Prolonged closure at Flamanville plant after fire damage piles further financial pressure on state-owned energy firm
Image source EURDEP showing small spikes and a switch of yesterday, in the radiation monitoring in Cork Ireland (Maybe to hide radiation releases from Flamanville?). All of Irelands radiation monitoring network was switched off.
Prof Neil C Hyatt, head of nuclear materials chemistry at the University of Sheffield, said the lost revenue from the reactor closure in Normandy could be £1m per day.
“Bringing a nuclear power plant back online after an unscheduled outage is a complex task and EDF will want to ensure that all parts of the system are working safely and effectively. A short delay to complete the necessary checks is to be expected, given that the outage was unplanned,” he said.
Another expert said the cost of closure could be up to £1.8m per day, depending on energy market prices, and questioned why there was a delay.
“It took operator EDF almost a week to progressively correct the original outage estimate from one day to 50 days. EDF has provided no information as to why the outage time went from a few days to seven weeks,” said Mycle Schneider, a nuclear energy consultant based in Paris.
The 1.3GW reactor at Flamanville is one of a dozen of EDF’s French nuclear fleet currently offline, which the company said was usual for this time of the year
It did not say why the restart date for the reactor had been revised four times, or why it had jumped from a few days to more than six weeks.
John Large, a nuclear consultant who has advised the UK government, said initial reports that the fire was in a ventilator suggested the offline reactor would be back online within a week or two. Replacing such parts should be relatively straightforward, he said.
He added that the plant’s continued closure would also add to headaches at the French grid operator RTE, which warned of power cuts at the start of winter due to nuclear outages. “The continuing impact on the grid is likely to be significant, especially if a cold snap develops,” Large said.
A second reactor at the plant is still supplying electricity to the French grid. EDF said: “Work on recommissioning the affected equipment has started this week and should last several weeks, with reconnection to the grid planned for the end of March.”
But Mycle Schneider, who has advised a number of European governments on nuclear issues, said: “We are taling about very large sums of money. This is pie in the sky.”
21 February 2017 | By David Blackman
The government’s plans to quit the Euratom treaty pose a fresh threat to the UK’s increasingly embattled nuclear new build programme, a new report has warned.
Last month Brexit secretary David Davis confirmed its intention to pull out of Euratom, the European nuclear research agency that predates the European Union and its predecessors. The plans were included in explanatory notes to the Brexit Bill.
The decision was criticised by Tom Greatrex, the chief exectuive of the Nuclear Industry Association, who said: “The UK nuclear industry has made it crystal clear to the government that our preferred position is to maintain membership of Euratom. The nuclear industry is global, so the ease of movement of nuclear goods, people and services enables new build, decommissioning, R&D and other programmes of work to continue without interruption.”
Now a new study by the Institute of Mechanical Engineers (IME) says the government’s plans to quit the treaty could imperil fuel supplies, jeopardising energy security as well as threatening plans to build new nuclear reactors and decommissioning activities.
The IME said the government should create a transitional framework for the nuclear industry instead and as well as create new nuclear cooperation agreements (NCAs) with Euratom and non-EU trading countries ahead of leaving Euratom.
In particular, nuclear goods, services and research activities should be part of any new trade deals negotiated with the US, Canada, Australia, China and South Africa.
Dr Jenifer Baxter, head of energy and environment at IME and lead author of the report, said: “Without suitable transitional arrangements, the UK runs the risk of not being able to access the markets and skills that enable the construction of new nuclear power plants and existing power stations may also potentially be unable to access fuel.
“There needs to be a thorough framework in place to provide assurances on nuclear safety, nuclear proliferation and environmental issues.
Last week, the government’s nuclear new build ambitions were branded “pie in the sky” by an international energy expert who said it would not be able to afford the level of capital support required.
Reports suggested the Treasury was looking to sweeten deals for private investors by taking stakes in new nuclear power stations, worth up to 30%. But Mycle Schneider, who has advised a number of European governments on nuclear issues, said: “We are taling about very large sums of money. This is pie in the sky.”
GEAI has made a major submission to the Oireachtas Committee on Environment, Climate Action and Communications on the EPA-commissioned Unconventional Gas Exploration and Extraction (UGEE) Joint Research Programme. This Study had as its major research question: “Can UGEE be carried out while protecting the environment and human health?”
Conclusions do not reflect findings
We have discovered that the overall summary report did not reflect the findings of the five research reports, which more correctly should have highlighted that:
UGEE (fracking) operations globally have major impacts on the environment and on human health, but as human health was not included in the Terms of Reference for the study, the impact of fracking on human health was not included in the study.
There are several unknowns around the process of fracking globally and it is not possible to guarantee that hydraulic fracturing can be carried out without contamination of groundwater and air.
The hydrogeological profile of the Northwest Carboniferous Basin (mainly Leitrim and Fermanagh) is heavily faulted with deep-seated aquifers and shallow shales, which makes it unsuitable for fracking.
Sellafield’s ongoing failure to meet its obligations to an international Strategy is the subject of a CORE critique submitted to OSPAR’s recent Radioactive Substances Committee meeting. CORE’s investigation has revealed that the UK and Sellafield have repeatedly failed to comply with the principal objectives of the Strategy – the ‘progressive’ and ‘substantial’ reduction of discharges from Sellafield’s B205 (magnox) and THORP (oxide) reprocessing facilities.
Along with other European governments, the UK signed up in 1998 to the Strategy designed by the OSPAR (Oslo/Paris) Commission to protect and conserve the North East Atlantic maritime region. Sellafield’s failure to date to meet the discharge reduction objectives has significantly threatened the Strategy’s ultimate aim of ensuring that, by 2020, levels of radioactive substances in the sea are ‘close to zero’ above historic levels.
CORE’s spokesman Martin Forwood said today: ‘Sellafield’s failure, aided and abetted by successive UK Governments, makes a mockery of the corporate claim that environmental stewardship is a core value of the company, and we await a response to our findings from the UK Government’s Head of Delegation to OSPAR’s committee meeting last week. We have also warned OSPAR that, for its Strategy to retain any shred of credibility, it needs to get a grip on those who fail to comply and, contrary to claims in its most recent report, acknowledge the routine breaches by the UK and Sellafield’.
OSPAR’s most recent report the Fourth Periodic Evaluation was published by its Radioactive Substances Committee in October last year. Assessing Sellafield’s discharges between the period 2007- 2013 and comparing them with those from 1995 onwards, the report concluded that ‘no assessments of contracting parties showed any evidence of any increase in discharges.
That claim is roundly debunked by CORE whose investigation has found that, as a Contracting Party, the UK has overseen multiple increases of discharges from Sellafield over the years, including the 2007-2013 period covered by the recent OSPAR publication. The main findings of CORE’s report are that:
• Sellafield’s reprocessing discharges, driven largely by commercial interests, have routinely breached the principal discharge reduction objectives of the Strategy and will continue to do so until the end of reprocessing around 2020. • OSPAR has failed to censure the UK – as a contracting party – for non-compliance with and lack of commitment to the Strategy.
The graphic shows that, contrary to the ‘progressive’ discharge reduction required by the Strategy, Sellafield’s reprocessing throughput (tonnes of spent fuel/year) has fluctuated widely in ‘yo-yo’ fashion since 1995 – with correlated fluctuations in discharge. As has been pointed out to OSPAR, the only ‘substantial’ reduction (2004/05) shown in the graphic resulted from the major accident that closed THORP for almost three years and that, since that event and for the 2007-2013 period of OSPAR’s Fourth Periodic Evaluation, discharges are again on the rise to further compromise the prospect of meeting the 2020 ‘close to zero’ target.
The risk of missing that target was recognised a decade ago by Sellafield and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) when both were advocating that the then predicted end of reprocessing around 2012 would allow a number of years – a clear breathing space – for the radioactive substance levels to reduce/decay to close to zero by 2020.
But as a result of poor plant performance, the subsequent extensions of reprocessing and its discharges – THORP to 2018/19 and B205 to 2020 – has removed any remaining breathing space. Such an outcome was recognised by the NDA in 2010 with the suggestion to ‘move to a contingency plan – i.e. agree not to meet OSPAR deadline(emphasis added) or put in place a different strategy’. The suggestion epitomises the apparent disdain of officialdom towards the Strategy.
EDF and decentralised energy. Les Echos, the French business newspaper, carried an extraordinary article from a Senior Vice President of EdF, the largely state-owned utility that will build the nuclear reactor at Hinkley Point in England. Mark Boillot contends that ‘large nuclear or thermal power plants designed to function as baseload are challlenged by the more flexible decentralized model’.
He says that the centralised model of power production is dying, to be replaced by local solar and wind, supplemented by batteries and intelligent management of supply and demand. Not only will this be cheaper in the long run but customers are actually prepared to pay more for solar electricity and actively work to reduce usage at times of shortage.
His conclusion is that ‘the traditional model must adapt to the new realities, thus allowing the utilities to emerge from …hypercentralized structures in a world that is becoming more and more decentralized’.
In most jurisdictions Mr Boillot would have been asked to clear his desk. What will EdF do about one of its most senior people openly forecasting the end of the large power station as it tries to raise the ten billion Euros necessary to pay for its share of Hinkley?
During the meeting, Yun also expressed Seoul’s skepticism about opening any dialogue over North Korea’s demand to sign a peace treaty, the sources said. Pursuing talks with North Korea simultaneously on denuclearization and a peace treaty would give the regime an excuse to delay its denuclearization, Yun was also quoted as telling Tillerson
Foreign minister Yun dissuades Tillerson from reward-for-nuclear freeze deal with N. Korea: sources
2017/02/21 12:24
SEOUL, Feb. 21 (Yonhap) — Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se has voiced South Korea’s reservations about any U.S. agreement with North Korea that would reward Pyongyang for a nuclear freeze, sources said Tuesday, referring to the policymaker’s recent talks with American Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
Instead, any deal with Pyongyang should aim to dismantle North Korea’s nuclear weapons program in a “complete, verifiable and irreversible” manner, the sources quoted Yun as telling Tillerson during their talks in Bonn, Germany on Thursday,
It was Yun’s first meeting with the U.S.’ top diplomat under the Donald Trump administration, which came after North Korea’s launch of an intermediate ballistic missile on Feb. 12. The provocation highlighted North Korea’s nuclear issue as one of the most pressing security challenges facing the new U.S. administration.
The sources said that the South Korean foreign minister stressed that a mere freeze on North Korea’s nuclear program would be meaningless mainly because the country is believed to be already in possession of dozens of nuclear weapons and a freeze of North Korea’s highly-enriched uranium program may be hardly verifiable.
“The (South Korean) government regards it as meaningless to pursue a freeze deal when North Korea shows no intention to give up its nuclear weapons program although freezing its nuclear facilities would be part of the inevitable process before the complete, verifiable and irreversible (nuclear) dismantlement,” the sources told Yonhap News Agency.
During the meeting, Yun also expressed Seoul’s skepticism about opening any dialogue over North Korea’s demand to sign a peace treaty, the sources said. Pursuing talks with North Korea simultaneously on denuclearization and a peace treaty would give the regime an excuse to delay its denuclearization, Yun was also quoted as telling Tillerson.
The foreign minister then underlined the importance of maintaining the on-going pressure-oriented diplomacy toward North Korea, suggesting broader sanctions on North Korea and Chinese firms doing business with the North. He also called for continuing pressure on North Korea’s human rights violations as a desirable policy approach toward the reclusive country, according to the sources.
Yun’s policy stances are likely to be put to discussion when the South Korean and U.S. representatives on the North Korean nuclear issue hold a meeting in Washington possibly before the end of this month.
……..The 21st century has brought new challenges. Toshiba logged a net loss of 254 billion yen after the information technology bubble burst. The financial crisis put the manufacturer 398.8 billion yen in the red, and the accounting scandal gave rise to a 460 billion yen loss. Each time, the company managed a recovery by selling off operations such as liquid crystal display panels, medical equipment and dynamic random-access memory chips, known as DRAM.
Now, amid the fourth crisis of this century, onlookers seem less willing to cut Toshiba slack. The earnings delay and plunge into negative net worth have sparked overwhelming selling of Toshiba stock, with the shares falling from around 250 yen apiece to 186 yen by the end of Monday. If the company ends the fiscal year with net worth below zero, it will drop from the Tokyo Stock Exchange’s first section to its second section.
“Are corporate governance measures actually functioning?” Kazutoshi Inano, chairman of the Japan Securities Dealers Association, asked Wednesday. Sources at the TSE called the reporting delay “routine.”
Toshiba sees the need to relinquish control of memory operations to escape the latest pinch, and will begin anew negotiating the sale.
“Don’t be discouraged — keep doing your best,” Tsunakawa told employees in a broadcast on the evening of the 14th. “We’ll do all that we can.”…….
Award-winning journalist Karl Grossman shares insights on the Indian Point Closure Agreement, the hidden manipulation tactics of the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) and gives us examples on how activists have successfully scuttled nuclear industry plans.
The interview begins with a discussion on Indian Point. In response to Libbe Halevy`s question on these New York based plants Karl Grossman cut straight to the chase;
“These are 2 aged problem plagued, beyond disasters, waiting to happen”
He goes onto say that here are 2 reactors leaking tritium into the Hudson River and that the plants have been called by a representative of River Keeper NGO;
“The biggest existential threats in the region”
The plants are just 30 miles from Times Square NY. There are 20 million people within 50 miles of these nuclear plants. Present arrangements for closure (and not quickly enough according to Karl) are that Indian Point 2 will be closed in April of 2020 and Indian Point 3 by the end of April 2021.
Looking at the extensive agreement with Entergy, Karl points out that all the nuclear workers will be re-trained at the states expense to work with the new renewable technologies that will replace them. Karl thinks that this is a good escape agreement. He does mention that if there was some unforeseen emergency that the plants lifespan could be extended another 2 years beyond the agreed closure date.
“Their record (the nuclear plants) has been absolutely abysmal and continues to be abysmal, in fact, my dear friend Harvey Wasserman said they are not disasters waiting to happen but disasters already happening and have been happening for many years” and goes onto say “These plants have been operating without licenses”
Entergy had been trying to get the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to rubber stamp the extension of these plants and the NRC had already given 85 reactors out 99 a twenty year extensions so far.
This means that most US plants now have 60 year lifespans (20 years over their planned lifespan) and the nuclear lobby is trying to get yet another 20 year extension to run the plants for up to 80 years!
Another problem Karl see with these long life extensions is that the NRC has also allowed the reactors to run hotter and harder to produce more electricity.
“ Its like taking an 80 year old car on the interstate and then running it at 90 miles an hour which is like asking for a catastrophe, asking for a disaster, so in light of this the closure (even though it is four years away)of the Indian Point plants is my judgment good news”
Libbe then presses Karl to define the clauses within the new agreement that might allow the plants to run for longer. Karl then goes onto say that the main issue being brought up by the nuclear lobby is what will replace the lost capacity? Karl explains that Governor Cuomo has put in place a program of development of renewable energy sources with off shore wind turbines being the main replacement source. The very first off shore wind farm began operating off Block Island in December 2016 (five wind turbines) and that the next phase will be off New Jersey south of NY city and a Norwegian company will be building in central Long Island as well.
Karl goes onto say that steps toward energy efficiency have also made an impact in reducing the need for electrical capacity and that the concerns of the nuclear lobby in this area, that the missing 2000 megawatts from the nuclear plants, will be offset by these projects and other projects including solar.
On the issue of Solar panels Karl mentions his homes solar capacity and indeed many homes in the US that have solar energy for their domestic use because of the huge reduction in cost of solar panels and associated equipment over recent years. Some of the new panels have as much as 36 percent efficiency, a marked improvement from years past. Karl makes these points that will ensure that the nuclear capacity will not be needed and Libbe points out the bonus factor of having an energy source that will not kill us as well!
Karl talks of the Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences (CRAC 2) written by the NRC at Sandia National Laboratories (certainly a pro nuclear report). This report covers every nuclear power plant in the USA and reports on accidents that can happen to each plant and the consequences. The figures for the core meltdown accident at Indian Point 2 say that peak early fatalities 46,000 people would be effected peak early injuries 141,000 and and peak cancer deaths 13,000
“I think this is an under estimate”
and a cost of 274 billion dollars (At 1980 costings from the report) which at scale cost today might be 1 trillion dollars.
“A portion of the USA rendered uninhabitable because of radioactivity”
Indian Point 3 would give about the same kind of damage to health and the economy but slightly higher (10 to 20 percent higher). If the accident happened in the winter, as is the case now, the contamination plume would be heading directly south towards New York City center.
Libbe then brought up a recent article Karl did on Enformable (and other online journals) in which he talked with an engineer from Indian Point with 30 years experience. And as the story of the Indian Point nuclear agreement was breaking in the New York Times, this General Electric whistleblower said he didn`t want give his name but he had some important information to offer.
Karl was a bit reticent to use an unnamed source but the information concerning how the nuclear industry manages nuclear incidents and other bad news was just too important to not report on. The main issue is with color coded reports and this engineer said that he had seen about 100 of the most serious red colored national reports (that denotes an incident that could lead to a nuclear reactor core meltdown). The whistleblower said that it was not right that the public could not see these reports.
“INPO is a private organization that cant be accessed by the Freedom of Information Act and that is so wrong” said Karl.
The whistle blower told Karl that the NRC watchdogs can not make surprise inspections either. The watchdogs need to get permission from the upper management of the plant giving the lower managers time to clean up the problem. The engineer then went on to tell Karl that the industry has “thrown out the window” all the older and comprehensive reactor life time studies to enable the 60 and 80 years extension applications.
“They will ignore the standards to benefit their wallets, for greed, with total disregard for the countries safety”
On the green myth that nuclear does not produce greenhouse gases, the engineer went on to say that the industry ignores the whole nuclear manufacturing processes (mining, milling, fuel, processing etc) that do create greenhouse gases. The whistleblower was still concerned with Indian Point although they are due for closure.
How to trump Trumps nuclear plans!
Libbe then asks Karl what strategies will the nuclear industry use to keep nuclear plants open and earning them money?
Karl mentions an added problem concerning president Trump as well as the nuclear industry lobby. He quotes an article from Bloomberg where the Trump administration was asking how they might keep nuclear power alive. Karls main concerns are to do with how the Trump administration might block the increasing surge in renewable growth. He talked about how Eminent Domain was used by the NY state to threaten to take land and assets from the nuclear Industry if they did not close Shoreham nuclear plant down and cease plans for further nuclear reactors.
“Now Long Island is nuclear free”
Another strategy used recently to block the nuclear industry concerns the pollution outflows from nuclear plants where the local government refused to allow Entergy to get a permit. This and the fact that nuclear is no competition for the renewables that are planned, meant that Entergy had to give up its plans for further nuclear in NY State. Karl goes on to talk about the successful fight against the Brookhaven National Laboratory.
“Long Island is nuclear free, the notion, the myth that you can`t fight City hall - that`s a myth created by City hall – You can fight City Hall and you can win! And even in dark times, I mean that even the fight against B Shoreham and Locus nuclear power scheme and for many nuclear plants, that went off during the time of Reagan (and) the first George Bush, these were hard times politically because of the nature of the people in the Whitehouse and now I think we are going to have, I fear, as dark a time- If you can imagine; even darker and if the people organize, if the people act, if the people resist, they can win and just let me add as a footnote; In the fight against Shoreham there were different organizations with different strategies….”
Karl then goes on to explain the different strategies used by these different groups and that to get good people elected is a priority and that all the groups should be working together. Karl mentions that to fight against the nuclear industry we should work locally, nationally and globally.
In the USA Beyond Nuclear and Radiation and Public Health with Joe Mangano. NIRS.org Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace to name a few are worth supporting.
INPO Fukushima Lessons learned August 2012 (shows how much the costs of nuclear reactors are going to go up if the recommendations on this are followed. There is little mentioned on the local and downwind populations health risks) https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1221/ML12219A131.pdf
Soucewatch on the NEI(who work closely with INPO) – According to its website, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is “the policy organization of the nuclear energy and technologies industry and participates in both the national and global policy-making process. NEI’s objective is to ensure the formation of policies that promote the beneficial uses of nuclear energies and technologies in the United States and around the world.” http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Nuclear_Energy_Institute
Day 8 Royal Courts of Justice, 22nd June 2016 cross examination of Mr Rick Hallard, ex-BNFL Sellafeld, witness for the Secretary of State for Defence
Page 145 146 147
Cross-examination by DR BUSBY
16 DR BUSBY: Mr Hallard, good afternoon. I want to start just to explore something about your function in the arguments that are going on in this Tribunal. I want to start by asking you about your work history with the nuclear industry. It’s true that from the time you left university until quite recently you worked for the nuclear industry and for a long time at British Nuclear Fuels, Sellafield.
(Mr Rick Hallard) A. I did.
Q. Now, what I want to ask you is a question about the scientific culture, ways of seeing the picture, if you like. I mean, for example, you must have been at Sellafield for much of the time that this discussion was going on about the childhood leukaemia cluster at Seascale?
A. Yes.
Q. And it’s correct, is it not, that for a long time — perhaps even as far as I know up until the present day — the argument has been that the statistically significant excess of childhood leukaemia at Seascale could not have been caused by the radiation because the doses were too low, is that fair?
A. I think that’s a fair summary. As I understand it, I think from the most recent COMARE report that I’ve read I think the size of the cluster is actually starting to shrink now, if that’s the correct term, that the excess is getting smaller if my memory serves me correctly. But you’re quite right, there has been —
Q. But there is still an excess —
A. There is still an excess risk there.
Q. — risk of childhood leukaemia. Of course childhood leukaemia is a well known consequence of exposure to ionising radiation, is it not?
A. Ionising radiation, yes, is a possible cause. I don’t think it’s the only one.
Q. No, of course not. But I think basically what I’m asking you is this: that does it not seem curious to you that here you have evidence of an effect, which is an effect that can be caused by radiation, it’s a well known consequence of exposure to radiation, and causation has been denied because you start with the dose rather than looking at the effect and working backwards to the dose. Is that a fair —
A. Okay, there’s quite a lot I could say about that.
Q. Well, of course, please do.
A. I think — sorry, I’m just getting my thoughts together when I said that.
Q. It’s just that I think that this is an important area because what’s happening here also in this Tribunal is very largely the same thing. On the one hand people are saying the doses are too low to cause the effect. On the other hand a lot of people are saying “Hey, look here’s a lot of effects and surely we should be working from the effects back to the doses,” or at least there are some people who are saying that. It’s a reasonable logical inference, if you like.
A. Okay.
MR JUSTICE BLAKE: You got the gist of that question?
A. I have.
MR JUSTICE BLAKE: That maybe the hypothesis of childhood leukaemia in Sellafield should make us question the dose.
A. I understand, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE BLAKE: I tried to summarise but I think that’sthe question.
A. Yes.
MR JUSTICE BLAKE: Yes.
A. Childhood leukaemia in Seascale has been a cause of concern for many years, not least among the Sellafield workforce, because of course some of the children were children of the Sellafield workforce and in fact I knew one of them. So it has been a cause of significant worrying concern, as indeed have some of the other episodes. When Dr Gardner came on to the site to explain his hypothesis that caused a great deal of concern. I heard him give his presentation. That was another theory about the possible cause of the leukaemia excess in Sellafield. That caused a great deal of worry. It changed quite a lot of practices on the site as well. But I think the most important — and can I just stress first of all that I’m not a epidemiologist. I hope that’s understood.
DR BUSBY: Of course. I just wondered
Citizen’s groups on Friday delivered a petition with more than 11,300 signatures to three of Japan’s mega-banks to demand they halt funding for the Dakota Access Pipeline reinstated by U.S. President Donald Trump.
A group of concerned citizens started the online petition last December at Change.org. They are calling on Mizuho Bank, Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, and the Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group to withdraw their funding for the Dakota Access Pipeline, saying the $3.7 billion project threatens Lake Oahe, the indigenous Standing Rock Sioux Nation’s only source of drinking water in North Dakota.
The three banks did not disclose the amount of money they’ve put up, but according to Food & Water Watch, a Washington-based nongovernmental organization, they have more than $1.4 billion invested in the project.
“Banks are financing projects with our deposits without our knowledge of where the money goes,” said Ian Shimizu, an organizer with 350.org Japan, another nongovernmental organization. “More people should know about it.”
The petition said the three banks are violating their own human rights values.
All three have adopted the so-called Equator Principle that determines, assesses and manages environmental and social risk in project financing.
While citizens’ groups assert the pipeline project breaches the principle, all three banks said they in general abide by the Equator Principle and finance projects with much consideration for the environment and human rights issues.
Following massive protests and campaigning, two of Norway’s largest financial institutions last year withdrew their funding for the project due to human rights and environmental concerns.
The delivery of the petition in Tokyo came as Trump is upping efforts to undo the legacy of his predecessor, President Barack Obama.
Obama’s team last December denied Energy Transfer Partners, the developer of the pipeline, the permit needed to complete construction of the pipeline. But Trump ordered the secretary of the army to advance construction as soon as possible after his swearing-in.
The pipeline is seen as an embodiment of Trump’s “America First” policy. Energy Transfer Partners say it will carry 470,000 barrels of oil a day from the oil fields of western North Dakota to Illinois and create thousands of construction jobs and fuel the economy.
But members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and environmental groups view the project as threatening the environment and their culture.
The route crosses their ancestral lands, and there is concern about environmental damage should it rupture near the Missouri River.
“It is a violation against the rights of indigenous people,” said Akemi Shimada, an Ainu woman, head of Greater Tokyo Ainu Community House Project, who was one of the people who helped deliver the petition. “Trump should understand the rights of indigenous people to live harmoniously with nature.”
There have been massive protests against construction near the site, and the United Nations last October started an investigation on potential human rights violations against Native American protesters by North Dakota law enforcement officials.
But on Monday a U.S. court judge denied a restraining order that would have suspended the construction, and North Dakota Gov. Doug Bergum Thursday ordered the protesters to evacuate their camp.
Day 9 cross examination of Dr Haylock, UKHPA (National Radiological Protection Board) witness for the Secretary of State for Defence. Royal Courts of Justice, 23rd June 2016
Pages 36 37 38 AND 39
(DR BUSBY) Q: Okay, well, in that case let’s just go to SB7/113. This is the last question.
MR JUSTICE BLAKE: Yes. This is the mortality experience of A bomb survivors?
DR BUSBY: That’s correct, my Lord. This is the 1973 annual report from the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission.
(DR HAYLOCK) A. I have it.
Q. Can I take you to page 6 of that report?
MR JUSTICE BLAKE: Right.
DR BUSBY: Now this report is interesting because it was one of the first reports that said what it’s saying —
MR JUSTICE BLAKE: Which paragraph do you want to take us to?
DR BUSBY: We’re looking at “comparison group”.
MR JUSTICE BLAKE: Do you see that, about in the middle ofthe page?
A. I have it.
DR BUSBY: It says: “In order to ascertain the effects of radiation exposure, it is necessary to compare the mortality experience of a population exposed to ionising radiation with a comparison or control population.” Would you agree with that as a sort of general epidemiological statement?
A. It’s one way. I don’t believe it’s the only way or even the best way.
Q. Right: “For this purpose a group of people who were not present in the cities was included in the sample.” Would that have seemed a reasonable thing to do?
A. It depends what question you want to answer.
Q. I think the question — you know the question they want to answer. Perhaps you could tell us the question they want to answer?
18 A. Well, if you are saying if you want to compare that group with the group who were exposed to the bombs and compare their health, then —
Q. I asked you what the question was that they wanted to answer.
23 MR JUSTICE BLAKE: Well —
DR BUSBY: Could you answer that question?
MR JUSTICE BLAKE: Well, do you know what question was being posed by the authors of this study? And therefore I think you are then being asked as to whether what they said they were doing by way of a comparison group was an appropriate —
A. I think they are trying to compare and see if the health of the people who were exposed to the bombs is significantly worse than that of the group that wasn’t in the city at the time of the bomb.
DR BUSBY: Well, could you agree —
MR JUSTICE BLAKE: If that’s the purpose, then is what they have done — I think you are being asked to comment upon the methodology.
13 A. I believe there was an issue with this in that when it was looked at the not in city group —
DR BUSBY: We haven’t got a lot of time.
MR JUSTICE BLAKE: Sorry, what’s the question? Ask the question.
DR BUSBY: I have asked him the question, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE BLAKE: Do it again because I don’t think —
DR BUSBY: What was the purpose of this study?
MR JUSTICE BLAKE: Well, he has told you the answer.
DR BUSBY: In that case we can move on.
MR JUSTICE BLAKE: Right.
DR BUSBY: We are going to go to the bottom of this page now.
MR JUSTICE BLAKE: Low mortality?
DR BUSBY: It says: “The low mortality for the not in city group would have the effect of exaggerating the difference in mortality between the heavily exposed population and the control group.”
A. Right.
Q. This is what they are saying. I ask you to accept that that’s what they are saying, really, because we are going to go on to the killer point over the page.
A. I agree that’s the point they wanted to make.
Q. Yes, right. Can we go to the next page, 7, top of the page now?
14 A. Mm-hm.
Q. “The use of the low dose survivors as a comparison group is endorsed by the Subcommittee on Somatic Effects of the Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionising Radiations. It was felt that ‘some relatively small contaminations on the side of dosimetry is potentially less disturbing than the known large differences that mark the NIC group with respect to occupation, social class, and perhaps other factors’.” Does that seem reasonable to you?
A. It does.
Q. So can we go back to page 6 now, right at the bottom, and see what they are talking about. So going back to that last paragraph, where they say: “Although the tables include comparisons between early and late entrants and between the not in city and exposed populations, the discussions will be confined mostly to the comparison between the mortality of a low dose group and the more heavily exposed population groups.”
What does that mean?
A. As I understand it, it means that they are not using the not in city group as an appropriate comparison group but doing essentially a within comparison, where you’re looking at people who were, they think, lowly exposed at the time of the bomb versus people who are more highly exposed to see if there’s a difference in that exposure.
16 Q. Thank you. So they threw out their control group, is that correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 DR BUSBY: Yes. That’s all. No further questions.
Day 8 cross examination of Dr Haylock, UKHPA (National Radiological Protection Board) witness for the Secretary of State for Defence. Royal Courts of Justice, 22nd June 2016 (PAGES 117 AND 118)
(DR BUSBY) Q: Well, like the Sellafield paper, here is a paper that also appears to show evidence that there was an effect in northern Sweden from the Chernobyl accident [Tondel et al 2004]. Do you agree with the authors of this paper that that is so?
(DR HAYLOCK) A. No.
Q. No. Why not?
A. It’s a generally a poor quality paper and I don’t believe the fact that it uses geographical distribution of doses in place of actual individual doses to be a good point, and therefore I’m not convinced by the evidence in it.
Q. Do you recall if the ICRP — and you can see here that this was written in 2004 — do you recall if the ICRP included discussion of this evidence in its 2007 report?
A. I do not recall.
Q. Well, I mean, it actually didn’t, but if it didn’t, would you find that unusual or unacceptable?
A. No, because I don’t believe it’s a good quality study.
Q. Quite. So the ICRP probably also don’t consider it’s a good quality study?
A. I’m not a member of ICRP to respond to that.
Q. But my point is that scientists, therefore, who have a particular view of things can decide whether a study, or what I might call the facts are acceptable on the basis of their decision whether the study is good or not. So they can exclude something from their particular world view.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you think that’s acceptable, that you can actually exclude facts from your world view on the basis of a subjective decision?
A. I think if you review a paper and you feel that the evidence isn’t of sufficient quality then you should reject it and that is the case, I believe, with this paper. It doesn’t meet the threshold for good evidence.
Q. So it’s therefore possible that a particular view about whether some area is right — we’re talking about the ICRP risk model now — can be, if you like, put into a bubble and any evidence that shows that it may be wrong can be just excluded on the subjective decision of the people in the ICRP who don’t like it, if I can putit like that?
MR JUSTICE BLAKE: Well, he has explained the answer. I don’t think you are going to get much change from this kind of question. It’s not a question of “don’t like it”. It is suggested that the evidence supporting the conclusion is not sufficiently robust to sustain the conclusion, if I understood your answer correctly?
A. That’s correct, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE BLAKE: If, therefore, the method the methodology and the conclusion, is insufficiently robust to sustain the conclusion, it’s not considered evidence which requires a response from ICRP. Yes?
A. Yes, my Lord, yes.
The French military authorities reportedly intended to “study the physical and psychological effect of nuclear weapons on humans” and find out whether soldiers were “able to continue fighting” if a nuclear strike would have taken place in the conditions of a war.
In the 1960s, France carried out nuclear tests in Algeria to study the effects of radiation on humans. However, Algerians are still struggling to cope with the consequences of the French atomic experiments.
In the 1960s, France carried out nuclear tests in Algeria to study the effects of radiation on humans. However, Algerians are still struggling to cope with the consequences of the French atomic experiments.Algeria is demanding financial compensation from the French authorities for the nuclear tests they carried out in the Sahara desert in the 1960s.
According to Algerian military expert, Colonel Muhammed Halfawi, “France recognizes the fact that it carried out nuclear and chemical tests, but refuses to pay compensation to the victims.”
“Jointly with these people, we are actively urging France to pay compensation to the families of the victims of the explosion and those who have suffered from the effects of these tests,” Halwafi told Sputnik France.
“There are documentaries that reveal how the tests had been conducted. They show that at that time the French did not have an accurate understanding of the force of the explosion. You can see how the generals hastily left the site on the aircraft, because the power of the bomb significantly exceeded their calculations.”
Algerian officials recently held a national forum on “French nuclear tests in the Algerian Sahara, and their effect on humans and the environment.” The event was timed to the 57th anniversary of the nuclear experiments conducted on February 13, 1960.
According to Halfawi, the Algerians have been fighting for justice for a long time.
“Confessions on a political level are not enough. The families of those who died or became disabled are living among us. The nuclear tests will have effects for millions of years. France should recognize the rights of these people,” Halfawi concluded.
France carried out nuclear tests on its servicemen in the 1960s to study the effect of radiation on humans, according to a secret report uncovered by French media several years ago.The 260-page document, reported by Le Parisien newspaper in 2010, said the experiments were carried out on French soldiers in the Algerian Sahara desert in 1960-1966.
According to the report, the experiments, intended to study the possibility of carrying out offensive and defensive operations in a contaminated area, involved some 300 infantrymen and tank crews, the paper said.
The French military authorities reportedly intended to “study the physical and psychological effect of nuclear weapons on humans” and find out whether soldiers were “able to continue fighting” if a nuclear strike would have taken place in the conditions of a war.
Controversially, the MoD has its own internal nuclear regulator, which critics say lacks independence and cannot hold top brass to account over safety issues.
NIS research manager David Cullen said: ‘Our report shows the MoD’s response to an accident is to downplay it and to hope nobody noticed it. With nuclear weapons, the risks are so large the MoD should not be allowed to continue to regulate itself.’
A catalogue of more than 100 incidents show how close we came to disaster
The figure is four times higher than the Ministry of Defence has ackowledged
This included a truck carrying weapons overturning and two submarines nearly colliding
A chilling catalogue of more than 100 accidents involving Britain’s nuclear weapons reveals for the first time how often we may have come close to disaster.
The shock report by an independent nuclear watchdog documents 110 major alerts – four times higher than the Ministry of Defence has acknowledged.
Among the incidents in the dossier by the Nuclear Information Service (NIS), which has been seen by The Mail on Sunday, are:
British warships carrying nuclear depth charges by mistake in the 1982 Falklands War;
a mid-Atlantic collision between nuclear-armed British and French submarines in 2009;
a truck carrying nuclear warheads overturning on an icy road in Wiltshire in 1987;
the deaths of 116 UK nuclear workers from accidents and cancer.
The MoD’s sole comprehensive report on accidents involving nuclear weapons was published in 2003 and detailed just 27 incidents.
The NIS dossier follows the recent disclosure that a British Trident submarine-launched missile crashed into the Atlantic last year in an incident that was apparently hushed up ahead of MPs voting to renew the UK’s commitment to an independent nuclear deterrent.
Drawing upon whistleblower and eyewitness accounts, along with news reports and academic sources, the NIS has counted 27 fires at UK nuclear establishments, 14 serious accidents in the production of nuclear weapons and eight explosions since Britain developed atomic weapons.
There have also been 22 incidents on road transport; eight incidents involving storage and handling; 45 accidents on nuclear-capable submarines, ships and aircraft; and 21 ‘security incidents’, according to the report – entitled Playing With Fire – to be released this week.
According to experts at the NIS, the incidents have been caused by equipment failures, shortages of key safety items and staff failing to follow strict instructions and safety procedures, and some could have resulted in nuclear explosions.
Last night, the NIS called for Britain’s Defence Nuclear Programme to be placed under the responsibility of the Office for Nuclear Regulation, which regulates the civil nuclear industry.
Controversially, the MoD has its own internal nuclear regulator, which critics say lacks independence and cannot hold top brass to account over safety issues.
NIS research manager David Cullen said: ‘Our report shows the MoD’s response to an accident is to downplay it and to hope nobody noticed it. With nuclear weapons, the risks are so large the MoD should not be allowed to continue to regulate itself.’
It claims there have been seven deaths after industrial accidents at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, where nuclear warheads are manufactured
The NIS report goes back to the creation of Britain’s nuclear deterrent in 1952. It claims there have been seven deaths after industrial accidents at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, where nuclear warheads are manufactured.
A further nine people have apparently died from radioactive contamination. A fire at the Windscale reactor in Cumbria in 1957 is said to have caused 100 fatal cancers among workers.
The report also claims the MoD launched a cover-up after a collision between a British and a French submarine – both carrying nuclear warheads – in the Atlantic in 2009.
HMS Vanguard and Le Triomphant were apparently on separate manoeuvres when the vessels bumped into each other at a depth of 1,000ft in the Bay of Biscay. The MoD insisted that at no time was the safety of the subs or their crews in any jeopardy. But the NIS report includes testimony from an unnamed officer on Vanguard, who said: ‘We thought, this is it, we’re all going to die.’
An information blackout was also imposed by the MoD after a road accident in Wiltshire in 1987 when four nuclear bombs slid from a truck into a roadside ditch.
The MoD said: ‘The safety of the public is our priority… In over 50 years of transporting defence nuclear material in the UK, there has never been an incident that has posed any radiation hazard to the public or to the environment.’
The Royal Navy mistakenly took nuclear weapons to the Falklands War, storing them aboard the ship on which Prince Andrew served.
The WE.177A nuclear depth charges were taken aboard aircraft carrier HMS Invincible, from which the Prince flew sorties as a Sea King helicopter co-pilot with 820 Naval Air Squadron.
The Nuclear Information Service report estimates that there were ten warheads aboard Invincible, 16 on the second British carrier, HMS Hermes, and more aboard support ships in the task force dispatched by Margaret Thatcher in 1982.
The Nuclear Information Service report estimates that there were ten warheads aboard Invincible
According to the report, the Royal Navy should have removed the ordnance from the warships before the fleet sailed to the South Atlantic, but the task was not performed since offloading the weapons would have given the Argentinians more time to dig in.
The presence of the weapons aboard British ships in the Falklands War was not officially confirmed until 2005.
An MoD report that year acknowledged the risks involved but added: ‘The operational imperative to dispatch the task force as rapidly as possible was judged by admirals and Ministers to take precedence over the safety advantages of returning the weapons to a home base.’
P Naveen | TNN | Updated: Feb 18, 2017, 01.56 PM IST
BHOPAL: The Rs 17,000-crore nuclear power plant project in Chutka, Madhya Pradesh, has run into a roadblock with villagers launching a ‘satyagraha’ against it.
Kunda village, one of the three affected by the project on the banks of Narmada, has not only passed resolutions rejecting the government proposal to set up the nuclear plant but also nominated three persons to move court, said sources.
“This project should be shifted elsewhere. It will not only deprive people of long term livelihood but also prove disastrous for the environment,” said Meera Bai, president of the women’s wing of Chutka Parmanu Virodhi Sangarsh Samiti. Dayal Singh of Kunde village echoed Meera and said he is among the three nominated by the village to fight a legal battle. The others are Monelal and Amar Singh.
The area witnessed a satyagraha andolan by villagers two days ago. Several organisations and social activists, including Medha Patkar, have raised their voice against the proposed nuclear power plant. The site is about 100km from Jabalpur and the famous marble rock formations on the Narmada and a mere 35 km from Kanha national park. Most of those affected are tribals, who were earlier displaced by the “Bargi Dam” in the 1990s. Being displaced again rankles them.
“How can the government be so ruthless as to displace villagers twice? Moreover, Bargi dam was constructed for irrigation, to help farmers. Giving up the site for a nuclear plant will only pollute the water with hazardous waste discharge,” said Rajkumar Sinha, convener of an organisation for those affected by the dam. “On the one hand, the government claims it is trying to save Narmada and on other it is allowing a nuclear plant on its banks.”
Sinha and the other protesters claim that the Centre and state government have joined hands to push ahead with the project, ignoring its “dangerous consequences.” Multiple organisations from Bhopal and other areas had been campaigning against the project by distributing booklets and handbills with information about nuclear power plants and their disasters elsewhere in the world.
In 2014, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited had declared the Chutka plant safe. An environmental impact assessment report filed by the corporation says the project is in the low seismic activity zone-II and is “environmentally benign, techno-economically viable and sustainable
The local administration says most of the people have accepted the compensation package. “We don’t think that there is any reason left for them to protest. More than 85% people living in these villages have accepted the compensation and are happy,” said Mandla collector Preeti Maithili told TOI.
nuclear-news 