http://epaper.indianexpress.com/IE/IEH/2010/08/05/ArticleHtmls/05_08_2010_001_006.shtml
<http://epaper.indianexpress.com/IE/IEH/2010/08/05/ArticleHtmls/05_08_2010_001_006.shtml> N-liability Bill gets a rewrite: claims within 20 yrs, right to appeal in HC SWARAJ THAPA NEW DELHI THE nuclear liability Bill is set to undergo significant changes. These will include increase in the timeframe for filing claims from 10 to 20 years, extending the definition of “damage to property” to include damage to plants, animal and aquatic life, and addition of a new clause to allow victims the right to appeal in a high court even while the designated claims commissioner is adjudicating on claims. The Standing Committee for Science and Te chnology, which is now in the final stages of finalising its recommendations on the legislation, may also recommend increase in liability cap from Rs 500 crore to double or even triple the amount. Sources said it will not only retain the controversial Section 17 (b) of the Bill but may further strengthen the clause to ensure that foreign suppliers are made liable for defective equipment. Senior officials from the Ministries of Environment, Health, Labour and Employment, Finance, Wa ter Resources and Law will be deposing tomorrow before the Standing Committee headed by Congress MP T Subbarami Reddy to suggest the amendments to be taken up after which the committee is scheduled to take up clauseby-clause discussion on the Bill. Citing the example of the Bhopal gas disaster, officials from the Environment Ministry as well as some other experts argued strongly in favour of extending the time limit of compensation in Clause 18 of the Bill. The Environment Ministry made a strong case for claims to be computed from the time and date when cause of action for such compensation arose first. i.e. when the injury became manifest, rather than from the date of the nuclear accident. It was pointed out to the committee that most countries in fact have a 20year time limitation for claims. Russia, Ukraine and the Czech Republic have an even longer time frame of 30 years. According to sources, the Environment Ministry has argued that a 10-year window was not enough as it could extinguish genuine claims of those persons affected by mutagenic and teratogenic changes caused by nuclear accident or contamination. While the first relates to chromosomal changes, the latter refers to embryonic changes in the unborn offspring. The Ministry has also sought a more comprehensive definition of "environment" in the Bill and has proposed the definition as stated in the Environment Protection Act, 1986. The Food and Consumer Affairs Ministry, on the other hand, has proposed that the Bill in its present form did not factor compensation in lieu of damage to crops and other flora, animals and aquatic life. It has suggested changes in clause 2 (f) to include these in “damage to property” and “economic loss”. The Law Ministry too may propose a new clause providing right of appeal for victims in the High Court. The new clause would address apprehensions raised by members in the committee on account of Section 35 of the Bill which states that no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter which the claims commissioner or commission, is empowered to adjudicate. The Wa ter Resources Ministry has sought clarity on liability of the Operator in the case of reinstatement of surface water and ground water quality in the aftermath of a nuclear accident. The Ministry has separately suggested a study of the impact of use of contaminated water on human beings, animals, plants and crops — to help formulate water quality standards. The sources said that the committee will also look into the feasibility of setting up of a safety fund within the liabil ity Bill along the lines of the United States. BJP leader and former Union Minister Ya shwant Sinha had proposed the creation of such a compensation fund that could accumulate over a period of time. An increase in the liability cap too will be recommended after majority of members in the committee favoured such a move. Officials from the Finance Ministry as well as NPCIL officials told the committee that they could undertake insurance to the extent of Rs 2,000 crore. The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, however, has expressed reservation on some clauses in the Bill. For instance, it has pointed that “economic loss” needs to be defined clearly in the Bill besides seeking clarification of the term “site” — whether it refers to complex or a compound or a specific area. Officials have maintained that unless access is given to the “hot area” of the nuclear installation for technical inspection — where the nuclear reactor is located — it would not be possible to insure the entire plant. Additionally, it has said reinsurance with foreign insurance companies will also not be possible if Section 101(a) of the Insurance Act, which provides for compulsory reinsurance with Indian reinsurer, is amended. -- 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.
