CYIL vol. 13 (2022)

MATT SAVINI CYIL 13 ȍ2022Ȏ granted a license for the NS SAVANNAH, the one and only for a nuclear ship, which is still owned by the Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration. The United States Code indicates that nuclear ships are within the purview of the NRC as exemplified by the NS SAVANNAH. Thus, as a licensee, a nuclear ship is also within the scope of Price-Anderson. Should another nuclear ship desire to be commissioned in the future, the operator is required to obtain a license from the NRC and the operator’s liability would be in accordance with Price-Anderson. In conclusion, the United States does have a legal framework for nuclear liability that does include nuclear ships. To summarize, we have determined that there is not a uniform international legal framework that is in force which governs nuclear ships. However, we did identify that the Brussels Convention was purposed to do so but was not entered in force. Finally, under United States law, nuclear ships are licensed by the NRC with liability in accordance with the Price-Anderson scheme. B. Uniform International Laws Are Necessary As our previous analysis determined, there is no uniform international law governing nuclear ships, despite attempts at conventions to address land-based reactors and even the Brussels Convention for nuclear ships. The Brussels Convention was the right approach. Nuclear energy possesses immense potential as an power source but carries with it an immense potential for damages that can cross boundaries and affect regions of the globe. Inherent to the shipping industry is the ability to navigate waters in ports, territorial waters, exclusive economic zones, and the high seas in order to function in commercial trade. For nuclear ships, with the ability to operate for years without refueling, the advantage is for intercontinental trade travelling long distances with large volumes of goods. In that function, damages from a nuclear incident arising from a nuclear ship are likely not limited to the nation that licensed the operator of the ship. The impacts of an incident could be experienced outside of the licensing nation’s territory. That could be in international waters or the waters of another nation or many nations. Therefore, there needs to be a uniform international legal framework to protect the interests of the global community and promote safe operation of nuclear ships. This will also ensure compensation is available as recourse to the effected parties. The Brussels Convention provides an adequate framework for this purpose and should be revisited for implementation. First, the Brussels Convention proposed principles that are generally accepted in various treaties and individual nation’s laws like those of the United States to address the threat of a nuclear incident arising from a nuclear ship. The Brussels Convention proposed strict liability for the operator, like in the Paris Convention, the Vienna Convention, and Price Anderson. Strict liability should be the standard for nuclear ships, like land-based reactors, because of the potential of damages resulting from a nuclear incident. Strict liability holds the operator ultimately responsible for the safe operation of the ship. The potential for this liability promotes a higher level of care from the operator to ensure safe operation, proactive maintenance, and conservative decision making consistent with a positive nuclear safety culture widely expected of nuclear operators. The hazards inherent with nuclear power deserve this level of care. If an incident were to occur in international waters, it would likely have a lessor impact to nations and peoples of the globe but that is not to minimize the destruction. The environmental impact could be devastating causing a release of radioactive

276

Made with FlippingBook Learn more on our blog