properties of source, special nuclear, or byproduct material.... 42 U.S.C. § 2014(q) (emphasis added). In its Amended Complaint, PADEP alleges that the release of Sr-90 caused “structural contamination” to the buildings at the site, which required those structures to be “remove[d] and dispose[d].” (Doc. 3, Amend. Compl. ¶ 19.) Furthermore, the public record reflects that “Sr-90 had leached to the surface of the concrete resulting in ... volumetric[ ] contamination].” Commission Notice, 71 Fed.Reg. at 59,840. These allegations are sufficient to meet the statutory definition of a “nuclear incident.” See Pa. v. Gen. Pub. Utils. Corp., 710 F.2d 117, 123 (3d Cir.1983), superceded by statute on other grounds as recognized by In re TMI Litig. Cases Consol. II, 940 F.2d 832, 857 (3d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). LMC also contends that it meets the second
holding evidence which established that use of property was permissive showed use of property was not adverse holding that buyers of real property who were in constructive possession of the property had made a down payment and had signed a contract to purchase at the time of the loss had an insurable interest in the property despite a court determination two years after the loss that the agreement to purchase was not binding holding that at that preliminary stages of litigation a claim of even temporary loss of use of property  irrespective of any causallyrelated permanent physical harm to property is adequate to assert the occurrence of a nuclear incident recognizing that a temporary use of property does not automatically create an expectation of privacy in that property holding that where the real value of an anchoring system design is in the idea not in the physical plans that memorialize it any loss in value of the design represents a loss in the value of the idea which is not a loss of use of tangible property