Ottawa boosting liability limit for nuclear companies
1 view
Skip to first unread message
shawn.patrick stensil
Nov 27, 2009, 1:34:13 PM11/27/09
to Stop Nuclear Subsidies
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ottawa-boosting-liability-limit-for-nuclear-companies/article1370605/
Martin Mittelstaedt
From Friday's Globe and Mail
Published on Thursday, Nov. 19, 2009 9:16PM EST
Last updated on Thursday, Nov. 26, 2009 2:56AM EST
.If something goes terribly wrong at a nuclear power plant, how much
liability should the operator bear?
The federal government is introducing a new limit of $650-million for
damages that can be claimed from nuclear companies after an accident
at one of their stations. The amount represents a massive leap from
the previous $75-million ceiling, which anti-nuclear groups called a
hidden subsidy.
Questions remain, however, as to whether the new amount would cover
all the claims due to the psychological trauma of living through such
a mishap, the health impacts of being showered with radiation and
damage to property.
The compensation figure, contained in a bill now before Parliament, is
much less than amounts in some other countries, including the United
States, Japan and Germany. Reactors in the U.S. have a call on about
$10-billion to cover accidents, the Japanese have about $1.4-billion
and the Germans have unlimited liability.
Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt is defending the new limit,
telling a parliamentary committee hearing on the proposal earlier this
month that the figure is in line with international standards and is a
fair compromise balancing “the needs of victims with society's
interest in nuclear development.”
Under the new legislation, once the $650-million is exhausted,
Parliament has the option, but not the obligation, to vote to give
additional funds to compensate victims. If it did vote to give out
money, it would potentially put taxpayers at risk of a huge bill for
damages.
The limit, which applies to such companies as Ontario Power
Generation, Hydro-Québec, and NB Power, has prompted controversy.
Greenpeace issued a report this week estimating there would be about
$50-billion in health damages from a worst-case accident at just one
of Ontario's Bruce stations, located on a relatively isolated section
of Lake Huron.
Shawn-Patrick Stensil, a spokesman for the group, said the new
compensation limit is “definitely not” adequate and would be quickly
used up by those with claims from a major incident. He said accidents
at the Pickering or Darlington stations, which are closer to the
densely populated region around Toronto, could have even larger
impacts.
He contended that because nuclear plant operators have a relatively
low limit on the amount of insurance they need to cover accidents,
they are able to sell power at rates that do not reflect the true
costs of generating it. It is special treatment that isn't available
to other industries. “This is a huge hidden subsidy,” he said of the
damage cap of $650-million.
The current $75-million compensation limit was established in 1976,
before such nuclear accidents as the one at Chernobyl in the former
Soviet Union in 1986 and at Three Mile Island in the U.S. in 1979.
But the nuclear industry and the federal government say such worst-
case, catastrophic accidents are extremely unlikely. George
Christidis, director of regulatory affairs for the Canadian Nuclear
Association, says the industry's safety record has been exemplary,
with no accident claims to date, justifying a cap on damages well
below the levels of a severe incident.
“There has never been an injury, a radiation-based injury” due to a
nuclear power plant mishap in Canada, he said.
Natural Resources Canada, in an e-mailed response to questions, said
that it based the liability limit in part on its estimates of the
effects of the “worst case foreseeable nuclear incidents” likely to
occur in Canada.
Mr. Christidis rejected claims the cap on damages amounts to a handout
to the nuclear industry, which he says plays a major role in promoting
exports and in generating power. “In our view, it's not seen as a
subsidy,” he said.
Under the proposed legislation, nuclear plant operators wouldn't be
liable for damages if their plants had accidents resulting from war,
civil war or insurrection, according to the Library of Parliament's
summary of its contents. However, payments will be made if a terrorist
attack causes the damages.
Martin Mittelstaedt
From Friday's Globe and Mail
Published on Thursday, Nov. 19, 2009 9:16PM EST
Last updated on Thursday, Nov. 26, 2009 2:56AM EST
.If something goes terribly wrong at a nuclear power plant, how much
liability should the operator bear?
The federal government is introducing a new limit of $650-million for
damages that can be claimed from nuclear companies after an accident
at one of their stations. The amount represents a massive leap from
the previous $75-million ceiling, which anti-nuclear groups called a
hidden subsidy.
Questions remain, however, as to whether the new amount would cover
all the claims due to the psychological trauma of living through such
a mishap, the health impacts of being showered with radiation and
damage to property.
The compensation figure, contained in a bill now before Parliament, is
much less than amounts in some other countries, including the United
States, Japan and Germany. Reactors in the U.S. have a call on about
$10-billion to cover accidents, the Japanese have about $1.4-billion
and the Germans have unlimited liability.
Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt is defending the new limit,
telling a parliamentary committee hearing on the proposal earlier this
month that the figure is in line with international standards and is a
fair compromise balancing “the needs of victims with society's
interest in nuclear development.”
Under the new legislation, once the $650-million is exhausted,
Parliament has the option, but not the obligation, to vote to give
additional funds to compensate victims. If it did vote to give out
money, it would potentially put taxpayers at risk of a huge bill for
damages.
The limit, which applies to such companies as Ontario Power
Generation, Hydro-Québec, and NB Power, has prompted controversy.
Greenpeace issued a report this week estimating there would be about
$50-billion in health damages from a worst-case accident at just one
of Ontario's Bruce stations, located on a relatively isolated section
of Lake Huron.
Shawn-Patrick Stensil, a spokesman for the group, said the new
compensation limit is “definitely not” adequate and would be quickly
used up by those with claims from a major incident. He said accidents
at the Pickering or Darlington stations, which are closer to the
densely populated region around Toronto, could have even larger
impacts.
He contended that because nuclear plant operators have a relatively
low limit on the amount of insurance they need to cover accidents,
they are able to sell power at rates that do not reflect the true
costs of generating it. It is special treatment that isn't available
to other industries. “This is a huge hidden subsidy,” he said of the
damage cap of $650-million.
The current $75-million compensation limit was established in 1976,
before such nuclear accidents as the one at Chernobyl in the former
Soviet Union in 1986 and at Three Mile Island in the U.S. in 1979.
But the nuclear industry and the federal government say such worst-
case, catastrophic accidents are extremely unlikely. George
Christidis, director of regulatory affairs for the Canadian Nuclear
Association, says the industry's safety record has been exemplary,
with no accident claims to date, justifying a cap on damages well
below the levels of a severe incident.
“There has never been an injury, a radiation-based injury” due to a
nuclear power plant mishap in Canada, he said.
Natural Resources Canada, in an e-mailed response to questions, said
that it based the liability limit in part on its estimates of the
effects of the “worst case foreseeable nuclear incidents” likely to
occur in Canada.
Mr. Christidis rejected claims the cap on damages amounts to a handout
to the nuclear industry, which he says plays a major role in promoting
exports and in generating power. “In our view, it's not seen as a
subsidy,” he said.
Under the proposed legislation, nuclear plant operators wouldn't be
liable for damages if their plants had accidents resulting from war,
civil war or insurrection, according to the Library of Parliament's
summary of its contents. However, payments will be made if a terrorist
attack causes the damages.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages