Tokyo Electric may be held liable for nuclear plant explosions

[jpak]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/japan-quake-insurance-idUSL3E7EF3A920110315

(Reuters) - Tokyo Electric Power could still be held liable for the problems at its nuclear power plant as the Japanese government has not yet decided whether to classify Friday's devastating earthquake an "exceptional" natural disaster.

Japan's 1961 Act on Compensation for Nuclear Damage states the operator of a nuclear facility will not be responsible for any damage caused by their reactor if it was due to "a grave natural disaster of an exceptional character or by an insurrection".

Insurers of the nuclear plant have already cited this law to signal that claims are unlikely to be made following the explosions.

However, a person involved in this matter said the quake that hit Japan's northern coast is not yet considered as an exceptional natural disaster, adding that the official consensus will have to be made by the ministry for education, culture, sport, science and technology -- which is in charge of the law.

<more>

[LiberalFighter]

1. I would like to put the blame on TEP but considering the magnitude of the earthquake

how could they decide otherwise?

[Old and In the Way]

3. They could have decided a few things.

(1) Not site the plants on the edge of the ocean.
(2) Not locate the bu generators on the ground.
(3) Not put their energy investment in a technology that might be more profitable investment-wise, but ultimately more risky then other energy producing technologies. It's not like earthquakes/tsunamis just started happening in the last week.

[Old and In the Way]

2. If the magnitude of the damages get as large as I think they'll be,

they'll fold and the government/people of Japan will be left holding the bag. Which ought to be fair warning and consideration for any future nuclear construction anywhere in the world. The industry can't cover their 'worst case scenario' bets.

[FBaggins]

4. Who to hold accountable is one thing

but is there any doubt that it's an "exceptional" natural disaster?

My goodness... what would qualify if this doesn't?