Talk:Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act/Archive 5

Workshop

Paragraph 1

The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) limits liability for nuclear plant operators. The Act also makes available a pool of insurance funds to compensate people who are injured or incur damages from a nuclear or radiological incident. The Price-Anderson Act grants the nuclear industry no-fault insurance for incidents, and caps damages that may be rewarded as a result of a lawsuit. Today, it currently covers all non-military nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2026. 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.

If anybody feels strongly that this paragraph should be added to or modified, please propose what you feel those changes should be. If you think it's fine the way it is, please indicate such.

1. The paragraph is fine as-is. · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Woohookitty on grammar. I'm fine with Simesa's notation, though I think the point about beyond-pool coverage could be a little sharper. How about (if an incident exceeds the pool's funds, Congress must consider appropriating more money). Something like that. Benjamin's version, which has already been rejected through edits prior to this consensus-survey, is still too biased to be appropriate. I also don't agree that it's necessary to mention the criminal malfeasance clause in the intro paragraph, as I've said repeatedly in the past. · Katefan0^(scribble) 05:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Looks good. My only complaint is grammatical. "Today, it currently" is redundant. "Currently, the law covers" works betters. But other than that, it looks fine. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
2. The paragraph, acceptable as-is, could use slight modification (see below). I can go with either version. · Simesa 03:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
3. The Paragraph fails to mention that criminal acts could be shielded from liability suits, and the Act covers military reactors (ie reactors used to breed Weapons - it does not cover subs.) Benjamin Gatti 05:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd modify that to:

The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) limits liability for nuclear plant operators. The Act also makes available a pool of insurance funds to compensate people who are injured or incur damages from a nuclear or radiological incident (coverage beyond the pool is to be provided by the federal government). The Price-Anderson Act grants the nuclear industry no-fault insurance for incidents, and potentially caps damages that may be rewarded as a result of lawsuits. The Act currently covers all non-military nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2026. Environmental groups, consumer groups, taxpayer watchdogs and one federal agency have criticized the act as a government handout to the nuclear power industry.

Simesa 03:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I would modify it to read:

The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) protects corporations from liability lawsuits in the event the public are harmed by a nuclear disaster, even if the cause is criminal malfeasance. The Act replaces common liability laws with a fixed pool of funds which may or may not be adequate to cover the healthcare costs of potential victims. In the event of a severe nuclear disaster, the effects on infants and fetuses could include mental retardation, profound malformation and genetic defects passed on to future generations. Under the Act, the nuclear operator is held harmless for these damages, and the cost is transferred to the victim and to the taxpayer. The Price-Anderson Act gives security to the nuclear industry by taking it from the public under a no-fault partial insurance plan. The Act was recently extended in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Act subsidizes the risk of catastrophy for all non-military nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2026. Environmental groups, consumer groups and taxpayer watchdogs and the Department of Energy have descibed the act as a subsidy for nuclear investors at the expense of the taxpayer.

Benjamin Gatti 04:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Make an actual attempt at NPOV or don't bother. I counted about 10 negative words in there. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

New consensus paragraph, modified per Simesa et al:

The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) limits liability for nuclear plant operators. The Act also makes available a pool of insurance funds to compensate people who are injured or incur damages from a nuclear or radiological incident (if an incident exceeds the pool's funds, Congress must consider appropriating more money). The Price-Anderson Act grants the nuclear industry no-fault insurance for incidents, and potentially caps damages that may be rewarded as a result of lawsuits. The Act currently covers all non-military nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2026. Environmental groups, consumer groups, taxpayer watchdogs and one federal agency have criticized the act as a government handout to the nuclear power industry.

Any other changes? · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

One more comment -- to partially satisfy Benjamin's concerns, perhaps we could change the last sentence to ... "Environmental, consumer and taxpayer watchdog groups have criticized the act as a government handout to the nuclear power industry and argue that it does not adequately protect the public." · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Adding 'argue that it does not adequately protect the public' seems fair, since they do, but I am not convinced that ALL environmental agencies (etc) argue this. So equally it should add SOME environmantal groups, consumer.... Bens suggested version is not realistic. As to the two alternatives about congress providing funds, the first implies it will, the second wording might imply no special obligation upon congress to do anything. The truth seems to be a legal obligation to think about it? (which, realistically, would produce some money if not all that was sought) Sandpiper 18:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, adding "some" would be better. Also, as I understand it, yes -- there is nothing that says Congress MUST appropriate more money. As I understand it (someone correct me if I'm wrong), the law just says Congress must consider appropriating more money. I'm not sure what exactly that would mean in practice (hearings?), but I don't think there's any requirement that Congress must, in fact, give more money. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

So we're at:

The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) limits liability for nuclear plant operators. The Act also makes available a pool of insurance funds to compensate people who are injured or incur damages from a nuclear or radiological incident (if an incident exceeds the pool's funds, Congress must consider appropriating more money). The Price-Anderson Act grants the nuclear industry no-fault insurance for incidents, and potentially caps damages that may be rewarded as a result of lawsuits. The Act currently covers all non-military nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2026. Some environmental groups, consumer groups, taxpayer watchdogs and one federal agency have criticized the act as a government handout to the nuclear power industry and argue that it does not adequately protect the public.

That looks pretty good to me. Simesa 20:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Ignoring the fact that it shields corporations from liability for criminal acts isn't going to fly. We can find an agreeable way to say it, but we cannot agree to ignore it (Wikipedia isn't paper?). I would suggest that someone other than me give it a shot. think writing for the enemy. I might suggest the words "willful malfeasance" which while oblique, has the benefit of being used in the references.
• Kate is right - congress is only obliged to consider appropriate relief. - going from there to congress will in fact cover the damages is speculative. Aside from which congresses definition of damages may be very different from "equity" - which generally means whatever an impartial jury believes would be necessary to compensate for the pain, suffering, medical costs, loss of children, spouses etc ... oddly - a very high number when you're talking an early death to cancer etc ...
• Adding "some" - suggests fewer than most. I would challenge that - I believe most environmental groups (weighted by membership) have criticised the act. Greenpeace alone is probably most.
• "at least one" would be safe - since we cannot claim to have personally interviewed each and every department. I would speculate that the EPA has had a few choice words, and the DOE renewable folk have probably kicked a water cooler once or twice. I think you aren't giving these departments credit for their independence by limited the number to the results of a three minute Google inquiry.
• Is "all non-military reactors" accurate? I think it covers all fixed reactors and ground transportation of fissionable materials. - or another way - all land-based incidents.
• It might state that the act has been criticised for "providing real protections to nuclear corporations, and imaginary protections for the public." One of our sources put it that way - and it is both true and concise.

The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) protects the nuclear industry from the catastrophic liabilities which could arise from a nuclear disaster in the United States. The Act allows nuclear reactors to be self-uninsured and puts the taxpayer on the hook in the event of a serious accident. The Act reduces the ability of people injured in a nuclear incident to sue those responsible - even for criminal conduct. The Act currently covers land-based reactors constructed in the United States before 2026 and ground transportation of fissile materials. Most Environmental groups, consumer groups, taxpayer watchdogs and the DOE EIA have criticized the act as a government handout to the nuclear power industry and point out that while the protection for industry is real, the protections for the public are fictitious.

A little improvement. Benjamin Gatti 02:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Such an improvement I just reverted it. So he followed Katefan's advice and contributed...a ridiculous POV paragraph...and just like always, so ridiculous that we can't really even work with it. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

We aren't ignoring criminal etc. -- it simply doesn't need to be mentioned in the intro paragraph. Some is more accurate. Your last point is not a good faith suggestion. I believe we've now established a consensus. I'll paste our consensus paragraph into the intro after I save this comment. · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

You can't summarise the intent of the act as protecting criminals from catastrophic liabilities, because that is not the intent of the act. It might (arguably) be a consequence in certain circumstances, but this does not belong in an honest opening summary. Sandpiper 00:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Paragraph 1 obit

Does everyone now agree that the introduction is good as it is, allowing us to move on to the next section? Ral315 (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

"Good" is the correct word. I'm not happy about removing "adequately", but it's still a good Intro. Simesa 02:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Everyone but Benjamin I imagine. · Katefan0^(scribble) 05:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Objections:

• limits liability for nuclear plant operators.

As the first, this sentence has the responsability to represent the act in a single sound bite. This doesn't. "... protects nuclear operators from financial liability for the effects of a catastrophic nuclear disaster on the general public and provides limited federal funding to compensate victims instead." This a short sentence - accurate in each clause, with words carefully chosen from the Act itself.

• The act also makes available a pool of insurance funds to compensate people who are injured or incur damages from a nuclear or radiological incident (if an incident exceeds the pool's funds, Congress must consider appropriating more money).

The parenthetical phrase is an inappropriate aside. The sentence fails to state that the pool is limited - while the gravamen of the act is its limitation.

• The act grants the nuclear industry no-fault insurance for incidents, and potentially caps damages that may be rewarded as a result of lawsuits.

The act doesn't 'potentially cap - it affirmatively caps damages awarded. If Congress were to allocate funds, it would be a Fema-style dispensation, and not likely to be rewarded in a trial.

• The act currently covers all non-military nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2026.

First we said "nuclear subs" weren't covered, now we say "military reactors" aren't covered - I'm not convinced the two are the same, and I want to see a citation. I googles a bit and couldn't find out how we create the fissile material for bombs - are those research reactors? Remember the charge of the DOE is defense (read offense). So any DOE "research" reactor which is in fact pumping out warheads - would qualify as a "military reactor" - certainly would be a justifiable military target if located in north Korea.

In this day and age, probably the USA finds it cheaper to buy second hand fissile material from Russia Sandpiper 01:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Some environmental, consumer and taxpayer watchdog groups, as well as one federal agency, have criticized the act as a government handout to the nuclear power industry and argue that it does not protect the public.

The word "some" qualifies the number of groups which have expressed criticism. My instinct is that if we are going to qualify - then we need to do it accurately and source it. My guess is we have no factual basis on which to make the distinction. The qualification should be left out unless sourced. The DOE did not "criticize" the act, nor does the quote which I provided, support the assertion that "it does not protect the public." We have sacrificed accuracy for simplicity - no go.

All told, not one sentence of this introduction will hold up under educated scrutiny. Ditch it, ditch openness, or live with volatility. Benjamin Gatti 05:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I still had a reservation about the word 'handout', which is somewhat pejorative, and would prefer 'subsidy'. (However, this might be a direct quote of what was said?) I doubt i would argue about this, but having just read the article again, i think the introductory paragraph is pushing a POV that the act is a 'bad thing'. It goes on a lot about things which sound like they might be bad for people, but which in reality are considered very unlikely to cause anyone harm. (i.e this claim cap)Sandpiper 01:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The DOE used the word "Subsidy" - and I wouldn't characterize their POV as derogatory - it was just a fact issued by a factual organization. (Some people live outside spin). I would guess the opening paragraph of the Spanish Inquisition reads a bit negative as well. An article is not entitled to a presumption of neutrality - it is entitled to a fair presentation of the facts. I believe my intro provides a fair and accurate presentation of the whole truth and nothing falsified for simplicity. Benjamin Gatti

Accurate Intro

The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) protects nuclear operators from the potential civil liabilities arising from a nuclear disaster and provides limited taxpayer-funded compensation instead. The act coordinates private insurance policies to cover the first ~$300 million in damages, forms a cost-sharing plan to cover the next ~$10 billion, promises federal funds up to $500 million after that, and finally commits the Congress to consider additional remedy if necessary. Under the act, persons injured by nuclear events cannot sue those responsible for damages for full compensation, even in the event of willful malfeasance, instead victims can only request limited compensation from the federal government. The act insures research facilities, transportation of fissile materials and reactors constructed in the United States before 2026, but does not cover nuclear submarines. The Department of Energy has called it a "subsidy for nuclear investors" while environmental, consumer and taxpayer watchdog groups have condemned the act as welfare for the rich and because it exposes the public while protecting the nuclear industry.

Benjamin Gatti 06:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Better, but still slanted and by far not superior to the consensus version. Just had to get "limited" in twice, for example. Aircraft carriers, Navy training reactors and classified reactors aren't mentioned. Simesa 08:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you judging better based on conformity to a personal bias - or on accurate, comprehensive, and usefully informative? "Limited" is the essence of the act (assuming we agree "indemnity" is a word better explained than used to explain.)

I think the information is better, the sentences more complete, and the inaccuracies addressed. I'm still a bit vague on what reactors, or related activities are covered or not. So that section is provisional pending sources. Benjamin Gatti 15:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Need to Settle the Question - Does the Act protect Corps from liability for Criminal Acts?

I feel we can't really make progress unless we come to terms with this issue. I know of no other legislature which protects corporations from liability from their own criminal behaviour. My reading of the Act is that the Corp is shielded from liability claim Regardless of the cause - including criminal malfeasance. I notice that neither of the two introductions proposed even mentions that alarming fact though they do go into inaccurate minutia on other matters (fixed military reactors are covered - mobile reactors ie ships and subs, of which only subs remain are probably indemnified elsewhere along with the totality of the military - and are also small enough to represent a manageable risk.)

I doubt that this matter will come to resolution outside Arbcom unless the criminal protection issue is addressed openly and without tergiversation. Benjamin Gatti 05:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I feel we can't really make progress until you start to follow NPOV. I don't know why you keep pounding us with this stuff. It's a waste of time. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I would venture to guess then that this is the impasse, and I see no resolution. If the Act protects criminal acts which cause mass destruction to the general public, then that my gentle friends belongs in the Introduction. Agree with me, or ban me - I am not likely to bend on the need to inform the reader of such things. Benjamin Gatti 14:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

And now he's baiting us. New tactic. You know darn well we can't ban you on sight. "Agree with me or ban me". Yeah. So if we say well actually Ben we don't do either, you can go "Fine, then it'll go into the Introduction". You're getting more transparent. Apparently that's possible. No I don't agree with you. Labeling it "criminal" makes it POV. it's a point of view. We're not here to judge right and wrong. That's the essence of NPOV. Why am I bothering saying that? You know what NPOV is. You just don't give a damn. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 15:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The Act covers the public regardless of the cause, but the plant in question is not above (1) loss of investment in the plant, (2) the $98.5 million per reactor, (3) losing its insurance and effectively its ability to operate, (4) criminal prosecution and (5) NRC fines and "show cause" orders (show cause why you should be allowed to continue to operate nuclear units). As the Supreme court said, "in the event of a nuclear incident the utility itself would probably suffer the largest damages."

If you had produced cites of notable no-consequence criminal activity in American plants, that might bolster your case (the only possible one I found was that there is/was a grand jury sitting on the Davis-Besse Reactor Vessel Head case - the utility has already paid a $5.45 million fine and the engineer in charge of inspections was banished from the industry, which are pretty severe punishments). Simesa 15:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Benjamin, you're welcome to make good-faith contributions to the paragraph we're working on above. In fact you're more than welcome, I strongly encourage it. But if you can't or won't do that, there's not much the rest of us can do. Either work with us on a consensus paragraph -- and I mean really work with us -- or don't. It's up to you. But either way, a consensus will be established. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Objection - 1 Revert rule

Tonight - I proposed an original introduction, after discussing the many factual errors in the existing intro. Katefan reverted it (1). Then I reverted (1), then Kate reverted again (2). I take that as a violation of 1 revert rule - so here's the deal. Either kate apologises, is banned for a day, or I no longer am bound by my agreement to this mediation. Response due in 24 hours. Benjamin Gatti 06:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Ben has repeatedly posted wildly non-POV (but "different") edits, and has just said "ditch it or live with volatility" (see above). I propose that his edits be revertable on sight. Simesa 08:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The complete quote is "ditch it, ditch openess, or live with volatility" That in a nutshell is the tricotemy of Wikipedia. It can be the "Encyclopedia that anyone can edit", or it can be stable and owned by a single point of view, or it can continue a struggle for consensus. Since there is no point in compromising on truth - the current intro will trigger conflict. I would consider censoring the fact that the Act protects criminal behavior from being civilly responsible to the victims is wildly POV and should be revertible on site. Benjamin Gatti

Revertible on sight? WP:RFAR's thatta way. That's the only place you would get such a ruling. Considering mediation has failed, and there does not seem to be any sign of resolution, I seriously suggest you all avail yourselves of that process. Dmcdevit·t 08:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

We will if Ben delivers on his threats of the last few days. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Who's threatening? Since when do editors speak in the royal we - or worse, form loyalties (which place loyalty over the truth - see Bush White House)? Benjamin Gatti 14:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest that endlessly threatening Arbcom is harrasment. Either put up or shut up already. Benjamin Gatti 14:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Bait bait bait. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 15:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

No, Mike, I'm not baiting, you keep informing everyone that you're going to make a complaint to arbcomm, at the same time, you don't want to go to arbcomm and lose, so rather than armcom, you have adopted threatcom. The perpetual harrasment of pending doom. I'm beginning to think that your empty threats are a personal attack and actionable at arbcom independantly. So here it is - the next threat will end us up in arbcom. (I don't make empty commitments.) Benjamin Gatti 15:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

another revision

Well, I saw ben had inserted another opening paragraph. Instead of reverting it I replaced it with the standard version, but with some alterations of my own.

I also noted the tag 'totallydisputed', at the top of the page as I was editing. Actually, I don't think this page IS totally disputed. We are more or less agreed about all the content which should be here, it is just the emphasis which is placed upon it. (Ok, so disagree with me then and tell me which 100 pages of argument I missed) Sandpiper 16:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

For the record, the new paragraph is:

The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) provides protection to nuclear plant operators against actions for damages in the event of a nuclear accident. Instead, the act makes available a pool of insurance funds which provides no-fault compensation to anyone injured or who incurs damages from a nuclear or radiological incident. If an incident exceeds the pool's funds, Congress must consider appropriating more money. The effect of the act is to provide insurance to the nuclear industry which it could not otherwise obtain in the open market, because of the perceived risks from nuclear power. The act currently covers all non-military nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2026. Some environmental, consumer and taxpayer watchdog groups, as well as one federal agency, have criticized the act as a government subsidy to the nuclear power industry and argue that it does not protect the public.

It is not much different from the "consensus" version and I like it. Simesa 19:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Simesa. Now this is true collaboration. Though, I don't think "Instead" is needed -- it sets up a dichotomy that isn't explained otherwise. Just a copyediting point though. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

well, I put in the 'instead' deliberately. I'm not sure dichotomy is exactly right, but I did mean 'on the one hand...on the other hand...'. It seemed to me that this is correct: the act does protect the companies, but it balances this by creating an alternative method of redress for anyone harmed. But, yes I see what you mean, it's not quite right as it is really 'Instead (of a right to sue)', but that would not flow well. Sandpiper 22:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Revert of early Nov. 29

Ben changed the Intro to read:

The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) protects nuclear plant operators against actions for damages in the event of a catastrophic nuclear incident; instead, the act makes available a pool of no-fault insurance funds to provide partial compensation to persons injured or damaged by a nuclear or radiological incident. If such an incident were to exceed the pool's funds, Congress has agreed to consider appropriate relief. The effect of the act is to relieve the nuclear industry of the risks of participating in nuclear energy. The act currently covers transportation and storage of fissile materials and all non-military nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2026. Some environmental, consumer and taxpayer watchdog groups, as well as one federal agency, have criticized the act as a taxpayer subsidy for the nuclear industry and argue that it does not protect the public.

I object to the following: Operators aren't protected against claims against their insurance (to say "actions" instead of "claims" is misleading since claims are definitely allowed), the word "catastrophic" isn't necessary and is incorrect since ALL incidents are covered, the compensation isn't necessarily partial (it's over 100 times TMI's claims), the industry still shoulders massive risk as stated by the Supreme Court, and that's not the sole effect of the Act and there are still massive financial risks. Better than normal, but the consensus version is still superior, so I'm reverting.

Simesa 06:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The coverage is partial, not because of the caps on cost, but because it provide for a lesser definition of "equity". The standard definition is determined by a jury of one's peers, and as you know, they may put an extrodinary value on life and loved one's, and on pain, suffering etc... - so yes - it is partial. Benjamin Gatti 14:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

well, if we are going to engage in rhetoric, i object to quite a few things. The change from 'provides protection' to 'protects', strengthens the meaning and implies more that the act provides absolute protection, which it does not. (I might even be tempted by 'provides some protection',but I think that might be too far the other way) the word 'catastrophic' suggests in the mind of a reader that this is a realistic scenario, which it is not believed to be, and also implies that 'catastrophies' are the main issue of concern. They are not, and the act would and could not protect companies in such an outcome (not in the sense of continuing their business unaffected). The act is much more concerned about situations somewhat smaller than 'catastrophies'. No-fault has moved again. the point is that claimants do not have to go to the trouble of proving liability from the company, which is much easier for them. No, it does not relieve the industry of all risks...the degree to which it does this is arguable (and is argued later), and whether it 'relieves' at all is arguable; it changes the method whereby those risks would bite. It is not reasonable to re-state the degree to which the act might fail to protect the public repeatedly. It had the last word in the original version where it said that a number of people have said this. That makes it their views, not ours; it is not reasonable to place that interpretation rhroughout the paragraph. The bit about transportation of fuel may be accurate and might be worth including if it is not felt that would be apparent as a normal part of the business. Sandpiper 08:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

In fact, my opening paragraph fails to mention explicitly that the companies do still have to pay for their insurance through the fund. I think it was probably the intention of congress that the act would be self-funding, which it has been so far. But I would not suggest going into more detail of how the fund works in the opening paragraph. Sandpiper 08:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

If one reads the text of the act, and the Supreme Court _ I believe you will see that in fact the act was intended to address the catastrophic case, the fact that your health insurance covers hangnail doesn't change the fact the the purpose of insurance is to deal with much more significant risk - hell I'd be selling dry-cleaning insurance if insurance was meant to address trivia. "No-fault" is a good (short and recognizable) term. The point is that when one gets a cancer, or is exposed, the cause or effect may be many years away, and not directly traceable to a single negligent effect. I think you do the article an injustice if you approach the incident insured with inherent skepticism. This isn't "alien invasion" insurance. Nuclear reactors can and do have incidents which pose profound harm - the Supreme Court said that while unlikely, they cannot be ruled out, the industry has saiid the chances are likely enough that they were worried about it. I suggest if the supreme court and the industry consider such a possibility, then it is an unacceptable POV to assert the opposite. The risk of nuclear is proably highest during transportation, and storage presents a non-trivial risk, so to limit this to "reactors" is misleading - presumably, the transport and storage facilities are not even owned by the reactor company. Benjamin Gatti 14:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with all of Sandpiper's points. Plus, this sentence: The effect of the act is to relieve the nuclear industry of the liability risks of participating in nuclear energy. changes the focus from the real reason why it was enacted in the first place -- to enable the creation of a private nuclear power industry -- to a rather POV supposition. Simesa and I are behind Sandpiper's version. That means consensus is not with you -- again -- on this point, Benjamin. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

yes, it is intended to address the issue of catastrophies. However, it does not expect a catastrophy. This is not,'what we will do when there is a catastrophy', but 'what we would do in the (implicitly exremely small) chance that there was one'. It is implicit in the existence of the bill that it is designed to cover all eventualities, and (as discussed at length before) that while we may get the odd case of cancer, or 5 mile island, we are not expecting something huge. Sandpiper

Context

In all this edit warring, everyone seems to have forgotten about specifying (a) that it is an Act of Congress in the United States and (b) what year it was passed in, in the intro. Morwen - Talk 08:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

what, include facts? Sandpiper 09:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Some of the problem with doing that is that the conglomeration of statutes now known as Price-Anderson has been changed and added to by several other acts of Congress over the years. So while the initial language was enacted in '57, there have since been several other bills enacted to add to/modify the language as "Price-Anderson Act Amendments." If we're goign to use that level of specificty (mostly with the year I guess), then we'd also need to mention all the other times it's been modified, since we're describing the law as it currently works. Or perhaps mention that it was first enacted in '57. Something like that. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well that's been an issue for awhile now. Because of all of the POVness, we haven't really been able to finish this article as it should be finished. I mean we've spent...what...2 months now on just the opening paragraph? --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 19:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"minimal" compensation?

The act protects the industry against the excesses of punitive and pain and suffering damages, but the coverage it does provide cannot be called "minimal". This is POV and should be sourced if there is an authoritative source for this opinion. This mischaracterization of the coverage, even if sourced, does not belong in the introduction.--Silverback 15:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi silverback. This page is currently suffering a sifference of opinion over content. The word 'minimal', only appears in the version favoured by a minority. Please check other versions to see what you feel. Sandpiper

Partial, limited, capped, "less-than-equity". How do you want to describe it. Its like Home insurance - it will cover the reasonable market value? How do you place a reasonable market value on a child afflicted by radiological defects? Generally we have a process - we let people decide the value of such things - called jurists - and they have a history of expressing a rather high value for life. that is the "real" value - anything less, is well - less. Benjamin Gatti

Jurors often value life much more when it is a big corporations money than they do when they make decisions in their own lives, or than the politicians they elect do when making decisions. Lives are money when politicians make decisions, it costs 15,000 to save an additional life through better prenatal care and $15 million to save it through increased air quality regulation, although Congress usually values a life at about $3,000,000 in most of their decision making. A nuclear accident would have the difficulty of figuring out what deaths are attributable. In Hiroshima they tend to label every cancer death a victim of the bomb even though only an incremental percentage of the deaths can be due to the effects. Of course, radiation releases will possibly also save some lives and perhaps even result in a net saving of lives through hormesis.--Silverback 08:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Other parts of article

I was feeling foolhardy, so I just looked at some other parts of the article. Aside from not actually mentioning that this is a US government issue (well pointed out), there seem to be one or two other points which have slipped out of the article.

An earlier version gave a better explanation of normal US liability law, which i thought useful, being British and never having sued anyone in America. This was once the opening of the 'how the law works' section.

The background section used to say that one aim of the law was actually to satisfy concerns that the public was inadequately protected against nuclear risk (presumably including by established legal routes), and that this was intended to improve the public's position. Presumably, since it effectively makes all nuclear power companies jointly liable for an accident by any one of them. Sandpiper 19:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah we know Sandpiper. :) We used to discuss other parts of the article, but we got bogged down on wording of the intro. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 19:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

This is another point that Benjamin has fought. It is clear that, upon enacting PAA in 1957, one of the reasons stated by Congress in doing so was to protect the public in the event of a nuclear incident. (Presumably by making insurance available to nuclear plant operators). Benjamin has disputed this, saying it wasn't really the truth behind it. Of coruse this gets to the heart of NPOV policy. We can say that this was in fact a stated reason -- I have provided more than enough actual floor testimony from the bill's authors to show that it was certainly part of their rhetoric if nothing else. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC

So you can say "public concern was par of their rhetoric" - but I think we can't sanctify rhetoric by reporting it as fact. When I have time, I'll explain to you the difference between a speech on the house floor, and a fact. For now, take it from me, there is a difference. Mind that in that speech, and related testimony, we have the industry threatening to cease work on a nuclear reactor. We don not yet have Greenpeace, or any other voice clamouring for a mutually-self-uninsurance policy. So yeah - we're waiting for a cite which proves that public concern was more than a rhetorical tool (FUD) to manipulate support for an industry subsidy. Benjamin Gatti 23:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

This has been a key confusion of yours for months now. We don't report anything as fact that's in dispute. We don't search for the "truth." We summarize others' published statements, including all valid sides in a dispute. Re-read Verifiability: Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors regard that material to be true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. · Katefan0^(scribble) 23:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like an echoo in here. Yes - verifyability has been a chief complaint of mine here. Especially with respect to the original debate - whether or not the assertion that "Congress intended to protect the public" could be presented in an unverifyable format - we agree that it could not and must be couched so that it was provable. ie.. Bob, at the EIA said on tuesday 23rd, that congress intended etc ... Welcome to the light. Benjamin Gatti 23:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Civility please. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 23:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Benjamin, that is an utterly false portrayal of our prior discussions. Even beyond the GAO report, I provided several quotes directly from floor statements of the lawmakers that worked on this bill stating precisely that it was enacted in order to protect the public. And we have agreed on nothing on this score. · Katefan0^(scribble) 23:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yikes a nerve! "We" means me and two moderators. As you said, you have found endless references to the rhetoric, which I applaud and support so long as they remain what they are - assertions of rhetoric. But "intent" is inherently unverifyable, and becomes extremely problematic when generalized. (Ie "congress intended to this and that". The business of the press is to "not take politicians at their word." If you can find a better business for the press - do tell. Benjamin Gatti 02:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

What I've referenced is stated Congressional intent. Trying to read tea leaves and instead insist on "the truth" is where you get bogged down when it comes to NPOV policy. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Some more points. I read the supreme court judgement, and while it may have literally included what is in the article, actually there were several reasons mentioned in their judgement why the act was both satisfactory and reasonable in furtherance of its asserted aims, allowing power companies to operate while giving a satisfactory alternative redress to anyone who might be affected by nuclear accident. It would seem to me that the supreme court in fact endorsed the act as fairly achieving its stated aims, and should be referenced as doing so.

One of the references appeared to be saying that in fact five mile island was not an ENO,(nuclear accident) according to the terms of the act, so was handled outside of the Act by the companies insurance, under the normal rules for suing people for damages. Most was apparently settled out of court.

Next, that the description of how the act works is not entirely precise. It transfers court action to federal courts (though it did not originally do this), but it is still necessary for someone to start an action for damages. The defendants are then forbidden by the act from entering certain defences, like it was someone else's fault (either tthat a different party or the claimant himself was to blame). Some companies would see this as contrary to their interest...being forbidden to defend a case against them. But in return, final judgement is against the PA fund, rather than the companies themselves. The company's insurance is then liable for the first 300 million$ (or whatever the sum is now), then further amounts must be born equally by the whole industry. Normal state time limits for bringing actions are extended if they are less than those specified by the act (thee years after discovering damage).

Finally, as mentioned in the last para, some actions may not qualify for PA protection, when normal court and presumably defence rules apply. The DOE has to make a determination firstly that a significant nuclear leak has occured off the defined premises concerned, and secondly that there has been actual damage above a specified level: one death, five serious hospitalisations, loss of 2.5 milion by one person or 5 million by a number, or 1 million by at least 50

Companies also do not have to pay up in the event of a huge claim all at once. Their bill is limited to a maximum of 10 million$ (or possibly now 20 million$, some of the references are rather old and figures are out of date) per year until up to the maximum of 95 million. And the figure are per incident. So if there were five separate accidents in one year, that would be a total liability of 95 million per accident at the rate of 20 million per year. Assuming I got that right, it is not exactly true to say the fund limit is 9.5 billion, but 9.5 billion per event. The terms for DOE installations are somewhat different (I think the entire bill falls to the government, but with an equal allocated fund of 9.5 billion?)

Oh, and it appeared it might not cover terrorist acts? I am not sure if it covers, say, someone blowing up a power station. One reference said it would not cover release of radioactive material which had been stolen by terrorists, but that might still cover a release during an attempted theft. Of course, if that is so, could someone sue the company for inadequate security allowing the theft, Hmm..

Anyone who has been reading this for rather longer than me, please comment if I have misunderstood any of this.Sandpiper 17:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Logical Alternatives to PA

well, I was considering what the alternatives to PA would be. One would be no nuclear industry. I think this would be unaccaptable to the US government for various reasons. Thus, irrespective, nuclear plants were going to be built. The next option might be the government would build them itself. In that case the entire liability risk would rest with the government, not just the last resort liability. Or third, the government could cut a deal and persuade private companies to do it.

Either companies build without PA, when they assume entire liability themselves, or we have PA. Without PA, presumably a shell company would be created which would protect the 'investors' from liability. This would then have little capital,(say 1 billion dollars startup money) and big debts to banks. Presumably the banks would have first call on the assets if the company became insolvent? So there is a real catastrophy, what happens? Company goes broke, is out of business with no prospect of restarting. How much money is available to pay injured parties? A lot less than 10 billion dollars. Or, we have PA and a ready cash fund (more or less) of 10 billion. Sounds better to me. It;'s no good slating PA as a subsidy to companies when, if anything, it is merely the government doing its best to involve private companies on the best terms it can make and thereby save expense to the taxpayer. What do you say? Sandpiper 09:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you are editing examples for the False dichotemy article? The government would require nuclear companies to be bonded and insured up to a rational figure - corporations protect the investors, but they do not protect the corps assets. Shelling doesn't solve any problems because in the end, investors will have to decide to support the shell or not, and the risk / information ratio is poor. Yes there is a risk that an incident would create insolvant companies - which is a big problem for decommissioning issues.

If the government ran nuclear plants - they would not be motivated by often angry stockholders who care only about the bottom line to cut corners - moreover the government is fully accountable for what it does. In "outsourcing" the problem - it escapes the Constitution. The (unlisted) alternative is to provide a neutral support for clean safe energy - and if the cheapest solution is a nuclear plant - than viola - but if the cheaper, safer, cleaner alternative is wind power or wave energy or whatever - than so be it - and the government is not picking winners (of course we know when they pick winners they are doing it for all the right reasons Congress has only the best intentions. Benjamin Gatti 14:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I think your arguing about subsidy is still missing the point. You are starting from an assumption that private companies want to buid nuclear plants. They don't, or did not and would not in a free commercial environment. I am not disagreeing about that. But PA is part of the contractual terms agreed between government and private industry in order to build these power plants. More, looked at solely on its own merits, as we are primarily supposed to be doing here, PA is pretty revenue neutral on the assumptions made by the industry, and accepted by congress (and effectively also by the supreme court). It is the intention of the act, and the experience of running it so far, that claims have been met by the industry. Finally, whether the money comes from congress to pay compensation or out of utility bills, it still comes from the same taxpayer. All of this presupposes that having nuclear power is in the national interest, which I think is the root of the disagreement here. Sandpiper 17:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

perhaps, but I have linked to sources which cite "industry" (GE & Westinghouse) saying they aren't interested - given the risk. Now let's say two things - we can't accept this reality - and then turn around and claim that "the risk is really not that bad". The risk - whatever it is is large enough that companies are NOT INTERESTED. This we can assert without qualification.

Yes PA is part of a contract (continuing it is not part of the deal however.) There is a question however as to whether the contract is too "specific". If I convinced Congree to pass a law which insured only Me, or only people who look like me, or only green people like me, or persons born on my birthdate - there is a legitimate question as to whether or not the contract is honest - or a "giveaway" to a priviledged class. I suggest, that Price oversteps because it does not forward a "legitimate goal of the state". Let's say a legitimate goal in "energy" - and clean, safe, and cheap energy at that. So the government can offer to "contract" for "Clean safe, cheap energy", but it should not be able to specify beyond the legitimate purpose of government. In specifying Natural gas, or fuel cells, or nuclear power - I suggest it has overstepped, and the act should be challened as violate of equal protection. (The last paragraph however is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. We must limit ourselves to the first - simple assertions which are fully true without qualification, That is - the risk is higher than industry will accept. We do not need to agree on how high - nor how low it "actually" may be (which in any case we're merely guessing) - only to show - as an objective fact that it is an effective barrier to entry - and let the reader determine how real the threat must therefore be. Benjamin Gatti 04:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

well, yes, the companies are not interested. But different groups have different viewpoints depending on their circumstances. People don't allow their children to walk to school for fear someone will abduct them...despite the fact they are more at risk from ill health from lack of exercise, than from the remote chance of abduction. The parents are more worried about the immediate and catastrophic risk of losing a child now, than about some vague risk in the future. Same here?

Another example: in the UK government has relaxed planning laws to allow mobile phone masts to be built very easily. Without this it would have been virtually impossible to get people to accept them (not least because of the 'risk' of radiation). Everyone has one of these phones, though they are still bellyaching about masts. The argument again is that normal rules have been overriden in the greater good, but also in a way which is not believed to harm people generally, or cost the government anything.Sandpiper 21:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Not buying it. In California, everyone has a phone, and they've been creative about the masts. (in one case for example, they replaced an old "wind turbine" with a taller model) - overwritting rules destroys the potential for creative solutions. Benjamin Gatti

Defining risk

Because Price is a tool to address risk, it is incumbent that we express the risk. I have proposed we use the phrase "risk is higher than industry will accept. I think it is veryfiable and accurate, and while it doesn't say what the risk is, it defines it as accurately as is known. Benjamin Gatti 00:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Why bury a new section in the middle of the discussion page? And we've been over this before, and it's already treated in the consensus Intro. Simesa 00:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's do this, then.

It's obvious that editing the intro is a concern for everyone, since it seems to be one of the main fighting points that everyone's worried over. So how about this: Nobody edits the intro for a while. Let's work on other parts that need work. Above, many have stated other problems with the article, things that have been accidentally deleted in numerous revisions, etc. It seems to me that if we can make the other parts of the article work, we can find an intro that suits everyone afterward. Anyone willing to leave the intro alone as it is right now, and work on everything else now? Ral315 (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Simesa 22:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

well, I stuck in a mention of the USA and Congress in the first sentence, as suggested by someone above (as it was a good point to say what country this relates to), expanded 'instead' to 'instead of this redress' as also suggested since it does read better, and put in 'establishes' from Ben's last edit, as it was a more accurate word than 'makes available'. i think these are minor alterations which won't make it better or worse as regards the main issues here... By all means, it may be time to work on some of the other paragraphs. Sandpiper 00:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Tell you what - you guys work on the butt end of the article, and I'll manage the front. Think of it as "distribution of labour". Frankly I don't really much care what gets put in section 11b, It's the front page that's red. (And the first sentence at that)  ;-) I would rather continue to punch around the intro - for this reason, the rest of the article is going to be a camel - (horse by commitee) unless we adopt a pithy style - sufficiant without being pleonastic and commit to that style throughout. For example: The proper words are "incident" (not accident); compensation and relief (not money) liability cases request compensation for damages, whilst congress can act to provide "relief"; establish (not makes available) the Constitution uses the term establish, and consequentially most things that reference the constitution uses the same term; "Retrospective premiums"

No. We're not going to do it that way or else we'll be back to daily ridiculous POV edits. I can guarentee it. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I think the four of us will continue to insist on the consensus version of the Intro, as well as work on the rest of the article. Simesa 05:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, to me, and in my dictionary, 'damages' means money paid as compensation to someone who has suffered damage. English legal term. So 'compensation for damages' does not make sense; do you get the damage afterwards as the compensation? Is this an american translation isue? Sandpiper 08:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

My definitve version with these last amendments was overrun by Ben, so I am posting it here, while also making a proposal for the other sections below.

The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) is an act of the Congress of the United States of America. It provides protection to nuclear plant operators against actions for damages in the event of a nuclear accident. Instead of this normal redress, the act establishes a pool of insurance funds which provides no-fault compensation to anyone injured or who incurs damages from a nuclear or radiological incident. If an incident exceeds the pool's funds, Congress must consider appropriating more money. The effect of the act is to provide insurance to the nuclear industry which it could not otherwise obtain in the open market, because of the perceived risks from nuclear power. The act currently covers all non-military nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2026. Some environmental, consumer and taxpayer watchdog groups, as well as one federal agency, have criticized the act as a government subsidy to the nuclear power industry and argue that it does not protect the public. Sandpiper 11:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Ben, I have no objection to 'civil liability suits' rather than 'actions for damages', but not both together 'liability suits for damages'. 'liability suit' may be a better phrase for the US, it would be odd in the UK. 'civil' seems a good qualification, as distinct from criminal. You can't just say 'catastrophic' events, because it covers a whole class of events from relatively minor upwards. You can't phrase the explanation of the act the way you want, because the risk from power stations is not proven to be so high as you argue. It is the possibility of it being so high which worries investors. Sandpiper

risk = consequences multiplied by probability. The risk is higher than industry is willing to accept. Benjamin Gatti 00:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Ode to Ontology

Some refences:

nevada state nuclear waste glossary

yes, I read it. Are we accepting this as a definitive legal opinion?. (I mean, it looks ok, but it might not be). Sandpiper

This is a reference which discusses the triggered nature. My guess is that some provisions are triggered, while others are static. But the Supreme court stated that the purpose was to address catastrophic nuclear incidents.

well, I wish you well with your general catastrophic visit to the dentist, and catastrophic visit to get your eyes tested and any other minor catastrophic medical conditions you may get. The supreme court was only discussing 'catastrophies' when meaning the very worst events. I listed the criteria for ENO aboves, starting at one death. Quite a misfortune for the person concerned, but not what would normally be described as a national catastropy. No, I see what you are getting at. The specific problem was to deal with catstrophic events (which the supreme court reckons it did), but it also had to maintain protection for more 'normal' incidents under the different rules. (which again the supreme court said was achieved.) It remains the case that the most likely issues to be dealt with under PA have not been and will not be catastrophies in the sense meant in the supreme court judgementSandpiper 20:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

ibid

what is the legal consequence of a nuclear incident which fails to be an ENO? nothing, normal rules apply? Sandpiper

Presumably, the self-reinsurance scheme covers the event directly, and the exotic provisions of price are uninvoked. Price includes a primary insurance requirement, but that is not its purpose. basic insurance is an a priori expectation - would have been required without price etc, and the supreme court said catastrophic nuclear incident.

ibid

ye, as compared to the unrealistic normal situation where you or I could be held liable for causing billions of dollars of damages which the plaintiff would never getSandpiper

eh? Nuclear energy requires investors - indievuduals deciding where to put their trust. Most, if they had the choice of investing in nuclear or wind under the same rules, would choose wind, because it is less dangerous. The state has chosen winners, and I think encroached on a fair market. Benjamin Gatti 15:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

ibid

Notes:

1. the words "no-fault insurance scheme" - I renew the suggestion that we use those words.

The intro does say 'no-fault compensation', which encapsualtes the meaning of this phrase.Sandpiper

1. The act is triggered by "extraordinary" incidents, and not just any nuclear event. - "catastrophic nuclear incident" is a common phrase. (ENO) is I suggest less common.

"extraordinary nuclear event" 30 hits "catastrophic radiological incident" 17 "catastrophic nuclear incident" 164 google - used in Supreme Court  :

I don't see a legal distinction between a 'catastrophic event' and any even which is big enough to qualify as an ENO and hence trigger PA. This distinction may be useful in the body of the article, but not in the introduction.Sandpiper

I think catastrophic is a more general term, meaning unusually large in its impact - while quite possibly, ENO is specifily defined in person-rads or some similar metric - but very close in intent. Benjamin Gatti

Benjamin Gatti 05:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

quite.Sandpiper

but also,

(and other similar references in the same vein.The qualification 'reasonably' refers to the necessary legal standard of proof, rather than implying that the PA alternative is only 'reasonably' OK)

Note the paradigm is "replacement and substitute for tort law remedy." Benjamin Gatti

might be, but put 'tort law remedy' in the wrong place and people will be asking their doctor what it meansSandpiper 19:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

and

FUD - in truth the end of PAA would end nuclear operation - and thus ensure the safety of the public without qualification. Benjamin Gatti

Only if the US congress was convinced that ending nuclear generation was a good idea. Otherwise some other legal device would be crafted in its place. The issue is the will of congress, not this particular act. Sandpiper 19:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Sandpiper

Given the above tripe, how do you explain that PAA paid out $70 million at Three Mile Island, where no identifiable injuries due to radiation occurred? Simesa 06:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

my question also. One of the references seemed to suggest that PA was not triggered and did not. It talked about represntatives of the plants insurance company rushing to the site to make payments ASAP, and litigation following the normal court process.Sandpiper 08:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

My impression, is that the purpose of PAA, like health insurance - is to address the problem of extraordinary medical events; however, many plans include coverage for hang nail - thus it is not inconsistent for the Supreme Court to find that PAA's purpose is to address the catastrophic nuclear incident - while at the same time, an institution established under the act responds to an event of lesser magnitude. TMI was an ENO or not? I think it was extraordinary. Benjamin Gatti

` The Yucca mountain report on PA amongst the references says ' Three Mile Island, did not qualify as an ENO under the NRC's rules, which are the same as the DOE's. ' . A different reference goes on about representatives of the insurers rushing to the scene, but also litigation went to court for a number of yearss. Sandpiper 19:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Catastrophic Intent

I have provided two sources which assert that the purpose of PAA is to address catastrophic incidents. It seems the case that PAA would not exists if the only threat of nuclear was an odd accident (of the TMI type) The concerns of congress, and of industry leading up to the PAA all contemplate the worst case scenario - and do not express the need for special legislation to address common industrial accidents. Can we agree that PAA is an insurance scheme to cover the potential of a catastrophic nuclear incident?

1. YES Benjamin Gatti 00:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Benjamin Gatti 00:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

We've been over this before as well. To imply that PAA covers only catastrophic incidents is incorrect. Simesa 00:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

We (or at least I) would agree that the act exists specifically because of general concern over 'catastrophic' risks. However, as Simesa just commented, it does not deal only, or even mainly, with such cases. It is anticipated by those who drafted it, and confirmed it, that it will normally deal with much smaller incidents. The present introduction already says that it was intended to deal with 'perceived risks from nuclear power.' Sandpiper 01:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I reckon I counted 6 POV phrases in Ben's last suggestion for opening para. Did anyone spot more?Sandpiper 01:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That seems about the average for Benjamin's contributions. · Katefan0^(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 15:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

(Referring to this version):

Words which I have borrowed from bonifide sources: catastrophic nuclear incident, substitute, scheme, common-law and tort, no-fault, appropriate and necessary action to protect the public, malfeasance.

Those words are all sourced, and while I understand that 3 people find them to express a biased point of view, they in fact come from the Supreme Court, and the Nevada State Glossary of terms - so I find that the unsourced removal of sourced terms to express an unfounded bias. Gentleavators, we have a problem. I appeal to Ral for some mediation. Ral, what do you, as mediator recomend - valid sources - or - majoritarian baseless opinion? Benjamin Gatti 03:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who said them. It depends how you use them. Shields implying something you hide behind; catastrophic implying something bad is going to happen as a result; taxpayer backed implying cost is shifted to the taxpayer and it will cost people money; victims of negligent and careless implying this is about protecting negligent and careless people, it is not and supreme court agreed; place burden on taxpayer, which the supreme court said it did not; criminal malfeasance, implying again the intent is to shelter criminals, also elsewhere explicitly said it is not as it is is merely protection from civil damages, and not even that since payment is made by the companies as well if not better under this act than otherwise, supreme court agreed. I havn't checked out which agency allegedly said this was a subsidy, so I don't know if this accurately represents their view, but I still suspect that the majority of the population is perfectly happy with it. You can't place a claim here which does not represent the balanced truth. This is a summary, you can explain at greater length later that various groups disagree with the majority opinion.Sandpiper 08:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this version is POV. Again, the point of Wikipedia is not to tell of all the bad things that might happen in the case of a nuclear attack. The point is to give an accurate representation of the law itself, taking into account nothing about our opinions on its effects on people, civil suits, or anything else. Furthermore, the first paragraph of an article is, by definition, meant as an introduction to a topic, not a means to bombard the user with confusing statements. Look at John F. Kennedy — the first paragraphs, while they do mention some positive and negative aspects of his presidency, they only give an introduction into the rest of the article, and the Cuban Missile Crisis, Bay of Pigs invasion, and all other events are discussed in detail later in the article. I think everyone on both sides are forgetting that the first paragraph of the article is not supposed to be a dumping ground for everything we can say about Price-Anderson. All the first paragraph should do is explain the subject, and slightly hint toward the rest of the article. Ral315 (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Background section

The Atomic Energy Act Amendments of 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. Prior to that act, the government had held a monopoly on the use of nuclear power.

Private industry responded to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 with the development of an experimental power plant constructed under the auspices of a consortium of interested companies. It soon became apparent that profits from the private exploitation of atomic energy were uncertain and the accompanying risks substantial. Although the AEC offered incentives to encourage investment, there remained in the path of the private nuclear power industry various problems - the risk of potentially vast liability in the event of a nuclear accident of a sizable magnitude being the major obstacle. Notwithstanding comprehensive testing and study, the uniqueness of this form of energy production made it impossible totally to rule out the risk of a major nuclear accident resulting in extensive damage. Private industry and the AEC were confident that such a disaster would not occur, but the very uniqueness of nuclear power meant that the possibility remained, and the potential liability dwarfed the ability of the industry and private insurance companies to absorb the risk. Thus, while repeatedly stressing that the risk of a major nuclear accident was extremely remote, spokesmen for the private sector informed Congress that they would be forced to withdraw from the field if their liability were not limited by appropriate legislation. [1]

To address this issue, the congress introduced the Price-Anderson act in 1957. This had the dual aim of removing the exposure of plant operators to unlimited financial risk in the event of a nuclear incident, but also to maintain or improve protection for the public. This act obliged companies to obtain $60 million of insurance cover against accidents, and provided an additional pool of $500 million from government funds to cover any losses not covered by the insurance. The companies were not liable for any further amounts. This act was intended to be temporary, and to expire in August 1967.

It became apparent that the industry would still be unable to obtain insurance privately, so the act was extended for a further 10 years in 1966. A provision was added which prevents companies from offering certain kinds of of defence to actions involving nuclear accidents. This was intended to make the process of suing a company easier, and to remove discrepancies in different states where different laws applied. It only applied to incidents where a significant escape of radioactive material was deemed to have occurred (an ENO, extraordinary nuclear occurrence).

In 1975 the act was again extended, up to 1987. The total amount of insurance remained the same, but a provision was added for each of the 60 or so reactor owners to contribute between $2 million and $5 million in the event of an uninsured accident. Insurance requirement for each individual company was increased to $140 million. These measures reduced the contribution of the federal government to the insurance pool. However, an explicit commitment was made that in the event of a larger accident, Congress would 'take whatever action is deemed necessary and appropriate to protect the public from the consequences'.

In 1988 the act was extended for 15 years up to August 2002. Individual insurance for each generator was now increased to $200 million, and total fund to $9.5 billion. For each reactor owned, a company was liable to contribute up to £63 million towards compensation for any claim against any company, though this could only be recovered at a maximum rate of £10 million per year. Assessments were to be adjusted for inflation every 5 years. The same level of indemnity was provided for government DOE facilities, while small reactors (education and research) were obliged to obtain £250,000 insurance and had a government backed pool of £500 million in the event of accident. The act provided for all cases resulting from one incident to be heard in a federal court, rather than local courts.

In February 2002 the act was extended to December 2003. It was extended to 2017 after some debate in 2003. The individual insurance for each site was increased to $300 million while fund contributions per reactor were increased to $95.8 million. In 2005 it was extended again to 2025.

The constitutionality of the Price-Anderson Act was challenged in 1975 (Duke Power vs. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc.) and upheld by the Supreme Court in June, 1978. The suit had challenged the act on two grounds — first, that it violated the Fifth Amendment because it did not ensure adequate compensation for victims of accidents, and that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment because it treats nuclear accidents differently to other accidents. The court found:

• it is clear that Congress' purpose was to remove the economic impediments in order to stimulate the private development of electric energy by nuclear power while simultaneously providing the public compensation in the event of a catastrophic nuclear incident.

• The record supports the need for the imposition of a statutory limit on liability to encourage private industry participation and hence bears a rational relationship to Congress' concern for stimulating private industry's involvement in the production of nuclear electric energy.

• the Price-Anderson Act does, in our view, provide a reasonably just substitute for the common-law or state tort law remedies it replaces.

• The District Court's finding that the Act tends to encourage irresponsibility in matters of safety and environmental protection cannot withstand careful scrutiny, since nothing in the liability-limitation provision undermines or alters the rigor and integrity of the process involved in the review of applications for a license to construct or operate a nuclear power plant, and since, in the event of a nuclear accident the utility itself would probably suffer the largest damages.

• We view the congressional assurance of a $560 million fund for recovery, accompanied by an express statutory commitment, to "take whatever action is deemed necessary [438 U.S. 59, 91] and appropriate to protect the public from the consequences of" a nuclear accident, 42 U.S.C. 2210 (e) (1970 ed., Supp. V), to be a fair and reasonable substitute for the uncertain recovery of damages of this magnitude from a utility or component manufacturer, whose resources might well be exhausted at an early stage.

• There is no equal protection violation, since the general rationality of the Act's liability limitation, particularly with reference to the congressional purpose of encouraging private participation in the exploitation of nuclear energy, is ample justification for the difference in treatment between those injured in nuclear accidents and those whose injuries are derived from other causes.

Ok, I have inserted a new paragraph actually stating the date of PA and explaining the second reason for it, to improve compensation arrangements. Next, a history of each reenactment and what changed. Then, expanded the final paragraph reporting of the supreme court findings about the act. I have a problem in that there seems to be no mention of appeal against the 14th amendment. Was this quietly dropped, or is there another judgement as the one referenced deals with the appeal against the 5th? I think a new subsection break is needed immediately before staring to talk about the supreme court case. e.g ---Constitutional Challenge---. I think the relaxation of time limits to sue was in the same year as the removal of certain defences from companies, but I'm not sure. I also didn't find a reference to what just happened in the last renewal.Sandpiper 13:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Impressive research! I believe the Act simply failed to cover all facilities licensed from 2002 to 2005 (it still covered all facilities already licensed). Making a section break there sounds good. The last renewal is covered in a reference to Energy Policy Act of 2005, [2] Title VI Subtitle A (all of Title VI is Nuclear, as is Subtitle E of Title IX). Simesa 16:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Insurance Companies

Does anyone know what laws regulate insurance companies, and to the point of our article, whether in fact they might be forbidden by law from insuring events beyond their ability to pay out? This might go to the heart of the issue here, exactly how insurance companies decide they can insure for $300 million, or whatever the exact sums have been in the past. Also, that they might conceivably effectively be forbidden by statute from offering to insure the nuclear industry as a whole. 86.141.58.72 19:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I've posted a question in Insurance. I'd ask American Nuclear Insurers (based in Connecticut), but you have to do that by snail mail. A partial answer is in [3]. Simesa 21:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not fully relevant either way for this reason: Insurance is a third party tool to address personal liability. Personal (ie corporate) liability extends to net worth - but not farther - it was the unwillingness of Industry to expose their own net worth to the risks of nuclear energy which brought on Price - Insurance companies merely provide the service of risk amalgamation. Benjamin Gatti 00:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

However the industry has been willing to accept a scheme whereby they provide $10 billion of insurance risk per incident spread amongst all of them. This suggests they do accept that the financial risk is acceptable once aggregated. Most industries proceed without bothering with vast insurance. Sandpiper 10:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Risks, or perceived risks

Hi ben, I noticed your slight amendment to the the opening paragraph. It has the merit of being, i would judge, literally true. However, I suspect that 'perceived risk' is truer, because the actual risks are unquantified. I am begining to think (see above query) that the real problem is the scale of the liability, rather than the precise risk. It also strikes me that the biggest hole in the PA act, is the fact that in the event of a truly awful accident, the underwriters of the insurance (the other power companies) could well themselves be in no financial condition to pay their contributions...having just been closed down. Still, I suppose it should be possible to squeeze $100 million from the wreckage of each company. After all, closing them all down at once would cause unacceptable electricity shortages.

To return to your most recent edit. The change has to be read in context of the rest of the paragraph. I might even consider it fair to slip the word 'catastrophe' into this clause, if it was saying something along the lines,'possible financial exposure from a worst-case disaster'. Ah, I have slipped 'possible' back in subconsciously, because it also needs to be clear it is a small risk of a really big problem. It is clear to me that congress has dismissed this risk as negligible: what is not clear to me is whether it really is. But the question here is whether this change would then make the paragraph acceptable to you, or whether you would insist upon further changes which would skew its meaning. 86.141.58.72 19:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)(sorry, Sandpiper, not logged in)

Congress did not dismiss the risk, they contemplated and made explicit plans for it. I contest your unsourced assertion that he risk is "small", insignificant" or merely "perceived". The risk - such as it is - is a substantial barrier to the privatization of nuclear energy. Were it in fact as slight as you say - I can't imagine why it would be a real impediment. I think you don't get to have it both ways. It is large enough for industry to walk away from nuclear energy. That is pretty large really. Think of the risks of say - building an automobile, or a pacemaker, or a prescription drug. These are all large risks which industry will accept - Nuclear risk apparently is higher than those. That can hardly be dismissed as "perceived".

There is a small probability of a catastrophic nuclear incident - the risk (as in the term "risk/reward") is higher than industry (and investors - who measure risk/reward) - are willing to accept. I will insist on such language. Benjamin Gatti 00:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The noun 'probability' presumably has the same derivation as 'probable', but also encompasses the opposit meaning,'improbable'. It simply denotes a mathematical evaluation of the likelihood of an event. so a small probability risk may in fact be highly improbable. And I repeat, while the various lawmakers have discussed at very great length what is to be done in the event that this 'improbability' might take place, it is wholly explicit in their discussion that they do not expect it ever to happen. I can not realistically believe any set of lawmakers would deliberately legislate for nuclear power if they believed one of the reactors was actually going to explode. So, all this hot air is about something no one expects to happen. The alternative is that the legislators have created a clean up program for a political disaster which they expect to have to face, and politicians just do not do that sort of thing. Sandpiper 09:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Not so, Nuclear incidents are expected at a rate of something like one every 10 thousand reactor years. With a thousand reactos, the chances are 1 in 10 for a given year. (Not sure of those numbers - but that is the general idea). Benjamin Gatti 17:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Restore Balance to Criticism Section

I'm reminded of President Bush deciding that protesters with anti-bush signs must be moved to the next country for the sake of safety while pro-war_ sloganeers were considered "safe" and allowed to line the bush parade route. In a sense, a "criticism" section does the same thing - it cordons off opposing points of view - to a later, and less often read portion of the landscape. I object to this discrimination, however, if the views opposed are going to be censored from the main portion of the article, it is only fair to exclude the proponents of dangerous, expensive nuclear subsidies from the criticism section. I'd like Ral to weigh in on these things. Benjamin Gatti 06:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like Simesa created a Rebuttal to Criticisms section. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Note that the rebuttal section was Ben's suggestion last night. Simesa 12:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

the problem is that facts have to be presented in a logical order. You have to explain what the act is, before you can explain who disagrees with it and why. The introduction plainly states that others disagree with it, and what about. Besides, Bush was correct: I doubt the pro-war demonstraters were trying to lynch him. Sandpiper

how the act works

I notice Ben inserted some comments into the section about how the act works.

The law shields corporate interests from being sued by victims of careless, negligent, or even criminal actions so long as the method of damages include a radioactive component.

The law makes energy more expensive by forcing the market to accept a higher cost product and passing on the additional costs in the form of a mandated transaction.

I havn't considerd how this should be expanded, but my initial reactions to these additions is that the first is worth including, though in a more neutral way. The second does not seem to me to be supported by anything I have read. I have not seen anything saying anyone is obliged to buy electricity from nuclear generators, but more particularly PA, if it does anything, actually makes the electricity cheaper..it has been accused of being a subsidy not a tax.

The first is already included in Criticisms. I agree with you on the second. Simesa 12:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. - I again contacted American Nuclear Insurers about how they react in the event of an incident. We have testimony about how they reacted during Three Mile Island, but without confirmation of today's practices I hesitate to put that into the article. Simesa 12:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The law makes energy more expensive by forcing the market to accept a higher cost product and passing on the additional costs in the form of a mandated transaction.

A subsidy is in effect a forced transaction at a higher total cost than the market (which seeks the lowest cost) would provide. Subsidies are monies in addition to the voluntary price added involuntarily - but paid in any case by the consumer (the taxpayer). The result is to raise the cost of energy (not at the point of purchase - but the bottom line all the same.) As to inclusion of this fact, if the pro side gets to say it enables nuclear energy (which is true)- than the criticism side gets to say that it does so by raising the cost of energy. Benjamin Gatti 15:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

yes, but PA does not raise the cost of energy. Government provides no funding under this act, nor does it compel anyone to buy anything at a false price. All it does it arrange a mutual underwriting scheme for nuclear companies. Where is the subsidy?Sandpiper 20:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Subsidies by definition raise the cost. If they didn't raise the cost, they wouldn't have any effect. In order to underwrite the risk of an ENO, the US has to levy taxes. Those taxes (even if not spent this year) amount to an additional cost of energy. This subsidy is only part of a panapoly of subsidies for nuclear energy, and when you add them all up - you could for example discount thoses costs from gas taxes and show a reduction in the cost of energy. Moreover, if PAA were not discriminatory, a allowed anyone providing energy to have their risks coolesced more effecienctly and taxpayer backed (rather than going into the market price) then energy would be cheaper. The free market provides the lowest cost - distorting the market alway alway always raises the cost - its just a matter of figuring out where and how. Benjamin Gatti 22:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

right, then we are back to the question of how likely it is that an accident will happen which will cost more than the industry pool can provide. If this never happens, then the amount of this possible subsidy is zeo. So whether or not there is a subsidy, and how great, depends on your view of how likely a 'catastrophic' accident will be. Aside from that, exactly how great is the subsidy currently enjoyed by fossil fueled power stations, in that they too are not obliged to pay for the pollution they produce. Then having determined both these numbers, which is greater? Sandpiper 00:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Not really; risk is a fungible commidity, and the value of PAA has been determined to be some 3 Billion per year - forcing wind energy operators to pay taxes without the benefits of Price Anderson risk mitigation increases the cost of wind power. The general public gets to pretend that risk doesn't have a cost, just like we get to pretend that social security is going be solvent when we retire (at no additional cost). Risk is something people choose to ignore.

Benjamin Gatti 01:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC) The cost of social security for pensioners at a given point in the future can be quite precisely estimated, and will occur as a certainty, whatever the exact amount turns out to be. The point here, is that most people expect there will be no major accident. This policy is based upon that assumption, and the consequence that there will also be no cost to the taxpayer. The first ten billion is also chargeable to the industry itself, anyway. Quite a lot. Now, exactly what long-term risk does the wind generating industry need to have mitigated? Sandpiper 10:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Censorship complaint

Simesa removed the following items from Constitutional Challenge. (Duke Power vs. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc.)

• it [is] impossible totally to rule out the risk of a major nuclear accident resulting in extensive damage.

• Private industry and the AEC were confident that such a disaster would not occur, but the very uniqueness of nuclear power meant that the possibility remained, and the potential liability dwarfed the ability of the industry and private insurance companies to absorb the risk.

• Thus, while repeatedly stressing that the risk of a major nuclear accident was extremely remote, spokesmen for the private sector informed Congress that they would be forced to withdraw from the field if their liability were not limited by appropriate legislation.

• profits from the private exploitation of atomic energy [are] uncertain and the accompanying risks [are] substantial.

These items are all direct quotes and findings of the Supreme Court. It would appear that some want to cherry pick facts to please their bias. Shame. Ral? Benjamin Gatti 16:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

For some reason, I doubt you'd object if he had removed everything that you perceive to favor "our side", even though we don't have a side. We want this article to be NPOV. We always have. And I've said this about 25 times now. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a personal attack - it is unrelated to the article, and continues a pattern of making this personal. I suggest that a neutral description of the Supreme Court ruling would include all of the findings, and not merely the findings which support a foregone conclusion. Benjamin Gatti 16:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The heading of this section is "Censorship Complaint". If that isn't a personal attack, I don't know what is. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 17:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Mike mike. Plueeze. "Censorship" and the claim of censorship refers to the exclusion of facts or ideas merely because they are unpopular - it has nothing to do with an individual, it has to do with the facts and their exclusion. Your quote above ("For some reason, I doubt you'd object if he had removed everything that you perceive to favor "our side", even though we don't have a side.") makes an argument using an editor as the subject matter. It's ad hominem. You've been called on it, and not doing it will make your argument stronger. Benjamin Gatti 19:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The first three of these are redundant, the last is obsolete as the profits are no longer uncertain and the last four words redundant. I left in "it (is) impossible totally to rule out the risk of a major accident resulting in extensive damage." No harping. Simesa 16:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Ben, OTOH, removed "*it is clear that Congress' purpose was to remove the economic impediments in order to stimulate the private development of electric energy by nuclear power while simultaneously providing the public compensation in the event of a catastrophic nuclear incident." (put in by Sandpiper). I submit that we're simply in the editing process. Simesa 16:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you'll see that I inserted it (not realizing it was redundant), saw it was redundant, and then removed one of the two. I did not censor valid excerpts from the opinion - as others have done. Benjamin Gatti

Hi all. I looked at the four added quotes. In fact they are all from the same paragraph in the judgement, so i do not see the point of listing them separately, particularly since together they are making an argument....and separately they make a rather different statement.

Secondly, they are not actually judgements of the court. They are part of the court's summary of the evidence presented to it, a summary of what others have said, although with their endorsement.

third, I have combined them as originally stated in the judgement (though with the references to witness statements removed), and amended the article to say that this was the courts own summary of the story so far, as distinct from its conclusions. And what do I have? The exact paragraph already included in the article earlier. Since this is plainly copied from the judgement, it would be better to leave it here directly attributed to the court. The piece above will have to be revised to say the same thing in different words.

So strictly, Ben you have discovered a copyright violation, but can not claim censorship since each of your quotes precisely as it was originally written had already been included. Sandpiper 17:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The statements were included in the Supreme Courts "Findings" which was the operative words. (Its "holdings" are different that its "finding" one refers to findings of fact vs. conclusions of law. A judgement sanctifies both equally and without distinction. In cases where the facts are in doubt, such as Scott Peterson trial, the finding of fact is far more sensational.)

The fact that similar thoughts were included elsewhere in the article in no way justifies leaving them out of the Court's findings. If you are going to list in rather exquisite detail the findings of the Supremes, it ought to be thorough and complete. You have probably already realized that the copyright remark was the beer speaking . ;-) Benjamin Gatti 19:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

what beer? Copyvio is a different wiki issue. It is fine to quote the supreme court, but not to include their words without attribution. For everyone's information, I have finished revising the 'background' section to remove the supreme court quote paragraph, and directly quote it in the proper section. This crossed with Ben's reversion of me, but I have inserted one version with both sections as I would see them. Time for others to express a view. Sandpiper 19:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Ben, I see you removed the original quote again and replaced it with three separate extracts/paraphrases. Why? Sandpiper 01:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Because short bullets are far more emphatic than long-winded verbeage by lifetime lawyers. How about we bury the pro side in a sleepy monologue? Benjamin Gatti 17:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Not because the meaning of the paragraph is entirely different to the meaning of short pieces chopped out of it? Why did you feel the need to re-state parts of the paragraph independently, when the entire thing as originally worded was already in the article? 81.7.59.14 10:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)(User:Sandpiper, computer decided not to log on again)

I removed the rebuttal sections

Otherwise, this is going to get out of hand again. There's no reason for a rebuttal or a rebuttal rebuttal. This is not a debate. It's an encyclopedia article. Honestly, if we continue on this path, I'm going to ask for protection again because we're NOT devolving into an edit war again. Jesus. Actually I didn't like the rebuttal idea anyway. It just happened before I had a chance to comment. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 01:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I reverted to the last by Sandpiper plus reverted the change Ben made where he said to address it in a rebuttal section - we should debate that here in discussion. I will note that just because we have such sections doesn't mean that uncited and POV statements, commercials for renewables, or speculation about the Supreme Court's intentions belong in them. Simesa 02:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 02:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

If we're not going to have rebuttal, than why a criticism? I suggest we include all facts as equal and sort them by some other metric than popularity - ie chonological, catagorically, etc ... Benjamin Gatti 17:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph in question above now reads (as it originally did):

Price-Anderson has been criticized by many of these groups for a portion of the law that indemnifies Department of Energy and private contractors from nuclear incidents even in cases of gross negligence and willful misconduct (although criminal penalties would still apply). "No other government agency provides this level of taxpayer indemnification to non-government personnel", Public Citizen. The Energy Department counters those critics by saying that the distinction is irrelevant, since the damage to the public would be the same. [4]

The points about criminal penalties applying (since the plant proceudres carry the force of law via the operating license) and the Department of Energy opinion should be made somewhere. Simesa 02:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyedits to intro

I made some minor copyedits to Sandpiper's intro to make it a little less jargony/wordy in spots. Nothing major. Here's the new version:

The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) is an act of the Congress of the United States. It provides protection to nuclear plant operators against damages sought as a result of a nuclear accident. Instead of this normal redress, the act establishes a pool of insurance funds from which no-fault compensation may be paid for injuries or damages caused by a nuclear or radiological incident. If an incident exceeds the pool's funds, Congress must consider appropriating more money. The effect of the act is to provide insurance to the nuclear industry that would not otherwise be available in the open market because of the risks inherent in nuclear power. The act currently covers all non-military nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2026. Some environmental, consumer and taxpayer watchdog groups, as well as one federal agency, have criticized the act as a government subsidy to the nuclear power industry and argue that it does not protect the public.

· Katefan0^(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 04:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)