OCCURRENCE CONCEPT FROM THE PRICE-ANDERSON ACT AND AMEND THE ACT TO REQUIRE THAT THE WAIVER OF DEFENSES PROVISION BE APPLICABLE TO ALL NUCLEAR INCIDENTS. THE COMMISSION ALSO CONSIDERED A THIRD OPTION THAT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED THE WAIVER OF DEFENSES IN THE CASE OF ANY ACCIDENT IN WHICH (A) A GENERAL EMERGENCY IS DECLARED OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DECLARED, OR (B) OFFSITE RADIATION DOSES EXCEED EPA OR FDA PROTECTIVE ACTION GUIDES. HOWEVER, AS I HAVE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDED IN THE REPORT THAT THE CONGRESS RETAIN THE PRESENT STATUTORY LANGUAGE FOR THE FINDING OF AN EXTRAORDINARY NUCLEAR OCCURRENCE AND NOTED THAT THE COMMISSION WAS INITIATING RULEMAKING TO REDEFINE THE CRITERIA FOR AN EXTRAORDINARY NUCLEAR OCCURRENCE. FINALLY, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO COMMENT ON ONE OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS IN H.R. 421. THIS BILL WOULD REQUIRE THE COMMISSION TO "REDETERMINE PERIODICALLY ON THE BASIS OF THE COST OF LIVING" THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF LIABILITY INSURANCE AVAILABLE FROM PRIVATE SOURCES. THIS PROVISION DOES NOT CORRECTLY REFLECT THE METHOD UNDER WHICH THE PRIMARY NUCLEAR LIABILITY INSURANCE IS MADE AVAILABLE. MEMBER INSURANCE COMPANIES IN THE TWO INSURANCE POOLS DECIDE INDEPENDENTLY THE AMOUNT OF CAPACITY THEY WISH TO COMMIT TO NUCLEAR RISKS. THE COMMISSION DOES NOT IN ANY WAY ESTABLISH THIS AMOUNT, ALTHOUGH WE RECOMMENDED IN OUR REPORT THAT THE CONGRESS INVESTIGATE WITH THE NUCLEAR LIABILITY INSURERS THE POTENTIAL FOR INCREASING THE AVAILABLE PRIVATE INSURANCE CAPACITY. THAT CONCLUDES MY PREPARED TESTIMONY. THANK YOU. REMARKS BY Commissioner James K. Asselstine U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Before the Nuclear Power Assembly May 8, 1984 Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to participate in this session of the Nuclear Power Assembly on the renewal of the Price-Anderson Act. Section 170 p. of the Atomic Energy Act requires that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission submit a detailed report to the Congress concerning the need for continuation or modification of the provisions of the Price-Anderson Act, taking into account the condition of the nuclear industry, the availability of private insurance, and the state of knowledge concerning nuclear safety at this time. The Commission's report is also to include recommendations for the repeal or modification of any of the provisions of the Price-Anderson Act. As I suspect many of you know, the Commission submitted its report to the Congress in December 1983. I want to spend a few minutes this afternoon highlighting some of the principal conclusions and recommendations in the Commission's report. I should add that with one exception, the Commission's recommendations regarding the extension and modification of the Price-Anderson Act were unanimous. -2 First, the Commission's Report recommended that the Congress extend the Price-Anderson Act. The Commission believes that the Act provides a valuable public benefit by establishing a system for the prompt and equitable settlement of public liability claims resulting from a nuclear accident. We also believe that the Act should be extended to cover future as well as existing nuclear power plants. It appears to make little sense to have one system of public financial protection for existing plants and another system for any future plants that might be ordered. Second, the Commission's Report recommended that the Congress amend the Price-Anderson Act to substitute an annual limitation on liability for accidents at large commercial nuclear power plants for the present absolute limitation on liability in the Act. This annual limitation on liability would permit the assessment of retrospective premiums in succeeding years until all public liability claims from an accident are paid. The Commission believes that the annual limitation on liability should apply to existing plants, that is, plants now covered by the Act and by indemnification agreements, as well as future plants. This approach should ensure the availability of sufficient insurance funds under the Act to pay public liability claims even for high-consequence accidents. At the same time, this approach should avoid imposing potentially catastrophic losses on utilities or suppliers of nuclear goods and services. Thus, the Commission's suggested approach would balance the competing benefits of providing full compensation to the 38-299 0-84-9 - 3 victims of a serious nuclear accident and avoiding the imposition of a catastrophic financial burden on the utilities owning and operating nuclear power plants. It would also minimize the potential for any further Federal financial role. Third, the Commission's Report recommended that the Congress amend the Price-Anderson Act to raise the maximum retrospective premiums that can be charged from the present $5 million per reactor per incident to $10 million per reactor per incident per year until all claims are paid. The Commission believes that an increase in the size of the retrospective premiums to $10 million would substantially increase the amount of funds available shortly after a nuclear accident to pay public liability claims. This amount of funds for public liability claims would be roughly comparable to the amount of insurance coverage now provided for most large commercial nuclear power plants to pay onsite property damage and other utility claims. It was the Commission's judgment, based upon the testimony at prior Congressional hearings and our staff's analysis of the utilities' financial condition, that an increase in the size of the retrospective premiums to $10 million also should not jeopardize the financial viability of the participating utilities. A fourth element in the Commission's report was the recommendation that the Congress extend the statute of limitations for filing a public liability claim arising from a nuclear incident from 20 to 30 years. The Commission believes that this change should provide greater assurance that latent injuries caused by a nuclear accident are provided |