91av

A RECOMMENDATION that the estimated price of electricity from new nuclear
power stations should include the costs of possible accidents was removed from
the British government鈥檚 energy review before it was published.

Critics claim that the review, chaired by the pro-nuclear energy minister
Brian Wilson, was doctored to make it more sympathetic to the nuclear industry.
鈥淪omeone has tried to squash the insurance issue, and it raises a lot of
questions about the review process,鈥� says Jon Gibbins of Imperial College
London, who has been researching nuclear insurance. The allegation is due to be
investigated by the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee.

Britain鈥檚 nuclear operators are currently responsible only for the first
拢140 million of any damage arising from an accident. If the costs are
greater, the government has to foot the bill. In the US, nuclear companies have
to pay the first $9 billion of damages.

A draft of the energy review was leaked to
91av (15 December 2001, p 5).
It argued that new nuclear power stations should be
required to 鈥渋nternalise鈥� the cost of covering risks, to take account of 鈥渢he
fact that insurance is not available for full third party liability in the event
of accidents鈥�.

But in the final version published last month, insurance against accidents is
not mentioned. Instead it says: 鈥淭he Department of Trade and Industry should
ensure, using independent evaluation, that the nuclear industry fully
internalises its external costs, including risks such as waste cost
别蝉肠补濒补迟颈辞苍.鈥�

Insiders say there is nothing sinister in the change, and that it merely
reflects the difficulty of quantifying the possible costs of accidents. The main
conclusions and recommendations of the review, which rejected the industry鈥檚
plans for 10 new nuclear stations, were unchanged.