I 98TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION H. R. 3277 To improve the regulation of civilian nuclear powerplants and to provide economic incentives for their safe operation and for other purposes. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Mr. SEIBERLING introduced the following bill; which was referred to the A BILL To improve the regulation of civilian nuclear powerplants and to provide economic incentives for their safe operation and for other purposes. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa 2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the "Civilian Nu 4 clear Power Regulation Improvement and Safety Incentives 5 Act of 1983". 6 7 LIMITATION ON LIABILITY SEC. 2. Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 8 as amended, is amended by striking out subsection 170 e., 9 and relettering the subsequent subsections as necessary. 1 2 2 EXTRAORDINARY NUCLEAR OCCURRENCES SEC. 3. (a) Section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 3 1954 is amended: 4 5 6 7 (1) by striking out subsection j.; and (2) in subsection q. by striking out ", including an extraordinary nuclear occurrence,”. (b) Section 170 n. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is 8 amended by striking out “extraordinary nuclear occurrence" 9 and substituting "nuclear incident" in each place it appears. 10 11 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS SEC. 4. Section 170 n. (1) of the Atomic Energy Act of 12 1954 is amended in the first sentence (a) by striking out the clause immediately following subparagraph (c) up to but not including “(i)", and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "the Commission must incorporate provisions in indemnity agreements with licensees and contractors under this section, and must require provisions to be incorporated in insurance policies or contracts furnished as proof of financial protection, which waive"; and (b) by inserting in clause (iii) a period after "thereof" and striking out the remainder of the sentence. 38-299 0-84--2 The CHAIRMAN. We are going to hear first today from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Chairman Palladino, welcome again to this friendly committee, you and your colleagues. We will be glad to hear from you and then from any of your colleagues that desire to be heard. You may proceed. Mr. PALLADINO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I and my fellow commissioners are pleased to have the opportunity to appear before the subcommitteee to testify on the Price-Anderson Act and the NRC's December 1983 report to the Congress. With your permission, I would like to provide my full statement for the record and, thus, limit my remarks to the following com ments. The CHAIRMAN. That procedure is agreeable to us. Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could have unanimous consent to include my opening remarks in the record immediately prior to the testimony of the Commissioner. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered, and I apologize to the gentleman. I should have asked for opening statements. Mr. SEIBERLING. I am gratified that Chairman Udall scheduled this important hearing on the Price-Anderson Act. When the nuclear industry was in its infancy, Congress in 1957 passed the Price-Anderson Act, which placed a temporay $560 million limit on liability for a nuclear powerplant accident, regardless of the number of people injured or the severity of the injuries or property damage. However, this temporary limit is still on the books after 25 years of inflation, and despite the fact that the industry is a mature one. If the Three Mile Island accident had been more serious, the PriceAnderson Act probably would have prevented many people from recovering more than a few pennies on the dollar for their damages. I believe that anyone who suffers injury from an accident at a currently operating nuclear powerplant, or from any plants to be built in the future, should be able to sue to recover their actual damages in full. The Federal Insurance Administration has estimated that under a worst-case scenario, a core meltdown, property loss alone would have cost $17 billion at Three Mile Island. I would point out that this figure assumes that no personal injuries would have been sustained and there would have been a complete an uneventful evacuation of the area around the plant, a likelihood that I believe is remote. Although the liability limit has increased by $25 million since 1957, $17 billion in potential damages is far above the current limit of $585 million. Thus I believe that in order to protect the interests of the general public, the limit on liability found in the Price-Anderson Act should be repealed. I have introduced legislation, H.R. 3277, which would make three simple but fundamental changes to the Price-Anderson Act. First, it would remove the present $585 million limit on total liability for damages caused by an accident at a currently operating or future nuclear power plant. Second, my bill would modify the extraordinary nuclear occurrence [ENO] concept to require either the waiver of defenses or strict liability for all nuclear incidents. Third, the legislation would change the statute of limitations from the current 20 years to 3 years from the time the plaintiff discovers the injuries or damage. H.R. 3277 has 38 cosponsors at this time. I view H.R. 3277 as a starting point for discussion on what revisions need to be made in the Price-Anderson Act. Certainly Congress should make some fundamental changes in the act in order to better protect the interests of people who live near nuclear powerplants or nuclear materials transportation lines. My bill is designed to retain all the features of the Price-Anderson Act which protect the public, while repealing those features which hinder the rights of individuals who could suffer harm from a nuclear accident. Let me say at the outset that I am not an opponent of nuclear power. I am a supporter of nuclear power. However, I have sat through many hearings of this subcommittee which have raised questions about the failure of quality assurance and other programs which are designed to protect the health and safety of the public. I believe that my proposed legislation would greatly increase public confidence in the safety of the nuclear industry. So far the nulcear industry has a better safety record than the chemical industry and the airline industry, both of which thrive without a protective limit on normal tort liability like the one that is provided for the nuclear industry under the Price-Anderson Act. There also appears to be no evidence that the insurance industry could not provide coverage for nuclear powerplant accidents, since utilities now, on the average, insure themselves for $1 billion. If insurers are willing to insure the nuclear facility, it seems to me that there is also a market for insuring against normal tort liabilities which could arise from a nuclear accident. The enactment of H.R. 3277 would promote the safest possible operation of nuclear powerplants and would encourage the development of a more uniformly agressive safety consciousness in the industry, which is essential if nuclear power is to play its proper role in our Nation's energy future. Enactment of this bill would also allow the free market to work by getting insurance companies into the act. Insurers would have a compelling interest to monitor the construction and operation of nuclear powerplants, as they normally do with other industries, to see that the plants are designed and operated so as to reduce the risk of accident to the absolute minimum. The result would be reduced risk to public health and safety and improved public confidence in nuclear powerplant operations. I am very pleased that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in its recent report has recognized that the Price-Anderson Act's absolute limit on liability should be repealed. While the proposal to replace the current absolute liability limit with an annual limit is an improvement over current law, I continue to believe that a better solution would be to remove all limits on liability for the nuclear power industry, including currently operating powerplants. Because of the current limit on the nuclear industry's liability for nuclear accidents, millions of Americans who live near nuclear plants could suffer catastrophic losses in the highly unlikely but not impossible event of a large-scale accident at a nuclear powerplant. The NRC report, once and for all, establishes the fact that there should not be a limit on the amount of money available to compensate nuclear accident victims. Two of the NRC Commissioners have endorsed the provision in my bill which would extend the extraordinary nuclear occurence concept to all nuclear incidents. This change would bring the PriceAnderson framework into line with many State tort laws, which waive certain defenses in tort cases involving ultrahazardous activities. The plaintiffs must still prove causation. In other words, the claimants must prove that their injuries and damages were caused by the nuclear accident. This link can be extremely difficult to prove. Expanding the no-fault of strict liability concept merely makes it easier for people injured by a nuclear accident to recover their losses, but it certainly does not guarantee their recovery. I would also like to note that the NRC has recommended lengthening the statute off limitations from 20 years to 30 years in order to address the problem of latent injuries and illnesses which may not show up until years after the nuclear accident. Again, I think the NRC's position is an improvement over current law, but I prefer the solution proposed by my bill. H.R. 3277 would replace the current 20-year statute of limitations with a provision that allows a suit for up to 3 years after the claimant discovers his or her injuries. This so-called discovery rule has been adopted by several States for injuries which may not be apparent right way. Injuries and illnesses caused by exposure to radioactivity may not show up for 30 or 40 years after a nuclear accident. H.R. 3277 offers one solution to solving the problem of latent injuries. Again, I would like to thank Chairman Udall for calling this important hearing. FACT SHEET ON SEIBERLING PRICE-ANDERSON AMENDMENTS—H.R. 3277 The bill makes three simple but fundamental changes in the Price-Anderson Act: It removes the current $560 million limitation on total liability for damages to the public caused by an accident at a nuclear power plant. It makes the nuclear industry strictly liable for damages caused by accidents, regardless of severity. Injured persons would not have to prove negligence in the design, construction or operation of a plant in order to receive compensation for any injuries they may sustain. It eliminates the current 20 year statute of limitations on recovering damages caused by a nuclear accident. Instead, it would permit injured persons to recover for damages if they sue within 3 years after they discover, or reasonably could have discovered, their injuries. LIMITATION ON LIABILITY The limitation on liability was established in 1957 when Congress first enacted the Price-Anderson Act. The industry, which was then in its infancy, argued that without the liability limitation, investors, vendors and engineers would refuse to get involved in the development of this dangerous and unproven technology. It was intended to be a temporary provision to help get the industry established. The industry is no longer in a stage of initial development. It has 80 operating reactors, 70 more under construction, and represents billions of dollars in assets and thousands of jobs. Its 700 reactors-years of operating experience have established a record of the risks of operation. Currently, private insurers have no reason for offering the industry additional insurance for off-site damage. However, following Three Mile Island, the industry was successful in encouraging the private insurers to increase from $300 million to $1 billion the amount of insurance they would make available for on-site property damage. Insurers would respond to removed limits on liability by offering additional insurance to the industry. |