In yet another example of how nuclear power and democracy cannot co-exist, the U.S. House of Representatives reauthorized H.R. 2983, the Price-Anderson Act on November 27 with virtually no debate. Under suspension of the rules--a legislative tactic normally used only in non-controversial situations such as naming a federal post office--the House passed the bill with a scant number of members present. No amendments were allowed and debate was limited to 20 minutes per side. Avoiding personal accountability, the House passed the Act by voice vote, meaning the vote was not individually recorded. Although this bill version does contain some safeguards against terrorist acts, they are inadequate and special favors are given to the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR), a "new" nuclear design that has no containment and is not yet off paper.

Price-Anderson reauthorization now moves to the Senate. For many reasons, including national security concerns, Price Anderson deserves a rigorous public debate. Democratic Senators are under pressure to add Price Anderson to their version of the Senate Energy bill rather than make it a separate bill, for which there could be a full and open debate.

WHAT IS PRICE ANDERSON? A GIANT, UNDESERVED SUBSIDY TO NUCLEAR POWER

Since first enacted in 1957, it has served as the nuclear industry's limited liability insurance policy. No other industry has received an equal benefit. Price Anderson amounts to between 366 million and 3.4 billion dollars (in 2001 $) in annual subsidy to the nuclear industry by enabling insurance companies to provide insurance to commercial nuclear power facilities which would otherwise not be able to purchase it. Under normal market circumstances, the nuclear industry is uninsurable and the insurance industry recognizes this. The industry’s insurance coalition, American Nuclear Insurers (ANI), testified before Congress "the Act has been critical in enabling us to provide stable, high quality insurance capacity for nuclear risks in the face of normally overwhelming obstacles for insurers—those obstacles being catastrophic loss potential, the absence of credible predictability…without the "ups and downs" (or market cycles) that have affected nearly all other lines of insurance." (emphasis added). With the Act, the public is denied financial protection from the enormous health costs and economic losses from a catastrophic accident.

Price Anderson provides a cap of approximately 10 billion dollars for a nuclear accident. A 1982 Sandia National Laboratories study quantified the consequences of a catastrophic nuclear power accident in the U.S. Besides potentially causing thousands of early deaths and cancers, an accident could cause as much as $313 billion in damages, or about $600 billion today with inflation. Even an accident of lesser magnitude would cost at least $28 billion.

NON-INSURABLE

Individual citizens can’t purchase protection against nuclear accidents. Why should they subsidize the nuclear utilities’ ability to do so? Individual members of the public are prohibited from purchasing protection from a nuclear accident as is shown by the "nuclear accident exclusion" clause, which is universal in insurance policies for private homes and businesses. The insurance industry--the professional-risk assessor--recognized from the start that nuclear power was too dangerous to fully insure, hence this exemption clause.

If Price-Anderson were not reauthorized, existing reactors would still be covered by its current provisions. The only reason to extend the commercial provisions of the Act is to encourage the construction of new reactors. As Vice-President Dick Cheney recently admitted, without extension of Price-Anderson to new reactors, "Nobody's going to invest in nuclear power." The current generation of expensive nuclear reactors are vulnerable to attacks like those on September 11, according to a Nuclear Regulatory Commission report which has now been removed from public access. And these reactors have containment.

REACTORS WITHOUT CONTAINMENT

The tragic events of September 11, 2001, served to highlight the fact that nuclear reactors pose a great security risk. The "new generation" of so-called "inherently safe" reactors such as the PBMR has no containment building. This simple, fact makes them extremely vulnerable to terrorist attack, and shows the hypocrisy of the nuclear industry which claimed that Chernobyl couldn’t happen in the US because our reactors have containment. Now they are calling a new generation of containment-lacking reactors "inherently safe" while also claiming these reactors need insurance subsidy from taxpayer dollars to cover accident costs.

The nuclear industry’s promotion of new reactor designs, such as PBMR as "inherently safe" stands in stark contrast to its call for extending limited liability to these new reactors. Indeed, in HR 2983, the PBMR is given lower assessments than exist for current reactors.

If the nuclear industry is the safe, viable and mature industry it claims to be, it can be held accountable for the real cost of doing business. If the public is to believe this "free market" oratory then every nuclear power plant designer, supplier and operator should be required to internalize the insurance costs to the full extent of the risks and consequences associated with splitting the atom to create electricity. However, were Congress to lift the liability cap and require full insurance liability for as long as it takes to pay off an accident, utilities would likely abandon this technology for safer, cheaper, cleaner and renewable electricity generation. –Cindy Folkers

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

member of Congress with this number. Local Congressional offices are usually found in the blue pages of local phone books. If you can't find your local number, call NIRS, we have them. House and Senate fax information plus a comment section can be found at

http://capwiz.com/ombwatch/dbq/officials/