tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13437119.post926741478314298472..comments2024-03-01T13:51:47.721+05:30Comments on Reality, one bite at a time: Nuclear liability law has sting in tail for the U.S. tooSiddharth Varadarajanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07721228307097170092noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13437119.post-49040216943706303752010-09-26T00:29:11.113+05:302010-09-26T00:29:11.113+05:30we will be spending about $150 billion on old reac...we will be spending about $150 billion on old reactors which eventually is going to provide energy only...such a long term investment...what about spending that kind of money on other alternative energy sources....we talk about it....write about it...but no one seems to know what to do about it... or how to stop govt. from placing these potential nuclear bombs in highly populated india.. we can't handle frequently occurring terrorists attacks... what all can be done with these bombs is something no one seems to be concerned about...why? what can we do?rahul dahiyanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13437119.post-32789794543570711392010-03-16T00:43:46.398+05:302010-03-16T00:43:46.398+05:30Question: For Art.XIII.6 of CSC to apply, judgment...Question: For Art.XIII.6 of CSC to apply, judgment has to be recognized under Art.XIII.5 which has an exception for judgments 'contrary to the public policy of the contracting party' (5(c)). Since supplier liability is barred in the US, will this provision really prove as useful as you suggest?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13437119.post-67247319742673828982010-03-11T16:44:56.720+05:302010-03-11T16:44:56.720+05:30It is our duty to force the government back from s...It is our duty to force the government back from such imperialist policies, though whatever we do, they might come up with such anti-people legislations. Our federal government has long become a puppet of US and the western hemisphere.Rajeeve Chelanathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03546010817433761511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13437119.post-59639846344207188082010-03-10T21:07:02.141+05:302010-03-10T21:07:02.141+05:30The Indo-US 123 (released in the US on Aug 3, 2007...The Indo-US 123 (released in the US on Aug 3, 2007) says:<br /> <br />quote (emphasis, mine)<br /><br />The Parties shall cooperate in the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. Each Party shall implement this Agreement in accordance with <b>its</b> respective applicable <i>treaties</i>, <b>national laws</b>, regulations, and license requirements concerning the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. <br /><br />unquote<br /><br />Does the model law contained in the IAEA's Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC) have the status of a <i>treaty</i> between the US and IAEA? (I do not know).<br /><br />Not withstanding what Indian laws may say, when it is crunch time, for sure, US will cite its national laws and get out of any commitment to pin down any of its entities from having to pay any compensation to the Indian claimants. <br /><br />In this respect I tend to agree with hari batti (commentator before me); nothing is likely come out of the US. <br /><br />From the article titled <a href="http://www.opendemocracy.net/openindia/v-n-haridas-and-yash-thomas-mannully/beware-bhopal-legal-framework-needed-for-indias-use-o" rel="nofollow">"Beware Bhopal! Legal framework needed for India's use of nuclear energy"</a>, I understand that Justice Keenan (of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York) dismissed Indian claims on Union Carbide reasoning that such a dismissal would best serve US public interest factors. A similar situation would arise in the future too, for Indian nuclear liability claims, probably citing this judgement as a precedent.<br /><br />Hence the "sting in tail" may be only for the consumption of the Indian public.<br /><br />In short, day by day, this "deal" business is turning out to be a bottomless pit of quick sand.Mayurdas Bholanathnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13437119.post-18975415027488990552010-03-10T03:39:12.649+05:302010-03-10T03:39:12.649+05:30Mr Brown's statement on the legal issues is in...Mr Brown's statement on the legal issues is interesting coz according to Price Anderson Act for US nuclear liability (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf67.html), the industry provides $10 billion in cover without the fault being proven.<br />I wonder what the Indian law says about "proving" the blame of accident which also raises the question of legal costs. I suppose that in totality the Indian rules are much softer than the American ones, and hence all the criticism ? Reading the US rules in the above link, I wonder which insurance industry (American or Indian) is going to pay for the liabilities (human, legal and capital) incurred by the private industry in India ? As an aside, doesn't Japan's Toshiba have majority stake in Westinghouse leaving GE as the sole US supplier ? And hypothetically if the foreign nuclear technology and parts are not supplied by a single<br />big MNC but spread out over many small business then what happens to these liability and insurance rules ? Or is that "one" foreign company will be responsible/supplier for an entire nuclear power plant ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13437119.post-32607723926110897232010-03-09T19:19:30.856+05:302010-03-09T19:19:30.856+05:30This is well written and raises important issues. ...This is well written and raises important issues. Having said that, I think the "sting" that this bill potentially has for US companies is really not much more than a bee sting; certainly not anything truly dangerous to their bottom line! As you point out, the cap on liability is almost laughable for private companies. And the standard for getting anything at all from US companies seems very high.<br /><br />This bill amounts to a huge subsidy toward the nuclear industry. By protecting them from risk, we support risky behavior! <br /><br />The overall cap, though bigger than the pitiful 500 crore for the private operator, is unlikely to cover anything but a fraction of damages. So it won't be the Indian taxpayer, but the victims themselves--and our environment--who will pay for most of what a big accident would cost--interest free, for thousands of years! This is a truly stupid bill and it should be stopped.hari battihttp://www.greenlightdhaba.orgnoreply@blogger.com