UPDATE 1-Toshiba chair ready to resign over Westinghouse writedowns – Nikkei (6502)
Reuters
Jan. 27, 2017, 11:52 PM
(Adds Toshiba comment, context)
TOKYO, Jan 28 (Reuters) – Toshiba Corp Chairman Shigenori Shiga is ready to step down to take responsibility for the huge writedowns looming over the Japanese group’s U.S. nuclear power unit Westinghouse Electric Co LLC, the Nikkei business daily reported.
Shiga was chairman of Westinghouse when the unit booked charges of $930 million in fiscal 2012 and $390 million in fiscal 2013, which Toshiba failed to flag at the time in violation of the Tokyo bourse’s disclosure rules.
The Japanese conglomerate’s nomination committee will decide on the matter of Shiga’s resignation and an announcement could come as soon as Feb. 14, the Nikkei reported earlier. (http://s.nikkei.com/2kBzwn3)
Westinghouse Chairman Danny Roderick is also expected to resign as president of Toshiba’s in-house energy systems and solutions company, the Japanese business daily reported.
Toshiba said Saturday that nothing had been decided in regards to Shiga and Roderick’s positions.
On Friday, the company said it would sell a minority stake in its memory chip business as it urgently seeks funds to offset an imminent multi-billion dollar writedown, adding that its overseas nuclear division – the cause of its woes – was now under review.
The drastic measures are set to be just some of the tough choices the Japanese conglomerate will have to take as proceeds from the sale are likely to only cover part of charges that domestic media have put at $6 billion.
Still battered by a 2015 accounting scandal, Toshiba was plunged back into crisis when it emerged late last year that it had to account for huge cost overruns at a U.S. power plant construction business recently acquired by its Westinghouse division.
Describing the nuclear division as no longer a central business focus for the firm, Chief Executive Satoshi Tsunakawa said Toshiba will review Westinghouse’s role in new projects and whether it will embark on new power plant construction.
Executives on Friday declined to comment on the size of the writedown, which will be announced on Feb. 14 when Toshiba reports third-quarter results.
Shares in Toshiba have lost almost a third of their value in the past three months. (Reporting by Makiko Yamazaki and Osamu Tsukimori in TOKYO and Anya George Tharakan in Bengaluru; Editing by Shounak Dasgupta and Lincoln Feast)
Over the weekend, millions of demonstrators took to streets across the country to mobilize against the new president and his agenda, assembling in a national turnout that organizers call the beginning of a reinvigorated protest movement. But in states home to dozens of Saturday’s demonstrations, Republican lawmakers are moving to criminalize and increase penalties on peaceful protesting.
Last week, I reported that such efforts were afoot in five states: In Minnesota, Washington state, Michigan, and Iowa, Republican lawmakers have proposed an array of anti-protesting laws that center on stiffening penalties for demonstrators who block traffic; in North Dakota, conservatives are even pushing a bill that would allow motorists to run over and kill protesters so long as the collision was accidental. Similarly, Republicans in Indiana last week prompted uproar over a proposed law that would instruct police to use “any means necessary” to clear protesters off a roadway.
Over the weekend, readers alerted me to two additional anti-protesting bills, both introduced by Republicans, that are pending in Virginia and Colorado. This brings the number of states that have in recent weeks floated such proposals to at least eight.
In Colorado, Republican state Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg has introduced a bill that would greatly increase penalties for environmental protesters. Under the proposed law, obstructing or tampering with oil and gas equipment would be reclassified from a misdemeanor to a “class 6” felony, a category of crime that reportedly can be punished by up to 18 months behind bars and a fine of up to $100,000.
A state with a fierce debate over oil and gas extraction, Colorado has seen a number of demonstrations in recent years against fossil fuel industries, and a town in the state recently floated a proposal to support the civil disobedience actions against environmentally harmful drilling methods. (Republican sponsors of North Dakota’s current bill cited activists’ successful actions against the Dakota Access Pipeline as a primary motivation for their current attempt to crack down on protest.)
Native American and other activists celebrate after learning an easement had been denied for the Dakota Access Pipeline at Oceti Sakowin Camp on the edge of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation on Dec. 4, 2016, outside Cannon Ball, N.D.
Photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images
Although Sonnenberg’s bill touts itself largely as a public safety measure and makes no mention of protesters, its language broadly includes anyone who “attempts to alter, obstruct, interrupt, or interfere with the action of any equipment used or associated with oil or gas gathering operations.” In addition to imposing potentially significant terms of imprisonment and fines on anyone engaging in such activity, the bill also includes a clause appearing to buttress the ability of oil and gas firms to pursue their own separate claims against a protester who is also being prosecuted by the state.
With control of Colorado’s legislature split between parties and a Democrat in the governor’s office, the future of Sonnenberg’s bill is uncertain.
In Virginia, state lawmakers are considering an anti-protesting law that is apparently broader in scope. A bill pending in the state’s Senate would dramatically increase penalties for people who engage in an “unlawful assembly” after “having been lawfully warned to disperse.” Currently, this law is classified as a class 3 misdemeanor, which according to Virginia statute carries only a maximum $500 fine. Yet the bill proposed by Republican state Sen. Richard H. Stuart elevates such infraction to a class 1 misdemeanor, which means protesters would expect up to a year of incarceration and a fine of up to $2,500.
State Sen. Jennifer McClellan says there is a possibility that the bill will pass both chambers of the Virginia state legislature and says the state Senate could vote on it as early as Monday afternoon. However, McClellan expects that, if successful in the General Assembly, the bill would likely receive a veto from Virginia’s Democratic governor, Terry McAuliffe.
Nonetheless, the legislation has troubled Democratic lawmakers. McClellan says she is alarmed by the move because of the law’s applicability to an enormous range of situations.
“As someone who is a direct beneficiary of the civil rights movement and all the gains that were the direct result of civil disobedience, I strongly oppose this effort to further criminalize dissent,” McClellan said. “The way the bill is worded is very broad: Take the student sit-in leaders — you could put those protesters in jail for up to a year.”
Update: Jan. 25, 2017
This story will be updated as we learn of more anti-protest legislation.
In Missouri, a bill is pending that would make it a crime for anyone participating in an “unlawful assembly” to intentionally conceal “his or her identity by the means of a robe, mask, or other disguise.” Sponsored by Republican lawmaker Don Phillips, the bill would classify such crimes as a Class A misdemeanor, meaning that anyone caught concealing their identity at such a protest could face up to a year behind bars. The bill contains a section that would exempt identity-concealing coverings for the purposes of religion, safety, or medical needs. The Missouri legislature’s website states that wearing a “hood” would also be included in criminalized coverings, although this language does not appear in the current wording of the bill. The bill does not yet have a hearing date scheduled, according to the state legislature’s website.
In North Carolina, a Republican lawmaker has pledged to introduce legislation to criminalize protestors heckling politicians in the state after an incident over inaugural weekend in Washington, D.C. in which demonstrators persistently shouted at the state’s former governor Pat McCrory.
Tommy Rock, a doctoral student at Northern Arizona University, grew up in a small community on the Navajo reservation, where he saw firsthand the effects of uranium mining on his relatives. Navajo lands were mined heavily for uranium from 1944 to 1986, leaving more than 500 abandoned uranium mine sites and elevated levels of radiation in homes and drinking water sources.
“My grandfather was a former uranium mine worker who died from cancer about ten years ago,” said Rock. “I wanted to do something about this problem of uranium contamination, and as I learned more and became involved in research, I realized more communities across the Navajo Nation were also affected.”
After completing a master’s degree in sustainable communities from Northern Arizona University in 2008, Rock worked as a research scientist at the University of New Mexico and then as an environmental specialist with the Navajo Nation EPA. He is now pursuing a doctorate in Earth Science and Environmental Sustainability at Northern Arizona University.
Last year, Rock helped discover more than a decade of uranium contamination in the drinking water of the small community of Sanders in eastern Arizona. Sanders lies just outside of the Navajo reservation, and about 80 percent of the community is Navajo.
Uranium in the water supply
Through his work with the Northern Arizona University Center for American Indian Resilience (CAIR), Rock shows community members from Cameron, Arizona, how environmental samples are processed in the lab. (Photo courtesy of CAIR)
Rock discovered the contamination while working on a project funded by an EPA Environmental Justice Grant. The project involved testing unregulated wells along the Puerco River, a tributary of the Little Colorado River that flows through Sanders. Rock and his colleagues organized a two-day training for the community and hired community workers to conduct the water testing.
“When conducting this training, one of the community members asked us to sample the public water supply,” said Rock. “We did this, and found elevated levels of uranium in the wells along the river as well as in the pubic water sources.”
The results, which came back in June of 2015, showed uranium levels at 43 parts per billion, well above the EPA limit of 30 parts per billion. Exposure to uranium in drinking water can lead to bone cancer and impaired kidney function. When Rock and his colleagues looked deeper to figure out how long the contamination had been taking place, they found records indicating elevated levels of uranium as far back as 2003. All the tests from 2009 to 2015 showed elevated levels of uranium in the public water.
“The sad thing was that the community members were not notified about the contamination by the state or the Arizona Windsong Water Company, which supplied the water,” said Rock. “The water company violated the federal Safe Water Drinking Act by not giving reports to their customers.”
The researchers presented their findings at several community meetings, and while people stopped using the public water, they were not seeing any movement by the state or water company to fix the contamination. During one of these meetings, community members asked the researchers to test the well that supplies water to the elementary and middle schools. “We found elevated uranium in this water supply as well,” said Rock. “The school district shut off water fountains in the schools and started hauling in water from another town.”
Igniting Change
Rock worked with Karletta Chief, Ph.D., from the University of Arizona to gather water and sediment samples after the Gold King Mine Spill, which affected many Navajo communities. (Photo courtesy of Karletta Chief)
It was not until after media coverage of the contamination in April 2016 that the people of Sanders finally saw actions aimed at fixing the problem. After Windsong’s license was not renewed, the new company handling the Sander’s public water system replaced the well that supplies the public water. While some people are using the new water, the entire water system still needs to be upgraded since the water infrastructure is old in the community of Sanders and cannot handle the full pressure from the new waterline.
Although the state isn’t required to notify people of contamination, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality has changed its policy and will now issue public notices for drinking water violations if the public water system neglects to do so. “I like to think that we helped change this policy,” said Rock. “I am also glad to know I played a part in helping the community of Sanders have better water now than they did before.”
Rock continues to work on his dissertation research, which is examining uranium exposure and bioaccumulation in sheep living around mining sites on Navajo land. By understanding how this traditional indigenous food source accumulates uranium, Rock hopes to develop safe consumption recommendations for tribal members in mining-affected areas. This research project is led by Jani Ingram, Ph.D., of Northern Arizona University, who is funded by the NIEHS through the Native American Research Centers for Health.
After completing his doctoral degree, Rock would like to use his knowledge and experience to help people in other parts of the world. “One day I would like to work for the World Health Organization, so I could help indigenous populations throughout the world find solutions to their contamination problems.”
Here is a map of all the OIL wells in Saskatchewan. Jessica Vanstone produced it with data I obtained from the Ministry of Economy. Over 65,000 wells (this does not include gas wells or decommissioned wells)
Apparent security-related violations were verified during a Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspection of the nuclear power plant near Richland, according to an NRC letter made public Thursday.
Inspection results for Energy Northwest’s Columbia Generating Station are being “considered for escalated enforcement action,” said the Jan. 10 letter to Mark Reddemann, Energy Northwest chief executive.
However, since Energy Northwest identified the issues and based on the NRC understanding of actions taken to increase security, a civil penalty may not be warranted, the letter said.
The specific issues were not made public, and an inspection report describing the apparent violations was not released to maintain plant security.
Energy Northwest said in a statement that in April, it notified the NRC of an issue with “security procedures surrounding on-site storage of radioactive material.”
“At that time we had already implemented lasting and effective corrective actions,” Energy Northwest said. “We also plan to bring in a group of industry experts to help us further strengthen our programs in this area.”
NRC discussed the circumstances of the apparent violations, the significance of the issues and the need for lasting corrections at a Dec. 5 exit meeting after the inspection, according to the NRC letter.
Before the NRC makes an enforcement decision, Energy Northwest may respond to the inspection report or may request a conference to allow it to provide its perspective and any other information to the NRC. The conference would be closed to the public.
Energy Northwest described the fine as being related to two security officers who were inattentive at their posts. Whistleblower letters sent to the Energy Northwest executive board said the two guards were taking nude photos while on duty.
The letters also alleged that a security officer was playing a geocaching game on duty. Gamers were invited to attempt to enter a controlled area for the nuclear plant via an online game app.
What would be the impact on the global energy market (from post Trump USA protectionism), given that the EU needs to import most of its energy?
“…We are one of the biggest energy importers. We will follow all the developments very carefully. Now we are in a lucky period. We have an abundance of energy, of oil and gas. We are also increasing our energy efficiency, and reducing our dependence by incorporating more and more renewal energy. We need to continue progressing in our interconnectors. But we should not worry about protectionism in the energy market because currently there are a lot of sellers who are looking for solid clients like Europe…27 Jan 2017 EU Commission Vice-President for Energy Union Maroš Šefčovič ” Source for qoute; http://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/interview/sefcovic-everybody-wants-to-be-in-good-terms-with-us/
“….Cities and nations are rapidly installing small and large-scale renewable power sources and new storage technologies. Even China, currently the most aggressive country with respect to nuclear power, is adding more capacity with wind and solar compared to nuclear — and it’s not just nameplate capacity — it’s actual generated power. Last year alone, China added 20.72 GW of wind (4.8 GW output as their capacity factor is only 23 percent) and 28 GW of solar (10.6 GW output), with around 90 percent of their solar installations coming from utilities. New capacity from wind and solar were more than the 5 nuclear plants added in the same year (5.7 GW output). China is just one example of how wind and solar can be built faster while generating more power. By the time (and if) China completes their 28 nuclear plants (many are already behind schedule), with an added capacity of 34 GW, they will have added more power from wind and solar in the same timeframe — again, taking capacity factors into account….”April 28, 2015By Tom DeRosa
EU countries oppose duty extension on Chinese solar panels
27 Jan 2017
A majority of EU countries yesterday (26 January) opposed a European Commission plan to extend anti-dumping duties on Chinese solar panels for two years, according to EU diplomats, putting pressure on the EU executive to review its proposal.
The duties in question will not necessarily end because the 18 countries that voted against them do not represent a majority of the EU’s population, falling short of the blocking “qualified majority”.
The case will now go to an appeal committee, also including representatives from the EU’s 28 member states. The majority view could also pressure the Commission to review its proposal.
The EU governments did back a two-year extension of tariffs designed to counter trade subsidies. These tariffs are capped at 11.5%.
More than 400 companies from across the European Union, and leading environmental NGOS, have demanded the immediate end of punitive trade measures on solar panels and cells imported from China.
The European Union and China came close to a trade war in 2013 over EU allegations of solar panel dumping by China. But this was averted by an agreement to allow a limited amount of tariff-free panels at a minimum €0.56 per watt.
The Commission reviewed that agreement and also import duties as high as 64.9% for those outside the agreement all of which ended in December 2015.
The EU executive said in a paper sent to EU members that ending the measures would likely lead to a continuation of Chinese subsidies for the solar sector and a significant increase in dumped imports of solar cells and modules.
Beijing on Monday (12 December) filed a dispute with the World Trade Organisation over the approach used by the European Union and the United States to calculate anti-dumping measures against Chinese exports.
It also said the measures would only have a limited effect on demand and that comparisons between the 50,000 people working in importing and installation and the 5,000 to 10,000 in manufacturing were not appropriate. Job gains in the former could be outweighed by losses in the latter, it said.
A separate document said the minimum panel price would be cut to €0.46 per watt.
EU ProSun, a group of manufacturers including Germany’s SolarWorld, had welcomed the Commission’s findings and said it was convinced an extension of anti-dumping measures would be settled within weeks.
But SolarPower Europe, which represents those in the solar industry opposed to duties, said it was pleased with the majority view and hoped the Commission would review its proposal.
Corporate funded lobby group Sense About Science aka the Science Media Centre is trying to get Europe to control pesticide lobbies agricultural science view now after its moderately successful campaign controlling the nuclear sciences (post Leveson Inquiry). Going to the Science Media Centre Website you can see all the corporations that donate to this lobbyist “charity” including big Agro, nuclear energy etc
Here is the latest in UK lobbying for corporate interests that gives a link to the Sense About Science “Charity” web site
And an article discusing some of the arguments about industries claims of “sound science”or Fiona Fox MD of the Science Media Centre`s claim of “the right science”
SNIP
“…
How sound is ‘sound science’?
While in itself far from perfect, the EU has a ‘farm to fork’ policy where each part of the food chain is monitored and – at least in some areas – applies the precautionary principle. The US system in contrast focuses only on the end product, which can only be regulated or banned when there is a scientific consensus on its danger or toxicity. Meanwhile, Europe’s precautionary principle enables intervention without waiting for the end of the scientific debate.
From tobacco to climate change, there is a long history of industry tactics to create doubt over the scientific evidence, paying studies to maintain this doubt alive in the media and attacking any unwanted evidence as ‘junk science’ as opposed to ‘sound science’. In a hard hitting column published in Nature, science writer Colin Macilwain says: “The term ‘sound science’ has become Orwellian double-speak for various forms of pro-business spin.”9
This is just as true in food regulation. With TTIP, industry is taking its fake notion of ‘sound science’ to stage an ongoing attack on the EU food safety system, implying that it is not science-based. ECPA and CropLife for instance attack the EU pesticide risk assessment, demanding “the inclusion of science-based risk assessment as the unified basis for pesticide regulation”.10 Indeed, US-negotiators are already pushing strongly for a separate article on “science-based risk assessment” in TTIP.11
In fact, while industry claims that current EU risk assessments are more demanding than is scientifically legitimate, environmental and public health organisations are saying the opposite: science is showing that risk assessments and safety studies – notably for pesticides and GMOs – should be strengthened also in Europe.12 …”
The pro nuclear organisations are panicking and showing symptoms of Brexitphobia (such as whining) as the UK prepares to withdraw from Euratom Treaty and are pulling out all the stops to reverse the situation. In the article below from the Weinberg Next Nuclear Foundation they even claim that leaving Euratom is not necessary even if the UK commits to Brexit. Research foundations and even anti nuclear assessments are included in their press release below.
The question is why is the UK are leaving the treaty? One reason could be that according to the new EU radiation protection legislation just being enacted by the German Government which rolls all the present legislation into one law and next year it will include making parts of the Euratom treaty Legal and binding.
A second point to note is that a new “Medical Physics Expert” (MPE) position has been accepted and that this will be an expert who will have cross boundary recognition which means that a German, Italian etc Expert checking out the UK`s compliance with the provisions of all new EU nuclear regulations (and Vise Versa).
Thirdly by withdrawing from Euratom and the EU, there is another treaty that the UK is being recently queried about called ESPOO (The cross border contamination treaty). The UK is being asked to explain itself by Norway and some other countries in relation to the nuclear reprocessing plant Sellafield and the UK`s new nuclear builds. [ I will leave copy and pastes to the links to the ESPOO treaty regulation and MPE issues under the Weinberg panicking article].
Given all the above it would seem that the UK has some secrets to hide and pulling out of these treaties would be to its advantage (The ESPOO treaty 1991 states that non EU state members need not fulfill the requirements).
When we consider the moves by UK experts to minimise the threat of radiation allowing 100 mSv/y instead of the normal 1 mSv/y because of the risk of legal actions against UK nuclear contaminated sites and interests in Japan (after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011) etc, we should consider this to be a defensive move against litigation, such as the British Nuclear Test Veterans legal challenges where foreign experts were dismissed out of hand by the UK supreme court (The report was released a week before Christmas day) and the same battle is being fought over the increased Thyroid cancer cases in Japan (That the UK experts are supporting the “no damage due to radiation” defense).
It is interesting that the UK will risk research funding for the new reactor in Oxford etc to save itself (and the Japanese government) against the possibility of massive compensation damages. The UK is presently using its expert Geraldine Thomas to reduce the thyroid cancer checks in Fukushima prefecture and stopping the expansion of these tests to surrounding prefectures just when an increase is likely to be found and Japanese experts are rallying against this move by the Japanese and UK government experts. Another one of tne of the defenses for their position is the Radiophobia argument that has been debunked by many independent radation experts in articles and papers (reference WHOi the Independent World health Organisation for instance).
Lastly, the European commission is challenging tender procedures for renewables and gas energy sources and Euratoms right to overide this aspect of EU regulation (reference search terms on Euratom Belarus Hungary commission in the http://www.euractiv.com website for updated information). And of course the EURATOM considerations on health effects is being challenged because of new scientific evidence that has come to light (re-justification of Euratom link below).
It has been confirmed that the UK intends to leave the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) as part of the Brexit process. Following their loss in the Supreme Court last week, the government has produced a bill on triggering Article 50 to put to a commons vote. As part of the explanatory notes of this very short bill, was the revelation that Britian will be leaving both the EU and Euratom. Euratom, a separate legal entity to the EU but governed by EU institutions, has controlled nuclear power in Europe since 1957.
The move has been met with shock by the industry, with Dr Paul Dorfman, honorary senior researcher at the Energy Institute at University College London, calling it a “lose-lose situation” due to the potential for reduced competitiveness and reduced safety. There will be increased pressure on the already under-resourced Office for Nuclear Regulation to cover all of Euratom’s responsibilities including non-proliferation inspections, authorizing the sale of nuclear material and safeguarding power, fuel fabrication and waste sites. Alternatively the UK would need to negotiate with the International Atomic Energy Agency for help with this new burden. The decision will likely impact the UK’s plans for new power stations, research, skills development and dealing with the waste legacy.
The decision will also likely mean the eventual loss of the world leading Fusion experiment based in Culham, Oxfordshire, involving 350 scientists and funding from 40 countries, to another country such as Germany or France. This loss could risk perpetrating across the nuclear research space, with the isolation from Euratom making the UK far less attractive for research and innovation leading to a funding and brain drain at the very time the UK is trying to reinvigorate its nuclear leadership through it’s Industrial Strategy.
A complex set of negotiations will now have to take place as most nuclear co-operation with the UK relies on safeguards provided through Euratom. It may not be possible to agree and ratify new agreements before Britain leaves the EU in 2019. According to Vince Zabielski, a senior lawyer at law firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, “current new build projects will be placed on hold while those standalone treaties are negotiated” meaning possible delays at Hinkley as well as Bradwell, Moorside and Wylfa.
The decision however is not just bad for the UK, but for nuclear as a whole. With the UK one of the last big supporters of the technology, weakening its strength in the field will give power to anti-nuclear camps across the continent.
Weinberg Next Nuclear is very concerned that the departure from Euratom could severely damage the UK’s nuclear industry, with impacts on energy security, industrial competitiveness and decarbonisation objectives. We find no reason why such drastic action needs to be taken. Article 50 deals with the two Treaties of Lisbon: the Treaty on the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. However the Euratom treaty is separate, not mentioned in either of the above treaties thus there is no reason for including Euratom in any part of Article 50 debate. As Jonathan Leech, a senior lawyer and nuclear expert at Prospect Law said, “there doesn’t seem to have been any real explanation as to why, because we are going towards the unknown at great speed. Legally we don’t have to [leave Euratom because the UK is leaving the EU],”.
Weinberg Next Nuclear thus urges the government to reconsider and avoid the highly damaging consequences this unnecessary withdrawal could have on the UK’s nuclear future.
The Federal Cabinet recently adopted a draft radiation protection law on the proposal of the Federal Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks. This is to improve the radiological emergency protection of the Federal Government and the federal states in German-speaking countries.
Hendricks: “Radiation protection is of great importance for human health and relevance to many areas of life. With the modernized and expanded regulatory framework, we have a reliable basis for a comprehensive protection of citizens against ionizing radiation. In the case of emergency radiological protection, we are creating a modern management system with which we can cover a large number of emergency scenarios – including major accidents in nuclear power plants “.
Until now, the radiation protection law was regulated by the Radiation Protection Ordinance and the X-ray Ordinance based on the Atomic Energy Act. In order to implement an EU directive, all areas of protection against ionizing radiation have now been consolidated for the first time in a single law. The law is to be passed before the Bundestag election. It would require the consent of the Bundestag and the Federal Council, as soon as this is available, this regulation could enter into force later this year. Other new arrangements for the implementation of Euratom directives at the level of regulation are to enter into force by the end of 2018.
Almost six after Fukushima and the decision to accelerate the nuclear phase, there seems to be a new phase. For the first time since the nuclear phase-out decision of 2011, a nuclear power plant in Germany has received a decommissioning permit. Work on the decommissioning and dismantling of the plant can now begin at the Isar 1 nuclear power plant.
Some highlights of a report from 2013 on some of the changes (including revising health advise from radiological natural and contamination sources here;
Major new provisions, also based on German negotiating positions, include:
improved radiation protection against the natural presence of radioactive substances which under certain circumstances can pose a risk to human health;
measures including an action plan for the protection against radon, a naturally present inert gas which can cause lung cancer;
provisions to regulate radiological pollution legacies;
detailed provisions for contingency plans and better cooperation among member states to harmonise action in case of emergencies;
clear provisions for medical x-ray check-ups to prevent unnecessary x-ray examinations.
At least one person has died in an explosion at a power plant in central Russia, media are reporting, citing Emergencies Ministry sources. The blast caused metal structures to collapse over a 600-square-meter area.
“According to preliminary reports, a gas mixture exploded at the power plant,” TASS news agency reported, citing a source at the Emergencies Ministry of the Penza region.
The total number of victims is yet unclear, the source said. However, TASS has reported that one person died, citing the Russian Center for Disaster Medicine.
The building of the TPP-1 power plant has been partially destroyed, and some 600 square meters of its roof are said to have collapsed, according to RIA Novosti, citing a source at Emergencies Services.
The incident has not affected the city’s heating supply, TASS reported, citing the head of the Emergencies Ministry’s press service, Anna Shupilova.
“The incident did not affect the heating system of the city; the whole heating system is operating in normal mode,” she said.
The Novocherkasskaya GRES coal-fired power plant is owned by OGK-2 (Second Generating Company of the Wholesale Power Market), a subsidiary of the Russian gas giant Gazprom. The plant is located near the city of Novocherkassk, and consists of eight 264-MW coal-fired units. Construction was originally approved in 1952; the first unit went online in 1965, and the final, eighth unit in 1972. The plant has since been converted to run on gas as a supplementary fuel, but the primary fuel is still coal.[1][2]
The plant was formerly owned by OGK-6, which was also majority-owned by Gazprom; Gazprom merged OGK-6 into OGK-2 in November 2011. The boilers in Units 6 and 7 were replaced in 2005 and 2009, respectively.[3]
Description of Expansion
In 2011, OGK-2 signed a contract for the construction of a 330-MW ninth coal-fired unit at Novocherkasskaya. The construction contractor is SWECO Soyuz Engineering, a subsidiary of SOYUZ Holding. Unit 9 will run on circulating fluidized bed technology. Total construction cost will be about $700 million.[3] The boiler was built by U.S. company Foster Wheeler.[4] Completion was originally scheduled for November 2015.[5] In July 2015, the provincial government said the unit was on track to be completed in late 2015 or early 2016.[6]
The unit was successfully tested in December 2015.[7] The unit was completed and brought online in July 2016.[8
UCY.TV email: contact.ucytv@gmail.com. Real news, for the people, by the people.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This video may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes only.This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C.section 106A – 117 of the U.S.Copyright Law.
Study finds Rising Infant Death Rates Attributable to the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant http://www.busbyway.com/2016/09/19/study-finds-rising-infant-death-rates-attributable-to-the-diablo-canyon-nuclear-power-plant/Peer-reviewed study documents rising infant mortality rates over the past 25 years in zip codes surrounding Diablo Canyon Santa Barbara, California (PRWEB) September 19, 2016 Today, the World Business Academy announced the publication of a scientific study that it commissioned to closely examine recent public health data showing abnormally high levels of infant deaths near the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. This study by Dr. Christopher Busby appears in the peer-reviewed Jacobs Journal of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine (See attached copies of “Article Summary” and of full article, “
Is there evidence of adverse health effects near US nuclear installations? Infant mortality in coastal communities near the Diablo Canyon nuclear power station in California, 1989-2012”). The article documents “a remarkable and statistically-significant 28% overall increase in infant mortality rates in the coastal strip group relative to the inland control group.” According to the study, a pattern of rising infant death rates (in the first year of birth) has occurred since Diablo Canyon opened in the mid-1980s at Avila Beach in San Luis Obispo County, California. Dr. Busby’s study found that “
The increases over the period correlate significantly with cumulative releases of Tritium from the nuclear plant to the sea.” Furthermore, during this same period, infant mortality rates fell for the whole of California and for the local inland control group in the county, providing additional evidence that federally approved, routine radiation releases from U.S. nuclear power plants damage infant health. Dr. Christopher Busby is an expert on the health effects of radiation and has published extensively on the issue. He was Visiting Professor at the University of Ulster in Ireland until retirement in 2012. He has been Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk since 1998 and was a member of two British Government committees investigating radiation effects. He has served as a reviewer for more than twelve scientific and medical journals and is currently on the Editorial Board of Environmental Health and Toxicology and Jacobs Journal of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine.
Dr. Jerry Brown, director of the Academy’s Safe Energy Project, stated that, “the Busby study provides further confirmation of significant potential human health dangers that could result from the continued operation of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant through 2025, as recently proposed by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), the utility that owns and operates this nuclear plant.” Academy President Rinaldo S. Brutoco states that, “The World Business Academy plans to submit this study in support of the testimony provided to the California State Lands Commission on June 28, 2106, which should prove to be very valuable in its lawsuit against the Commission filed on August 2, 2016.”
During the California State Lands Commission public hearing of June 28, 2016, on PG&E’s request for a lease extension for Diablo Canyon, the World Business Academy informed the Commission of this “soon-to-be-released” study by Dr. Busby and of its ominous implications that infants would die from the plant’s continued operation. The Academy implored the Commission to examine these radiation-health issues by means of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in order to verify whether the data in this study are accurate; however, the Commission refused to order an EIR for the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. Mr. Brutoco observed that “
We believe the Commission’s failure, among other things, to examine the validity of these critical infant health statistics in an Environmental Impact Report was an arbitrary and capricious decision, which violates the State Lands Commission’s responsibilities under the California Environmental Quality Act and the Public Trust doctrine.”
Brutoco continued, “This is why we felt honor bound to sue the Commission on August 2, 2016, arguing that the many ‘unusual circumstances’ present at Diablo Canyon, including the adverse effects of radiation releases on public health, require the Commission to conduct a full environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act.” (See attached copy of lawsuit, Petition for Writ of Mandamus.) For the original version on PRWeb visit: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2016/09/prweb13695217.htm
Today marks an important moment in the history of the divestment movement: A majority vote was passed in the Irish Parliament on first-of-its-kind fossil fuel divestment legislation.
Ireland now has the historic opportunity to become the first country in the world to fully divest its sovereign wealth fund, worth over €8 billion, from coal, oil and gas.
Last Thursday in the Dáil, all political parties, with the exception of Fine Gael, indicated their strong support for the Fossil Fuel Divestment Bill – a piece of legislation getting Ireland’s Strategic Investment Fund to divest from fossil fuels. Today, this bill has passed. The Fossil Fuel Divestment Bill will now go to Committee stage in the Irish Parliament.
This success is the result of fantastic campaigning by our friends at Trócaire, key members of parliament, and many people across Ireland taking action on fossil fuel divestment.
“With a climate-sceptic recently inaugurated into the White House, this move by elected representatives in Ireland will send out a powerful message. The Irish political system is now finally acknowledging what the overwhelming majority of people already know: That to have a fighting chance to combat catastrophic climate change we must phase out fossil fuels and stop the growth of the industry that is driving this crisis,” said Éamonn Meehan of Trócaire.
Yet another reason to never doubt, even in trying times such as these, that we are winning together.
The five members of Put Down the Sword arriving at Reading Court for their trial earlier today.
Last June they protested at AWE BURGHFIELD. They are charged with willful obstruction of the highway. A disputed crossing of a green line in the road
Update ; The @PutDownTheSword defendants have been found guilty.
Sentence: six months conditional discharge. £100 costs and £20 court surcharge. So £120 each in total.
Upcoming events
Monday March 27th 2017. Trident Ploughshares and friends. “Oyez Oyez, Good news from the United nations”. Meet Trafalgar Square 9.30am for Town Crier Action. Small groups taking the news to central London venues. Contact Sylvia Boyes <tridentsylvia@gmail.com>
Sat 8th to Sun 16th July 2017. Disarmament camp at Coulport in the West of Scotland. As the Global Nuclear Ban Treaty conference finishes in New York we will gather to disrupt the Trident submarine bases at Faslane & Coulport. Contact Jane Tallents <tp2000@gn.apc.org> More info here
4-8 Sept 2017 Trident Ploughshares will be taking part in the week of action against DSEI, the world’s largest arms fair. We are planning a day of action to highlight the involvement of the world’s largest arms companies in Trident. Contact Chris Bluemel <chrisbluemel@yahoo.co.uk>
Any time in 2017 – unannounced acts of resistance against weapons of mass destruction.
Faslane peace camp protest in Scotland 24 January 2017
In other Protest news .. Well done Faslane Peace Camp!
We don’t want a real missile to land anywhere but if they can’t even be sure which way it will go it makes nonsense of the whole business. And if it didn’t matter the Government wouldn’t have been so keen to keep it quiet! Thank you for speaking out!
A residential area of namie-Cho, Namie-Cho, and 1.3 meters in the ground, 1 meters in the ground, 1.4 mSv/h and on the ground 16 mcSvhr. Courtesy of Oz Yo
The oil companies are planning how they might best deal with supplying energy supplies after a megathrust earthquake in Japan. Within the document is a very basic diagram and summary of the location of power plants and the estimated seismic damage that different areas will be subjected to. Also withing the report are locations of oil refineries.
Japan’s coal imports for power generation fell in 2016 from four years of successive record highs and liquefied natural gas (LNG) purchases dropped for a second year as an energy crisis brought on by the 2011 Fukushima disaster eased, official data showed.
Rising supplies of homegrown renewable energy and the return of some nuclear power, amid falling demand as Japan’s population declines, mean the world’s third-largest economy has more diversity in its sources of energy.
Thermal coal imports declined to just below 110 million tonnes in 2016, down from a record-high 113.84 million tonnes in 2015, the Ministry of Finance said on Wednesday. Import costs fell 20 percent from a year earlier.
Shipments of liquefied natural gas (LNG) dropped for a second year last year, down 2 percent to 83.34 million tons , while their value fell 40 percent.
Japan is the world’s biggest importer of LNG, gas chilled to liquid form for transportation on ships, and demand had surged to successive records after the March 2011 meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant led to the eventual shutdown of all reactors in the country.
But two reactors are now operating under new safety standards and more may be restarted this year. (Note The output from last year was minimal compared to renewables output because of outages and a late start on reactors Arclight2011 aka Shaun)
Crude oil imports slipped to 3.35 million barrels per day, o 194.828 million kilolitres for the year, the lowest since 1988, with their value falling by nearly a third.
The following tables lay out Japan’s fossil fuels imports for last month and for all of 2016, with volumes of crude, oil products and gasoline/naphtha in million kilolitres; LNG, LPG and coal in million tonnes; values in millions of yen.
Numbers are preliminary.
December
Fuel Volume Yr/yr % Value Yr/yr %
Mineral fuels - - 1,304,492 -4.8
Crude oil 18.061 3.0 599,350 1.8
All oil products - - 127,216 -11.3
Gasoline/naphtha 2.374 -11.9 84,264 -20.9
LNG 7.549 -6.5 323,361 -25.5
LPG 0.963 1.0 46,251 -13.6
Total coal 16.314 3.9 203,451 39.4
Thermal coal 9.454 -5.5 96,880 9.8
Full year
Fuel Volume Yr/yr % Value Yr/yr %
Mineral fuels - - 12,044,238 -33.9
Crude oil 194.828 -0.3 5,534,054 -32.4
All oil products - - 1,073,286 -41.1
Gasoline/Naphtha 26.295 -13.0 824,332 -38.8
LNG 83.340 -2.0 3,283,913 -40.4
LPG 10.900 -0.8 446,943 -31.3
Total coal 189.732 -0.5 1,654,450 -16.2
Thermal coal 109.931 -3.4 876,746 -20.0
Fonte : Reuters (Reporting by Aaron Sheldrick and Osamu Tsukimori; Writing by Aaron Sheldrick)
nuclear-news 