The U.S. had barred American companies from selling nuclear reactors, fuel, services and technology to India after India's atomic bomb test in 1974. Congress passed legislation lifting that ban earlier this month. Thereafter there has been a rally between U.S based General Electric Co. (GE), Paris based Areva SA, and Russia's Rosatom Corp. to clench the deal to sell nuclear-energy supplies to India.
The question is should the UPA government ratify that suppliers of nuclear plants and technology be granted a legal safeguard? India has a very bad experience already with a disaster caused by the Union Carbide factory in Bhopal in 1984, which had claimed 3,800 lives. Thus, it's essential that there be some kind of liability regime in place. It is agreed that this form of liability is extraordinary because there's no private market to purchase insurance against a nuclear incident. Yet, any agreement for the provision of nuclear reactors from any country, including the United States, has to carry with it the most important aspect -- the liability of the provider.
The liability treaty is known as the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage. It makes plant operators, usually a utility, responsible for damages from any accident and shields suppliers from liability. Operators must set aside about $450 million for compensation in case of damage, and governments that sign the treaty would cover additional claims.
To my opinion there should be some sovreign immunity cover on the supplier through partial or full control by governments. In absence of it, we may probably have to recount the story of Bhopal disaster in the event of a nuclear accident.
No comments:
Post a Comment