nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

NRC rejects contentions raised by Beyond Nuclear and others against nuclear waste proposed site

Federal government rejects contentions to nuclear waste site near Carlsbad and Hobbs https://www.abqjournal.com/1450836/federal-government-rejects-contentions-to-nuclear-waste-site-near-carlsbad-and-hobbs.html  BY ADRIAN HEDDEN / CARLSBAD CURRENT-ARGUS, N.M. (TNS) Monday, May 4th, 2020 A proposed nuclear waste repository near Carlsbad and Hobbs proceeded through the federal licensing process despite protests from environmental groups who questioned the legality of the project.

Holtec International applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a license to build and operate a facility that would temporarily store spent nuclear fuel rods in a remote location of southeast New Mexico while a permanent repository is developed.

The consolidated interim storage facility was challenged by Beyond Nuclear and other organizations who questioned Holtec’s application for suggesting the U.S. Department of Energy could take ownership of the waste.

Opponents argued federal law prohibited the government from taking legal possession of spent nuclear fuel.

They also argued against Holtec’s plan to transport the waste via rail, potentially putting communities along the route at risk of exposure to radiation.

Kevin Kamps, radioactive waste specialist at Beyond Nuclear argued Holtec’s application was in violation of the federal Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), and the proposed temporary storage facility could become permanent as so such repository exists.

“(The NWPA) is the public’s best protection against an interim storage facility becoming a de facto permanent, national radioactive waste dump at the surface of the Earth.” Kamps said. “Congress knew, in passing the NWPA, that the only safe long-term strategy for care of irradiated reactor fuel is to place it in a permanent repository for deep geologic isolation.

Last year, the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board rejected about 50 contentions raised by various organizations, citing their lack of standing or adequate factual basis.

And in an April 23 decision the NRC upheld several of the rejects on appeal as either being irrelevant to the licensing process or already addressed in the application itself.

A proposed new contention issued by Fasken Oil and Ranch, questioning if Holtec owned the mineral rights beneath the surface of the proposed site location was remanded by the NRC for further consideration, along with

Against contentions that the Holtec facility would require “illegal” contracting with the federal government to take ownership of the waste, the NRC contended the application assured regulators that Holtec “committed to not contract unlawfully with DOE.”

“Holtec envisions that its customers will either be nuclear plant operators or DOE, depending on which entity holds title to the spent nuclear fuel,” read the NRC report. “Holtec also acknowledged that it hopes Congress will change the law to allow DOE to enter into temporary storage contracts with Holtec.

“The Board concluded that Holtec seeks a license that would allow it to enter into lawful customer contracts today, but also permit it to enter into additional customer contracts if and when they become lawful in the future.”

While the NRC affirmed the Sierra Club’s standing in the proceedings, as some members of the organization live in close proximity to the proposed site, it found that Sierra Club’s contentions around the transportation of the waste and risk of an accident or release were unfounded.

The NRC contended that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) does not require a “worst-case-scenario” analysis be conducted in issuing the license and that the Sierra Club presented “no expert opinion” to support its assertions on the danger of rail transportation.

Against arguments that the storage casks were flawed or insufficient to hold the waste safely, the NRC upheld that Holtec’s HI-STORM UMAX system that it would use at the facility was already federally certified and cannot be questioned in the proceedings unless a rule waiver was granted.

No such waiver was granted at the time of the NRC’s recent decision.

“Because certified designs are incorporated into our regulations, they may not be attacked in an adjudicatory proceeding except when authorized by a rule waiver,” the report read.

“A contention cannot attack a certified design without a rule waiver because this would challenge matters already fully considered and resolved in the design certification review.”

See what others are reading in Carlsbad news:

Mindy Goldstein, a lawyer from Beyond Nuclear said the NRC’s denial of the appeals was illegal as it contemplated the hope that the law would change to allow the DOE to take title to the waste but was still contrary to present law.

“The NRC’s decision flagrantly violates the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which prohibits an agency from acting contrary to the law as issued by Congress and signed by the President,” she said.

“The Commission lacks a legal or logical basis for its rationale that the illegal provisions could be ignored in favor of other provisions that are legal, or that an illegal license could be issued in ‘hopes’ that the law might change in the future.”

Adrian Hedden can be reached at 575-628-5516, achedden@currentargus.com or @AdrianHedden on Twitter.

May 5, 2020 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Beyond Nuclear opposes Holtec nuclear waste plan: the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is not above the law

Group Plans To Fight Effort To Build Nuclear Waste Dump In New Mexico   https://www.krwg.org/post/group-plans-fight-effort-build-nuclear-waste-dump-new-mexico

By BEYOND NUCLEAR • APR 28, 2020  Commentary: In an astounding ruling on April 23, 2020, the four-member U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) acknowledged that an application by Holtec International/Eddy-Lea [Counties] Energy Alliance to store a massive quantity of highly radioactive irradiated nuclear fuel in southeastern New Mexico violates federal law – and yet ruled that the unlawful provisions of the license application could be ignored and would not bar approval.

Beyond Nuclear has challenged the NRC’s authority to approve Holtec’s license application because it contemplates that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) may become the owner of the irradiated reactor fuel. The federal Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) prohibits federal ownership of spent fuel, however, unless and until a federal repository for permanent disposal is operating.

The NRC Commissioners acknowledged that Federal law prohibits federally-sponsored storage of irradiated reactor fuel unless and until a repository for permanent disposal is in operation. Nevertheless the NRC threw out Beyond Nuclear’s legal challenge to the project on the ground that Holtec could be depended on not to implement the unlawful provision if the license were granted.

The Commissioners’ decision affirms an earlier ruling by the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the storage facility may be licensed despite the illegal license terms contemplating federal ownership of the irradiated fuel. The Licensing Board accepted arguments by Holtec and the NRC’s technical staff that the license containing illegal provisions could be approved as long as it also contained a provision that would allow private ownership of the spent fuel.

Mindy Goldstein, a lawyer for Beyond Nuclear, stated, “the NRC’s decision flagrantly violates the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which prohibits an agency from acting contrary to the law as issued by Congress and signed by the President.” Goldstein also stated that “the Commission lacks a legal or logical basis for its rationale that the illegal provisions could be ignored in favor of other provisions that are legal, or that an illegal license could be issued in ‘hopes’ that the law might change in the future. The APA gives the NRC no excuse to ignore the mandates of federal law.”

Diane Curran, also a lawyer for Beyond Nuclear, said the group will pursue a federal court appeal of the NRC decision. “Our claim is simple,” she declared. “The NRC is not above the law.”

Kevin Kamps, radioactive waste specialist for Beyond Nuclear, called the federal Nuclear Waste Policy Act “the public’s best protection against an interim storage facility becoming a de facto permanent, national radioactive waste dump at the surface of the Earth.” According to Kamps, “Congress knew, in passing the NWPA, that the only safe long-term strategy for care of irradiated reactor fuel is to place it in a permanent repository for deep geologic isolation.

Congress acted wisely in refusing to allow nuclear reactor licensees to transfer ownership of their irradiated reactor fuel to the DOE until a repository was up and running.  The carefully crafted Nuclear Waste Policy Act thus protects a state like New Mexico from being railroaded by the powerful nuclear industry, its friends in the federal government, and other states looking to off-load their mountain of forever deadly high-level radioactive waste.”

Kamps added: “A deep geologic repository for permanent disposal should meet a long list of stringent criteria. These include legality, environmental justice, consent-based siting, scientific suitability, mitigation of transport risks, regional equity, intergenerational equity, and non-proliferation, including a ban on reprocessing. This is why a coalition of more than a thousand environmental, environmental justice, and public interest organizations, representing all 50 states, have opposed the Yucca Mountain dump targeted at Western Shoshone Indian land in Nevada for 33 years.”

“On behalf of our members and supporters in New Mexico, and across the country along the road, rail, and waterway routes in most states, that would be used to haul the high risk, high-level radioactive waste out West, we will appeal the NRC Commissioners’ bad ruling to the federal court,” Kamps added.

Beyond Nuclear is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit membership organization. Beyond Nuclear aims to educate and activate the public about the connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons and the need to abolish both to safeguard our future. Beyond Nuclear advocates for an energy future that is sustainable, benign and democratic. The Beyond Nuclear team works with diverse partners and allies to provide the public, government officials, and the media with the critical information necessary to move humanity toward a world beyond nuclear. Beyond Nuclear: 7304 Carroll Avenue, #182, Takoma Park, MD 20912. Info@beyondnuclear.org. www.beyondnuclear.org.

April 30, 2020 Posted by | legal, opposition to nuclear, USA | Leave a comment

Federal appeals court dismisses case against GE over Fukushima nuclear disaster

Federal appeals court dismisses case against GE over Fukushima nuclear disaster, Jurist

APRIL 28, 2020 Andrew Hursh

The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit by numerous Japanese individuals and business who hoped to sue General Electric (GE) over its role in building and maintaining the reactors that exploded in the 2011 disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan.

The Japanese plaintiffs had sued the company in federal court in Massachusetts, and they contended that this was the appropriate forum because Japanese laws that governed liability for the disaster precluded them from recovering damages from GE if they sued in Japan. The district court, however, dismissed the case last April on the grounds of “forum non conveniens,” holding that Japan, not US federal court, is the adequate forum for the plaintiffs to recover for their losses. The plaintiffs appealed and argued in the First Circuit that the district court incorrectly assessed the adequacy of their legal relief in Japan, but the appeals court disagreed, stating on Friday that they agreed with the lower court and, on a couple of points, that they “have little difficulty concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.”

Compensation for the Fukushima disaster in Japan is covered by a 1961 law addressing nuclear damages—the Compensation Act. The Compensation Act creates a complex scheme with several ways for injured parties to recover, and it ultimately places all liability for Fukushima in the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) that operated the plant. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit against GE, as well as millions of others, had recovered money from TEPCO in Japan through lawsuits, claims directly to the company, and mediated processes. But the plaintiffs in this case also wanted to recover money from GE, which had built, designed or maintained all the reactors at Fukushima, and, according to the plaintiffs, were responsible for some of what went wrong there during the tsunami in 2011. The plaintiffs sued in Massachusetts because GE is headquartered there.

GE argued, however, that the case should be dismissed because an adequate forum exists in Japan and that practical considerations favor litigating there. GE noted that it was available to be served process in Japan and subject to jurisdiction there. ….. https://www.jurist.org/news/2020/04/federal-appeals-court-dismisses-case-against-ge-over-fukushima-nuclear-disaster/

April 30, 2020 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Impacts of coronavirus on the technical, financial and legal mess that is the Vogtle nuclear project in Georgia, USA

April 16, 2020 Posted by | business and costs, health, Legal, secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | Leave a comment

Finally, they might investigate America’s most fatal nuclear submarine disaster

CTY Pisces – Photos of a Japanese midget submarine that was sunk off Pearl Harbor on the day of the attack. There’s a hole at the base of the conning tower where an artillery shell penetrated the hull, sinking the sub and killing the crew. Photos courtesy of Terry Kerby, Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory. August 2003.

Fifty-Seven Years Later: America’s Worst Nuclear Submarine Disaster  https://www.lawfareblog.com/fifty-seven-years-later-americas-worst-nuclear-submarine-disaster, By Robert Eatinger,  Friday, April 10, 2020, Fifty-seven years ago today, America suffered its first, and in terms of fatalities its worst, loss of a nuclear-powered submarine. Yet, much of the information about that disaster and the Navy’s subsequent investigation has remained outside of public view. That may change this year.
On April 10, 1963, the nuclear-powered fast attack submarine USS Thresher (SSN 593), the first of a new class of submarine, was lost at sea when it sank while conducting a deep dive test some 220 miles east of Cape Cod. All 129 crew members and civilians on the Thresher perished with her. Later that day, the commander in chief of the United States Atlantic Fleet ordered a court of inquiry to investigate Thresher’s sinking. The court of inquiry issued its report in June 1963 but was unable to determine what caused Thresher to sink. The court of inquiry did opine, however, that a flooding casualty in the Thresher’s engine room was the most probable cause of Thresher’s sinking. The court of inquiry encouraged further study.
Over a half-century later, very little of the record of the court of inquiry has been publicly released even though the Navy undertook a declassification review of the records in April 1998 with a stated purpose to declassify and release information from these records to the public “whenever possible.” That review came to naught when in February 2012, after up to 75 percent of the records had been declassified, the Navy changed course, deciding it would not make a public release of the records. Instead, the Navy said the records were “available for public release through” a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
Last year, retired Navy Captain James Bryant, who had commanded a Thresher-class submarine in the 1980s, learned that Arlington National Cemetery planned a September 2019 dedication ceremony for a memorial to the 129 lives lost with the Thresher. As a result, Bryant, who now investigates, lectures and writes about the loss of the Thresher and the accuracy of the investigating court of inquiry, submitted a FOIA request in April 2019 to the Navy for records about the loss of the Thresher, specifically including the record of the court of inquiry. He requested expedited processing, hoping the Navy might release the records before the Thresher memorial’s dedication ceremony. In July 2019, after exhausting his administrative appeals, Bryant filed a FOIA lawsuit.

In February this year, Judge Trevor N. McFadden of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the Navy to review 300 pages of documents a month starting April 30 and by the end of every month thereafter, and to begin rolling productions of documents starting on or before May 15 and every month thereafter.

Therefore, during this 57th anniversary year of the Thresher’s sinking, the American public, including the families of the 129 men who lost their lives, may finally begin to see the Navy’s documents on the loss of the Thresher and the record of the court of inquiry that investigated that loss. How much of the information in these documents the Navy will choose to release is a separate matter. The Navy may continue to keep as much information as possible from the public as allowed by law, may use its discretionary authority to release as much information as possible to the public, or may take an approach somewhere in between. What one can say with some degree of confidence, however, is that some amount of these records will be released in full or with redactions before the 58th anniversary of the loss of the USS Thresher.

April 11, 2020 Posted by | incidents, Legal, Reference, secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | Leave a comment

Expert opinion recommends furloughing Britain’s Trident nuclear weapons

April 4, 2020 Posted by | Legal, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The Kings Bay Plowshares 7 in gaol for 2 years, awaiting sentence for their protest action against nuclear weapons

April 4, 2020 Posted by | civil liberties, Legal, opposition to nuclear, PERSONAL STORIES | Leave a comment

Doctors warn on coronavirus danger for Julian Assange, imprisoned without conviction, in a coronavirus incubator

ASSANGE EXTRADITION: Doctors Warning on Assange in a Covid-19 Breeding Ground, Consortium News,April 1, 2020 •  In a prison cited for failing to curb infections, Doctors4Assange warn that Julian Assange is at high risk of contracting the deadly coronavirus. According to a report Wednesday in The Daily Maverick, imprisoned WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange is one of only two prisoners of 797 inmates in Belmarsh Prison who are being held for skipping bail. The majority are violent criminals, including 20 percent for murder and 16 inmates on terrorism offenses. The facility was also repeatedly criticized by prison inspectors for a lapse in preventing infections to inmates. Following Judge Vanessa Baraitser’s decision to deny Assange bail last week, Doctors4 Assange released the following statement:

Doctors4Assange Statement on Assange
Bail Hearing over Coronavirus Risk, March 27, 2020  Doctors4Assange strongly condemns last Wednesday’s decision by UK District Judge Vanessa Baraitser to deny bail to Julian Assange. Despite our prior unequivocal statement[1] that Mr Assange is at increased risk of serious illness and death were he to contract coronavirus, and the evidence of medical experts, Baraitser dismissed the risk, citing UK guidelines for prisons in responding to the global pandemic: “I have no reason not to trust this advice as both evidence-based and reliable and appropriate.”[2]

Notably, however, Baraitser did not address the increased risk to Mr Assange relative to the general UK prison population, let alone prisoners at HMP Belmarsh where Assange is incarcerated. Nor did she address the rapidly emerging medical and legal consensus that vulnerable and low-risk prisoners should be released, immediately.

As the court heard, Mr Assange is at increased risk of contracting and dying from the novel disease coronavirus (COVID-19), a development which has led the World Health Organization to declare a public health emergency of international concern[3] and a global pandemic.[4] The reasons for Mr Assange’s increased risk include his ongoing psychological torture, his history of medical neglect and fragile health, and chronic lung disease.

Edward Fitzgerald, QC, representing Mr Assange, said, “These [medical] experts consider that he is particularly at risk of developing coronavirus and, if he does, that it develops into very severe complications for him… If he does develop critical symptoms it would be very doubtful that Belmarsh would be able to cope with his condition.”[5]

Baraitser’s casual dismissal of Mr Assange’s dire situation in the face of the COVID-19 emergency stood in stark contrast not only to the expert medical evidence, but the proceedings themselves. The hearing took place on the third day of the UK’s coronavirus lock-down. Of the two counsels representing Mr Assange, Edward Fitzgerald QC wore a facemask and Mark Summers QC participated via audiolink. US attorneys joined the proceedings by phone.

Mr Assange himself appeared by videolink, which was terminated after around an hour, rendering him unable to follow the remainder of his own hearing, including the defence summation and the District Judge’s ruling. Mr Assange’s supporters attending in person observed social distancing measures. Overall only 15 people were in attendance, including judge, counsel, and observers……..

Adding their legal voices to these medical and human rights authorities, the day after Mr Assange’s bail hearing, three professors in law and criminology recommended “granting bail to unsentenced prisoners to stop the spread of coronavirus”.[12]

Julian Assange is just such an unsentenced prisoner with significant health vulnerability. He is being held on remand, with no custodial sentence or UK charge in place, let alone conviction.

Doctors4Assange are additionally concerned that keeping Assange in Belmarsh not only increases his risk of contracting coronavirus, it will increase his isolation and his inability to prepare his defence for his upcoming extradition hearing, in violation of his human right to prepare a defence…… https://consortiumnews.com/2020/04/01/assange-extradition-doctors-warning-on-assange-in-a-covid-19-breeding-ground/

April 2, 2020 Posted by | civil liberties, Legal, UK | Leave a comment

Different federal laws complicate legal case about radiation exposure and teenager’s brain cancer

Clock Ticking for Florida Family Alleging Radiation Exposure Caused Teen’s Cancer

The appellate panel must decide how two different federal laws should intersect. Law.com By Raychel Lean | April 01, 2020 A federal wrongful death lawsuit alleging exposure to radiation from nuclear materials caused a South Florida teenager’s brain cancer had its moment before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on Wednesday as attorneys debated whether Florida’s four-year statute of limitations should apply.

The appellate panel must decide how two different federal laws should intersect. While 42 U.S.C. § 9658 preempts state time limits for lawsuits involving nuclear incidents, the Price-Anderson Act adopts state law as “the rules for decision.”

The question arose after Palm Beach County resident Cynthia Santiago sued in the Southern District of Florida in 2014, five years after she was diagnosed with a brain tumor at 13. When she died about two years later, her parents Joselyn and Steve Santiago became personal representatives.

The complaint blamed Connecticut-based aircraft maker United Technologies Corp., alleging its Palm Beach County engineering facility released radioactive materials, heavy metals and semi-volatiles in The Acreage, where several children were also reportedly diagnosed with brain tumors. …… https://www.law.com/dailybusinessreview/2020/04/01/clock-ticking-for-florida-family-alleging-radiation-exposure-caused-teens-cancer/?slreturn=20200301190656

The court has yet to rule.

April 2, 2020 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Tokyo High Court slashes damages to Fukushima nuclear disaster evacuees

March 19, 2020 Posted by | Japan, Legal | Leave a comment

Nuclear-powered submarines – fraught with legal and political problems

 

March 17, 2020 Posted by | Legal, politics international, Reference, USA, weapons and war | 2 Comments

High Courts in Japan to assess government liability for Fukushima nuclear disaster

March 10, 2020 Posted by | Japan, Legal | Leave a comment

Westinghouse nuclear reactors – a very poor deal for India

  Pushing the wrong energy buttons,  https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/pushing-the-wrong-energy-buttons/article30965454.ece?fbclid=IwAR1ymOL6TLlSxlUKkVVSL6_ukPPeiSzDlI_JM-He3CMG2qBD4HaBU0vezog, M.V. Ramana,   Suvrat Raju, MARCH 03, 2020 

The idea of India importing nuclear reactors is a zombie one with serious concerns about their cost and safety

For more than a decade, no major meeting between an Indian Prime Minister and a U.S. President has passed without a ritual reference to India’s promise made in 2008 to purchase American nuclear reactors. This was the case in the latest joint statement issued during U.S. President Donald Trump’s first official two-day visit to India (February 24-25), which stated that “Prime Minister Modi and President Trump encouraged the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited and Westinghouse Electric Company to finalize the techno-commercial offer for the construction of six nuclear reactors in India at the earliest date”.

Red flags in the U.S. deal

Because of serious concerns about cost and safety, the two organisations should have been told to abandon, not finalise, the proposal.

Indeed, it has been clear for years that electricity from American reactors would be more expensive than competing sources of energy. Moreover, nuclear reactors can undergo serious accidents, as shown by the 2011 Fukushima disaster. Westinghouse has insisted on a prior assurance that India would not hold it responsible for the consequences of a nuclear disaster, which is effectively an admission that it is unable to guarantee the safety of its reactors.

The main beneficiaries from India’s import of reactors would be Westinghouse and India’s atomic energy establishment that is struggling to retain its relevance given the rapid growth of renewables. But Mr. Trump has reasons to press for the sale too. His re-election campaign for the U.S. presidential election in November, centrally involves the revival of U.S. manufacturing and he has been lobbied by several nuclear reactor vendors, including Westinghouse, reportedly to “highlight the role U.S. nuclear developers can play in providing power to other countries”. Finally, he also has a conflict-of-interest, thanks to his son-in-law and adviser, Jared Kushner, who accompanied him during the India visit.

In 2018, the Kushner family’s real-estate business was bailed out by a Canadian company that invested at least $1.1-billion in a highly unprofitable building in New York. Earlier that year, Brookfield Business Partners, a subsidiary of that Canadian company, acquired Westinghouse Electric Company. It violates all norms of propriety for Mr. Kushner to be anywhere near a multi-billion dollar sale that would profit Brookfield enormously.

What renewables can offer

Analysts estimate that each of the two AP1000 units being constructed in the U.S. state of Georgia may cost about $13.8 billion. At these rates, the six reactors being offered to India by Westinghouse would cost almost ₹6 lakh crore. If India purchases these reactors, the economic burden will fall upon consumers and taxpayers. In 2013, we estimated that even after reducing these prices by 30%, to account for lower construction costs in India, the first year tariff for electricity would be about ₹25 per unit. On the other hand, recent solar energy bids in India are around ₹3 per unit. Lazard, the Wall Street firm, estimates that wind and solar energy costs have declined by around 70% to 90% in just the last 10 years and may decline further in the future.

How safe?

Nuclear power can also impose long-term costs. Large areas continue to be contaminated with radioactive materials from the 1986 Chernobyl accident and thousands of square kilometres remain closed off for human inhabitation. Nearly a decade after the 2011 disaster, the Fukushima prefecture retains radioactive hotspots and the cost of clean-up has been variously estimated to range from $200-billion to over $600-billion.

The Fukushima accident was partly caused by weaknesses in the General Electric company’s Mark I nuclear reactor design. But that company paid nothing towards clean-up costs, or as compensation to the victims, due to an indemnity clause in Japanese law. Westinghouse wants a similar arrangement with India. Although the Indian liability law is heavily skewed towards manufacturers, it still does not completely indemnify them. So nuclear vendors have tried to chip away at the law. Instead of resisting foreign suppliers, the Indian government has tacitly supported this process.

Starting with the Tarapur 1 and 2 reactors, in Maharashtra, India’s experiences with imported reactors have been poor. The Kudankulam 1 and 2 reactors, in Tamil Nadu, the only ones to have been imported and commissioned in the last decade, have been repeatedly shut down. In 2018-19, these reactors produced just 32% and 38%, respectively, of the electricity they were designed to produce. These difficulties are illustrative of the dismal history of India’s nuclear establishment. In spite of its tall claims, the fraction of electricity generated by nuclear power in India has remained stagnant at about 3% for decades.

The idea of importing nuclear reactors is a “zombie idea” that, from a rational viewpoint, should have been dead long ago. In fact an earlier plan to install AP1000s in Mithi Virdi, Gujarat was cancelled because of strong local opposition. In 2018, Gujarat Chief Minister Vijay Rupani declared that the reactors “will never come up” in Gujarat. The Prime Minister should take a cue from his own State and make a similar announcement for the rest of the country.

March 7, 2020 Posted by | business and costs, ENERGY, India, Legal, politics international, safety | Leave a comment

Belgian nuclear plants now could shut down earlier than planned

March 7, 2020 Posted by | EUROPE, Legal | Leave a comment

Marshall islanders continue their fight for nuclear justice

Fight for nuclear justice continues in the Marshall Islands  https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/410871/fight-for-nuclear-justice-continues-in-the-marshall-islands 3 March 2020

The fight for nuclear justice continues in the Marshall Islands where people have been gathering to call for the US to atone for its legacy of testing.The country marked National Nuclear Victims Remembrance Day on Monday, the 64th anniversary of the Castle Bravo hydrogen bomb test that exposed thousands of people to downwind effects.At a ceremony in the capital, Majuro, a tribute was paid to 22 living survivors from the communities affected by the nuclear testing.

This comes as the Marshall Islands and the United States have begun preliminary talks on a new agreement to address the legacy of testing.

The compact of free association, which guarantees relations and funding for the Marshalls from the US, expires in two years.

Last year, it was revealed the US withheld information about nuclear waste it left behind when the Marshalls gained independence, and the extent of the tests it carried out.

Washington previously said there would be no replacement compact. But the chair of the Marshall Islands Nuclear Commission, Rhea Moss-Christian, said nuclear issues were a key, ongoing aspect of negotiations.

“Well we are coming up on renegotiating the economic provisions of the compact, and we’ve had some initial discussions with the US officials.

“So yes internally we are working on our strategy and pulling together all the key issues to include in those negotiations, including the nuclear legacy.”

Ms Moss-Christian, who said formal talks should start later in the year, vowed that the fight for nuclear justice for Marshall Islanders would continue.

“Really it comes down to compensation for loss of land. It’s about health care for those who might be having medical issues,” she said.

“It’s about livelihoods and how much their lifestyles were forced to change when they were moved from their land. These are just a few examples.”

Meanwhile, an essay competition for high schoolers was held as part of Monday’s commemoration programme.

The winner was a senior at Marshall Islands High School on Majuro, Rosie Ammontha, who wrote:

“They had the choice to test those bombs, we didn’t. They had the choice to be truthful about the consequences that awaited us, we didn’t. They had the choice not to endanger innocent lives, we didn’t. They had the choice to help protect our oceans and environment, we didn’t. At the end of the day, nuclear justice means righting what was wronged.”

March 5, 2020 Posted by | legal, OCEANIA | 2 Comments

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »