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

message: RE: The Price-Anderson Act is a United States law which limits liability for nuclear plant operators.
An Act and a Law are not the same thing. The Act was properly called an "Amendment" - similar to the "First Amendment" which modified - presumably - one or more Federal Statutes, and specifically empowered the NRC to propogate Rules as it sees fit consistent with the general principles set forth. - in addition to which it removed a power from the states - that is the power to hold nuclear operators accountable for damages caused by crimes they may have willingly committed which harm the people of their state. That said - I suggest that we should neither use the article as an opportunity to oversimplify the political process, nor as an opportunity to endulge in a lengthy explanation thereof. Perhaps it is enough to say, it is an Act and it has an effect ... I suggest. See above for proposal Benjamin Gatti
:The Price-Anderson Act has been enacted into law as PL 85-256 (Public Law #256, from the 85th Congress of the US).  It is now a law, though it was called, in legislative parlance, an act (as is virtually every bill that moves through congress -- the only bills that aren't called "acts" are those that merely express the sense of Congress on an issue rather than changing policy, which are called resolutions).  It is eminently correct to say that it is a law. Because it contains directives to the NRC to carry out certain provisions through rulemaking doesn't make it less of a law. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Okay, well how have other pages about acts of Congress handled this? And do we want to follow their lead or set a precedent?
Are we interested in Price-Anderson as a bill, i.e., the history of the bill? How it was initially conceived, sponsored, introduced as legislation, who voted how, which president signed it into law, etc.
Or are we interested in the results of the bill's enactment, i.e., the establishment of Price-Anderson as PL 85-256? How it has affected the nuclear power industry, etc.
I am neutral. I am just moderating here. But I would like to encourage you to come up with answers to these questions. If you can agree on the answers to enough of these questions, then agreeing on the sentence will be comparatively easy. Uncle Ed 19:35, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
:Personally, I think the article should treat both at least in some fashion. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:40, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
::Price Anderson is more than the single Act - it is called in reference a "Framework", and it has been extended by other act - and the framework continues to bear the name. I'm not opposed to covering the legislative history, but I do think it is secondary, and shouldn't be used to distract the reader from the substance. Benjamin Gatti
Ben, actually the history of the law is part of the substance, not really secondary to it. As I've said before, this isn't a position paper. It's not just pro and con. We probably need some context or description of how the law came to be. I know that I've said this before and as far as I know, you haven't done it, but look at other articles on laws or acts. They almost always have such information. Bayh-Dole_Act is a good example of what I mean. --Woohookitty 05:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well - One problem ... 

message: "The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (1957) provides Federal Indemnity for private nuclear reactor operators against catastrophic nuclear accidents in the United States. The Act releases plant operators from Federal and State liability laws under which the operators could be held financially responsible for uninsurable damage to the public caused by a nuclear accident or similar radiological event. Because the nascent insurance industry did not offer policies large enough to cover the costs of a nuclear event in the 1950's, and because the cost would prevent the privatisation of nuclear energy, Congress established a pooled insurance system in which each reactor would insure all of the other reactors up to USD $88 Million per reactor with the Federal government providing up to USD $500 Million additional insurance if necessary. The current size of the pool is 9.8 Billion dollars, a figure which is still considerably less than the 250 Billion dollars in damages caused by the explosion of Reactor #4 at the Chernobyl Atomic Electricity Station, outside Kiev, Ukraine which was caused by intentional violations of safety procedures.
Benjamin Gatti
:Ben, your "writing for the enemy" really shouldn't favor your POV. It kind of defeats the purpose. The last sentence is very POV. First off, "considerably less" is POV. Secondly, we have no way of guessing if an accident here would even approach Chernobyl. Putting it like you do is pure speculation and speculation really doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I just don't see how Chernobyl is germane to this discussion. It can only lead to POV. The way the last sentence is put, people will put 2 and 2 together and go...oh...well...this wouldn't be enough to cover us if we had a real accident, so it's a scam. --Woohookitty 07:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing for the enemy - Try Again 

message: A new study by the US Renewable Energy Policy Project (REPP-CREST) has found that nuclear power harvests the lion's share of government investment in nuclear, solar and wind. According to "Federal Energy Subsidies: Not All Technologies Are Created Equal" the U.S. government has spent approximately $150 billion on energy subsidies for wind, solar and nuclear power - 96.3% of which has gone to nuclear power.
"What's really surprising is the relative start up costs for these technologies," said Robby Roberts, REPP's executive director. "Nukes received much higher levels of government support per kilowatt-hour when they first started than either wind or solar power." Roberts continued, "and subsidies heaped on nuclear power have not been cheap. Since 1947, cumulative subsidies to nuclear power had an equivalent cost of $1,411 [1998 dollars] per US household, compared to $11 for wind, for example."
:Your reference contains only a brief summary of the real study.  I suggest that the $150 billion includes everything from the Manhattan Project 1996 dollars through the DOE reactors to produce plutonium for weapons $409 billion for all bombs to the Shippingport plant, the first commercial reactor $120 million. I would have included only the Shippingport plant.  I have yet to see any cites on subsidies for mining or enrichment - which also were necessary for weapons work.  The main "subsidy" claimed for nuclear seems to be up to $22 million per reactor-year for Price-Anderson. Simesa 06:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsidy Perspective - 96.3% to Nuclear Energy 

message: Ed asked that we go line-by-line, in keeping with my suggestion.  I'd like to get back to that discussion, please.  · Katefan0(scribble) 04:00, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
The Price-Anderson Act is a United States law which limits liability for nuclear plant operators.
Benjamin, are you going to continue to disagree that PAA is a law? · Katefan0(scribble) 04:01, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
===Reply===
"Limits Liability" is perhaps the third important item on the agenda. 1 - it provides government money as insurance up to 500 Million - and more if necessary. 2. It creates a commmunistic central command economy insurance market. 3. it caps damages and limits the power of the state to enforce their democraticaly created tort laws against criminal malfeasance by corporate management resulting in death and other damages to the people of their respective states.
To Say an Act is a Law, strikes me as either redundant or inaccurate. Beyond that the opening above is like a moped engine on a dump truck - it gets the article moving - but oh so slow.
What's wrong with:
"The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (1957) provides Federal Indemnity for private nuclear reactor operators against catastrophic nuclear accidents in the United States. 
I suggest that it's accurate, it hits the main points - establishes the scope - and is neutral. Catastrophic - is key, As its a catastrophic indemnity plan, not a nickel and dime insurance policy for hangnails at nuclear sites. The language of the act and the speaches of the time is "Reactor Operators, or just operators" - it is an interesting sidenote that the size of the reactor isn't specified - which advantages large reactors because they produce more electricity from a single "Reactor" - they are however, much more dangerous - so in that sense, the "Reactor-Orientation" of the act is a central feature. (I believe it was later ammended to be Megawatt Specific but too late to change the facts on the ground.) - Accident is technically misleading and incomplete, as it covers any event, mishap, or release without concern for the underlying cause, it may even cover war and acts of God, i'm not sure - I know it covers an airplane crashing into a reactor. The Indemnifying party must be identified. If all you remember is the first sentence - that should be useful knowledge. Benjamin Gatti
:What's wrong with it is that it doesn't cover just catastrophic accidents, and it doesn't cover just private nuclear operators (it also covers schools, the DOE, etc.).  
:I suggest we say:
:"The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (1957) makes available a pool of insurance funds to compensate people who are injured or incur damages from a nuclear or radiological incident.  It covers and limits liability for nuclear power plant operators, schools, and Department of Energy facilities."  That's what the reader wants to know.
:And Sandia National Labs tested slamming a jet fighter into a reactor containment building at 450 mph - its engine rotors left a 2.5-inch deep gouge in the outside concrete missle shield  , not getting anywhere close to the containment.. Simesa 06:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your pov is noted, but it is still your uncited diatribe.  What the Act does should be stated here.  Finally, Injury is defined in Wikipedia. Simesa 13:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we start over please? 

message: "Limits Liability" is perhaps the third important item on the agenda. 1 - it provides government money as insurance up to 500 Million - and more if necessary. 2. It creates a commmunistic central command economy insurance market. 3. it caps damages and limits the power of the state to enforce their democraticaly created tort laws against criminal malfeasance by corporate management resulting in death and other damages to the people of their respective states.
To Say an Act is a Law, strikes me as either redundant or inaccurate. Beyond that the opening above is like a moped engine on a dump truck - it gets the article moving - but oh so slow.
What's wrong with:
"The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (1957) provides Federal Indemnity for private nuclear reactor operators against catastrophic nuclear accidents in the United States. 
I suggest that it's accurate, it hits the main points - establishes the scope - and is neutral. Catastrophic - is key, As its a catastrophic indemnity plan, not a nickel and dime insurance policy for hangnails at nuclear sites. The language of the act and the speaches of the time is "Reactor Operators, or just operators" - it is an interesting sidenote that the size of the reactor isn't specified - which advantages large reactors because they produce more electricity from a single "Reactor" - they are however, much more dangerous - so in that sense, the "Reactor-Orientation" of the act is a central feature. (I believe it was later ammended to be Megawatt Specific but too late to change the facts on the ground.) - Accident is technically misleading and incomplete, as it covers any event, mishap, or release without concern for the underlying cause, it may even cover war and acts of God, i'm not sure - I know it covers an airplane crashing into a reactor. The Indemnifying party must be identified. If all you remember is the first sentence - that should be useful knowledge. Benjamin Gatti
:What's wrong with it is that it doesn't cover just catastrophic accidents, and it doesn't cover just private nuclear operators (it also covers schools, the DOE, etc.).  
:I suggest we say:
:"The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (1957) makes available a pool of insurance funds to compensate people who are injured or incur damages from a nuclear or radiological incident.  It covers and limits liability for nuclear power plant operators, schools, and Department of Energy facilities."  That's what the reader wants to know.
:And Sandia National Labs tested slamming a jet fighter into a reactor containment building at 450 mph - its engine rotors left a 2.5-inch deep gouge in the outside concrete missle shield  , not getting anywhere close to the containment.. Simesa 06:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your pov is noted, but it is still your uncited diatribe.  What the Act does should be stated here.  Finally, Injury is defined in Wikipedia. Simesa 13:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply

message: I'm too busy with my vfds. I was wondering why it was so quiet. ;-) --Woohookitty 05:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: THIS is where everyone went!