Second International Workshop on the Indemnification of Nuclear Damage. Bratislava, Slovak Republic May 2005

Transcription

1 OECD NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY NUCLEAR REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC Second International Workshop on the Indemnification of Nuclear Damage Bratislava, Slovak Republic May 2005 QUESTIONNAIRES COMPLETED BY NATIONAL DELEGATIONS OECD Nuclear Energy Agency

2 Second International Workshop on the Indemnification of Nuclear Damage Bratislava, Slovak Republic May 2005 The Second International Workshop on the Indemnification of Nuclear Damage took place from May 2005 in Bratislava, Slovak Republic. The Workshop was coorganised by the NEA and the Nuclear Regulatory Authority of the Slovak Republic and attracted 108 participants from 27 countries, the majority of which are NEA members. The purpose of the Workshop was to assess the third party liability and compensation mechanisms that would be implemented by participating countries in the event of a nuclear accident taking place within or near their borders. To accomodate this objective, two fictuous accident scenarios were developed, one involving a nuclear installation located in the Slovak Republic and the other involving a ship transporting nuclear substances along the Danube River. A questionnaire corresponding to the selected scenarios was distributed to each national delegation participating in the Workshop. The responses to the questionnaire were compared and analyzed during the Workshop s discussions under the direction of a Moderator and a co-moderator. This document contains a compendium of the completed questionnaires. * * * 2

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Austria 5 Belarus 11 Belgium 15 Canada 19 Croatia 25 Czech Republic 29 Estonia 35 Finland 37 France 43 Germany 55 Hungary 71 Ireland 81 Italy 85 Korea (Rep. of) 89 Latvia 95 Lithuania 103 Netherlands 109 Norway 115 Slovak Republic 119 Slovenia 133 South Africa 139 Spain 143 Sweden 149 Switzerland 159 Turkey 165 Ukraine 171 United Kingdom 183 3

4

5 Austria TITLE II: QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED BY ALL AFFECTED STATES 1 FOR SCENARIOS 1 AND 2 1. Emergency Response (a) Your national emergency plan has been activated to deal with the consequences of this accident. Which are the competent bodies to make possible decisions on counter-measures in relation to agriculture, industrial activities, import/export? The Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management - in cooperation with the Federal Ministry of Health, responsible for food monitoring is responsible for recommending counter measures in the field of agriculture, industrial activities, import/export. The affected Austrian Federal Provinces are responsible for implementation of the preventive measures. If necessary the implementation of measures will be coordinated by the Austrian Federal Crisis and Disaster Management in the Federal Ministry of Interior. Concerning contamination of food- and feedstuff the main decision criteria are the maximum permitted levels for food- and feedstuff given in the EC Council regulations (2218/89/EURATOM, 3954/87/EURATOM and 770/90/EURATOM). (b) How do those authorities liaise with the competent authorities in the Accident State to obtain recent and reliable information on releases, contamination etc? Information on the accident scenario, the release, contamination measurement results, the estimated consequences, preventive measures implemented, etc. will be based on bilateral information exchange agreements with the neighbouring countries of Austria, the ECurie system of the EC and the information system of the Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident (IAEA). The information pathway is via the 24 h point of contact (Austrian Federal Alarming Centre at the Federal Ministry of the Interior) to the competent authority (Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management). (c) Are counter-measures coordinated with neighbouring states? A co-ordination with the neighbouring state concerning the evaluation of the consequences of the accident and the counter measures is highly intended and foreseen in the bilateral information exchange agreements. In periodical international exercises (IAEA-CONVEX, OECD-INEX, EC-ECURIE, etc.) the coordination with neighbouring countries has been and will be exercised. 1. These questions do not need to be answered by the Accident State in Scenario 1: Slovak Republic, nor by the Accident State in Scenario 2: Hungary. 5

6 2. Dissemination of Information (a) How is information disseminated to the public on: the accident which took place, its possible consequences in the Accident State and in your State? The Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management is responsible for disseminating information to the public on the accident and possible consequences. Usually information to the public will be provided by the press relations officer via mass media (TV, radio and print media). If necessary, dependent on the scale of the consequences of the accident, the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management will provide the information for the public via mass media. Additionally a call centre will be established by the ministry. the manner in which claims can be made against the operator liable for this accident? (b) (c) Would your State organise (at national level) an inventory of victims on your national territory and the injury or damage which each has suffered? Would your State assist such them in bringing their proceedings? No. 3. Claims Management (a) How would the following claims be dealt with: (i) Farmers, wholesalers and retailers who are unable to market their usual agricultural products because those products were proven contaminated and who therefore lose considerable revenue due to restrictions placed on the commercialisation of those products; Loss of revenue due to restrictions will be compensated. (ii) Farmers, wholesalers and retailers who are unable to market their usual agricultural products due to the public s fear that those products are contaminated, even though commercial contamination levels were not exceeded (rumour damage) and who lose considerable revenue as a result. Loss of revenue due to rumours will not be compensated. (iii) Industries in the contaminated area (e.g. food processing): which are obliged to stop production following the accident to determine the extent of the radioactive contamination, thereby losing income; No compensation foreseen. 6

7 which suffer a loss of income in the short term after the accident due to the proven contamination of raw materials; Loss of income emanating from the contamination of raw material will be compensated. which suffer a loss of income from the cancellation of orders following the accident due to unfounded rumours of the continued contamination of its products; No compensation foreseen (iv) Personnel of the above-mentioned industries who claim compensation for having been released from employment following the accident; There is no compensation for released personnel. (v) Loss of income suffered by various businesses in the tourist and service industries as a result of tourists avoiding the entire region for several months, some on the basis of proven contamination, others on the basis of rumoured contamination only; Most probably there is neither compensation for loss of income of the tourist and service industries. (b) The contaminated zone includes an extended area of forest in which live a number of endangered species. This extended area is owned by your State. How will your State: evaluate the cost of rehabilitating the environment in this extended area of forest? The Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management consulting experts, as appropriate, would make an evaluation of these costs. The evaluation would have to take into account the numbers of plants and animals affected. Beside that costs of measures of sealing off the contaminated area and ruling measures concerning foodstuff would have to be taken into account. claim compensation for such cost? The costs for measures of restoration under Austrian law are to be compensated; if necessary the Austrian government would file a lawsuit in order to get compensation for these costs. (c) Two airlines from your State cancelled all their flights to and from the principal airport in the Accident State for 24 hours, although that airport remained open. Could these airlines claim compensation for: loss of revenue due to cancellation of those flights? reimbursement of compensation it was required to pay to passengers in respect of the cancelled flights? There will be no compensation for the said cancellation of airlines flights. 7

8 (d) Would the following persons be entitled to claim compensation for damage suffered: nationals of your State who are permanent residents of the Accident State at the time of the accident? nationals of your State who are temporarily located in the Accident State at the time of the accident? The right to damages does neither depend on the nationality of the person having suffered the damage nor on its location. Where the damage was suffered in Austria, Austrian law will be applied and Austrian courts have jurisdiction. (e) If the answer to either part of (d) is yes, how would those persons enter claims? Would your State include them under its "national inventory" for the purpose of compensating transboundary damage or would they be required to claim as if they were citizens of the Accident State? These persons would have to file their actions by themselves as anyone else. (f) A certain number of victims in your State are either not sufficiently compensated for their claims or are not compensated at all. Would your State provide additional compensation under these circumstances? Currently there is no additional compensation from the state foreseen for these cases. TITLE III: QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED BY SPECIFIC AFFECTED STATES (as indicated in the headings) 6. QuestionstobeansweredbyStateF(NCS)forScenario1,AustriaforScenario2 As your State is not party to any international nuclear liability convention, any claims will most likely be brought before your national courts and be determined according to your national law. How will you ensure recognition and enforcement of such decisions in the State in whose territory the liable operator s installation is situated (Slovak Republic in Scenario 1; Germany in Scenario 2)? Due to the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters decisions of Austrian courts are to be recognised and enforced in all other Member States of the European Union. 8

9 ANNEX Austria - List of Bilateral Agreements Austria has concluded bilateral agreements in the area of radiation protection and nuclear safety with the following countries: Hungary Federal law Gazette Nr. 454/1987 Germany Federal law Gazette. Nr. 128/1989 (DDR), Federal law Gazette Nr. 892/94 Slovak Republic Federal law Gazette Nr. 565/1990 (CSFR), Federal law Gazette Nr. 1046/1994 Czech Republic Federal law Gazette Nr. 565/1990 (CSFR), Federal law Gazette III Nr. 123/1997 Russia Federal law Gazette Nr. 130/1990 Poland Federal law Gazette Nr. 643/1990 Tajikistan Federal law Gazette III Nr. 4/1998 Ukraine Federal law Gazette III Nr. 152/1998 (Federal law Gazette Nr. 291/1996) Slovenia Federal law Gazette III Nr. 176/1998 Switzerland Federal law Gazette III Nr. 201/2000 A bilateral agreement with Belarus will be effective in the near future. With regard to nuclear accidents these agreements are to be considered as implementing arrangements in accordance with Article 9 of the Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident. Furthermore, they provide for information exchange on nuclear incidents, on nuclear programmes of the Contracting Parties and on nuclear installations planned, under construction or in operation. The Contracting Parties of these agreements commit themselves to implementing programmes of radiation monitoring and to annual exchange of radiation monitoring results. 9

10

11 Belarus TITLE II: QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED BY ALL AFFECTED STATES 1 FOR SCENARIOS 1 AND 2 1. Emergency Response (a) Your national emergency plan has been activated to deal with the consequences of this accident. Which are the competent bodies to make possible decisions on countermeasures in relation to agriculture, industrial activities, import/export? In the framework of the Comprehensive State System of Preparedness and Response to Natural and Technology Related Emergency Situations the competent body responsible for co-ordination of all activities is the Ministry for Emergency Situations, as for decisions on counter-measures in relation to agriculture, those are taken by the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, industrial activities Ministry of Industry, as far as the import/export is concerned the competent body to make decisions depends on what goods are exported/imported. (b) How do those authorities liaise with the competent authorities in the Accident State to obtain recent and reliable information on releases, contamination etc? On the basis of the Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident 1986 (the Ministry for Emergency Situation is the national competent body for the purposes of the Convention) and through diplomatic channels. (c) Are counter-measures coordinated with neighbouring states? Yes, on the basis of relevant bilateral agreements and through diplomatic channels. 2. Dissemination of Information (a) How is information disseminated to the public on: the accident which took place, its possible consequences in the Accident State andinyourstate? Through mass-media. the manner in which claims can be made against the operator liable for this accident? Through mass-media and issuance of special bulletins. (b) Would your State organise (at national level) an inventory of victims on your national territory and the injury or damage which each has suffered? Yes. 1. These questions do not need to be answered by the Accident State in Scenario 1: Slovak Republic, nor by the Accident State in Scenario 2: Hungary. 11

12 (c) Would your State assist such them in bringing their proceedings? How? Yes. A centralised system of assistance would be set up that would provide consultations, collect the claims and forward through official channels. Further free legal advice would be provided during the proceedings. 3. Claims Management (a) How would the following claims be dealt with: (i) Farmers, wholesalers and retailers who are unable to market their usual agricultural products because those products were proven contaminated and who therefore lose considerable revenue due to restrictions placed on the commercialisation of those products; Such damage would be considered as damage compensated in accordance with para k subpara ii of Article I of Vienna Convention and claims would be forwarded to the Accident State. (ii) Farmers, wholesalers and retailers who are unable to market their usual agricultural products due to the public s fear that those products are contaminated, even though commercial contamination levels were not exceeded (rumour damage) and who lose considerable revenue as a result. Such damage could be compensated in accordance with para k subpara iii of Article I of Vienna Convention if the law of the Accident State provided for that. If it did not and there were no other decision taken by the Accident State or in the result of bilateral consultations, the State would make a decision whether to provide reasonable compensation. (iii) Industries in the contaminated area (e.g. food processing): which are obliged to stop production following the accident to determine the extent of the radioactive contamination, thereby losing income; See ii. which suffer a loss of income in the short term after the accident due to the proven contamination of raw materials; See i. which suffer a loss of income from the cancellation of orders following the accident due to unfounded rumours of the continued contamination of its products; See ii. (iv) Personnel of the above-mentioned industries who claim compensation for having been released from employment following the accident; See ii. (v) Loss of income suffered by various businesses in the tourist and service industries as a result of tourists avoiding the entire region for several months, some on the 12

13 basis of proven contamination, others on the basis of rumoured contamination only; See ii. (b) The contaminated zone includes an extended area of forest in which live a number of endangered species. This extended area is owned by your State. How will your State: evaluate the cost of rehabilitating the environment in this extended area of forest? The Ministry of Forestry and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection will make the evaluation. claim compensation for such cost? Damage to the environment is not compensated under the Vienna Convention unless the national law of the Accident State provides otherwise. So, if it does not and there is no other decision taken by the Accident State or in the result of bilateral consultations, the State will claim the compensation in the International Court of Justice. (c) Two airlines from your State cancelled all their flights to and from the principal airport in the Accident State for 24 hours, although that airport remained open. Could these airlines claim compensation for: loss of revenue due to cancellation of those flights? The only airline is state owned. See ii. reimbursement of compensation it was required to pay to passengers in respect of the cancelled flights? See ii. (d) Would the following persons be entitled to claim compensation for damage suffered: nationals of your State who are permanent residents of the Accident State at the time of the accident? Yes. nationals of your State who are temporarily located in the Accident State at the time of the accident? Yes. (e) If the answer to either part of (d) is yes, how would those persons enter claims? Would your State include them under its "national inventory" for the purpose of compensating transboundary damage or would they be required to claim as if they were citizens of the Accident State? The principle of nationality would apply and they would be included in the national inventory based on the information provided by relevant diplomatic missions. 13

14 (f) A certain number of victims in your State are either not sufficiently compensated for their claims or are not compensated at all. Would your State provide additional compensation under these circumstances? Yes, from the state emergency fund and state budget. TITLE III: QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED BY SPECIFIC AFFECTED STATES (as indicated in the headings) 1. Questions to be answered by State B (RVC) for Scenario 1; by Romania for Scenario 2 Both the Slovak Republic in Scenario 1 and Hungary in Scenario 2 are Contracting Parties to the Vienna Convention. Your State is a Contracting Party to the RVC and your national legislation implements its provisions. Please identify possible difficulties in organising compensation for victims in your State due to differences between the two Conventions with regard to: the definition of nuclear damage; The definition of nuclear damage under the VC is very limited and includes only death, personal injury and damage to property while the RVC expands this definition considerably. This difference implies that if the law of the Accident State does not cover any other types of damage and there is no other decision taken by the Accident State or in the result of bilateral consultations, Belarus will be faced with the problem of providing reasonable compensation from its funds. their geographic scope of application; The VC is silent on the scope, so it is understood that it applies to the damage suffered in the territory of the Contracting Parties, while the RVC applies to the damage wherever suffered. This difference implies that there could be a problem of compensating the damage caused to Belarusian nationals and their property if they were permanent residents or were temporarily located in the territory of the State which is not a Contracting Party to the VC. compensation amounts available; The limited amount of compensation under the VC will result in the fact that a certain number of victims in Belarus will either not sufficiently compensated for their claims or will not compensated at all, therefore the State will have to provide additional compensation from the emergency fund and state budget. time limits for submitting claims for personal injury/death. The consequences are similar to those described above. Relevant national legislation used: Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (is considered as a part of national legislation), Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident (is considered as a part of national legislation), The Civil Code of the Republic of Belarus, the Law on the Protection of the Public and Territories against Natural and Technology Related Emergency Situations, the Regulatory Resolution of the Council of Ministers on the State System of Emergency Preparedness and Response. 14

15 Belgium TITLE II: QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED BY ALL AFFECTED STATES 1 FOR SCENARIOS 1 AND 2 1. Emergency Response (a) Your national emergency plan has been activated to deal with the consequences of this accident. Which are the competent bodies to make possible decisions on countermeasures in relation to agriculture, industrial activities, import/export? Decisions are taken by an emergency committee chaired by the Minister of the Interior (*) which brings together all the involved ministerial departments (* or by the Minister of the Environment if only the environment is concerned). The legal basis is mentioned under Title III.5. (b) How do those authorities liaise with the competent authorities in the Accident State to obtain recent and reliable information on releases, contamination etc. An exchange of technical information (i.e. relating to the radiation risk) is organised with the Emergency Director of the other State(s). (c) Are counter-measures coordinated with neighbouring states? See point (b). 2. Dissemination of Information (a) How is information disseminated to the public on: The emergency plan comprises an Information Unit which coordinates and manages the information disseminated to the public, media, the IAEA, the EU and other States. Information is disseminated through various channels, including diplomatic channels. the accident which took place, its possible consequences in the Accident State andinyourstate? the manner in which claims can be made against the operator liable for this accident? (b) Would your State organise (at national level) an inventory of victims on your national territory and the injury or damage which each has suffered? It is likely but not organised by any regulation (see c). (c) Would your State assist such them in bringing their proceedings? How? 1. These questions do not need to be answered by the Accident State in Scenario 1: Slovak Republic, nor by the Accident State in Scenario 2: Hungary. 15

16 At present, such a system is not set up. It will as the legislation implementing the amending Protocols will be adopted, within the framework of the RPC and the RBSC. It is to determine whether this system will be made applicable to the case where Belgium has not ratified yet the PC at the time of the accident. 3. Claims Management The answers below describe damages which may be compensated under the Act of 22 July 1985 on Nuclear Third Party Liability (corresponding to the PC) and its future version as amended after the ratification of the amending Protocol (RPC). However, considering the absence of ratification of the JP by Belgium at the time of the accident, the Belgian Government may refer to Article XVIII of the RVC, unless the legislator of the installation State did not use the exclusion clause allowed by Article 1.A.3 of the RVC (i.e. allowing the exclusion of NCSs which have nuclear installations and do not afford equivalent reciprocal benefits). a) How would the following claims be dealt with: (i) Farmers, wholesalers and retailers who are unable to market their usual agricultural products because those products were proven contaminated and who therefore lose considerable revenue due to restrictions placed on the commercialisation of those products; (Possible compensation PC+RPC). (ii) Farmers, wholesalers and retailers who are unable to market their usual agricultural products due to public s fear that those products are contaminated, even though commercial contamination levels were not exceeded (rumour damage) and who lose considerable revenue as a result. (No compensation PC+RPC). (iii) Industries in the contaminated area (e.g. food processing): which are obliged to stop production following the accident to determine the extent of the radioactive contamination, thereby losing income; (Possible compensation PC+RPC). which suffer a loss of income in the short term after the accident due to the proven contamination of raw materials; Idem. which suffer a loss of income from the cancellation of orders following the accident due to unfounded rumours of the continued contamination of its products; (No, PC+RPC). (iv) Personnel of the above-mentioned industries who claim compensation for having been released from employment following the accident; (No, as long as they are compensated on another ground). 16

17 (v) Loss of income suffered by various businesses in the tourist and service industries as a result of tourists avoiding the entire region for several months, some on the basis of proven contamination, others on the basis of rumoured contamination only; (The court will examine the causal link PC+RPC). (b) The contaminated zone includes an extended area of forest in which live a number of endangered species. This extended area is owned by your State. How will your State: evaluate the cost of rehabilitating the environment in this extended area of forest? (Yes, provided the competent court examines whether these measures are reasonable PC+RPC). claim compensation for such cost? (Yes PC+RPC). (c) Two airlines from your State cancelled all their flights to and from the principal airport in the Accident State for 24 hours, although that airport remained open. Could these airlines claim compensation for: loss of revenue due to cancellation of those flights? If the court considers the preventive measure as reasonable, which seems unlikely in case the competent authorities in charge of the security of the place where the airport is located have not taken any measure; PC+RPC. reimbursement of compensation it was required to pay to passengers in respect of the cancelled flights, including hotel and meal expenses? Idem. (d) Would the following persons be entitled to claim compensation for damage suffered: nationals of your State who are permanent residents of the Accident State at the time of the accident? Yes. nationals of your State who are temporarily located in the Accident State at the time of the accident? Yes. (e) If the answer to either part of (d) is yes, how would those persons enter claims? Would your State include them under its "national inventory" for the purpose of compensating trans-boundary damage or would they be required to claim as if they were citizens of the Accident State? 17

18 See answer to point 2(c); in case such a compensation system is introduced, it would in any case be subject to the express agreement of the interested persons. One may consider that, since the rights of the persons mentioned under point (d) are less hypothetical than those of a non PC State, these persons may have an interest in introducing an action separately from their State. (f) A certain number of victims in your State are either not sufficiently compensated for their claims or are not compensated at all. Would your State provide additional compensation under these circumstances? No, an emergency solidarity mechanism is however likely to be established. TITLE III: QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED BY SPECIFIC AFFECTED STATES (as indicated in the headings) 5. Questions to be answered by State E (PC, non JP) for Scenario 1, France for Scenario 2) Your State is not party to the Joint Protocol which would permit compensation of victims in your State for damage caused by either of these accidents, both of which occur in a Vienna Convention State. Will your State provide compensation for such damage and if so, how would such compensation be organised? Belgian Law does not organise such a compensation system at the expense of the State. In emergency situation, the Act of 22 January 1945 on economic regulation and prices enables the Minister of the Economy to take various measures such as requisitioning (against compensation). The Act of 15 April 1994 on Protection of the Public and the Environment against Radiation and Relating to the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control empowers the King (Article 6 paragraph 2d) to take any measure to avoid the dangers arising from the fortuitous contamination of places, materials or any products by radioactive substances. This Act does not comprise a part dealing with compensation, which does not mean that, pursuant to some constitutional principles protecting property, a court may not order a State to compensate the addressee of (person concerned by) some measures. In case the PC or the RPC would apply (which is not the case in the exercise), these preventive measures would however be covered by the existing nuclear third party liability regime, pursuant to Article 52 of the Act of 25 June 1992 on the land insurance contract (PC) or to the future transposition of the RPC in the above mentioned Act of 22 July 1985 (preventive measures). The Act of 21 December 1998 relating to the product standards designed to promote sustainable modes of production and consumption and to protect environment and health, enables the King to withdraw from market dangerous products for public health, this Act however applies only to the extent that it does not contradict the Act of 15 April 1994 on Protection of the Public and the Environment against Radiation and Relating to the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control. The Act of 21 December 1998 does not comprise either any provision on compensation and the above mentioned reasoning applies mutatis mutandis. In case of a catastrophic situation a specific legal mechanism would certainly be adopted. 18

19 Canada Introduction The following responses have been prepared exclusively for the purposes of the Workshop and are without prejudice to any course of action that the Government of Canada may take in the event of a nuclear accident affecting Canadian interests. Under Scenario 1, Canada is considered a State F. A State F is an Affected State that is not Party to one of the nuclear third-party liability conventions. TITLE II: QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED BY ALL AFFECTED STATES 1 FOR SCENARIOS 1 AND 2 1. Emergency Response (a) Your national emergency plan has been activated to deal with the consequences of this accident. Which are the competent bodies to make possible decisions on countermeasures in relation to agriculture, industrial activities, import/export? Decisions on counter-measures in relation to agriculture and industrial activities, including criteria for recommending the action, are normally within provincial jurisdiction. In the event of a provincial request for federal assistance, the Federal Nuclear Emergency Plan (FNEP) would be activated. Health Canada is the lead federal department under the Plan. Federal operations, including dissemination of relevant information to provinces, departments and Canadian Missions abroad, would be coordinated by the FNEP Coordination and Operations Group. Federal operations will involve primarily environmental monitoring, control of imported food and material and implementation of measures for Canadians abroad or returning to Canada from the affected region. For example, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada would evaluate the hazard for impacts on agricultural lands, facilities, commodities, plants and livestock. Other federal departments and agencies that would be involved in Canada s response include the departments of Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, Foreign Affairs, International Trade, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, National Defence, Natural Resources, the Canadian Border Services Agency and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. (b) How do those authorities liaise with the competent authorities in the Accident State to obtain recent and reliable information on releases, contamination etc? Canada is a party to the IAEA Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident, which defines when and how the IAEA should be notified of an event with potential transboundary consequences, or when and how the IAEA would notify States Party of an international event which could have an impact in their territory. Thus, notification, subsequent information and data exchange will follow procedures described in the Convention. In the National Support Centre established under the FNEP the 1. These questions do not need to be answered by the Accident State in Scenario 1: Slovak Republic, nor by the Accident State in Scenario 2: Hungary. 19

20 Coordination and Operations Group will be responsible for ensuring that links with international organizations are established and maintained primarily through the Department of Foreign Affairs. Once information is obtained, the FNEP Coordination and Operations Group will coordinate the distribution of all pertinent information to appropriate federal departments and agencies headquarters, to the provincial authorities and to relevant Canadian missions abroad. (c) Are counter-measures coordinated with neighbouring States? Depending on the areas affected by the release of radioactive materials (e.g. close to the U.S.-Canada border), Canada may have to coordinate certain measures with another affected State. For example, Canada will want to ensure that the impact on transboundary transport and commercial exchanges remains minimal in areas not directly affected by the release. Coordination between Canada and the U.S. would be conducted through the 1996 Canada-United States Joint Radiological Emergency Response Plan. Communications with the relevant States will be conducted primarily through the Department of Foreign Affairs. 2. Dissemination of Information (a) How is information disseminated to the public on: the accident which took place, its possible consequences in the Accident State andinyourstate? For a nuclear emergency which occurs in a foreign country, FNEP establishes that the authoritative source of public and media information will be established by the National Support Centre. The FNEP Public Affairs Group (PAG) will support a designated federal spokesperson by coordinating all public information and will establish and operate media monitoring, briefing and public inquiries centres. In these situations, the main focus of the federal response will be on the assessment of the radiological impact and protection of Canadians living or travelling abroad near the event site, on the control of food and material imports into Canada from areas affected by the emergency, on the assessment of impacts in Canada, on coordination of assistance to the affected country, and on public information. The Department of Foreign Affairs will assist the PAG in disseminating the information to Canadians abroad. the manner in which claims can be made against the operator liable for this accident? To be determined. (b) Would your State organise (at national level) an inventory of victims on your national territory and the injury or damage which each has suffered? To be determined. (c) Would your State assist such them in bringing their proceedings? How? To be determined. 20

21 3. Claims Management (a) How would the following claims be dealt with: (i) (ii) (iii) Farmers, wholesalers and retailers who are unable to market their usual agricultural products because those products were proven contaminated and who commer therefore lose considerable revenue due to restrictions placed on the cialisation of those products; Farmers, wholesalers and retailers who are unable to market their usual agricultural products due to the public s fear that those products are contaminated, even though commercial contamination levels were not exceeded (rumour damage) and who lose considerable revenue as a result. Industries in the contaminated area (e.g. food processing): which are obliged to stop production following the accident to determine the extent of the radioactive contamination, thereby losing income; which suffer a loss of income in the short term after the accident due to the proven contamination of raw materials; which suffer a loss of income from the cancellation of orders following the accident due to unfounded rumours of the continued contamination of its products; (iv) Personnel of the above-mentioned industries who claim compensation for having been released from employment following the accident; (v) Loss of income suffered by various businesses in the tourist and service industries as a result of tourists avoiding the entire region for several months, some on the basis of proven contamination, others on the basis of rumoured contamination only; Canada is not party to any international nuclear liability convention. Canadian claimants would therefore have to seek redress by pursuing regular civil recourses in domestic courts, both Canadian and foreign. Under Canadian law, the jurisdiction of the courts of the defendant s place of business is generally recognized. However, Canadian courts may also be found to have jurisdiction over matters involving damages suffered in Canada. Judges have the discretion to stay proceedings in Canada if they believe another jurisdiction is better placed to hear the claim or if another court has already been seized of a similar claim. The quantification of damages by courts in cases of nuclear damages is difficult to assess given the limited experience in Canada with these types of incidents. As regards proceedings before a Canadian court against a foreign State, the State Immunity Act, RSC c S-18, provides that foreign States are generally immune from prosecution in Canada. However, a foreign State is not immune from the jurisdiction of a Canadian court in any proceedings that relate to any death or personal injury, or any damage to or loss of property that occurs in Canada. As such, private parties adversely affected could seek compensation to the extent that the immunity does not apply. 21

22 Depending on the circumstances (e.g. international wrongful act), Canada may have a claim against the Accident State under general international legal rules governing State responsibility. Under international law, a State is responsible for injury to an alien caused by its wrongful act or omission. Diplomatic protection is the procedure employed by the State of nationality of the injured person to secure protection of that person and to obtain reparation for the internationally wrongful act inflicted. In exercising diplomatic protection the State adopts in its own right the cause of its national arising from the internationally wrongful act of another State. Diplomatic protection includes judicial proceedings. A State can espouse the claim if: a) the individual who suffered the international wrongful act was its national at the time of the injury and at the time of the espousal of the claim; and b) the individual has exhausted local remedies in the foreign State. (b) The contaminated zone includes an extended area of forest in which live a number of endangered species. This extended area is owned by your State. How will your State: evaluate the cost of rehabilitating the environment in this extended area of forest? claim compensation for such cost? FNEP section refers to protective measures on federal lands, which will be carried out in accordance with local and provincial plans, and if required federal regional headquarters will implement protective measures in coordination with the province. Section 6.2 states that responsibility for recovery is largely within provincial jurisdiction. Federal involvement or support to provinces during the recovery phase will include amongst other things: environmental decontamination and radioactive waste disposal operations; and monitoring of contaminated areas and assessment of medium and long-term health hazards. FNEP lists a number of federal departments and agencies including Environment Canada, Health Canada and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission as having primary or secondary responsibilities in supporting the provincial recovery phase. (c) Two airlines from your State cancelled all their flights to and from the principal airport in the Accident State for 24 hours, although that airport remained open. Could these airlines claim compensation for: loss of revenue due to cancellation of those flights? reimbursement of compensation it was required to pay to passengers in respect of the cancelled flights? Same as 3(a). (d) Would the following persons be entitled to claim compensation for damage suffered: nationals of your State who are permanent residents of the Accident State at the time of the accident? A Canadian court may have jurisdiction if there is a real and substantial connection between the facts of the case and the court. The nationality and residency of individuals are some of the factors that will be taken into consideration. nationals of your State who are temporarily located in the Accident State at the time of the accident? 22

23 Same as immediately above. (e) If the answer to either part of (d) is yes, how would those persons enter claims? Would your State include them under its "national inventory" for the purpose of compensating transboundary damage or would they be required to claim as if they were citizens of the Accident State? Not applicable. (f) A certain number of victims in your State are either not sufficiently compensated for their claims or are not compensated at all. Would your State provide additional compensation under these circumstances? To be determined. TITLE III: QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED BY SPECIFIC AFFECTED STATES (as indicated in the headings) 6. QuestionstobeansweredbyStateF(NCS)forScenario1,AustriaforScenario2 As your State is not party to any international nuclear liability convention, any claims will most likely be brought before your national courts and be determined according to your national law. How will you ensure recognition and enforcement of such decisions in the State in whose territory the liable operator s installation is situated (Slovak Republic in Scenario 1; Germany in Scenario 2)? Under Scenario 1, once a judgment is obtained in Canada from a court of justice, private parties, whether under a class action or individually, will have to ask a court in Slovakia to recognize and enforce the Canadian judgment. Canada is not party to any convention on the recognition and enforcement of judgments to which the Slovak Republic may be party. The judgement would therefore have to be recognized and executed under the legislation of the Slovak Republic applicable to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. 23

24

25 Croatia TITLE II: QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED BY ALL AFFECTED STATES 1 FOR SCENARIOS 1 AND 2 1. Emergency Response (a) Your national emergency plan has been activated to deal with the consequences of this accident. Which are the competent bodies to make possible decisions on countermeasures in relation to agriculture, industrial activities, import/export? As of II 1. (a) Ministry of Agriculture, Forest and Water Management in cooperation with State Office for Radiation Protection, State Office for Nuclear Safety (SONS) and National Protection and Rescue Directorate as a leading organization in a crises situation. (b) How do those authorities liaise with the competent authorities in the Accident State to obtain recent and reliable information on releases, contamination etc? As of II 1. (b) Through the Technical Support Center leading technical organization in the case of nuclear emergency, operated by the State Office for Nuclear Safety. (c) Are counter-measures coordinated with neighbouring States? As of II 1. (c) - Yes. 2. Dissemination of Information (a) How is information disseminated to the public on: the accident which took place, its possible consequences in the Accident State andinyourstate? the manner in which claims can be made against the operator liable for this accident? As of II 2. (a) About the accident: from the National Protection Rescue Directorate, abut the claims instruction: from the SONS, both using a public media; (b) Would your State organise (at national level) an inventory of victims on your national territory and the injury or damage which each has suffered? As of II 2. (b) Yes, but it has to be organize and develop in details through the activities of SONS and Croatian Nuclear Pool (CNP). (c) Would your State assist such them in bringing their proceedings? How? 1. These questions do not need to be answered by the Accident State in Scenario 1: Slovak Republic, nor by the Accident State in Scenario 2: Hungary. 25

26 As of II 2. (c) - Yes, but it has to be organized and developed in details through the activities of SONS and other relevant governmental bodies. 3. Claims Management (a) How would the following claims be dealt with: (i) (ii) (iii) Farmers, wholesalers and retailers who are unable to market their usual agricultural products because those products were proven contaminated and who therefore lose considerable revenue due to restrictions placed on the commercialisation of those products; Farmers, wholesalers and retailers who are unable to market their usual agricultural products due to the public s fear that those products are contaminated, even though commercial contamination levels were not exceeded (rumour damage) and who lose considerable revenue as a result. Industries in the contaminated area (e.g. food processing): which are obliged to stop production following the accident to determine the extent of the radioactive contamination, thereby losing income; which suffer a loss of income in the short term after the accident due to the proven contamination of raw materials; which suffer a loss of income from the cancellation of orders following the accident due to unfounded rumours of the continued contamination of its products; (iv) (v) Personnel of the above-mentioned industries who claim compensation for having been released from employment following the accident; Loss of income suffered by various businesses in the tourist and service industries as a result of tourists avoiding the entire region for several months, some on the basis of proven contamination, others on the basis of rumoured contamination only; As of II 3. (a) Relevant governmental organizations will provide the evidence of contamination level on the affected territory and other available data as a basis for calculating the damages. SONS and CNP will provide instruction for making claim request for compensation of the damages. (b) The contaminated zone includes an extended area of forest in which live a number of endangered species. This extended area is owned by your State. How will your State: evaluate the cost of rehabilitating the environment in this extended area of forest? claim compensation for such cost? As of II 3. (b) By the procedure developed in Ministry of Agriculture, Forest and Water Management. 26

27 (c) Two airlines from your State cancelled all their flights to and from the principal airport in the Accident State for 24 hours, although that airport remained open. Could these airlines claim compensation for: loss of revenue due to cancellation of those flights? reimbursement of compensation it was required to pay to passengers in respect of the cancelled flights? As of II 3. (c) No clear answer. (d) Would the following persons be entitled to claim compensation for damage suffered: nationals of your State who are permanent residents of the Accident State at the time of the accident? nationals of your State who are temporarily located in the Accident State at the time of the accident? As of II 3. (d) Yes, yes. (e) If the answer to either part of (d) is yes, how would those persons enter claims? Would your State include them under its "national inventory" for the purpose of compensating transboundary damage or would they be required to claim as if they were citizens of the Accident State? As of II 3. (e) According to their request. (f) A certain number of victims in your State are either not sufficiently compensated for their claims or are not compensated at all. Would your State provide additional compensation under these circumstances? As of II 3. (f) No. TITLE III: QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED BY SPECIFIC AFFECTED STATES (as indicated in the headings) 2. Questions to be answered by State C (VC) for Scenario 1 only Pursuant to your State s joint emergency plan with State A, a certain part of your State s territory is covered by the evacuation radius and a further part is covered by the sheltering and iodine distribution radius. (a) How were these preventive measures coordinated with State A? As of III 2. (a) Through the information exchange between the Technical Support Center and the designated emergency contact point in State A and/or IAEA Emergency Center. (b) Who made the decision on when such preventive measures would be lifted? As of III 2. (b) - National Protection and Rescue Directorate based on recommendations by the Technical Support Center. 27

28 (c) How would you respond to compensation claims by radiation workers from your State working at the installation at the time of the accident, who were exposed to radiation? As of III 2. (c) Advising the worker(s) to claim for compensation in the State A. 3. Questions to be answered by Joint Protocol States for both Scenarios 1 and 2 The Joint Protocol provides that in the case of a nuclear incident at a nuclear installation, the applicable Convention is the one to which the State, on whose territory the liable operator s installation is situated, is a Party. This means that for Scenario 1, the Vienna Convention will apply and the applicable national law will be that of the Slovak Republic. The Joint Protocol also provides that if a nuclear incident occurs during transport, the applicable Convention is the one to which the State, on whose territory the liable operator s installation is situated, is a Party. 2 This means that for Scenario 2, the Paris Convention will apply but the applicable national law will be that of Hungary. With respect to both scenarios, how would your State: obtain detailed information on the applicable legislative systems and the procedures to follow for making claims? bring that information to the attention of people in your State who are likely to have suffered damage? compile an inventory of those having suffered damage? assist victims in the procedures for claiming compensation? monitor the progress of such claims? arrange for the recognition and enforcement of decisions of the competent court in your State? As of III 3. By asking Slovakian and German nuclear safety authorities and theirs nuclear pools; By disseminating the information through public media; Based on theirs request; SeeanswertoitemII2.(c); SeeanswertoitemII2.(c); Based on international treaties. Zagreb, 15 April Liable in this sense means liable under either Article II.1 (b) or (c) of the Vienna Convention or under Article 4(a) or (b) of the Paris Convention. 28