Advertise

Monday, August 30, 2010

Letter to NHRC on hazard from radioactive radiations, wastes

0 comments

New Delhi, Aug 25 : An environment rights group has written to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) regarding environmental hazards from radioactive radiation and wastes.

In a letter to Commission chairperson K G Balakrishnan, Toxics Watch Alliance Convener and Founder Gopal Krishna has said the grave problem of diseases caused to present and future generations through radiation exposure needed to be addressed.
The situation affects environment and human health and violates Article 21 of the Constitution, Directive Principles and human rights.

Mr Krishna alleged that the government did not consult Ministries/departments concerned on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010, passed by the Lok Sabha today, that prompts payment of damages to victims of nuclear tragedy.

He added that the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests in its 25-page report on the Bill, which was tabled in Parliament on August 18, was of the opinion that the government must seek the opinion of Ministries which are related to various provision of the legislation.

He demanded that the Commission take cognisance of the submissions of the departments concerned and direct the authorities to internalise their suggestions in the text of the Bill to protect human rights and safeguard inter-generational equity.

Mr Krishna urged the Commission to inquire into the problem of radioactive radiation and issue necessary directions/ recommendation for its prevention and appropriate remedial steps to the Centre, state governments and union territories.

He alleged that drafters of the Nuclear Liability Bill have ignored recommendations of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) on radiation protection.

''India has ratified Radiation Protection Convention, 1960 of the International Labour Organisation but its provisions have not been complied with. It is yet to ratify ILO's Occupational Cancer Convention, 1974 which is concerning Prevention and Control of Occupational Hazards caused by Carcinogenic Substances,'' he claimed.

He also urged the Commission to initiate appropriate proceedings and issue directions to all the Secretaries concerned of the Centre and relevant states/UTs with regard to the following: How would they respond in the event of a nuclear disaster? Do they know as to how many industries/factories exist in the states/UTs where radioactive material is used?
--UNI
http://www.newkerala.com/news2/fullnews-28273.html
Read more...
Sunday, August 29, 2010

Nuclear Liability Bill as Passed by Lok Sabha

1 comments
THE CIVIL LIABILITY FOR NUCLEAR DAMAGE BILL, 2010
—————
ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES
—————
CHAPTER I
PRELIMINARY
CLAUSES
1. Short title, extent, application and commencement.
2. Definitions.
CHAPTER II
LIABILITY FOR NUCLEAR DAMAGE
3. Atomic Energy Regulatory Board to notify nuclear incident.
4. Liability of operator.
5. Operator not liable in certain circumstances.
6. Limits of liability.
7. Liability of Central Government.
8. Operator to maintain insurance or financial securities.
CHAPTER III
CLAIMS COMMISSIONER
9. Compensation for nuclear damage and its adjudication.
10. Qualifications for appointment as Claims Commissioner.
11. Salary, allowances and other terms and conditions of service of Claims
Commissioner.
12. Adjudication procedure and powers of Claims Commissioner.
CHAPTER IV
CLAIMS AND AWARDS
13. Inviting application for claims by Claims Commissioner.
14. Persons entitled to make application for nuclear damage.
15. Procedure for making application before Claims Commissioner.
16. Award by Claims Commissioner.
17. Operator's right of recourse.
18. Extinction of right to claim.
CHAPTER V
NUCLEAR DAMAGE CLAIMS COMMISSION
19. Establishment of Nuclear Damage Claims Commission.
20. Composition of Commission.
21. Term of office.
22. Salary, allowances and other terms and conditions of service of Chairperson and
Members.
23. Filling up of vacancies.
24. Resignation and removal.
25. Chairperson or Member deemed to retire from service.
26. Suspension of pension.
27. Prohibition of acting as arbitrator.
28. Prohibition of practice.
AS PASSED BY LOK SABHA
ON 25TH AUGUST, 2010
Bill No. 19-C of 2010
29. Powers of Chairperson.
30. Officers and other employees of Commission.
31. Application for compensation before Commission.
32. Adjudication procedure and powers of Commission.
33. Transfer of pending cases to Commission.
34. Proceedings before Claims Commissioner or Commission to be judicial proceedings.
35. Exclusion of jurisdiction of civil courts.
36. Enforcement of awards.
37. Annual report.
38. Dissolution of Commission in certain circumstances.
CHAPTER VI
OFFENCES AND PENALTIES
39. Offences and penalties.
40. Offences by companies.
41. Offences by Government Departments.
42. Cognizance of offences.
CHAPTER VII
MISCELLANEOUS
43. Power to give directions.
44. Power to call for information.
45. Exemption from application of this Act.
46. Act to be in addition to any other law.
47. Protection of action taken in good faith.
48. Power to make rules.
49. Power to remove difficulties.
(ii)
CLAUSES
THE CIVIL LIABILITY FOR NUCLEAR DAMAGE BILL, 2010
A
BILL
to provide for civil liability for nuclear damage, and prompt compensation to the victims of
a nuclear incident through a nofault libaility regime channeling liability to the
operator, appointment of Claims Commissioner, establishment of Nuclear Damage
Claims Commission and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
BE it enacted by Parliament in the Sixty-first Year of the Republic of India as follows:—
CHAPTER I
PRELIMINARY
1. (1) This Act may be called the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010.
(2) It extends to the whole of India.
(3) It also applies to nuclear damage suffered—
(a) in or over the maritime areas beyond the territorial waters of India;
Short title,
extent,
application
and
commencement.
Bill No. 19-C of 2010
AS PASSED BY LOK SABHA
ON 25TH AUGUST, 2010
5
2
(b) in or over the exclusive economic zone of India as referred to in section 7 of
the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Maritime
Zones Act, 1976;
(c) on board or by a ship registered in India under section 22 of the Merchant
Shipping Act, 1958 or under any other law for the time being in force;
(d) on board or by an aircraft registered in India under clause (d) of sub-section (2)
of section 5 of the Aircraft Act, 1934 or under any other law for the time being in force;
(e) on or by an artificial island, installation or structure under the jurisdiction of India.
(3A) It applies only to the nuclear installation owned or controlled by the Central
Government either by itself or through any authority or corporation established by it or a
Government company.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, "Government company" shall
have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (bb) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the
Atomic Energy Act, 1962.
(4) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification,
appoint; and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of this Act, and any
reference in any such provision to the commencement of this Act shall be construed as a
reference to the coming into force of that provision.
2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
(a) "Chairperson" means the Chairperson of the Commission appointed under
sub-section (1) of section 20;
(b) "Claims Commissioner" means the Claims Commissioner appointed under
sub-section (2) of section 9;
(c) "Commission" means the Nuclear Damage Claims Commission established
under section 19;
(ca) "environment" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (a) of
section 2 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986;
(d) "Member" means a Member of the Commission appointed under subsection
(1) of section 20;
(e) "notification" means a notification published in the Official Gazette and the
term "notify" shall be construed accordingly;
(f) "nuclear damage'' means—
(i) loss of life or personal injury (including immediate and long term health
impact) to a person; or
(ii) loss of, or damage to, property,
caused by or arising out of a nuclear incident, and includes each of the following to the
extent notified by the Central Government;
(iii) any economic loss, arising from the loss or damage referred to in
sub-clause (i) or (ii) and not included in the claims made under those
sub-clauses, if incurred by a person entitled to claim such loss or damage;
(iv) costs of measures of reinstatement of impaired environment caused
by a nuclear incident, unless such impairment is insignificant, if such measures
are actually taken or to be taken and not included in the claims made under
sub-clause (ii);
(v) loss of income derived from an economic interest in any use or
enjoyment of the environment, incurred as a result of a significant impairment of
that environment caused by a nuclear incident, and not included in the claims
under sub-clause (ii);
(vi) the costs of preventive measures, and further loss or damage caused
by such measures;
80 of 1976.
44 of 1958.
22 of 1934.
Definitions.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
33 of 1962.
29 of 1986.
3
(vii) any other economic loss, other than the one caused by impairment of the
environment referred to in sub-clauses (iv) and (v), in so far as it is permitted by the
general law on civil liability in force in India and not claimed under any such law,
in the case of sub-clauses (i) to (v) and (vii) above, to the extent the loss or damage
arises out of, or results from, ionizing radiation emitted by any source of radiation
inside a nuclear installation, or emitted from nuclear fuel or radioactive products or
waste in, or of, nuclear material coming from, originating in, or sent to, a nuclear
installation, whether so arising from the radioactive properties of such matter, or
from a combination of radioactive properties with toxic, explosive or other hazardous
properties of such matter;
(g) “nuclear fuel” means any material which is capable of producing energy
by a self-sustaining chain process of nuclear fission;
(h) “nuclear incident” means any occurrence or series of occurrences having
the same origin which causes nuclear damage or, but only with respect to preventive
measures, creates a grave and imminent threat of causing such damage;
(i) “nuclear installation” means—
(A) any nuclear reactor other than one with which a means of transport
is equipped for use as a source of power, whether for propulsion thereof or for
any other purpose;
(B) any facility using nuclear fuel for the production of nuclear material,
or any facility for the processing of nuclear material, including re-processing
of irradiated nuclear fuel; and
(C) any facility where nuclear material is stored (other than storage
incidental to the carriage of such material).
Explanation.— For the purpose of this clause, several nuclear installations
of one operator which are located at the same site shall be considered as a single
nuclear installation;
(j) “nuclear material” means and includes—
(i) nuclear fuel (other than natural uranium or depleted uranium) capable
of producing energy by a self-sustaining chain process of nuclear fission
outside a nuclear reactor, either by itself or in combination with some other
material; and
(ii) radioactive products or waste;
(k) “nuclear reactor” means any structure containing nuclear fuel in such an
arrangement that a self-sustaining chain process of nuclear fission can occur therein
without an additional source of neutrons;
(l) “operator”, in relation to a nuclear installation, means the Central Government
or any authority or corporation established by it or a Government company who has
been granted a licence pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 for the operation of
that installation;
(m) “prescribed” means prescribed by rules made under this Act;
(n) “preventive measures” means any reasonable measures taken by a person
after a nuclear incident has occurred to prevent or minimise damage referred to in
sub-clauses (i) to (v) and (vii) of clause (f), subject to the approval of the Central
Government;
(o) “radioactive products or waste” means any radioactive material produced
in, or any material made radioactive by exposure to, the radiation incidental to the
production or utilisation of nuclear fuel, but does not include radioisotopes which
have reached the final stage of fabrication so as to be usable for any scientific,
medical, agricultural, commercial or industrial purpose;
5
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
33 of 1962.
4
(p) “Special Drawing Rights” means Special Drawing Rights as determined by
the International Monetary Fund.
CHAPTER II
LIABILITY FOR NUCLEAR DAMAGE
3. (1) The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board constituted under the Atomic Energy
Act, 1962 shall, within a period of fifteen days from the date of occurrence of a nuclear
incident, notify such nuclear incident:
Provided that where the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board is satisfied that the gravity
of threat and risk involved in a nuclear incident is insignificant, it shall not be required to
notify such nuclear incident.
(2) The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board shall, immediately after the notification
under sub-section (1) is issued, cause wide publicity to be given to the occurrence of such
nuclear incident, in such manner as it may deem fit.
4. (1) The operator of the nuclear installation shall be liable for nuclear damage caused
by a nuclear incident —
(a) in that nuclear installation; or
(b) involving nuclear material coming from, or originating in, that nuclear
installation and occurring before —
(i) the liability for nuclear incident involving such nuclear material has
been assumed, pursuant to a written agreement, by another operator; or
(ii) another operator has taken charge of such nuclear material; or
(iii) the person duly authorised to operate a nuclear reactor has taken
charge of the nuclear material intended to be used in that reactor with which
means of transport is equipped for use as a source of power, whether for
propulsion thereof or for any other purpose; or
(iv) such nuclear material has been unloaded from the means of transport
by which it was sent to a person within the territory of a foreign State; or
(c) involving nuclear material sent to that nuclear installation and occurring
after—
(i) the liability for nuclear incident involving such nuclear material has
been transferred to that operator, pursuant to a written agreement, by the operator
of another nuclear installation; or
(ii) that operator has taken charge of such nuclear material; or
(iii) that operator has taken charge of such nuclear material from a person
operating a nuclear reactor with which a means of transport is equipped for use
as a source of power, whether for propulsion thereof or for any other purpose; or
(iv) such nuclear material has been loaded, with the written consent of
that operator, on the means of transport by which it is to be carried from the
territory of a foreign State.
(2) Where more than one operator is liable for nuclear damage, the liability of the
operators so involved shall, in so far as the damage attributable to each operator is not
separable, be joint and several:
Provided that the total liability of such operators shall not exceed the extent of liability
specified under sub-section (2) of section 6.
33 of 1962.
Atomic Energy
Regulatory
Board to notify
nuclear
incident.
Liability of
operator.
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
5
5
(3) Where several nuclear installations of one and the same operator are involved in a
nuclear incident, such operator shall, in respect of each such nuclear installation, be liable to
the extent of liability specified under sub-section (2) of section 6.
(4) The liability of the operator of the nuclear installation shall be strict and shall be
based on the principle of no-fault liability.
Explanation.— For the purposes of this section,—
(a) where nuclear damage is caused by a nuclear incident occurring in a nuclear
installation on account of temporary storage of material-in-transit in such installation,
the person responsible for transit of such material shall be deemed to be the operator;
(b) where a nuclear damage is caused as a result of nuclear incident during the
transportation of nuclear material, the consignor shall be deemed to be the operator;
(c) where any written agreement has been entered into between the consignor
and the consignee or, as the case may be, the consignor and the carrier of nuclear
material, the person liable for any nuclear damage under such agreement shall be
deemed to be the operator;
(d) where both nuclear damage and damage other than nuclear damage have
been caused by a nuclear incident or, jointly by a nuclear incident and one or more
other occurrences, such other damage shall, to the extent it is not separable from the
nuclear damage, be deemed to be a nuclear damage caused by such nuclear incident.
5. (1) An operator shall not be liable for any nuclear damage where such damage is
caused by a nuclear incident directly due to—
(i) a grave natural disaster of an exceptional character; or
(ii) an act of armed conflict, hostility, civil war, insurrection or terrorism.
(2) An operator shall not be liable for any nuclear damage caused to—
(i) the nuclear installation itself and any other nuclear installation including a nuclear
installation under construction, on the site where such installation is located; and
(ii) to any property on the same site which is used or to be used in connection
with any such installation; or
(iii) to the means of transport upon which the nuclear material involved was
carried at the time of nuclear incident:
Provided that any compensation liable to be paid by an operator for a nuclear
damage shall not have the effect of reducing the amount of his liability in respect of
any other claim for damage under any other law for the time being in force.
(3) Where any nuclear damage is suffered by a person on account of his own negligence
or from his own acts of commission or omission, the operator shall not be liable to such
person.
6. (1) The maximum amount of liability in respect of each nuclear incident shall be the
rupee equivalent of three hundred million Special Drawing Rights or such higher amount as
the Central Government may specify by notification:
Provided that the Central Government may take additional measures, where necessary,
if the compansation to be awarded under this Act exceeds the amount specified under this
sub-section.
(2) The liability of an operator for each nuclear incident shall be—
(a) in respect of nuclear reactors having thermal power equal to or above ten
MW, rupees one thousand five hundred crores;
(b) in respect of spent fuel reprocessing plants, rupees three hundred crores;
(c) in respect of the research reactors having thermal power below ten MW, fuel
cycle facilities other than spent fuel reprocessing plants and transportation of nuclear
materials rupees one hundred crores:
Provided that the Central Government may, review the amount of operator's liability
from time to time and specify, by notification, a higther amount under this sub-section:
Provided further that the amount of liability shall not include any interest or cost of
proceedings.
Operator not
liable in
certain
circumstances.
Limits of
liability.
6
7. (1) The Central Government shall be liable for nuclear damage in respect of a
nuclear incident, —
(a) where the liability exceeds the amount of liability of an operator specified
under sub-section (2) of section 6, to the extent such liability exceeds such liability of
the operator;
(b) occurring in a nuclear installation owned by it; and
(c) occurring on account of causes specified in clauses (i) and (ii) of subsection
(1) of section 5:
Provided that the Central Government may, by notification, assume full liability for a
nuclear installation not operated by it if it is of the opinion that it is necessary in public
interest.
(2) For the purpose of meeting part of its liability under clause (a) or clause (c) of subsection
(1), the Central Government may establish a fund to be called the Nuclear Liability
Fund by charging such amount of levy from the operators, in such manner, as may be
prescribed.
8. (1) The operator shall, before he begins operation of his nuclear installation, take
out insurance policy or such other financial security or combination of both, covering his
liability under sub-section (2) of section 6, in such manner as may be prescribed.
(2) The operator shall from time to time renew the insurance policy or other financial
security referred to in sub-section (1), before the expiry of the period of validity thereof.
(3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall not apply to a nuclear installation
owned by the Central Government.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “financial security” means a contract
of indemnity or guarantee, or shares or bonds or such instrument as may be prescribed or
any combination thereof.
CHAPTER III
CLAIMS COMMISSIONER
9. (1) Whoever suffers nuclear damage shall be entitled to claim compensation in
accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(2) For the purposes of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of
nuclear damage, the Central Government shall, by notification, appoint one or more Claims
Commissioners for such area, as may be specified in that notification.
10. A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Claims Commissioner unless
he—
(a) is, or has been, a District Judge; or
(b) in the service of the Central Government and has held the post not below the
rank of Additional Secretary to the Government of India or any other equivalent post
in the Central Government.
11. The salary and allowances payable to and other terms and conditions of service of
Claims Commissioner shall be such as may be prescribed.
Liability of
Central
Government.
Operator to
maintain
insurance or
financial
securities.
Compensation
for nuclear
damage and
its
adjudication.
Qualifications
for
appointment
as Claims
Commissioner.
Salary,
allowances
and other
terms and
conditions of
service of
Claims
Commissioner.
7
12. (1) For the purposes of adjudication of claims under this Act, the Claims
Commissioner shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed.
(2) For the purpose of holding inquiry, the Claims Commissioner may associate with
him such persons having expertise in the nuclear field or such other persons and in such
manner as may be prescribed.
(3) Where any person is associated under sub-section (2), he shall be paid such
remuneration, fee or allowance, as may be prescribed.
(4) The Claims Commissioner shall, for the purposes of discharging his functions
under this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely:—
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him
on oath;
(b) the discovery and production of documents;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;
(d) requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any court or office;
(e) issuing of commission for the examination of any witness;
(f) any other matter which may be prescribed.
(5) The Claims Commissioner shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purposes of
section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
CHAPTER IV
CLAIMS AND AWARDS
13. After the notification of nuclear incident under sub-section (1) of section 3, the
Claims Commissioner, having jurisdiction over the area, shall cause wide publicity to be
given, in such manner as he deems fit, for inviting applications for claiming compensation for
nuclear damage.
14. An application for compensation before the Claims Commissioner or the
Commission, as the case may be, in respect of nuclear damage may be made by—
(a) a person who has sustained injury; or
(b) the owner of the property to which damage has been caused; or
(c) the legal representatives of the deceased; or
(d) any agent duly authorised by such person or owner or legal representatives.
15. (1) Every application for compensation before the Claims Commissioner for nuclear
damage shall be made in such form, containing such particulars and accompanied by such
documents, as may be prescribed.
(2) Subject to the provisions of section 18, every application under sub-section (1)
shall be made within a period of three years from the date of knowledge of nuclear damage by
the person suffering such damage.
16. (1) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1) of section 15, the Claims
Commissioner shall, after giving notice of such application to the operator and affording an
opportunity of being heard to the parties, dispose of the application within a period of three
months from the date of such receipt and make an award accordingly.
(2) While making an award under this section, the Claims Commissioner shall not take
into consideration any benefit, reimbursement or amount received by the applicant in
pursuance of contract of insurance taken by him or for members of his family or otherwise.
Inviting
application
for claims by
Claims
Commissioner.
Person
entitled to
make
application
for nuclear
damage.
Procedure for
making
application
before Claims
Commissioner.
Award by
Claims
Commissioner.
5 of 1908.
Adjudication
procedure and
powers of
Claims
Commissioner.
2 of 1974.
8
(3) Where an operator is likely to remove or dispose of his property with the object of
evading payment by him of the amount of the award, the Claims Commissioner may, in
accordance with the provisions of rules 1 to 4 of Order XXXIX of the First Schedule to the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act.
(4) The Claims Commissioner shall arrange to deliver copies of the award to the parties
within a period of fifteen days from the date of the award.
(5) Every award made under sub-section (1) shall be final.
17. The operator of the nuclear installation, after paying the compensation for nuclear
damage in accordance with section 6, shall have a right of recourse where—
(a) such right is expressly provided for in a contract in writing;
(b) the nuclear incident has resulted as a consequence of an act of supplier or his
employee, which includes supply of equipment or material with patent or latent defects
of sub-standard services;
(c) the nuclear incident has resulted from the act of commission or omission of
an individual done with the intent to cause nuclear damage.
18. The right to claim compensation for nuclear damage shall extinguish, if such claim
is not made within a period of—
(a) ten years, in the case of damage to property;
(b) twenty years, in the case of personal injury to any person, from the date of
occurrence of the incident notified under sub-section (1) of section 3:
Provided that where a nuclear damage is caused by a nuclear incident involving nuclear
material which, prior to such nuclear incident, had been stolen, lost, jettisoned or abandoned,
the said period of ten years shall be computed from the date of such nuclear incident, but, in
no case, it shall exceed a period of twenty years from the date of such theft, loss, jettison or
abandonment.
CHAPTER V
NUCLEAR DAMAGE CLAIMS COMMISSION
19. Where the Central Government, having regard to the injury or damage caused by
a nuclear incident, is of the opinion that it is expedient in public interest that such claims for
such damage be adjudicated by the Commission instead of a Claims Commissioner, it may, by
notification, establish Commission for the purpose of this Act.
20. (1) The Commission shall consist of a Chairperson and such other Members, not
exceeding six, as the Central Government may, by notification, appoint.
(2) The Chairperson and other Members of the Commission shall be appointed on the
recommendation of a Selection Committee consisting of three experts from amongst the
persons having at least thirty years of experience in nuclear science and a retired Supreme
Court Judge.
(3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the Chairperson of the
Commission unless he has attained the age of fifty-five years and is or has been or qualified
to be a Judge of a High Court:
Provided that no appointment of a sitting judge shall be made except after consultation
with the Chief Justice of India.
(4) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Member unless he has attained
the age of fifty-five years and—
(a) has held or is holding or qualified to hold, the post of Additional Secretary to
the Government of India or any other equivalent post in the Central Government and
Extinction of
right to claim.
Establishment
of Nuclear
Damage
Claims
Commission.
Composition
of
Commission.
Operator's
right of
recourse.
5 of 1908.
9
possesses special knowledge in law relating to nuclear liability arising out of nuclear
incident; or
(b) has been a Claims Commissioner for five years.
21. The Chairperson or a Member, as the case may be, shall hold office as such for a
term of three years from the date on which he enters upon his office and shall be eligible for
re-appointment for another term of three years:
Provided that no person shall hold office as such Chairperson or Member after he has
attained the age of sixty-seven years.
22. The salary and allowances payable to and other terms and conditions of service,
including pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits, of the Chairperson and other
Members shall be such as may be prescribed:
Provided that no salary, allowances and other terms and conditions of service of the
Chairperson or other Members shall be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment.
23. If, for reasons other than temporary absence, any vacancy occurs in the office of
the Chairperson or Member, as the case may be, the Central Government shall appoint
another person in accordance with the provisions of this Act to fill such vacancy and the
proceedings may be continued before the Commission from the stage at which it was, before
the vacancy is filled.
24. (1) The Chairperson or a Member may, by a notice in writing under his hand
addressed to the Central Government, resign his office:
Provided that the Chairperson or the Member shall, unless he is permitted by the
Central Government to relinquish his office sooner, continue to hold office until the expiry of
three months from the date of receipt of such notice or until a person duly appointed as his
successor enters upon his office or until the expiry of his term of office, whichever is earlier.
(2) The Central Government shall remove from office the Chairperson or a Member
who—
(a) has been adjudged an insolvent; or
(b) has been convicted of an offence which, in the opinion of the Central
Government, involves moral turpitude; or
(c) has become physically or mentally incapable of acting as a Member; or
(d) has acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially
his functions as a Member; or
(e) has so abused his position as to render his continuance in office detrimental
to the public interest:
Provided that no Member shall be removed under clause (d) or clause (e) unless he has
been given an opportunity of being heard in the matter.
25. A person who, immediately before the date of assuming office as a Chairperson or
a Member, was in service of the Government, shall be deemed to have retired from service on
the date on which he enters upon office as such, but his subsequent service as the Chairperson
or a Member shall be reckoned as continuing approved service counting for pension in
service to which he belonged.
26. If a person who, immediately before the date of assuming office as the Chairperson
or a Member was in receipt of or being eligible so to do, has opted to draw, a pension, other
than a disability or wound pension, in respect of any previous service under the Central
Government, his salary in respect of service as the Chairperson or a Member shall be reduced—
(a) by the amount of that pension; and
Term of
office.
Salary,
allowances
and other
terms and
conditions of
service of
Chairperson
and Members.
Filling up of
vacancies.
Resignation
and removal.
Chairperson
or Member
deemed to
retire from
service.
Suspension of
pension.
10
(b) if he had, before assuming office, received, in lieu of a portion of the pension
due to him in respect of such previous service, the commuted value thereof, by the
amount of that portion of the pension.
27. No person shall, while holding office as a Chairperson or a Member, act as an
arbitrator in any matter.
28. On ceasing to hold office, the Chairperson or a Member shall not appear, act or
plead before the Commission.
29. The Chairperson shall have the power of superintendence in the general
administration of the Commission and exercise such powers as may be prescribed.
30. (1) The Central Government shall provide the Commission with such officers and
other employees as it may deem fit.
(2) The salary and allowances payable to and the terms and other conditions of service
of officers and other employees of the Commission shall be such as may be prescribed.
31. (1) Every application for compensation before the Commission for nuclear damage
shall be made in such form, containing such particulars and accompanied by such documents,
as may be prescribed.
(2) Subject to the provisions of section 18, every application under sub-section (1)
shall be made within a period of three years from the date of knowledge of nuclear damage by
the person suffering such damage.
32. (1) The Commission shall have original jurisdiction to adjudicate upon every
application for compensation filed before it under sub-section (1) of section 31 or transferred
to it under section 33, as the case may be.
(2) Upon transfer of cases to the Commission under section 33, the Commission shall
hear such applications from the stage at which it was before such transfer.
(3) The Chairperson may constitute benches comprising of not more than three
Members of the Commission for the purpose of hearing of claims and any decision thereon
shall be rendered by a majority of the Members hearing such claims.
(4) The Commission shall not be bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to the
other provisions of this Act and of any rules made thereunder, the Commission shall have the
power to regulate its own procedure including the places and the times at which it shall have
its sittings.
(5) The Commission shall have, for the purposes of discharging its functions under
this Act, the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely: —
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him
on oath;
(b) the discovery and production of documents;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;
(d) requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any court or office;
(e) issuing of commission for the examination of any witness;
(f) any other matter which may be prescribed.
(6) The Commission shall, after giving notice of application to the operator and after
affording an opportunity of being heard to the parties, dispose of such application within a
period of three months from the date of such receipt and make an award accordingly.
Prohibition of
acting as
arbitrator.
Prohibition of
practice.
Powers of
Chairperson.
Officers and
other
employees of
Commission.
Application
for
compensation
before
Commission.
Adjudication
procedure and
powers of
Commission.
5 of 1908.
5 of 1908.
11
(7) While making an award under this section, the Commission shall not take into
consideration any benefit, reimbursement or amount received by the applicant in pursuance
of any contract of insurance or otherwise.
(8) Where an operator is likely to remove or dispose of his property with the object of
evading payment by him of the amount of the award, the Commission may, in accordance
with the provisions of rules 1 to 4 of Order XXXIX of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act.
(9) The Commission shall arrange to deliver copies of the award to the parties concerned
within a period of fifteen days from the date of such award.
(10) Every award made under sub-section (6) shall be final.
33. Every application for compensation pending before the Claims Commissioner
immediately before the date of establishment of the Commission under section 19 shall stand
transferred on that date to the Commission.
34. Every proceeding before the Claims Commissioner or the Commission under this
Act shall be deemed to be judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193, 219 and
228 of, and for the purposes of section 196 of, the Indian Penal Code.
35. Save as otherwise provided in section 46, no civil court except the Supreme Court
and a High Court (exercising jurisdiction under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution) shall
have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter which the
Claims Commissioner or the Commission, as the case may be, is empowered to adjudicate
under this Act and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect
of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.
36. (1) When an award is made under sub-section (1) of section 16 or under subsection
(6) of section 32, —
(a) the insurer or any person, as the case may be, who under the contract of
insurance or financial security under section 8 is required to pay any amount in terms
of such award and to the extent of his liability under such contract, shall deposit that
amount within such time and in such manner as the Claims Commissioner or the
Commission, as the case may be, may direct; and
(b) the operator shall, subject to the maximum liability specified under subsection
(2) of section 6, deposit the remaining amount by which such award exceeds
the amount deposited under clause (a).
(2) Where any person referred to in sub-section (1) fails to deposit the amount of
award within the period specified in the award, such amount shall be recoverable from such
person as arrears of land revenue.
(3) The amount deposited under sub-section (1) shall be disbursed to such person as
may be specified in the award within a period of fifteen days from the date of such deposit.
37. The Commission shall prepare, in such form and at such time in each financial year,
as may be prescribed, an annual report giving full account of its activities during that financial
year and submit a copy thereof to the Central Government which shall cause the same to be
laid before each House of Parliament.
38. (1) Where the Central Government is satisfied that the purpose for which the
Commission established under section 19 has served its purpose, or where the number of
cases pending before such Commission is so less that it would not justify the cost of its
continued function, or where it considers necessary or expedient so to do, the Central
Government may, by notification, dissolve the Commission.
Transfer of
pending cases
t o
Commission.
Proceedings
before Claims
Commissioner
or
Commission
to be judicial
proceedings.
Exclusion of
jurisdiction of
civil courts.
Enforcement
of awards.
Annual
report.
Dissolution of
Commission
in certain
circumstances.
5 of 1908.
45 of 1860.
12
(2) With effect from the date of notification of dissolution of Commission under
sub-section (1), —
(a) the proceeding, if any, pending before the Commission as on the date of such
notification shall be transferred to the Claims Commissioner to be appointed by the
Central Government under sub-section (2) of section 9;
(b) the Chairperson and all Members of the Commission shall be deemed to have
vacated their offices as such and they shall not be entitled to any compensation for
premature termination of their office;
(c) officers and other employees of the Commission shall be transferred to such
other authority or offices of the Central Government, in such manner, as may be
prescribed:
Provided that the officers and other employees so transferred, shall be entitled
to the same terms and conditions of service as would have been held by them in the
Commission:
Provided further that where an officer or an employee of the Commission refuses
to join the services in such other authority or office, he shall be deemed to have
resigned and shall not be entitled to any compensation for premature termination of
contract of service;
(d) all assets and liabilities of the Commission shall vest in the Central
Government.
(3) Notwithstanding the dissolution of the Commission under sub-section (1), anything
done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken including any order made
or notice issued or any appointment, confirmation or declaration made or any document or
instrument executed or any direction given by the Commission before such dissolution, shall
be deemed to have been validly done or taken.
(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Central Government to
establish the Commission subsequent to the dissolution of the Commission in accordance
with the provisions of this Act.
CHAPTER VI
OFFENCES AND PENALTIES
39. (1) Whoever—
(a) contravenes any rule made or any direction issued under this Act; or
(b) fails to comply with the provisions of section 8; or
(c) fails to deposit the amount under section 36,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine
or with both.
(2) Whoever fails to comply with any direction issued under section 43 or obstructs
any authority or person in the exercise of his powers under this Act shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both.
40. (1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every
person who at the time the offence was committed, was directly in charge of, and was
responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the
company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded
against and punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person
liable to any punishment under this Act, if he proves that the offence was committed without
his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such
offence.
Offences and
penalties.
Offences by
companies.
13
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where any offence under
this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been
committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of,
any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager,
secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable
to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Explanation. — For the purposes of this section,—
(a) "company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association
of individuals;
(b) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.
41. Where an offence under this Act has been committed by any Department of the
Government, the Head of the Department shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and
shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall render such Head of the
Department liable to any punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his
knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.
42. No court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of
the first class shall try any offence under this Act:
Provided that cognizance of such offence shall not be taken except on a complaint
made by the Central Government or any authority or officer authorised in this behalf by that
Government.
CHAPTER VII
MISCELLANEOUS
43. The Central Government may, in exercise of its powers and performance of its
functions under this Act, issue such directions, as it may deem fit, for the purposes of this
Act, to any operator, person, officer, authority or body and such operator, person, officer,
authority or body shall be bound to comply with such directions.
44. The Central Government may call for such information from an operator as it may
deem necessary.
45. The Central Government may, by notification, exempt any nuclear installation from
the application of this Act where, having regard to small quantity of nuclear material, it is of
the opinion that the risk involved is insignificant.
46. The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any
other law for the time being in force, and nothing contained herein shall exempt the operator
from any proceeding which might, apart from this Act, be instituted against such operator.
47. No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the Central
Government or the person, officer or authority in respect of anything done by it or him in
good faith in pursuance of this Act or of any rule or order made, or direction issued, thereunder.
48. (1) The Central Government may, by notification, make rules for carrying out the
purposes of this Act.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers such
rules may provide for —
(a) the other financial security and the manner thereof under sub-section (1) of
section 8;
(b) the salary and allowances payable to and the other terms and conditions of
service of Claims Commissioner under section 11;
Offences by
Government
Departments.
Cognizance
of offences.
Power to give
directions.
Power to call
for
information.
Exemption
from
application of
this Act.
Act to be in
addition to
any other law.
Protection of
action taken
in good faith.
Power to
make rules.
14
(c) the procedure to be followed by Claims Commissioner under sub-section (1)
of section 12;
(d) the person to be associated by Claims Commissioner and the manner thereof,
under sub-section (2) of section 12;
(e) the remuneration, fee or allowances of associated person under sub-section
(3) of section 12;
(f) any other matter under clause (f) of sub-section (4) of section 12;
(g) the form of application, the particulars it shall contain and the documents it
shall accompany, under sub-section (1) of section 15;
(h) the salary and allowances payable to and other terms and conditions of
service of Chairperson and other Members, under section 22;
(i) the powers of Chairperson under section 29;
(j) the salary and allowances payable to and the terms and other conditions of
service of officers and other employees of the Commission, under sub-section (2) of
section 30;
(k) the form of application, the particulars it shall contain and the documents it
shall accompany, under sub-section (1) of section 31;
(l) any other matter under clause (f) of sub-section (5) of section 32;
(m) the form and the time for preparing annual report by Commission under
section 37;
(n) the manner of transfer of officers and other employees of the Commission
under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 38.
(3) Every rule made under this Act by the Central Government shall be laid, as soon as
may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total
period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive
sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or
successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or
both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only
in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such
modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously
done under that rule.
49. (1) If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the Central
Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, make such provisions, not
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, as appear to it to be necessary or expedient for
removing the difficulty:
Provided that no order shall be made under this section after the expiry of three years
from the commencement of this Act.
(2) Every order made under this section shall, as soon as may be after it is made, be laid
before each House of Parliament.
Power to
remove
difficulties.
LOK SABHA
————
A
BILL
to provide for civil liability for nuclear damage, appointment of Claims Commissioner,
establishment of Nuclear Damage Claims Commission and for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto.
—————
(As passed by Lok Sabha)
GMGIPMRND—4267LS(S3)—25-08-2010.
Read more...
Friday, August 27, 2010

'Drafters of N-Bill ignored ILO recommendations'

0 comments
Press Trust of India / New Delhi August 25, 2010
An environmental health researcher has sought intervention of the National Human Rights Commission, alleging that drafters of the Nuclear Liability Bill have ignored recommendations of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) on radiation protection.

"India has ratified Radiation Protection Convention, 1960 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) but its provisions have not been complied with. It is yet to ratify ILO's Occupational Cancer Convention, 1974 which is concerning Prevention and Control of Occupational Hazards caused by Carcinogenic Substances.

"Drafters of the Nuclear Liability Bill appear to have ignored their recommendations," convenor and founder of Toxics Watch Alliance Gopal Krishna charged in his petition submitted to the Commission on 24th August.

ILO's Radiation Protection Convention with regard to maximum permissible doses of ionising radiations which may be received from external or internal sources and the maximum permissible amounts of radioactive substances has been ignored, he claimed.

In his petition to NHRC, Krishna also submitted that the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment & Forests in its 25-page report on the Bill, which was tabled in Parliament on August 18, was of the opinion that Government must have sought the opinion of Ministries which are even "distantly" related to any provision of the legislation.

"When the Committee inquired from the Secretaries of Ministries/Departments of Government of India who appeared before the Committee as to whether the draft nuclear liability Bill was referred to them for their views/comments, some of them viz the Ministries of Health & Family Welfare, Agriculture, Labour & Employment, Food & Public Distribution, etc replied in the negative," he quoted the Committee as saying in the report.

He pleaded the Commission to take cognisance of the submissions of "these Secretaries" and direct the concerned authorities to internalise their suggestions in the text of the Bill to protect the human rights of Indian citizens and safeguard intergenerational equity.

Krishna requested the Commission to start proceedings to ascertain from the authorities concerned both at Centre and the state as to how would they respond in the event of a nuclear disaster, number of existing factories and industries in the country where radioactive material is used and whether they maintain an inventory of such products.

He also wanted the commission to ascertain the total number of workers employed in the nuclear power industries and other nuclear installations, institutions which have the competence to decontaminate and the medical, occupational health and scientific institutions which can diagnose radiation exposure.

Among other things, he also urged the Commission to ascertain what action has been taken by the central government and the state governments to protect exposure from radiation in the future.

"Commission may inquire or investigate into the problem of radioactive radiation and issue necessary directions/ recommendations for its prevention and appropriate remedial steps to the Central Government/State Governments and UTs," he pleaded.

"Drafters of the Nuclear Liability Bill appear to have ignored their recommendations," convenor and founder of Toxics Watch Alliance Gopal Krishna charged in his petition submitted to the Commission on 24th August.

ILO's Radiation Protection Convention with regard to maximum permissible doses of ionising radiations which may be received from external or internal sources and the maximum permissible amounts of radioactive substances has been ignored, he claimed.

In his petition to NHRC, Krishna also submitted that the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment & Forests in its 25-page report on the Bill, which was tabled in Parliament on August 18, was of the opinion that Government must have sought the opinion of Ministries which are even "distantly" related to any provision of the legislation.

"When the Committee inquired from the Secretaries of Ministries/Departments of Government of India who appeared before the Committee as to whether the draft nuclear liability Bill was referred to them for their views/comments, some of them viz the Ministries of Health & Family Welfare, Agriculture, Labour & Employment, Food & Public Distribution, etc replied in the negative," he quoted the Committee as saying in the report.

He pleaded the Commission to take cognisance of the submissions of "these Secretaries" and direct the concerned authorities to internalise their suggestions in the text of the Bill to protect the human rights of Indian citizens and safeguard intergenerational equity.

Krishna requested the Commission to start proceedings to ascertain from the authorities concerned both at Centre and the state as to how would they respond in the event of a nuclear disaster, number of existing factories and industries in the country where radioactive material is used and whether they maintain an inventory of such products.

He also wanted the commission to ascertain the total number of workers employed in the nuclear power industries and other nuclear installations, institutions which have the competence to decontaminate and the medical, occupational health and scientific institutions which can diagnose radiation exposure.

Among other things, he also urged the Commission to ascertain what action has been taken by the central government and the state governments to protect exposure from radiation in the future.

"Commission may inquire or investigate into the problem of radioactive radiation and issue necessary directions/ recommendations for its prevention and appropriate remedial steps to the Central Government/State Governments and UTs," he pleaded.

http://business-standard.com/india/news//draftersn-bill-ignored-ilo-recommendations//106434/on
Read more...
Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Letter to NHRC on Nuclear Liability for IAEA's Treaty

0 comments
24th August, 2010

Justice Shri K.G. Balakrishnan
The Chairperson
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)
Faridkot House, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi

Sub: Human rights violations from nuclear damage - its impact on human life and enviro-occupational health


Sir,

This Hon’ble Commission has been seriously pursuing the problem of “enviro-occupational health”, and has been taking “preventive” as well as “remedial” measures. It is humbly brought to your notice that there is another equally serious enviro-occupational hazard which is exposure from radioactive radiations and wastes. The issue of liability for nuclear damage is directly linked to it. The grave problem of diseases caused to present and future generations by radiation exposures is required to be addressed as it affects environment and human health and violates Article 21 of the Constitution, Directive Principles as well as “human rights” as defined under the UDHR, ICCPR and ICESCR.

2. That at the outset, the Applicant wishes to refer to the problem of exposure from radioactive radiations. The Supreme Court has looked at the entire issue, keeping in view the Directive Principles as well as Article 21 of the Constitution, and held that “life” includes right to health and medical care etc. There is no database on the records of the Government to show, to the best of Applicant’s knowledge, as to what actions the Government has taken, namely, how many persons have been reported to be suffering from exposure to radioactive radiation? How many have died? Did they receive any compensation? How many persons suffering from it are receiving treatment?

3. That the Applicant is an environmental health researcher who was invited to make submissions before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment & Forests following a written submission on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010 which is meant to pave the way for India to sign International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)’s Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) for Nuclear Damage, 1997.

4. That in its 25 page report on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment & Forests which was tabled in the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha on 18th August, 2010.observes, “When the Committee inquired from the Secretaries of Ministries/Departments of Government of India who appeared before the Committee as to whether the draft nuclear liability Bill was referred to them for their views/comments, some of them viz. Ministries of Health & Family Welfare, Agriculture, Labour & Employment, Food & Public Distribution, etc. replied in the negative. The Committee is of the opinion that Government must have sought the opinion of Ministries which are even distantly related to any provision of the legislation. The Committee, therefore, recommends that in future Government should consult all such Ministries/ Departments which are even remotely concerned with the provisions of a proposed legislation.” This Hon’ble Commission may take cognizance of the submissions of these Secretaries and direct the concerned authorities to internalize their suggestions in the text of the Bill to protect the human rights of Indian citizens and safeguard intergenerational equity.

5. That, in view of the facts mentioned above, the applicant humbly submits that the Hon’ble Commission may kindly initiate appropriate proceedings and issue directions to all the concerned Secretaries of the Central Government and relevant States/UTs with regard to the following :

1. How would they respond in the event of a nuclear disaster?
2. Do they know as to how many industries/factories exist in the States/UTs where radioactive material is used? Is there an inventory of products wherein the said material is used?
3. What is the total number of workers employed in the nuclear power industries and other nuclear installations?
4. Whether there is regular medical check-up and whether medical facilities exist for workers and communities in the vicinity of nuclear installations?
5. Whether there is any record of persons who died because of radioactive radiation?
6. How many persons suffer from radioactive radiation and whether they are receiving regular treatment for the said disease?
7. What steps States/UTs have taken to check/prevent occurrence of radioactive radiations and how many hospitals dealing with the enviro-occupational diseases exist in the States/UTs.
8. How many institutions in the country have the competence to decontaminate and how many medical, occupational health and scientific institutions can diagnose radiation exposure?
9. What action has been taken by the central government and the State Governments/UTs have taken to protect exposure from radiation in the future?

6. That it is submitted that this Hon’ble Commission for the purpose of collecting the above information, may also take the benefit of its experience in the case of enviro- occupational diseases which are preventable but incurable. By giving medicines, impact of radioactive radiation can be reduced and life span can be prolonged but ultimately fate of the affected person is painful death. A brief note on the issue of liability from nuclear damage and the submissions of the concerned Secretaries of the central government is enclosed as Annexure A

7. That the applicant wishes to bring to this Hon’ble Commission’s notice that India has ratified Radiation Protection Convention, 1960 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) but its provisions have not been complied with. India is yet to ratify ILO’s Occupational Cancer Convention, 1974 which is concerning Prevention and Control of Occupational Hazards caused by Carcinogenic Substances and Agents took cognizance of the Radiation Protection Convention and Radiation Protection Recommendation. It refers to the work done by International Agency for Research on Cancer and The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) that provides guidance on all aspects of protection against ionising radiation. Article 6 of the ILO's Radiation Protection Convention with regard to “Maximum permissible doses of ionising radiations which may be received from sources external to or internal to the body and maximum permissible amounts of radioactive substances which can be taken into the body” has been ignored. Article 7 of the Convention calls for “Appropriate levels” be fixed in accordance with Article 6 for workers who are directly engaged in radiation work and are (a) aged 18 and over; (b) under the age of 18, No worker under the age of 16 to be engaged in work involving ionising radiations and Article 8 that seeks “Appropriate levels (to be) fixed in accordance with Article 6 for workers who are not directly engaged in radiation work, but who remain or pass where they may be exposed to ionising radiations or radioactive substances.” Drafters of the Nuclear Liability Bill appear to have ignored their recommendations.

8. It is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Commission may enquire /investigate into the problem of radioactive radiation and issue necessary directions/recommendation for its prevention and appropriate remedial steps to the Central Government/State Governments and UTs.

Yours Faithfully

Gopal Krishna
Convener-Founder
ToxicsWatch Alliance
New Delhi
Mb: 9818089660
Blog: toxicswatch.blogspot.com
Web: www.toxicswatch.com

Annexure A

Brief Note on the issue of liability from nuclear damage & Submission from Secretaries

While deposing before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment & Forests, K Sujata Rao, Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare mentioned that “while drafting the Bill the Dept. of Atomic Energy did not consult them. Since the response system to deal with any kind of emergency of such type, the hospitals are not well-equipped, it is natural that mortality and morbidity due to multiple burn, blasts, radiation injuries and psycho-social impact could be on very high scale and medical tackling of such a large emergency could have enough repercussions in the nearby areas of radioactive fallout. She also mentioned that in the entire Bill, there is not a single clause which speaks about taking health care during radiological emergencies. It reflects only about payment of compensation due to health impacts of such radiation. She suggested while setting up nuclear plants consideration may also be given to the fact that there should be hospital having trained doctors near such establishments and arrangements should also be made for free treatment of people who are affected by serious nuclear fallout.” She confessed that her Ministry is nowhere to meet an eventuality that may arise out of nuclear and radiological emergencies. Present and future generation of India would appreciate Sujatha Rao’s exemplary conduct to safeguard her compatriots. This Hon’ble Commission can take cognizance of her submission and direct the concerned authorities to internalize her suggestions in the text of the Bill to protect the human rights of Indian citizens and safeguard intergenerational equity.

Clearly, the objectives of Health Ministry and Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) are at loggerheads in the same way as objectives of World Health Organisation (WHO) and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are. The former is dedicated to promoting health and the latter exists to promote nuclear commerce. Under the agreement between WHO and IAEA, the two agencies must "keep each other fully informed concerning all projected activities and all programs of work which may be of interest to both parties".

In such a context it is germane to recollect that more than 51 years ago, on 28 May 1959, the World Health Organisation (WHO)'s assembly voted into force an agreement with the IAEA, a UN agency that prevented the WHO from investigating, warning and revealing the dangers of nuclear radiation on health.

There is lack of openness and access to information about nuclear radiation from nuclear substances and installations. The concerned agencies seem to hide these problems to be solved by the future generations. For instance, the current draft of the Nuclear Liability Bill is leaving the nuclear waste problems for future generations. This is illustrated by what Alka Sirohi, Secretary, Department of Food & Public Distribution informed the Parliamentary Standing Committee, while explaining the functioning of her Ministry, “she emphasized the ill-effects of nuclear radiation on food items and its subsequent repercussions on human health and safeguards to be taken to prevent nuclear contamination of food during radiological accidents. She further mentioned although radiological damage to food items may fall within the generic definition of the property as mentioned in Clause 2f (ii) of the Bill, it would be better if the said Clause could provide a separate definition food grains along with of storage of foodgrains. Additionally she also mentioned that safety norms, distance, location and operating procedure, which should be defined in the Bill during the construction of the warehouses for foodgrains storage to be followed, near a nuclear facility. She also mentioned about the establishment of laboratories for the standard testing of food articles to ascertain radiation levels.” Sirohi’s submission before the Parliamentary Standing Committee has not been incorporated in the Bill although it is mentioned in the report of the Committee that was tabled in the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha on 18th August, 2010.

The Nuclear Liability Bill remains silent on the grave issues raised by Prabeer Kumar Basu, Secretary, Agriculture who mentioned before the Committee that “unfortunately the disaster management structure in the country, as per his opinion, is not well tailored in meeting radiological fall out and more unfortunate to mention that even educated section of the people is not well aware about the implications of a serious nuclear disaster. He therefore, felt that more public awareness needs to be built in respect of nuclear disaster and its hair-raising impact on biological population. He further pointed out that as a consequence of a nuclear disaster of the Chernobyl type, it is quite possible that agricultural crops around 30 to 100 kms. from the site of the incident could be wiped out total. This may affect seriously the biodiversity of the crops in the radiation area and the farmer may loose their traditional variety of crops. In this connection he mentioned that the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources and Gene Bank in the country who are keeping a sample of each variety of crops can preserve these varieties which could be planted for further production if a variety of crops is entirely lost due to radiological emergency. He however, mentioned that there should be suitable rules, regulations and guidelines and compensation model for agricultural damage that could be inserted at an appropriate place in the legislation which may work after a radiological eventuality takes place.” These suggestions have not been incorporated in the Bill. This is an evidence of how human rights of present and future generations have been infringed. The Hon'ble Commission may direct the concerned government agencies to undertake pre-emptive measures to protect the health rights of citizens in the vent of a nuclear disaster.

It is frightening to know that “any nuclear incident may induce radioactive contaminations in surface, ground water bodies, and other water resources.” U N Panjiar, the Secretary, Water resources was of the opinion that the Water Resources “Ministry does not have any facility for testing water quality, from point of view of nuclear contamination because this work has been done by the Department of Atomic Energy.” The efficiency of Department of Atomic Energy gets routinely revealed in issues ranging from radioactive steel, ship breaking industry, Mayapuri scrap market, Kaiga incident etc. AERB did reveal its competence when it declared Mayapuri scrap market radiation free when it was proven later that the radiation still existed in the area. It did the same after inspecting the obsolete ship radioactive material laden Blue Lady which was dumped in India.

While Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy responded by saying that Ministry of Water Resources has not been involved in checking and monitoring the quality of water because this job is done by the Environmental Survey Laboratories of the Department of Atomic Energy, the fact remains the Bill should have been sent to the Water Resources Ministry as well because Department of Atomic Energy deals with point source of radioactive pollution and not with non-point source of pollution. It is saddening that Ministry of Water Resources conceded that since expertise is available in DAE alone, the Ministry need not be consulted. Panjiar rightly stressed upon the need “to study the impact of nuclear contaminated water on human beings, animals, plants and crops.” The Bill does not make any provision for such efforts. This unacceptable indifference is rooted in the questionable agreement between IAEA and WHO. Neither the concerned authorities nor the parliamentary committee has factored in the implications of the agreement on the health rights of Indian citizens.

It may be noted that probe into the health impacts of the Chernobyl nuclear accident in Ukraine on 26 April 1986 was taken over by IAEA and dissenting voices were suppressed. The health effects of the nuclear accident were the subject of two major conferences, in Geneva in 1995, and in Kiev, Ukrain in 2001. The full proceedings of those conferences remain unpublished.

The Kiev Conference on the nuclear disaster was organised to communicate and discuss research, based on results arrived after the Chernobyl accident, on medical consequences which were to serve as a basis for future decisions by the national and international organisations with emphasis on Medical consequences in the Republic of Belarus, Russian Federation, and Ukraine; International co-operation in studying health effects; Radiation doses and risks of radiation-induced effects; Stochastic effects of ionising radiation (with emphasis on thyroid cancer and leukaemia); Genetic effects of radiation; Non-cancer effects; Rehabilitation and treatment of the affected population; Psychosocial effects and mental health of the affected population and Strategy of countermeasures after a large-scale radiation accident. The Kiev conference was organised by WHO Association of "Physicians of Chernobyl" in co-operation with UN agencies.

The Chernobyl accident was a catastrophe which affected the lives of millions of people. It resulted in significant exposures to substantial numbers of the populations of the Republic of Belarus, Russian Federation and Ukraine and to parts of some European countries. The largest individual doses were received by clean-up workers, especially those who worked during the first year after the accident within a zone of 30 km around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Large numbers of people are still living in contaminated areas where they receive elevated radiation exposure. Authorities in India and our legislators need to be sensitized about the lessons from nuclear accidents before they pass the proposed Nuclear Liability Bill for IAEA's Compenstation Treaty.

The conference on the nuclear accident noted the health effects of the Chernobyl accident which included stochastic radiation effects. It observed, “There is no doubt that the incidence of thyroid cancer has substantially increased in children who were 0-18 years old at the time of the accident and that this is related to radiation from the accident. An increased number of cases of thyroid cancer among liquidators who worked in 1986 is expected to occur. There is a tendency of an increase of leukaemia among liquidators who worked on the site in 1986 and 1987 and who received significant doses. Chernobyl accident led to deterministic radiation effects. Various somatic disorders, including delayed neuropsychiatric complications and radiation skin damage, have been observed in survivors of bone marrow syndrome. Cataracts are seen in survivors at a level related to dose. It is anticipated that information on the development of cataracts in clean-up workers and others who may have received significant exposures will soon be available as well. This information remains suppressed. There are indications that the incidence of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular and thyroid diseases in clean-up workers and possibly other non-cancer conditions may be increased; radiation exposure or other factors may play a role in this increase. Further investigations are needed but it has not proceeded apparently because of the disproportionate influence of the nuclear industry over governments.

The conference observed how years after the nuclear accident other types of health effects seem to have emerged. These are primarily neuropsychiatric and cardiovascular diseases, but also include Deteriorating health of liquidators; Increasing invalidity among liquidators; Decreased birth rate; Diminished health of new-borns; Increased pregnancy complications and Impaired health of children. A number of factors inherent to the Chernobyl accident, including worsening socio-economic conditions, continuing residence in contaminated territories, diminished food supply, vitamin deficiency, relocation, and psychological stress, may contribute to these effects.

The conference noted the “Medical lessons learnt from Chernobyl”. The radiation protection of the population in the early period after the accident was inadequate, notably in relation to prevention of the intake of radioiodine. Dosimetric monitoring of clean-up workers in 1986 was not properly organised leading to significant gaps in data on individual doses of this category of affected population. Deficiencies in providing objective and timely information about the accident and its possible consequences contributed to development of psychosocial disorders. Increased incidence of various diseases was identified following the accident by intensive medical examinations and improved diagnostic capability. These increases may have been caused by a combination of radiation, non-radiological factors, and a deteriorating social and economic situation. Most practicing physicians had insufficient knowledge of the effects of radiation and how to advise the population to protect themselves.

If a nuclear accident happens in India, there is no reason to infer that it would not follow the same pattern. There is no evidence to suggest that our Department of Atomic Energy or the Parliamentary Standing Committee had accessed the documents of these conferences and drew lessons from it.

In this regard ICRP's 78 page 'Draft Report for Consultation - Environmental Protection: Transfer parameters for Reference Animals and Plants' dated July 2010 merits attention wherein a Reference Animal and Plant is defined as:‘a hypothetical entity, with the assumed basic biological characteristics of a particular type of animal or plant, as described to the generality of the taxonomic level of Family, with defined anatomical, physiological and life-history properties, that can be used for the purposes of relating exposure to dose, and dose to effects, for that type of living organism.’ There is no evidence on record to show that DAE has factored in the impact of nuclear disaster on Reference Animals and Plants while drafting the Nuclear Liability Bill.

The question that stares citizens in the face is: whether or not the proposed Nuclear Liability Bill and the pre-existing IAEA’s compensation treaty in the supreme interest of present and future generation of Indians? The submission of several Secretaries of the central government indicates that it is not in the interest of Indians and their right to a safe ecosystem.
Read more...
Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Vedanta's Niyamgiri project shown red light

0 comments
The Environment Ministry rejected Vedanta Resources' application for a Stage II forest license for its mining project. Shares of Sterlite Industries Ltd. slid on the BSE today after the Union Ministry of Environment & Forest (MoEF) rejected environment clearance by the metals company to mine bauxite in Niyamgiri hills of Orissa.

At 13:10 (IST), Sterlite was at Rs 151, down Rs7.20 or 4.5% over the previous close. It had earlier been as low as Rs150.90 and as high as Rs159.35. Close to 2.8mn shares changed hands on the counter.

Shares of Vedanta Resources, the London-listed holding company of Sterlite, Sesa goa and Hindustan Zinc, were down over 4% today, at 1,949 GBP.

The MoEF rejected Vedanta Aluminium's application for a Stage II forest license for its mining project.

The MoEF also said that it was studying violation of forest laws in Niyamgiri by Vedanta Aluminium and was examining a possible penal action against the company.

The MoEF also decided to issue a Show Cause Notice to Vedanta Aluminium for its alumina refinery.

Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh told reporters in New Delhi today that there has been a very serious violation of Environment Protection Act, Forest Conservation Act and the Forest Rights Act.

"There have been no emotions and no politics and no prejudice involved in this report. I have taken this decision in a proper legal approach,” he said.

The Environment Minister announced the decision on the basis of the report submitted by a key government panel on forest clearance.

On Monday, Orissa Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik met Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh and discussed the status of various projects facing delays in the state.

But Ramesh said he did not discuss the Vedanta project with Patnaik and didn't give any assurance on the project.

The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) had submitted a report to Ramesh after reviewing the suggestions given by the N.C. Saxena panel, seeking a ban on the Vedanta mining project in view of various violations by it at the site.

The FAC has asked the Environment Ministry for a temporary withdrawal of in-principle environment clearance given to the Vedanta's mining project.

The Saxena report has citied several violations of the in-principle environment clearance given to Orissa Mining Corp. in 2008, including non-compliance with the provisions of the Forest Rights Act.

The committee believes that the Vedanta project endangers nearly 7500 square km of forest land, and that it violates tribal forest rights. The area is home to the Dongria Kondh, a primitive tribal community, who have been opposing Vedanta's plans tooth and nail.

The FAC report stated that government officials colluded with Vedanta to allow blatant and widespread violations of forest and environmental laws.

The Saxena panel also says that Vedanta Aluminium has illegally occupied at least 26 hectares of village forest land within its refinery, set up at the base of the Niyamgiri mountain.

India Infoline News Service
Read more...
Saturday, August 21, 2010

Nuclear Liability Bill for IAEA’s compensation treaty, Lessons not leant from Chernobyl Disaster

3 comments
ToxicsWatch Alliance
Press Statement
Nuclear Liability Bill for IAEA’s compensation treaty, Lessons not leant from Chernobyl Disaster
No Consultation with Ministries of Health, Labour, Consumer Affairs, Agriculture, Water Resources
Health Ministry not equipped to deal with nuclear and radiological emergencies
Agreement between WHO & IAEA hides Radiation Hazards
Dow Chemicals & Union Carbide in Nuclear Commerce

New Delhi21/8/2010: British Petroleum (BP) is facing a bill of up to $34 billion from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster. After US senators demanded, the oil company deposited $20 billion (about Rs 92000 crores) into a ring-fenced account to meet escalating compensation costs but the way Indian legislators are agreeing to a Rs 1500 crore cap on nuclear disaster from large nuclear power plants, Rs 300 crore cap for institutions involved in reprocessing fuel and Rs 100 crore cap for small research reactors is unacceptable and condemnable.

Srikumar Banerjee, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission and ex-officio Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy, one of the drafters of the Bill is guilty of ignoring the consequences of possible nuclear disaster because his text has privatized profits and made liabilities public. Mamohan Singh who is in-charge of Department of Atomic Energy appears to be guilty of dereliction of duty as well. The Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment & Forests chaired by T Subbirami Reddy reveals their culpability quite categorically. This report was tabled in the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha on 18th August, 2010. Report attached What else can explain their indifference towards other concerned ministries like health, agriculture, labour, water resources etc. Aren’t they relevant? What can explain the lack of consensus among the committee members even in matters of national interest?

India’s Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010 is meant to pave the way for India to sign International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)’s Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) for Nuclear Damage, 1997. The question that stares citizens in the face is: whether or not the proposed liability Bill and the pre-existing IAEA’s compensation treaty in the supreme interest of present and future generation of Indians? If India decides to join the CSC, it will be an exercise in surrendering its sovereignty to a conflict of interest ridden regime like IAEA which is both the promoter and regulator of nuclear commerce. Like IAEA, Indian the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) is dependent on the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) whose mandate is charged with promoting nuclear power in India.

The Parliamentary Committee enquired from Nirupama Rao , the Foreign Secretary that “whether there are other considerations apart from the legal requirements that necessitated the Bill.” She informed that “since the Government is operating within the ambit of international agreements and on the basis of certain principles the nation should have provisions of the nuclear liability Bill.”

This is further corroborated by two members of the Parliamentary Standing Committee namely, Saman Pathak and Barun Mukherji. Both have observed categorically that the provisions of the Bill will unduly favour the foreign suppliers of nuclear equipment and it is being done to make the provisions compatible with the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC). Like all Indians both these members are not convinced with the rationale of India joining the CSC because this legislation on civil nuclear liability does not “keep the interests of the Indian people, who may be affected in a nuclear accident, as its core concern'.

In its 25 page report on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment & Forests observes, “When the Committee inquired from the Secretaries of Ministries/Departments of Government of India who appeared before the Committee as to whether the draft nuclear liability Bill was referred to them for their views/comments, some of them viz. Ministries of Health & Family Welfare, Agriculture, Labour & Employment, Food & Public Distribution, etc. replied in the negative. The Committee is of the opinion that Government must have sought the opinion of Ministries which are even distantly related to any provision of the legislation. The Committee, therefore, recommends that in future Government should consult all such Ministries/ Departments which are even remotely concerned with the provisions of a proposed legislation.”

It is noteworthy that the 25-member working group on civil nuclear energy-2009 constituted by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) under the chairmanship of Dr S K Jain, chairman and managing director, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited came out with a 57-page report with the format of the proposed Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill. Dr Jain was present during the testimony of the experts and citizens to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment & Forests. The government of India has an ambitious target "to increase our installed capacity more than seven fold to 35,000 MWe by the year 2022, and to 60,000 MWe by 2032." Established in pre-independent India in 1927, FICCI is the largest and oldest apex business organization of the country. It claims to be a “non-government, not-for-profit organisation”. FICCI has direct membership from the private as well as public sectors, including SMEs and MNCs, and an indirect membership of over 83,000 companies from regional chambers of commerce. As part of its corporate lobbying, “FICCI works closely with the government on policy issues, enhancing efficiency, competitiveness and expanding business opportunities for industry through a range of specialised services and global linkages. It also provides a platform for sector specific consensus building and networking.” In such conflict of interest ridden circumstances, Dr Jain claimed that the health hazards from Chernobyl nuclear disaster is no more visible. Therefore, he implied that the questions of intergenerational adverse effects do not arise. Are his claims factual and trustworthy?

Under the influence of FICCI and US nuclear industry, Dr.T. Subbarami Reddy, Dr Mammohan Singh and Dr Srikumar Banerjee have chosen not learn from the mistakes of US firms who embarked on a nuclear power strategy under the assumption that the radioactive waste management problem was not difficult and would be solved relatively quickly. Subsequent events have proved otherwise because radioactive waste management efforts are quite different from industrial and municipal waste management.

Observations of G K Pillai, Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs illustrate how Banerjee has not been rigorous in the drafting of the Bill. While commenting on the conditions in which the operator of a nuclear power plant, who could be made liable for nuclear damage, Pillai stated that the Bill contains such terms as armed conflict, hostilities, civil war, insurrection or an act of terrorism that have wide meanings but have not been defined in the present Bill. Therefore there is a need for inserting meanings of these terms from other laws, in Section 2 of this Bill. Such vagueness in connotations can make the operators negligent in observing security procedures and can create situations of disputes between the operator and the central government.

It is frightening to know that any nuclear incident may induce radioactive contamination in surface, ground water bodies, and other water resources. U N Panjiar, the Secretary, Water resources was of the opinion that the Ministry does not have any facility for testing water quality, from point of view of nuclear contamination because this work has been done by the Department of Atomic Energy. The efficiency of Department of Atomic Energy gets routinely revealed in issues ranging from radioactive steel, ship breaking industry, Mayapuri scrap market, Kaiga incident etc. Didn’t AERB reveal its incompetence when it declared Mayapuri scrap market radiation free when it was proven later that the radiation still existed in the area? Didn’t it do the same after inspecting the obsolete ship Blue Lady?

While Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy responded by saying that Ministry of Water Resources has not been involved in checking and monitoring the quality of water because this job is done by the Environmental Survey Laboratories of the Department of Atomic Energy, the fact remains the Bill should have been sent to the Water Resources Ministry as well because Department of Atomic Energy deals with point source of radioactive pollution and not with non-point source of pollution. It is saddening that Ministry of Water Resources conceded that since expertise is available in DAE alone, the Ministry need not be consulted. Panjiar rightly stressed upon the need to study the impact of nuclear contaminated water on human beings, animals, plants and crops. The Bill does not make any provision for such efforts.
In such a context it is germane to recollect that more than 51 years ago, on 28 May 1959, the World Health Organisation (WHO)'s assembly voted into force an agreement with the IAEA, a UN agency that prevented the WHO from investigating, warning and revealing the dangers of nuclear radiation on health. The agreement is attached.

Coincidentally, K Sujata Rao, Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare while deposing before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment & Forests mentioned that “while drafting the Bill the Dept. of Atomic Energy did not consult them. Since the response system to deal with any kind of emergency of such type, the hospitals are not well-equipped, it is natural that mortality and morbidity due to multiple burn, blasts, radiation injuries and psycho-social impact could be on very high scale and medical tackling of such a large emergency could have enough repercussions in the nearby areas of radioactive fallout. She also mentioned that in the entire Bill, there is not a single clause which speaks about taking health care during radiological emergencies. It reflects only about payment of compensation due to health impacts of such radiation. She suggested while setting up nuclear plants consideration may also be given to the fact that there should be hospital having trained doctors near such establishments and arrangements should also be made for free treatment of people who are affected by serious nuclear fallout.” She confessed that her Ministry is nowhere to meet an eventuality that may arise out of nuclear and radiological emergencies. Present and future generation of India would salute Sujatha Rao for her exemplary conduct to safeguard her compatriots.

Clearly, objectives of Health Ministry and Department of Atomic Energy are at loggerheads in the same way as objectives of WHO and IAEA are. The former is dedicated to promoting health and the latter exists to promote nuclear commerce. Under the agreement between WHO and IAEA, the two agencies must "keep each other fully informed concerning all projected activities and all programs of work which may be of interest to both parties". Notably, probe into the health impacts of the Chernobyl nuclear accident in Ukraine on 26 April 1986 was taken over by IAEA and dissenting voices were suppressed. The health effects of the nuclear accident were the subject of two major conferences, in Geneva in 1995, and in Kiev, Ukrain in 2001. The full proceedings of those conferences remain unpublished. The programme and conclusions of the Kiev Conference is attached. The Kiev conference was organised by WHO Association of "Physicians of Chernobyl" in co-operation with UN agencies. There is no evidence to suggest that our Department of Atomic Energy or the Parliamentary Standing Committee had accessed the documents of these conferences and drew lessons from it.

IAEA’s International Conference on Chernobyl - Looking Back to Go Forwards Towards a United Nations Consensus on the Effects of the Accident and the Future, Vienna, September, 2005 was a public relations exercise by the nuclear industry that promoted such risk models for nuclear radiation that understated the true hazards. Chris Busby, the scientific secretary of European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) and visiting professor at the University of Ulster's school of biomedical sciences observes, "The subordination of the WHO to IAEA is a key part of the systematic falsification of nuclear risk which has been under way ever since Hiroshima, the agreement creates an unacceptable conflict of interest in which the UN organisation concerned with promoting our health has been made subservient to those whose main interest is the expansion of nuclear power. Dissolving the WHO-IAEA agreement is a necessary first step to restoring the WHO's independence to research the true health impacts of ionising radiation and publish its findings."

Disregarding lessons from 26 years of Bhopal disaster, even in the 24th anniversary year of the Chernobyl disaster the WHO-IAEA Agreement is yet to be abandoned. ECRR has called for its abandonment. India too should call for freeing WHO from hiding facts about health effect from nuclear hazards due to the agreement.

Amidst public relations blitzkrieg of nuclear companies, it is not surprising that Banerjee, Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy expressed his touching faith in the nuclear power companies of all ilk and informed the Parliamentary Committee that the “Reactor at Chernobyl did not have a containment, while old reactors in India have containments and, therefore, Chernobyl type incident can never take place in India.” Is it because of such divine belief in the nuclear technology that he was starkly negligent in choosing not to consult revenant ministries while drafting the Bill? Is it for this very reason that doctrine of “absolute liability” for the operator, supplier, builder and owner has been subverted? Business enterprises are “strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which operate vis-à-vis the tortuous principle of strict liability,” as per Supreme Court’s order. The liability of the operator should be made “absolute” to ensure that there are no exceptions.

The Bill ignores the fact that Union Carbide Corporation was also in the business of nuclear power and its current owner The Dow Chemicals Company (since February 6, 2001) too offers a range of nuclear grade resins that are designed and manufactured to meet the requirements of the nuclear power industry. As part of its ‘policy perspectives’ for ‘Accelerate Development of Alternatives and Renewable Energy’, Dow calls for “An increased reliance on safe nuclear power and technologies for effectively managing nuclear waste”. Radioactive waste is not a single "thing" that can be isolated and dealt with.

Reddy, Singh and Banerjee should have recommended more openness, increased public access to information so that no agency hides problems to be solved by the future generations. Current draft of the Bill is leaving the nuclear waste problems for future generations.

This is illustrated by what Alka Sirohi, Secretary, Department of Food & Public Distribution informed the Parliamentary Standing Committee , while explaining the functioning of her Ministry, she emphasized the ill-effects of nuclear radiation on food items and its subsequent repercussions on human health and safeguards to be taken to prevent nuclear contamination of food during radiological accidents. She further mentioned although radiological damage to food items may fall within the generic definition of the property as mentioned in Clause 2f (ii) of the Bill, it would be better if the said Clause could provide a separate definition food grains along with of storage of foodgrains. Additionally she also mentioned that safety norms, distance, location and operating procedure, which should be defined in the Bill during the construction of the warehouses for foodgrains storage to be followed, near a nuclear facility. She also mentioned about the establishment of laboratories for the standard testing of food articles to ascertain radiation levels. Sirohi merits appreciation for her considered submission before the Parliamentary Standing Committee.

The Bill remains silent on the grave issues raised by Prabeer Kumar Basu, Secretary, Agriculture who mentioned before the Committee that the disaster management structure in the country is oriented in such a manner that emergencies arising out of floods, earthquakes and droughts could be managed in an efficient manner. However, on the other hand, unfortunately the disaster management structure in the country, as per his opinion, is not well tailored in meeting radiological fall out and more unfortunate to mention that even educated section of the people is not well aware about the implications of a serious nuclear disaster. He therefore, felt that more public awareness needs to be built in respect of nuclear disaster and its hair-raising impact on biological population. He further pointed out that as a consequence of a nuclear disaster of the Chernobyl type, it is quite possible that agricultural crops around 30 to 100 kms. from the site of the incident could be wiped out total. This may affect seriously the biodiversity of the crops in the radiation area and the farmer may loose their traditional variety of crops. In this connection he mentioned that the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources and Gene Bank in the country who are keeping a sample of each variety of crops can preserve these varieties which could be planted for further production if a variety of crops is entirely lost due to radiological emergency. He however, mentioned that there should be suitable rules, regulations and guidelines and compensation model for agricultural damage that could be inserted at an appropriate place in the legislation which may work after a radiological eventuality takes place.

Further revealing the criminal negligence of the drafters of the Bill, Prabhat C Chatirvedi, Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment while referring to Clause 5 (1)(i) which provides for non-liability of operator for any nuclear damage arising out of a grave natural disaster of an exceptional character pointed out that grave natural disaster should not include earthquakes or floods. He advised the Committee that if nuclear plant is placed in a seismic zone, it should be properly designed to withstand earthquake of severe character. The word natural disaster is too general. He further mentioned that concept of absolute liability of the operator in case of a nuclear damage whether it is on worker or someone else should be invoked in the Bill. The Secretary, while referring to Clause 39 (1) of the Bill, drew the attention of the Committee that no specific monetary quantum has been mentioned in regard to the fine to be imposed under the chapter on offenses and penalties. He therefore, suggested that specific quantum of fine in monetary terms should be defined in the Bill. Chaturvedi merits plaudits for his considered submission before the committee.

In compliance of the suggestion of Chairperson, Parliamentary Standing Committee Science & Technology, Environment & Forests during my testimony on 3rd August, 2010 and pursuant to my written submission dated 7th July, 2010, Toxicswatch Alliance (TWA) had specifically drawn the attention of the Parliamentary Standing Committee with regard to the narrow definition of the word “installation” and conflict of interest ridden existence of Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB). In a letter to the Parliamentary Standing Committee dated August 12, 2010, TWA has highlighted the backdrop of the deliberations on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill. Meera Shankar, Indian Ambassador to the US, and William Burns , the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs of the United States signed the Agreement on Arrangements and Procedures for Reprocessing on July 30, 2010 in pursuance to Article 6(iii) of the Agreement for Cooperation concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy between India and the US. TWA has questioned the merit of centralised power stations like nuclear given 35-40 percent transmission and distribution loss from power grids.

R.Gopalan, Secretary, Financial Services submitted before the Parliamentary Committee that “any increase in premium of insurance will lead to increase in the cost of production of electricity for nuclear power. It is argued that higher the liability limit higher will be the insurance premium and subsequently higher will be the cost of electricity production.” Unmindful of such concerns its business as usual for the US nuclear companies and FICCI. A press release from the Indian Embassy in Washington, DC noted, "The historic bilateral cooperation agreement for peaceful uses of nuclear energy, the 123 Agreement that we signed two years back provided for reprocessing of US obligated nuclear material in an Indian national facility under IAEA safeguards."

It observes, "The government of India has already designated two sites for nuclear power plants to be established in cooperation with the US and the companies of the two countries are now engaged in discussions" as a follow up of the last month's Strategic Dialogue and the meeting of the CEO's Forum prior to the visit of President Barack Obama to India in November 2010.

Reddy, Dr Singh and Banerjee have failed to discourage nuclear power companies to locate "sinks" like deep waters of ocean, sea, rivers, air and landfills etc in which it could dump, flush, or vent radioactive waste products. They have skirted the issue of India’s radioactive waste management and it should desist from NIMBY-ism. NIMBY stands for "Not In My Back Yard". The US state of Nevada is fighting a classic NIMBY battle against the Yucca Mountain facility. In India too communities should be empowered and not harassed for asserting their right to safe environment and the rights of future generations. It was once argued that reprocessing spent nuclear fuel was another important waste management strategy although the act of reprocessing still generated volatile waste products which exacerbated the waste management problem even as it reduced the overall volume of radioactive waste material but it only made radioactive waste problem a long-term disposal option. Notably, US itself has stopped reprocessing nuclear fuel during the late 1970s by order of President Jimmy Carter.

Reddy, Singh and Banerjee do not realize that the difficulties with radioactive waste cannot be dealt with by imposing a legislative fix on a problem that has not been clearly defined or fully understood. Such legislative fixes are hardly a solution as became evident from US Nuclear Waste Repository Act of 1982 and a 1987 Congressional amendment to the Act which mandated consideration of only one location, Nevada's Yucca Mountain as a permanent repository leading to major litigation as well as significant opposition from people in the US state of Nevada. Nuclear power cannot and should not expand in India as is the case with the US until the problem of where to dispose of radioactive waste is solved.

P Umashankar, Secretary, Ministry of Power apprised the Committee about the Clause 3 of the Bill, wherein the notification regarding the occurrence of a nuclear incident is to be issued within 15 days by the AERB. According to him, “the nuclear power station incharge/ director will immediately declare nuclear emergency, and forthwith the disaster management plan will start, without waiting for the publication of the notification and the 15 days time-period also needs to be reduced. “ This is quite sensible but it appears that Department of Atomic Energy did not consult even the Power Ministry.

Testimony after testimony before the Committee had asked for deletion of the word terrorism from the Bill but the same is not reflected in the Committee’ s report despite the fact that Pradeep Kumar, the Defence Secretary, who also appeared before the Committee categorically stated, “under different layers of protection, nuclear assets including nuclear installations are being protected through Defence. However he admitted that absolute and fool proof protection cannot be guaranteed for any nuclear or other assets in the country during peace or war.” Exceptions for acts of terrorism can easily be used by the supplier and the operator to wash their hands off any nuclear disaster.

In view of the above observations, there is a very urgent need for a Joint Parliamentary Committee (sans conflict of interest) to probe and examine the current liability regime in general and nuclear liability regime in particular in the developed countries besides a High Powered Trans-disciplinary Independent Experts Committee to study the status of adverse enviro-occupational hazards world over. Human cost of industrial disasters have created a compelling logic to do away with the idea of limited liability to companies, the proposed Companies Bill should make a beginning in order to make these legal-artificial persons accountable to our legislature.

For Details: Gopal Krishna, ToxicsWatch Alliance, Email-krishna2777@gmail.com, Mb: 9818089660, Blog: toxicswatch.blogspot.com, Web: www.toxicswatch.com
Read more...
 
ToxicsWatch Alliance © 2011 DheTemplate.com & Main Blogger. Supported by Makeityourring Diamond Engagement Rings

You can add link or short description here