India Nuclear News And Discussion

[arnab]

Where did I say that the Government of Pak was not responsible? I was saying that A Q Khan lead the proliferation. There were cases where TSP approved proliferation and there were cases where A Q Khan did it on his own.

So now, you are calling me Paki. That was the onlee thing left to be heard in this forum. From over arrogant fellow calling me Paki, because he cannot argue. I am reporting your post to the admins.

Completely incorrect - AQK was part of the nuke weapons community of pak. He couldn't blink without the pak army knowing about it. He did not take any *lead* in proliferation. He did what he was directed to do by the TSP army (govt). He did nothing on his 'own'. I'm afraid I will have to call you a 'paki' if you push forward 'paki' fairy stories and try to simplify it as a 'private sector' / 'government sector' issue.

[Rudradev]

Nuvakarupu,

Those who have nothing of any substance to base their arguments on, will of course resort to any means necessary to provoke some sort of digression instead. Look at Jayanti Natarajan, Manish Tiwari and the other attack dogs of the GOI, who are sent on TV to shout down any kind of substantive discussion about the government's failings.

Do not let this discourage you. You are doing a great job of presenting your arguments without retaliating in kind, and what is happening here does not go unnoticed by the people reading it. Keep it up, the voices of sanity need to be heard.

[arnab]

Nuvakarupu,

Those who have nothing of any substance to base their arguments on, will of course resort to any means necessary to provoke some sort of digression instead. Look at Jayanti Natarajan, Manish Tiwari and the other attack dogs of the GOI, who are sent on TV to shout down any kind of substantive discussion about the government's failings.

Do not let this discourage you. You are doing a great job of presenting your arguments without retaliating in kind, and what is happening here does not go unnoticed by the people reading it. Keep it up, the voices of sanity need to be heard.

Yikes Rudradev ji - don't tell me that you are scraping at the bottom of the barrel now Surely you know that you alone can handle any 'attack dogs', particularly insignificant ones like me. But to prove a point do we really need to give a clean chit to TSP over nuke proliferation ?

[Rudradev]

I see TSP being called a state sponsor of AQ Khan laboratories' activities in Nuvakarupu's post.

Does that amount to giving TSP a "clean chit" on nuclear proliferation? It is certainly more than what American experts like David Albright are willing to admit.

[arnab]

I see TSP being called a state sponsor of AQ Khan laboratories' activities in Nuvakarupu's post.

Does that amount to giving TSP a "clean chit" on nuclear proliferation? It is certainly more than what American experts like David Albright are willing to admit.

nukavarapu wrote:
Where did I say that the Government of Pak was not responsible? I was saying that A Q Khan lead the proliferation. There were cases where TSP approved proliferation and there were cases where A Q Khan did it on his own.

[arnab]

And I stand by my claim that some cases of proliferation was supported by TSP and some instances, it was done or a serious attempt of proliferation was attempted by A Q Khan and his associates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qade ... se_to_Fame

n May 1998, Newsweek magazine published an article alleging that Khan had offered to sell nuclear know-how to Iraq, an allegation that he denied. United Nations arms inspectors apparently discovered documents discussing Khan's purported offer in Iraq; Iraqi officials said the documents were authentic but that they had not agreed to work with Khan, fearing it was a sting operation

Khan came under renewed scrutiny following the September 11, 2001 attacks in the U.S. and the subsequent US invasion of Afghanistan to oust the fundamentalist Taliban regime in Afghanistan. It emerged that al-Qaeda had made repeated efforts to obtain nuclear weapons materials to build either a radiological bomb or a crude nuclear bomb. In late October 2001, the Pakistani government arrested three Pakistani chief nuclear scientists, all with close ties to Khan, for their suspected connections with the Taliban.

This was after 9/11 and TSP was not involved in nuclear proliferation attempt to Taliban or Al-Qaeda.

Sigh - Rudradev - Your call. After years of education provided by SSridhar, Shiv, Rudradev, Kgoan, SS etc. A thread existing on pak nuke proliferation . We have this

[Rudradev]

Arnab,

My views on A.Q. Khan and the Pakistani state role in nuclear proliferation differ from Nuvakarupu's (though I must maintain, he is hardly giving the Pakistani state a "clean chit". )

A.Q. Khan is certainly not an example I would use to illustrate the perils of private sector involvement in a nuclear program.

To the extent that AQK/TSPA are relevant at all, it is that their proliferation activities were centered around a profit motive, as opposed to Pakistan's national interest. But then everything the TSPA does is predicated on enlarging its own profits, and almost nothing they do serves the interest of the Pakistani people.

This is what happens in rogue nations like Pakistan or North Korea where the "state" itself resembles an oligarchical private entity/criminal syndicate/armed camp involved in enriching itself and holding on to power exclusively as a means to enrich itself further. There is no rule of law, and all authority that would be exercised by a government in normal countries is instead exercised by an oligarchy with no obligation to the people of the country.

Not that private entities in India have anything in common with the TSPA or A.Q. Khan laboratories. But nothing about India is comparable to Pakistan anyway. In India, despite whatever degree of corruption may exist, the state has come through on delivering on core interests, and maintaining strategic security... at least thus far. Governments of India have been inept, misguided and corrupt but not a single one to date has put a profit motive over and above its responsibility to the nation, in any way that affects the core interests of defence and national security. Or if they have, we have yet to find out about it.

On the other hand, Indian governments are punished by the people if there is any suspicion that they have subverted core strategic interests to a profit motive. A government fell over the Bofors corruption case, but even there, we must admit, the damn things worked just fine when push came to shove. Surely some pockets were lined with taxpayers' money... which is a crime... but the guns did their job, and defence priorities weren't compromised.

Can private Indian entities be entrusted with core strategic sectors to the same extent as the GOI? That is up for debate but in theory at least, private entities do have a profit motive which a Government of India will be very severely punished for having, at least when it comes to those core interests.

Nuvakarupu: Ok, man, let it go and let's get back to topic.

[Muppalla]

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.

Sorry - This is apples and oranges. The only comparision we have is Bhopal. We are comparing to loss of land/wealth to that of some catastrophic accident and after effects of radiation.

May be what you want to compare is the compensation given to those who are permanently imparied during Train accident to that of this one.

[negi]

Muppalla garu I am afraid if all this is about making the Supplier own up for an accident in a reactor being operated by GOI entity then it aint gonna happen , the problem is there exists no such liability agreement in whole duniya which talks about holding the 'Supplier' responsible and that too without establishing the root cause (this is the TRICKY part for given IPC and its lightening speed victims won't get anything during their lifetime).

Now as per Hindu article the section 17B of the liability has a clause where the OPERATOR (NPCIL) can lodge a complaint against the supplier if the cause of accident is established as faulty part from the supplier but as I said 'TIME' is the key when it comes to compensating the victims and GOI has done the right thing by offering to cover the damages anything over the 500 crore figure (which the OPERATOR/NPCIL is gonna have to cough up) in event of a catastrophe instead of going about doing a RCA and then prosecute the Supplier and since we are splitting semantics where does this end ? At the Supplier or at the OEM from whom the failed component was sourced from ?

[Muppalla]

Now as per Hindu article the section 17B of the liability has a clause where the OPERATOR (NPCIL) can lodge a complaint against the supplier if the cause of accident is established as faulty part from the supplier but as I said 'TIME' is the key when it comes to compensating the victims and GOI has done the right thing by offering to cover the damages anything over the 500 crore figure (which the OPERATOR/NPCIL is gonna have to cough up) in event of a catastrophe instead of going about doing a RCA and then prosecute the Supplier and since we are splitting semantics where does this end ? At the Supplier or at the OEM from whom the failed component was sourced from ?

Agreed. But what is the problem is adding a clause that PSUs are the sole operators as requested by BJP and get over with the bill? Why is the government not interested in such a language if it is so openly announcing that it will be PSUs only as operators.

Politics wise, for the first time the bill was not pursued not because of BJP or CPM but because of absense of 45 INC MPs inspite of a whip. The way this very normal bill is being pursued is the reason that discussion is now open everywhere as one-more-selloff.

[archan]

arnab, relax. If you find it too difficult to debate without calling names, do not debate here.

[negi]

Agreed. But what is the problem is adding a clause that PSUs are the sole operators as requested by BJP and get over with the bill? Why is the government not interested in such a language if it is so openly announcing that it will be PSUs only as operators.

Fair enough sir , I am right now not in a position to take a stand on this but I would again ask if likes of L&T can participate in construction of reactors then why be so rigid with our mindset about participation of private sector as far as operation of reactors in FUTURE is concerned ? Why introduce a negative clause which might prove to be counter productive in future ?

To be frank given our energy requirements and the number of nuclear reactors which would come up in next decade or so it is gonna be a one helluva task for NPCIL alone to line up enough trained men to operate these reactors and as far as national interests are concerned I don't view TATAs or L&Ts as less credible entities than the PSUs , as long as GOI and relevant institutes lay down the guidelines around safe operation of these reactors and there exists a framework to ensure compliance from operators I don't see why we should be averse to private participation and then TATAs and L&Ts are already into sensitive areas as far as programmes of strategic nature are concerned.

Btw Rudra garu when are we having next BRF meet , remember we need to release some water for bakis ?

[arnab]

Rudradev,
I agree – moving on from the travesty of trying to compare India (public or private) to TSP and concentrate on issues which really matter to us here. I completely agree with you that there are certain sectors which should be sacrosanct to the public sector. This is not because the government is any more ‘patriotic’ than the average ‘private’ sector, but because, we believe that the government will take a holistic approach rather than concentrate on the ‘profit motive’. This has led to ‘eminent domain’ arguments for government ‘interference’, for example when Gujarat took over land for the Sardar Sarovar project (successfully), and West Bengal tried to take land in Singur for the Tata Project (unsuccessfully).

Coming on to the realm of nuclear power, I agree that its ‘operability’ must lie within the ambit of Government always. Which it is (and is likely to be in the foreseeable future). Where we differ (I believe), is that you are arguing that the Nuclear liability Bill confers an unnecessary concession to the vendors and increases the risk on to GOI (and the tax payer). What this may constitute is a risk of ‘moral hazard’ – in that the vendors may not take due care to make sure that the reactors are made to the highest quality specifications as possible.

My short response: Yes I agree. But, my argument is that even for indigenous reactors such ‘moral hazards’ exist. There is no obvious reason why a reactor produced by the works manager in BHEL may not scrimp on quality assurance (just like foreign reactors will have the ‘profit motive’ to scrimp on quality, Indian reactors suffer from the ‘no incentive’ motive to compromise on QA).

Second issue: In order to obviate the moral hazard, GOI must have opportunity to seek financial penalties – in short a nuclear liability. The question then is ‘how much’? The problem here is that one would need to go by precedence. We have the Vienna (Paris) Convention and the Price Anderson Act (US). There have various been arguments back and forth about how one is better than the other so we need not go into that again. The true nature of nuclear liability in the event of a mishap would lie with GOI. So for the ‘aam aadmi’ any compensation would really depend on the ‘kindness of GOI’ (No Erin Bronkovitch here and Medha Patkar wasn’t too successful). These are the institutional features of Indian governance that you and I can’t do much about.

Third: Why foreign vendors? Can’t indigenous industry cut it? IMO no - I think Anil Kakodkar (during the earlier Nuke bill , had put up a chart showing Indian electricity requirement over the next 40 years. India does not have the spare capacity to manufacture the reactors. In some cases we do not have the technology. Then it comes down to a game of high stake ‘chicken’. Do we raise the liability so high that the foreign vendors refuse to some in (because of high insurance premium) or will their ‘greed for higher profits’, make them acquiesce to GOI’s demand? What does GOI have to lose? Lower power generation leading to lower growth and reduced economic prospects. This means pressure to show ‘achievements’ during elections.

Fourth: Is there a precedence where GOI is undertaking a ‘risky’ strategy? Yes – You would agree that one of the most strategic resource over which GOI should exercise compete control are our currency notes. But RBI’s Nasik and Salboni plants often do not have the capability to manufacture all of India’s currency notes. So we often import the notes from Switzerland. The ink for the new notes is of course completely imported from UK / Switzerland – which the pakis have also started importing this for forging Indian currency.

In short – not an ideal situation but IMO the benefits outweigh the costs.

[negi]

I agree to your view. But what stops us from fielding our own rules? The private operators have a 10 Billion $ fund in Ameerkhan. Why can't we just create a fund like that and make a rule that all Opertors, Suppliers and Vendors need to contribute to that fund. The contribution may not be on equal terms and can be calculated based on the commercial value each party holds.

Why bring in Amrikhan model everywhere ? Their energy deficit is not as bad as ours, they can make their own reactors and get all the fuel that they need .

For an arguments sake what if GOI already accounted for the said amount in the deal with the Supplier ?

That is what is irking me as well. Why can't the bill have all clear areas. Why they are putting some dark spots in it, which can be manipulated over time. And going by the history, nobody leaves a chance to manipulate the loopholes of any system.

Dark spots ? infact there are none if there is a catastrophe NPCIL/Operator will cough up 500crore and GOI the rest QED .

[Muppalla]

Fair enough sir , I am right now not in a position to take a stand on this but I would again ask if likes of L&T can participate in construction of reactors then why be so rigid with our mindset about participation of private sector as far as operation of reactors in FUTURE is concerned ? Why introduce a negative clause which might prove to be counter productive in future ?

To be frank given our energy requirements and the number of nuclear reactors which would come up in next decade or so it is gonna be a one helluva task for NPCIL alone to line up enough trained men to operate these reactors and as far as national interests are concerned I don't view TATAs or L&Ts as less credible entities than the PSUs , as long as GOI and relevant institutes lay down the guidelines around safe operation of these reactors and there exists a framework to ensure compliance from operators I don't see why we should be averse to private participation and then TATAs and L&Ts are already into sensitive areas as far as programmes of strategic nature are concerned.

I agree on this too . There are two options for this - (1) Say boldly that we are looking for private sector in future and hence we will not put that clause and get the bill passed. (2) Be tactical for now and insert the clause as this is related to future. When that future date comes pass another bill becasue they have to amend Atomic energy act.

This may have been a no-brainer bill and they made it discussed by all analysts. In fact they made it look like they are quitely doing what US is directing them to do.

[arnab]

I

And who is building the reactors today for Russia? Is there any labor or PMO from russia who is building for NPCIL. We building the reactors with technical consultancy from Russia. NPCIL is building the reactors of Russian design. That is what is going to happen with the American and the French Reactors. NPCIL is gonna build with technical consultancy and design details from the respective vendors. If they can do that with american, russian and french reactors, why cannot they build reactors by themselves using BARC and ICGAR designs? Irrespective of the reactor being Foreign or Indian, NPCIL is going to build them. Now comes the financial part. Are the Americans, French or Russians putting anything form there pocket as an investment? The answer is no. Again we are paying them the money completely. So NPCIL is paying forehand for the reactors and associated technology. If we can spend that kind of money for foreign reactors, that means we have enough money to build reactors of indigenous design instead.

NPCIL does not build reactors. It builds power stations (by awarding tenders to various construction companies). Reactors are supplied by BHEL, L&T. Or GE, Westinghouse etc. Hope you understand the difference.

[negi]

In fact they made it look like they are quitely doing what US is directing them to do.

May be yes , but as I have said earlier on this thread I have far more bigger grudge against the GOI on issues of far greater significance where they have been found wanting , here we have already made a commitment to buy the reactors and what we are now quarreling over is pretty much a 'non issue' , my point is liability is of prime significance to the 'affected population' on ground zero , now does the proposed bill ensure that the victims would receive their compensation in TIME ?
I would say yes and hence I don't see why we should throw a spanner in works for at most a couple of hundred million dollars (given the way GOI goes about its deals the exchequer anyways ends up paying a lot more so what the heck ).

[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.

Sorry - This is apples and oranges. The only comparision we have is Bhopal. We are comparing to loss of land/wealth to that of some catastrophic accident and after effects of radiation.

May be what you want to compare is the compensation given to those who are permanently imparied during Train accident to that of this one.

It is a question of compensation my friend. Sardar Sarovar permanently sank villages and arable land (made them uninhabitable). Presumably a nuke radiation would do the same (though you wouldn't know it if you visited Hiroshima).

[arnab]

NPCIL does not build reactors. It builds power stations (by awarding tenders to various construction companies). Reactors are supplied by BHEL, L&T. Or GE, Westinghouse etc. Hope you understand the difference.

You are a really stubborn types.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1514/15140890.htm

two Russian reactors of the VVER-1000 type, each of which will generate 1,000 MW of electricity, will be built at Koodankulam in Tirunelveli district in Tamil Nadu. Russia will supply low-enriched uranium, the fuel for them, for their life-time. Light water, or ordinary water, will serve as both coolant and moderator. Russia will provide India with soft- and long-term credit totalling $2.5 billion, which will cover 85 per cent of the cost of the services and supplies from the Russian side. The repayment will start a year after the units are commissioned.

There is an important difference between the supplementary agreement and the Inter-Governmental Agreement. The 1988 agreement envisaged a turn-key project. The Nuclear Powr Corporation of India Ltd (NPC) was to provide the site; the Soviet Union was to provide the design of the VVER-1000-type Pressurised Water Reactors (PWRs), bring the equipment, components and spares, and build the reactors. The present one is a technical agreement, under which Russia will give the NPC the design and bring most of the equipment, and the NPC will build the reactors. In other words, India will build the plant with the Russian design. Russian personnel will be present at the site and will train NPC personnel in the operation and maintenance of the reactors.

I think now I have to ask you the question "Do you understand the difference?" I think now you might have realized that I don't talk in fairy tales.

Sigh - NPCIL is an 'operator'. That one is one is a 'technical agreement' (where yes NPCIL will probably build the reactors by giving the design and contract to another firm). The other method is 'turnkey' - where even the reactor is supplied (see your post about the 1988 agreement).


http://www.npcil.nic.in/pdf/NPCIL%20Pro ... nglish.pdf

[negi]

Building reactors == overseeing construction ? Yes NPCIL does it
Building reactors == Designing ? BARC does it in India

[arnab]

Building reactors == overseeing construction ? Yes NPCIL does it
Building reactors == Designing ? BARC does it in India

Exactly

[ldev]

Wow! Havent seen such passion in this thread for a looong time. Some old battles being refought and some new ones too. Nukavarapu ( I think I have ir right?), India needs the neutrons which fissile material can provide to kickstart its 3rd stage which depends on fertile thorium. Without those neutrons you can say goodbye to large scale commmercial exploitation of those thorium reserves. Secondly it needs reactors as it just does not have the capacity to manufacture the capacities which are now being planned for. Because of the safeguarded nature of the reprocessing operations being discussed now the AHWRs on a large scale commercial basis will also be under safeguards. India will however want to protect intellectual property rights associated with its thorium cycle.

[Rudradev]

Arnab, I am glad that we are in broad agreement on at least the first couple of points. Now for the differences, which I respectfully address.

My short response: Yes I agree. But, my argument is that even for indigenous reactors such ‘moral hazards’ exist. There is no obvious reason why a reactor produced by the works manager in BHEL may not scrimp on quality assurance (just like foreign reactors will have the ‘profit motive’ to scrimp on quality, Indian reactors suffer from the ‘no incentive’ motive to compromise on QA).

I'm afraid I disagree on this. There is indeed an obvious reason... the government is accountable to the people of India in more ways than simple monetary liability. If a GOI-owned PSU built a faulty reactor that created a disaster and caused suffering to lakhs of people, that GOI would be history in the next election (if not way earlier). Had the Bhopal gas leaked from a PSU owned plant, heads would have rolled! The outrage would have been instantaneous, and those responsible for negligence would have gone to jail... or else, the government would have paid the consequences. The political accountability offsets the moral hazard by a very significant margin.

The moral hazards in case of foreign reactor suppliers are far greater, even if they were liable to compensation lawsuits. However, this bill would make them immune to even compensation lawsuits... they could supply faulty equipment and walk away literally without paying a dime for their negligence.

From this article by Admiral A.K. Singh:
http://www.asianage.com/index.php?optio ... &Itemid=67

It is accepted that nothing man-made is 100 per cent “accident proof”, but after the 1986 Chernobyl disaster (where the operating procedure was short circuited and laid-down norms bypassed, so as to meet an artificial deadline), all civilian reactors have to meet stringent safety norms laid down by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). These norms, if strictly complied with, will almost rule out “operator failure” as the likely cause of a major nuclear emergency since a system of mechanical and electronic safety interlocks would ensure that the laid-down operating procedures are followed for reactor start up, operations and shut down.
In modern, civilian, IAEA-compliant Light Water Reactors (LWRs) it is most likely that major nuclear emergencies occur due to material failure for which the Foreign Reactor Suppliers should be held liable.
Here it may be worth noting that the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear disaster entailed $1 billion for cleaning up operations that lasted 14 years. At today’s prices a similar disaster may require about $5 to $10 billion for “clean up”. It is, therefore, no coincidence that in US the equivalent law (Price-Anderson Act) to our proposed CLNDB lays down about $10 billion as the maximum liability. Indeed, critics of the Price-Anderson Act have been demanding that the liability be doubled to $20 billion. In Germany, the liability for a nuclear accident is “limitless” and Foreign Reactor Suppliers are required to deposit a security of $3.5 billion per plant.

If indeed what the author says about IAEA norms is accurate, then the cause of a disaster is far more likely to be a material failure than an operator failure.

He qualifies this as provided that these norms should be "strictly complied with", but surely that is a matter to be determined by investigation in each individual case. If it is found that the norms were not complied with, then the operator should be liable, which is well and good.

But if they were? How can any responsible government relieve the foreign reactor supplier of ALL possible liability?

And yet that is exactly what several of the clauses in the proposed bill do. First there are the ones that have been discussed on here:

-The Foreign Reactor Supplier, even if “guilty” of a nuclear accident, will be immune from any victim-initiated civil suit or criminal proceedings in India or abroad. This America-inspired proposal appears to be a fallout of the Bhopal gas disaster.

-The liability of the Foreign Reactor Supplier has been converted into a paltry, indirect compensation. The Government of India as owner of the reactors will operate the reactors through its “operator”, i.e. the Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL). In the event of a nuclear accident, the maximum liability of the government and NPCIL has been pegged at “the rupee equivalent of 300 million special drawing rights (SDRs)”, or Rs 2,087 crores ($458 million). The NPCIL is liable for upto Rs 500 crores ($109 million), and it can “attempt to recover this amount from the Foreign Reactor Supplier, provided this aspect has been entered in each contract”. The government is liable for damages between Rs 500 crores ($109 million) and Rs 2,087 crores ($458 million) only.

But it gets worse:

Indian courts will have no role to play since all nuclear damage claims will be dealt with by a “Nuclear Damage Claims Commissioner” whose verdict will be “final”, and cannot be appealed in any court.

This is unbelievable. It amounts to an outright silencing of the Indian Judiciary by the Executive branch, and repudiating the fundamental right of Indian citizens to seek legal recourse (or legal appeal) in Indian Courts. Is that even constitutional?

And:

All compensation claims will be “time barred” after 10 years, i.e. they cannot be claimed after 10 years.

10 years! When even the clean-up efforts after Three Mile Island took 14 years!!

There is no statute of limitations on murder, but the GOI wants a 10 year statute of limitations on compensation claims related to a nuclear accident whose long-term effects would hardly become apparent within a decade.

There is no justification for this, unless the GOI is going to cite the Stalin principle regarding citizens of India:

one death is a tragedy, but a million deaths is a statistic.

The true nature of nuclear liability in the event of a mishap would lie with GOI. So for the ‘aam aadmi’ any compensation would really depend on the ‘kindness of GOI’ (No Erin Bronkovitch here and Medha Patkar wasn’t too successful). These are the institutional features of Indian governance that you and I can’t do much about.

If the GOI's own PSUs built and operated the nuclear plant in question, the GOI would have a lot more to answer for than simply paying out compensation. Medha Patkar and the Sardar Sarovar Dam really don't provide any basis for comparison to a disaster that could cause lakhs of deaths and decades of disease, environmental and genetic catastrophes. No GOI could weather the outrage in the wake of something like that.

Fortunately, in India, the aam admi still has the ballot box as his recourse... when the fault is that of the GOI or its PSUs. But there is nothing the aam admi can do when the fault is that of a Foreign Reactor Supplier, and the GOI has pre-emptively bound and gagged his ability to seek any kind of compensation from that Supplier.

The other problem here is that successive GOIs, which may or may not have supported this ludicrous bill in the first place, will continue to be liable for future nuclear disasters because of the present GOI's sellout. And they will have to pay with Indian taxpayers' money for the fault of Foreign Reactor Suppliers to whom the present GOI decided to give a free pass in perpetuity.

This is touched upon by your point here:

What does GOI have to lose? Lower power generation leading to lower growth and reduced economic prospects. This means pressure to show ‘achievements’ during elections.

If a nuclear disaster happens five years from now, and the current GOI is no longer in power... then Indian taxpayers will be paying the price because the present GOI sold them down the river to relieve itself of the pressure to show achievements during elections.

Moving on:

Then it comes down to a game of high stake ‘chicken’. Do we raise the liability so high that the foreign vendors refuse to some in (because of high insurance premium) or will their ‘greed for higher profits’, make them acquiesce to GOI’s demand?

Absolutely we do. That's how all business is conducted! It is always a game of chicken, but there are many competing vendors of whom some will chicken out sooner than others. And all other things being equal (no reason to doubt that between the US, France and Russia that they are)... the one who chickens out on the terms most favourable to India should get the deal.

Make no mistake, there are huge profits to be made. It's no accident that once the NSG waiver came through nations were lining up to sign nuclear deals with us. The energy market in India is potentially far in excess of any nation except perhaps China. It is certainly potentially bigger than that of Germany (which demands a $3.5 billion deposit per foreign-built-reactor, from the supplier, as insurance). So there is no reason to sell ourselves short.

Today we have France, which has apparently said that they want a liability bill passed... but only after someone explicitly asked them. But it's important to note... the French had already come to the table conducting negotiations before any such bill was proposed. Of course, if specifically asked, they will state their maximalist position: it's the oldest bargaining tactic in the book. But ultimately, would they pack their bags and go home because we refused to sign a bill such as the one currently being proposed? Well, we'd have to see.

The Russians, of course, don't have any problem signing deals without the precondition of a liability bill. So they are always there. Sound business sense suggests that they should be in the lead for any and all contracts currently on the table... they are offering the most for the least.

Other players are in the picture. The UK, Canada and Kazakhstan. Let's see what they bring to the table as well, and choose what is best for us, instead of undercutting our own bargaining position at the very aspect by selling ourselves short. That's what this liability bill does.

But the first order of the day is to show a big fat middle finger to the obscenely self-righteous Americans. They won't even come to the table unless the GOI shackles its own people with this ridiculous piece of legislation. They want a guarantee of permanent absolution to all their reactor suppliers before even talking about building reactors.

And this is a country which, after all the "nuclear deal" brouhaha, continues to blacklist the Indian Space Research Organization on a technology restriction list! They don't trust us even that far, but we have to extend complete trust in their reactor suppliers before they will even come to the table?

No thanks, man. They should be told to make sure the door doesn't hit their fat a$$es on the way out. Period.

For saner suppliers that it's actually worth doing business with, I find myself in agreement with Admiral Singh's recommendations for amendments in the nuclear liability bill:

*The Foreign Reactor Supplier needs to be somehow brought in transparently, directly or indirectly, into the “liability and compensation” loop, while the Indian taxpayer must be kept out of this loop.

*The term “major nuclear accident” would need to be clearly and legally defined, to prevent frivolous claims.

*The maximum liability and compensation amount for major nuclear accidents can initially be set at $1.5 billion in 2010, with a provision to revise it upwards in every individual contract signed at intervals of 10 years, starting with 2020. (Amazing that our brilliant economist of a Prime Minister didn't think to take inflation into account... or did he, and decide not to bother?)

*To prevent time-consuming litigation in Indian courts, a provision must be made to enable a petitioner to challenge, in a special “nuclear court”, the verdict of the Indian “Nuclear Damage Claims Commissioner”. The verdict of this “nuclear court” would be final, and should be given within two years of filing the appeal.

At the very least.

I appreciate your point about the need for risky strategies by the GOI, but there is a science to the management of risk, and by pushing this nuclear liability bill the present GOI betrays not even the foggiest sliver of understanding of that science.

[Rudradev]

Sorry - This is apples and oranges. The only comparision we have is Bhopal. We are comparing to loss of land/wealth to that of some catastrophic accident and after effects of radiation.

May be what you want to compare is the compensation given to those who are permanently imparied during Train accident to that of this one.

It is a question of compensation my friend. Sardar Sarovar permanently sank villages and arable land (made them uninhabitable). Presumably a nuke radiation would do the same (though you wouldn't know it if you visited Hiroshima).

I'm not sure this is a valid comparison. You would certainly know it if you visited Chernobyl. What happened there is a very far cry from anything like the scheduled (if arguably unjust) eviction of villagers from a well-defined catchment area. In an area as densely populated as many parts of India, Chernobyl would have been unimaginably worse than Sardar Sarovar.

Meanwhile, Hiroshima was 65 years ago. Visit the Narmada Valley in 65 years and you might very well see the descendants of those who protested Sardar Sarovar, enjoying a standard of living that might not have been possible without the economic impetus provided by the dam's energy generation.

[negi]

Rudradev ji the 10 billion USD figure in PA Act is misleading

Under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) corresponding regulations, nuclear reactor
owners must obtain $300 million in insurance liability coverage from a private insurer, referred to as
primary financial protection. One company – Connecticut-based American Nuclear Insurers –
provides 100 percent of this primary financial protection. In the event of an accident that exceeds $300
million in damages, the operators of the 103 operating nuclear reactors covered under the Act must pay
up to $95.8 million per reactor to cover costs in retrospective annual premiums capped at $10 million per year.
This means that the potential total insurance pool financed by private interests is about $10.2
billion ($300 million primary financial protection + $95.8 million from each of the 103 reactors).

So in that 10 billion about 9.87 billion comes from OPERATORS (not supplier) operating the 103 reactors in US . (math looks out of place here , need to look at the fine print but the point about operators pooling in for the liability holds)

source: http://www.citizen.org/documents/Price% ... tsheet.pdf

Also the part in Admiral's article about liability being on the 'Supplier/Builder' in Germany is misleading it is actually 'OPERATOR' not 'Supplier'.

Germany has unlimited operator liability and requires €2.5 billion security which must be provided by the operator for each plant. This security is partly covered by insurance, to €256 million.

source: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf67.html

[hshukla]

Is by any chance Indian Govmnt's intention is to bring dwn the cost of deployment [lower insurance premium] by fixing a lower threshold for penalty?

Can ne1 analyze from the economic impact pov for this?

[Philip]

Adm.Singh is spot on.The foreign supplier of the reactor MUST be brought into the "liability loop",as it is primarily responsible for a "fail-safe" reactor design that must factor in faulty operating occurences by the operator.A series of safeguard devices that shut down the reactor at the slightest deviation from established procedures is essential.If the reactor supplier is out of the liability loop,then it might very well cut corners on safety in the full knowledge that whatever junk it sells India-thanks to our pliable "plasticine" politicos,it will never be liable in the event of an accident.

Secondly ,the liability cost should be limitless.Imagine if it was limited.Who foot the bill of a clean-up costing billions? You and I? The nuclear accident is a time bomb waiting to explode due to the supplier's crap reactor and when it happens,we will have to pay another foreign agency billions just to "clean up" the mess,just as experts are brought in to put out major oil fires as was done in Kuwait.The result? India gets shafted every which way,while a few corrupt dealmakers walk away with billions.

The Three Mile Island incident and the Chernobyl disaster-leave aside Bhopal, should be enough for us to demand maximum safeguards and maximum insurance.The Indian people deserve no less.No way Jose.

[arnab]

Rudradev ji the 10 billion USD figure in PA Act is misleading

source: http://www.citizen.org/documents/Price% ... tsheet.pdf

Also the part in Admiral's article about liability being on the 'Supplier/Builder' in Germany is misleading it is actually 'OPERATOR' not 'Supplier'.

Germany has unlimited operator liability and requires €2.5 billion security which must be provided by the operator for each plant. This security is partly covered by insurance, to €256 million.

source: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf67.html

Good one Negi. I must admit that I was a bit flummoxed by the Admiral's comment on Supplier liability of $3.5 bn in Germany. Having said that, I concede Rudradev's point that 300 m SDR liability limit appears to be too low. Considering India got around $450 m from Union Carbide way back in 1989 (15 per cent of the $3 bn she sued for). And the liability should be indexed to adjust for inflation. Otherwise it is meaningless. Let us see what the committee under Mulayam Singh Yadav does.

[Rudradev]

Rudradev ji the 10 billion USD figure in PA Act is misleading

Under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) corresponding regulations, nuclear reactor
owners must obtain $300 million in insurance liability coverage from a private insurer, referred to as
primary financial protection. One company – Connecticut-based American Nuclear Insurers –
provides 100 percent of this primary financial protection. In the event of an accident that exceeds $300
million in damages, the operators of the 103 operating nuclear reactors covered under the Act must pay
up to $95.8 million per reactor to cover costs in retrospective annual premiums capped at $10 million per year.
This means that the potential total insurance pool financed by private interests is about $10.2
billion ($300 million primary financial protection + $95.8 million from each of the 103 reactors).

So in that 10 billion about 9.87 billion comes from OPERATORS (not supplier) operating the 103 reactors in US . (math looks out of place here , need to look at the fine print but the point about operators pooling in for the liability holds).html

Negi ji,

Re Price Anderson: that the operators are the primary source of the $10 b pool is not misleading, and is in fact not relevant here. PA is meant to indemnify the operators onlee, so who else would be paying into the fund?

The point is that nothing in PA (AFAIK) prevents either operators OR individuals from seeking damages from reactor builders or suppliers, should it be determined by investigation that the builders/suppliers are at fault. PA does prohibit individuals from seeking punitive (as opposed to compensatory) damages from the operators, but nothing immunizes the builders and suppliers as the GOIs liability bill would do for foreign suppliers to foreign built Indian reactors.

PA also does not put any time limit on the claimants as the GOI bill does. They have three years to file a claim upon discovery of damage but the discovery may happen at any time. Neither does PA deny claimants the right to appeal in US courts, as the GOI bill denies to Indian citizens in Indian courts. So I don't see what is misleading about the article in this respect.

On the German requirement, will look that up but you seem to be right. However, again, German operators have unlimited liability even though they have to deposit $3.5 b in escrow. Does German law proscribe some limit to which these Operators can then seek damages/compensation from builders or suppliers, should investigations reveal a material rather than operational fault? I can't imagine that anyone would want to operate a nuclear plant in Germany if that was the case... unlimited liability for the operator but limited or no liability for the builder/suppliers!

[negi]

Arnab but in this case it would be NPCIL who would have to cough up that money why inflate that figure when ultimately it is gonna come out of the public exchequer ? And in any case GOI is covering for any amount over the initial SDR .

Finally the so called Suppliers are only gonna build the reactors for the initial phases , once they part with the design and possibly even with the IPR (just like it is happening in PRC with AP1000 and its evolved CAP1400 which Westinghouse and Chinese companies will be exporting together to other countries) all subsequent reactors will be NPCIL's babies .

[arnab]

Arnab but in this case it would be NPCIL who would have to cough up that money why inflate that figure when ultimately it is gonna come out of the public exchequer ? And in any case GOI is covering for any amount over the initial SDR .

Finally the so called Suppliers are only gonna build the reactors for the initial phases , once they part with the design and possibly even with the IPR (just like it is happening in PRC with AP1000 and its evolved CAP1400 which Westinghouse and Chinese companies will be exporting together to other countries) all subsequent reactors will be NPCIL's babies .

Well I thought Clause 17 also says that the maximum liability that the operator can claim from the suppliers is also equivalent to it's own liability (SDR 300 m). So increase both IMO. NPCIL should be able to get insurance cover.

[negi]

The point is that nothing in PA (AFAIK) prevents either operators OR individuals from seeking damages from reactor builders or suppliers, should it be determined by investigation that they are at fault.

^ I think section 17B in the existing liability bill has such a clause but as I said it will take 'TIME' . (given GOI's competence in such matters I am afraid it might be too late for the victims).

PA does prohibit individuals from seeking punitive (as opposed to compensatory) damages from the operators, but nothing immunizes the builders and suppliers as the GOIs liability bill would do for foreign suppliers to Indian reactors.

Yes the bill sort of removes the Suppliers out of the picture , but you see in US case the suppliers are US based companies while in our case it is we who are buying American,French & Ru reactors .

PA also does not put any time limit on the claimants as the GOI bill does. They have three years to file a claim upon discovery of damage but the discovery may happen at any time. Neither does PA deny claimants the right to appeal in US courts, as the GOI bill denies to Indian citizens in Indian courts. So I don't see what is misleading about the article in this respect.

I guess GOI used Vienna agreement as template in this case that 10 year time period seems to be copied from latter , yes I agree the denial of right to appeal is bizzare but I am wondering what would people appeal for for as per the BILL it is the GOI who is footing the entire amount for liability.

On the German requirement, will look that up but you seem to be right. However, again, German operators have unlimited liability even though they have to deposit $3.5 b in escrow. Does German law proscribe some limit to which these Operators can then seek damages/compensation from builders or suppliers, should investigations reveal a material rather than operational fault? I can't imagine that anyone would want to operate a nuclear plant in Germany if that was the case... unlimited liability for the operator but limited or no liability for his builder/suppliers!

Germany is in a state of dilemma there were plans of dismantling all their reactors by 2020 , I don't know what is the latest scene now .

As for unlimited liability yeah need to check it myself but I think in the end all the moolah will have to come from some common insurance pool or the federal government.

source: http://www.germanenergyblog.de/?p=597#more-597

However, German atomic energy law provides for a powerful system of nuclear damages coverage, according to which each operator holds an insurance policy in the amount of EUR 256 million. An additional guarantee has been issued by all nuclear operators to cover damages in excess of EUR 256 million up to EUR 2.5 billion. Furthermore, this coverage is guaranteed by the Federal Republic of Germany.

Should the damage exceed even this amount, Vattenfall Europe AG would be liable with the total of its assets and, subsequently Vattenfall AB in the same way, due to the profit & loss pooling agreement mentioned above. Would this agreement not have been concluded, Vattenfall AB’s loss would commercially be limited to the value of its European subsidiary.

Btw boss please drop the 'ji' it is embarrassing .

Sigh.. time to hit the sack enough of 'gup' for today.

[Philip]

"...3 years to file a claim of discovery of damage".Imagine how long it will take an Indian inquiry commission on a disaster of such a magnitude to find the evidence of "damage" within three years! We are still labouring the Babri Masjid demolition (a woman police officer giving evidence today was an inspector then attached to LKA's security and is now of IG rank!),when there is a whole generation born after it and have yet to come to a final conclusion!

There are enough loopholes in the current document for the entire wildlife of India to pass through!

[Neshant]

You would certainly know it if you visited Chernobyl. What happened there is a very far cry from anything like the scheduled (if arguably unjust) eviction of villagers from a well-defined catchment area.

The area is contaminated and unfit for human habitation for upto a 150 years I believe. One of the images I remember watching on tv is an aerial view of a giant field full of rows and rows of Soviet helicopters, earth movers, trucks, and heavy machinery used in the cleanup effort at Chernobyl. The equipment was so radioactive by the time the cleanup was done it had to be abandoned. From the air, it looked like a huge division of armor had assembled in formation abandoned on the lot!

We have already seen how wall street goondas cut corners and pass on losses to their *own* citizens. Should such a disaster occur, they would treat us no less than cattle - let us make no mistake about THAT.

If such a catastrophy were to occur in India, humans living all around would die in great numbers. It would be very hard to quarantine a large area as poor people would inevitably try to move in on the turf not knowing any better. For generations, people would be sickened and poisoned.

I get an ill feeling about nuclear power with the risk of accidents and terrorism having an unbearably large consequence.

[Prem]

Interesting news,

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2474372/posts

Uranium sale 'will weaken nuclear safeguards'
Australian Broadcasting Corporation ^ | March 19, 2010 | Alexandra Kirk

The Federal Government has paved the way for Australia to sell uranium to Russia.

An agreement was signed in 2007 by the Howard government but it is yet to be ratified.

In 2008 a Labor-dominated parliamentary inquiry recommended the deal be scrapped unless eight stringent conditions were met, including the resumption of inspections of Russian nuclear facilities by the global watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and that Russia separate its civilian and military nuclear programs.The Government has now decided the treaty contains "appropriate safeguards" for Australian uranium to be used in Russia's civil nuclear sector and says it will make a final decision on ratifying the agreement in due course.

That has angered the Australian Conservation Foundation's David Noonan, a nuclear free campaigner. He says under no circumstances should Australia seal the deal. "This is the Howard-Putin nuclear deal from 2007, before the last federal election," he said.
"We had expected federal Labor to honour their policy and election commitments to strengthen, rather than to weaken, nuclear safeguards.
"They're looking to breach the strong conditions and recommendations of this federal parliamentary inquiry not to proceed with proposed uranium sales to Russia." The Government says the agreement would ensure any uranium supplied could only be used for peaceful purposes and that it has to be subject to Russia's safeguards agreement with the IAEA. In addition, it could only be used in facilities jointly agreed to by Australia and Russia. But Mr Noonan is doubtful."We believe that on the evidence presented to the federal parliamentary inquiry, Australian uranium would simply disappear off the safeguards radar on arrival in Russia," he said. "This treaty allows Australian uranium to be used for facilities that are not covered by the International Atomic Energy Agency. "It provides specifically for the substitution of Australian uranium for uranium from other countries and that they would then ignore essentially where our own uranium would go."There is currently no obligation on Russia to accept safeguards under the IAEA rules

[Neshant]

You are referring to this?

http://blog.kievukraine.info/uploaded_i ... 739503.jpg

That's the one.

Wow those helicopters sure are huge, aren't they?

[sum]

That's the one.
Wow those helicopters sure are huge, aren't they?

They are the same helos which even we have a few of: Mi-26.

Very maintenance intensive and reputed to be hangar queens.

[Gerard]

Up to India to pass liability law: Blake

Indo-U.S. nuclear re-processing pact announcement likely on March 22

[negi]

OT but fwiw , Sum most of the helis in pic are Mi-6 hook .

[Sanatanan]

The Civil Nuclear Liability Bill: Its Rationale and Related Issues

I think this blog post, dated March 19, 2010, is worth a read.