The major nuclear component of this bill is reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act, which limits utility industry liability in the event of a nuclear accident.

We are urging you, if you live in a district with a House Commerce Committee member (list below), to contact your member immediately and tell them NO REAUTHORIZATION OF PRICE-ANDERSON!

Please activate phone trees, contact your friends who may live in such a district, reach out to neighbors and colleagues. It is ESSENTIAL that we stop the Price-Anderson steamroller, and the only way to do that is to make it as controversial as possible-starting right now.

The Capitol Hill telephone exchange is 202-224-3121; please call your Congressmember today. Even if you don't live in a district with a Commerce Committee member, it's worth calling, because members talk to each other, and if we can demonstrate the breadth of public opposition to Price-Anderson renewal, we are a long way toward winning.

Background The Price-Anderson Act, last renewed in 1987, limits nuclear industry liability in the event of an accident. Currently, the limit is about $8 Billion (the exact amount depends upon how many nuclear reactors are operating).

Essentially, the nuclear industry as a whole purchases $200 million worth of private insurance. When that money is taken up, then each reactor is levied $10 million per year for about 7 years. If accident damages exceed that amount, taxpayers will be asked to make up the difference. Compare that to the 1982 Sandia National Laboratories study (CRAC-2)[http://www.mothersalert.org/crac.html], which projected economic damages of up to $300 Billion (in 1982 dollars) resulting from an accident at the Indian Point, NY reactor site. The 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe already has cost Russia, Ukraine and Belarus some $300 Billion, and the costs-from interdicted land, from radioactive waste disposal, from ongoing health effects-mount daily.

Moreover, no other hazardous industry has such a subsidized insurance scheme. Not chlorine, not any other toxic or chemical manufacturer-only the nuclear power industry. Current estimates of this taxpayer subsidy are about $3 Billion per year, based on the estimated costs if each utility purchased its own insurance (if it even could, which is unlikely).

It is important to note that if Price-Anderson is not renewed, its provisions will continue to hold for existing reactors. It is only to subsidize the construction of new reactors that Price-Anderson renewal even is being considered. Some Congressmembers may be sympathetic to the argument that while in the 1950s, when nuclear power's risks were unclear and the technology was new, Price-Anderson served a purpose. 50 years later, with a supposedly "mature" and "well-operated" nuclear industry, Price-Anderson serves only as an unnecessary government subsidy and favors one electrical generation method (nuclear power) over others (such as gas, solar, wind, etc.)

If Price-Anderson were to be renewed, there are a number of amendments that should be offered, which the fast-track House Commerce Committee schedule won't make time for.

For example, last year the Nuclear Regulatory Commission recommended that the amount levied per reactor be increased from $10 to $20 million per year. This year, the NRC says it made that recommendation only because it thought many reactors would not try to seek license renewal, and that therefore there would be fewer reactors around to cover the costs. Sure... In fact, the NRC is just trying to make it easier to build new reactors.

Also, reactors that use MOX (or plutonium-based) fuel, are more likely to have an accident and are more likely to have an accident of greater consequence that conventional atomic power plants. They should either not be covered by Price-Anderson at all, or their payments should be much higher. This issue has not been addressed by the House Commerce Committee.

Radioactive waste transportation is another area where Price-Anderson coverage is insufficient. Coverage, if Price-Anderson is to be renewed, should reflect potential damages-which could range into the billions of dollars.

Meanwhile, some parts of the nuclear industry are also seeking amendments. For example, the Exelon Corporation wants Price-Anderson coverage to be based on each reactor site, rather than how many reactors are on the site. That's because Exelon envisions building 110 Megawatt pebble-bed reactors, seven or more per site, and they want Price-Anderson to consider those seven reactors as one-even though smaller reactors, such as Michigan's Big Rock Point-long were liable for full Price Anderson coverage.

Tell your members of Congress that Price-Anderson is too controversial to be included in any kind of omnibus energy legislation. Tell them that how they handle this issue, and nuclear power issues generally, will determine how you vote next election. Tell them to stop renewal of Price-Anderson now!

Again, call your member(s) of Congress today! 202-224-3121. 

Please contact NIRS, nirsnet@nirs.org, 202-328-0002, for any information you may need.

Thanks,

Michael Mariotte NIRS [http://www.nirs.org]

Republicans 
W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, Louisiana, 
Chairman Michael Bilirakis, Florida 
Joe Barton, Texas 
Fred Upton, Michigan 
Cliff Stearns, Florida 
Paul E. Gillmor, Ohio 
James C. Greenwood, Pennsylvania 
Christopher Cox, California 
Nathan Deal, Georgia 
Steve Largent, Oklahoma 
Richard Burr, North Carolina 
Vice Chairman Ed Whitfield, Kentucky 
Greg Ganske, Iowa 
Charlie Norwood, Georgia 
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming 
John Shimkus, Illinois 
Heather Wilson, New Mexico 
John B. Shadegg, Arizona Charles 
"Chip" Pickering, Mississippi 
Vito Fossella, New York 
Roy Blunt, Missouri
Thomas Davis, Virginia 
Ed Bryant, Tennessee 
Robert Ehrlich, Maryland 
Steve Buyer, Indiana 
George Radanovich, California 
Charles F. Bass, New Hampshire 
Joseph Pitts, Pennsylvania 
Mary Bono, California 
Greg Walden, Oregon 
Lee Terry, Nebraska

Democrats 
John D. Dingell, Michigan 
Ranking Member Henry A. Waxman, California 
Edward J. Markey, Mass. 
Ralph M. Hall, Texas 
Rick Boucher, Virginia 
Edolphus Towns, New York 
Frank Pallone Jr., New Jersey 
Sherrod Brown, Ohio 
Bart Gordon, Tennessee 
Peter Deutsch, Florida 
Bobby L. Rush, Illinois 
Anna G. Eshoo, California 
Bart Stupak, Michigan 
Eliot L. Engel, New York 
Tom Sawyer, Ohio 
Albert R. Wynn, Maryland 
Gene Green, Texas 
Karen McCarthy, Missouri 
Ted Strickland, Ohio 
Diana DeGette, Colorado 
Tom Barrett, Wisconsin 
Bill Luther, Minnesota 
Lois Capps, California 
Mike Doyle, Pennsylvania 
Chris John, Louisiana 
Jane Harman, California

The Magnum-Opus Project---The Mission: To do a greater good. Righting the wrongs of the Manhattan Project's deceit and treachery national security methods using openness and accountability. DOE Watch List--Where toxic health damage is not a mystery. A news list combined with scientific studies to expose the problems. Subscribe: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/doewatch DOE Watch OR Web page: http://members.aol.com/doewatch Rocky Flats EIN page: http://members.aol.com/magnu96196/EINHome.html

Toxic metals and fluorides concentrate in lymph nodes and cause damage to macrophage mitochondrial DNA, leading to illnesses. See the analysis at http://members.aol.com/magnu96196/cfs.html

In the 1980's, Oak Ridge managers established a national alliance of DOE friendly supplanted activists and old DOE scientists to mislead gullible fluoride affected sick workers and communities in order to fabricate a health mystery and avoid the extreme liabilities of the fluorides health damage to uranium gas diffusion chemical plant workers and communities.