Civil Liability & Nuclear Damages

Alok, Amit, Bharat, Kishore, Pankaj PGPPM(2010-12), IIMB, Bangalore

Sources of Data : Photo courtesy Green Peace

Standing Committee on Science & Technology Engagements From:- 21/07/2010 To:- 20/08/2010 (i) Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy.Experts (ii) Dr. P.K. Iyengar (iii) Dr. Brahma Chellaney (iv) Shri Kanwal Sibal, Former Ambassador (v) Shri Shams Khwaja, Advocate/ Professor of Room No 63,First LawExperts (ii) Dr. P.K. Iyengar (iii) Dr. Floor Parliament Brahma Chellaney (iv) Shri Kanwal Sibal, House, New Delhi Former Ambassador (v) Shri Shams Khwaja, Advocate/ Professor of Law(ii) Ministry of Labour & Employment (iii) Ministry of Agriculture. (iv) Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. (v) Ministry of Home Affairs, (vi)

21/07/2010

11:00

Room No 63,First Clause by clause review of the Civil 22/07/2010 11:00 Floor Parliament Liability bill House, New Delhi

Sources of Data : Standing Committee website . Taken at 11 am on 21-07-2010 http://164.100.47.5/webcom/MainPage.aspx

Context - conditiony

Nuclear power Energy Security2031 Energy need Nuclear power : 800 Gwe* : 63 Gwe* ???A growth from current 4GW level to 60+ GW

y

Nuclear facilities in India & 100% Govt. Ownership No Nuclear Liability Policy in our country International scenario & Indian membership Paris Vienna- Vienna conventions 1997 supplementary compensation India not a member

y

Sources of Data : Integrated Energy Policy 2006 from Planning commission, Civil Nuclear liability bill,

Energy Security What DAE says

y

Electricity supply in near and long term ensuring long term sustainable development Role of Nuclear Power as Primary Energy Source in the years to come.Sources of Data :Citizen Charter, Department of Atomic Energy

y

World Energy Consumption 2006

Sources of Data :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_energy_consumption_by_type_2006.png

Energy Composition

Sources of Data : USEIA

Our Energy Generation

Sources of Data :CMIE data base services

Nuclear power generation growing briskly C U R R E N T( Nuclear power output was affected badly during 2007-09 due to non-availability of uranium)

The ban by the nuclear supply group (NSG) on Indias trade in nuclear fuel lifted.( situation improved since March 2009)

India signed civil nuclear agreements with seven countries including USA, Russia, France and UK. Firm commitments for 510 tonnes of natural uranium from Kazakhstan and Russia in 2010-11.This will ensure adequate availability of nuclear fuel in future

S C E N A R I O

Nuclear power generation capacity will rise by 1,440 mw to 5,780 mw in 2010-11.Sources of Data : CMIE Data Base

23 power plants

Sources of Data : http://www.dae.gov.in/publ/indmap.htm

Landmark Civil Nuclear Co-operation Coagreements

y

Oct 10, 2008 Agreement on Cooperation with USA Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency for the Application of Safeguards to Civilian Nuclear Facilities (INFCIRC/754)(India-Specific Safeguards Agreement), which provides for safeguards on reprocessing plants, May 11, 2009;

y

Sources of Data : Department of Atomic Energy

Agenda setting Policy Window*Factors of Convergence

Problem stream* Solution stream* Political stream Window missed temporarily

Sources of Data : Kingdon analysis of Idea, Civil Nuclear liability bill

Problem DefinitionNecessity to build Nuclear power infrastructure for energy security This requiresNeed of supply of fuel and Nuclear technologies y Requirement of national legislation defining liability to enable vendors and other countries to supply.y

HypothesisThe proposed legislation on Civil Liability is comprehensive and is in the interest of citizens of India.

We are one of the only two countries to run a nuclear power programme without any statute dealing with the possibility of an accident the other is Pakistan

Sources of Data : http://indialawyers.wordpress.com/2010/06/16/turn-the-nuclear-bill-from-liability-to-asset/

Policy on Liability - why?Impact of any Nuclear accident massive large scale disasters due to Radio Activity. Manufacturing and design defects in implementing the nuclearreactors.

The nuclear reactors and spent fuel pools are under great risk plausible incident or terrorist attack which may have significantimplications on human life.

Operational lapses & Risks of fuel while handling and in transport The AERB annual report of 2008-2009 171 deviations interms of safety events.

Lessons from world disasters, Home experience in New Delhi,Bhopal tragedy and damages of other kind.Sources of Data : AERB report 2008-2009

Social values guiding principles for the BillEffectiveness, Efficiency, Equity Human Dignityy y y y y

Minimum level of litigation and difficulty in redressal of grievances of the victims. Meaningful level of compensation. Clarity on accountability. Structure for redressal Ensure speedy and adequate compensation to victimsSources of Data : Interpretation from the Civil Liability bill and Energy Scenario

Current Liability actsy

Atomic Energy act 1964 Only the government of India through NPCIL can operate nuclear plants. ATOMIC ENERGY (ARBITRATION PROCEDURE) RULES, 1983. Arbitrator will be appointed on need basis.The award shall be in writing and signed by the Arbitrator and in matters where the amount or value of the claim for compensation in dispute exceeds Rs.25,000/, the Arbitrator shall specify the points for decision and the decision thereon together with the grounds of the decision.

y

Appeal on arbitration to High court.Sources of Data : Department of Atomic Energy, details of arbitration

Policy Environment ActorsExecutive, Department of atomic energy, PMO, Legislature, Judiciary, Congress Party, Opposition Parties Outside Government : NGOs, Interest groups, ASSOCHAM, CII member Industries L&T, GMR, Reliance etc. Technology Vendors GE, Westinghouse, Beneficiary countries USA, Germany, France, Russia, Kazakhstan etc, International OrganizationsGreen Peace, National association on Anti Nuclear Movements, Lawyers Association, Interest Groups

Internal

External

International

Media

ESG etc.

Economic Interest of other countries / CompaniesCountry / Company USA Areva GE Westinghouse NO. of Units ?? 2-6 (each 5-7 B $ ?? ?? Total cost ?? 12-35 B $ ?? ??

Objective of 20000 MW capacity by 2020 requires an investment of $ 800 BillionsSources of Data :http://www.thesouthasian.org/archives/2009/politics_of_nuclear_energy_and.html

Civil Liability & Nuclear Damages Bill 2010 Bill no. 19 of 2010

Framework policy aspects :scope and means of liability Liability of different agencies ONE chapter

Operational policy aspectsStructures : Claims Commissioner, Claims commission, working aspects, flow of appeals FIVE chaptersSources of Data : Bill in Loksabha

Frame workLimited Liability by the Operator Geographic al coverage Liability of Operator Max Rs 500 Cr

AERB to declare the Incident Limited recourse to Operator on Supplier

> 500 Cr Govt. is liable

Sources of Data : Civil Liability bill

Operational Policy

Claims Commissioner Powers & Structure of Claims office

Claims Commission Composition of Claims Commission

Sources of Data : civil liability bill

Policy Features & AnalysisSupplier is omitted from the accountability. Cap on Operator compensation.channelling liability for a nuclear accident to the operator and capping this liability, it leads to underinvestment in safety. Not addressed

* Supplier / Operator should be fully exposed to damage costs in order to provide him with the necessary incentives for prevention As a corollary, all those who can contribute to accident risk should be forced to internalise the costs of the damage they might cause.Sources of Data : *Michael Faure and Karine Fior - An economic analysis of the nuclear liability subsidy, Pace Environmental Law Review, 2009; University of Maastricht - Faculty of Law; Centre d'Analyse Economique

Safety ???

Policy Features & Analysiswhat is lackingy

Qualifications for appointing a claims commissioner or member no technical expert inclusion to appreciate the subject matter. Applicability of other laws such as National Green Tribunal Act (NGTA) Relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and other environmental damage : for restitution of property and for restitution of the environment for such areas in a comprehensive manner . This is in addition to relief under public liability insurance act 1991. Relatedness and jurisdiction of other prevailing acts. A schedule I is provided for NGTA 2010 Expansive coverage of damages as in schedule 1 of NGTA 2010. NGTA not bound by the rules of evidence in the Indian evidence act 1872.. AERB authorized to declare the incident. Possibility of ignorance. Section 5.1 of the bill does not cover the natural calamity, armed conflict etc. May lead to reduced safety precautions by the operators.

y y

y

y y y y

Sources of Data : Civil Liability Bill

Compensation ExamplesIncident or damage Operator liability in India for Nuclear liability Possible contribution from CSC fund to India Kerala damage to water and soil in Plachimada by Coca Cola USA WTC: secondary impact due to dust to workers Chernobile Tokai Mura Bhopal Compensation in Rs crores 500 2050 200

a glance

Remarks Distorts the true cost of running a reactor from economic sense. Government is accountable if the amount crosses 500 Cr as above

3000

Criticized as VERY LOW in US Media

3600 782 1500 Very low. ~ 20000 people passed away. Over 500000 people impacted. Max Rs. 7.5 lakhs per deceased.

Sources of Data :Civil Liability & Nuclear Damages Bill clause 6 Environmental, Social Justice and Governance Initiatives - Environment Support Group Trust http://www.thesouthasian.org/archives/2010/concerns_with_the_civil_liabil.html

A L Ly

Domestic Cases of ImpactRehabilitation package for displaced people for reactor locations : eg. Tarapur Fish catch in nearby villages reduced significantly in Tarapur Denial report on serious leak in unit 4 of TAPS by NPCIL. Parliamentary standing committee visited on July 6 on safety procedures In Karnataka In a nuclear accident about 45 employees of the Kaiga atomic power plant suffered radiation poisoning when radioactive heavy water from the plant contaminated the drinking water. Kaiga is one of India's newer nuclear reactors places like Jadugoda, Meghalaya and the coastal villages of Orissa, Andhra Pradesh,Tamil Nadu and Kerala have reported pollution issues.

I S N O T W E L L

y y

y

y

Sources of Data : The Hindu, news article July 09, 2010 http://www.thesouthasian.org/archives/2009/politics_of_nuclear_energy_and.html

PLASTIC POTS LINED up to collect water supplied by the Perumatty panchayat every evening, outside the Coca-Cola factory.The high-power committee said that the factory had rendered the water in the wells and borewells in a radius of 2 km harmful.

Small to BIG

Sources of Data : Frontline,The detonation of a nuclear bomb over Nagasaki, Japan on August 9, 1945.

Lok sabha May 7, 2010Brief record of proceedings NO. 86

Sources of Data : Lok sabha Proceedings

Source of Data National Green Tribunal Bill 63 C of 2009, Lok sabha

An example of amendments inclusionin Policy Process in a similar context

Green Peace Tribunal bill 2009 Only Representative Bodies Any person / body / org can file for compensation Affected to prove Polluter pays and precautionary principle

Green Peace Tribunal bill 2010 No Appeal to Supreme court Appeal to Supreme court

OLD

Fixed Benches

MODIFIED

circuit basis

Opposition by Members across Party Lines and Left, BJP, Civil Society and NGOsSources of Data :Time of India May 3, 2010

Process in Lok sabha Bills status todayGazette publication

Bill Introduced on May 7, 2010

Process of legislation

Bill Passed with Modifications

T. Subburami Reddy , Chairman Science & Technology Standing committee, RSMedia Publicity

Review by the Standing Committee on July 22, 2010

Legislature Discussion / Debate

Incorporate Modifications

Call for suggestions/ views/ comments of experts/ institutions/ organizations interestedSources of Data :Lok sabha secretariat.

Present Absolute liability regime..Oleum Gas Leak case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it stated held that the measure of compensation must be co-related to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise because such compensation must have a deterrent effect. The larger and more prosperous the enterprise, the greater must be the amount of compensation payable by it for the harm caused on account of an accident in the carrying on of the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity by the enterprise.

RFP by USEPA : Objective QuestionableSources of Data :Environmental, Social Justice and Governance Initiatives - Environment Support Group Trust

Suppliers liability - whyy y y y y

Argument : Nuclear industry no more an infant industry Nuclear technology changing rapidly Complex designs , new generations of nuclear power plants Secrecy of designs - The operator can not be responsible for the risks he can not perceive. All major nuclear accidents in the past Windscale, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl have occurred, in part, because of design flawsSources of Data : http://indialawyers.wordpress.com/2010/06/16/turn-the-nuclear-bill-from-liability-toasset/

Operators recourse world perspectiveCountry Russia USA South Korea Germany India Operator responsibility yes yes yes yes yes Operators recourse Can sue supplier Can sue supplier Can sue supplier Can sue supplier Limited recourse*

*The Indian bill mentions only about willful act or gross negligence on part of supplier. Explicit mention of Design issues is missingSources of Data Civil Liability and Nuclear damages bill : section 17: The Russian approach to nuclear liability, International Journal of Nuclear Law, 2006. http://indialawyers.wordpress.com/2010/06/16/turn-the-nuclear-bill-from-liability-to-asset/

The Policy in current form is NOT comprehensive in

. Accountability . Compensation . Scope . Powers . legal representation

Is the bill in 3, as big as it looks SO ?

Policy Alternativesy

Alternative -1: Major liability for nuclear damage shall be of state. (Current form of the bill)

y

Alternative -2: Equitable sharing of liability, in case of nuclear damage, among various stakeholders.

Standards civil liabilitiesyy

What is meant by strict liability?In case of an accident, meaningful levels of compensation should be available with a minimal level of litigation and difficulty. Strict liability means that the victim is relieved from proving fault. Strict liability means a claimant does not need to prove how an accident occurred.

y y

y

Exclusive liability

of the operator means that in the case of an accident, all claims are to be brought against the nuclear operator. By inference suppliers or builders of the plant are protected from public litigation in the case of an accident.

y y y

Mandatory financial coverage: Operator must maintain insurancecover to pay for damages.

The minimum amount of protection: Set by national laws in theline with international treaty obligations.

Exclusive jurisdiction: Mean the courts of the country in which theaccident occurs has jurisdiction over damages claims.

Standards civil liabilitiesLimitation of liability: y Protects individual nuclear operators from legal action and thus is often controversial.y y

Limiting the amount that operators would have to pay, the risks of an accident are effectively socialized. Beyond a certain level of damage, responsibility is passed from the individual operator either on to the State or a mutual collective of nuclear operators, or indeed both. These limitations recognizes the lot of social benefits of nuclear power so govt should bear the liability by permitting power plant construction and operation Liability of the operator is absolute, except for "acts of armed conflict, hostilities, civil war or insurrection";

y

y

y

Standards civil liabilitiesInternational conventions governing liability for nuclear damage

Trans-boundary damage has led to the development of international frameworksy

Paris conventionOperator State Member state

y

IAEA guidelinesOperator State Member state

Various conventionsFinancial liabilityOperator US$ million Collective fund (Member state) US$ million (Rs. Crores) 125 (625) 175 (875) 600 (3000) Installation state Total US$ million US$ million

(Rs. Crores)

Paris convention (1963) Paris convention (modified 2004) IAEA (Vienna Convention) (1997)

300 (1500)

903 (4515)

387 (1935)

645 (3225)

1936 (9680)

I

450 (2250)

(450-I)

900 (4500)

Sources of Data : IAEA sources

Financial liabilities various nationsCountry

Operator (US$ million)

Installation state (US$ million)

Collective operators (US$ million) (Rs. Crores)

Convention(US$ million)

US UK Germany France Switzerland Finland Sweden Canada Japan Russia India

(Rs. Crores) 300 (1500) 214 (1070) 3200 (16000) 117 (585) 777 (3885) 907 (4535) 907 (4535) 650 (3250) 1200 (6000) 350 (1750) 110 (500)

Unlimited 450 As per convention As per convention As per convention As per convention As per convention As per convention As per convention As per convention As per convention

9700 (48500)Paris convention Paris convention Paris convention Paris convention Paris convention (modified 2004) Paris convention (modified 2004) Paris convention Paris convention Paris convention Paris conventionSources of Data : IAEA sources

Standards civil liabilitiesUS Framework: The USA takes a somewhat different approachy

The Price Anderson Act - the world's first comprehensive nuclear liability law It now provides $10 billion in cover without cost to the public or government Individual operators are required to have two layers of insurance cover. The first layer is where each nuclear site is required to purchase US$ 300 million liability cover which is provided by two private insurance pools. The second layer is jointly provided by all US reactor operators. Combined, the total provision comes to over $10 billion paid for by the utilities. Beyond this cover and irrespective of fault, Congress, as insurer of last resort,

y

y

y

y

y

Criteria for evaluation of AlternativeAccident risk of Operator y Sharing the Risk Cost y Maximization of Risk Compensationy

Evaluation of policy alternativesAlternative 1 Accident risk per Incident Sharing of risk Operator Max 500 Cr (Min. 100 Cr) Limited operator liability Major and beyond Rs 500 Cr Government Remarks Supplier not responsible . Chances for low safety precautions High tax burden on public and less burden on Operator Will not get insurance coverage for Govt part. So, High one time cost burden.

Alternative 1 is current proposed policySources of Data : Civil Liability tabled in Parliament

Evaluation of policy alternativesAlternative 2 Accident risk Operator As per Internationa l Practices $ 300 M (Rs. 1500 Cr) Operators group $ 5000 Mn till # of operators 2 $ 8000 Mn > 2 operators (25000 cr to 40000 cr) Government Remarks Beyond the operators group coverage Public liability is less.

Insurance coverage for operators suppliers, Manufactures

Min 2 Insurance companies should cover the financial liability. Financially Liable

Selection of the AlternativeIn Second Alternative we have : Accident risk of Operator : Rs 1500 Cr y Sharing the Risk Cost : 25000 to 40000 Cr y Maximization of Risk Compensationy

In view of above factors of Alternative 2, this alternative is recommended. There may be resistance from suppliers. But considering the quantum of Business of $ 800 billion market (Rs. 40 lakh Cr) there is lot of competition among suppliers to reach India first.

Confronting trade offs

Op Shakti: Buddha Smiled again Shakti:y

11-13 May 1998 at Pokhran

US Sanctions?y

Fact of IndiaRelative large of economy Relatively large domestic sector

y

Result-

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 GDP

99 1

9 7-

8 99 1

9 8-

9

Strategic design of USy

Increased strategic ties with IndiaPost world war De-hyphenisation of Pakistan with India Viable counter weight to Chinas influence Potential client to compete with Russia

y

IndiaSelf sufficient in thorium (25% world reserve); but only 1% world reserve of uranium Indias stake with US increases, if uranium supply increases

On March 2, 2006 in New Delhi, George W. Bush and Manmohan Singh

Highlights of nuclear dealy y

No hindrance with India's military nuclear programme US help IndiaNegotiate with IAEA for India-specific fuel supply agreement. Develop strategic reserves of nuclear fuel to guard against future disruption of supply. To jointly convene NSG meetings to restore fuel supply. To facilitate nuclear trade between themselves To transfer nuclear material, non-nuclear material, equipment and components.

Highlights of nuclear dealy y

Low enriched uraniumFor use as fuel in reactors

Deal includeResearch, development, design, construction, operation, maintenance and use of nuclear reactors, reactor experiments and decommissioning.

y

US haveRight to seek return of nuclear fuel & technology But will compensate for costs incurred as a consequence of such removal

India can develop strategic reserve of nuclear fuel y Consultations on circumstancesy

Including changed security environment

Highlights of nuclear dealy

Following can also be transferredSensitive nuclear technology, Nuclear facilities and Major critical components

y

India to establish a new national facilityDedicated to reprocessing safeguarded nuclear material under IAEA safeguards.

y

Nuclear material and equipment transferred to India by US subject to safeguards

Political opposition!y

BJPAssurance of uninterrupted supply of fissile material uranium? What if India conducts Nuclear Test?

y

Left FrontDeal would undermine the sovereignty of India's foreign policy Harm India's indigenous nuclear program Withdrew support to the government

y

United Nationalist Progressive Alliance: Divided over nuclear dealSamajwadi Partys support Telugu Desham Partys opposition

y

BSPDeal was anti muslim

y

OtherSome Indian ex-nuclear scientists to Indian MPs to ensure that "decisions taken today do not inhibit India's future ability to develop & pursue nuclear technologies for the benefit of the nation US may use the deal as diplomatic weapon Indian not conforming with geopolitical interests of US

Testing?y

Have we surrendered our decision?Not legally But for all practical purposes.

y

Talk of multi-layered consultations and actionsPublic relations exercise

Fallback safeguarded safeguards?y

IAEA to apply safeguards in member states in a cost effective manner A large inflow of extra-budgetary grants for this activity. Huge spurt in safeguards load from India Cost substantially has to be met by additional extra budgetary grants In future, IAEA puts its hands up for US to step in? Then US inspectors roam around in our Nuclear Plants Irrespective of what our prime minister has assured

y y y

y y

123 Agreement: expectations?Enrichment technology y Reprocessing & y Heavy water technologyy

Full civil nuclear cooperation?Issue of full civil cooperation not resolved in our favour. y Embargoes will continue On enrichment, reprocessing & heavy water.y y

Not get rid of sanctions Despite India taking on a whole lot of burdens on safeguards and other aspects

Recommendations to the Bill

Issues of the policyy

in current form

Current lack of accountability in terms of bearing the liability. Sharing of liability under the bill is not equitable. The policy is not Legally and financially binding the supplier / Implementation agency.

y

Amount of financial assistance and legal relief is inadequate y Only AERB is authorized to declare the incidenty y

Accountability on operations side ; the policy deals more with appointing of claims commissioner, commission etc. Organization set up is more described than issues.Sources of Data : 'Nuclear Power in India',World Nuclear News, February 15, 2010.

Recommendations to the Current BillConditions of compensation and accountability as per alternative 2 To be comprehensive to cover other LAWS such as NGTA 2010 Technical expertise in Claims Commissiony

Bill to be modified keeping Alternative 2 into consideration in terms of compensation and accountability. Technical expertise to be incorporated in defining the criteria for the compensation commission. The bill should provide the comprehensive scope as defined in other laws and applicability of other laws such as NGTA 2010

y

y

Claims can not be made by representative bodies Scope to include Natural Calamities and armed conflict, Terrorism etc.y

Include in Section 5.1 the scope for natural calamity, armed conflict etc.

.. bigger picture than this bill

Bigger Picturey

Subject the Nuclear Bill to widespread, deep and deliberate nation-wide public consultations and with expert groups

y

Analyse the Economic and Climatic viability of Nuclear projects vs. RES options with world wide experience. Logic ofNuclear option as the primary source of energy ???If climate change is the problem, nuclear power isnt the solution. Its an expensive, onesize-fits-all technology that diverts money and time from cheaper, safer, more resilient alternatives.

y

Myth of Nuclear power primary role in future to be analyzed

from feasibility. Current reactors understood to be generating with LOW efficiencies. 5,531 MW grid interactive power generation from various renewable energy sources has been installed up to January 31st 2010 against a target of 12,300 MW for 11th Five Year Plan

Sources of Data : RES MInistry

Thanks

Statesmans Dilemmay

Dr. Manmohan Singh, the Indian Prime Minister who single-mindedly spearheaded the India-US nuclear deal, had put it succinctly in his convocation address in the Indian School of Mine. Nuclear power programme which was initiated in the country more than 40 years back has not progressed as envisagedthe target of 20,000 MW fixed in 1970 has badly slipped In many countries nuclear power has been down graded due to safety hazardsThere is an urgent need to re-evaluate the role of nuclear power taking into account both relative costs as well as safety hazards. It goes without saying that we need strong and autonomous regulatory authorities to check the safety measures in all our atomic power plants. The atomic safety regulatory authority needs to be strengthened and made fully autonomous. Ironically, this is the position we take now as Dr. Singh himself is trying hard to sell the money-guzzling, waste-producing, disease-causing and weaponsproliferating nuclear power to the Indian public

Sources of Data : convocation address in the Indian School of Mines on June 12, 2000 (published in University News 38 (24), p.11):

USEPA s RFP with vested interestsy

Request for Proposal issued by United States Environment Protection Agency wherein any international non-profit organisation can bid for a grant amounting to US $ 500,000/- to implement the following goal: The first activity that the selected recipient should undertake is the organization of a workshop with a cross-section of Indian stakeholders and experts to facilitate a dialogue concerning the establishment of environmental civil judicial authority in India. This dialogue should be preceded by an analysis, to be developed by EPA, of Indias current and relevant statutory provisions, with a discussion of their interpretations and application in civil cases, as well as specific recommended changes to the Indian Constitution or environmental statues/regulations that are necessary to establish civil judicial authorities. (emphasis ours).

Sources of Data : USEPA

Sources of Data :http://www.igcar.ernet.in/nuclear/reacto1.jpg