Talk:Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

References

First paragraph confusion

Its main purpose is to indemnify the nuclear industry against liability claims arising from nuclear incidents. Instead, it establishes an industry-funded insurance system

This section could be interpreted to imply that "Instead" of fulfilling its "Primary purpose" of indemnification, it does something else - ie establishes an insurance system.

Two suggestions:

The sentences should be joined using the proper conjugation. Conjugation-by-new-sentence is quite often ambiguous.
The insurance system is not exclusively industry funded. Taxpayers are very much a part of the "system" of insurance - whether it is current taxpayers or future taxpayers, they very definitely have skin in the game. Benjamin Gatti 20:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

well, there is one of our problems in a nutshell: whether the insurance fund is taxpayer funded or not rather depends on your point of view. I would say, that as far as the act itself is concerned, it does not make a material transfer of expense onto the taxpayer. (if only because that expense was in reality there already). The only way in which it makes a transfer is in so far as it enables the nuclear industry to exist, hence creating the risk. But that is not a function of the mechanics of the compensation system. The supreme court held that, if anything the act increased the chance of getting the industry to stump up a large amount. And as I seem to be saying for the third time without anyone expressing a view, it would also appear to reserve the right to bill them some more if the $10 billion gets used up.

As to this specific sentence: we are going round in circles. This specific point was answered before when I inserted 'Instead of this normal redress', which then got changed 6 times until it came back to here. However, although I am beginning to know this paragraph by heart which always makes it difficult to judge a bit of text, I think the context makes it plain that the 'instead' refers to the obvious change to normal procedure, rather than implying that the act fails dismally in its objective of protecting companies. Sandpiper 21:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It's true that finding the funds to meet claims is the duty of Congress which could in theory be creative; however, the thrust of the act (and therefore the express intent) is to limit (limit) the exposure of private investors which choose to participate in this field, so it would run counter to intent for Congress to turn around and charge the Industry for amounts higher than the exposure ceiling. Benjamin Gatti 00:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

That's your original reasoning. I, OTOH, would fully expect Congress to establish additional assessments on the industry, because that would be politically smart. Simesa 08:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

We're back to a very silly first sentence pair. The term "Instead" makes no sense whatsoever. Let's get that fixed. Kate is the best qualified to construct an unambiguous statement, so I'd ask for her to give it a try. Benjamin Gatti 06:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Ben's Intro

The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) is an act of the Congress of the United States. It protects the Nuclear industry against liability claims arising from nuclear incidents, limits the right of victims to sue for compensation, establishes an insurance collective to cover the first $10 billion in damages, and commits Congress to fund the remaining claims by charging the taxpayer. The act serves as an incentive for private investment in nuclear energy, without which the private nuclear industry likely would not exist. Environmental, consumer and taxpayer watchdog groups, as well as one federal agency, have described the act as a government subsidy to the nuclear power industry and some argue that it removes important legal remedies from the potential victims of nuclear accidents.

I suggest the scope is well enough summarized by "Nuclear Industry" for the intro - by all means narrow that in the body.
The Date has been a moving target for 50 years, it seems not at all an important aspect of the law (Many laws have a sunset provision, its hardly unusual, and really not notable. If you fully understood the act, but didn't know the date at which it sunsets, no one would claim you were ignorant on the subject.

Benjamin Gatti 00:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the year is important, especially since our External Link to the Act contains a date which has passed. You also deleted the part about only covering non-military reactors. "By charging the taxpayer" isn't determined yet - Congress is left with any option it chooses. All-in-all, yours is s poor substitute for what we had. Simesa 08:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

source question

"The act reserves the right to make further charges to plant operators as part of such a measure."

I'm going to look this up. Any help? Benjamin Gatti

"(2) In the event of a nuclear incident involving damages in excess of the amount of aggregate public liability under paragraph (1), the Congress will thoroughly review the particular incident in accordance with the procedures set forth in subsection (i) of this section and will in accordance with such procedures, take whatever action is determined to be necessary (including approval of appropriate compensation plans and appropriation of funds) to provide full and prompt compensation to the public for all public liability claims resulting from a disaster of such magnitude."

I found this, but it says nothing about "reserving" the right to charge plant operators in excess of the exposure ceiling. Thus that assertion is now in dispute. Benjamin Gatti 01:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

"Whatever action is determined to be necessary" seems to make just about anything possible. However, the assertion comes from [1], under "External links", so it is properly sourced. Simesa 07:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping we might get to that bit. I took it from the ?Cornell law library? reference that someone found on compensation under the act. It says (section e,limitation on aggregates public liability):

(1) [states limits on liability, a bit long to quote here]

(2) In the event of a nuclear incident involving damages in excess of the amount of aggregate public liability under paragraph (1), the Congress will thoroughly review the particular incident in accordance with the procedures set forth in subsection (i) of this section and will in accordance with such procedures, take whatever action is determined to be necessary (including approval of appropriate compensation plans and appropriation of funds) to provide full and prompt compensation to the public for all public liability claims resulting from a disaster of such magnitude.

(3) No provision of paragraph (1) may be construed to preclude the Congress from enacting a revenue measure, applicable to licensees of the Commission required to maintain financial protection pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, to fund any action undertaken pursuant to paragraph (2).

I take that to mean although the liability is capped with regard to any victim of an incident, congress reserves the right to bill them anyway, should it see fit. Sandpiper 14:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

and incidentally, it would seem to mean that the entire industry is under notice of additional billing for an accident at any plant. Sandpiper

Sorry - I'm not satisfied with the source. The NEI is a spin group for the Industry - which is fine - but it must be fully qualified and couched - i.e. "According to NEI, a pro-nuclear spin organization, Congress could bill nuclear plants retroactively to cover the damages."

I don't see that in the Act. An exposure ceiling is an exposure ceiling, the acts specifically mentioned for meeting extensive claims is "appropriate funds" which they do every day, and it always means appropriations from the treasury. They either have limited liability or not. "Indemnity" has a pretty well understood meaning, I doubt that we can start at indemnity and end at "additional billing for an accident at any plant." The fact that NEI says it means only that they said it (along with a bunch of similar nonesuch). Benjamin Gatti 05:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Read it again - so it does - ok duly sourced - Thanks. Benjamin Gatti 06:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Careful, you might find yourself veering towards the view that the congress is not quite so gullible as some groups make out. They wanted a nuclear industry: industry said ' we can see that one coming a mile off, no thanks', so congress made them this protection act...which actually makes all of them wholly liable for the mistake of any one of them. If there really was a nasty accident, a so-minded congress could take them for every penny. Would congress feel like being nice with voters baying for blood? All they have to protect them is a trust in congress to see them right. Maybe (and I am not suggesting this, purely for illustration) we could start the article, 'the effect of the act is to make the entire nuclear industry wholly liable for any incident involving any part of it'?Sandpiper 09:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Almost; It makes each of them partially liable for the mistakes of any, but in doing so it also limits their own liability. My principle concern, (which my accusers should note as it would save a great deal of rummaging about for where I stand) is that markets are a form of corporate intelligence which exceeds by far the intelligence of a democratic system, thus the founding fathers in embracing one for governance while espousing the other for matters of economics did well, and there is no basis or authority in the Constitution for Congress to put itself in the market-dictating business. Benjamin Gatti 19:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

well I take that point. But it is still the case that this article is about the act, and the act itself does not appear to be as bad as it is painted. Now, I don't think that following a really bad accident, congress would choose to bankrupt the power companies. It might decide to close down the entire industry, for fear of a repeat. But more likely it would tighten up on what went wrong, and proceed with the aim of keeping the companies going. But the act does give them the right to bill the industry in full. The issue that congress has chosen for its own reasons to create a nuclear industry, which the market would not have created, is not exactly the fault of the act, and I don't exactly recall reading anything about the merits of this. Sandpiper 20:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not that bad for whom? It's pretty much the single reason the US has a defunct Renewable energy Industry (North Carolina has not a single renewable energy source which can compete on a "least-cost" basis with alternatives - not leastly because the federal government has artificially lowered the cost of Nuclear energy via PAA - which means they can't participate). Absent what amounts to centralized control of the energy market by congress, Investors would have a range of risk/reward choices presented on a level playing field. Assuming that we agree that coal should pay for its health impacts, then renewable energy starts to look competitive, money is invested, research is performed, jobs are created. One note about nuclear energy is that it is job-poor/capital-rich. Renewable energy is job-rich/capital-moderate. Congress doesn't have the authority to compete with citizens in a fair market. PAA is an unconstitutional conspiracy between Congress and select investors to unfairly compete in a commodity business - in part by compelling would-by competitors and their customers to endure risks against their will, and absent Constitutional authority.

In a bad accident, Congress could levy a fee against all reactors equally, but the reactors could be sold and bankrupted without necessarily impacting the companies which built them, contracted for their construction, or operation. In short, much of the investment in those companies would be shielded from such a fee. In addition, if the fee were high enough to compensate victims fully, the result would likely be the mothballing of a very dangerous industrial site - it would become a perpetual environmental disaster. In the end, a nuclear accident is a public burden. Benjamin Gatti 23:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

glad you reminded me of that: your gripe is not so much that nuclear is subsidized, but that coal/oil is subsidized. If nuclear was utterly commercial, renewables would still be unable to compete with the current arrangements for oil/coal, so all this argument about unfair competition is irrelevant. The real competition is fossil. I don't follow the logic of your argument about companies being protected. How are they more exposed if a judge makes an order against them, than if congress passes an act ordering them to pay up? Sandpiper 00:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The government doesn't subsidize the buggy-whip Industry - if they did we could postulate on the ramifications of a massive buggy whip recall. Rather, the buggy whip industry doesn't exist - as it shouldn't exist - and the world is a better place for it. Why should the government take your honestly earned money and give it to people for no reason other than that they have contributed to the winningest politicians? Fossil fuels are subsidized in that they are decoupled from the health costs they incur. I believe in a fully costed model - given equal research funding, renewable energy is more than competitive. Benjamin Gatti 01:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

sentence I have a problem with

"Price Anderson puts the American taxpayer on the hook for all costs in excess of the private exposure ceiling, or some 85% of the projected costs of a single catastrophic event." "On the hook" is too POV. It needs to be something like "responsible for". And what is "private exposure ceiling"? Need to make it so people who read this understand the language. Finally, in Sandpiper's last version and Ben's, I don't see any citations or links or anything else that shows where the new information was gotten from. We still need that. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 04:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I object to such blatant phrasing as well. Also, we need a lot better source for CRAC than "mothers' alert" - I have written off to Sandia for clarification and a copy of the report. Simesa 07:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, we seem to have forgotten about the need to cite. We somehow only have 4 citations in the article itself. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 14:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, all my sources came from references already in the text, with the possible exception of the cornell one?. However it is quite likely they are not placed where they now become relevant. Sandpiper 15:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I know. it's issue #28 down the list. :) Just wanted to point it out. Having it all under external links is ok but I'd rather have it cited per citation. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 00:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

likely bill for an accident

I was just reading ben's latest suggestions for the article and noticed his insertion of comment on the possible size of the bill. I do think we should address this in a more organised way. Possibly 'criticisms' should be sub-sectioned with one section discussing this issue, of the possible size of the bill and whatever sources we can find suggesting probabilities of accidents of different sizes. Or alternatively, take all relevant stuff out of 'criticisms' and have a simple section 'Extent of Liability', or some such title where we can explain all this. I have to agree that this is quite central to the effectiveness of the act and is not simply a criticism. But I don't think it should be lumped into 'how it works', which should simply explain the mechanics of the act. Sandpiper 15:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

My concern is that we have numbers without having looked at the source of where those numbers came from. "Mother's Alert" doesn't know what a "class-9 accident" is. As stated, I wrote to Sandia National Labs to get the information. Simesa 23:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

There are tens of secondary sources for CRAC-II - but it appears no original sources. All indicate a 300 Billion range for a single plant, with a 600 b figure for a double failure. It appears safe to assume that the figure given by CRAC-II is in fact 300B - with the caveat that it is rather unlikely to occur. Benjamin Gatti 05:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I found a 2003 NRC document "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437 Vol. 1)" [2]

It turns out that the CRAC-II report used the 1975 WASH-1400 source terms, and has been superseded by NUREG-1150 (1991).

"The NUREG-1150 study is an NRC-sponsored risk examination of five U.S. nuclear power plants. These analyses used state-of-the-art technology in evaluation of source-term release frequency, source-term characteristics, and consequence evaluation. Efforts were made to explore uncertainties in accident frequency, containment behavior, and radioactive material release and transport so that from this distribution of results, mean values of risk could be determined. Source terms and frequencies specific to the plant were determined. Advanced computer codes were used. For example, the MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System (MACCS) computer code for consequence evaluation was used instead of CRAC."

Tucker act

I reinserted mention of the Tucker act as last resort for dissatisfied claimants. Unfortunately I have no idea what this is, or how it works, so someone might like to explain here its relevance and what would happen? Sandpiper 23:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It is mentioned very briefly in the Supreme Court decision. It allows the federal government to be sued.

[5] The Tucker Act is one of the few places in the federal statutes which provides both jurisdiction and a waiver of sovereign immunity for non-tort actions against the United States and it generally requires recourse to the Court of Federal Claims. See Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879, 910 n.48 (1988); Hahn v. United States, 757 F.2d 581, 585-86 (3d Cir. 1985). Specifically, the "Big" Tucker Act grants the "Court of Federal Claims . . . jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded . . . upon any express or implied contract with the United States," 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (Supp. IV 1992), while the "Little" Tucker Act grants concurrent jurisdiction to the district courts for such claims not exceeding $10,000 in value, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) (1988).

[6] Section 2401(a) originated as the internal limitations period for the Little Tucker Act. See Christensen v. United States, 755 F.2d 705, 707 (9th Cir. 1985); Saffron v. Dep't of the Navy, 561 F.2d 938, 944-45 (D.C. Cir. 1977). That act and its big brother the Tucker Act collectively establish jurisdiction and a waiver of sovereign immunity for certain cases that are "against the United States" and founded upon various bases including "any ex- press or implied contract with the United States." For contract cases, the Little Tucker Act gives the district courts jurisdiction, concurrent with the Court of Federal Claims, if the amount sought is less than $10,000. If more than $10,000 is at issue, the suits lie only in the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act proper. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1491; see also Saffron, 561 F.2d at 944. In the 1946 U.S. Code, the Little Tucker Act was located at 28 U.S.C. § 41(20), which provided in part, "No suit against the Government of the United States shall be allowed under this paragraph unless the same shall have been brought within six years after the right accrued for which the claim is made." The Act of June 25, 1948 made minor changes in the wording and relocated this language to 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a), where it was to function as a catch-all limit for non-tort actions against the United States.

That's as much as I can find at the moment. Basically, if there's an accident with claims exceeding the pool and Congress doesn't appropriate funds to cover the excess claims, the federal government probably can be sued. Simesa 23:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

well I tried to explain that in the article and linked to the Tucker act article. Unfortunately that article looks like it could do with some work, too. Sandpiper 02:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Wild - that article didn't exist until 8:30 pm today! Simesa 03:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Unless the Tucker Act is referenced by Price Anderson, I'd rather see a quiet link under see also, than indulge in scope creep. Benjamin Gatti 06:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Um scope creep? --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't want to work on an all-encompassing encyclopedia, now would we? Be working on Sovereign immunity next. So who started the Tucker act article?Sandpiper 09:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Funny how we wouldn't want to increase the scope to compare the risk of nuclear to other forms of power - but we do want to discuss another act of Congress because ? Benjamin Gatti 04:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Accident rate of wind power

Hi Ben, I noticed that you comment on wind power being accident free for 21 years. two things occur. First, are you absolutely sure that no ones cow has been killed by a stray propeller blade, nor sued because a big crate fell on their toe? Second, you say 21 years: sounds quite good, but what would be the average generating capacity throughout that period... on the assumption that if it was just one teeny weeny turbine for the first couple of years, killing a chicken might scale up to quite a serious injury rate per installed MW. 62.41.130.159 20:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That's why I sourced it - in line. Note the word "utility" that would seem to exclude toy propellors. Benjamin Gatti 21:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The source also talks about facilities with generating power less than 10KW, which actually would include a truck alternator with a fan on the front. It doesn't say anything about the total amount of generating capacity we are talking about. It does suggest that regulating authorities are trying to stop big utility companies putting onerous insurance requirements on wind generators. Sandpiper 17:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Instead of what?

The word "instead" requires two objects. I provided the missing object. Any better descriptions? Benjamin Gatti 04:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Deleted lines

User:Firebug removed "Some environmental, consumer and taxpayer watchdog groups, as well as one federal agency, have described the act as a government subsidy to the nuclear power industry. Some argue that it removes important legal remedies from the public, but the Supreme Court held that it did not." I think these lines should be restored - the Act is controversial, so balance would seem to require it Simesa 17:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe Firebug is contesting the use of unverifiable terms: ie "Some ... groups". Perhaps the point should be conceded and more accurate terms should be used.

"Cato, Greenpeace, the Union of Concerned Scientists are among those which have criticised the act as an Unconstitutional subsidy of the nuclear power industry and argue that it removes the right of states to protect their own citizens from bad actors. The DOE has called it a subsidy, but the Supreme Court has upheld the Constitutionality of the act - citing the importnce of nuclear energy as greater than civil rights." Benjamin Gatti 17:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

After consulting Mike (Katefan0 being on wikibreak), I'm going to revert the deletions. We can discuss this further right after the holiday. Simesa 03:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

In this case I think it's fine to be vague. We go on to delineate those groups and concerns rather specifically later in the article. The intro lines are only meant to assert that someone has issues; the intro can't explain everything. It's just a preview of what's to come. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 05:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we discussed this before? A detailed list at this position in the article becomes ridiculous, but I would still prefer one sentence mentioning critics rather than two. Sandpiper 08:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it balanced to be vague about the criticism, but unvague about the rebuttal? "The Supreme Court" is fairly precise. I would suggest that we be reasonably precise across the board. My proposal is precise, I'm sure with some rough edges sanded down, it could be acceptable. It's not that much longer. The alternatiive is a fully obscured version. Benjamin Gatti 15:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Oi. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 20:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

To address these concerns, the new intro is more specific across the board (I'm an advocate of specificity). In addition:

The insurance scheme is neither "worth 10 Billion", nor is it "Industry funded". To suggest that it is either is to ignore the chief provision of the act - which is the taxpayer-obligation to meet the costs of any incident, a value which is certainly not included in the 10 Billion, certainly a chief aspect of the "insurance scheme which replaces standard liability", and in no way Industry-funded. Benjamin Gatti 20:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I veer increasingly towards quoting the fact that the congress reserves the right to bill the companies anything it chooses, and the companies have agreed to this by becoming licensees. So it is most probably worth a heck of a lot more than ten billion Sandpiper 00:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Does it reserve the right to bill "the Companies" as in every company that contributed to a flawed product - or merely the single company which is holding the reactor at the time of the accident? I'd like to see a plan to come up with more money than the 10 Billion, which would be workable - meaning that would avoid mothballing reactors across the country as their owners declare bankruptcy rather than face lifetime commitments of retroactive premiums in excess of the budgeted figure. Benjamin Gatti 00:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Sandpiper, Congress reserves the right to impose a "revenue measure" on licensees - but this is a long stretch from simple liability. A revenue measure can be avoided by choosing to no longer participate in the industry. Remember that the concern expressed by industry was that their other enterprises would be at risk. I doubt that a revenue measure focused at "Licensees" would be able to extract assets from portions of the business unrelated to nuclear production. In short, I doubt that there is significant funds available under such a measure. Benjamin Gatti 02:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed new intro

(NPOV tag removed as it simply complicates this page)Sandpiper 23:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC) The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act indemnifies or protects the United States' nuclear industry against liability claims arising from nuclear incidents. It overrides state liability laws which protect the public against dangerous industries with a federally subsidized insurance system, and obligates the taxpayer to foot the bill for a catastrophic nuclear incident. The act is an incentive for the private production of nuclear energy, because private investors and companies were unwilling to accept the risk of nuclear energy. It replaces the free market aspects of capitalism with government subsidies and market manipulation. The Act currently covers all non-military nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2026. Greenpeace and the Union of Concerned Scientists are among many groups which criticize the act as an unconstitutional taking of private resources for the benefit of investors, and because it leaves the victims of a nuclear accident without standard recourse to compensation. The Price-Anderson Act as it is called, was first passed by the Congress of the United States in 1957, extended in 1975, upheld by the Supreme Court in 1978, and again extended in 2005.

This intro should be adopted because:

It is more specific as per Firebug.
It removes the falsehood that the Insurance scheme is valued at 10B when in fact it is limited only by the resources of the federal government and the pockets of those they intend to pick in the event of a catastrophic nuclear incident.
It moves the pedantic renaming to the bottom. Benjamin Gatti 21:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not even going to address this. The fact that you are attempting to defend something so grossly POV just demonstrates how out of touch you are on here. There are at least 10 POV words in the version you are pushing. We have protects, foot the bill, market manipulation and others. As for the disputed tag, it should be there because Ben, you claim that basically everything you put into the article is "the facts". Plus, you just chastised me on the arbcom page for "maintenance of falsehoods". Well then that means that you think that the POV language you keep putting in there are "the facts". We dispute what you term facts, so the tag stays. You obviously dispute what we put up as facts. I don't see how you can argue this one with a straight face. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 21:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

According to the Disputed policy, a few disputed facts should be identified in-line, more than five (5) will stand to justify the totally disputed label. If there are five or more disputed facts, in any recent version, They must be identified.

Yes - I dispute the idea that the insurance has a 10B cap and that it is industry-funded - that makes two; I identified and removed both leaving none.

"Protects" is hardly a prima facia POV term. "Foot the bill" accurately reflects the fact that taxpayers would indeed be responsible to pay for much of the cost of a CRAC-II contemplated event. As for market manipulation, if subsidies and special interest laws don't serve to affect the market, than what do they affect? Benjamin Gatti 21:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

That you write a draft leaving out disputed points hardly makes them undisputed when the alternative view would include them. Sandpiper 00:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

We're still talking two disputed points - less than half the number required for totallydisputed. Have it your way - but then what the hell are policies for if only to ignore? Benjamin Gatti 01:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I was looking at your latest suggestion, and would invite you to consider another alternative first paragraph, which i believe fairly summarizes the act:

The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) is an act of the Congress of the United States. Its main purpose is to protect the public in the event of a nuclear incident, while at the same time encouraging the greatest possible private participation in the nuclear generating industry. It establishes an industry-funded insurance system (worth $10 billion in 2005), and promises immediate compensation by the federal government for larger claims. The act expressly reserves the right to pass on this expense to all participating companies in the nuclear generating industry, not simply the company where an accident took place. The act has been challenged in the supreme court, but was held to fairly treat all parties. Sandpiper 00:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand your interest in presenting the potential levying of future fees on the Industry as a whole. But this intro continues to assert that the insurance is worth 10 billion, when clearly it is worth a great deal more than that - orders of magnitude greater when we consider CRAC-II, most of which is not Industry-funded - which is the double falsehood. I have no objection to fairly summarizing the potential future levying - however, I think we should review the actual text in context and evaluate whether it is entirely accurate; bearing in mind that the Supreme Court description of the act and its effect fails to cite this provision - which we can consider either an oversight of improbable proportion, or a misunderstanding on our part. Benjamin Gatti 01:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't really understand. My version says the government will foot the bill, anything above $10 billion may be charged to the companies by later arrangement. Seems to cover all the bases. If you are arguing that the bill might be greater than the total worth of all the companies, well possibly it might, but discussion on those circumstances is quite complex and should be covered later. In context, it would be just fine as an opening paragraph. Similarly, whether or why the supreme court might not have considered this contingency would be covered later, the 'supreme court ' sentence remains accurate.Sandpiper 02:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I notice a sudden spate of inactivity following my inserting my latest suggestion for the opening paragraph into the text. I find this a little surprising, since I do not myself consider it my best effort, and more particularly, Ben, I would have thought you would have considered it at the extreme end away from your own view of an ideal opening paragraph. From my own POV, I would have said it unfairly fails to give enough weight to criticisms (though I admit, my knowledge only comes from the evidence presented here, and it might be that this is fair comment in the wider USA, since sensational views tend to be reported more widely). Apart from yourself, Ben, the others would probably accept it just for an easy life, as it does not trespass to an unreasonable extent towards the pro nuclear camp. Sandpiper 08:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Factual Correctness

There are two facts which are simply wrong in the (other) intro: Cite me here as disruptive or whatever you like, but I have no intention of permitting factual mistakes into the article.

The "Value" of the "Insurance" is in no way limited to 10 Billion - it is virtually unlimited as is more than clear by the remainder of the article, the text of the act, and the Supreme Court case.
This "Value" is not "Industry-funded" - it is "Taxpayer-backed" - with the first 10 Billion being "Industry Funded".

Finally, and edit made to correct a factual error is not and cannot be considered a revert, disruptive, or any other derogatory term (by rational persons) therefore I challenge the rational to contemplate the accuracy of the statements in question, and offer long-suffering condolences to the others. Unless Ral intends on participating - mediation isn't happening here. Merry Christmas. Benjamin Gatti 01:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I rather think a revert is where you reinstate an old version. Whether either or neither is factually correct is neither here nor there. I fancy the original version stated the PAA industry fund was $10 billion, thereafter it became an issue for the government to fund, exactly as you say. Actual industry liability being limited by its net worth, whatever that might be, as normal. So no reason to change it. Sandpiper 02:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

OOPs, I nearly forgot. Merry Christmas everyone. Sandpiper

Industry Liability is limited by the Act - not by its own deep pockets. Secondary exposure via a revenue measure is limited by practical and political limitations - which are presumably at or near their carrying limits already. If you believe the Industry is going to provide substantially more than the 10 Billion, I'd like to see where and how. Permission to tax in no way guarantees revenue. Benjamin Gatti 02:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The act only limits liability from third parties. It appears to be, in effect, a reverse Tucker act. The US government has entered into a contract with the generators, all of whom have agreed to indemnify each other, and who have, by signing contracts with the regulatory agency, agreed to the terms of the act. One clause of which is a specific right by the US government to demand more money, albeit by the unusual route of congressional action. I suspect that congress suddenly demanding a payment off a private company would be 'unconstitutional, or something. But in this case they have already agreed to the terms of the act, that their bill may not become apparent until later. They only have a current liability for $100 million each. $1000 million each might be pushing their ability to pay, but doubling it certainly wouldn't. If there really was an accident, they would undoubtedly be under moral notice to pay, as well as current legal notice. Sandpiper 08:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The Supreme Court found that:

"... the potential liability dwarfed the ability of the industry and private insurance companies to absorb the risk."
"... Under the Price-Anderson Act as it presently stands, liability in the event of a nuclear incident causing damages of $560 million or more would be spread as follows: $315 million would be paid from contributions by the licensees of the 63 private operating nuclear power plants; $140 million would come from private insurance (the maximum now available); the remainder of $105 million would be borne by the Federal Government."

You appear to be arguing that we publish your opinion that the money would come from Industry over the opinion of the Supreme Court. I'm thinking that would violate No Original Research. Benjamin Gatti 16:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

And again: "The expert testimony before the District Court indicated that Duke Power, one of the largest utilities in the country, could not be expected to accumulate more than $200 million for damages claims without reaching the point of insolvency. App. 393-397" Even presuming that figure has risen since 1978, so has I believe industries responsibility, but it shows that the liability limit is not so far from the point of insolvency. Benjamin Gatti 17:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

well it was your own assertion I was disputing, 'industry liability is limited by the act, not by its own deep pockets'. It was yourself arguing they had lots of money and the act was protecting them from litigation. My point is that the act still exposes them to the full limit of their 'deep pockets', as you put it. But in a general sort of way, there is a whole world of difference between the revenue which can be extracted from an existing multi-billion dollar facility, and a theoretical return before the whole shooting match got built. Presumably the plant operators make quite big operating profits, which go to serve their investment costs. If they are bankrupted, they no longer have these costs. How much is a second hand power station (complete with decomissioning fund) worth? But I am sure the government would make terms to keep them running the plants. Giving them time to pay rather than instigating bancruptcy, as presumably a court would do? On a more serious point, it is not clear whether this particular provision was part of the act at the time of the supreme court case. Sandpiper 20:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe you would find a great gulf between the assets of the companies (legion) which build the nuclear plant and might be available to compensate victims for a construction defect, and the pockets of the reactor owner once in service. Yes you can speculate on this point beyond the interpretation of the Supreme Court, however, it is pretty clearly stated by the Supreme Court exactly where the money is going to come from, and without violating "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", and "Wikipedia:no original research" such speculation is impermissible. I think you can state simply that Congress has reserved the right to tax nuclear reactors - which of course is booth ridiculous and redundant as they have the right with or without Price Anderson to tax whomever they can find willing to pay. Benjamin Gatti 21:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

They do have the right to do as they please, yes. Nevertheless, they specifically inserted this clause pointing out their right to do so, and making it clear that nothing in the act removed that right. Kinda putting the companies on notice, wouldn't you say? But this still remains beside the point. I don't see how you can claim that unaltered legal procedures would be able to extract vast amounts of money from companies if sued, yet a specific act of congress would be unable to do the same thing. The act does not limit liability of the companies at all if they are open to exactly the same result as if it did not exist. As to the ruling, it claimed that consequences for the companies were likely to be equivalent in light of the points discussed, without even recourse to this particular clause which we are now discussing. Sandpiper 22:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Indemnify/Protect

I went ahead and linked "indemnify" and removed the protect part. If you want to argue with me, go right ahead, but that's classic Wikipedia. You link the term instead of defining it for people. It's what makes us what we are. --Btw, 68.187.80.102 is me. Not sure why it logged me out. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

In re False and absurd accusations of "protect" = POV

[7] It provides more than $9.5 billion of coverage through two levels of protection.
[8] The availability of indemnification under the Price Anderson Act for contractors and others at the DOE-owned enrichment facilities operated by USEC is an essential element of the continued success of the enrichment enterprise. Over the forty-plus year life of these plants, the surrounding communities, the private contractors that maintain, operate and supply the facilities and the customers who deliver uranium to USEC for processing have relied on Price Anderson protection.
[9] The Price Anderson Act was originally enacted in 1957 as an amendment to the Atomic Energy Act to establish a system of financial protection for persons who may be liable for a nuclear accident or incident and for persons who may be injured.

There is nothing POV about the term "protects". The Industry wanted protection from liability and that is what it got - plain and simple. Benjamin Gatti 20:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not about how others have used particular words, it is about how they work in this context. If you do not feel there is a big issue here, why are you seeking to insert the words? Sandpiper 21:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I feel it is a big deal to go about whitewashing by censoring the most basic and well-worn terms used elsewhere by government entities to discuss this issue. Benjamin Gatti 22:09, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Ben's opinion = facts. Our opinion = whitewashing. And I always find it amusing because Ben isn't even consistent with the version he wants to put up. So are you whitewashing yourself, Ben? --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 22:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Intro Edits

Not sure Mike realized what he was reverting to. Sandpipers new version is a huge shift, and really needs to be vetted. It contains original research (his theory that the Industy would be taxed to recover the costs), it removes the summary of criticisms, and the discussion of scope. Benjamin Gatti 22:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I reverted it back to your version, because I'm going on an extended (possibly permanent) Wikibreak. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 22:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

So I'm a censor, I whitewash and I'm stupid. You've never said it outright, but you've hinted at it many times, including here. I'm a 31 year college grad who works as a computer technician. I think I know what I am reverting to when I revert. I do have a brain. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 22:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I note that you slipped a revert in almost as quickly as I had done - you should accept that your first revert is quite questionable. I think that I have never called you stupid, nor have I implied it. My position is that the grasp of difficult subjects cannot be substituted with good intentions. And yes - Zen and I believe you and the others are actively removing relevant and well-cited information from the article because it is uncomfortable or unpopular. Benjamin Gatti 23:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The principle point added is the issue of industry still being liable above ten billion, which you agreed was correct some days ago (I think now archived?). Others also expressed a desire to shorten the introduction. (also now archived) Sandpiper 22:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

"Not sure Mike realized what he was reverting to.". That would be calling me stupid. No way around it. And you've done it before. "My position is that the grasp of difficult subjects cannot be substituted with good intentions." That basically says that I have good intentions but that I don't have a grasp of this difficult subject. Basically, that I'm stupid. You bury attacks in long, difficult to decipher sentences. But I speak that language. "Slipped in a revert". No. I changed my mind. You questioning that always amazes me. It always takes you at least 3 attempts to get edits you want through. I rarely see you take one edit to put your changes through. Whatever is good enough for you, Ben, is good enough for us. I'm not criticizing you, but criticizing me for doing that is just a tad incongruous. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 00:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Ease it up a bit there. All I was suggesting is that I responded prematurely to an unfinished editing sequence - no problem. Secondly, the suggestion that discounting the value of hard research in exchange for noble intentions is not the best way to produce an error-free reference is irrationally optimistic - in no way is directed at any individual. It is merely food for thought, and a suggestion that regardless of the person, we should focus on the facts perhaps a bit more than niceties, and back-scratching, and as Bush would call it - Loyalty. Loyalty has become a substitute for competency, I would hope we could do better here, which is why I don't bother currying the favor of other editors - I don't want their emotionally bound loyalty. Benjamin Gatti 00:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

"and a suggestion that regardless of the person, we should focus on the facts perhaps a bit more than niceties". Yep Ben. Like always. Anything goes with you. You still don't understand Wikipedia. It's frustrating. This is not a blog. We have rules to follow. It's not "niceities". It's how we function on here or else we'd have chaos. Of course, you *want* chaos. You thrive in it. Always have. You want to stir things up. It's what you love to do. The "let's throw everything up on the board and see what sticks" mentality. It's unencyclopedic as heck. It's not how we function. "Collaborative". Yeah. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 17:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

So then how would you describe the current intro - completely unsourced - original research - novel legal theory which runs counter to current holdings of the Supreme Court - but there it is - up on the wall - and ironically because you put it there. Benjamin Gatti 18:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm actually leaving this article to the capable hands of others. I've decided that you, Ben and all of the other POV pushers out there are bad for my mental health. I get riled up and emotional too easily for this stuff. I'm not leaving the arbcom case though. Just this damn article. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"...And to all, a good night". --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 00:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Smoking Gun

There is smoking gun evidence that reactors are violating and encouraging the violation of important safeguards - as predicted by removing the liability exposure per PAA:

Other security concerns cited by the guards, who insisted on anonymity, included orders to save time by not searching incoming vehicles, widespread cheating on state security certification tests, and weapons violations in protected areas. Guards also say the company discourages them from reporting on-the-job injuries, resulting in security staff working at less than full physical capacity.

[10]

I Propose we add:

There is evidence that the effect of Price Anderson encourages a culture of corruption within the Industry in which safety certifications are falsified, security doors are not repaired, and whistle-blowers are punished rather than heard.

Benjamin Gatti 06:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

A reading of the article shows no apparent link to Price-Anderson. You also don't state WHO predicted this would happen as a result of imposing Price-Anderson, and there is no obvious link here to insurance coverage.

It isn't clear if the "company" is Progress Energy or Securitas Security Services USA Inc. However, not searching any vehicle would seem to be a violation.

The article doesn't say if the security doors had been repaired or not, or that the whistle-blowers had been punished. In fact, if an allegation is raised, one of the first things to do is to ask everyone concerned if they know anything about such deficiencies or similar ones (it's in my management text book) - only by knowing as much as possible about deficiencies can they be fixed permanently.

In short, there may be smoke and a gun, but no evidence I can see that Price-Anderson was even at the scene. Simesa 09:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The Supreme Court Case

IV The District Court held that ... "[t]he Act tends to encourage irresponsibility in matters of safety and environmental protection . . . ";

This story is the fulfillment of the prophetic finding of the District court. therein the connection. Benjamin Gatti 17:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

well, my first reaction is to ask whether there is an online reference to the same story on the washington post, or whatever would be a respected national newspaper in the US. This one says news from 100 'alternative' news weeklies? Witch Weekly, the Daily Prophet (oops this isn't an HP article)? MY next reaction is as above. I am sure that lots of people are under pressure to cut corners and save money in every industry you can name, including wind generation (for example). All it takes is for your manager to say we need to shave $1000 of our budget for this year. And all the repairs get postponed. Absolutely standard practice and no reason for anyone to have even spared a thought for the chance of being sued. As to security guards being sick, well sometimes they may be chosen for their strength, but most often I find they are chosen for accepting very bad wages. So they like as not include tiny teenagers and those working on their pensions. It would be a big mistake for anyone to assume that security is 100% effective, ever, anywhere. Maybe 10% might be normal? And last, absolutely no mention of PA in the story. Yes, mention of licensing authorities and possible criminal charges against people deliberately falsifying records, but that has nothing to do with PA.

I saw the story on Fox News, where if I recall both panelists recommended high-handed measures against the whistle-blower. But was taken aback by the lack of mainstream coverage. Perhaps the media has decided it's to hot to publish - i.e. they don't want to be put in jail by the Bushstoppo. Benjamin Gatti 19:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Second Point - yes Industries try to cut corners - however there are notable exceptions. Ford recalls a vehicle, or a tire at great expense to repair an item which just could possibly cause a fatal wreck - why why why. Ask yourself why - I'll tell you why. BECAUSE THEY COULD GET THE ASSES SUED in state court by sympathetic juries who say - this damn company tried to save a buck and caused the death of this family - they are going to pay through the freak-in nose for this, and we are going to make damn sure, no other company puts lives at risk to save a few measly bucks, and so after 50 years of - yes rather excessive - training by juries, some companies have learned to make safety an important survival tool, and I doubt you will see corners cut in those industries - now then - placing the nuclear field outside the purview of those same juries - removes the incentive to place a priority on safety - which quite predictable results - which in fact we see here. Benjamin Gatti

Third point - there is a connection - just as there is to the Tucker Act - as the Supreme Court argued that the remedies in place - ie nuclear regulations were adequate to insure safety compliance by the companies - what we have here is prima facia evidence that such is in fact not at all the case - the only incentive which can argue for spending money is the potential loss of money if it is not spent. Benjamin Gatti 19:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

well, no, not really. We have a number of reports of failings. But we don't know how serious these are. Was the reactor 5 minutes from meltdown because someone left a door open? Did any of this imperil the plant? I am taking issue with myself, 'cut corners' is POV. one man's unwarranted risk is another mans cutting back on waste. But we still have absolutely no reason to think that anything would have been in the least bit different if the public was able to sue directly. This is not a PA issue, but a regulation issue. Maybe this is my Uk perspective, but I find it an odd concept that safety is improved by fears of massive lawsuits. Rather, I suspect that massive cover-ups are fostered by threats of massive lawsuits....because admitting any kind of fault becomes unthinkable. It becomes wiser to continue with an unsafe practice than to admit that one exists, and change it. Sandpiper 19:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you've missed the last few rounds of lawsuits. Cover-ups are not advised, because then individuals become criminally liable - in addition to the corporation becoming financially liable. I would say that if you were advising anyone using your logic, you'd be in trouble for malpractice, and it would be stupid. Any evidence of a cover-up seals the issue of malicious culpability and triggers copious damages. I believe it's just plain silly to argue that regulations - without teeth, enforced by the inmates of the asylum is as effective as the threat of full remuneration. We've seen both in action, and the difference is a matter of record. Benjamin Gatti

Which just goes to show the importance of guessing right when you decide to go for a cover up. Show me some statistics on the number of companies which never got caught. Sandpiper 00:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Like to introduce the words used in this section

A "nuclear incident" is defined as "any occurrence . . . within the United States causing, within or outside the United States, bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death, or loss of or damage to property, or loss of use of property, arising out of or resulting from the radioactive, toxic, explosive, or other hazardous properties of source, special nuclear, or by-product material . . . ." 42 U.S.C. 2014 (q). The Supreme Court

where do you want to put it, and I guess I would wonder, to what purpose? It is a rather complex and difficult to follow sentence meant to mean something like 'just about anything bad related to nuclear material'? Sandpiper 08:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps:

The Price Anderson Act protects nuclear power companies from liabilities arising from "any occurrence . . . within the United States causing bodily injury, sickness, disease, death, or property damage resulting from the radioactive or other hazardous properties of nuclear materials" by holding the companies harmless, even for violation of safety requirements, overriding State liability laws, and by establishing a taxpayer-backed insurance plan, the first 10 billion of which is funded by industry. Benjamin Gatti 21:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

well hardly, a rather complicated and hard to understand compound clause inserted into the the very first sentence.. which should be a simple, snappy, explanation of the most central fact of what the hell this thing is? Sandpiper 10:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

No, for the reasons Sandpiper outlined. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 15:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Supreme Court

"The Supreme Court held that it did not remove important legal remedies from the public."

While this is close to what the Supreme Court held, I feel that it is not in fact what the supreme court held, and I would prefer more precise language when dealing with holding of the Supreme court. They spend weeks arguing about the language used in holding, I suggest we should not indulge in original reinterpretations. Benjamin Gatti 18:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

the findings of the court are explained later in some detailSandpiper 11:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Subsidy?

The intro now reads "The Act has been termed a subsidy to investors by the United States Department of Energy.[citation needed]"

I inserted citation needed. Can someone please cite the DOE saying the act is a subsidy? Thanks! Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

How about 15,700 government hits for subsidy and price anderson?

[11]

That particular language comes from:

[12]

and you might find these interesting:

[13] [14]

My recollection is that the cites have been given in the past and then Censored - as there has been pretty heavy handed censorship on this article of anything unfriendly to President Bush and his secret closed door meeting associates. (Reminds one of the china-Google deal). Benjamin Gatti 00:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not know or care about your problems in the past, nor am I at all interested in nuclear power issues. Your second link sufficed, and I have reinserted the now cited comment. For future reference, do not add information to articles that is not cited. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

How many times do I need to re-include citations after the censorship committee removes them? Your accusation, even implied, is wholly unsupported by the history of the Article. I searched the talk history (ALL) for that cite, and found it twice. It was fully cited in the criticism section but was later removed (post 15 oct 2005) by the afore mentioned deletionists. Such is the beauty of book-burning. Benjamin Gatti 03:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not a very civil thing to say. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The cite was first removed in this diff: [15]

This is earlier: [16]

Benjamin Gatti 15:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

My recollection is that it was first inserted as it is now - in the intro, after which it was moved to the criticisms section - which became a dumping ground for any facts regardless of how neutral which were negative - and grew enormously. Subsequently I trimmed it to a rational size. This particular quote - by the DOE - which is hardly a critic - belongs where it was initially - if I remember. Are you able to search histories? Sorry if I appear sensitive on this, but the deletionists went to arbcom in order to effect their deletions - so I am. Not leastly because the Arb appears to supports this kind of whitewashing. Benjamin Gatti 15:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I only care about WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Your problems with deletionists and arbcom will have to be taken elsewhere. WP:ENC Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well Hipocrite, Ben doesn't really care about any of those things, as he proves daily. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Mike, While I may think that the line between fact and bias is somewhere other than where you would have it, I do actually work towards a neutral article. I suggest you will find that marginalized points of view often come across as outside the mainstream - whether they are right or wrong. I won't pain you with too many examples - but consider how radical it would have sounded to suggest that women should engage in voting - or even worse - running for office in 1920? I think you should admit that the nuclear articles have been used to echo the NEI and other propagandists points of view unquestioningly, and you might try to separate yourself from that deceptive practice. Look at the recent statements Simesa got from the NRC and posted verbatim. Wiki has been reduced to a virtual telephone pole for the pasting of pro-nuclear rags. Benjamin Gatti 15:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

picture

Hi guys. I found a picture of the local power station already posted on wiki, so i copied it here. No idea what you might think of it, but arguably it might be better than the one with sunflowers. I also left a message for the guy who posted it, asking if he had a better one, as it was originally taken to show the lighthouse as much as the station. unfortunately he seems to be a very occasional contributor. Sandpiper 23:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sand, I had the impression you edit from England, thus a local plant would be in England, and isn't covered by Price-Anderson. Since PA is a rather US Centric subject, I feel it is misleading to insert a British reactor into the first paragraph. Someone might even recognize the lighthouse and get confused trying to see how it relates to this article. And if I'm wrong about this being an English reactor, will somebody have the kindness to yank my foot out again. Benjamin Gatti 15:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a photograph of the two remaining lighthouses at Dungeness in Kent, in the South-East of England, with Dungeness Power Station in the background. The Price-Anderson Act does not of course apply to this site. This image used in the Three Mile Island article would seem far more applicable to me, or there may be better choices still. Nice photo, though. Andrewa 03:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It is, as it says, an english reactor. I notice the nuclear power article has acquired a french reactor. The discussion we had earlier suggested there was some difficulty in obtaining photographs of american reactors. While it would certainly be better to have an American one, just a picture which looks appropriate seems quite reasonable to me. I think it might be argued that a picture of 3 mile island could be considered POV pushing, but it certainly does seem to be to the point. Sandpiper 20:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Three mile Island is the single biggest expenditure under the Act, and certainly represents the kind of occurrence contemplated by the act, and is far more truthful and moderate than the other obvious international example. Aside from which - the image is not emotionally loaded. Benjamin Gatti 01:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well Ben (if youre out there), on this one I think you might be right. The container test photo was very good and appropriate as an example of being serious about safety, but 3 mile is a reactor and is the one case where the act has seriously swung into action (or not, in fact, since the bill was not big enough, I think it says somewhere). The only serious minus is that it is used in the 3 mile articles, which someone might be looking at also if they are reading this article. Sandpiper 22:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Some editing I did today

I attempted to tighten up the intro somewhat. I broke up an unwieldly sentence into 2. I also removed the following:

"A report by the Energy Information Adminstration, titled "Impacts of Energy Research and Development - Nuclear Energy" described the act, in part, as "essentially a subsidy to investors in nuclear power."[17]"

I removed it because it felt really tacked on. It was at the end of the paragraph and didn't really fit with the rest of it. If someone can find a place for it, I'm open to including it. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 19:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added "The act has been criticized by a number of groups, and its constitutionality has been challenged, and was upheld by the supreme court in 1978." to the intro. I don't know if this wording is satisfactory, but it seems that a major point of interest in the P-A is the controversy it has created (on legal, economic, environmental, and energy policy fronts). It would be unfortunate if there is no mention of this in the introduction.

I would hope we can clear up the POV, it doesn't look too bad to me right now, and I don't see why this issue ought to generate factual controversy. Ethan Mitchell 19:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I cut the direct references to (some of) the groups critical of the act in the intro. First, they are more detail than is neccesary in the intro. Second, the inclusion of only two, from a rather diverse list, leaves us open to POV in the form of cherry-picking. Third, describing Cato as merely a "taxpayer watchdog" seems precious. That isn't how we describe them on their own page. Ethan Mitchell 02:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Objection to deletion of objective facts

First the Supreme Court challenge was describes as partial by the Supreme Court (noting that certain constitutional arguments were not made, and thus not ruled upon, and second, Chernobyl is a fact, and the ruling really does predate it, and arguing that Chernobyl has no relevance to the subject of the risk of nuclear power is irrational and exuberant. As for Cato - or Union, yeah they are a minority, but some specificity is preferable to none at all. Do you imagine I can't find a counter example? Let's roll it back. Benjamin Gatti 03:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to include Chernobyl and Three-Mile-Island in the main body of the text (currently Chernobyl is not), especially if we can show that contemporaries linked these events to their analysis of P-A. To contextualize P-A against Chernobyl, in the introduction, without a specific link, seems POV and borders on original research. Moreover, it is not necessary. Any reader who's gotten to this page is aware of Chernobyl. Also, I don't think that the introduction is hampered by not having a list of the groups who object. I could see the value of suggesting that the group is unusually diverse, but putting a detailed list in the intro would be redundant, and a partial list seems POVish, given the diversity. No doubt anyone can find an example of any kind of bad editing decision, but that is not the point, right? Ethan Mitchell 04:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

But look at the prior sentence - PAA was needed because the risks weren't quantified - it says - I would suggest that Chernobyl does to a large degree quantify the risks. The fact that PAA survived one challenge prior to the understanding (and factual basis) which is Chernobyl is a significant fact which tempers the otherwise unqualified implication that PAA is unquestionably Constitutional. Benjamin Gatti 05:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Your argument doesn't hold water. PAA was debated and enacted when there were no studies available - but then the AEC released the (crude) WASH-740. Then in 1975 came WASH-1400. Surely the Supreme Court had knowledge they existed. Chernobyl's results were very close to WASH-740's (should be - WASH-740 arbitrarily threw half the core into the air, which the Soviets found a way to actually do), hence no obvious reason for the Supreme Court to change its mind.

The reason I phrased it as "then-unknown" is that when PAA was enacted the risks WERE unknown, and the reason I said "(and still being quantified)" is that the NRC has now repudiated all previous studies as being (in the words to me by a Sandia National Labs researcher) "wildly conservative" and nowhere near accurate for American nuclear power plants - hence the NRC's new, comprehensive study.

The term "partial" is best left to the body of the article. The immediate question that jumps to mind is why hasn't the "partial" status been resolved in the last 27 years while Congress has been renewing the act, and the explanation of that is going to be far too long for the intro. Simesa 08:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin, if I can make a suggestion--there is no reference to Chernobyl in the main body of the text. Surely someone at the time must have said "gee, that puts a pretty different spin on the P-AA, huh?" and we can cite that and discuss them. Could you do the legwork on that? And then, if indeed there is a lot of material there, it might make sense to include C in the intro. But I don't see how we can include C in the intro, as a sort of retroactive comparison, if it isn't mentioned in the text itself. Ethan Mitchell 13:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with your conclusion - we shouldn't cite in the intro what in fact is not resolved in the text.

[18] there are several references to both with all stating in essence that Chernobyl has cost 350 Billion. I suggest that that figure ought to be listed here as part of the due diligence one would expect in analysing the risk. A Similar figure is projected by the simulations conducted for US plants, and their agreement is arguably notable. What say the rest? Benjamin Gatti 01:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

We had a small section with Chernobyl and three or four of the key differences between such RBMKs and non-Soviet plants. (I forget how it got deleted.) The basic point is that Chernobyl is so different from any operating American plant as to make comparisons meaningless.

As for the old simulations (WASH-740 through NUREG-1150), the author (the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its predecessor the Atomic Energy Commission) have repudiated all of them as giving too large estimates of maximum-possible casualties and damages. The NRC doesn't even accept the "alpha mode" of containment failure anymore. Those studies are only useful for having given the upper bounds that could be calculated at the time with the technology available. I would state that the old studies existed (but not quote their results - why scare people when you know the numbers are wildly exaggerated?), and note that the NRC is performing a new, state-of-the-art study - whose results they expect to be vastly different. Simesa 03:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record, when the page was protected on July 3, the Chernobyl-related text read:

[A catastrophic nuclear event — such as the 1986 Chernobyl accident — would arguably deplete and likely exceed the current pool of money. Though the Soviet Union never released official estimates of the accident's economic impact, Greenpeace International estimated it to have been about $280 billion, not including medical costs for victims. However, were similar circumstances to be repeated in America, the scale of the disaster likely would be less [19] [20] [21] [22] ^{[dubious – discuss]} — the Chernobyl reactors were unstable RBMKs, unlike American plants, and the Chernobyl reactors did not have containment buildings around them.]

Simesa 03:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Per NPOV - we can't assert the probability of future events nor their scale and effect. What we can assert is the fact that Chernobyl happened, its cost (to date) is fairly well agreed to be in the range of 350 Billion. In addition, if a hundred voices have published speculations regarding the likely impact of an ENO in the US, then we could perhaps report that certain named voices have expressed those ideas. To accuse me of POV wile asserting the likelihood of future events as if it were a "fact" however is gross intellectual negligence, as I'm sure you now realize. Benjamin Gatti 04:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Civility please. And haven't we been through this issue about 10 times now? I mean, we're literally rehashing how the text USED to look (over 9 months ago). That's just a bit silly, don't you think? --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

What are facts are that (1) the Chernobyl RBMKs were grossly unlike any American power plant, (2) the Sovists didn't put containment buildings around them, and (3) the authors of the American government studies have repudiated their results. Those facts deserve mentioning.

I don't see where you find a POV accusation. But it is POV not to include pertinent material. Simesa 14:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Where I Find POV is in the statement: "However, were similar circumstances to be repeated in America, the scale of the disaster likely would be less." This statement is textbook POV. It is a crystal ball, and it makes a biased argument without attribution. Wikipedia doesn't take sides. The view that Chernobyl was an anomaly is a particular view - the view that the US system encourages safety lapses such as we saw recently with Progress Energy which could just as easily lead to an ENO in the US is another equally valid view. To assert the first in the first voice is a blatant violation of the NPOV rule set; and gross intellectual hypocrisy given the recent self-serving visit to the Arbcom. Those who make such contributions while taking others to task for countering such bias should be identified as crusaders, and rather uncivil crusaders at that. Benjamin Gatti 16:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Ben, I'd stop this soon if I were you. It is skirting right along the edge of being blockable. Accusing others of POV and accusing people of gross intellectual hypocrisy violates the arbcom ruling. Why you insist on continuing to attack others despite the arbcom ruling is a mystery to me. Any further posts like the one above and I'm going to ask people at WP:AN and WP:AN/I to block you from this article for a certain length of time. And we'll get it. Try to work with people instead of accusing them of bias. What I hear is the exact same old Ben. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 01:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Woah, folks, we were all friendly there for a second, it was nice. As I see it, the problem with the Chernobyl texts to date, and the ones being discussed right now, is that they are current (2006) reflections on a counterfactual event. But I have no doubt that someone at the time (1986) commented on the likely outcome of a Chernobyl-like in the US, re the P-AA. In fact, I remember seeing such commentaries. It would be entirely germane to include them, and it would not be POV on our part: they are a matter of record. I think that is the route we should be working in. Ethan Mitchell 18:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... In the first reference (of four) it says:

As Cohen point out about Chernobyl, "Post-accident analyses indicate that if there had been a U.S.-style containment, none of the radioactivity would have escaped, and there would have been no injuries or deaths."

That's an attributable quote. Let's put that in instead.

Simesa 18:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Great. BG, can you find someone criticizing the P-AA in light of Chernobyl? I am thinking Greenpeace ran a white paper about Nuclear Energy right afterwards? Ethan Mitchell 18:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

RE: Cohen - II believe the after analysis of chernobyle also found that IF they had followed Russian law and regulations "none of the radioactivity would have escaped". The fact that the same is true in the US isn't very notable. For example - IF the Progress Energy site had experienced an ENO while the containment door had been in disrepair - what would the outcome have been? This is another example of bias - using the theoretic best case when analysing nuclear, and the theoretical worst case when reporting on alternatives to nuclear energy (See [[Nuclear Energy}} search for wind). Bias and Pov, Pov and Bias. Benjamin Gatti 15:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

What a non-sequitur! Cohen's statement is completely pertinent. So what if the accident should never have happened - that's what containment buildings are for.

As for Progress Energy, you'll have to provide a cite (I couldn't find one on the topic) saying that either containment door (there are two, in an airlock fashion) was unable to provide a pressure barrier (unless you mean the equipment hatch, which is only opened during outages).

Accusations of bias? Hmmm... My take on Chernobyl was that it was an uncontained brushpile with incompetents on the staff and a non-existent safety culture. (BTW - The Russians are again proposing to build floating nuclear power plants.) I'm critical where criticism is deserved, not just where it suits my particular political orientation.

Simesa 00:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[23] Here is one of dozens in Google news. Apparently the safety culture in the US is not as defect-free as some have been advertising. I would suggest that while there are some reasons that Chernobyl won't be repeated verbatim here or anywhere, there are new risks which the soviet reactors don't face, terrorism being the first, population concentration being another. And may I saw that the "safety culture" in the US can be attributed to one fact: Liability lawsuits. love 'em or hate 'em - there's little denying the fact that what you call a "safety culture" is the long and successful history of ambulance chasers bringing massive losses against even minor acts of negligence - and it is instructive to understand that Price-Anderson undermines the safety culture directly by undermining the ability of victims to bring those devastating lawsuits which have improved industrial safety for decades. Benjamin Gatti 06:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Your cite doesn't even mention the words "Progress Energy" or "containment". And you're wrong about the cause of the safety culture being one cause - NRC oversight clearly is a major driver. As for lawsuits - what successful lawsuits? Simesa 11:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The Lawsuits which drive the so-called "American safety culture" include lawsuits against car companies for failing to recall defective tires after they realized the tires were contributing to fatal accidents, add to that cigarette and asbestos claims - then the stuff of urban legends such as the McDonald's coffee spill suit and you begin to understand that if one as a company knowingly fails to prevent a foreseeable injury, one will be sued, and thus one as an investor had better understand the risks of their investments being lost due to the mismanagement of such risks, and that is how you create a culture of safety - remove the liability as PAA does, and there is no basis for this culture, and we have indeed seen recently that the culture is undermined in the nuclear field exactly because the incentives to be safe are removed. (The case is Progress energy and has to do with the doors being maintained, as well as a deep erosion in the reactor vessel wall.) Benjamin Gatti 17:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Folks, there are several other pages on which the general question of nuclear safety is addressed in much more detail. I'm not even clear if we need to indicate those discussions from this page; they are pretty widely known. I think we should stick to existing, sourceable arguments that are directly related to the P-AA. Ethan Mitchell 14:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your view that liability lawsuits are the only possible basis for a safety culture. For example, the Davis-Besse Reactor Vessel Head error has not resulted in a viable lawsuit (one was dismissed), but the NRC is after three utility employees and the utility agreed to pay "$28 million in fines, restitution and community service projects" [24]. The utility itself risked a huge write-off if the plant had had to be cleaned up or was rendered unusable. Finally, if lawsuits are the only possible source of a safety culture and PAA has removed lawsuits, then why does such a strong safety culture exist? Simesa 19:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I still haven't seen anything about containment door or reactor vessel corrosion problems at Progress Energy. Are you sure you don't mean the containment vessel corrosion issues that were first identified in 1996? [25] Simesa 19:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

News Articles of Interest:

[26] [27] Benjamin Gatti 06:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I figured as soon as I asked "what lawsuits?" one would crop up. [28] could be a problem for Exelon, although the company is saying they were within operating limits. Simesa 23:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Any reason why the recent spat of nuclear-related safety concerns needs to be censored out of the Nuclear Article. - I mean refactor if you want - but wholesale elimination of real well-cited recent related facts on the ground - in the name of encyclopedic information? Eh? c'mon - I like you fine, but isn't that getting to be a bit of a habit? Benjamin Gatti 01:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I see you only moved it - fine - DX censored it. Apology in part. Benjamin Gatti 03:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Any reason why you need to keep using the word "censored"? And this isn't the "nuclear article". It's the PAA article. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 02:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

A Spade by any other name is still ... Benjamin Gatti 03:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

How you say something is important as what you say on here. We've been through this many many times. "Censorship" implies that we're holding back something when we're not. It's back to the old issue that what you consider "facts" can't always be included. Other considerations. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Now

That Ben is gone and the threat of Ben is gone, is there anything anyone would like to alter here? I think tonight I'll have a once over on it and see if I see anything glaring. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 00:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the NPOV tag. If anyone else thinks this article has NPOV problems, they can readd it. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 00:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Editing I did tonight

I did some major plastic surgery on the article tonight. Most of it involved making the article more understandable through fixing grammar and such. If I screwed anything up, feel free to change it. I think it reads much better now, especially the "How the Law Works" section. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

repudiated safety studies

I note the article now says the NRA has repudiated the existing safety studies and is working on a new one. This rather implies that NRA thinks there is something bad about the existing ones, fair enough, but would imply to a general reader that the studies were erring on the the side of unsafety, not safety. It would appear from the above that NRA thinks the reactors are more safe than implied in these studies, and so this ought to be stated in the text. Sandpiper 09:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Commission is working on a new study, although I haven't heard anything on it recently. I'll look at the wordiing. Thanks. Simesa 15:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)