[en] In a more controversial report than the others in the study, the authors use one scientific discipline to review the work of another discipline. Their proposal recognizes the imprecision that develops in moving from group to individual interpretations of causal effects by substituting the term assigned share for probability of causation. The authors conclude that the use of a formula will not provide reliable measures of risk attribution in individual cases. The gap between scientific certainty and assigning shares of responsibility must be filled by subjective value judgments supplied by the scientists. 22 references, 2 figures, 4 tables

[en] This chapter discusses the status of the Price-Anderson Act which provides a means of compensation for members of the public who may be injured as a result of a nuclear incident at a licensed commercial power plant or a facility of the United States Government operated by a contractor. It describes the course of bills to extend the Act in 1987 and analyses some of the major issues of the debate (NEA)

[en] Nuclear materials being transported to and from nuclear reactors and other indemnified facilities are covered under the Price-Anderson system through the insurance purchased by the facility operator and through the indemnity agreement entered into by it with the Commission. Other supplementary nuclear insurance is available to suppliers and transporters of nuclear materials. The 1975 amendments to the Price-Anderson Act extended coverage of the system beyond the territorial limits of the United States for (1) shipments of fuel moving outside the US, and (2) stationary nuclear reactors licensed by the NRC beyond the US territorial limits. These changes did not apply to material being exported from or imported to the US. In its rule-making procedures in 1976, the Commission exercised its discretionary authority to extend Price-Anderson coverage to materials licensees in the case of certain licensees of plutonium processing and fuel fabrication plants. The NRC has also extended indemnity coverage to irradiated fuel from one reactor that is stored in a second reactor at another site. The Commission chose, in its rule-making proceedings, not to provide separate indemnity coverage for transportation to carriers such as railroads. The coverage of shipments of nuclear material with respect to insurance policies and indemnity agreements varies depending on the segment of the fuel cycle in which the shipment is taking place, and the type of coverage that the shipper and receiver employ. In some cases of shipment of radioactive material, coverage is obtained through conventional liability policies rather than specific, nuclear policies. Interesting questions which potentially impact on coverage for transportation remain to be addressed in the coming years including questions relating to the possible extension of the Price-Anderson coverage to additional materials licensees and to the back end of the fuel cycle

[en] The Price-Anderson Act, which limits nuclear accident liability, was upheld by the Supreme Court in the case Duke Power Co. and v. Carolina Environmental Study Group. The Court held that the Act was within the constitutional powers of Congress and that it allowed both compensation for injuries and equal protection rights while properly regulating economic interests. A summary of the Act and the arguments presented in the Constitutional challenge are presented

[en] The manner in which the Price-Anderson Law operates to provide reparations is reviewed, and the changes made in the law by Congress in 1975 are outlined. Nuclear liability insurers' response to the Three Mile Island accident is described, including emergency assistance funds advanced to qualified evacuees and the claims and litigations that followed. Other nuclear liability claims that have been asserted are described as being brought chiefly by onsite workers. Good health physics protection of workers is acknowledged, but the need to improve record keeping for transient workers is stressed. The nuclear industry is urged to implement a more effective record-keeping program for such workers

[en] The purpose was to describe the processes of evacuation decision-making, identify and document uncertainties in that process and discuss implications for federal assumption of liability for precautionary evacuations at nuclear facilities under the Price-Anderson Act. Four major categories of uncertainty are identified concerning the interpretation of hazard, communication problems, perceived impacts of evacuation decisions and exogenous influences. Over 40 historical accounts are reviewed and cases of these uncertainties are documented. The major findings are that all levels of government, including federal agencies experience uncertainties in some evacuation situations. Second, private sector organizations are subject to uncertainties at a variety of decision points. Third, uncertainties documented in the historical record have provided the grounds for liability although few legal actions have ensued. Finally it is concluded that if liability for evacuations is assumed by the federal government, the concept of a ''precautionary'' evacuation is not useful in establishing criteria for that assumption. 55 refs., 1 fig., 4 tabs

No abstract available

[en] The study evaluates the operation of the Price-Anderson Act in the light of 10 years of experience and the changes that have occurred during the period in the law and regulations and in the nuclear and insurance industries. It provides an independent analysis of various proposals to extend or amend the Act prior to its 1987 expiration. The five chapters deal with historical background and scope, financial protection under the Act, financial protection without the Act, legislative goals and issues, and alternative proposals. The report concludes that no scheme can fully satisfy all of the criteria, bu a careful balancing will depend upon congressional decision on the extent to which federal policy should encourage continued participation by private industry in the nuclear field. Selected footnotes follow each chapter

[en] This report provides a comprehensive overview of insurance-indemnity coverage for various nuclear transportation activities. It examines public liability coverage under the present provisions of the Price-Anderson Act, liability insurance policies issued by the nuclear insurance pools, conventional liability insurance policies containing the ''Broad Form Nuclear Energy Liability Exclusion Endorsement'', and Public Law 85-804. It also outlines (in the appendix) some of the issues Congress has been considering for the last two years in deciding whether to extend the Price-Anderson Act beyond its present 1987 expiration. The report's description of liability coverage for nuclear transportation activities depends to a very large extent upon the Price-Anderson Act, whose authority for new coverage expires in less than two years (on August 1, 1987). With no other comparable coverage available now or in the foreseeable future, transporters and others need to monitor Congressional activities to determine whether the Price-Anderson Act will or will not be extended in substantially its present form

[en] Federal District Court Judge James B. McMillan has declared that the Price-Anderson limitation of liability is unconstitutional. The author lays out his personal observations on the subject. He then advances ideas that reflect his personal views regarding what he considers to be the real role of Price-Anderson and NELIA-MAELU for the future (assuming a way is found to overcome the problems associated with Judge McMillan's decision). Price-Anderson is the government indemnity available, and the private insurance companies are Nuclear Energy Liability Insurance Association and Mutual Atomic Energy Liability Underwriters. The author, a former general manager of NELIA, while avoiding a detailed discussion of the new industry retrospective plan, the Hathaway Amendment (the likelihood of a serious nuclear accident) and Judge McMillan's decision, compiled a list of 12 recommendations. His aim is to stimulate new thinking regarding ways to convert a system originally conceived in 1956 into a streamlined program for the 1980s