STATEMENT OF CHRISTIE BRINKLEY
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SENATE
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
REGARDING
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE PRICE/ANDERSON ACT
JANUARY 23, 2001
Mr. Chairman and
members of the committee, my name is Christie Brinkley. I wish to thank you for
the opportunity to appear here today. I
am here today as a member of the STAR Foundation, a non-profit environmental
group based in East Hampton, NY. STAR Foundation is located at 66 Newtown Lane,
East Hampton, NY. Phone: 631-324-0655.
Two individuals
are joining me: The first is Robert
Alvarez, who spent several years dealing with nuclear issues as staff member to
Senator John Glenn, and served at the Department of Energy as Senior Policy
Advisor. He is the Executive Director
at the STAR Foundation.
On my other
side, is my favorite architect and the Chairman of the Board of Directors at
the STAR Foundation Mr. Peter Cook. He is also my husband.
Peter and I
joined the STAR Foundation after we learned we were raising our three children
in the cross hairs of several very old and troubled nuclear reactors. And we
decided we had to learn everything we could about the Oyster Creek Reactors to
our south, the Indian Point Reactors to our west, and the Millstone Reactors 11
miles north from the area of Long Island that we call home. And we are not alone over 24 million people
in the Greater New York City area live within this radius of the three reactor
stations.
Like many
Americans, after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, we became very concerned with the
safety of our family and friends. We attended public meetings with local
emergency response officials, where many questions were asked
No clear answers
were provided
Unfortunately these questions are no longer
abstractions given that highly destructive acts of terror have become a reality
in the United States.
Today this Subcommittee is addressing a
law—the Price Anderson Act--that deals with how Americans are going to be
compensated after a major nuclear accident. Before we go any further, I just
have to say what I think we all know in our hearts. No one could ever be truly compensated for the loss of a loved
one, or the loss of a birthplace, a hometown, a way of life or peace of mind.
This discussion today is really about an industry owning up to its
responsibilities.
I am not an expert on the Price Anderson
Act, but what I do know leaves me filled with questions and serious
concerns. There are about 145 million
people just like me who live within a fifty-mile radius of a nuclear power
station, and I’ll bet they’d be interested to know that if they took out their
home-owners insurance policy they would see in black-and-white that it does not
protect them in the event of a nuclear accident. You can get insurance against a meteor hitting your home, but not
one private insurance company in America will cover your home from a nuclear
power plant accident.
Instead, we are supposed to be compensated
under the Price Anderson Act, which sets a maximum limit of $9.4 billion
dollars in damages in the event of a nuclear catastrophe—a number which the
history reveals was simply pulled out of thin air.
The $9.4 billion dollar limit does not match
up with recent damage estimates done by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC). A study done for the NRC by
Brookhaven National Laboratory in 1997 reported that a spent fuel pool fire
could contaminate a large area. It
could cause thousands of fatal cancers and cost about $59 billion dollars in
property damage and economic loss. With your permission I would like to place
this study into the record of this hearing.
When reauthorizing Price Anderson, it is
worth asking why the liability limits set by the Price/Anderson Act are not
based on the cost of a major credible accident like the one identified by
Brookhaven Labs.
Unlike private insurance, reactor owners do
not have to come up with over 98% of the $9.4 billion dollars that they are
supposed to pay out until after major nuclear accident occurs. After an initial
payment of $200 million is made, the rest of the payments are limited to only
$10 million per reactor per year--and this limited amount doesn’t have to be
paid if the reactor owner can demonstrate it would be too financially
difficult. This is like
having a homeowner’s insurance policy where most of the insurance premiums
don’t have to be paid until after the house burns down!
With the advent of deregulation, limited
liability corporations are taking ownership of almost half of the fleet of the
nation’s nuclear power reactors. Many of these limited liability corporations
are thinly capitalized. What guarantees are there the nuclear power generators
will come up with the necessary funds to pay claims if such a terrible event
arises? Or will taxpayers have to foot
the bill?
Enron and Pacific Gas & Electric own
nuclear power plants and in bankruptcy.
Can these bankrupt companies meet their obligations to compensate
victims in the event of a nuclear accident? Or will the taxpayer have to bail
them out?
The nuclear industry should not be allowed
to avoid paying its insurance premiums up front like all other American
businesses and families. The money to
pay for an accident should be available with no questions asked.
After September 11th our world
has unfortunately become a more dangerous place, and nuclear power stations are
now frequently reported as being targets for terrorists.
In light of the greater dangers from
terrorism in our country, it is my understanding that the Price/Anderson Act
excludes “acts of war” from coverage for nuclear accidents. Does this mean that if the nuclear power
company asserts that a terrorist attack against a nuclear reactor station is an
“act of war,” then the nuclear power industry does not have to pay? Were the
acts of September 11 an “act of war?” Was the bombing in Oklahoma City an “act
of war?”
It is abundantly clear that radiation from a
nuclear accident does not follow arbitrary rules that say dangerous
contamination will only travel 10 miles and then stop. The Chernobyl accident is a tragic reminder
of the absurdity of this assumption.
The STAR Foundation and numerous groups around the country have
repeatedly asked the NRC for several years to expand its evacuation zone beyond
10 miles, but to no avail.
It is also clear from the most recent
government announcements, that nuclear generating plants are potential targets
of terrorism.
I extend my thanks to Senator Clinton from
my home state, Senator Reid, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Lieberman for
introducing the Nuclear Security Act of 2001, which strengthens safety and
security at nuclear power plants, and expands emergency response planning near
nuclear power stations from 10 miles to 50 miles.
These concerns may explain, in part, why
Germany, Sweden and Austria are turning away from nuclear power for safer
energy alternatives, and why England is now seriously reconsidering its
commitment to nuclear energy?
I hope that the committee will find the answers
to these questions and seek reasonable solutions. And I hope and trust that
this Committee will also help insure that the risks and consequences of such
terrible acts are minimized. I wish once again to thank the members of the
Committee for the privilege of appearing here today.