India not giving in to U.S. pressure on Nuclear Liability Law

[bananas]

http://nuclear-news.net/2010/10/22/indiza-not-giving-in-to-u-s-pressure-on-nuclear-liability-law/

India not giving in to U.S. pressure on Nuclear Liability Law

In the run-up to President Barack Obama’s visit here in November, the U.S. side is looking for substantive changes in the nuclear liability law…..American companies such as GE and Westinghouse insist they will be unable to supply nuclear equipment to India unless they are fully insulated from all liability claims in the event of an accident.

India resists U.S. pushback on nuclear liability, The Hindu , Siddharth Varadarajan, 22 Oct 10, No change in the Act is possible, government tells U.S. NEW DELHI: After initially trying to dilute the nuclear liability law at the draft stage to accommodate the concerns of American suppliers, the Manmohan Singh government has told the United States that the Act, as passed by Parliament, is final and that no changes in any of its provisions are possible.

In particular, the Indian side insists that any rules the government might frame to guide the Act’s implementation cannot override its provisions, including Section 17(b), which gives Indian operators a ‘right of recourse’ against nuclear suppliers in the event of an accident caused by defective equipment.

<snip>

Meanwhile, over at CrackpotRepublican.com, the crackpot Republicans are saying that nuclear accidents can't happen ...

[Radical Activist]

1. It's argued here too.

I had several posters here deny that the nuclear industry had any special freedom from liability and then claimed that the industry isn't heavily subsidized. :rofl:

[DCKit]

3. Not HERE!!!! Could never happen here.

But you have to wonder if they're not paid to work on Sunday, since they haven't yet shown up on this particular thread.

[DrGregory]

4. Apples and Oranges

I had several posters here deny that the nuclear industry had any special freedom from liability
===================================================

Apples and oranges comparison here.

The previous discussion concerned the liability of the reactor OWNER,
and you were sorrily misinformed, in error, and just plain WRONG!!!

The law under discussion here concerns NOT the reactor owner but the
reactor VENDOR.

For some perverse reason, you seem to "think" ( term used loosely ) that
a post about liability laws applying to vendors somehow vindicates your
previous ERRONEOUS statements about owner liability.

Dr. Greg

[Radical Activist]

5. Wow. What a meaningless distinction.

Could the nuclear industry thrive and build new plants without a special law to limit their liability in the case of a nuclear accident? Yes or No?

That's the issue and you know the answer.

[DrGregory]

6. That's the problem....

What a meaningless distinction.
--------------------------------------

That's the problem with attempting to have an intelligent
discussion on this board.

There are liability laws that govern the reactor owner.

There are other laws that govern the liability of the reactor vendor.

However, it would appear that if the topic contains both
the words "nuclear" and "liability", then we must be discussing the
SAME issue.

Most search engines are more intelligent than that.

Dr. Greg

[Radical Activist]

8. Nice dodge.

Condescending to me about details immaterial to the central issue does not make your case. Neither does waving "Dr" in front of your name.

[DrGregory]

7. Yes - we know the answer.

Could the nuclear industry thrive and build new plants without a special law to limit their liability in the case of a nuclear accident? Yes or No?
------------------------------------------

Of course it can!!

The nuclear power industry has been SUCCESSFULLY
generating 20% to 25% of the USA's electricity for
the past few decades.

Evidently you don't understand that the provisions
of the Price-Anderson Act that you call "special" or
"limiting" have NEVER been used.

Even in the worse accident in the USA, Three Mile Island,
the damages to the public were limited to some hotel bills
for displaced residents.

Some ill-informed residents in the area didn't realize
that they were unharmed and attempted to extract money
from the reactor owner via a lawsuit.

Their lawsuit was DISMISSED without trial because the
judge granted summary judgment since they didn't have
a case:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/tmi.html

QUOTING:

"As is clear from the preceding discussion, the discrepancies between Defendants, proffer of evidence and that put forth by Plaintiffs in both volume and complexity are vast. The paucity of proof alleged in support of Plaintiffs, case is manifest. The court has searched the record for any and all evidence which construed in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs creates a genuine issue of material fact warranting submission of their claims to a jury. This effort has been in vain."

The "paucity of proof" part of the quote says it all.

So the provisions of that law that you don't like
( and continually misrepresent the provisions of )
have NEVER been used.

So what are you carping about?

Dr. Greg

[Radical Activist]

9. Huh. If the law is not needed

then would you like to explain why the nuclear industry lobbied so hard to keep limitation on liability in the US, and why they claimed the industry could not survive without it? And why is the industry saying they can't operate in India without liability limitation in the case of an accident?
I've seen your pathetic tactic before. You think you can shut me up by throwing around inconsequential details, acting like an expert and talking down to me. But your arguments are weak and irrelevant.

[DrGregory]

10. WRONG AGAIN!!

then would you like to explain why the nuclear industry lobbied so hard to keep limitation on liability in the US, and why they claimed the industry could not survive without it?
===========================================================

The Price Anderson Act set insurance coverage limits consistent
with conservatively HIGH estimates of the possible damages as
calculated by SCIENTISTS at Brookhaven National Laboratory.

What the anti-nukes would like is a law that imposed insurance
coverage requirements that FAR exceed what could ever be caused
in an accident. That essentially prices nuclear power too high
in an UNFAIR way.

It would be like requiring every driver in the USA to have a
BILLION DOLLARS on deposit in an escrow account in order to
coverage any damages from their operation of a motor vehicle.
We don't demand a billion dollars worth of coverage because
a motor vehicle accident just isn't going to cause that much
damage. Such a law would be merely for the sake of effectively
outlawing automobiles. I bet there are some, possibly some who
frequent this board, that would think that was a good idea.

That's what some members of Congress attempted to do back in
1957. They wanted to IGNORE the scientists that made reasonable
estimates and invoke a law that effectively outlawed the then
fledgling industry.

However, at that time, Congress was more friendly to the idea
of using nuclear power. They addressed the attempt to overprice
nuclear power by the anti-nukes with the provisions we see in
the Price Anderson Law. The anti-nukes argued that the public
would not be protected unless some exorbitant amount of coverage
were required. The more reasonable members of Congress crafted
a law that said that the people would be covered because the
Government would pay their claims, and then the Government
would be reimbursed by the nuclear industry pooling their assets.

However, the nuclear industry would only have to pay reasonable
insurance coverage, and NOT the INFLATED amounts that the anti-nukes
hoped would sink the industry.

As far as why we have liability laws for nuclear power, we have
liability laws for LOTS of industries. We have liability laws
covering the airline industry. These laws codify the responsibilities
of the airlines that operate the crafts as well as the vendors and
suppliers. Those provisions SHOULD be spelled out up front so
everyone knows what their responsibilities are. You have any
problem with that?

Additionally, it used to be that an injured party could only sue
someone they had a contractual relationship with. If you bought
some medicine that was mislabeled by the manufacturer, then you
could only sue your druggist. It was up to the druggist to sue
the negligent manufacturer. ( These facts are based on the case
that actually led to changes in liability law. )

Liability laws now allow the injured consumer to sue the negligent
manufacturer directly. That's a good thing. What do you want
to do? Would it be better if we didn't have laws and only hash
out these issues when there is an accident?

If there were members of Congress who were talking about enacting
the BILLION dollars on deposit provision I proffer above, you can
be sure that the Detroit and Japanese automakers would be pushing
for the status quo. They wouldn't want the field opened up to
include a law that effectively kills the industry.

I know how DESPERATELY the anti-nuclear lobby wants to enact such
unreasonable provisions to effectively kill the industry. One sees
the self-righteous supporters of killing the industry throwing logic
and fairness to the wind in their monomaniacal pursuit of the end
of nuclear power. However, the rest of us see through them.

Dr. Greg

[Radical Activist]

11. More irrelevant nonsense that doesn't prove your point.

Aren't you going to let us know what site you pasted that from, Doctor?

[DrGregory]

12. BROTHER!!

More irrelevant nonsense that doesn't prove your point.
----------------------------------------

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that
my point is not proven.

Unlike some, I don't just "cut and paste" from the work
of someone else.

If you are any type of student of the history of
nuclear power in the USA, the story of the Price-Anderson
Act would be familiar to you.

Dr. Greg

[leveymg]

2. Not after Bophal, Union Carbide's gift to India.

The Indians have had first-hand experience of the "fail-safe" nature of American industrial technology.

No, they won't grant a blanket exemption to corporate liability for catastrophic nuclear accidents, thank you. We're fools to have granted one here.

[kristopher]

13. Imagine if the automakers were exempt from liability for the products they build.

I can't imagine anyone would accept that as a reasonable proposition.

India insists that both vendors and owners be held responsible for the failure of the product. That seems perfectly reasonable and a very good way to exercise prudent regulatory oversight.

[DrGregory]

14. It depends....

India insists that both vendors and owners be held responsible for the failure of the product.
================================================

It depends on who is at fault.

It is NOT reasonable to hold a vendor responsible when the
operator is 100% culpable and the only reason for including
the vendor is because they have deeper pockets.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

16. Are you EVER able to make a remark that is actually germane to the discussion?

Are you EVER able to make a remark that is actually germane to the discussion? I've haven't seen you be on point even once.

In this case the vendors are insisting on 100% exemption from liability - period.

Your remark about assigning blame is absolutely beside the point.

[Nihil]

17. Hmmm ... how to prove the opposition's point ...

> Imagine if the automakers were exempt from liability for the products they build.

Somehow I think that most of the incidents settled for their products have not
involved the "automakers", just the operators of the same ... yet you insist that
the "automakers" should be held responsible for every little fender-bender that
occurs ... hmm ...

[kristopher]

18. Tell that to Toyota, Ford, Honda, GM, Chrysler etc.

I'm sure they need the laugh.

[DrGregory]

15. For the record... Westinghouse is no longer American

American companies such as GE and Westinghouse insist they will be unable to supply nuclear equipment to India unless they are fully insulated from all liability claims in the event of an accident.
----------------------------------------------------

For the record, Westinghouse Electric Company is no longer
solely an American company.

Since 2006, the majority owner of Westinghouse has been Toshiba.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westinghouse_Electric_Company

Dr. Greg