Factbox: The U.S.-India nuclear deal
Source: Reuters
The nuclear "breakthrough understanding" between President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Narendra Modi seeks to allay U.S. concerns about industry liability and unlock billions of dollars in investments into Indian power projects.
<snip>
3) How does the agreement address liability?
The agreement endorses the principle of strict liability, which 'channels' costs arising from a nuclear accident to the plant operator and requires it to pay no-fault compensation. Negotiators from both sides say the Indian side presented a body of law, precedent and opinion supporting the case that its laws and regulations meet international standards.
A key clause in India's 2010 nuclear liability law does, however, allow a plant operator to seek secondary recourse against a supplier - a legacy of the unresolved claims arising from the 1984 disaster at a U.S.-owned plant in Bhopal. To address this, India will set up an insurance pool to cover liability up to a hard cap.
4) How would the insurance pool work?
The state-backed insurance pool would cover operator liabilities of up to 15 billion rupees ($244 million). Any recourse sought by the operator against a supplier could not exceed this figure. Insurance premiums have yet to be determined, but for suppliers they would be a "fraction" of the amount paid by the operator.
5) What happens if there is a Fukushima-type disaster?
The Indian government would cover additional costs of up to 300 million IMF Special Drawing Rights ($420 million), in line with international practice.
Beyond that, India would need to join the IAEA Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC), due to enter force in April. By ratifying the convention, India would gain access to international funds with risk shared according to how many nuclear plants a country has.
<snip>
Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/factbox-u-india-nuclear-deal-050359001--sector.html
San Onofre was shut down because the shiny new steam generators had a serious manufacturing defect; they were manufactured in Japan by Mitsubishi.
Fukushima reactor 4 had a serious manufacturing defect in its pressure vessel; by pure luck, reactor 4 was off for refueling when the earthquake hit. It was manufactured by Babcock-Hitachi in Japan.
Fukushima Engineer Says He Covered Up Flaw at Shut Reactor No. 4
<snip>
Mitsuhiko Tanaka says he helped conceal a manufacturing defect in the $250 million steel vessel installed at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi No. 4 reactor while working for a unit of Hitachi Ltd. in 1974. The reactor, which Tanaka has called a “time bomb,” was shut for maintenance when the March 11 earthquake triggered a 7-meter (23-foot) tsunami that disabled cooling systems at the plant, leading to explosions and radiation leaks.
<snip>
Tanaka says the reactor pressure vessel inside Fukushima’s unit No. 4 was damaged at a Babcock-Hitachi foundry in Kure City, in Hiroshima prefecture, during the last step of a manufacturing process that took 2 1/2 years and cost tens of millions of dollars. If the mistake had been discovered, the company might have been bankrupted, he said.
<snip>
