Quote:[size="4"][color="blue"] [/color][/size] Siddharth Varadarajan



New Delhi: The Union Cabinet overrode strong objections from both the Finance and Environment Ministries in approving the controversial Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill November last, The Hindu has learned. These objections related to the impact of the law on safety standards and on providing adequate compensation in the event of a nuclear accident.



The Bill, which the government is to introduce in Parliament this session, channels all liability stemming from a nuclear accident to the operator of the plant. The maximum liability for an incident has been fixed at 300 million SDRs (approximately Rs. 2,385 crore), but the liability of the operator, whether public or private, is capped at Rs. 500 crore. The draft law will enable the country to accede to the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC), without which the United States says its companies will not be able to sell nuclear equipment to India.



In its comments, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) drew attention to the law's failure to specify the amount of compensation for death or damage due to an accident. It said nuclear damage to human and animal life and the environment were long-term and needed a thorough understanding of the subject, “especially as the Act is for final compensation and not for interim relief.”



The MoEF pointed out that the law did not specify which agency or entity was eligible to file a claim for compensation for damage to the environment. Finally, in the absence of the Health Ministry batting for its concerns, it said the 10-year limit for filing of claims was too low “since the nuclear damages involves changes in DNAs resulting in mutagenic and teratogenic changes, which take a long time to manifest.” It observed that more scientific guidelines were needed to ensure the competent claims authority was able to review these kinds of damage and award compensation “which is just.”



The Finance Ministry focussed its criticism on the central tenet of the law — the need to limit the liability of private companies involved in the nuclear business to Rs. 500 crore. Noting that the difference between that figure and the maximum liability of Rs. 2,385 crore would have to be made good by the government, the Ministry questioned the Department of Atomic Energy's rationale that the risk of accidents was low and that unlimited liability would hinder the growth of the nuclear industry in the country.



Limiting the liability in an arbitrary way could “expose the government to substantial liabilities for the failings of the private sector management in such installations,” it said in its submissions to the Cabinet.



In the end, however, the objections were rejected and the draft law approved as it stood.

Quote:Agencies

Posted: Mar 11, 2010



Washington Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was on Thursday named as the new certification authority by US President Barack Obama to verify the Indo-US Civilian Nuclear Act for the US Congress after every six months. “I hereby delegate to you (Secretary of State) the functions conferred upon the President by section 204© of the United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act (Public Law 110-369),” Obama said in a signed memorandum issued to the Secretary of State.



Under the Act, the US President needs to certify to the appropriate congressional committees [color="#0000ff"]that it is the policy of the US to work with members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, individually and collectively, to agree to further restrict the transfers of equipment and technology related to the enrichment of uranium and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel[/color].



The President is also asked to report to the Congress and achieve, by the earliest possible date, either within the NSG or with relevant NSG Participating Governments, the adoption of principles, reporting, and exchanges of information as may be appropriate to assure peaceful use and accounting of by-product material in a manner that is substantially equivalent to the relevant provisions of the Agreement.



The Indo-US civilian nuclear deal was initiated by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and then US President George W Bush in 2005.



The two countries formally signed the deal in 2008, marking the end of 34 years of US sanctions on nuclear trade with India.

Quote:In view of the forthcoming NPT review conference and Obama's declared commitment to rid the world of all nuclear weapons, India may have to face US pressure to sign the NPT and the CTBT.



India has made it clear many a time recently that it remains opposed to the NPT and the CTBT in their present form as it regards these as discriminatory regimes that divide the world into the nuclear haves and have-nots.



New Delhi has, however, kept its options open vis-a-vis CTBT, saying if other countries - read US, China and Pakistan - go along, it will re-examine its stand.

Quote:Chidanand Rajghatta, TNN, Mar 22, 2010,

WASHINGTON: Amid reports of massive 16-20 hour power outages across Pakistan causing public unrest, the Barack Obama administration has indicated it is open to Islamabad's plea for a civilian nuclear deal akin to the US-India agreement, notwithstanding continued disquiet about Pakistan's bonafides on the nuclear front.



The first indication of a possible policy shift by US, which had till now rejected Pakistan's entreaties for a nuclear deal, came in an interview the US ambassador to Islamabad, Anne Patterson, gave to a Pakistani-American journal in which she said the two sides were going to have "working level talks" on the subject during a strategic dialogue on March 24.



Patterson confirmed the claim of her Pakistani counterpart in Washington Hussain Haqqani, which were initially denied, that the two sides had had some initial discussions on the subject. Acknowledging that earlier US "non-proliferation concerns were quite severe", she said attitudes in Washington were changing.



"I think we are beginning to pass those and this is a scenario that we are going to explore," she told a LA-based Pakistani journal.



Another top US official, Af-Pak envoy Richard Holbrooke, was a little more circumspect. "We're going to listen carefully to whatever the Pakistanis say," he replied, when asked about Islamabad's demand for a civilian nuclear deal.



The Pakistani establishment, ahead of a wide-ranging strategic dialogue with US on March 24, has made parity with India, including a civilian nuclear deal, the centerpiece of its ramped-up engagement.



Intimations of a change in US policy came even as new reports emerged about the extent and scope of government-backed Pakistani nuclear proliferation in a book by former weapons inspector and non-proliferation activist David Albright. Successive US administrations, in an effort to absolve Islamabad and save it from embarrassment from past misdemeanors, have suggested that the country's nuclear mastermind A Q Khan acted on his own without permission from the Pakistani government or the military, but this assessment is strongly challenged by the non-proliferation community.



Talk of a nuclear deal with Pakistan also comes on the heels of the country signing a gas pipeline deal with Iran last week even as Washington was bearing down on Tehran.



The idea that Pakistan deserves its own nuclear deal to overcome a trust deficit with the United States was first proposed by Georgetown University academic Christine Fair. "More so than conventional weapons or large sums of cash, a conditions-based civilian nuclear deal may be able to diminish Pakistani fears of US intentions while allowing Washington to leverage these gains for greater Pakistani cooperation on nuclear proliferation and terrorism," Fair argued in a newspaper article earlier this year.



However, aside from Pakistan's proliferation footprints and ties with Iran, there is also the small matter of getting such a nuclear deal past the 44-member Nuclear Suppliers Group, which made an exception for India but might find Pakistan more unpalatable. The US-India deal itself remains to be fully implemented more than five years after it was first conceived.



Some experts also question whether Pakistan has the capacity to buy or absorb any nuclear power reactor given that the country is broke. But then, even signaling a shift in US policy is something that might mollify Pakistan for now. In fact, even Fair's recommendations of a conditional nuclear deal was seen in some Pakistani quarters as a conspiracy to penetrate and neutralize the country's nuclear assets.

Quote:Our government is churning out one hazardous bill after another. This time it is a bill called the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage, and it's coming up for a vote in a couple of days.



The bill lets U.S. corporations off the hook for any nuclear accidents they cause on Indian soil. They'd only have to pay a meagre amount, and Indian taxpayers would be stuck paying crores for the nuclear clean up and to compensate the victims.



Without any public debate, the Prime Minister is appeasing American interests and ignoring our safety.



Greenpeace is launching a petition asking the PM to hold a public consultation before introducing the bill.



I have already signed this petition. Can you join me?



http://www.greenpeace.org/india/stop-the-vote

Quote:http://www.hindu.com/2010/03/28/stories/2010032856261200.htm

If India manages to convince Kazakhstan about the efficacy of its reactors over Russian ones, this would be the first-ever export of indigenously designed and manufactured reactors, official sources said.

Quote:Mar 30, 2010 at 1031 hrs

Washington:

The Obama Administration says it is happy and satisfied that India and the US were able to clinch the nuclear fuel reprocessing agreement reflecting their deeper relationship and helping the civil nuclear deal move forward. "I think it's a reflection of the deepening of our relationship. We think that the 123 Agreement is in the interest of both the United States, India, and has broader impact as well," Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs P J Crowley told reporters when asked to comment on the bilateral reprocessing pact announced yesterday.



The pact is another step towards full implementation of the landmark Indo-US civil nuclear deal and two more steps remain.



The advance consent agreement is only the third of its kind ever undertaken by the US, which has such pacts with the European Consortium EUROATOM and Japan. It grants India advance consent to reprocess spent fuel of US origin and fuel burnt in American reactors.







As the two teams overcame several hurdles in their effort to complete the negotiations in time, Crowley termed it as "brilliant diplomacy" and said the State Department is satisfied that the agreement is moving forward.



Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher pointed to the significant and prized relationship between the two countries.



"We're very happy to see that this agreement is moving forward, and the reprocessing agreement is one piece of a very large 123 Agreement, and we're happy to see that it's moved forward," Tauscher said.



The State Department also released the text of the arrangements and procedures agreed between India and the US.



"It was an agreement that required some follow-up, some detail. Obviously, we had to advise our Congress about it. Likewise, the Indian Government worked through the issues. So I think anytime that you not only reach an agreement but then can see it begin to be enacted, that develops trust and confidence on both sides. I think this reflects a much broader, deeper, and expanded relationship between our two countries," Crowley told reporters in response to a question.



Starting July last year, a high-level team from both countries held several round of talks on this crucial aspect of the Indo-US 123 Agreement, which gives New Delhi prior consent to reprocess.



The negotiations, held between a team of India's Department of Atomic Energy officials led by its director, strategic planning group, RB Grover and Richard Stratford, the non-proliferation and disarmament expert in US State Department, were aimed at finalising this pact.



Terming it as a "truly great news," President of the US India Business Council, Ron Somers, said the agreement distinguished India as a true partner in high technology cooperation for the long future.



The US had previously granted similar rights only to the European consortium EURATOM and Japan.

Quote:New Delhi: India and the US have finalised negotiations on arrangements and procedures for reprocessing of American-origin spent fuel, a key step for implementation of the historic civil nuclear deal signed in September 2008.



The negotiations were held as per a clause in the 123 Agreement that mandated India to set up a dedicated reprocessing facility under IAEA safeguards where the spent nuclear fuel from the US could be reprocessed.





"The United States and India have taken an important step toward implementing civil nuclear cooperation by completing negotiations on 'arrangements and procedures' for reprocessing US-origin spent nuclear fuel," the State Department said in a statement.



Under the 123 Agreement, negotiations on reprocessing were to be started six months after the signing of 123 Agreement and concluded within a year thereafter.



Accordingly, the negotiations were started in August last year and completed well in advance.



"The United States of America and the Republic of India are close to completing an historic partnership on civil nuclear cooperation, an issue of global significance. The two countries have finalized negotiations on arrangements and procedures for reprocessing U.S.-origin spent nuclear fuel," US Ambassador to India Timothy J Roemer said while making the announcement in a statement.



The completion of these arrangements would facilitate participation of US firms in India's rapidly-expanding civil nuclear sector, the State Department said.



"The United States and India are one step closer to ensuring greater access to clean and affordable energy and electricity for all Indians, particularly those most in need," Timothy said.



He said the important step was "part of the great, win-win narrative of the US-India global partnership, affirming the commitment of our two countries to realize the full potential of our landmark civil nuclear agreement."



Pointing out that these arrangements will enable Indian reprocessing of U.S.-obligated nuclear material under IAEA safeguards, the US envoy said it would "help open the door for US firms in India’s rapidly-expanding energy sector, creating thousands of jobs" for the citizens of both the countries.



"Along with the great progress our countries are making in the realm of civil nuclear energy, we recognize that Prime Minister (Manmohan) Singh shares President (Barack) Obama?s bold vision for a nuclear weapons-free world," he said.



He applauded India’s "outstanding track record on non-proliferation issues and we look forward to our continuing cooperation in this area."



The arrangements were negotiated pursuant to Article 6(iii) of the historic Agreement for Cooperation between India and the United States concerning peaceful uses of nuclear energy.



After this agreement, India needs to take two more steps before the civil nuclear deal can become operational. These are -- putting in place a civil nuclear liability law and giving an assurance on non-proliferation.



The 'Declaration' or 'Assurances' is required by the US government under the Code of Federal Regulations Part 810 (pronounced Part Eight Ten) to give licences to American companies to work in India.



Under the regulation 810, the recipient country has to undertake that it would not to explode a nuclear device, unless exempted, and not use the material received for military purposes.



PTI

Quote:Washington, March 30, 2010

Noting that the 123 Agreement between India and the U.S. reflected deepening relationship between the two countries, top Obama Administration officials said that it would have broader impact in the India-U.S. ties. “I think it’s a reflection of the deepening of our relationship. We think that the 123 Agreement is in the interest of both the United States, India, and has broader impact as well,” Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs P. J. Crowley told reporters at his daily news briefing.



Similarly, Secretary for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher pointed to the significant and prized relationship between the two countries.



“We’re very happy to see that this agreement is moving forward, and the reprocessing agreement is one piece of a very large 123 Agreement, and we’re happy to see that it’s moved forward,” Tauscher said.



Later in the day, the State Department released the text of the arrangements and procedures agreed between India and the United States.



The [color="#4169e1"]advanced consent agreement, the third such pact ever undertaken by the U.S. with another country, grants India advance consent to reprocess spent fuel of U.S. origin and fuel burned in U.S. reactors [/color]

Quote:Date:30/03/2010

Special Correspondent Will allow New Delhi to retrieve recyclable material found in spent fuel from U.S.-origin nuclear plants



Pact will allow reprocessing at two facilities, with India allowed to make additions and modifications



Arrangements will help open the door for U.S. firms in India's energy sector: Timothy Roemer



NEW DELHI/WASHINGTON: India and the United States have agreed to the arrangement and procedures under which the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel will take place at two stand-alone safeguarded sites. New Delhi also retains the right to make additions and modifications.



This will allow India to retrieve recyclable material found in spent fuel from U.S.-origin nuclear plants for further generating electricity.



The reprocessing plants would operate under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) procedures, the U.S. State Department and the Indian Department of Atomic Energy simultaneously announced on Monday.



This is only the third pact signed by the U.S., the earlier ones being with Japan and Euratom, a European consortium.



Until the final round of talks earlier this month, the [color="#4169e1"]principal sticking points revolved around the number of facilities that the agreement would cover, and the conditions under which the U.S. could suspend the operation of arrangements and procedures, thereby bring a halt to the reprocessing of U.S.-origin spent fuel in India[/color].



The [color="#4169e1"]U.S. wanted the agreement to cover only one reprocessing facility, while India felt the 123 agreement envisaged multiple facilities. In the end, the final text says the pact will apply to two facilities, with India allowed to make additions and modifications.[/color]



This clause, Indian officials say, will allow the country to augment its reprocessing capacity without going back to the negotiation table if the need arises for more plants.



As for suspension, Indian officials say[color="#4169e1"] the final agreement now allows Washington to suspend the arrangements and procedures only if there is a threat to physical security or to U.S. national security[/color]. Earlier, the U.S. wanted this kept very open-ended, while India was for restricting it to “exceptional circumstances.”



India is satisfied with the final outcome, officials said, dismissing both scenarios as “highly unlikely.”



Asked whether the U.S. sought “IAEA plus” safeguards, the officials acknowledged that the agreement had some “padding,” but claimed that this was not “prescriptive.” The implementation of safeguards was entirely the responsibility of the IAEA, they said.



The U.S. State Department said the completion of these arrangements would “facilitate participation by U.S. firms in India's rapidly expanding civil nuclear energy sector.”



With the reprocessing pact out of the way, the U.S. will be “following the progress of [the liability] legislation very closely,” U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake said.



While India has been assured of upfront reprocessing rights by Russia and France, Section 201 of the Hyde Act — an American law prescribing the envelope for Indo-U.S. civil nuclear cooperation — asks the U.S. President to ensure that countries offering similar rights do so under comparable terms.



It also states that the pact will be void if the U.S. Congress disapproves of it, despite the U.S. President reporting in “detail” the reasons, description and text of the reprocessing arrangement.



India claims that the Hyde Act is U.S.'s domestic law and its sole reference point is the bilateral 123 civil nuclear agreement.



“These arrangements will help open the door for U.S. firms in India's rapidly expanding energy sector, creating thousands of jobs for the citizens of both our countries,” U.S. Ambassador to India Timothy Roemer said.

Quote:Siddharth Varadarajan



New Delhi: The ‘arrangements and procedures' (A&P) under which India can reprocess U.S.-obligated spent fuel allow Washington to suspend reprocessing permission if it apprehends a “serious threat” either to its national security or to the physical protection of the facility where the reprocessing is taking place that makes suspension unavoidable.



But the A&P also specify a detailed consultation process similar to that contained in the Indo-U.S. nuclear cooperation agreement (the 123 agreement) prior to suspension. In the event of any suspension of reprocessing stretching beyond six months, the A&P envisage [color="#0000ff"]payment of compensation “for the adverse impact on the Indian economy due to disruption in electricity generation and loss on account of disruption of contractual obligations.”

[/color]

More crucially, the text, released by the two sides on Tuesday, contains an Agreed Minute [color="#0000ff"]prohibiting the U.S. from invoking serious national security concerns and suspending reprocessing because of differences with India over the nature of its peaceful or non-safeguarded nuclear activities or fuel cycle choices.[/color] The Indian side was keen to write these clarifications in because it does not want the future size of its unsafeguarded breeder reactor programme or stock of unsafeguarded plutonium to become grounds for suspension of reprocessing. [color="#0000ff"]The U.S. has also agreed not to invoke national security concerns for the purpose of securing commercial advantage or hampering India's peaceful nuclear activities.[/color]



The U.S. granted India upfront reprocessing consent in the 123 agreement finalised in 2007 but said this consent would “come into effect” when India established a safeguarded reprocessing facility and negotiated the arrangements and procedures under which U.S.-obligated spent fuel would be reprocessed. ‘U.S.-obligated' means spent fuel resulting from the use of American reactors or U.S.-supplied nuclear fuel.



During the reprocessing negotiations which commenced last year, [color="#0000ff"]three sticking points emerged. The first was Article 7 dealing with suspension.[/color] In the original draft, the article had just two paragraphs, granting the U.S. side fairly open-ended rights. In the final version, this article, including its associated Agreed Minute mentioned above, has been elaborated upon and now accounts for a quarter of the length of the A&P. The Indian side is satisfied with the protection it has built in and is confident Washington will not be able to take any decision to suspend reprocessing lightly or for frivolous reasons.



[color="#0000ff"]The second obstacle was the number of facilities the A&P would apply to[/color]. The U.S. wanted to limit matters to just one facility while India spoke of multiple facilities. [color="#0000ff"]Finally, there were differences over the nature of the “consultation visits” that U.S. officials would be allowed to make to the reprocessing facilities[/color], given Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's assurance that there would be no American inspectors “roaming around” Indian nuclear facilities.



If the suspension conditions have been narrowed, the compromise on scope is that the A&P will cover reprocessing at two new national facilities dedicated to reprocessing safeguarded nuclear material under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. Though this is less than the ‘multiple' facilities India wanted,[color="#0000ff"] the agreement covers “future expansion, modifications, renovations or additions” to the two facilities, meaning total reprocessing capacity at the two sites can be augmented. Secondly, Article 1(4) says the U.S. “understand[s] the need for sufficient indigenous Indian capacity to reprocess … under IAEA safeguards, U.S.-obligated nuclear material … Based on this understanding, the Parties agree to pursue the steps necessary, consistent with their national laws, to permit reprocessing … at one or more new additional national facilities in India.[/color]” Unless otherwise agreed, the same A&P would apply to the new facilities.



As for American officials visiting the reprocessing facilities, Article 4 allows for “consultation visits” but only in accordance with an Agreed Minute which tightly lays down what these visits will entail. After one visit within six months of the facility commencing operations, a U.S. team of up to 10 persons will be allowed in [color="#0000ff"]once every five years to exchange views and consult with the Indian side on the implementation of physical protection measures and storage as mandated by the IAEA. [/color]Unlike IAEA safeguards inspectors, the U.S. team will not be allowed to use equipment and access within the facility shall be restricted by India “in order to protect sensitive locations and equipment … as well as sensitive information.”



In the initial draft, this article used ambiguous language to the effect that the exchange of information “may include visits by a U.S. team.” India took the view that ambiguity worked against it and that it would be better to nail the specifics of the visits down to precise parameters. With a “serious threat” to the facility's physical protection one of the grounds under which the U.S. can suspend the A&P, the Indian side felt it was best to be transparent about the protection measures the facility was implementing. Since the agreement allows consultation visits, any allegation made by American think-tanks or legislators about the lack of proper physical protection at the reprocessing facility could be more easily refuted.



The A&P also provide for an additional safeguard measure that is not part of the IAEA's standard playbook. If the IAEA so requests, India undertakes to incorporate an on-site laboratory to perform destructive analysis of process samples required by the IAEA safeguards approach. Such a lab would be paid for and operated by the IAEA. None of this would be a burden on the Department of Atomic Energy, say Indian officials.



All told, Indian officials are satisfied with the reprocessing deal. “The agreement speaks for itself” said an official, adding that it did not change India's position on any issue.