AMENDMENTS TO THE PRICE-ANDERSON ACT OF 1954 To Amend the Price-Anderson Act of 1954 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission The Department of Energy Reports on The Price-Anderson Act of 1954 MONDAY JUNE 11, 1984 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Morris K. Udall (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The subcommittee will be in session. I have called this hearing this morning to ring the opening bell for the next round of the Price-Anderson debate. As everyone knows, Price-Anderson will expire in 1987. It is probably vital that if anything is to be done, we will do it no later than the next Congress. There are some new proposals that ought to be explored since the last time we addressed this subject in the subcommittee. My colleagues, John Seiberling of Ohio and Ted Weiss of New York, have each introduced bills that would make significant changes in the Price-Anderson system. The report which the NRC published last December, also contained some innovative ideas and recommendations. We will hear from a great variety of people today representing a great variety of opinions, and I hope they will all comment on these proposals. Before we begin, I would like to make a few brief comments on where we have been with Price-Anderson and where we are going. In the 30 years since the original Price-Anderson Act was enacted, the number of commercial reactors has grown to 85. The percentage of electricity generated by nuclear energy has risen to about 13 percent. The industry is no longer in its infancy, you might say it has reached middle age. The intent behind the original Price-Anderson legislation was two-fold: Congress acted first to encourage private development of nuclear energy and to provide an orderly system to compensate the public in the event of a nuclear accident. So far it appears that the act has achieved both purposes. Another change is that since 1978, there have been no new orders for nuclear power plants, and the NRC says that none are likely to be ordered in the foreseeable future. This may suggest that perhaps there is no need to extend the act since there will not be any new reactors. If the act is not extended beyond 1987, current reactors, which is to say those licensed before 1987, will continue to be covered by the provisions of the Price-Anderson provision. The nuclear industry, however, says that even though they are now a mature industry, there is still a need for a limit on liability. They point to the fact that the NRC and others still say there is a very small chance of a very large accident that could produce astronomical damage claims. This small chance of an accident which could mean bankruptcy for a utility or a contractor is still, according to the industry, a disincentive to participation in the nuclear sector. It is also asserted that the act has been very successful in providing prompt, orderly processing and satisfaction of claims, particularly the claims arising out of the Three Mile Island accident. Besides the benefits offered to the public, many argue that extension of the act is necessary to allow the hundreds of nuclear contractors who work for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy to remain in the field. On the other hand, many economists and environmentalists and some of my colleagues argue that the limit on liability disrupts the energy markets. They claim that we are not paying the true cost for the electricity we generate with nuclear power. I think everyone recognizes that times have changed since the last extension of the act. The committee has some innovative proposals before it today which take into account these changes. The committee will hear from representatives of many groups. It is my hope that we can find out where all of you are, and whether your positions have changed since we heard from you last. [Prepared statement of Hon. Morris K. Udall, chairman, may be found in the appendix.] Before proceeding with our first panel of witnesses, without objection, we will have printed at this point in the hearing record, copies of the bills on which we hold these hearings. [The bills, H.R. 421 and H.R. 3277, follow:] To amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to modify certain statutory limitations on the amount of financial protection required with respect to nuclear incidents, to remove the statutory limitations on the aggregate liability for a single nuclear incident, to limit the financial obligations of the United States with respect to such incidents, and for other purposes. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES JANUARY 3, 1983 Mr. WEISS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs A BILL To amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to modify certain statutory limitations on the amount of financial protection required with respect to nuclear incidents, to remove the statutory limitations on the aggregate liability for a single nuclear incident, to limit the financial obligations of the United States with respect to such incidents, and for other purposes. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 That this Act may be cited as the "Nuclear Incident Liability 4 Reform Act of 1981". 1 2 SEC. 2. (a) Section 170 a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 2 1954 is amended by striking out the second sentence thereof. 3 (b)(1) The first sentence of section 170 b. of such Act is 4 amended to read as follows: "The amount of financial protec5 tion required shall be the maximum amount of liability insur6 ance available from private sources. Such amount shall be 7 redetermined periodically by the Commission on the basis of 8 the cost of living (including the cost of health care).". 9 (2) The third sentence of such section 170 b. is amended 10 to read as follows: "All licensees required to maintain finan11 cial protection under this section shall also be required, with12 out regard to the manner in which they obtained other types 13 or amounts of financial protection, to participate in an indus14 try retrospective rating plan. Such plan shall provide for 15 premium charges deferred in whole or in major part until 16 public liability from a nuclear incident exceeds or appears 17 likely to exceed the sum of— "(1) the level of primary financial protection required of the licensee involved in the nuclear incident, and "(2) the amount otherwise available from such licensee for the satisfaction of such liability (including all real and personal and property of the licensee and any amounts available pursuant to applicable bankruptcy proceedings). HR 421 IH |