copyedits of top portion -- for clarity and meaning; also remove excess references to code that add little to the layman's understanding |
Benjamin Gatti (talk | contribs) I want to know why nuclear power STILL needs the PAA - any industry POV care to admit that it is very VERY dangerous? |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The '''Price-Anderson Act''', added in [[1957]] as a new section of the [[Atomic Energy Act]], makes available a pool of funds (as of [[2004]], approximately 9.5 billion dollars) to compensate people who incur damages from a [[nuclear accident|nuclear]] or radiological incident, regardless of who is liable. The act covers all nuclear facilities constructed before [[2002]] — an extension is required to cover facilities built after that year. <!-- I'm not sure what this last portion means --> |
The '''Price-Anderson Nuclear Insurance Relief Act''', relieves nuclear plant operators of the ordinary burden to pay for their own mistakes. It was added in [[1957]] as a new section of the [[Atomic Energy Act]], makes available a pool of funds (as of [[2004]], approximately 9.5 billion dollars) to compensate people who incur damages from a [[nuclear accident|nuclear]] or radiological incident, regardless of who is liable. The act covers all nuclear facilities constructed before [[2002]] — an extension is required to cover facilities built after that year. <!-- I'm not sure what this last portion means --> |
||
Power reactor licensees are required to have primary insurance ($200 million dollars each as of [[2001]]) and to contribute up to $88 million each in the event of an incident. Thus, the 9.5 billion dollars is supplied solely by the nuclear industry. In the event that claims exceed the pool of funds, [[Congress of the United States|Congress]] is required to consider covering the excess cost, possibly by establishing additional assessments against the industry. |
Power reactor licensees are required to have primary insurance ($200 million dollars each as of [[2001]]) and to contribute up to $88 million each in the event of an incident. Thus, the 9.5 billion dollars is supplied solely by the nuclear industry. In the event that claims exceed the pool of funds, [[Congress of the United States|Congress]] is required to consider covering the excess cost, possibly by establishing additional assessments against the industry. |
||
<nowiki>[</nowiki>The available pool amount was dwarfed by the financial impact of the [[1986]] [[Chernobyl accident|Chernobyl incident]] which was estimated by one source (Yuri Korakin, cited by [[Greenpeace International]] [http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/411/4067.html] - the [[Soviet Union]] never released economic data) to be more than 280 billion dollars without considering medical needs - however, the Chernobyl units were [[RBMK]]s unlike any American plant, and the Chernobyl units did not have [[containment building]]s around the reactors. Damage in the case of Chernobyl also was limited due to the sparse population - a Chernobyl-type accident in [[Japan]] has been estimated by a Japanese economic researcher to have insurable losses of up to 460 trillion yen (about 4.4 trillion dollars) [http://www.rense.com/general43/kill.htm]. Only a dozen plants like Chernobyl were built, all in the [[Soviet Union]].<nowiki>]</nowiki> |
<nowiki>[</nowiki>The available pool amount was dwarfed by the financial impact of the [[1986]] [[Chernobyl accident|Chernobyl incident]] which was estimated by one source (Yuri Korakin, cited by [[Greenpeace International]] [http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/411/4067.html] - the [[Soviet Union]] never released economic data) to be more than 280 billion dollars without considering medical needs - however, the Chernobyl units were [[RBMK]]s unlike any American plant, and the Chernobyl units did not have [[containment building]]s around the reactors. Damage in the case of Chernobyl also was limited due to the sparse population - a Chernobyl-type accident in [[Japan]] has been estimated by a Japanese economic researcher to have insurable losses of up to 460 trillion yen (about 4.4 trillion dollars) [http://www.rense.com/general43/kill.htm]. Only a dozen plants like Chernobyl were built, all in the [[Soviet Union]].<nowiki>]</nowiki> |
||
Wind powered plants do not require an act of congress to cover their liabilities because they are far safer than nuclear power. |
|||
Solar power operators do not impose any liability on the general public and so do not require an insurance waiver in order to |
|||
Without the Price-Anderson Act, nuclear plant operators would have to insure for the full cost of any possible nuclear incident. Because no one had (or has) quantified what the maximum coverage necessary would be for a [[PWR]] or [[BWR]], financiers were unwilling to insure the possible risk. Therefore, no private operator in the United States would have built a nuclear facility without the Price-Anderson Act. Thus the extension of the Price-Anderson Act is probably essential to the construction of future [[nuclear power plants]] in the [[US]] (see [[Nuclear Power 2010 Program]]). |
Without the Price-Anderson Act, nuclear plant operators would have to insure for the full cost of any possible nuclear incident. Because no one had (or has) quantified what the maximum coverage necessary would be for a [[PWR]] or [[BWR]], financiers were unwilling to insure the possible risk. Therefore, no private operator in the United States would have built a nuclear facility without the Price-Anderson Act. Thus the extension of the Price-Anderson Act is probably essential to the construction of future [[nuclear power plants]] in the [[US]] (see [[Nuclear Power 2010 Program]]). |
||
Price-Anderson |
Price-Anderson relieves [[DOE]] facilities but not the [[nuclear Navy]] (which has not had a nuclear accident). |
||
The [[constitutionality]] of the Price-Anderson Act was challenged in [[1975]] and upheld by the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] in [[June]], [[1978]]. |
The [[constitutionality]] of the Price-Anderson Act was challenged in [[1975]] and upheld by the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] in [[June]], [[1978]].<--! On What Grounds? --> |
||
Nuclear insurance pools have paid $151 million ($70 million related to the [[1979]] [[Three Mile Island]] [[meltdown]]) and the DOE $65 million since Price-Anderson was enacted 48 years ago. |
Nuclear insurance pools have paid $151 million ($70 million related to the [[1979]] [[Three Mile Island]] [[meltdown]]) and the DOE $65 million since Price-Anderson was enacted 48 years ago. |
||
| Line 19: | Line 22: | ||
{{poli-stub}} |
{{poli-stub}} |
||
[[Category:Wealth Transfer|Price-Anderson Act]] |
|||
Revision as of 00:37, 29 June 2005
The Price-Anderson Nuclear Insurance Relief Act, relieves nuclear plant operators of the ordinary burden to pay for their own mistakes. It was added in 1957 as a new section of the Atomic Energy Act, makes available a pool of funds (as of 2004, approximately 9.5 billion dollars) to compensate people who incur damages from a nuclear or radiological incident, regardless of who is liable. The act covers all nuclear facilities constructed before 2002 — an extension is required to cover facilities built after that year.
Power reactor licensees are required to have primary insurance ($200 million dollars each as of 2001) and to contribute up to $88 million each in the event of an incident. Thus, the 9.5 billion dollars is supplied solely by the nuclear industry. In the event that claims exceed the pool of funds, Congress is required to consider covering the excess cost, possibly by establishing additional assessments against the industry.
[The available pool amount was dwarfed by the financial impact of the 1986 Chernobyl incident which was estimated by one source (Yuri Korakin, cited by Greenpeace International [1] - the Soviet Union never released economic data) to be more than 280 billion dollars without considering medical needs - however, the Chernobyl units were RBMKs unlike any American plant, and the Chernobyl units did not have containment buildings around the reactors. Damage in the case of Chernobyl also was limited due to the sparse population - a Chernobyl-type accident in Japan has been estimated by a Japanese economic researcher to have insurable losses of up to 460 trillion yen (about 4.4 trillion dollars) [2]. Only a dozen plants like Chernobyl were built, all in the Soviet Union.]
Wind powered plants do not require an act of congress to cover their liabilities because they are far safer than nuclear power. Solar power operators do not impose any liability on the general public and so do not require an insurance waiver in order to
Without the Price-Anderson Act, nuclear plant operators would have to insure for the full cost of any possible nuclear incident. Because no one had (or has) quantified what the maximum coverage necessary would be for a PWR or BWR, financiers were unwilling to insure the possible risk. Therefore, no private operator in the United States would have built a nuclear facility without the Price-Anderson Act. Thus the extension of the Price-Anderson Act is probably essential to the construction of future nuclear power plants in the US (see Nuclear Power 2010 Program).
Price-Anderson relieves DOE facilities but not the nuclear Navy (which has not had a nuclear accident).
The constitutionality of the Price-Anderson Act was challenged in 1975 and upheld by the Supreme Court in June, 1978.<--! On What Grounds? -->
Nuclear insurance pools have paid $151 million ($70 million related to the 1979 Three Mile Island meltdown) and the DOE $65 million since Price-Anderson was enacted 48 years ago.
External Links