<div class="gmail_quote">The major objections to the proposed draft Bill are as under:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div><b>I</b>. <b>The Bill paves the path for private participation as "operator" of nuclear power plants</b> in India. Its very central element is to define the "liability" of a "private operator" in case of any nuclear accident.</div>
<div>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..</div><div>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" <b>this is an open armed invitation to disaster</b>. </div>
<div>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.<br>
</div><div>Hence, this has got to be resisted tooth and nail.</div><div><br></div><div><b>II. A</b>. The <b>Bill</b> also <b>proposes to limit the "total liability" </b>(of the "operator" plus the "state") <b>regardless of the scale of the disaster. This is just unacceptable</b>.</div>
<div>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.</div><div><b>II. B</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$.</div>
<div><div>In case of Bhopal Gas Disaster, the Supreme Court had approved a deal between the contending parties providing compensation to the victims amounting to US$ 470 million. That was way back in 1989, more than two decades ago. Even at that time this was considered grossly inadequate.</div>
<div>So, <b>while whatever "cap" on liability is unacceptable; this "cap" on "total liability" or the "maximum amount of liability"</b>, as the draft Bill appears to have put it, <b>is woefully paltry</b>. More so, given the fact that a catastrophic nuclear accident may very well dwarf the Bhopal Gas Disaster in terms of devastations.</div>
<div><br></div><div><b>III.</b> <b>The liability of a private "operator" has reportedly been "capped" at a mere Rs. 300 crore</b>. 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.</div>
<div>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".</div>
<div><b>It's evidently an attempt to brazenly favor a private "operator" at the cost of the Indian masses.</b></div><div>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.</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div>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!</div>
<div><br></div><div>Note: </div><div><i>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.</i></div>
<div><i>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".</i></div>
<div><i>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".</i></div><div><br>
</div>
<div><b>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.</b></div>
<div><br></div><div>Sukla Sen</div><div><br></div><div>P.S.: Please visit <<a href="http://www.petitiononline.com/no2cap/petition.html" target="_blank">http://www.petitiononline.com/no2cap/petition.html</a>> and sign up.</div>
<div>
<br></div><div>I/III.</div><div><a href="http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/India-Defers-Introduction-of-Civil-Nuclear-Liability-Bill-87646437.html" target="_blank">http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/India-Defers-Introduction-of-Civil-Nuclear-Liability-Bill-87646437.html</a></div>
<div><br></div><div><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:medium"><h2>India Defers Introduction of Civil Nuclear Liability Bill</h2><p>Anjana Pasricha | New Delhi<span>15 March 2010</span></p>
<p><span></span></p><div><p>The nuclear power plant in Grohnde, Germany as seen in this 31 Aug 2009 file photo</p></div><p>The Indian government has deferred the introduction of a bill considered crucial for American companies to tap into India's nuclear power market. The legislation seeks to limit the liabilities of companies establishing nuclear power plants in India, but has been slammed by opposition parties.<br>
<br>The Civil Nuclear Liability Bill was to be introduced in parliament Monday, but the Speaker announced that the government has changed its mind. <br><br>Political analysts say the bill was deferred because its passage may not be easy with main opposition parties vowing to block it. <br>
<br>The legislation will cap the liability of foreign companies at about $450 million in the event of an accident at a nuclear power plant. It would also make the operator and not the supplier liable for these damages.<br>
<br>The government says without this key legislation, foreign companies will hesitate investing in India 's civil nuclear field. <br><br>A landmark 2008 deal between India and the United States ended three decades of sanctions imposed on New Delhi for conducting nuclear tests, and opened the door for India to get civil nuclear technology. Since then American, Russian and French companies have been lining up to establish nuclear power reactors in the energy-starved country. <br>
<br>However until the Civil Nuclear Liability Bill is cleared, American companies are at a competitive disadvantage. This is because American companies are privately owned, while French and Russian companies are fully or partly state owned, and their accident liability is underwritten by their governments.<br>
<br>But critics in India have slammed the bill. A top leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party, Ravi Shankar Prasad, says the cap on compensation at $450 million is too low. <br><br>"Therefore, the cost of the life of an Indian is too cheap," said Prasad.<br>
<br>The issue is especially sensitive in a country that experienced one of the world's worst industrial disasters in 1984, when a gas leak in a Union Carbide factory in the city of Bhopal killed an estimated 8000 people. The Indian government was severely criticized for accepting what was called a "paltry compensation" of about $470 million for the victims.<br>
<br>Opposition parties are also angry that the responsibility for doling out compensation will rest on the operator - likely to be India 's state owned nuclear corporation - and not the foreign companies building the power plants.<br>
<br>Minister Prithviraj Chavan in the prime minister's office defends the bill, and says it has been drafted in line with international norms.<br><br>"We just want to become part of international regime, now that we have been allowed to participate in international civil nuclear commerce and trade," said Chavan.<br>
<br>The government wants to have the bill passed before a possible visit by President Obama to India later this year.</p><p>II.</p><p><a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Govt-defends-nuclear-liability-bill-as-afterthought/articleshow/5688307.cms" target="_blank">http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Govt-defends-nuclear-liability-bill-as-afterthought/articleshow/5688307.cms</a></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Arial"></span></p><div style="padding-left:10px"><span style="font-family:Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif;font-size:36px;font-weight:lighter;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px"><h1 style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;font-family:Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif;font-weight:normal;font-size:30px;color:rgb(57, 57, 57)">
Govt defends nuclear liability bill as afterthought</h1></span><span style="font-size:10px;color:rgb(156, 156, 156)">TNN, Mar 16, 2010, 03.23am IST</span></div><div style="clear:both;padding-top:10px">
</div><div style="text-align:center"><div align="center" name="ad36459"></div></div><div style="clear:both;padding-top:10px"></div><div style="padding-left:3px"><div name="commntData">
<div style="clear:both"></div><div></div><div><div style="color:rgb(63, 63, 63);font-size:16px;font-family:georgia;line-height:23px"><div style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;color:rgb(63, 63, 63);font-size:16px;font-family:georgia;line-height:23px">
NEW DELHI: As the nuclear liability bill predictably ran into rough weather in Parliament, the government embarked on a 13th hour “explanation” and defence of the bill. <br><br>Prithviraj Chavan, MoS in PMO, led a slew of government departments in explaining details of the complex legislation on Monday. It’s clear the government should have done so much earlier, but there was no attempt until Monday to clarify what the government said were misconceptions of the new bill. <br>
<br>Deep political polarization has made the passage of the bill difficult, but it also higlights the government’s limitations in managing its affairs. For instance, both France and Russia have insisted India enact a nuclear liability legislation for their reactors to take off in this country. While the French requirement was made clear in the bilateral civil nuclear agreement signed in 2009, the Russian demand is at least a decade old. <br>
<br>It was the Koodankulam reactors 3 and 4 that gave birth to the first studies on a liability law as early as 2000 by V B Coutinho, which was submitted in 2001. The US, of course, has been vocal in the demand that India enact such a law as it allows its firms to take part in nuclear commerce. </div>
</div></div></div></div></span><p></p><p></p></div><div><br></div><div>III.</div><div><div style="border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">
<p style="border:none;padding:0in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">NUCLEAR LIABILITY LAW IN
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES - INDIAN<span> </span>CASE</span></p>
</div>
<p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<h1 style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">B.
B. Singh<span style="text-transform:uppercase"></span></span></h1>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">M/s Hooseinally Visram & Co.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">Advocates, Solicitors & IPR Attorneys, 211-Yusuf Building, Veer Nariman Road,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">Fort, Mumbai – 400 071,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><a href="mailto:drbbsingh@iprpluslalw.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext">drbbsingh@iprpluslalw.com</span></a> ; <a href="mailto:drbbsingh@mtnl.net.in" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext">drbbsingh@mtnl.net.in</span></a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">Abstract:<span style="text-transform:uppercase"></span></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill-2009 is
proposed to be discussed in the Indian Parliament. It caps the total liability
at 300 million SDRs (≈ US$ 468 million) and the Operator's maximum liability at
Indian rupees 300 crores (equivalent of US $ 64 million). The paper discusses
the futility of such provisions in view of world-wide maturity achieved in the
nuclear industry and particularly in India. This provision is contrary
to the rule of law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in several cases
where the Court had occasion to discuss sustainable development of India's
economy. This provision is also not in conformity with the international
conventions to which India
is not a signatory even otherwise.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">Keywords:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> Nuclear Liability Bill-2009, Civil Nuclear Liability, India's
Nuclear Liability.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">Biographical Notes:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> Dr.B.B.Singh has been associated as a scientist with India's
Atomic Energy programme for almost 4 decades at the Bhabha Atomic Research
Centre. He has also worked for several years with the International Atomic
Energy Agency, Vienna.
He holds Ph.D. degree in Physics from UK
and Master's Degree in Law from Mumbai
University. He is Fellow
of the Indian Academy
of Sciences and also National Academy of Science of India and is presently a practicing
lawyer at the Bombay High Court.<span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">I.<span> </span>Introduction:</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">The
international Conventions on third party liability for civil nuclear damage
appear to be superficially serving the interests of the developing countries
although many of the developed countries do not subscribe to any of these and
have instead developed their own legislation. The United States of America is one
such example which propounded and actively participated in the development of
nuclear liability Conventions but enacted its own Price-Anderson Act and
continues to follow it after amending it from time to time. India having come out of the
nuclear isolation, is now at the verge of entering into the world nuclear
market in a big way as a purchaser as well as a supplier of nuclear power
reactors. The Hyde Act 2006<sup>1</sup> permitting the execution of the Indo-US
123-Agreement and the implications of these legislative documents in India's
nuclear programme that culminated into Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG) countries
agreeing to deal freely with India in nuclear materials has been discussed
earlier<sup>2-3</sup>. Although presently the subject of nuclear energy in India
is exclusively State-owned, private players shall soon enter this arena. Any
legislation on compensation for nuclear damage would always have conflict of
interests. While the operators would like to have their maximum liability fixed
at the lowest possible level, the State with a poor economy may not be able to
afford paying for the balance of the claim awarded to victims of nuclear
accidents. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">II.<span> </span>Peculiarities of Nuclear Law </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">The nuclear liability law has certain peculiarities
unknown in common tort law. Hence, a brief description thereof would greatly
facilitate understanding the present situation. It is to be kept in mind that
the nuclear technology being very complicated, it would be impossible for the
victim to pinpoint the cause of nuclear accident or assign the fault to any
particular person. In addition, there are too many players in the nuclear
installation and the victim would find it very difficult to initiate multiple
litigations. Thus it is argued that in order to facilitate the victim to claim
damages, several new concepts were to be brought in the legal frame which are
not part of the common tort law. The salient features of Nuclear Liability Laws
may be culled out from the Paris<sup>4</sup> & Vienna<sup>5</sup>
Conventions as follows:</span></p>
<p style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><span> </span></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><span>(i)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">The 'strict liability' or ‘absolute liability’ of the operator that
allows the victim to sue the operator once the incident occurs and is well
enunciated in the Article 3 of the Paris Convention as “----- the operator of a
nuclear installation shall be liable ---- for (a) damage to or loss of life of
any person and (b) damage to or loss of any property other than nuclear
installation itself and any other nuclear installation, including a nuclear
installation under construction on the site where that installation is located
and any property on that same site which is used or to be used in connection
with such installation”. And this liability is established “upon proof that
such damage or loss was caused by a nuclear accident in such installation or
involving nuclear substances coming from such installation …. “. This simply
means that the victim does not have to prove the fault of the operator which
would have been impossible for the victim considering the complexities involved
in nuclear facilities. This is more specifically spelt out under Article IV(1)
of the Vienna Convention as "The liability of the operator for nuclear
damage under this Convention shall be absolute." </span></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">While this so claimed 'victim
friendly' provision is highly debatable since the victim has still to prove the
relationship between damage and the nuclear incident as mentioned above. In
addition, the operation of nuclear facilities is regulated with a multitude of
rules and regulations, violation of any thereof may not be very difficult to
prove by the victim.<span> </span></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><span>(ii)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">The 'legal channeling' or 'exclusive liability' concept is believed to
help the victim to sue only the operator and not run after numerous other joint
players in the nuclear installation. However, the operator is exempt from
liability if the incident is caused due to intentional fault of third parties
involved in the nuclear installation in which case the common law of tort shall
apply. </span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><span>(iii)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">Only the Courts in the installation country where the incident occurs
shall have the jurisdiction to try suits for claims. </span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">It is further understood that in
lieu of these facilities, the victim makes certain compromises. </span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><span>(iv)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">First and the foremost is the maximum limit on the compensation claim
in a nuclear incident. This restriction has been justified on the grounds that
if nuclear industry has to mature and grow, it will need private participation
and to encourage that there has to be some protection against ruinous
compensatory claims in any incident which may be nothing less than a total
catastrophe. While unable to pay the claim awarded to the victim(s) the operator
may declare insolvency in which case the victim gets insufficient compensation
and in the ultimate result, both the operator and the victim suffer. This
aspect has been seriously considered in drafting the nuclear legislation. </span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><span>(v)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">While the decision on the amount of maximum liability is left to the Installation State, the law requires that that amount
be insured or guaranteed in any other form.</span></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">While deciding the amount to be
insured the State takes into consideration the capability and willingness of
the insurance companies</span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><span>(vi)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">Another highly complicated aspect of the nuclear law is the question
of limitation within which time the victim must claim the damages. A nuclear
incident causes not only immediate danger to the human life but also induces
life-threatening diseases like cancers in the survivors long after the nuclear
incident had occurred. The genetic abnormalities in the subsequent generations
of the survivors is well documented which certainly warrant compensation. The
time limitation for the victim to sue for damages for such somatic and genetic
damages under the nuclear law therefore remains uncertain. While the existing
time limit to claim damages is 10 years after the accident has occurred in
respect of the loss of property, the nuclear operator shall be responsible for
loss of life and personal injury upto 30 years under the Protocol to the Paris
Convention and Vienna Conventions (See ref<sup>6</sup>). It is however provided
under the Vienna Convention that the suit for claim must be presented within 3
years from the date the damage came to the knowledge of the victim. </span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><span>(vii)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">Damage to properties of the sufferers is not only temporary but it may
render environment uninhabitable and vast fertile lands unusable for hundreds
of years to come. Furthermore, these environmental effects require
reinstatement and refurbishing at very heavy costs in money and time. The
nuclear law must provide compensatory relief in such cases as well.</span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><span>(viii)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">The exemption to the nuclear liability is best described in Art. 9 of
the Paris Convention as follows:</span></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.5in;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">“The nuclear operator shall not be
liable for damage caused by a nuclear incident directly due to an act of armed
conflict, hostilities, civil war, insurrection or, except in so far as the
legislation of the Contracting Party in whose territory his installation is
situated may provide to the contrary, a grave natural disaster of an
exceptional character”. </span></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">It is understood that under the
international Conventions, the operator is not exempted against terrorist
attacks.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">III.<span> </span>Specifics of Developing Countries</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">It is thus clear that in designing nuclear legislation
striking a proper balance between social justice and societal needs in
developing countries including India
could be an extremely tricky and difficult task and at the same time a highly
controversial issue due to the scientific, technological and economical
complexities that exist therein. This surely provides enough scope and
opportunities for exerting pressures on law-makers and the legislators to
maneuver the provisions of law in favour of the rich and influential industrial
houses and conglomerates at the cost of human life and public safety which
could be a quite serious matter particularly in the developing countries where
corruption abounds. Without any aspersions on individual groups like the
politicians or the public officials, it may not out of place to mention that in
2009 the Transparency International has ranked India<sup>7</sup> at 84 with the
Corruption Perception Index (CPI) of 3.4 along with countries like El Salvador,
Guatemala, Panama and Thailand.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">The requirement of electrical power for the economic
growth of India
is undisputed. While the conventional sources of energy from fossil fuels add
to global warming and ought to be discouraged, nuclear energy is being
advocated and it appears as the most attractive alternative though it is
unfriendly vis-à-vis capital investment. India plans to increase its nuclear
power generation from the present 4120MWe level to 60,000 MWe by 2030 and would
need about 50-60 new Nuclear Power Plants each costing US$4-5 billions in
capital investment. Thus the present Indian nuclear market is worth about US$
200-250 billions. Over and above this<sup>8</sup>, there would be the costs for
fuel, reprocessing of spent fuel, waste disposal and decommissioning of the reactor
etc. running into several hundred billion US dollars </span></p>
<h1 style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:normal"> </span></h1>
<h1 style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:normal">Still further, as revealed by the
last Chairman of Atomic Energy Commission Anil Kakodkar in 2008, the Indian
dream is to achieve 500-600 thousands MWe power generation during the next 3
decades after 2030<sup>9</sup>. This all will not be possible without
international participation in the Indian nuclear power programme. Hence the
future of foreign investment in nuclear industry in India is extremely bright with
enormous opportunities. All this requires India’s active participation in
international markets and compliance with international rules and regulations.</span></h1>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">India</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> is presently at the verge of
enacting the Nuclear Civil Liability Act which is essential for international
players particularly from the US
to enter into the Indian markets. With such high stakes, industrial lobbying
and maneuvering at every stage of nuclear power development in India cannot be
totally ruled out as was evidenced from the Parliamentary proceedings during
the passing of the Indo-US 123-Agreement on July 22, 2008 which are allegedly
tainted<sup>10</sup> with financial maneuverings and bribery accusations. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p style="line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">IV.<span> </span>International Conventions on Civil Nuclear
Liability</span></b></p>
<p style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">The two major international conventions appeared during
the early sixties of the last century while nuclear power industry was just
developing. The first one is the "Convention on Third Party Liability in
the Field of Nuclear Energy dated 29<sup>th</sup> July 1960" also called
"Paris Convention"<sup>4</sup> which was under the auspices of
Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) of the OECD countries followed by the Brussels
Supplementary Convention of 31<sup>st</sup> January 1963 to the Paris
Convention hereinafter referred to as "Brussels Supplementary
Convention". The second one has been developed under the auspices of the
International Atomic Energy Agency known as "Vienna Convention on Civil
Liability for Nuclear Damage of 21<sup>st</sup> May 1963" which shall
hereinafter be referred to the "Vienna Convention"<sup>5</sup>. Both
these Conventions are based on almost similar basic principles of nuclear law
as discussed above but they may differ marginally in respect of damage claim
amounts, procedures and territorial jurisdictions. The Paris Convention is
confined to the Western Europe, Slovenia
and Turkey
while Vienna Convention is valid world-wide</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">After the Chernobyl
accident on 26<sup>th </sup>April 1984, both the Paris
and Vienna
regimes were amended as follows: </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><span>(i)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">A
Joint Protocol Relating to the Application of the Vienna Convention and the
Paris Convention was adopted in 1988. It combined the two conventions and
broadened the jurisdictional scope while maintaining their basic principles of
nuclear law. It was intended to avoid any conflict of law when the damage or
cause of damage extended beyond the boundaries of one country and it came into
operation in 1992. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><span>(ii)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">Under
the auspices of IAEA, two new legal instruments were evolved; </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><span>(a)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">"The
Protocol to Amend the 1963 Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear
Damage" hereinafter to be referred as "Protocol to the Vienna
Convention" that entered into force on 4<sup>th</sup> October 2003 but it
had limited success with only five countries as members till 2008 (see ref 6)
namely Argentina, Belarus, Morocco and Romania.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><span>(b)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">The
Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage<sup>11</sup> or
more frequently referred to as "CSC" is a Convention to be signed
independently of the Vienna
or Paris Conventions. This was open for signature on 12<sup>th</sup> September
1997 but had not come into force with only four countries having ratified it
till October 2008 (see ref. 6). </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><span>(iii)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">The
legislation under the NEA regime also went through several changes and two
additional instruments were brought in for signature; </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><span>(a)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">Protocol
to Amend the Convention on Third party Liability in the field of Nuclear Energy
of 29<sup>th</sup> July 1960, hereinafter referred to as "Protocol to
Paris Convention" and </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><span>(b)<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">Protocol
to amend the "Brussels Supplementary Convention'' or the Protocol to amend
Convention of 31<sup>st</sup> January 1963 Supplementary to the Convention of
29<sup>th</sup> July 1960 on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear
Energy. These instruments were open for signature on 12<sup>th</sup> February
2004 but till July 2008 none of these were in force. (see ref.6)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">Thus there exist two generations of international nuclear
liability legislative regimes all totaling to 8 instruments in number but their
success has been extremely disappointing. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">Significantly, US is not a signatory to any of these
Conventions and has in place instead The Price-Anderson Nuclear Indemnity Act
1957 originally enacted for 20 years which has been amended in 1975 and extended
for 12 years. In 1988 the Act was amended and further extended for another 15
years till 2002. In February 2002, the Act was extended for a short period till
December 2003 and under great criticism and a fierce debate it was extended
till 2017. In 2005 the Act has been further extended to remain in force till
2026. The constitutional validity<sup>12</sup> of the Act has been
unsuccessfully challenged in the Supreme Court of the US.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">There presently exist 17 nuclear power plants in India
spread over the length and width of the country with overall capacity of 4120
MWe. There are 5 nuclear power plants under construction with total additional
capacity of 2660 MWe<sup>13</sup>. India
is also not a party to any of the aforesaid international conventions and it
need not be since till date the overall nuclear industry in India is State-owned. The Atomic
Energy Act 1962 does not provide for private industry players in the nuclear
power generation and no proposal is indicated to amend it to allow private
investment. Hence there is no fixed upper limit on damage claims. Fortunately,
so far no serious accidents have occurred at any of the nuclear reactors to
call for damage claims.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">Notwithstanding the aforesaid "The Civil Liability
for Nuclear Damage Bill-2009" hereinafter referred to as the “Bill-2009”
is likely to be introduced in the Indian Parliament. While it is not the
intention of this communication to analyze the whole Bill <i>per se</i>, the emphasis will be mainly on the limit fixed on the
monetary compensation and to the time period available for the victim to sue
for damages.<span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">V.<span> </span>The Bill-2009</span></b><sup><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">14</span></sup></p>
<h3 style="text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">A.<span> </span>Compliance with international nuclear laws</span></h3>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">One of the significant departures
from the international conventions is Sec.5(1)(a)(ii) in the Bill wherein the
operator is exempted from the liability from any nuclear damage if such damage
is caused by a nuclear incident directly due to and act of ------------
‘terrorism’. Unlike the provisions under International Conventions this
liability is thrust upon the Central Government along with the nuclear
incidents caused due to grave natural disasters of exceptional character and
armed conflicts, hostilities, civil war and insurrections which are certainly
in the domain of the State as a whole. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">B.<span> </span>Limitation
on the amount of compensation to victims.</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">Section 6 of the Bill describes
the provisions relating to the quantification of liabilities of the operator.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">6.(1).<span> </span>The maximum amount of liability in
respect of each nuclear incident shall be rupees equivalent to three hundred
million Special Drawing Rights (SDRs).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">(2) <span> </span>The liability of an operator for each
nuclear incident shall be rupees three hundred crores;</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">Provided that the Central
Government may, having regard to the extent of risk involved in a nuclear
installation, by notification, either increase or decrease the amount of
liability of operator:<span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">Provided further that where the
amount of liability is decreased, it shall not be less than rupees one hundred
crores;</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">Provided also that the amount of
liability shall not include any interest or costs of proceedings.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">In view of what has been stated above, and in view of the
Section 6(2) read with Section 6(1) of the Bill 2009, the operator contributes
only rupees 300 crores (US$64 million) out of the total liability fixed at 300
million SDRs (US$468 million). The balance shall be the responsibility of the
State i.e. tax-payers. At the very first look the aforesaid provisions of The
Bill-2009 appear to have been drafted in consonance with or rather inferior to
the out-dated 1957 version of the Price-Anderson Act which prescribed the
operator's liability at US$60 million and government's share of liability at
US$ 500 million. It totally ignores the recent version of the Act that absolves
the State from any liability below US $ 10,761 millions and places the
responsibility for this amount on the operator alone. Oddly enough in the
Bill-2009, the operator's liability has been capped in Indian currency at
rupees 300 crores instead of SDRs and it is no secret that the rupee value has
been declining steadily every year. The value of the maximum compensation
presently so fixed, it is horrifying to think that if an accident occurs a few
decades later whether the victims will receive enough compensation to feed
themselves for even a few weeks or days. Still more strange is the objective of
the law-makers that the proviso to the Section 6 provides that the Government
may increase or decrease the cap amount on the operator’s liability but never
it to be less than rupees 100 crores. Such departures from the provisions of
international conventions cannot but be viewed with suspicion and malafides in
favour of the operator and against the welfare of the Indian populace. If at
all it was essential that the operator's maximum liability be fixed in local
currency whether at Rs. 300 crores or 100 crores, this ought to have been
linked to the Cost of Consumer Index or the Cost of Inflation Index (CII) as
annually announced by the relevant authorities India as discussed hereinbelow.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">C.<span> </span>Limitation on time to
claim compensation.</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">Section 14 sub-section (1) of the Bill-2009 describes the
person(s) who can make application for compensation in respect of nuclear
damage and the sub-section (3) thereof states that “subject to the provisions
of Section 17, every application under subsection (1) shall be made within a
period of three years from the date of knowledge of nuclear damage by the
person suffering from such damage. The section 17 referred therein states “The
right to claim compensation for any nuclear damage caused by a nuclear incident
shall extinguish if such claim is not made within a period of 10 years from the
date of incident notified under Section 3”. The nuclear damage as defined under
Section 2(f) of the Bill-2009 means loss of life or personal injury to a person
or loss of, or damage to property. Whereas nuclear damage can be immediate in
terms of death of persons or destruction of properties by fire or blast or
damage on exposure to lethal doses of ionizing radiations, there are long term
latent effects like induction of various cancers which may occur even 3-4
decades after exposure to non-lethal doses of radiations emitted during the
accident. For such well documented nuclear damages the Bill-2009 does not
provide any succor as available under the Protocols to Vienna and Paris Conventions where the
limitation has been fixed at 30 years. The Bill-2009 appears to have been
drafted without proper application of mind and without consideration of the
available scientific data on radiation-induced carcinogenesis in Hiroshima and Nagasaki
survivors where the latency extends beyond 45 years<sup>15</sup>. The
scientific naivety of the Bill - 2009 thus cannot be denied.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">Further more, there seems to an undue haste in presenting
the Bill-2009 as is evident when Section 8(1) of the Bill is read with the
Section 6(2) with the first and second proviso thereto which undermines the
seriousness of the lawmakers. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">Section 8(1) states </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">“The Operator shall, before he
begins operation of his nuclear installation, take out insurance policy or such
other financial security, covering his liability under sub-section (2) of the
Section 6, in such manner as may be prescribed.” </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">The first proviso to the sub-section (2) of the Section 6
authorizes the Government to, by notification, decrease this amount, subject to
the second proviso of this Section, to be not less than 100 crores. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">It cannot be denied that insurance provides immediate
financial relief to the victims but considering the catastrophic nature of
nuclear accidents though with very low probability, the insurance companies are
reluctant to enter into this risk market. The insurance amount is thus
restricted and is based on the operator’s accessibility to insurers and it is
actually set in consultation with the insurer. Unfortunately, in the Indian
context, prior to the presentation of the Bill this exercise does not seem to
have been done at all since the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority has
just started deliberating on it<sup>16</sup> <i>poste</i> Bill approval by the Cabinet of the Ministers.<span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">VI.<span> </span>The Issues</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">In view of what has been discussed above the following
issues arise:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">Is
the capping of compensation necessary?<span> </span></span></b></li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">Historically the concept of
capping the maximum liability of the operator was evolved in fifties and early
sixties of the last Century considering that the nuclear industry was then an
unexplored area but had a great potential for human welfare and if it had to
grow, it needed private industry participation. At the same time, this industry
was fraught with catastrophic accidents causing such huge damages to life and
environment that if the industry had to compensate fully as per the law of
torts, it would go insolvent and bankrupt resulting in inadequate compensation
to victims. Hence the industry needed protection in some form of subsidy from
public funds. All the international conventions and national laws of nuclear
power countries maintained this philosophy. Whether almost 6 decades later in
the year 2010, the nuclear industry can still demand in the name of research
and development this kind of subsidy from the State is highly debatable.
Undoubtedly research and development activities in any industry are continuing
processes and are not peculiar to the nuclear industry alone but none of the
other industries are being provided such preferential protection by the State.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="2" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">Is
the capping of compensation rationale?<span> </span></span></b></li>
</ol>
<p style="margin-left:.25in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">The nuclear industry has been dynamic which is well
reflected in the Price-Anderson Act wherein initially the operator's maximum
liability was limited to US$60 million and the government was to take-up a
further liability of US$ 500 million. In the 1982 amendment the operator's
liability was increased to US$160 million and that of the Government was
decreased to US$ 400 million still making the total maximum liability to US$560
million.<span> </span>In the 2005 amendment, the
Government's share became zero and the total liability of the operator
increased to US$10,761 million and all of it has to be assured and indemnified<sup>17</sup>.
In addition, the maximum amount of compensation provided in the Bill-2009 is
also totally out of tune with the current amendments proposed in the Vienna and
Paris Conventions or Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) a summary
whereof extracted from the paper by Faure & Borre <sup>6</sup> is
reproduced below:<span> </span></span></p>
<p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">Compensation in US $ millions</span></p>
<p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="left" style="border-collapse:collapse;border:none;margin-left:6.75pt;margin-right:6.75pt">
<tbody><tr>
<td width="188" valign="top" style="width:141.2pt;border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana">Convention</span></p>
</td>
<td width="167" valign="top" style="width:125.2pt;border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-left:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana">Contributor</span></p>
</td>
<td width="89" valign="top" style="width:66.6pt;border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-left:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana">First Generation</span></p>
</td>
<td width="108" valign="top" style="width:81.0pt;border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-left:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana">Current Generation</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="188" valign="top" style="width:141.2pt;border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-top:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana">Paris</span><span style="font-family:Verdana"> Convention<span> </span>1960</span></p>
</td>
<td width="167" valign="top" style="width:125.2pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana">Nuclear Operator</span></p>
</td>
<td width="89" valign="top" style="width:66.6pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana">8.218</span></p>
</td>
<td width="108" valign="top" style="width:81.0pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana">1,112</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="188" valign="top" style="width:141.2pt;border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-top:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana">Brussels</span><span style="font-family:Verdana"> Convention 1963</span></p>
</td>
<td width="167" valign="top" style="width:125.2pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana">Installation</span><span style="font-family:Verdana"> State</span><span style="font-family:Verdana"> or</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana">Operator</span></p>
</td>
<td width="89" valign="top" style="width:66.6pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana">279.414</span></p>
</td>
<td width="108" valign="top" style="width:81.0pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana">794.40</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="188" valign="top" style="width:141.2pt;border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-top:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
</td>
<td width="167" valign="top" style="width:125.2pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana">Collective</span><span style="font-family:Verdana"> State</span><span style="font-family:Verdana"> Fund</span></p>
</td>
<td width="89" valign="top" style="width:66.6pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana">205.451</span></p>
</td>
<td width="108" valign="top" style="width:81.0pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana">476.64</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="188" valign="top" style="width:141.2pt;border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-top:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><b><span style="font-family:Verdana">TOTAL NEA REGIME</span></b></p>
</td>
<td width="167" valign="top" style="width:125.2pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><b><span style="font-family:Verdana"> </span></b></p>
</td>
<td width="89" valign="top" style="width:66.6pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><b><span style="font-family:Verdana">493.083</span></b></p>
</td>
<td width="108" valign="top" style="width:81.0pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><b><span style="font-family:Verdana">2,383</span></b></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="188" valign="top" style="width:141.2pt;border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-top:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana">Vienna</span><span style="font-family:Verdana"> Convention 1963</span></p>
</td>
<td width="167" valign="top" style="width:125.2pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana">Nuclear Operator</span></p>
</td>
<td width="89" valign="top" style="width:66.6pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana">5.000</span></p>
</td>
<td width="108" valign="top" style="width:81.0pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana">246.542</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="188" valign="top" style="width:141.2pt;border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-top:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
</td>
<td width="167" valign="top" style="width:125.2pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana">Collective</span><span style="font-family:Verdana"> State</span><span style="font-family:Verdana"></span></p>
</td>
<td width="89" valign="top" style="width:66.6pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana">---</span></p>
</td>
<td width="108" valign="top" style="width:81.0pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana">246.542</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="188" valign="top" style="width:141.2pt;border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-top:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><b><span style="font-family:Verdana">TOTAL VIENNA
</span></b></p>
</td>
<td width="167" valign="top" style="width:125.2pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><b><span style="font-family:Verdana"> </span></b></p>
</td>
<td width="89" valign="top" style="width:66.6pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><b><span style="font-family:Verdana">5.000</span></b></p>
</td>
<td width="108" valign="top" style="width:81.0pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><b><span style="font-family:Verdana">493.083</span></b></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="188" valign="top" style="width:141.2pt;border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-top:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p align="left" style="text-align:left"><span style="font-family:Verdana">CSC (Convention on Supplementary Compensation for
Nuclear Damage – 1997)</span></p>
</td>
<td width="167" valign="top" style="width:125.2pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana">Operator/Installation
State </span></p>
</td>
<td width="89" valign="top" style="width:66.6pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
</td>
<td width="108" valign="top" style="width:81.0pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana">493.083</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="188" valign="top" style="width:141.2pt;border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-top:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
</td>
<td width="167" valign="top" style="width:125.2pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana">Collective</span><span style="font-family:Verdana"> State</span><span style="font-family:Verdana"> Fund</span></p>
</td>
<td width="89" valign="top" style="width:66.6pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
</td>
<td width="108" valign="top" style="width:81.0pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana">493.083</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="188" valign="top" style="width:141.2pt;border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-top:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><b><span style="font-family:Verdana">TOTAL CSC</span></b></p>
</td>
<td width="167" valign="top" style="width:125.2pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><b><span style="font-family:Verdana"> </span></b></p>
</td>
<td width="89" valign="top" style="width:66.6pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><b><span style="font-family:Verdana"> </span></b></p>
</td>
<td width="108" valign="top" style="width:81.0pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><b><span style="font-family:Verdana">986.166</span></b></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="188" valign="top" style="width:141.2pt;border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-top:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><b><span style="font-family:Verdana">US The Price-Anderson Act </span></b></p>
</td>
<td width="167" valign="top" style="width:125.2pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana">Nuclear Operator</span></p>
</td>
<td width="89" valign="top" style="width:66.6pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana">60</span></p>
</td>
<td width="108" valign="top" style="width:81.0pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="188" valign="top" style="width:141.2pt;border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-top:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><b><span style="font-family:Verdana"> </span></b></p>
</td>
<td width="167" valign="top" style="width:125.2pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana">State </span></p>
</td>
<td width="89" valign="top" style="width:66.6pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana">500</span></p>
</td>
<td width="108" valign="top" style="width:81.0pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="188" valign="top" style="width:141.2pt;border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-top:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><b><span style="font-family:Verdana">TOTAL</span></b></p>
</td>
<td width="167" valign="top" style="width:125.2pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
</td>
<td width="89" valign="top" style="width:66.6pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana">560</span></p>
</td>
<td width="108" valign="top" style="width:81.0pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><b><span style="font-family:Verdana">10,761</span></b></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="188" valign="top" style="width:141.2pt;border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-top:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><b><span style="font-family:Verdana">The Bill – 2009</span></b></p>
</td>
<td width="167" valign="top" style="width:125.2pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><b><span style="font-family:Verdana"> </span></b></p>
</td>
<td width="89" valign="top" style="width:66.6pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><b><span style="font-family:Verdana"> </span></b></p>
</td>
<td width="108" valign="top" style="width:81.0pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><b><span style="font-family:Verdana"> </span></b></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="188" valign="top" style="width:141.2pt;border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-top:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><b><span style="font-family:Verdana"> </span></b></p>
</td>
<td width="167" valign="top" style="width:125.2pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana">Nuclear Operator</span></p>
</td>
<td width="89" valign="top" style="width:66.6pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana">64</span></p>
</td>
<td width="108" valign="top" style="width:81.0pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><b><span style="font-family:Verdana">--</span></b></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="188" valign="top" style="width:141.2pt;border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-top:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><b><span style="font-family:Verdana"> </span></b></p>
</td>
<td width="167" valign="top" style="width:125.2pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana">State</span></p>
</td>
<td width="89" valign="top" style="width:66.6pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana">404</span></p>
</td>
<td width="108" valign="top" style="width:81.0pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><b><span style="font-family:Verdana">--</span></b></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="188" valign="top" style="width:141.2pt;border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-top:none;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><b><span style="font-family:Verdana">Total</span></b></p>
</td>
<td width="167" valign="top" style="width:125.2pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><span style="font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
</td>
<td width="89" valign="top" style="width:66.6pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><b><span style="font-family:Verdana">468</span></b></p>
</td>
<td width="108" valign="top" style="width:81.0pt;border-top:none;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt">
<p><b><span style="font-family:Verdana">468</span></b></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">India</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> is not yet a signatory to any of
the aforesaid Conventions but it is reported<sup>18</sup> that India
would soon sign CSC-1997 the provisions whereof are more than double as
provided in the Bill-2009 as shown in the above table. <span>On May 21, 2008 the US Mission to International Atomic Energy Agency in
Vienna announced that on advice and consent of the US Senate in August 2006,
the required legislation for ratification of CSC was enacted in December 2007<sup>19<span> </span></sup></span></span></p>
<h2 style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:normal"> </span></h2>
<h2 style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:normal">It is significant to mention that t</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:normal">ill that date, thirteen countries had signed the CSC
including Argentina, Australia, the Czech Republic, Indonesia, Italy, Lebanon,
Lithuania, Morocco, Peru, the Philippines, Romania, Ukraine and the US but only
four of these including the US, Argentina, Morocco and Romania had ratified it.
Hence the Convention has not yet entered into force since it requires at least
five States with a minimum of 400,000 MW of thermal power from nuclear reactors
to have ratified it. As mentioned hereinabove, the US has its own
Price-Anderson Act-1957 (as amended 2005) governing the domestic nuclear damage
liability which is capped at a far higher value of US$10.761 billion than that
provided under CSC for which now the US operators shall have the liability for
their nuclear installations in other countries.<span>
</span></span></h2>
<h2 style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:normal"> </span></h2>
<h2 style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.25in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:normal">As
far as the Bill-2009 is concerned the Bhopal Gas Tragedy can be taken as a
rough guideline for setting a maximum liability limit on the nuclear operator
though a nuclear accident could be far more disastrous. In the Bhopal Tragedy
the compensation was settled at US$ 470 million and confirmed by the Supreme
Court of India on 3<sup>rd</sup> March 1991<sup>20</sup>. On the basis of the
present (2009) Cost Inflation Index of 632<sup>21 </sup>with that of 1991 as
199 having base of 100 in 1981-82, it would be understandable if the maximum
liability had been capped at US$1500 millions instead of US$468 millions.</span></h2>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="3" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">Is
the capping of compensation beneficial?<span> </span></span></b></li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">This issue may be discussed in 2
parts. Firstly, the operator’s liability being limited to a meager sum of just
rupees 300 crores, does not provide sufficient incentives to the operator to
prevent nuclear accidents. It may be argued that operation of nuclear
installations is strictly regulated by rules and guidelines laid down and
regularly reviewed and updated from time to time by international regulatory
authorities like International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Atomic
Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) of India, there still remains ample scope for
the operator to innovate further safety and preventive measures as it is the
operator who has more information on its installation than the regulatory
authorities. In the absence of such incentives the operator follows routinely
the rules and regulations that are obligatory and shies away from innovating
newer strategies for preventing accidents. In the end, the operator turns
complacent. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">Secondly, the State’s liability
for the balance of the compensation is an indirect subsidy towards the nuclear
industry. It results in an artificial competition in favour of the nuclear
operator who ought to have absorbed the full cost of risk in the value of the
product at the consumer end. Thus the cost of say electricity from nuclear
reactors becomes artificially more competitive leading to its unrealistic
public appreciation and an undue State favour as against other alternative sources
of energy like solar, wind etc. the development whereof may be more fruitfully
encouraged from public funds. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">4.<span> </span>Is
the capping of compensation adequate?<span> </span>.</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">It is almost impossible to predict
the damage and the costs of a nuclear accident without being fraught with
severe criticism and uncertainties. Before the Price - Anderson Act came into
being, the US Atomic Energy commissioned report known as Wash-740 estimated
that in a worst nuclear accident the cost of damage to property alone would
reach US $ 7 billion in fifties of the last century. This estimate of property
damage has been revised in 1964-65 to US$17 billion. Yet another later study
WS-1400 during 1975 estimated personal injuries as 3,300 early fatalities and
45,000 early illnesses to be added to the liabilities as damage to life. In
November 1982 the US Nuclear Regulatory Agency sponsored yet another programme
CRAC2 (Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences) which estimated cost of US
reactor accident to be as high as US$314 billion. In July 1986, the United
States General Accounting Office (GAO) report stated that a $6.5 billion limit
on liability would cover 95 percent of the reactors in the country but a
serious accident could be up to 10 times greater than this (see ref.<sup>22</sup>)
although the US Nuclear Regulatory Agency later sponsored study
"State-of-Art Reactor Consequences Analyses" (SOARCA) disputed the
earlier estimates<sup>23</sup>. The maximum liability limited to 300 million
SDRs as provided in the Bill-2009 is low and absurd.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><span> </span></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="5" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">Is the capping of
compensation ethical and constitutional?</span></b></li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">The damage in nuclear accidents
should be partitioned into personal damage to life and property and the damage
to the environment and ecology. In case of damage to life and property of
persons the basic principle of Tort Law is that the injurer be obliged to fully
compensate the victim. The compensation for damage to environment is regulated
by the international principle of “Polluter Pays” as has been repeatedly held
by the Supreme Court of India. A legislative enactment putting a cap on the
liability of the injurer would be a highly unethical proposition and a blatant
violation of Environmental Laws and Constitution of India. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">Firstly, unlike in the European
countries and Americas,
Indian populace is relatively uneducated and poor and most of it is not covered
under any insurance scheme either for life, or property or for medical
treatment. The population living around Indian nuclear installations would be,
by and large, economically very weak and shall depend solely on the
compensation. Any limit on the compensation to the affected persons fixed by
legislation favouring the commercial establishments would therefore be against
the basic duties of the elected representatives who are to protect the interests
and welfare of their electorates.<span> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">Secondly, it is pertinent to
remember that the injury to the environment and ecology and sustainable
development of the country has frequently been a subject matter before the
Supreme Court of India. Notwithstanding the US Supreme Court’s ruling of 26<sup>th</sup>
June 1978 in Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group setting aside
the judgment of the lower Court wherein the constitutional validity of the
Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act -1957 was challenged and
upholding the Act on importance of the nuclear industry<sup>12</sup>, the
Supreme Court of India has taken a different view. Indeed, the socioeconomic
conditions in India
are different from those prevailing in the developed and western world. India
has formulated its own Constitution and enacted multitude of legislation, Acts
and Rules that are commensurate with its own cultural ethos, economy, and
policy of sustainable development. Hence, in the matter of <i>Vellore</i><i> Citizens Welfare Forum v/s Union of
India</i><sup>24</sup> decided on 28<sup>th</sup> August 1996 His Lordship Mr.
Justice Kuldeep Singh speaking on behalf of a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India stated: </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">“It is no doubt correct that the
leather industry in India
has become a major foreign exchange earner and at present Tamil Nadu is the
leading exporter of finished leather accounting for 80% of country’s export.
Though the leather industry is of vital importance to the country as it
generates foreign exchange and provides employment avenues it has no right to
destroy the ecology, degrade the environment and pose a health hazard.” </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">Their Lordships further quoted
from an earlier judgment </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">“Once the activity carried on is
hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on such activity is
liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by his activity
irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while carrying on his
activity. The rule is premised upon the very nature of the activity carried on”
Consequently the polluting industries are absolutely liable to compensate for
the harm caused by them to the villagers in the affected area, to soil and to
the underground water ……… The Polluter Pays principle as interpreted by this
Court means that the absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not
only to compensate the victims of pollution but also the cost of restoring the
environmental degradation …….. and as such the polluter is liable to pay the
cost<span> </span>to the individual sufferers as well
as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology”.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">The Apex Court of India further
reiterated that:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">“The Precautionary Principle and
the Polluter Pays principle have been accepted as part of the law of land …….
“. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">The Supreme Court of India has,
time and again till date, relied upon and applied this principle and has held
that it is enshrined in the Constitution of India and is being implemented
through various domestic laws including the Environmental Law 1986.</span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">In <i>Karnataka
Industrial Development Board v/s Sri.C.Kenchappa & Ors</i>.<sup>25</sup>
His Lordship Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari of the Supreme Court of India
speaking on behalf of the Bench as recently as on 12<sup>th</sup> May 2006
reiterated the rule earlier laid down in <i>Indian
Council for Enviro-Legal Action & Ors. v/s Union
of India</i><sup>26</sup> and elaborated thereon:</span></p>
<p style="margin-left:1.0in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">“The Polluter Pays principle demands that the financial
cost of preventing or remedying damage caused by the pollution should lie with
the undertaking which caused the pollution, or produce the good which cause
pollution. <b><i>Under the Principle it is not the role of Government to meet the costs
involved in either prevention of such damage, or in carrying out the remedial
action, because the effect of this would be to shift the financial burden of
the pollution incident to the tax payer.</i>”</b>(Emphasis intended) <i></i></span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></b></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">VII.<span> </span>Conclusion</span></b></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">India</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> is adjudged internationally as a
highly responsible Sovereign
State in all fields of
activities including nuclear sciences. The nuclear industry in India
has reached and has demonstrated its full maturity despite its 35 years of isolation
due to sanctions imposed by the world community in early seventies of the last
century. India
is now a willing partner in the process of globalization without compromising
its interests nuclear or otherwise. India is not a signatory to NPT or
CTBT or any of the abovementioned Conventions of civil nuclear third party
liabilities. Hence India
need not have drafted a legislation presumably based on the out-dated 1957
version of the Price Anderson Act which in itself has undergone several
incarnations and is perhaps today the best under the present circumstances. The
provisions in the Bill-2009 particularly relating to the capping of the
operator’s liabilities and that of the State’s responsibility therefore appear
to be unwarranted, unethical and unconstitutional and would be against the
various decisions taken by the Supreme Court of India as also opined by the
former Attorney General of India<sup>27</sup>.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">VIII.<span> </span>References:</span></b></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">1.<span> </span>The Henry J. Hyde US±India Peaceful
Atomic Energy Act 2006</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><a href="http://www.coherentbabble.com/signingstatements/PublicLaws/HR5682PL109" target="_blank">http://www.coherentbabble.com/signingstatements/PublicLaws/HR5682PL109</a>±401.pdf.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">2.<span> </span>Singh, B.B.
(2007) `The Hyde Act 2006: India's
nuclear dilemma', Atoms for Peace: An International Journal, Vol. 1, No. 4,
pp.307±319.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">3.<span> </span>Singh, B.B.
(2008) INDO-US 123 agreement – a saga of controversies and compromises’, <i>Int.
J. Nuclear Law</i>, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.78–90.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">4.<span> </span><a href="http://www.nea.fr/html/law/nlparis_conv.html" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://www.nea.fr/html/law/nlparis_conv.html</span></a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">(downloadedon 06.01.2010)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">5.<span> </span><a href="http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1279_web.pdf" target="_blank">http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1279_web.pdf</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">6.<span> </span>Faure,
Michael G. and Borre, Tom V (2008) Compensating Nuclear damage: A Comparative
Economic Analysis of the US
and International Liability Schemes Environmental Law & Policy Review
Vol.33, pp219-286.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">7.<span> </span>(<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index</a>:
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">(downloaded on 01.01.2010).<span> </span></span></p>
<h1 style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:normal"> </span></h1>
<h1 style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:normal">8.<span> </span><a href="http://business.rediff.com/report/2009/dec/11/us-nuclear-firms-close-in-on-indian-market.htm" target="_blank">http://business.rediff.com/report/2009/dec/11/us-nuclear-firms-close-in-on-indian-market.htm</a><span> </span>(downloaded on 06.01.2010)<span> </span></span></h1>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">9.<span> </span>Nuclear
India Vol.42, 1-2, 2008
Published by Department of Atomic
Energy, India.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">10.<span> </span><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/2445203/%20indian%20-governments-" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/2445203/
</span></a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:windowtext;text-decoration:none"><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/2445203/%20indian%20-governments-" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">indian
-governments-</span></a></span></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> victory (downloaded on 02.01.2009)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">11.<span> </span></span><span lang="EN" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><a href="http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Conventions/supcomp" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Conventions/supcomp</span></a>.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"><span lang="EN" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">html (downloaded on
06.01.2010)</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">12.<span> </span><span> </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industrie" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industrie</span></a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">s_Indemnity_Act<span> </span>(downloaded on 03.01.2010)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">13.<span> </span><a href="http://www.npcil.nic.in/main/AllProjectOperationDisplay.aspx" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://www.npcil.nic.in/main/AllProjectOperationDisplay.aspx</span></a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">14.<span> </span>Greenpeace India (Personal Communication-courtesy Ms. Karuna
Raiana)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">15.<span> </span><a href="http://www.ratical.com/radiation/CNR/RIC/chp17F.html#tab17b" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://www.ratical.com/radiation/CNR/RIC/chp17F.html#tab17b</span></a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">16.<span> </span><a href="http://www.ptinews.com/news/450621_IRDA-examines-insurance-cover-for-nuclear-accidents" target="_blank">http://www.ptinews.com/news/450621_IRDA-examines-insurance-cover-for-nuclear-accidents</a>
- <span> </span>(downloaded 06.01.2010)</span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">17.<span> </span>Energy Policy Act, Public Law No.109-58, 119 Stat.594 (2005) as
quoted in <a href="http://ssm.com/abstract=1503327" target="_blank">http://ssm.com/abstract=1503327</a></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">18.<span> </span><a href="http://www.blonnet.com/2009/01/09/stories/2009010951800500.htm" target="_blank">http://www.blonnet.com/2009/01/09/stories/2009010951800500.htm</a></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">19.<span> </span><a href="http://vienna.usmission.gov/08-05-21_csc/" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://vienna.usmission.gov/08-05-21_csc/</span></a>.</span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">20.<span> </span><span>AIR1992SC248</span></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">21.<span> </span><a href="http://incometax.indlaw.com/display.aspx?791408D0-A994-4972-B1AC-852C" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://incometax.indlaw.com/display.aspx?791408D0-A994-4972-B1AC-852C</span></a>
578ADE17,</span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">22.<span> </span><a href="http://www.nuclearpowerprocon.org/pop/Price-Anderson.htm" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://www.nuclearpowerprocon.org/pop/Price-Anderson.htm</span></a></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">23.<span> </span><a href="http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/research/soar/overview.html#3" target="_blank">http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/research/soar/overview.html#3</a></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><span> </span></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">24.<span> </span>AIR 1996SC2715</span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">25.<span> </span>AIR2006SC 2039</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">26<span> </span>AIR1996SC1446</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana">27<span> </span>Soli
J. Sorabjee (2009);</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Verdana"><span> </span><a href="http://www.thehindu.com/2009/12/14/stories/2009121455150800.htm" target="_blank">http://www.thehindu.com/2009/12/14/stories/2009121455150800.htm</a>
(downloaded on 06.01.2010)</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><font class="Apple-style-span" face="Verdana" size="4"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 15px;"><br></span></font></p></div></div></div></div><br>-- <br>Peace Is Doable<br>