TNAG-1657-FCO40-2305-Daya-Bay-nuclear-power-station-project-safety-concerns-in-Ho-1987 — Page 83

6

22 Belgium explained that their law allowed for the possibility of extension of scope by Royal Decree. For the UK we made it clear that our law had moved in the opposite direction in 1983. While the UK fully supported the extension of coverage of the Conventions it was felt that giving the benefits away freely removed much of the pressure for other parties to join the Convention system. Luxembourg took the view that as a non-nuclear state they had no interest in joining. They therefore supported the FRG position.

23 France explained that they were ambivalent on this question. They planned to implement the Recommendation of the Steering Committee that cover should be provided for damage in contracting states no matter where the incident occurred, but proposed to cover damage in non-contracting states only where there were reciprocal arrangements. The Chairman confirmed that the Dutch position was that security was only required to meet Convention liabilities. Norway and Denmark explained that their laws covered damage in non- Convention states where a national operator was liable - although this could be subject to the existence of reciprocal arrangements.

24 Summing up, the Chairman noted the divergent opinions among delegations but felt there was some clear support for moves to extend i the territorial scope on the Conventions. He requested the Secretariat to consider the text of a possible Recommendation (of the Steering Committee) that states should extend the scope of

legislation to cover damage in non-contracting parties. This would be considered at the next meeting.

VIII UNLIMITED LIABILITY

25 This item provoked a lively but inconclusive discussion on the merits and practicality of unlimited liability. FRG, who had already introduced unlimited liability, were strongly in favour, as were Austria. Belgium, France and the UK were concerned particularly that security could not be provided for unlimited liability, and the provision of security was one of the main benefits of the Convention system. Removal of limits on liability would also make it more difficult to maintain one of the other main benefits of the system, which was the channelling of all claims to the operator. UNIPEDE were concerned about the economic effects of placing an unlimited liability on operators. Unless insurance cover could be obtained in such terms (which seemed unlikely) this could force the industry, or parts of it, to close down.

26 The Chairman summed up by saying that this was an issue of principle which needed more attention, and should be returned to at the next meeting. In the meantime he requested delegations to let the Secretariat have their views on the general question of unlimited liability.