill specifically is meant to address the concerns of private players from US and that is that.

This sort of irrelevant stuff is deliberately bought in to defocus from the critical aspects

You know Sanku, I'm totally in agreement with you on this. And that's why I'm amazed that the BJP, instead of focusing on the quantum of damages/liabilities is focusing on just the simple fact that the criteria of PSUs should be inserted into the bill. Can we presume they have no other objections to the bill.

And I'm still looking for some gyaan as to what is the precedent underlying the assumption that US power generators would be interested in running nuclear power generation plants in India? Do you have information on this? Mind you management and operation of a nuclear power plant is a totally different beast that supplying critical components for the plant. Even if we have the PSU clause in, it might well be that Westinghouse or GE will supply equipment to NPCIL run plants.

[amit]

And why the private players be allowed in Nuclear power generation? I think NPCIL is doing very well in that region. Private players are already constructing and operating non-nuclear power plants. They can be involved in Nuclear power plants by supplying components and even building one based on design inputs provided by NPCIL. What is the drastic need for a private player to operate a Nuclear Plant?

Boss,

Nuclear power generation is not a five-10 year horizon play. It's a 50 year plus strategy if you go by what DAE/BARC has envisaged. Your right that today private players do not have the capability to take part in nuclear generation and NPCIL is doing a OK job. But does that preclude the possibility that 20 years down the line the private players will not develop the financial and technical capability to build and run nuclear power plants? One thing is for sure, if you close the door with this piece of legislation which has the PSU clause inserted then they will never develop the capabilities? Why do you want to hobble the private sector?

Do note 20 years ago there was no private sector players which had the capacity or expertise to run 1000 MW + thermal power plants? What's the situation now? And 20 years down the line things will change far more rapidly than the did in the previous 20 years.

[Sanku]

This bill specifically is meant to address the concerns of private players from US and that is that.

This sort of irrelevant stuff is deliberately bought in to defocus from the critical aspects

You know Sanku, I'm totally in agreement with you on this. And that's why I'm amazed that the BJP, instead of focusing on the quantum of damages/liabilities is focusing on just the simple fact that the criteria of PSUs should be inserted into the bill. Can we presume they have no other objections to the bill.

That is incorrect, simply put.

[amit]

And you know what else? The United States, on whose behalf the GOI is selling us this snake-oil of a "liability bill", is not even among those 36 signatories of the Vienna convention!

Just curious, do you think the report that France also wants the liabilities bill is yet another strawman?

Any "Gyaan" on why that might be? Maybe because they have internal legal instruments for compensation (including Price Anderson) that are good enough for their own people but too good for the SDRE?

Can I call the above comment of yours a strawman? I posted a write up on the Price Anderson Act. Here's a Wiki extract:

The Act establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first $10 billion is industry-funded as described in the Act (any claims above the $10 billion would be covered by the federal government). At the time of the Act's passing, it was considered necessary as an incentive for the private production of nuclear power — this was because investors were unwilling to accept the then-unquantified risks of nuclear energy without some limitation on their liability.

The money for compensation is industry funded.

And besides what do you mean that the US thought Price Anderson Act was too good for SDRE? Are you trying to suggest that the US and not India's voters through the Parliament decide Indian policy?

[amit]

That is incorrect, simply put.

Sanku Bhai may I know what is incorrect?

This report?
Govt fails to cut ice with BJP on N-Bill

[Sanku]

Your interpenetration of the article Amitji is totally off base -- BJP is indeed trying to make sure that all the snake oil being peddled such as "The bill will help Indian private suppliers etc" is taken off the table and debate focused on the real issues.

The real issues are
1) Are we looking of operatiors other than PSUs? If not why not put it in black and white?
2) If Yes, then PSU == GoI; then why does GoI need to restraint itself in giving palliative measures to Indians themselves? How can GoI claim it will limit its effort to help Indians in case of accident instead of saying it will do what it needs to do.
3) If GoI really will do what it needs to do; where for comes the concept of liability capping and hence bill?

As should be clear to even a layperson (IMVVHO), the above set of questions remove all Snake oil selling from the bill and force it to come clean on "What are you really trying to do with the bill"

Once that happens -- the discussion on ways and means to do vendor management will also a logical fallout (pun intended) of the above.

[amit]

The real issues are
1) Are we looking of operatiors other than PSUs? If not why not put it in black and white?
2) If Yes, then PSU == GoI; then why does GoI need to restraint itself in giving palliative measures to Indians themselves? How can GoI claim it will limit its effort to help Indians in case of accident instead of saying it will do what it needs to do.
3) If GoI really will do what it needs to do; where for comes the concept of liability capping and hence bill?.

I wonder how the portion in bold (especially the italics part) above gels with portion in bold (italics) below:

We will need a liability bill that is obvious, but the current one appears to be badly flawed, and if Soli Sorabjee is to be believed (and I usually think he always gets the legality right) the bill has issue with the basic constitution of India.

Which came from here: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 95#p839995

[Sanku]

3) If GoI really will do what it needs to do; where for comes the concept of liability capping and hence bill?.

I wonder how the portion in bold (especially the italics part) above gels with portion in bold (italics) below:

We will need a liability bill that is obvious, but the current one appears to be badly flawed, and if Soli Sorabjee is to be believed (and I usually think he always gets the legality right) the bill has issue with the basic constitution of India.

Sigh....

The above illustrates that the current bill is badly flawed and will have to be fixed to get it right.

This can be done by either --

Unlimited liability for all involved and clear cut NO to those who cant work under that condition.

Or

Letting GoI PSUs be responsible for the full extent of liability with a mechanism of passing on the components to the vendors they source from; which would be much higher than currently.

Let GoI chose which it wants, but the current one is not going to cut it -- since it is not clear at all how this is remotely helping Indian interests.

[amit]

Thank you Sanku, I'm sure it makes the issue much clearer.

Let's just keep it at that.

Cheers!

[Sanku]

Thank you Sanku, I'm sure it makes the issue much clearer.

Let's just keep it at that.

Cheers!

Actually it is already quite clear.

[amit]

Thank you Sanku, I'm sure it makes the issue much clearer.

Let's just keep it at that.

Cheers!

Actually it is already quite clear.

Yes I'm sure it is (for you). But after a second reading, I have one question. When you say:

Unlimited liability for all involved and clear cut NO to those who cant work under that condition.

Are you talking about the electricity generator (in this case NPCIL) or the electricity generator and equipment suppliers?

If it's the later, just hypothetically speaking, could you tell me which equipment suppliers would agree to this clause? The Russians? The French? The Americans? Or would it be left to good old BHEL?

[Sanku]

Unlimited liability for all involved and clear cut NO to those who cant work under that condition.

Are you talking about the electricity generator (in this case NPCIL) or the electricity generator and equipment suppliers?

The first form is essentially a model where the Govt PSUs carry out the bulk of work, and any equipment sourcing that needs be done is done through a direct govt to govt contract with clearly defined responsibilities and liabilities. The current model so to say.

As an aside --
I have yet to understand why the current model is not good enough frankly and how the current bill seeks to address that. (essentially the three question process that I outlined earlier)

[amit]

Aha Sanku. So you are happy with the current single vendor situation where Russia only supplies us with reactors. Fair enough. But that brings the other issue you mentioned and that is unlimited liability. Do you think the Russians will (have?) agreed to this?
There has to be some logical consistency nah?

[Sanku]

Aha Sanku. So you are happy with the current single vendor situation where Russia only supplies us with reactors. Fair enough. But that brings the other issue you mentioned and that is unlimited liability. Do you think the Russians will (have?) agreed to this?
There has to be some logical consistency nah?

Huh what; where have I said that only Russia should supply us with reactors? All I am saying is that 1 of the two possible options is ALL vendor countries continuing to work with India through Govt to Govt level negotiations and Govt to Govt guarantees (what ever they might be).

Anyway since they want our money they better play according to our rules, what?

[negi]

All I am saying is that 1 of the two possible options is ALL vendor countries continuing to work with India through Govt to Govt level negotiations and Govt to Govt guarantees (what ever they might be).

Gobmint guarantee ? it makes sense only if the said Government puts a 'figure' against the insurance in black and white and again how is it different from a similar guarantee from a private company ? let us not blow this issue out of proportion just because of our cynicism for anything coming from Unkil's stable.

Anyway since they want our money they better play according to our rules, what?

Well that is what negotiations are for and we don't know what has transpired in the background , why crib about a relatively smaller issue like 'liability' now that we have decided to take a plunge and signed up for foreign reactors .

There are umpteen other ways of keeping Unkil's hegemony in check but let us not give in to self destructive tendencies just to hurt Unkil.

[Sanku]

All I am saying is that 1 of the two possible options is ALL vendor countries continuing to work with India through Govt to Govt level negotiations and Govt to Govt guarantees (what ever they might be).

Gobmint guarantee ? it makes sense only if the said Government puts a 'figure' against the insurance in black and white and again how is it different from a similar guarantee from a private company ?

Then Negi we are talking of fundamentally different PoVs, to me a Govt guarantee would go a long long way.

Heck EVEN for US of A I would take their Govt guarantee over non Govt ones (even considering that GoTUS itself is not very reliable on its own statements)

let us not blow this issue out of proportion just because of our cynicism for anything coming from Unkil's stable.

Hey I did not make it a Unkil issue, my issue is with the bill period. Its others who are claiming that this is a issue because of Unkil. I never brought Unkil in the picture. Not fair allegation, I object

[negi]

Then Negi we are talking of fundamentally different PoVs, to me a Govt guarantee would go a long long way.

No it does not work certainly not if it is not worth putting in black and white on a rag with a amount against it , we already see a a marked difference in stance on Indo-US nuclear deal under Obama as against the Bush admin , NPA in Obama is having to let things go because it is all agreed to in B&W in form of the 123 agreement and a formal NSG waiver .

Heck EVEN for US of A I would take their Govt guarantee over non Govt ones (even considering that GoTUS itself is not very reliable on its own statements)

Bush regime had made many promises which are now being revisited or even backtracked by the Obama admin , unless these so called guarantees/promises are on paper and unambiguous they are of little relevance .

A formal agreement on liability with the supplier (GE/Westinghouse/Areva) will at least keep things between relevant parties irrespective of the chnage of guard at the center in either country.

Hey I did not make it a Unkil issue, my issue is with the bill period. Its others who are claiming that this is a issue because of Unkil. I never brought Unkil in the picture. Not fair allegation, I object

Ok I will let it be .

[Sanku]

Then Negi we are talking of fundamentally different PoVs, to me a Govt guarantee would go a long long way.

No it does not work certainly not if it is not worth putting in black and white on a rag with a amount against it , we already see a a marked difference in stance on Indo-US nuclear deal under Obama as against the Bush admin , NPA in Obama is having to let things go because it is all agreed to in B&W in form of the 123 agreement and a formal NSG waiver .

Yes I agree -- put it in black and white on a rag with a amount against it. In fact I will go further.

And that is why I have been asking for a escrow amount. Held in India.

That putting in black and white for foreign suppliers is THE missing article in the bill that gets my goat.

Bush regime had made many promises which are now being revisited or even backtracked by the Obama admin , unless these so called guarantees/promises are on paper and unambiguous they are of little relevance .

I agree and thats why I want the so called guarantees on paper and in a unambiguous way. That was my MAIN complaint with the 123 too if you remember (the empty -- we shall act according to domestic law -- wording)

A formal agreement on liability with the supplier (GE/Westinghouse/Areva) will at least keep things between relevant parties irrespective of the chnage of guard at the center in either country.

Here I have a slightly different opinion -- I personally think that GE/Westinghouse/Areva are the non-state actors of west in the same way as LeT is for TSPA. And I agree with GP that if we HAVE to talk, lets talk to ISI itself.

[negi]

Yes I agree -- put it in black and white on a rag with a amount against it. In fact I will go further.

And that is why I have been asking for a escrow amount. Held in India.

That putting in black and white for foreign suppliers is THE missing article in the bill that gets my goat.

Sanku saar India cannot have its cake and eat it too , we are not in that position at least not as of now ; there are zillions of other instances where I would have wanted present GOI to grow a pair but this one is too petty and counter productive hence my support for the GOI in this case , as for the liability amount I aint no SME hence can't comment on it.

Fwiw

As SV quotes it in HINDU

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... epage=true

But section 17(b) of the bill also grants the operator of an Indian NPP the “right of recourse” against companies like GE and Westinghouse if an accident results “from the willful act or gross negligence on the part of the supplier of the material, equipment or services, or of his employee.” Such a right is not envisaged by the model law contained in the IAEA's Convention on Supplementary Compensation and is likely to irritate Washington because this means a nuclear operator can sue a supplier for recovery of any compensation paid in the event of an accident if it believes the accident resulted from gross negligence on the part of the latter.

Of course, with compensation for accidents capped by the bill at Rs. 500 crore, or $100 million, the right of recourse against suppliers offers only limited comfort, especially in a situation where the potential damage caused by any negligence on their part is likely to be of a much higher magnitude.

But I don't know if it will please the naysayers , however before we react to what GOI is upto let us keep following in mind.

1. India is not a signatory to any of the international 'liability' agreements but we wish to indulge in nuclear trade at equal footing with other members of NSG.
2. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf67.html

You can check the liability figure for most of the countries what is noteworthy is all of them hold the 'OPERATOR' as the party responsible for damages
in India's case the operator is not a private entity but a GOI navratna .

from another link

http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?677020

Banerjee's predecessor Anil Kakodkar deplored that an impression had been created that "we are rushing through the Bill just to please the US when the reality is not so".

"It has been made to look like it (the legislation) is being done to suit the Americans, but even Russia and France (two countries apart from the US that India has been seeking equipment and technology from) are insisting on it. India also needs to have its liability law in order to harmonise with the CSC at a later stage," Kakodkar said.

Stating that France had made a public statement regarding the necessity for the liability legislation, he lamented that "despite being drafted with utmost care it has been misunderstood."

Btw the complete text of the bill.

http://ow.ly/1jRas (reminds me of cyclostyled question papers in school and hence authentic )

As I have said there is no point in splitting hairs over this as from incidents in the past if liability amount is to be claimed from the supplier one would fall into the vicious cycle of courts and lawyers while the actual victims will be left unattended , at least in this case GOI is taking all the responsibility to ensure that affected population is compensated .

[putnanja]

Liability? Just peanuts for private operators of nuclear plants: BJP

...
The question, therefore, was not one of quantum of compensation in the current scenario where there are only public sector operators.

The BJP's real concern is that sooner rather than later the government will want to amend the Atomic Energy Act to allow private operators — Indian and foreign — into the nuclear business. It suspects that the Bill is aimed at ensuring that the private players' liability will be limited to a paltry Rs. 500 crore.

In the event of a nuclear accident, Indians would be the victims, the foreign operator would get away with a small liability, and the Indian taxpayer — through the government — would have to come up with the large part of the compensation. In short, Indians would be the victims and Indians would have to pay the compensation. The private operator would practically go scot-free, a senior party leader said.

The party has argued that in a situation where government-owned PSUs are the operators, there is no need for a law at all. The liability will be of the government, indirectly through the PSU or direct government compensation. But, if the entry of private players is being contemplated, the government should lay its cards on the table.
...
...
The BJP is also unhappy that under the proposed Bill the time-limit for filing damage claims is just 10 years, whereas it is well established that radiation damage can affect several generations, including unborn children.

[Rudradev]

And you know what else? The United States, on whose behalf the GOI is selling us this snake-oil of a "liability bill", is not even among those 36 signatories of the Vienna convention!

Just curious, do you think the report that France also wants the liabilities bill is yet another strawman?

No, but your asking this question in response to the argument I made in the post you have quoted, is a 100% strawman!

Just for consistency's sake, let's go over the argument again from the beginning.

My initial contention was that we should not pass a substandard compensation structure into law as part of a liabilities bill.

You replied that we could only decide if a compensation structure was "substandard" by comparing it to "prevailing international norms". That's right here:

But to reach the conclusion "substandard compensation structure" we would first have to compare the provisions of the bill with comparable pieces of legislation from other parts of the world and/or prevailing international norms.

I showed that one of the "prevailing international norms" being touted in this context, the Vienna Convention on Civilian Nuclear Liability, is itself not accepted as a "standard" by more than 36 countries (of which only 14 have actually ratified it). That's out of 155 IAEA members!

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Docume ... status.pdf

Clearly, then, there is no justification for saying the liability bill presents an acceptable standard of compensation structure. It is comparable to the Vienna Convention, but only 14 nations have ratified the compensation structure specified by the Vienna Convention as acceptable. Hardly a "standard" when not even 10% of IAEA members have ratified it!

I went on to say that the US is not a signatory to the Vienna Convention at all. They have something which protects their people better in case of a nuclear plant disaster: the Price Anderson act.

So it would be entirely hypocritical, should the US insist that Indians enact a compensation structure that compares to the Vienna Convention... something which the US itself considers substandard for its own people.

You have pulled this sentence out of context and posed an irrelevant question about France also wanting a liabilities bill passed, apparently because it is the best argument you can come up with. But no matter, let's address the question anyway.

The nuclear deal was offered to India, not by France, but by the United States. Every aspect of it was negotiated between the GOI and the government of the United States. France offered us a similar deal, only after the fact, once India had received an NSG waiver.

The US has insisted on a liability bill being passed by Indian parliament before any further negotiations are conducted, whatsoever. It is a pre-condition for the US. Meanwhile negotiations over building reactors and supplying fuel have progressed further with the French than with any US company till date. Yesterday a French government spokesman opined that France too wants a liability bill passed by Indian parliament, but again, their assertion comes after the fact (negotiations have been under way for a while).

OTOH, The US insists on seeing the liability bill passed before any negotiations go ahead.

So on which nation's behalf can one logically assume that the GOI is peddling the snake-oil of a liability bill? Since in your opinion it is not the nation which offered GOI the nuclear deal, and which insists on seeing the bill passed before there is any forward movement in bilateral nuclear negotiations?

You can try to convince people that it is on behalf of France, if you want to.

But note that my argument re: the Vienna Convention also holds good for France. France is not a signatory to the Vienna Convention either; apparently they, too, do not consider it an acceptable "standard" of compensation structure for their citizens.

Selling out that cheaply isn't for all, or even most nations.

Any "Gyaan" on why that might be? Maybe because they have internal legal instruments for compensation (including Price Anderson) that are good enough for their own people but too good for the SDRE?

Can I call the above comment of yours a strawman? I posted a write up on the Price Anderson Act. Here's a Wiki extract:

The Act establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first $10 billion is industry-funded as described in the Act (any claims above the $10 billion would be covered by the federal government). At the time of the Act's passing, it was considered necessary as an incentive for the private production of nuclear power — this was because investors were unwilling to accept the then-unquantified risks of nuclear energy without some limitation on their liability.

The money for compensation is industry funded.

It's a free country boss. You can call a shovel a teacup if you want to, and you can even drink tea from it.

But your write-up (I assume you mean your link to the text of Price-Anderson) doesn't advance your arguments now any more than it did when you originally posted it.

So what if it is an insurance-type system and industry funded? What does that have to do with anything? The US has private industries that generate nuclear power, while in India that role falls to NPCIL, a government-owned PSU. Obviously the source of compensation funds will be different in each case.

The source of funds is irrelevant. The point is that Price-Anderson provides for far more compensation liability on the part of operators AND the US federal government (total of $10 billion in industry funds plus possibly additional government funds), than the GOI's snake-oil bill requires from operators and the Indian central government (total of $458 million for both).

So clearly there is a huge double standard between what the US accepts for its own people, and what India is being required to accept for our own people.

And besides what do you mean that the US thought Price Anderson Act was too good for SDRE?

I did not say the US thought Price Anderson was too good for SDRE. Have a look again at what I said.

Any "Gyaan" on why that might be? Maybe because they have internal legal instruments for compensation (including Price Anderson) that are good enough for their own people but too good for the SDRE?

That is a reference to the double-standard I have described above. And to be fair, it is not the US which thinks SDREs should be happy with far less compensation than Price-Anderson provides for US citizens. It is our own GOI, apparently, which endorses such a notion.

Are you trying to suggest that the US and not India's voters through the Parliament decide Indian policy?

You said it, I didn't

But you know what, it appears that even the Congress (while it might not be my favourite party) is not standing for this nonsense. They know how much snake oil the aam admi will drink and they are aware that the liability bill far exceeds that amount; which is why the bill was retracted. They are openly rejecting a lot of the tactical brilliance that has been displayed by the PMO and its cronies, in the nuclear field and many others.

So yes, there is hope that the legislators elected to Parliament by India's voters... as opposed to a leadership of appointed mandarins responsible only to extra-constitutional authority... will decide Indian policy.

[Rudradev]

Boss,

Nuclear power generation is not a five-10 year horizon play. It's a 50 year plus strategy if you go by what DAE/BARC has envisaged. Your right that today private players do not have the capability to take part in nuclear generation and NPCIL is doing a OK job. But does that preclude the possibility that 20 years down the line the private players will not develop the financial and technical capability to build and run nuclear power plants? One thing is for sure, if you close the door with this piece of legislation which has the PSU clause inserted then they will never develop the capabilities? Why do you want to hobble the private sector?

Do note 20 years ago there was no private sector players which had the capacity or expertise to run 1000 MW + thermal power plants? What's the situation now? And 20 years down the line things will change far more rapidly than the did in the previous 20 years.

I never talked about the capabilities of private players. I still don't understand why we need private players in Nuclear power generation to begin with? What value add they are going to bring. Forget 50 years, even after 100 years, what difference private players are going to make? In fact Nuclear power generation is a very lucrative business and NPCIL is one of the few PSUs who is handling this job well. On top of that Nuclear energy has national security implications. Look at France, even with so many reactors and 70% share of the total power generation, everything is state owned. Unlike other fields, Nuclear technology should be very closely guarded. Why to allow Private sector to enter?

It is not just a question of value addition or capabilities.

There are limits to economic liberalization. In general, the fewer limits the better, but some limits must exist. There is no getting away from this, considering the entire picture of national interest and strategic security alongside economic development.

And different realities mean that those limits are different for India than for the US. As you have pointed out, they are different even for France than for the US. Even France keeps its nuclear power plants under the control of the state.

In India's case there are some sectors that are too critical to strategic security, ever to entrust to a private entity. They include the defence establishment of the country, the primary generation of power on which much of the country's industries and infrastructure depend, and the control of fissionable stockpiles produced by nuclear plants.

No entity which does not have the national interest as its sole and only priority, can ever be trusted with their hand on the on/off switch of these things.

[arnab]

Before worrying about how much compensation / govt. guarantees / escrow accounts is 'adequate', it might be instructive to find out the kind of compensation paid out by GOI and the State Governments to the affectees of the Narmada Sardar Sarovar project. It meets the criteria of 'no foreign pressure' to cap liability.

[arnab]

Before worrying about how much compensation / govt. guarantees / escrow accounts is 'adequate', it might be instructive to find out the kind of compensation paid out by GOI and the State Governments to the affectees of the Narmada Sardar Sarovar project. It meets the criteria of 'no foreign pressure' to cap liability.

Here comes the comparison again. After MIGs, AIRBUS now Sardar Sarovar Project. We are going to compare each and every incident that occurred in the last 50 years with the Liability Bill? So we created blunders with MIGs, AIRBUS and Sardar Sarovar hence we should create one more blunder for Civil Nuclear Liability bill? Is that what you are saying? So we are just not gonna improve. As we have committed blunders all over the place, hence we should go ahead and commit one more.

What is the blunder sonny? Why don't you tell us? If a 'tribunal' of GOI is to determine the cost payable (as it is in the case of nuke liability or as it was in the case of sardar sarovar), what sort of help will the common people get - whose cause you seem to espouse so passionately? Currently all that the curbing or the nuke liability bill will do is reduce power generation capability.

[arnab]

It.

Yes, the main concern is also with Nuclear Proliferation. Thats what happened in our Pure Blood neighborhood. We don't want the likes of A. Q. Khan in our nuclear fraternity.

Sorry what is the argument here? That the Govt is more loyal and honest than the private sector? How will a nuke liability bill prevent (or assist) an A Q Khan 'type' character from entering the Indian fraternity? (Wasn't AQK part of the TSP govt.?)

[arnab]

The nuclear power generation capability, after taking into account all the current and projected-approved Nuclear plants, is going to take care of just 5%-15% of the total power requirement by 2020-30. Maximum power generation is gonna be achieved in step 3 with the introduction of Thorium cycle. But that doesnot mean that the role of Nuclear power generation is trivial.

I will espouse the the cause of the people very very passionately, because at the end, in all this bureaucratic mockery, the aam admi is the one who is going to suffer. A cap of 500 Crore Rs. for 10 years. 500 Crore Rs. may be justifiable per reactor, I am not sure how the economics of scale is going to work. All this which is again being paid by the aam admi from his tax money. I have already proven my point, if we are going for increase in Nuclear power capacity, which even I support, not much difference its going to be made if we ignore the American & French Reactors and just build over own PHWRs of 700 MWe each.

At the end when the Western Reactors are not gonna share any liability, nor they are giving any full ToT, what benefits they are providing us? Also, all the reactors, technology & components they are providing, they are not investing money from their pockets. We are gonna pay them for everything from our own pockets. So if we are the buyers, why can't we buy our indigenous reactors? How big is a difference of 300 MWe per reactor? Western PWRs, with an exception of French are a standard 1000 MWe. NPCIL already has the technical capacity to build 700 MWe PHWR.

Get the point straight, I am not against nuclear power generation. I am against the immunity the western reactors would get with the introduction of the bill.

With respect - you have proven jack sh1t. Are these 'indegenous reactors' going to be made with the wave of a wand? Does NPCIL have excess spare capacity to build all reactors for indegenous nuke power generation required over the next 10 years? Do you think building reactors is akin to writing software code?

Your concern for 'aam aadmi' is appreciated - but you just don't seem to get it. The stack is diced against the aam aadmi - and it is not because of the 'cap on liability'. It is diced because GOI had 'fixed' the person who will determine the amount of liability - both for indegenous and foreign reactors. So I repeat there is no 'advantage' that the west is getting with the nuke liability. Repeat - no matter how much liability you fix for the foreign vendors - It is the GOI which will be responsible for abatement of any future disasters. So if you have to rail and rant - save it for the institutional processes of GOI. Preventing foreign industry from entering india is not going to cut it.

[arnab]

Sorry what is the argument here? That the Govt is more loyal and honest than the private sector? How will a nuke liability bill prevent (or assist) an A Q Khan 'type' character from entering the Indian fraternity? (Wasn't AQK part of the TSP govt.?)

Indian Nuclear program is more than 50 years old managed by GOI. Did you come across any report of proliferation?

AQK was not a direct part of TSP Government. He was more like an independent director of the Atomic program, working autonomously for the TSP nuclear program. He had a great deal of power under his belt to make executive decisions. TSP was just a state sponsor with AQK Labs being the prima ficia organization leading the Nuclear Development. He was getting paid handsomely, just like a private company for his work and not on official role of TSP government.

Do you make these things up as you go? Are you claiming that the govt. of pak was not responsible for nuke proliferation? Rather it was the action of one individual - AQK? Are you a paki?

Officially:

http://www.pnra.org/index.asp

Added later: Benazir Bhutto is on record saying she sent AQK to negotiate with North Korea to exchange missiles for nuke weapons. But this is OT.