xpost TEPCO: Radioactive substances belong to landowners, not us

[kristopher]

TEPCO: Radioactive substances belong to landowners, not us
Asahi Shimbun Weekly AERA

During court proceedings concerning a radioactive golf course, Tokyo Electric Power Co. stunned lawyers by saying the utility was not responsible for decontamination because it no longer "owned" the radioactive substances.

“Radioactive materials (such as cesium) that scattered and fell from the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant belong to individual landowners there, not TEPCO,” the utility said....

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201111240030

[Ian David]

1. Now we know what Hello Kitty is really made of. n/t

[peace13]

2. Look and learn people.

If you have one of these nuclear beasts in your neighborhood you too own the crap that lies within.....after it lands on your lawn!

[Kali]

3. unless it were somehow deemed valuable

then I have a hunch they would have a differing statement

[PamW]

6. WRONG! WRONG!!

If you have one of these nuclear beasts in your neighborhood you too own the crap that lies within.....after it lands on your lawn
================================

Precedents set in Japanese courts do not apply to the USA.

In case of an accident in the USA, the Price-Anderson Act makes the utility liable. The US Government
acts as a "no fault" insurer and dispenses funds to anyone with a valid claim. The US Government then
is reimbursed by the utility, or by all nuclear utilities pooling their assets should the assets of the
utility at fault be insufficient to cover the loss.

http://www.ans.org/pi/ps/docs/ps54-bi.pdf

PamW

[kristopher]

7. You'll get one right one of these days Pam, but not this time.

Here the owner/operator's insurance is roughly enough to cover the actual facilities that meltdown; what is left over for property and casualty damage off-site is virtually nothing.

A simple evaluation of coverage per person, should an accident occur at a reactor located close to a population center, helps to illustrate this point. Table 21 uses as an example a reactor at Calvert Cliffs, located near Washington, DC, and Baltimore, MD.
Available coverage, including pooled premiums from all other reactors (as stipulated under Price-Anderson), barely tops $1,100 per person in the Baltimore/Washington combined statistical area. This small amount would need to cover not only loss of property from an accident but also morbidity or mortality. The portion paid by Calvert Cliffs to cover the off-site accident risk from its own operations (Tier 1 coverage plus its share of Tier 2) would be a mere $60 per person affected. While the extent of the injuries would vary with the specifics of an accident, the weather at the time, and patterns of local settlement and construction, for a metropolitan area of this size it is clear that the coverage provided by Price- Anderson is not large.

Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies pg. 81
Doug Kaplow Sept 2010
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf



A simple evaluation of coverage per person, should an accident occur at a reactor located close to a population center, helps to illustrate this point.

...as an example a reactor at Calvert Cliffs, located near Washington, DC, and Baltimore, MD.

Available coverage, including pooled premiums from all other reactors barely tops $1,100 per person in the Baltimore/Washington combined statistical area.

This small amount would need to cover not only loss of property from an accident but also morbidity or mortality.

The portion paid by Calvert Cliffs to cover the off-site accident risk from its own operations ... would be a mere $60 per person affected.

While the extent of the injuries would vary with the specifics of an accident, the weather at the time, and patterns of local settlement and construction, for a metropolitan area of this size it is clear that the coverage provided by Price- Anderson is not large.

[PamW]

9. More PROPAGANDA!!

First, when we talk about Price-Anderson, we are talking about liability
insurance. On your automobile insurance, do you know the difference between
the figure listed for "liability" as opposed to "comprehensive"? The liability
covers losses sustained by others, while comprehensive takes care of your losses.

The Price-Anderson Act deals with liability; and not the losses of the utility.

I don't care what analysis you put forward; as I rely on the analysis done by
scientists and not anti-nuke activists. In preparation for the passage
of Price Anderson, the nuclear regulator at the time, the AEC; had a worst case
study done by Brookhaven National Lab. In order to be conservative, they even
assumed that the plant didn't have a containment.

The US style containment, as we saw in the Three Mile Island accident, worked very
well to bottle up the accident. In fact, the containment was 100% successful. The
releases due to TMI were all intentional. The utility vented a small portion of the
containment to the environment intentionally in order to reduce exposure of their workers.
The releases were within the licensed limits.

I know you won't like this; the anti-nukes never like it when it is pointed out that
the effects of TMI were hashed out in federal court when the neighbors of TMI sued
Metropolitan Edison, the operator.

One can read the decision of Chief Judge Sylvia Rambo of the District Court for
Eastern Pennsylvania when she dismissed the case without trial. Courtesy of PBS
Frontline:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/tmi.html

As is clear from the preceding discussion, the discrepancies between Defendants, proffer of evidence and that put forth by Plaintiffs in both volume and complexity are vast. The paucity of proof alleged in support of Plaintiffs, case is manifest. The court has searched the record for any and all evidence which construed in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs creates a genuine issue of material fact warranting submission of their claims to a jury. This effort has been in vain.


PamW

[kristopher]

10. You are getting closer Pam, that is "kinda sorta a little bitty bit" right.

"A new reactor at Calvert Cliffs, for example, must carry a total of only about $450 million ...in liability coverage for off-site damages under the Price-Anderson Act.
...In contrast ... Constellation Energy’s insurance coverage for damage to its own property and interruption of service is more than 14 times as high, at more than $6 billion."

6.1.4. Availability of Related Insurance Products Is Already Greater than the Supposed Maximums for Third-Party Damages

As noted above, primary insurance coverage levels have barely increased on a real-dollar basis in 50 years. The industry maintains that the under- writing capacity that would allow it to buy larger amounts of primary coverage does not exist. What is unclear, however, is whether this alleged lack of higher insurance levels is really a market structure issue or just an issue of price—whether with higher premiums the needed larger policies would emerge from marketplace insurance providers.

Evidence from related insurance markets sug- gests that the limitations may indeed be price- driven. This is because higher limits have emerged in a related market sector, involving the nuclear utilities’ wish to protect themselves from risk rather than third parties. A new reactor at Calvert Cliffs, for example, must carry a total of only about $450 million (present value—see Table 21) in liability coverage for off-site damages under the Price-Anderson Act. This includes both Tier 1 insurance and Tier 2 retrospective premiums. In contrast, based on a review of financial filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Constellation Energy’s insurance coverage for damage to its own property and interruption of service is more than 14 times as high, at more than $6 billion(Table 22).

NUCLEAR POWER:
Still Not Viable without Subsidies
Doug Koplow w/ Union of Concerned Scientists
Pg 82-83

Download here: http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-subsidies-report.html

"A new reactor at Calvert Cliffs, for example, must carry a total of only about $450 million ...in liability coverage for off-site damages under the Price-Anderson Act.
...In contrast ... Constellation Energy’s insurance coverage for damage to its own property and interruption of service is more than 14 times as high, at more than $6 billion."


Yes, Pam, I agree - those damned "anti-nuclear" activists!!!

How DARE those arrogant SOBs reveal the true story behind the nuclear industry's propaganda. Don't they know how much it adds to the cost of doing business to have to create and spread those lies?

Biography:
Doug Koplow founded Earth Track in 1999 to more effectively integrate information on energy subsidies. Over the past 17 years, Mr. Koplow has written extensively on natural resource subsidies for organizations such as the National Commission on Energy Policy, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Greenpeace, the Alliance to Save Energy, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. He has analyzed scores of government programs and made important developments in subsidy valuation techniques.

His work outside of the subsidy area has included water conservation, wastewater treatment, hazardous waste tracking, recycling, and brownfields redevelopment. Working collaboratively with other organizations, Earth Track focuses on ways to more effectively align the incentives of key stakeholder groups and to leverage market forces to help address complex environmental challenges. Mr. Koplow holds an MBA from the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration and a BA in economics from Wesleyan University. He served on United Nations Environment Programme's Working Group on Economic Instruments from 2001-2004; and the National Recycling Coalition's Policy Workgroup from 1998-2003.

http://www.eoearth.org/profile/Doug.koplow

"A new reactor at Calvert Cliffs, for example, must carry a total of only about $450 million ...in liability coverage for off-site damages under the Price-Anderson Act.
...In contrast ... Constellation Energy’s insurance coverage for damage to its own property and interruption of service is more than 14 times as high, at more than $6 billion."

[Dead_Parrot]

4. "Cleanup efforts should be done by the central and local governments."

ZOMG! Socialism!
:wtf:

[NickB79]

5. Funny how socialism is so evil until one of those big free-market companies makes a costly mess

Then they can't scream loud enough for government help.

[kristopher]

8. TEPCO denies responsibility for hot spring customer loss after March 11

TEPCO denies responsibility for hot spring customer loss after March 11

IBARAKI -- The first oral proceedings of a lawsuit filed by a hot spring facility here that seeks compensation from Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) for a drastic drop in customers since March 11 ended on Nov. 24 with TEPCO denying any responsibility for the situation.

"The reason why customers have declined since March 11 is because of damage the facility suffered in the earthquake and tsunami. It is not related to the crisis at the Fukushima No.1 Nuclear Power Plant," TEPCO representatives argued in a written statement that requested the court dismiss the facility's claims.

The hot spring facility "Shiosai no Yu" says that it suffered a major loss of customers since March 11 due to fears that the ocean and seafood -- the facility's main attractions -- are polluted by radiation leaking from the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant. The facility is located in the port town of Oarai approximately 130 kilometers from the nuclear plant.

"Due to the nuclear crisis we have lost our main sales point. With radiation still spreading from the nuclear plant and no clear sign of an end, it is understandable that prospective customers fear for their health. Their anxieties are not caused by simple rumors," the plaintiff asserted.

The hot spring facility...

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20111125p2a00m0na009000c.html



Maybe TEPCO has a point, why would people be worried? It isn't like the problem isn't under control, after all.
(insert mental image of neon sarcasm symbol here)

Cesium levels hit tens of billions of becquerels at river mouth
By EISUKE SASAKI/ Staff Writer

Researchers have sounded the alarm over river water containing cesium levels at tens of billions of becquerels a day flowing into the sea near Fukushima Prefecture, site of the crippled nuclear power plant.

A joint study by Kyoto University and the University of Tsukuba, among other entities, estimated that water at the mouth of the Abukumagawa river running through the prefecture was contaminated with cesium levels of about 50 billion becquerels a day.

They called for immediate and continued monitoring of the situation.

The daily radiation levels are equivalent to the total of amount of cesium in low-level contaminated water released into the sea in April by Tokyo Electric Power Co., operator of the stricken Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.

The Abukumagawa river runs...

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201111250019

[CJvR]

11. How generous...

...of them! LOL!