As the content of the draft bill has not yet been released, there is a considerable degree of uncertainties.
A major line of criticism is that equipment (i.e. reactor) suppliers are being given a blanket waiver from any liability. But then the equipments suppliers are as a rule "indemnified" from "consequential damages" including Third Party damage. So that's nothing unique. In case of Bhopal (which is being repeatedly referred to in the current context), the Union Carbide was owner/operator, not equipment supplier. Much of these criticisms are fairly ill-informed, as it looks. What is being done here is to limit the liability of a private owner/operator. Beyond the "limit" or "cap" of the private "operator", it is to be borne by the Indian state. The liability of the state is is much higher but, again, limited. In case of plants owned/operated by the NPCIL, as is presently the case with all the nuclear power plants, the state will remain liable subject to the "cap" applicable. As regards the cap, there is no official version. My info is that the maximum liability per "incident" is 3 hundred million Special Drawing Rights (SDR) which is slightly above 2100 crore rupees at the current conversion rate. The liability of the "operator" per incident is limited to Rs. 300 crore. This may, however be fixed at a higher or lower level by the GoI depending the risk perception, but in no case less than Rs. 100 crore. So the real danger is threefold. One, the bill if enacted would understandably pave the path for private participation in nuclear industry as "operator". Given the innate tendency of the private enterprise to cut corners as regards safety, its too dangerous given the potentially catastrophic consequences of a major accident. Two, the "liability" of the private "operator" appears to be too low. Three, even the "liability" of the state is woefully limited. In any case, the immediate task is to demand widespread pubic consultation on the bill, as was the case with the Bt Brinjal. Sukla On 24/02/2010, S. P. Udayakumar <[email protected]> wrote: > National Alliance of Anti-nuclear > Movements For Immediate Release > 42/27 Esankai Mani Veethy > February 24, 2010 > Parakkai Road Junction > Nagercoil 629 002 > Tamil Nadu, India > Phone: 09865683735 > > Press Release > > NAAM Opposes the Civil Nuclear Liability Bill > > Kuppan commits the crime but Suppan gets the punishment! This is exactly how > the infamous Civil Nuclear Liability Bill of the UPA government works. > According to this legislation, if there was an accident in a nuclear power > facility, the onus for paying the damages will be on the operator of the > facility and not on the supplier of the equipment or the builder of the > facility. > > Consider one of the famous liability litigations. Some 18 years ago, on > February 27, 1992 (to be exact), a 79-year-old American woman called Stella > Liebeck from Albuquerque, New Mexico ordered a cup of coffee from a local > McDonald’s restaurant. She had placed the coffee cup between her knees and > pulled the lid to add cream and sugar and in the process spilled the entire > cup of coffee on her lap. Liebeck suffered third-degree burns and had to be > hospitalized for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. When > McDonald’s turned down Liebeck’s claim of her medical costs, she sued the > company for “gross negligence.” The trial took place in August 1994 and the > jury concluded that McDonald's was 80% responsible for the incident and > awarded Liebeck US$200,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in > punitive damages. The judge reduced these amounts a bit and both parties > settled out of court for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000. If this > case was conducted along the lines of the Indian Civil Nuclear Liability > Bill, the local franchisee or the server who served the hot coffee would pay > the damages to Liebeck and McDonald’s itself would go scot free. > > A nuclear accident is much more serious and deadly than spilling a cup of > coffee. Not just one individual but an entire locality could be wiped out in > a nuclear catastrophe. Nevertheless, the Civil Nuclear Liability Bill > provides for a cap of Rs 2,400 crores by way of damages in case of a nuclear > accident and the Indian government will facilitate compensation through the > Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (NPCIL), the operator of the nuclear > facilities in the country. > > The Indian government’s passing the Civil Nuclear Liability Bill is an > important precondition that allows US companies such as General Electric and > Westinghouse to seek insurance cover at home. Without our liability law, US > firms will not get insurance cover for their projects in India. Other > foreign companies such as Areva (France) and Rosatom Corp (Russia) have also > been lobbying in New Delhi for this kind of liability bill. Indian companies > like Reliance, Tata Power and GMR are also keen on this operator-based > liability arrangement. > > The Indian government fixes the civil liability at approximately Rs 2,400 > crores because the manufacturers insist that liability cannot be > impractically high. But the anti-nuclear activists, citing the tragic Bhopal > experiences, point out the lack of criminal liability in the Bill and argue > that the liability clause is not stringent enough. > > While the foreign and Indian companies will make profits from their nuclear > commerce, the NPCIL, a state-run and public-funded agency will become the > guarantor of compensation in case of liabilities. In other words, the > affected parties (the Indian public in this case) will pay compensation to > themselves with their own monies and the profiteering capitalists will go > scot free with their interests intact. What an ingenious plan!? > > This legislation on liability will facilitate foreign nuclear companies’ > investment in India, and will also necessitate suitable amendment to the > Atomic Energy Act 1962 that will allow private entry into nuclear business. > This civil nuclear liability regime would pave the way for India joining the > international convention, and the amended Atomic Energy Act would facilitate > Indian companies’ entry into nuclear commerce. > > The dangerous combination of secretive state, profiteering companies and > careerist nuclear scientists will not be in the best interests of the Indian > public. Like the Bhopal victims who are running from pillar to post even > after 25 years of the worst industrial disaster, we will be out on the > street with radiation illnesses and without any kind of help from the > authorities. > The UPA government that gave a nod to the Civil Nuclear Liability Bill back > in November 2009 is planning to push the Bill during the ongoing Winter > Session of the Parliament. The Prime Minister has even sought the backing of > the opposition BJP as his ruling combine does not have the sufficient votes > in the Rajya Sabha. > > The National Alliance of Anti-nuclear Movements (NAAM) as well as its > constituent organizations opposes the Civil Nuclear Liability Bill that > seeks to protect the interests of the rich and powerful while leaving the > Indian citizens high and dry on the nuclear highway. NAAM exhorts the people > of India to ask their Members of Parliament to vote against this anti-people > legislation. > ********* > > > -- Peace Is Doable -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB.
