Civil Liability & Nuclear

Damages

Alok, Amit, Bharat, Kishore, Pankaj

PGPPM(2010-12),
IIMB, Bangalore

Sources of Data : Photo courtesy Green Peace

Standing Committee on Science & Technology Engagements 

From:- 21/07/2010 To:- 20/08/2010

(i) Secretary, Department of Atomic

Energy.Experts (ii) Dr. P.K. Iyengar (iii)
Dr. Brahma Chellaney (iv) Shri Kanwal
Sibal, Former Ambassador (v) Shri
Shams Khwaja, Advocate/ Professor of
Room No 63,First LawExperts (ii) Dr. P.K. Iyengar (iii) Dr.
21/07/2010 11:00 Floor Parliament Brahma Chellaney (iv) Shri Kanwal Sibal,
House, New Delhi Former Ambassador (v) Shri Shams
Khwaja, Advocate/ Professor of Law(ii)
Ministry of Labour & Employment (iii)
Ministry of Agriculture. (iv) Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare. (v) Ministry of
Home Affairs, (vi)

Room No 63,First
Clause by clause review of the Civil
22/07/2010 11:00 Floor Parliament Liability bill
House, New Delhi

Sources of Data : Standing Committee website . Taken at 11 am on 21-07-2010

http://164.100.47.5/webcom/MainPage.aspx
 Context - condition
 Nuclear power – Energy Security
2031 Energy need : 800 Gwe*
Nuclear power : 63 Gwe* ???
A growth from current
4GW level to 60+ GW

 Nuclear facilities in India & 100% Govt. Ownership

No Nuclear Liability Policy in our country

 International scenario & Indian membership –

Paris – Vienna- Vienna conventions
1997 supplementary compensation
India not a member

Sources of Data : Integrated Energy Policy 2006 from Planning commission, Civil Nuclear liability bill,
Energy Security …
What DAE says

Electricitysupply in near and long term

ensuring long term sustainable
development

Role of Nuclear Power as Primary Energy

Source in the years to come.

Sources of Data :Citizen Charter, Department of Atomic Energy

 World Energy Consumption 2006

Sources of Data :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_energy_consumption_by_type_2006.png

Energy Composition

Sources of Data : USEIA

Our Energy Generation

Sources of Data :CMIE data base services

 Nuclear power generation growing briskly
C
U ( Nuclear power output was affected badly during 2007-09
due to non-availability of uranium)
R
R The ban by the nuclear supply group (NSG) on India’s
E trade in nuclear fuel lifted.
N ( situation improved since March 2009)
T
India signed civil nuclear agreements with
seven countries including USA, Russia, France and UK.
S
Firm commitments for 510 tonnes of natural uranium from
C
Kazakhstan and Russia in 2010-11.
E
N This will ensure adequate availability of nuclear fuel in future
A
R Nuclear power generation capacity will rise by 1,440 mw to
I 5,780 mw in 2010-11.
O Sources of Data : CMIE Data Base
 23 power plants

Sources of Data : http://www.dae.gov.in/publ/indmap.htm

Landmark Civil Nuclear Co-operation
agreements

 Oct 10, 2008 Agreement on Cooperation with USA

 Agreement with the International Atomic Energy

Agency for the Application of Safeguards to Civilian
Nuclear Facilities” (INFCIRC/754)(“India-Specific
Safeguards Agreement”), which provides for safeguards
on reprocessing plants, May 11, 2009;

Sources of Data : Department of Atomic Energy

 Agenda setting – Policy Window*
Factors of Convergence

Problem stream*

Solution stream*

Political stream

Window missed
temporarily

Sources of Data : Kingdon analysis of Idea, Civil Nuclear liability bill

Problem Definition
Necessity to build Nuclear power infrastructure
for energy security

This requires

 Need of supply of fuel and Nuclear technologies

 Requirement of national legislation defining liability to
enable vendors and other countries to supply.
 Hypothesis
The proposed legislation on Civil Liability is

comprehensive and is in the interest of citizens

of India.

We are one of the only two countries to run a nuclear power programme without any
statute dealing with the possibility of an accident — the other is Pakistan

Sources of Data : http://indialawyers.wordpress.com/2010/06/16/turn-the-nuclear-bill-from-liability-to-asset/

Policy on Liability - why?
Impact of any Nuclear accident massive large scale disasters
due to Radio Activity.

Manufacturing and design defects in implementing the nuclear reactors.

The nuclear reactors and spent fuel pools are under great risk
plausible incident or terrorist attack which may have significant implications on
human life.

Operational lapses & Risks of fuel while handling and in transport

The AERB annual report of 2008-2009 –171 deviations in terms

of safety events.

Lessons from world disasters, Home experience in New Delhi,

Bhopal tragedy and damages of other kind.
Sources of Data : AERB report 2008-2009
Social values guiding principles for the Bill
Effectiveness,
Efficiency,
Equity
Human Dignity

 Minimum level of litigation and difficulty in redressal of

grievances of the victims.
 Meaningful level of compensation.
 Clarity on accountability.
 Structure for redressal
 Ensure speedy and adequate compensation to victims
Sources of Data : Interpretation from the Civil Liability bill and Energy Scenario
Current Liability acts
 Atomic Energy act 1964 – Only the government of India
through NPCIL can operate nuclear plants.

 ATOMIC ENERGY (ARBITRATION PROCEDURE)

RULES, 1983. Arbitrator will be appointed on need basis.
The award shall be in writing and signed by the Arbitrator and in matters
where the amount or value of the claim for compensation in dispute
exceeds Rs.25,000/, the Arbitrator shall specify the points for decision
and the decision thereon together with the grounds of the decision.

Appeal on arbitration to High court.

Sources of Data : Department of Atomic Energy, details of arbitration

Policy Environment Actors

Executive, Department of atomic energy,

• Internal
PMO, Legislature, Judiciary, Congress
Party, Opposition Parties
Outside Government : NGOs, Interest
• External
groups, ASSOCHAM, CII member
Industries L&T, GMR, Reliance etc.
• International Technology Vendors GE, Westinghouse,
Beneficiary countries USA, Germany,
France, Russia, Kazakhstan etc,
• Media International Organizations
Green Peace, National association on Anti
Nuclear Movements, Lawyers Association,
• Interest Groups ESG etc.
Economic Interest of other countries /
Companies

Country / Company NO. of Units Total cost

USA ?? ??
Areva 2-6 (each 5-7 B $ 12-35 B $
GE ?? ??
Westinghouse ?? ??

Objective of 20000 MW capacity by 2020 requires an

investment of $ 800 Billions

Sources of Data :http://www.thesouthasian.org/archives/2009/politics_of_nuclear_energy_and.html

Civil Liability & Nuclear Damages Bill 2010 –
Bill no. 19 of 2010

Framework policy aspects :

scope and means of liability
Liability of different agencies
ONE chapter

Operational policy aspects

Structures : Claims Commissioner, Claims commission,
working aspects, flow of appeals
FIVE chapters
Sources of Data : Bill in Loksabha
Frame work
Limited
Liability
by the
Operator
Liability of
Geographi
Operator
cal
Max Rs
coverage
500 Cr

AERB to > 500 Cr

declare the Govt. is
Incident liable

Limited
recourse to
Operator
on Supplier

Sources of Data : Civil Liability bill

 Sources of Data : civil liability bill
Claims Commission Claims
• Composition of Claims Commissioner
Commission • Powers & Structure of
Claims office
Operational Policy
 Policy Features & Analysis

Supplier is omitted from the accountability.

Cap on Operator compensation.
channelling liability for a nuclear accident to the operator and capping this
liability, it leads to underinvestment in safety.
Not
addressed
* Supplier / Operator should be fully exposed to
damage costs in order to provide him with the necessary
incentives for prevention”
Safety ???

As a corollary, all those who can contribute to accident

risk should be forced to internalise the costs of the
damage they might cause.

Sources of Data : *Michael Faure and Karine Fior - An economic analysis of the nuclear liability subsidy,” Pace
Environmental Law Review, 2009; University of Maastricht - Faculty of Law; Centre d'Analyse Economique
 Policy Features & Analysis
what is lacking

 Qualifications for appointing a claims commissioner or member – no technical

expert inclusion to appreciate the subject matter.
 Applicability of other laws such as National Green Tribunal Act (NGTA)
 Relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and other environmental
damage : for restitution of property and for restitution of the environment for
such areas in a comprehensive manner . This is in addition to relief under
public liability insurance act 1991.
 Relatedness and jurisdiction of other prevailing acts. A schedule I is provided
for NGTA 2010
 Expansive coverage of damages as in schedule 1 of NGTA 2010.
 NGTA not bound by the rules of evidence in the Indian evidence act 1872..
 AERB authorized to declare the incident. Possibility of ignorance.
 Section 5.1 of the bill does not cover the natural calamity, armed conflict etc.
May lead to reduced safety precautions by the operators.

Sources of Data : Civil Liability Bill

Compensation Examples a glance
Incident or damage Compensation Remarks
in Rs crores
Operator liability in India for 500 Distorts the true cost of running a reactor
Nuclear liability from economic sense.
Possible contribution from 2050 Government is accountable if the amount
CSC fund to India crosses 500 Cr as above
Kerala – damage to water 200
and soil in Plachimada by
Coca Cola
USA – WTC: secondary 3000 Criticized as VERY LOW in US Media
impact due to dust to
workers
Chernobile 3600
Tokai Mura 782
Bhopal 1500 Very low. ~ 20000 people passed away.
Over 500000 people impacted. Max Rs.
7.5 lakhs per deceased.

Sources of Data :Civil Liability & Nuclear Damages Bill – clause 6

Environmental, Social Justice and Governance Initiatives - Environment Support Group Trust
http://www.thesouthasian.org/archives/2010/concerns_with_the_civil_liabil.html
A
L Domestic Cases of Impact
L
 Rehabilitation package for displaced people for reactor locations :
eg. Tarapur
I  Fish catch in nearby villages reduced significantly in Tarapur
S  Denial report on serious leak in unit 4 of TAPS by NPCIL.
Parliamentary standing committee visited on July 6 on safety
N procedures
 In Karnataka In a nuclear accident about 45 employees of the
O Kaiga atomic power plant suffered radiation poisoning when
T radioactive heavy water from the plant contaminated the drinking
water. Kaiga is one of India's newer nuclear reactors
 places like Jadugoda, Meghalaya and the coastal villages of Orissa,
W Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Kerala have reported pollution
E issues.
L
L Sources of Data : The Hindu, news article – July 09, 2010
http://www.thesouthasian.org/archives/2009/politics_of_nuclear_energy_and.html
 PLASTIC POTS LINED up to collect
water supplied by the Perumatty panchayat
every evening, outside the Coca-Cola
factory. The high-power committee said that
the factory had rendered the water in the
wells and borewells in a radius of 2 km
harmful.

Small to
BIG

Sources of Data : Frontline, The detonation of a nuclear bomb over Nagasaki, Japan on August 9, 1945.
Lok sabha – May 7, 2010
Brief record of proceedings NO. 86

Sources of Data : Lok sabha Proceedings

Source of Data
National Green
Tribunal Bill – 63 C
of 2009, Lok sabha
 An example of amendments inclusion
in Policy Process in a similar context

Green Peace Green Peace

Tribunal bill - Tribunal bill -
2009 2010

Only Affected to No Appeal to

OLD Fixed Benches Representative Supreme court
prove
Bodies

Any person / body / Polluter pays and Appeal to

org can file for precautionary Supreme
MODIFIED circuit basis
compensation principle court

Opposition by Members across Party Lines and Left, BJP, Civil Society and NGOs

Sources of Data :Time of India May 3, 2010

 Process in Lok sabha – Bill’s status today
Gazette
publication

Bill Passed
Bill Introduced Process of legislation with
on May 7, 2010
Modifications

T. Subburami Reddy ,
Chairman
Science &
Technology Review by the
Standing Committee Legislature Incorporate
Standing
on Discussion / Modifications
committee, RS
July 22, 2010 Debate

Media
Publicity

Call for suggestions/ views/ comments of experts/ institutions/ organizations interested

Sources of Data :Lok sabha secretariat.
 Present Absolute liability regime..
Oleum Gas Leak case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein
it stated held that

“ the measure of compensation must be co-related to the

magnitude and capacity of the enterprise because such
compensation must have a deterrent effect. The larger and more
prosperous the enterprise, the greater must be the amount of
compensation payable by it for the harm caused on account of an
accident in the carrying on of the hazardous or inherently
dangerous activity by the enterprise.”

RFP by USEPA : Objective Questionable

Sources of Data :Environmental, Social Justice and Governance Initiatives - Environment Support Group Trust
Suppliers liability - why

 Argument : Nuclear industry no more an infant

industry
 Nuclear technology changing rapidly
 Complex designs , new generations of nuclear power
plants
 Secrecy of designs - The operator can not be
responsible for the risks he can not perceive.
 All major nuclear accidents in the past — Windscale,
Three Mile Island and Chernobyl — have occurred, in
part, because of design flaws
Sources of Data :
http://indialawyers.wordpress.com/2010/06/16/turn-the-nuclear-bill-from-liability-to-asset/
Operators’ recourse – world perspective
Country Operator Operators recourse
responsibility
Russia yes Can sue supplier
USA yes Can sue supplier
South Korea yes Can sue supplier
Germany yes Can sue supplier
India yes Limited recourse*

*The Indian bill mentions only about willful act or gross negligence on
part of supplier. Explicit mention of Design issues is missing

Sources of Data
Civil Liability and Nuclear damages bill : section 17:
The Russian approach to nuclear liability,” International Journal of Nuclear Law, 2006.
http://indialawyers.wordpress.com/2010/06/16/turn-the-nuclear-bill-from-liability-to-asset/
The Policy in current form is NOT
comprehensive in –

. Accountability Is the bill in 3, as big as it looks SO ?

. Compensation
. Scope
. Powers
. legal representation
Policy Alternatives
 Alternative -1: Major liability for nuclear damage shall
be of state. (Current form of the bill)

 Alternative-2: Equitable sharing of liability, in case of

nuclear damage, among various stakeholders.
Standards civil liabilities
 What is meant by strict liability?
 In case of an accident, meaningful levels of compensation should be available with a
minimal level of litigation and difficulty.
 Strict liability means that the victim is relieved from proving fault.
 Strict liability means a claimant does not need to prove how an accident occurred.

 Exclusive liability of the operator means that in the case of an accident, all
claims are to be brought against the nuclear operator. By inference suppliers or builders
of the plant are protected from public litigation in the case of an accident.
 Mandatory financial coverage: Operator must maintain insurance
cover to pay for damages.
 The minimum amount of protection: Set by national laws in the
line with international treaty obligations.
 Exclusive jurisdiction: Mean the courts of the country in which the
accident occurs has jurisdiction over damages claims.
 Standards civil liabilities
 Limitation of liability:
 Protects individual nuclear operators from legal action and thus is often
controversial.

 Limiting the amount that operators would have to pay, the risks of an accident are
effectively socialized.

 Beyond a certain level of damage, responsibility is passed from the individual

operator either on to the State or a mutual collective of nuclear operators, or
indeed both.

 These limitations recognizes the lot of social benefits of nuclear power so govt
should bear the liability by permitting power plant construction and operation

 Liability of the operator is absolute, except for "acts of armed conflict, hostilities,
civil war or insurrection";
Standards civil liabilities
International conventions governing liability for nuclear damage

Trans-boundary damage has led to the development of international

frameworks

 Paris convention
◦ Operator
◦ State
◦ Member state
 IAEA guidelines
◦ Operator
◦ State
◦ Member state
 Various conventions
Financial liability
Operator Collective fund Installation state Total
US$ million (Member state) US$ million US$ million
(Rs. Crores) US$ million
(Rs. Crores)

Paris convention 300 (1500) 125 (625) 175 (875) 600 (3000)
(1963)
Paris convention 903 (4515) 387 (1935) 645 (3225) 1936 (9680)
(modified 2004)
IAEA ‘I’ 450 (2250) ‘(450-I)’ 900 (4500)
(Vienna
Convention)
(1997)

Sources of Data : IAEA sources

Financial liabilities various nations
Country Operator Installation state Collective Convention(US$
operators million)
(US$ million)
(US$ million) (US$ million) (Rs.
(Rs. Crores) Crores)

US 300 (1500) Unlimited 9700 (48500)

UK 214 (1070) 450 Paris convention

Germany 3200 (16000) As per convention Paris convention

France 117 (585) As per convention Paris convention

Switzerland 777 (3885) As per convention Paris convention

Finland 907 (4535) As per convention Paris convention

(modified 2004)
Sweden 907 (4535) As per convention Paris convention
(modified 2004)
Canada 650 (3250) As per convention Paris convention

Japan 1200 (6000) As per convention Paris convention

Russia 350 (1750) As per convention Paris convention

India 110 (500) As per convention Paris convention

Sources of Data : IAEA sources

Standards civil liabilities
US Framework: The USA takes a somewhat different approach

 The Price Anderson Act - the world's first comprehensive nuclear liability law

 It now provides $10 billion in cover without cost to the public or government

 Individual operators are required to have two layers of insurance cover.

 The first layer is where each nuclear site is required to purchase US$ 300 million
liability cover which is provided by two private insurance pools. 

 The second layer is jointly provided by all US reactor operators. Combined, the total
provision comes to over $10 billion paid for by the utilities.

 Beyond this cover and irrespective of fault, Congress, as insurer of last resort,
Criteria for evaluation of Alternative

Accident risk of Operator

Sharing the Risk Cost
Maximization of Risk Compensation
 Evaluation of policy alternatives
Alternative 1 Operator Government Remarks
Accident risk Max 500 Cr Supplier not responsible .
per Incident Chances for low safety
(Min. 100 Cr) precautions
Sharing of risk Limited Major and beyond High tax burden on
operator Rs 500 Cr public and less burden on
liability Operator
Will not get insurance
coverage for Govt part.
So, High one time cost
burden.

Alternative 1 is current proposed policy

Sources of Data : Civil Liability tabled in Parliament
 Evaluation of policy alternatives
Alternative 2 Operator Operators Government Remarks
group
Accident risk As per $ 5000 Mn till Beyond the Public liability is
Internationa # of operators – operators less.
l Practices 2 group
$ 300 M $ 8000 Mn > 2 coverage
(Rs. 1500 operators
Cr) (25000 cr to
40000 cr)
Insurance Min 2 Insurance
coverage for companies should
operators cover the
financial liability.
suppliers, Financially Liable
Manufactures
Selection of the Alternative

In Second Alternative we have :

 Accident risk of Operator : Rs 1500 Cr

 Sharing the Risk Cost : 25000 to 40000 Cr
 Maximization of Risk Compensation

In view of above factors of Alternative 2, this alternative is

recommended.

There may be resistance from suppliers. But considering the

quantum of Business of $ 800 billion market (Rs. 40 lakh Cr)
there is lot of competition among suppliers to reach India first.
Confronting trade offs
Op Shakti: Buddha Smiled again
11-13 May 1998 at Pokhran
US Sanctions?
Fact of India-
◦ Relative large of economy
◦ Relatively large domestic sector
Result-
7
6
5
4
3
2 GDP
1
0
9 8 9 9
9 7- 9 8-
1 9 1 9
Strategic design of US
Increased strategic ties with India
◦ Post world war
◦ De-hyphenisation of Pakistan with India
◦ Viable counter weight to China’s influence
◦ Potential client to compete with Russia

India
◦ Self sufficient in thorium (25% world reserve);
◦ but only 1% world reserve of uranium
◦ India’s stake with US increases, if uranium supply
increases
On March 2, 2006 in New Delhi, George W. Bush and Manmohan Singh
Highlights of nuclear deal
 No hindrance with India's military nuclear programme

 US help India
◦ Negotiate with IAEA for India-specific fuel supply agreement.
◦ Develop strategic reserves of nuclear fuel to guard against future
disruption of supply.
◦ To jointly convene NSG meetings to restore fuel supply.
◦ To facilitate nuclear trade between themselves
◦ To transfer nuclear material, non-nuclear material, equipment
and components.
Highlights of nuclear deal
 Low enriched uranium
◦ For use as fuel in reactors
 Deal include
◦ Research, development, design, construction, operation,
maintenance and use of nuclear reactors, reactor experiments and
decommissioning.
 US have
◦ Right to seek return of nuclear fuel & technology
◦ But will compensate for costs incurred as a consequence of such
removal
 Indiacan develop strategic reserve of nuclear fuel
 Consultations on circumstances
◦ Including changed security environment
Highlights of nuclear deal
Following can also be transferred-
◦ Sensitive nuclear technology,
◦ Nuclear facilities and
◦ Major critical components
India to establish a new national facility
◦ Dedicated to reprocessing safeguarded nuclear
material under IAEA safeguards.
Nuclear material and equipment transferred to
India by US subject to safeguards
 Political opposition!
 BJP
◦ Assurance of uninterrupted supply of fissile material uranium?
◦ What if India conducts Nuclear Test?

 Left Front
◦ Deal would undermine the sovereignty of India's foreign policy
◦  Harm India's indigenous nuclear program
◦ Withdrew support to the government

 United Nationalist Progressive Alliance: Divided over nuclear deal

◦ Samajwadi Party’s support
◦ Telugu Desham Party’s opposition

 BSP
◦ Deal was anti – muslim

 Other
◦ Some Indian ex-nuclear scientists to Indian MPs to ensure that
◦ "decisions taken today do not inhibit India's future ability to develop &
◦ pursue nuclear technologies for the benefit of the nation“
◦ US may use the deal as diplomatic weapon Indian not conforming with
◦ geopolitical interests of US
Testing?
Have we surrendered our decision?
◦ Not legally
◦ But for all practical purposes.
Talk of multi-layered consultations and
actions
◦ Public relations exercise
Fallback safeguarded safeguards?
 IAEA to apply safeguards in member states in a cost
effective manner

 A large inflow of extra-budgetary grants for this activity.

 Huge spurt in safeguards load from India

 Cost substantially has to be met by additional extra budgetary

grants

 In future, IAEA puts its hands up for US to step in?

 Then US inspectors roam around in our Nuclear Plants

Irrespective of what our prime minister has assured
123 Agreement: expectations?
Enrichment technology
Reprocessing &
Heavy water technology
Full civil nuclear cooperation?
 Issueof full civil cooperation not resolved in our favour.
 Embargoes will continue

◦ On enrichment, reprocessing & heavy water.

 Not get rid of sanctions

◦ Despite India taking on a whole lot of burdens on
safeguards and other aspects
Recommendations to the Bill
 Issues of the policy in current form

 Current lack of accountability in terms of bearing the

liability. Sharing of liability under the bill is not equitable.

 The policy is not Legally and financially binding the supplier /

Implementation agency.

 Amount of financial assistance and legal relief is inadequate

 Only AERB is authorized to declare the incident

 Accountability on operations side ; the policy deals more with

appointing of claims commissioner, commission etc.
Organization set up is more described than issues.

Sources of Data : 'Nuclear Power in India', World Nuclear News, February 15, 2010.
 Recommendations to the Current Bill
Conditions of compensation and
accountability as per alternative 2
To be comprehensive to cover other
LAWS such as NGTA 2010
Technical expertise in Claims
Commission
Claims can not be made by
representative bodies
Scope to include Natural Calamities
and armed conflict, Terrorism etc.
 Bill to be modified keeping Alternative 2 into
consideration in terms of compensation and
accountability.
 Technical expertise to be incorporated in defining the
criteria for the compensation commission.
 The bill should provide the comprehensive scope as
defined in other laws and applicability of other laws
such as NGTA 2010
 Include in Section 5.1 the scope for natural calamity,
armed conflict etc.
.. bigger picture than this bill
Bigger Picture

 Subject the Nuclear Bill to widespread, deep and deliberate

nation-wide public consultations and with expert groups

 Analyse the Economic and Climatic viability of Nuclear

projects vs. RES options with world wide experience. Logic of
Nuclear option as the primary source of energy ???
“If climate change is the problem, nuclear power isn’t the solution. It’s an expensive, one-
size-fits-all technology that diverts money and time from cheaper, safer, more resilient
alternatives.

Myth of Nuclear power primary role in future to be analyzed from

feasibility. Current reactors understood to be generating with LOW efficiencies.
5,531 MW grid interactive power generation from various renewable energy sources has
been installed up to January 31st 2010 against a target of 12,300 MW for 11th Five Year Plan
Sources of Data : RES MInistry
Thanks
 Statesman’s Dilemma
 Dr. Manmohan Singh, the Indian Prime Minister who single-mindedly
spearheaded the India-US nuclear deal, had put it succinctly in his convocation
address in the Indian School of Mine.

“Nuclear power programme which was initiated in the country more than 40 years
back has not progressed as envisaged…the target of 20,000 MW fixed in 1970 has
badly slipped… In many countries nuclear power has been down graded due to
safety hazards…There is an urgent need to re-evaluate the role of nuclear
power taking into account both relative costs as well as safety hazards.  It goes
without saying that we need strong and autonomous regulatory authorities to check
the safety measures in all our atomic power plants.  The atomic safety regulatory
authority needs to be strengthened and made fully autonomous.”

Ironically, this is the position we take now as Dr. Singh himself is trying hard to
sell the money-guzzling, waste-producing, disease-causing and weapons-
proliferating nuclear power to the Indian public

Sources of Data : convocation address in the Indian School of Mines on June 12, 2000 (published in University
News 38 (24), p.11):
USEPA ‘s RFP with vested interests
Request for Proposal issued by United States Environment Protection
Agency wherein any international non-profit organisation can bid for
a grant amounting to US $ 500,000/- to implement the following goal:

“The first activity that the selected recipient should undertake is the
organization of a workshop with a cross-section of Indian
stakeholders and experts to facilitate a dialogue concerning the
establishment of environmental civil judicial authority in India. This
dialogue should be preceded by an analysis, to be developed by EPA,
of India’s current and relevant statutory provisions, with a discussion
of their interpretations and application in civil cases, as well as
specific recommended changes to the Indian Constitution or
environmental statues/regulations that are necessary to establish civil
judicial authorities.” (emphasis ours).

Sources of Data : USEPA

Sources of Data :http://www.igcar.ernet.in/nuclear/reacto1.jpg