The proposed bill must be opposed tooth and nail.
More so, as it's so ridiculous to indemnify the entities who appear to stand
already indemnified.

The suppliers, are all across the board - for all industries, indemnified
from "consequential damages".
It is the "operator", who is responsible for damages out of accidents while
the plant is operating.
In India, as of now, the DAE/NPCL is the operator. And that cannot change
till the 1962 Atomic Energy Act (with all its grossly anti-democratic
provisions) is amended to allow for private "operators". *It looks like this
is a move in that direction, in stages, to confuse and tone down likely
opposition.*

The other interesting part is that, no insurance company insures a nuclear
power plant. That's why all this problem!
That's just unique to this industry only.
The reasons and implications must be publicised as much as possible to *expose
the nasty and shameless lie of the claim that nuclear power, particularly
with current generation of reactors, is "safe"*.

However, *India ratifying the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for
Nuclear Damage (CSCNL)*, to my mind, *is not necessarily a bad idea*.
This is a separate issue.
It is likely to ensure higher level of compensatory protection to
the victims of a nuclear accident.
It is unlikely that any individual commercial entity would be able to do
that. Even going bankrupt.
Even the Indian state would in all probability find itself inadequate and
hence reluctant.
So a collective (state) umbrella, sort of a substitute for customary
commercial insurance, should rather be welcomed as long as the nuclear power
plants operate.

Sukla

http://www.tehelka.com/story_main42.asp?filename=cr010809a_time.asp

*A Time Bomb We Await*

*Hillary Clinton was here to urge a dangerous deal — that the US never has
to clean up another Bhopal mess*

*NITYANAND JAYARAMAN
**Independent journalist*

*Saturday, 25 July 2009*

THE FALLOUT of Hillary Clinton’s recent visit to India could be dangerously
nuclear, literally. Clinton’s India visit had an important agenda – to urge
India to pass a law to ensure that a Bhopallike disaster does not trouble
its victims for as long as the 25-year-old tragedy has. There is one twist,
though. Bhopalis are not the subject of this proposed legislation. Rather,
the ‘victims’ that the two Governments are committed to helping are US
multinationals like GE that are champing at the bit to supply nuclear
equipment and lure India’s $175 billion nuclear market. India expects to set
up 40,000 MW of nuclear power plants over the next 20 years.

The poor little rich American corporations are petulant. State-owned
companies like France’s Areva SA and Russia’s Rusatom are already in the
race to supply equipment to India. But private sector players like GE and
Toshiba Westinghouse say they will not invest until India ratifies the
Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSCNL) and
installs a domestic civilian nuclear liability regime. They want no part of
the liabilities arising out of a Bhopal-like disaster. Rather, they say, the
entire liability in the event of a catastrophe should be borne solely by the
Indian operator of the facility. Like his predecessor, President Obama is
pushing India to guarantee that the Union Carbides of the nuclear world
suffer no losses regardless of the role that may have been played by their
equipment or technology in causing the disaster.

Exclusive liability for operators of facilities and supplier immunity may
have been the norm in earlier nuclear liability conventions adopted by some
nations. “But then, no other nation has suffered a Bhopal like disaser,”
states Kanyakumari-based anti-nuke activist S.P. Udayakumar. Indeed, Union
Carbide’s decision to deploy flawed design and untested technology
contributed substantially to the magnitude of the disaster.

An unnamed minister quoted in a June 27 Business Standard article says the
Government has a draft nuclear liability bill ready. “What this will do is
indemnify American companies so that they don’t have to go through another
Union Carbide in Bhopal,” he said. Local operators, on the other hand, will
have to raise $450 million up-front to cover post-disaster compensation
costs. Additional costs will have to be borne by Indian taxpayers. The
Price-Andersen Act in the US also imposes a similar burden on the American
taxpayer. According to Cato Institute, the free market think-tank, this
could translate into a subsidy of 2 to 3 US cents for every unit of
electricity generated. Another estimate places the annual subsidy extended
by the Price Andersen Act to the industry at about $3 billion.

Ironically, the liability cap — $450 million — is exactly what Union Carbide
paid for the Bhopal disaster. Whittled down from the original $3 billion
that the Government estimated as the cost of compensation, the final
settlement when spread across 6 lakh victims amounted to a paltry $500 per
victim – insufficient even to cover a year’s medical bills, leave alone pay
for treating sick children born after the disaster.

BHOPAL ACTIVISTS are “disgusted” by the attitudes of the Indian and US
Governments. “A nuclear disaster will have far greater impact than Bhopal
had. Environmental contamination will spread farther. Bhopal has taught us
that $450 million is woefully inadequate to deal with a disaster’s
fallouts,” said Rachna Dhingra of The Bhopal Group for Information and
Action. In 2006 and 2008, Bhopal survivors, including children, walked 800
km to Delhi to demand for economic, medical and environmental
rehabilitation, provision of clean drinking water, and punishment of the
guilty corporations from the Prime Minister. On both occassions, the PM
conceded the demands, albeit after making them wait for months on the
streets of Jantar Mantar, and suffer police torture. Till date, he has not
delivered on his promises.

Contrast this with the speed at which the UPA and the US Governments are
moving to appease corporate interests. During his visit to Washington in
March 2009, India’s special envoy Shyam Saran told the Americans that
progress was being made on the liability law. In April, he said the internal
processes for India’s accession to the CSCNL were complete and promised that
the law would be enacted after the national elections. During Clinton’s
visit, this was a significant point on the agenda.

A panel discussion organised on the eve of Clinton’s visit to New Delhi was
openly critical of the proposed liability regime. But the organisers – the
Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace and the International Campaign
for Justice in Bhopal – clearly stated that they were not opposed to the
concept of a liability regime. “But such a law should be informed by the
experiences of disaster victims, rather than be influenced by the interests
of corporate perpetrators of such disasters,” a statement by the two
organisations clarified.

Such progressive legislation is not without precedent. Post-Chernobyl, the
trend in civilian nuclear liability law began tilting towards unlimited
liability, and non-exclusive liability. Non-exclusive liability would allow
victims to recover compensation from operators under dedicated nuclear
liability laws, even while keeping their options open to asserting claims
from other defendants under other statutes such as product liability laws.
Countries like Japan, Austria, Germany and Switzerland have already done
away with the cap on liability.India is asking future victims to make do
with a little compensation from their own tax money

Austria, through a 1999 law, additionally opened up liability to suppliers
and service providers. None of these countries have ratified any of the
international conventions relating to liability because these laws do not
adequately address victims’ needs.

India’s liability bill is likely to be modeled after a draft prepared by
FICCI’s nuclear task force, comprising key beneficiaries namely NPCIL, Tata,
Reliance, Larsen & Toubro and Gammon India. Strangely, all this talk about
disaster liability, and the normal tone in which these discussions are being
held hides a sinister possibility: That despite all assurances given by
India’s nuclear proponents that a nuclear disaster will not happen, the fact
is that the nuclear industry is already negotiating to cut its losses in the
event of a such a calamity. Private industries want the business, but don’t
want to bear the risks. The Indian nuclear establishment wants the
technology, even if it means exposing Indians to the risk of being hurt by a
nuclear disaster. Even worse, it is asking future victims to make do with
what little compensation may be on offer from their own tax money in order
to ensure that private equipment suppliers are not inconvenienced. If these
are the costs, is nuclear power even worth it?

*Jayaraman is a journalist and activist volunteering with the International
Campaign for Justice in Bhopal*

*WRITER’S EMAIL*
nit...@gmail.com

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Green Youth Movement" group.
 To post to this group, send email to greenyouth@googlegroups.com
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
greenyouth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
 For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to