House Votes to Hike A-Mishaps Liability

By JOSH GETLIN

July 31, 1987 12 AM PT

Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — A bill dramatically increasing the nuclear power industry’s financial liability in the event of accidents sailed through the House Thursday, but efforts by a coalition of environmentalists to toughen the measure were soundly defeated.

House members, on a bipartisan 396-17 vote, increased the maximum damages that the industry would have to pay for each nuclear accident to $7 billion, contrasted with the $701-million liability limit under current law.

Sponsors said the bill would require operators of nuclear reactors each to pay $10 million annually for six years to a special accident insurance pool. If damages exceeded the $7-billion limit, the federal Treasury could pay the balance, but would not be required to.

The sweeping legislation, which is supported by the White House and the nuclear power industry, now goes to the Senate, where environmental opponents who want to make the industry pay more of the costs of nuclear accidents have vowed to resume their fight.

Thursday’s action would revise a 30-year-old law that was approved when the industry was in its infancy. At the time, Congress was concerned that unlimited litigation in the aftermath of a catastrophic nuclear accident could delay cash payments to victims.

The result was the Price-Anderson Act, a law specifying that victims would receive financial awards quickly under a “no fault” formula while strictly limiting the overall liability faced by the nuclear power industry.

Democrats and Republicans praised the newly revised bill as a compromise in the same tradition, as well as recognition that the potential financial havoc caused by nuclear accidents is much greater than originally suspected.

Responding to Realities

“We must respond to the realities of nuclear power in this country as it exists, not as we wish it existed,” Rep. David E. Bonior (D-Mich.) said. He noted that the legislation would “create a climate” in which the operators of America’s more than 100 nuclear reactors could do business without fear of going bankrupt.

However, a group of congressmen, backed by consumer activist Ralph Nader and a coalition of national environmental groups, charged that the revised law is a slap in the face to accident victims and a virtual “subsidy” of the nuclear power industry by federal taxpayers, who might be called upon to pay billions of dollars for accidents caused by private industry.

During an often-contentious debate, critics offered an amendment that would have made private nuclear reactor operators liable for unlimited cash damages in the case of an accident. A second amendment would have provided civil penalties for contractors who operate federal nuclear facilities and cause accidents and a third would have required that victims’ claims be fully paid out of the $7-billion accident fund before attorneys are compensated. All three proposals were defeated.

“Despite the fact the nuclear power industry tells us they are safe . . . they are not willing to put their money where their mouth is,” said Rep. Dennis E. Eckart (D-Ohio), who argued that there is “just no certainty” that $7 billion would be enough to cover the costs of a nuclear catastrophe.

Known as ‘Cash Cows’

Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who co-authored the proposal to make the industry pay for unlimited damages, said: “On Wall Street, (these) utilities are known as ‘cash cows.’ . . . Southern California Edison made $744 million in profits last year. Do you think they can afford to pay some of that to victims of a meltdown in the event there is one?”

Defenders of the nuclear industry said a law exposing plant operators to unlimited financial claims would not guarantee higher payments for victims.

“Unlimited liability merely assures unlimited litigation,” Rep. Norman F. Lent (R-N.Y.) said. He added that such lawsuits, filed without the benefit of the current no-fault system, could only target the assets of a particular company at fault, rather than the $7-billion pool provided by the new law.

“As far as victims are concerned, there’s no comparison,” Lent said. “With the new bill, they do come out ahead.”