Story Filed: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 6:15 PM EST
WASHINGTON, Nov 27, 2001 (States News Service via COMTEX) -- In a move Rep.
Billy Tauzin, R-Chackbay, said would "help pave the way for the construction of
much needed nuclear power plants," the House passed
controversial legislation Tuesday to continue to limit operators' financial
liability in the event of a meltdown.
Tauzin, chairman of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee, has
called nuclear
power "a key component of country's diverse electricity-production portfolio,"
and stressed that further development of the industry could come to a standstill
unless Congress re-authorizes the so-called Price-Anderson Act.
The law was first passed in 1957 to kick-start a then-fledgling nuclear power industry by
reducing the financial risks associated with an atomic accident.
Since then, the law has been re-authorized three times and, opponents say,
become a permanent crutch for the industry.
Operators are currently required to retain $200 million worth of private
insurance for each plant and pool together additional funds sufficient for
covering up to $9.4 billion worth of potential damages.
Under Price-Anderson, all damages exceeding $9.4 billion would be covered by
taxpayers.
Opponents argue Price-Anderson amounts to a government subsidy of an industry
that's so dangerous, it cannot afford private insurance, and therefore, cannot
survive without Uncle Sam's help.
Supporters counter that Price-Anderson is no different than federal insurance
for banks, and note that never in the nuclear industry's history have damages from a
nuclear accident -
including the partial meltdown at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island in 1979 -
exceeded the $9.4-billion cap.
Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., suggested, however, that a serious
nuclear accident today
could cost more than $300 billion - far surpassing operators' limited liability.
Berkley added that while Price-Anderson supports the further development of
nuclear power
plants, it simultaneously "subsidizes the production of more
nuclear waste," for which
the federal government has yet to find a permanent disposal site.
Industry officials are lobbying for the government to build a permanent waste
dump under Yucca Mountain in Berkley's home state of Nevada - a plan she and
many other state lawmakers oppose.
Berkley urged Congress to hold off on re-authorizing Price-Anderson until it
decides what to do with the waste, which remains idle at various sites across
the country.
Price-Anderson is currently set to expire in August 2002. The House-passed
bill would extend it until 2017.
The last time it was due to expire, in 1987, Congress "made a big mistake,"
Tauzin said, in letting the law lapse for an entire year.
During that time, at least one contractor refused to accept a major Energy
Department project because the government could not offer full Price-Anderson
coverage. Tauzin said there would be a "strong reluctance" on the part of
industry to build new
nuclear plants without re-authorization.
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., is said to be considering
including language re-authorizing Price-Anderson in his long-awaited energy
bill.
But Sen. Henry Reid, D-Nev., who chairs the Senate subcommittee on
nuclear safety, is opposed
to Price-Anderson re-authorization for the same reason as Berkley, his Nevada
colleague.
By Chris Shott
Copyright States News Service, all right reserved.
Copyright © 2001, States News Service, all rights
reserved.
You may now print or save this document.
Simple
Search
