ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

CIVIL LIABILITY FOR NUCLEAR INCIDENTS

ABSTRACT

Civil liability in the context of nuclear incidents refers to the legal responsibility of
parties involved in nuclear industry for damages caused by accidents or incidents related to
nuclear facilities, materials, or activities. These liabilities encompass compensation for
personal injury, property damage, economic losses and environmental harm resulting from
nuclear incidents. The possibility of a civilian nuclear accident is slim but real given the
growing number of nuclear reactors in operation around the world and the ongoing usage of
radioactive materials in industry and healthcare. An overview of the most significant historical,
medical and scientific elements connected to the most prominent nuclear accidents to date is
given in this page. Basic concepts of radiation monitoring, triage issue and the immediate and
long-term care of individuals exposed to radiation have all been covered. It is important to
provide and maintain sufficient radiation safety for emergency workers and first responders.
Lastly, a summary of the preventive, therapeutic and decontamination aspects related to
exposure to different radioactive elements is provided.

KEYWORDS: Civilian nuclear incident, radiation monitoring, radiation syndromes, radio-

active exposure, nuclear accidents, radioactive elements
Contents

INTRODUCTION 6

RESEARCH PROBLEM: 7

RESEARCH QUESTION: 7

REASONS FOR OPTING THESE RESEARCH QUESTIONS 8

IMPORTANT TERMS: 9

OVERVIEW OF THE INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORKS 12

IMPORTANCE OF CIVIL LIABILITY IN ENSURING ACCOUNTABILITY AND COMPENSATION

13

CONVENTIONS ON CIVIL LIABILITY 14

SOLUTIONS FOR RESEARCH PROBLEM 17

INLEX RECOMMENDATIONS ON WAYS OF FACILITATING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A
GLOBAL NUCLEAR LIABILITY REGIME 21
LIABILITY OF NUCLEAR OPERATORS 21
INDIA’S CIVIL LIABILITY FOR NUCLEAR DAMAGE ACT (CLNDA) of 2010 23
IMPLICATIONS AND CHALLENGES 25
THE WAY FORWARD 26
CONCLUSION 27
 INTRODUCTION
Big nuclear disasters are a genuine possibility and preparedness measures must be in place in
the event of a big civilian nuclear accident, whether caused by external events or human error.
Significant radiation emissions and possibly dangerous radioactive pollution can result from
events outside of human control, such as major natural catastrophes, as demonstrated by the
recent nuclear issue at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility in Japan. The history of
significant civilian nuclear accidents (CNIs) as well as the body of knowledge about the
medical treatment of radiation exposure victims will be compiled in this page.

Civil liability for nuclear incidents constitutes a critical component of the legal and regulatory
framework governing the nuclear industry. It encompasses the legal responsibility of parties
involved in nuclear activities, particularly operators of nuclear facilities, to compensate
individuals and entities for damages resulting from accidents.

In India, laws relating to civil liability of nuclear incidents are primarily governed by the
following statutes –

1. Civil Liability of Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 (CLND Act).

2. The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Rules, 2011

3. The Nuclear Damage Claims Commission (NDCC)

Although the nuclear industry maintains very high safety standards,, the potential for an
unintentional reactor malfunction and release of radioactive materials into the environment
represents a significant danger. 1 In addition, there are significant risks associated with the
medical use of radioactive materials, as well as storage and transport of spent nuclear fuels. 2
There were very few major nuclear power-related mishaps in the civilian domain and the most
of them were self-limited.

1
Gerber TC, Carr JJ, Arai AE, Dixon RL, Ferrari VA, Gomes AS, et al. Ionizing radiation in cardiac imaging:
A science advisory from the American Heart Association Committee on Cardiac Imaging of the Council on
Clinical Cardiology and Committee on Cardiovascular Imaging and Intervention of the Council on
Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention. Circulation. 2009;119:1056–65.
RESEARCH PROBLEM:
The current legal framework for civil liability in nuclear incidents faces challenges in
adequately addressing the potential scale and complexity of damages caused by such events.
These challenges include limitations on compensation amounts, issues of causation, and the
evolving nature of nuclear technology.

RESEARCH QUESTION:
1. Focus on Fairness and Equity:
i) How can the current framework be adapted to ensure fair and equitable compensation
for victims across different geographical regions affected by a nuclear incident?
ii) How can the needs of future generations be factored into compensation schemes for
long-term environmental damage caused by nuclear accidents?
2. Focus on International Cooperation:
iii) What challenges exist in enforcing civil liability across national borders in the event
of a trans-boundary nuclear incident?
iv) How can international cooperation on civil liability be strengthened to ensure
consistent application of legal principles and efficient compensation for victims?
3. Focus on Specific Technologies:
v) How should the existing framework be adapted to address potential civil liability
issues arising from new nuclear technologies like small modular reactors?
vi) How can the role of nuclear waste disposal facilities be incorporated into civil
liability regimes to ensure long-term accountability for potential environmental damage?
4. Focus on Social and Economic Impacts:
vii) To what extent does the current framework adequately address the social and
economic consequences of nuclear incidents beyond direct physical damage?
viii) How can civil liability mechanisms be used to incentivize preventative measures
that minimize the long-term social and economic disruption caused by nuclear accidents?
5. Focus on Procedural Issues:
ix) How can civil liability claims processes be streamlined to expedite compensation
for victims in the aftermath of a nuclear incident?
 x) What alternative dispute resolution mechanisms could be explored to provide
efficient and effective avenues for resolving civil liability claims arising from nuclear
accidents?

REASONS FOR OPTING THESE RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. Ensuring Fairness and Equity:
 Nuclear incidents can have far-reaching consequences, affecting people and
environments across vast distances.
 The current framework might not adequately address the needs of victims in
geographically diverse areas.
 Additionally, long-term environmental damage can impact future generations who
weren't directly exposed to the incident.
 These questions aim to explore ways to ensure everyone affected receives fair
compensation and that long-term consequences are considered.

2. International Cooperation:
 Nuclear accidents don't respect national borders.
 The current framework might have limitations in enforcing liability across borders if a
nuclear incident affects multiple countries.
 Stronger international cooperation could ensure consistent legal application and
efficient victim compensation.

3. Adapting to Evolving Technologies:

 New nuclear technologies like small modular reactors may have unique risks.
 The existing framework might need adjustments to address potential civil liability
issues arising from these advancements.
 Similar concerns apply to nuclear waste disposal facilities, where long-term
accountability for potential environmental damage is crucial.

4. Addressing Social and Economic Impacts:

 Nuclear incidents have wider social and economic impacts beyond immediate physical
damage.
 These could include population displacement, loss of livelihoods, and long-term
disruption to economic activities.
  The existing framework might not adequately address these issues. Researching how
civil liability mechanisms can incentivize preventative measures and ensure
compensation for such impacts is important.

5. Addressing Procedural Issues:

 Timely compensation
 for victims is crucial in the aftermath of a nuclear incident.
 Streamlining claims processes and exploring alternative dispute resolution mechanisms
can expedite compensation and provide efficient avenues for resolving claims.

IMPORTANT TERMS:
1. NUCLEAR INCIDENT:
The specific definition of a nuclear incident can vary between jurisdictions, but it
generally encompasses any occurrence involving a nuclear facility or material that
results in nuclear damage. For example, the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act,
2010 in India defines a nuclear incident as "any occurrence, including any radiation
hazard occurring within a nuclear installation, or during transportation of nuclear
material, resulting in any nuclear damage."

2. NUCLEAR DAMAGE:
This term typically refers to the harm or loss caused by a nuclear incident. Statutory
definitions may specify the types of harm or loss covered, such as loss of life, bodily
injury, property damage, economic loss, and environmental damage. For instance, the
United States' Price-Anderson Act defines nuclear damage as "injury to or loss of
property or to an individual, including death, resulting from the radioactive, toxic,
explosive, or other hazardous properties of source, special nuclear, or byproduct
material."

3. OPERATOR:
The operator of a nuclear facility is usually defined as the entity responsible for its
operation. This definition may include criteria such as ownership, control, or licensing.
For example, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) defines an operator as
"any person possessing or using a nuclear installation, or having possession of nuclear
 material and using it outside a nuclear installation, or having possession of radioactive
material and using it within a nuclear installation."

4. SUPPLIER:
In the context of nuclear liability, a supplier is typically defined as any person or entity
that supplies nuclear material, equipment, or services to a nuclear facility. This
definition may include manufacturers, vendors, contractors, and subcontractors. The
Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 in India defines a supplier as "any person
who supplies nuclear material, whether directly or through a person or a group of
persons under his control and supervision, for use in a nuclear installation."

5. LIABILITY CAP:
Statutory provisions often establish a maximum limit on the liability of operators or
other liable parties for nuclear damage. This liability cap may be expressed in monetary
terms or as a specific unit of account (e.g., Special Drawing Rights). For example, the
Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy sets a liability
cap of 700 million SDRs for nuclear incidents occurring within its member states.

SOME OTHER DEFINITIONS:

1. Civil Liability: Refers to the legal responsibility of individuals or entities for harm
caused to others as a result of their actions or omissions.

2. Nuclear Incident: Any occurrence or series of occurrences having the same origin that
causes nuclear damage, including any nuclear reactor accident, radiological accident,
or any other occurrence of a similar nature, regardless of whether it involves a nuclear
installation.

3. Nuclear Damage: Refers to loss of life, bodily injury, or damage to property, including
loss of income and cost of reinstatement, arising out of or resulting from a nuclear
incident.
4. Operator: The entity responsible for the operation of a nuclear installation. In the
context of nuclear liability, the operator is typically held strictly liable for nuclear
damage resulting from the operation of the installation.

5. Supplier: Any person who supplies nuclear material, equipment, or services to a

nuclear installation. Depending on the legal framework, suppliers may have limited
liability for nuclear damage under certain conditions.

6. Liability Cap: The maximum amount of compensation for which the operator of a
nuclear installation is liable in the event of a nuclear incident. The liability cap is
typically set by law or international convention.

7. Channelling of Liability: A legal principle that directs liability for nuclear damage
exclusively to the operator of a nuclear installation, shielding other entities such as
suppliers from direct liability. Channelling of liability aims to provide clarity and
certainty regarding liability responsibilities.

8. Recourse: The legal right to seek compensation from another party for harm or loss
suffered. In the context of nuclear liability, recourse provisions may allow for claims
against suppliers or other third parties under certain conditions.

9. Claims Commission: A specialized tribunal or administrative body established to

adjudicate claims for compensation arising from nuclear incidents. Claims
commissions are typically tasked with assessing liability, determining compensation
amounts, and overseeing the distribution of compensation to victims.

10. Insurance Pooling: A mechanism by which multiple operators of nuclear installations

contribute to a common insurance fund or pool to cover liabilities arising from nuclear
incidents. Insurance pooling helps spread the financial risk associated with nuclear
liability among operators.

11. International Conventions: Treaties or agreements between countries that establish

principles and frameworks for nuclear liability at the international level. Important
conventions include the Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of
Nuclear Energy and the Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage.

12. Emergency Preparedness and Response: Measures and plans put in place to respond
effectively to nuclear incidents, mitigate their consequences, and protect public health
 and safety. Effective emergency preparedness and response are integral components of
nuclear liability regimes.

OVERVIEW OF THE INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL LEGAL

FRAMEWORKS
At the international level, civil liability for nuclear incidents is governed by a
framework of conventions and agreements that establish common principles and standards
among participating countries. Key among these are the Paris Convention on Third Party
Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy (1960) and the Brussels Convention Supplementary to
the Paris Convention (1963). These conventions outline the principles of strict liability for
nuclear operators, limitations on liability and the obligation to maintain financial security to
cover potential liabilities arising from nuclear incidents. Additionally, the Convention on
Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC) provides a framework for
international cooperation and assistance in the event of nuclear accidents, particularly those
with trans-boundary implications.

While international conventions provide a framework for nuclear liability, individual

countries implement these principles through national laws and regulations tailored to their
specific legal systems and nuclear industries. National legislation typically addresses the
liability of nuclear operators, the scope and limits of compensation, insurance requirements,
and the establishment of public compensation schemes or funds. Examples of national
legislation include the Price-Anderson Act in the United States and the Nuclear Installations
Act in the United Kingdom, among others.

In the subsequent sections of this assignment, we will delve deeper into the principles
and mechanisms of civil liability for nuclear incidents, examining the liability of nuclear
operators, limitations on liability, insurance and financial security requirements, international
cooperation mechanisms, and challenges facing the current framework. Through this
exploration, we aim to gain a comprehensive understanding of the legal and regulatory
framework governing civil liability in the nuclear sector and its implications for safety,
accountability and compensation in the event of nuclear incidents.
IMPORTANCE OF CIVIL LIABILITY IN ENSURING ACCOUNTABILITY AND
COMPENSATION
Civil liability plays a crucial role in the nuclear industry by ensuring accountability and
providing compensation for damages resulting from nuclear incidents. Several key aspects
underscore the importance of civil liability in this context:

1. Accountability: Civil liability holds parties responsible for their actions and decisions
in the nuclear industry. By establishing legal obligations and consequences for
negligence, recklessness, or failure to adhere to safety standards, civil liability fosters a
culture of accountability among nuclear operators, regulators, and other stakeholders.
This accountability is essential for maintaining public trust, ensuring transparency, and
driving continuous improvement in nuclear safety practices.

2. Deterrence: The threat of civil liability serves as a powerful deterrent against unsafe
practices and behaviours in the nuclear sector. Operators and other entities involved in
nuclear activities are incentivized to prioritize safety measures, risk management, and
compliance with regulations to mitigate the risk of potential liabilities. This deterrence
effect contributes to overall risk reduction and enhances safety culture within the
industry.

3. Compensation for Victims: In the unfortunate event of a nuclear incident, civil

liability mechanisms ensure that victims receive prompt and adequate compensation for
the harm they have suffered. Whether it is personal injury, property damage, economic
losses, or environmental contamination, civil liability provides a legal framework for
victims to seek redress and financial support to rebuild their lives and communities.
This compensation not only addresses the immediate needs of victims but also
contributes to their long-term recovery and rehabilitation efforts.

4. Fairness and Justice: Civil liability promotes fairness and justice by allocating
responsibility and financial burden appropriately among parties involved in nuclear
 incidents. Through legal proceedings and compensation mechanisms, affected
individuals and communities have the opportunity to seek recourse and hold
accountable those responsible for their losses and suffering. This fosters a sense of
fairness in the distribution of costs and a benefit associated with nuclear activities and
ensures that victims are not unfairly burdened by the consequences of accidents or
incidents.

5. Promotion of Safety Culture: By linking financial consequences to safety

performance, civil liability encourages the development of a robust safety culture
within the nuclear industry. Operators and regulators are motivated to invest in safety
measures, training programs, and technological innovations to minimize the risk of
accidents and prevent the occurrence of nuclear incidents. This proactive approach to
safety not only enhances the protection of workers, the public, and the environment but
also contributes to the long-term sustainability and viability of nuclear energy as a clean
and reliable source of power.

CONVENTIONS ON CIVIL LIABILITY

An overview of key international conventions related to civil liability for nuclear
incidents provides insight into the global framework established to address the legal
responsibilities and obligations of parties involved in the nuclear industry. Here are two
significant international conventions:

I. Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy (1960):

Objective: The Paris Convention aims to establish a uniform framework for nuclear liability
among its member states, ensuring adequate compensation for victims of nuclear incidents
while promoting the development of nuclear energy.

Key Provisions:

i) Scope of Liability: The convention imposes strict liability on nuclear operators for damages
resulting from nuclear incidents occurring within the territory of member states.

ii) Financial Security: Nuclear operators are required to maintain financial security, such as
insurance or other guarantees, to cover potential liabilities arising from nuclear accidents.
iii) Limitation of Liability: The convention sets a maximum liability amount that nuclear
operators are liable for, beyond which states may provide additional compensation through
national funds or other means.

iv) Membership: The Paris Convention has been ratified by numerous countries, primarily in
Europe, including France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and others.

II. Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC):

Objective: The CSC seeks to establish a global framework for nuclear liability by providing
additional compensation to victims of nuclear incidents and facilitating international
cooperation in nuclear liability matters.

Supplementary Compensation: The convention establishes a supplementary compensation

mechanism to supplement the compensation available under national laws and the Paris
Convention, particularly in the event of trans-boundary nuclear incidents.

International Cooperation: The CSC promotes international cooperation and assistance in the
prompt and equitable compensation of victims, including the exchange of information,
technical assistance, and coordination of legal proceedings.

Membership and Entry into Force: The CSC requires ratification by a minimum number of
countries to enter into force. As of current date, the convention has been ratified by several
countries, including the United States, Japan, Argentina, Morocco, and others.

These international conventions provide a framework for harmonizing nuclear liability

laws and practices among participating countries, ensuring consistency, transparency, and
adequacy of compensation for victims of nuclear incidents. While the Paris Convention
primarily focuses on liability within the territories of member states, the CSC extends the scope
of compensation to cover trans-boundary nuclear incidents, thereby enhancing global
cooperation and solidarity in addressing the consequences of nuclear accidents.

Enforcement of Standards:
 Civil liability establishes and enforces a set of legal standards governing conduct within
society. These standards can be delineated in contracts, statutory law or judicial precedent.
When a party breaches these standards, be it through negligence, intentional misconduct or a
contractual violation, civil liability exposes them to potential legal consequences. This risk of
litigation incentivizes adherence to established norms and discourages harmful behaviour.

Remedial Function:

A fundamental aspect of civil liability is its remedial function. When a party’s actions cause
harm to another, civil law provides a mechanism for the injured party to seek compensation for
their losses.3 This compensation can encompass a broad spectrum of damages, including
economic losses like medical bills and lost wages, as non-economic losses such as pain and
suffering.

By way of illustration, consider a corporation discharging hazardous waste into a river, causing
environmental damage and health problems for residents of a nearby community. Civil liability
would empower the community to sue the corporation to recover compensation for the harm
caused, potentially including costs associated with environmental cleanup, medical treatment
for affected residents, and lost property value.

In essence, civil liability fosters a system of accountability by attaching potential legal and
financial consequences to wrongful conduct. It serves as a deterrent against harmful actions
and ensures that those who cause harm bear the burden of making the injured party whole.4

3
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/unveiling-law-torts-understanding-liability-tushar-sharma
4
https://www.studysmarter.co.uk/explanations/law/civil-law/civil-liability/
 Fig. 1: Nuclear liability instruments

SOLUTIONS FOR RESEARCH PROBLEM

Research Question 1: How can the legal framework for civil liability for nuclear
incidents be improved to ensure adequate compensation for victims and incentivize
strong safety practices by operators?

Potential Solutions:
  Increased Financial Security: As suggested in Hypothesis 1, raising the mandatory
limits on financial security for operators could create a larger pool of funds for victim
compensation.

 Stricter Liability Standards: Hypothesis 2 proposes a stricter liability standard,

making operators liable even without a demonstration of negligence. This could
incentivize stronger safety practices to minimize the risk of incidents altogether.

 Differentiated Liability Regimes: A tiered system might be explored, with stricter

liability for certain activities within the nuclear cycle (e.g., waste disposal) compared
to others (e.g., power generation).

 Channel Funding Mechanisms: Governments or international organizations could

establish dedicated funding channels to supplement compensation in case operator
resources are depleted.

Research Question 2 (Fairness and Equity):

Potential Solutions:

 International Compensation Funds: Establishing international funds, potentially

contributed to by member states, could provide a broader resource pool for
geographically dispersed victims.

 Long-Term Trust Funds: Setting up trust funds specifically for long-term

environmental remediation and rehabilitation projects could address the needs of
future generations.

Research Question 3 (International Cooperation):

Potential Solutions:

 Harmonization of National Laws: International agreements aiming to harmonize

national laws on civil liability for nuclear incidents could ensure consistent
application of legal principles across borders.

 Standing International Tribunals: Establishing specialized tribunals to handle

cross-border claims could offer a neutral and efficient forum for dispute resolution.

Focus on Fairness and Equity:

  Geographically Diverse Victims: Research could explore the feasibility of
international compensation schemes funded by contributions from member states or
the nuclear industry. Additionally, legal mechanisms like collective lawsuits or
representative actions could be explored to streamline claims processes for
geographically dispersed victims.5

 Future Generations: Investigate the creation of long-term trust funds specifically

dedicated to environmental remediation and rehabilitation projects. Legal frameworks
could also consider assigning a monetary value to future environmental damage for
compensation purposes.

Focus on International Cooperation:

 Trans-boundary Incidents: Research could delve into the challenges of enforcing

existing international conventions (e.g., Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for
Nuclear Damage) and explore potential amendments for smoother cross-border claims
resolution. Additionally, establishing specialized international insurance pools could
help ensure adequate financial resources for compensating victims in such scenarios.

 Strengthening International Cooperation: Investigate the creation of a dedicated

international body responsible for overseeing the implementation of civil liability
standards and facilitating cooperation between national regulatory bodies. This body
could also serve as a forum for information exchange and best practices regarding
nuclear safety and liability.6

Focus on Specific Technologies :

 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs): Research the specific risks associated with SMRs
and how existing liability frameworks might need to be adapted to address them. This
could involve exploring dedicated insurance requirements or modifications to existing
liability caps to account for potential consequences of SMR incidents.

5
Havemann, Robert. "Intergenerational Justice and Nuclear Risks." Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare
Ethics 10.2 (2001): 170-177. (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-quarterly-of-healthcare-
ethics)
6
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA). "Liability
for Nuclear Accidents." https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_31319/nuclear-liability (Accessed March 25,
2024).
  Nuclear Waste Disposal Facilities: Investigate how to incorporate the long-term
nature of nuclear waste disposal into civil liability regimes. This could involve
extending liability periods for operators or waste disposal facilities, or establishing
dedicated funding mechanisms for potential future environmental damage. 7

Focus on Social and Economic Impacts

 Social and Economic Impacts: Research could explore ways to quantify the social
and economic costs of nuclear incidents beyond direct physical damage. This could
involve developing methodologies for assessing lost livelihoods, population
displacement, and long-term economic disruption. Legal frameworks could then be
designed to incorporate these factors into compensation schemes.

 Preventative Measures: Investigate how civil liability mechanisms can be used to

incentivize preventative measures by operators. This could involve linking liability
caps to safety performance records or creating financial rewards for exceeding safety
standards.8

Focus on Procedural Issues

 Streamlining Claims Processes: Research could explore ways to simplify and

expedite the claims process for victims. This could involve utilizing online filing
systems, establishing dedicated courts or tribunals specializing in nuclear liability
claims, and providing legal aid to victims.

 Alternative Dispute Resolution: Investigate the effectiveness of alternative dispute

resolution mechanisms like mediation or arbitration in resolving civil liability claims
arising from nuclear accidents. These mechanisms could provide a faster and more
cost-effective alternative to traditional litigation. 9

7
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). "Small and Medium Reactors: Safety of Small and Medium
Reactors (SMRs)." https://www.iaea.org/topics/small-modular-reactors (Accessed March 25, 2024).
8
OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA). "The Societal and Economic Effects of Nuclear
Accidents." https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_28749/expert-group-on-costs-of-nuclear-accidents-liability-
issues-and-their-impact-on-electricity-costs-costna (Accessed March 25, 2024).
9
American Bar Association. "Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Section of Dispute
Resolution." https://www.americanbar.org/groups/dispute_resolution/ (Accessed March 25, 2024).
INLEX RECOMMENDATIONS ON WAYS OF FACILITATING THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A GLOBAL NUCLEAR LIABILITY REGIME
Following the Fukushima Daiichi accident, the IAEA’s Policy-Making Organs adopted
the IAEA Action Plan on Nuclear Safety (Action Plan) which, inter alia, called upon the
International Expert Group on Nuclear Liability (INLEX) to recommend actions to facilitate a
global nuclear liability regime addressing the concerns of all States that might be affected by a
nuclear accident, with a view to providing appropriate compensation for nuclear damage.
INLEX adopted its recommendations under the Action Plan in 2012. These recommendations
provide that Member States, in particular those with nuclear installations, should adhere to one
or more of the relevant international nuclear liability instruments that reflect the enhancements
developed following the Chernobyl accident, and that they should strive to establish treaty
relations with as many States as practical. The recommendations also provide that States with
nuclear installations should, inter alia, establish compensation and financial security amounts
significantly higher than the minimum amounts envisaged under the existing instruments,
undertake regular reviews of the adequacy of such amounts, and be prepared to set up
appropriate funding mechanisms in cases where the amounts are insufficient to compensate for
nuclear damage. INLEX was established by the IAEA Director General in 2003 to serve as a
forum for the discussion of issues pertaining to nuclear liability and to promote adherence to
the relevant international legal instruments. INLEX works to enhance global adherence to an
effective nuclear liability regime, on the basis of the nuclear liability conventions.

LIABILITY OF NUCLEAR OPERATORS

The potential consequences of nuclear accidents necessitate a robust legal framework to ensure
accountability and compensation. Here's a breakdown of the key aspects:
A. Principle of Strict Liability and its Application

 Strict Liability: In nuclear liability regimes, the principle of strict liability is often
applied to nuclear operators. This means that the operator can be held financially
responsible for damages caused by a nuclear incident, regardless of fault. 10

 Rationale: Strict liability is imposed due to the potentially catastrophic nature of

nuclear accidents. The burden of proof for demonstrating the absence of fault typically
falls on the operator.

 Limitations: International conventions and national laws often establish limitations on

the amount of operator liability.11 These limitations may be absolute (capped at a
specific amount) or conditional (with supplementary funds available under certain
circumstances).

B. Identification of Nuclear Operators and their Responsibilities

 Nuclear Operator Definition: The definition of a "nuclear operator" can vary

depending on national legislation. Generally, it includes the entity with legal authority
and control over a nuclear facility, such as a power plant or a fuel reprocessing facility.

 Responsibilities: Nuclear operators have a wide range of responsibilities related to

safety, security, and environmental protection.12 These include:

o Safe operation: Maintaining the nuclear facility in accordance with regulatory

requirements and safety protocols.

o Emergency preparedness: Developing and implementing emergency plans to

manage nuclear incidents.

o Waste management: Safely handling, storing, and disposing of radioactive

waste generated by the facility.

10
https://www.iasparliament.com/current-affairs/indian-nuclear-liability-law
11
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/liability-for-nuclear-
damage.aspx#:~:text=Liability%20is%20limited%20by%20both,other%20aspects%20of%20industrial%20societ
y.
12
https://www.iaea.org/publications/factsheets/nuclear-facility- safety#:~:text=Nuclear%20facility%20operators
%20are%20ultimately,people%2C%20society%20and%20the% 20environment.
 o Financial security: Maintaining adequate financial resources to cover potential
liabilities arising from nuclear

C. Case Studies Illustrating Liability of Nuclear Operators in Accidents

 Three Mile Island Accident (1979): A partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island
nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania resulted in a significant cleanup effort. 13

The operator, Metropolitan Edison Company, faced substantial financial liability for
the accident.

 Chernobyl Disaster (1986): The catastrophic accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power
plant in Ukraine resulted in widespread environmental contamination and long-term
health consequences.14 The Soviet Union, as the operator, bore the primary financial
responsibility for the disaster.

 Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster (2011): An earthquake and tsunami triggered

meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan. 15 The operator,
Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), has faced significant financial liabilities for
cleanup, compensation, and decommissioning costs.16

INDIA’S CIVIL LIABILITY FOR NUCLEAR DAMAGE ACT (CLNDA) of 2010

Liability on Operator:

The CLNDA provides for strict and no-fault liability on the operator of the nuclear plant,
where it will be held liable for damage regardless of any fault on its part.

It specifies the amount the operator will have to pay in case of damage caused by an
accident at Rs. 1,500 crore.

It also requires the operator to cover liability through insurance or other financial security.

13
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/three-mile-island-
accident.aspx
14
https://www.britannica.com/event/Chernobyl- disaster#:~:text=The%20Chernobyl%20disaster%20caused
%20serious,long%2Dterm%20negative%20health%2 0effects.
15
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-daiichi-
accident.aspx
16
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Electric_Power_Company#:~:text=TEPCO%20could%20face%20%C2%A
52,people%20affected%20by%20the%20accident.
Government’s Role:

In case the damage claims exceed Rs. 1,500 crore, the CLNDA expects the government to step
in.

It has limited the government liability amount to the rupee equivalent of 300 million Special
Drawing Rights (SDRs).

Supplier Liability Clause: Having realised that the defective parts were partly responsible for
the Bhopal gas tragedy in 1984, the govt went beyond the provisions of CSC to provide for
supplier liability over and above that of the operator in CLNDA.

Under this provision, the operator of the nuclear plant can seek recourse from suppliers in
the event of a nuclear incident caused by supplier actions, including the supply of
equipment or materials with defects, sub-standard services, or the actions of supplier
employees.

The CSC provides for “only” two conditions under which the national law of a country may
provide the operator with the “right of recourse”, where they can extract liability from the
supplier:

o if it is expressly agreed upon in the contract or

o if the nuclear incident “results from an act or omission done with intent to cause
damage”.

Why is the Supplier Liability Clause an Issue in Nuclear Deals?

 Deters Foreign and Domestic Suppliers: Foreign as well as domestic suppliers of

nuclear equipment have been wary of operationalizing nuclear deals with India as it has
the only law where suppliers can be asked to pay damages.

 Makes Suppliers Vulnerable: The suppliers have raised concerns about potentially
getting exposed to unlimited liability under CLNDA as the compensation amount is
not fixed under the law as it has been fixed for the operator.

o Moreover, they also have highlighted the ambiguity over how much
insurance is to be set aside in case of damage.
  Lack of Clarity involves Other Laws: In the absence of a comprehensive definition
on the types of ‘nuclear damage’, the act potentially allows civil liability claims to be
brought against the operator and suppliers through other civil laws.

 Attracts Criminal Liability: The Act does not prevent a person from bringing
proceedings against the operator under any law other than this Act. It allows
criminal liability to be pursued against the operator and the supplier wherever
applicable.

What are the Other Issues with CLNDA?

 Monetary Capping on Compensation: The act fixes the liability to a certain monetary
limit (for operators: Rs. 1,500 crore, for government: rupee equivalent of 300 mn
SDRs). The biggest problem with such capping is the situations when the damage
exceeds the limit.

o The Act does not expressly provide for any provision with respect to cost of
damages exceeding the limit.

 Burden on Taxpayers: In India, these plants are state owned and operated through
NPCIL and so ultimately the responsibility for such disasters will be borne by common
taxpayers.

 Neglect of the Additional Costs: Past incidents such as Chernobyl have shown that
the party at fault for a nuclear incident must bear additional costs such as cleaning up
and safe disposal of nuclear waste, which are expensive and require caution.

o However, the Act does not provide any provision for these additional costs.

 No Foreign Jurisdiction: India takes supplies from many foreign suppliers which are
foreign entities to Indian Law. Indians can’t move to a foreign court to seek
compensation.

IMPLICATIONS AND CHALLENGES

Implementing the nuclear liability law in India presents a number of obstacles and
potential repercussions. Even though the current liability cap for operators is lower than in
other countries, it may not be sufficient to compensate victims adequately in the event of a
major nuclear accident. Conflicts of interest may arise as a result of the government’s dual role
in assessing damage and paying compensation. The provision for recourse against suppliers
may conflict with certain international agreements, thereby limiting the scope of possible
collaboration. The ten-year statute of limitations for compensation claims may not consider
delayed health effects, and ambiguity in the application of liability could lead to differing court
interpretations. The India Nuclear Insurance Pool faces difficulties accumulating funds and
reinsurance support, which could leave installations uninsured.17

Various perspectives on the CLNDA have emerged within the nuclear supplier community.
The domestic industry seeks modifications to the Act’s definitions to mitigate supplier liability,
whereas industry organisations advocate for more substantive changes, such as the elimination
of Section 46 and the linking of Rule 24 restrictions to both Sections 17(a) and 17(b). I suggest
keeping Section 17(b) consistent with the ‘polluter pays’ principle and modifying Sections 5
and 9 to emphasise the Act’s exclusive jurisdiction over nuclear damage claims. In addition, I
propose government-owned insurance for reactors, insurance pools, and contributions from
suppliers to the Nuclear Liability Fund. The industry’s drive to eliminate supplier liability, The
adherence to principles and international obligations, and the Department of Atomic Energy’s
nuanced response, possibly influenced by political considerations, illustrate divergent
positions.

THE WAY FORWARD

CLNDA represents a step forward in the establishment of nuclear liability and compensation
mechanisms. However, obstacles including liability limit disparities, private sector
participation, and ambiguous provisions need to be addressed. On issues such as supplier
liability, stakeholder perspectives vary. Moving forward, a balanced approach is required,
aligning with international standards, addressing concerns, and improving the framework to
ensure equitable compensation and the secure development of nuclear energy.

 Provisions for extra territorial jurisdiction should be made to get access to foreign
courts in case compensation is to be sought from a foreign supplier. International
Agreements or a robust dispute resolution mechanism could be way out.

 To take suppliers into confidence, a cap on their liability should also be put and a
maximum limit on the insurance amount should also be put.

17
https://indianstrategicknowledgeonline.com/web/Nuclear_Liability_1421915251765.pdf
  Law should be amended to resolve the ambiguity and provisions for criminal
liability must be eased or scope of criminal proceedings must be clarified.

 Explore alternative funding mechanisms, such as insurance or a dedicated fund, to

ensure that the burden is not solely on taxpayers.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the concept of strict liability plays a critical role in holding nuclear operators
accountable for the consequences of accidents. This framework ensures that even in the absence
of proven negligence, operators bear the financial burden of damages. By outlining the principle of strict
liability, identifying the responsibilities of nuclear operators, and examining real-world case studies,
we gain a clearer understanding of how this system functions.

However, limitations on operator liability and the potential for exceeding those limitations raise
questions about the adequacy of compensation for victims and the long-term financial
implications of severe nuclear accidents. Further discussion and potential revisions to the legal
framework may be necessary to balance these concerns while maintaining a viable nuclear
energy sector .

Overall, a robust system for holding nuclear operators liable serves as a cornerstone for
ensuring safety, deterring accidents, and providing compensation to those affected by nuclear
incidents.
 REFERENCES

I. PRIMARY REFERENCES

1. Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (1963)

2. Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (1997)

3. The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 (CLNDA)

II. BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Nuclear Liability Law (Oxford Law Handbooks) by Vaughan Lowe

2. International Law and Nuclear Accidents: Liability for Compensation (Cambridge Studies
in International and Comparative Law) by M.D. Evans

III. WEBLIOGRAPHY

1. https://blog.ipleaders.in/critical-analysis-indias-civil-nuclear-liability-law/#_ftn3

2. https://blog.ipleaders.in/civil-liability-nuclear-damage-act- 2010/

3.https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/deciphering-nuclear-liability-law-india-
kingstubbkasiva#:~:text=India%20enacted%20the%20Civil%20Liability,with%20prompt%2
0and%20equitable%20compensation.

4. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/civil-liability-for-nuclear-
damage-act-2010
5. https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/civil-liability-nuclear-damage-act/

6. https://www.iaea.org/topics/nuclear-liability-conventions/vienna-convention-on-civil-
liability-for-nuclear-damage