archive-org.com » ORG » A » AMACAD.ORG

Total: 1374

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Challenges to the Liability Framework & Possible Solutions - American Academy of Arts & Sciences
    where the financial security is inadequate to pay for the claims public funds in the installation state are commonly used as the next source of funding As seen in the cases of Chernobyl and now Fukushima a large portion of the cost of an accident is more often than not borne by the affected countries and their taxpayers This poses a serious challenge to the acceptability of nuclear power as a viable option especially for developing countries e g in the South Asia region or ASEAN as the compensation mechanisms may be inadequate and could result in a lack of support among local communities for nuclear energy in these countries This argument in fact gained significant momentum in India and resulted in the Indian law evolving a concept of supplier liability that is discussed elsewhere in this paper This argument has also been raised in the context of Fukushima However any such argument also needs to be examined from a realistic perspective Presently no insurance pool would be in a position to provide insurance in the range of hundreds of billions of dollars Consequently no commercial entity can be expected to open itself to the possibility of being completely bankrupted in the event of a nuclear accident Such an approach would effectively discourage nuclear energy activities This is clearly a challenging paradox How can the nuclear industry meaningfully contribute to the economic costs of a nuclear accident while at the same time continue to be economically viable In considering the possible ways of addressing this paradox it is important to keep in mind the evolution of international principles of liability Rather than discarding these principles as unworkable or impractical the approach for reforms in this regard should be to build on the existing platforms provided by the international conventions particularly the CSC At the moment the structure of creating a fund as in the case of the Price Anderson Act or the CSC appears to provide a starting point to address this challenge However rather than confining contributions to such a fund within a jurisdiction as with the Price Anderson Act the nuclear industry can consider creation of such a fund at an international or a regional level Contributors to the fund should include not only nuclear operators but also suppliers Additionally states can also contribute to such a fund Considering the relative rarity of nuclear accidents yet the large scale consequences of such an event it would be in the interest of all stakeholders particularly of the nuclear industry to create such a fund Rather than being solely operator driven as in the case of Price Anderson or solely state driven as in the case of the CSC a combined operator and state driven approach along with contributions from the supplier community would result in a much more robust fund which could provide meaningful compensation in the event of a nuclear accident The concept of the nuclear supplier community contributing in the event of a nuclear accident is not

    Original URL path: https://www.amacad.org/content/publications/pubContent.aspx?d=1510 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive


  • India's Nuclear Liability Act - American Academy of Arts & Sciences
    an acceptance of the principle of supplier liability and if such an agreement were to be finally signed between India and Russia it would mark a watershed moment in international nuclear liability jurisprudence France Although France has also consistently opposed the provisions of the CLNDA in a recent interview French President François Hollande stated Regarding civil nuclear liability we obviously respect Indian law It is the sovereign decision of a country that has witnessed catastrophes like the Bhopal gas tragedy 75 While Hollande s statement does not constitute definitive acceptance of or willingness to be subject to the CLNDA many Indian reports have interpreted it as a positive indication Further French conglomerate AREVA has already made substantial investments in India and seems unlikely to abandon its potential investments there simply because of the CLNDA While there has been no statement from the French authorities that they would not go ahead with investments in India in the nuclear energy sector because of the CLNDA if Russia and India arrive at an agreement there is a strong possibility that France would follow the same model in relation to supplier liability United States The United States has consistently maintained the position that until India synchronizes the CLNDA with the CSC and ratifies the CSC U S companies such as GE and Westinghouse will not take part in nuclear power projects in India Recently the principal deputy assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian affairs Geoffrey Pyatt urged the Indian government to consult with the IAEA to ensure that the Indian liability law accomplishes the objective shared by the United States and India of moving India into the international mainstream of civil nuclear commerce stating India s nuclear liability is not in line with international nuclear liability principles reflected in the CSC 76 Pyatt also clarified that the current liability law imposes a risk of heavy financial burden on equipment suppliers seeking to enter the Indian market and exposes them to significant financial penalties in the event of a nuclear accident Recent reports indicate that the Indian government is proposing some sort of waiver by which certain provisions of the Indian liability law would not apply to U S nuclear suppliers 77 This view however has been criticized and it would be extremely difficult for the Indian government to exempt only American companies from certain parts of the Indian liability law 78 On June 13 2013 Westinghouse and the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited NPCIL signed a memorandum of understanding MoU for an early works agreement in relation to the Westinghouse AP 1000 79 While the MoU is silent on issues of liability this does indicate a willingness on the part of both India and the United States to work together to address the issue of supplier liability Thus the situation with regard to the United States is evolving but it does suggest that the United States will continue lobbying with India until the CLNDA has been changed to bring it

    Original URL path: https://www.amacad.org/content/publications/pubContent.aspx?d=1511 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Conclusion - American Academy of Arts & Sciences
    the entire world At the same time any viable nuclear liability regime would also have to provide sufficiently high levels of compensation and accessible funds This should not be the responsibility of states alone and the nuclear industry including the supplier community has to step forward in making reasonable contributions to such a regime within acceptable economic parameters that do not discourage the private sector from continuing its important role within the nuclear industry The model of the CSC whereby states contribute to an international pool of funds can be further strengthened with contributions from the nuclear industry including the supplier community Any model that provides for maximum compensation must be welcomed and to this end the CSC appears to be a step in the right direction The CSC also intends to supplement other liability frameworks including the Paris and Vienna Conventions In fact Article XII 3 a and b of the CSC envisages that regional arrangements or agreements can be entered into by contracting parties to the CSC Thus while future regional frameworks could provide for principles of liability transboundary incidents and other critical aspects like siting as well as regional mapping of risk zones and possible risk scenarios within a region the CSC model along with an additional contribution from the industry would provide a significant boost to these regional frameworks by providing accessible funds Recent support from France and Japan for the CSC also brings it closer to coming into force The CSC would therefore be a meaningful base on which a reformed nuclear liability regime could be built Any discussions on reconsidering international nuclear liability law should also factor in the unique challenges of countries that are new entrants in nuclear energy in particular those that plan to rely exclusively on foreign operators and suppliers Since none of the international or domestic laws deal with this scenario it is important that some thought is provided on this aspect as well Another major issue which is likely to be increasingly raised in the Asia region is the new model of international nuclear liability law introduced by the CLNDA If France and Russia agree to function under this law it could set a precedent for the acceptability of supplier liability that would fundamentally alter commercial practices in the area of nuclear commerce Wider acceptance of this liability regime would also have a significant impact on countries such as Vietnam that are in the process of formulating their own liability laws Other countries in the ASEAN region such as Malaysia and Indonesia may also consider adopting the CLNDA model particularly in light of the incident at Fukushima where a large portion of the liability fell to the government and ultimately the Japanese taxpayer Civil society played a strong role in highlighting the approach taken by India in formulating its liability law and it is not inconceivable that this aspect of supplier liability would enter the public discourse of countries that are considering liability laws and would put pressure on

    Original URL path: https://www.amacad.org/content/publications/pubContent.aspx?d=1512 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Appendix A: Summary of Provisions of International Nuclear Liability Conventions - American Academy of Arts & Sciences
    liability of operator for damage due to armed conflict hostilities civil war or insurrection or due to grave natural disaster of exceptional character Same as under PC Additionally if operator proves nuclear damage resulted wholly partly from gross negligence or act omission with intent to cause damage by any person operator may be relieved to pay damages to such person Same as under VC 6 Right of Recourse Operator shall have right to recourse only if a such right is provided in a written contract or b the incident occurs from an act or omission done with intent to cause damage Same as under PC Same as under PC Additionally contracting parties to enact legislation to enable other contracting parties who paid contribution to benefit from right of recourse of operator Compensation Amounts 7 Liability Limits of Operator Maximum liability of operator is 15 million special drawing rights Contracting party may if provision for insurance provided in accordance with convention increase or decrease amount of liability However a decreased amount of liability of operator shall not be less than 5 million special drawing rights Minimum liability of operator is US 5 million excluding interests and costs RVC Amendment Minimum liability of operator not less than 300 million special drawing rights Liability of operator not less than 150 million special drawing rights and if public funds made available up to 300 million special drawing rights For transitional period of fifteen years liability of operator to be not less than 100 million special drawing rights and if minimum is fixed below 100 million special drawing rights public funds to be made available for compensation Installation state may in its discretion set lower limit of operator s liability to not less than 5 million special drawing rights and make public funds available up to such amount specified for compensation Liability of operator not less than 300 million special drawing rights or not less than 150 million special drawing rights if public funds made available up to 300 million special drawing rights Installation state may in its discretion set lower limit of liability of operator not less than 5 million special drawing rights and make public funds available up to such amount specified for compensation Contracting party may limit liability of operator for ten years to an amount not less than 150 million special drawing rights Maximum amount of operator s liability payable for nuclear incident during carriage is governed by national law 8 Insurance Cover Type and terms of insurance or financial security specified by competent public authority Operator to maintain insurance as specified by installation state If yield of insurance is inadequate installation state to provide public funds RVC Amendment Where liability of operator is unlimited insurance of at least 300 million special drawing rights Installation state may in its discretion set lower limit of insurance to not less than 5 million special drawing rights Same as under VC and RVC Amendment 9 Public Funds Contracting party to take necessary measures to

    Original URL path: https://www.amacad.org/content/publications/pubContent.aspx?d=1513 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Appendix B: Summary of Liability Limits by Country - American Academy of Arts & Sciences
    the Academy Bulletin Magazine of the Academy Books Research Papers Monographs and Project Publications Meetings Overview Induction 2015 Upcoming Meetings and Events Friday Forum 2015 2016 Schedule Past Meetings and Events Fellowships Overview Visiting Scholars Program Hellman Fellowship in Science and Technology Policy Policy Fellowship in the Humanities Education and the Arts Policy Fellowship in Global Security and International Affairs The Exploratory Fund Member Login User Name Password Forgot your password Home Nuclear Liability A Key Co Appendix B Summary of Liab Nuclear Liability A Key Component of the Public Policy Decision to Deploy Nuclear Energy in Southeast Asia Appendix B Summary of Liability Limits by Country Country Operator Liability Millions Government Liability Millions Law United States 11 900 Unlimited Price Anderson Act 1957 France 861 300 Atomic Energy Act 1960 Japan Unlimited Unlimited Law on Compensation for Nuclear Damage and Law on Contract for Liability Insurance for Nuclear Damage 1961 amended 2009 Russia Not specified Unlimited Federal Law on the Use of Atomic Energy 1995 amended 2010 Canada 73 No limit specified Nuclear Liability Act 1985 United Kingdom 224 approx 481 approx Nuclear Installations Act 1965 Germany Unlimited 2 500 Act on the Peaceful Utilization of Atomic Energy and

    Original URL path: https://www.amacad.org/content/publications/pubContent.aspx?d=1514 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Appendix C: Analysis of the Provisions Relating to Supplier Liability under India's Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act (CLNDA) - American Academy of Arts & Sciences
    the intent to cause nuclear damage Sections 17 a and c are in sync with the model law provided for in the CSC and other international conventions Sub clause b is the controversial portion Under the terms of section 17 b an operator that has paid out compensation may subsequently seek reimbursement from a supplier whose products or services may have patent or latent defects or are substandard The patent or latent defects or substandard services test is subjective No precedent exists in the nuclear industry to guide how these standards might be applied in an Indian court Furthermore any given nuclear power project will have multiple suppliers Pinning fault for a specific incident on a given component will be extremely difficult and will almost certainly result in protracted litigation The international nuclear community has not surprisingly reacted negatively to the inclusion of supplier liability in the CLNDA However the act contains another controversial provision Section 46 The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force and nothing contained herein shall exempt the operator from any proceeding which might apart from this Act be instituted against such operator According to section 46 of the act other Indian laws that would normally apply to an industrial accident will also apply to nuclear accidents along with the provisions of the CLNDA This has the effect of making the supplier subject to any Indian law that applies to an industrial accident e g laws covering criminal liability or damage claims under tort law Both these aspects of the CLNDA have caused foreign governments and suppliers significant anxiety The concepts broached by these two sections of the act were previously unheard of in international nuclear liability jurisprudence and countries

    Original URL path: https://www.amacad.org/content/publications/pubContent.aspx?d=1515 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Contributors - American Academy of Arts & Sciences
    Forum Humanities Arts and Education Science Engineering and Technology Global Security and International Affairs American Institutions and the Public Good Publications Overview Dædalus Journal of the Academy Bulletin Magazine of the Academy Books Research Papers Monographs and Project Publications Meetings Overview Induction 2015 Upcoming Meetings and Events Friday Forum 2015 2016 Schedule Past Meetings and Events Fellowships Overview Visiting Scholars Program Hellman Fellowship in Science and Technology Policy Policy Fellowship in the Humanities Education and the Arts Policy Fellowship in Global Security and International Affairs The Exploratory Fund Member Login User Name Password Forgot your password Home Nuclear Liability A Key Co Contributors Nuclear Liability A Key Component of the Public Policy Decision to Deploy Nuclear Energy in Southeast Asia Contributors Mohit Abraham is Partner at PXV Law Partners and Advocate on Record of the Supreme Court of India He is on the Governing Board of the Nuclear Law Association of India and also chairs its working group on nuclear liability Stephen M Goldberg is former Senior Consultant to the American Academy s Global Nuclear Future Initiative Robert Rosner is the William E Wrather Distinguished Service Professor in the Departments of Astronomy and Astrophysics and Physics at the University of

    Original URL path: https://www.amacad.org/content/publications/pubContent.aspx?d=1516 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Preface - American Academy of Arts & Sciences
    trust in the system that protects all of us against the timeless threat of communicable diseases and the result is dangerous and costly outbreaks that are poised to grow worse in the future There is evidence that for some parents simply providing accurate information about vaccines is not enough How can physicians nurses and other health professionals engage the growing ranks of vaccine hesitant parents And what is at stake if our public health and scientific leadership do not respond to this worrisome turn of events These questions get to the crux of the reshaped communication landscape we all face It is no longer enough for scientists and federal institutions to issue recommendations they also need to develop evidence based communication strategies and implement them in consultation with those whom they are committed to protect The expectation that experts will engage in a dialogue with citizens was addressed in a 2010 report of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences Do Scientists Understand the Public which concluded that just as the public must be educated on scientific topics so too must the scientific community be educated on public attitudes and opinions 4 Taking the 2010 report as its inspiration the American Academy convened a workshop of leading researchers practitioners and policy makers across a range of disciplines from anthropology and communications to pediatric medicine and public health The goal was to delineate the types of research that would yield insights to inform evidence based strategies for effective communication about childhood vaccination The workshop Public Trust in Vaccines Defining a Research Agenda was held on September 26 27 2013 As the cochairs of the workshop we are indebted to the workshop participants and to the Academy staff who assisted with the organization of the workshop and the preparation of this report

    Original URL path: https://www.amacad.org/content/publications/pubContent.aspx?d=1455 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive



  •