By Ajai Shukla
Business Standard, 27th Jan 15
Washington and New Delhi have announced that they have bridged
the gulf that has deterred US nuclear power generation companies from entering
the Indian market since 2008, when the US-India civil nuclear agreement was
signed.
On Sunday, President Barack Obama hailed the “breakthrough”
agreement after talks with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Modi stating that
India was “moving towards commercial cooperation (with the US in nuclear power
generation), consistent with our law, our international legal obligations, and
technical and commercial viability.”
Yet, the joint statement issued by the two countries
contained no details of how both sides’ concerns have been met.
American interest in setting up nuclear plants in India had
been stopped dead in 2010, when New Delhi passed a law called “The Civil
Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010” (hereafter Nuclear Liability Act). Departing
from global practice, which makes only the nuclear plant operator liable to pay
compensation in the event of a nuclear accident, India’s Nuclear Liability Act
allowed for claims to also be made on the supplier of the nuclear plant and
fuel.
US companies like General Electric and Westinghouse, which hope
to supply reactors to India, argued that liability should rest with the
operator alone. In India, the operator is the Nuclear Power Corporation of
India (NPCIL).
India’s position hardened after the Fukushima Daiichi
nuclear disaster unfolded from March 11, 2011, when a tsunami knocked out
emergency power supply in the Japanese power plant, eventually displacing
150,000 people and triggering a cleanup operation that will cost some $200
billion.
Three major differences had emerged between the US and Indian
sides over years of negotiations. The first was a US demand, first made in
2012, for “tracking” nuclear material supplied to India, on a “cradle-to-grave”
basis. New Delhi flatly rejected this, on the grounds that the 2008 agreement
with the US only permitted inspections by the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA), that too only within 14 plants placed under safeguards. The US
has now dropped this demand.
The second sticking point was over Section 17(B) of India’s
Nuclear Liability Law, which allows the Indian operator to recover costs from
the supplier, if an accident were caused by defective materials or equipment.
It was believed that this responsibility would encourage suppliers to adopt
higher safety standards.
This impasse has been resolved by insuring suppliers against
Section 17(B) risk, with General Insurance Corporation (GIC) --- India’s
national re-insurer --- which will establish an insurance pool, from which
damage payments could be drawn.
Bloomberg News quotes Amandeep Singh Gill, joint secretary
of disarmament in India’s foreign ministry, as stating that GIC and four other
public sector companies would set up an insurance pool valued at Rs 750 crore
($122 million), with New Delhi contributing more later.
“It appears as if the risk premium is low enough to not
place a serious burden on the suppliers”, says Siddhartha Varadarajan of Shiv
Nadar University.
The third point of dispute flowed from Section 46 of the
liability law, which permitted nuclear accident victims to file tort claims for
compensation under general principles of law. The US companies believe this
would expose them to practically unlimited liability in the event of a nuclear
disaster.
The government of India has now provided a written
undertaking, apparently from the Attorney General, that this liability would
not extend to the foreign supplier.
On Sunday, US ambassador to India, Richard Verma, said both
sides had agreed that liability would operate “through a memorandum of law
within the Indian system” and would not “require at this stage a legislative
undertaking.”
Even so, it remains unclear how New Delhi’s undertaking
would withstand the legal challenges that seems inevitable. “This would have to
be embodied in some form in the liability law at a future stage”, says
Varadarajan.
Verma admits that US companies would have to do their own
risk assessment before entering the Indian market.
Danny Rodericks, chief executive officer of Westinghouse,
told NDTV on Monday that “We need to look at the new things that have come out…
we need to look at the fine print of that and go through (it) in detail.”
Rodericks also said that his Indian partners, like L&T,
were anxious to get started on actual projects.
The agreement was reached in intensive negotiations between
Contact Groups that Obama and Modi had set up in September specifically to
break the deadlock. The groups met thrice over the last two months, including a
three-day meeting in London last week where the deal was sealed.
India, which currently produces less than 5,000 megawatts of
electricity (MWe) in nuclear power plants, hopes to increase this to 20,000 MWe
by 2020, and to 63,000 MWe by 2032, meeting 25 per cent of its total needs by
2050.
The intense negotiation concluded with the USA giving-up its rights to audit fuel from third party suppliers, which in any case they did not have, and India giving up its rights to sue the reactor supplier from supplying defective and untested sub-systems and parts.
ReplyDeleteEveryone remembers how much the US charged BP for the oil spill in the gulf of Mexico. It was 36 billion dollars four years back. The irony was that people who botched it up were from Deepwater Horizon an American company and yet BP had to foot the bill.
What is a few hundred million dollars considering the damage that a nuclear catastrophe can cause to the environment and our people.
Was it an intense negotiation or an intense capitulation you decide.
Excellent write up. Kudos.
ReplyDeletelest... forget... Bhopal...
ReplyDelete@Broadsword:
ReplyDeletecaught your pic with LCH TD-3!
Hope you are posting something on it soon :)