nuclear-news

“If media reports on this issue are correct, and the Government has agreed to form an insurance pool backed by public sector Indian companies to indemnify American suppliers, then this would violate both the letter and the spirit of the 2010 (nuclear liability) law,” party’s national secretary D Raja said.

In a letter to the Prime Minister, he said US suppliers “should obtain insurance from international insurance companies at commercial rates. Why are they unable to do so? Is this because they are unable to persuade their own companies that their reactors are as safe as they claim?”

“Why should the Indian people have to provide insurance to American companies through an Indian public sector company,” he asked.

Expressing concern over reports that Modi government has agreed to US demands that its companies be protected from liability for accidents caused by design defects in reactors they supply, Raja said the intent of the Indian law was “clearly to place some liability on the supplier. This was meant to ensure that multinational suppliers would pay adequate attention to safety standards.”

Observing that design defects have contributed to nuclear accidents including those at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, he said US firm GE had “designed the Mark 1 reactors that were involved in the Fukushima accident.”

“Why is the Indian agreement rushing into a deal to purchase a reactor that is running into difficulties elsewhere,” Raja asked.”Your negotiations with President Obama have been opaque, and very few details are publicly available. … I hope that you will take urgent steps to address and answer them publicly,” he said. “Japanese (Fukushima) victims have been unable to hold (US firm) GE to account because of the Japanese liability law which indemnifies the supplier. It was to prevent such an eventuality that Clause 17(b) of the Indian law allows the operator a right of recourse against the supplier,” the CPI leader said.

It was only after the Bhopal gas disaster experience, the Supreme Court had formulated the ‘absolute liability’ principle under which all parties involved in running a hazardous enterprise would be liable for damage caused to the public, he said.

“I understand that there are only two reactor designs on offer by US companies – the AP1000 designed by Westinghouse and the ESBWR designed by GE.”

“Neither of these reactors is in commercial operation anywhere in the world. In fact, the ESBWR is so new that even its design was certified only recently by the US Nuclear Regulatory Council,” Raja said.

Observing that India would therefore be one of the first countries to have the ESBWR, he asked the Prime Minister: “Have you obtained any guarantees from President Obama, that the cost of such delays will be borne by GE and not the Indian Government?”

Raja also expressed concern over the cost of electricity from the proposed American reactors and said the two AP1000 units being constructed in Vogtle (US) were initially projected to cost USD seven billion each.

“If one uses the same cost per unit of installed capacity for the ESBWR, then this would suggest that it may cost as much as USD 10 billion,” he said, adding this would translate into a cost of electricity that exceeds Rs 15 per unit, “much higher than the tariff from competing sources.”

Subir Roy: Why persist with nuclear power? Business Standard  Subir Roy  January 27, 2015 

Only very broad features have been outlined and, hopefully, when the details become known the Indian government will not be found to have given away where it matters. If a negative picture does eventually emerge from the details, then the question will be — what for? ………

The overall reality regarding nuclear accidents is that they can cause huge damage and if power plant suppliers (American) and operators (Indian) are to be liable for claims for damages by third parties who have been harmed, these could drive both bankrupt. The size of such claims has prompted many governments, including the United States, to share the risk and the fund promised by India moves in that direction. The issue is if the Rs 1,500 crore of public money (to be put up by the nationalised insurance companies and the Indian government) to create an insurance cover for claims is not enough, then will there be a recourse to the plant suppliers? If there isn’t, and a disaster takes place, then India and its people will be left holding the baby. That will be a repeat of Bhopal — and the Indian law is the result of the memory of the great injustice done to its victims.

The key issue is if damages caused by nuclear accidents can be so huge, why go for nuclear power? It begins with the idea of a macho India that has the bomb and the persistence with nuclear power feeds into it.

Investment costs for nuclear power, at Rs 6-8 crore a megawatt, are about the same as for thermal power. The cost of grid-connected solar power is rapidly approaching that of thermal power. All sensible nations should work towards a combination of wind, solar and gas-based power (these plants are least polluting and can be quickly started and shut down to meet gaps). The good news is that the United States has also promised to help create a huge solar power capacity whose technology is maturing rapidly.

As for possessing a bomb, it does not enhance security. Pakistan followed quickly in India’s footsteps with its own nuclear tests in 1998 so that India’s superiority in conventional defence capability was replaced with parity in nuclear capability. http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/subir-roy-why-persist-with-nuclear-power-115012701341_1.html