NUCLEAR INSURANCE

They will; and they do.

"Why does your homeowners' insurance policy contain a 'nuclear exclusion' clause?"

Because every US resident is already insured against consequences of a nuclear accident by a "no fault" policy providing an indemnity of up to $560 million per incident.

Those are some simple answers to some devious questions. But as usual, there is more behind it.

In the first place, the implication that insurability is a measure of safety is a dubious one; but nuclear safety is second to none even by that dubious criterion. It is, for example, a pure and simple lie that the Browns Ferry fire "almost" resulted in disaster, for many more obstacles of the "defense in depth" were intact, unthreatened, and stood between even a small loss of lives or property among the public. But there really were only some 20 feet (or a split second) between the two jetliners in another one of the "near misses" last month, or all 308 passengers would now be dead. As in all other insurance, there is an indemnity limit per single accident; and what is that limit for life insurance in aircraft disasters? Usually only $1 million per crash. The family of a provider could have got as little as $3,200 (plus an explanation of the fine print of the policy), regardless of the premium he paid.

Or ask your insurance company to lower your premium on the basis of your good record. Try for 20% or even 10% less. Because of inflation.. they won't even keep your premium the same as last year. Premiums have been increasing in business, home, automobile or any other coverage except one: nuclear power. Both of the two private nuclear liability insurance pools now refund a part of the premium paid by the utilities after 10 years of safe operation. What part? lO$? 30%? 50%?

No; up to seventy-two percent. (72%!) You still want to measure safety by insurability, Mr Koupal?

Ah, they say, but that is only because the whole thing is subsidized by the government.

Baloney. It is not Uncle Sam who pays the premia, but the utilities -- about $90,000 annually for a 1,000 MW plant. And it isn't the government that pays the first indemnities (up to $125 million), but the private insurance pools. They have so far shelled out some $4000,000 for claims in 26 minor incidents (none reactor-related). As for Uncle Sam, he has collected more than $8 million in insurance fees without, so far, having to pay out a single cent. That would be a pretty good deal for Allstate and State Farm, but it is fingerlicking good for a firm that engages in such enterprises as the US Postal Service, Amtrak or financing New York City. (Uncle Sam has an even better moneymaker: uranium enrichment.) Is that a subsidy?

The Price-Anderson Act was passed at a time (1954) when nuclear power was still new and unproven, and the original indemnity payable by private insurance was $60 million, with the government responsible for excess damage up to $500 million, both per single incident. As nuclear power proved its safety, the private coverage increased to $125 mill., and the government's excess indemnity dropped to $435 million of the unchanged total.

In 1974, Congress passed a bill extending the acts 5 years beyond its expiration in 1977; it also provided for phasing government out of the nuclear insurance business by the early 80's, transferring the entire liability to utilities. As new plants are built, utilities would eventually assume responsibility for the entire $560 mill., and the liability would rise beyond that limit as new plants come on line.

President Ford vetoed the bill because of a legal defect (unrelated to its substance) and urged its early re-enactment. The bill (HR 8631) is now before Congress. Not surprisingly, it has drawn the rabid ire of all who make nuclear power a target to further their drive for political power.