hi! I also feel that The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010 should not be referred to the standing committee on energy. Ideally, a new Joint Parliamentary Committee on Inter-generational Equity should be formed and the matter with regard to possible Nuclear Damage should be referred to it.
I have looked at the standing committees on environment and labour. I feel it would be useless to expect anything from them. In the meanwhile, the Parliamentary Petitions Committee can be approached for the interim period. The committee is headed by 1. Anant Gangaram Geete. Other members of the committee include: 2 Rajendra Agrawal, 3 Khiladi Lal Bairwa, 4 E. T. Mohammed Basheer, 5 N.S.V. Chitthan, 6 Gurudas Dasgupta, 7 Dip Gogoi, 8 Devendra Nagpal, 9 Jagdambika Pal, 10 Prof.Ram Shankar, 11 Sathyanarayana Sarvey, 12 Rakesh Singh, 13 Dr. Sanjay Sinh 14 Kabir Suman, and 15 Joseph Toppo. But a good report from this committee to the parliament only has persuasive value. It has been noted that The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010 addresses the issue of liability of private operators of nuclear plants. It caps the liability of any incident at SDR 300 million (approximately Rs 2100 crore at current conversion rates). The maximum liability of any single operator is capped at Rs 500 crore. The liability of any damage beyond this level will be borne by the central government. In the US, liability for nuclear accidents is set at $10 billion (US), while in Japan the cap will be doubled next year to roughly $1.47 billion (Canadian). Whether a nuclear accident is a $650 million event or a multi-billion dollar catastrophe is determined by the direction and speed of the wind that carries the radioactive radiation. Currently, Canada is seized with a Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act wherein the bill raises the cap on liability to $650 million from the $75 million limit established in 1976. The damage from Chernobyl is estimated at some $250 billion. In Germany, there is no cap on nuclear liability but an operator must be able to cover at least $4 billion but the civil liability is estimated at Euro 2000-5000 billion. India's Nuclear Damage Bill remains flawed does not include full accounting of information disclosure, damage coverage and for risk costs as costs of production. It only pays lip-service to precautionary principle and there is no mechanism to verify as to whether the nuclear power is indeed compatible with sound economy and sustainability. A Joint Parliamentary Committee on Inter-generational Equity alone would be useful if its recommendations are binding in dealing with the Nuclear Damage Bill. Gopal Krishna ToxicsWatch Alliance New Delhi Mb: 9818089660 Skype id: witnesskrishna E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.toxicswatch.com Blog: toxicswatch.blogspot.com On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Sukla Sen <[email protected]> wrote: > > [Other reports indicate that the Bill has been referred to the Standing > Committee attached to Energy, headed by Mulayam Singh Yadav. > Apparently, the Department of Atomic Energy does not have any Standing > Committee attached to it. > Can a procedural objection be raised as regards the competence of the > Standing Committee to examine the Bill to which it has been referred? > Any one, any idea? > The central issue of course is to force the government to engage in wider > public consultations. > (The supports of the Yadav duo, apparently, have been purchased at the cost > of the Women's Reservation Bill. That's too unfortunate. And also conceding > to include "caste" as a parameter in the ongoing census enumeration. That's, > however, highly welcome.) > The CNDP Letter to the PM is reproduced here for ready reference. > http://cndpindia.org/news.php?item.35.2 > > CNDP Open Letter to the Prime Minister of India, and Ruling UPA Chairperson, > Demanding Public Consultation on 'Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill 2010 > > In view of the Budget Session of the Parliament recommencing on 15 04 2010 > and the Union Government being reportedly keen to table the subject Bill, and > also push it through, if possible; the following letter was faxed to the > Indian Prime Minister, with a copy to the ruling UPA Chairperson, by the > Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (CNDP) on 14 04 10 and hard > copies delivered on 15 04 10. > Copies handed over to a number of MPs as well. > > The letter is self-explanatory. > > Sukla Sen > 17 04 2010 > > > To > > Dr. Manmohan Singh > Hon’ble Prime Minister, > Government of India, > South Block, > New Delhi 110 001 > > > Dated: April 14 2010 > > Sub: Public Consultation on 'Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill 2010' > > Dear Dr. Singh, > > > We the undersigned hereby express our grave concerns at the implications of > the 'Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill 2010', copies of which have > already been distributed to the members of the Parliament > > The defining features of the Bill, as it appears, are as under: > > One, it is an attempt to enact a law defining and tackling civil liability > for nuclear damage, which does not obtain as of now, to facilitate > participation of foreign players in Indian nuclear market. > Two, the Bill is also a move towards joining the Convention on Supplementary > Compensation (CSC) regime by enacting a law in alignment with that. > Three, the Bill is a stepping stone to ensure entry of private players, > whether foreign or indigenous, as "operators", as had been demanded by the > FICCI in its June 2009 Report. And the Bill proposes to go way beyond the CSC > framework to roll out a red carpet for he prospective private players to > assume the mantle of "operator". > > Our major concerns, in brief, are as under: > > I. The entry of private players as "operators" is too dangerous given the > unique nature of nuclear power industry and its catastrophic potentials, as > chillingly illustrated by the Chernobyl Disaster on April 26 1986. The fact > is that profit maximisation is the very raison d'etre of a private enterprise > giving rise to the consequent innate tendency to cut corners in terms of > safety measures. Regulatory mechanisms can at best only “regulate”. Hence, > the envisaged ushering in of private players as “operators” of nuclear power > plants is an open invitation to disaster. > II. There must not be any overall "cap" on the quantum of compensation to > potential victims. That is too unjust and inhumane. (The CSC, by the way, > does NOT so obligate. Nor does it obligate entry of private "operators".) It > has to relate to the actual damages caused. The overall “cap” of 300 million > SDR, which works out to about 460 million US$, is even lower than the > compensation amount of US$ 470 million ratified by the Indian Supreme Court > to the victims of Bhopal Gas Disaster way back in 1989. > III. The Bill pegs the “liability” of the private “operator” at Rs. 500 crore > per incident, with the further proviso to lower it down to even paltrier Rs. > 100 crore. And the state, i.e. the Indian taxpayers/citizens, will have to > pay, in case of an accident in a privately operated nuclear power plant, the > amount of “liability”, i.e. compensations for damages, exceeding the “cap” > for a private "operator" subject to the overall limit of 300 million SDR. > (Even in this case, The CSC does NOT obligate to peg the "cap" for the > "liability" of any "operator" any lower than 300 million SDR, which amounts > to around Rs. 2,100 crore or 460 million US$. And while the CSC obligates > that must be a cap of 300 million SDR, it does not envisage any overall cap > on the compensation to be made available to the victims by a member nation.) > This is evidently a brazen attempt to favour private enterprises at the cost > of Indian citizens. > > Given such serious apprehensions and grave implications for the country, you > are hereby urged to desist from any attempt to enact the Bill without > detailed examinations of its various provisions. The Bill must be opened up > for wider and transparent public consultations, just not among the > parliamentarians, before any further step is taken to formally approve it. > > Yours sincerely, > > Achin Vanaik > ND Jayaprakash > Admiral (Rtd.) L Ramdas > Amarjeet Kaur > J Sri Raman > Sukla Sen > for the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (CNDP) > > > Cc: > Smt. Sonia Gandhi > Chairperson, > United Progressive Alliance, > 10, Janpath, > New Delhi 110 011] > http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article424147.ece?homepage=true > Published: May 7, 2010 14:33 IST | Updated: May 7, 2010 15:16 IST > > Nuclear liability Bill introduced amid Opposition protest > > PTI > > The controversial Bill that provides for payment of compensation in the event > of a nuclear accident was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Friday amid protests > and walkout by Opposition NDA and Left parties which termed it as “illegal” > and “unconstitutional“. > > The Civil Liability For Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010, whose passage is a key > requirement for operationalisation of the Indo-US nuclear deal, was moved by > Minister of State in the PMO Prithviraj Chavan after a clash between ruling > and opposition members. > > The bill provides for the maximum liability of Rs 500 crore on the part of > the operator in the case of a nuclear accident, a provision that is the main > cause of opposition by the NDA and Left parties. > > As Chavan sought permission to introduce the bill, CPI(M) members Basudeb > Acharia and Ramchandra Dome, BJP leaders M M Joshi and Yashwant Sinha and CPI > leader Gurudas Dasgupta said the proposed legislation would violate Article > 21 of the Constitution, a fundamental right that guarantees right to life. > > They said the bill also compromises the right of victims to approach courts > for enhanced compensation. > > Amid cries of “shame, shame” from BJP members, Mr. Sinha alleged that the > proposed legislation was being introduced under the U.S. pressure. > > Leader of Opposition Sushma Swaraj said her party had conveyed to Prime > Minister Manmohan Singh that the bill should be amended but the government > was “adamant” on introducing it in the present form. > > Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, along with Parliamentary Affairs Minister > Pawan Kumar Bansal, argued that the members could not speak on the merits of > the bill at the introduction stage and could only talk about legislative > competence of the House on taking up the proposed legislation. > > Significantly, Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav and RJD leader Lalu > Prasad, who had opposed the bill in March when the first attempt was made to > introduce it, this time appeared to be siding with the government. > > Mr. Yadav, who along with Mr. Prasad met Mr. Mukherjee last evening, was even > seen apparently trying to convince Mr. Acharia about the bill. > > -- > 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. -- -- 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.
