18 changes in nuclear liability bill

Bowing to pressure from the opposition, the government made 18 changes in the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010, while adopting most of the recommendations made by the parliamentary standing committee.However, the government has rejected the most controversial recommendation of the committee for the addition of a word “and” between clause 17 (a) and (b) of the proposed legislation, which talks about the nuclear power plant operator’s right to recourse for compensation from a supplier in the event of an accident. The recommendation for adding the word “and” had triggered vociferous objections from the BJP and Left parties which said it would dilute the operator’s right to seek compensation from the supplier.

“Section 17 largely remains the same,” said science and technology (S&T) minister Prithviraj Chavan, after the amendments were cleared by the Union cabinet on Friday. He added that the government had taken on board all the concerns and suggestions of the opposition while making the 18 amendments in the proposed bill. “Let me assure you that of the 28 countries that have similar civil nuclear liability legislation, this Indian law is the strongest,” Chavan said.

With these changes, the government seems to have pacified most of the political parties, ensuring a rather smooth passage for the bill. In fact, both the BJP and the Left took credit for the amendments, saying the government bowed under pressure to make the bill “India-centric” instead of “US-centric”. The Left further said that though their demands had been partially met, they had other concerns. The amendments will now be introduced in Parliament next week.

Soon after the amendments were cleared by the cabinet, the government went into overdrive to “explain and clarify” many of the questions over the controversial legislation and the allegation that the government had diluted the legislation to suit some persons and one country.

Chavan dismissed the idea that the bill was meant to meet the demands of a specific country - meaning the United States. He said four of the major vendors who sold nuclear reactors and parts were not American at all. Two of them were Japanese companies, and the remaining two French and British. He, however, admitted that Westinghouse, the largest of them all, was an American company owned by Japan’s Mitsubishi.

Chavan clarified that the Bill took care of only one of the three liabilities - civil liability. The other two - criminal and product liabilities - remained open, and these could be pursued in Indian courts. “This bill does not mean criminal liability is switched off. That is intact,” Chavan emphasised.

He refuted the argument that suppliers were being let off the hook, saying the aim of the bill was not punishment but prompt payment of compensation in case of a disaster. Had there been a similar legislation in place in 1984, the long and tortuous delays in paying compensation in the Union Carbide gas leak case could have been avoided. It was only in 1991 that the Public Liability Insurance Act came into existence.

Chavan also said that the operator could pursue the supplier for damages, but would not be able to use that as a reason for delaying payment of compensation to victims. On the question whether the supplier had no contractual obligations whatsoever, Chavan said that in any commercial transaction, the issue was between the operator and the supplier.

The minister clarified that private sector players would be minority partners in new nuclear power installations, which would imply that private stakeholdings could go up to 49%.

Chavan revealed that the government had created three categories of nuclear reactors. The first was the large nuclear power plant, and this one would be covered by the liability bill. The other two, research reactors and nuclear cycle facilities, would be completely under government control. In case of an accident in these two, the government would take on the full financial liability.