----- Forwarded Message -----

From: Noel Petrie

August 3, 2001

Price Anderson Act: The Billion Dollar Taxpayer Subsidy for Nuclear Power

The Price Anderson Act is anti-consumer because it asks taxpayers to assume most of the liability of nuclear accidents. If

the nuclear industry cannot have enough faith in its own technology to guarantee full responsibility for their own mishaps, then

nuclear energy does not deserve these continued taxpayer subsidies. When Congress first created Price Anderson 44 years

ago, they made it clear the Act was temporary legislation. After so many decades and billions in subsidies later, it is time to

retire this boondoggle.

The Price Anderson Act - a law that subsidizes nuclear power by creating liability protection for nuclear accidents - will

expire in August 2002. The nuclear industry is working hard to ensure that the bill is reauthorized and expanded to cover a

new generation of nuclear plants. Several bills have been introduced in the 107th Congress to renew the Act for another ten

year period. Proponents of nuclear power are using their influence to ensure that this liability coverage would be expanded

to new reactors.

The primary mission of the Act is to subsidize shareholders' value in nuclear power by placing a cap on the amount of

insurance protection, thereby limiting the nuclear utilities' liability. This makes capital investment in the nuclear industry more

attractive to investors because the risk is minimized and fixed. More subtly, the Price Anderson Act is intended to create the

illusion that sufficient insurance coverage is available to compensate victims of nuclear accidents for injuries.

Consequently, the Act is a dual-edge sword for the public that it purportedly protects. Indeed, the legislative intent indicates

that investor confidence is the first directive, whereas victim compensation is secondary. But, ultimately, the Price Anderson

Act is smoke and mirrors legislation. It establishes only phantom insurance for the public, then provides a real bailout

mechanism for the nuclear energy industry by reducing its need to pay for insurance and then subsidizing its insurance at the

taxpayers' expense. Understanding how the Act supports and promotes nuclear energy is important for all citizens

concerned about the United States continued reliance on nuclear power.

 

 

What is the Price Anderson Act?

The Price-Anderson Act became law in 1957 as part of amendments to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The Act sets a

limit on the monetary liability of companies for a nuclear accident, and defines the procedural mechanisms for insurance

coverage. This fact sheet only addresses the Price Anderson provisions which apply to commercial reactors. Subsequent

Public Citizen fact sheets will focus on those provisions covering private contractors hired by the Department of Energy.

The Act requires that nuclear reactor operators/owners obtain $200 million in insurance liability coverage from a private

insurer - referred to as primary financial protection. In the event of an accident that exceeds $200 million in damages, all 103

nuclear reactor operators in America must pay up to $88.095 per reactor to cover costs - meaning the potential total

insurance pool financed by private interests is $9.28 billion ($200 million primary financial protection + $88.905 million each

by 103 reactor operators).

What are the Problems with Price Anderson?

The main concern with Price Anderson is that corporations are not liable for the entire costs of their own nuclear accidents.

Since corporations under Price Anderson are only responsible for around two percent of the estimated cost of a serious

accident, taxpayers are forced to pay for the rest.

In the wake of the 1979 Three Mile Island accident, the federally-funded Sandia National Laboratory prepared a report on

behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 1982. This study estimated that damages from a severe nuclear accident

could run as high as $314 billion - or more than $560 billion in 2000 dollars. The Chernobyl catastrophe has cost the nations

of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus $350 billion already, according to their governments. This Chernobyl total, however, is

vastly understated, since it does not attempt to estimate the costs to other nations, which also experienced health costs from

the far-reaching nuclear fallout.

Therefore, the $9.28 billion represents less than two percent of the estimated $560 billion in potential costs of a major

nuclear accident. Since the nuclear reactor operators have their liability capped through Price Anderson, that means

taxpayers would be responsible for hundreds of billions of dollars in costs associated with a foul-up by a private

corporation.

Not surprisingly, the nuclear industry has fought hard to keep the Price Anderson liability limit. In sworn testimony before

Congress in May 2001, John L. Quattrocchi, senior vice-president of the company that provides most of the private

insurance for the nuclear industry stated, "[k]nowing the extent of one's liability provides economic stability and incentives

that would not exist without a limit." Translation: taxpayers, not the nuclear industry, should bear the brunt of the potential

risks of a severe nuclear accident, in order for reactor operators to save money and increase profits at the public's expense.

But Price Anderson was originally intended by Congress to be a temporary solution to what they thought was a temporary

problem - the refusal of private insurers to underwrite the risks of nuclear power. In a 1957 Senate report, the Senate wrote

that Price Anderson would only be needed for ten years because "...the problem of reactor safety will be to a great extent

solved and the insurance people will have had an experience on which to base a sound program of their own."

But the historical record debunks this initial optimism. Nuclear reactors continue to experience significant safety problems,

and the nuclear industry remains unwilling to assume the risks of its own operations.

Even the industry's claim to the relatively-paltry $9 billion liability is not necessarily accurate. The Price Anderson Act fails to

clearly stipulate the industry's exact responsibility - in the text of the law, in terms of the execution of the Act's provisions, or

in terms of the actual funding of the insurance coverage.

The text of the Price Anderson has definitions which are very open-ended. As a result, independent government agencies

like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have wide discretion to fill in the blanks and adjust the insurance requirements on

an individual basis. In addition, the Act is vague on what the government's financial obligations are in the event funds are

unavailable from the nuclear industry. The total effect is large opportunity to evade responsibility if there is an accident and

victims require payment of damages.

Price Anderson stipulates that liability for an accident extends through the nuclear reactor operator to other parties like

manufacturers or designers. Thus, the Act has no fault liability for reactor operators, and injured victims are precluded from

directly suing vendors or manufacturers responsible for the accident.

Nonetheless, the execution of the law after a major accident poses legal hurdles to a victim seeking compensation. First, the

Act states that jurisdiction over an accident falls to the federal district court. Thus, the Act restricts plaintiffs' ability to utilize

any state laws which go above and beyond federal protections. Furthermore, no fault liability limits reactor operator

accountability even if they are reckless or criminally negligent. Moreover, Price Anderson protects nuclear operators from

punitive damages that are not covered under their private insurance coverage.

Why the Act is important now?

The President and leaders in Congress, touting the viability of nuclear power to meet America's energy needs, are calling for

the construction of a new generation of nuclear reactors. Since the nuclear industry has admitted that they would be unable

to compete with alternative energy sources without this billion-dollar subsidy, Congress is now debating Price-Anderson

renewal. If the nuclear power industry is willing to propose building new reactors in America's communities, the least they

could do is stand behind their own technology and offer 100 percent liability for any nuclear accident that occurs. After all,

safety would become a serious concern for the industry if they knew that they actually would have to pay for anything that

goes wrong. Continuing to hide behind Price Anderson's taxpayer bailout is dangerous for America's communities and

pocketbook.

_________________

To learn more about this and other issues Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program works on, visit our website at

http://www.citizen.org .

Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program