madam chairman , over the past couple of years i have corresponded with the department of energy on an issue of particular concern to me . 
the department of energy continues to spend millions of dollars , over $ 60 million so far , to defend private contractors who caused injury to citizens downwind of the hanford nuclear reservation despite provisions of the price anderson act to the contrary . 
the american taxpayers should no longer have to bear the burden of defending private contractors who have harmed citizens . 
i would like to submit my most recent letter to the department of energy and asked that it be made part of the record . 
march 4 , 2005 . 
dear mr . 
secretary : thank you for your september 2003 response to my questions about the hanford nuclear reservation case . 
however , i have ongoing concerns about the department of energy 's ( doe ) willingness to represent dupont and general electric at a cost of millions of taxpayer dollars . 
i believe that the department 's financial support is not only ill conceived , but that it violates the intent of congress in passing the price anderson act ( paa ) . 
regarding question numbered `` 2 '' of the 2003 letter , we have been informed that while the district judge accepted the defendants ' standard of proof for injuries , that decision was soundly reversed by the ninth circuit on the merits . 
i am concerned that doe continues to fund , at considerable taxpayer expense , an ongoing series of technical motions by the contractors . 
it was the intent of the congress of the united states when it enacted the price anderson act , to encourage the development of nuclear energy and at the same time to provide `` full compensation to the victims of nuclear incidents , '' including the people who were exposed to radiation from nuclear facilities such as hanford . 
the actions of the department of energy in spending large sums of taxpayer dollars to forestall compensation to citizens who were exposed to radiation releases from hanford , represents action by a federal agency that is directly contrary to the intent of congress . 
i recently learned that federal judge nielsen , on march 30 , 2004 , rejected the motion of dupont and general electric that they be dismissed from the case because they contracted with the government to run hanford . 
in underwriting such a motion with taxpayer funds the department violated the intent of congress in passing the price anderson act . 
the fact that the paa reimburses the companies when people are injured from a nuclear incident precluded the necessity for a `` contractor immunity '' defense as judge neilsen held . 
i have now learned that you intend to financially support an appeal of that order . 
any further attempts to evade the intent of the paa by the doe we believe to be a serious concern for the congress . 
your letter notes that the doe does not `` disagree with the proposition that low doses of radiation can cause some forms of cancer. '' in addition , there are government studies that show exposure to radiation contributed to the onset of the claimants ' illnesses . 
yet the doe continues to defend the contractors . 
it would appear that contrary to the fact that workers can be compensated for thyroid cancer , non workers who were exposed to more iodine 131 than many workers would be denied similar treatment . 
i do not understand this logic . 
what policy consideration drives this inconsistent behavior ? 
i also learned that the motions of dupont and general electric to have all cases dismissed as being filed too late based upon the statute of limitations has been dismissed . 
more than $ 60 million of taxpayer funds have been spent by dupont and general electric for 15 years of loosing motions and adverse rulings . 
again , i do not understand why the department of energy continues to spend millions of dollars paying lawyers to attempt to defeat claims that the congress of the united states determined should be compensated . 
i further note that the hanford plaintiffs were just successful in filing a motion declaring that the operations at hanford were an `` ultra hazardous activity. '' this holding is consistent with congress ' findings regarding the operations of nuclear facilities . 
we note again that the department of energy spent thousands upon thousands of dollars defending this untenable defense ( energy employees occupational illness compensation act of 2000 , 42 u.s.c . 
7384 et seq ) . 
i understand that a trial date has been set , and that general electric and dupont are taking the position that iodine 131 , which was released in enormous quantities from hanford , does not cause thyroid cancer . 
is that the position of the department of energy ? 
if not , please explain if the department is taking the position that the price anderson act does not apply to a person exposed to radiation below a certain dose , and if so what that dose is . 
i understand that several million dollars more could be spent in the next year or two continuing to defend this action . 
that would result in taxpayers ' money approaching the $ 100 , 000 , 000 being paid to lawyers to prevent compensation to victims of radiation exposure from hanford . 
all of the defenses you have previously supported have been rejected by a federal court . 
has the department of energy authorized any amount of money for settlement of this case ? 
it would appear that more money may well be spent to thwart the intent of the price anderson act than would be spent in victims ' compensation . 
please provide me with a detailed justification for any continued payment by the department of energy for the defense of this litigation , including specific justifications for any motions currently or intending to be filed or appealed seeking to dismiss most or all of the cases and why such action does not violate congress ' intent in enacting the paa . 
sincerely , peter defazio , 