Haripur Nuclear Power Project in Bengal is SCRAPPED! Welcome! Why Should NOT Be Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant Cluster?The West Bengal government has ruled out the nuclear power plant at Haripur in the State's Purba Medinipur district.However,Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) Chairman Srikumar Banerjee on Wednesday ruled out a Fukushima-like nuclear plant disaster in India, saying the nuclear reactors in the country had a passive cooling system unlike the Fukushima Daiichi reactor and additional safety features were being installed in them.Mind you, Government of India Incs has FINALISED Nuclear Liability Bill and Mamata Banerjee is also a Partner in the UPA Ruling Alliance. Mamata has averted Nuclear Disaster in Bengal, apart from Power Qualiton Politics, whay she is NOT Concerned with Rest of India. PUNE MUMBAI Industrial corridor has to tear through Rajasthan, Gujarat and Maharashtra with Seven Mega Cities and Seven Mega Industrial Zone! Beside, Jaitapur Nuclear Cluster Project is also all set for NUCLEAR Disaster! Should Mamata NOT Oppose? Or it is yet another Political Gimmick like the Land Movement which Never GO beyond Bengali Brahaminical politics!Meanwhile, Mulnivasi Bamcef President Waman Meshram has CONFIRMED that Mulnivais Massive Rally to demand OBC headcount protesting Anti People Policies of the LPG Mafia Rule would take place on the scheduled date, 1st September despite the Brahaminical Civil Society Drama and its Relaunched Anti Reservation Movement with Brand Equity Anti Corruption Campaign!
Indian Holocaust My Father`s Life and Time - SEVEN HUNDRED ELEVEN
Palash Biswas
http://indianholocaustmyfatherslifeandtime.blogspot.com/
http://basantipurtimes.blogspot.com
Haripur Nuclear Power Project in Bengal is SCRAPPED!
Welcome!
Why Should NOT Be Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant Cluster?
The West Bengal government has ruled out the nuclear power plant at Haripur in the State's Purba Medinipur district.However,Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) Chairman Srikumar Banerjee on Wednesday ruled out a Fukushima-like nuclear plant disaster in India, saying the nuclear reactors in the country had a passive cooling system unlike the Fukushima Daiichi reactor and additional safety features were being installed in them.
Mind you, Government of India Incs has FINALISED Nuclear Liability Bill and Mamata Banerjee is also a Partner in the UPA Ruling Alliance.
Mamata has averted Nuclear Disaster in Bengal, apart from Power Qualiton Politics, whay she is NOT Concerned with Rest of India!
PUNE MUMBAI Industrial corridor has to tear through Rajasthan, Gujarat and Maharashtra with Seven Mega Cities and Seven Mega Industrial Zone! Beside, Jaitapur Nuclear Cluster Project is also all set for NUCLEAR Disaster!
Should Mamata NOT Oppose?
Or it is yet another Political Gimmick like the Land Movement which Never GO beyond Bengali Brahaminical politics!
Meanwhile, Mulnivasi Bamcef President Waman Meshram has CONFIRMED that Mulnivais Massive Rally to demand OBC headcount protesting Anti People Policies of the LPG Mafia Rule would take place on the scheduled date, 1st September despite the Brahaminical Civil Society Drama and its Relaunched Anti Reservation Movement with Brand Equity Anti Corruption Campaign!
However,Anna will spend tonight at Tihar Jail and move to Ramlila Maidan tomorrow, since today is being spent on preparations for the thousands that are expected.
Team Anna has signed off on a list of prerequisites from the Delhi Police. Among them, that the crowd will not exceed the official capacity of the ground, which is around 25,000 people. The permission for the fast has been given till September 2, 2011.As Anna Hazare is all set to launch his protest fast from Ramlila Maidan tomorrow, he asked the govt not to take too long to bring in a strong Lokpal Bill, saying he will not stop till the country gets a strong anti-corruption ombudsman. Bollywood and theatre actor Anupam Kher, who has nearly 400 films and 100 plays to his credit, has extended his support to Anna Hazare in his fight against corruption
It means they will be in the Ralkika Grownd on 1st September and would leave it just day after the Mlnivasi rally is scheduled! Why?
With Anna Hazare planning to continue his fast, Congress today sought a "guarantee" from his team that his health will be fine.
Party spokesperson Renuka Chowdhury said, "It will be better if somebody takes an undertaking of his (Hazare's) health. They must take responsibility. They should take the guarantee. They should keep a watch over his health. Arvind Kejriwal can do it."
Dismissing the contention that the government tied itself in knots over Hazare episode by first allowing his arrest and then facilitating his release, Chowdhury said, "Governance is never static.
"It is a dynamic system," she said, adding that the decisions change as per situations and perceptions.
Chowdhury vehemently denied that there was any pressure on the government to release Hazare. She at the same wondered why Hazare decided to go on a fast when the government "has already accepted many of his demands over Lokpal bill".
The Congress spokesperson also steered clear of questions on whether the decision to arrest Hazare was correct. She, however, reminded that it took place on August 16 a day after Independence Day during which there was a high alert and intense pressure on the police to maintain security.
Asked why the government is allowing Hazare to protest at Ramlila Ground from where it had earlier evicted yoga guru Ramdev, Chowdhury said the government was making arrangements and "godwilling everything will be fine."
Delhi Police and Team Anna have worked out amongst themselves details of civil society leader Anna Hazare's fast in central Delhi's Ramlila ground, union Home Secretary R.K. Singh said Thursday.
"Delhi Police and Anna Hazare's team have worked out among themselves (details) for a 15 days fast at the Ramlila ground," Singh said.
In a dramatic turn of events, Delhi Police allowed Team Anna to hold their fast at Ramilia ground in central Delhi for 15 days. The conditions imposed earlier were also withdrawn.
"We have been assured by the Delhi Police that if we need the ground for more days, we can stay there," said Hazare's aide, Arvind Kejriwal.
"The conditions imposed on us earlier have also been withdrawn," he added.
Hazare, 74, had planned to begin his fast for a stronger anti-corruption Lokpal Bill from the J.P. Park in the ITO area Tuesday. However, Delhi Police imposed certain conditions before allowing the protest. Hazare refused to sign the undertaking, following which the police detained him and his other team members Tuesday.
He was arrested and subsequently released but refused to leave the jail until allowed to carry on the protest without any conditions.
After nearly 70 hours of fasting, social activist Anna Hazare sends a message today (Aug 18) from Tihar Jail, New Delhi. Anna asks supporters not to give up the fight against corruption. He says he is healthy, and there is no cause for worry. Anna tells the Government not to waste its time by trying to dissuade him. Anna further says he will not back down till the demands are met. Anna thanks the people of India for turning out in droves to support the cause, says he is overwhelmed with the support of the youth.
<script src="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/embedvideo.cms?msid=4381647&height=315&width=420"></script>
http://www.timesnow.tv/videoshow/4381647.cms
Replying to questions in the Assembly here on Wednesday, State Power Minister Manish Gupta said the government had decided to scrap the proposal. The government had no plans for the present to set up nuclear plants elsewhere in the State.
Asked how the government proposed to address the growing demand for power, Gupta said the present power demand in the state was 6,500 MW.Of this, 5,525 MW were generated in the state, while the shortfall was met by procuring power from the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.
During his visit to Russia, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had signed an agreement with the Russian government for collaboration on setting up five nuclear plants in the country, including the one at Haripur.
The project was given environment clearance by the Centre and land in Haripur was allotted to Russian company Rosatom for developing a nuclear park for its 1000 MW atomic power plants.
Local farmers and fishermen, supported by a number of NGOs, launched an agitation against the project fearing eviction and loss of livelihood.
Although the Union Environment Ministry cleared the project last year, some environmentalists and scientists have expressed concern that the project would be hazardous for the environment.
Mr. Gupta's announcement comes as no surprise as the ruling Trinamool Congress has been opposed to the proposed project even when it was in the Opposition.
Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has been maintaining that Haripur is not the proper place for a nuclear power plant as it was a densely populated area and fishermen in the region would be affected.
When in the Opposition, Ms. Banerjee had vowed that her party would scrap the project if it came to power.
The Trinamool Congress had led an agitation in the recent past against the move to set up the proposed plant there when the previous Left Front government was in power. It had the support of a section of the local farmers and fishermen who joined in protests against the proposed project fearing eviction and loss of livelihood.
The proposed project is part of an India-Russia agreement for cooperation in the nuclear energy sector.
Dr. Banerjee pointed out that taking lessons from the Fukushima disaster where the radioactive fuel rods became overheated as water could not be introduced into the reactor on time, additional flanging was being done in the country's reactors so that extra water could be pumped in to remove the decay heat generated by nuclear fuel.
The AEC chief was speaking on the sidelines of celebration of Statistics Day and the 118th birth anniversary of Professor P.C. Mahalanobis, organised by the Indian Statistical Institute here.
He said that six independent committees were set up by the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL), the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) and the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) to analyse the safety standards of all the reactors and submit regular recommendations.
"The NPCIL has set up four committees and the AERB and the BARC have set up a committee each to independently analyse the safety standards of different reactors…they have recommended additional safety features for the reactors according to their locations. Supplementary water cooling system and power supply are the two primary recommendations."
Designs for reactors in India had to be done keeping in mind natural calamities such as flooding due to heavy rainfall, cloudburst or dam-break or even a 9/11 kind of terror attack.
"Except Narora, all other nuclear reactors in India are located in Seismic III zone, thus reducing chances of an earthquake. A tsunami protection wall has been built at the Kalpakkam reactor. The EPR [European Pressurised Reactor] proposed to be set up in Jaitapur is so designed that it can even withstand a commercial airliner crash."
It was, however, possible that all designs would fall short in case of an unforeseen calamity and for that margins have to be evaluated and safety measures added to the reactors, Dr. Banerjee said.
With the new Trinamool Congress-led West Bengal government opposed to the setting up of a nuclear reactor at Haripur in Purba Medinipur district, Dr. Banerjee said the AEC had not yet approached the government over the issue.
"There has been no discussion at the government-level so far. Part of the geo-technical survey for the project is over. More than government approval, it is public acceptance of the project that matters," he said.
Asked if the AEC was considering an alternative site for the project, he said geo-technical investigations by the site selection team were on at various other sites.
-
Nuclear plant ruled out
Calcutta Telegraph - 19 hours ago
During his visit to Russia in 2009, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had signed an agreement to set up five nuclear plants inIndia, including one in Haripur. ...
West Bengal government rules out Haripur nuclear project -The Hindu
No nuclear power plant at Haripur: West Bengal government -Economic Times
-
Articles about Haripur - Times Of India
-
NEW DELHI: Trinamool Congress on Thursday opposed the government's proposal to site a nuclear reactor in Haripur in West Bengal but took care not to sound ...
-
No nuclear power plant at Haripur: West Bengal government - The ...
-
economictimes.indiatimes.com › News › News By Industry- Cached
-
1 day ago – The West Bengal government today said it will not allow the ...
-
You visited this page on 18/08/11.
-
Maoists, Trinamool lock horns over Haripur nuclear plant - Times ...
-
articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com › Collections › Haripur- Cached
-
31 Dec 2009 – KOLKATA: They had fought shoulder-to-shoulder in Nandigram ...
-
No nuclear power plant at Haripur: Govt
-
1 hour ago – The West Bengal government on Wednesday said it will not allow the proposed nuclear power plant at Haripur in East Midnapore district.
-
Won't allow any nuclear plant in West Bengal, including Haripur ...
-
www.expressindia.com/latest-news/...nuclear-plant-in...haripur.../833611/
-
11 hours ago – Kolkata The West Bengal government on Wednesday announced that it won't allow the proposed nuclearpower plant at Haripur in East Midnapore ...
-
No decision to shift nuclear plant from Haripur: Govt - India - DNA
-
23 Feb 2011 – Reports had said that Russia was keen on shifting the project to neighbouring Orissa given the politically sensitive issue of land ...
-
Heat rises at Haripur over nuclear plant - IndianExpress
-
www.indianexpress.com/news/heat...haripur...nuclear-plant/563467/- Cached
-
5 Jan 2010 – Heat rises at Haripur over nuclear plant - Tension is building up at Haripur in East Midnapore following Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's ...
-
SAAN_ : Message: India: Drifting Into NuclearBlunderland - Scrap ...
-
2 posts - 1 author - Last post: 8 Mar 2007
-
a proposal to build a giant nuclear power station, India'slargest atomic plant, at Haripur in East Medinipur district. The project is a ...
-
india-unity : Message: Haripur Struggle against NuclearPower ...
-
SAAN_ : Message: India: Concerns re Nuclear power plantin Haripur ...
-
SAAN_ : Message: India: Struggle against ProposedNuclear Power ...
-
India approves Russian design for Haripur nuclear plant | Russia ...
-
rbth.ru/articles/2010/02/12/120210_nuclear.html - Cached
-
India approves Russian design for Haripur nuclear plant. February 12, 2010. Source: www.polit.ru. According to India'sminister of state for environment and ...
-
[PDF]
-
Haripur: Land for Nuclear Plant
-
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
-
Haripur: Land for Nuclear Plant. Looking ahead? BACKGROUND. Even as the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal was 'under-consideration', the Government of. India ...
Introduction
For a large developing country like India with large population density, nuclear power will play an important role for sustainable supply of energy.
There are now 439 nuclear reactors in operation around the world in over 30 countries, providing almost 16% of the world's electricity.
Nuclear power is the fourth-largest source of electricity in India after thermal, hydro and renewable sources of electricity. As of 2010, India has 20 nuclear power plants in operation generating 4,780 MW while 5 other are under construction and are expected to generate an additional 3,900 MW. India's nuclear power industry is undergoing rapid expansion with plans to increase nuclear power output to 63,000 MW by 2032. Only Nuclear Energy offers Emission free energy on the massive and expanding scale the world so urgently requires. Moreover nuclear energy is considered to be an environmentally benign source of energy.
India being a member of IAEA has agreements with several countries on various aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle. India stands 9th in the world in terms of number of operational nuclear power reactors. In October 2010 India's safeguards agreement with the IAEA became operational, with the Government confirming that 14 reactor will be put under the India Specific Safeguards Agreement by 2014.
Looking at the importance of nuclear energy to effectively bridge the energy gap for India, UBM India is pleased to announce its 3rd edition of India Nuclear Energy 2011 – 3rd International Exhibition and Conference, from 29 Sep. - 1 Oct. 2011 at Mumbai. India Nuclear Energy 2011 will provide a global platform for showcasing latest cutting edge nuclear technology and component supplying companies as well as raw material suppliers. The format of the event has been designed to offer an opportunity for best networking and business opportunities and provide an interactive platform for equipment, technology suppliers and end users.
Concerned over delays in execution of projects due to inter-ministerial differences, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has called a high-level meeting to resolve issues like coal shortages and environment clearances with the respective ministers on July 1.
"The meeting will be held on July 1 to assess the progress made in the first four years of the current Plan and resolve the differences among the ministries," a senior Power Ministry official said.
This will include the power capacity addition targets-- achieved between 2007-08 and 2010-11 -- and projects stranded due to coal shortages and environment clearance, he said.
The meeting, to be chaired by Singh, will be attended by Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, Power Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde, Coal Minister Sriprakash Jaiswal, Steel Minister Beni Prasad Verma, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh and Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia.
The meeting would make an assessment on the actual requirements of Power, Coal and other ministries for the terminal year (2011-12) of the current Plan Period and next Five-Year Plan (2012-17).
According to an estimate made by the Planning Commission, the demand-supply gap for coal in the ongoing year, which is also the terminal year of current Five-Year Plan, has been assessed at 142 million tonnes (MT) with domestic availability of only 554 MT against the requirement of 696 MT.
Coal ministry is of the view that 'no-go' policy of Environment ministry, under which mining in 203 coal blocks is not allowed, has been the major reason for the increase in coal shortages.
According to the ministry, the 'no go' mining issue has affected a potential production of 660 MT of coal per annum.
Last month, Coal Minister Sriprakash Jaiswal had said that the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was concerned over the economic growth being hampered by the bottlenecks in the coal production.
At the same time, the Prime Minister was also keen that the issues raised by the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) should also be resolved, he said.
The Group of Ministers, headed by Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee is already on the job to find a common ground between the MoEF on the one hand and coal, power and steel ministries on the other.
According to the Planning Commission, the country's coal shortage may soar to 200 MT by 2017 against 142 MT by 2012. The demand for dry fossil fuel by 2016-17 has been projected at 1,000 MT against a production of 800 MT.
Against this backdrop, the Power Ministry has projected that more than 40,000 MW new power generation capacity will be left stranded due to the shortage of coal in the next Plan as most of the newly planned power plants are to be run on coal.
Power Ministry has set an ambitious target of adding 1,00,000 MW generation capacity in the next Plan Period (2012-17) .
The high-level meeting will also review the performance of the Power Ministry, which is already struggling to meet the capacity addition targets of current plan.
During the mid-term review of the current plan (2007-12), the Planning Commission had scaled down the target to 62,000 MW against the originally envisaged target of 78,700 MW.
However, going by the trends, the ministry is unlikely to achieve even the revised targets and the actual new power capacity addition is expected to be about 51,000 MW during the current plan, a source said.
India will become a $5.6 trillion economy by 2020, according to research firm Dun & Bradstreet, which has predicted a three-fold jump in the country's GDP from $1.7 trillion last fiscal on the back of rapid investment and growing consumer expenditure.
"Indian economy will become a $5.6 trillion economy by fiscal 2020, at current market price, from the $1.73 trillion in fiscal 2010-11," Dun & Bradstreet India Senior Economist Arun Singh said.
The rate of investment, consumer expenditure and infrastructure spending will be the driving force behind the country's economic growth over the next 10 years, he said, adding that these conclusions are part of a D&B report -- titled, 'India 2020' -- which is scheduled to be released tomorrow.
The share of discretionary spending is projected to increase considerably to 72 per cent of private consumption expenditure from around 60 per cent in FY'10.
Besides, the share of the services sector is expected to surge from 57.3 per cent of the GDP in FY'10 to 61.8 per cent in FY'20.
Another major contributor to the growth would be rapid investment in the infrastructure area. Infrastructure sector spending is expected to rise to 12.1 per cent of the GDP by FY'20 from around 7 per cent of the GDP in FY'11.
In terms of regions, eight states -- Maharashtra, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Orissa and Uttar Pradesh -- would contribute 71 per cent of the total GDP in the next 10 years, as compared to 66 per cent in FY'10.
Further, the report said Maharashtra, Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh will be amongst the most developed states in the country by 2020 and would together contribute 32 per cent to the overall GDP.
The BIMAROU states (Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Orissa & Uttar Pradesh) are also expected to contribute significantly to India's growth story during the current decade.
The contribution of BIMAROU states will be about 24 per cent of the GDP by FY'20, as compared to 21 per cent during FY'10, Singh said.
Notably, four of the five BIMAROU states are expected to see a double-digit average growth over the current decade.
Apart from the investment rate, consumer expenditure and infrastructure spending, growth would also hinge on effective policy measures that would encourage sectors like manufacturing and retail.
"At the policy end, direct cash subsidy, NREGA, UID, environment and national manufacturing policies, FDI in some of the sectors such as retail and insurance, would play a pertinent role in India's growth story," Singh added.
Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee on Thursday said that while the inflation eased due to a decline of 0.9 percent, the fuel price index climbed to 13.13 percent.
Addressing mediapersons here, Mukherjee said: "India's food price index rose 9.03 percent and the fuel price index climbed 13.13 percent in the year to August 6."
"In industrial materials and food articles and minerals, there have been some fluctuations. WPI-based inflation on non-food articles for the week declined and fuel-oils has also increased," he added.
In the previous week, annual food and fuel inflation stood at 9.90 percent and 12.19 percent respectively.
The primary articles index was up 11.64 percent, compared with an annual rise of 12.22 percent a week earlier.
Mukherjee further said good monsoon and the monetary polices would help to curb the spiralling inflation.
"Though food inflation has come down, from February 2010 till 6th August 2011, substantially. In February 2010, it was 22 percent and today it is 9 percent, but 9 percent food inflation is high and it will have to be further moderated and I do hope that good monsoons and the steps taken to remove the supply constrains on agricultural products would help to moderate the food inflation," he said.
India's inflation eased in July although the still-high headline number and persistent price pressures in manufactured goods and fuel raised the odds that policy will have to stay tight in the economy despite the rising risks to growth.
The next five year plan is going to maintain its target growth rate at 9% despite recent events pointing to apprehensions of a downturn in western economies. The planning commission is due to firm up its approach to the 12th plan (2012-17) on August 20 in a meeting chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
"We are going to maintain our growth target at 9% for the next plan period," said an official in the planning commission.
In an earlier meeting the planning commission had proposed a range of 9-9.5% for the next plan; however it has decided to stick with 9%.
The ongoing eleventh plan had also aimed at an average growth rate of 9% during its inception, however it had to be scaled down to 8.1% during the mid term appraisal of the plan primarily due to the adverse impact of the global economic downturn.
The approach paper on the twelfth plan will suggest continuing the trend of expenditure adopted by the UPA government - to prioritize allocations to the social sector like health, education, agriculture, water and infrastructure.
Issues like land acquisition, coal linkage and financial condition of state power companies, skill development and inflation are likely to be discussed in the meeting.
"The priority for resource allocation will continue to be the social sector and infrastructure. Other issues like land acquisition, skill development and availability of coal have gained prominence due to recent developments, "the official added.
Health is likely to see an increased priority given the failure of the government to increase spending in the sector in the ongoing plan period.
The planning commission is also likely to suggest that the government to aim at a cap of subsidy spend and set a target as a percentage of GDP for over the next plan. The approach paper will outline the major issues that the next five years will focus on.
"Reducing subsidy will be on the agenda. The issue is not about availability of resources, it is about improving the delivery system," the official added.
The details of the plan will then be worked on based on the reports of various sectoral working groups.
Anna fast: Delhi govt to provide water, power
Press Trust Of India
Posted on Aug 18, 2011 at 10:45pm IST
1
New Delhi: Delhi government on Thursday said it was ready to provide facilities like water, power and sanitation in Ramlila Maidan where Anna Hazare will launch his indefinite fast for 15 days demanding a strong Lokpal Bill.
Delhi Chief Secretary PK Tripathi said the facilities will be provided if Team Anna approaches the government for them.
"If they ask for the facilities, then definitely we will provide the facilities," said Tripathi.
Delhi government had provided water, power and sanitation services at Ramlila Maidan when yoga guru Ramdev had held his protest there in June.
Delhi government, which had allowed police use of Chhatrasal Stadium to keep the supporters of Anna detained on Tuesday, said no loss of property was reported during the protest by Anna supporters any where in the city including in the stadium.
"Usually, public properties are somehow damaged in any protest. But we have not come across any damage to any public properties in the protest by Hazare supporters," said an official.
(Follow IBNLive.com on Facebook and on Twitter for updates that you can share with your friends.)
#Anna Hazare #Delhi Government #Ramlila Maidan #Protest Fast #India against Corruption
What's Trending
Most Read & Seen- Anna refuses to leave, Tihar turns protest venue
- IPS officer behind RTI activist Masood murder?
- Top aides meet Anna Hazare in Tihar Jail
- Massive protests across India in Anna's support
- Ramdev, Sri Sri join protesters at Tihar jail
Most Shared
Most Discussed
ICICI Bank launches new fixed rate home loan scheme
Hazare continues to get support in Maharashtra
Sen's case a reminder, time to take taint out of the judiciary
Gold touches record high after US stocks tank
Hazare's team should give undertaking on his health: Cong
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/anna-fast-delhi-govt-to-provide-water-power/176737-3.html - 18/08/2011
I am hale and hearty, says Anna
Gandhian says from Tihar Jail that he will battle on until an effective anti-corruption legislation is passed
- 100%0%
New Delhi: Gandhian activist Anna Hazare, who has been in Tihar Jail since Tuesday, said on Thursday he felt healthy and energetic even after three days of fasting for a strong anti-corruption law.
"I will not stop fighting till I get the Lokpal Bill," Hazare said in an interview telecast on news channels as protests in his support raged for a third straight day across India.
"My health is fine, don't worry about me," said the 74-year-old, who is no more a prisoner but who has refused to leave the prison until he was allowed to fast on his terms.
The authorities and Hazare aides say the Gandhian will shift Friday to the spacious Ramlila ground here to continue his hunger strike that began Tuesday after he was detained by police.
"I am not feeling tired," he told interviewer Kiran Bedi, a former police officer who is now his close aide. "Tonight I will be here (in jail), and tomorrow I will meet you all (outside)."
He said he was enthused by the widespread expression of support all over India in favour of an effective anti-corruption legislation as opposed to what he says is a weak Lokpal Bill presented by the government. "I will talk to everyone... My health is fine. Don't worry about me."
He said the mass protests reported from scores of towns and cities were not about him. "The people are on the streets not because of Anna. Corruption is so stifling... For everything one needs to bribe. This is why prices (of food and other commodities) are rising," he said.
"People are unable to tolerate corruption... That is why they are on the streets."
Source: IANS
Also Read:
What is Anna Hazare fighting for?
A modern day Mahatma who battles corruption
Enough is enough: India for Anna
Cheers Anna Hazare, you are right!
India trusts Anna Hazare, not the government
Anna Hazare's possessions: A plate, a bed
Govt killing Lokpal: Team Anna
Police reforms: Need for Anna Hazare-type movement
Why We Oppose the Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project
A Letter to the Chief Minister by social activists in Maharashtra
Tuesday 18 January 2011 Send
Janahit Seva Samiti, Madban
Reg. No.: Maharashtra (3456) / Ratnagiri, Dt. 10.08.2007
Reg. No.: F 3444
At Post: Madban, Tal.: Rajapur, Dist.: Ratnagiri [India]
January 17, 2011
To,
Mr. Prithviraj Chavan
Hon'ble Chief Minister
State of Maharashtra
Mantralaya
Mumbai 400 032
Re: Decision to Abstain from Attending the Meeting Called by you on January 18, 2011 – Our Position
Dear Sir,
The newspapers have reported that you have called a meeting on 18th January 2011 to address the 'misconceptions' and 'apprehensions' in the minds of the local residents. We wish to clarify at the outset that ever since the land acquisition process commenced in 2006 we have deeply studied the issues relating to the nuclear power project and our opposition to the project is firmly anchored in these scientific studies.
In the past four years we have carefully read the writings of Dr. Kakodkar, S.K. Jain, Dr. Ravindra Kale and other proponents of the project. We have held discussions with NPCIL and AEC. We have discussed with nuclear scientists Dr. Surendra Gadekar and Dr. Sanghamitra Gadekar. We have studied the writings of nuclear experts Zia Mian, Elliot, Solomon, Flavin and Dr. Helen Caldicott, the discussions in 'Anuvivek' by Dr. Dilip Kulkarni , and 'Anuurja: Bhram, Vastav aani Paryaya', by Dr. Sulabha Brahme, and the writings of many other authors in the media before arriving at our conclusions. On the basis of all these materials we have arrived at the conclusion that Nuclear Energy is an unaffordable and unacceptable option whose costs far outweigh its benefits. Nuclear power has inherent safety, security and large scale environmental risks including extremely long term risks. It is extremely costly when all the costs are calculated. Due to the high cost and radioactive risk new nuclear plant construction has been halted in the US and most of Europe. Public opposition to nuclear power in Europe and the US has also been growing. This is why the western countries are trying to sell their reactors to India, China and S. Korea.
Despite years of research, there is no satisfactory technology even today for eliminating the high level radioactivity produced by nuclear reactors. There is no geological repository in existence anywhere in the world which can reliably and safely confine and contain these high level nuclear by-products for the enormous time period necessary to reduce the radioactivity to acceptable levels. Till today there is no scientific answer to the problem of disposal of nuclear waste and radioactive by-products of nuclear reactors.
Despite precautions numerous smaller scale accidents and incidents resulting in radioactive release have occurred in NPPs. The recent incident at Kaiga is just one example. Due to the possibility of accidents or incidents with extremely widespread damage the western power plant suppliers are demanding exemption from civil liability for the consequences of nuclear incidents.
Nuclear power is neither cheap, nor clean, nor safe. The irreversible long term damage from radioactivity will be a real risk for thousands of years. Therefore we have come to the firm conclusion that we cannot allow a nuclear power project at Madban/Jaitapur.
All four gram panchayats in the area have used their authority under the 73rd amendment to pass unanimous resolutions against the proposed JNPP. At the public hearing on May 16th 2010 objections were forcefully articulated by scientific experts. We along with the Konkan Bachao Samiti have had detailed discussions with the Minister of Environment and Forests, and technical experts of the NPCIL, NEERI and the AEC. These discussions have only confirmed and reinforced our conclusion that nuclear power is unaffordable, unacceptable, and fails a scientific cost-benefit analysis test.
Till today there has been no disclosure in the public domain about the capital costs of the project, nor the electricity tariff, which can be the basis of study and scrutiny. Most important till today there has been no consideration, leave alone approval of the design, operational safety, security and environmental risks of the project, its likely impact on the ecology and the livelihoods of the area by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, and other authorities. The project is not shown on any development plan for Ratnagiri. In these circumstances we have decided not to participate in the proposed meeting on the 18th January 2011.
In addition to our fundamental opposition to nuclear power on the above grounds we have specific objections to the site selection. The Madban plateau is continuously experiencing numerous seismic tremors. Cracks have developed in several places. Water availability is the only criterion which is satisfied according to the criteria of the Vengurlekar Committee. The project will be in substantial violation of the CRZ restrictions, though technically exempted. While selecting this sensitive plateau scientific realities appear to have been ignored. The environmental consequences on the Konkan region of the network of high tension transmission towers needed to evacuate 10,000 MW of power have also not been considered.
Most importantly, the Madban plateau is an unique biodiversity ecological hot-spot, which is has to be preserved as a global natural treasure. "To describe this ecological treasure as a barren plateau is unscientific and a blatant lie, which however is digested by muddleheaded experts from Mumbai- and Delhi"- in these terms Dr. Madhav Gadgil has expressed his criticisms in an article which has appeared in Sakal 12th Nov 2010. The BNHS has also in its report stated that the JNPP will have an adverse impact on the biodiversity and the marine life due to the hot water discharges. The adverse impact on the marine life has also been acknowledged by the Minister of State for Environment and Forests Mr. Jairam Ramesh.
The construction of the jetty for building the JNPP will destroy the mangrove forests in and around the creeks. This will destroy the fish breeding grounds and reduce the fish populations. The passage of large sea vessels will destroy marine ecology. The daily intake of 5200 crore litres of water by the project will adversely impact on fish resources. The discharge of the same at a higher temperature will damage the prawn, mollusc and fish resources. There will be a 500 meter no fishing zone all around the project. Security requirements against possible terrorist attacks for the project will place further restrictions on the movement of boats and fishing vessels. All this will have severe adverse impact on the fishing communities in and around the project. There are nearly 7500 persons whose livelihood and survival directly depends on fishing will thus be immediately adversely affected even destroyed. To the south, the livelihood of around 5000 persons directly dependent on fishing for living in fishing villages of Katli, Ingalwadi, Jambhari will be adversely affected. The livelihoods of thousands more who work in the local fishing industry and trade will be devastated.
The current requirement of power of Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts is a mere 180 MW, against which 4663 MW of power plant capacity is currently already being exported from these two districts with a further increase of 600 MW in one or two months.
Since shortage of power is cited as the justification for this project we are enclosing a booklet on the alternatives before the country for electricity generation for your perusal.
You are aware that Konkan is the Kashmir of Maharashtra. Substantial employment can be created in industries based on the rich natural resources which do not destroy but preserve and develop the natural wealth. If fish resources are protected, fishing and industries around fish reprocessing can flourish. The working people of Konkan can live with dignity. The farmers, workers and fishing community of Konkan desire a nature conserving, viable and people-oriented development in the Konkan. What kind of development is desirable and what is not is outlined in the booklet that we are enclosing with this letter.
If the government is serious about having a frank dialogue with the activists and the people, certain minimum requirements should be observed. The discussion should take place not in Mumbai but nearby the project site. The organizations opposing the project should have the prerogative to choose their spokesmen and representatives. There should be sufficient time for preparing the discussions on a mutually agreed agenda. The common people should be allowed to participate in the discussion. The issues involved require a discussion of a full day or two days- they cannot be dealt with in a short 2 hour meeting. Only if these minimum requirements are met will it be possible to have a serious and meaningful discussion which is open and unbiased.
If the only purpose of the meeting is to clear our doubts, there is no need for such a meeting. If the meeting is called for any other reason, it is still not possible for us to participate in the current environment of police and state repression. Since the commencement of land acquisition in 2006 ban orders under sections 37(3) (1), 144 have been continuously promulgated in the area, to prevent our exercise of democratic rights. False cases have been foisted on activists. The whole area has been converted into a permanent police camp. Our daily life and livelihood has been rendered difficult, in fact impossible. Mr. Praveen Gavankar, who is a leader of the agitation, has had false cases registered against him and his bail applications have been opposed by the government, to keep imminent arrest as a hanging sword over his head. Peaceful citizens of Maharashtra are being treated as criminals. It is not possible to have a dialogue in these circumstances. We cannot think of discussions if the ban orders and false cases are not withdrawn.
However, if the government is prepared to reconsider the project with an open mind and announces so publicly, we are prepared to meet you for discussions anywhere and at any time.
Your government is trying to impose the project on us. We are determined to oppose it by a mass movement peacefully and democratically. We request you to recognize this democratic opposition, stop attempts to crush it by force, declare that the JNPP project is cancelled and allow us and the people of Maharashtra to live in peace and security.
Our demands:
1. Cancel the Jaitapur Nuclear Project
2. Return the lands which have been forcibly acquired from us.
3. Withdraw all police cases filed against the movement activists and also the ban orders and create a suitable environment for dialogue.
Your truly,
For Janahit Seva Samiti, Madban
Sd/-
Praveen Gavankar, Shyamsundar Narvekar, Surfuddin Kazi, Amjad Borkar, Dr. Milind Desai, Rajan Wadekar, Ramesh Kajve, Shrikrishna Mayekar, Mangesh Kaskar, Bala Gavankar, Malik Gadkari, Sadat Habib, Ms. Manda Wadekar, Mrs.Ranjana Manjrekar
And
Konkan Bachao Samiti, Konkan Vinashakari Prakalp Virodhi Samiti, Maharashtra Macchhimar Kruti Samit, Ratnagiri Jilha Jagruk Manch Ratanagiri Dist, Madban-Mithgavhane-Jaitapur Sangharsh Samiti
http://www.sacw.net/article1864.html-
Jaitapur nuclear power project will be implemented: Jairam Ramesh ...
-
articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com › Collections › Jairam Ramesh - Cached
-
4 Jun 2011 – BANGALORE: Environment minister Jairam Ramesh on Saturday said the Jaitapur nuclear power projectin Maharashtra would be implemented but ...
-
Jaitapur nuclear power project: Latest News, Videos, Photos ...
-
See Jaitapur nuclear power project Latest News, Photos, Biography, Videos ...
-
First phase of Jaitapur nuclear project may be delayed by 1 year
-
3 days ago – The commissioning of the first phase of the 9900-Mw Jaitapur nuclear power project in Maharashtra is likely to be delayed by a year, ...
-
India Maps Out a Nuclear Power Future, Amid Opposition
-
news.nationalgeographic.com/.../energy/.../110722-india-nuclear-jai... - Cached
-
22 Jul 2011 – India's government sees nuclear power as essential for meeting its growing ... The $9.3 billion nuclearproject at Jaitapur, (map) some 400 ...
-
Civil society shocked over Jaitapur nuclear power... - The Hindu
-
28 Apr 2011 – Activist participate during the Tarapur to Jaitapur anti-nuclear yatra ... that it is going ahead with the Jaitapur nuclear power project. ...
-
Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project in a fix as another bank pulls out ...
-
1 Jul 2011 – The BNP Paribas group, in a letter dated June 9, 2011, written to Greenpeace has mentioned that no commitments have been made to Nuclear ...
-
Revoke Clearance To Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project By Concerned ...
-
www.countercurrents.org/jaitapur020511.htm - Cached
-
2 May 2011 – Revoke Clearance To Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project ... Chernobyl catastrophe that it is going ahead with theJaitapur nuclear power project. ...
-
Ground Report: Jaitapur nuclear power project - India News - IBNLive
-
ibnlive.in.com/news/...jaitapur-nuclear-power-project/144462-3.htm... - Cached
-
26 Feb 2011 – After protests over the environmental impact, questions are now being asked about whether the new reactor.
-
The Hindu : States / Other States : One killed asJaitapur protest ...
-
www.thehindu.com › News › States › Other States - Cached
-
18 Apr 2011 – The site of proposed Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project in Ratnagiri district. PTI The site of proposed Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project in ...
shree prakash shared this on Google Buzz - 18 Apr 2011
-
palashbiswaslive: Jaitpur Nuclear Power Plantproject though seems ...
-
palashbiswaslive.blogspot.com/.../jaitpur-nuclear-power-plant-project.html
-
14 Feb 2011 – Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project (Marathi: जैतापूर ... Proposed Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project is located at 16.59°N 73.35°E. It has an ...
You shared this
Searches related to jaitapur nuclear power project
jaitapur nuclear power project map
jaitapur nuclear power project recruitment
Ads
-
Japanese Nuclear Disaster
- www.communitytv.org/FukushimaDisaster
- What are the implications of
- Fukushima? Daniel Hirsch explains.
-
First phase of Jaitapur nuclear project may be delayed by 1 year
Business Standard - Sanjay Jog - 4 days ago
The commissioning of the first phase of the 9900-Mw Jaitapur nuclear power project in Maharashtra is likely to be delayed by a year, since the developer, ...
-
BJP for review of nuclear power projects
The Hindu - 9 Aug 2011
She said this while associating with Shiv Sena's demand for scrapping of the Jaitapur nuclear power project in the Konkan region of Maharashtra. ...
Left, Shiv Sena demand scrapping of Jaitapur project Economic Times
CPI(M) demands scrapping of Jaitapur nuclear project Tehelka
* -
Pawar promises to push Jaitapur plan
Times of India - 5 days ago
MUMBAI: Four months after the nuclear tragedy in Japan's Fukushima put the ... said the state government stood firmly behind the nuclear power project. ...
Jaitapur project: Ajit Pawar says no question of location change Indian Express
Jaitapur N-project will be completed despite protests: PawarIBNLive.com
-
Political parties fund anti-Jaitapur fire
Daily News & Analysis - Alok Deshpande - 7 Aug 2011
Political parties are going all out to back the anti-Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project movement. ...
-
Jaitapur: a new nuclear folly
International Viewpoint - Danielle Sabai - 2 days ago
The inhabitants of the region, some of whom have been expropriated, have reacted strongly against this nuclear powerstation project which threatens their ...
-
Centre, state plan rehab package for Mithi Virdi N-plant
Times of India - 6 days ago
The apprehensions about nuclear power, safety, radiation and other aspect were ... project affected persons and members of public around the Jaitapur site. ...
-
Rahul Gandhi 'missing', says Shiv Sena ad
Economic Times - 4 days ago
... of their lands for the Jaitapur nuclear power plant were also mentioned. ... project at Maval in Pune district, he was missing again," the ad said. ...
-
Won't restart Maval project till farmers agree: Chavan
Indian Express - 3 days ago
This applies to all projects including Jaitapur (nuclear powerplant)," he told reporters after visiting the injured agitators in a hospital at Talegaon ...
-
Sena to focus on Jaitapur, mill workers in monsoon session
Indian Express - 22 Jul 2011
... president Uddhav Thackeray said his party would corner the government on issues like the Jaitapur nuclear power projectand houses for mill workers. ...
-
Vinayak Chatterjee: Building blocks
Business Standard - Vinayak Chatterjee - 3 days ago
This visionary project is believed to be a Narendra Modi favourite! The 9900-Mw Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant, when fully commissioned by the Nuclear Power ...
Keep up to date with these results:
-
Create an email alert for jaitapur nuclear power project
Mamata to accompany Manmohan to Dhaka
TNN | Aug 18, 2011, 05.12AM IST
KOLKATA: Chief minister Mamata Banerjee will be accompanying Prime Minister Manmohan Singh toBangladesh on September 6 and 7. The PM's office sent an invitation to her on Wednesday and Mamata said she would accompany Singh. "A confirmation letter is being sent to the Prime Minister," Mamata said.
Last month, a Bangaldeshi delegation including Bangladesh deputy high commissioner Md Mustafizur Rahaman had met the CM at Writers' Buildings and invited her to visit Bangaldesh, extending the invitation of Bangladesh PM Sheikh Hasina.
The PM-level talks between Hasina and Singh are slated to resolve many outstanding disputes and intended at increasing cooperation between the two neighbours. Sources said as part of the Indian diplomacy, the Bengal CM is being included in the entourage of the PM, as she is known to be close to Hasina. The Bangladesh PM had sent greetings to Mamata immediately after she became the CM of Bengal in May.
So, it is expected that Mamata Banerjee will play a crucial role in the summit between Hasina and Singh, as the two nations are going to discuss about water sharing and Bengal's interest in water sharing is prime for India. So Mamata can play a lead role in resolving the muchawaited agreement on sharing the waters of Teesta and Bhargirathi. The treaty on Teesta water sharing is on the cards. Some other accords are also likely to be signed. In December 1996, the two nations had signed the water sharing treaty, but now both the nations want to review it.
In end-July, UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi had been to Bangladesh to receive the 'Bangladesh Freedom Honor' conferred to her mother-in-law, Indira Gandhi, for her contribution to the liberation war of Bangladesh in 1971. The PM's trip will give importance to combating terrorism in the Subcontinent and increase trade relations between the two neighbours. The talks will also include foreign direct investment and better road links. The two premiers are also to discuss about maritime trade and settling border disputes other than setting up a co-ordination committee for sharing information between the law enforcing agencies of the two nations to stop terrorism and smuggling.
The recent foreign secretary-level talks had also helped improve the relationship between the two neighbours. Officials said Mamata is keen on improving Indo-Bangladesh ties, as it is not at present at the desired level. She wants to improve ties between the two nations by increasing cultural exchange and for that she is in favour of using Tagore and Nazrul as a media. Currently both Bangladesh and India are observing 150th anniversary of Tagore.
She wants to remove bureaucratic tangles for implementation of different bilateral initiatives. She is expected to take a key role in the discussion of the Indian enclaves, as she is very much sympathetic to their residents.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata-/Mamata-to-accompany-Manmohan-to-Dhaka/articleshow/9643080.cms
Nuclear power in India
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nuclear power is the fourth-largest source of electricity in India after thermal, hydroelectric and renewable sources of electricity.[1] As of 2010, India has 20 nuclear reactors in operation in six nuclear power plants, generating 4,780 MW[2] while 5 other plants are under construction and are expected to generate an additional 2,720 MW.[3] India's nuclear power industry is undergoing rapid expansion with plans to increase nuclear power output to 64,000 MW by 2032.[4] The country is involved in the development of nuclear fusion reactors through its participation in the ITER project and is a global leader in the development of thorium-based fast breeder reactors.[5]
India's domestic uranium reserves are small and the country is dependent on uranium imports to fuel its nuclear power industry. Since early 1990s, Russia has been a major supplier of nuclear fuel to India.[6] Due to dwindling domestic uranium reserves,[7] electricity generation from nuclear power in India declined by 12.83% from 2006 to 2008.[8] Following a waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group in September 2008 which allowed it to commence international nuclear trade,[9] India has signed bilateral deals on civilian nuclear energy technology cooperation with several other countries, including France,[10] the United States,[11] the United Kingdom,[12] Canada.[13] and South Korea.[14] India has also uranium supply agreements with Russia,[15][16] Mongolia,[17] Kazakhstan,[18] Argentina[19] and Namibia.[20] An Indian private company won a uranium exploration contract in Niger.[21]
India now envisages to increase the contribution of nuclear power to overall electricity generation capacity from 4.2% to 9% within 25 years.[22] In 2010, India's installed nuclear power generation capacity will increase to 6,000 MW.[23] As of 2009, India stands 9th in the worldin terms of number of operational nuclear power reactors. Indigenous atomic reactors include TAPS-3, and -4, both of which are 540 MW reactors.[24] India's US$717 million fast breeder reactor project is expected to be operational by 2010.[25]
Following the Japanese Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, many are questioning the mass roll-out of new plants in India, including the World Bank, the Indian Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh, and the former head of the country's nuclear regulatory body, A. Gopalakrishnan. The large Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project is the focus of concern and it has attracted many protests.[26]
[edit]Nuclear Power Growth in India
The Indian nuclear power industry is expected to undergo a significant expansion in the coming years thanks in part to the passing of theU.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement. This agreement will allow India to carry out trade of nuclear fuel and technologies with other countries and significantly enhance its power generation capacity.[27] When the agreement goes through, India is expected to generate an additional 25,000 MW of nuclear power by 2020, bringing total estimated nuclear power generation to 45,000 MW.[28]
India has already been using imported enriched uranium for light-water reactors that are currently under IAEA safeguards, but it has developed other aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle to support its reactors. Development of select technologies has been strongly affected by limited imports. Use of heavy water reactors has been particularly attractive for the nation because it allows Uranium to be burnt with little to no enrichment capabilities. India has also done a great amount of work in the development of a thorium centered fuel cycle. While Uranium deposits in the nation are limited (see next paragraph) there are much greater reserves of thorium and it could provide hundreds of times the energy with the same mass of fuel. The fact that thorium can theoretically be utilized in heavy water reactors has tied the development of the two. A prototype reactor that would burn Uranium-Plutonium fuel while irradiating a thorium blanket is under construction at theMadras/Kalpakkam Atomic Power Station.
Uranium used for the weapons program has been separate from the power program, using Uranium from indigenous reserves. This domestic reserve of 80,000 to 112,000 tons of uranium (approx 1% of global uranium reserves) is large enough to supply all of India's commercial and military reactors as well as supply all the needs of India's nuclear weapons arsenal. Currently, India's nuclear power reactors consume, at most, 478 metric tonnes of uranium per year.[29] Even if India were quadruple its nuclear power output (and reactor base) to 20GW by 2020, nuclear power generation would only consume 2000 metric tonnes of uranium per annum. Based on India's known commercially viable reserves of 80,000 to 112,000 tons of uranium, this represents a 40 to 50 years uranium supply for India's nuclear power reactors (note with reprocessing and breeder reactor technology, this supply could be stretched out many times over). Furthermore, the uranium requirements of India's Nuclear Arsenal are only a fifteenth (1/15) of that required for power generation (approx. 32 tonnes), meaning that India's domestic fissile material supply is more than enough to meet all needs for it strategic nuclear arsenal. Therefore, India has sufficient uranium resources to meet its strategic and power requirements for the foreseeable future.[29]
[edit]New Uranium Deposits In Andhra Pradesh
Large deposits of natural uranium, which promises to be one of the top 20 of the world's reserves, have been found in the Tummalapalle belt in the southern part of the Kadapa basin in Andhra Pradesh in March 2011. The Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research (AMD) of India, which explores uranium in the country, has so far discovered 44,000 tonnes of natural uranium (U3O8) in just 15 km of the 160-km long belt.[30]
[edit]Nuclear power plants
Currently, twenty nuclear power reactors produce 4,780.00 MW (2.9% of total installed base).[31][32]Power station
Operator
State
Type
Units
Total capacity (MW)
220 x 4
880
220 x 2
440
220 x 2
440
220 x 2
440
100 x 1
200 x 1
220 x 4
1180
160 x 2
540 x 2
1400
Total
20
4780
The projects under construction are:[33][citation needed]Power station
Operator
State
Type
Units
Total capacity (MW)
1000 x 2
2000
500 x 1
500
700 x 2
1400
700 x 2
1400
700 x 2
1400
Total
9
6700
[edit]Accidents
Main article: Nuclear accidents by country
See also: Lists of nuclear disasters and radioactive incidents
Several nuclear accidents have occurred in India:[34]Date
Location
Description
Cost
(in millions
2006 US$)
4 May 1987
Kalpakkam, Tamil Nadu, India
Fast Breeder Test Reactor at Kalpakkam refueling accident that ruptures the reactor core, resulting in a two-year shutdown.
300
10 September 1989
Tarapur, Maharashtra, India
Operators at the Tarapur Atomic Power Station find that the reactor had been leaking radioactive iodine at more than 700 times normal levels. Repairs to the reactor take more than a year.
78
13 May 1992
Tarapur, Maharashtra, India
A malfunctioning tube causes the Tarapur Atomic Power Station to release 12 curies of radioactivity.
2
31 March 1993
Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh, India
The Narora Atomic Power Station suffers a fire at two of its steam turbine blades, no damage to the reactor. All major cables burnt.
220
2 February 1995
Kota, Rajasthan, India
The Rajasthan Atomic Power Station leaks radioactive helium and heavy water into the Rana Pratap Sagar dam, necessitating a two-year shutdown for repairs.
280
22 October 2002
Kalpakkam, Tamil Nadu, India
Almost 100 kg radioactive sodium at a fast breeder reactor leaks into a purification cabin, ruining a number of valves and operating systems.
30
It is estimated that before the accident at Tarapur, lack of proper maintenance exposed more than 3000 Indian personnel to "very high" and "hazardous" radiation levels. Researchers at the American University calculated at least 124 "hazardous incidents" at nuclear plants in India between 1993 and 1995.[34]
[edit]Anti-nuclear protests
Environmentalists, local farmers and fishermen have been protesting for months over the planned six-reactor nuclear power complex on the plains of Jaitapur, 420 km south of Mumbai. If built, it would be one of the world's largest nuclear power complexes. Protests have escalated in the wake of Japan's Fukushima I nuclear accidents. During two days of violent rallies in April 2011, a local man was killed and dozens were injured.[37]
Following the Fukushima disaster, many are questioning the mass roll-out of new plants in India, including the World Bank, the former Indian Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh, and the former head of the country's nuclear regulatory body, A. Gopalakrishnan. The massiveJaitapur Nuclear Power Project is the focus of concern - "931 hectares of farmland will be needed to build the reactors, land that is now home to 10,000 people, their mango orchards, cashew trees and rice fields". Fishermen in the region say their livelihoods will be wiped out.[38]
[edit]References
- ^ "~6429693.xls" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-08-22.
- ^ "India's 20th nuclear power plant goes critical". Hindustan Times. 2010-11-27. Retrieved 2011-03-13.
- ^ Verma, Nidhi (2008-08-18). "Westinghouse, Areva eye India nuclear plants-paper". Reuters. Retrieved 2010-08-22.
- ^ "India eyeing 64,000 MW nuclear power capacity by 2032: NPCIL". The Economic Times. 2010-10-11.
- ^ Pham, Lisa (2009-10-20). "Considering an Alternative Fuel for Nuclear Energy". New York Times.
- ^ "Russia fulfis promise, supplies uranium to India". Expressindia.com. Retrieved 2010-08-22.
- ^ "Uranium shortage holding back India's nuclear power drive - Corporate News". livemint.com. 2008-06-30. Retrieved 2010-08-22.
- ^ "Ministry of Power". Powermin.gov.in. Retrieved 2010-08-22.
- ^ "news.outlookindia.com". Outlookindia.com. Retrieved 2010-08-22.
- ^ "India, France agree on civil nuclear cooperation". Rediff.com. Retrieved 2010-08-22.
- ^ "Bush signs India-US nuclear deal into law - Home". livemint.com. 2008-10-09. Retrieved 2010-08-22.
- ^ "UK, India sign civil nuclear accord". Reuters. 2010-02-13. Retrieved 2010-08-22.
- ^ "Canada, India reach nuclear deal". Montrealgazette.com. 2009-11-29. Retrieved 2010-08-22.
- ^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-South-Korea-ink-civil-nuclear-deal/articleshow/9360801.cms
- ^ "India to get 510 tonnes of uranium from Kazakhstan, Russia". Hindu Business Line.
- ^ "South Asia | Russia agrees India nuclear deal". BBC News. 2009-02-11. Retrieved 2010-08-22.
- ^ "India, Kazakhstan sign nuclear pact". Financial Express.
- ^ Sanjay Dutta, TNN, Jan 23, 2009, 01.35am IST (2009-01-23). "Kazakh nuclear, oil deals hang in balance - International Business - Business - The Times of India". Timesofindia.indiatimes.com. Retrieved 2010-08-22.
- ^ India, Argentina ink agreement on peaceful uses of N-energy, the Hindu
- ^ "India, Namibia sign uranium supply deal".
- ^ "Indian firm acquires uranium mining rights in Niger | Uranium, Niger, Company, Bajla, Government". taurianresources.co.in. Retrieved 2010-12-22.
- ^ "Slowdown not to affect India's nuclear plans". Business-standard.com. 2009-01-21. Retrieved 2010-08-22.
- ^ "Nuclear power generation to touch 6,000 Mw by next year". Business-standard.com. Retrieved 2010-08-26.
- ^ (http://www.npcil.nic.in/PlantsInOperation.asp
- ^ "India's fast breeder reactor nears second milestone". Chennai, India: Hindu.com. 2009-06-16. Retrieved 2010-08-26.
- ^ Ben Doherty (April 23, 2011). "Indian anti-nuclear protesters will not be deterred". Sydney Morning Herald.
- ^ [1][dead link]
- ^ "At G-8, Singh, Bush reaffirm commitment to nuclear deal - Economy and Politics". livemint.com. 2008-07-10. Retrieved 2010-08-22.
- ^ a b http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/atomsforwarfinal4.pdf
- ^ Subramanian, T. S. (20 March 2011). "Massive uranium deposits found in Andhra Pradesh". The Hindu (Chennai, India).
- ^ "Nuclear Power Plants In India - Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited". Npcil.nic.in. Retrieved 2011-01-21.
- ^ "India's 20th nuclear reactor connected to power grid". The Times of India. 2011-01-19. Retrieved 2011-01-22.
- ^ "Projects Under Construction - Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited". Npcil.nic.in. Retrieved 2011-01-22.
- ^ a b Benjamin K. Sovacool. A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia, Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 40, No. 3, August 2010, p. 380.
- ^ Benjamin K. Sovacool. A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia, Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 40, No. 3, August 2010, pp. 393–400.
- ^ Benjamin K. Sovacool (2009). The Accidental Century - Prominent Energy Accidents in the Last 100 Years
- ^ Amanda Hodge (April 21, 2011). "Fisherman shot dead in Indian nuke protest". The Australian.
- ^ Ben Doherty (April 23, 2011). "Indian anti-nuclear protesters will not be deterred". Sydney Morning Herald.
[show]v · d · eEconomy of India topics
[show]v · d · eNuclear power by country
Afghanistan · Armenia · Azerbaijan · Bahrain · Bangladesh · Bhutan · Brunei · Burma (Myanmar) · Cambodia · People's Republic of China ·Cyprus · East Timor (Timor-Leste) · Egypt · Georgia · India · Indonesia · Iran · Iraq · Israel · Japan · Jordan · Kazakhstan · North Korea ·South Korea · Kuwait · Kyrgyzstan · Laos · Lebanon · Malaysia · Maldives · Mongolia · Nepal · Oman · Pakistan · Philippines · Qatar · Russia ·Saudi Arabia · Singapore · Sri Lanka · Syria · Tajikistan · Thailand · Turkey · Turkmenistan · United Arab Emirates · Uzbekistan · Vietnam ·Yemen Abkhazia · Nagorno-Karabakh · Northern Cyprus · Palestine · Republic of China (Taiwan) · South Ossetia Dependencies and
other territories
Christmas Island · Cocos (Keeling) Islands · Hong Kong · Macau
View page ratings
Rate this page
What's this?
Trustworthy
Objective
Complete
Well-written
I am highly knowledgeable about this topic (optional)
Submit ratings
Categories: Nuclear energy in India
Haripur Nuclear Energy Park mooted by Atomic Energy Commission
Nuclear - Nuclear Plants
Atomic Energy Commission has selected Haripur in Midnapore district in West Bengal as one of the 5 coastal location to set up a nuclear power plant. To meet the objective of nuclear energy programme and vision 2020, it plans to add 40000 MGWT of nuclear energy by using indigenous and imported nuclear fuel. It may be noted, National Fishworkers Forum in Haripur and a section of Trinamul Congress are against the project.
http://nuclear-power.industry-focus.net/index.php/nuclear-plants/284-haripur-nuclear-energy-park-mooted-by-atomic-energy-commission.html
Whither Haripur? - Nuclear energy option splits CPI(M) higher-ups
By Sankar Ray
On the issue of whether the nuclear option should be explored to meet power requirements in the future preferentially over coal-fired power generation, mandarins of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), the largest Leftist party in India, are more adherents of Mikhail Gorbachev's glasnost than Stalinist orthodoxy of "democratic centralism". Nonagenarian CPI(M) polit bureau member Jyoti Basu frequently claims that his party is the most democratic and disciplined of all political parties in India and once a decision is taken following inner-party debate, every party member works for implementing the decision.
The West Bengal chief minister and CPI(M) polit bureau member Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee is an unabashed proponent of nuclear option in creating additional power capacity. Speaking to The Hindu in mid-September, he said, "We just cannot avoid nuclear power". He argued that global warming forces us to look up to 'green power'. Coal-fired power, comprising 96 per cent of power generation in West Bengal is no green power, he felt. But interestingly, he interpreted his opinion as "technical rather than political," although he is far away from the realm of science and technology either academically or by practical experience.
The Nuclear Power Corporation Ltd includes Haripur, a coastal village of East Medinipur district, West Bengal, among the several new nuclear power plants. Bhattacharjee went ga-ga about it along with the commerce and industry minister Nirupam Sen, a CPI(M) central committee member and fully with the Chief Minister on wooing capitalists including MNCs for industrialization of the state. Which was why the CPI(M) state leadership stepped up campaign in favour of the proposed 3000 megawatt project. In the mid-1990s, there was a similar project proposed in the Sunderbans but the Left Front government had to drop it for strong protest from environmental scientists and South 24 Parganas district branch of the Paschimbanga Vijnan Mancha, state unit of CPI(M)-controlled All India People's Science Congress.
Prof Deb Kumar Bose, ex-chairman, West Bengal State Electricity Board, and formerly professor of economics, Indian Statistical Institute, did several econometric studies on nuclear power – published in Economic and Political Weekly – and warned against nuclear power option in the 1990s too. In the end months of 2006, when Dr Bose called on a top CPI(M) PB member to reiterate his opinion, he was told that Bhattacharjee got the matter through at the state party secretariat and hence Prof Bose, a CPI(M) member, should not write or speak about the nuclear power plant.
Prabir Purakayastha, a power technologist who worked for many years in BHEL and secretary, Delhi Science Forum, a constituent of AIPSC, dished out a profoundly different viewpoint and refuted those who are arguing for nuclear option. A Delhi state committee member of the party, Purakayastha wrote a 2670-word polemical piece - The Myth oOf Free Nuclear Energy in CPI(M)'s central organ Peoples Democracy in its 21 October 2007 issue . The notion that nuclear power will be cheaper than coal has "layers of lies built in", he said while admitting that "operating cost of a nuclear plant is lower than that of coal fired plants" . The cost of electricity includes capital cost too which is very high and consumers are to "pay for the capital cost of the plants also in the electricity charges , he pointed out . The cost of electricity using just the capital cost of the plant alone for imported reactors, he calculated, will be " Rs 3.65 per unit as against the cost per unit from coal including the fuel and all other operating costs of Rs 2.20-2.60, depending on their distance from the coal mines. If we take plants at pit heads, the cost committed by Reliance for the Sasan Ultra Mega Power Project is only Rs 1.19. Even after using high cost imported coal, the cost of power from the Mundra Ultra Mega Power project is Rs 2.26′, he argued.
Purakayastha questioned the notion that the operating cost of a nuclear power unit is lower than the thermal counterpart. According to the NPCL exercise, the operating cost of Kaiga unt, taking into consideration, fuel, heavy water etc is Rs 1.48 a unit. But the DSF leader wrote, adding the cost of capital, "the cost of electricity becomes Rs 5.13! This is more than twice that from coal fired plants."
CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat a few months back said at a meeting in West Bengal that nuclear power generation cost "is substantially higher than coal-based power", citing Purakayastha's data but subsequently, addressing a seminar at the Jawaharlal Nehru University he kept options for nuclear power generation open, as if to keep Bhattacharjee and West Bengal comrades in good humour. After all, West Bengal CPI(M) is the largest financial resource-base for AKG Bhavan, national headquarters of CPI(M).
However, till date opponents of nuclear power generation like Purakayastha have not been gagged. But the free-for-all space is wide open mocking the Stalinist pride of CPI(M) biggies from Basu to the CITU president M K Pandhe. Shyamal Chakraborty, a CC member, defended nuclear power saying, " After all, we cannot lag behind science". Unlike Purakayastha and like Bhattacharjee, he never had basic science subjects in his undergraduate or post-graduate classes but pretends to know science better than energy experts. Srideep Bhattacharjee, former secretary of Paschimbanga Vijnan Mancha, now a CPI(M) state committee member in a note to the state leaders strongly opposed the move towards nuclear plant, especially in the coastal zone.
Contradictions and self-contradictions (Karat's volte face) on nuclear option in future power generation plans among CPI(M) leaders weakens the rigidities of democratic centralism, one of the principal pillars of organization among 'Official Marxists". Even for the CPI(M) whose founding leaders like B T Ranadive and Promode Dasgupta asked comrades to remain unflinchingly loyal to what Stalin used to do and instruct.
http://sanhati.com/news/548/
Statement demanding the scrapping of nuclear power plants in India - PBKMS
March 22, 2011
One Standard Everywhere: CPI(M)'s "No" To Jaitapur Should Also Mean "No" To Haripur
Paschim Banga Khet Majoor Samity welcomes the CPI(M)'s unequivocal opposition to the proposed Jaitapur nuclear plant and asks for a similar stand on the plans for a nuclear park in Haripur. We demand from the CPI(M) a statement that says that they do not want to put lives of the people of South Bengal and the livelihoods of the people of Haripur at risk with a nuclear plant in a seaside area where the risk of a tsunami is there and which falls within Zone IV of seismic activity. (http://downtoearth.org.in/dte/userfiles/images/Earth_quake_map.jpg.) We demand that the rejection of the Haripur nuclear plant be made part of the Left Front manifesto.
On March 12th 2011, Suhashini Ali, ex- MP and renowned trade union leader from Uttar Pradesh and Khagen Das , MP from Tripura went as a members of a two member CPI(M) delegation to visit Jaitapur. A report of their visit has appeared in the People's Democracy dated March 20, 2011. (http://pd.cpim.org/2011/0320_pd/03202011_13.html)
Not surprisingly, their report echoes our experiences in Nandigram, Singur and Haripur. We quote below :-
"People are not opposed to development. They said – there is not a single college or hospital in this area. We would contribute to the government building colleges, universities and hospitals but there is no talk of these things. They are opposed to a project that they know, despite all the lies and prevarications that the government is resorting to, will displace them and destroy their livelihoods."
"The 'affected' areas that we visited are extremely prosperous. The farmers and fisherfolk produce the best mangoes and also the best fish and sea food in the region. They are responsible for exports running into crores every year. They employ more than 12,000 migrant workers all year round and their villages exude prosperity and hard work. The landscape around is lush and the waters sparkle. The attachment of the people to their land and to their professions is extremely strong and it is this that explains their determined resistance and willingness to sacrifice. "
"Majid Gowalkar told us, " I employ 11 people. The government says that they will give us jobs after the project comes. But we are already giving more than 10,000 people from outside work at 250-300 rupees a day. And we are feeding our own families. So why should we accept ruination and then beg for jobs that we will never get."
"Only 112 persons (out of 2000) who owned only 2 per cent of the total land in Mithgavane have accepted compensation from the state government. None of them reside in the area. Even after minister Narayan Rane announced an enhanced compensation of 10 lakh rupees per acre, not a single person has come forward to accept it."
"No gathering of more than five people was permitted in the affected area and that, not only would two policemen accompany us throughout our visit but police and administrative officers would be keeping a close watch on our movements to ensure that the prohibitory orders were complied with!"
"The government has responded with repression, arrests, unaffordable bail bonds, threats and externment orders that are being processed."
"An order(has been given to an activist) by the district collector by sms, informing him that his presence in the district had been banned for a week";
The report at the end states clearly the demands of this two member team
"1) Cancel the Jaitapur Nuclear Project, 2) Return the lands which have been forcibly acquired and 3) Withdraw all police cases filed against the movement activists and also the ban orders and create a suitable environment for dialogue."
Dr Anil Sadagopal, eminent educationist and scientist, as a response to the report has asked the CPI(M) three questions, which we give below and which we would like to reiterate:-
1. "Would CPI (M) now endorse your demands and take the Jaitapur people's battle unflinchingly into the Parliament, insisting on cancellation of the Jaitapur nuclear power plant project irrespective of the Government's claims of the so-called 'safety reviews' and 'increased' safety measures?
2. Have the CPI (M)-led governments in West Bengal and Kerala closed the doors of their respective states to moves by the centre to establish nuclear power plants therein? If the answer is in the affirmative, would your party declare this as its continuing stand in the party manifestos in the forthcoming assembly election?
3. Would your party now declare its unambiguous commitment to a national policy of promoting renewable and sustainable energy resources (solar, wind, bio-mass and others) for power production in place of the proposed nuclear power all over the country and raise people's political consciousness in support of this rational stand?"
*******************************************************
No To Nuclear Energy
Statement released by Paschim Banga Khet Majoor Samity (PBKMS)
March 14, 2011
After the Fukushima nuclear plant accident in Japan, Paschim Banga Khet Majur Samity once again demands the withdrawal of the nuclear plant in Haripur. We repeat "No Nuclear Plant In Haripur; No Nuclear Plant Anywhere."
It is time that planners in our country stopped playing God with other people's lives. The accident at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan has once again drawn attention to the limitations of technology and the greed of the powerful. In its eagerness to promote the profits of nuclear industry of Russia , France and America, the Indian government is endangering the lives of its many citizens who live near various nuclear sites. Haripur is a prime example of this.
The Fukushima accident has shown clearly that even a rich, technologically advanced country like Japan is unable to predict nature's fury. In Fukushima, in simple layman's terms, the cooling system at the plant collapsed, with first electricity failing, then fall back diesel generators packing up, and finally even battery operated back up collapsing. With levels of incompetence much higher in India, this does not seem an impossible scenario in our country. S K Malhotra, who heads the public awareness division of the Department of Atomic Energy has said that in case of an accident or a disaster, the design of the plants is made such "that the reactor automatically goes into safe mode, switches itself off but continues cooling the plant". However, after Fukushima, atomic scientist Dr Gopalakrishnan warns that nuclear safety in India is compromised by the lack of independence in the functioning of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB).
TV coverage tells us that Japan has sensors in the ocean floor to predict earthquakes and tsunami, that all the people in the area affected by the nuclear plant explosion are being tested for radio activity. Can we imagine this level of caring for people's needs and competence in a country which falters after 64 years of independence in dealing with diarrohea outbreaks and chronic hunger? Can this Government actually promise the security of the people of Haripur, Junput, Contai and surrounding villages?
While working on the Haripur issue, we have seen that Government agencies have in fact tried to trivialise people's threat perceptions. To deal with problems of displacement and discontent arising from that, we have seen that the Government has over time reduced the buffer zone from its original radius of 16.5 kms, and has told people that it does not need so much of land for a nuclear plant, as safety standards have now improved considerably. There has been an impression created that life in Contai town will not be disturbed and only 9 villages will lose their land. On the other hand, in Fukushima , the Japanese Prime Minister has asked for evacuation of people within 20 kms of the plant. If indeed nuclear power is so safe, why do people within 20 kms of the plant have to be evacuated? News reports tell us that "radiation levels after the explosion reached the equivalent of what a human being is normally allowed to be exposed to over the course of an entire year. Three workers were being treated for severe radiation exposure. Although experts insisted that there was no risk to the wider public, health officials were distributing potassium iodine tablets to residents who, while awaiting evacuation, were told to turn off air-conditioners, stay indoors and not to drink tap water. People leaving their homes were warned to avoid exposing their skin and to cover their faces with masks and wet towels."
Unlike Jaitapur in Mahrashtra , Haripur is not in the middle of a seismic zone prone to earthquakes. However, it is on the shore of the Bay of Bengal. As the past decade has shown, tsunamis are becoming more and more unpredictable. Even if we do believe that human error will be avoided, in terms of using technology in efficient ways for the good of the people of the area, what about unpredictable natural phenomenon, beyond what technologists and scientists account for? What is to prevent Haripur from being overrun by a huge wave from the ocean at some point in the future- a wave that is beyond the calculations of the scientists? After all scientists are still not Gods who can totally control or even totally understand nature.
What makes the whole thing worse is that the people of Haripur-Junput do not at all want this bitter dose of "development". Surveys, discussions, television interviews have all shown that the people are refusing to give their land for the nuclear plant. While their fears of safety are one part of it, the other part is that they are not willing to disrupt their lives which are culturally and economically rich. One wonders why the planners, if they are so convinced about the safety of the technology do not use a site closer to home- for example the lawns of Lutyens Delhi?
Despite the TMC's stated opposition to a nuclear plant at Haripur, the UPA is obviously going full steam ahead with its plans. SK Jain, chairman and managing director of NPCIL stated on March 3 2011 that the environmental evaluation process is expected to be over by 2012, to be followed by land acquisition. The first phase of the project will start within the 12th Five Year Plan Period, probably by 2014. On February 23rd 2011, Minister of State in the PMO V Narayanasamy said in the Lok Sabha that the Government has not decided to shift the location of a proposed nuclear power plant from Haripur in West Bengal.
While the 2011 elections make the TMC Congress alliance seem inevitable, one wonders, when it comes to Haripur, whether the alliance will prevail or whether the people's voices will prevail.
http://sanhati.com/articles/3318/
CPI(M) Double Standards: No To Jaitapur, Yes To Haripur?
Paschim Banga Khet Majoor Samity welcomes the CPI(M)'s unequivocal opposition to the proposed Jaitapur nuclear plant and asks for a similar stand on the plans for a nuclear park in Haripur. We demand from the CPI(M) a statement that says that they do not want to put lives of the people of South Bengal and the livelihoods of the people of Haripur at risk with a nuclear plant in a seaside area where the risk of a tsunami is there and which falls within Zone IV of seismic activity. (http://downtoearth.org.in/dte/userfiles/images/Earth_quake_map.jpg.) We demand that the rejection of the Haripur nuclear plant be made part of the Left Front manifesto.
On March 12th 2011, Suhashini Ali, ex- MP and renowned trade union leader from Uttar Pradesh and Khagen Das , MP from Tripura went as a members of a two member CPI(M) delegation to visit Jaitapur. A report of their visit has appeared in the People's Democracy dated March 20, 2011. (http://pd.cpim.org/2011/0320_pd/03202011_13.html)
Not surprisingly, their report echoes our experiences in Nandigram, Singur and Haripur. We quote below :-
"People are not opposed to development. They said – there is not a single college or hospital in this area. We would contribute to the government building colleges, universities and hospitals but there is no talk of these things. They are opposed to a project that they know, despite all the lies and prevarications that the government is resorting to, will displace them and destroy their livelihoods."
"The 'affected' areas that we visited are extremely prosperous. The farmers and fisherfolk produce the best mangoes and also the best fish and sea food in the region. They are responsible for exports running into crores every year. They employ more than 12,000 migrant workers all year round and their villages exude prosperity and hard work. The landscape around is lush and the waters sparkle. The attachment of the people to their land and to their professions is extremely strong and it is this that explains their determined resistance and willingness to sacrifice. "
"Majid Gowalkar told us, " I employ 11 people. The government says that they will give us jobs after the project comes. But we are already giving more than 10,000 people from outside work at 250-300 rupees a day. And we are feeding our own families. So why should we accept ruination and then beg for jobs that we will never get."
"Only 112 persons (out of 2000) who owned only 2 per cent of the total land in Mithgavane have accepted compensation from the state government. None of them reside in the area. Even after minister Narayan Rane announced an enhanced compensation of 10 lakh rupees per acre, not a single person has come forward to accept it."
"No gathering of more than five people was permitted in the affected area and that, not only would two policemen accompany us throughout our visit but police and administrative officers would be keeping a close watch on our movements to ensure that the prohibitory orders were complied with!"
"The government has responded with repression, arrests, unaffordable bail bonds, threats and externment orders that are being processed."
"An order(has been given to an activist) by the district collector by sms, informing him that his presence in the district had been banned for a week";
The report at the end states clearly the demands of this two member team
"1) Cancel the Jaitapur Nuclear Project, 2) Return the lands which have been forcibly acquired and 3) Withdraw all police cases filed against the movement activists and also the ban orders and create a suitable environment for dialogue."
Dr Anil Sadagopal, eminent educationist and scientist, as a response to the report has asked the CPI(M) three questions, which we give below and which we would like to reiterate:-
1. "Would CPI (M) now endorse your demands and take the Jaitapur people's battle unflinchingly into the Parliament, insisting on cancellation of the Jaitapur nuclear power plant project irrespective of the Government's claims of the so-called 'safety reviews' and 'increased' safety measures?
2. Have the CPI (M)-led governments in West Bengal and Kerala closed the doors of their respective states to moves by the centre to establish nuclear power plants therein? If the answer is in the affirmative, would your party declare this as its continuing stand in the party manifestos in the forthcoming assembly election?
3. Would your party now declare its unambiguous commitment to a national policy of promoting renewable and sustainable energy resources (solar, wind, bio-mass and others) for power production in place of the proposed nuclear power all over the country and raise people's political consciousness in support of this rational stand?"
http://khetmajoorsamity.blogspot.com/2011/03/cpim-double-standards-no-to-jaitapur.html
-
In silence they die
- palashkatha.mywebdunia.com/2010/03/13/in_silence_they_die.html- Cached
- 13 Mar 2010 – sanhati.com/news/44/ - Cached - Similar ...Haripur nuclear power project gets environmental clearance - 13 Jan 2010 ...
-
Maoists Move to Stop Nuclear Power Plant in West Bengal ...
- revolutionaryfrontlines.wordpress.com/.../maoists-move-to-stop-nuc... - Cached
- 26 Mar 2010 – Maoist bid to nuke project. Maoists have entered Haripur in East Midnapore to ... a proposed nuclear power plant, intelligence reports say. ...
-
palashbiswaslive: Statement demanding the scrapping of nuclear ...
- palashbiswaslive.blogspot.com/.../statement-demanding-scrapping-o... - Cached
- 27 Mar 2011 – We demand that the rejection of the Haripurnuclear plant be made part ... of the Jaitapur nuclear powerplant project irrespective of the ...
-
Leaflet from Paramanu Chulli Birodhi Committee,Haripur. at Sanhati
- sanhati.com/literature/34/ - Cached
- Fighting neoliberalism in Bengal. Sanhati ... Birodhi Committee, published by Sukumar Bhuyia, from Haripur - the site of the proposed nuclear power plant. ...
-
Ongoing Struggles at Sanhati
- sanhati.com/ongoing-struggles/ - Cached
- Nagarik Mancha report on Haripur, site of the proposednuclear power plant ... Real estate projects in Rajarhat face farmer resistance ...
-
West Bengal - An analysis of the election manifestos of ... - Sanhati
- sanhati.com/articles/3528/ - Cached
- 28 Apr 2011 – Together with this, new power plants have been proposed. In Haripur, the controversial nuclear power plantproject still on the cards, ...
-
Khet Majoor Samity: Rally Against N-Plant At Jaitapur: Harassment ...
- khetmajoorsamity.blogspot.com/.../rally-against-n-plant-at-jaitapur... - Cached
- 18 May 2011 – Haripur is also reeling under pressure, with the government giving a go ahead to build a nuclear power plant, which would affect lakhs of ...
Won't back down till Lokpal Bill is passed, says Anna Hazare
TNN | Aug 18, 2011, 07.33PM IST
NEW DELHI: Anna Hazare in a message fromTihar Jail on Thursday said that he will continue his protest till the government passes the civil society's version of the Lokpal Bill. Anna will leave Tihar Jail tomorrow.
Saying that he is not at all tired by his fast, the 73-year-old Gandhian said that the government should not waste time and should read the writing on the wall.
Anna told his supporters not to worry about his health and said that he will address the country tomorrow. "I have more energy to fight the battle against corruption," Anna said. Anna also urged his supporters to carry on the fight till a strong Lokpal Bill is passed.
Anna, who was to launch his protest from Ramlila Maidan from Thursday, will fast from the ground from Friday as the venue was full of muck and needs cleaning up.
After two nights in Tihar Jail and hard bargaining, Anna Hazare and government reached an agreement early Thursday morning under which Delhi Police removed all restrictions and allowed him to carry out his hunger strike for a fortnight in the spacious Ramlila Maidan here.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Wont-back-down-till-Lokpal-Bill-is-passed-says-Anna-Hazare/articleshow/9650523.cms
Team Anna's deliverables for its 15-day protest
Sudhi Ranjan Sen, Updated: August 18, 2011 21:34 IST
Ads by Google
Dream Villa in Bangalore – View 1000s of villas with photos Search on No.1 IndiaProperty Site
Bangalore.indiaproperty.com/villas
New Delhi: Anna Hazare's anti-corruption campaign will set up its base camp at Ramlila Maidan tomorrow, a large public space in Central Delhi.
The Delhi Police, after extensive negotiations, agreed that it would not place any limits on either the size of the gathering or on the length of Anna's hunger strike (he has been fasting since Tuesday). (Read: Anna Hazare stays in Tihar tonight, 15-day protest starts tomorrow at Ramlila Maidan)
Anna will spend tonight at Tihar Jail and move to Ramlila Maidan tomorrow, since today is being spent on preparations for the thousands that are expected.
Team Anna has signed off on a list of prerequisites from the Delhi Police. Among them, that the crowd will not exceed the official capacity of the ground, which is around 25,000 people. The permission for the fast has been given till September 2, 2011. (Read: Read Team Anna's 'contract' with police for 15-day fast)
In the undertaking signed by Anna and his associates - Arvind Kejriwal, Prashant Bhushan, Kiran Bedi and Shanti Bhushan - they also said that if any clause is violated, they will be liable.
Anna and any others who are fasting will be examined by doctors thrice a day. Team Anna shall arrange for drinking water, first aid, mobile toilets and proper lighting. Three associates of Anna will be in constant touch with the police. Anna's aides are responsible for ensuring that the crowd remains calm and does not break the law.
There will be no damage to public property; the crowd will not spill over to roads in the area; the protesters will cooperate with traffic police to ensure there are no jams.
In keeping with Supreme Court guidelines, loudspeakers cannot be used after 10 pm. No participant in the protest will be allowed to make provocative speeches or carry lathis or fire arms.
For NDTV Updates, follow us on Twitter or join us on Facebook
Story first published:
August 18, 2011 17:47 IST
Tags: Anna Hazare, Anna Hazare protest, Anna's fight against corruption, Ramlila Maidan
- Also See
- My health is fine, don't worry about me: Anna's message from Tihar
- Read Team Anna's 'contract' with police for 15-day fast
- Anna effect crosses border into Pakistan
- Techies launch online petition for corruption free India
- Anna Hazare to undergo medical test before leaving Tihar Jail
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/team-annas-deliverables-for-its-15-day-protest-127450
Mass protest increases spirit of patriotism in students
Vinobha K T, TNN | Aug 18, 2011, 10.47PM IST
MANGALORE: A day after the mass protest carried out by students of nearly 100 colleges in the city, the spirit of nationalism, patriotism and an urge to join the agitation against corruption, was paramount in minds of young generation in campus. Students unanimously said youth power should support septuagenarian like Anna Hazare in his fight against corruption.
Students of St Aloysius College, who were also part of the mass protest held on Wednesday, found more time to discuss politics and anti-graft movement of Anna Hazare in classrooms, corridors and at the canteen. Inspired by the anti-graft movement launched by Anna Hazare, students declared that they are ready to march again for the cause. It is common that students respond less to politics, but the Anna Hazare movement has indeed instilled in students an urge to change themselves.
Sushmitha Kirodian, a second year student of Master in Communication and Media Studies (MCMS), said: "Younger generation should lead the protest. The entire nation has come forward to extend support to the cause of Anna Hazare, but it is unfortunate that the government is not moved by the movement. Youths need to raise their voice to support veteran Gandhian Anna Hazare," she added.
Similar is the view of many other students in the campus, who assert that the nation can be free from corruption only if young generation think of politics and nation. Nafila Shareefa, a final year BA Journalism student in the college, feels that even protests against corruption are also being hijacked by politicians. Nothing is going change unless young generation join hands to fight corruption, she said.
Abhishek, another student of MCMS in the college, said students should back Anna Hazare.
"The government should understand a fact that septuagenarian Anna Hazare will not be benefited in anyway if his demands were fulfilled. The Jan Lokpal Bill, which Anna Hazare demands, will benefit only future generation. Hence, it is our responsibility to lead the protest," he asserted.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mangalore/Mass-protest-increases-spirit-of-patriotism-in-students/articleshow/9652352.cms
Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJaitapur Nuclear Power Project
*
Location of Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project
Country
Coordinates
*16°59′0″N 73°35′6″ECoordinates: 16°59′0″N 73°35′6″E
Status
Received Conditional environmental clearance
Construction cost
*112,000 crore (US$24.98 billion)[1]
Owner(s)
Reactor information
Reactors planned
6 x 1650 MW
Reactor type(s)
Reactor supplier(s)
* Areva
Power generation information
Maximum capacity
9900 MW
As of March 19, 2011
Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project (Marathi: जैतापूर अणुऊर्जा प्रकल्प) is a new proposed 9900 MW power project of Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) at Madban village of Ratnagiri district in Maharashtra.[2] It will be the largest nuclear powergenerating station in the world by net electrical power rating once completed.[3][4]
On December 6, 2010 agreement was signed for the construction of first set of two third-generation European Pressurized Reactors/Evolutionary Power Reactors (EPR)and the supply of nuclear fuel for 25 years in the presence of French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.[5]
French nuclear engineering firm Areva S.A. and Indian state-owned nuclear operatorNuclear Power Corporation of India signed this multi billion valued agreement of about $9.3 billion. This is a general framework agreement along with agreement on 'Protection of Confidentiality of Technical Data and Information Relating to Nuclear Power Corporation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy' was also signed.[6][7][8][9][10] The general framework agreement is a list of the scope of work, terms and conditions of plant life, guarantees and warrantees, guaranteed plant load factor. This agreement is quite important since life of the reactors is anticipated at 60 years. This general framework agreement will also include financial aspect of the project including the terms and conditions of funding, debt funding. Etc.. [11]
The cost of building the plant is about Rs 20 crore/MWe capacity compared with Rs 5 crore/MWe for a coal power station.[12]
The cost of electricity from this power plant will be belowUS$0.09) per Kilowatt hour.[9]
It is one of several nuclear power projects being undertaken in a thin strip of coast ofRaigad, Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg districts. The total power generating capacity proposed on a narrow strip of coastal land 50 kilometres (31 mi) to 90 kilometres (56 mi) km wide and 200 kilometres (120 mi) long is around 33,000 MW.[2][13] The prospect of nuclear power generation in India received a boost after the Indo US Civilian Nuclear Agreement became operational in October 2008. India has also signed similar agreements with France and Russia.[14][15][16] -
- Earthquake prone site
- Tsunami probability
- Future of fisheries
- Tata Institute of Social Sciences Report
- Central Water and Power Research Station Pune
- Konkan Krishi Vidyapith College of Fisheries, Ratnagiri
- HTL.
- LTL.
- Nuclear renaissance
- Generation IV reactor
- Economics of new nuclear power plants
- Energy policy of India
- Nuclear power in India
- ^ [1]
- ^ a b Deshpande, VIinaya (November 28, 2010). "It's paradoxical that environmentalists are against nuclear energy: Jairam Ramesh". Mumbai- India: The Hindu. Retrieved 29 November 2010.
- ^ "Jaitapur nuclear project: villagers turn down compensation". Mumbai- India: The Hindu. July 25, 2010. Retrieved 29 November 2010.
- ^ "Nuclear Power in India". World Nuclear Association. Updated November 2010. Retrieved 29 November 2010.
- ^ AMIEL, GERALDINE (DECEMBER 6, 2010). "Areva and NPCIL Sign Nuclear Agreement" (in English). PARIS: The Wall street Journal. Retrieved 6 December 2010.
- ^ "India, France sign nuclear power deal- Hindu" (in English). New Delhi: The Hindu. December 6, 2010. Retrieved 6 December 2010.
- ^ "India-France sign agreement on civil nuclear cooperation" (in English). New Delhi: NDTV. December 06, 2010. Retrieved 6 December 2010.
- ^ "Sarkozy eyes big contracts" (in English). The Hindu. December 02, 2010. Retrieved 2 December 2010.
- ^ a b Naravane, Vaiju (November 25, 2010). ""We are partners over the long haul" Interview with Anne Lauvergeon, CEO of Areva." (in English). Paris: The Hindu. Retrieved 30 November 2010.
- ^ Deshpande, VIinaya (November 29, 2010). "Environmental clearance for Jaitapur nuclear project" (in English). The Hindu. Retrieved 29 November 2010.
- ^ Jog, Sanjay (December 6, 2010). "NPC, Areva to sign two key pacts on Jaitapur" (in English). Mumbai: BusinessStandard. Retrieved 6 December 2010.
- ^ A Perspective on the Nuclear Uproar in India
- ^ "There are other power projects coming up on a thin strip of coast of Raigad, Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg with power generation adding up to 33,000 MW." (in English). Sify News. November 29, 2010. Retrieved 30 November 2010.
- ^ "DNA Report on France India Nuclear Agreement". Dnaindia.com. Retrieved 2010-11-28.
- ^ "French Parliament ratifies indo-french nuclear deal". Dnaindia.com. 2009-11-27. Retrieved 2010-11-28.
- ^ "Indo-Russian Nuclear Deal on BBC". BBC News. 2008-12-05. Retrieved 2010-11-28.
- ^ "World Heritage sites, Tentative lists, Western Ghats sub cluster". UNESCO, MAB. 2007. Retrieved 2007-03-30.
- ^ "जैतापूर प्रकल्पाच्या सर्व बाजू तपासणार - रत्नागिरी आणि सिंधुदुर्ग हे जिल्हे जैवविविधतेच्या समृद्धीमुळे पर्यावरण मंत्रालयातर्फे यापूर्वीच संरक्षित म्हणून जाहीर.." (in Marathi). New Delhi: Sakal newspaper. June 10, 2010. Retrieved 2 December 2010.
- ^ Hebalkar, Sharad (2001) (in English). Ancient Indian ports: with special reference to Maharashtra (illustrated ed.). Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers. p. 175. ISBN 8121508584, 9788121508582. Retrieved December 3, 2010.
- ^ a b c d "Reject French reactors for Jaitapur- A Gopalakrishnan (former chairman of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board of the Government)" (in English). Indian Express. December 03,2010. Retrieved 3 December 2010.
- ^ "European pressurised reactors costlier, less efficient: expert"(in English). Sify.com, India News Portal. December 03, 2010. Retrieved 4 December 2010.
- ^ "Nicholas Sarkozy and Manmohan Singh in nuclear deal". New Delhi: BBC. December 6, 2010. Retrieved 6 December 2010.
- ^ Mukul, Jyoti (December 23, 2010). "Sovereign guarantee for Jaitapur Nuclear project" (in English). New Delhi: Business Standard. Retrieved 26 December 2010.
- ^ Roy, Shubhajit (Dec 07, 2010). "Jaitapur n-reactors flagged off but liability concerns remain" (in English). New Delhi: Indian Express. Retrieved 18 December 2010.
- ^ "Civil liability for nuclear damage". Eoearth.org. Retrieved 2010-12-21.
- ^ "US nuke team pushes for firm commitment on project sites"(in English). The Hindu BusinessLine. Jan 14, 2009. Retrieved 26 December 2010.
- ^ Rebello, Snehal (November 29, 2010). "Nod for Jaitapur nuclear project in time for French President's visit" (in English). Mumbai: Hindustan Times. Retrieved 30 November 2010.
- ^ "Vulnerability Zones in India" (in English). ReliefWeb. Retrieved 29 November 2010.
- ^ "Seismic Zone Map of India". Mapsofindia.com. Retrieved 2010-11-28.
- ^ "Jaitapur N-plant: Ministry nod ignored creeks, trusted old data"(in English). Jaitapur: Times of India. March 17, 2011. Retrieved 17 March 2011.
- ^ "Nuclear plant hit by earthquake closed indefinitely in Japan"(in English). KASHIWAZAKI, Japan: The New York Times. July 18, 2007. Retrieved 29 November 2010.
- ^ "Nuclear Power, Caught in an Earthquake, Has Japan's earthquake sent us a wakeup call?" (in English). ABC news. July 17, 2007. Retrieved 29 November 2010.
- ^ "Japan offers lessons, but N-power vital: Jairam" (in English). New Delhi: Business Standard. March 17, 2011. Retrieved 17 March 2011.
- ^ Dutt ,, Bahar (March 17, 2011). "Jaitapur project may be scrapped: Ramesh" (in English). New Delhi: CNN-IBN. Retrieved 17 March 2011.
- ^ "Tehelaka Report". Tehelka.com. Retrieved 2010-11-28.
- ^ Siddhaye, Ninad (December 26, 2010). "Jaitapur nuke plant will be a social disaster: TISS report" (in English). Mumbai: Daily News and Analysis. Retrieved 27 December 2010.
- ^ "Anti-Jaitapur project campaigners up ante" (in English).Special Correspondent (Mumbai: Sakaal Times). December 03, 2010. Retrieved 27 December 2010.
- ^ "MISSION AND OBJECTIVES of NPCIL" (in English). NPCIL. Retrieved 1 December 2010.
- ^ Nagaich, Nalinish (November 27, 2010). "India at Sixth Rank in the World with its 20th Nuclear Power Reactor Commencing Operation" (in English). Mumbai- India: Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited. Retrieved 1 December 2010.
- ^ "about Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited" (in English). Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited. Retrieved 1 December 2010.
- ^ "Nuclear Power Generation (2006-07 to 2010-11) by NPCL" (in English). Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited. Retrieved 1 December 2010.
- ^ "Jaitapur nuclear power plant no threat to environment: Kakodkar" (in English). Pune: Indian Express. December 01, 2010. Retrieved 1 December 2010.
- ^ (in English) Indian journal of marine sciences. Volume-23, Page- 34. Council of Scientific & Industrial Research. 1994. Retrieved December 3, 2010.
- ^ "Jaitapur project will not harm environment, says Kakodkar" (in English). Pune: Times of India.. December 01, 2010. Retrieved 1 December 2010.
- ^ "Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited - PRESS RELEASE" (in English). Mumbai- India: Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited. November 29, 2010. Retrieved 30 November 2010.
- ^ Jog, Sanjay (November 29, 2010). "Nuclear Power Corporation is committed to environment protection' Q&A: S K Jain, CMD" (in English). Mumabi: Business Standard. Retrieved 6 December 2010.
- ^ Balakrishnan, Bhaskar (February 10, 2009). "Unleashing India's nuclear potential" (in English). Business Daily from THE HINDU. Retrieved 2 December 2010.
- ^ Menon, Meena (January 18, 2010). "Nuclear power plant opposed" (in English). MADBAN (Ratnagiri district): The Hindu. Retrieved 2 December 2010.
- ^ "जैतापूर प्रकल्प : 'कोकण बचाव समिती'चे थेट वाद-विवादाचे आव्हान - बैठक ३ डिसेंबरला" (in Marathi). Mumbai: लोकसत्ता Loksatta. November 30, 2010. Retrieved 2 December 2010.
- ^ Deshpande, Vinaya (December 5, 2010). "Protest against Jaitapur nuclear plant" (in English). The Hindu. Retrieved 5 December 2010.
- ^ AFP: Indian police kill protester in anti-nuclear demo AFP in Google News, published 2011-04-18, accessed 2011-04-19
- ^ "One dead, 8 hurt as protest against Jaitapur N-plant turns violent" (in English). Jaitapur: Times of India. Apr 18 2011. Retrieved 18 April 2011.
- ^ July 5, 2010 (2010-07-05). "Jaitapur EIA Public Hearing". Lokayatpune.wordpress.com. Retrieved 2010-11-28.
- ^ "India, France N-regulatory bodies meet on EPR safety issues"(in English). Mumbai: MSN News. November 24, 2010. Retrieved 5 December 2010.
- ^ "Maharashtra MLAs nap as scientists discuss- lack of interest in knowing about the advantages and disadvantages of a nuclear plant risks of Japan nuclear plant" (in English). Mumbai: India Today. March 14, 2011. Retrieved 16 March 2011.
- ^ Eluvangal, Sreejiraj (March 16, 2011). "Safety at Jaitapur not my responsibility: Jairam Ramesh" (in English). New Delhi: DNA. Retrieved 17 March 2011.
- ^ "Lesson from Japan, review N-projects, says Kalam" (in English). Pune: Times of India. March 19, 2011. Retrieved 19 March 2011.
- Struwe, D. Jacobs, H. Imke, U. Consequence evaluation of in-vessel fuel coolant interactions in the European Pressurized Water Reactor ISSN 0947-8620
- Manfred, Fischer. The severe accident mitigation concept and the design measures for core melt retention of the European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) Original Research Article, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Volume 230, Issues 1-3, May 2004, Pages 169-180
- Lvins, Amory B. and Price, John H. (1975). Non-Nuclear Futures: The Case for an Ethical Energy Strategy (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1975. xxxii + 223pp. ISBN 0-88410-602-0, ISBN 0-88410-603-9).
- with Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt, and Doug Koplow. The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2009 Commissioned by German Federal Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation and Reactor Safety, August 2009.
- Voices from Chernobyl: The Oral History of a Nuclear Disaster(Dalkey Archive Press 2005; ISBN 1-56478-401-0)
- Cravens, Gwyneth (2007). Power to Save the World: the Truth about Nuclear Energy. New York: Knopf. pp. 464. ISBN 0-307-26656-7.
- Herbst, Alan M. and George W. Hopley (2007). Nuclear Energy Now: Why the Time has come for the World's Most Misunderstood Energy Source, Wiley.
- Elliott, David (2007). Nuclear or Not? Does Nuclear Power Have a Place in a Sustainable Energy Future?, Palgrave.
- Data sheet and people protests Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project
- Resisting Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project
- Nuclear Power Corporation of India (official site)
- Resources on Jaitapur nuclear power project
[show]v · d · eNuclear power by country
[show]v · d · eNuclear power in India
[show]v · d · eElectricity generation
View page ratings
Rate this page
What's this?
Trustworthy
Objective
Complete
Well-written
I am highly knowledgeable about this topic (optional)
Submit ratings
Categories: Nuclear power stations in India | Government-owned companies in India | Economy of Maharashtra | Nuclear energy in India |Proposed nuclear power stations | Proposed power stations in India
- Resources on Jaitapur nuclear power project
[edit]Geography
The proposed Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project is located at16.59°N 73.35°E. It has an average elevation of 90 feet (27 m). This project will spread over 968 hectares (3.74 sq mi; 9.68 km2) of land. Jaitapur is on the Arabian Sea coast in Ratnagiri district in the southwestern part ofMaharashtra, India. The district is a part of Konkan in Western Ghats. In 2006, India applied to the UNESCO MAB for the Western Ghats to be listed as a protected World Heritage Site.[17][18] The Sahyadri Mountain range forms the eastern boundary of the Konkan, and the Arabian Sea marks the western boundary. Jaitapur was one of the important ports in ancient and early medieval times.[19]
[edit]Reactors
It is proposed to construct 6 European Pressurized Reactors designed and developed by Areva of France, each of 1650 megawatts, thus totaling 9900 megawatts. These are the third generation pressurized water reactors (PWR).
Estimated cost of this project is aroundcrore (US$22.3 billion). This type of reactor is not currently operational anywhere in the world.[20][21] The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission had expressed concerns about the safety of the computer system in this reactor, but Finland has ordered one such reactor nonetheless.[20] The Finnish Olkiluoto 3 plant is currently under construction, but has experienced severe delays in construction. Moreover, China has signed the agreement with Areva for three such reactors.[20] Also, all hurdles to the Jaitapur project were cleared when a memorandum of understanding was signed between the Indian and French governments and an agreement between Areva, a French state run company, and the Nuclear Power Corporation of India during French President Nicolas Sarkozy's visit to India during December 2010.[22]
[edit]Funding
A consortium of French financial institutions will finance this project as a loan. Both French and Indian government will give sovereign guarantee for this loan. The extent of guarantee will depend on what portion of the cost the French credit will cover. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) will govern the interest rates and other terms of agreement. Interest rates and other terms are under discussion.[23]
[edit]Controversy and hurdle
[edit]Hurdle
According to Areva lack of clarity on The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill 2010 passed in Indian Parliament in August 2010 is a hurdle in finalizing deal.[24] This Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill 2010 has a clause deals with the legal binding of the culpable groups in case of a nuclear accident. It allows only the operator (NPCIL) to sue the manufacturers and suppliers. Victims will not be able to sue anyone. In reality, no one will be considered legally liable because the recourse taken by the operator will yield only crore (US$334.5 million). United states of America has a law on liability-related issues for all non-military nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2026 named Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act. This American Act establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first $10 billion is industry-funded as described in the Act (any claims above the $10 billion would be covered by the federal government).[25][26]
[edit]Controversy
Debate on nuclear power project at Jaitapur is ongoing on various levels. Environmental effects of nuclear power and geological issues have been raised by anti nuclear activists of India against this power project. Even though The Government of Maharashtra state completed land acquisition in January 2010, only 33 out of the 2,335 villagers have accepted compensation cheques as of November 2010.[27]
[edit]Opponents
Since Jaitapur being seismically sensitive area, the danger of an earthquake has been foremost on the minds of people. According to theEarthquake hazard zoning of India, Jaitapur comes under Zone III. This zone is called the moderate Risk Zone and covers areas liable toMSK VIII.[28][29]
The presence of two major creeks on the proposed site has been ignored while clearing the site.[30]
Post the Chernobyl disaster and the Three Mile Island accident ,environmentalists, citizens of the area and the people world over are questioning about safety, as when in 2007 the largest nuclear generating station in the world Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant inJapan at the Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant was closed for five months following an earthquake.[31][32]
The probability of a tsunami, and the damage thereof, has not been taken into account while clearing the site Nevertheless probability of a tsunami on the Arabian Sea coast is very low due to the lack of seismic activity in the ocean.Moreover jaitapur is located on plateau probablity of tsunami reaching jaitapur is quite less[33][34]
It is not clear where the nuclear waste emanating from the site will be dumped. The plant is estimated to generate 300 tonnes of waste each year. EPR waste will have about four times as much radioactive Bromine, Iodine, Caesium, etc, compared to ordinary pressurized water reactor.[20]
Since the plant will use the sea water for cooling and then release warm water in the Arabian Sea, fishermen in villages around are predicting destruction of fisheries in the nearby sea. Media articles also highlight the possible human and fisheries cost of this project [35]
Social impact assessment review of the project are being conducted by the Jamsetji Tata centre for disaster management of the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS). According to this report, the Government of India is not fully transparent with its own citizens. The government is hiding facts about huge negative impact on the social and environmental development of the Konkan region in general and the government also manipulating notification of the area from high severity earthquake zone to moderate seismic severity zone.[36][37]
[edit]Proponents
I know the environmentalists will not be very happy with my
decision, but it is foolish romance to think that India can attain high
growth rate and sustain the energy needs of a 1.2 billion population
with the help of solar, wind, biogas and such other forms of energy.
It is paradoxical that environmentalists are against nuclear energy.
"
"
Jairam Ramesh, Environment Minister. The Hindu November 28, 2010
Proponents are advocating the Jaitapur Project as safe, environmentally benign and economically viable source of electrical energy to meet the increasing electricity needs of India.[38] They believe that nuclear power is a sustainable energy source that reduces carbon emissions and increasesenergy security by decreasing India's dependence on foreign oil. The promoter of Jaitapur project is Nuclear Power Corporation of India. It is a public Sector Enterprise under the administrative control of the Department of Atomic Energy (India).
As of 2010 India is on the sixth in rank of an elite club of nations, after USA, France, Japan, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Korea, to have twenty or more nuclear power reactors in operation.[39] The company is currently operating 20 nuclear power plants at six locations in India and is implementing construction of 7 reactors at four locations.[40] In 2009/10 company has generated 18831 million units of electricity.[41]
According to former chairman of Atomic Energy Commission Anil Kakodkar, the Jaitapur site is the best as it fulfilled the technical and scientific norms needed for a nuclear power plant.[42][43]
Pressure vessel of the European Pressurized Reactor/Evolutionary Power Reactor
All 20 nuclear power projects in India have been functioning very well and the waste generated at the this nuclear power plant, will be recycled. Only five per cent of it would be encapsulated and stored at technologically advanced places. It will not be buried anywhere. The waste will be stored for the next 30 to 40 years, till scientists develop some technology to treat it.[44]
The environmental impact assessment and other associated studies of the Jaitapur project have been carried out in detail over the last few years by National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur in collaboration with several other reputed organizations specializing in specific environment studies.[45]
These studies include,Pre-operational Baseline Radiological Survey of the Area around JNPP Site.
Radiological Dose Apportionment.
Thermal Dispersion Studies for Condenser Cooling Water (CCW) Discharges
Safe Grade Elevation Studies.
Baseline Biodiversity Study of the area around JNPP Site.
Marine Ecological Studies.
Costal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Demarcation Study.
Corporate social responsibility
Nuclear Power Corporation of India has adopted a corporate social responsibility policy, by which 1.5 to 2 per cent of the net profit from Jaitapur plant would be spent in that area only. Development projects will be decided by local people and NPC will provide the funds to ensure development of these areas. [46]
[edit]Protests
Many protests were carried out by local people against the proposed nuclear power plant. On 29 December 2009, 12 January 2010, and 22 January 2010, when the government authorities visited Madban for distribution of cheques in lieu of compulsory land acquisition, the villagers refused to accept the cheques. Government officials were shown black flags, denied any co-operation in carrying out their activities. 72 people were arrested on 22 January 2010 when people protested against the compulsory land acquisition.[47][48][49]
On December 4, 2010, protests became violent when over 1500 people were detained from among thousands of protesters, who included environmentalists and local villagers. Members and leaders of the Konkan Bachao Samiti (KBS) and the Janahit Seva Samiti (organizations that are spearheading opposition to the project) were also detained. In Mumbai, members of various trade unions and social organizations came together to protest against the project. The protesters have raised serious doubts about the neutrality of the Environment Impact Assessment Report, prepared by National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) which forms the basis of environmental clearance for the project, since parallel studies by the Bombay Natural History Society have shown that the project will cause substantial environmental damage.[50]
On April 18 one man was shot and killed by police and eight were injured as after protests against the plant turned violent.[51][52]
[edit]Public Hearing
A public hearing on the environmental impact asessment (EIA) Report, prepared by NEERI was conducted by Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, on behalf of Ministry of Environment and Forests on 16 April 2010, at the plant site. The public hearing became controversial as the EIA report was not delivered for study to 3 of the 4 Gram panchayat (local village bodies) a month in advance.[53]
[edit]Events
Date Event November 28, 2010 India, France N-regulatory bodies meet on EPR safety issues[54] November 28, 2010 Conditional environmental clearance December 06, 2010 Agreement signed with Areva for the construction of first set of two reactors March 14, 2011 Legislators and Ministers repeatedly caught on camera napping through the lectures of former Atomic Energy Commission chairman Anil Kakodkar, in Maharashtra Assembly.[55] March 16, 2011 Safety at Jaitapur not my responsibility: Jairam Ramesh[56] March 19, 2011 India must learn from Japan's calamity and review all the planned nuclear projects in the country.: Former president of IndiaA. P. J. Abdul Kalam.[57] [edit]See also
[edit]References
Notes
Further reading
See also: List of books about nuclear issues and List of films about nuclear issues
[edit]External links
*
*
*Hazare to continue fast till his health permits: Bedi
New Delhi: Anna Hazare is on an indefinite hunger strike and not a fast-unto-death, his associate Kiran Bedi said today.
"As long as he can fast, he'll continue the fast. But the moment Dr Naresh Trehan's team is of the view that he needs medical attention, he will get medical attention because the object is that it is an indefinite fast and not a fast-unto- death," she said.
While indicating that there will be no confrontation with government over the issue of providing medical attention to the Gandhian, Bedi said they do not view the agreement over Hazare's agitation as a victory for one side and defeat for the other.
"He will fast as long as he can sustain it, he will fast as long as there is no threat to his life," she said, adding the protest by Hazare was not just a fast but also a dharna.
She said the issue was linked with Hazare's health and that was why government doctors and physicians of their choice -- a team of doctors monitored by Trehan -- will monitor his health.
"His health cannot be allowed to deteriorate," she said. Asked whether they saw the government climbdown as a victory of the civil society, she said, "It is all about finding a middle path. We heard them, they heard us and finally that was the way to begin."
Source: PTI
Image Source: Reuters
Don't burden fellow judges: Apex Court
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has expressed its "strong disapproval" of the tendency of some judges to pass their burden to fellow judges or to subordinate courts when confronted with complicated issues.
- 100%0%
The court said that such an approach weakens our judicial system.
"Of late, we have come across several orders which would indicate that some of the judges are averse to decide the disputes when they are complex and complicated, and would find ways and means to pass on the burden to their brethren or remand the matter to lower courts not for good reasons," said an Apex Court bench of Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan Tuesday.
Justice Radhakrishnan said: "Few judges, for quick disposal, and for statistical purposes, get rid of cases, driving the parties to move representations before some authority...to decide the dispute which the judges should have done (themselves)."
The court said this while setting aside an Uttarakhand High Court verdict upholding the recommendation by the Haridwar District Magistrate awarding land compensation to respondents Sunil Kumar Vaish and others who were not in legal possession of land that was acquired way back in 1948.
The judgment said that the duty was cast upon the judges to give finality to the litigation so that the parties knew where they stood.
"The court's clear reasoning and analysis are basic requirements in a judicial determination when the parties demand it so that they can administer justice justly and correctly in relation to findings on law and facts," the judgment said.
The court said that the parties to dispute should be convinced that their case has been properly considered and decided. "The quality of judicial decision depends principally on the quality of its reasoning," the judgment underlined.
The judgment said that the impugned high court judgment did not "satisfy" the standards it was expected to follow.
"Needless to say these types of orders weaken our judicial system. Serious attention is called for to enhance the quality of adjudication in our courts. Public trust and confidence in courts stem, quite often, from the direct experience of citizens from the judicial adjudication of their disputes," the judgment said.
Source: IANS
Rajya Sabha approves Soumitra Sen's impeachment
New Delhi: Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court could be the first judge in the country to be removed, with the Rajya Sabha on Thursday overwhelmingly approving impeachment motion against him.
- 50%50%
As many as 189 members voted in favour of the motion to impeach the 53-year-old Judge after a two-day debate on the issue, in the second case in Parliament's history and the first-ever in the Upper House. Seventeen members voted against.
All parties except BSP were of the view that Justice Sen was guilty of misappropriating Rs 33.23 lakh which were under his custody as a court-appointed receiver in the capacity as a lawyer and misrepresenting facts before a Calcutta court.
Impeachment proceedings followed motions moved by Sitaram Yechury (CPI-M) and Leader of the Opposition Arun Jaitley after an Inquiry Committee, appointed by the Rajya Sabha Chairman and headed by Supreme Court Judge B Sudershan Reddy, held Justice Sen guilty of misbehaviour.
Justice Sen on Wednesday appeared before the House and strongly defended himself arguing that he was a "victim" and appealed to members to vote by conscience. The House, however, rejected his defence.
With the Rajya Sabha giving its nod for removal of Justice Sen, the impeachment motion will now be taken up by the Lok Sabha next week with the Lower House expected to deliberate on it on August 24-25. Justice Sen could go down in history as the first judge to be removed if Lok Sabha gives its consent next week to the motion for his impeachment.
The first such case involved the impeachment motion in Lok Sabha of Justice V Ramaswami of the Supreme Court in May 1993 which fell due to lack of numbers after Congress members abstained.
Incidentally, Union Minister Kapil Sibal who was then a senior advocate, had presented the case of Justice Ramaswami before the Lower House.
Justice PD Dinakaran, Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court, against whom the Rajya Sabha Chairman had set up a judicial panel to enquire into allegations of corruption, had resigned on July 29, 2011 before an impeachment could be initiated against him. Unlike Justice Ramaswami, Justice Sen presented his case personally backed by two lawyers.
Source: PTI
Sensex dives on rate hike fears, weak global cues
Markets down 371 points, 2.2 per cent lower compared to previous close at 16,840.8 points
Mumbai Indian equities markets closed lower Thursday, affected by a global selling spree over concerns about economic recovery in developed countries and fears of another interest rate hike by the Reserve Bank of India.
The 30-scrip sensitive index (Sensex) of the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE), which opened at 16,910.27 points, closed at 16,469.79 points, down 371.01 points or 2.2 per cent compared to its previous close at 16,840.8 points.
The 50-scrip S&P CNX Nifty of the National Stock Exchange also followed a similar trajectory to close 2.22 per cent down to 4,944.15 points. The midcap and smallcap indices on the BSE too closed in the red. Broader market indices like the BSE 500 ended 2.17 per cent lower.
The market breadth was negative at the BSE, with 679 stocks moving up, compared to 2,180 on the decline and 104 remaining unchanged. There were only four gainers on the Sensex: DLF, up 2.7 per cent at Rs.182.40; Hero MotoCorp, up 0.67 per cent at Rs.1,950.90; Hindustan Unilever, up 0.41 per cent at Rs.317.35 and Jaiprakash Associates, up 0.26 per cent at Rs.58.05.
Main losers included: ICICI Bank, down 5.03 per cent at Rs.864.75; Wipro, down 4.72 per cent at Rs.328; SBI, down 4.47 per cent at Rs.2,077.55 and Sterlite Industries, down 4.28 per cent at Rs.128.60.
According to data available with the Securities and Exchange Board of India, foreign institutional investors sold stocks worth $89.86 million Thursday. Fears of a slowdown in the global economy led to a renewed selling spree at bourses around the world. Asia market ended in the red.
The benchmark Japanese Nikkei closed 1.25 per cent lower at 8,943.76 points, while the Chinese Shanghai Composite index shed 1.61 per cent to end at 2,559.47 points.
Hong Kong's Hang Seng too was down 1.34 per cent at 20,016.27 points. European markets were faring worse at the time of filing this report. The FTSE 100 of UK was ruling 2.32 per cent lower at 5,208.12 points, while the German DAX was down 3.79 per cent at 5,723.37 points. The French CAC 40 was down 2.49 per cent at 3,173.31 points.
Source: IANS
Banking doors set to open for India Inc
Realty among four sectors to be kept out; FDI may be capped at 49%.
- 100%0%
New Delhi: Indian companies may have reasons to rejoice, as the Reserve Bank of India is likely to allow some of them an entry into the banking space. The entry will, of course, be subject to stiff riders. Real estate companies, however, may not be as lucky as they are among four sectors that will find the banking doors locked.
According to a government official, the RBI is expected to come out with draft guidelines on allowing new private banks by next Monday, as the finance ministry and the central bank have resolved their differences on most of the contentious issues.
The official said foreign direct investment (FDI) in new banks may be capped at 49 per cent for now, as the RBI was not in favour of higher FDI. In a discussion paper released in August last year, the central bank had suggested capping FDI in new banks at 49 per cent in the first 10 years, which could be subsequently raised to 74 per cent. The ministry was open to a higher cap.
Entry Road Map
* RBI expected to come out with draft guidelines on allowing new private banks by Monday
* Sensitive sectors, including real estate, won't be allowed; Govt didn't have a good experience when realty players were allowed in SEZ space
* Number of new licences to be issued not decided yet; central bank to take final call
* Stakeholders to get one-month window to make suggestions on the draft
*Minimum capital requirement for new banks may be Rs 1,000 crore, five times the 2001 figure
The number of new licences to be issued has not been decided yet and the call will be taken by the RBI.
The guidelines were more or less final, but the regulator would want to give a one-month window to all stakeholders to give their suggestions on the draft, said the official.
On the reasons for keeping real estate companies out, the official said the government did not have a good experience when the sector was allowed in the Special Economic Zone space.
The central bank had sent the draft guidelines to the finance ministry in January this year to seek its approval. The process got delayed as differences cropped up over the grant of licences to industrial houses, the minimum foreign investment limit and caps on promoter shareholding.
It is learnt that initially the RBI was not in favour of giving licences to big corporate entities, while the finance ministry was opposed to restricting the FDI limit to 49 per cent. At present, banks are allowed to have an aggregate 74 per cent foreign investment (FDI plus foreign portfolio investments), with a cap of five per cent for a single investor.
The norms will also minimise the downside risks of industrial houses promoting banks and ensure promoters of these new banks meet the "fit and proper" criteria. This would make it difficult for any entity to get a licence if any case involving it was pending before any regulator.
The minimum capital requirement for new banks may be kept at Rs 1,000 crore, five times the requirement when new bank licences were given in 2001. The RBI had stipulated this be increased to Rs 300 crore over three years from the commencement of business. The minimum promoters' contribution may be retained after dilution of stake over a period of five years.
In its discussion paper, the RBI had suggested retention of the current approach of requiring promoters to bring in a minimum of 40 per cent of capital with a lock-in clause for five years. The threshold for other significant shareholders was proposed to be restricted to a maximum of 10 per cent, with a requirement to seek acknowledgement from the RBI on reaching the five per cent threshold and above. "Promoters, too, would have to dilute to the extent required in a time-bound manner, say, five years after the lock-in period," the discussion paper said.
The grant of new licences will be linked to financial inclusion as the finance ministry is looking at a nationwide roll-out of unique identification (UID) numbers with the help of banks.
Industrial houses such as Larsen & Toubro, Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group, Aditya Birla Group and the Shriram group have expressed interest in setting up banks. Currently, the space is dominated by the State Bank of India and private lenders such as ICICI Bank and HDFC Bank.
In the 2010-11 Budget, Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee had first announced that new banking licences would be issued to private sector players and non-banking finance companies to extend the geographic coverage of banks and improve access to banking services.
Source: Business Standard
India to see 405% rise in millionaire wealth by 2020: Deloitte
Mumbai: India is likely to experience a whopping 405% growth in total millionaire wealth by 2020, mainly driven by new wealth generators such as investments, salary income, equity stakes and new business, according to research firm Deloitte.
- 100%0%
Emerging markets will see a significantly higher growth rate in millionaire households compared to developed markets with India likely to experience the largest growth in millionaire wealth (405%) among the BRIC nations, Deloitte (India) Head Financial Services Sachin Sondhi said in a release here today.
India will be followed by China, which is poised to see millionaire wealth grow at 394%, followed by Brazil at 257% and Russia at 241% by 2020, he said. The four emerging markets make up the BRIC grouping.
"While some of the wealth creation in India will be continue to be driven by 'old wealth' drivers like real estate, family business, a sizeable portion is expected to come from the 'new wealth' drivers like investment, salary income, equity stakes, new business, etc," Sondhi said.
According to the report, the growth in millionaire wealth in India is expected to vary across different wealth cohorts.
The $5 million-30 million cohorts will see the greatest growth at 161%, while the $1 million-5 million cohort and $30 million-plus cohorts will follow closely with likely growth rates of 142% and 115%, respectively, over the next decade, Deloitte said.
Source: PTI
Nuclear Liability Bill
 | This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. See the talk page for details. Consider associating this request with a WikiProject. (December 2010) |
The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill 2010 or Nuclear Liability Bill is a highly debated and controversial bill which was passed by both houses of Indian parliament. The Bill aims to provide a civil liability for nuclear damage and prompt compensation to the victims of a nuclear incident through a nofault liability to the operator, appointment of Claims Commissioner, establishment of Nuclear Damage Claims Commission and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.[1]
This is one of the last steps needed to activate the 2008 Indo-U.S. civilian nuclear agreement as the United state nuclear reactor manufacturing companies will require the liability bill to get insurance in their home state. After this bill becomes an act, India will become a member of the international convention on liability in the civil nuclear arena.
The government has encountered fierce opposition when trying to push this bill through parliament on several occasions. This is because it contains several controversial clauses that the opposition parties claim to be 'unconstitutional'.[2] The opposition believes the bill is being pushed through due to US pressure though this is denied by the government.
The bill effectively caps the maximum amount of liability in case of each nuclear accident at 
The bill will require amendments in the Atomic Energy Act 1962 allowing private investment in the Indian nuclear power program. The issue of an accident is sensitive in India, where a gas leak in a Union Carbide factory in Bhopal city killed about 3,800 people in 1984 in one of the world's worst industrial disasters.
Contents[hide] |
[edit]Necessity of the Nuclear Liability Bill
India has an ambitious goal to increase 5-fold the amount of electricity produced from nuclear power plants to 20,000 MWe by 2020. This will be further increased to 63,000 MWe by 2032.[3] In this way, India will produce 25 percent of its electricity from nuclear power plants by 2050. India's present production of electricity through nuclear power is 4780 MWe. To increase the share of nuclear power, foreign companies would need to be involved in the manufacture and supply of nuclear reactors.
Although there is no international obligation for such a bill, in order to attract the US companies involved in nuclear commerce such asGeneral Electric and Westinghouse, it is necessary to introduce a liability bill which would help these private companies in getting insurance cover in their home state. Thus, the bill will help in the realization of the Indo-U.S. Nuclear deal.[citation needed]
Another motive for the bill is to legally and financially bind the operator and the government to provide relief to the affected population in the case of a nuclear accident.[citation needed] In consideration of the long-term costs related to clean-up and shut-down activities if a nuclear accident were to occur, prominent members of the civil society in India have called on the Government and political parties to hold nuclear suppliers responsible and liable for nuclear accidents.
Advances in nuclear technology have significantly reduced the probability of a nuclear catastrophe and is considered an environment friendly and sustainable source of energy. However, it is still necessary to keep in mind the negative aspects of the nuclear energy and measures must be taken for its peaceful use. However the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster have created once again a debate in India (and the world over) over the destructive nature of nuclear energy.[4]
A major point of debate is the amount of financial assistance to be provided under such circumstances as it is considered insufficient and unsatisfactory. Other than this, the bill contain certain clauses which if implemented will let free the manufacturer and supplier legally and to a large extent financially as well.
[edit]Criticism
[edit]Clause 7
The clause 7 defines the share of financial liability for each of the culpable groups. It states that the operator will have to pay Rs. 500 crore and the remaining amount will be paid by the Indian government. If written into the contract, the operator can claim the liabilities from the manufacturer and supplier. But the maximum amount payable by the foreign companies will be limited to a meagre sum of Rs. 1500 crore .
This is considered as a moot point as the operator will be the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (NPCIL) which itself is a government owned facility. In other words, the government may have to foot the entire bill thereby exonerating the manufacturer/supplier.
[edit]Clause 17
This clause deals with the legal binding of the culpable groups in case of a nuclear accident. It allows only the operator (NPCIL) to sue the manufacturers and suppliers. Victims will not be able to sue anyone. In reality, no one will be considered legally liable because the recourse taken by the operator will yield only
[edit]Clause 18
Clause 18 of the nuclear liability bill limits the time to make a claim within 10 years. This is considered to be too short as there may be long term damage due to a nuclear accident.
[edit]Clause 35
Clause 35 extends the legal binding that the responsible groups may have to face. The operator or the responsible persons in case of a nuclear accident will undergo the trial under Nuclear Damage Claims Commissions and no civil court is given the authority. The country will be divided into zones with each zone having a Claims Commissioner. This is in contrast to the US counterpart – the Price Anderson Act, in which lawsuits and criminal proceedings proceed under the US courts.
[edit]See also
Indo-U.S. civilian nuclear agreement
[edit]External links
- Highlights of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010
- Nuclear Power and Civil Liability
- Bill as passed by Lok Sabha (Amendments marked on the original Bill)
[edit]References
- ^ "Rajya Sabha clears nuclear liability Bill". New Delhi: The Hindu Business Line. August 31, 2010. Retrieved 8 December 2010.
- ^ Nuclear liability bill introduced, BJP walks out of Lok Sabha
- ^ ANALYSIS - Land, liability bill keep India nuclear power in dark
- ^ http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/MC17Df02.html
-
Enron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron - CachedJump to Projects: Projects. Enron International constructed a lot of power plants and pipelines all across the globe. Some today are still up and ...
-
Dabhol Power Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
GE provided the generating turbines to Dabhol, Bechtel constructed the ... -
What Will Enron Power Really Cost? More Enron, Less Electricity?
This media campaign had a common theme: that it was a big mistake to stop the Enron project, that the present power shortage was the result of that ...
- [PDF]
Background on Enron's Dabhol Power Project
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
The total project cost is $2.9 billion. Enron owns 65%, ... Theproject is 2184 megawatts, which Enron says is the largest gas-fired ...
-
India: The "Enron project" in Maharashtra: protests suppressed in ...
16 Jul 1997 – India: The "Enron project" in Maharashtra: protests suppressed in the name of development. India: The "Enron project" in Maharashtra: ...
-
exploring enron | visual data mining
hci.stanford.edu/jheer/projects/enron/ - CachedUsing the Enron e-mail archive as a motivating dataset, we are attempting the marriage of visual and algorithmic analyses of e-mail archives within an ...
-
Asia Times: Enron's eight-year power struggle in India
18 Jan 2001 – The Dabhol power project, located on the Maharashtra coast approximately 180 kilometers south of Mumbai, is Enron's flagship project in ...
- [PDF]
Enron in Maharashtra: Power Sector Development and National ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
by S Choukroun - 2002 - Cited by 3 - Related articles
The Enron project was made possible due to a shift in national policy away from government ownership of assets in the energy sector toward private ...
-
Tim Russert Misses the Enron-GE Connection
31 Jan 2002 – In June 1996, four days before India granted final approval to Enron's project, Lay's company gave $100000 to the President's party." ...
-
HOUSE FAST TRACK VOTE, ANTHRAX, ANDENRON 12/07/01
The Enron people couldn't eat california as planned, now their karma is nigh. .... which are said to be owed several billion dollars for the Dobhal project. ...
Bhopal disaster
The Bhopal disaster also known as Bhopal Gas Tragedy was one of the world's worst industrial catastrophes. It occurred on the night of December 2–3, 1984 at theUnion Carbide India Limited (UCIL) pesticide plant in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India. A leak of methyl isocyanate gas and other chemicals from the plant resulted in the exposure of hundreds of thousands of people. Estimates vary on the death toll. The official immediate death toll was 2,259 and the government of Madhya Pradesh has confirmed a total of 3,787 deaths related to the gas release.[1] Others estimate 3,000 died within weeks and another 8,000 have since died from gas-related diseases.[2][3] A government affidavit in 2006 stated the leak caused 558,125 injuries including 38,478 temporary partial and approximately 3,900 severely and permanently disabling injuries.[4]
UCIL was the Indian subsidiary of Union Carbide Corporation (UCC). Indian Government controlled banks and the Indian public held 49.1 percent ownership share. In 1994, the Supreme Court of India allowed UCC to sell its 50.9 percent share. Union Carbide sold UCIL, the Bhopal plant operator, to Eveready Industries India Limited in 1994. The Bhopal plant was later sold to McLeod Russel (India) Ltd. Dow Chemical Company purchased UCC in 2001.
Civil and criminal cases are pending in the United States District Court, Manhattan and the District Court of Bhopal, India, involving UCC, UCIL employees, and Warren Anderson, UCC CEO at the time of the disaster.[5][6] In June 2010, seven ex-employees, including the former UCIL chairman, were convicted in Bhopal of causing death by negligence and sentenced to two years imprisonment and a fine of about $2,000 each, the maximum punishment allowed by law. An eighth former employee was also convicted, but died before judgment was passed.[7]
Contents[hide] |
[edit]Summary of background
The UCIL factory was built in 1969 to produce the pesticide Sevin (UCC's brand name for carbaryl) using methyl isocyanate (MIC) as an intermediate. An MIC production plant was added in 1979.[8][9][10]
During the night of December 2–3, 1984, water entered a tank containing 42 tons of MIC. The resulting exothermic reaction increased the temperature inside the tank to over 200 °C (392 °F) and raised the pressure. The tank vented releasing toxic gases into the atmosphere. The gases were blown by northwesterly winds over Bhopal.
Theories differ as to how the water entered the tank. At the time, workers were cleaning out a clogged pipe with water about 400 feet from the tank. The operators assumed that owing to bad maintenance and leaking valves, it was possible for the water to leak into the tank.[11]However, this water entry route could not be reproduced.[12] UCC also maintains that this route was not possible, but instead alleges water was introduced directly into the tank as an act of sabotage by a disgruntled worker via a connection to a missing pressure gauge on the top of the tank. Early the next morning, a UCIL manager asked the instrument engineer to replace the gauge. UCIL's investigation team found no evidence of the necessary connection; however, the investigation was totally controlled by the government denying UCC investigators access to the tank or interviews with the operators.[13][14] The 1985 reports give a picture of what led to the disaster and how it developed, although they differ in details.[14][15][16]
Factors leading to the magnitude of the gas leak include:
- Storing MIC in large tanks and filling beyond recommended levels
- Poor maintenance after the plant ceased MIC production at the end of 1984
- Failure of several safety systems (due to poor maintenance)
- Safety systems being switched off to save money—including the MIC tank refrigeration system which could have mitigated the disaster severity
The problem was made worse by the mushrooming of slums in the vicinity of the plant, non-existent catastrophe plans, and shortcomings in health care and socio-economic rehabilitation.[2][3][17]
[edit]Public information
Much speculation arose in the aftermath. The closing of the plant to outsiders (including UCC) by the Indian government and the failure to make data public contributed to the confusion. The Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) were forbidden to publish their data on health effects until after 1994. The initial investigation was conducted entirely by CSIR and the Central Bureau of Investigation.[3]
[edit]Plant production process
UCC produced carbaryl using MIC as an intermediate.[3] After the Bhopal plant was built, other manufacturers including Bayer produced carbaryl without MIC, though at a greater manufacturing cost.[18] However, Bayer also uses the UCC process at the chemical plant once owned by UCC at Institute, West Virginia, USA.
[edit]Contributing factors
Other factors identified by the inquiry included: use of a more dangerous pesticide manufacturing method, large-scale MIC storage, plant location close to a densely populated area, undersized safety devices, and the dependence on manual operations.[3]
Plant management deficiencies were also identified – lack of skilled operators, reduction of safety management, insufficient maintenance, and inadequate emergency action plans.[3][19]
The chemical process, or "route", used in the Bhopal plant reacted methylamine with phosgene to form MIC (methyl isocyanate), which was then reacted with 1-naphthol to form the final product, carbaryl. This route differs from MIC-free routes used elsewhere, in which the same raw materials are combined in a different manufacturing order, with phosgene first reacted with the naphthol to form a chloroformate ester, which is then reacted with methyl amine. In the early 1980s, the demand for pesticides had fallen, but production continued, leading to buildup of stores of unused MIC.[3][18]
[edit]Work conditions
Attempts to reduce expenses affected the factory's employees and their conditions. Kurzman argues that "cuts...meant less stringent quality control and thus looser safety rules. A pipe leaked? Don't replace it, employees said they were told ... MIC workers needed more training? They could do with less. Promotions were halted, seriously affecting employee morale and driving some of the most skilled ... elsewhere".[20]Workers were forced to use English manuals, even though only a few had a grasp of the language.[11][21]
By 1984, only six of the original twelve operators were still working with MIC and the number of supervisory personnel was also cut in half. No maintenance supervisor was placed on the night shift and instrument readings were taken every two hours, rather than the previous and required one-hour readings.[11][20] Workers made complaints about the cuts through their union but were ignored. One employee was fired after going on a 15-day hunger strike. 70% of the plant's employees were fined before the disaster for refusing to deviate from the proper safety regulations under pressure from management.[11][20]
In addition, some observers, such as those writing in the Trade Environmental Database (TED) Case Studies as part of the Mandala Project from American University, have pointed to "serious communication problems and management gaps between Union Carbide and its Indian operation", characterized by "the parent companies [sic] hands-off approach to its overseas operation" and "cross-cultural barriers".[22] The personnel management policy led to an exodus of skilled personnel to better and safer jobs.
[edit]Equipment and safety regulations
It emerged in 1998, during civil action suits in India, that the plant was not prepared for problems. No action plans had been established to cope with incidents of this magnitude. This included not informing local authorities of the quantities or dangers of chemicals used and manufactured at Bhopal.[2][3][11][18]
- The MIC tank alarms had not worked for four years.[2][3][11][23]
- There was only one manual back-up system, compared to a four-stage system used in the US.[2][3][11][23]
- The flare tower and the vent gas scrubber had been out of service for five months before the disaster. The gas scrubber therefore did not treat escaping gases with sodium hydroxide (caustic soda), which might have brought the concentration down to a safe level.[23] The maximum pressure the scrubber could handle, provided it had been operating, was only a quarter of the pressure during the leak. The flare tower could only hold a quarter of the gas that leaked in 1984.[2][3][11][24]
- To reduce energy costs, the refrigeration system was idle. The MIC was kept at 20 degrees Celsius, not the 4.5 degrees advised by the manual.[2][3][11][23]
- The steam boiler, intended to clean the pipes, was out of action for unknown reasons.[2][3][11][23]
- Slip-blind plates that would have prevented water from pipes being cleaned from leaking into the MIC tanks through faulty valves were not installed. Their installation had been omitted from the cleaning checklist.[2][3][11]
- The water pressure was too weak to spray the escaping gases from the stack. They could not spray high enough to reduce the concentration of escaping gas.[2][3][11][23]
- According to the operators the MIC tank pressure gauge had been malfunctioning for roughly a week. Other tanks were used rather than repairing the gauge. The build-up in temperature and pressure is believed to have affected the magnitude of the gas release.[2][3][11][23]UCC investigation studies have disputed this hypothesis.
- Carbon steel valves were used at the factory, even though they corrode when exposed to acid.[18]
- UCC admitted in their own investigation report that most of the safety systems were not functioning on the night of December 3, 1984.[15]
- The design of the MIC plant, following government guidelines, was "Indianized" by UCIL engineers to maximize the use of indigenous materials and products. Mumbai based Humphreys and Glasgow Consultants PVT. Ltd. were the main consultants, Larsen and Toubro fabricated the MIC storage tanks, and Taylor of India Ltd. provided the instrumentation.[25]
[edit]Previous warnings and incidents
A series of prior warnings and MIC-rela the possibility of an accident almost identical to that which occurred in Bhopal. The reports never reached UCC's senior management.[3][18]
- UCC was warned by American experts who visited the plant after 1981 of the potential of a "runaway reaction" in the MIC storage tank. Local Indian authorities warned the company of problems on several occasions from 1979 onwards.[3][18]
[edit]The leakage
In November 1984, most of the safety systems were not functioning. Many valves and lines were in poor condition. Tank 610 contained 42 tons of MIC(disputed), much more than safety rules allowed.[3] During the nights of 2–3 December, a large amount of water is claimed to have entered tank 610. A runaway reaction started, which was accelerated by contaminants, high temperatures and other factors. The reaction generated a major increase in the temperature inside the tank to over 200 °C (400 °F). This forced the emergency venting of pressure from the MIC holding tank, releasing a large volume of toxic gases. The reaction was sped up by the presence of iron from corroding non-stainless steel pipelines.[3] It is known that workers cleaned pipelines with water. They were not told by the supervisor to add a slip-blind water isolation plate. Because of this, and the bad maintenance, the workers consider it possible for water to have accidentally entered the MIC tank.[3][11]UCC maintains that a "disgruntled worker" deliberately connected a hose to a pressure gauge.[3][13]
[edit]Health effects
[edit]Short term health effects
The leakage caused many short term health effects in the surrounding areas. Apart from MIC, the gas cloud may have contained phosgene, hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen chloride,oxides of nitrogen, monomethyl amine (MMA) and carbon dioxide, either produced in the storage tank or in the atmosphere.[3]
The gas cloud was composed mainly of materials denser than the surrounding air, stayed close to the ground and spread outwards through the surrounding community. The initial effects of exposure were coughing, vomiting, severe eye irritation and a feeling of suffocation. People awakened by these symptoms fled away from the plant. Those who ran inhaled more than those who had a vehicle to ride. Owing to their height, children and other people of shorter stature inhaled higher concentrations. Many people were trampled trying to escape.[3]
Thousands of people had succumbed by the morning hours. There were mass funerals and mass cremations as well as disposal of bodies in the Narmada river. 170,000 people were treated at hospitals and temporary dispensaries. 2,000 buffalo, goats, and other animals were collected and buried. Within a few days, leaves on trees yellowed and fell off. Supplies, including food, became scarce owing to suppliers' safety fears. Fishing was prohibited causing further supply shortages.[3]
A total of 36 wards were marked by the authorities as being "gas affected", affecting a population of 520,000. Of these, 200,000 were below 15 years of age, and 3,000 were pregnant women. In 1991, 3,928 deaths had been certified. Independent organizations recorded 8,000 dead in the first days. Other estimations vary between 10,000 and 30,000. Another 100,000 to 200,000 people are estimated to have permanent injuries of different degrees.[3]
The acute symptoms were burning in the respiratory tract and eyes, blepharospasm, breathlessness, stomach pains and vomiting. The causes of deaths were choking, reflexogenic circulatory collapse and pulmonary oedema. Findings during autopsies revealed changes not only in the lungs but also cerebral oedema, tubular necrosis of the kidneys, fatty degeneration of the liver and necrotising enteritis.[26] Thestillbirth rate increased by up to 300% and neonatal mortality rate by 200%.[3]
[edit]Hydrogen cyanide debate
Whether hydrogen cyanide was present in the gas mixture is still a controversy.[26][27] Exposed to high temperatures, MIC breaks down to hydrogen cyanide (HCN). According to Kulling and Lorin, at +200 °C, 3% of the gas is HCN.[28] However, according to another scientific publication,[29] MIC when heated in the gas-phase starts to break down to hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and other products above 400 °C. Concentrations of 300 ppm can lead to immediate collapse.
Laboratory replication studies by CSIR and UCC scientists failed to detect any HCN or HCN-derived side products. Chemically, HCN is known to be very reactive with MIC.[30] HCN is also known to react with hydrochloric acid, ammonia, and methylamine (also produced in tank 610 during the vigorous reaction with water and chloroform) and also with itself under acidic conditions to form trimers of HCN called triazenes. None of the HCN-derived side products were detected in the tank residue.[31]
The non-toxic antidote sodium thiosulfate (Na2S2O3) in intravenous injections increases the rate of conversion from cyanide to non-toxic thiocyanate. Treatment was suggested early, but because of confusion within the medical establishments, it was not used on larger scale until June 1985.[3]
[edit]Long term health effects
.jpg)
It is estimated 100,000 to 200,000 people have permanent injuries. Reported symptoms are eye problems, respiratory difficulties, immune and neurological disorders, cardiac failure secondary to lung injury, female reproductive difficulties and birth defects among children born to affected women.[3] The Indian Government and UCC deny permanent injuries were caused by MIC or the other gases.
[edit]Aftermath of the leakage
- Medical staff were unprepared for the thousands of casualties.[3]
- Doctors and hospitals were not informed of proper treatment methods for MIC gas inhalation. They were told to simply give cough medicine and eye drops to their patients.[3]
- The gases immediately caused visible damage to the trees. Within a few days, all the leaves fell off.[3]
- 2,000 bloated animal carcasses had to be disposed of.[3]
- "Operation Faith": On December 16, the tanks 611 and 619 were emptied of the remaining MIC. This led to a second mass evacuation from Bhopal.[3]
- Complaints of a lack of information or misinformation were widespread. The Bhopal plant medical doctor did not have proper information about the properties of the gases. An Indian Government spokesman said that "Carbide is more interested in getting information from us than in helping our relief work."[3]
- As of 2008, UCC had not released information about the possible composition of the cloud.[3]
- Formal statements were issued that air, water, vegetation and foodstuffs were safe within the city. At the same time, people were informed that poultry was unaffected, but were warned not to consume fish.[3]
[edit]Compensation from Union Carbide
- The Government of India passed the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Act that gave the government rights to represent all victims in or outside India.[3]
- UCC offered US $350 million, the insurance sum.[3] The Government of India claimed US$ 3.3 billion from UCC.[3] In 1989, a settlement was reached under which UCC agreed to pay US$470 million (the insurance sum, plus interest) in a full and final settlement of its civil and criminal liability.[3]
- When UCC wanted to sell its shares in UCIL, it was directed by the Supreme Court to finance a 500-bed hospital for the medical care of the survivors. Bhopal Memorial Hospital and Research Centre (BMHRC) was inaugurated in 1998. It was obliged to give free care for survivors for eight years.[3]
[edit]Economic rehabilitation
- After the accident, no one under the age of 18 was registered. The number of children exposed to the gases was at least 200,000.[3]
- Immediate relief was decided two days after the tragedy.[3]
- Relief measures commenced in 1985 when food was distributed for a short period and ration cards were distributed.[3]
- Widow pension of the rate of Rs 200/per month (later Rs 750) was provided.[3]
- One-time ex-gratia payment of Rs 1,500 to families with monthly income Rs 500 or less was decided.[3]
- Each claimant was to be categorised by a doctor. In court, the claimants were expected to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that death or injury in each case was attributable to exposure. In 1992, 44 percent of the claimants still had to be medically examined.[3]
- From 1990 interim relief of Rs 200 was paid to everyone in the family who was born before the disaster.[3]
- The final compensation (including interim relief) for personal injury was for the majority Rs 25,000 (US$ 830). For death claim, the average sum paid out was Rs 62,000 (US$ 2,058).[3]
- Effects of interim relief were more children sent to school, more money spent on treatment, more money spent on food, improvement of housing conditions.[3]
- The management of registration and distribution of relief showed many shortcomings.[32]
- In 2007, 1,029,517 cases were registered and decided. Number of awarded cases were 574,304 and number of rejected cases 455,213. Total compensation awarded was Rs.1,546.47 crores.[33]
- On June 24, the Union Cabinet of the Government of India approved a Rs1265cr aid package. It will be funded by Indian taxpayers through the government.[34]
[edit]Occupational rehabilitation
- 33 of the 50 planned work-sheds for gas victims started. All except one was closed down by 1992.[3]
- 1986, the MP government invested in the Special Industrial Area Bhopal. 152 of the planned 200 work-sheds were built. In 2000, 16 were partially functioning.[3]
- It is estimated that 50,000 persons need alternative jobs, and that less than 100 gas victims have found regular employment under the government's scheme.[3]
[edit]Habitation rehabilitation
- 2,486 flats in two- and four-story buildings were constructed in the "Widows colony" outside Bhopal. The water did not reach the upper floors. It was not possible to keep cattle. Infrastructure like buses, schools, etc. were missing for at least a decade.[3]
[edit]Health care
- In the immediate aftermath of the disaster, the health care system became tremendously overloaded. Within weeks, the State Government established a number of hospitals, clinics and mobile units in the gas-affected area.[3]
- Radical health groups set up JSK (the People's Health Centre) that was working a few years from 1985.[3]
- Since the leak, a very large number of private practitioners have opened in Bhopal. In the severely affected areas, nearly 70 percent do not appear to be professionally qualified.[3]
- The Government of India has focused primarily on increasing the hospital-based services for gas victims. Several hospitals have been built after the disaster. In 1994, there were approximately 1.25 beds per 1,000, compared to the recommendation from the World bank of 1.0 beds per 1,000 in developing countries.[3]
- The Bhopal Memorial Hospital and Research Centre (BMHRC) is a 350-bedded super speciality hospital. Heart surgery and hemodialysis are done. Major specialities missing are gynecology, obstetrics and pediatrics. Eight mini-units (outreach health centers) were started. Free health care for gas victims should be offered until 2006.[3] The management has faced problems with strikes, and the quality of the health care is disputed.[35][36]
- Sambhavna Trust is a charitable trust that registered in 1995. The clinic gives modern and Ayurvedic treatments to gas victims, free of charge.[3][37]
[edit]Environmental rehabilitation
- When the factory was closed in 1985–1986, pipes, drums and tanks were cleaned and sold. The MIC and the Sevin plants are still there, as are storages of different residues. Isolation material is falling down and spreading.[3]
- The area around the plant was used as a dumping area for hazardous chemicals. In 1982 tubewells in the vicinity of the UCC factory had to be abandoned.[3] UCC's laboratory tests in 1989 revealed that soil and water samples collected from near the factory and inside the plant were toxic to fish.[38] Several other studies have shown polluted soil and groundwater in the area.[3]
- Reported polluting compounds include naphthol, naphthalene, Sevin, tarry residue, mercury, toxic organochlorines, volatile organochlorine compounds, chromium, copper, nickel, lead, hexachloroethane, hexachlorobutadiene, and the pesticide HCH.[3]
- In order to provide safe drinking water to the population around the UCC factory, there is a scheme for improvement of water supply.[33]
- In December 2008, the Madhya Pradesh High Court decided that the toxic waste should be incinerated at Ankleshwar in Gujarat.[39]
[edit]Union Carbide's defense
Now owned by Dow Chemical Company, Union Carbide denies allegations against it on its website dedicated to the tragedy. The corporation believes that the accident was the result of sabotage, stating that safety systems were in place and operative. It also stresses that it did all it could to alleviate human suffering following the disaster.[40]
[edit]Investigation into possible sabotage
Theories differ as to how the water entered the tank. At the time, workers were cleaning out pipes with water. The workers maintain that entry of water through the plant's piping system during the washing of lines was possible because a slip-blind was not used, the downstream bleeder lines were partially clogged, many valves were leaking, and the tank was not pressurized. The water, which was not draining properly through the bleeder valves, may have built up in the pipe, rising high enough to pour back down through another series of lines in the MIC storage tank. Once water had accumulated to a height of 6 meters (20 feet), it could drain by gravity flow back into the system. Alternatively, the water may have been routed through another standby "jumper line" that had only recently been connected to the system. Indian scientists suggested that additional water might have been introduced as a "back-flow" from the defectively designed vent-gas scrubber.[3][11]However, none of these postulated routes of entry could be duplicated when tested by the Central Bureau of Investigators (CBI) and UCIL engineers. The company cites an investigation conducted by the engineering consulting firm Arthur D. Little, which concluded that a single employee secretly and deliberately introduced a large amount of water into the MIC tank by removing a meter and connecting a water hose directly to the tank through the metering port.[13] Carbide claims such a large amount of water could not have found its way into the tank by accident, and safety systems were not designed to deal with intentional sabotage. Documents cited in the Arthur D. Little Report state that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) along with UCIL engineers tried to simulate the water-washing hypothesis as a route of the entry of water into the tank. This all-important test failed to support this as a route of water entry. UCC claims the plant staff falsified numerous records to distance themselves from the incident, and that the Indian Government impeded its investigation and declined to prosecute the employee responsible, presumably because that would weaken its allegations of negligence by Union Carbide.[41]
[edit]Safety and equipment issues
The corporation denies the claim that the valves on the tank were malfunctioning, claiming that "documented evidence gathered after the incident showed that the valve close to the plant's water-washing operation was closed and leak-tight. Furthermore, process safety systems—in place and operational—would have prevented water from entering the tank by accident". Carbide states that the safety concerns identified in 1982 were all allayed before 1984 and "none of them had anything to do with the incident".[42]
The company admits that "the safety systems in place could not have prevented a chemical reaction of this magnitude from causing a leak". According to Carbide, "in designing the plant's safety systems, a chemical reaction of this magnitude was not factored in" because "the tank's gas storage system was designed to automatically prevent such a large amount of water from being inadvertently introduced into the system" and "process safety systems—in place and operational—would have prevented water from entering the tank by accident". Instead, they claim that "employee sabotage—not faulty design or operation—was the cause of the tragedy".[42]
[edit]Response
The company stresses the "immediate action" taken after the disaster and their continued commitment to helping the victims. On December 4, the day following the leak, Union Carbide sent material aid and several international medical experts to assist the medical facilities in Bhopal.[42]
Union Carbide states on its website that it put $2 million into the Indian Prime Minister's immediate disaster relief fund on 11 December 1984.[42] The corporation established the Employees' Bhopal Relief Fund in February 1985, which raised more than $5 million for immediate relief.[43]
According to Union Carbide, in August 1987, they made an additional $4.6 million in humanitarian interim relief available.[43]
Union Carbide states that it also undertook several steps to provide continuing aid to the victims of the Bhopal disaster after the court ruling, including:
- The sale of its 50.9 percent interest in UCIL in April 1992 and establishment of a charitable trust to contribute to the building of a local hospital. The sale was finalized in November 1994. The hospital was begun in October 1995 and was opened in 2001. The company provided a fund with around $90 million from sale of its UCIL stock. In 1991, the trust had amounted approximately $100 million. The hospital caters for the treatment of heart, lung and eye problems.[40]
- Providing "a $2.2 million grant to Arizona State University to establish a vocational-technical center in Bhopal, which was constructed and opened, but was later closed and leveled by the government".[44]
- Donating $5 million to the Indian Red Cross.[44]
- Developing the Responsible Care system with other members of the chemical industry as a response to the Bhopal crisis, which is designed "to help prevent such an event in the future by improving community awareness, emergency preparedness and process safety standards".[43]
[edit]Long-term fallout
Legal action against Union Carbide has dominated the aftermath of the disaster. However, other issues have also continued to develop. These include the problems of ongoing contamination, criticisms of the clean-up operation undertaken by Union Carbide, and a 2004 hoax.
[edit]Legal action against Union Carbide
Legal proceedings involving UCC, the United States and Indian governments, local Bhopal authorities, and the disaster victims started immediately after the catastrophe.
[edit]Legal proceedings leading to the settlement
On 14 December 1984, the Chairman and CEO of Union Carbide, Warren Anderson, addressed the US Congress, stressing the company's "commitment to safety" and promising to ensure that a similar accident "cannot happen again". However, the Indian Government passed the Bhopal Gas Leak Act in March 1985, allowing the Government of India to act as the legal representative for victims of the disaster,[43] leading to the beginning of legal wrangling.
In 1985, Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, called for a US government inquiry into the Bhopal disaster, which resulted in US legislation regarding the accidental release of toxic chemicals in the United States.[45]
March 1986 saw Union Carbide propose a settlement figure, endorsed by plaintiffs' US attorneys, of $350 million that would, according to the company, "generate a fund for Bhopal victims of between $500–600 million over 20 years". In May, litigation was transferred from the US to Indian courts by US District Court Judge. Following an appeal of this decision, the US Court of Appeals affirmed the transfer, judging, in January 1987, that UCIL was a "separate entity, owned, managed and operated exclusively by Indian citizens in India".[43] The judge in the US granted UCC's forum request, thus moving the case to India. This meant that, under US federal law, the company had to submit to Indian jurisdiction.
Litigation continued in India during 1988. The Government of India claimed US$ 350 million from UCC.[3] The Indian Supreme Court told both sides to come to an agreement and "start with a clean slate" in November 1988.[43] Eventually, in an out-of-court settlement reached in 1989, Union Carbide agreed to pay US$ 470 million for damages caused in the Bhopal disaster, 15% of the original $3 billion claimed in the lawsuit.[3] By the end of October 2003, according to the Bhopal Gas Tragedy Relief and Rehabilitation Department, compensation had been awarded to 554,895 people for injuries received and 15,310 survivors of those killed. The average amount to families of the dead was $2,200.[46]
Throughout 1990, the Indian Supreme Court heard appeals against the settlement from "activist petitions". In October 1991, the Supreme Court upheld the original $470 million, dismissing any other outstanding petitions that challenged the original decision. The Court ordered the Indian government "to purchase, out of settlement fund, a group medical insurance policy to cover 100,000 persons who may later develop symptoms" and cover any shortfall in the settlement fund. It also requested UCC and its subsidiary "voluntarily" fund a hospital in Bhopal, at an estimated $17 million, to specifically treat victims of the Bhopal disaster. The company agreed to this.[43]
[edit]Charges against Warren Anderson and others
UCC Chairman and CEO Warren Anderson was arrested and released on bail by the Madhya Pradesh Police in Bhopal on December 7, 1984. The arrest, which took place at the airport, ensured Anderson would meet no harm by the Bhopal community. Anderson was taken to UCC's house after which he was released six hours later on $2,100 bail and flown out on a government plane. In 1987, the Indian governmentsummoned Anderson, eight other executives and two company affiliates with homicide charges to appear in Indian court.[47] Union Carbide balked, saying the company is not under Indian jurisdiction.[47]
In 1991, local Bhopal authorities charged Anderson, who had retired in 1986, with manslaughter, a crime that carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. He was declared a fugitive from justice by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Bhopal on February 1, 1992, for failing to appear at the court hearings in a culpable homicide case in which he was named the chief defendant. Orders were passed to the Government of India to press for an extradition from the United States.
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of the decision of the lower federal courts in October 1993, meaning that victims of the Bhopal disaster could not seek damages in a US court.[43]
In 2004, the Indian Supreme Court ordered the Indian government to release any remaining settlement funds to victims. In September 2006, the Welfare Commission for Bhopal Gas Victims announced that all original compensation claims and revised petitions had been "cleared".[43]
In 2006, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City upheld the dismissal of remaining claims in the case of Bano v. Union Carbide Corporation. This move blocked plaintiffs' motions for class certification and claims for property damages and remediation. In the view of UCC, "the ruling reaffirms UCC's long-held positions and finally puts to rest—both procedurally and substantively—the issues raised in the class action complaint first filed against Union Carbide in 1999 by Haseena Bi and several organizations representing the residents of Bhopal".
In June 2010, seven former employees of the Union Carbide subsidiary, all Indian nationals and many in their 70s, were convicted of causing death by negligence and each sentenced to two years imprisonment and fined Rs.1 lakh (US$2,124).[48] All were released on bail shortly after the verdict. The names of those convicted are: Keshub Mahindra, former non-executive chairman of Union Carbide India Limited; V.P. Gokhale, managing director; Kishore Kamdar, vice-president; J. Mukund, works manager; S.P. Chowdhury, production manager; K.V. Shetty, plant superintendent; and S.I. Qureshi, production assistant. Federal class action litigation, Sahu v. Union Carbide et al. is presently pending on appeal before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.[49] The litigation seeks damages for personal injury, medical monitoring[50] and injunctive relief in the form of cleanup[51] of the drinking water supplies[52] for residential areas near the Bhopal plant. A related complaint seeking similar relief for property damage claimants is stayed pending the outcome of the Sahu appeal before the federal district court in the Southern District of New York.
[edit]Ongoing contamination
Chemicals abandoned at the plant continue to leak and pollute the groundwater.[53][54][55] Whether the chemicals pose a health hazard is disputed.[56]
Contamination at the site and surrounding area was not caused by the gas leakage. The area around the plant was used as a dumping ground for hazardous chemicals. By 1982 water wells in the vicinity of the UCC factory had to be abandoned. In 1991 the municipal authorities declared water from over 100 wells unfit for drinking.[3]
UCC's laboratory tests in 1989 revealed that soil and water samples collected from near the factory were toxic to fish. Twenty one areas inside the plant were reported to be highly polluted. In 1994 it was reported that 21% of the factory premises were seriously contaminated with chemicals.[38][57][58]
Studies made by Greenpeace and others from soil, groundwater, wellwater and vegetables from the residential areas around UCIL and from the UCIL factory area show contamination with a range of toxic heavy metals and chemical compounds.[57][58][59][60][61]
Substances found, according to the reports, are naphthol, naphthalene, Sevin, tarry residues, alpha naphthol, mercury, organochlorines,chromium, copper, nickel, lead, hexachlorethane, Hexachlorobutadiene, pesticide HCH (BHC), volatile organic compounds and halo-organics. Many of these contaminants were also found in breast milk.
In 2002, an inquiry found a number of toxins, including mercury, lead, 1,3,5 trichlorobenzene, dichloromethane and chloroform, in nursing women's breast milk. Well water and groundwater tests conducted in the surrounding areas in 1999 showed mercury levels to be at "20,000 and 6 million times" higher than expected levels; heavy metals and organochlorines were present in the soil. Chemicals that have been linked to various forms of cancer were also discovered, as well as trichloroethylene, known to impair fetal development, at 50 times above safety limits specified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).[62]
In a 2004 broadcast on BBC Radio 5,[63] it was reported that the site is still contaminated with 'thousands' of metric tons of toxic chemicals, including benzene hexachloride and mercury, held in open containers or loose on the ground. A drinking water sample from a well near the site had levels of contamination 500 times higher than the maximum limits recommended by the World Health Organization.[64]
In 2009, the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), a Delhi based pollution monitoring lab, released test results showing pesticide groundwater contamination up to three kilometers from the factory. [65]
The BBC took a water sample from a frequently used hand pump, located just north of the plant. The sample, tested in UK, was found to contain 1000 times the World Health Organization's recommended maximum amount of carbon tetrachloride, a carcinogenic toxin.[66]
UCC states that "after the incident, UCIL began clean-up work at the site under the direction of Indian central and state government authorities", which was continued after 1994 by the successor to UCIL, Eveready Industries, until 1998, when it was placed under the authority of the Madhya Pradesh Government.[43] The successor, Eveready Industries India, Limited (EIIL), ended its 99-year lease in 1998 and turned over control of the site to the state government of Madhya Pradesh.[40]
[edit]Settlement fund hoax
On December 3, 2004, the twentieth anniversary of the disaster, a man claiming to be a Dow representative named Jude Finisterra was interviewed on BBC World News. He claimed that the company had agreed to clean up the site and compensate those harmed in the incident, by liquidating Union Carbide for $12 billion USD.[67]
Immediately afterward, Dow's share price fell 4.2% in 23 minutes, for a loss of $2 billion in market value. Dow quickly issued a statement saying that they had no employee by that name—that he was an impostor, not affiliated with Dow, and that his claims were a hoax. The BBC broadcast a correction and an apology.[68]
"Jude Finisterra" was actually Andy Bichlbaum, a member of the activist prankster group The Yes Men. In 2002, The Yes Men issued a fake press release explaining why Dow refused to take responsibility for the disaster and started up a website, at "DowEthics.com", designed to look like the real Dow website but with what they felt was a more accurate cast on the events. In 2004, a producer for the BBC emailed them through the website requesting an interview, which they gladly obliged.[69]
[edit]References and additional resources
[edit]Footnotes
- ^ http://www.mp.gov.in/bgtrrdmp/relief.htm
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Eckerman (2001) (see "References" below).
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah aiaj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax ay az ba bb bc bd be bf bg bhbi bj bk bl bm bn bo bp bq Eckerman (2004) (see "References" below).
- ^ AK Dubey (21 June 2010). First14 News. Archived from the original on 26 June 2010.http://www.webcitation.org/5qmWBEWcb. Retrieved 26 June 2010.
- ^ "Company Defends Chief in Bhopal Disaster". New York Times. 2009-08-03. Retrieved 2010-04-26.
- ^ "U.S. Exec Arrest Sought in Bhopal Disaster". CBS News. 2009-07-31.
- ^ "Bhopal trial: Eight convicted over India gas disaster". BBC News. 2010-06-07. Retrieved 2010-06-07.
- ^ UCC manual (1976).
- ^ UCC manual (1978).
- ^ UCC manual (1979).
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Chouhan et al. (2004).
- ^ Steven R. Weisman. "Bhopal a Year Later: An Eerie Silence". The New York Times. p. 5.
- ^ a b c Kalelkar (1988).
- ^ a b Trade Union Report (1985).
- ^ a b UCC Investigation Report (1985).
- ^ Varadarajan (1985).
- ^ Eckerman (2005) (see "References" below).
- ^ a b c d e f Kovel (2002).
- ^ Eckerman (2006) (see "References" below).
- ^ a b c Kurzman (1987).
- ^ Cassels (1983).
- ^ TED case 233 (1997).
- ^ a b c d e f g Lepowski (1994).
- ^ Weir (1987).
- ^ D'Silva, The Black Box of Bhopal (2006).
- ^ a b Sriramachari (2004).
- ^ Gassert TH, Dhara VR, (2005).
- ^ Kulling and Lorin (1987).
- ^ P.G. Blake and S. Ijadi-Maghsoodi, Kinetics and Mechanism of Thermal Decomposition of Methyl Isocyanate, International Journal of Chemical Kinetics, vol.14, (1982), pp. 945–952.
- ^ K.H. Slotta, R. Tschesche, Berichte, vol.60, 1927, p.1031.
- ^ Grundmann, Christoph; Kreutzberger, Alfred (1954). "Triazines. IX. 1,3,5-Triazine and its Formation from Hydrocyanic Acid". J. Am. Chem. Soc. 76: 5646–5650. doi:10.1021/ja01651a013.
- ^ Singh (2008).
- ^ a b "Bhopal Gas Tragedy Relief and Rehabilitation Department". 2008-12-05.
- ^ http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_bhopal-gas-tragedy-extra-aid-to-help-just-42000-victims_1400833
- ^ Bhopal Memorial Hospital closed indefinitely The Hindu 4.7.2005.
- ^ Bhopal Memorial Hospital Trust(2001).
- ^ "The Bhopal Medical appeal". Sambhavna Trust.
- ^ a b UCC (1989).
- ^ "Carbide waste to go: HC". The Times Of India. 16 December 2008. Retrieved 2009-01-07.
- ^ a b c "Statement of Union Carbide Corporation Regarding the Bhopal Tragedy". Bhopal Information Center, UCC.
- ^ "Frequently Asked Questions". Bhopal Information Center. Union Carbide Corporation. November 2009. Retrieved 4 April 2010. "The Indian authorities are well aware of the identity of the employee [who sabotaged the plant] and the nature of the evidence against him. Indian authorities refused to pursue this individual because they, as litigants, were not interested in proving that anyone other than Union Carbide was to blame for the tragedy."
- ^ a b c d "Frequently Asked Questions". Bhopal Information Center, UCC.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j "Chronology". Bhopal Information Center, UCC. November 2006.
- ^ a b "Incident Response and Settlement". Bhopal Information Center, UCC.
- ^ Dipankar De Sarkar (22 June 2010). "BP, Bhopal and the humble Indian brinjal". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 26 June 2010.
- ^ Broughton (2005).
- ^ a b "India Acts in Carbide Case". The New York Times. May 17, 1988. p. D15.
- ^ 8 Cr. Case No. 8460/1996
- ^ http://www.bhopal.net/pdfs/Sahu%20Opinion%2011.3.08.pdf
- ^ The Truth About Dow: Govt handling of Bhopal: Blot on Indian Democracy, 224 Indian groups tell PM.
- ^ The Truth About Dow: 25 years on, Govt wakes up to Bhopal waste but can't find any one to clean it up.
- ^ The Truth About Dow: Decades Later, Toxic Sludge Torments Bhopal.
- ^ Shaini, KS (2008-09-30). "No takers for Bhopal toxic waste".BBC. Retrieved 2010-01-01.
- ^ Broughton, Edward (2005). "The Bhopal disaster and its aftermath: a review". Environmental Health 4 (6): 6.doi:10.1186/1476-069X-4-6. PMC 1142333.PMID 15882472.
- ^ Chander, J. (2001). "Water contamination: a legacy of the union carbide disaster in Bhopal, India". Int J Occup Environ Health 7(1): 72–3. PMID 11210017.
- ^ "Industrial Disaster Still Haunts India – South and Central Asia – msnbc.com". December 2, 2009. Retrieved December 3, 2009.
- ^ a b Labunska et al. (2003).
- ^ a b Down to Earth (2003).
- ^ Stringer et al. (2002).
- ^ Srishti (2002).
- ^ Peoples' Science Institute (2001).
- ^ "What Happened in Bhopal?". The Bhopal Medical Appeal.
- ^ "Bhopal faces risk of 'poisoning'". BBC Radio 5. 2004-11-14.
- ^ Vickers, Paul (2004-11-14). "Bhopal 'faces risk of poisoning'". BBC Radio 5 website. Retrieved 2010-01-01.
- ^ "Bhopal gas leak survivors still being poisoned: Study". Bhopal. 1 December 2009.
- ^ "Bhopal marks 25 years since gas leak devastation". BBC News. December 3, 2009. Retrieved 2010-01-01.
- ^ video.
- ^ Corporate Responsibility. 5 December 2004. Published byZNet
- ^ The Yes Men
[edit]Books and reports
- Browning, Jackson (1993). Jack A. Gottschalk. ed (PDF). Union Carbide: Disaster at Bhopal. Crisis Response: Inside Stories on Managing Image Under Siege. Detroit. "Union Carbide's former vice-president of health, safety and environmental programs tells how he dealt with the catastrophe from a PR point of view."
- Cassels, J. (1993). The Uncertain Promise Of Law: Lessons From Bhopal. University Of Toronto Press.
- ChouhanTR and others (1994, 2004). Bhopal: the Inside Story—Carbide Workers Speak Out on the World's Worst Industrial Disaster. US: The Apex Press. ISBN 1-891843-30-3. India: Other India Press ISBN 81-85569-65-7 Main author Chouhan was an operator at the plant. Contains many technical details.
- De Grazia A (1985). A Cloud over Bhopal,. Bombay: Popular Prakashan.
- Dhara VR (2000). The Bhopal Gas Leak: Lessons from studying the impact of a disaster in a developing nation.. US: Univ. of Massachusetts Lowell. Doctoral thesis.
- Doyle, Jack (2004). Trespass Against Us. Dow Chemical & The Toxic Century. US: Common Courage Press. ISBN 1-56751-268-2. A story of how one company's chemical prducts and byproducts have damaged public health and the environment. 466 pages.
- D'Silva, Themistocles (2006). The Black Box of Bhopal: A Closer Look at the World's Deadliest Industrial Disaster. Victoria, B.C.: Trafford. ISBN 1-4120-8412-1. Review Written by a retired former employee of UCC who was a member of the investigation committee that reproduced the tank residue and determined the true cause of the incident. Includes several original documents including correspondence between UCIL and the Ministries of the Government of India.
- Eckerman, Ingrid (2001) (PDF). Chemical Industry and Public Health—Bhopal as an example. Essay for MPH. A short overview, 57 pages, 82 references.
- Eckerman, Ingrid (2005). The Bhopal Saga—Causes and Consequences of the World's Largest Industrial Disaster. India: Universities Press. ISBN 81-7371-515-7. Preview Google books All known facts 1960s – 2003, systematized and analyzed. 283 pages, over 200 references.
- Eckerman I (2011) Bhopal Gas Catastrophe 1984: Causes and Consequences. In: Nriagu JO (ed.) Encyclopedia of Environmental Health, volume 1, pp. 302–316 Burlington: Elsevier.
- Fortun, Kim (2001). Advocacy after Bhopal. Environmentalism, Disaster, New Global Orders. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-25720-7.
- de Grazia, Alfred (1985). A Cloud over Bhopal—Causes, Consequences and Constructive Solutions. ISBN 0-940268-09-9. "The first book on the Bhopal disaster, written on-site a few weeks after the accident."
- Hanna B, Morehouse W, Sarangi S (2005). The Bhopal Reader. Remembering Twenty Years of the World's Worst Industrial Disaster. US: The Apex Press. ISBN 1-891843-32-X USA, 81-85569-70-3 India. Reprinting and annotating landmark writing from across the years.
- Jasanoff, Sheila ed. (1994). Learning from Disaster. Risk Management After Bhopal. University of Pennsylvania Press.ISBN 081221532X, 9780812215328. 291 pages.
- Johnson S, Sahu R, Jadon N, Duca C (2009). Contamination of soil and water inside and outside the Union Carbide India Limited, Bhopal. New Delhi: Centre for Science and Environment. In Down to Earth
- Kalelkar AS, Little AD. (1998) (PDF). Investigation of Large-magnitude incidents: Bhopal as a Case Study.. London: The Institution of Chemical Engineers Conference on Preventing Major Chemical Accidents
- Kovel, J (2002). The Enemy of Nature: The End of Capitalism or the End of the World?. London: Zed Books. ISBN 978-1-55266-255-7.
- Kulling P, Lorin H (1987). The Toxic Gas Disaster in Bhopal December 2–3, 1984. Stockholm: National Defence Research Institute. [In Swedish]
- Kurzman, D. (1987). A Killing Wind: Inside Union Carbide and the Bhopal Catastrophe. New York: McGraw-Hill.
- Labunska I, Stephenson A, Brigden K, Stringer R, Santillo D, Johnston P.A. (1999) (PDF). The Bhopal Legacy. Toxic contaminants at the former Union Carbide factory site, Bhopal, India: 15 years after the Bhopal accident.Greenpeace Research Laboratories, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter UK
- Lapierre, Dominique; Moro, Javier (2001). Five Past Midnight in Bhopal. New York, NY: Warner Books. ISBN 0-446-53088-3. A novel, based on facts, that describes the development from the 1960s to the disaster itself. Very thrilling.
- Mitchel, James (1996). The long road to recovery: Community responses to industrial disaster. Tokyo and New York: United Nations University Press. ISBN 92-808-0926-1.
- Singh, Moti (2008). Unfolding the Betrayal of Bhopal Gas Tragedy. Delhi, India: B.R. Publishing Corporation. ISBN 8176466220. The chief coordinator of rescue operations at the district level writes rather critically on how the administration and bureaucracy functioned after the disaster.
- Shrishti (2002). Toxic present—toxic future. A report on Human and Environmental Chemical Contamination around the Bhopal disaster site. Delhi: The Other Media.
- Stringer R, Labunska I, Brigden K, Santillo D. (2002) (PDF). Chemical Stockpiles at Union Carbide India Limited in Bhopal: An investigation. Greenpeace Research Laboratories.
- Varadarajan S et al. (1985). Report on Scientific Studies on the Factors Related to Bhopal Toxic Gas Leakage. New Delhi: Indian Council for Scientific and Industrial Research.
- Weir D (1987). The Bhopal Syndrome: Pesticides, Environment and Health. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. ISBN 0871567180.
- Willey RJ, Hendershot DC, Berger S (2006). The Accident in Bhopal: Observations 20 Years Later. Orlando, Florida, USA: AIChE.
- The Trade Union Report on Bhopal. Geneva, Switzerland: ICFTU-ICEF. 1985.
[edit]Journal articles and academic papers
- "Health and Epidemiology Papers About the Bhopal Disaster".
- Bisarya RK, Puri S (2005). "The Bhopal Gas Tragedy – a Perspective". Journal of Loss Prevention in the process industry 18: 209–212.doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2005.07.006.
- "Bhopal – the company's report, based on the Union Carbide Corporation's report, March 1985". Loss Prevention Bulletin (Rugby, UK.: IChemE,) (LPB issue 063,). 1985.
- Broughton E (10 May 2005). "The Bhopal disaster and its aftermath: A review". Environmental Health 4 (1): 6 pages. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-4-6. PMC 1142333. PMID 15882472.
- Chouhan TR (2005). "The Unfolding of Bhopal Disaster". Journal of Loss Prevention in the process industry 18: 205–208.doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2005.07.025.
- Dhara, V. Ramana; Dhara, Rosaline (Sept/October 2002). "The Union Carbide disaster in Bhopal: A review of health effects" (reprint).Archives of Environmental Health. pp. 391–404.
- Dhara VR, Gassert TH (September 2005). "The Bhopal gas tragedy: Evidence for cyanide poisoning not convincing". Current Science89 (6): 923–5.
- Dinham B, Sarangi S (2002). "The Bhopal gas tragedy 1984 – ? The evasion of corporate responsibility". Environment&Urbanization 14: 89–99.
- D'Silva TDJ, Lopes A, Jones RL, Singhawangcha S, Chan JK (1986). "Studies of methyl isocyanate chemistry in the Bhopal incident". J. Org. Chem. 51 (20): 3781–3788. doi:10.1021/jo00370a007.
- Eckerman, Ingrid (2005). "The Bhopal gas leak: Analyses of causes and consequences by three different models.". Journal of Loss Prevention in the process industry 18: 213–217. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2005.07.007.
- Eckerman, Ingrid (2006). "The Bhopal Disaster 1984 – working conditions and the role of the trade unions." (PDF). Asian Pacific Newsletter on occupational health and safety 13 (2): 48–49.
- Gassert TH, Dhara VR, (Sep 2005.). "Debate on cyanide poisoning in Bhopal victims." (PDF). Current Science 89 (6).
- Jayaraman N. "Bhopal: Generations of Poison". CorpWatch, December 2, 2009
- Jasanoff, Sheila (2007). "Bhopal's Trials of Knowledge and Ignorance". Isis 98: 344–350. doi:10.1086/518194.
- Katrak H (2010). "Provision of health care for Bhopal survivors". Pesticides News 87 (March 2010): 20–23.
- Khurrum MA, S Hafeez Ahmad S (1987). "Long term follow up of ocular lesion of methyl-isocyanate gas disaster in Bhopal". Indian Journal of Ophthalmology 35 (3): 136–137. PMID 3507407.
- Lakhani N (2009-11-29). "Bhopal: The victims are still being born". The Independent (London). Retrieved 2010-04-26.
- Lepowski, W. "Ten Years Later: Bhopal". Chemical and Engineering News, 19 December 1994.
- McTaggart U. "Dioxin, Bhopal and Dow Chemical". Solidarity ATC 106, September–October 2003
- Mishra PK, Dabadghao S, Modi1 GK, Desikan P, Jain A, Mittra I, Gupta D, Chauhan C, Jain SK, Maudar KK (2009). "In utero exposure to methyl isocyanate in the Bhopal gas disaster: evidence of persisting hyperactivation of immune system two decades later".Occupational and Environmental Medicine 66 (4): 279. doi:10.1136/oem.2008.041517. PMID 19295137.
- Naik SR, Acharya VN, Bhalerao RA, Kowli SS, Nazareth HH, Mahashur AA, Shah SS, Potnis AV, Mehta AC (1986). "Medical survey of methyl isocyanate gas affected population of Bhopal. Part I. General medical observations 15 weeks following exposure". Journal of Post-Graduate Medicine 32 (4): 175–84. PMID 3585790.
- Naik SR, Acharya VN, Bhalerao RA, Kowli SS, Nazareth HH, Mahashur AA, Shah SS, Potnis AV, Mehta AC (1986). "Medical survey of methyl isocyanate gas affected population of Bhopal. Part II. Pulmonary effects in Bhopal victims as seen 15 weeks after M.I.C. exposure.". Journal of Post-Graduate Medicine 32 (4): 185–91. PMID 3585791.
- Peterson M.J. "Case study: Bhopal Plant Disaster". Science, Technology & Society Initiative, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
- Ranjan N, Sarangi S, Padmanabhan VT, Holleran S, Ramakrishnan R, Varma DR (2003). "Methyl Isocyanate Exposure and Growth Patterns of Adolescents in Bhopal Methyl Isocyanate Exposure and Growth Patterns of Adolescents in Bhopal". JAMA 290 (14): 1856–7. doi:10.1001/jama.290.14.1856. PMID 14532313.
- Rice, Annie; ILO (2006). "Bhopal Revisited—the tragedy of lessons ignored" (PDF). Asian Pacific Newsletter on occupational health and safety 13 (2): 46–47.
- Sriramachari S (2004). "The Bhopal gas tragedy: An environmental disaster" (PDF). Current Science 86: 905–920.
- Sriramachari S (2005). "Bhopal gas tragedy: scientific challenges and lessons for future". Journal of Loss Prevention in the process industry 18: 264–267. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2005.06.007.
- Toogood C (2010). "Toxic groundwater – Bhopal's second disaster". Pesticide News 87 (March 2010).
[edit]Governmental institutions
- Health Effects of the Toxic Gas Leak from the Union Carbide Methyl Isocyanate Plant in Bhopal. Technical report on Population Based Long Term, Epidemiological Studies (1985–1994). Bhopal Gas Disaster Research Centre, Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal (2003?) Contains the studies performed by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)
- An Epidemiological Study of Symptomatic Morbidities in Communities Living Around Solar Evaporation Ponds And Behind Union Carbide Factory, Bhopal. Department of Community Medicine, Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal (2009)
- At A Glance. Bhopal Gas Tragedy Relief & Rehabilitation 1985–2009. Bhopal Gas Tragedy Relief & Rehabilitation Department, Bhopal (2009)
[edit]Union Carbide Corporation
- Methyl Isocyanate. Union Carbide F-41443A – 7/76. Union Carbide Corporation, New York (1976)
- Carbon monoxide, Phosgene and Methyl isocyanate. Unit Safety Procedures Manual. Union Carbide India Limited, Agricultural Products Division: Bhopal (1978)
- Operating Manual Part II. Methyl Isocyanate Unit. Union Carbide India Limited, Agricultural Products Division (1979).
- Bhopal Methyl Isocyanate Incident. Investigation Team Report. Union Carbide Corporation, Danbury, CT (1985).
- Presence of Toxic Ingredients in Soil/Water Samples Inside Plant Premises. Union Carbide Corporation, US (1989).
[edit]Dow Chemical
- Stockholder Proposal on Bhopal 2007. In Notice of the Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held on Thursday, May 10, 2007 (Agenda item 4, pp 39–41)
- Annual Meeting Final Voting Results. May 10, 2007
[edit]Mixed
- "Bhopal Disaster". Trade Environmental Database. TED case studies no. 233, American University, Washington (1 Nov 1997).
- "Bhopal Papers. Conference Announcement and Call for Papers". A collection of different articles and papers concerning the Bhopal disaster.
- Three part series on Horrors of Bhopal Gas Tragedy
- "Bibliography on Bhopal disaster". A condensed list of books, reports, and articles on the Bhopal disaster and related issues.
- "Chemical Terrorism Fact Sheet: Methyl Isocyanate." (PDF). CSB&EI, Saint Louis University School of Public Health, US
- "Unproven technology". Bhopal.net. 14 Nov 2002.
- "Clouds of injustice. Bhopal disaster 20 years". Amnesty International, London (2004) Report (pdf).
- "No more Bhopals". Contains original documents and categorizes resources by subject.
- The Bhopal Memory Project Material from UCC, the trade union and other original material has been scanned and can be found here.
- Fighting for Our Right to Live. Bhopal: Chingari trust. 2008. Chingari Trust works with disabled children.
- "Charter on Industrial Hazards and Human Rights" (PDF). Archived from the original on 2007-10-15. Permanent Peoples' Tribunal on Industrial Hazards and Human Rights, 1996, adopted after the session in Bhopal, 1992.
- Garett JT, Cralley LJ, Craley LV, ed (1988). Industrial Hygien Programs at Foreign Locations. Canada: John Wiley & Sons. One page, where the role of the Government of India is emphasized. Preview Google books
- "Chemical Stockpiles at Union Carbide India Limited in Bhopal: an investigation". Greenpeace Research Laboratories, Technical note, 12/2002
[edit]Presentations
- Eckerman, Ingrid. "The Bhopal Gas Disaster 1984 – Children's Acute and Chronic Exposure to Toxic Substances" (PDF). Power point presentation (2010)
- Eckerman, Ingrid. "The Bhopal Saga—Causes and Consequences of the World's Largest Industrial Disaster." (PDF). Power point presentation in easy English (2008)
- Eckerman, Ingrid. "The Bhopal Gas Leak—too late for good epidemiology." (PDF). Poster presentation (2007)
[edit]External and Wikipedia links
 | Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Bhopal disaster |
- Resources on Bhopal Gas Disaster, India Environment Portal
- The Bhopal Post A website edited by Raajkumar Keswani, the journalist who warned what was going to happen
- The Bhopal Europe Bus Tour, October–November 2009
- End 25 years of injustice, Amnesty International, 16 October 2009
- The Bhopal Library, The Apex Press, New York
- International Campaign For Justice in Bhopal
- Bhopal Medical Appeal and Sambhavna Trust Clinic
- Students for Bhopal
- Students for Bhopal
- Lesson of Bhopal
- Bhopal Information Center, Union Carbide
- Bhopal Gas Tragedy Relief & Rehabilitation Department, The official website of the Government of Madhya Pradesh
- Dow Ethics, parody website by The Yes Men
- Bhopal: 25 years on BBC News' website on the Bhopal disaster
- Chingari Trust Provides medical care for children being born in Bhopal with malformations and brain damages.
- International Medical Commission on Bhopal
[edit]News
- Bhopal's health effects probed, BBC News 26 March 2009
- "Bhopal faces risk of 'poisoning'", BBC News, 14 Nov 2004
- 25 years on, Bhopal gas victims still suffering, DNA India newspaper
- 25 years after Bhopal gas tragedy, plant to be open to public, Indian-Express newspaper
- Bhopal court to pronounce historic judgment in gas leak case on Monday The Hindu June 6, 2010
- Times of India Search "Bhopal"
- Union Carbide rejects Bhopal court's verdict Rediff News June 7, 2010
- India reopens Bhopal toxic gas leak case, Guardian, August 31, 2010
- Bhopal Gas Tragedy A railway officer describes how he received victims coming by train, 2002
[edit]Important Court Orders
[edit]Films
- Bhopal Express, 1999 film based on the disaster.
- Bhopali, a documentary feature Directed by Van Maximilian Carlson
- Twenty Years Without Justice: The Bhopal Chemical Disaster International Campaign for Justice for Bhopal video
- "One Night in Bhopal". BBC News. 2009-12-02. Retrieved 2010-01-01.
- "One night in Bhopal".
- It Happened in Bhopal, 27 Aug 2007
- Shrouds of Silence, August 2008
- The Bhopal Chemical Disaster. documentary film
- Hundreds of Survivors of Bhopal Disaster Protest President Obama's 2010 India Visit - video report by Democracy Now!
- Bhopal: Prayer for Rain, 2010 film based on the disaster.
- The Yes Men Fix the World, documentary which includes discussion of the disaster.
[edit]Musical tributes
- "No Thunder, No Fire, No Rain" by Tim Finn, from the 1986 album Big Canoe, presents a lyrical narrative of the disaster.
- The Bhopal disaster is referenced in the song "R.S.V.P." by B. Dolan
- "Bhopal (Driftnet Plan)" by Bob Wiseman, from his 1989 album In Her Dream: Bob Wiseman Sings Wrench Tuttle, explores who is to blame for the disaster.
- "Close My Eyes" from the 1987 album Exorcise This Wasteland by Single Gun Theory
[edit]Photos
- Raghu Rai, 1984
- Pablo Bartholomew, 1984
- The Ghosts of Bhopal, Common Language Project
- 25th anniversary of the Bhopal disaster, The Boston Globe
| ||
| ||
Coordinates: 23°16′51″N 77°24′38″E
U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement
The 123 Agreement signed between the United States of America and the Republic of India is known as the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Cooperation or Indo-US nuclear deal.[1] The framework for this agreement was a July 18, 2005, joint statement byIndian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and then U.S. President George W. Bush, under which India agreed to separate its civil and military nuclear facilities and to place all its civil nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards and, in exchange, the United States agreed to work toward full civil nuclear cooperation with India.[2] This U.S.-India deal took more than three years to come to fruition as it had to go through several complex stages, including amendment of U.S. domestic law, specially the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,[3] a civil-military nuclear Separation Plan in India, an India-IAEA safeguards (inspections) agreement and the grant of an exemption for India by the Nuclear Suppliers Group, an export-control cartel that had been formed mainly in response to India's first nuclear test in 1974. In its final shape, the deal places under permanent safeguards those nuclear facilities that India has identified as "civil" and permits broad civil nuclear cooperation, while excluding the transfer of "sensitive" equipment and technologies, including civil enrichment and reprocessing items even under IAEA safeguards. On August 18, 2008 the IAEA Board of Governors approved,[4] and on February 2, 2009, India signed an India-specific safeguards agreement with the IAEA.[5] Once India brings this agreement into force, inspections began in a phased manner on the 35 civilian nuclear installations India has identified in its Separation Plan.[6]
The deal is seen as a watershed in U.S.-India relations and introduces a new aspect to international nonproliferation efforts.[7] On August 1, 2008, the IAEA approved the safeguards agreement with India,[8] after which the United States approached the Nuclear Suppliers Group(NSG) to grant a waiver to India to commence civilian nuclear trade.[9] The 45-nation NSG granted the waiver to India on September 6, 2008 allowing it to access civilian nuclear technology and fuel from other countries.[10] The implementation of this waiver made India the only known country with nuclear weapons which is not a party to the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) but is still allowed to carry out nuclear commerce with the rest of the world.[11]
The US House of Representatives passed the bill on 28 September 2008.[12] Two days later, India and France inked a similar nuclear pact making France the first country to have such an agreement with India.[13] On October 1, 2008 the US Senate also approved the civilian nuclear agreement allowing India to purchase nuclear fuel and technology from the United States.[14][15] U.S. President, George W. Bush, signed the legislation on the Indo-US nuclear deal, approved by the U.S. Congress, into law, now called the United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Non-proliferation Enhancement Act, on October 8, 2008.[16] The agreement was signed by then Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and his counterpart then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, on 10 October.[17][18]
[edit]Overview
The Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006, also known as the Hyde Act, is the U.S. domestic law that modifies the requirements of Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act to permit nuclear cooperation with India[19] and in particular to negotiate a 123 Agreement to operationalize the 2005 Joint Statement. As a domestic U.S. law, the Hyde Act is binding on the United States. The Hyde Act cannot be binding on India's sovereign decisions although it can be construed as prescriptive for future U.S. reactions. As per the Vienna convention, an international treaty such as the 123 agreement cannot be superseded by an internal law such as the Hyde Act.[20][21][22]
The 123 agreement defines the terms and conditions for bilateral civilian nuclear cooperation, and requires separate approvals by the U.S. Congress and by Indian cabinet ministers. According to the Nuclear Power Corporation of India, the agreement will help India meet its goal of adding 25,000 MW of nuclear power capacity through imports of nuclear reactors and fuel by 2020.[23]
After the terms of the 123 agreement were concluded on July 27, 2007,[24] it ran into trouble because of stiff opposition in India from thecommunist allies of the ruling United Progressive Alliance.[25] The government survived a confidence vote in the parliament on July 22, 2008 by 275–256 votes in the backdrop of defections by some parties .[26] The deal also had faced opposition from non-proliferation activists, anti-nuclear organisations, and some states within the Nuclear Suppliers Group.[27][28] . In February 2008 then U.S. Secretary of StateCondoleezza Rice said that any agreement would be "consistent with the obligations of the Hyde Act".[29] The bill was signed on October 8, 2008.
[edit]Background
Parties to the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) have a recognized right of access to peaceful uses of nuclear energy and an obligation to cooperate on civilian nuclear technology. Separately, the Nuclear Suppliers Group has agreed on guidelines for nuclear exports, including reactors and fuel. Those guidelines condition such exports on comprehensive safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which are designed to verify that nuclear energy is not diverted from peaceful use to weapons programs. Though neither India, Israel, nor Pakistanhave signed the NPT, India argues that instead of addressing the central objective of universal and comprehensive non-proliferation, the treaty creates a club of "nuclear haves" and a larger group of "nuclear have-nots" by restricting the legal possession of nuclear weapons to those states that tested them before 1967, who alone are free to possess and multiply their nuclear stockpiles.[30] India insists on a comprehensive action plan for a nuclear-free world within a specific time-frame and has also adopted a voluntary "no first use policy".
Led by the U.S., other states have set up an informal group, the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), to control exports of nuclear materials, equipment and technology.[31] Consequently, India was left outside the international nuclear order, which forced India to develop its own resources for each stage of the nuclear fuel cycle and power generation, including next generation reactors such as fast breeder reactors and a thorium breeder reactor[32][33] known as the Advanced Heavy Water Reactor. In addition to impelling India to achieve success in developing these new reactor technologies, the sanctions also provided India with the impetus to continue developing its own nuclear weapons technology with a specific goal of achieving self-sufficiency for all key components for weapons design, testing and production.
Given that India is estimated to possess reserves of about 80,000-112,369 tons of uranium,[34] India has more than enough fissile material to supply its nuclear weapons program, even if it restricted Plutonium production to only 8 of the country's 17 current reactors, and then further restricted Plutonium production to only 1/4 of the fuel core of these reactors.[35] According to the calculations of one of the key advisers to the US Nuclear deal negotiating team, Ashley Tellis:[35]
Operating India's eight unsafeguarded PHWRs in such a [conservative] regime would bequeath New Delhi with some 12,135–13,370 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium, which is sufficient to produce between 2,023–2,228 nuclear weapons over and above those already existing in the Indian arsenal. Although no Indian analyst, let alone a policy maker, has ever advocated any nuclear inventory that even remotely approximates such numbers, this heuristic exercise confirms that New Delhi has the capability to produce a gigantic nuclear arsenal while subsisting well within the lowest estimates of its known uranium reserves.
However, because the amount of nuclear fuel required for the electricity generation sector is far greater than that required to maintain a nuclear weapons program, and since India's estimated reserve of uranium represents only 1% of the world's known uranium reserves, the NSG's uranium export restrictions mainly affected Indian nuclear power generation capacity. Specifically, the NSG sanctions challenge India's long term plans to expand and fuel its civilian nuclear power generation capacity from its current output of about 4GWe (GigaWatt electricity) to a power output of 20GWe by 2020; assuming the planned expansion used conventional Uranium/Plutonium fueled heavy waterand light water nuclear power plants.
Consequently, India's nuclear isolation constrained expansion of its civil nuclear program, but left India relatively immune to foreign reactions to a prospective nuclear test. Partly for this reason, but mainly due to continued unchecked covert nuclear and missile proliferation activities between Pakistan, China [36][37] and North Korea,[38][39] India conducted five more nuclear tests in May, 1998 at Pokhran.
India was subject to international sanctions after its May 1998 nuclear tests. However, due to the size of the Indian economy and its relatively large domestic sector, these sanctions had little impact on India, with Indian GDP growth increasing from 4.8% in 1997–1998 (prior to sanctions) to 6.6% (during sanctions) in 1998–1999.[40] Consequently, at the end of 2001, the Bush Administration decided to drop all sanctions on India.[41] Although India achieved its strategic objectives from the Pokhran nuclear tests in 1998,[42] it continued to find its civil nuclear program isolated internationally.
[edit]Rationale behind the agreement
[edit]Nuclear non-proliferation
The proposed civil nuclear agreement implicitly recognizes India's "de facto" status even without signing the NPT. The Bush administrationjustifies a nuclear pact with India because it is important in helping to advance the non-proliferation framework [43] by formally recognizing India's strong non-proliferation record even though it has not signed the NPT. The former Under Secretary of State of Political Affairs, Nicholas Burns, one of the architects of the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal said "India's trust, its credibility, the fact that it has promised to create a state-of-the-art facility, monitored by the IAEA, to begin a new export control regime in place, because it has not proliferated the nuclear technology, we can't say that about Pakistan." when asked whether the U.S. would offer a nuclear deal with Pakistan on the lines of the Indo-U.S. deal.[44][45][46] Mohammed ElBaradei, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which would be in charge of inspecting India's civilian reactors has praised the deal as "it would also bring India closer as an important partner in the nonproliferation regime".[47] The reaction in the Western academic community was mixed. While some authors praised the agreement as bringing India closer to the NPT regime, others argued that it gave India too much leeway in determining which facilities were to be safeguarded and that it effectively rewarded India for continuously defying the Non-Proliferation Treaty by not acceding to it.[48]
[edit]Economic considerations
Financially, the U.S. also expects that such a deal could spur India's economic growth and bring in $150 billion in the next decade for nuclear power plants, of which the U.S. wants a share.[49] It is India's stated objective to increase the production of nuclear power generation from its present capacity of 4,000 MWe to 20,000 MWe in the next decade. However, the developmental economic advising firm Dalberg, which advises the IMF and the World Bank, moreover, has done its own analysis of the economic value of investing in nuclear power development in India. Their conclusion is that for the next 20 years such investments are likely to be far less valuable economically or environmentally than a variety of other measures to increase electricity production in India.[citation needed] They have noted that U.S. nuclear vendors cannot sell any reactors to India unless and until India caps third party liabilities or establishes a credible liability pool to protect U.S. firms from being sued in the case of an accident or a terrorist act of sabotage against nuclear plants. Although India's parliament passed The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages bill on August 25, 2010,[50][51] the legislation does not meet international standards for nuclear liability as set forth in theConvention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage, because it allows the operator to sue the supplier in case of an accident due to technical defects in the plant.[52] After the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan, issues relating to the safety of operating nuclear power plants, compensation in the event of a radiation-leak accident, disaster clean-up costs, operator responsibility and supplier liability has once again come into the spot-light.
[edit]Strategic
Since the end of the Cold War, The Pentagon, along with certain U.S. ambassadors such as Robert Blackwill, has requested increased strategic ties with India and a de-hyphenization of Pakistan with India, i.e. having separate policies toward India and Pakistan rather than just an "India-Pakistan" policy. The United States also sees India as a viable counter-weight to the growing influence of China,[citation needed] and a potential client and job creator.[53]
While India is self-sufficient in thorium, possessing 25% of the world's known and economically viable thorium,[54] it possesses a meager 1% of the similarly calculated global uranium reserves.[55] Indian support for cooperation with the U.S. centers on the issue of obtaining a steady supply of sufficient energy for the economy to grow. Indian opposition to the pact centers on the concessions that would need to be made, as well as the likely de-prioritization of research into a thorium fuel cycle if uranium becomes highly available given the well understood utilization of uranium in a nuclear fuel cycle.
[edit]Passing of Agreement
On March 2, 2006 in New Delhi, George W. Bush and Manmohan Singh signed a Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, following an initiation during the July 2005 summit in Washington between the two leaders over civilian nuclear cooperation.[56]
Heavily endorsed by the White House, the agreement is thought to be a major victory to George W. Bush's foreign policy initiative and was described by many lawmakers as a cornerstone of the new strategic partnership between the two countries.[57] The agreement is widely considered to help India fulfill its soaring energy demands and boost U.S. and India into a strategic partnership. The Pentagon speculates this will help ease global demand for crude oil and natural gas.
On August 3, 2007, both the countries released the full text of the 123 agreement.[58] Nicholas Burns, the chief negotiator of the India-United States nuclear deal, said the U.S. has the right to terminate the deal if India tests a nuclear weapon and that no part of the agreement recognizes India as a nuclear weapons state.[59]
[edit]Hyde Act Passage in the U.S.
On December 18, 2006 President George W. Bush signed the Hyde Act into law. The Act was passed by an overwhelming 359–68 in theUnited States House of Representatives on July 26 and by 85–12 in the United States Senate on November 16 in a strong show of bipartisan support.[60][61][62]
The House version (H.R. 5682) and Senate version (S. 3709) of the bill differed due to amendments each had added before approving, but the versions were reconciled with a House vote of 330–59 on December 8 and a Senate voice-vote on December 9 before being passed on to President G.W. Bush for final approval.[63][64] The White House had urged Congress to expedite the reconciliation process during the end-2006 lame duck session, and recommended removing certain amendments which would be deemed deal-killers by India.[65] Nonetheless, while softened, several clauses restricting India's strategic nuclear program and conditions on having India align with U.S. views over Iran were incorporated in the Hyde Act.
In response to the language Congress used in the Act to define U.S. policy toward India, President Bush, stated "Given the Constitution's commitment to the authority of the presidency to conduct the nation's foreign affairs, the executive branch shall construe such policy statements as advisory," going on to cite sections 103 and 104 (d) (2) of the bill. To assure Congress that its work would not be totally discarded, Bush continued by saying that the executive would give "the due weight that comity between the legislative and executive branches should require, to the extent consistent with U.S. foreign policy."[66]
[edit]Political opposition in India
The Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement was met with stiff opposition by some political parties and activists in India. Although many mainstream political parties including the Congress(I) supported the deal along with regional parties like Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam andRashtriya Janata Dal its realization ran into difficulties in the face of stiff political opposition in India. Also, in November 2007, former Indian Military chiefs, bureaucrats and scientists drafted a letter to Members of Parliament expressing their support for the deal.[67] However, opposition and criticism continued at political levels. The Samajwadi Party (SP) which was with the Left Front in opposing the deal changed its stand after discussing with ex-president of India and scientist Dr A P J Abdul Kalam. The SP then supported the government and the deal. The Indian Government survived a vote of confidence by 275-256 after the Left Front withdrew their support to the government over this dispute.[68] Incidentally, results showed ten MP's belonging to the opposing BJP party cross-voting in the favor of the government.
As details were revealed about serious inconsistencies between what the Indian parliament was told about the deal, and the facts about the agreement that were presented by the Bush administration to the US Congress, opposition grew in India against the deal. In particular, portions of the agreement dealing with guaranteeing India a fuel supply or allowing India to maintain a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel appear to be diametrically opposed to what the Indian parliament was led to expect from the agreement:
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's statement in parliament is totally at variance with the Bush Administration's communication to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which says India will not be allowed to stockpile such nuclear fuel stocks as to undercut American leverage to re-impose sanctions. To drive home this point, it says the 123 Agreement is not inconsistent with the Hyde Act's stipulation—the little-known 'Barack Obama Amendment' -- that the supply of nuclear fuel should be "commensurate with reasonable operating requirements". The 'strategic reserve' that is crucial to India's nuclear program is, therefore, a non-starter.[69] Furthermore, the agreement, as a result of its compliance with the Hyde Act, contained a direct linkage between shutting down US nuclear trade with India and any potential future Indian nuclear weapons test, a point that was factually inconsistent with explicit reassurances made on this subject by Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, during final parliamentary debate on the nuclear deal. As professor Brahma Chellaney, an expert in strategic affairs and one of the authors of the Indian Nuclear Doctrine [70], explained:
While the Hyde Act's bar on Indian testing is explicit, the one in the NSG waiver is implicit, yet unmistakable. The NSG waiver is overtly anchored in NSG Guidelines Paragraph 16, which deals with the consequence of "an explosion of a nuclear device". The waiver's Section 3(e) refers to this key paragraph, which allows a supplier to call for a special NSG meeting, and seek termination of cooperation, in the event of a test or any other "violation of a supplier-recipient understanding". The recently leaked Bush administration letter to Congress has cited how this Paragraph 16 rule will effectively bind India to the Hyde Act's conditions on the pain of a U.S.-sponsored cut-off of all multilateral cooperation. India will not be able to escape from the U.S.-set conditions by turning to other suppliers.[71]
[edit]Indian parliament vote
On July 9, 2008, India formally submitted the safeguards agreement to the IAEA.[72] This development came after the Prime Minister of IndiaManmohan Singh returned from the 34th G8 summit meeting in Hokkaido, Japan, where he met with U.S. President George W. Bush.[73] On June 19, 2008, news media reported that Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh threatened to resign his position if the Left Front, whose support was crucial for the ruling United Progressive Alliance to prove its majority in the Indian parliament, continued to oppose the nuclear deal and he described their stance as irrational and reactionary.[74] According to the Hindu, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee's earlier statement said "I cannot bind the government if we lose our majority," [75] implying that United Progressive Alliance government would not put its signature on any deal with IAEA if it lost the majority in either a 'opposition-initiated no-confidence motion' or if failing to muster a vote of confidence in Indian parliament after being told to prove its majority by the president. On July 8, 2008, Prakash Karat announced that the Left Front is withdrawing its support to the government over the decision by the government to go ahead on the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act. The left front had been a staunch advocate of not proceeding with this deal citing national interests.[76]
On 22 July 2008 the UPA faced its first confidence vote in the Lok Sabha after the Communist Party of India (Marxist) led Left Front withdrew support over India approaching the IAEA for Indo-U.S. nuclear deal. The UPA won the confidence vote with 275 votes to the opposition's 256, (10 members abstained from the vote) to record a 19-vote victory.[77][78][79][80]
[edit]IAEA approval
The IAEA Board of Governors approved the safeguards agreement on August 1, 2008, and the 45-state Nuclear Suppliers Group next had to approve a policy allowing nuclear cooperation with India. U.S. President Bush can then make the necessary certifications and seek final approval by the U.S. Congress.[81] There were objections from Pakistan, Iran, Ireland, Norway, Switzerland and Austria at the IAEA meeting.[82]
[edit]NSG waiver
On September 6, 2008 India was granted the waiver at the NSG meeting held in Vienna, Austria. The consensus was arrived at after overcoming misgivings expressed by Austria, Ireland and New Zealand and is an unprecedented step in giving exemption to a country which has not signed the NPT and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)[83][84] The Indian team who worked on the deal includes Manmohan Singh, Pranab Mukherjee, Shiv Shankar Menon, Shyam Saran, MK Narayanan, Anil Kakodkar, Ravi Grover, and DB Venkatesh Varma.[83]
[edit]Versions of U.S. draft exemption
On August 2008 U.S. draft exemption would have granted India a waiver based on the "steps that India has taken voluntarily as a contributing partner in the non-proliferation regime".[85] Based on these steps, and without further conditions, the draft waiver would have allowed for the transfer to India of both trigger list and dual-use items (including technology), waiving the full-scope safeguards requirements of the NSG guidelines.[86]
A September 2008 waiver would have recognized additional "steps that India has voluntarily taken."[87] The waiver called for notifying the NSG of bilateral agreements and for regular consultations; however, it also would have waived the full-scope safeguards requirements of the NSG guidelines without further conditions.[86]
The U.S. draft underwent further changes in an effort to make the language more acceptable to the NSG.[88]
[edit]Initial support and opposition
The deal had initial support from the United States, the United Kingdom,[89] France,[90] Japan,[91] Russia,[92] and Germany.[93][94] After some initial opposition, there were reports of Australia,[95] Switzerland,[96] and Canada[97][98] expressing their support for the deal. Selig S. Harrison, a former South Asia bureau chief of The Washington Post, has said the deal may represent a tacit recognition of India as a nuclear weapon state,[99] while former U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph says the "U.S. State Department made it very clear that we will not recognize India as a nuclear-weapon state".[100]
Norway, Austria, Brazil, and Japan all warned that their support for India at the IAEA did not mean that they would not express reservations at the NSG. New Zealand, which is a member of the NSG but not of the IAEA Board of Governors, cautioned that its support should not be taken for granted.[28] Ireland, which launched the non-proliferation treaty process in 1958 and signed it first in 1968, doubted India's nuclear trade agreement with the U.S.[101] Russia, a potentially large nuclear supplier to India, expressed reservations about transferring enrichment and reprocessing technology to India.[102] China argued the agreement constituted "a major blow to the international non-proliferation regime".[103] New Zealand said it would like to see a few conditions written in to the waiver: the exemption ceasing if India conducts nuclear tests, India signing the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) additional protocol, and placing limits on the scope of the technology that can be given to India and which could relate to nuclear weapons.[104] Austria, Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Scandinaviancountries proposed similar amendments.[105] The nuclear deal was opposed by former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, who opined that the U.S. would be making "a dangerous deal with India"[106]
After the first NSG meeting in August 2008, diplomats noted that up to 20 of the 45 NSG states tabled conditions similar to the Hyde Act for India's waiver to do business with the NSG.[107] "There were proposals on practically every paragraph," a European diplomat said.[107] A group of seven NSG members suggested including some of the provisions of the U.S. Hyde Act in the final waiver.[108] Daryll Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association, said the NSG should at a minimum "make clear that nuclear trade with India shall be terminated if it resumes testing for any reason. If India cannot agree to such terms, it suggests that India is not serious about its nuclear test moratorium pledge."[109]
[edit]Reactions following the waiver
After India was granted the waiver on September 6, the United Kingdom said that the NSG's decision would make a "significant contribution" to global energy and climate security.[110] U.S. National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said, "this is a historic achievement that strengthens global non-proliferation principles while assisting India to meet its energy requirements in an environmentally friendly manner. The United States thanks the participating governments in the NSG for their outstanding efforts and cooperation to welcome India into the global non-proliferation community. We especially appreciate the role Germany played as chair to move this process forward."[111] New Zealand praised the NSG consensus and said that it got the best possible deal with India.[112] One of India's strongest allies Russia said in a statement, "We are convinced that the exemption made for India reflects Delhi's impeccable record in the non-proliferation sphere and will guarantee the peaceful uses of nuclear exports to India."[113] Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said that the NSG granted waiver because of "India's rise as a global power" and added, "If such a request was made for another country, I don't think it would have been cleared by the NSG members."[114] During his visit to India in September 2008, Smith said that Australia "understood and respected India's decision not to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty".[115] German Foreign Ministry spokesman Jens Ploetner called India a "special case" and added, "Does this agreement send an approving message to Iran? No, it absolutely does not."[116]
Initially, there were reports of People's Republic of China analyzing the extent of the opposition against the waiver at the NSG and then revealing its position over the issue.[117] On September 1, 2008, prominent Chinese newspaper People's Daily expressed its strong disapproval of the civilian agreement with India.[118] India's National Security Advisor remarked that one of the major opponents of the waiver was China and said that he would express Indian government's displeasure over the issue.[119] It was also revealed that China had abstained during the final voting process, indicating its non-approval of the nuclear agreement.[120] In a statement, Chinese delegation to the NSG said the group should address the aspirations of other countries too, an implicit reference to Pakistan.[121] There were also unconfirmed reports of India considering the cancellation of a state visit by Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi.[122] However, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said the Chinese Foreign Minister will be welcomed "as an honored guest".[123] The Times of India noted that China's stance could have a long-term implication on Sino-Indian relations.[124]
There were some other conflicting reports on China's stance, however. The Hindu reported that though China had expressed its desire to include more stern language in the final draft, they had informed India about their intention to back the agreement.[125] In an interview to theHindustan Times, Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Hu Zhengyue said that "China understands India's needs for civil nuclear energy and related international cooperation."[126] Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi told India's CNN-IBN, "We didn't do anything to block it [the deal]. We played a constructive role. We also adopted a positive and responsible attitude and a safeguards agreement was reached, so facts speak louder ... than some reports".[127] During a press conference in New Delhi, Yang added, "The policy was set much before that. When consensus was reached, China had already made it clear in a certain way that we have no problem with the [NSG] statement."[128]Highlighting the importance of Sino-Indian relations, Yang remarked, "let us [India and China] work together to move beyond doubts to build a stronger relationship between us."[129]
[edit]Indian reactions
Indian PM Manmohan Singh visited Washington D.C. on September 26, 2008 to celebrate the conclusion of the agreement with U.S. President George W. Bush.[130] He also visited France to convey his appreciation for the country's stance.[131] India's External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee expressed his deep appreciation for India's allies in the NSG, especially the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, Germany, South Africa and Brazil for helping India achieve NSG's consensus on the nuclear deal.[132]
Bhartiya Janata Party's Yashwant Sinha, who also formerly held the post of India's External Affairs Minister, criticized the Indian government's decision to seek NSG's consensus and remarked that "India has walked into the non-proliferation trap set by the U.S., we have given up our right to test nuclear weapons forever, it has been surrendered by the government".[133] However, another prominent member of the same party and India's former National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra supported the development at the NSG and said that the waiver granted made "no prohibition" on India to conduct nuclear tests in the future.[134]
A leading advocate of the agreement was India's most eminent strategic affairs analyst K. Subrahmanyam, also known for his long and controversial championing of an Indian nuclear deterrent.[135] He argued that the convergence of strategic interests between the two nations forced such a remarkable gesture from the US, overturning its decades-long stand on non-proliferation, and that it would be unwise on India's part to spurn such an overture.[136] He also argued that not recognizing new geo-political realities would be even more foolhardy on the part of the Indian elite.[137][138]
Former President of India and noted Indian scientist, APJ Abdul Kalam, also supported the agreement and remarked that New Delhi may break its "voluntary moratorium" on further nuclear tests in "supreme national interest".[139] However, analyst M K Bhadrakumar demurred. He said that the consensus at NSG was achieved on the "basis" of Pranab Mukherjee's commitment to India's voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing and by doing so, India has entered into a "multilateral commitment" bringing it within "the ambit of the CTBT and NPT".[140]
The NSG consensus was welcomed by several major Indian companies. Major Indian corporations like Videocon Group, Tata Power andJindal Power saw a $40 billion (U.S.) nuclear energy market in India in the next 10–15 years.[141] On a more optimistic note, some of India's largest and most well-respected corporations like Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, National Thermal Power Corporation and Larsen & Toubrowere eyeing a $100 billion (U.S.) business in this sector over the same time period.[141] According to Hindustan Times, nuclear energy will produce 52,000 MW of electricity in India by 2020.[142]
[edit]Other reactions over the issue
More than 150 non-proliferation activists and anti-nuclear organizations called for tightening the initial NSG agreement to prevent harming the current global non-proliferation regime.[143] Among the steps called for were:[27]
- ceasing cooperation if India conducts nuclear tests or withdraws from safeguards
- supplying only an amount of fuel which is commensurate with ordinary reactor operating requirements
- expressly prohibiting the transfer of enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production items to India
- opposing any special safeguards exemptions for India
- conditioning the waiver on India stopping fissile production and legally binding itself not to conduct nuclear tests
- not allowing India to reprocess nuclear fuel supplied by a member state in a facility that is not under permanent and unconditional IAEA safeguards
- agreeing that all bilateral nuclear cooperation agreements between an NSG member-state and India explicitly prohibit the replication or use of such technology in any unsafeguarded Indian facilities
The call said that the draft Indian nuclear "deal would be a nonproliferation disaster and a serious setback to the prospects of global nuclear disarmament" and also pushed for all world leaders who are serious about ending the arms race to "to stand up and be counted."[27]
Dr. Kaveh L Afrasiabi, who has taught political science at Tehran University, has argued the agreement will set a new precedent for other states, adding that the agreement represents a diplomatic boon for Tehran.[144] Ali Ashgar Soltanieh, the Iranian Deputy Director General for International and Political Affairs,[145] has complained the agreement may undermine the credibility, integrity and universality of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Pakistan argues the safeguards agreement "threatens to increase the chances of a nuclear arms race in the subcontinent."[146] Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi has suggested his country should be considered for such an accord,[147] and Pakistan has also said the same process "should be available as a model for other non-NPT states".[148]. On July 19, 2010, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton countered Pakistan statements by saying that Pakistan's checkered history on nuclear proliferation "raises red flags" regarding nuclear cooperation with Pakistan.[149] Israel is citing the Indo-U.S. civil nuclear deal as a precedent to alter Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) rules to construct its first nuclear power plant in the Negev desert, and is also pushing for its own trade exemptions.[150]
Brahma Chellaney, a Professor of Strategic Studies at the New Delhi-based Centre for Policy Research, argued that the wording of the U.S. exemption sought to irrevocably tether New Delhi to the nuclear non-proliferation regime. He argued India would be brought under a wider non-proliferation net, with India being tied to compliance with the entire set of NSG rules. India would acquiesce to its unilateral test moratorium being turned into a multilateral legality. He concluded that instead of the "full" civil nuclear cooperation that the original July 18, 2005, deal promised, India's access to civil nuclear enrichment and reprocessing technologies would be restricted through the initial NSG waiver.[151]
[edit]Consideration by U.S. Congress
The Bush Administration told Congress in January 2008 that the United States may cease all cooperation with India if India detonates a nuclear explosive device. The Administration further said it was not its intention to assist India in the design, construction or operation of sensitive nuclear technologies through the transfer of dual-use items.[152] The statements were considered sensitive in India because debate over the agreement in India could have toppled the government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The State Department had requested they remain secret even though they were not classified.[153] Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also previously told the House Foreign Affairs Panel in public testimony that any agreement would "have to be completely consistent with the obligations of the Hyde Act".[29] Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Richard Boucher and the Former Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative AffairsJeffrey Bergner also said the agreement would be in conformity with the Hyde Act.[154]
Howard Berman, chair of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee, in a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned that an NSG waiver "inconsistent" with the 2006 Hyde Act would "jeopardise" the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal in the U.S. Congress.[155] Edward J. Markey, co-chairman of the House Bipartisan Task Force on Non-proliferation, said that there needed to be clear consequences if India broke its commitments or resumed nuclear testing.[156]
[edit]Passage in Congress
On September 28, 2008 the US House of Representatives voted 298-117 to approve the Indo-US nuclear deal.[157] On October 1, 2008 the US Senate voted 86-13 to approve the Indo-US nuclear deal.[158] The Arms Control Association said the agreement fails to make clear that an Indian nuclear test would prompt the U.S. to cease nuclear trade;[158] however, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that any nuclear test by India would result in the "most serious consequences," including automatic cut-off of U.S. cooperation as well as a number of other sanctions.[159]
After Senate approval, US President George W. Bush said the deal would "strengthen our global nuclear nonproliferation efforts, protect the environment, create jobs, and assist India in meeting its growing energy needs in a responsible manner."[160] Then-US presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain, as well as then-Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden, voted in support of the bill.[161]
[edit]Formal signing of the deal
There was speculation the Indo-US deal would be signed on October 4, 2008 when U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was in India. The deal was to be inked by Indian External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The two leaders were to sign the deal at 2 pm at the Hyderabad House in New Delhi.[162] But Mr. Mukherjee announced that India would wait for the US President to sign the 123 agreement legislation first into law and address India's concerns on fuel supply guarantees and the legal standing of the 123 agreement in the accompanying signing statement.[163]
Ms Rice was aware of the Indian decision before she left Washington. But she was very hopeful that the deal would be signed as the US state department had said that the President's signature was not prerequisite for Rice to ink the deal.[164] Rice had earlier said that there were still a number of administrative details to be worked out even as she insisted that the US would abide by the Hyde Act on the testing issue:
"There are a lot of administrative details that have to be worked out. This (the deal) was only passed in our Congress two days ago. The President is looking forward to signing the bill, sometime, I hope, very soon, because we'll want to use it as an opportunity to thank all of the people who have been involved in this," said Rice.[165]
In Washington, a Senate Democratic aide said that such a delay was not that unusual because legislation needed to be carefully reviewed before being sent to the White House.[166]
US President George W Bush signed the legislation on the Indo-US nuclear deal into law on October 8.[16] The new law, called the United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Non-proliferation Enhancement Act, was signed by President Bush at a brief White House function in the presence of the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, Vice-President Dick Cheney and the Indian Ambassador to the U.S. Ronen Sen besides a large gathering of other dignitaries.[167] The final administrative aspect of the deal was completed after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee signed the bilateral instruments of the 123 Agreement in Washington on October 10 paving the way for operationalization of the deal between the two countries.[168] [169]
[edit]Chronology of the Indo-US Nuclear Deal
July 18, 2005: President Bush and Prime Minister Singh first announce their intention to enter into a nuclear agreement in Washington.
March 1, 2006: Bush visits India for the first time.
March 3, 2006: Bush and Singh issue a joint statement on their growing strategic partnership, emphasising their agreement on civil nuclear cooperation.
July 26, 2006: The US House of Representatives passes the 'Henry J Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006,' which stipulates that Washington will cooperate with New Delhi on nuclear issues and exempt it from signing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
July 28, 2006: In India, the Left parties demand threadbare discussion on the issue in Parliament.
November 16, 2006: The US Senate passes the 'United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation and US Additional Protocol Implementation Act' to "exempt from certain requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 United States exports of nuclear materials, equipment, and technology to India."
December 18, 2006: President Bush signs into law congressional legislation on Indian atomic energy.
July 27, 2007: Negotiations on a bilateral agreement between the United States and India conclude.
Aug 3, 2007: The text of the 'Agreement for Cooperation between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of India concerning peaceful uses of nuclear energy' (123 Agreement) is released by both governments.
Aug 13, 2007: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh makes a suo motu statement on the deal in Parliament.
Aug 17, 2007: The CPI(M) General Secretary Prakash Karat says the 'honeymoon (with government) may be over but the marriage can go on'.
Sept 4, 2007: In India, the UPA-Left committee to discuss nuclear deal set up.
Feb 25, 2008: Left parties in India say the ruling party would have to choose between the deal and its government's stability.
March 3–6, 2008: Left parties warn of 'serious consequences' if the nuclear deal is operationalised and set a deadline asking the government to make it clear by March 15 whether it intended to proceed with the nuclear deal or drop it.
March 7–14, 2008: The CPI writes to the Prime Minister Singh, warns of withdrawal of support if government goes ahead with the deal and puts political pressure on the Manmohan Singh government not to go with the deal.
April 23, 2008: The Indian Government says it will seek the sense of the House on the 123 Agreement before it is taken up for ratification by the American Congress.
June 17, 2008: External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee meets Prakash Karat, asks the Left to allow the government to go ahead with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards agreement.
June 30, 2008: The Indian Prime Minister says his government prepared to face Parliament before operationalising the deal.
July 8, 2008: Left parties in India withdraw support to government.
July 9, 2008: The draft India-specific safeguards accord with the IAEA circulated to IAEA's Board of Governors for approval.
July 10, 2008: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh calls for a vote of confidence in Parliament.
July 14, 2008: The IAEA says it will meet on August 1 to consider the India-specific safeguards agreement.
July 18, 2008: Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon briefs the IAEA Board of Governors and some NSG countries in Vienna on the safeguards agreement.
July 22, 2008: Government is willing to look at "possible amendments" to the Atomic Energy Act to ensure that the country's strategic autonomy will never be compromised, says Prime Minister Singh.
July 22, 2008: The UPA government led by Manmohan Singh wins trust vote in the Lok Sabha in India.
July 24, 2008: India dismisses warning by Pakistan that the deal will accelerate an atomic arms race in the sub-continent.
July 24, 2008: India launches full blast lobbying among the 45-nation NSG for an exemption for nuclear commerce.
July 25, 2008: IAEA secretariat briefs member states on India-specific safeguards agreement.
Aug 1, 2008: IAEA Board of Governors adopts India- specific safeguards agreement unanimously.
Aug 21-22, 2008: The NSG meet to consider an India waiver ends inconclusively amid reservations by some countries.
Sep 4-6, 2008: The NSG meets for the second time on the issue after the US comes up with a revised draft and grants waiver to India after marathon parleys.
Sept 11, 2008: President Bush sends the text of the 123 Agreement to the US Congress for final approval.
Sept 12, 2008: US remains silent over the controversy in India triggered by President Bush's assertions that nuclear fuel supply assurances to New Delhi under the deal were only political commitments and not legally binding.
Sept 13, 2008: The State Department issues a fact sheet on the nuclear deal saying the initiative will help meet India's growing energy requirements and strengthen the non- proliferation regime by welcoming New Delhi into globally accepted nonproliferation standards and practices.
Sept 18, 2008: The Senate Foreign Relations Committee kicks off a crucial hearing on the Indo-US nuclear deal.
Sept 19, 2008: America's nuclear fuel supply assurances to India are a "political commitment" and the government cannot "legally compel" US firms to sell a "given product" to New Delhi, top officials tells Congressional panel.
Sept 21, 2008: US financial crisis diverts attention from N-deal as both the Bush Administration and the Congress are bogged down over efforts to rescue bankrupt American banks. financial crisis in the country.
Sept 26, 2008: PM Singh meets President Bush at the White House, but were not able to sign the nuclear deal as the Congress did not approve it.
Sept 27, 2008: House of Representatives approves the Indo-US nuclear deal. 298 members voted for the Bill while 117 voted against.
Oct 1, 2008: Senate approves the Indo-US civil nuclear deal with 86 votes for and 13 against.
Oct 4, 2008: Secretary of State Rice visits Delhi. India and the US unable to ink the nuclear agreement with New Delhi insisting that it would do so only after President Bush signs it into a law, an occasion when it expects certain misgivings to be cleared.
Oct 4, 2008: White House announces that President Bush will sign the legislation on the Indo-US nuclear deal into a law on October 8.
Oct 8, 2008: President Bush signs legislation to enact the landmark US-India civilian nuclear agreement.
Oct 10, 2008: The 123 Agreement between India and US is finally operationalized between the two countries after the deal is signed by External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and his counterpart Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Washington D C.
[edit]See also
- India – United States relations
- Energy policy of India
- Nuclear Liability Bill
- Energy security
- Foreign relations of India
- Nuclear power in India
[edit]References
- ^ Sultan, Maria; Mian Behzad Adil (September, 2008). "The Henry J. Hyde Act and 123 Agreement: An Assessment" (PDF). South Asian Strategic Stability Institute, London.
- ^ Joint Statement Between President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
- ^ Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate.; Speaker of the House of Representatives. (Tuesday, 3 January 2006). "''Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006''". The federal government of the United States of America.
- ^ IAEA Board Approves India-Safeguards Agreement
- ^ India Safeguards Agreement Signed
- ^ INFCIRC/731
- ^ Bajoria, Jayshree (November 5, 2010). "The U.S.-India Nuclear Deal". http://www.cfr.org.
- ^ "IAEA approves India nuclear inspection deal - International Herald Tribune". Iht.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ "outlookindia.com | wired". Outlookindia.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ "Nuclear Suppliers Group Grants India Historic Waiver - MarketWatch". Marketwatch.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ 3 hours ago (3 hours ago). "AFP: India energized by nuclear pacts". Afp.google.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ "House of Reps clears N-deal, France set to sign agreement-USA-World-The Times of India". Timesofindia.indiatimes.com. 2008-09-29. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ "India, France ink nuclear deal, first after NSG waiver". Indianexpress.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ Rajghatta, Chidanand (2008-10-02). "Finally, it's done: India back on the nuclear train-USA-World-The Times of India". Timesofindia.indiatimes.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ "Senate approves nuclear deal with India - CNN.com". Edition.cnn.com. 2008-10-01. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ a b "Bush signs bill on N-deal on October 8". United States Office of the Press Secretary. 2008-10-08. Retrieved 2008-10-08.
- ^ Done Deal: India, US seal landmark nuclear pact CNN-IBN
- ^ Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Indian Minister of External Affairs Pranab Mukherjee At the Signing of the U.S.-India Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Agreement
- ^ http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h5682enr.txt.pdf
- ^ The Indo-U.S. nuclear debate from www.gulfnews.com
- ^ ITGD Bureau. "India Today - India's most widely read magazine". Indiatoday.digitaltoday.in. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ "War of words & world views-India-The Times of India". Timesofindia.indiatimes.com. 2008-07-22. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ "At G-8, Singh, Bush reaffirm commitment to nuclear deal - Economy and Politics - livemint.com". Retrieved 2008-07-11.
- ^ "India and US confirm nuclear pact". BBC News. 2007-07-27. Retrieved 2010-05-05.
- ^ India: Government crisis deepens over U.S. nuclear deal
- ^ "Indian government survives vote". BBC News. 2008-07-22. Retrieved 2008-07-23.
- ^ a b c Arms Control Association: "Decision Time on the Indian Nuclear Deal: Help Avert a Nonproliferation Disaster"
- ^ a b Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: U.S.-India Nuclear Energy Deal: What's Next?
- ^ a b Economic Times of India: Hyde Act will haunt nuclear deal at NSG too
- ^ "Embassy of India: Nuclear Non-proliferation". Retrieved 2006-06-01.
- ^ "Nuclear Suppliers Group".
- ^ "A Thorium Breeder Reactor".
- ^ "India unveils 'world's safest nuclear reactor'".
- ^ "P.18, paragraph 1, Tellis, Ashley, "Atoms for War? U.S.-Indian Civilian Nuclear Cooperation and India's Nuclear Arsenal""(PDF).
- ^ a b "P.31-P.36, Tellis, Ashley, "Atoms for War? U.S.-Indian Civilian Nuclear Cooperation and India's Nuclear Arsenal"" (PDF).
- ^ Vergano, Dan (2008-08-29). "Report says China offered widespread help on nukes". USA Today. Retrieved 2010-05-05.
- ^ "Against nuclear apartheid".
- ^ "Bermudez, Joseph S. Jr. 1998. A History of Ballistic Missile Development in the DPRK".
- ^ "Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons Program - 1998: The Year of Testing".
- ^ "Achieving 9% Growth Rate in India: A Growth Paradigm".
- ^ "U.S. Ready to End Sanctions on India to Build an Alliance".
- ^ {http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118726909/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0}
- ^ "Condoleezza Rice Paks a proliferation punch". The Economic Times. 2008-07-26. Retrieved 2008-08-03.
- ^ [1][dead link]
- ^ "Russia hints at smooth sail for India at IAEA". Ibnlive.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache:nlT8QsQA48QJ:www.ipcs.org/countIssueBrief.jsp%3Fissue%3D31+india+willing+to+sin+npt+as+a+nuclear+weapons+state&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=in
- ^ VandeHei, Jim; Linzer, Dafna (2006-03-03). "U.S., India Reach Deal On Nuclear". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2006-03-03.
- ^ Müller, Jörn (2009). "The Signing of the U.S.-India Agreement Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy". Göttingen Journal of International Law. pp. 179–198. Retrieved 2009-04-05.
- ^ Linzer, Dafna (2005-07-20). "Bush Officials Defend India Nuclear Deal". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2005-07-20.
- ^ [|PTI Correspondent] (August 26, 2010). "Nuclear liability bill to bring in more investment: US media". The Times of India.
- ^ [|PTI Correspondent] (August 25, 2010). "Lok Sabha passes Nuclear Liability Bill". The Times of India.
- ^ India's Nuclear Liability Dilemma, by Ashley Tellis, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Interviewed by Jayshree Bajoria, Staff Writer, CFR.org, November 4, 2010.
- ^ PTI Correspondent (February 18, 2010). "US wants Indian businesses to create jobs in America". The Times of India.
- ^ "Information and Issue Briefs – Thorium". World Nuclear Association. Retrieved 2006-06-01.
- ^ "UIC Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper #75 – Supply of Uranium". Uranium Information Center. Archived from the original on April 27, 2006. Retrieved 2006-06-01.
- ^ "Bush, India's Singh Sign Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement". USINFO - International Information Programs. Retrieved 2006-03-02.
- ^ "U.S. House votes for nuclear deal". Chennai, India: The Hindu. 2006-07-28. Retrieved 2006-07-29.
- ^ "U.S. and India Release Text of 123 Agreement". Archived fromthe original on July 9, 2008. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
- ^ U.S. can terminate N-deal if India conducts tests: Nicholas Burns
- ^ "Bush Welcomes Senate Approval of U.S.-India Nuclear Agreement". USINFO - International Information Programs. Retrieved 2006-11-17.
- ^ "H.R. 5682: House Vote 411: Jul 26, 2006 (109th Congress)". GovTrack. Retrieved 2006-07-26.
- ^ "H.R. 5682: Senate Vote 270: Nov 16, 2006 (109th Congress)". GovTrack. Retrieved 2006-11-16.
- ^ "Congress Passes U.S.-India Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Bill". USINFO - International Information Programs. Retrieved 2006-12-09.
- ^ "H.R. 5682: House Vote 541: Dec 8, 2006 (109th Congress)". GovTrack. Retrieved 2006-12-08.
- ^ "Nuclear deal with U.S. made easier for India to digest".Hindustan Times. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
- ^ "Hyde Act not binding, says Bush". CNN-IBN. Retrieved 2006-12-19.
- ^ "IndianExpress.com :: 'The question is can we get a better n-deal? No’". Retrieved 2008-07-11.
- ^ Indian government survives vote
- ^ "The Pioneer > Columnists". Dailypioneer.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.[dead link]
- ^ "Brahma Chellaney a strategic affairs expert, is a professor at the Centre for Policy Research. He was one of the authors of the nuclear doctrine submitted to the government for finalisation". rediff.com. Retrieved 2008-10-10.
- ^ "Stagecraft and Statecraft: India's retarded nuclear deterrent". Chellaney.spaces.live.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ Text of India-IAEA Safeguards Agreement
- ^ "India submits draft safeguards pact to IAEA". PTI(timesofindia.indiatimes.com). 2008-07-09. Retrieved 2008-07-08.
- ^ "PM wants to quit over nuclear deal". Retrieved 2008-07-11.
- ^ Varadarajan, Siddharth (2008-07-09). "India sends safeguards agreement to IAEA Board". Chennai, India: www.thehindu.com. Retrieved 2008-07-08.
- ^ "The Hindu News Update Service". Chennai, India. 2008-07-08. Retrieved 2008-07-11.
- ^ Sengupta, Somini (2007-07-23). "Indian Government Survives Confidence Vote". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-05-05.
- ^ Indian gov't wins trust vote in parliament_English_Xinhua
- ^ Default
- ^ Post trust vote victory, India Govt. to move forward with reforms, nuclear deal - International Business Times
- ^ "IAEA board gets India's safeguards agreement". www.rediff.com. 2008-07-09. Retrieved 2008-07-08.
- ^ N-deal: Getting NSG nod may not be easy
- ^ a b "NSG CLEARS NUCLEAR WAIVER FOR INDIA". CNN-IBN. September 6, 2008. Retrieved 2008-09-06.
- ^ "INDIA JOINS NUCLEAR CLUB, GETS NSG WAIVER". NDTV.com. September 6, 2008. Retrieved 2008-09-06.
- ^ Carnegie Endowment (August 2008): Text of U.S. NSG Proposal on India
- ^ a b NSG Guidelines
- ^ Arms Control Association (September 2008): Revised Indo-U.S. NSG Draft
- ^ Khabrein: U.S. plans nuclear rewrite to build NSG consensus
- ^ "UK backs India's nuke energy ambitions". The Australian. 2008-01-23.
- ^ "France to back India at IAEA meet-India-The Times of India". Timesofindia.indiatimes.com. 2008-07-15. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ India Times: Japan to recognise India as nuclear state
- ^ "Russia, India Close on Nuclear Deal". Moscowtimes.ru. 13 February 2008. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ German leader: Much scope for India-Germany cooperation on peaceful nuclear energy - International Herald Tribune
- ^ "Germany for end to India's N-isolation". The Hindu (Chennai, India). 2007-10-23.
- ^ RTTNews - Political News and Chatter, World Political News, Forex News, Earnings Revisions
- ^ "Switzerland to support India's case at NSG- Politics/Nation-News-The Economic Times". Economictimes.indiatimes.com. 2008-08-17. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ "Canada, India exploring ways to co-operate in nuclear energy". PTI - The Press Trust of India Ltd. 2007-10-10.
- ^ Times of India: Canada behind U.S., Britain in wooing India, says expert
- ^ Harrison, Selig S. (2006-04-23). "How to Regulate Nuclear Weapons". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-05-05.
- ^ Arms Control Today (May 2006): Interview With Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph
- ^ "India's N-deal hurdle: Pak warns of arms race". CNN IBN. 2008-07-24. Retrieved 2008-07-24.
- ^ Times of India: India's NSG battle to focus on nuclear tech
- ^ Times of India: India sees red as China voices n-deal concerns
- ^ The National Business Review: NZ wants conditions written into nuclear agreement
- ^ Gulf Times: NSG 'will seek clear conditions'
- ^ Carter, Jimmy (2006-03-29). "A Dangerous Deal With India".The Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-05-05.
- ^ a b Daily Times: Nuclear suppliers propose terms for U.S.-India deal
- ^ Telegraph: Vienna blow to nuclear deal
- ^ AFP: Nuclear suppliers fail to reach consensus on U.S.-India deal
- ^ Sep 6, 2008 (September 6, 2008). "AFP: Britain hails landmark US-India nuclear deal". Afp.google.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ "U.S., India welcome NSG's agreement to lift nuclear trade embargo on India_English_Xinhua". News.xinhuanet.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ "New Zealand compromises on India nuclear deal_English_Xinhua". News.xinhuanet.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ "The Hindu : International : Russia welcomes NSG waiver for India". Chennai, India: Hindu.com. 2008-09-09. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ "'India got the waiver because of its rise as global power'-India-The Times of India". Timesofindia.indiatimes.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.[dead link]
- ^ "India understands uranium stance: Smith - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)". Abc.net.au. September 12, 2008. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ DW Staff (jen). "Germany Grudgingly Accepts Landmark Nuclear Deal with India | Europe | Deutsche Welle | 09.09.2008". Dw-world.de. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ "NDTV.com: China, the main spoiler". Ndtv.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ "China state paper lashes India-U.S. nuclear deal | Markets | Reuters". In.reuters.com. 2008-09-01. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ "China was India's secret enemy at Vienna | What NSA says". Ibnlive.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=2beddd13-7339-4bcf-8484-83f7b7e2e8c6&ParentID=725c91cd-5ecf-44c4-8e4f-d5bd5791c1e4&&Headline=China+says+it+backs+India's+N-ambitions
- ^ "NSG should address aspirations of others too: China". Indianexpress.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ "India runs into the great wall of China at NSG". Ibnlive.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ "Will discuss NSG U-turn with China Foreign Min: NSA". Ibnlive.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ "Beijing 'disappoints' Delhi-India-The Times of India". Timesofindia.indiatimes.com. 2008-09-07. Retrieved 2008-10-02.[dead link]
- ^ "The Hindu : Front Page : Waiver enables member states to provide India full civil nuclear cooperation". Chennai, India: Hindu.com. 2008-09-07. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=&id=2beddd13-7339-4bcf-8484-83f7b7e2e8c6&&Headline=China+says+it+backs+India's+N-ambitions&strParent=strParentID
- ^ "China denies blocking India's nuclear waiver bid | Markets | Reuters". Uk.reuters.com. 2008-09-08. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ "We decided to back India in NSG before Vienna meeting: China- Hindustan Times". Hindustantimes.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ "Let's move beyond doubts to build ties: China to India - Express India". Expressindia.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ "Manmohan arrives in Washington, to meet Bush". Thaindian News. Retrieved 2008-10-10.
- ^ "Manmohan leaves for home winding up 9 day US, France visit". Chennai, India: The Hindu. 2008-10-01. Retrieved 2008-10-10.
- ^ "India thanks NSG's Big Four for 'unique' waiver - Sify.com". Sify.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ "Gulf Daily News". Gulf-daily-news.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ "The Hindu : National : Advantage India, says Brajesh Mishra". Chennai, India: Hindu.com. 2008-09-07. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ Sengupta, Somini (2006-12-10). "Interests Drive U.S. to Back a Nuclear India". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-05-05.
- ^ http://www.aerospaceindia.org/Journals/Monsoon%202005/Indo-US%20Relations%20in%20a%20Changing%20World.pdf
- ^ http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/oct/13ndeal.htm
- ^http://www.samachaar.in/Politics/Stalling_nuclear_deal_will_be_a_historical_mistake_23244/
- ^ Hindustan Times: N-deal, NSG waiver good for country
- ^ "Asia Times Online :: South Asia news, business and economy from India and Pakistan". Atimes.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ a b "India Inc sets eyes on $40 bn nuclear energy market- Indicators-Economy-News-The Economic Times". Economictimes.indiatimes.com. 2008-09-09. Retrieved 2008-10-02.[dead link]
- ^ Laxman, Srinivas (2008-09-11). "N-trade: It's a $40 billion opportunity-India-The Times of India". Timesofindia.indiatimes.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
- ^ The Hindu: Tighten draft waiver for India
- ^ Afrasiabi: Iran heartened by India's nuclear vote
- ^ Second Meeting of Experts of The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (July 2004): Statement By His Excellency Dr. Ali-Asghar Soltanieh
- ^ Forbes: India moves a step closer to U.S. nuclear pact
- ^ ISIS (July 2008): "Press Trust of India - India dismisses Pak talk of arms race due to N-deal"
- ^ Permanent Mission of Pakistan to the International Organizations (July 2008): Letter from Pakistan to the IAEA Board of Governors and Nuclear Suppliers Group
- ^ Clinton woos Pakistan on security, aid, Reuters, July 19, 2010.
- ^ Hindustan Times: Now, Israel wants NSG rules changed
- ^ "Serious implications for India in NSG draft". In.rediff.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.[dead link]
- ^ Indian Express: Was India misled by America on nuclear deal?
- ^ Washington Post: In Secret Letter, Tough U.S. Line on India Nuclear Deal
- ^ Department of State: Answers to questions about Indo-U.S. nuclear agreement
- ^ "N-deal will be consistent with US domestic law". The Hindu(Chennai, India). 2008-08-08.
- ^ Economic Times of India: Congressional approval may not be automatic; dissenters speak out
- ^ Times of India: US House approves Indo-US nuke deal
- ^ a b Bloomberg: Bush Wins Approval in Congress for Priority India Atomic Accord
- ^ The Hindu: Nuclear test will have serious consequences
- ^ "Bush hails Senate passage of Indo-US nuclear deal-USA-World-The Times of India". Timesofindia.indiatimes.com. Retrieved 2008-10-02.[dead link]
- ^ Rice hails approval of India nuclear deal
- ^ "N-deal faces last-minute glitch". Deccan Harald.
- ^ "Condoleezza Rice leaves without inking deal". Economic Times.
- ^ Sunday Times (October 5, 2008), Rice is here but deal still not on table, Times of India
- ^ "Rice arrives, nuclear deal not to be signed today". NDTV.com.
- ^ "Rice in India, may not sign nuclear deal". Reuters.com. 2008-10-04.
- ^ "Bush signs India-U.S. nuclear bill into law". Chennai, India: The Hindu. 2008-10-10. Retrieved 2008-10-13.
- ^ Gollust, David (2008-10-10). "US, India Sign Civilian Nuclear Accord". Voice Of America. Retrieved 2008-12-24.
- ^ Times of India (October 11, 2008), India, US seal 123 Agreement, Times of India
[edit]External links
- U.S. Government links
- U.S. Government Printing Office: The text of the Hyde Act
- U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee: Questions for the Record submitted to Assistant Secretary Bernger by Chairman Tom Lantos
- U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee: Documents from the White House related to the U.S.-India civilian nuclear cooperation agreement
- India Government links
- Indian Ministry of External Affairs (August 2007): Text of the preliminary Indo-US nuclear agreement (meaindia.nic.in)
- IAEA links
- Nuclear Suppliers Group links
- Copy of Final NSG Agreement of 6 September 2008
- Nuclear Suppliers Group (4-6 September 2008): NSG Public Statement – Extraordinary Plenary Meeting, Vienna
- Nuclear Suppliers Group (21-22 August 2008): NSG Public Statement – Extraordinary Plenary Meeting, Vienna
- Nuclear Suppliers Group (November 2007): INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 1
- Nuclear Suppliers Group (March 2006): INFCIRC/254/Rev.7/Part 2
| ||
| |||
No comments:
Post a Comment