Talk:Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act

In the Criticisms section
I tweaked the first sentence a bit. Not sure I got it right, but in the previous version, libertarianism was the only ideological position mentioned, and the implication was that Greenpeace, etc., were libertarian groups. Ethan Mitchell 13:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The US-PIRG report appears to depend on dated analysis by Dubin and Rothwell (1990) for the upper bound of the subsidy and a more recent study by Heyes and Heyes for the lower number (footnotes 11 and 10 of the linked reference). Rothwell appears to have since acknowledged the improvements made by Heyes and Heyes, http://siepr.stanford.edu/papers/briefs/policybrief_jan02.pdf. Moreover, the current thinking of Rothwell (and Heyes and Heyes?) seems to place the value of the subsidy at only $2.3 million per reactor-year. I'm a newbie. I won't attempt to update the article until there is a consensus that it is appropriate to do so (and I wouldn't object to somebody else updating it instead). (Blubba78 11:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like a good source to me. I suggest you put your proposed text here in Discussion first. BTW - the NRC is coming out with a new safety study, state of the art, but I have no timetable for when it will be ready.  That study might change damage estimaes dramatically. Simesa 15:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I took the plunge and updated the page directly. I was aware of the announcement to update the safety study but can't seem to find it on the NRC's web page. As I recall, they are going to start with Indian Point and a few other plants that are located relatively close to population centers and eventually expand it to the rest. I understand the refinements in the source term methodologies since the CRAC codes were first run (assumptions for the solubility of I-131, etc.) are significant. However, I'm not expecting to see the report any time soon. Blubba78 21:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence "They charge that Price-Anderson has amounted to a giveaway to private industry at the American taxpayers' expense; and this criticism is often coupled with independent concerns about nuclear power." because it implies a direct subsidy to the industry at taxpayer expense that doesn't exist. Besides, it doesn't say anything that isn't stated (better) later. In that same vein, I clarified the wording to refer to the "potential subsidy" to further drive home the idea that its worth is in the form of a regulatory advantage that the nuclear power industry wouldn't otherwise benefit from. The value of that potential benefit is what is referred to in the article (see reference #5). Blubba78 21:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps enough of this Pro-Nuclear POV?
The PAA - makes taxpayers financially responsible for gross negligence, and willful misconduct of nuclear power plant operators.

The introduction needs to state this very plainly. Until then it ought to be flagged industry advertisement.

Any objections? Benjamin Gatti 23:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest that his topic shouldn't be considered fully discussed until after people have returned from the Memorial Day holiday week (today being the first Saturday of that week), but in the meantime I most strongly object! The same reasons as before apply to your proposal: the industry has quite a large fund, CRAC-II has been repudiated by the NRC so you have no reliable cost estimates on which to base your claim, gross negligence and willful misconduct are blatant speculation, etc.  This is a very balanced article now, and it includes a number of criticisms - I see absolutely no grounds for labeling it an industry advertisement. Simesa 05:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Simesa.Ultramarine 06:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Saying it's so - doesn't make it so (balanced an article.) It is a fact, as we've well established previously, that both gross negligence and willful misconduct are fully contemplated by the act and related official debate, rulings, etc... Sure, its an insurance, and as such any payout is speculative - speculation is the substance of insurance. Personally, I feel the fact that PAA shifts the responsibility for negligent and malicious acts from the actor to the taxpayer strikes at the essence of the Act, and whitewashing that fact is IMO a very blatant POV. Best on Memorial Day ... Benjamin Gatti 14:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Another point, fencing negative facts into a "criticism" section is POV according to Wiki Policy, and evidences, in my opinion, the bias of the authors, as the choice of what facts should be qualified as Criticism, vs. which facts should be asserted as the unqualified opinion of Wikipedia provides a powerful venue for manipulating the conclusions of the reader subconsciously. Benjamin Gatti 14:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * To discuss your last point first, it is very difficult to explain the criticisms of something before explaining what it is, so criticisms naturally flow to the bottom (with references to them in the text above). I'm not sure what you mean by "the unqualified opinion of Wikipedia", as I believe Wikipedia is not supposed to show an opinion.  That the government arranges coverage above the pool coverage is stated right in the Intro, hardly whitewashing it.  That gross negligence and willful misconduct are covered (though not immune from legal penalties) is one of the criticisms.  You seem to be a minority of one in feeling that the article is biased, misordered and unbalanced.  I wouldn't want you to violate your probation.  Perhaps the RfC process is the best way to go on this.  Simesa 02:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Request for comment? I've read most all of this stuff and I'm still watching and I'll give you my comment.  I think the article does look good in it's present state.  I think that the estimated value to the industry in the criticism section puts to rest accusations of bias in the article.  That addresses the problem in a level headed manner.  People want to change this into a POV article from what I can gather.  Honestly... theanphibian 03:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * An Issues List:


 * 1) "Partially Indemnify" is small print - intended to gloss over what the act does. Consider two options:
 * The Act "Protects" the Nuclear Industry from paying the costs of its own mistakes, willful or accidental.
 * The Act provides partially immunity from liability arising from accidents while ensuring compensation ...
 * The second is wrong, misleading, and full of words that most people would need to look up - and or repeats words in the article title. The purpose of an article is to explain the meaning of words in the title - using those words as anything other than subjectives is ineffective, and IMO part of an effort to obfuscate the issue. It is not limited to accidents - it include malicious acts. It does not "ensure" compensation. It Reduces compensation by eliminating the commonly accepted definitions of compensation, which include equity as determined by a jury, and includes compensation for losses, pain, suffering, and if maliciously or negligently induced, compensation of a punitive nature. The Act eliminates far more of the definition of compensation than it ensures.


 * 1) Any claims over 10 Billion would be covered?
 * There is no fixed requirement that US Taxpayers would cover anything above X. The operative word is Shall consider and it is disingenuous and misleading to suggest that the operative word is shall pay, must pay, or will pay when in fact the operative word is shall consider.


 * 1) Calling it "no-fault insurance" with a link to said article inserts by reference this assertion:


 * No-fault insurance allows for injured parties to sue for compensation for pain and suffering only in cases of exceptional severity. There are two definitions of "exceptional severity":


 * This is patently untrue in the case of PAA; thus "no fault insurance" must change, or we should find something else to call PAA insurance. Preferably, we avoid relabelling and instead content ourselves with a fully accurate, fully contained, definition.


 * 1) I would question the injection of "was considered necessary" in the opening. The reference is historic, and perhaps anachronistic. The Act was recently re-passed. I suggest that the current basis for the act is more relevant, and that its historic motivations, whether known in full, or as in this case, completely surmised and yet boldly asserted as the unqualified opinion of wikipedia without reference, name, or quote, is misplaced. A History paragraph wherein the reader is left to determine the motivations of the authors on the basis of their published statements would be more professionally encyclopedic.


 * 1) The act is as accurately described as "Corporate Welfare", as it is "No Fault Insurance". The choice represents a POV. The truth remains that Taxpayers and victims are left more responsible for malicious and negligent acts of the Nuclear Industry and with less recourse to legal remedy than without the PAA, and the surely article ought to reflect the truth?


 * 1) It is my impression that smaller companies are taking ownership of aging nuclear plants, and many of these may be upside down on the financials, meaning they don't have the money to pay even for decommissioning their existing plants, and it raises a valid question as to whether or not the industry has the liquidity to participate in the self-cross-insurance portion of the act. Does the act require liquidity? Does it include a mechanism for periodically evaluating liquidity?


 * 1) The reason Price Anderson exists, and the reason it was recently passed, is that neither the nuclear industry, nor the insurance industry is sufficiently confident that they can operate nuclear facilities without a catastrophic incident. But the article claims the risks are "unknown". If they were then, they are hardly unknown now. The truth is they are known (CRAC-II etc...), and the industry remains uncomfortable with what they have learned. I think the article attempts to bury this. Benjamin Gatti 14:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ben. Your blocks have expired. But honestly, you are trading on very thin ice here. You are still on probation (which was infinite). So I'd suggest being careful here. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 14:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, I respected the blocks, now I invite you to respect the fact that they are over and that I respected them. Benjamin Gatti 15:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes Ben, but you are still on general probation. And if you return to your old behavior, I will follow through on that and ask for your block. You gotta show that you've changed. Going back to your old ways ain't gonna cut it. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 15:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Opening
The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, passed in the US in 1957 and renewed in 2005, is the energy subsidy for non-military Nuclear power plants, processors, laboratories, and storage facilities in the United States. Its purpose is to stimulate the development and utilization of nuclear power by shifting the costs of catastrophic insurance from the Industry to the United States Taxpayers, and by denying the Victims of a nuclear incident, whether accidental, Malicious, or negligent, the right to be fully compensated for damages, pain and suffering, and for punitive damages, as determined by a jury of their peers. Instead, damages are determined by a Federal government official and are extremely limited. (For example, a child inflicted by leukemia might get reimbursed for the cost of treatment in a military hospital, but would certainly not be compensated for the pain and trauma or dying in the childrens cancer ward, nor would her parents be compensated for the loss of an only child). The Act also requires the Industry to promise to share the extremely curtailed liability costs of small incidents up to $10 Billion dollars; which they can only escape by declaring Bankruptcy. After $10 Billion dollars, the Congress is required to consider compensating victims, but again, only for the barest minimum of expenses.

In 1978 the Supreme Court overruled the District Court's finding that the Act tends to encourage irresponsibility in matters of safety and environmental protection asserting instead that 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

Since then it has been found that indeed Nuclear Power plant operators, ie...Duke Power, do in fact indulge in economic shortcuts which place the public and the environment at risk. Benjamin Gatti 14:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Why are we doing this again? That long sentence in your proposal is full of POV language. It feels like it's Summer 2005 again. Honestly Ben, that proposal is so ridiculously POV that I'd consider it disruptive. It's very similar to the proposals you've put forth in the past. For those unaware of the previous history of this article or Ben's behavior, read the archives or go here. I mean, Ben, that proposal is so POV that I can't even really break it down and make it non-POV. It's like your old proposals. The whole point is "nuclear is evil! Evil!!!" instead of even trying to be NPOV. And am I assuming good faith? I'm trying. But honestly, your arbcom case ended alot of that assumption. This proposal shows that you haven't changed one iota. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 15:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's the same issues as before. We're looking for an NPOV article. You want an article that shows "the truth". The problem is that it's the truth from an anti-nuclear perspective. It's POV, not NPOV. This article hasn't changed much since you were last here. It has alot of criticism of the Act already in it. And the intro should be an intro. A nice, brief paragraph that summarizes the bill. I don't like the current one (way too wordy) and I certainly don't like one that's more POV. Intro sets the tone for the whole article. It needs to be neutral. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 15:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) [Article on Recent Examples of Shoddy Maintenance]
 * 2) I think we should remember that that $10 Billion is not a "pool" of prepaid monies, but rather a "promise" to fund; a promise which is fully subject to Bankruptcy.
 * 3) We shouldn't shy aware from its status as "A Subsidy", every energy is subsidized by the US government, Wind, Solar, Oil, Coal, it goes on forever. The Supreme Court called it economic stimulation. Subsidies are how energy works. Benjamin Gatti 15:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This has to be the most bizarre writing I've ever seen. Simesa 17:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Those in favor of using the term "Indemnity" to define the term "Indemnity"
 * For:

Benjamin Gatti 16:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Against:


 * Pseudo-polls aren't much better. Simesa 17:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would respond, but the question really doesn't make sense to me. theanphibian 17:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My proposal is that definitions of a terms should not be self-referential - as this article is. An article should define each of the terms in the subject, and should for this reason avoid using them as part of the definition. Particular those terms most in need of explanation. Benjamin Gatti 17:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And it still doesn't make sense. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 20:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I added a wikilink to Indemnity, does this address the issue you're talking about? theanphibian 05:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In this case, because the "Indemnity" is so particular to this Act, It should defined without self-reference. I think the Intro is completely devoid of any and all aspects which the District Court found objectionable, and which Cato, Union of Concerned Scientists, and others found objectionable, in short - it appears to "spin" the act by playing on its best side, while muting, or failing to mention the aspects which people find objectionable. For example - the motivation of authors is not a fact - but it is in the Intro; while the suspension of punitive damages is a black-letter fact - and is not mentioned in the Intro. Benjamin Gatti 14:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Are we just going through the motions before returning to ArbCom here, or is there something new to add? Guy (Help!) 09:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that Arbcom is necessary, Guy. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this proposed introduction section is clunky and inferior to the current one. How can an Act be a subsidy? The language in the proposal seems imprecise. - Mark 09:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No one argues that the Act isn't "A Subsidy" Governments have the right to spend tax dollars as they see fit; they subsidize things all the time. As the Intro says, no one would build a plant without government footing the cost of insurance. It must be compared to subsidies for Coal, Oil, Hydro, Wind, Solar, and every other form of energy. There's really no credible question that its principle purpose is to encourage private investment in nuclear technology by adding public financial support into the portfolio. There was no public outcry for "catch-all" insurance in 1954; the outcry was from GE and Westinghouse principles who insisted they would not invest without Indemnity. Public liabilities incurred for the purpose of stimulating economic growth are Subsidy(s). Benjamin Gatti 14:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You always speak so authoritatively as if it just can't be seen any other way. All of the "must" and "no one" and all of that. Well it can be seen other ways. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 01:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, Ben, at least one reputable source does argue that PAA is not a subsidy (see ), so you're wrong on that point. Since the government hasn't spent tax dollars on civilian power plant insurance fees or payouts  it certainly is not a direct subsidy, which is probably the gist of their argument.  The government does not foot the cost of the insurance - the government has paid no insurance fees or claims for civilian nuclear power plants.  The purpose of PAA was to make nuclear power possible (in exactly the way the European governments back the loans that make Airbus aircraft possible) but no public financial support for insurance was laid out as you imply it was.  There is no public outcry for the HIV trial in Libya yet it is a major matter which must be handled - in a representative democracy we do entrust elected officials to make decisions for the public about what is best for the country in complex matters: these legislators must have been convinced, as they did vote for the Act.  I am not aware of any coal or oil subsidies (now that the oil depletion allowance is gone) ["Within the OECD, North American and Australasian coal markets are reasonably free of coal market distortions"  ] - they don't pay for greenhouse gas pollution, but since no cost has broadly been attributed to such pollution by governments that issue is highly debatable as a subsidy.  No public liabilities have yet been incurred so your last statement may be true but doesn't apply here.  But most importantly you didn't respond to most of Mark's comment - instead you spewed out a diatribe.  Try to stay focused on the facts. Simesa 02:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the NEI is a bit biased, and spinning words here. The Supreme Court held that its purpose was to stimulate private investment, clearly by shifting financial liabilities (risk) from industry to someone - that someone is part victim, part taxpayer, and part industry. In my view the Intro leaves out entirely the degree to which victims are asked to absorb the risk. Bear in mind that liability = risk * magnitude. The Government doesn't have to payout dollars in order to provide a subsidy, simple risk is a fully monetizable instrument. But I'll substitute "Stimulus package" as per SCOTUS if preferable Benjamin Gatti 02:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment
Here again - the Issues I find that could use attention.


 * 1) A Key point - that Taxpayers would cover the cost of Industry mistakes and negligence is asserted as a parenthetical.
 * 2) The title term "Indemnity" is used self-referentially to define "Indemnity"
 * 3) A related point - that taxpayers and not the company responsible would be charged even for malicious and willful acts of negligence is missing from the intro and only introduced in the quarantined section marked "Criticisms"
 * 4) The introduction fails to include the fact the Victims of a nuclear accident are denied the usual rights to recover damages as determined by a fair and impartial jury of peers, including punitive damages for willful negligence.
 * 5) The article fails to include the latest and best assessment of the risks covered by the ACT (CRAC-II)
 * 6) The intro asserts a motive for passing the Act without citation.

I have proposed new copy to remedy these defects. Benjamin Gatti 00:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The entry for this RfC can be found at . Respondents should understand that this article went through the RfC and RfM processes starting about mid-2005 (see Discussion Archives). Simesa 00:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep. And the article was included in Ben's arbcom case. This is very well treaded territory. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I wonder if a topic ban might be in order. It's been over a year and Benjamin is still doing the exact same kind of tendentious argumentation on the exact same article. *** Crotalus *** 01:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It'd take 3 non-involved admins. Usually we handle it through AN/I. But yeah. This is all old territory. It's not a coincidence that this article had next to 0 changes in the year he was gone and now it's on my goodness this article is so incorrect. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 01:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ben, CRAC-II isn't a risk study, and it was never meant to be. Ajnosek (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Reworked Proposal as per Marks issues (precision - clunk)
The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, passed in the US in 1957 and renewed in 2005, is a government-guaranteed self-insurance pool which limits the liability of non-military Nuclear power plants, processors, laboratories, and storage facilities in the United States and reduces the rights of victims to sue for damages in the event of an Extraordinary nuclear occurrence. Given that the potential liabilities for a Nuclear accident are higher than power-plant companies are willing to accept, the Government decided to stimulate the development of Nuclear power by holding the industry financially harmless for damages, even in cases of malicious or willful negligence. The Act requires "Licensees" first to purchase all the insurance available, then promise to share the cost of the next $10 Billion dollars in damages which they can only escape by declaring Bankruptcy. After $10 Billion dollars, the Congress is required to consider compensating victims if necessary.

In 1978 the Supreme Court overruled the District Court's finding that the Act tends to encourage irresponsibility in matters of safety and environmental protection asserting instead that 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

(I believe we have good sources for all of that in the discussions) I think it improves the Intro because it is 1. More Complete, 2 More Detailed 3. Not self-referential, 3 Includes all unique aspects of the ACT which are raised as important by both pro sources (nei, supreme court, etc..) AND con sources (District court, Union of Concerned, CATO etc) I have no problem including the "pro" points, but I think there should equally be no objections to including the objectionable aspects of the act in a cohesive and concise introduction. Benjamin Gatti 03:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ben, you never change. Don't put this rant in.  Simesa 04:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * He's been banned from nuclear articles for a year per ArbCom. So. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 04:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear Safety at a facility level?
I have added the nuclear safety article in the "see also" section. I also am expanding it with "list of civilian nuclear accidents" and a couple others that appear relevant. Any other cross references that might be useful? HatlessAtless (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I think I'm looking to see if any articles discuss nuclear safety in the context of something like the chemical industry, which might put it in context with other large-scale safety programs. That might be a useful context-link for the see also section for technically minded individuals. HatlessAtless (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

New Introduction
The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) is a United States federal law, first passed in 1957 and since renewed several times, which governs liability-related issues for all non-military nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2026. The main purpose of the Act is to partially indemnify the nuclear industry against liability claims arising from nuclear incidents while still ensuring compensation coverage for the general public. The Act establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first approximately $12.6 billion (as of 2011) is industry-funded as described in the Act. Any claims above the $12.6 billion would be covered by a Congressional mandate to retroactively increase nuclear utility liability or would be covered by the federal government. At the time of the Act's passing, it was considered necessary as an incentive for the private production of nuclear power — this was because electric utilities viewed the available liability coverage (only $60 million) as inadequate.
 * Current:

The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act is essentially a subsidy of the nuclear Industry in the United States which protects the investors, builders and operators of nuclear power plants and related facilities from the financial fallout which occurs when nuclear power plants explode, melt-down, or otherwise release radioactive material into the air, the water, and the food supply - even if such release is caused by criminal malfeasance. Those killed, disfigured, and otherwise injured by the operation of a nuclear plant are deprived of the standard due process right to sue those responsible for their injuries, and are instead compelled to accept a compensation package organized by the federal government which precludes pain and suffering.
 * Proposed:

The Act(commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) is a federal law, passed in 1957 and renewed most recently in [2005], governs liability for all non-military nuclear facilities in the United States to date.

"The main purpose of the Act is to partially indemnify the nuclear industry against liability claims arising from nuclear incidents ..."
 * Reasons
 * 1) The assertion of a "main purpose" is both a POV and ahistorical:

The Supreme court ruled that the gov was justified in screwing the victims in order to promote nuclear power - the historically accurate priority is to promote nuclear power - damn the torpedoes.


 * 1) The numbers belong in the text, but add little to one's understanding of the act. I have life insurance, it protects my family; the amount is not important to understanding life insurance.
 * 2) Given that PA was recently relitigated at a time with much greater liability availability, the importance of past limitations appears moot.
 * 3) Uses the word Indemnify to define the term Indemnify.
 * 4) Repetitive, verbose without being informative.

"The main purpose of the Act is to partially indemnify the nuclear industry against liability claims arising from nuclear incidents while still ensuring compensation coverage for the general public. The Act establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first approximately $12.6 billion (as of 2011) is industry-funded as described in the Act. Any claims above the $12.6 billion would be covered by a Congressional mandate to retroactively increase nuclear utility liability or would be covered by the federal government. At the time of the Act's passing, it was considered necessary as an incentive for the private production of nuclear power — this was because electric utilities viewed the available liability coverage (only $60 million) as inadequate. "
 * Thus propose dropping as POV, ahistorical, and numerically verbose:

Benjamin Gatti (talk) 12:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Main purpose of Indemnity Act is to Indemnify - not to "fund" an unfunded compensation "fund".
proposed change to "how it works / how it is funded" section:

First to prioritize who and what are Indemnified against what risks and how etc... Indemnification is to "hold blameless", it has nothing to do with "funds or funding or any such thing" as such the "unfunding" part belongs under the fold. This is about risk management and should focus on the risks under management (ie horrific deformities caused by nuclear exposure), and who is not liable for them (ie the people who cause it), and who ultimately bears the risks (the victims and taxpayers; and to a lesser an unfunded extent - the "industry") Benjamin Gatti (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111023112403/http://www.regulations.gov:80/ to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NRC-2008-0512

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707134037/http://www.amnucins.com/History.html to http://www.amnucins.com/History.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204172344/http://www.nader.org/releases/63099.html to http://www.nader.org/releases/63099.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160108185336/http://www.damsafety.org/media/documents/fema/availabilityofdaminsurance.pdf to http://www.damsafety.org/media/Documents/FEMA/AvailabilityOfDamInsurance.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)