Talk:Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act/moderated/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Initial

The Article is copied to the Article section - i propose discussing it here Benjamin Gatti

For Starters

d-(commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) - it isn't common - doesn't need a pseudonym

d-It also makes available a pool of insurance funds to compensate people who are injured or incur damages from a nuclear or radiological incident. - Silly because this is exactly what it un-does.

d- The Atomic Energy Act, enacted in 1954, three years before Price-Anderson, was intended to spur the development of America's private nuclear power industry by allowing private industry to use atomic power for peaceful purposes, such as generating electricity. - ascribes intentions - presumes to read minds with authority.

d-But financial backers were unwilling to risk the enormous financial liability that would result from a catastrophic accident at a nuclear plant, so no-one was interested in building a plant. [1] -negative assertions - unverifyable.

d- At the same time, lawmakers in the United States Congress began to worry that there was not adequate financial protection for the public in the event of an accident. - what they said and what they did are not the same. Perhaps the "expressed concern".

d-Price-Anderson was born from those dual concerns; the act established a mechanism for compensating the public for injury or property damage in the event of a nuclear accident [2], and encouraged the development of nuclear power by indemnifying the industry from fault. [3] - summarizing negative assertion and unverifyable items doesn't fix the problem. Benjamin Gatti

Slow and steady

It might be easier to build it up slowly, bit by bit, than by starting with the whole elephant. Why not just start with the initial sentence, see if that gets consensus, and then cautiously add another sentence or paragraph?

The point is to constantly have a consensus version and never to have anything disputed in the "moderated" page. Because all disputed passages would be on the talk page - which we don't want to flood.

So let's take this in easy stages. Please? Uncle Ed 17:21, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that means - but I think we have a consensus version on the Article side of this page - or will have when Simesa/Kate/Whoohoo weighs in with their edits.

As far as I am concerned - the Moderated Version is now uncontested - by me. (Others have alreay indicated dubious sections - so those must be considered excluded - though I think we should let those who actually object remove them so they can explain. Benjamin Gatti

Well, if the version you have posted (and which I have not yet examined) winds up not being contested by S K and W then I'll just copy it to P-A and unlock the page.

(Otherwise, we'll have some actual work to do :-) Uncle Ed 18:46, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Last Objections

d-The pool of money — which as of 2004 stood at about $9.5 billion — is contributed by the nuclear industry, primarly through power reactor licensees, who are required to have $200 million worth of primary insurance as of 2001. - its not clear that it is "Contributed" in any present continuing tense of the word. - maybe might possibly be contributed in the event an accident occurs and the courts uphold the application of the law after 20 years of delays and political regime change, and the plant owner is solvent at the time would be closer.

d-However, were similar circumstances to be repeated in America, the scale of the disaster likely would be less [4] [5] [6] [7] — the Chernobyl reactors were unstable RBMKs, unlike American plants, and the Chernobyl reactors did not have containment buildings around them.]

• Biggest Objection - the assertion that a nuclear event in the United States would have less impact is speculative.

d-Price-Anderson covers DOE facilities.

The first sentence taken by itself is just plain inaccurate (Technically incomplete) - we just need an accurate scope for the act. Benjamin Gatti

First Paragraph

Since I object to many of the changes proposed, let's try working on the first paragraph.

It was: "The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) limits liability for nuclear plant operators. It also makes available a pool of insurance funds to compensate people who are injured or incur damages from a nuclear or radiological incident. It indemnifies the nuclear industry for accidents by paying on a no-fault basis, and caps damages that may be rewarded as a result of a lawsuit. The act currently covers all nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2002. Environmental groups, consumer groups and taxpayer watchdogs have criticized the act as a handout to the nuclear power industry to the detriment of United States citizens."

Ben proposes: "The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act limits liability for nuclear plant operators. ... It indemnifies the nuclear industry for accidents by paying on a no-fault basis, and caps damages that may be rewarded as a result of a lawsuit. The act currently covers all nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2002. Environmental groups, consumer groups and taxpayer watchdogs have criticized the act as a handout to the nuclear power industry to the detriment of United States citizens."

I find that Ben's version doesn't describe most of the core of what the Act does, so I prefer the first. I also find the words "to the detriment of United States citizens" to be uncited - the Supreme Court disagreed. Simesa 22:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, if that's too hard, how about an opening sentence? Uncle Ed 23:51, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

OK. Simesa 23:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The final statement - which is probably Kates - is at least generally couched - and probably fully cited and couched in a later section (at least when she inserted it). While I maintain that disputed statements should be couched, the first paragraph is unique - it ought to summarize the data which is fully referenced later in the article - which will occasionally require a plurality of voices to be weakly described. "Some Government Agencies assert nuclear is safe" would be ok in the Main Par - if it were backed up later with "Bill from Agency X said Y" Benjamin Gatti

Opening sentence

From memory, that waould be:

Price-Anderson is an acte that limits liability for necular ohpl, Uncle Ed

On second thought, maybe I need a wiki-break.... Uncle Ed

Well - One problem ...

RE: The Price-Anderson Act is a United States law which limits liability for nuclear plant operators.

An Act and a Law are not the same thing. The Act was properly called an "Amendment" - similar to the "First Amendment" which modified - presumably - one or more Federal Statutes, and specifically empowered the NRC to propogate Rules as it sees fit consistent with the general principles set forth. - in addition to which it removed a power from the states - that is the power to hold nuclear operators accountable for damages caused by crimes they may have willingly committed which harm the people of their state. That said - I suggest that we should neither use the article as an opportunity to oversimplify the political process, nor as an opportunity to endulge in a lengthy explanation thereof. Perhaps it is enough to say, it is an Act and it has an effect ... I suggest. See above for proposal Benjamin Gatti

The Price-Anderson Act has been enacted into law as PL 85-256 (Public Law #256, from the 85th Congress of the US). It is now a law, though it was called, in legislative parlance, an act (as is virtually every bill that moves through congress -- the only bills that aren't called "acts" are those that merely express the sense of Congress on an issue rather than changing policy, which are called resolutions). It is eminently correct to say that it is a law. Because it contains directives to the NRC to carry out certain provisions through rulemaking doesn't make it less of a law. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, well how have other pages about acts of Congress handled this? And do we want to follow their lead or set a precedent?

Are we interested in Price-Anderson as a bill, i.e., the history of the bill? How it was initially conceived, sponsored, introduced as legislation, who voted how, which president signed it into law, etc.

Or are we interested in the results of the bill's enactment, i.e., the establishment of Price-Anderson as PL 85-256? How it has affected the nuclear power industry, etc.

I am neutral. I am just moderating here. But I would like to encourage you to come up with answers to these questions. If you can agree on the answers to enough of these questions, then agreeing on the sentence will be comparatively easy. Uncle Ed 19:35, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think the article should treat both at least in some fashion. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:40, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Price Anderson is more than the single Act - it is called in reference a "Framework", and it has been extended by other act - and the framework continues to bear the name. I'm not opposed to covering the legislative history, but I do think it is secondary, and shouldn't be used to distract the reader from the substance. Benjamin Gatti

Ben, actually the history of the law is part of the substance, not really secondary to it. As I've said before, this isn't a position paper. It's not just pro and con. We probably need some context or description of how the law came to be. I know that I've said this before and as far as I know, you haven't done it, but look at other articles on laws or acts. They almost always have such information. Bayh-Dole_Act is a good example of what I mean. --Woohookitty 05:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Ben's Proposal for the Opening:

"The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (1957) provides Federal Indemnity for private nuclear reactor operators against catastrophic nuclear accidents in the United States. The Act releases plant operators from Federal and State liability laws under which the operators could be held financially responsible for any and all damage to the public caused by a nuclear accident or similar radiological event. Because the nascent insurance industry did not offer policies large enough to cover the costs of a nuclear event in the 1950's, and because the cost would render nuclear energy uncompetative, Congress established a pooled insurance system in which each reactor would insure all of the other reactors up to USD $88 Million per reactor with the Federal government providing up to USD $500 Million additional insurance if necessary; Congress also limited the amount of compensation permitted for people killed, poisened, or genetically disfigured by nuclear radiation, even if caused by the knowing and willful misconduct of senior staff and management. The Act is a risk subsidy which artificially reduces the cost of nuclear energy, making it nearly competative with coal and oil. Like most subsides, it has been panned by both left-wing environmentalists and right-wing fiscal conservatives as contrary to a free market, and a form of corporate welfare which takes from the poor and gives to a few comparatively wealthy energy investors.

Benjamin Gatti

This proposal is so pov that I won't respond to it in detail.

We're on the second sentence. It currently is "It also makes available a pool of insurance funds to compensate people who are injured or incur damages from a nuclear or radiological incident." which is central to what Price-Anderson is. Simesa 22:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

More POV - at least I was writing for the enemy - since the act REDUCED the pool of available funds from (A.) Every last dime in GE, Westinghouse, Duke energy, and their subcontracters combined to (B.) ~ 9 Billion - which is roughly 3% of the 300 Billion dollar cost of 100 Nuclear plants. By comparison, my car cost $10K, but I'm insured for a Million which is 10,000%, so the nuclear industry has insurance which is less than typical car insurance by an order of 3,000. And that we call "Creating a pool"? good grief. Benjamin Gatti

Your comparison is invalid - you insure not for the replacement value of the car but for potential injuries and deaths, which with a car could easily exceed a million in insurance. Simesa 01:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The crack in your logic is beginning to show. Of course liability insurance is to cover potential injuries - which for a nuclear power plant could just as easily 300 Billion dollars. Out of what 200-300 nuclear plants in the world, one blows up and takes out an entire country. If 1 out of 300 cars blew up and took out nothing more than a neighborhood, how many would you want in your garage? - See this is why we're not making great progress. Your argumants are rational - but so are the arguments of the other side (long worn with use before I plaigerised them). May I suggest that you try an opening paragraph written for the enemy - i can't think of any other way out from here. Benjamin Gatti

You persist in believing that a Western nuclear plant could do what Chernobyl did, despite numerous cites. The NRC believes that in the direction of the wind 10 miles for exposure and 50 miles for water and food are adequate [8] (the mileage was based on actual atom bomb fallout data). As for writing for the enemy, only as far as the cites will go. Simesa 07:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Writing for the enemy - Try Again

"The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (1957) provides Federal Indemnity for private nuclear reactor operators against catastrophic nuclear accidents in the United States. The Act releases plant operators from Federal and State liability laws under which the operators could be held financially responsible for uninsurable damage to the public caused by a nuclear accident or similar radiological event. Because the nascent insurance industry did not offer policies large enough to cover the costs of a nuclear event in the 1950's, and because the cost would prevent the privatisation of nuclear energy, Congress established a pooled insurance system in which each reactor would insure all of the other reactors up to USD $88 Million per reactor with the Federal government providing up to USD $500 Million additional insurance if necessary. The current size of the pool is 9.8 Billion dollars, a figure which is still considerably less than the 250 Billion dollars in damages caused by the explosion of Reactor #4 at the Chernobyl Atomic Electricity Station, outside Kiev, Ukraine which was caused by intentional violations of safety procedures.

Benjamin Gatti

Ben, your "writing for the enemy" really shouldn't favor your POV. It kind of defeats the purpose. The last sentence is very POV. First off, "considerably less" is POV. Secondly, we have no way of guessing if an accident here would even approach Chernobyl. Putting it like you do is pure speculation and speculation really doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I just don't see how Chernobyl is germane to this discussion. It can only lead to POV. The way the last sentence is put, people will put 2 and 2 together and go...oh...well...this wouldn't be enough to cover us if we had a real accident, so it's a scam. --Woohookitty 07:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Subsidy Perspective - 96.3% to Nuclear Energy

A new study by the US Renewable Energy Policy Project (REPP-CREST) has found that nuclear power harvests the lion's share of government investment in nuclear, solar and wind. According to "Federal Energy Subsidies: Not All Technologies Are Created Equal" the U.S. government has spent approximately $150 billion on energy subsidies for wind, solar and nuclear power - 96.3% of which has gone to nuclear power.

"What's really surprising is the relative start up costs for these technologies," said Robby Roberts, REPP's executive director. "Nukes received much higher levels of government support per kilowatt-hour when they first started than either wind or solar power." Roberts continued, "and subsidies heaped on nuclear power have not been cheap. Since 1947, cumulative subsidies to nuclear power had an equivalent cost of $1,411 [1998 dollars] per US household, compared to $11 for wind, for example."

[9]

Your reference contains only a brief summary of the real study. I suggest that the $150 billion includes everything from the Manhattan Project 1996 dollars through the DOE reactors to produce plutonium for weapons $409 billion for all bombs to the Shippingport plant, the first commercial reactor $120 million. I would have included only the Shippingport plant. I have yet to see any cites on subsidies for mining or enrichment - which also were necessary for weapons work. The main "subsidy" claimed for nuclear seems to be up to $22 million per reactor-year for Price-Anderson. Simesa 06:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Can we start over please?

Ed asked that we go line-by-line, in keeping with my suggestion. I'd like to get back to that discussion, please. · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:00, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

The Price-Anderson Act is a United States law which limits liability for nuclear plant operators.

Benjamin, are you going to continue to disagree that PAA is a law? · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:01, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Reply

"Limits Liability" is perhaps the third important item on the agenda. 1 - it provides government money as insurance up to 500 Million - and more if necessary. 2. It creates a commmunistic central command economy insurance market. 3. it caps damages and limits the power of the state to enforce their democraticaly created tort laws against criminal malfeasance by corporate management resulting in death and other damages to the people of their respective states.

To Say an Act is a Law, strikes me as either redundant or inaccurate. Beyond that the opening above is like a moped engine on a dump truck - it gets the article moving - but oh so slow.

What's wrong with: "The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (1957) provides Federal Indemnity for private nuclear reactor operators against catastrophic nuclear accidents in the United States.

I suggest that it's accurate, it hits the main points - establishes the scope - and is neutral. Catastrophic - is key, As its a catastrophic indemnity plan, not a nickel and dime insurance policy for hangnails at nuclear sites. The language of the act and the speaches of the time is "Reactor Operators, or just operators" - it is an interesting sidenote that the size of the reactor isn't specified - which advantages large reactors because they produce more electricity from a single "Reactor" - they are however, much more dangerous - so in that sense, the "Reactor-Orientation" of the act is a central feature. (I believe it was later ammended to be Megawatt Specific but too late to change the facts on the ground.) - Accident is technically misleading and incomplete, as it covers any event, mishap, or release without concern for the underlying cause, it may even cover war and acts of God, i'm not sure - I know it covers an airplane crashing into a reactor. The Indemnifying party must be identified. If all you remember is the first sentence - that should be useful knowledge. Benjamin Gatti

What's wrong with it is that it doesn't cover just catastrophic accidents, and it doesn't cover just private nuclear operators (it also covers schools, the DOE, etc.).

I suggest we say:

"The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (1957) makes available a pool of insurance funds to compensate people who are injured or incur damages from a nuclear or radiological incident. It covers and limits liability for nuclear power plant operators, schools, and Department of Energy facilities." That's what the reader wants to know.

And Sandia National Labs tested slamming a jet fighter into a reactor containment building at 450 mph - its engine rotors left a 2.5-inch deep gouge in the outside concrete missle shield [10] [11], not getting anywhere close to the containment.. Simesa 06:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

1. The Indemnity doesn't really apply to federal institutions - to say that it does is silly because one entity cannot indemnify itself. the fed was equally responsible for its institution before and after the act - over time however, the pool was increased, and so there was some fuds available FROM the private sector to cover Federal accidents and yes this should be included.
2. It does not create a new pool of funds. It defines a pool of funds, and the new pool is samller than the old pool. I object to characterizing SHRINKING the pool of funds in any "expansionistic" way.
3. It limits liability - that is to say it obliteriates all federal and STATE laws written to protect people from industrial carelessness by suspending them and saying regardless of the damage - the maximum amount that will be awarded is X. so if 1 million people are affected - the maximum payout is $9000. My mother was in a fender beneder in which she got a 1 inch cut and was awarded that kind of money in damages for a small scar. It's really inadequate. That's what the reader wants to know.
4. As for tests that say its safe - the industry doesn't buy that its safe. I don't see the bicycle industry lobbying congress with expensive junkets for "Bicycle Industry Indemnity Act" just in case their product has an accident. Perhaps you should tell the industry its safe now - they don't need an Indemnity Act. But I don't buy the double talk. If its safe - then lets end Price Anderson - but if its not safe - then lets let the people know. Having it both ways. Priceless. Benjamin Gatti

1. ":What's wrong with it is that it doesn't cover just catastrophic accidents, and it doesn't cover just private nuclear operators (it also covers schools, the DOE, etc.). " - There's private insurance to cover anything less than catastrophy. The features of Price doen't really become important without a catastrophy I suggest. The "Indemnity" is far more that the "Funds" and thats what we need to seperate. The Fund covers small stuff - the Indemnity however is "Federal Indemnity" - it is not "Financial Indemnity" - it holds the companies "Legally Blameless" regardless of the amount. Insurance would have to be adequate to make the investors whole in the worst case - which the fund does not begin to accomplish. Benjamin Gatti

RE: "The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (1957) makes available a pool of insurance funds to compensate people who are injured or incur damages from a nuclear or radiological incident. It covers and limits liability for nuclear power plant operators, schools, and Department of Energy facilities."

1. It destroys the main pool of funds (and creates a small one in its place) to compensate victims who are (injured?) how about poisened, killed, disfigured? "Injured" is used to describe people with tennis elbow who have to sit out the rest of the season. A Nuclear accident is a holocaust of a different proportion. The Act doesn't "cover" - it creates a system of pooled risk which may or maynot be sufficient to "cover" a nuclear accident. - Limits Liability is weak - it suspends state autonomy in protecting their citizens against Industrial crimes and negligence by holding the company fully freaking responsable for every last dime of the damage they cause plus triple in some cases - leaving victims with LIMITED recourse in the event of malicious willful knowing greedy managerial Enronesque, Bernie-Ebbers-grade misconduct. The readers want to know THAT. Benjamin Gatti

Your pov is noted, but it is still your uncited diatribe. What the Act does should be stated here. Finally, Injury is defined in Wikipedia. Simesa 13:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

THIS is where everyone went!

I'm too busy with my vfds. I was wondering why it was so quiet. ;-) --Woohookitty 05:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I left you a pointer, but it got refactored Benjamin Gatti