Proposition 50K0560

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 22 juillet 1985 sur la responsabilité civile dans le domaine de l'énergie nucléaire.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

April 3, 2000

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

civil liability nuclear energy

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

June 8, 2000 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

This bill amends the Act of 22 July 1985 on civil liability in the field of nuclear energy, which sets the liability of operators of civil nuclear installations, within the framework of the Paris Convention and the Brussels Supplementary Convention, to which Belgium is a party. Until now, the operator of a nuclear facility saw its civil liability of the head of nuclear accidents limited to 4 billion Belgian francs per accident. This limitation was compensated in the head of possible victims by the fact that it is an objective liability, not requiring the victim to prove a fault in the head of the operator and because it is a liability channeled on the sole operator, thus avoiding a cascade of appeals and enabling the optimum mobilisation of the insurance capabilities available on the market. In order to continue to meet this criterion, this bill proposes to increase this amount to 12 billion per accident and per site, considering that the likelihood that several power plants located on the same site experience an accident is ⁇ low. Furthermore, this draft provides that the King may modify the maximum insured amount in order to meet Belgium’s international obligations. This provision is explained by the fact that the ongoing negotiations, within the framework of the Paris Convention, provide for the further increase of the maximum amount of the operator’s liability. The Secretary of State points out that the adoption by Belgium of the bill under consideration would place our country in second place in terms of the extent of the coverage of nuclear damage. During the discussion, clarifications were requested on the possibility of modifying the maximum amount of liability by royal decree, therefore without the involvement of parliament, and on the derogations granted to certain installations whose amount of liability is less than 12 billion. In fact, lower amounts are allowed for installations with ⁇ low risks such as, for example, the Fleurus IRE, while an increase in the amount of liability would be decided following ongoing discussions under the Paris Convention, which appear to be oriented in this direction. The basic principle is that from now on, the State will no longer intervene in the event of an accident to cover the damages. Only producers must bear the damages caused by their facilities. In the current system, the state was obliged to intervene for an amount of 5 billion while the Paris Convention provided, and still provides, an international intervention of 6.5 billion per accident for the insured countries. The amount after the vote of this bill, if it is voted, would therefore be 18.5 billion. The fixation of this amount does not depend on the financial capacity of the facilities but complies with calculation rules defined by the OECD, which is based on our percentage of electricity consumed and produced through nuclear energy. It is obvious that this would not meet the needs in the case of a serious Chernobyl-style accident. Who can estimate the damage caused by this type of accident? Fortunately, the quality of our facilities makes accidents of this scale unlikely. It is finally raised that most Eastern countries are not parties to the Paris Convention while the state of their facilities is catastrophic. The Secretary of State informs us that in this regard, a special effort will be made by his department to participate more actively in the sanitation of the Eastern power plants. A budget of 50 million has been disbursed for this purpose by the government. Following these discussions, this bill in its entirety was approved by 6 votes for and 5 abstentions. I would like to add a few words about the position of the environmentalists. They approved the project because it constitutes an improvement in coverage and because it finally establishes full producer accountability. The State does not have to bear the damages resulting from the activity of private producers. But it is clear that this puts on the agenda the need to promote the production of electricity by other routes than nuclear energy. Measures that will enhance green electricity production in the context of the liberalization of the electricity market and the realisation – hopefully – of the Sustainable Development Plan are once again making sense. Finally, with regard to the increased participation of Belgium in the sanitation of the Eastern nuclear power plants, we can only encourage this approach in order to guarantee the safety of the population and facilitate the accession of these countries to the European Union. But they will also need to be helped to develop alternative modes of production and to make energy savings, including by improving their distribution networks. We hope that, in this context, Belgium will do its utmost to develop the possibilities of administrative mate through the European Phare program, which we are too absent, in order to supplement the sums that are devoted to it.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, we are talking about the amendment of a law implementing the Paris and Brussels Treaties, to limit the liability of nuclear power plants. Mainly three things are done: the limitation of liability is brought from 4 billion to 12 billion; several nuclear installations located in one place are counted as one nuclear installation; and the King is empowered to increase or reduce the amount of liability. The whole discussion is about insurance. The first point that we would like to make in this regard is the following. Nothing is said about the responsibility of the nuclear power plant itself. It is stated completely in terms of the amount for which it is insured. There is no responsibility for the commercial producers of nuclear energy. Second, everything is insured, only the price differs. What is being done here – and I am very surprised that Agalev and Ecolo are also taking steps in doing so – is keeping the price of nuclear energy generated by nuclear power plants artificially low. It is repeatedly stated that the price of different forms of energy is distorted because with a number of risks, which are inherent in nuclear energy, one does not take into account the price setting. Here this is defended and built into the system. Third, if the nuclear risk is not insured, then I still ask myself questions with the assertion that nuclear energy is one of the safest forms of energy. Something is wrong somewhere. It is surprising that the whole discussion about the Paris Convention and its implementation is blurred with an increase from 4 billion to 12 billion of civil liability. I come to the core of the case. We see this fully in the perspective of the responsibility of the nuclear power plants. Per ⁇ we can also look at the perspective of the citizen affected by damage. You limit his compensation based on the extent of the damage. If there are enough other people who suffer the same damage due to nuclear energy – we sadly know how large that damage can be, even in smaller accidents you will artificially reduce the compensation of the individuals affected by it. You want it to be approved. This is supported by the green, red and blue government parties. I find that very strange. Even worse is the claim for damages made by the King, by the executive power. As this liability becomes higher or lower, the individual citizen who is injured will ultimately suffer the consequences. The same damage caused by the same nuclear energy will be compensated in one place more than in the other. Can you explain the logic? This bordered with the unlikely and is presented with a self-evidence as if no other solutions are possible. I would like people to think about it. The fact that several establishments located in the same place are considered to be a single core facility means that the overall coverage for those different establishments is limited to the same as for one single installation. For example, in case of a double or triple accident, the victims risk receiving half of their allowance. They go pretty lightly over here. I urge all majority parties and opposition colleagues to refer the matter at least back to the committee and not to vote on it today. I think there may not have been enough serious thinking about what is being done here. It is about the elaboration of a treaty of 1985, when the thoughts about nuclear energy may have been even different. If you and the colleagues of Agalev and Ecolo approve this, I wonder how heavily their green conscience weighs in this matter.

Thank you, monsieur le président, de me donner l'occasion de répliquer à M. Pieters, puisqu'en son absence, you n'ai pas eu l'occasion de le faire lors des travaux de commission, et j'aimerais lui dire ceci. First, you say that the text does not speak of liability. The draft law is specifically about civil liability. Even in the title is the word should explain why you think that is not the case. Second, what will change after this text is approved? The first difference is that the insured amounts will rise from 4 to 12 billion francs. The exploiter is now liable for a sum of 4 billion francs. In the future, it will be 12 billion francs. The second difference is that there is no more contribution from the federal government. It is of course normal that the federal government does not intervene in private activities and ⁇ not in terms of liability. The third difference is that if there is a change in international treaties – and all conversations on changes go towards an increase in that liability – one can apply the decisions on international conventions in Belgium with a royal decree consulted in the Council of Ministers. Compared to the current situation, this is a significant improvement.

I would like to comment on the intervention of the Secretary of State. The general principle of liability in our country is enshrined in article 1382 of the Civil Code and includes full compensation for all damages. If in this bill the damage remains limited to a certain amount, it is less than the general regulation prescribes. I have never said that it is wrong to raise the amount from 4 to 12 billion francs. The question is whether the liability should be limited. Mr. Secretary of State, I had hoped that you, as a member of ECOLOAGALEV, would have the courage to ask that question. You apparently want to keep nuclear energy permanently cheaper than the actual price of this form of energy. The draft law states that you can change the amounts, both up and down. So you can go back to those 4 billion francs in individual cases of nuclear power plants. You need to explain how you can answer this. That has consequences for the individual claim of someone who will later – hopefully never – be hit.