[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Reid challenges Price Anderson Act
Christy Brinkley?? isn't anyone just amazed that the Senate would actually invite a model to talk about nuclear power... maybe they will invite George Clooney when they talk about health care issues. How can anyone take such a panel seriously??
Patricia A. Milligan, RPh.,CHP
USNRC
301-415-2223
>>> Norman Cohen <ncohen12@HOME.COM> 01/24/02 12:44PM >>>
Of course, there's politics involved. Reid is going to use his power at the #2
guy in the Senate to try to block Yucca Mountain or to cut a deal that would
benefit Nevada. Its the cutting of deals that should concern people on all sides
of this issue.
Norm
> http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2002/Jan-24-Thu-2002/news/17940904.html";>
> http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2002/Jan-24-Thu-2002/news/17940904.html</A>
> =======================================================
> January 24, 2002
> Las Vegas Review-Journal
>
> NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS: Reid challenges insurance program
> Law enacted in '50s for young industry criticized by some as crutch
>
> By STEVE TETREAULT
> STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
>
> WASHINGTON -- Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., on Wednesday challenged a
> government-backed insurance program that could leave taxpayers liable to pay
> claims from catastrophic accidents at nuclear power plants.
>
> Reid said it may be time for fundamental changes in the Price-Anderson Act,
> enacted in 1957 as a safety net for the then-fledgling nuclear power industry
> but now criticized by some as a crutch. The industry defends the insurance
> system as crucial to its workings.
>
> "The generation and selling of electricity are very different today than 50
> years ago," Reid said at a hearing of the Senate's nuclear safety
> subcommittee. "A new electricity market demands a new Price-Anderson system."
>
> Reid, the panel's chairman, invited testimony from government and industry
> witnesses, and actor-model Christie Brinkley, who sits on the board of
> Standing for Truth About Radiation, an anti-nuclear group on Long Island,
> N.Y.
>
> Brinkley said as a mother of three living in the vicinity of three nuclear
> reactor stations, she is concerned about safety, and beyond that the ability
> of the nuclear industry to come up with adequate funds to pay claims in the
> event of a catastrophic accident.
>
> "This discussion today is really about an industry owning up to its
> responsibilities," Brinkley said. Reid praised her testimony "because you
> speak for a lot of people."
>
> Reid said afterwards he plans to hold more hearings on the Price-Anderson Act
> before deciding on a course of action this year.
>
> The current law expires in August. If the law expires, coverage would
> continue for 103 commercial nuclear plants now operating, but government
> backing would not be available for new facilities.
>
> Nevadans have taken interest in the act because it also covers accidents at
> government nuclear facilities, including the radioactive waste repository
> under consideration for Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
>
> Another controversial part of the law indemnifies government contractors
> involved in nuclear accidents, even if they are found to be negligent. It
> would cover contract operators of a nuclear waste repository and
> transportation firms involved in shipping radioactive materials to a
> repository.
>
> Price-Anderson requires nuclear plant operators to buy $200 million in
> primary insurance per reactor, plus secondary insurance up to $88 million per
> reactor that is put into an industry pool. The pool currently totals $9.5
> billion and is to cover potential accidents at commercial plants and
> government nuclear weapons facilities.
>
> The law requires Congress to step in, and presumably tap taxpayer funds, to
> cover damages above $9.5 billion.
>
> Reid said the private insurance pool may be too small, citing a 1986 General
> Accounting Office report stating costs of a nuclear accident could total
> "hundreds of billions depending on which way the wind is blowing."
>
> He also questioned why the government gets behind insurance for nuclear power
> when it doesn't extend the same treatment for other energy forms.
>
> "The nuclear power industry moved through adolescence and has not settled
> into a comfortable middle age," he said. "It no longer needs the federal
> government to nurture it."
>
> Peter Bradford, an energy lecturer at Yale University and a former member of
> the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said Price-Anderson is "anti-competitive."
>
> As long as their accident liability is limited, companies have fewer
> incentives to explore safer designs, he said.
>
> "It provides a subsidy to nuclear power plants compared to other sources of
> electricity and renewables and even between nuclear power plant designs,"> Bradford said. New designs that might be inherently safer don't enjoy an
> advantage because all would be treated the same under the law, he said.
>
> Bradford suggested calculating the monetary value of Price-Anderson to the
> nuclear industry and then offering an equivalent amount to alternative fuels
> that are "in the startup phase," where nuclear power was 45 years ago when
> Price Anderson was established.
>
> Marvin Fertel, a senior vice president for the Nuclear Energy Institute,
> disputed the notion the nuclear industry enjoys a subsidy. Power companies,
> and by extension their ratepayers, bear the cost of insurance, he said.
>
> Fertel also argued no other energy provider is required to buy insurance as
> the nuclear power industry is. "Risks of dam failure and flooding at
> hydroelectric facilities are borne directly by the public, not the hydropower
> facilities," he said.
>
> At one point, Fertel was talking about nuclear plant workers being concerned
> about safety when Reid interrupted.
>
> "Doesn't Homer Simpson work in a nuclear plant?" he asked.
>
> "Homer Simpson works in Hollywood," Fertel responded.
>
> =========================================================
>
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/