The report of the 13th Finance Commission report was tabled in the parliament on the 25th of February. This document makes a very interesting read. Howe of over the 400+ pages generally acts as a deterrent. Who has the time or the patience to go through all of that.
Well this is one of the occupational hazards that i have to go through. Yes i am expected to read through and sometimes even make bullet points out of them. a misuse of bullets i must say.
In the process of this reading i sometimes come across very interesting snippets of data and ideas which i feel needs to be spread to as many of us as possible. That is the attempt in the following blog. Please note that this is not a summary of the finance commission report. I have absolutely no desire neither do i have the skill to be able to summarize that mammoth document. What i have done is every time that i have read something interesting i have put the detail down in this blog. so the format of this blog is more like "did you know that ...." actually strike that its more like a Ripley's believe it or not
It was Shocking to read that more than 70% of our Public sector Undertakings have their accounts in arrears, no i am not talking about profit and loss here i am talking about the stage before more than 70% of the PSU's do not yet know whether they have made losses or not. Most of our PSU's are unable to finalise at least one account per year.
The Saga does not end there in one state Audit of PSU's is pending since 1992-93. The worst is of course that the commission has come across PSU's whose Accounts have not be finalised for the last 37 years.
what this actually means is that the state is allocating budgets to PSU's everyear without knowing if the money in the previous year has been well spent. In fact they do not even know if the money has been spent at all.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Salient Points of the Indian Nuclear Civil Liability Bill
The Nuclear Civil liability bill was not tabled in the parliament. The Indian Government decided against tabling the bill No 19 2010 in view of the fierce public outcry against it, and because of the oppositions to in within the parliament therein.
While public debate and outcry is essential what is important is that, this happens in an informed manner. This ensures that the objections that are raised are done in a rational manner and essential changes can be forced into the document. Very often opposition to policy, bills, amendments are made on flimsy grounds, and when these are debunked by the proponents the opposition and public outcry that has been built falls apart. Often the offending legislature is passed with minor changes and the important issues are missed out.
The Nuclear civil liability bill is an important legislature that has the potential to impact all our lives. The requirement for a public debate on this piece of legislature is not only essential but a absolute must. However what is first required is an understanding of what is this bill that we call "The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill"
In the next paragraphs I will attempt to put out the salient features of the bill. This is by no means a comprehensive study of the bill, the points are those that i feel are important and require discussion on.
Section 2 subsection (i) explaination : For the purpose of this clause, several nuclear installations of one operator which are located at the same site shall be considered as a single nuclear installation;
This is a problem mainly because a 4000MW nuclear plant may be made up of eight 500MW plants. The insurance required for the whole structure (eight 500MW units) will be the same as if I had just one 500MW unit in the place, even though the risk would clearly be much higher in the first instance. The Risk from multiple units within the same location must be taken into account.
Chapter II (Liability for Nuclear damage) section 3 subsection (1) : The Atomic' Energy Regulatory Board constituted under the Atomic Energy Act 1962 shall, within a period of fifteen days from the date of occurrence of a nuclear incident, notify such nuclear incident:
Provided that where the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board is satisfied that the gravity of threat and risk involved in a nuclear incident is insignificant, it shall not be required to notify such nuclear Incident.
Giving discretion on whether a nuclear incident should be reported or not, should not be allowed, especially as there is no definition of insignificant. All nuclear accidents need to be notified promptly because the public has the right to know if there is a nuclear incident.
Section 5 subsection (1): An operator shall not be liable for any nuclear damage where such damage is caused by a nuclear incident directly due to- (I) a grave natural disaster of an exceptional character; or (il) an act of armed conflict, hostility, civil war, insurrection or terrorism.
It is unclear to me why the operator should not be held responsible especially in the first situation. There is also a need to define exceptional character. However the section 5 subsection 1 could be justified. (Would be important to see if similar clauses exists in other countries and for thermal power plants)
Section 6 subsection (1) and (2): (I) the maximum amount of liability in respect of each nuclear incident shall be the rupee equivalent of three hundred million Special Drawing Rights. (2) The liability of an operator for each nuclear incident shall be rupees five hundred crores
Provided that the Central Government may, having regard to the extent of risk involved in a nuclear installation, by notification, either increase or decrease the amount of liability of the operator: .
Provided further that where the amount of liability is decreased, it shall not be less than rupees one hundred crore.
20827981699 INR or 300000000 SDRs is the total liability cap and the individual operator liability is capped at 72018500.00 SDR and the minimum liability is set at 14403700 SDR’s. What is worry some is that the government could on a case by case basis decrease liability of the operator to 100Cr Rupees. In a country where we have illegal mining in reserve forest and protected areas for nearly a decade due to political collusion and misuse of power, having a clause whereby the liability of the operator can be reduced is clearly not to be encouraged. (A comparison needs to be done for the caps and floors of other countries in comparison to the Indian bill.)
Section 7 (Liability of the Central Government) clause a:
The Central Government shall be liable for nuclear damage in respect of a nuclear incident -
(a) where the liability exceeds the amount of liability of an operator specified under sub-section (2) of section 6, to the extent such liability exceeds such liability of the operator;
For all practical purpose this would mean that the Central government would be liable to pay a maximum of 1500 Cr per nuclear incident. The main point is that the cost of the nuclear plant would shoot up if the operator had to insure the plant against the total amount. The section 7 effectively provides a direct subsidy of 1500Cr INR to every plant or the amount the operator has to pay if he had to take out an insurance policy or financial security for the full liability of ~2100 Cr INR
The Bill later talks about the creation of the Claims Commission headed by the claims commissioner. This is a judicial body to adjudicate all claims for damage due to any nuclear incident. The following points mainly deal with issues regarding the claims commission and its functioning.
Section 15 subsection 2 : (2) Subject to the provisions of section 18, every application under sub-section (1) shall be made within a period of three years from the date of knowledge of nuclear damage by the person suffering such damage.
This clause is a little confusing. Mainly because I am not sure when talking of “knowledge of nuclear damage” it implies nuclear damage to oneself or a nuclear incident. If it is the former then this clause appears reasonable. The victim of nuclear damage would have the right to claim compensation within 3 years of knowing that his or her illness is due to nuclear damage. This is important because very often for radiation symptoms (when not sever burns) to develop it can take decades, and sometimes the impacts are felt for generations. (Chernobyl children are yet being born with deformities 50yrs after the incident) however if the clause is talking about having to make a claim 3 years from the occurrence of the incident then this clause could be a problem simply because symptoms of nuclear radiation poisoning can take decades to manifest
Section 18: The right to claim compensation for any nuclear damage caused by a nuclear incident shall, extinguish if such claim is not made within a period of ten years from the date of incident notified under sub-section (1) of section 3:
Provided that where a nuclear damage is caused by a nuclear incident involving nuclear material which, prior to such nuclear incident, had been stolen, lost, jettisoned or abandoned, the said period of ten years shall be computed from the date of such nuclear incident, but, in no case, it shall exceed a period of twenty years from the date of such theft, loss, jettison or abandonment.
same comment as the previous section.
Section 35: No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter which the Claims Commissioner or the Commission, as the case may be, is empowered to adjudicate under this Act and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.
The Section 35 is worry some because there is no recourse to appeal decisions in courts. The claims commission would have extrajudicial power. It would be impossible to hold the commission or commissioner accountable for his actions.
Section 39 (I) Whoever-
(a) contravenes any rule made or any direction issued under this Act; or
(b) fails to comply with the provisions of section 8; or
(c) fails to deposit the amount under section 36,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a 'term which may extend to five years or with fine or with both.
A maximum of five years prison term for failing to pay compensation or defaulting or not taking insurance etc when seen in relation to the fact that this is for nuclear installations, Looks to me to be far too lenient. (The maximum prison terms for other type of defaults under the Indian penal code need to be checked.)
Section 45: The Central Government may, by notification, exempt any nuclear installation from the application of this Act where, having regard to small quantity of nuclear material, it is of the opinion that the risk involved is insignificant.
This is again a very dangerous situation as it gives blanket powers. The amount of nuclear (fissile) material that will be considered small and the risk that will be considered insignificant needs to be clearly spelt out. Interpretations have a great chance to lead to abuse.
In conclusion:
Even though a lot of discussion has been going on about double standards, my immediate reaction is that "double standards" is not the most pressing issue. It is my understanding that Price - Anderson talks about 300 mill SDR's as total liability which is also the case with India. (further verification will be done and a discussion on the monetary liability India vs US will be posted later.)
What worries me about this bill are the following
-> That the claims comission and the commissioner cannot be challenged in any Civil court. This would give the commission and the commissioner unusual power and a lot of scope for abuse. (section 35)
-> That the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board can decide whether an accident is large and significant enough to be reported (section 3 subsection 1. All accidents whether large or small should be transparently reported. Section 3 subsection 1 can be misused and the impact of such misuse would be significant.
-> That the Building of a 500MW unit would cost same in terms of insurance as building 4000MW. Liability must be according to MW bassis and not as is mentioned in clause 2 subsection 1.
the fact that the compensation is not at all adequate is a larger battle that needs to be fought. However given the present situation i think these 3 clauses are the most important ones that need to be challenged. of these the last clause is also quite important tactically, as the cost of nuclear reactors would increase drastically if insurance is done on a per MW basis.
the views expressed here are my own. i will attempt to make a comparison with the US legislation Price - Anderson Act as soon as i get time. After which it would be possible to have more pointed discussions on the international Implications.
While public debate and outcry is essential what is important is that, this happens in an informed manner. This ensures that the objections that are raised are done in a rational manner and essential changes can be forced into the document. Very often opposition to policy, bills, amendments are made on flimsy grounds, and when these are debunked by the proponents the opposition and public outcry that has been built falls apart. Often the offending legislature is passed with minor changes and the important issues are missed out.
The Nuclear civil liability bill is an important legislature that has the potential to impact all our lives. The requirement for a public debate on this piece of legislature is not only essential but a absolute must. However what is first required is an understanding of what is this bill that we call "The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill"
In the next paragraphs I will attempt to put out the salient features of the bill. This is by no means a comprehensive study of the bill, the points are those that i feel are important and require discussion on.
Section 2 subsection (i) explaination : For the purpose of this clause, several nuclear installations of one operator which are located at the same site shall be considered as a single nuclear installation;
This is a problem mainly because a 4000MW nuclear plant may be made up of eight 500MW plants. The insurance required for the whole structure (eight 500MW units) will be the same as if I had just one 500MW unit in the place, even though the risk would clearly be much higher in the first instance. The Risk from multiple units within the same location must be taken into account.
Chapter II (Liability for Nuclear damage) section 3 subsection (1) : The Atomic' Energy Regulatory Board constituted under the Atomic Energy Act 1962 shall, within a period of fifteen days from the date of occurrence of a nuclear incident, notify such nuclear incident:
Provided that where the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board is satisfied that the gravity of threat and risk involved in a nuclear incident is insignificant, it shall not be required to notify such nuclear Incident.
Giving discretion on whether a nuclear incident should be reported or not, should not be allowed, especially as there is no definition of insignificant. All nuclear accidents need to be notified promptly because the public has the right to know if there is a nuclear incident.
Section 5 subsection (1): An operator shall not be liable for any nuclear damage where such damage is caused by a nuclear incident directly due to- (I) a grave natural disaster of an exceptional character; or (il) an act of armed conflict, hostility, civil war, insurrection or terrorism.
It is unclear to me why the operator should not be held responsible especially in the first situation. There is also a need to define exceptional character. However the section 5 subsection 1 could be justified. (Would be important to see if similar clauses exists in other countries and for thermal power plants)
Section 6 subsection (1) and (2): (I) the maximum amount of liability in respect of each nuclear incident shall be the rupee equivalent of three hundred million Special Drawing Rights. (2) The liability of an operator for each nuclear incident shall be rupees five hundred crores
Provided that the Central Government may, having regard to the extent of risk involved in a nuclear installation, by notification, either increase or decrease the amount of liability of the operator: .
Provided further that where the amount of liability is decreased, it shall not be less than rupees one hundred crore.
20827981699 INR or 300000000 SDRs is the total liability cap and the individual operator liability is capped at 72018500.00 SDR and the minimum liability is set at 14403700 SDR’s. What is worry some is that the government could on a case by case basis decrease liability of the operator to 100Cr Rupees. In a country where we have illegal mining in reserve forest and protected areas for nearly a decade due to political collusion and misuse of power, having a clause whereby the liability of the operator can be reduced is clearly not to be encouraged. (A comparison needs to be done for the caps and floors of other countries in comparison to the Indian bill.)
Section 7 (Liability of the Central Government) clause a:
The Central Government shall be liable for nuclear damage in respect of a nuclear incident -
(a) where the liability exceeds the amount of liability of an operator specified under sub-section (2) of section 6, to the extent such liability exceeds such liability of the operator;
For all practical purpose this would mean that the Central government would be liable to pay a maximum of 1500 Cr per nuclear incident. The main point is that the cost of the nuclear plant would shoot up if the operator had to insure the plant against the total amount. The section 7 effectively provides a direct subsidy of 1500Cr INR to every plant or the amount the operator has to pay if he had to take out an insurance policy or financial security for the full liability of ~2100 Cr INR
The Bill later talks about the creation of the Claims Commission headed by the claims commissioner. This is a judicial body to adjudicate all claims for damage due to any nuclear incident. The following points mainly deal with issues regarding the claims commission and its functioning.
Section 15 subsection 2 : (2) Subject to the provisions of section 18, every application under sub-section (1) shall be made within a period of three years from the date of knowledge of nuclear damage by the person suffering such damage.
This clause is a little confusing. Mainly because I am not sure when talking of “knowledge of nuclear damage” it implies nuclear damage to oneself or a nuclear incident. If it is the former then this clause appears reasonable. The victim of nuclear damage would have the right to claim compensation within 3 years of knowing that his or her illness is due to nuclear damage. This is important because very often for radiation symptoms (when not sever burns) to develop it can take decades, and sometimes the impacts are felt for generations. (Chernobyl children are yet being born with deformities 50yrs after the incident) however if the clause is talking about having to make a claim 3 years from the occurrence of the incident then this clause could be a problem simply because symptoms of nuclear radiation poisoning can take decades to manifest
Section 18: The right to claim compensation for any nuclear damage caused by a nuclear incident shall, extinguish if such claim is not made within a period of ten years from the date of incident notified under sub-section (1) of section 3:
Provided that where a nuclear damage is caused by a nuclear incident involving nuclear material which, prior to such nuclear incident, had been stolen, lost, jettisoned or abandoned, the said period of ten years shall be computed from the date of such nuclear incident, but, in no case, it shall exceed a period of twenty years from the date of such theft, loss, jettison or abandonment.
same comment as the previous section.
Section 35: No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter which the Claims Commissioner or the Commission, as the case may be, is empowered to adjudicate under this Act and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.
The Section 35 is worry some because there is no recourse to appeal decisions in courts. The claims commission would have extrajudicial power. It would be impossible to hold the commission or commissioner accountable for his actions.
Section 39 (I) Whoever-
(a) contravenes any rule made or any direction issued under this Act; or
(b) fails to comply with the provisions of section 8; or
(c) fails to deposit the amount under section 36,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a 'term which may extend to five years or with fine or with both.
A maximum of five years prison term for failing to pay compensation or defaulting or not taking insurance etc when seen in relation to the fact that this is for nuclear installations, Looks to me to be far too lenient. (The maximum prison terms for other type of defaults under the Indian penal code need to be checked.)
Section 45: The Central Government may, by notification, exempt any nuclear installation from the application of this Act where, having regard to small quantity of nuclear material, it is of the opinion that the risk involved is insignificant.
This is again a very dangerous situation as it gives blanket powers. The amount of nuclear (fissile) material that will be considered small and the risk that will be considered insignificant needs to be clearly spelt out. Interpretations have a great chance to lead to abuse.
In conclusion:
Even though a lot of discussion has been going on about double standards, my immediate reaction is that "double standards" is not the most pressing issue. It is my understanding that Price - Anderson talks about 300 mill SDR's as total liability which is also the case with India. (further verification will be done and a discussion on the monetary liability India vs US will be posted later.)
What worries me about this bill are the following
-> That the claims comission and the commissioner cannot be challenged in any Civil court. This would give the commission and the commissioner unusual power and a lot of scope for abuse. (section 35)
-> That the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board can decide whether an accident is large and significant enough to be reported (section 3 subsection 1. All accidents whether large or small should be transparently reported. Section 3 subsection 1 can be misused and the impact of such misuse would be significant.
-> That the Building of a 500MW unit would cost same in terms of insurance as building 4000MW. Liability must be according to MW bassis and not as is mentioned in clause 2 subsection 1.
the fact that the compensation is not at all adequate is a larger battle that needs to be fought. However given the present situation i think these 3 clauses are the most important ones that need to be challenged. of these the last clause is also quite important tactically, as the cost of nuclear reactors would increase drastically if insurance is done on a per MW basis.
the views expressed here are my own. i will attempt to make a comparison with the US legislation Price - Anderson Act as soon as i get time. After which it would be possible to have more pointed discussions on the international Implications.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
of order chaos and patterns
the non existense of a pattern is nothing but a failure to grasp the larger picture.
for chaos itself in nothing but an order in the infinite
similarly
the attempt at putting order to things is nothing but a myopic view of a blind man, because the non existence of a pattern is in itself the most ordered of all patterns.
for chaos itself in nothing but an order in the infinite
similarly
the attempt at putting order to things is nothing but a myopic view of a blind man, because the non existence of a pattern is in itself the most ordered of all patterns.
random thoughts 3
every life is flowing like an upturned bucket of water, cutting swathes of moisture across the parched soil; moving in all direction till life extinguished, causes that moisture to evaporate leaving no trace at all, untill another drop follows. only to move ahead a little and loose itself into oblivion.
this march continues mindless, repeating, seeking to cover the infinite. a task with no goal. no end but the task itself.
this march continues mindless, repeating, seeking to cover the infinite. a task with no goal. no end but the task itself.
Belonging
a man alone ? no..
a thronging multitude,
that is this world...
therefore we belong ,
but alone each of us
yet a part of the whole
a thronging multitude,
that is this world...
therefore we belong ,
but alone each of us
yet a part of the whole
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Random Thoughts 2
what is control
if you cant lose it
what is love
if you cant let it go
what is life
if you cant live it
cause life is love
and love is losing it
and all that matters is to
let things go
if you cant lose it
what is love
if you cant let it go
what is life
if you cant live it
cause life is love
and love is losing it
and all that matters is to
let things go
Random Thoughts
was looking at the moon
sitting in the sky
i blinked but once,
it waas not there...
i looked for it all night long
never did think
of the stars, their
gentle glow
of the clouds, their
gentle flow
I raced through life
chasing a dream,
i looked away once
it was not there
i looked for it all night long
blinded by the moon
i missed the stars, the clouds
blinded by life
what did i miss
what did i miss ...
sitting in the sky
i blinked but once,
it waas not there...
i looked for it all night long
never did think
of the stars, their
gentle glow
of the clouds, their
gentle flow
I raced through life
chasing a dream,
i looked away once
it was not there
i looked for it all night long
blinded by the moon
i missed the stars, the clouds
blinded by life
what did i miss
what did i miss ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
