I have uploaded the second try at the release package documentation to gordianknotbook.com/download/draft_compensation_pamphlet . This version splits the old pamphlet into two pamphlets: 1) Instructions for what to do in a release and an explanation of the release compensation package.
In Uwcert Package V2, page 6, has a statement "Under the Atomic Energy Act of 2025, anyone who
has been exposed to radiation from a nuclear power plant release is entitled to compensation."
The actual federal law governing insurance (and details) for nuclear power plants is the Price-Anderson Act. It is the CURRENT LAW, and as such it must be modified, disappeared, or incorporated into a revised Atomic Energy Act. The current P-A Act (briefly) "provides a system of financial protection for persons who may be liable and persons who may be injured by a nuclear incident."
I'm not suggesting anything needs to change in any pamphlets today. Rather it is part of the change process to implement Underwriter Certification. You can't have two different federal laws addressing insurance, with different requirements. I'm suggesting the general discussions on this subject need to acknowledge that the P-A Act is really the current controlling federal law on this issue.
Correct. Obviously the Atomic Energy Act of 2025 does not exist. As you point out,, in order to implement Underwriter Certification, we need a new AEA which among other things such as getting rid of the NRC replaces Price Anderson and the American tort system with the compensation plan described in the pamphlet. The pamphlet is referring to that yet to be written AEA.
GKG is working on a document aimed at law makers and their staff describing what the new Atomic Energy Act needs to say.
To this scientifically educated layman, this seems pretty decent as a starting point. I have no real appreciation of how many people or how much work was needed to achieve this (as a document; granting many people developed the background science). In the spirit of constructive feedback:
1) do you presume the air quality is uniform inside a building area with a common ventilation system? Granting that sometimes interior spaces might be more protective than rooms with exterior walls.
2) once the plume "phase" is past, would being in a higher building level provide greater distance/ protection from "ground shine"? Whereas it appears it might be more exposed during the plume exposure stage? I suppose thereafter the dust or other contaminated material might also deposit on the building exterior so "ground shine" could become "building shine"? Thus the desire for natural rain flushing or explicit "fire hosing'?
3) You might want to think about a 4 or 6 page fold out flyer type brochure, with possibly even more graphics on plume and ground shine ideas, etc. This is a fair amount of verbiage for the nontechnical person to consume.
4) I suspect the discussion of "insurance payouts" could be bolstered with a low, medium, high payment type payout situation/ case? The discussion of the stay at home and not go to work, vs. going to work and getting "double" pay (or salary + insurance, which may not be equal?) was a little confusing or at least incomplete. Many questions of a practical nature for employees and for businesses and employers probably need further consideration. Covid showed there were few "non-essential jobs" in our complex market and society. But a shorter term shut down with appropriate unemployment compensation schemes seems manageable. Possibly also rotating staff into work vs. letting them stay home, over a 3 week period might "share the pain" and keep a business alive that might otherwise fail.
5) hopefully you are also considering aspects of a media release package of some sort, presuming the media behave themselves and don't misinform as much as educate, pushing their own agendas. But most folks will learn what they need to do or should do via the media (if it is up and running in some form?)
[I need to be careful I am not trying to make "better the enemy of good enough", but maybe some of the above is helpful :-) ]
The indoor reduction figure is from the EPA 2017 Protective Action Guideline. I do not know how EPA arrived at the numbers. Probably have to be redone for the actual pamphlet. Interestingly EPA has moved away from evacuation and towards sheltering in place. The NRC has not.
Yes, the final product will need a lot more and better graphics.
The compensation system needs to be as simple as possible. Every additional clause is a possibly entry point for the tort lawyers. Yes there are issues that have to be worked out, such as a business that operates at multiple locations such a s a delivery service.
A media instruction program is a good idea. It will be worth face to face sessions, tours of the plant etc with the media. At least they won't be able to plead ignorance if they decide to go sensational.
Somewhat related to a media release package would be something that says "your governmental body should be expected to do these things" so people can judge if they are getting the kinds of wise and proper support they should receive.
Things as you mentioned, for measuring and controlling access to low contaminated water and food; suitable supplies of masks, iodine, and medical care; plus programs for "washdown" efforts [perhaps with reduced water bills for a three week period to allow homeowners to wash down their homes? or an insurance adder to cover increased water bill costs?]
Possibly delays in paying tax bills if the event timing is impacting the tax paying season?
I guess payout generosity is supposed to counter balance the event impact to some degree. Reading this posting I do get the feeling things can be managed and panic avoided. Thus even a war caused, natural, or human caused disaster can be addressed in a wise and adult way, as long as people understand what has happened, what might happen to them in the future, and that responsible help is available.
But that fire situation on Maui suggests we cannot guarantee that will happen in all cases, even with preplanning, etc. Humans will still be wise and stupid, as is their nature :-) ]
My take on the letter to neighbors is that is starts rather abruptly. Words like danger pop up quickly without preamble. Maybe a re-worked part of the "Your Neighbors at" paragraph should lead.
I Urge you to shop this letter with regular un-initiated folks in order to hit just the right note.
In Uwcert Package V2, page 6, has a statement "Under the Atomic Energy Act of 2025, anyone who
has been exposed to radiation from a nuclear power plant release is entitled to compensation."
The actual federal law governing insurance (and details) for nuclear power plants is the Price-Anderson Act. It is the CURRENT LAW, and as such it must be modified, disappeared, or incorporated into a revised Atomic Energy Act. The current P-A Act (briefly) "provides a system of financial protection for persons who may be liable and persons who may be injured by a nuclear incident."
I'm not suggesting anything needs to change in any pamphlets today. Rather it is part of the change process to implement Underwriter Certification. You can't have two different federal laws addressing insurance, with different requirements. I'm suggesting the general discussions on this subject need to acknowledge that the P-A Act is really the current controlling federal law on this issue.
Mike,
Correct. Obviously the Atomic Energy Act of 2025 does not exist. As you point out,, in order to implement Underwriter Certification, we need a new AEA which among other things such as getting rid of the NRC replaces Price Anderson and the American tort system with the compensation plan described in the pamphlet. The pamphlet is referring to that yet to be written AEA.
GKG is working on a document aimed at law makers and their staff describing what the new Atomic Energy Act needs to say.
To this scientifically educated layman, this seems pretty decent as a starting point. I have no real appreciation of how many people or how much work was needed to achieve this (as a document; granting many people developed the background science). In the spirit of constructive feedback:
1) do you presume the air quality is uniform inside a building area with a common ventilation system? Granting that sometimes interior spaces might be more protective than rooms with exterior walls.
2) once the plume "phase" is past, would being in a higher building level provide greater distance/ protection from "ground shine"? Whereas it appears it might be more exposed during the plume exposure stage? I suppose thereafter the dust or other contaminated material might also deposit on the building exterior so "ground shine" could become "building shine"? Thus the desire for natural rain flushing or explicit "fire hosing'?
3) You might want to think about a 4 or 6 page fold out flyer type brochure, with possibly even more graphics on plume and ground shine ideas, etc. This is a fair amount of verbiage for the nontechnical person to consume.
4) I suspect the discussion of "insurance payouts" could be bolstered with a low, medium, high payment type payout situation/ case? The discussion of the stay at home and not go to work, vs. going to work and getting "double" pay (or salary + insurance, which may not be equal?) was a little confusing or at least incomplete. Many questions of a practical nature for employees and for businesses and employers probably need further consideration. Covid showed there were few "non-essential jobs" in our complex market and society. But a shorter term shut down with appropriate unemployment compensation schemes seems manageable. Possibly also rotating staff into work vs. letting them stay home, over a 3 week period might "share the pain" and keep a business alive that might otherwise fail.
5) hopefully you are also considering aspects of a media release package of some sort, presuming the media behave themselves and don't misinform as much as educate, pushing their own agendas. But most folks will learn what they need to do or should do via the media (if it is up and running in some form?)
[I need to be careful I am not trying to make "better the enemy of good enough", but maybe some of the above is helpful :-) ]
The indoor reduction figure is from the EPA 2017 Protective Action Guideline. I do not know how EPA arrived at the numbers. Probably have to be redone for the actual pamphlet. Interestingly EPA has moved away from evacuation and towards sheltering in place. The NRC has not.
Yes, the final product will need a lot more and better graphics.
The compensation system needs to be as simple as possible. Every additional clause is a possibly entry point for the tort lawyers. Yes there are issues that have to be worked out, such as a business that operates at multiple locations such a s a delivery service.
A media instruction program is a good idea. It will be worth face to face sessions, tours of the plant etc with the media. At least they won't be able to plead ignorance if they decide to go sensational.
Somewhat related to a media release package would be something that says "your governmental body should be expected to do these things" so people can judge if they are getting the kinds of wise and proper support they should receive.
Things as you mentioned, for measuring and controlling access to low contaminated water and food; suitable supplies of masks, iodine, and medical care; plus programs for "washdown" efforts [perhaps with reduced water bills for a three week period to allow homeowners to wash down their homes? or an insurance adder to cover increased water bill costs?]
Possibly delays in paying tax bills if the event timing is impacting the tax paying season?
I guess payout generosity is supposed to counter balance the event impact to some degree. Reading this posting I do get the feeling things can be managed and panic avoided. Thus even a war caused, natural, or human caused disaster can be addressed in a wise and adult way, as long as people understand what has happened, what might happen to them in the future, and that responsible help is available.
But that fire situation on Maui suggests we cannot guarantee that will happen in all cases, even with preplanning, etc. Humans will still be wise and stupid, as is their nature :-) ]
My take on the letter to neighbors is that is starts rather abruptly. Words like danger pop up quickly without preamble. Maybe a re-worked part of the "Your Neighbors at" paragraph should lead.
I Urge you to shop this letter with regular un-initiated folks in order to hit just the right note.