Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Among the functions of the Secretary of State: “Negotiates, interprets, and terminates treaties and agreements“. http://www.state.gov/secretary/115194.htm

This appears to include the “Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage” which is a shared nuclear liability agreement, including the US and India. Apparently above a certain amount, US vendors and/or taxpayers will be responsible for 1/3rd of the cost of a nuclear disaster in India under this Convention. This CSC convention only benefits those who sell defective nuclear parts, do faulty construction-installation and/or utilities which cut corners. There is no incentive to make quality products or do maintenance, if you must pay for the cost-cutting and mistakes of competitors. Both CSC and the US Price Andersen should be canceled and the individual nuclear providers held liable for their products, along with the utilities.

If Governor Nikki Haley becomes Secretary of State, she could have a huge conflict of interest if an accident involved Holtec, between donations from its owner (Kris P. Singh); friendship, and family ties. Since her parents were born in India, she may also be pressured on both sides, and possibly feel divided loyalties, even if it does not involve Holtec.

Holtec was mentioned by the State Dept as a potential vendor to India of Small Modular Reactors, and makes Nuclear Waste Canisters.

Determining liability is very high stakes as seen in the Fukushima disaster:
The public cost of cleaning up the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant disaster topped ¥4.2 trillion (roughly $40 billion) as of March, and is expected to keep climbing, the Japan Times reported on Sunday.http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/08/29/public-cost-fukushima-cleanup-tops-40-billion-and-expected-climb

The interpretation of this Convention appears to still be unclear on both the India end and US end. It is undergoing revision at the US DOE:
Nuclear still unclear: Does ratification of CSC fix problems of nuclear law?” The Financial Express, By: Sunil Jain | New Delhi | February 5, 2016. https://nuclear-news.net/2016/02/08/convention-on-supplementary-compensation-csc-does-not-override-indias-nuclear-liability-law/

Kris Pal Singh of Holtec, $55,000 donation to “the Movement Fund” (2011) which PublicIntegrity.org (22 Sept. 2014) has confirmed as being “A nonprofit affiliated with and supporting Gov. Nikki Haley“.
Nikki Haley The Movement Fund Tax Form with Kris Singh Holtec donation $55,000
The address is confirmed as Holtec’s Kris Singh who is married to Martha Singh and a property that they owned for awhile. The Movement Fund Tax Form http://stk5f277gbe2lfag44edxpbf.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/movement-form.pdf.

PATRONAGE AND NEPOTISM

According to Philly.com: “Holtec a tech firm with ambitions to grow” By Joseph N. DiStefano, Inquirer Staff Writer, July 11, 2014 , Holtec filed state and federal documents in 2012 for proposed building small modular reactors at the Savannah River Nuclear site. It is stated that the “proposal won support from South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, whose father’s family has roots in the same part of India as Singh’s. She called herself a family friend last fall as she attended dedication ceremonies for the $80 million Krishna P. Singh Center for Nanotechnology at the University of Pennsylvania… Singh donated $3,500 to Haley’s gubernatorial campaign in 2011, according to South Carolina campaign finance records.” Read the article here: https://web.archive.org/web/20150914234442/http://articles.philly.com/2014-07-11/news/51307920_1_singh-center-indian-people-delaware-valley
https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2016/06/30/sc-gov-nikki-haleys-plutonium-hypocrisy-financial-and-family-ties-to-areva-holtec-and-more/

Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage was brought to America and India by Richard Verma, US Ambassador to India. Verma worked as a lobbyist for the US-India Business Council to push the “U.S. India Civil Nuclear Agreement and ratification of the 123 Agreement in compliance with the Henry Hyde Act,” along with “US-India Civil Nuclear Agreement’s 123 Bilateral Agreement in 2008.https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientissues_spec.php?id=D000067047&year=2008&spec=ENG. https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientlbs.php?id=D000067047&year=2008 https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109hr5682enr/pdf/BILLS-109hr5682enr.pdf

A press release from Nov. 25, 2008 announced that the NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute) was partnering with the US-India Business Council for the “largest trade mission of US commercial nuclear executives ever to visit India“. That just so happens to be the year that Richard Verma was their lobbyist. And, it just so happens that when Verma got appointed Ambassador that this Convention was agreed. The big question is who is behind this US-India Business Council and why are they working against the interests of both the American people and the people of India? The only beneficiaries of this Convention are those selling defective nuclear equipment (including fuel).

The US equipment makers-vendors, guilty or non-guilty, are supposed to pay for a disaster in India, (Japan and several other countries), exceeding the Price-Anderson amount. As payment into both this Convention and Price Anderson is retroactive, after an accident, most likely the US taxpayer will pay for a nuclear disaster. Any accident in India, Japan, Romania, Argentina, Morocco, UAE, and the US apparently pays a third, at least above a base amount. Romania has chosen CANDU nuclear reactors. Morocco may get Russian ones. Neither Canada nor Russia is member of this Convention so how can this be fair? In 1993-94 Rich Verma was working in Romania for the NDI. Romania is in the Convention. Who has been among those involved in Romania’s proposed new reactors? Who bought Romania’s large public steel works? A steel magnate from India named Lakshmi Mittal (Arcelor Mittal). There was an alleged “Cash for Influence, Mittal Affair” in relation to this purchase in Romania. Read more here: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/westinghouse-is-japanese-toshiba-not-american-for-16-years/

Back in Japan:
At a meeting on Wednesday, many participants opposed establishing a cap on utility liability and having the shortfall covered by the government… Some observers say the current system creates too massive risks for utilities. Others argue the public will have to shoulder the burden if the government takes some responsibility. The committee will also discuss an increase in the amount that power companies are required to reserve for possible compensation from about 1 billion dollars. The increase could lead to a rise in electricity rates.
Nuclear Accident Compensation System Kept

Taking Stock of the U.S.-India Nuclear Deal, Remarks” by Geoffrey Pyatt
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs
Mumbai, India September 30, 2011 mentions Holtec:
Reactor-designer vendors such as General Electric and Westinghouse, but also designers of small modular reactors such as Babcock & Wilcox, Holtec and Nuscale;” want to do business in India. http://www.state.gov/p/sca/rls/rmks/2011/174883.htm
Note that Westinghouse is owned by Toshiba, GE is half-owned by Hitachi.

Links, Notes on the CSC, Related Information

It seems that the last version of CSC is due out sometime in December. Christmas week?
CSC French State owned Areva doesn't want nuclear vendors to pay anything but for it to be picked up by the taxpayers Convention Nuclear Liability
French State owned Areva doesn’t want nuclear vendors to pay anything but for it to be picked up by the taxpayers: http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/04/f22/NOPR%20AREVA.pdf
Areva was already aware of their defective products at that time:
https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/04/07/dangerously-defective-nuclear-reactor-pressure-vessel-at-new-epr-flamanville-areva-wants-more-tests-to-prove-it-is-ok-its-not-ok-a-bas-areva/
https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/04/11/the-french-government-must-respect-human-life-in-india-and-terminate-the-nuclear-negotiations-in-the-wake-of-the-new-revelations-about-areva-edf-frances-defective-epr-nuclear-reactor-pressure-vessel/
https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2016/10/19/french-and-japanese-quality-defects-to-shut-down-multiple-french-nuclear-reactors-areva-le-creusot-forge-and-jcfc-japan-casting-and-forging-at-work/

http://www.state.gov/t/isn/trty/5951.htm
http://www.energy.gov/gc/convention-supplementary-compensation-rulemaking
http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/04/f22/NOPR%20AREVA.pdf
http://energy.gov/articles/united-states-and-france-sign-joint-statement-civil-liability-nuclear-damage

Comment to DOE, below, from the nuclear lobby group NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute). [Recall that they partnered with the US-India Business Council for a big trade mission: the “largest trade mission of US commercial nuclear executives ever to visit India“]
Comment from the NEI: “DOE’s definition of “covered installation” effectively defers to the definitions in the CSC. The CSC defines “nuclear installation” as:
(i) any nuclear reactor other than for sea or air transport;
(ii) any factory using nuclear fuel for production of nuclear material or for processing or reprocessing of nuclear material or nuclear fuel; and
(iii)any nuclear material storage facility other than for transport; provided that the Installation State may determine that several nuclear installations of one operator which are located at the same site shall be considered as a single nuclear installation.
Thus, a precise meaning of “nuclear installation” is not established in the CSC because an installation may encompass multiple reactors or other facilities at the same site, at the discretion of the nation in which the facility is located. As a result, the meaning of “covered installation” could vary depending on determinations made by the governments of other CSC member states.

http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/04/f22/NOPR%20NEI.pdf

DOE/OGC
RIN: 1990-AA39
Publication ID: Fall 2016 
Title: Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage Contingent Cost Allocation  
Abstract:
The U.S. Department of Energy proposes to issue regulations under section 934 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. It establishes a retrospective risk pooling program by which nuclear suppliers will reimburse the United States government for any contribution it is obliged to make to an international supplementary fund under the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC) in the event of certain nuclear incidents not covered by the Price-Anderson Act. The risk pooling program will involve a premium to be assessed retrospectively (i.e., a deferred payment) based on a risk-informed formula taking into account specified risk factors and exclusionary criteria to provide a fair and equitable proration of costs among U.S. nuclear suppliers benefited by the CSC.

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201610&RIN=1990-AA39
DOE/OAM
RIN: 1991-AC10
Publication ID: Fall 2016 
Title: DOE Acquisition Regulation–Nuclear Hazards Indemnity 
Abstract:
This rulemaking amends the DOE Acquisition Regulation to revise DEAR Clause 952.250-70, Nuclear Hazards Indemnity Agreement (JUN 1996), necessary to conform the clause to the Price Anderson Amendments Act of 2005. The Price-Anderson Act (PAA) resides at section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA). The Price-Anderson Act at section 170(d) indemnifies DOE’s contractors and subcontractors under contracts that involve a risk of public liability for a nuclear incident, as defined in the AEA. The indemnification provides a structure that assures that monies are readily available to remedy damage to the public that may occur as the result of a nuclear incident. The indemnity applies as matter of right, not dependent upon contractual implementation. Currently, DOE has a deviation to the DEAR clause implementing the requirements of the PAA, this rule revises the DEAR to conform to the PAA.
 Agency: Department of Energy(DOE) 
Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant 
RIN Status: Previously published in the Unified Agenda
Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule Stage 
Major: No 
Unfunded Mandates: No 
CFR Citation: 48 CFR 950    48 CFR 952   
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.    42 U.S.C. 2210 et seq.    50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq.   
Legal Deadline:  None

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201610&RIN=1991-AC10

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201610&RIN=1990-AA39
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/Battelle_Memorial_Institute-US_DOE-Section934.pdf
http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/03/f20/CSC%20FR%20CommPerExtension.pdf
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/01/f19/CSC%20Rulemaking%20Information%20Session%20Presentation%20%282%29.pdf
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/Comments_EnergySolutions_CSC_NOI_-_FINAL_112310.pdf

Article 4 elaborates upon the obligation created in Article III. (a) of the Convention to make available a “minimum national compensation amount” of not less than 300 million SDR (subject to a possible phase-in) with respect to Contracting Parties that are subject to the Annex (i.e., non-parties to the Vienna or Paris Convention) and not exempted from Article 4 by the “grandfather clause” (as is the U.S.). In paragraph 1 it allows such Contracting Parties to limit the liability of its operators to an amount not less than 150 million SDR per incident if public funds are available to make up the difference between that amount and 300 million SDR. In paragraph 2 it creates an exception to paragraph 1, allowing such Contracting Parties to reduce operator liability to not less than five million SDR having regard to the nature of the nuclear installation or the nuclear substances involved and to the likely consequences of an incident arising from that installation or material, again so long as public funds are available to cover the gap between the operator’s liability and the applicable”minimum national compensation amount.” Under paragraph 3, the amounts established under paragraphs 1 and 2 are to be applied wherever the nuclear incident occurs.
http://www.state.gov/t/isn/trty/5951.htm

Public Integrity link re the Movement Fund: https://www.publicintegrity. org/2014/09/22/15727/movement-fund (Link intentionally broken because it is unclear if they allow links to pages or simply to the site and because internet archive appears to be malfunctioning. If one types Nikki Haley Movement Fund Public Integrity into a browser then the link should also appear.)

The Republican Hindu Coalition has donated $1.1 million to Trump:
https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20161020012442/http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indian-american-tycoon-shalabh-kumar-biggest-donors-donald-trump-election-campaign/1/788629.html While Nikki Haley is from a Sikh family, it is unknown if Holtec’s Kris Pal Singh is all Sikh or part Sikh considering his lack of turban.

This title may be cited as the ‘‘Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006”: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109hr5682enr/pdf/BILLS-109hr5682enr.pdf