The Central Government has got the Nuclear Liability Bill passed in the Lok Sabha. As citizens, we need to know what the Bill is about and its implications for us. The newspaper articles are loaded with technical terms and so, here is a simple write-up on the Bill.
We will start with some definitions:
Operator: The company that will operate the plant, i.e., the reactor and all the related stuff. Now the government allows only public sector companies like NPCIL to operate the plants. However, in the future, government may allow private operators too and this is a major bone of contention.
Supplier: The company that will provide the equipments and the technology to make the power plants. Unlike India, many of the Western countries allow private research and development in nuclear sector. So the suppliers are usually private companies like Areva(France), GE(U.S.), WMG, etc.
Operator liability: Money that the operator is to pay to the victims in case a nuclear accident occurs. The accident may occur due to negligence of the operator, faulty design of the equipment by the supplier or among other things, even a natural disaster like an earthquake or a wildfire.
Right of recourse: Actually means right to recover a bad loan but in the present context it means the right of the operator to sue the supplier if the latter had given the former faulty equipment.
Why we need this Bill?
As Dr. Singh said, this is all for energy security of the country. We don't have much petroleum left, hydel power projects have a long gestation period and there are environmental considerations, wind is a bit boring and unpredictable, solar power is a bit too expensive and biogas is well, you know, unfeasible because of the distribution pattern of cattle. So we're left with only the nuclear alternative now. Though many consider them unsafe, it is a fact that about 16 countries depend on nuclear plants for meeting more than 25% of their energy needs. Topping the chart is France, with approximately 75% of its energy production coming from this single sector. India's current capability is about 4.56 GW, which comes to around 4.2% of the total energy production in the country. We plan to increase it to at least 20 GW by 2020. We also plan to have a 9% share of n power in the total energy production within 25 years. For meeting all these sky high figures, we need fuel, technology and experts.
That's where the Bill comes in. None of the countries where the headquarters of prominent nuclear plant equipment suppliers are situated allows them to have a contract or an agreement for supply of their goods unless there is a civil liabilty act in place that specifies how much they will have to pay in case of a nuclear accident. U.S. is particularly insistent upon it. Our deal with France also includes a clause for the establishment of a nuclear liability regime. So the matter is, no one will do any real business with us until the Bill is passed. Of coursee, we are free to use our own indigeneous reactors and technology but an expansion as our energy policy envisages requires the participation of foreign companies.
A liability bill is also required so that the victims can know whom to approach for compensation and also its quantum. Once a mechanism is properly in place, the disbursal of funds in case of an accident will be faster and more transparent.
We also require this bill to compatible with the Convention on Supplementary Compensation. This convention is the successor to the Paris and Vienna conventions. Before you stop reading this fearing the assault of technical jargon, I'll tell you that CSC essentially has three conditions:
1. Full legal liabilty of the accident will lie exclusively with the operator.
2. Doing away with the requirement to prove the fault, negligence or intent of the operator.
3. Exclusive jurisdiction to the courts of the country.
The operator will have to pay at least 300 SDR in case a nuclear accident occurs. If the operator doesn't have that kind of money, the country where the accident took place has to make available public funds for covering the rest. Now comes the most important part: If the damage is more than 300 million SDR, the rest of the amount will come from an international fund set up for the purpose. So, it is a kind of insurance.
Reasons for opposition and some points:
You have been bombarded with details about the Bill by the media. So there's no point in talking about them. Still, here are the principle points of opposition:
1. Liability cap of the operator is too low: INR 1500 crores. Maximum liability is fixed at 300 million SDR, or approx. 2050 crore rupees. The operator liability cap is lower than that in U.S., but highee than that of France. The initial amount was just 500 crores which has now been raised.
2. The provision that the operator could sue the supplier only if there was a written agreement or if the supplier had an intent to cause damage etc. has been modified. Now suppliers can be sued if the accident was caused by any act of the supplier or his employee. There is no need for an agreement now.
3. Fear of private operators: Right now, only public operators are allowed, i.e., government has to have a 51% stake in the company for it to benefit from the liability cap. So the taxpayer has to subsidise the remaining 49% shareholders. Only NPCIL will be operating the plants, it seems, for at least a decade.
4. The time limit for filing the damage claims was just 10 years whereas the damage may become apparent, in many cases, only after 15 years. This has now been extended to 20 years. International conventions allow even 30 years.
5. The Claims Commission was reported to be filled up by bureaucrats, with no representation for activists, scientists or members of civil society. Right now, however, I read that SC and HC can be approached for review of compensation amounts. Also, the claims must be disposed within three months of application.
6. There is an ambiguity on whether the victims can file cases against the supplier.
7. It is not known whether the AERB entrusted with the task, is independent enough or competent enough to review the designs of the equipments of the foreign companies.
There are many other legal problems as well i.e., regarding distinction between 'liability','strict liability' and 'absolute liability'. Moreover, CSC, the last time I heard, was not ratified by enough number of member countries for it to come into force.
So there are problems as well as some good points about the bill. What is required is awareness of citizens and faultless implementation from the side of the administrators. Hope this bill will end our nuclear apartheid, as Dr. Singh had said.
P.S: If anyone feels that there's something wrong with or in the post, please do comment. We're all in this together!
No comments:
Post a Comment