India Nuclear News And Discussion

[abhishek_sharma]

I see the GOI is simply idiotic and why can't they just be honest and say India is a middle class country and cannot expect west style liabilities. If we need to do business we need to forego some safety and also compensations. Unless the current generations take risk there is no future for future generations.

Give it some more time. Given the economic woes of western countries, they should shed their colonial attitudes.

[Sanku]

If the fracas about giving a clean chit to the suppliers was already not enough, more back-stabbing in progress..

http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/PUBLIC ... tml?Mode=1

PRIVATE OPERATORS Govt ignores standing committee view
(HT's headline not mine)

However, a future scenario in which such a change has been made in the Atomic Energy Act, and there are private players in the field, is envisaged in the amendment sought to Clause 7 (1) of the existing nuclear liability bill The proposed amendment says: “Provided that the central government may, by notification, assume full liability for a nuclear installation not operated by it, if it is of the opinion that it is necessary in public interest.“
This means that the government -looking into the future -agrees to handle compensation for victims of a nuclear accident even if the operator is someone other than the government.

Even the pretense of doing things in Indian interest (the snake oil under which 123 was sold) is being dropped.

Almost like East India company's govt, making rules to not help India but the merchant men who were colonizing India

[abhischekcc]

BTW, Antonia Maino (aka Sonia Gandhi) (along with India's first mama's boy) was in the US during the wedding of Chelsea Clinton, ostensibly to visit her ailing mother, who could not get adequately advanced medical care in the third world country of Italy. This happened just before theis deal was to be passed.

[Virupaksha]

If we need to do business we need to forego some safety and also compensations. Unless the current generations take risk there is no future for future generations.

this after Bhopal

[Muppalla]

If we need to do business we need to forego some safety and also compensations. Unless the current generations take risk there is no future for future generations.

this after Bhopal

Come on!!!
What is 3000 lives in a ocean of billion. India has wherewittal to lose such (probably useless) lives. For the Indian standards, everything is cheap anyway and why should the government negotiate some western style compensation?

[Muppalla]

Coming back to Nuke liability bill, why does UPA-2 need support from BJP and Left? It is not a constitutional amendment and all it needs is 50% of those present in LS. Why it is not able to get (1)NCP (2) Mamta and (3) DMK? Why does it even need BJP and left? It is pitiable state to not able to get its own coalition onboard.

[ramana]

They want to make sure the others out of govt wont get to raise oposition later. Ensure all hands are muddied.

[Muppalla]

I take back my own question. I neglected some of the numbers and this government has a extreme-serious problem in Rajya Sabha. UPA+ their external supporters is not crossing halfway mark. They need both SP and BSP along with half of independents and also all the nominated members to get any bill passed. It is very easy that even a bill that allows as simple as drinking water has to be negotiated and re-negotiated. On top of that they do not have full control over their partners especially DMK and Mamta.

It is a nightmarish situation to run even day to day affairs and forget the Nuke bill types. Over the past three years INC did a huge blunder by continuously concentrating only on LS seats. It lost too many states and even in the states where are in rule they are barely above half way mark. Without being in states they can forget strong governance.

[krisna]

Government considering changes in bill language suggested by BJP

The government is actively considering the changes in language suggested by the Bharatiya Janata Party in the controversial Clause 17 (b) of the Civil Nuclear Liability Bill 2010, official sources said.

The BJP, it is learnt, suggested four alternatives — sending the bill back to the Standing Committee, removing Clause 17(B) altogether and placing it in the contract between the operator and the supplier, while the other two relate to changes in language. The government, the sources said, had rejected the first two altogether but was actively considering the changes in language suggested by the BJP.

[Muppalla]

Everything is fine. Why can't the government come with these explanation in the Parliament and rather go with closed door dealings. If someone calls them as American stooge etc., instead of giving more credibility to such allegations, why can't it have a transperent discussions with the points that are beng relased to press.

Hands tied, Govt struggles to rewrite n-liability Bill

the government has conveyed that it is willing to agree on delinking the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board from the DAE and make it a more autonomous body. By becoming an independent regulator, it would then be able to certify a foreign nuclear reactor and related supplies from all aspects before it is imported.

the government is of the view that targeting the supplier will go against the grain of the international nuclear liabilities regime which is clear that the onus lies with the operator.

The other problem for the government is the fact that more than 60 per cent of suppliers in a plant are expected to be Indian suppliers. A nuclear plant is divided into a “hot island” and a “cold island”. While the former houses the reactor and other sensitive material, the cold island is very much like a power plant dealing with transmission of power produced at the site.

Nearly all the works in the cold island will be carried out by Indian suppliers, who are already active in the power sector. Even in the hot island, many big construction works will be done by Indian suppliers.

{this is classic example of spin/snake oil}

[abhishek_sharma]

The Hindustan Times has published many articles arguing for a milder liability bill. *sigh*

[Hari Seldon]

^^^ Its a tragedy to see such a nationalist and India centric sarkar to have to deal with such reckless opposition mendacity only.

Lets hope next time the evm miracle takes UPA III under yuvraj's leadership from 208 to 280 so that the nation (and the world) can be spared such unseemly circus games in the frogwell of some house only.

Kindly remember, there's no gain without pain. For 50 of our 63 yrs, we suffered pain sans gain only. Time to risk some loss of lives etc in return for sustainable power production. IMVVHO of course.

[svinayak]

For 50 of our 63 yrs, we suffered pain sans gain only. Time to risk some loss of lives etc in return for sustainable power production. IMVVHO of course.

Why is that only US has controlled what India is supposed to get in Nuke tech. It as taken the monopoly and dictating how it should be done.

[abhishek_sharma]

Kindly remember, there's no gain without pain. For 50 of our 63 yrs, we suffered pain sans gain only. Time to risk some loss of lives etc in return for sustainable power production. IMVVHO of course.

Why should we suffer pain? Foreign investment in nuclear energy is not an act of charity. We are paying for electricity and nuclear reactors. It is not free. If they don't want to make profits here, they are free to choose other markets.

[Neshant]

If we need to do business we need to forego some safety and also compensations. Unless the current generations take risk there is no future for future generations.

Come on!!!
What is 3000 lives in a ocean of billion. India has wherewittal to lose such (probably useless) lives. For the Indian standards, everything is cheap anyway

As long as the govt treats Indians as expendable sh&t, foreigners will take their cue from that and continue to treat us as such.

[Philip]

From the Editorial in the Economic Times.

"Denuclarise the Obama Visit".
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Opi ... 424225.cms

Excerpts:

India needs a law on civil nuclear liability to advance the interests of the people of this country, not to please any visiting potentate. The government has given the Opposition ample reason to dress up the proposed civil nuclear liability law as a token of obeisance to President Obama when he visits India in November.

Based primarily on this presumption, and the presumed American pressure on India to absolve US nuclear equipment suppliers of any liability in case of a nuclear accident at a power plant that utilises their equipment, Opposition MPs have raised objections to the Bill, particularly to its provisions allowing operators recourse.

If a vendor is unwilling to accept responsibility for the integrity of its equipment, there would be others willing to step in and take up the contract. As one of the world’s fastest growing energy markets, India will have bargaining power in such matters . The alternative to a law of the kind proposed is the current arrangement, in which Russia supplies equipment with all liability arising from its plants being borne by the government of India.

Logic is one thing, and politics something else. It would be bad politics to push the Bill through without the logic seeping into broad political consciousness. It would only serve to paint the visiting US president as an agent of radioactive greed.

[Muppalla]

BSP on board?

It is widely believed in political circles that the Government has got an assurance of support from the BSP on the Bill. With the BJP and Left both opposing, the BSP's support comes as a major relief for the Government, as there's every possibility of voting on the Bill. The Centre's sudden U-turn last week by way of diluting its objections to the environment clearance in the Supreme Court case against Mayawati's controversial park in Noida is being seen against the backdrop of BSP's support to the Government on the Bill.

[Gerard]

Nuclear industry objects to clauses in liability bill

The Indian nuclear industry on Tuesday objected to certain provisions in the proposed Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010, fearing that it could hamper and completely undo the government's efforts at accelerating nuclear power generation.

[abhishek_sharma]

This is no way to write a law

Siddharth Varadarajan

http://www.hindu.com/2010/08/25/stories ... 621200.htm

Behind the unseemly word games the Manmohan Singh government has been playing over the language of the proposed nuclear liability bill lies a more dangerous conceit: that complex legislation with the potential to affect the lives of tens of millions of people can simply be pushed through with stealth, subterfuge and the barest minimum of consultation.


Not once but thrice have the government's managers been caught trying to fiddle with the bill in order to address the concerns of nuclear suppliers that are obviously so illegitimate nobody seems to have the political stomach to even try to convince the public about them. What were they thinking? That people would laugh and say, what's wrong with a bit of ‘and' here and a bit of ‘intent' there and pat them on the back for their craftiness?

Once the NSG clearance came, however, the Manmohan Singh government saw the liability issue as something that had to be pushed through to provide comfort to foreign suppliers. After all, the U.S. nuclear lobby managed to make India's accession to the IAEA's Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC) — which effectively indemnifies suppliers from any liability — a pre-requisite for any nuclear sales.

Instead of relying on stealth, the government ought to argue up front why it does not believe suppliers should be indirectly liable for any potential nuclear accident. But its arguments should be grounded in facts and sound analysis, not theology. For example, if suppliers are forced to take out insurance to cover themselves as a result of the Indian law, how much will this affect the cost of a nuclear power project? It is meaningless to argue that no country, not even South Korea, has a law as balanced in its apportioning of liability as India. India is not “any other country.” It plans to buy 20 to 25 large reactors over the next two decades and need not behave as if it is entering a suppliers' market. It is said Indian suppliers will also be reluctant to provide components for our indigenous reactors if the operator can exercise a right of recourse against them. But the fact is that the current legal regime in India exposes suppliers to unlimited liability and that hasn't prevented major Indian corporates from manufacturing products for the NPCIL's reactors around the country.

Even if the government is ultimately forced to concede this point, the Opposition should insist that the right of recourse cannot be limited by the Rs 1500 crore operator liability cap but must extend to cover the full amount the government must pay in the event of an accident. There is also one other clause that needs improvement. Though many experts pointed this out in their testimony, the Standing Committee passed up the opportunity to clarify Clause 46, which purports to allow victims to take legal action under other laws. If the aim of this clause is to explicitly preserve the right of victims to file tort claims, why does it only speak of the “operator” not being exempt from other legal proceedings? The absence of a reference to the supplier here is likely to become an obstacle if victims pursue tortious liability claims.

To be sure, these sorts of improvements will not go down well with foreign nuclear suppliers. But this is the price they will have to pay to get a share of the energy sector in a democratic country like India. As Montek Singh Ahluwalia famously said in one of his leaked emails on the U.S. suggestion that the government be lenient towards Dow Chemicals in order to win American investment and support, “There is always a quid pro quo, though I fear on this we are helpless.”

[D Roy]

But the fact is that the current legal regime in India exposes suppliers to unlimited liability and that hasn't prevented major Indian corporates from manufacturing products for the NPCIL's reactors around the country.

This is incorrect. Both the Atomic energy act 1962 and the Public Insurance Act 1991 are silent on the issue of nuclear damages.

There is no liability structure in place for nuclear so where is this whole "unlimited liability " for suppliers coming from hain?

Today if a nuke accident were to happen people will simply be made adhoc compensation in the way victims of railway accidents are compensated.

[Pratyush]

In terms of Liability, the Insurance industry in India specifically excludes nuke perils. If they are to be covered then it has to be done by a law enacted by the Indian Parliament.

Here is a comment from the TOI. Don't nuke the deal

Seems to be a Lifafa article.

[D Roy]

There is no nuke liability structure in place today so there is no question of 'existing unlimited liability for suppliers'. And this is reflected in the fact that suppliers today seek insurance cover for nuclear damages of a big fat sum equalling ZERO.

And that is the way it should be kept if we want to build up nuke power quickly, integrate ourselves with the global nuclear framework and compensate victims quickly without getting into unnecessary hassles over who's responsible as enshrined in "joint and several" liability which is patently ridiculous.

I find it funny that after working so hard to harmonize our nuclear structures with that of the world we are now framing a bill which is another act of exceptionalism. So yet again we want to be an "isolated example".


Of course for some people like in 1947 "yeh azaadi jhoota hai" in 2010 "yeh nuke power raddi hai".

Funnily the same people who shouted that out in 1947 are shouting this out in 2010.


"Mere Laal Rang me sapne khile".

[shukla]

D-Day....

N-liability bill to be tabled in Parliament today

The government will table the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill in Lok Sabha on Wednesday, minister of state in PMO Prithviraj Chavan said. The Union Cabinet on Friday last cleared 18 amendments, including the one which deals with a clause on liability of a supplier in the event of a nuclear accident. The government is reportedly willing to drop the clauses that the Opposition finds contentious in a last ditch attempt to save it.

The government is reported to have compromised and will apparently agree to drop the controversial intent clause which says that an operator of a nuclear plant can seek damages only if an accident has occurred due to the "intent" of the supplier or its employees. The BJP wants that the amended clause should be referred back to the Parliamentary Standing Committee. The party has made it clear that it would be very difficult to support the bill unless the government relents and brings back the original proposed legislation. The Left parties are also up in arms accusing the government of diluting the suppliers' liability at the behest of the US.

[abhishek_sharma]

And that is the way it should be kept if we want to build up nuke power quickly, integrate ourselves with the global nuclear framework and compensate victims quickly without getting into unnecessary hassles over who's responsible as enshrined in "joint and several" liability which is patently ridiculous.

Who will compensate them? Why should taxpayer share the burden if a foreigner is responsible?

And that is the way it should be kept if we want to build up nuke power quickly, integrate ourselves with the global nuclear framework and compensate victims quickly without getting into unnecessary hassles over who's responsible as enshrined in "joint and several" liability which is patently ridiculous.

Given the complex nature of a nuclear power plant, blame assignment is expected to be difficult. It is hardly unnecessary.

Why is joint and several liability ridiculous? In the worst case, the supplier will need to pursue the operator for some fraction of their expenses. So? They have enough lawyers.

I find it funny that after working so hard to harmonize our nuclear structures with that of the world we are now framing a bill which is another act of exceptionalism. So yet again we want to be an "isolated example".

Harmonize with which country? What are the laws in US?

http://www.hindu.com/2010/08/21/stories ... 641200.htm

Ironically, the U.S. under its own Price-Anderson Act does allow victims to sue suppliers. In fact, this is the reason that it did not accede either to the Paris convention or even to later agreements like the Vienna convention. When it finally engineered the Convention on Supplementary Compensation in 1997, it included a “grandfather clause” that would allow it to keep this aspect of its tort law unchanged while forcing newer signatories like India to renounce their right to take action against suppliers.

Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%8 ... emnity_Act

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.

Power reactor licensees are required by the act to obtain the maximum amount of insurance against nuclear related incidents which is available in the insurance market (as of 2010, $375 million per plant). Any monetary claims that fall within this maximum amount are paid by the insurer(s). The Price-Anderson fund, which is financed by the reactor companies themselves, is then used to make up the difference. Each reactor company is obliged to contribute up to $111.9 million in the event of an accident. As of 2008, the maximum amount of the fund is approximately $11.6 billion if all of the reactor companies were required to pay their full obligation to the fund.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex ... =s110-1653

About CSC

the Convention benefits United States nuclear suppliers that face potentially unlimited liability for a nuclear incidents outside the coverage of section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210) by replacing a potentially open-ended liability with a predictable liability regime that, in effect, provides nuclear suppliers with insurance for damage arising out of such an incident;

the combined operation of the Convention, section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210), and this Act will augment the quantity of assured funds available for victims in a wider variety of nuclear incidents while reducing the potential liability of United States suppliers without increasing potential costs to United States operators;

This "section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2210)" is Price-Anderson Act.

Moreover, it is not the case that big corporations are treated harshly in India. We all know about the Bhopal case. Let us consider the following report about Enron:

http://www.atimes.com/reports/ca13ai01.html

Power from the DPC averages more than double the price of power the MSEB buys from other suppliers in the state.

Earlier in January, Enron made the headlines over its stance on a massive power blackout that threw more than 200 million people into darkness in northern India. Enron demanded three times the normal rate for supplying power from its Dabhol plant to re-start the stalled electricity stations.

The World Bank thus determined that the MoU was "one-sided" in favor of Enron and encouraged the government to "verify Enron's experience" as an electricity generating company before proceeding with the project.

Consequently, the CEA concluded that the "entire MoU is one sided" in favor of Enron and its partners.

[Pratyush]

Govt relents, agrees to remove word 'intent' from N-liability bill

[D Roy]

Dear Abhishek Sharma,

Suffice it to say you are wrong.

before talking about the Price-Anderson bill ad hominem please understand how nuclear risk pooling works in the west. No single operator will make a payout of more than 110 million dollars under this legislation. The nuclear industry structure is itself very different in the US dominated as it is by private operators unlike say France.


And that has led to issues which is why the US wants the CSC as well. Also take a look at how the Japanese structure their liability. Most countries in the world adhere to the Paris and Vienna conventions that call for limited strict liability legally channelized to the operator including the PRC.

I am afraid it is very easy to be a rabble rouser and do the usual Indian thing of citing the U.S as 'the' example without understanding the U.S economic and legal system in toto.

India on the other hand has a nuclear sector that more resembles France. Please take a look at their liability framework.


And this is my last post to you.

[abhishek_sharma]

Dear Abhishek Sharma,

Suffice it to say you are wrong.

You did not make your case.

And this is my last post to you.

Fine.

[amit]

Dear Abhishek Sharma,

Suffice it to say you are wrong.

You did not make your case.

And this is my last post to you.

Fine.

Boss,

Why don't you, as D Roy suggested, do a comparison with the French set up and post for our benefit/gyan?

Regarding the Price Anderson Act. Can you give us an idea of what is the Indian equivalent to the $375 million per plant insurance cover that is available per plant in the US insurance market?

Also I hope you realise "power sector licensees" is quite different from "equipment suppliers" and we are talking specifically about equipment suppliers and not the whole eco system of power sector licensees and equipment suppliers.

Also, in an earlier post you talked about taking real life examples of nuclear disasters to benchmark. Well here's an example:

When the accident at Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant in Middletown, Pa., occurred in 1979, the Price-Anderson Act provided liability insurance to the public. Coverage was available to those in need by the time Pennsylvania’s governor recommended the evacuation of pregnant women and families with young children who lived near the plant. At the time of the accident, private insurers had $140 million of coverage available in the first tier pools. Insurance adjusters advanced money to evacuated families in order to cover their living expenses, only requesting that unused funds be returned; recipients responded by sending back several thousand dollars. The insurance pools also reimbursed over 600 individuals and families for wages lost as a result of the accident.

In addition to the immediate concerns, the insurance pools were later used to settle a class-action suit for economic loss filed on behalf of residents who lived near Three Mile Island. Because the Price-Anderson Act allowed for a certain amount of money to be spent on each accident, it covered court fees as well. The last of the litigation surrounding the accident was resolved in 2003.

To date, the insurance pools have paid approximately $71 million in claims and litigation costs associated with the Three Mile Island accident.

It's nice to be idealistic and demand this and demand that. But we should pause to consider why equipment suppliers would be willing to come to India if we practice exceptionalism as D Roy says.

I sure hope you don't believe what SV wrote in his piece in Hindu that the equipment suppliers would/should pay a premium for the privilege of supplying equipment and doing business in "democratic" India?

PS: Do you happen to know what kind of restrictions/liabilities the Chinese place on nuclear power plants? Sorry I stick to my POV that the Left's hullabaloo is just an excuse to give the Chinese an open field.

[Muppalla]

Gurujan:
How is the current bill that is passed finally by INC+BJP?

[D Roy]

Nice. they have managed to make liability joint and several and put domestic suppliers in as well.

I would love to see the response to tenders in the next few months.

Worst hit will be small guys who are essentially sub 100 crore companies and supply to the domestic program. They would definitely not be in a situation to get insurance for 'strict' liability ranging in the 1500 crore range. Do i need to explain why?

So instead of keeping the big bad foreigners out we have ended up disincentivising the domestic program more than anything else.

Especially because the imported reactors are gonna have 80 per cent of their components sourced from outside for the first 3-4 units.

While the domestic program, yes the hallowed Three stage which has hundreds of small suppliers is going to be much worse hit.

Not to mention a bloody jump in the capital cost of nuke power. and of course given that these plants will be made by a public utility the tax payer will also pay more.

Way to go Indian Polity. Way to go.

[shukla]

Lok Sabha passes Nuclear Liability Bill

[Sanku]

Gurujan:
How is the current bill that is passed finally by INC+BJP?

Not a Guru by a long chalk, but looks like most of the gremlins have been removed, now the tire would really hit the road and we would see the reality of the "cheap safe abundant nuclear power by kilo watts" put to the test.

I still think that it erred in putting a maximum cap instead of a floor limit but then hey, better than signing on the CRE in Hyde act and celebrating it as victory.

[Rudradev]

The last-minute alteration to Clause 17a/b of the Nuclear Liability Bill is no mere smoking gun... it is a stinking corpse that has tumbled directly out of Manmohan Singh's closet. There can be no doubt now whose interests the GOI is really plugging with this mechanism to absolve future Warren Andersons of responsibility for future (nuclear) Bhopals.

People have been raising the American Price-Anderson bill as a comparator for the GOI's Nuclear Liability Bill. The truth is that the Indian Nuclear Liability Bill (in it's original form, presented in March and then taken off the table with hurried downhill skiing) went far further in protecting the interests of foreign suppliers, than the Price-Anderson bill went in protecting reactor builders or suppliers in the United States. Price-Anderson related specifically to operator indemnity.

If at all we're going to use the Price-Anderson bill as a benchmark, it should be to ask the following question: how much further does the (passed) version of the Nuclear Liability Bill go towards protecting Indian citizens, than the original version tabled by Manmohan Singh earlier this year?

For example:

1) AFAIK, nothing in Price-Anderson 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. Price-Anderson does prohibit individuals from seeking punitive (as opposed to compensatory) damages from the operators. However, nothing in Price-Anderson immunizes the builders and suppliers.

However, the GOI's original Nuclear Liability Bill (tabled March 2010) would have explicitly immunized foreign suppliers to foreign built Indian reactors by limiting their liability.

Question: how has the immunization of foreign suppliers been addressed in the August 2010 version of the Nuclear Liability Bill? The reek of the "Clause 17b" skullduggery begs this question.

2) Price-Anderson also does not put any time limit on the claimants. Under Price-Anderson, claimants have three years to file a claim upon discovery of damage but the discovery may happen at any time after the accident.

However, in the GOI's original Nuclear Liability Bill (tabled March 2010) placed an explicit time limit of "10 years". According to Admiral A.K. Singh in http://www.asianage.com/index.php?optio ... &Itemid=67 ,

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

Was this 10 years after a non-time-bound date of "discovery", or 10 years after the accident itself? If the latter, it is laughable. Even the cleanup efforts after Three-Mile Island took 14 years... let alone the time for the ill-effects to manifest themselves.

Question: Is there a "time-barred" compensation claim limit in the August 2010 version of the Nuclear Liability Bill? If so, does it set a time limit from the date of discovery or the date of the accident itself?

3) Price-Anderson does not deny claimants the right to appeal in US courts.

However, in the GOI's original Nuclear Liability Bill (tabled March 2010),

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.

Honestly this strikes me as unconstitutional. No surprise, coming from the present Prime Minister, whose stated policy that "Muslims should have first rights on India's resources" betrays no sliver of respect for the Indian constitution. But really... this provision amounts to an outright silencing of the Indian Judiciary by the Executive branch, repudiating the fundamental right of Indian citizens to seek legal recourse (or legal appeal) in Indian Courts.

Question: Does the August 2010 version of the Nuclear Liability Bill, equally seek to restrict the right of legal recourse and appeal guaranteed to Indian citizens by placing nuclear accidents under the final and absolute jurisdiction of some appointed GOI functionary from the Executive branch?

[ramana]

Shades of special favors for EIC?

[arnab]

It is strange to see arguments about the level of 'protection' offered to US citizens by the Price-Anderson Act. The $10 billion liability is a particular bogey started by the left and repeated ad nauseum here (strange but true). This has been put up on the forum before, but just to repeat:

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

The USA takes a somewhat different approach, and having pioneered the concept is not party to any international nuclear liability convention, except for the CSC, which has yet to come into force. The Price Anderson Act - the world's first comprehensive nuclear liability law - has since 1957 been central to addressing the question of liability for nuclear accident. It now provides $10 billion in cover without cost to the public or government and without fault needing to be proven. It covers power reactors, research reactors, and all other nuclear facilities.

It was renewed for 20 years in mid 2005, with strong bipartisan support, and requires individual operators to be responsible for two layers of insurance cover. The first layer is where each nuclear site is required to purchase US$ 300 million liability cover which is provided by two private insurance pools. This is financial liability, not legal liability as in European liability conventions.

The second layer is jointly provided by all US reactor operators. It is funded through retrospective payments if required of up to $112 million per reactor per acident collected in annual instalments of $17.5 million (and adjusted with inflation). Combined, the total provision comes to over $10 billion paid for by the utilities. (The Department of Energy also provides $10 billion for its nuclear activities.) Beyond this cover and irrespective of fault, Congress, as insurer of last resort (just like GOI, only unlike US all indian reactors are govt owned[/i]), must decide how compensation is provided in the event of a major accident.

The Price Anderson Act has been represented as a subsidy to the US nuclear industry. If considered thus, the value of the subsidy is the difference between the premium for full coverage and the premium for $10 billion in coverage.

[Sanku]

.....

On the face of it BJP has succeeded in getting all the three clauses removed.

1) Suppliers are not indemnified, they are liable in case it can be shown the accident was due to their equipment, but the amount in not clearly defined (as far as I can see)

2) The issues can be sent to the judiciary

3) The time period of liability has been increased to 20 years. So post any mishap there is 20 year window to get the money.

This of course is my understanding, as I posted before too....

[Philip]

Our beloved PM tried to hit back in his speech at alleged critics who have accused him of pandering to US interests and diktats.He seems to have forgotten that age-old saying that the "guilty flee when no man pursueth".In addition,why was there such skullduggery earlier before the Opposition saw the infamous insertions in the bill thrown out ?

Dr.Singh has remained true to form.A sly,devious character,untrustworthy and unreliable,who is economical with the truth and tries to hide his chicanery behind his gente demeanour and mild- mannered style of speech.We saw the same game being tried earlier with talks with Pak,where "Baluchistan" suddenly appeared in the text,a complete surprise to our MEA and infuriating the entire nation.I wonder who his "handler" is."Quisling" Singh has not finiished yet.We must see his further attempts to do his master's bidding during the visit of Om-Baba.

[SSridhar]

If India Tests: The implications for Indo-US civil nuclear deal - IDSA Brief

However, in the event of a test, it’s a safe bet that several factors will play into determining U.S. response: the preferences of U.S. leaders, domestic lobbying, and geopolitical balance of power considerations. This response will be constrained by the strength of the U.S.-India relationship. Further, due to India's deepening nuclear ties with the rest of the world, any U.S. response may have only a modest impact on India.

[Willy]

Well India would be daft to go in for to many US-Japanese reactors. The maximum should be from France and Russia which would be resistant to sanctions.

[Willy]

Our beloved PM tried to hit back in his speech at alleged critics who have accused him of pandering to US interests and diktats.He seems to have forgotten that age-old saying that the "guilty flee when no man pursueth".In addition,why was there such skullduggery earlier before the Opposition saw the infamous insertions in the bill thrown out ?

Dr.Singh has remained true to form.A sly,devious character,untrustworthy and unreliable,who is economical with the truth and tries to hide his chicanery behind his gente demeanour and mild- mannered style of speech.We saw the same game being tried earlier with talks with Pak,where "Baluchistan" suddenly appeared in the text,a complete surprise to our MEA and infuriating the entire nation.I wonder who his "handler" is."Quisling" Singh has not finiished yet.We must see his further attempts to do his master's bidding during the visit of Om-Baba.

Vajpayee made an even bigger blunder by accepting Tibet as an integral part of Pakistan for Chinese accepting tiny Sikkim as part of India. Read today's news? The Chinese have denied a senior Indian General a visa because he commanded forces in "DISPUTED" J&K.