[QuoteThe other problem for the government is the fact that more than 60 per cent of suppliers in a plant are expected to be Indian suppliers. A nuclear plant is divided into a “hot island” and a “cold island”. While the former houses the reactor and other sensitive material, the cold island is very much like a power plant dealing with transmission of power produced at the site.Nearly all the works in the cold island will be carried out by Indian suppliers, who are already active in the power sector. Even in the hot island, many big construction works will be done by Indian suppliers.It is for this purpose that industry associations which deposed before the Standing committee on Science and Technology strongly objected to supplier liability clauses.Unquote The government is in a bind, as it appears. There are strong pressures from from domestic and foreign industrial lobbies, on the one hand; on the other, the pulls and pushes of parliamentary democratic practices.] I/II.http://www.indianexpress.com/news/nuclear-liability-clause-so-tough-no-supplier-will-come-says-npcil-as-govt-resumes-talks/664130/0 Nuclear liability clause so tough no supplier will come, says NPCIL as Govt resumes talksRavish Tiwari Posted online: Tue Aug 24 2010, 03:53 hrsNew Delhi : The Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL), which operates the country’s nuclear power plants, said today that the terms of the supplier liability clause — on which the government is trying to work out an agreement with the Opposition — are so stringent that no supplier would come if the law was passed in its present form.“No supplier, Indian or foreign, would be willing to take the liability on account of recourse of the operator for the period of some 80 odd years after the contract is executed. Under the circumstances, the provisions of 17(b) are neither practical nor implementable,” a statement issued by Sudhinder Thakur, executive director (corporate planning) of NPCIL said.Voicing apprehensions regarding such stringent provisions regarding the right to recourse for the operator, Thakur’s contention was that it would defeat the entire purpose of giving boost to the nuclear industry.“The government has powers to make laws but in the process of making such laws, we should not defeat the purpose for which the laws are made since the current formulation of 17(b), no manufacturer, Indian or foreign would be able to serve the nuclear power industry”.The NPCIL statement came as the government said it was open to modifications in the contentious provision while proposing three formulations as an option.“We are agreeable to changes in the amended Section 17 (b) if the Opposition desires. We want the widest consensus on the Bill,” said Prithviraj Chavan, Minister of State for Science and Technology (Independent charge).The options are: (i) Section 17 (b) as in the original Bill under which the right to recourse comes into play in the event of “wilful act or gross negligence” (ii) the provision as formulated by the standing committee which made right of recourse contingent on the commercial contract. (iii) the latest version which calls for proof of intent.All these have been already rejected by the BJP. Chavan met Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley and his deputy SS Ahluwalia today as part of the effort to iron out differences. Talks are expected to continue tomorrow with the BJP and the Left.The BJP is agreeable to the standing committee formulation, provided, “and” is deleted from the end of Section 17 (a). In fact, it was this “and” that triggered the first round of differences between the government and the opposition after the standing committee report was tabled.“We can revert back to the formulation relating to Section 17 (b) as recommended by the Standing Committee. However, this will have to be minus the “and” part. After that we will see (on support),” Jaitley said. II.http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Hands-tied--Govt-struggles-to-rewrite-n-liability-Bill/664003 Hands tied, Govt struggles to rewrite n-liability BillPranab Dhal Samanta Posted online: Tue Aug 24 2010, 01:12 hrsNew Delhi : Caught in a bind over how to address the supplier liability question in the civil nuclear liability Bill, the government has given itself the next couple of days to come up with different language that would satisfy the Opposition as well as not deter potential suppliers. In fact, different formulations are already being worked out by the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) in consultation with the Prime Minister’s Office and Ministry of External Affairs.While Science and Technology Minister Prithviraj Chavan met Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley on Monday, a breakthrough had still not been achieved. The government plans to continue these discussions, said sources.Further, the government has conveyed that it is willing to agree on delinking the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board from the DAE and make it a more autonomous body. By becoming an independent regulator, it would then be able to certify a foreign nuclear reactor and related supplies from all aspects before it is imported.Also, the government is prepared to set up a nuclear liabilities fund, so that immediate compensation can be given. Supplier contribution into the fund is another idea being considered.The other problem for the government is that existing agreements with Russian suppliers and others has no liability for the supplier. Bringing in such a law, sources said, would raise the question of looking at matters retrospectively. Even in its current form, the Bill is the toughest liability law when compared to the version in 28 other countries with similar legislation.In fact, sources said, accepting the Standing Committee’s formulation would have meant going beyond the South Korean legislation which is regarded as the strongest on supplier liability. By amending it further and inserting the language on “intent to cause nuclear damage”, the government has sought to keep the legislation in line with the South Korean one.While this too has invited sharp criticism from the Opposition, the government is of the view that targeting the supplier will go against the grain of the international nuclear liabilities regime which is clear that the onus lies with the operator.Given that a nuclear reactor site will have multiple suppliers, sources said, it makes sense to hold the operator fully liable who, in turn, can have specific arrangements with suppliers. The government reading is that the formulation suggested in the Standing Committee’s report is a subject of criminal liability and cannot be included in a civil liability legislation. “Which supplier is at fault, the extent of the equipment damage etc have to be proven under criminal proceedings,” explained a source familiar with the proceedings.The Opposition, however, is of the view that the supplier must also be roped into a civil liabilities legislation.The other problem for the government is the fact that more than 60 per cent of suppliers in a plant are expected to be Indian suppliers. A nuclear plant is divided into a “hot island” and a “cold island”. While the former houses the reactor and other sensitive material, the cold island is very much like a power plant dealing with transmission of power produced at the site.Nearly all the works in the cold island will be carried out by Indian suppliers, who are already active in the power sector. Even in the hot island, many big construction works will be done by Indian suppliers.It is for this purpose that industry associations which deposed before the Standing committee on Science and Technology strongly objected to supplier liability clauses.More so, the issue of not making the legislation congruent with international norms is one that is expected to haunt India later as it plans to emerge as an exporter of smaller reactors. Being a CSC (Convention on Supplementary Compensation) member would help ensure that Indian suppliers are not made automatically liable if an equipment were to fail. Peace Is Doable
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "humanrights movement" group. To post to this group, send 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/humanrights-movement?hl=en.
