end up. Let me explain. The State of Washington, through our Nuclear Waste Board, has been intensely involved in negotiations with the U.S. Department of Energy over the past year. These negotiations have taken place as part of the Cooperation and Consultation process authorized by Section 117 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The State of Washington is the first and, to date, only state to become involved in the Cooperation and Consultation process as a candidate state for the first high-level nuclear waste repository. The C & C process so far as been beneficial for the State and has been pursued in good faith by both sides. The process has assisted the State in more clearly identifying issues of particular concern which need to be resolved before the State can even begin to feel comfortable with its role as a candidate state for a nuclear waste dump for the nation. These issues include: whether the State, if selected as a repository site, would be required to accept nuclear waste generated in foreign countries; whether spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste will be barged up the Columbia River and, if so, what controls will be placed on shipments and; to what extent the State may exercise its right to independent review of the activities of USDOE in the repository selection process. One issue, however, has emerged above all others as the primary concern of the State of Washington in its role as a potential repository state. That issue involves liability and indemnification for any incident which may occur as a consequence of transportation and disposal of radioactive waste within the State. The concern about who will pay for any damage and whether we will be fully compensated has come up time and time again in legislative hearings on this matter, in discussions of our Nuclear Waste Board, and in our negotiations with USDOE. I believe this concern is so strong because the people of the State of Washington are very familiar with the problems of nuclear waste disposal and are attuned to possible catastrophic consequences of any nuclear transportation or repository incident which may contaminate the Columbia River. This glorious river flows within a few miles of the potential repository site and is the lifeblood of our State and region. These concerns are not unfounded. For years, tanks storing radioactive wastes at Hanford leaked and the leaks went undetected. Recently, an increase in levels of certain radioactive elements were found in Columbia River water. Also, it has been learned that, based on existing data, groundwater travel times from the potential repository site to the Columbia River could be as little as ten years. The perception of the public that a release of radioactivity to the environment could happen is based on past experiences, not just fear. It would appear entirely reasonable to expect compensation for any harm which may occur as a result of a nuclear waste transportation or repository incident. USDOE, however, has not been responsive to the concerns expressed by the State of Washington. In its negotiations with the Department, the State has requested that USDOE commit to strict liability and full indemnification for any damages caused by a nuclear incident at a repository within the State or associated with the transport of radioactive material to or from such a repository. USDOE has insisted that its liability is circumscribed by the Federal Torts Claim Act and that any liablility is limited by the Price-Anderson Act. As long as USDOE adheres to this position, it is my view there should be no C&C Agreement between the State and USDOE and the State should exercise its notice of disapproval if Hanford is selected as a repository site. Your committee can help prevent a breakdown in cooperative state/federal relationships which are so important to the successful implementation of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. This can be done by refusing to extend the Price-Anderson Act to cover a nuclear waste repository and by removing any limits which the Federal Torts Claim Act may place on liability of the federal government in nuclear waste matters. We believe the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, in Section 117 (5), already authorizes USDOE to adopt the position of the State. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act does not reference to the Price-Anderson Act or the Federal Tort Claims Act. Rather, it states that a written agreement shall specify procedures by which USDOE shall assist the State in resolving concerns of the State "including, but not limited to, questions of State liability arising from accidents...". Your committee can act to clarify the authority of USDOE. There exists good rationale for refusing to extend the limitations of the Price-Anderson Act to nuclear waste repositories. The Price-Anderson Act was adopted to encourage private sector investment in the construction of nuclear power plants. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act places nuclear waste under the control of the Federal government. There is no need to limit liability to encourage private sector involvement. All concepts of good government suggest that government ought to be beneficient towards the people it governs. To site a repository in a State without the promise of full compensation if something goes wrong violates fundamental concepts of good government and will reduce confidence in the federal government's role in handling nuclear waste. Finally, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act itself recognizes that the concerns of the States are legitimate and ought to be accomadated "to the maximum extent feasible" by USDOE. Therefore, I urge the committee to reject the recommendation of USDOE that Price-Anderson be extended to expressly cover nuclear waste repositories and that other methods be examined to assure the States that the federal government will fully indemnify the State and its citizens for any harm which may occur as a consequence of the establishment of a nuclear waste repository and transportation of nuclear waste to and from that repository without regard to fault. FROM THE WASHINGTON POST, DECEMBER 18, 1983 Proposal Would Erase Utilities' Liability Limit in A-Plant Accidents By Milton R. Benjamin Washington Post Staff Writer The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will recommend to Congress Monday that it eliminate the current $570 million limit on the liability of utilities for damages resulting from an accident at a commercial atomic power plant, it was learned yesterday. The commission, in urging that there be no limit to the public's right to compensation for injuries and damages caused by a major nuclear accident, concluded that the present aw unfairly shifts the risk of "potentially atastrophic losses" from utilities to "victims f an accident" and the federal government. The commission also will propose to Con ress that the statute of limitations for filing • public liability claim arising from a nuclear ccident be extended from the current 20 ears to 30 years. The NRC has concluded that, since caners resulting from exposure to radiation generally take a long time to develop, a 20year statute of limitations "is probably not sufficient to permit the identification of all latent injuries." The NRC recommendations to Congress for revising the 26-year-old Price-Anderson Act, which originally limited accident liabil ity in order to encourage the growth of a civilian nuclear power industry, are contained in a report that is to be formally presented Monday. The report was circulated to key congressmen Friday night, and a copy was obtained by The Washington Post. Utilities undoubtedly would seek approval of their state public service commissions to pass on to their customers the added costs that might be caused by these proposals. Under heavy pressure from industry, the NRC eliminated from a final draft of the report-which was circulated last summercontroversial government estimates that a worst-case accident at a nuclear plant, however improbable, could result in thousands of death and injury claims and property damage running into the billions of dollars. But the final report approved by the commission says "there remains a very low prob ability of a very high-consequence accident that could result in public liability claims well in excess of the present amount of nuclear liability." As a result, the commission will recommend that Congress "substitute an annual limitation on liability for accidents at large commercial nuclear power plants for the present absolute limitation on liability in the act. It will propose that Congress amend the law to permit all utilities operating nuclear power plants to be assessed "$10 million per reactor, per incident, per year until all claims resulting from any major nuclear accident are paid. With 82 atomic power plants now in operation, this would mean that the insurance pool available to pay public liability claims from any accident would be about $820 million a year, a total that would increase to more than $1 billion a year as reactors nearing completion come on line. "This approach should ensure the availability of sufficient insurance funds under the act to pay public liability claims even for high-consequence accidents," the NRC says. This new open-ended pool would replace the current pool of $570 million, which consists of $160 million of private insurance that would be supplemented with $410 million raised through a one-time assessment on utilties of $5 million per reactor. The current law provides that if damages exceed the $570 million liability limit, any further payments to victims would require action by Congress. "The commission believes that the limitation on liability under the Price-Anderson Act should be modified to minimize the potential for uncompensated losses by the victims of a commercial nuclear power plant accident and to minimize the potential need for additional financial contributions by the federal government to meet public liability claims," the report says. Setting an annual limit of $10 million per reactor on the assessment that can be levied following an accident, the commission said, should eliminate the potential for a catastrophic financial loss by a single utility as a result of public liability claims." The only accident situation that has triggered the Price-Anderson Act to date was in 1979, when families with pregnant women and pre-school-age children were evacuated from a five-mile area around the Three Mile laland nuclear plant in Middletown, Pa. A total of $28 million in claims was paid out of the insurance pool as a result of that accident. |