Skip to main content

AERB and the Safety Regime

 AERB AND THE SAFETY REGIME

India has had the experience of dealing with the worst industrial disaster in history, when nearly 40 tonnes of methyl isocynate escaped from one of the storage tanks of the plant owned by the Union Carbide India Ltd situated in Bhopal city. The deadly gas took a heavy toll on human life, leaving nearly 3,828 instantaneously dead and over 30,000 injured, a figure that now stands at half a million. The disaster also resulted in severe environmental damage. A ghastly monument to the dehumanizing influence of inherently dangerous technologies, it resulted in the violation of the right to life, health, clean air and water not only of that generation but also of succeeding generations. The disaster is unparalleled in its magnitude and devastation. However, as seen from the discussion above, the Indian nuclear establishment has yet to learn from the mistakes that resulted in the Bhopal disaster and other mishaps.

The AERB was established in 1983 by the Government of India under section 27 of the Atomic Energy Act 1962 to carry out regulatory and safety functions under sections 16, 17 and 23 of the Act. Its central objective is to ensure that the presence of ionizing radiation and the use of nuclear energy do not cause unacceptable impact on the health of workers, to the public and to the environment. The regulatory powers of the AERB are also derived from the rules and notifications promulgated under the Atomic Energy Act and these include the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules 2004; Atomic Energy (Safe Disposal of Radioactive Wastes) Rules 1987; Atomic Energy (Factories) Rules 1996; Atomic Energy (Working of the Mines, Minerals and Handling of Prescribed Substances) Rules 1984; and the Atomic Energy (Control of Food Irradiation) Rules 1996. The AERB also has powers to monitor environmental quality.

AERB is also empowered to perform the functions under sections 10(1) (powers of entry) and 11(1) (powers to take samples) of Environmental Protection Act, 1986 and Rule 12 (agency to which information on excess discharge of pollutants to be given) of the Environmental Protection (Amendment) Rules, 1987 with respect to radioactive substances.

The AERB is also to prescribe acceptable limits of radiation exposure to occupational workers and the public; approve the acceptable limits of environmental release of radioactive substances; promote research and development efforts; and maintain liaison with statutory bodies both within and outside the country on safety matters. It is also to take necessary steps to keep the public informed on major issues of radiological safety. Significantly, in the DAE units, it is the AERB that is to prescribe the limits for environmental release of conventional pollutants.

DARK SIDE OF THE ATOMIC PROGRAM AND THE INEFFECTIVENESS OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD (AERB)

From the foregoing, it can be concluded that contrary to government claims that all is fine with the nuclear establishment, there have been several instances of near misses, human rights violations and environmental degradation. The AERB has held inquiries into several of these incidents; however, as its reports have not been made public, no one knows about the magnitude of the harm, or who have been the victims, or what has happened to them. Thus, the dark side of the nuclear program has not received the attention it deserves.

As the above information reveals, there have been several accidents and near misses that have affected the workforce in these plants, those living in the close vicinity and the environment, demonstrating the ineffectiveness of the AERB in ensuring safety. More importantly, the management of these establishments has a free hand in running the plants, suppressing the legitimate voice of the victims; the AERB remaining a mute spectator to many of these issues.


AERB and the Safety Regime by Velanati Jyothirmai @ Lex Cliq
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more