The major objections to the proposed draft Bill are as under: *I*. *The Bill paves the path for private participation as "operator" of nuclear power plants* in India. Its very central element is to define the "liability" of a "private operator" in case of any nuclear accident. Till now all nuclear establishments/ventures, including power plants, are run by the state through affiliated bodies. The power plants are run by the NPCIL.. Given the unique character of the nuclear industry in terms of safety hazards and the catastrophic potentials of a nuclear power plant as so chillingly demonstrated by the Chernobyl disaster on April 26 1986, in particular, and given the profit maximisation drive as the very raison detre of any private enterprise giving rise to the intrinsic and inevitable tendency to cut corners in the field of "safety" *this is an open armed invitation to disaster*. A regulatory body at best can mitigate this trend, not eliminate it by any stretch. Given the tremendous clout of the private operators in this field given the scal eof investment required, the efficacy of any regulatory bodyin any case would be highly suspect. Hence, this has got to be resisted tooth and nail.
*II. A*. The *Bill* also *proposes to limit the "total liability" *(of the "operator" plus the "state") *regardless of the scale of the disaster. This is just unacceptable*. The eminent jurist, and former Attorney General, Soli Sorabjee has opined that such a provision is in contravention of the Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guaranteeing right to life. *II. B*. On top of that, the "total liability" has reportedly been "capped" at "three hundred million Special Drawing Rights [SDR]". This works out to just over Rs. 2,100 crore and slightly below 460 million US$. In case of Bhopal Gas Disaster, the Supreme Court had approved a deal between the contending parties providing compensation to the victims amounting to US$ 470 million. That was way back in 1989, more than two decades ago. Even at that time this was considered grossly inadequate. So, *while whatever "cap" on liability is unacceptable; this "cap" on "total liability" or the "maximum amount of liability"*, as the draft Bill appears to have put it, *is woefully paltry*. More so, given the fact that a catastrophic nuclear accident may very well dwarf the Bhopal Gas Disaster in terms of devastations. *III.* *The liability of a private "operator" has reportedly been "capped" at a mere Rs. 300 crore*. Just one-seventh of the total or "maximum" liability. The difference between the actual compensation to be paid and the "liability" of a private "operator" would be borne by the Indian government i.e. the Indian taxpayers/people. So, while the very concept of "cap" is unacceptable and the total "cap" could very much turn out to be woefully inadequate; the "cap" on individual private "operator is abysmally low - just one-seventh of the total "cap". *It's evidently an attempt to brazenly favour a private "operator" at the cost of the Indian masses.* Not only that, reportedly there is also a provision that this "cap" for an individual "operator" may be fixed lower or higher than the normative "cap" of Rs. 300 crore, but in no case lower than than Rs. 100 crore. So nothing stops the Indian government to fix such caps, while actually operating this provision, at Rs. 100 crore. In that case, the "cap" for the private "operator" becomes only one-tenth of the total/"maximum" "cap?. That's just ridiculous. Furthermore, with passage of time, the Indian Rupee is expected to depreciate against the SDR. With the total or "maximum" "cap" having been defined in terms of SDR and and the "cap" individual private "operator" in terms of Indian Rupees, the proportion of the financial burden to be borne down by a private "operator", in case of a catastrophic accident, would further go down! Note: *I. Even if the "liability" of an individual private "operator" is Rs. 500 crore, as being reported in the media, and not Rs. 300 crore - the figure available with this commentator, the essential scenario remains unchanged.* *II. The argument by some commentators that without this Bill being enacted, the American companies would be at a disadvantage appears to be somewhat confused and only partly true. The American vendors will conceivably no at any disadvantage to their competitors as the vendors are routinely "indemnified for consequential damages". However, they will be at a distinct disadvantage as prospective "operators".* *These critics, known to be otherwise knowledgeable, have rather pitiably missed this central point that the essential thrust of the Bill is to usher in private players as "operators".* *Hence the draft Bill must be immediately opened up for fair and transparent public debate and discussions sincerely engaging all the stakeholders. All further steps must await the outcome of such public consultations.* Sukla Sen P.S.: Please visit <http://www.petitiononline.com/no2cap/petition.html> and sign up. > Govt decides not to table nuclear liability Bill > > 15 March 2010 > Indo-Asian News ServiceNEW DELHI, 15 MARCH: Given the fierce opposition > from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Left parties, the government > today decided against moving the contentious Civil Liability for Nuclear > Damage Bill in the Lok Sabha. > > The BJP, opposing the Bill "tooth and nail", had moved a notice against it > at the introduction stage itself. Mrs Speaker Meira Kumar said the minister > of state for parliamentary affairs Mr Prithviraj Chavan had let her know > that the "government doesn't intend to table the bill today". > But the BJP demanded that the Bill be withdrawn. "We request that the Bill > should be withdrawn," Leader of Opposition Mrs Sushma Swaraj said. > "It is the duty of the government to inform the House about it. The house > has the right to know. It was in the listed business. When was the list > changed?" BJP leader Mr LK Advani wondered. > Mr Chavan was to move the Bill in the Lok Sabha. It seeks to limit the > liability a nuclear plant's operator in case of an accident at Rs 500 crore. > > The legislation also envisages the setting up of a commission that which > will investigate and decide, if there is an accident, who was responsible > for the error. > The passing of the Bill in Parliament is a crucial step that India is > required to take under the 123 agreement with the USA. Private companies in > the USA are not willing to sell nuclear equipment to India without such a > law in place. > Government sources said Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh was keen to get > the Bill passed in Parliament ahead of his US visit in April. > The Left parties said the Bill "is a harmful piece of legislation meant to > serve the interests of the US and its nuclear industry". > "It is a blatant attempt to protect US suppliers from claims of liability > and compensation. Even if there is a manufacturing defect which causes a > nuclear accident that can affect the lives of people, there is no liability > for the supplier. The clauses of the bill are so devised as to practically > make it impossible to assign liability to the supplier," the Left parties > said in a joint statement to oppose the legislation. > Senior BJP leader Mr Yashwant Sinha said: "We will force the government to > refer it to a standing committee." > Defending the Bill, Congress spokesperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi said: "It > is necessary to integrate India with the rest of the world in terms of > civilian nuclear energy." > -- 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.
