Sunday, September 22, 2013

The Clause for Nuclear Liability LAW

While paying our highest respect towards the Indian Parliament that enacted an added Clause of ‘Nuclear Liability Law’ in order to provide a foolproof and direct  responsibility on the Supplier, not to run away from taking any responsibility as and when there occurs an unforeseen Accident for whatever reason. Even though the intention of passing of the Law is good to protect those who are affected by any such unforeseen disasters; the supplier of either the Reactor or the fuel is unconnected with the Operation of the Unit so established or constructed to the extent that the Supplier is barred from earning a regular Profit by taking part in sharing the revenue generated from supply of Power to  the Common General Public to enable the Supplier to bear the cost of Insurance Premium to keep the Promise so undertook to pay compensation to the victims by virtue of Clause included in M.O.U.   

The Accident at Bhopal is a separate issue altogether being the Plant was owed by ‘Union Carbide’ was earning a regular Profit through selling its products  manufactured by the operator of the Plant  in the Market and therefore it cannot  disown its responsibility of taking the liability of the damage done to the Common General Public for any wrong doings for whatever reason even if the Company go Bankrupt or failing to make an arrangement with Insurance Company to pay such compensation to common General Public who are suffering due to negligence of the Operator of the Plant.Therefore,the action of Govt. of India to demand damages from ‘Union Carbide’ is just and fair irrespective of the location where the Company is registered.             

As and when Supplier offer ‘Accidental damage protection’ to a customer; it only restricted to change the physical aspect or composition of the Equipment supplied but it never offer damage for bodily harm to any while enforcing the Clause.

As for example as and when we import ‘Crude Oil’ to process it within the Country through its various Refineries; there is no liability on the part of the Supplier to incur an additional cost of compensation, even though we meet with limitless Accidents from producing Products from it to its end use while feeding to Engines to run by it. These are inherent bottle necks in using such Products of mass use.

Therefore, as and when we import Nuclear Materials, the Supplier liability is limited to the supply the same and feeding the material to the Reactor. Since the entire composition of the supply so fed to the Reactor undergoes drastic change, it is the responsibility of the Producer of the Power or the Operator to provide compensation to the victims if any as and when there occur an Accident. But if the supplier is a partner in producing as well as supplying Power to the Consumers to exit itself as an entity, the supplier too becomes responsible for such Accidents. How without knowing much about the expertise of the executor of the Plant, a supplier can stand guarantee of one or the other for its wrong doing?

If the same Clause is wrongly interpreted; the Country shall need to bear an extra cost to secure it from a particular source only without offering of a competition in open Market to take care of the Clause so stated by paying Tax Payer Money, most indirectly. Under such circumstances, there are chances that we procure inferior products from ordinary sources that might compromise the safety of the Plant. Further, such interpretation of Law can never withstand the debate in International Courts if the matter sees an escalation regarding the amount of compensation to be offered to victims of such Accidents which is most likely to come into effect post Accident and is bound to deprive the victim of all benefits which is otherwise possible to arrive at, if we follow a simple route to address the issue. 

From my own experience, when the Country made it open to use Contractor for Drilling of Wells for Onshore & Offshore areas by utilizing Grants from World Bank, self debated the matter with Officials of World Bank and had changed the entire M.O.U to allow local Contractors to participate in Tenders floated for the purpose using local Manpower. Even in B.H.E.L, self introduced a much different Production line for enhancing Profit to the Company following a debate. These are just Laws which must see change in meaning or for doing an interpretation with our expansion of knowledge and not stick to old ideas which are not beneficial to both Parties.       

Therefore, the observation of Attorney General is just and correct to arrive at a logical conclusion about interpreting the Law under the present circumstances.

We must try to change the Design of the present Nuclear Plants from across the Globe to include freezer around the various Reactors so that we have much higher control over such Plants.

{NOTE: Since the matter is off Topic for BBC to publish the write-up notwithstanding fact that it is conveying meaningful message to the Globe, I am posting Copy at must know that we are all same and equal but we are trying to weight the fact that unless we trust on Mutual understanding, no Growth of us is possible}

(Dr.M.M.HAZARIKA, PhD)                                                                                
     A name retained by UN; Opinion Leader ‘TIME’                   
PH: 91-80-41303161, M: 9980644857

No comments:

Post a Comment